317 réponses à ce sujet

[TheMadCat]

Walker White wrote...
But there have always been independent studios to cater to the niche markets.  If you want this type of stuff, there are plenty of indy games out there (there are many old-school RPGs in the indy space).  But if you want to play a AAA game, then it has to be something that is guaranteed to sell at least a million units.

The problem was that, for a while, it looked like the barrier of entry had gotten too high for the indies.  However, with things like X-Box Live Arcade and the like, we have appeared to turn a corner.  Indies are thriving again and this is where we are seeing a lot of the innovation these days.

There have always been AAA titles, I have been able to play AAA titles since the dawn of videogames. An AAA title is just a game that has a larger budget and marketing machine behind it then the current average for a game. AAA titles are no indication of quality, success, or even status, hell it can actually be a detriment since it requires watering down to accomdate more of the various demographics.

But to your point, I'm not talking about Indy developers and titles solely. The definition of indy is a developer who releases a product without a publisher. I'm talking about established companies who have been around for years, living solely off of a niche audience. Companies that while not pumping out budgets with 9 figures manage to put together solid packages and turn a very good profit, even achieving the same things AAA titles can and sometimes even more.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 09 février 2011 - 03:10 .

[StingingVelvet]

I like Call of Duty... the first one and the fourth one, anyway... and I like Mass Effect as a shooter/RPG hybrid. That doesn't mean I want ALL games to be like that though, at all, even a little bit.



We need to have shooter RPGs and tactical RPGs and turn-based RPGs and clicky-clicky Diablo RPGs and... etc. etc.. If that means less sales for some games then fine, just budget accordingly. I think the real issue with gaming right now is that every "mainstream" game needs the same modern graphics and budget. Think about movies... they make niche movies and mainstream movies but the budgets are vastly different. Why not do the same with RPGs? Why not have Bioware put 100 people on Mass Effect 3 and 10 people on an isometric RPG for iPhone and PC?



EA is too focused on the massive success if you ask me, and this quote reflects that perspective.

[Sir Caradoc]

Nowdays Bioware is just trying to please every segment of possible customerbase. I don't think thats working prettty well.  To action fans bioware games too slow and scripted. To rpg fans same games lack depth, exploration and strategy they desire. Bioware is  just repeating Jade empire fiasko once again. Storytelling is great though and I love the settings, but gameplay side not so much. I'm sad because DAO was like a spark of light in midst of darkness. But when they dumbed down mass effect 2, my hopes began to diminish. I'm sure i'm going to buy da2 later, but not at the release day. Not anymore.

Only group who is entirely happy are casuals.

I remember the good old days when bioware devs  spoke openly about dragon age orgins, and how it was meant to bring  classic party rpg back in the spotlight or how it would define the genre like baldur's gates did back in the day.  They were indeed right and DAO turned out to be one of the best rpgs i've played and it moved the  genre forward.
So what do they do now? They speak how DAO was a failure. Like the classic rpg stuff was holding them back to fullfilling their vision. Its like a betrayal. I like shooters occansionally, but. those aren't rpgs though which I love the most.


I'm eager to play da2, but sadly all those sketchy marketing  moves are begin to tire me. They just leave a bad taste in a mouth. I'm glad that I had bough Special edition of dao so I didn't have to suffer  their agressive in-game advertisement campaign of Varden's keep. Nonetheless it reduced my joy a bit as well, knowing how low bioware had
declined.


Its a shame indeed.

Modifié par Sir Caradoc, 09 février 2011 - 10:24 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Sir Caradoc wrote...

So what do they do now? They speak how DAO was a failure. Like the classic rpg stuff was holding them back to fullfilling their vision. Its like a betrayal. I like shooters occansionally, but. those aren't rpgs though which I love the most.

When has BioWare ever said they hated Origins or any of their past games? Just because they see the flaws in their own games (since, you know, they made them are are entitled to thinking they are flaws) does not mean they hate them.

It's possible for someone to be objective about something they created.

[Altima Darkspells]

Mercurious wrote...
They have yet to miss with an RPG for me.

Out of morbid curiousity, did you happen to play Sonic Chronicles?

Icinix wrote...

Meh. I love games.

All games.

Don't know about you, but I couldn't stand Superman 64.

Inarborat wrote...

Sure, why not? That demographic eats up $15 map packs.

Like how we're supposed to eat up EA's $5-$15 DLC?

Inarborat wrote...

Fallout 3 and New Vegas weren't rpgs? Non rpg games have had leveling up ability features for a long, long time. Kind of silly they're just now noticing that.

New Vegas is an RPG because Obsidian made it, and they don't make anything but RPGs.  Hell, they even called Alpha Protocol an 'espionage RPG' instead of anything else.  That took big ole testicles.

