409 réponses à ce sujet

[Melca36]

Let me tell you a story about rabid fan bases....



There was one a GREAT game called No One Lives Forever: The Operative. It was not a big game but it did have a loyal following and sold enough to warrant a sequel.



Two years later in 2002, No One Lives Forever 2 came out....It got great reviews but the half of the loyal fanbase for the first game HATED it while the other half **loved** it.



The fan community fractured as a result. Each side thought they were right.



Cut to a year later, and the gaming company released a sequel called Contract Jack which was a piece of garbage that flopped critically and was in the bargain bin 6 months later but it also divided the fans.





Fans are not always right.

[AlanC9]

MerinTB wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Oh, gods... only the "true fans" should count?

If that's in response to me, you aren't actually responding to what I'm saying at all.

Nope -- rabidnahar. I hadn't noticed you slipped in between us or I'd have put a quote in.

[iampool]

My first playthrough tends to be an elf mage in most of the games i can pick race. But i really loved Orc warriors in NWN, especially with low intelligence, since they could not even speak right, it was awesome, that kind of blowd my mind back there.

[AlanC9]

Melca36 wrote...

Two years later in 2002, No One Lives Forever 2 came out....It got great reviews but the half of the loyal fanbase for the first game HATED it while the other half **loved** it.

Way OT, but what was supposed to have been wrong with NOLF 2?

[David Gaider]

AlanC9 wrote...
My problem with this is that I can think of a few games with rabid fanbases that nevertheless failed to attract a mass audience.

The "rabid fanbase" can indeed act as an evangelist and be a boon-- potentially, since as you point out it's not always going to translate into actual sales, and I suspect at times a very rabid fanbase can be off-putting to some (who are no doubt undeserving orangutans, yes yes). There's also the double-edged sword of the anti-evangelist when members of the rabid fanbase turn feelings of investment and ownership into actual entitlement. I can think of a few titles with fanbases that would qualify as such.

At any rate, I'd be careful before someone declares such a group all sunshine and roses-- and characterizes everyone else as undiscerning and unwilling to parse their purchases intelligently. That's oversimplification either way.

EDIT: And this subject is indeed Off Topic. It's a very tenuous connection to try to tie this to the topic, so I'd suggest starting a new thread if you want to discuss it further.

Modifié par David Gaider, 25 janvier 2011 - 07:35 .

[Emyer]

rabidhanar wrote...

Nothing against this thread...
I did not think the discussion was off topic because this topic is one reason they made as to why the other races were not available.

I as well as others think that this Percentage they have given is not accurate of the true fans of the game...The data is given for all players that played the game, not just from the forums. What race the people who are not on the forums (not the loyal fanbase perhaps?) play does not have any meaning compared to what we select few chose as our warden. Some of us liked humans, some liked elves, and some like dwarves...I do not believe that the reasoning behind roleplaying as Hawke was sound. (No offense devs, I just like my fantasy rpg with different types of races to choose between).

I play ME and ME2 to be a human, being a human in a fantasy setting when so many interesting races or species could be chosen is to me a waste of time. My opinion, sorry if it angers you, I am just annoyed tha I could not be a dwarf.

The "not true fans" pay the same price for the game as you did and in an age where a big game is a multimillion dollar project you can't cater just to the hardcore niche, sometimes it works, Demon's Souls was a game that gained fame only through positive reviews and a grassroots effort but most times it doesn't.

You're also jumping the gun by saying that the telemetry data was what made them commit to a single race which isn't true as far as I know, I think a dev in this thread even said that it wasn't.

[MerinTB]

AlanC9 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Oh, gods... only the "true fans" should count?

If that's in response to me, you aren't actually responding to what I'm saying at all.

Nope -- rabidnahar. I hadn't noticed you slipped in between us or I'd have put a quote in.

Ok, good...

because I'm not saying "fans" or "hardcord" are always right.

Buried in my mountain of text is the statement that you do NOT ask the "hardcore" what they want, you MARKET at them.

You WANT as many to buy as possible.  You HOPE that a majority of those purchases are content with the purchase.  You WISH that close to half the purchases LOVE the product.

But you cannot try and target "a majority" as there's actually no consensus in a majority on almost anything.  You target the gamers who make or break games, and that's your best strategy.  It won't always work, but it's got a better chance than the virtual coin-flip that is trying to appeal to the "mainstream".

[rabidhanar]

Emyer, please look at my EDIT, thanks.



