735 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Your reason for claiming that it's not role playing to use the written responses is that you are not given the information needed. But then when it is pointed out that the information is readily available in the game you say you cannot use it because that's not role playing.

The information is only available after the fact.  When you're making the decision, the information is not yet available.

Yes, you could use it on subsequent playthroughs if you'd first gone through every possible dialogue option and recorded their tone so you could refer back to that record as you played a second time.  Is that really what you're suggesting?  That I run through every conversation in the game 8-10 times before actually trying to play the game?

It is the very same thing as there being Vocie Acting or a tone indicator with the text except that you are arbitrarily designating the time of delivery as a criteria just so that you can then say "well that informatin isn't available when I make the choice" even though on subsequent playthroughs it is definitively available through previous experience except that you still insist on arbitrarily ignoring that information.

Okay, sure.  You can use that information if you want.  But you can't do that the first time through the game, and most people never play the game a second time.

If the game is playable the first time through, then it is playable in that same manner every time.

The only reason the information on the tone and intent of your PCs responses is not there is because you choose for it to not be there.

Patently false.  It isn't there.  Again, if it were, you could pont to it.

The only information related to the tone is the reactions if the NPCs, and for that to be useful you'd have to presuppose the reliability of those reactions.  You'd need to assume that the NPCs can't misunderstand you.

Why make that assumption?

I'm choosing not to make any assumptions, and instead just playing with the information that's actually availabe.

[Merced256]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The problem for me isn't that I can't imagine my character's line delivery - I certainly can - but from my perspective, the consequences of every choice in the game - no matter how small - are predetermined.  So I can't suspend disbelief the way Sylvius the Mad can, at least based on my reading of how he plays these games, and thus - we're approaching the game from a fundamentally different and incompatible perspective.

This is correct.

The reason it annoys me so much is taht my appoach has always worked, while your approach (and that of those who prefer teh voiced protagonist) has never worked.  So yes, you're really pleased that DA2 has a voice, and that ME has a voice, because that makes those games suit your playstyle more.

But why do you even have that playstyle?  It never worked before.  How could you possibly have developed these expectations when not a single game in the world catered to them?

I'd suggest that the games you want are an entirely new genre of games - the interactive story - and that genre didn't exist before 2007.  So while I don't bgrudge you guys having games you want to play, I do object to you taking away my games to do it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I disagree.  Again it's not any specific feature that guided my playstyle, but the underlying operating assumption that the story being told was never my story, but the writer's.

This assumption is why traditional RPG gameplay doesn't work for you.

Stop making that assumption and the problem goes away.

SirOccam wrote...

What do you mean by "worked?"

I was able to populate my character's mind and have him act entirely in-character throughout the game.

In the ME games, this approach fails utterly.  But it almost always worked before we got a voice and incomplete information about the options.

addiction21 wrote...

Again just because something does not fit your narrow and limited defination of what a rpg should be or do, does not make them less of an rpg. It is just a different sort of rpg. One that you do not prefer.

By the same reasoning, just because you think they both fall within the same genre does not make it so.

I was defining a genre narrowly to demonstrate how different these games are from how RPGs used to be.

addiction21 wrote...

Septerra Core. PC RPG released a year before BG2 with a fully voiced protag and a lot of the cast.

I'm already on record that JRPGs have never been RPGs.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:02 .

[David Gaider]

That's a lot of curiosity about the sales for DAO. I'm not sure what the interest is, beyond wanting to see enough sales so that the series continues.

Did it sell enough to be successful? The bar for "success" can vary, depending on the expectations for the title, but I think we're quite pleased with how well the game sold. If we weren't, you likely wouldn't be seeing another.

Did it sell better than Mass Effect? Does that matter? Mass Effect went out on two platforms, only one of which is console-- which is a pretty big deal, considering that console sales were the majority even for DAO, a game which went out with the message "it plays best on the PC" (in the media, I mean, not from us). It's not a simple matter to compare, and even then one does not necessarily inform the other. We have different expectations depending on the normal market for that genre as well as the intended release window (a game released before Christmas, say, would be expected to sell more than one released afterwards).

Was it profitable? That depends. The game took five years to make... that's a huge investment that needs to be recouped, no matter how you look at it.

