832 réponses à ce sujet

[UltimoCrofto]

Psython wrote...

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.

Completely agree with this - though I'd argue Oblivion is anything but complex, but that's another debate  - especially since I'm one of those newbies who bought SC2 and ended up loving it, despite the fact it is just as hardcore as the original.

Difference is, Blizzard know what they're doing. Others, to put it bluntly, don't.

[Gatt9]

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 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.

Couple posts ago you were asserting as if fact that "Alot of people like the games despite RPG elements",  now you can't actually back that up.  Trying to reassert that the other poster is wrong is just poor form.  You made the statement,  you got called on it,  don't try to turn it around as if the other guy is somehow wrong.

Further,  according to the wikipedia list of best selling games,  ME2 only sold 1.6 million units,  while ME sold 2 million and DAO sold 3.2 million.  The only other number that I've seen is one listed by vgchartz,  and their numbers for ME are demonstrably incorrect as they fail to match what Microsoft announced.  So it goes to follow that the rest of the numbers can't be trusted either.

So,  since ME2 did not outsell ME or DAO,  and it absolutely did not outsell DAO no matter what numbers you use,  your follow up statements are equally false.

[AlanC9]

Merced652 wrote...


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

Well, since your interpretation of what I was claiming was way off, of course I had no basis for claiming that.

[the_one_54321]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
What, a few million random fans just picked up mass effect because they heard it was an awesome shooter?

I would argue that this is precisely what happened. Not with quite as much extremism as you have in that particular quote, but more or less to the tune of  "BioWare made a kind of shooter game with this really awesome space setting and story."

AlanC9 wrote...
The only point I was trying to make is that Bio can move in any of these directions and still cater to 'fans."

I can think of at least five screen-names off the top of my head that disprove this claim. I, for example, specifically have not bought DAII because of what they did to some of the mechanics. And I am very very far from being alone in this.

[Whatever42]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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."

Yes, the debate over mechanics rage on the mass effect boards as well. However, its not RPG fans versus CoD fans. Everyone there is an RPG fan. Yes, some people very much enjoy the traditional RPG mechanics. No one is disputing that. It's definitely a divided fanbase.

Although, at least half the debate on the ME2 boards is not about mechanics, its about story. The ME2 story was a little lacklustre compared to ME1. You actually get a lot more complaining about plot than you do about inventory.

[Sandmanifest]

Brenus wrote...

Maybe Vampire Bloodlines didnt sell because it had absolutely no marketing whatsoever?

Just because a game is of a particular genre such as a complex RPG is not the reason why it didnt sell.

It didnt sell because it wasnt marketed.

This is true, I'm proof. Heard about it a couple months ago from my girlfriend actually. She said it was fun so I tried it out and enjoyed myself very much. I would have purchased it upon release had I known. Nosferatu ftw .

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
Couple posts ago you were asserting as if fact that "Alot of people like the games despite RPG elements",  now you can't actually back that up.  Trying to reassert that the other poster is wrong is just poor form.  You made the statement,  you got called on it,  don't try to turn it around as if the other guy is somehow wrong.

Further,  according to the wikipedia list of best selling games,  ME2 only sold 1.6 million units,  while ME sold 2 million and DAO sold 3.2 million.  The only other number that I've seen is one listed by vgchartz,  and their numbers for ME are demonstrably incorrect as they fail to match what Microsoft announced.  So it goes to follow that the rest of the numbers can't be trusted either.

So,  since ME2 did not outsell ME or DAO,  and it absolutely did not outsell DAO no matter what numbers you use,  your follow up statements are equally false.

Again, what statement am I supposed to have made here? I never meant to say anything about a majority. I'll certainly cop to being misleading about that since both you and Merced took away that impression, though.

[Whatever42]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
What, a few million random fans just picked up mass effect because they heard it was an awesome shooter?

I would argue that this is precisely what happened. Not with quite as much extremism as you have in that particular quote, but more or less to the tune of  "BioWare made a kind of shooter game with this really awesome space setting and story."

