1279 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

That'd be a lot more convincing if there was any evidence that Bio ever wanted to make anything other than bestsellers.

Its pretty obvious to those not of the BDF.

]I seem to recall BG2 selling pretty well despite being a more hardcore RPG, but that was before the industry wide shift of catering to the lowest common denominator. There's absolutely no logic behind saying a game needs to be streamlined and stripped down to the levels ME2 was to sell well. 

Hmm... I guess I need an insulting acronym for you folks. I'll let Bryy come up with one.

Anyway, are you really arguing that the player base has not changed? That EA and Bioware are just wrong about what it takes to make a bestseller? A few posts ago you said:

Thats just the reality of the industry at this point, out of control budgets, mean you need to sell ridiculous numbers to even break even, hense the fewer complex games and the shift in direction when it comes to a majority of developers who make RPG's. 

So now you're saying that it isn't the reality, and that EA and Bioware are just wrong?

[Herr Uhl]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...


Its pretty obvious to those not of the BDF.

What is BDF?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

AlanC9 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

That'd be a lot more convincing if there was any evidence that Bio ever wanted to make anything other than bestsellers.

Its pretty obvious to those not of the BDF.

]I seem to recall BG2 selling pretty well despite being a more hardcore RPG, but that was before the industry wide shift of catering to the lowest common denominator. There's absolutely no logic behind saying a game needs to be streamlined and stripped down to the levels ME2 was to sell well. 

Hmm... I guess I need an insulting acronym for you folks. I'll let Bryy come up with one.

Anyway, are you really arguing that the player base has not changed? That EA and Bioware are just wrong about what it takes to make a bestseller? A few posts ago you said:

Thats just the reality of the industry at this point, out of control budgets, mean you need to sell ridiculous numbers to even break even, hense the fewer complex games and the shift in direction when it comes to a majority of developers who make RPG's. 

So now you're saying that it isn't the reality, and that EA and Bioware are just wrong?

What I meant is the hardcore base is still there, but they're not longer the base that's being focused on, due to out of control budgets and a shift in the industry.

[Giggles_Manically]

Herr Uhl wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...


Its pretty obvious to those not of the BDF.

What is BDF?

Bioware Defence Force IIRC.

[Meltemph]

What I meant is the hardcore base is still there, but they're not longer the base that's being focused on, due to out of control budgets and a shift in the industry.

Who exactly do you think pushed the market in that direction? The old scool crowd is still there, they have just changed their tastes. Hell, all you have to do is look at the market in 1996-2000. During this time period, JRPG's/D&D/Hack and slash RPG's/WRPG's/fantasy games(Table-tops/card games) all were very popular, and then you had a pretty large amount of fantasy/legend/medieval type movies as well because that is what people wanted.

The success of the "good ol days" for RPG's during that era had a hell of a lot more to do with the market trends at that time then who the publishers were focusing on.

The BG series as a whole sold about 5 million units world-wide, now a days you need just 1 game to hit that to truly be considered a blockbuster. Times have changed and with that comes a change in focus, trends, hobbies, and ect.

Modifié par Meltemph, 30 septembre 2010 - 09:46 .

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

That's actually an interesting example. An ice cream cake has got cake-like qualities besides the layers of crumbs (assuming those are present). You typically eat it from a plate with a fork, rather than from a bowl with a spoon. It's used in situations where you'd typically use cakes  -- my nephew typically has an ice cream cake for a birthday cake, and I don't think he'd accept either regular ice cream or a pie as substitutes for a cake.

So I guess I'd say that socially it's a cake, but in terms of eating and preparing it it's ice cream.

And I would say that how something is used doesn't change what it is.

But why care what something actually is, as opposed to what you can do with it? When my nephew says he wants a "cake" for his birthday, he simply does not mean what "cake" would mean in other contexts., but what he does mean is quite clear. We could, of course, come up with some complex phrase instead of saying "cake" here, but what would we gain? 

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Meltemph wrote...

What I meant is the hardcore base is still there, but they're not longer the base that's being focused on, due to out of control budgets and a shift in the industry.

