317 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

Carfax wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

It does if you need money to make games. If the old fashioned RPGs are just not selling then it is better to have action RPGs than none.

The Witcher had very strong RPG elements, moreso than DAO in some respects, and it sold very well considering it was PC platform only and CDProjekt Red is a budding developer.

As I mentioned earlier, there is still a large market for hardcore RPGs.  But most gamers are reluctant to spend 60 or 70 hours on a game; particularly a game like DAO that has way too much grind.

Orzammar was like torture.  It just kept going on and on and on.....

I don't know why anyone thinks the witcher is a better rpg than dragon age. Having played the witcher I could come up with a couple of reasons but I better not because I endanger myself of violating forum rules (again).

[Saphara]

AlexXIV wrote...

Saphara wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Unbelievably, it's possible to enjoy more than one type of game. I know, I know. It's crazy, and it flies right in the face of the idea that 'everyone who enjoys games like CoD is immature/an adolescent', but it's true!

I'd just prefer my RPGs being RPGs and my shooters being shooters. Oldfashioned? Maybe. But that's just how I am.

Not everything needs to be bridged or glued together.

It does if you need money to make games. If the old fashioned RPGs are just not selling then it is better to have action RPGs than none.

But didnt DA:O and ME 1 and 2 sell very well? Expecting every game to compete CoD is like wanting every MMO to compete with WoW. Probably wont happen. If games sell well in their own right, but not as much as CoD, thats no reason to suddenly change formulas dramatically.

Plus, TOR is coming out soon. If that goes over well, EA will have their cash cow. Assuming they arnt making the mistake of trying to comepete directly with a monster of an MMO.

It's not your money and not your job depending on it. So it's easy to talk. If you are wrong you lose nothing, if Bioware is wrong alot of people could lose their jobs. I don't think they just flip a coin to make their decisions.

ack, i was just discussing. Not saying my views are right. I understand what is at stake and what good buisnesses do. No need to be so hostile (if you arnt, then sorry. The "tone" came off as such).

[Hedera]

I don't see the relevance between DAII and CoD.  Unless you're going for "Mass market appeal"? 

My experience with CoD gamers is one that would support the latter, as even the most brain-dead gorilla-types seem to enjoy shooting at each other in CoD, while DAII would be beyond their range of cognitive aptitude.  

In short, Dragon Age, simply by genre and gameplay, has nothing to do with CoD.  If what I said is irrelevant, I apologize for wasting your time.

[Carfax]

koshiee wrote...

after that create a gamer tag with the word gay in it play CoD. Come back here and compare. 

Anyone that feels the need to proclaim their sexuality in their gamer tag deserves to be mocked if you ask me..

Speaking of gay, the gay romance threads are particularly shameful.  It's things like that which guarantee why Bioware will never make a real dark fantasy game.

Too much political correctness.

[FiveThreeTen]

FellOpenIan wrote...

FiveThreeTen wrote...
As long as Bioware doesn't go for the 5 map pack charged 15$ (can't believe some people are actually paying for this)

Or churn out some costume pack DLC while save data corruption goes unpatched.

Indeed, SFIV anyone ? You actually pay to unlock something which is already in your game . They don't even have to store data on the Live, PSN or Steam . Check with your credit card.<_<

[AlexXIV]

Saphara wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Saphara wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Marionetten wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Unbelievably, it's possible to enjoy more than one type of game. I know, I know. It's crazy, and it flies right in the face of the idea that 'everyone who enjoys games like CoD is immature/an adolescent', but it's true!

I'd just prefer my RPGs being RPGs and my shooters being shooters. Oldfashioned? Maybe. But that's just how I am.

Not everything needs to be bridged or glued together.

It does if you need money to make games. If the old fashioned RPGs are just not selling then it is better to have action RPGs than none.

But didnt DA:O and ME 1 and 2 sell very well? Expecting every game to compete CoD is like wanting every MMO to compete with WoW. Probably wont happen. If games sell well in their own right, but not as much as CoD, thats no reason to suddenly change formulas dramatically.

Plus, TOR is coming out soon. If that goes over well, EA will have their cash cow. Assuming they arnt making the mistake of trying to comepete directly with a monster of an MMO.

It's not your money and not your job depending on it. So it's easy to talk. If you are wrong you lose nothing, if Bioware is wrong alot of people could lose their jobs. I don't think they just flip a coin to make their decisions.

ack, i was just discussing. Not saying my views are right. I understand what is at stake and what good buisnesses do. No need to be so hostile (if you arnt, then sorry. The "tone" came off as such).

