832 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

BobSmith101 wrote...


Games are becoming more and more movie like. JRPGs like FF are and always have been character driven. You play the game, you watch the cinematics, it's just like a movie experience.

Also adventure games like, say, Grim Fandango.

[Realmzmaster]

ML uses the word evolution. Evolution in its broadest sense means change. The change can be either good or bad. We think that evolution means changing in a more positive way. Devolution is the term used to describe change in a negative way. Actually devolution is simply retrograde evolution.
In terms of CRPG, that change is dependent on a person's perspective and how that person defines an CRPG. Evolution in terms of games also means evolving to attract a larger audience.
Bioware/EA is changing its target audience to make money. Face the facts Hardcore CRPGers are a dying audience. A company the size of Bioware/EA will not make enough money catering to that audience. It is a simple matter of economics.
The hardcore CRPG market is shrinking. An independent firm maybe able to make money in that market, but do not expect the graphic quality or large scale scope like a DA:O. Most idependent CRPGs die before making it to market. The independents can subsist off of selling a few thousand copies maybe. A company the size of Bioware/EA cannot.
Just look at the credits of the game. All those people have to be paid. Each revenue generating center has to produce a profit above and beyond its expenses.
Like it or not Bioware needs to attract a larger market. If the game design has to change to fulfill that goal then it will.
If Bioware's changes attract more people than it alienates then Bioware's bottom line wins. Bioware then gets to go on and produce more games.
If the changes alienate more than it attracts then Bioware will have to look back at what it did wrong and correct.
The bottom line is making money. If the market you have is not making you enough money, you have to change or broaden your market.

[AlanC9]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

RPG's were NOT dull. At least not to the millions of fans that helped Bioware become a succesful RPG maker.

Not dull, no, but Bio's always had a lot of fans who like their games despite the traditional RPG elements, not because of them. Plus fans like me, who are more-or-less indifferent tot hem.

[Psython]

I think a good example of genre evolution is Starcraft 2 in the RTS genre. In order to broaden the audience, there were changes to interface and a lot of tutorials to help non-rts players ease into the experience. Blizzard did a lot of things to evolve the game and make it appealing using changes that are mostly around the periferal of the core experience. What I mean is that most of the changes are not to the core game on the whole. Blizzard could have released a very dumbed down version of starcraft to play to the masses, but they made the smart decision and designed the game to please hardcore fans first and foremost. It has payed of for them.

I dont think the crpg market is shrinking. I think TES4 Oblivion sold like a billion copies on consoles and that game is way more complex interface wise and mechanics wise than DA2.

When you design products around the market you lose your soul and your art has no merit.

[TJSolo]

Bioware/EA is changing its target audience to make money. Face the facts Hardcore CRPGers are a dying audience

The sales of DAO rebukes your so called facts.

The number of names in the back of the manual is just a variable that has no association with what audience the game is aimed for.

[Merced652]

AlanC9 wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

RPG's were NOT dull. At least not to the millions of fans that helped Bioware become a succesful RPG maker.

Not dull, no, but Bio's always had a lot of fans who like their games despite the traditional RPG elements, not because of them. Plus fans like me, who are more-or-less indifferent tot hem.

I'd like to know how the hell you can say that, believe it, and then spout it here as if it were a fact. I guess the only thing you got going for you is that "a lot' is largely subjective. But whatever, you have no statistical evidence to even begin to support such a claim. 

Modifié par Merced652, 21 mars 2011 - 06:12 .

[AkiKishi]

Psython wrote...
I dont think the crpg market is shrinking. I think TES4 Oblivion sold like a billion copies on consoles and that game is way more complex interface wise and mechanics wise than DA2.

When you design products around the market you lose your soul and your art has no merit.

You can play games like TES without having to engage in the story I've got a bunch of different Oblivion characters, only one ever "finished" the game. With Bioware the games are the story. I can't just create a character, good around in Kirkwall for a couple of days I have no choice but to follow the story.

This is why I'm coming to the conclusion that it's not the mechanics, plenty of other RPGs with complicated mechanics sell, but the story and character design that is keeping them niche.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 21 mars 2011 - 06:17 .

[Inverness Moon]

What is going to cause games to stagnate is them limiting themselves to console levels of technology. As long as they do that they can't push the boundaries of game size and technology. The RPG formula seems fine as it is, many people enjoy it, so try to flesh it out more and expand upon it instead of changing it. At this point, I curse the whole idea that voice acting is necessary for modern games, because it really limits the dialogue.

One thing I'm hoping for is that as studios like BioWare are forced to be more mainstream because of EA, indies or other studios will fill the void where CRPG lovers search for the next big thing.