Who exactly do you think pushed the market in that direction? The old scool crowd is still there, they have just changed their tastes. Hell, all you have to do is look at the market in 1996-2000. During this time period, JRPG's/D&D/Hack and slash RPG's/WRPG's/fantasy games(Table-tops/card games) all were very popular, and then you had a pretty large amount of fantasy/legend/medieval type movies as well because that is what people wanted.

The success of the "good ol days" for RPG's during that era had a hell of a lot more to do with the market trends at that time then who the publishers were focusing on.

The BG series as a whole sold about 5 million units world-wide, now a days you need just 1 game to hit that to truly be considered a blockbuster. Times have changed and with that comes a change in focus, trends, hobbies, and ect.

Funny my taste are still the same, I'd much rather play a BG than a ME2 anyday. Thats not to say theres not a bit of truth in what you're saying, but in the same sense, I don't feel an RPG being made today need be simplified to the point of essentially removing the RP aspect of it to be successful sales wise. Think more along the lines of Baldur's gate and less along the lines of Diablo. Not that games like Diablo aren't fun in their own right but thats not necessarily a direction I'd personally want to see Bioware move in.

[AlanC9]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

What I meant is the hardcore base is still there, but they're not longer the base that's being focused on, due to out of control budgets and a shift in the industry.

So they could sell just as many "hardcore RPGs" now as they ever could, if only they didn't want to market to all of these console kiddies? All it would take is for Bio to accept that their old fanbase is now just a niche, and stay right there?

I just wanted to make sure I'm getting this.

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...

Who exactly do you think pushed the market in that direction? The old scool crowd is still there, they have just changed their tastes. Hell, all you have to do is look at the market in 1996-2000. During this time period, JRPG's/D&D/Hack and slash RPG's/WRPG's/fantasy games(Table-tops/card games) all were very popular, and then you had a pretty large amount of fantasy/legend/medieval type movies as well because that is what people wanted.

The success of the "good ol days" for RPG's during that era had a hell of a lot more to do with the market trends at that time then who the publishers were focusing on.

Wow, wrong button to push, my friend.

Fantasy (movies, books, games) are bigger POST 2000 than pre.  BG2 was 2000.  Diablo 2 was 2000.  Everquest had just started in 1999 - WoW not until 2004.  The 3rd Harry Potter book (around the peaking of the series popularity, not that it sank right after this or anything) came out end of 1999 (and the series hype and popularity still grew a bit more into the later books as well, due to...) and the first HP movie hit screens in 2001.  The first LotR film hit in 2001 as well.  FIrst Narnia was 2005.

The success of LotR and Harry Potter as franchises at the time, more than BG2's success in 2000, CREATED a fantasy feedin frenzy in the entertainment industry that lasted about a decade, give or take.

1996-2000?  Really?  Other than Diablo (yes, that was big), what game sold like Myst or Half-Life at that time?  What were the "big fantasy movies" of that 4 year span?  Are you counting Hunchback, Mulan, The Mummy, 5th Element, X-Men as "fantasy" in comparison to BG/DAO style fantasy?  I guess Mulan could be considered medieval, at least.

The fantasy and RPG market are MUCH BIGGER post 2000 than pre.

BioWare and Bethesda's big successes are all post 2000.
The "fantasy" movies that are huge are all post 2000.

Unless you want to focus on Ultima Online, PST, and the first year of Everquest (plus MTG and the just released 3rd (not 3.5) edition of D&D), 2000 and earlier were NOT the "good ol' days" of RPGs (or fantasy) in the sense of popularity.

Fantasy (and RPGs) were absolutely the nerdiest of geekdom nerdville pre-2000.  While still more niche than not, RPGs and fantasy are far more main stream now.

Modifié par MerinTB, 30 septembre 2010 - 10:06 .

[Meltemph]

Funny my taste are still the same, I'd much rather play a BG than a ME2 anyday. Thats not to say theres not a bit of truth in what you're saying, but in the same sense, I don't feel an RPG being made today need be simplified to the point of essentially removing the RP aspect of it to be successful sales wise. Think more along the lines of Baldur's gate and less along the lines of Diablo. Not that games like Diablo aren't fun in their own right but thats not necessarily a direction I'd personally want to see Bioware move in.