But wasn't it profitable enough that you'd want to do another game just like it? Again, that depends. It depends on how much the company wants to sell, and how much of a potential market there is for the type of game we're making-- and thus how well the game reached that potential. Could the audience for a game like DAO get bigger? Could we sell to exactly the same audience and be satisfied? I don't have answers for those things, to be honest. Any evidence I have is mostly conjecture, though perhaps my perspective is a little better.

I'm certain any mention of video games and profit in the same breath elicits the same response from some corners-- "oh, you guys just want to milk this for all it's worth". That sort of thing. The idea is to make money, however, and that's what companies will do. We'll still strive creatively at the same time as we're trying to be profitable-- on a company-wide basis-- in what is a very tough market right now.

You guys don't need us to be profitable, however, and we get that. I'm sure you'd be perfectly happy if we made just enough money to keep going. And maybe we are-- I certainly don't have insight into EA's bookkeeping. I'm just not sure what you're trying to discern by analyzing the sales (muddy as the numbers are) as if this should be a gauge of what we want from DA2-- which is a completely different project, with a shorter timeframe for development (meaning much lower costs) and very different expectations. Plus we want to do something different.

I guess it must be a little baffling to be on the outside looking in, trying to figure out how the gears work, but you're looking at a pretty small part of the picture.

Modifié par David Gaider, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:06 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

When I hear that a company BioWare's size can't survive on BG2's sales (though it could back in the day because it was smaller), I do wonder why the solution isn't to produce more titles rather than bigger-selling titles. Presumably more titles with fewer sales each would be a safer investment, and there might even be economies of scale in things like engine development.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This assumption is why traditional RPG gameplay doesn't work for you.

Stop making that assumption and the problem goes away.

And your assumption is that my assumption is a problem that needs to go away.  This particular assumption of mine strikes me as self-evident.  I cannot make it go away without suspending disbelief.  That is why I labeled our views as incompatible. 

That being said, traditional RPG gameplay did work for me.  I just prefer contemporary RPG gameplay because it's more compatible with what I believe CRPGs are best suited for.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:06 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

And your assumption is that my assumption is a problem that needs to go away.

All assumptions are problems that need to go away.

They're necessariy baseless.  That's the nature of assumptions.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

They're necessariy baseless.  That's the nature of assumptions.

Then we've been using the wrong word.  It is not an assumption, it is simply my interpretation of the facts.  Which is different than yours.

Ultimately that results in your being able to assume that when an NPC's reaction to your imagined PC's line delivery is incongruous than the NPC is at fault. 

I am incapable of making that assumption because it would require me to suspend disbelief - beyond my comfort level - as all fiction requires some level of it, and forget that Bioware has pre-written that response; up to and including all non-verbal consequences of my PC's choices.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:21 .

[Meltemph]

 

You guys don't need us to be profitable, however, and we get that.

To a point maybe...  But if people actually like your products(like me) I very much need you to be profitable, if I want to enjoy that portion of my hobby.  In every aspect of the market, if you like something, and you want to see it advance its craft(Apple for instance after the success of the Ipod's), then you definitely need to be profitable, at least from my perspective.

I would think "Just enough to get survive", would only be ok for a very select few and would not be enough, which the evidence for this is, that almost every company that stays at "just enough" for too long, dies.

Modifié par Meltemph, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:11 .

[David Gaider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
When I hear that a company BioWare's size can't survive on BG2's sales (though it could back in the day because it was smaller), I do wonder why the solution isn't to produce more titles rather than bigger-selling titles. Presumably more titles with fewer sales each would be a safer investment, and there might even be economies of scale in things like engine development.

That's not an easy answer to give. Ultimately the problem is that your solution is simplistic. it doesn't take into account the fact that development budgets are increasing exponentially, and that a game which sells 1 million copies can cost just as much to make as a game which sells 5 million copies. I guess the answer would be to not grow? To keep the company the same size, and hope that you can make successive games at a quality that matches the top-tier games that get put out there, year after year?

Personally, I'd agree that the "blockbuster-chasing" effect can be problematic-- everyone's after the biggest piece of the pie. I imagine it's hard not to look at numbers like World of Warcraft or the biggest action titles and see the potential. And in an industry as hard-hit as the gaming industry, it's hard to justify investment for something less. I wish there was more room for smaller titles inbetween the bigger ones-- I've talked about this before. Sadly, the game industry and the gaming media as it stands doesn't really support that right now. Maybe this will change. Hopefully not catastrophically. I like having a job.