I do not know if this was the only reasoning...or even a reason to begin with. I just find that this thread is justification for romoval of the other races.

[MerinTB]

David Gaider wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
My problem with this is that I can think of a few games with rabid fanbases that nevertheless failed to attract a mass audience.

The "rabid fanbase" can indeed act as an evangelist and be a boon-- potentially, since as you point out it's not always going to translate into actual sales, and I suspect at times a very rabid fanbase can be off-putting to some (who are no doubt undeserving orangutans, yes yes). There's also the double-edged sword of the anti-evangelist when members of the rabid fanbase turn feelings of investment and ownership into actual entitlement. I can think of a few titles with fanbases that would qualify as such.

At any rate, I'd be careful before someone declares such a group all sunshine and roses-- and characterizes everyone else as undiscerning or uncaring... or unintelligent. That's oversimplification either way.

I did specifically say that the majority made spur of the moment decisions but was careful to also say that it didn't mean they weren't discerning.

And there's a bad blending of "trend setters" and "fan base" that I'm as guilty of making as anyone else.

You don't make a game for what the "fan base" or "hardcore" SAYS they want.  You make a game that will satisfy them, that they will happily buy.  And, yes, there is a difference.

I want 6 party members that I build myself.  Yet I happily buy Mass Effect.  I know what I think I want, and yet I enjoy what is given to me as it satisfies what I'm looking for instead of sticking to what I think makes me enjoy a game.



Last time and then I'll shut up -

Marketing to "trend setters" != making a niche game for a niche "loyal fanbase"

---

Also not mentioned is how something too popular always generates backlash, a counter-culture -like affect (those who hate Joss Whedon just because many of his fans are very vocal about being fans, or how many guys hate Twilight almost solely based on how some female fans act about the books, etc.)

Modifié par MerinTB, 25 janvier 2011 - 07:38 .

[HopHazzard]

AlanC9 wrote...

Oh, gods... only the "true fans" should count?

Seriously. If they tailored their games to the wishes of just the people who post on the forum, everyone here would still say it sucked, and no one else would play it at all.

[Maria Caliban]

MerinTB wrote...

But you cannot try and target "a majority" as there's actually no consensus in a majority on almost anything.

Really? 80% of ME 2 users played soldier. I'm going to guess the majority consensus is 'we like to play soldiers.'

The majority of DA:O players played human noble or human mage. Are you telling me there's no consensus there? Nothing BioWare might be able to take from that on the tastes of the majority?

[AlanC9]

MerinTB wrote...

Again, the trick is you have to make something the "hardcore" will like and cheer whilst STILL be accessible and fun for a mainstream audience.

What you want to avoid is trying to do the reverse.

Don't confuse me saying that you need to market towards the trend setters as meaning that you should find a niche and make a game that only that niche could like.

Sure -- but then we have the problem of the hardcore fans themselves disagreeing over what's important in a game. As I figure you've seen here, DAO fans often disagree, violently, about what was good about the game.

This might actually be an argument for just doing the same thing over and over again, rather than risk offending some faction. I'm not quite prepared to go there yet.

[_Aine_]

MerinTB wrote...

But you cannot try and target "a majority" as there's actually no consensus in a majority on almost anything.  You target the gamers who make or break games, and that's your best strategy.  It won't always work, but it's got a better chance than the virtual coin-flip that is trying to appeal to the "mainstream".

or you water down what was unique and it is indeed then mainstream, it may even make record sales but all in all not be a memorable game that makes you yearn for a sequel.    What works for one title and set of fans/gamers may backfire on another group also.  Sometimes, it is only time that will tell what works and what doesn't.  

In the end, any game company probably wants # of sales first, with longevity kept in mind.  I *personally* see uniqueness as increasing longevity as opposed to mainstream ( although they also are not a "one or the other" thing either) but that is simply my opinion. What I see as a key ingredient in a series of games, could be considered icing that could be replaced with a different sort of garnish.  WHo knows.   DAII is one game in a good handful of games I am eager for.   Sometimes I think people consider many of the comments here to be as a voice of a minority *simply* because we post here ( which the majority who play the games do not ).  It may be true, it may also be true that we could be representative of a decent number of *repeat* customers, who care enough to come back to see what the next installment has in store.  



Information is always valuable in making decisions.  The knowledge that you can't possibly know which data makes or breaks a game? Or the data that you *don't* see?  Perhaps just as important.   What is that saying in regards to food.... like another sense that encompasses more than just the smell, touch or taste... (ah forget it, i"m sick and my brain won't work. Aha! UMAMI is the word.  Means a bit different,but there you have it.) 

