771 réponses à ce sujet

[Bryy_Miller]

Angelsdawn wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Icinix wrote...
 but I'm over that now.

Off to work now.

<_<

Yes, the "I'm over it, now off to do something productive unlike you" cop-out. Wonderful.

The "this is a cop-out, nobody has a life on these boards" cop-out. 

Assumptions are tasty.

I was saying he shouldn't assume, not assuming who he was.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

[quote]ubasrawr wrote...
Anyways, DA:O didn't feel anything like BG2. I as player felt no motivation to have my character go after the Blight. I mean even except for the scripted you can't leave Fereldon, it was the only reason to keep me playing through. And maybe the prospect of killing Howel at the end.[/quote]

Plenty of people didn't care much about Imoen either. But you all go to Spellhold because, in the end, there isn't anything else to do.[/quote][/quote]

Perhaps but you forget that Imoen wasnt the only motivation to get to Spellhold and the game gave the player much more motivation to continue the story than Origins ever did. But even saving Imoen was a far better motivation (in my opinion) than stopping some faceless blight that your character had no emotional stake in.

It is funny, when Bioware first introduced the origins they said that they would explain your characters motivation for being a grey warden and stopping the blight but they really diddnt, sure they explained your characters motivation for becoming a grey warden but it was pretty much the same reason in every origin, survival. However once the battle at Ostagar was over and you wake up in Flemeth's hut you have no reason to continue being a grey warden (of course with the taint inside you would always be a grey warden, however you have no motivation for taking up the role of a grey warden) and trying to build an army other than to stop Alistair's whining and being the big selfless hero and saving the world.

[Gatt9]

Icinix wrote...

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.

Oh I agree with you, but the majority in this case is where the game sales are the highest.  Sure, selling a couple of million is nothing to scoff at, but its not selling 10 million.  Yes BioWares original fan base in this case are the people who have watched them since the good old days of isometric sprites, but BioWare want a piece of the bigger pie.  So they appear to be trying to saddle the line between what their fans want and what there is is to tap into.

Like I said, I agree with you and don't particularly like the direction BioWare is heading, but they weren't the first, they're not the only ones, and they won't be the last.  It's the changing face of computer games, the 'majority' are the millions who buy a game, play it for a few weeks, trade it in and move on.

Unfortunately I think the time and place for loyal fans (And epic role playing games) is fading.  RPG's are heading the way of space sims, MMO or nothing.

Actually,  what's going on here is a bit different...and actually very complicated...

In the early days of home gaming,  the late 80's into the early 90's,  Consoles and PC's would share popular titles intact.  Many console games were straight ports of PC games,  conventional ones:  Ultima series,  Pirates!,  Simcity,  Might & Magic,  Wizardry,  even Diablo. 

In the mid-90's though,  things changed.  Sony,  with the PS2,  wanted a much larger and more varied market than just gaming.  Their stated intentions were to release hardware that would move PC's into obselence.  Their intent was to take over not only gaming;  But also replace the PC with a Playstation that would handle email,  browsing,  simple productivity,  in short,  they wanted Microsoft's market too. 

Sony realized that continuing to share properties with the PC's was counterproductive.  They needed to compell gamers to replace their PC's with PS2's.  To do so,  Sony pushed exclusivity contracts and attempted to hinder sharing of properties.  This created an artificial divide with gamers.

Prior to this,  Console gamers would be exposed to Hardcore variants of games,  like Strategy,  Space-sim,  Adventure,  RPG.  Now, they were isolated,  because it made little sense for the average family to spend $2000 to play games when they could do it for $200.

Around this time,  Square released Final Fantasy 7,  and it sold enourmous quantities.  They followed it up with Parasite Eve which also did very well,  and then did well with the succeeding Final Fantasy's.

Problem is,  these games were labelled as RPG's.  Which they were...to an extent...they were what was regarded as JRPG's,  which eschewed some major properties of an RPG,  like character development,  or customization.

