771 réponses à ce sujet

[Vandrayke]

oh that would be cool if a vampire: the masquerade game came out bioware-style

[TheMadCat]

pizoxuat wrote...

HD textures, voice acting, motion capture.... all the things that make a AAA title are really freaking expensive and they require a huge staff.  And the market in general expects these things in every title.  I'm happy playing Etrian Odyssey on my DS with 2d pictures and awesome hardcore old school gameplay, but it's not exactly breaking the million dollar threshold.

You don't think they're breaking a million? The largest number of sales are found on the PSP, DS, and the Wii. A large chunk of the best selling and most critically acclaimed PC titles in the past decade and some didn't rely on those particular features (Valve and Blizzard, The Sims series). One of the most profitable games this decade was Sins of a Solar Empire which had a massive budget of around $800k.

This is why I hate the AAA label, all it means is "We spent a load of cash on the game" and when it comes to net percent they fall way short compared to the smaller budget games.

AlanC9 wrote...

TheMadCat wrote...
I don't
believe developers "have to" change with the times in order to survive.
I'd say the genres like the P&C Adventures, Turn Based Grand
Strategy, and Space Sim have been on the brink of death for the longest
yet to this day you still have companies producing titles within these
genres in the same fashion they have when these genres were at their
peak in popularity and still turn a fine a profit. The only time
refusing to adapt would actually kill a company is due to poor
management and thinking you can sell a hell of a lot more then they
really can. 

(snip)

Developer/publishers have had to shift
mainly due to their own arrogance. In the past 10 years development
budgets for AAA titles have more then quadrupled, going from about $5m
to around an almost disgusting $20m-$30m with that average growing hard
every year. I don't really understand what sparked this shift, I suppose
it's to always make thing "bigger and better", always trying to
outspend each other which in a way gives it a Cold War type feel. It's a
self fulfilling prophecy, we continue to spend more so we have to
continue seeking a larger and larger audience.

Well,
that's the thing. If you want to play with the big boys, you need to
keep up with their budgets. A company could accept not doing that,
 which would lead to them either staying a small company or doing a
larger number of cheap games. I'm not aware of anyone pursuing the
latter model in gaming, but it works in other media.

Wouldn't you consider Paradox to fit that "large and cheap" method since they put out 3 or 4 titles a year on incredibly tight budgets.

Anyways that's the very problem I have with the big three and this route mainstream gaming is taking. As I said there is this sort of Cold War mentality going on and they get this notion that the only way to win is to out spend the competition and raise our budgets an extra $5m every year. It's getting pathetic and ultimately it hurts both the consumer due to the diluting of the products in order to appeal to as large a market as possible and the business due to the fact they're force to rely on post release content in order to prop up their numbers to an acceptable level which makes flops a hell of a lot more difficult to recover from. It's an idiotic philosophy that has been proven to not be the most effective way to create a quality title and turn a premium profit. I just don't see why they continue to spend more and more every year.

I don't know, maybe I'm the only one a bit creeped out by the fact companies are spending $20m-$40m and sometimes even more on one video game. I mean for God's sake some of the launch budgets the past few years have been large enough to buy a F-22 Raptor. I mean does it really need to cost as much to develop, promote, and distribute a damn video game as to build one of the most technologically advanced pieces of equipment in the world.

[Rapidiul]

Modifié par Rapidiul, 18 août 2010 - 04:28 .

[Rapidiul]

double post

Modifié par Rapidiul, 18 août 2010 - 04:26 .

[Kalfear]

Icinix wrote...

BioWare is evolving with the times.

Sometimes evolution goes in directions you wouldn't normally like.

We all have to adapt with it, as evolution is a democracy. The majority of what people want will win out.

I don't like it either, but it's either deal with it, or get left behind.

(Personally I'm getting left behind, always wanted to be a cranky old hermit.)

See, I dont disagree with you!

But thing is, where is this majority?

DA:O sold better the ME2
ME1 sold better then ME2
yet ME2 is the direction they are going

where is the majority?

The Witcher, on a shoe sting budget using a old Bioware engine is a better game then ME2 was or will ever be also sold same amount of copies using 1 less medium (Witcher was PC only) and WAY WAY WAY less media attention.

So what majority are you refering to?

