616 réponses à ce sujet

[Da Mecca]

Galad22 wrote...

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.

New Vegas had to be the closest thing to a true RPG this gen, surprised it did so well.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about.

The demand for RPG's is STRONG in the market. Maybe this is what they mean by that.

[Varen Spectre]

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.   

Igree with your post except for first sentence...

As the gaming communities and social networks grow, the studios do listen to them more and more. Case in point, Eidos Montreal and the recent changes in new Deus Ex. Besides, I do believe that ME's developers are telling the truth when they say that they listen to us.

Of course, our feedback must be constructive, our suggestions well backed up and our posts well articulated. So, while I appreciate your effort to calm the forum down, I would not recommend you to dissuade others from posting their opinions. We have a chance to change things , we just have to play it smart.

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 05 mai 2011 - 08:13 .

[didymos1120]

MajFauxPas wrote...

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

Yeah, well, he is in charge of a gaming company after all.  Wouldn't it come off a bit strange if he didn't at least sound like he understood the business?

[WizenSlinky0]

didymos1120 wrote...
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.

Psh, we all know you were thinking it. Broken engrish and all.

[Frostmourne86]

Da Mecca wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Ixalmaris wrote...

"We don't want to have any meaningless behind-the-scenes stat games, where the output is very minor in combat. Every single thing you do has a real impact in the battle."

http://www.oxm.co.uk...-mass-effect-3/

R.I.P ME3 (At least the RPG part of it)

Case in point.

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.

The only stats in the first ME that didn't directly relate to combat were your Charm/Intimidate skills; everything else pertained to combat - and if you look, the top tier (lv 12) skills granted about the same percentage that they do in ME 2.

[OperativeX]

Rollingcabbage wrote...

www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-05-04-mass-effect-3-tweaked-for-larger-market

EA has spoken at an investor conference about realigning the franchise to appeal to a larger market. Does this have anything to do with the delay? What does this mean for the game?

Discuss.

Speaking as a very bitter ex Command & Conquer fan, I shall be keeping a very close eye on ME3 and will NOT be buying it on launch day. I will now wait and see if the third installment remains true to its routes.

As we've seen from the once legendary Command & Conquer series, EA can destroy even the greatest franchises and reduce them to utter $%@! when they get their greasy corporate mits on them.

I'm hoping Bioware remains headstrong and doesn't allow EA to wreck their masterpiece. Mass Effect is one of my favourite series. If it goes to casual gamers there will be a lot of angry Krogen's ready to rip Riccitello apart for his disingenious comments!

[Phaedon]

This is what Christina Norman has to say about this:
http://twitter.com/#...009880066129920

In a later tweet she says "I make games awesome, other people worry about whether they are a bigger market opportunity"

[didymos1120]

MajFauxPas wrote...
I understand the concept of wanting more money, but honestly it's greed at this point because they are making a killing.

EA as a whole actually hasn't been posting stellar profits lately. In fact, "negative profits" is more accurate.

[MajFauxPas]

ExtremeOne wrote...

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 

It was Activision and Vivendi who made money as publishers of CoD series up until the latest version or two. Frankly, I haven't bought a CoD after #3, because I didn't like #3. It was lower quality and I felt alienated from the franchise. And that's my point....

[WizenSlinky0]

didymos1120 wrote...

EA as a whole actually hasn't been posting stellar profits lately. In fact, "negative profits" is more accurate.

I think part of that comes from the fact EA publishes so many games from so many developers. Making a killing on a few in a year only does so much for their bottom line, with all the money pumped into advertising/developing bad games.

They should really look into "quality control" for which games they back.

[MajFauxPas]

didymos1120 wrote...

MajFauxPas wrote...
I understand the concept of wanting more money, but honestly it's greed at this point because they are making a killing.

EA as a whole actually hasn't been posting stellar profits lately. In fact, "negative profits" is more accurate.

Oh great, so my 'imminent doom' theory has some possibility. I was hoping to be 100% wrong on that one.

[WizenSlinky0]

Phaedon wrote...

This is what Christina Norman has to say about this:
http://twitter.com/#...009880066129920

In a later tweet she says "I make games awesome, other people worry about whether they are a bigger market opportunity"

I could be wrong on this. But didn't she have an interview about ME2 before it released about how they could improve all the shooter mechanics and not detract from the RPG experience? 

