260 réponses à ce sujet

[Merced256]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Back in my day FPS games were PC games developed by PC companies. The oversaturation of them has made them less popular.

But I wonder where those companies went.

What exactly are you implying? Theres even the remote possibility of RPG oversaturation, particularly for the PC?

[Onyx Jaguar]

Merced256 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Back in my day FPS games were PC games developed by PC companies. The oversaturation of them has made them less popular.

But I wonder where those companies went.

What exactly are you implying? Theres even the remote possibility of RPG oversaturation, particularly for the PC?

I'm implying that FPS don't make as much money as they use to

Only, completely random games given a huge marketing budget

How else would you explain the success of any of Sony's games.

Damn crazy ****, side scroller and a game where its just boss battles, wtf

and Ratchet and Clank, selling hte same game over and over again for 10 years

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 11 octobre 2010 - 02:29 .

[pizoxuat]

FPS games are less popular? Yeah, the Halo and Call of Duty series are weeping over their gigantic piles of money.

[Onyx Jaguar]

pizoxuat wrote...

FPS games are less popular? Yeah, the Halo and Call of Duty series are weeping over their gigantic piles of money.

Hooray two annual games

I mean yeah Wolfenstein, ACP and FEAR 2 sure fired up the charts like no ones business.  Selling so much that I am completely wrong in my assessment.

[Sidney]

Addai67 wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Heh. Just love it when people assume that their preferences are the center of the universe. Very mature. But I'm sure Bioware appreciates your attempts to help them realize their inner console kiddie.

Ya know, preferring to play roleplaying games does not make you 'better' than the 13 year old kid playing Gears of War.

And it's really sad that seem to think so. And funny.

It takes all kinds to make the world go round, but the poster I'm responding to would have us believe that the 13 year old playing Gears of War is where evolution is taking us and that all game makers must bow to his screechy demands.

Sadly in the end it is funny hear a video game forum so badly out of touch with who video gamers are. Gamers are in their mid-late 30's on average and I doubt any genre skews more or less heavily towards the teen demographic. I'm alone among the 30-40's I know who plays RPG's  and the rest of them play GoW, MW and the ilk so the 13 year old's screaming into their headets playing Halo might be annoying but they aren't who the game market is for.

[Merced256]

Sidney wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Vicious wrote...

Heh. Just love it when people assume that their preferences are the center of the universe. Very mature. But I'm sure Bioware appreciates your attempts to help them realize their inner console kiddie.

Ya know, preferring to play roleplaying games does not make you 'better' than the 13 year old kid playing Gears of War.

And it's really sad that seem to think so. And funny.

It takes all kinds to make the world go round, but the poster I'm responding to would have us believe that the 13 year old playing Gears of War is where evolution is taking us and that all game makers must bow to his screechy demands.

Sadly in the end it is funny hear a video game forum so badly out of touch with who video gamers are. Gamers are in their mid-late 30's on average and I doubt any genre skews more or less heavily towards the teen demographic. I'm alone among the 30-40's I know who plays RPG's  and the rest of them play GoW, MW and the ilk so the 13 year old's screaming into their headets playing Halo might be annoying but they aren't who the game market is for.

Its even more hilarious to see them state statistics with out any evidence at all. Oh by the way can we see your source? :innocent:

Modifié par Merced256, 11 octobre 2010 - 02:48 .

[Sidney]

Merced256 wrote...

Its even more hilarious to see them state statistics with out any evidence at all. Oh by the way can we see your source? :innocent:

Google search "average age of video gamer". Seriously you want me to cite sources on a MB for easily searched info?

[Onyx Jaguar]

Back when I was 13 playing Fallout I was really 37

[Dave of Canada]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Back when I was 13 playing Fallout I was really 37

Back when I was two playing Super Mario Bros and dying on the first goomba, I was also 37.

[Mecha Tengu]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...



I'm implying that FPS don't make as much money as they use to

wut, the average FPS sells for $60-80 plus moar worthless DLC such as weapons and costumes for $10

not to mention the fact that shooters now release with like 5 maps and sell 10 other maps for $5 each.....

as well as stories have been cut down and shortened, for more room for sequels and expansions

[Onyx Jaguar]

Mecha Tengu wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...



I'm implying that FPS don't make as much money as they use to

wut, the average FPS sells for $60-80 plus moar worthless DLC such as weapons and costumes for $10

not to mention the fact that shooters now release with like 5 maps and sell 10 other maps for $5 each.....

as well as stories have been cut down and shortened, for more room for sequels and expansions

I don't know what shooter this is, maybe Bioshock 2.  But even the annual big hitters sell map packs for much more than 5 bucks each.

Still Halo and COD are more outliers like the Starcraft and Command and Conquer of the RTS games (except as FPS games).  And of course once in a while a Valve game

You are not seeing the late 90s FPS war we had post Quake.