This was predictably followed by a variety of "Me too!" attempts.  The end result being,  an entire generation was brought up thinking that Final Fantasy is what an RPG is,  when it's really more in line with an Adventure Game.  True RPG's of the time,  Fallout,  Baldur's Gate,  Planescape,  Icewind Dale,  never made an appearance on consoles.  This generation had no experience with them.

So along came games that were RPG's or much closer in line with them.  The Final Fantasy bred crowd played them,  didn't have the background to get why some things were present,  and determined they hated these features,  which constitute an RPG.  But,  they want the badge of being "RPG gamers!",  and so we get alot of people who claim to like RPG's but actually hate them.

Companies realized that slapping "RPG!" on the box sells more than "Adventure game!",  and so we get mislabelled titles.  Oblivion is hands down the best example.  Mass Effect 2 is an inch below it.

So essentially the problem is that there's a generation that hates RPG's but thinks they like them because of Sony and Marketing departments.  Companies want to sell like Final Fantasy,  so they keep marketing their Adventure Games or Shooters as RPG's. 

RPG is a dead genre.  It has been for a number of years. 

It will change though,  the truth is,  the truth no one's telling,  is that Gaming's been experiencing a significant downturn for at least the last 2 years.  2010 has shown it very clearly,  month after month of drops,  you can see it in 2009 too if you eliminate the music games which disguised the drop.

Right now,  only the AAA titles are doing well.  People are tired of the same game ad nauseum,  usually some variant of Doom.  It's predictable,  if you release the same product over and over,  eventually people quit buying.  So the end result is going to be a market crash,  because companies refuse to do more than release Shooters and RTS with a different story.

If they were smart,  they'd have noticed this has occurred before.  20 years ago the SNES and Genesis fell out of favor by releasing the same games over and over,  sparking the rise of PC Gaming.  It's what'll happen over the next couple years here too.

Edit:

The downside is,  companies die.  Prior to this age,  the big guys survived by being varied.  EA,  Activision,  Interplay,  Sierra,  Infogrammes(Now Atari),  they all survived by maintaining diverse portfolios,  not tieing themselves to the fate of a platform.  Now,  they've aligned themselves with a platform,  and in doing so,  tied their fate to the platform.  It's *very* unlikely EA will survive the impending collapse.  EA's portfolio is already very narrow,  and way too closely tied to consoles.  Activision may survive due entirely to Blizzard,  Zenimax is overextended and too closely tied to consoles,  it's absolutely gone.  Atari is all but dead.  A number of houses will go as well.

Modifié par Gatt9, 19 août 2010 - 04:53 .

[pprrff]

Gatt9 wrote...


Actually,  what's going on here is a bit different...and actually very complicated...

In the early days of home gaming,  the late 80's into the early 90's,  Consoles and PC's would share popular titles intact.  Many console games were straight ports of PC games,  conventional ones:  Ultima series,  Pirates!,  Simcity,  Might & Magic,  Wizardry,  even Diablo. 

In the mid-90's though,  things changed.  Sony,  with the PS2,  wanted a much larger and more varied market than just gaming.  Their stated intentions were to release hardware that would move PC's into obselence.  Their intent was to take over not only gaming;  But also replace the PC with a Playstation that would handle email,  browsing,  simple productivity,  in short,  they wanted Microsoft's market too. 

Sony realized that continuing to share properties with the PC's was counterproductive.  They needed to compell gamers to replace their PC's with PS2's.  To do so,  Sony pushed exclusivity contracts and attempted to hinder sharing of properties.  This created an artificial divide with gamers.

Prior to this,  Console gamers would be exposed to Hardcore variants of games,  like Strategy,  Space-sim,  Adventure,  RPG.  Now, they were isolated,  because it made little sense for the average family to spend $2000 to play games when they could do it for $200.

Around this time,  Square released Final Fantasy 7,  and it sold enourmous quantities.  They followed it up with Parasite Eve which also did very well,  and then did well with the succeeding Final Fantasy's.

Problem is,  these games were labelled as RPG's.  Which they were...to an extent...they were what was regarded as JRPG's,  which eschewed some major properties of an RPG,  like character development,  or customization.