[Hoglund135]

I'm ****ting my pants in fear of another Dragon Age 2.

Bioware, if you're ****ing us from behind - give it to us straight so we don't have to find out the unpleasant way - you tried that once and it still hurts.

[Ixalmaris]

Phaedon wrote...

This is what Christina Norman has to say about this:
http://twitter.com/#...009880066129920

In a later tweet she says "I make games awesome, other people worry about whether they are a bigger market opportunity"

Is a button involved?

[WizenSlinky0]

Hoglund135 wrote...

I'm ****ting my pants in fear of another Dragon Age 2.

Bioware, if you're ****ing us from behind - give it to us straight so we don't have to find out the unpleasant way - you tried that once and it still hurts.

I can't help myself.

[ExtremeOne]

MajFauxPas wrote...

    
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.

 


In a business where Call of Duty makes billions of dollars . a publisher would be foolish to sit back and not go after that market share . I think once people on here understand at the end of the day you and me and everyone else is just a number to these companies .  Modern Warfare 3 and Gears 3 will make more money than Mass Effect 3 will . The reason why is those games appeal to a wider audience and people love playing online vs other people .  

[Skyweir]

Phaedon wrote...

Galad22 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...
No. But I am observing the hypocrisy.
As I said, the article has good news. He talks about balancing the shooter and RPG elements, and right after that, about appealing to a greater fan base. Which means, therefore, that they expect both new shooter and RPG fans.

Best of both worlds is not possible. If it is too much of a shooter, at least some rpg fans won't most likely like it. I certainly won't.

If there is too much rpg things in it, shooter fans won't most likely bother with it. Why would they there is pure shooters out there more than enough.

It's not really hard actually.
Remove all RPG influence from shooting, like ME2 did, but add new skills in elements that the player can't directly control, such as running, biotic powers, etc.

But removing RPG from shooting really hurt immersion.
Why is my Shepard's "shooting skills" dependend on the players hand/eye coordination, and not her own?
And why is her biotic powers not depdendedt on the players biotic powers as well, then?

RPG stats are not a goal in themselves, but a way to simulate the skill of the CHARACTER you play, so that it can have other skills than the PLAYER, which in a true RPG must stay separate to allow for roleplaying as someone different from who you are.

Something Mass Effect 1 did passably well,  but 2 failed badly at, though not only because of the lack of a adequate stat system.

[MajFauxPas]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

This is what Christina Norman has to say about this:
http://twitter.com/#...009880066129920

In a later tweet she says "I make games awesome, other people worry about whether they are a bigger market opportunity"

I could be wrong on this. But didn't she have an interview about ME2 before it released about how they could improve all the shooter mechanics and not detract from the RPG experience? 

Maybe this is all just a PR strategy/timing blunder?
'Game delayed to next year, oh and by the way, we're changing it to make it more popular...' may be what he thought the investors wanted to hear. You know, good news bad news, instead of just bad news.
Anyway, I hope we hear from Christina and the dev team soon with some gamer-oriented news.

[Ixalmaris]

ExtremeOne wrote...

MajFauxPas wrote...

    
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.

 


In a business where Call of Duty makes billions of dollars . a publisher would be foolish to sit back and not go after that market share . I think once people on here understand at the end of the day you and me and everyone else is just a number to these companies .  Modern Warfare 3 and Gears 3 will make more money than Mass Effect 3 will . The reason why is those games appeal to a wider audience and people love playing online vs other people .  

"Going after" Call of Duty will give you the same results as "going after" WoW.
A disgruntled fanbase and a desinterested CoD crowd (why buy the ripoff when you have the real thing?)

[Skyweir]

Frostmourne86 wrote...

Da Mecca wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Ixalmaris wrote...

"We don't want to have any meaningless behind-the-scenes stat games, where the output is very minor in combat. Every single thing you do has a real impact in the battle."

http://www.oxm.co.uk...-mass-effect-3/

R.I.P ME3 (At least the RPG part of it)

Case in point.

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.

The only stats in the first ME that didn't directly relate to combat were your Charm/Intimidate skills; everything else pertained to combat - and if you look, the top tier (lv 12) skills granted about the same percentage that they do in ME 2.