Im all for change, I think every title should be upgraded and updated BUT you dont remove what brung you to the dance!

Ill make a freindly bragging rights wager right now that DA2 doesnt do 3 million sales because of the changes and ticking off its REAL MAJORITY MARKET . DA:O did 3.2 million sales.

Why am I so sure, cause this MAJORITY people throw out loosy goosy DOESNT EXIST! 
Bioware is never going to tap into Blizzards market because Bioware doesnt have battlenet style games
Bioware is never going to tap into COD or MW2 market, because Bioware doesnt make pure shooters
Biowares MAJORITY market is RPG, at some point Bioware is going to have to understand this and come home to them!

LOL, I just had some little kid on a differe forum tell me I have to change with the times? What times are these? RPGs have remained pretty much the same for the 4.5 decades I been around! Someone always introduces new bells and whistles but the base always returns to the basic format in the end.

So yes, change your products, update your products, but KEEP THE BASE!

And the base is the part that was missing in ME2 and the base is what people so worried about being gone in DA2. STORY, IMMERSION, RELATIONSHIPS, these are your base of which all RPGs spring forth from. They are and always will remain, now or a century from now, the BASE of all good RPGs, and no amount of bells and whistles or imaginary majorities will  change that.

[Davony]

I love dragon age it's a game of relation and decisions and so much more but the on thing that made it one of my most played games it's because I felt like it was my game I could create my own player and dident have to feel like I am playing someone els game but now I look at part 2 and I like it but it's not my game am playing your story not mine I can't make my own player making it feel like my story I hope some ppl understand what I mine but by me saying this won't chang anything but I hope for part 3 u make it different plz

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Rzepik2 wrote...

- He appears only in BG1. I did not mention BG1. Read more carefully.

Go to the theatre in the bridge district in BG2 and you will find a nice little easter egg.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Schneidend wrote...

No RPG has ever made it necessary to switch weapons/spells in order to remain optimal for me before Mass Effect.

That's just nonsense.  AD&D had different weapon types being effective to different degrees against different opponents and armour types.

My first CRPG, Questron (released 1984), featured monsters that was resistant to damage from all but one type of weapon, so to defeat efficiently any monster you met you needed to have every type of weapon in the game.  Phase Spider = sling.  Stone Axe Beak - whip.  Piercing Pungi - club.  Masher Whale - hammer.  The list goes on (yes, I summoned those from memory, and I haven't played Questron in over 20 years).

Dungeon Siege 2 had a UI element specifically designed to allow you to swap out spells to improve your moment-to-moment effectiveness.

There is a long history of this gameplay feature.

[Blessed Silence]

Kerridan Kaiba wrote...

@OnlyShallow89 and slimgrin - I totally agree. GOG has been my goto for older games. I would have never gotten my copy of Arcanum if not for them. There are some other games I want to snap up but just going though their catalog is a treat.

I still have an actual copy of Arcanum and it's manual ... bwahaha!  Remember make tons of moltove coctails.

[McHoger]

Eh, I had as much fun playing Dragon Age as I did playing Mass Effect. The same amount of fun I had playing Baldur's Gate. As I'm having now playing Wizardry 8. I think you guys just need to put your elitism and nostalgia away and quit getting mad at video games.

[Isaidlunch]

McHoger wrote...

 I think you guys just need to put your elitism and nostalgia away and quit getting mad at video games.

Generalisations are fun.

[In Exile]

Kalfear wrote...

DA:O sold better the ME2

Where do these magic numbers keep coming from? I would absolutely love to see references.

Vgchartz has ME2 selling 1,788,955 over 20 weeks on the 360 alone. In contrast, DA sold 1,526,692 over 20 weeks on the 360. Bioware claims that most of their sales were 360, so there is no reason to doubt that. The difference is 262,263 units, which at $50 per game means $13,113,150 in revenue.

Let's say these figures are not accurate, though.

I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but everything I can find points to ME2 outselling DA, and that difference in sales leading to millions in revenue differences.

ME1 sold better then ME2

Vgchartz has ME selling 1,632,703 over 20 weeks on the 360 alone. That's an extra 156,252 units, which at 50$ per game as an average return means a revenue difference of $7,812,600. So that's an almost 8 million dollar difference over the first 20 weeks. ME1 has been out far longer, so total sale figures are unreliable.