This was predictably followed by a variety of "Me too!" attempts.  The end result being,  an entire generation was brought up thinking that Final Fantasy is what an RPG is,  when it's really more in line with an Adventure Game.  True RPG's of the time,  Fallout,  Baldur's Gate,  Planescape,  Icewind Dale,  never made an appearance on consoles.  This generation had no experience with them.

So along came games that were RPG's or much closer in line with them.  The Final Fantasy bred crowd played them,  didn't have the background to get why some things were present,  and determined they hated these features,  which constitute an RPG.  But,  they want the badge of being "RPG gamers!",  and so we get alot of people who claim to like RPG's but actually hate them.

Companies realized that slapping "RPG!" on the box sells more than "Adventure game!",  and so we get mislabelled titles.  Oblivion is hands down the best example.  Mass Effect 2 is an inch below it.

So essentially the problem is that there's a generation that hates RPG's but thinks they like them because of Sony and Marketing departments.  Companies want to sell like Final Fantasy,  so they keep marketing their Adventure Games or Shooters as RPG's. 

RPG is a dead genre.  It has been for a number of years. 

It will change though,  the truth is,  the truth no one's telling,  is that Gaming's been experiencing a significant downturn for at least the last 2 years.  2010 has shown it very clearly,  month after month of drops,  you can see it in 2009 too if you eliminate the music games which disguised the drop.

Right now,  only the AAA titles are doing well.  People are tired of the same game ad nauseum,  usually some variant of Doom.  It's predictable,  if you release the same product over and over,  eventually people quit buying.  So the end result is going to be a market crash,  because companies refuse to do more than release Shooters and RTS with a different story.

If they were smart,  they'd have noticed this has occurred before.  20 years ago the SNES and Genesis fell out of favor by releasing the same games over and over,  sparking the rise of PC Gaming.  It's what'll happen over the next couple years here too.

It's a very nice piece of history. I agree with it mostly, although I don't see PC gaming will see a revival like the one you predict. In all honesty PC is really a hard core platform, the amount of investment that goes into a rig that can play DA is massive compare to console, and even then it runs into problem that console crowd don't have (need I remind people of the constant crashing we expericed after a patch).

Plus, if the forum discussion is any indication, I would say the market are pretty receptive to more AAA games. People like what they like and if you try to inovate they will punish you for it. 

At the end of the day, studios like Bioware will need console players to fork over money to bring to us games. I am for them to stay open and keep making games even if I only like one of their games for every three they make because the sold out console.

PC won't ever go away, and I for one will never play a FPS on console, but it will also never to be able to support a game industry by itself . I am actually ok with playing ported console game even if I have to wait for delayed release (waiting for GTAIV was particularly painful).

Modifié par pprrff, 19 août 2010 - 05:15 .

[TheMadCat]

Interesting stuff Gatt, few things though I think you're a bit off on.

RPG is a dead genre.  It has been for a number of years. 

The "traditional" RPG dead? No. It's been dead in BioWare's catelogue for a good while now (Since KoToR was released) but as a whole it's still kicking. NWN2 had a very strong run for a few years, the Drakensang series is also going strong right now and since Radon Labs was bought out it seems like it'll stay strong for a bit, several indy titles have bounced around the past few years not to mentition the quasi-RPG's like King's Bounty The Legend and Majesty 2. It's hurting no doubt, but not quite dead yet.

It will change though,  the truth is,  the truth no one's telling,  is
that Gaming's been experiencing a significant downturn for at least the
last 2 years.  2010 has shown it very clearly,  month after month of
drops,  you can see it in 2009 too if you eliminate the music games
which disguised the drop.

Right now,  only the AAA titles are
doing well.  People are tired of the same game ad nauseum,  usually some
variant of Doom.  It's predictable,  if you release the same product
over and over,  eventually people quit buying.  So the end result is
going to be a market crash,  because companies refuse to do more than
release Shooters and RTS with a different story.

