139 réponses à ce sujet

[EternalPink]

yeah WoW sold 3.3 million copies on release day because people hate sequels that don't change, also i see we are back to long windy posts again.

They not teach peeps how to be concise anymore?

[Warheadz]

WoW is a spin-off, not a sequel.

It never claimed to be the so called Warcraft IV.

[EternalPink]

it was a sequel to Wotlk tho if ya wanna use the term spin off fine, bit hair splitty tho

[Warheadz]

What is Wotlk?

World of Warcraft is a MMO spin-off from the RTS Warcraft series.
If you are for some reason talking about the Wrath of the Lich King-Cataclysm transition, as far as I know it changed the environments and such. Not the whole game mechanics, genre, etc.

[EternalPink]

It raised the level cap and added more content as well as cost you another £29.99 from any good retailer in the UK

[Mecher3k]

EternalPink wrote...

It raised the level cap and added more content as well as cost you another £29.99 from any good retailer in the UK

Just how dense are you? Cata just like Lich are EXPANSION PACKS, not sequels.

[Stegoceras]

@OdanUrr

Honestly tried to read your whole post, but it seems a bit jibberish at the time and eventually goes way beyond what the thread is supossed to be about, if you could summarize your point it would be greatly appreciated. Try keeping your posts shorter or you might find them ignored all the time, while your points may be very valid.

[Warheadz]

EternalPink, I think we have trouble communicating. WotLK and Cataclysm are expansions. Your posts are making as much sense to me as this.

Modifié par Warheadz, 01 mai 2011 - 07:50 .

[OdanUrr]

Stegoceras wrote...

@OdanUrr

Honestly tried to read your whole post, but it seems a bit jibberish at the time and eventually goes way beyond what the thread is supossed to be about, if you could summarize your point it would be greatly appreciated. Try keeping your posts shorter or you might find them ignored all the time, while your points may be very valid.

Sorry about that, I got a bit carried away. To sum up:

- an RPG sequel is still an RPG game, so it needs to have those elements that we all identify with RPG gaming (companions, inventory, hero/villain story, character personalization, rich and interactive world, etc.).

- sequels should retain the core elements that made the original great, and expand upon those. Revamp of some areas (inventory, skills, abilities, talents, spells, etc.) is always a good thing (technology does evolve, after all), but revamping an entire franchise is a recipe for disaster. Change will always be unwelcome by some, but it's necessary or the franchise risks stagnation.

- cameos and nods here and there can work for the game so long as they are carefully intertwined with the hero/villain's story. We'd love to see the ol' gang back together but only if their presence adds something to the story that you couldn't have done without. Otherwise it's a cheap grab for our attention and is doomed to backfire.

For more details I refer you to my long, long post.

[Romantiq]

They are expansion packs.

[Sir JK]

Euno17: I'm sorry, there seem to be some errors of communication between the two of us. When I wrote former fans I did indeed mean just fans of DAO. My fault.

But I did not refer to changes of core mechanics but any changes. Big and small. All sequels contain changes. Wether they are seen as good or bad is generally subjective. Adding new features is a change. Changing graphics is a change. Making combat more dynamic is a change.
The article essentially claimed that game developers should not touch "what works" out of fear of alienating "core fans". I say that is ridiculous and that game developers should change what they think needs to be changed. Innovation is neccessary.

For point two. You got it right. People who loved the game will buy sequels and people who didn't won't. That means that for the sequel, the possible customer base will be smaller assuming no new blood. However, rpgs are a niche market. Which is to say the market is much smaller than the game market as a whole (and most people are multi-genres). That means that if you don't try to fix what didn't work great... the customer base will be shrinking.
Consistency is good yes. So is trying to expand what is good and trying to make what wasn't good better.

Point three. So every single one of those 3 million customers loved DAO to bits and have the means to acquire the sequel? That is essentially what you're saying... or you take my statement out of it's context.
What I was saying is that out of those 3 million customers, more than a handful will not return as customers of the sequel (some didn't like it. Some felt it was too long. Some does not have the economy. Some have put gaming behind them. Some are dead. and so on). If no new players come in then the sales figure of a sequel will be less.
This hypothetical DAO clone (and I mean clone quite literally) would attract the exact same players and some new... but minus every single one that won't return. And since 3 million units is a huge figure and rpgs are niche... those new players will not be more than the nonreturning ones will be.