This only means that ME1 also got that bit wrong. All actions your character takes should be at least partially be dependent on stats.

[Halo Quea]

aridor1570 wrote...

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.

Are you really trying to misunderstand what people are saying on purpose?  We're not stupid, we understand that the CEO of EA was making a statement to investors.  The PROBLEM isn't that we don't get it, or that we think the DA team is taking over the development of Mass Effect 3. 

What we are concerned about is the EA culture that has ALREADY had an effect on Bioware.

Most of us here don't even think that the DA team would have released DA2 in the shape it was in IF they actually had a choice.  Guess what.........THEY DON'T.   EA was calling the shots and was clearly the culprit behind the game being forced out of the door before it was ready. 

This time the issue isn't about time, it's more about what they may be changing to "tweak ME3 for a larger market" Does this mean a multiplayer is being tacked on at the last minute?  What role playing elements of the game might end up being sacrificed for this "shift" in direction?  Sure it's speculation at this point, but not entirely.  We only have to look at the last two games to understand that Bioware's changes usually mean that elements are probably being eliminated to accomodate those changes.   If only Bioware knew how to add without subtracting.

I go back to my earlier statement.  What else could they possibly do to make this franchise  more appealing to a larger market? This is game #3, it's too late to re-boot the series again for new players.   I'm a fan of shooters, but I also know that a large number of gamers who play shooters don't even bother playing the SPC, they go straight for the multiplayer.  Most don't care what the SPC was even about.   How do you tweak role playing for this crowd when the SPC is EVERYTHING and the most important thing to an rpg?   To accomodate this group in the way that EA obviously wants to, role playing elements may continue to suffer terribly to make it more appealing for them. There's just no way around it.

So it's not that we don't understand,  WE DO understand.  

Modifié par Halo Quea, 05 mai 2011 - 08:53 .

[Gatt9]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

VanTesla wrote...

 Industry CEO's on average are evil incarnate.

Well, that still doesn't magically make that statement all that informative.  It's a bunch of vague jargon that essentially translates to "Please don't sell your shares."

They're not worried about people selling shares because ME3 slipped.  Me1 sold 2 million units,  ME2 sold 1.6 million,  investors aren't hanging on waiting for ME3.  They're far more worried about Star Wars,  Sims,  and NFL. 

The statement very likely has some meaning that won't end well,  much the same as DA2,  though thankfully I'm guessing it's nothing worse than some form of multiplayer.

why do you keep quoting random sales numbers that everyone knows are wrong to back your argument? BW confirmed the series has sold over 7 million, and we know they already confirmed ME1's sales at 2-2.5, so the math should be pretty simple even for you...

Because those are the numbers NPD reported.

And you'll find if you go back and research that 6.6 million figure,  right here on this very board it was dismissed by pretty much everyone as erroneous,  because all the data contradicts it. 

You'll also find that it's strangely just 1 digit off from what NPD reported,  it was a mistake,  ME2 never sold that many units.

Do your research before trying to flame me.

[didymos1120]

Skyweir wrote...

This only means that ME1 also got that bit wrong. All actions your character takes should be at least partially be dependent on stats.

Uh, they pretty much were.  Want to wear a heavier armor? Dump points into a skill.  Want more convo options? Dump points into a skill.  Want Lift to work on an armature? Dump points into that skill.  Want healing to work better? Dump points into a skill. Want to open more lockers and crates? Dump points into tech skills. Want to hit the broadside of a barn? Dump points into a weapon skill. 

I'll just assume you're OK with walking and opening doors and stuff like that not being stat-dependent.

[Haventh]

I have really all the faith in the world in Bioware's Mass Effect team. It is however, EA that worries me, at least when they came with this statement.

And for the record, ALL the ME games are action RPGs, explosions and guns. While all RPGs with swords and magic and such are ALL hack & slash RPGs.

[Icinix]

"We don't want to have any meaningless behind-the-scenes stat games, where the output is very minor in combat. Every single thing you do has a real impact in the battle."- Christina Norman.


RIP Charm / Intimidate / Charisma / Intelligence / Wisdom / Cunning.

I'm going to miss you...seriously...Charm / Charisma was my all time favourite RPG stat..the first thing I levelled in every RPG since the dawn of time. Dammit! I liked being able to avoid combat situations as much as possible!!!