Well, considering that ME is an awful shooter, that almost every place I've seen the game discussed is an RPG board, and the majority of posters on the ME1 and ME2 boards are hardcore RPG fans, I would say that you need to rethink your theory.

I won't argue that the ME series, especially ME2, didn't pick up a few gamers who weren't really into RPGs, but I think you'd be really stretching things way too far if you think that "a lot" of ME2 fans were Bioware RPG fans.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
The only point I was trying to make is that Bio can move in any of these directions and still cater to 'fans."

I can think of at least five screen-names off the top of my head that disprove this claim. I, for example, specifically have not bought DAII because of what they did to some of the mechanics. And I am very very far from being alone in this.

When I said "fans" I meant "some fans" -- not "all fans" or "most fans." I'm really not being precise today, I guess.

[the_one_54321]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
What, a few million random fans just picked up mass effect because they heard it was an awesome shooter?

I would argue that this is precisely what happened. Not with quite as much extremism as you have in that particular quote, but more or less to the tune of  "BioWare made a kind of shooter game with this really awesome space setting and story."

Well, considering that ME is an awful shooter, that almost every place I've seen the game discussed is an RPG board, and the majority of posters on the ME1 and ME2 boards are hardcore RPG fans, I would say that you need to rethink your theory.

I won't argue that the ME series, especially ME2, didn't pick up a few gamers who weren't really into RPGs, but I think you'd be really stretching things way too far if you think that "a lot" of ME2 fans were Bioware RPG fans.

While ME is indeed an awful shooter, and ME2 is a lackluster shooter, still the trend was from plain RPG to Shooter/RPG to MostlyShooter.

The people who stuck around for this turn of events are not hardcore RPG fans, they are fans of writing and stories. And potentially also those that are comfortable with playing shooters. Myself for instance. Although I'd be perfectly ecstatic if they ditched the ME combat system altogether and replaced it with the DA:O combat mechanics, except with space suits and guns. After all, I find better shooters from Valve anyway.

[moilami]

Truth equation.

Potential xpoks + PS3 sales > potential PC sales.

End of discussion.

[the_one_54321]

moilami wrote...
Truth equation.

Potential xpoks + PS3 sales > potential PC sales.

End of discussion.

Truth equation:
IF "xpoks + PS3 sales > potential PC sales" THEN gaming is going to hell.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...
The people who stuck around for this turn of events are not hardcore RPG fans, they are fans of writing and stories.

Which is the point. What percentage of  Bioware fans are "hardcore RPG fans?" What percentage never really was?

Edit: I should put down a personal marker here. I consider myself an RPG fan but not a CRPG fan. I think CRPGs took the wrong elements from RPGs, mostly because they derive from a pretty bad PnP system.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 mars 2011 - 07:11 .

[dreadpiratesnugglecakes]

Just wanted to post a quick reaction to this.

1. Evolution: DA2 is not an evolution of the RPG. It's what RPG fans have been calling RPG Lite for years; it's a hack and slash with RPG elements. It may be something new for Bioware but it's not anything new to gaming. See Titan Quest or Diablo, Diablo 2 ect.

2. If you build it, they will come. I find his comments disturbing as Bioware has built their reputation making games that he is asserting are no longer a viable product. They've been making money on that for years; look at Bethesda. They don't put out games on a basis that a young gamer would appreciate but their games are epic; they follow a set formula and they stick with it. I have issues with their games but I enjoy their consistency and their commitment to their audience. Bioware always came across that way as well..until now.

Case in point, I bought my then girlfriend now wife a copy of Dragon Age Orgins. She had played nothing on the computer but Sim City. She fell in love with it and played it obsessively. She commented that DA2 is a step backwards; DAO was hard but she enjoyed it. She's found the questing in DA2 too easy. She is part of the non rpg playing wider audience that they allegedly want to attract; well, they did with the stuff they have always made. If you build it, they will come.