I am fine with playing a human and am sure the game, if past standard means anything, will be fantastic.  Will it be as memorable, varied, replayable and enduring, all of the above?  Won't know until we try it I guess  I'm counting the days to have an actual tromp through it.  

Modifié par shantisands, 25 janvier 2011 - 08:40 .

[Melca36]

AlanC9 wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Two years later in 2002, No One Lives Forever 2 came out....It got great reviews but the half of the loyal fanbase for the first game HATED it while the other half **loved** it.

Way OT, but what was supposed to have been wrong with NOLF 2?

First game came out in 2000 and the second game removed some elements from the first game and improved on elements that remained in the game. People either loved it or hated it.

[Maria Caliban]

We're assuming that the tastes of the minority are reflective of quality, which isn't true at all.



Most BioWare fans on the forum *hated* the concept of Origins. Would DA:O have been better if BioWare has scrapped that feature and simply made a Neverwinter Nights like opening where you 'could be anyone?'

[MerinTB]

Maria Caliban wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

But you cannot try and target "a majority" as there's actually no consensus in a majority on almost anything.

Really? 80% of ME 2 users played soldier. I'm going to guess the majority consensus is 'we like to play soldiers.'

The majority of DA:O players played human noble or human mage. Are you telling me there's no consensus there? Nothing BioWare might be able to take from that on the tastes of the majority?

Correlation is not causation.  Let me give you a statistic -

the vast majority of people who eat rice have black hair.

Let me take that correlation and make what on the surface seems an absolutely reasonable supposition -

Eating rice causes black hair.

Let me make another.

Having black hair means you like rice.

---

Trying to use what you brought up, let's try this -

Sam Worthington was a lead in Terminator Salvation.  Not very well received by critics or fans.  It cost upwards of $200 million to make, and brought in only about $125 million domestically.

Absolutely reasonable supposition - Sam Worthington doesn't sell sci-fi movies.  Don't use him again.

Sam Worthington was a lead in Avatar.  VERY well received by critics and fans.  It's production value is not revealed, but a good guess would say it's not more than $300 million.  It made over $700 million domestically.

Absolutely reasonable supposition - Sam Worthington sells better in more of a fantasy kind of movie.  Use him again!

Sam Worthington was the lead in Clash of the Titans.  Poorly received by critics, mixed by fans.  Cost $125 million,  domestic gross $165 million.

Absolutely reasonable suppostion - Sam Worthington does good in 3D films.

All those suppositions?  Probably not right.  Most critical analysis of those films would note that their relative success and failure had little to do with 3D, genre nor the lead actor... even if they were factors.

---

So, yes, the majority played the soldier.  Does that mean Splinter Cell sells poorly?  Or does it mean that the majority of the best selling games are shooters and that the mainstream gamer base is used to shooters and therefore played what they were most used to - male soldiers?

As Mr. Gaider said himself before, you can see the numbers but actually drawing conclusions on the reasons for the numbers is probably a waste of time.

Would eliminating the dwarf as a playable race lose you no players from DA:O to DA2, or lose the 5% who played dwarves, lose more as even though they didn't play dwarf they liked the option... or some odd number of the 5% who played dwarves but only dwarves (what, we'll say 2% of players just for arguments sake)?

You can't know.  Even polling the dwarf players or dwarf-only players would not let you know.  As I'm sure BioWare knows and is banking on, you can ask people "will you play if it's only a human race choice in character creation" and you'll get a big number saying "no" but of that number many will anyway.

So drawing any hard conclusions from the 80% played soldier is an exercise in folly and fallacy.  All that number tells you is that 80% played soldiers, not why or what that means for the game overall.

Modifié par MerinTB, 25 janvier 2011 - 08:01 .

[rabidhanar]

Like Merin, I believe that submitting to the fanbase is the safest course to take...Yes majority is always going to give more sales, but your fanbase (even if they are wrong) will want a game to be a certain way. If the fanbase disappears, the developers are forced to rely on the majority that might or might not purchase the game all on the whim or spur of the moment decisions.

You steer towards the fans, you keep them and perhaps gain more followers, you alienate your fans and you might either gain a huge increase of revenue or gain no money whatsoever for the project. Your revenue is then set on a gamble that can go one way or another. In particular to mellow a game when some places are in a recession (America) and gamers buy games that they enjoy more then what the reviews/social grouping like at the current times. Bioware is risking much on this gamble, I do not want to see DA lost forever due to a decision.