As for point four. That is exactly my point. They should not make DAO again. They should aim to make a new game that tries to outsell DAO. They should try to make the best game they can. Introducing the changes they need. Without hesitating to change stuff out of the fear to lose fans.

Improving things is just what they should do. Not copying what "works". Improving it.

And they did. Tried that is.

[Fallstar]

At the end of the day, DA:2 was a decent game, it's just that it didn't compare to origins. Too many changes were made, and some of those were implemented poorly.

It is my opinion that Bioware actually listened too much to some of the complaints on the forums at the Origins release, especially with the pacing of the combat. A few people complained about the shuffling, and Bioware decided to correct this - fine so far. But, at some point, the feel of the Dragon Age combat was lost, and the game began to play less like a crpg and more like Fable, and other action rpgs.

[TheShadowWolf911]

everyone stop arguing.

Most Fans hated the changes to the point it will affect future Bioware purchases.
Few new buyers were attracted to the sequel.


it was a failure regardless of the amount of money it made, for it is damning future sales.

[Paperkut]

while Mass Effect 2 was a solid, worthy sequel, DA2 was not... rushed or not. I blame the characther changing... Perhaps if they beginned with Hawke, or the Warden, maybe people would have accepted the story as an improvemente for the characther, like ME2.. i saw no point in DA2 story

[bEVEsthda]

Foolsfolly wrote...

Mecher3k wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

@ Mecher3k,

What mrcrusty said. You're just being stubborn if you believe CoD hasn't changed over the course of the series.

Sure it has, before MW1.

You are no different then the ones that defend DA2, so pathetic in the end.

First off, you never said it didn't change after Modern Warfare. You said it never changed. Which is a lie. That's not me defending the series at all, I don't even care much for it other than the occasional fight with friends. (I'm a Half-Life fan, personally).

After that there are changes as well. Like Modern Warfare 2 adding pro versions of perks in multiplayer. It's not like they just made a few maps and repackaged MW. There are changes for each game, new weapons, armors, stats on weapons (believe it or not weapons get nerfed).

You're being really stubborn for no reason at all. I honestly do not think you've ever touched a CoD game but since these boards hate CoD so much because of a quote you'd just like to chime in and spout out lies like the games never change between games.

Which of course they do. It's up to whoever if the changes are better or not but CoD does not exist in a vacuum and is unchanging.

Viewed in the context of the DA:O/DA2 discussion, COD hasn't changed. They've stuck to the exact same formula with diligence: Very polished shooter games with great production. But with extremely linear and rigid gameplay. In essence just a path through a shooting galley. Consistency. That's why people keep buying them. They may not think COD is a great game. But it's good enough for them to want another.
 However, I do see a lot of difference  between the games. Some are better than others. Some are more realistic, other more fanciful. Some have added gimmicks, minigames in essence. Gameplay is the same. The quality of that gameplay is not the same. The first (PC-versions, ofc) COD and the first MW are easily, by far, the best.

[Elhanan]

astrallite wrote...

Queue for Elhanan to say the author is yet another hater.

Sorry; running late. Was not interested in the baited topic; just saw it on Google.

*clears throat* Hater's hate....

*SPOON*

[Boiny Bunny]

I think there's something to be said for finding a winning formula and (mostly) sticking to it.

For some obscure reason, Bioware seem to feel the need to completely reinvent the wheel every time they make a sequel.

Imagine what Dragon Age 2 could have been if, they hadn't wasted 1 moment completely redesigning the combat engine and rebalancing the entire game?  Re-doing all of the skills, stats, and character classes?

They could have spent ALL of that time building unique environments, making the game much longer, and fine tuning the incredible amount of bugs, whilst using the DA:O combat/class system.  Double win, right?  It seems like those that prefer the DA2 combat system are a minority - so what have they achieved by redesigning it?

[Harmless Crunch]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I think there's something to be said for finding a winning formula and (mostly) sticking to it.

For some obscure reason, Bioware seem to feel the need to completely reinvent the wheel every time they make a sequel.

Imagine what Dragon Age 2 could have been if, they hadn't wasted 1 moment completely redesigning the combat engine and rebalancing the entire game?  Re-doing all of the skills, stats, and character classes?