Where are your numbers coming from?

Ill make a freindly bragging rights wager right now that DA2 doesnt do 3 million sales because of the changes and ticking off its REAL MAJORITY MARKET . DA:O did 3.2 million sales.

And from where did you get 360, PS3 and PC combined sales from?

[In Exile]

Bah, double post.

Modifié par In Exile, 18 août 2010 - 06:51 .

[Kalfear]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

No RPG has ever made it necessary to switch weapons/spells in order to remain optimal for me before Mass Effect.

That's just nonsense.  AD&D had different weapon types being effective to different degrees against different opponents and armour types.

My first CRPG, Questron (released 1984), featured monsters that was resistant to damage from all but one type of weapon, so to defeat efficiently any monster you met you needed to have every type of weapon in the game.  Phase Spider = sling.  Stone Axe Beak - whip.  Piercing Pungi - club.  Masher Whale - hammer.  The list goes on (yes, I summoned those from memory, and I haven't played Questron in over 20 years).

Dungeon Siege 2 had a UI element specifically designed to allow you to swap out spells to improve your moment-to-moment effectiveness.

There is a long history of this gameplay feature.

Ill add, just for kicks

I never changed weapon (unless ammo restriction cuased me to ) in ME2. I didnt change weapon in DA:O either.

I DID however willingly and by my own accord change weapons in The Witcher, once I got use to combat!

One combat of hitting blasted sheilds with my sword was enough for me to know that using my spare axe to disarm the sheild was worthwhile and I did it.

Thats really the ONLY RPG/Shooter/adventure game I have ever played where I willingly switched out weapons to improve tactical advantage!

For the life of me I cant understand why anyone would switch weapons in ME2 unless ammo forced them to? Maybe shot gun for husks but thats about it really, rest of game is assult rifle till outta ammo and then submachine gun for remainder.

[Zanderat]

In Exile wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

DA:O sold better the ME2

Where do these magic numbers keep coming from? I would absolutely love to see references.

Vgchartz has ME2 selling 1,788,955 over 20 weeks on the 360 alone. In contrast, DA sold 1,526,692 over 20 weeks on the 360. Bioware claims that most of their sales were 360, so there is no reason to doubt that. The difference is 262,263 units, which at $50 per game means $13,113,150 in revenue.

Let's say these figures are not accurate, though.

I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but everything I can find points to ME2 outselling DA, and that difference in sales leading to millions in revenue differences.

ME1 sold better then ME2

Vgchartz has ME selling 1,632,703 over 20 weeks on the 360 alone. That's an extra 156,252 units, which at 50$ per game as an average return means a revenue difference of $7,812,600. So that's an almost 8 million dollar difference over the first 20 weeks. ME1 has been out far longer, so total sale figures are unreliable.

Where are your numbers coming from?

Ill make a freindly bragging rights wager right now that DA2 doesnt do 3 million sales because of the changes and ticking off its REAL MAJORITY MARKET . DA:O did 3.2 million sales.

And from where did you get 360, PS3 and PC combined sales from?

Ahem.

pc.ign.com/articles/106/1067807p1.html

investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm

terminalgamer.com/2010/01/30/mass-effect-2-is-huge-hit/

Modifié par Zanderat, 18 août 2010 - 01:44 .

[KalDurenik]

Sadly for me im not hyped up about DA2 at all. While Dragon Age 1 was more a notch towards old school it looks like Bioware decided to turn 180' around from what i would have liked to seen...



*More spells / feats / customization / talents / abilities etc.

*More choices and more MAJOR grey areas to pick.

*More armor types / weapon types.

*Continue on with the non voiced main character and the classic text based system instead of the dreadful wheel of doom.

*Larger and more open areas with abit more open gameplay. I want to go to that town right now because its cool for example.

*Better AI and "harder" game play on insane and so on... I mean the only reason why its "hard" is because the AI dont care about their team mates. So you end up with 6 mages nuking you with crowd controll and aoe.

*Less "cinematic experience" If i would want this i would *GASP* watch a movie. I find it stupid that if i move a character up on a hill to ambush someone and someone come running to me then all my characters are teleported so they can have their on screen time O.o..