To be fair though almost all luxury and entertainment markets have been experiencing a downturn since 2009, so it's not a unique situation for this market. I also don't believe that simply AAA titles are doing well unless you're blindly looking at the numbers. Keeping things relative all corners of the markets have had their successes and failures.

The downside is,  companies die.  Prior to this age,  the big guys
survived by being varied.  EA,  Activision,  Interplay,  Sierra, 
Infogrammes(Now Atari),  they all survived by maintaining diverse
portfolios,  not tieing themselves to the fate of a platform.  Now, 
they've aligned themselves with a platform,  and in doing so,  tied
their fate to the platform.  It's *very* unlikely EA will survive the
impending collapse.  EA's portfolio is already very narrow,  and way too
closely tied to consoles.  Activision may survive due entirely to
Blizzard,  Zenimax is overextended and too closely tied to consoles, 
it's absolutely gone.  Atari is all but dead.  A number of houses will
go as well.

Quite the contrary with EA, they have arguably the broadest portfolio of the major publishers. They're deeply imbedded on the PC and 360 with a decent chunk on the PS3. They've got a strong showing on handhelds/phones and really jumped in on the casual crowd early leaving them a top player in the market. They have a wide variety of games appealing to various pieces of the market, they pretty much control the sports gaming market which is huge these days. Unfortuantly for EA the only aspect of their business having any real level of success is their casual friendly stuff for the phones, Wii, The Sims, etc, their sports line up, and I guess BioWare with the DLC surge and licensing ventures.

Atari is indeed good as dead though, don't know about Zenimax but so long as they own Bethesda they'll be alright I think. Beth has become a BioWare, stick their label on it and it'll sell several million.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

RPGs will be with us forever, unless your definition of an RPG wouldn't include something like ME2 or FO3 -- there are folks on this board who take that position, actually.

The third-person narrative style of ME and ME2 prevents either game from being an RPG.

[zchen]

FO3 is not a RPG in my book. that is all.

[wowpwnslol]

zchen wrote...

FO3 is not a RPG in my book. that is all.

This. Failout 3 is a bad shooter, which pretends to be RPG. I played this atrocity for 10 hours before I gave it back to a friend. If I wanted to shoot, I'd play Borderlands. If I wanted an RPG, I will play Dragon Age.

[Aesthioseae]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

RPGs will be with us forever, unless your definition of an RPG wouldn't include something like ME2 or FO3 -- there are folks on this board who take that position, actually.

The third-person narrative style of ME and ME2 prevents either game from being an RPG.

I disagree. You undertake the immersion of becoming that character, deciding on which choices he/she will take, and where to go. The Narrative is just a tool to rail-road the destiny of the character. This is done in other pen-and-paper RPGs, as well as pc/console RPGs. The Narrative isn't what detracts from it being an RPG.

[Morroian]

The old Bioware is dead but the new Bioware is alive and using new technology in innovative ways to enhance gameplay, for example the just announced way the VO will actually work. This is not a company that is resting on its laurels trying to just appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Modifié par Morroian, 19 août 2010 - 06:08 .

[Aesthioseae]

Morroian wrote...

.... laurels trying to just appeal to the lowest common denominator.

...snicker...

...snicker...

...The...lowest...uh... what?

[Daur]

if you can role play



it's an rpg

[AlanC9]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Perhaps but you forget that Imoen wasnt the only motivation to get to Spellhold and the game gave the player much more motivation to continue the story than Origins ever did. But even saving Imoen was a far better motivation (in my opinion) than stopping some faceless blight that your character had no emotional stake in.

I don't forget it -- I just don't think that those other motivations are any better than the ones presented in DAO. For most of the duration of DAO Loghain is the enemy, and I'll rank him up there with Irenicus. YMMV, obviously.

But I'll certainly agree that your motivations in BG2 are more personal than they are in DAO. Whether this is a good thing or not is debatable. I've already played my lifetime quota of games where the whole plot revolves around my PC because of who he is, as opposed to because of stuff he does during the course of the game.