Well the trend right now is great stories in games, with high production values if the game wants to stand on its own with no multilayer, that is not an opinion, all you have to do is look at the big single player games. There are exceptions to that rule, but really only with open world systems like that of Bethesda. The market requires higher production values, "simplicity" is not what people are after, but currently it helps dramatically to streamline games to allow them to achieve the desired production value.



Complicated games can still do well(Civ series/EVE online/ and games of that nature) but even then it is not how one makes a living.



Elemental: War of Magic is a perfect example of what I am talking about. It is a loss of a product, people will/have been let go over it. I understand completely what you are asking for(considering I grew-up in that era of gaming) but you need to understand that most people's tastes from that era have either changed, moved out of the market, or retained the same preferences but remain a minority.



You and people like Mad are either going to adapt your preferences or be very disappointed till the trends change in your favor again. And honestly, I dont see that happening anytime soon.



I understand your desire to move back to the familiar, but most do not wish that to happen. Everything is give and take, and people need to realize that when you want something in games you pick-up you are essentially asking devs to take away from what others enjoy and if your group buys crap less, then you better believe you will rarely get what you want.



I would just be thankful Bioware even tries to still please those old school fans, because most have given up on that era. Your tastes may not have changed, but obviously most have. All you have to do is see the age brackets for buying games, and it still is quite obviously controlled by the same people(so to speak) who bought BG and all those other games you think of when you talk about what is wrong with this and other games.

[AlanC9]

MerinTB wrote...
Fantasy (and RPGs) were absolutely the nerdiest of geekdom nerdville pre-2000.  While still more niche than not, RPGs and fantasy are far more main stream now.

But that's exactly the point. The fantasy fans now aren't as likely to be geeks. This wouldn't matter much, but it doesn't look as if there are as many total geeks around anymore -- by which I mean people who are drawn to complex, demanding games, as opposed to putting up with complexity for the sake of the rest of the experience.

[Meltemph]

Fantasy (movies, books, games) are bigger POST 2000 than pre.  BG2 was 2000.  Diablo 2 was 2000.  Everquest had just started in 1999 - WoW not until 2004.  The 3rd Harry Potter book (around the peaking of the series popularity, not that it sank right after this or anything) came out end of 1999 (and the series hype and popularity still grew a bit more into the later books as well, due to...) and the first HP movie hit screens in 2001.  The first LotR film hit in 2001 as well.  FIrst Narnia was 2005.

They are bigger in the sense that the popular ones are, but outside of the ones brining in large amounts of cash, I don't see any sales that says otherwise.  Also, keep in mind I'm not talking about the "genre" as a whole, but in what direction that genre took.

1996-2000?  Really?  Other than Diablo (yes, that was big), what game sold like Myst or Half-Life at that time?  What were the "big fantasy movies" of that 4 year span?  Are you counting Hunchback, Mulan, The Mummy, 5th Element, X-Men as "fantasy" in comparison to BG/DAO style fantasy?  I guess Mulan could be considered medieval, at least.

JRPG's were huge during 96-00, as for movies, you are correct, there were not many "big" titles in that setting, but there were still more of them.

BioWare and Bethesda's big successes are all post 2000.
The "fantasy" movies that are huge are all post 2000.

Not the BG types however. which is what the majority of complaints are about.

Unless you want to focus on Ultima Online, PST, and the first year of Everquest (plus MTG and the just released 3rd (not 3.5) edition of D&D), 2000 and earlier were NOT the "good ol' days" of RPGs (or fantasy) in the sense of popularity.

The populartiy of such things is what I am talking about, and what people are complaining about.  Things have become streamlined much more then they used to back during the early to mid 90's still about 2000, to appeal to the masses.

Fantasy (and RPGs) were absolutely the nerdiest of geekdom nerdville pre-2000.  While still more niche than not, RPGs and fantasy are far more main stream now.

Yes, but how they are made now are not made like they were back then.  Again, I'm talking about the very specific subset of teh complaints(D&D/Magic the Gathering/CRPG's[old school ones]/Dragon Heart type movies) the things people are always comparing to.

JRPG's are less popular, D&D is less popular, Old School CRPG's are not as popular, outside of the big fantasy movies, you don't see many(or if you do they normally don't do so well).