Will i get DA2? Maybe once it drop in price. Do i say DA2 will be a "bad" game? No most likely not. My own preference is that i dont like mainstream games so much. Kinda why i endup playing so many old school games now days.

[In Exile]

Zanderat wrote...
pc.ign.com/articles/106/1067807p1.html

That article is just poorly written. It says Left4Dead2 and DA each sold 3 million, but the body only says EA is pleased with the sales, and that DA shipped 3.2 million and Left4Dead2 shipped 2.9 million.

The other problem with using this figure, even assuming it is true, is that DA has been out since effectively November  2009. That article was written in February 2010, which is 3 months after release. Which dramatically contradicts what you wrote.

Mass Effect 2 was released January 26th 2010, and the article re: the 2 million sale figure you gave me is January 30th 2010.

What you are telling me, then is that ME2 sold 2/3rds of what Dragon Age sold in 3 months in 4 days.

investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm

This link does not provide a sales number. The link only says this:

''Non-GAAP net revenue for the quarter was $1.346 billion, down 23 percent as compared with $1.742 billion for the prior year. The decline is due to several factors, including fewer titles this holiday quarter versus the 2008 holiday quarter, and a weak overall packaged goods sectorin Europe. Sales were driven by the launches of Dragon Age™: Origins, Left 4 Dead 2, and NBA Live, and catalog sales of FIFA 10, Madden NFL 10, and The Sims™ 3.'''

Which is true but also useless, since January 2010 is Q1 of this year, not Q4 of last year.

It is interesting to see that the PC sales account only roughly 10% of non-GAAP revenue, however.

Still, I do not see a comparative sales figure here, either.

terminalgamer.com/2010/01/30/mass-effect-2-is-huge-hit/

This link tells us Mass Effect 2 sold 2 million units in 4 days, which is our first credible figure, on two instead of three platforms, in 4 days instead of 3 months, if the link that mentions sales in the title and refers to units shipped in the body is accurate.

Modifié par In Exile, 18 août 2010 - 02:57 .

[Aran Linvail]

Kalfear wrote...

Icinix wrote...

BioWare is evolving with the times.

Sometimes evolution goes in directions you wouldn't normally like.

We all have to adapt with it, as evolution is a democracy. The majority of what people want will win out.

I don't like it either, but it's either deal with it, or get left behind.

(Personally I'm getting left behind, always wanted to be a cranky old hermit.)

See, I dont disagree with you!

But thing is, where is this majority?

DA:O sold better the ME2
ME1 sold better then ME2
yet ME2 is the direction they are going

where is the majority?

The Witcher, on a shoe sting budget using a old Bioware engine is a better game then ME2 was or will ever be also sold same amount of copies using 1 less medium (Witcher was PC only) and WAY WAY WAY less media attention.

So what majority are you refering to?

Im all for change, I think every title should be upgraded and updated BUT you dont remove what brung you to the dance!

Ill make a freindly bragging rights wager right now that DA2 doesnt do 3 million sales because of the changes and ticking off its REAL MAJORITY MARKET . DA:O did 3.2 million sales.

Why am I so sure, cause this MAJORITY people throw out loosy goosy DOESNT EXIST! 
Bioware is never going to tap into Blizzards market because Bioware doesnt have battlenet style games
Bioware is never going to tap into COD or MW2 market, because Bioware doesnt make pure shooters
Biowares MAJORITY market is RPG, at some point Bioware is going to have to understand this and come home to them!

LOL, I just had some little kid on a differe forum tell me I have to change with the times? What times are these? RPGs have remained pretty much the same for the 4.5 decades I been around! Someone always introduces new bells and whistles but the base always returns to the basic format in the end.

So yes, change your products, update your products, but KEEP THE BASE!

And the base is the part that was missing in ME2 and the base is what people so worried about being gone in DA2. STORY, IMMERSION, RELATIONSHIPS, these are your base of which all RPGs spring forth from. They are and always will remain, now or a century from now, the BASE of all good RPGs, and no amount of bells and whistles or imaginary majorities will  change that.

Agreed 100%.


Ps: Baldur's Gate forever ( Sorry , is a bit off topic but i really love Baldur's Gate )

[Vandrayke]

KalDurenik wrote...

Sadly for me im not hyped up about DA2 at all. While Dragon Age 1 was more a notch towards old school it looks like Bioware decided to turn 180' around from what i would have liked to seen...