However once the battle at Ostagar was over and you wake up in Flemeth's hut you have no reason to continue being a grey warden (of course with the taint inside you would always be a grey warden, however you have no motivation for taking up the role of a grey warden) and trying to build an army other than to stop Alistair's whining and being the big selfless hero and saving the world.

Is it really necessary to provide a character with more motivation than that? Saving the world -- or rather, Ferelden, since presumably the rest of the Wardens would get their act together sometime  -- would probably be enough for most people. Or am I being naive here?

[Saibh]

AlanC9 wrote...

However once the battle at Ostagar was over and you wake up in Flemeth's hut you have no reason to continue being a grey warden (of course with the taint inside you would always be a grey warden, however you have no motivation for taking up the role of a grey warden) and trying to build an army other than to stop Alistair's whining and being the big selfless hero and saving the world.

Is it really necessary to provide a character with more motivation than that? Saving the world -- or rather, Ferelden, since presumably the rest of the Wardens would get their act together sometime  -- would probably be enough for most people. Or am I being naive here?

If you mention to Morrigan (maybe Flemeth?) that it's not fair that all of this is being thrust upon you, she goes ahead and says that you could choose to do nothing. Do nothing and let the darkspawn take over, that's your choice. The fact that you continue to amass an army is showing your motivation--to save Ferelden, to stop the Blight. For some people, good or bad, that's enough.

[Saibh]

Daur wrote...

if you can role play

it's an rpg

That's not entirely correct. Are you not "role playing" as Nathan Drake? Or as Norman Jayden in Heavy Rain? Cole MacGrath in inFamous? That is a role--you are playing in it.

I agree that that's a factor, but it is more concise than that.

[Dave of Canada]

Saibh wrote...

I agree that that's a factor, but it is more concise than that.

I'm a Pokemon Master!

*cries*

[Daur]

Saibh wrote...

Daur wrote...

if you can role play

it's an rpg

That's not entirely correct. Are you not "role playing" as Nathan Drake? Or as Norman Jayden in Heavy Rain? Cole MacGrath in inFamous? That is a role--you are playing in it.

I agree that that's a factor, but it is more concise than that.

exactly, they are all rpgs to an extent, it pains me that they can be classified as such but they can be

my post is in response to all the stupid comments that DA2 is NOT an RPG 

[Saibh]

Daur wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Daur wrote...

if you can role play

it's an rpg

That's not entirely correct. Are you not "role playing" as Nathan Drake? Or as Norman Jayden in Heavy Rain? Cole MacGrath in inFamous? That is a role--you are playing in it.

I agree that that's a factor, but it is more concise than that.

exactly, they are all rpgs to an extent, it pains me that they can be classified as such but they can be

my post is in response to all the stupid comments that DA2 is NOT an RPG 

No, I believe it certainly is, but I don't think "RPG" as in a cRPG is limited to "you can play a role". The genre wouldn't exist, if that were the case.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

AlanC9 wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Perhaps but you forget that Imoen wasnt the only motivation to get to Spellhold and the game gave the player much more motivation to continue the story than Origins ever did. But even saving Imoen was a far better motivation (in my opinion) than stopping some faceless blight that your character had no emotional stake in.

I don't forget it -- I just don't think that those other motivations are any better than the ones presented in DAO. For most of the duration of DAO Loghain is the enemy, and I'll rank him up there with Irenicus. YMMV, obviously.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here as it is quite obvious that we dont share the same tastes, there is no way in hell that Loghain could ever compete with Irenicus in my book, however that is your opinion and I cannot fault you for that.

AlanC9 wrote...

But I'll certainly agree that your motivations in BG2 are more personal than they are in DAO. Whether this is a good thing or not is debatable. I've already played my lifetime quota of games where the whole plot revolves around my PC because of who he is, as opposed to because of stuff he does during the course of the game.

Again this comes down to personal taste but I much prefer a story where the character I am playing has a much more personal stake in the storyline, in my opinion it makes for a deeper and more meaningful story than the big selfless hero saves the world because he is just that sort of guy.