Now I don't hate DA2; I have enjoyed playing it; I'm still playing it. I think the story telling style is interesting and I have enjoyed the characters. My problem is with the combat style; it's too over the top; fun to watch but it just gets silly watching opponents blow apart. I don't like the ninja mages and I don't like the new look of the elves and Darkspawn. I don't believe in changing things for the sake of changing them. If something works and looks good, stick with it.
At any rate, I don't know if this is pressure from EA, or if they really believe this is the right direction, but fact is, this isn't an evolution. It's a step backward from what brought them their success and I don't think it's going to go well if they continue down this path.

[Meltemph]

How about people quit trying to speak for the majority/everyone else, because they/you are too insecure about their/your own preferences? My god it is getting near pandemic on these forums to try and speak for everyone else, that they can think of.

Believe it or not you don't help your opinion by trying to speak for everyone not you, you just sound like royal prats.

The people, they, this group, some people, many people, most, least, I mean holy hell... Are you people that needy that you need a group behind you so you feel better about your video game choices/preferences?

I can understand if you are talking about sales or the problems in certain games most people agree with, but most of this is about "who's game preferences are better" and it just looks silly.

Modifié par Meltemph, 21 mars 2011 - 07:11 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

it's not a game without a big looming evil dragon, demon, or demigod at the end

I couldn't disagree more.

[Faz432]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

it's not a game without a big looming evil dragon, demon, or demigod at the end

I couldn't disagree more.

Terminator, you forgot Terminator!

 <_<

Modifié par Faz432, 21 mars 2011 - 07:21 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
it's not a game without a big looming evil dragon, demon, or demigod at the end

I couldn't disagree more.

That's just his way of saying that a game requires some kind of goal or specific final ambition.

AlanC9 wrote...
Which is the point. What percentage of  Bioware fans are "hardcore RPG fans?"

I would claim that BioWare's original base of fans were the result of the gameplay of the Baldurs Gate series and to a lesser extent NWN. I would say that the "newer" group of fans come from the KotOR, JE, and ME group. When you talk to posters about the things they liked in which games you see a pretty clear devide between those that favor DA and those that favor ME, as series. And the only common factors between those that like both are being open to different mechanics in different games and enjoying the stories.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 21 mars 2011 - 07:24 .

[Whatever42]

the_one_54321 wrote...
While ME is indeed an awful shooter, and ME2 is a lackluster shooter, still the trend was from plain RPG to Shooter/RPG to MostlyShooter.

The people who stuck around for this turn of events are not hardcore RPG fans, they are fans of writing and stories. And potentially also those that are comfortable with playing shooters. Myself for instance. Although I'd be perfectly ecstatic if they ditched the ME combat system altogether and replaced it with the DA:O combat mechanics, except with space suits and guns. After all, I find better shooters from Valve anyway.

I mostly agree with you and that was my point. There are many fans who play Bioware games almost entirely for the characters and story development. The type of gameplay behind it is not as important for them.

The big selling points of Bioware games is writing and story. They have never amazed anyone with their gameplay.  Sure, the story and characters are largely stereotypes but I think they were very well done and entertaining stereotypes. If they had sucked, how many people would love DA:O based on gameplay alone?

I fully realize that a very large number of people love those mechanics. Bethesda games have weak story telling and characters and outsell Bioware, I believe. But its an open world with immense personalization and highly moddable, where players can fill in the missing details with their imagination. But Bioware's niche is the story and I think "a lot" of players will happily follow them into games with different underlying gameplay mechanics.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 21 mars 2011 - 07:24 .

[Il Divo]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I mostly agree with you and that was my point. There are many fans who play Bioware games almost entirely for the characters and story development. The type of gameplay behind it is not as important for them.

The big selling points of Bioware games is writing and story. They have never amazed anyone with their gameplay.  Sure, the story and characters are largely stereotypes but I think they were very well done and entertaining stereotypes. If they had sucked, how many people would love DA:O based on gameplay alone?

I fully realize that a very large number of people love those mechanics. Bethesda games have weak story telling and characters and outsell Bioware, I believe. But its an open world with immense personalization and highly moddable, where players can fill in the missing details with their imagination. But Bioware's niche is the story and I think "a lot" of players will happily follow them into games with different underlying gameplay mechanics.