[David Gaider]

Meltemph wrote...
I would think "Just enough to get survive", would only be ok for a very select few and would not be enough, which the evidence for this is, that almost every company that stays at "just enough" for too long, dies.

That is sadly true. One would hope there's a balance to be hit between creative freedom and hitting that "jackpot" that the money-possessing folks need... but how one comes upon that formula is still a mystery. We can guess at it, but in the games industry (as with the movie industry) it's often a case of follow-the-leader.

Is this good? Is this bad? I don't know. We are talking about DA2, however, so it's probably best not to get distracted with the unanswerables. All I was trying to address was the fascination with ME2's and DAO's sales numbers, and the implication that we are trying to emulate Mass Effect because of how it sold-- when the truth is that we're taking on a couple of features that you're familiar with in Mass Effect because we believe they work better. And we're doing them our way. And otherwise we (and by "we" I mean Mike) are improving the game's features based on how our vision for them says they should be.

Is that really an improvement? I guess time will tell-- there is no objectivity here, so you'll have to decide for yourselves. In the case of such features, however, sales numbers don't determine everything. You can't say "game X sold this much because it had Y feature". It's not that simple, and I doubt anyone outside of a forum like this actually thinks about it in that way.

Modifié par David Gaider, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:21 .

[Meltemph]

Also, I would assume that smaller and more of titles would be bad for the amount of jobs available for the gaming market or at least each company. Unless more companies popped up as a results, and assuming demand for followed. However if demand dropped due to the change in current focus, then I would say that would be very bad, outside of the individual who would prefer those types of games, I guess.

[upsettingshorts]

David Gaider wrote...
Personally, I'd agree that the "blockbuster-chasing" effect can be problematic-- everyone's after the biggest piece of the pie. I imagine it's hard not to look at numbers like World of Warcraft

Example: The New Game Experience.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:17 .

[tmp7704]

Meltemph wrote...

Sure, but doesn't the number of copies actually sold to the consumer matter too?

Well, yes they matter, in the sense that if they don't sell them in the stores you won't be getting more requests.

are you saying that a publisher like EA only gets their share of profit from shipping the game to the retailer?

It does not work quite like a cinema if that is what you are thinking. After they ship them they are completely the stores responsibility and they get all the profit(although, the current profit rate is low I believe[relatively] for the stores), which is why stores like gamestop have to push accessories and used games so hard.

There seems to be more to it, though. Specifically, EA considered it important enough "highlight" bullet point in their financial report that few of their titles sold "over 4 millions each" through entire fiscal year. But surprisingly enough  the 6.6 mil shipped ME2 units (or at least decent part of this number) didn't get a mention, even though it supposedly happened in the period covered by their more recent reports.

The explanation may perhaps be that one of these is numbers sold to the customers vs the numbers of units shipped... and that in turn would suggest that the numbers sold to customers are actually considered more important even by company itself, at least when it comes to including them in the reports.

Granted, maybe we'll get some mention in their next report which should cover the July-Septemeber of this year, but going by their release dates it's roughly a month before that info gets published.

Modifié par tmp7704, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:24 .

[Meltemph]

To be fair shorts, the game was hemorrhaging and they needed to try something. That said, as long as ME/DAO remain profitable for the company, I wouldn't worry to much about the sales. Now obviously, if we see low numbers(relatively) for the length and amount of R&D/production, then worry. However, w/o the proper information(which we don't really have) then looking at shipped/sold units is fairly worthless in terms of telling us if the game is a success or not(In the profit terms).

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

That's not an easy answer to give. Ultimately the problem is that your solution is simplistic. it doesn't take into account the fact that development budgets are increasing exponentially, and that a game which sells 1 million copies can cost just as much to make as a game which sells 5 million copies. I guess the answer would be to not grow? To keep the company the same size, and hope that you can make successive games at a quality that matches the top-tier games that get put out there, year after year?

Personally, I'd agree that the "blockbuster-chasing" effect can be problematic-- everyone's after the biggest piece of the pie. I imagine it's hard not to look at numbers like World of Warcraft or the biggest action titles and see the potential. And in an industry as hard-hit as the gaming industry, it's hard to justify investment for something less. I wish there was more room for smaller titles inbetween the bigger ones-- I've talked about this before. Sadly, the game industry and the gaming media as it stands doesn't really support that right now. Maybe this will change. Hopefully not catastrophically. I like having a job.