Modifié par Meltemph, 30 septembre 2010 - 10:20 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

AlanC9 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

What I meant is the hardcore base is still there, but they're not longer the base that's being focused on, due to out of control budgets and a shift in the industry.

So they could sell just as many "hardcore RPGs" now as they ever could, if only they didn't want to market to all of these console kiddies? All it would take is for Bio to accept that their old fanbase is now just a niche, and stay right there?

I just wanted to make sure I'm getting this.

So basically suck it up and conform is your advice. Embrace the removal of actual roleplaying choice and enjoy paraphrased voice overs that have you guessing at what "your" character is going to say among other concessions. Is that basically what you're getting at? At that point why bother even having discussion forums in the first place, really.

[MerinTB]

@Meltemph - ah, sorry, you meant the "classic" RPG.

Yeah, 6 member parties, complex character creation, lots of exploration, turn based...

that's all gone and likely never coming to the "big screen."

But it never was "big screen", so that's not a change.

I think some people have to adjust to the fact (like I think that I finally am as BioWare drops off of my "must have list" like X-Men did years and years ago) BioWare is a game company, not a PC cRPG company.

They haven't been a PC cRPG company for a decade... DA:O was a fluke... and honestly they were barely ever a PC cRPG company - 2 games out of how many? (3 if you count DA:O)

Their cRPG's weren't even the best of the time. Black Isle's stuff was better. Few are those who'd argue that PST wasn't superior to BG2 (I'd be one of the few, but point stands.) I'd argue IWD was superior to BG2, personally.

In THAT sense, AlanC9, Meltemph, and the rest are accurate.

Sarah, Sylvius and I SHOULD accept that BioWare is not going to make the kind of games we want anymore.
If they ever really, truly did.

Modifié par MerinTB, 30 septembre 2010 - 10:36 .

[Ghandorian]

I have to throw in that I am also a bit disappointed in the streamlining of RP aspects within the industry to fit a bigger market. I blame the console sales eclipsing PC by however many times it does, but thats another can of worms. I see the character depth that we as gamers create getting thinner in favor of automated combat maneuvers, built in macros for gear swaps, less risk of making a gimp, giant idiot markers for quests and so on.



I too am a bit worried over the change to voiced main character and being shoehorned into a pre-existing character that I sort of flesh out with this Hawk stuff. I am looking toward some other developers right now over BioWare for my RP gaming. I think they are going to catapult into bigger sales under the supervision of EA but at the cost of the kind of hardcore they built their name on.

[Brockololly]

The issue is that by most accounts Origins was as much of a AAA "old school" cRPG as we've seen in a while. And by most accounts it sold rather well and was well received critically. And at least the perception after seeing (limited) gameplay footage and reading about the ME flavored changes to DAO's RPG formula, is that it will be more of a ME style RPG than a Origins or BG style RPG.



Thats just the perception many people are getting based off of the gameplay and most of the quotes. It may not be that way, but taking a stroll around the internet when you see most previews to DA2 or reactions to DA2,  its the old "God of Dragon Effect May Cry" claim. Of course if you read the forums and such we all know its more than that, but the kneejerk reaction is out there. And whether its actually validated, we don't know quite yet and won't know until March.


The question is though, if we consider Origins to be more of an old school RPG that by most accounts sold well and was well received, why aren't more companies making those RPGs? Is ~3 million copies sold not enough? If no developers are making RPGs in the vein of Baldur's Gate right now, who is to say that something like that wouldn't sell well, if given the AAA treatment, or even treated as a lower budget, indie movie type affair?


Thats essentially what Blizzard is doing with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3-taking "old school" gameplay with isometric view and all, and updating it- and they're doing phenomenal (at least SC2 is so far). I just think its silly to write off fans that favor more old school RPGs as fans of some ancient long dead genre when essentially an entire generation of gamers has never even been exposed to the genre to figure out if they like it or not.

Modifié par Brockololly, 30 septembre 2010 - 11:10 .

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Its pretty obvious to those not of the BDF.