They could have spent ALL of that time building unique environments, making the game much longer, and fine tuning the incredible amount of bugs, whilst using the DA:O combat/class system.  Double win, right?  It seems like those that prefer the DA2 combat system are a minority - so what have they achieved by redesigning it?

And this is the thing that confuses me most most publishers want to millk the cash cow as much as possible by releasing very similar games *Cough* Activision *Cough*.
And yet for once EA wanted something very different but didnt allow there to be much time to make it.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Milk the cash cow =/= sticking to the fundamentals.

The former implies as little work as possible be done. The second implies using the best core elements of an original as a foundation to build on future games.

Guitar Hero. Assassin's Creed.

There's a difference between them.

[Boiny Bunny]

I'm not saying that a different game cannot be successful. Look at Warcraft 3 for example. That game was extremely different from Warcraft 2 in almost everything it did (while still being an RTS), yet fan reception was (mostly) incredibly positive - and it had incredible sales over the years to come.

Then you have games like Deus Ex: Invisible War. Almost every single change that they made, caused the game to be worse.

Change, simply for change's sake, is not generally a good thing. You need to actually think about what it is you're changing and why, and if it will work or not, how people will react to it.

Bioware seem to have made a large array of changes to Dragon Age 2 in a bid to lure over the audience of games like Call of Duty. Which is a fine strategy - except that they clearly had absolutely no idea what CoD players wanted in a game - and that they would never ever be interested in DA2, no matter how fast paced the combat was.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Thanks OP, I kind of enjoyed the article in the link and agreed with some of the writer's ideas. While ME 2's changes were disheartening in some ways (I enjoyed the weapon and armor customization, slightly greater roleplay elements and complex skill trees), the game was still fun because it followed the story and the art direction of the game remained the same. DA 2 neither has the look, feel, gameplay or maintains the story from the first so it sort of lost me on all those accounts. And then they named it DA 2, which implies it is a sequel when it isn't in any way, shape or form. And of course looking and feeling incredibly rushed didn't help the game either.

[Harmless Crunch]

mrcrusty wrote...

Milk the cash cow =/= sticking to the fundamentals.

The former implies as little work as possible be done. The second implies using the best core elements of an original as a foundation to build on future games.

Guitar Hero. Assassin's Creed.

There's a difference between them.

Ah I wasnt implying that EA should have milked the cash-cow I was jusy saying I was suprised EA didnt.

[Harmless Crunch]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I'm not saying that a different game cannot be successful. Look at Warcraft 3 for example. That game was extremely different from Warcraft 2 in almost everything it did (while still being an RTS), yet fan reception was (mostly) incredibly positive - and it had incredible sales over the years to come.

Then you have games like Deus Ex: Invisible War. Almost every single change that they made, caused the game to be worse.

Change, simply for change's sake, is not generally a good thing. You need to actually think about what it is you're changing and why, and if it will work or not, how people will react to it.

Bioware seem to have made a large array of changes to Dragon Age 2 in a bid to lure over the audience of games like Call of Duty. Which is a fine strategy - except that they clearly had absolutely no idea what CoD players wanted in a game - and that they would never ever be interested in DA2, no matter how fast paced the combat was.

Indeed if BioWare and EA wanted the Call of Duty audience they should have made a FPS with a strong multplayer component
Instead they tried to make a game which appeals to the COD audience and the hardcore RPG audience, but failed at satisfying both.
(I'm not saying DA2 is a bad game, I'm just saying BioWare failed at satisfying its audience)

[billy the squid]

Warheadz wrote...

EternalPink, I think we have trouble communicating. WotLK and Cataclysm are expansions. Your posts are making as much sense to me as this.

This made me burst out laughing and spit coffee all over my keyboard.

I disliked most of the changes to DA2, but if this replaced the storyline at least I would get some comedic value out of it, rather than the overwhelming sense of indifference and frustration I get whenever I attempt to play DA2

Modifié par billy the squid, 02 mai 2011 - 01:47 .

[wowpwnslol]

Changes can be good if they try to improve the game, not the bottom like (Warcraft 2 > Warcraft 3). What Bioware did was try to draw in fans of other genres and not only failed at that, but completely alienated their loyal RPG fanbase as well.

Modifié par wowpwnslol, 02 mai 2011 - 01:51 .