I did wonder if it was maybe a marketing thing.  To sell a game to its maximum potential, you need to market it.  The marketing isn't any cheaper just because the game is smaller, so it's actually more efficient to sell a game with a broader appeal.

Similarly, there might be diminishing returns from marketing too many games too close together with the same branding behind them.

I certainly don't have enough information to determine BioWare's best course of action, and presumably you guys do employ smart people to work out this sort of thing, hopefully who measure and quantify market behaviour (as opposed to the blatant guesswork you do often see in marketing departments).  It's just that from an ROI perspective the smaller games seem like a safer bet than one big game (where a flop can sink a whole company - particularly with independent developers).

I would never suggest you not grow.  First, you employ hundreds of people, and I want people who work in game development to continue doing so.  And second, if BioWare makes good games then I want them to make more of them, not fewer.  Whatever the best course of action is, I want you to follow that course with as much product volume as possible.

[Meltemph]

There seems to be more to it, though. Specifically, EA considered it important enough "highlight" bullet point in their financial report that few of their titles sold "over 4 millions each" through entire fiscal year. But surprisingly enough the 6.6 mil shipped ME2 units didn't get a mention, even though it supposedly happened in the period covered by their more recent reports.

I'm pretty sure that is just marketing doing its job, you have to keep in mind that EA is a publicly traded company, so most of its statements is all centered on investment returns. So you would have to assume that if they didn't mention the 6.6 shipped, then they did not have to.

Modifié par Meltemph, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:25 .

[Brockololly]

David Gaider wrote...
Did it sell better than Mass Effect? Does that matter?

It "matters" in the perception that if higher ups at EA or BioWare see ME doing much better than DA, they may think "Oh! ME is selling waaaay better than Origins! For DA2, lets inject some ME stuff like the voiced PC and cinematic story telling and surely then DA2 will sell as well as ME! Silent PC be damned, muaaaahahahaha! *EA suit dives into sea of golden coins a la Scrooge McDuck.*

I doubt its entirely like that, but thats certainly the perception when you see the ME style changes being grafted into DA2.

David Gaider wrote...
...considering that console sales were the majority even for DAO, a game which went out with the message "it plays best on the PC" (in the media, I mean, not from us).

Maybe you don't know as you're not a business video games guy, but if a game like Origins is going out on 2 consoles vs. 1 (PC) isn't it expected that you'd have more sales on the consoles anyway? But on the flip side, isn't EA/BioWare raking in more money per copy with a PC digital download sale vs. a retail console copy with all of the middle men there (retailers, console makers)? Or with DLC sold on the PC vs. the consoles- likely having to split the money with Sony or MS in that case versus pure revenue with the PC?

David Gaider wrote...
Was it profitable? That depends. The game took five years to make... that's a huge investment that needs to be recouped, no matter how you look at it.

And I think the perception at least in some quarters is that stuff like Awakening, the DLC and now DA2 may be being rushed out in part to recoup the overall cost of the long time it took to get Origins out.

David Gaider wrote...
I'm certain any mention of video games and profit in the same breath elicits the same response from some corners-- "oh, you guys just want to milk this for all it's worth". That sort of thing. The idea is to make money, however, and that's what companies will do. We'll still strive creatively at the same time as we're trying to be profitable-- on a company-wide basis-- in what is a very tough market right now.

Well, hell, of course you want to milk it for all its worth- so long as the stuff being put out is of good quality, milk away I say!

And conversely when you say its a tough market, its that way for the gamers though too- so its not just bringing in new gamers to DA2, but I'd imagine also retaining those that bought Origins and all the DLC and Awakening too. The barrier to exit is certainly quite low, especially with the tons of other games coming out early next year. Certainly, I only buy maybe 2-3 games a year but like with Origins I ended up spending more on Awakening plus DLC than I did for Origins at release. So even if I buy DA2, if it doesn't provide good replay value or strike a chord like Origins did with the toolset and mods, the liklihood I'd stick around for DLC and such is quite low.

David Gaider wrote...
You guys don't need us to be profitable, however, and we get that.

Well, I sure hope you guys stay profitable long enough such that you can continue on with Morrigan, the Warden and Old God Baby's return from Mirror World to save the day after Hawke ends up starting World War Thedas with Flemeth knocking down sandcastles and all.

[Leonia]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Example: The New Game Experience.