[Sir Caradoc]

I don't think they hate their games and I sure hope that they are objective. I'm just saying that classic rpg stuff is what I like and i'm dissapointed that classic rpg isn't their thing anymore. Not saying bioware games aren't fun or anything, but I just don't expect da 2 to be as memorable as DAO was

Modifié par Sir Caradoc, 09 février 2011 - 10:43 .

[FellowerOfOdin]

Sir Caradoc wrote...

I don't think they hate their games and I sure hope that they are objective. I'm just saying that classic rpg stuff is what I like and i'm dissapointed that classic rpg isn't their thing anymore. Not saying bioware games aren't fun or anything, but I just don't expect da 2 to be as memorable as DAO was

It's very hard for a successor to be as good or even better than the first installment of a series. ME is a good example. While the first one had similar problems as DA:O aka a few rough edges, Bioware tried to round them in the second installment. The typical dumb-down mistakes were made (ie no inventory) but overall, it's just as good as the first one and even better to me...far better. No ****ing Mako, thank you so much Bioware. Thank. You. So. Much.

Unlike Dragon Age, however, Mass Effect kept to its rather grim, dark style with interesting characters. The same style was carried over to the second game and it was made even darker, visuals were improved by a whole lot and in the end, Bioware did a great job.

With DA2, however, we see a different approach. Bioware seems to get away from the rough, realistic style in Origins and tries a rather casual approach by trying to satisfy everyone. Graphics do not or hardly get improved (spare me the OHSHINYNEWLIGHTING please, in the trailers we yet saw, graphics were NOT state of the art and this is not personal opinion folks, they are really dated by now.), companions are wildly mixed and you end up with a circus squad with characters who certainly would not be the first guys I'd call to save the world (gay emo or muscled rambo? Choice made.). Honestly, hate me, but I do see some JRPG references - supposed-to-be heroes who do not look like ones...Square RPGs usually have those. And what do we get? A child, a gay emo and a milksop...again, that's like calling the Power Rangers instead of the Expendables.

DA2 won't be a bad game. It will still sell well mostly because of the first part's good reputation and because it's Bioware making the game and Bioware just...can't fail. Similar to Blizzard although they still are #1...yeesh, they got a pact with the devil or sth....seriously. It's just that I don't see DA2 in the same row as Baldur's Gate anymore...we went from a credible fantasy world to...this. More comic relief? **** no. 

Bah, too much rant. I'll buy DA2 anyway with the UE, just to see how my decisions turn out and at release, I borrow the game from a friend (working in shifts ftw!) and read the rest on Dragon Age Wiki. It will be a good Bioware. Good, but not great.

[StingingVelvet]

Sir Caradoc wrote...

I remember the good old days when bioware devs  spoke openly about dragon age orgins, and how it was meant to bring  classic party rpg back in the spotlight or how it would define the genre like baldur's gates did back in the day.  They were indeed right and DAO turned out to be one of the best rpgs i've played and it moved the  genre forward.
So what do they do now? They speak how DAO was a failure. Like the classic rpg stuff was holding them back to fullfilling their vision. Its like a betrayal. I like shooters occansionally, but. those aren't rpgs though which I love the most.

I think you echo the thoughts of a lot of the PC and old-school community.  The really annoying aspect of it is that Dragon Age was a success... great reviews, great sales.  I mentioned that on PCgamer.com the other day, when they did a preview of Dragon Age 2 that acted like DA:O was a terrible game that needed fixing.  I said "didn't you guys give this a 92%, call it PC game of the year and praise it endlessly?  Why is it suddenly a piece of crap?"

In any event we all know the reason, they want greater mainstream sales and have been quite honest about it.  As I said in my previous post though, why not just have a smaller budget for titles that might "only" sell 3 million copies?  Why does everything have to be a mainstream blockbuster just because EA is publishing it?  Is every Warner Bros. movie a 200 million dollar summer blockbuster?  No.

[FellowerOfOdin]

StingingVelvet wrote...


In any event we all know the reason, they want greater mainstream sales and have been quite honest about it.  As I said in my previous post though, why not just have a smaller budget for titles that might "only" sell 3 million copies?  Why does everything have to be a mainstream blockbuster just because EA is publishing it?  Is every Warner Bros. movie a 200 million dollar summer blockbuster?  No.

I like blockbusters

Take me as an example. I don't have much time for playing due to studying + 2 jobs thus I rather play a few very good games than a lot of  cheaper, less satisfying ones. I curently have 3 games installed: CoD Black Ops, DA:Origins and Mass Effect 2. All AAA games. 1 FPS, 1 RPG, 1 FPS / RPG hybrid aka interactive story...all great games, nice replayability, a lot of fun even if you only got 1 hour to play a day. 