[Wrath of Bong]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I'm implying that FPS don't make as much money as they use to

You're wrong, it's not just the Halos and Call of Dutys that sells big, though you probably have a hard time naming a RPG that doesn't have the word Warcraft in it or some JRPG that can match their sales nowdays. There's Killzone 2, Battlefield Bad Company Series, Left 4 Dead series, first Bioshock and Resistance series. When the likes of Call Duty Black Ops, Medal of Honor, Rage, Killzone 3, Crysis 2 (now that's multiplatform!) and hopefuly, that military FPS that Bioware is developing (if rumors are true) we'll see just how much money FPS make.

Also, those making fun of Fable series, well, Fable II sold more than Dragon Age Origins and its only available for the 360, while DAO is multiplatform. So it's not out of line that I want the DA series to be a bit more like the Fable series.

Modifié par Wrath of Bong, 11 octobre 2010 - 05:24 .

[upsettingshorts]

Wrath of Bong wrote...
Also, those making fun of Fable series, well, Fable II sold more than Dragon Age Origins and its only available for the 360, while DAO is multiplatfo. So it's not out of line that I want the DA series to be a bit more like the Fable series.

Argumentum ad populum.

While your opinion is your own and you're welcome to it, the argument you use to support it is flawed.

[Wrath of Bong]

Oh, Upsettingshorts, stop being such a flamer.

[Rakumn]

Fable 2 also had the fable 1 crowd behind it. Xbox in general, too. Bioware had Baldur's Gate junkies, and I barely met anyone else other than myself and nearby store owner who played the game at the time it was released.Where as at the time Fable 2's released date got around, it was widespread.

Modifié par Rakumn, 11 octobre 2010 - 05:26 .

[upsettingshorts]

Wrath of Bong wrote...

Oh, Upsettingshorts, stop being such a flamer.

Ah, verbal abuse.

Playing bad arguments bingo are we?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 octobre 2010 - 05:28 .

[Icinix]

Hmm. I see the arguments before me, but I say to you dear folk: -



I want Dragon Age to be more like Dragon Age.



With the FPS I wait until they're budget titles now. Because I only get 5 hours of play time out of them. Except with COD Back Ops. I HAD to get that remote car.

Take note BioWare, I want a remote controlled Hammerhead / Mako.

[Finnegone]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Wrath of Bong wrote...
Also, those making fun of Fable series, well, Fable II sold more than Dragon Age Origins and its only available for the 360, while DAO is multiplatfo. So it's not out of line that I want the DA series to be a bit more like the Fable series.

Argumentum ad populum.

While your opinion is your own and you're welcome to it, the argument you use to support it is flawed.

By which Upsettingshorts means (and I'm not flaming here - nor, do I believe, was he - just expounding) is that your argument does not follow - that is, (and I'll ad lib here for effect) "Barbie Ferrari sold more than Dragon Age Origins and is only available to the very young or very creepy, while DAO is a video game. So it's not out of line that I want the DA series to be a bit more like Barbie Ferrari."

The argument itself is fallacious because it's built on the belief that, because Fable 2 was successful, DAO would be more successful if it incorporated elements of Fable 2.

When you compare two products with two different markets (Fable 2 and DAO, while they in general share the very broad "RPG" market, are really targeted at two different segments of that market - the casual player and the traditional RPGer), then you run the risk of trying to apply features / capabilities that worked on one product to another - even though they might not be appropriate for that audience. Fable 2, for example, had an exceedingly simplistic character development system, based on three stats and 8 or 9 spells. DAO fans - hardcore or non - would not accept that level of simplicity in their game.

[AlanC9]

Sidney wrote...
Sadly in the end it is funny hear a video game forum so badly out of touch with who video gamers are. Gamers are in their mid-late 30's on average and I doubt any genre skews more or less heavily towards the teen demographic. I'm alone among the 30-40's I know who plays RPG's  and the rest of them play GoW, MW and the ilk so the 13 year old's screaming into their headets playing Halo might be annoying but they aren't who the game market is for.

I'm surprised that people are surprised by this. People with families, careers, lives... a couple of hundred hours or so for an RPG is an awful lot to ask. Ten or twelve for an FPS' campaign plus the odd hour here and there for MP fits in a lot better.

Come to think of it, all the RPG players I know IRL are under 18.

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 octobre 2010 - 06:04 .

[AlanC9]

Wrath of Bong wrote...

Oh, Upsettingshorts, stop being such a flamer.

Dude, you made a bad argument. You got called on it. Deal.

[Merced256]

Finnegone wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Wrath of Bong wrote...
Also, those making fun of Fable series, well, Fable II sold more than Dragon Age Origins and its only available for the 360, while DAO is multiplatfo. So it's not out of line that I want the DA series to be a bit more like the Fable series.

Argumentum ad populum.

While your opinion is your own and you're welcome to it, the argument you use to support it is flawed.

By which Upsettingshorts means (and I'm not flaming here - nor, do I believe, was he - just expounding) is that your argument does not follow - that is, (and I'll ad lib here for effect) "Barbie Ferrari sold more than Dragon Age Origins and is only available to the very young or very creepy, while DAO is a video game. So it's not out of line that I want the DA series to be a bit more like Barbie Ferrari."

The argument itself is fallacious because it's built on the belief that, because Fable 2 was successful, DAO would be more successful if it incorporated elements of Fable 2.

