616 réponses à ce sujet

[Galad22]

Darth Death wrote...

Worry is pointless since the end result will be the same regardless what has been said here. You can sit here and be anxious all you want, but until BioWare shows some sort of gameplay footage, you're either going to like or dislike it. Its unproductive to stress about it. As for myself, I love ME2's gameplay so I've no uncertainties what's in-store for ME3. I trust BioWare to make the right decision for everyone, and not just a sector of people.   

Never going to happen. Punch of people will always be unhappy.

Bioware can just make sure or hope that that punch will be fairly small.

[Phaedon]

@Galad, could you please reply to my post and explain why?

[didymos1120]

Da Mecca wrote...

Well the thing I don't like about current ME is the stats you upgrade are for combat and nothing more.

Granted this is a shooter first and a RPG second, so I guess that just comes with the territory.

Excepting Charm/Intimidate, that was true of the stats in ME1 as well.  Yeah, there were a few other effects to some skills, like where every few points tech skills made you able to open more crates and lockers, but all the other points you dumped in got you purely combat-oriented gains.

Also, that's not exactly true in ME2: the main class skill affects persuasion. 

[Galad22]

Phaedon wrote...

@Galad, could you please reply to my post and explain why?

Those charm/intimidate?

I did in your thread, just didn't, quote you. Sorry about that.

[Chrysantemum]

I welcome this news. Why? Because of my experiences with Alpha Protocol. First of all, I *loved* Alpha Protocol. I loved the storylines, the characters, the political games, the intrigue, the choices. For me the 'RPG elements' are less about stats and more about stories, characters and choices. And one of the things that, in my eyes, went wrong with Alpha Protocol is that the stats had far too much influence on the shooter element of the game.

Truthfully, especially in the first part of the game, I left like I was playing the most inept Sam Fisher ever. It isn't until you've maxed out your weapon skills when the game feels like an actual shooter. I remember when I was sneaking through a base, crept behind a guard from up close, aimed right for his head, hit him straight in the back of the skull with a silenced pistol... and then the stats decided that my bullet to the brain didn't do enough damage to actually drop him. Long story short, he shoots back, alarms go off, stealth approach ruined. In a game without quicksaves, that is infurating. A headshot should be an instant kill. A mob shouldn't be firing back at you when a piece of hot lead has just burrowed though his skull!

This is something I don't want for ME3. Apply stats to things like health or running speed or powers or whatever, but don't have it affect the actual shooting. The shooter part needs to be enjoyable, not frustrating. Thank god ME2 did this right, but let's be fair - compared to other shooters on the market, ME2 was a little clunky. In my eyes, most changes from ME1 to ME2 related to combat were improvements.

So, if I get the stories, the characters, the choices *and* a lovely and fun shooter experience sans annoying inventory jugging or weird stat influences, I'll be very happy. And that is my opinion.

Modifié par Chrysantemum, 05 mai 2011 - 07:43 .

[WizenSlinky0]

Phaedon wrote...
I can't think of a genre more succesful than RPGs, besides shooters of course.
Sport games? Maybe. 

Incorrect. RPG's had only 5.8% of sales by units sold in 2009.

Sports: 19.6%
Action: 19.5%
Strategy: 6.4%
Shooter: 12.2%

As much as it pains me to say it RPG's are faltering.

[didymos1120]

MajFauxPas wrote...
I've lost interest in ME3 as a result. So now EA has alienated their consumer base as a result of making promises to investors. That means they don't want us to buy their games, they want investors to buy their stock. This is not going to end well for EA.

You realize of course that pretty much all companies say this kind of stuff to investors, regardless of their actual product and that this is not some brand-new phenomenon.  It's been going on for ages. Nothing has suddenly changed.  Seriously: just go look up an earnings report for any random corporation.  Pick the year at random too. 

[didymos1120]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...
Incorrect. RPG's had only 5.8% of sales by units sold in 2009.

Sports: 19.6%
Action: 19.5%
Strategy: 6.4%
Shooter: 12.2%

As much as it pains me to say it RPG's are faltering.

OK, if you're gonna throw out stats, you can't skip the "where the info comes from" part.

[Phaedon]

Galad22 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

@Galad, could you please reply to my post and explain why?

Those charm/intimidate?