Pretty much this. It's one reason I enjoyed Jade Empire so much. Look at Planescape Torment as another example; I rarely see fans discuss the 'awesome' DnD system but rather the writing/story/choice. Another issue is that I'm tired of Bioware simply ripping off dnd mechanics. Baldur's Gate was 2.0, Neverwinter Nights was 3.0, and Kotor was 3.0 with some variations. I play dnd on a weekly basis, I'd like to see mechanics other than 'dnd' for this apparently brilliant RPG developer.

That's a small reason why I enjoyed Origins so much; it's Bioware's most complicated/original combat system rather than a carbon copy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
it's not a game without a big looming evil dragon, demon, or demigod at the end

I couldn't disagree more.

That's just his way of saying that a game requires some kind of goal or specific final ambition.

He's describing quite a narrow possible set of goals.  He's talking about a villain to defeat.

First, I think DA2 benefits tremendously from having so much of the game take place prior to the discovery of any such villain, and second, I don't think a villain is necessary at all.  Especially with the framed narrative - since there's already a goal involved (tell the story), having an adversary isn't necessary.

Yes, the game probably needs some specific objective for the characters to pursue.  But that objective does not need to be the defeat of a villain.

[Nozybidaj]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
Bethesda games have weak story telling and characters

Really?  This is what you are going with?  I'll admit BW (used to) do story telling better but to say Beth's is weak?  Really? <_<

[FellowerOfOdin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

it's not a game without a big looming evil dragon, demon, or demigod at the end

I couldn't disagree more.

This. The original point of a big, mighty enemy at the end of a game is that it fits well to the climax you already planned - facing a last big threat at the end makes you feel you really accomplished something. Then again, there are way more (better) ways to do so.

In DA:O, I wasn't excited because I killed the Archdemon...he was a joke and pretty harmless. I felt "epic" during the coronation and, of course, when reading the ending epilog boards because they showed that you, the player, really had a huge impact on the game world and that's why DA:RtP feels so lackluster.

You don't really get to change anything. The ending is almost the same every time and nobody cares if you end up with Merril, Isabella, etc. Furthermore, the game gets downright ruined immsersion-wise when suddenly, at the end of DA:RtP, an old companion appears...a companion that you might have BEHEADED in the previous game. That's poor, lazy writing.

Feeling "epic" is not "killing a huge boss", it's about you feeling that you accomplished something.

[rhino78]

AlanC9 wrote...


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.

This seems to be the 600 lb gorilla in the room.  No one, except for Bioware, really knows what the spybot data says, but I think it's fair to assume it didn't paint a pretty picture.  I really wonder how many people either didn't play long or just never finfished. 

Let's be honest, Bioware took a huge risk changing the mechanics as much as they did.  This seems to be ignored completely.  If the DAO system was so good, why change it?  There is some piece of the puzzle missing.  For all the people who swear DA2 was simply a rush job to grab quick cash, that doesn't really make sense.  If you really just wanted to "cash in", why not simply re-use the assets you already have?  Throw a half decent story in and call it DAO2 and it should have sold millions. 

Even trying to attract a more action oriented crowd, you would think Bioware would keep a system if it was that successful.

[Faz432]

rhino78 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


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.

This seems to be the 600 lb gorilla in the room.  No one, except for Bioware, really knows what the spybot data says, but I think it's fair to assume it didn't paint a pretty picture.  I really wonder how many people either didn't play long or just never finfished. 

Let's be honest, Bioware took a huge risk changing the mechanics as much as they did.  This seems to be ignored completely.  If the DAO system was so good, why change it?  There is some piece of the puzzle missing.  For all the people who swear DA2 was simply a rush job to grab quick cash, that doesn't really make sense.  If you really just wanted to "cash in", why not simply re-use the assets you already have?  Throw a half decent story in and call it DAO2 and it should have sold millions. 

Even trying to attract a more action oriented crowd, you would think Bioware would keep a system if it was that successful.

It's irrelivent as they had already decided on the direction DA2 would take before DA:O was even released.