[AlanC9]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Bioware/EA is changing its target audience to make money. Face the facts Hardcore CRPGers are a dying audience. A company the size of Bioware/EA will not make enough money catering to that audience. It is a simple matter of economics.
The hardcore CRPG market is shrinking. An independent firm maybe able to make money in that market, but do not expect the graphic quality or large scale scope like a DA:O. Most idependent CRPGs die before making it to market. The independents can subsist off of selling a few thousand copies maybe. A company the size of Bioware/EA cannot.

Note that the assumption here is that either DAO itself wasn't profitable enough, or such a game wouldn't be profitable in the future.

I'm starting to wonder if the spybot data for DAO wasn't really awful. About the only thing we know for certain from that is that the origins themselves weren't used much . Which isn't to say that they're "unpopular." Bio may be in a New Coke situation here, where their customers don't actually like the old product but don't want it to change either.

[chzrm3]

CRISIS1717 wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

He wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play RPGs.

That game is called Fable 3 and it didn't work.

No, it was called Mass Effect 2, and it worked perfectly. : P

[Vicious]

You are not special because you have bought a BioWare game. They are not obliged to make something you want to play, just as you are not obliged to buy something from them because they make it. Go buy stock if you want them to listen to you. (Unless you already own it, of course, and what are you doing here if you do? Go complain!)

[Merced652]

chzrm3 wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

He wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play RPGs.

That game is called Fable 3 and it didn't work.

No, it was called Mass Effect 2, and it worked perfectly. : P

Worked perfectly in the sense that those people still don't like playing RPGs, they just didn't mind allocating worthless points in to worthless skills ocassionally. 

[AlanC9]

Merced652 wrote...


I'd like to know how the hell you can say that, believe it, and then spout it here as if it were a fact. I guess the only thing you got going for you is that "a lot' is largely subjective. But whatever, you have no statistical evidence to even begin to support such a claim. 

I don't know the percentages, no. Neither do you.

We already know that ME2 succeeded. DA2 may fail -- without knowing their sales targets I don't know what "failure" would mean, though I suppose a large falloff from DAO should be considered one.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 mars 2011 - 06:29 .

[Merced652]

AlanC9 wrote...

Merced652 wrote...


I'd like to know how the hell you can say that, believe it, and then spout it here as if it were a fact. I guess the only thing you got going for you is that "a lot' is largely subjective. But whatever, you have no statistical evidence to even begin to support such a claim. 

I don't know the percentages, no. Neither do you.

We're both ignorant, but i'm somehow right

Is that how it goes?

[TJSolo]

chzrm3 wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

He wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play RPGs.

That game is called Fable 3 and it didn't work.

No, it was called Mass Effect 2, and it worked perfectly. : P

no, it didn't.
I am the type of player that did not play set out to RPGs, I might have picked up some just because they were good games, until ME1. I was tired of FPS games, shooters, and generic adventure games that did not give the me much choice in the story. One day I saw a commercial about deciding the fate of planets, I was hooked.
ME1 was my introduction into looking into RPGs because they were RPGs. ME2 falls into the category of games that I was tired of.

[Whatever42]

Merced652 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Merced652 wrote...


I'd like to know how the hell you can say that, believe it, and then spout it here as if it were a fact. I guess the only thing you got going for you is that "a lot' is largely subjective. But whatever, you have no statistical evidence to even begin to support such a claim. 

I don't know the percentages, no. Neither do you.

We're both ignorant, but i'm somehow right

Is that how it goes?

Ok, here is evidence. The mechanics of the mass effect series are very different than a traditional RPG. And yet it has millions of fans. These are not new fans, these are Bioware fans. Yes, not every Bioware fan liked Mass Effect but I think we can safely say that a great many did.

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

Merced652 wrote...
I'd like to know how the hell you can say that, believe it, and then spout it here as if it were a fact. I guess the only thing you got going for you is that "a lot' is largely subjective. But whatever, you have no statistical evidence to even begin to support such a claim.

I don't know the percentages, no. Neither do you.

The difference would be that he didn't post as though were making anything more than a slightly educated guess.

[the_one_54321]

Merced652 wrote...

chzrm3 wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

CRISIS1717 wrote...
So basically Mike Laidlaw wants to make rpgs for people who don't play rpgs.

He wants to turn people who don't play RPGs into people who play RPGs.

That game is called Fable 3 and it didn't work.

No, it was called Mass Effect 2, and it worked perfectly. : P

Worked perfectly in the sense that those people still don't like playing RPGs, they just didn't mind allocating worthless points in to worthless skills ocassionally. 

This is entirely spot on. Make a list of the gameplay features in MW2 and ME2 and see how much is significantly different between them. Heck, MW2 even had it's own attempt at a gripping story.

[AlanC9]

Merced652 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Merced652 wrote...


I'd like to know how the hell you can say that, believe it, and then spout it here as if it were a fact. I guess the only thing you got going for you is that "a lot' is largely subjective. But whatever, you have no statistical evidence to even begin to support such a claim. 

I don't know the percentages, no. Neither do you.