I am almost never hostile but I am often percieved as such. I apologize if I did. English is not my native language so I blame it on that. I was just making a point that they probably thought long and hard about it and concluded that what they do now is for the best.

[Saphara]

AlexXIV wrote...

Saphara wrote...

ack, i was just discussing. Not saying my views are right. I understand what is at stake and what good buisnesses do. No need to be so hostile (if you arnt, then sorry. The "tone" came off as such).

I am almost never hostile but I am often percieved as such. I apologize if I did. English is not my native language so I blame it on that. I was just making a point that they probably thought long and hard about it and concluded that what they do now is for the best.

yeah. I have faith that Bioware will still find a way to please. Was just throwing out there that games that try to compete with monster games by trying to assimilate their audiences tend to not do so well, at least from an MMo standpoint.

[dragondragon]

I see their point. My brother would never play Dragon Age just because it is an RPG, but then I tried one of his favourite games Assasins Creed 2 and realised how many things from that game exist in dragon age, like leveling up, and looting.

[Carfax]

AlexXIV wrote...

I don't know why anyone thinks the witcher is a better rpg than dragon age. Having played the witcher I could come up with a couple of reasons but I better not because I endanger myself of violating forum rules (again).

It's against forum rules to compare the virtues of one game against another?  If so, it just reminds me why I don't post on these forums that much anymore.

[DPB]

cgrimm54 wrote...

I don't see the relevance between DAII and CoD.  Unless you're going for "Mass market appeal"? 

As I said, all Fernando Melo was getting at is that games like CoD have character progression elements, and might enjoy similar (albeit much more indepth) concepts that exist in RPGs like DA2.

dragondragon wrote...

I see their point. My brother would never play Dragon Age just because it is an RPG, but then I tried one of his favourite games Assasins Creed 2 and realised how many things from that game exist in dragon age, like leveling up, and looting.

Someone gets it!

Modifié par dbankier, 08 février 2011 - 10:20 .

[AlexXIV]

Carfax wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I don't know why anyone thinks the witcher is a better rpg than dragon age. Having played the witcher I could come up with a couple of reasons but I better not because I endanger myself of violating forum rules (again).

It's against forum rules to compare the virtues of one game against another?  If so, it just reminds me why I don't post on these forums that much anymore.

Well for once it would become a witcher discussion which is not a DA2 discussion. And if I was being honest I would say a couple of things no witcher-fan wants to hear. Or read.

[slimgrin]

Stanley Woo wrote...

[inappropriate link removed]
This is CoD. 

Reminds me of whenever I get online to play SF4. Same infantile mentality.

You want to lure this crowd in BIoware? Good luck. 

[Maera Imrov]

To expand on this, I have never, ever been a fan of Halo, CoD, etc. I still do not play them, however, I do enjoy watching them be played, when someone is playing the iterations in those series that involve character growth. (I'm terrible at shooters and hate competition/PvP, so multiplayer is out for me, anyway.) I think it would be a great thing to try and get some of the CoD players that enjoy building their characters to see there are other games/series/genres that also do it.



And in the reverse, shooters and other games that bring in RPG elements at the very least interest me enough to watch them be played and absorb the story. And sometimes it entices me enough to play them myself.

[koshiee]

Carfax wrote...

koshiee wrote...

after that create a gamer tag with the word gay in it play CoD. Come back here and compare. 

Anyone that feels the need to proclaim their sexuality in their gamer tag deserves to be mocked if you ask me..

Speaking of gay, the gay romance threads are particularly shameful.  It's things like that which guarantee why Bioware will never make a real dark fantasy game.

Too much political correctness.

Hey bioware I think you found your CoD Dragon Age crossover fan.
you should probably grill them for market research.

[Fraevar]

Why else would ME2 be as piece-meal and combat-oriented as it was? This is hardly news. That being said, I think BioWare needs to watch themselves. It's well and good to want some of the people playing CoD as customers, but don't turn your own games into CoD to get there.

[John Epler]

Perhaps some people think that neither Stan nor I were being serious when we suggested that people stop making sweeping statements about the mentality and maturity level of people who enjoy Call of Duty.



I assure you, we were. Cut it out.

[Stanley Woo]

The point, as I and John Epler have been trying to get across, is that games no longer have to appeal to just one fanbase. Games are complex enough (yes, even the shooters) that they might appeal to all kinds of different gamers. Developers and publishres will target other groups because of all this labeling internet folk like to do.