AlanC9 wrote...

However once the battle at Ostagar was over and you wake up in Flemeth's hut you have no reason to continue being a grey warden (of course with the taint inside you would always be a grey warden, however you have no motivation for taking up the role of a grey warden) and trying to build an army other than to stop Alistair's whining and being the big selfless hero and saving the world.

Is it really necessary to provide a character with more motivation than that? Saving the world -- or rather, Ferelden, since presumably the rest of the Wardens would get their act together sometime  -- would probably be enough for most people. Or am I being naive here?

Of course not however the post that I was replying to seemed to imply that there wasnt much more motivation in BG2 than there was in Origins when this is pretty much false. In my opinion BG2 gives the player much more meaningful and realistic motivations to continue the story than Origins ever did.

[AlanC9]

Well, of course the BG2 motivation is meaningful in a way that DAO's can't be, at least post-Spellhold -- if the PC doesn't keep chasing Irenicus he dies.



But realistic?

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, of course the BG2 motivation is meaningful in a way that DAO's can't be, at least post-Spellhold -- if the PC doesn't keep chasing Irenicus he dies.

But realistic?

Well yeah, if one of your childhood friends that you have a deep attachment to gets abducted wouldnt you try and save her? Also if somebody stole your soul wouldnt you try to get it back? Or would you just lay down and accept death?

It is much more realistic than the hero waking up in a hut and thinking "hmmm I might go out and try to save the world today".

But if you dont like the word realistic would you prefer to substitute it with believable?

Modifié par Gandalf-the-Fabulous, 19 août 2010 - 08:16 .

[AlanC9]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Well yeah, if one of your childhood friends that you have a deep attachment to gets abducted wouldnt you try and save her?

A couple of big assumptions in that sentence, of course.

 Also if somebody stole your soul wouldnt you try to get it back? Or would you just lay down and accept death?

It is much more realistic than the hero waking up in a hut and thinking "hmmm I might go out and try to save the world today".

But if you dont like the word realistic would you prefer to substitute it with believable?

Stealing souls is believable, saving the world isn't? Seriously?

As for waking up in a hut and deciding to save the world, my dad used to do that. Of course, in his case it was ****s rather than Darkspawn and there were more than two guys in the army, but the principle is the same.

Edit: wow, they've put that in the swear filter? Well, I was being inaccurate anyway, since he served in the Pacific rather than the ETO.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 août 2010 - 08:29 .

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

AlanC9 wrote...

Stealing souls is believable, saving the world isn't? Seriously?

I am sorry but I thought this argument was about believable motivations in the context of a fantasy world and not about what is and isnt possible in the real world. If you want to go down that route dragons, darkspawn and demons arent real either so saving the world from them is not possible either.

Stick to the point at hand and drop the strawman.  

[AlanC9]

Strawman? Hardly, unless I've completely misread you. You seem to be arguing that fighting to protect your nation from a terrible threat is not a believable motivation. This is either ludicrous or despicable, assuming you actually believe it.



Let's say the game is set in 1941 Russia rather than Dragon Age Ferelden, but you're still playing a competent, talented warrior. Would your character really need some sort of personal motivation to join the fight?



Signing off for the night. See you tomorrow, no doubt.

[FedericoV]

Gatt9 wrote...

Edit:

The downside is,  companies die.  Prior to this age,  the big guys survived by being varied.  EA,  Activision,  Interplay,  Sierra,  Infogrammes(Now Atari),  they all survived by maintaining diverse portfolios,  not tieing themselves to the fate of a platform.  Now,  they've aligned themselves with a platform,  and in doing so,  tied their fate to the platform.  It's *very* unlikely EA will survive the impending collapse.  EA's portfolio is already very narrow,  and way too closely tied to consoles.  Activision may survive due entirely to Blizzard,  Zenimax is overextended and too closely tied to consoles,  it's absolutely gone.  Atari is all but dead.  A number of houses will go as well.

In 2012 the world will end so who cares .