I like emotional games and a game with good writers, interesting characters and good music ie. from Immediate (too awesome, seriously. Epic.) help a lot...and they also cost a lot.

It would be awesome for the gaming market if we had less developers and more AAA games - quality before quantity anytime.

[DPB]

StingingVelvet wrote...

As I said in my previous post though, why not just have a smaller budget for titles that might "only" sell 3 million copies?

The answer to this is that it's very unlikely that DAO was produced on a small budget. >5 years of development and a staff that numbers hundreds hardly sounds cheap to me.

[AlanC9]

Sir Caradoc wrote...

Nowdays Bioware is just trying to please every segment of possible customerbase. I don't think thats working prettty well.  To action fans bioware games too slow and scripted. To rpg fans same games lack depth, exploration and strategy they desire. Bioware is  just repeating Jade empire fiasko once again. Storytelling is great though and I love the settings, but gameplay side not so much. I'm sad because DAO was like a spark of light in midst of darkness. But when they dumbed down mass effect 2, my hopes began to diminish. I'm sure i'm going to buy da2 later, but not at the release day. Not anymore.

Only group who is entirely happy are casuals.

This is based on.... what? You know what "RPG fans" think? What "action fans" think?

[AlanC9]

Sir Caradoc wrote...

I don't think they hate their games and I sure hope that they are objective. I'm just saying that classic rpg stuff is what I like and i'm dissapointed that classic rpg isn't their thing anymore. Not saying bioware games aren't fun or anything, but I just don't expect da 2 to be as memorable as DAO was

What's missing for DA2 to be a "classic RPG"? Playing dolly-dress-up with the companions is an absolute requirement?

[Meltemph]

It just pains me when I see developers moaning about high budgets for games and how they need to sell several million to be successful.

Umm, why? This is why more people can get jobs in that industry.

Why not try some more mid range game? Not some dinky facebook game, but have BioWare make some more old school iso view BG style RPGs, that sacrifice some of the mainstream bells and whistles and VO- but present an experience that while maybe viewed as "niche" wouldn't need to sell a billion copies to break even.

In other words you are trying to find a producer to make a product you like... Ya, you wouldn't need the same amount of investment, but you also wouldn't need the same amount of workers, not a good trade off for them, I would imagine, and only works out for those in the "niche".

Epic tried to do what you are talking about, game didn't do so hot monetarily.

Its like every game made by a big developer needs to be the equivalent of some summer blockbuster movie and as a result, they end up playing it safe and doing whatever it was the other big selling game did.

A lot of assumptions here, but... Blockbusters pay the most amount of people and gives the most amount of people a product they want, I don't see how that is a bad thing unless you are a niche consumer, but then, I would say that you are looking at the wrong product/producer to get what you want. But to try and call out people's developing ability jsut because "you don't like it" just comes off as arrogant.

I think in trying to reach out for some mythical "mainstream" audience, devs might be leaving behind other groups of gamers whose money is just as viable as Mr. Call of Duty or World of Warcraft. Sometimes it would seem best to just make a damn good game for one audience instead of spreading it too thin in some attempt to capture everyone and satisfying no one.

You are making assumptions that they are not trying to make a "damn good game". You seem to based your entire premise on your own personal desires and then judge a producers development solely on your wants.

Why not just come out and say "make a game for ME", instead of trying to "soapbox" a point.

Modifié par Meltemph, 09 février 2011 - 11:36 .

[CG50]

OMG that dwarf is such a noob! Headshot biatch! my arrow pwned you! FIREBALL NUKE!

[AlanC9]

Meltemph wrote...
In other words you are trying to find a producer to make a product you like... Ya you wouldn't need the same amount of investment, but you also wouldn't need the same amount of workers, not a good trade off for them, I would imagine and only works out for those in the "niche". 

Hey, there's nothing wrong with wanting niche products if you're a niche consumer.

Expecting Bio to be interested in being a niche producer is hopelessly confused, but a little wishful thinking never hurt anyone.

[Harid]

This has likely been said, but this has been obvious since KOTOR.

[Meltemph]

Hey, there's nothing wrong with wanting niche products if you're a niche consumer.



Expecting Bio to be interested in being a niche producer is hopelessly confused, but a little wishful thinking never hurt anyone.

Of course there is no "harm" in it, but I don't have to agree with the premise of it either. I happen to enjoy what they are currently or have been doing, so I would have every reason to not wan't bioware to try and move to the "niche".

[StingingVelvet]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

I like blockbusters

Take me as an example. I don't have much time for playing due to studying + 2 jobs thus I rather play a few very good games than a lot of  cheaper, less satisfying ones. I curently have 3 games installed: CoD Black Ops, DA:Origins and Mass Effect 2. All AAA games. 1 FPS, 1 RPG, 1 FPS / RPG hybrid aka interactive story...all great games, nice replayability, a lot of fun even if you only got 1 hour to play a day. 