*More spells / feats / customization / talents / abilities etc.

disagree with this one.  NWN had too many superficial choices that didn't matter, for example.  The choices in DA felt like they mattered more.  Fewer, more significant choices ftw.  

*More choices and more MAJOR grey areas to pick.

agreed.  I think every game they've released so far has had more options than the previous games when it comes to this.  

*More armor types / weapon types.

I kind of agree.  I don't really want more types; I would be fine with like 4 different armor types, but I want them to look cooler as they get better, not just change color.  The best leather armor in the game should not look the same as the worst leather armor in the game except be purple with buttons.  And I think polearms would be cool.  

*Continue on with the non voiced main character and the classic text based system instead of the dreadful wheel of doom.

No way. I don't understand why people like to pick from a list of 5 written responses that usually illicit the same response instead of picking from 3 spoken responses that more often illicit a different response.  

*Larger and more open areas with abit more open gameplay. I want to go to that town right now because its cool for example.

I agree completely.  I think the new art style will really help with this.

*Better AI and "harder" game play on insane and so on... I mean the only reason why its "hard" is because the AI dont care about their team mates. So you end up with 6 mages nuking you with crowd controll and aoe.

I agree, but one thing I think people lose perspective on is that they get upset when the game is easy on hard on their 4th playthrough.  Of course it's easier; you've played for 200 hours at that point and should be awesome at the game.  No game is interesting and challenging indefinitely.  

[Zanderat]

How about this one?

www.ea.com/news/bioware-dragon-age-origins-reaches-triple-platinum-sales

Modifié par Zanderat, 18 août 2010 - 03:08 .

[In Exile]

Zanderat wrote...

How about this one?

www.ea.com/news/bioware-dragon-age-origins-reaches-triple-platinum-sales

That corroborates the previous article at 3.2 million sold.

The problem is that this only establishes the claim of how much net DA sold in 3 months.

The ME2 sale figure gives us 2 million sold in 4 days. Did ME2 sell 1.2 million more units in 3 months on one less platform? That's what I'm looking into now.

[Pedro Costa]

...thread still lives? Sigh...
If people don't like it, then leave, why are you tormenting us who do?
If you want to live in the past, by all means, do so, but stop ruinning other people's fun.

Sure, you're as entitled to be upset and expose your discontentment in a polite and clear manner, but when you people post the same things 20 or 30 times and more often than not take swings at those who are responsible for BioWare or those who actually enjoy the games they make, it gets annoying, *really* annoying.

Bioware already heard your discontentment, and decided they are going to keep doing what they *feel* they should do, as opposed as what *you* want to force them to do. You're not entitled to anything, none of us are.
We are all just along for the ride. I like BioWare for the stories and characters, and all their games are still RPGs, as much as you love to label them as something else all together.

Furthermore, you're all a bunch of hypocrites. Should Bioware make the games *you* and only *you* want them to make and alienate *everyone* else, that'd be super duper fine, but if they dare to even as much as *try* to deviate from the same old repetitive DnD norm and make something new and fun, all hell breaks loose...

PS: I also like DnD style RPGs, btw. I also happen to like to switch between rice and spaghetti with my meat, which I like to vary between cooked and grilled... get what I'm saying?
Ah, what the hell, I'll just be flamed and labeled as an immature individual who likes to smash his keyboard with an IQ below that of a chimp's because I don't fit with the ****, I mean, "real RPG fans" some people on these boards are.

Modifié par DarkLord_PT, 18 août 2010 - 03:37 .

[FedericoV]

Imho, the point is not if DA sells more or less than ME2. The point is that while designed for PC, it sold mostly on consolles. So, that's the simple reason why they are changing things. After listening to focus groups, reviewers and traditional fans, they are changing gameplay and controls to adjust and improve the game on what is the leading platform salewise. It's quite obvious that a game designed mostly for consolle will lose some features of the original when ported to PC. But we will have to wait and see some actual gameplay footage to understand how those changes will affect DA:O's gameplay.



Honestly I do not know what to think about that issue. Darrah swears that the game haven't loose its tactical focus and I trust the guy, but when I read about the removal of iso view and the "push A to attack"... well, it's sound quite a different game for me.