I would have thought it was pretty obvious to anyone not just those you want to lump together as some vaguely homogenous group you can refer to pejoratively en masse. Its been so since kotor and hey they're owned by EA.

[Morroian]

AlanC9 wrote...

Hmm... I guess I need an insulting acronym for you folks. I'll let Bryy come up with one.

Don"t bother, take the high road.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

You and people like Mad are either going to adapt your preferences or be very disappointed till the trends change in your favor again. And honestly, I dont see that happening anytime soon.

Life is pain.

[Morroian]

Brockololly wrote...

The issue is that by most accounts Origins was as much of a AAA "old school" cRPG as we've seen in a while. And by most accounts it sold rather well and was well received critically.

It was still quite close to kotor in style just with the addition of the top down view. As an rpg it was easier to play than others like The Witcher or the Gothic series.

Brockololly wrote...

Thats essentially what Blizzard is doing with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3-taking "old school" gameplay with isometric view and all, and updating it- and they're doing phenomenal (at least SC2 is so far). I just think its silly to write off fans that favor more old school RPGs as fans of some ancient long dead genre when essentially an entire generation of gamers has never even been exposed to the genre to figure out if they like it or not.

Those of us who like the innovations in the RTS genre since the first Starcraft are staying well clear of SC2. Old school RTS gameplay is clearly not better than the improvements introduced in games like Dawn of War, Kohan and Warlords Battlecry.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

It was still quite close to kotor in style just with the addition of the top down view.

And full-party control.

If KotOR had had proper full-party control I might have ranked it as an all-time great RPG.  There was very little wrong with KotOR, I think, so having DAO emulate it is hardly a problem.

 As an rpg it was easier to play than others like The Witcher or the Gothic series.

Brockololly wrote...

Thats essentially what Blizzard is doing with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3-taking "old school" gameplay with isometric view and all, and updating it- and they're doing phenomenal (at least SC2 is so far

Diablo is not "old school" gameplay.  Diablo is a mindless click-fest.

Diablo-style gameplay is part of what's wrong with the "new school".

[Brockololly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Thats essentially what Blizzard is doing with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3-taking "old school" gameplay with isometric view and all, and updating it- and they're doing phenomenal (at least SC2 is so far

Diablo is not "old school" gameplay.  Diablo is a mindless click-fest.

Diablo-style gameplay is part of what's wrong with the "new school".

What I mean is that Blizzard isn't abandoning the play style of the original Diablo from more than 10 years ago when it first came out to fit in with other modern hack n slash click fests- they're not moving it to a 3rd person view or anything. They're keeping it isometric with mostly the same sort of mechanics. Just like they did with Starcraft 2.

Just as some people might want Diablo to be a more updated click fest game like a God of War or something, Blizzard is by and large sticking with what worked in Diablo.

[Bryy_Miller]

AlanC9 wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

That'd be a lot more convincing if there was any evidence that Bio ever wanted to make anything other than bestsellers.

Its pretty obvious to those not of the BDF.

]I seem to recall BG2 selling pretty well despite being a more hardcore RPG, but that was before the industry wide shift of catering to the lowest common denominator. There's absolutely no logic behind saying a game needs to be streamlined and stripped down to the levels ME2 was to sell well. 

Hmm... I guess I need an insulting acronym for you folks. I'll let Bryy come up with one.

Don't really care to. Would really serve no purpose, and I'd rather not be that petty.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 30 septembre 2010 - 11:30 .

[Morroian]

Meltemph wrote...

Complicated games can still do well(Civ series/EVE online/ and games of that nature) but even then it is not how one makes a living.

The Civ series was quite streamlined with Civ 4.

[Herr Uhl]

Brockololly wrote...

Thats essentially what Blizzard is doing with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3-taking "old school" gameplay with isometric view and all, and updating it- and they're doing phenomenal (at least SC2 is so far). I just think its silly to write off fans that favor more old school RPGs as fans of some ancient long dead genre when essentially an entire generation of gamers has never even been exposed to the genre to figure out if they like it or not.

How has the gameplay of RTS-games changed since the days of Starcraft? I really don't see what they could do differently unless they'd make it a completely different genre.

Modifié par Herr Uhl, 30 septembre 2010 - 11:31 .