I did in your thread, just didn't, quote you. Sorry about that.

Nope, this thread.

[WizenSlinky0]

didymos1120 wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...
Incorrect. RPG's had only 5.8% of sales by units sold in 2009.

Sports: 19.6%
Action: 19.5%
Strategy: 6.4%
Shooter: 12.2%

As much as it pains me to say it RPG's are faltering.

OK, if you're gonna throw out stats, you can't skip the "where the info comes from" part.

I skipped it because it's been posted before, but help yourself. Page 7.

http://www.theesa.co..._Facts_2010.PDF

[aridor1570]

didymos1120 wrote...

MajFauxPas wrote...
I've lost interest in ME3 as a result. So now EA has alienated their consumer base as a result of making promises to investors. That means they don't want us to buy their games, they want investors to buy their stock. This is not going to end well for EA.

You realize of course that pretty much all companies say this kind of stuff to investors, regardless of their actual product and that this is not some brand-new phenomenon.  It's been going on for ages. Nothing has suddenly changed.  Seriously: just go look up an earnings report for any random corporation.  Pick the year at random too. 

Will you just forget about it? these people will never understand, plus, most of these guys just post their opinion and leave, thinking that the DA team is taking over.

[Galad22]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Incorrect. RPG's had only 5.8% of sales by units sold in 2009.

Sports: 19.6%
Action: 19.5%
Strategy: 6.4%
Shooter: 12.2%

As much as it pains me to say it RPG's are faltering.

Link.

Besides that doesn't tell how many rpgs sold that 6% and how many sports games sold that 20%.

For example if 5 rpgs sells that 6% and 30 sports games sells 20% it would mean that rpgs are selling more units.

[Phaedon]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...
I can't think of a genre more succesful than RPGs, besides shooters of course.
Sport games? Maybe. 

Incorrect. RPG's had only 5.8% of sales by units sold in 2009.

Sports: 19.6%
Action: 19.5%
Strategy: 6.4%
Shooter: 12.2%

As much as it pains me to say it RPG's are faltering.

Even worse than strategy games. Well, considering that the genre hasn't changed a bit during the previous decade, I am not surprised.

Still, all rpg/shooter hybrids have been popular, even if they weren't exactly hybrids. Deus Ex, Alpha Protocol, Fallout etc.

[SphereofSilence]

I don't like the sound of this.

[WizenSlinky0]

Galad22 wrote...

Link.

Besides that doesn't tell how many rpgs sold that 6% and how many sports games sold that 20%.

For example if 5 rpgs sells that 6% and 30 sports games sells 20% it would mean that rpgs are selling more units.

Above.

And it doesn't, no. But it's telling none-the-less.

There's also other helpful information, like top selling games, with RPG's...underepresented.

Though the RPG's for computers sell better. Which is good. But most of the market is shifting towards console these days, so I excluded it.

[ShadowStripe]

this was a day 1 buy for me but I think I'n now just going to keep an eye on it till I find out exactly what "appeal to a larger audience" means they are doing to it.

[WizenSlinky0]

Phaedon wrote...

Even worse than strategy games. Well, considering that the genre hasn't changed a bit during the previous decade, I am not surprised.

Still, all rpg/shooter hybrids have been popular, even if they weren't exactly hybrids. Deus Ex, Alpha Protocol, Fallout etc.

I'd venture to say the few remaining RPG companies put out high quality RPG's, rather than the oversaturated markets for other genre's.

So the numbers do require some salt. But it's still telling of where interest is shifting.

Some of the better ones have reached decent popularity. But the market as a whole for RPG's is slumping, so it isn't surprising if a company like EA to start shying away from full RPG's.

[didymos1120]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

I skipped it because it's been posted before, but help yourself. Page 7.

http://www.theesa.co..._Facts_2010.PDF

OK, so now to draw a useful conclusion, we just need to see the genre numbers over the past few years as well.  One year in isolation doesn't tell us much of anything. Be helpful to know how they classify things, since many games blend multiple genres.  And as mentioned, how many titles are in each category for those years. 