Heathen, speak not these words! *gasp*

Though I also can't figure out why everyone is so fascinated by the numbers. Even if we knew the sales figures, it wouldn't reveal more than looking into a cup full of tea leaves for some sort of hidden meaning.

Maybe I'm just overly optimistic that Bioware knows what it's doing in regards to DA 2 development. Go ahead, call me a fangurl and let the lynching begin.

Modifié par leonia42, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:28 .

[Leonia]

Double-post, please delete.

Modifié par leonia42, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:27 .

[Sutamina]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

That's not an easy answer to give. Ultimately the problem is that your solution is simplistic. it doesn't take into account the fact that development budgets are increasing exponentially, and that a game which sells 1 million copies can cost just as much to make as a game which sells 5 million copies. I guess the answer would be to not grow? To keep the company the same size, and hope that you can make successive games at a quality that matches the top-tier games that get put out there, year after year?

Personally, I'd agree that the "blockbuster-chasing" effect can be problematic-- everyone's after the biggest piece of the pie. I imagine it's hard not to look at numbers like World of Warcraft or the biggest action titles and see the potential. And in an industry as hard-hit as the gaming industry, it's hard to justify investment for something less. I wish there was more room for smaller titles inbetween the bigger ones-- I've talked about this before. Sadly, the game industry and the gaming media as it stands doesn't really support that right now. Maybe this will change. Hopefully not catastrophically. I like having a job.

I did wonder if it was maybe a marketing thing.  To sell a game to its maximum potential, you need to market it.  The marketing isn't any cheaper just because the game is smaller, so it's actually more efficient to sell a game with a broader appeal.

Similarly, there might be diminishing returns from marketing too many games too close together with the same branding behind them.

I certainly don't have enough information to determine BioWare's best course of action, and presumably you guys do employ smart people to work out this sort of thing, hopefully who measure and quantify market behaviour (as opposed to the blatant guesswork you do often see in marketing departments).  It's just that from an ROI perspective the smaller games seem like a safer bet than one big game (where a flop can sink a whole company - particularly with independent developers).

I would never suggest you not grow.  First, you employ hundreds of people, and I want people who work in game development to continue doing so.  And second, if BioWare makes good games then I want them to make more of them, not fewer.  Whatever the best course of action is, I want you to follow that course with as much product volume as possible.

and becuase we love you!<3 (my first emoticon)

[tmp7704]

Meltemph wrote...

I'm pretty sure that is just marketing doing its job, you have to keep in mind that EA is a publicly traded company, so most of its statements is all centered on investment returns. So you would have to assume that if they didn't mention the 6.6 shipped, then they did not have to.

However if that's explanation why the ME2 numbers weren't mentioned, the same mentality can be applied to the numbers which did get a mention -- i don't think they had to mention these, either.

[Meltemph]

However if that's explanation why the ME2 numbers weren't mentioned, the same mentality can be applied to the numbers which did get a mention -- i don't think they had to mention these, either.

When I said had to, I meant that they felt the need to. I mean, there is not much more to glean form it, unless you are suggesting almost every brick and mortar store is sending sales date/feedback back to publishers or that royalties are in place.



I mean, from a business standpoint, if I had a publisher, that also sold the same product as me, there would be no way I would be sending my sales numbers to a competing business, unless I had to.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Again, if it were, you could pont to it.

Here it is:

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The information is only available after the fact

You just choose to ignore it.

Sylvius your typical manner of playing is out of the ordinary. I would hope that you can at least acknowledge that. The fact of the matter is that most players will redo a conversation if they didn't like the outcome and it's not too inconvenient. In your particular case, if the response of the NPC is outlandish you assume that there was a misscomunication instead of redoing the conversation to find an option that is more along the lines of how your character would respond with a proper reaction from the NPC. That is weird. Most of us don't do that.

By example, it is perfectly possible for you to, instead of forcing an alternate interpretation in your own mind, recognize that you missinterpreted and reassess the conversation right then and there. It is not necessary to record every single conversation and play the game a full secend time to have all the role playing options available to you.

You simple choose not to make use of these possibilities because of your preference in play style. In no way does that choice dictate what is and is not available or interpretable in the game.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...
The fact of the matter is that most players will redo a conversation if they didn't like the outcome and it's not too inconvenient.

Do you mean they'll redo the conversation if their own character did something unintended, or that they'll redo the conversation if they didn't like the NPCs' reactions?