If a game is technically a shooter but has a good story, character development, banter, loot, an inventory system, and "level up" systems, what difference is there in an RPG anyway? So even though it's called a "role-playing game," there might be enough of what shooter players like in it to try once or twice. No, they don't have to bring their whole clan or all the guys the play with. they try it to see if they like it, and we believe that some of them will.



Some of the folks around here who self-identify as more mature, intelligent or sophisticated because they enjoy RPGs, story, character, and dialogue would do well to calm down and think about their arguments before lashing out with their sensationalist hyperbole. Thank you.

[eyesofastorm]

JohnEpler wrote...

Perhaps some people think that neither Stan nor I were being serious when we suggested that people stop making sweeping statements about the mentality and maturity level of people who enjoy Call of Duty.

I assure you, we were. Cut it out.

I wonder if there is anyone on the CoD boards telling their fans not to make fun of RPG gamers... you know... calling us ****s that live in our Moms' basements and whatnot.  Of course, having boards requires fans that are literate.  Ooooh snap!

[Giant ambush beetle]

Well, I can say that about 90% of COD's audience I know consists of very immature 13-14 year olds with super short attention spans who don't know and don't want to know games other than mediocre FPS - let alone ''complex'' story driven RPG's with depth, tactics and immersion. As far as I can tell - the clichè is true.



BW's wish to win the COD audience is like trying to make soccer appeal to the snooker crowd, two very different games with two very different kinds of fans. You can't please both of them with one game.



I really hope BW is joking.

[koshiee]

Stanley Woo wrote...

The point, as I and John Epler have been trying to get across, is that games no longer have to appeal to just one fanbase. Games are complex enough (yes, even the shooters) that they might appeal to all kinds of different gamers. Developers and publishres will target other groups because of all this labeling internet folk like to do.

If a game is technically a shooter but has a good story, character development, banter, loot, an inventory system, and "level up" systems, what difference is there in an RPG anyway? So even though it's called a "role-playing game," there might be enough of what shooter players like in it to try once or twice. No, they don't have to bring their whole clan or all the guys the play with. they try it to see if they like it, and we believe that some of them will.

Some of the folks around here who self-identify as more mature, intelligent or sophisticated because they enjoy RPGs, story, character, and dialogue would do well to calm down and think about their arguments before lashing out with their sensationalist hyperbole. Thank you.

Call of duty has none of those things. What passes for a good story in games is pretty bad. What passes for a good story in FPS is nothing short of tragic. 

[the_one_54321]

Stanley Woo wrote...
If a game is technically a shooter but has a good story, character development, banter, loot, an inventory system, and "level up" systems, what difference is there in an RPG anyway?

You don't really want us to answer this...

Stanley Woo wrote...
So even though it's called a "role-playing game," there might be enough of what shooter players like in it to try once or twice. No, they don't have to bring their whole clan or all the guys the play with. they try it to see if they like it, and we believe that some of them will.

This sounds far more reasonable.

[AlanC9]

dragondragon wrote...

I see their point. My brother would never play Dragon Age just because it is an RPG.

That's the interesting part. What did RPGs do to drive so many gamers away?

[JrayM16]

koshiee wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

The point, as I and John Epler have been trying to get across, is that games no longer have to appeal to just one fanbase. Games are complex enough (yes, even the shooters) that they might appeal to all kinds of different gamers. Developers and publishres will target other groups because of all this labeling internet folk like to do.

If a game is technically a shooter but has a good story, character development, banter, loot, an inventory system, and "level up" systems, what difference is there in an RPG anyway? So even though it's called a "role-playing game," there might be enough of what shooter players like in it to try once or twice. No, they don't have to bring their whole clan or all the guys the play with. they try it to see if they like it, and we believe that some of them will.

Some of the folks around here who self-identify as more mature, intelligent or sophisticated because they enjoy RPGs, story, character, and dialogue would do well to calm down and think about their arguments before lashing out with their sensationalist hyperbole. Thank you.

Call of duty has none of those things. What passes for a good story in games is pretty bad. What passes for a good story in FPS is nothing short of tragic. 

First of all, story quality is subjective, so your point is moot.

Second, he wasn't specifically talkinga bout CoD with that statement, he said shooters(some of which have great stories and characters, like Half Life 2) so your point is double-moot. 

Third, the point he was making is that certain fans aren't exclusive to certain genres, so your point is moot and irrelevent.