[MajFauxPas]

    
You need to understand that the share holders and investors of EA are the real power at EA . If they want something done they will get it . a publicly traded company has a job to make as much money as possible for its share holders and investors .  I can understand how you feel but if I was a EA share holder I would want them to make as much money as Blizzard did on the Call of Duty games 

I understand the concept of wanting more money, but honestly it's greed at this point because they are making a killing. If they are not making a killing off this hugely popular and successful franchise already, the executives are doing something very wrong, not BioWare. So why then change what BioWare is doing because of the executive level mistakes? You see where I'm pointing my finger.

The amount of money made by ME3 depends on the game's quality, because it's consumer appeal depends on it's quality. If reviews are bad, or in this case if the reviews say that ME3 is not as good as ME2 or ME1, then consumers who have not previously bought ME games will have no reason to start. It's a useless tactic: changing a good product so it appeals to new consumers at the expense of appealing to existing consumers.

[WizenSlinky0]

didymos1120 wrote...

OK, so now to draw a useful conclusion, we just need to see the genre numbers over the past few years as well.  One year in isolation doesn't tell us much of anything. Be helpful to know how they classify things, since many games blend multiple genres.  And as mentioned, how many titles are in each category for those years. 

The goal was to give some credience to why people are worried, not give me a weekend research project

Take the evidence with as much salt as you wish. Ignore it completely if you want. I'm waiting to truly judge ME3 until I see it in action. But I understand and can sympathize with a lot of the worries people have.

[Galad22]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

The goal was to give some credience to why people are worried, not give me a weekend research project

Take the evidence with as much salt as you wish. Ignore it completely if you want. I'm waiting to truly judge ME3 until I see it in action. But I understand and can sympathize with a lot of the worries people have.

Origins sold over 4 millions, Fallout 3 and new Vegas over 5 million units so audience for rpgs is there.

[Slayer299]

stonbw1 wrote...
I agree 100% about the slap in the face, but I also recall many ME1 gamers complaining on here that all their hard work on ME1 didn't carry over, except those dumb emails. Hell, for PS3 players, ME2 is totally standalone.  My great concern is that this stated "broader audience" goal doesn't mean less RPG, rather, less carryover effect from imports.  Just more emails or some faint nod to the loyal BW gamers.

I know your point re the bad comparison, but you have to take yourself out of your shoes and put it in the shoes of an EA investor: they don't know what the abbreviations "TPS/RPG/FPS" stand for.  They just know that Modern Warfare is a video game that it sold a lot more copies than ME2.  Their primary concern is how to drive ME2 sales numbers up, period.  The logical answer is to bring new gamers in, which in my opinion, doesn't mean make it more shooterific, rather it means dispel the fears that an unfamiliar gamer may have that they won't "get it because I didn't play the first two".  I don't like my theory one bit, but it makes the most sense under the context.

Well I was one of those ME gamers complaining about the dumb emails, and I've been concerned about ME3 since an interview with Ray and Greg popped up over the summer on YouTube. In it the Dr's stated how ME3 'was a great place to start playing', which just left me shaking my head and going "huh????".

I see now what you meant and took it in a different context and in that way, I agree with you, it does seem a possibility to further distance themselves from the first 2 inorder to make 3 more of a standalone and not the end of a trilogy. I'd like to think positively though....

[WizenSlinky0]

Galad22 wrote...
Origins sold over 4 millions, Fallout 3 and new Vegas over 5 million units so audience for rpgs is there.

Again, the point wasn't to say there was NO audience for RPG's. Only that the audience for the other half of the hybrid was essentially a larger target for them to shoot for financially.

I'd venture to say the audience is there for any game done well.

I'll try to do some additional research this weekend if I have time. See how RPG's have faired overall. But I make no promises.

Modifié par WizenSlinky0, 05 mai 2011 - 08:08 .

[MajFauxPas]

didymos1120 wrote...

You realize of course that pretty much all companies say this kind of stuff to investors, regardless of their actual product and that this is not some brand-new phenomenon.  It's been going on for ages. Nothing has suddenly changed.  Seriously: just go look up an earnings report for any random corporation.  Pick the year at random too. 

Of course. I hope it's just hot air. But after all, he's in charge and he's talking about gameplay.

[didymos1120]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...
The goal was to give some credience to why people are worried, not give me a weekend research project

Well, I wasn't saying "GIVE ME DATA NAO!"  I was just showing why one year's stats don't actually demonstrate that the genre is in decline.  How can you conclude anything without having figures showing a greater market share in the past?  You can't.