EDIT: As to how replayable the game will be, I cannot say...But I can say this. No matter how replayable a game is, more options are always good for replayability. Whether it is cosmetic changes (another armor set you can pick, race, gender, class), roleplaying decisions (X or Y, never both), or gameplay changes (DLC, expansions, difficulty) these things give more replayability. Whether a player believes that the option is worth replaying the game in order to choose is a matter of opinion.

Modifié par rabidhanar, 25 janvier 2011 - 08:03 .

[Maria Caliban]

MerinTB wrote...

Correlation is not causation.  Let me give you a statistic -

the vast majority of people who eat rice have black hair.

Let me take that correlation and make what on the surface seems an absolutely reasonable supposition -

Eating rice causes black hair.

Let me make another.

Having black hair means you like rice.

Yes, suggesting that 80% of the people who play a game play a soldier because that class appeals to them is akin to suggesting that rice causes black hair.

[Xayasha]

Maria Caliban wrote...

We're assuming that the tastes of the minority are reflective of quality, which isn't true at all.

I agree, it's something that is just assumed by said minority most of the time. 

It's almost like majority=can't possibly know what they are all talking about, we must help them see the light.
I didn't mean that as an isult to this specific community, it's just something I see in general with anything really...bands/fashion/movies/plays/etc.

[MerinTB]

Maria Caliban wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Correlation is not causation.  Let me give you a statistic -

the vast majority of people who eat rice have black hair.

Let me take that correlation and make what on the surface seems an absolutely reasonable supposition -

Eating rice causes black hair.

Let me make another.

Having black hair means you like rice.

Yes, suggesting that 80% of the people who play a game play a soldier because that class appeals to them is akin to suggesting that rice causes black hair.

Strawman.

I never said that one was like the other.  I said - "correlation is not causation" and gave you a blatantly easy to understand example of that - an example that I didn't make up but borrowed as I think it's a simple to understand example of why correlation is not causation.

No, it's akin to saying that $700+ million in ticket sales for a movie with Sam Worthington as a lead means that Sam Worthington as a lead will give you big blockbuster profits.

You'll note right after I gave my "correlation is not causation example" I put a divider ( ---- ) and then said "Trying to use what you brought up, let's try this -"

So you misquoted me and attributed a bad analogy to me where I didn't even try to make an analogy.

---

And you wonder why I don't like communicating with you?

[Elite Midget]

You guys do know that DAII appears to be under a much quicker development cycle over DA: O, right? They spent all that time on O yet so few bothered to play anything but a Human Male Warrior. They're merely cutting their loses when possible.



It's the same reason that we didn't have Gay, Dwarf, Darkspawn, Dog, or whatever LIs in O and why Awakening had no LIs.



Cost effeciency plays a huge part on what can, should, and will be done.

[rabidhanar]

Elite Midget wrote...

You guys do know that DAII appears to be under a much quicker development cycle over DA: O, right? They spent all that time on O yet so few bothered to play anything but a Human Male Warrior. They're merely cutting their loses when possible.

It's the same reason that we didn't have Gay, Dwarf, Darkspawn, Dog, or whatever LIs in O and why Awakening had no LIs.

Cost effeciency plays a huge part on what can, should, and will be done.

yeah all these games being rushed has been quite eye opening..The glitches, the bugs rampent everywhere, scary information regardign games for the future.

My question is why cut them though, The models are already in use....NPC's have them, why can't we?

[Malanek]

Elite Midget wrote...
It's the same reason that we didn't have Gay, Dwarf, Darkspawn, Dog, or whatever LIs in O and why Awakening had no LIs.

Cost effeciency plays a huge part on what can, should, and will be done.

Oh, I was perplexed as to why these were absent.

If they had only had a few more days.

Modifié par Malanek999, 25 janvier 2011 - 08:13 .

[Eudaemonium]

Elite Midget wrote...

You guys do know that DAII appears to be under a much quicker development cycle over DA: O, right? They spent all that time on O yet so few bothered to play anything but a Human Male Warrior. They're merely cutting their loses when possible.

It's the same reason that we didn't have Gay, Dwarf, Darkspawn, Dog, or whatever LIs in O and why Awakening had no LIs.

Cost effeciency plays a huge part on what can, should, and will be done.

I'm going to assume by 'gay' you mean exclusively gay, because otherwise we did have a gay LI in Origins: His name was Zevran.