I like emotional games and a game with good writers, interesting characters and good music ie. from Immediate (too awesome, seriously. Epic.) help a lot...and they also cost a lot.

It would be awesome for the gaming market if we had less developers and more AAA games - quality before quantity anytime.

I don't associate large budgets with quality games by direct correlation.

[StingingVelvet]

dbankier wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

As I said in my previous post though, why not just have a smaller budget for titles that might "only" sell 3 million copies?

The answer to this is that it's very unlikely that DAO was produced on a small budget. >5 years of development and a staff that numbers hundreds hardly sounds cheap to me.

I didn't say it was... ?  My point was if Dragon Age sells 3 million then budget for 3 million and make that game, rather than try to sell 10 million and make a worse game.

Warner Bros. knows a drama will only make X amount of dollars while a blockbuster action movie will make X+Y amount of dollars and they budget accordingly.  I would like to see that happen with games.  I guess it is a console thing that every game on the Xbox 360 needs to look "next-gen" or whatever, but I don't really care about that crap as a PC gamer.  Just make a good game for your audience and budget it based on the size of that audience, then make profit and good games.

Modifié par StingingVelvet, 09 février 2011 - 11:49 .

[Meltemph]

I don't associate large budgets with quality games by direct correlation.

Sure, all the indie and low budget XBL/PSN/STEAM games that come out can be very satisfying, but not on the same level as a large budget, well made, game, imo.



Now I have a couple RL friends who only currently purchase indie titles, because they are more "pure, but then, I would compare them to my "movie snob" friends I have either. It's great that there are people who really support those types of titles, but it does tend to get a little annoying when that same crowed actively judges those who like the "mainstream" games a lot, like niche is some form of excellence that must be paid tribute.



Now obviously you have the other side of the argument that views niche as a form of social pariah, but rarely is that pov brought up. It is normally the niche claiming to have a better idea then the developers themselves.

[Noilly Prat]

StingingVelvet wrote...


I didn't say it was... ?  My point was if Dragon Age sells 3 million then budget for 3 million and make that game, rather than try to sell 10 million and make a worse game.

Warner Bros. knows a drama will only make X amount of dollars while a blockbuster action movie will make X+Y amount of dollars and they budget accordingly.  I would like to see that happen with games.  I guess it is a console thing that every game on the Xbox 360 needs to look "next-gen" or whatever, but I don't really care about that crap as a PC gamer.  Just make a good game for your audience and budget it based on the size of that audience, then make profit and good games.

This is true, and I partly agree, but it's also true that bigger games with bigger sales yield bigger profits, even accounting for their bigger budgets.  It's like the videogame industry corollary to Henry Ford II's famous remark about how minicars make miniprofits.

For my part, I don't really care whether a game I'm playing gives a big- or small-budget experience, so long as it gives a fun experience.  If BioWare can keep making great games that also sell in huge numbers, that's fine by me.

[eyesofastorm]

Noilly Prat wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...


I didn't say it was... ?  My point was if Dragon Age sells 3 million then budget for 3 million and make that game, rather than try to sell 10 million and make a worse game.

Warner Bros. knows a drama will only make X amount of dollars while a blockbuster action movie will make X+Y amount of dollars and they budget accordingly.  I would like to see that happen with games.  I guess it is a console thing that every game on the Xbox 360 needs to look "next-gen" or whatever, but I don't really care about that crap as a PC gamer.  Just make a good game for your audience and budget it based on the size of that audience, then make profit and good games.

This is true, and I partly agree, but it's also true that bigger games with bigger sales yield bigger profits, even accounting for their bigger budgets.  It's like the videogame industry corollary to Henry Ford II's famous remark about how minicars make miniprofits.

For my part, I don't really care whether a game I'm playing gives a big- or small-budget experience, so long as it gives a fun experience.  If BioWare can keep making great games that also sell in huge numbers, that's fine by me.

Big budget denotes a big risk though which explains why big budget games must be more and more mainstream.  More and more mainstream games in the AAA space means a trend towards homogenization.  When this happens, everybody loses eventually.

[s0meguy6667]

Translation: If we dumb our games down more, we may attract more id-iots.

[MKDAWUSS]

Video games were far more profitable in the '90s than they are today.

[Jzadek72]

s0meguy6667 wrote...

Translation: If we dumb our games down more, we may attract more id-iots.

You're translation can further be transalated to: "I like having people to feel superior to."

I love RPGs, and don't get nearly the same fulfilment out of shooters. That does NOT make shooter players idiots. Swallow your hubris and accept this.