We're both ignorant, but i'm somehow right

Is that how it goes?

Yeah, that was pretty much how I interpreted your post.

[MonkeyLungs]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Psython wrote...
I dont think the crpg market is shrinking. I think TES4 Oblivion sold like a billion copies on consoles and that game is way more complex interface wise and mechanics wise than DA2.

When you design products around the market you lose your soul and your art has no merit.

You can play games like TES without having to engage in the story I've got a bunch of different Oblivion characters, only one ever "finished" the game. With Bioware the games are the story. I can't just create a character, good around in Kirkwall for a couple of days I have no choice but to follow the story.

This is why I'm coming to the conclusion that it's not the mechanics, plenty of other RPGs with complicated mechanics sell, but the story and character design that is keeping them niche.

I think this is a really good insight and a serious area for consideration from the developers. If they truly want to increase their sales I think maybe evaluating their entire formula (not just streamling things they think gamers are too dumb to understand).

They need to add intense multiplayer to really pull in that untapped non-rpg conolse market they want a piece of. The multiplayer really doesn't even have to have anything to do with the single player either. And the multiplayer would be better off without having any story of significance. Just well balanced, fast, great netcode, lots of server options, professional level matchmaking (for conoles), etc.

If they really want that untapped console market they need add gamemodes that are more pick up and play, that the player has more control in than simply following Bioware's story.  Many gamers don't even play the single player in games opting to jump right into the multiplayer or the free roam type modes instead.

Action gamers often (not always) don't want to sit through alot of cutscenes and conversations.

BTW I do NOT devalue gamers that only like to play pure action, skip all cutscenes, never play single player etc. I think that is a perfectly valid way of playing games and apparently is much more popular than the way I like to play games so maybe better (I am kind of dinosaur).

[Merced652]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Merced652 wrote...


I'd like to know how the hell you can say that, believe it, and then spout it here as if it were a fact. I guess the only thing you got going for you is that "a lot' is largely subjective. But whatever, you have no statistical evidence to even begin to support such a claim. 

I don't know the percentages, no. Neither do you.

We're both ignorant, but i'm somehow right

Is that how it goes?

Ok, here is evidence. The mechanics of the mass effect series are very different than a traditional RPG. And yet it has millions of fans. These are not new fans, these are Bioware fans. Yes, not every Bioware fan liked Mass Effect but I think we can safely say that a great many did.

Baseless assumption just like the one i was responding to. Are you really gonig to tell me that me1 or me2 didn't bring in a bunch of fans because it was a psuedo rpg with a cinematic feel and good story? So they were all bg2 fans from back in the day that were just like oh ****s me1/2 is awsum. 

[Merced652]

AlanC9 wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Merced652 wrote...


I'd like to know how the hell you can say that, believe it, and then spout it here as if it were a fact. I guess the only thing you got going for you is that "a lot' is largely subjective. But whatever, you have no statistical evidence to even begin to support such a claim. 

I don't know the percentages, no. Neither do you.

We're both ignorant, but i'm somehow right

Is that how it goes?

Yeah, that was pretty much how I interpreted your post.

Cute, except the only assertion i made was that you were making a baseless claim, which you admitted. Feels good. 

[the_one_54321]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
Ok, here is evidence. The mechanics of the mass effect series are very different than a traditional RPG. And yet it has millions of fans. These are not new fans, these are Bioware fans. Yes, not every Bioware fan liked Mass Effect but I think we can safely say that a great many did.

I've been on the BioWare forums since like 2004. I can tell you conclusively that many of the "old BioWare fans" enjoyed ME but were unhappy with it's mechanics. I am conjecturing, but I'd be much much more accepting of the notion that the thoughts of the newer fans are what pushed ME2 in the direction it went rather than the "old BioWare fans."

[Whatever42]

Merced652 wrote...

Baseless assumption just like the one i was responding to. Are you really gonig to tell me that me1 or me2 didn't bring in a bunch of fans because it was a psuedo rpg with a cinematic feel and good story? So they were all bg2 fans from back in the day that were just like oh ****s me1/2 is awsum. 

What, a few million random fans just picked up mass effect because they heard it was an awesome shooter? Nonsense. Just visit the ME boards. The large majority of the posters I interact with there have played RPGs for a long time and have been Bioware fans a long time.

This RPG elitism everyone has going on is incredibly childish.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Merced652 wrote...
I'd like to know how the hell you can say that, believe it, and then spout it here as if it were a fact. I guess the only thing you got going for you is that "a lot' is largely subjective. But whatever, you have no statistical evidence to even begin to support such a claim.

I don't know the percentages, no. Neither do you.

The difference would be that he didn't post as though were making anything more than a slightly educated guess.

Did I do that? Didn't mean to. We know these factions exist. I don't know the percentages, as I said, and I didn't mean to imply that I did.

The only point I was trying to make is that Bio can move in any of these directions and still cater to 'fans."