When you compare two products with two different markets (Fable 2 and DAO, while they in general share the very broad "RPG" market, are really targeted at two different segments of that market - the casual player and the traditional RPGer), then you run the risk of trying to apply features / capabilities that worked on one product to another - even though they might not be appropriate for that audience. Fable 2, for example, had an exceedingly simplistic character development system, based on three stats and 8 or 9 spells. DAO fans - hardcore or non - would not accept that level of simplicity in their game.

I think most will concede that, but you also have to consider that DAO was no longer marketed as the spiritual successor to BG2 a little more than halfway through its dev cycle. Though it certainly did hold up to that kind of marketing, its arguable at best whether it will remain to be. Bioware has alluded to them wanting a bigger market share for DA than what they had gotten. This is where i think your line of "The argument itself is fallacious because it's built on the belief that,
because Fable 2 was successful, DAO would be more successful if it
incorporated elements of Fable 2." Becomes inconsistant. Your basis for this is that you are opperating under the assumed premiss that the two RPGs don't share an audience and one that isn't significant. So i guess we can disregard your own reasoning based upon the logical fallacy you brought forth to discredit his own.

After all i can bring up my own logical fallacy that a respectable number of people who played and enjoyed ME2 also enjoyed DAO, but to a lesser extent. So that dempographic would be welcoming to changes to the DA franchise that align with those that took place in ME2. What evidence can i provide? Exhibit: DA2. If i really wanted to push the issue i could assert that the aforementioned demographic is also more likely to enjoy Fable 2, and thus would even be welcoming to some of those features.

Basically everything anyone has every said without providing irrefutable evidence on the spot can and too often does fall under logical fallacy. Why? Because its just an excuse to completely dismiss an opinion valid or not.

[upsettingshorts]

Merced256 wrote...
Basically everything anyone has every said without providing irrefutable evidence on the spot can and too often does fall under logical fallacy. Why? Because its just an excuse to completely dismiss an opinion valid or not.

Though I get your point, that's not strictly what a logical fallacy is.  While I could conceivably skip through the forums pointing out every particular fallacy I run across - even some I use myself either due to laziness or some other reason - it would be petty and dismissive.  However, most fallacies used on this forum aren't so isolated, and simply taking them out of someone's larger argument only to point them out would be condescending.

However the example I pointed out on the other hand is a classical example of such a fallacy, and it was rather out in the open so to speak.  Furthermore it was used on its own to support his assertion, so my pointing it out to discredit his argument was fairly straightforward. 

Everyone has a right to their opinion, however some opinions are more convincing than others because they are expressed in a more effective and persuasive fashion.  That's what rhetoric is.  I don't begrudge people their opinions, but I would prefer - as my posts often attempt to make clear - that people put more effort in to supporting them.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 11 octobre 2010 - 06:38 .

[GodWood]

Wrath of Bong wrote...

Also, those making fun of Fable series, well, Fable II sold more than Dragon Age Origins and its only available for the 360, while DAO is multiplatfo. So it's not out of line that I want the DA series to be a bit more like the Fable series.

Excuse me while I go throw up.

[Aradace]

tmp7704 wrote...

Aradace wrote...

You're comparing chopping off one's penis to a VIDEO GAME.

No, i'm giving an example which rather clearly demonstrates that it is possible for reasonable human being to assess whether they will like a change without trying it first hand. And that they can have reasonable reasons to dislike a change. Your objection of "but it's VIDEO GAME" makes no sense, because it sounds like you are trying to say that because it's VIDEO GAME we mysteriously loose our ability to evaluate impact of changes in advance which we do have otherwise.

But fine, let's make argument limited to VIDEO GAMES. Imagine a game where your character always dies 10 seconds after you start. It's certainly a change from how the VIDEO GAMES normally do it. Are you going to insist that because it's VIDEO GAME one cannot tell in advance they wouldn't enjoy such change very much, and that they are just "afraid of it" and that they must try it first before they declare that hey, whaddyaknow, they indeed don't like it?

yea, I can actually.  Why? Because I havent played it yet and cannot completely judge it until I do.  Who knows, those could be the coolest 10 seconds in video game history.  Although unlikely, I still GIVE IT A CHANCE before judging it.  That's my point to begin with.  You people are afraid to even give it a chance and are automatically placing it on the "Zomfgwithbbqribsandfrenchfries this game suxx0rz because it's not a carbon copy of DA:O so let's not play it."  And by "you people" I mean those that are actually too damn scared to play the game.  Hell, BioWare themselves have even said at some point if memory serves about you guys being "Afraid of change".  And to be honest, with that said, you are clearly NOT the fanbase they are shooting for to begin with.  End of story.  It ultimately boils down to two choices:

A.) Suck it up and give the game a chance and stop freakin' judging it before you even play it
B.) Curl up in the fetal position in your geek corner, sucking your thumb and rocking back and forth while crying that DA2 isnt DA:O part 2.

Real simple,  because no amount of pissing and moaning at this point is going to get you what you want.

[0x30A88]

Let's just hope the game lives up to all the hype they're generating. The gameplay vid looked awesome.