498 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadowbanner]

wowpwnslol wrote...

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I'm curious: do you think there's still room for a more, "grognard"-driven RPG in the vein of BG2 in the modern marketplace?

Gaming companies of today simply cannot afford to put out a game which will cater to very limited audience, it must be mainstream in other words.

I disagree.

Take Demons Souls for example.

Gamespot's 2009 GOTY. When it was announced I was like "where the heck did this game come from?". The reason being is because the company was small, they did no marketing campaign whatsoever, the game was extremely hard and even harder to get your hands on a copy. It sold thanks to word-of-mouth: over 1 million units. It wasn't even published in Europe until the following year because they thought it wouldn't sell enough. Due to the high demand it was finally published here.

After the harsh criticisms they received (from professional reviewers, fans were pleased) for making the game so difficult what did they do for the sequel, Dark Souls? They made it even HARDER!!

That is a dev team that clearly knows and understands its niche market and appeals to it and is rewarded handsomely by its new fans. They did NOT cave in lowering the difficulty of the sequel to "address a new market opportunity" a la EA broadening its fanbase now that they were well-known and had more coin to spend on marketing. They remained true to their core values and will be rewarded on sales -again- this year.

BW is 10x the size of this small dev and EA is behind it. They could do marvels.

Modifié par Shadowbanner, 07 mai 2011 - 01:12 .

[Akka le Vil]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I'm curious: do you think there's still room for a more, "grognard"-driven RPG in the vein of BG2 in the modern marketplace?

Seriously, two of the best-selling games of the past year were DA:O and Fallout : New Vegas, and you ask if there is still place for "traditionnal" RPG ?
The answer is glaringly obvious.
The other glaringly obvious answer is that the problem with the marketting a-holes isn't "is there a market ?" but "where is THE BIGGEST market ?", because endless greed means that not even a resounding success is "enough" - in fact, the core idea of these suckers is that "there is NEVER enough".

Of course, if these clowns were actually competent, they would realize that all of them think alike, and as such there is a ferocious competition in the "idiot casual" market, while everybody has left the other supposedly "niche" market.

End result ?
 - They alienate themselves an audience which, despite not being the biggest one, is still able to generate millions of sales.
 - They make a bland, washed-down game reeking of marketting rather than creativity.
 - They don't even sell more, because all the dumbed-down games in the world tap into the same casual crowd, and even if it's (sadly) the biggest market, it's still (hopefully !) a finite one.

wowpwnslol wrote...


Gaming companies of today simply cannot afford to put out a game which will cater to very limited audience, it must be mainstream in other words.

This is wrong (see the above part of my post), and it's only because it's repeated ad nauseam that people starts
to believe it (remember the saying about how if you repeat a lie enough, it will become truth ? Here it is !).

The simple fact that DA:O sold over three millions copies should be enough to prove that there is still a large enough fanbase that can support a big company doing traditionnal games.

Once again, the problem is not "the market is not big enough" (it IS) nor "the company can't afford" (they CAN and
they even can strive), it's only, and ONLY : "they just want to gain EVEN MORE !".
When "doing great" is not enough, and only "being the biggest one" will do, then we see the slide into mediocrity.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 07 mai 2011 - 02:01 .

[DanaScu]

Eterna5 wrote...

There's like 10 people here who complain about Dragon age on a regular basis, the rest are trolls.

This "backlash" isn't that big.

I've played the game, unfortunately. It belonged to my brother; he got bored after the first act and stopped playing. I didn't register his copy of the game, so you won't find the tag under my avatar that some people insist matters whether you are allowed to say the slightest bad thing about the game. I've basically stopped posting. From the interviews released, EABioware isn't listening to *any* criticism, no matter how constructive. Other people who like the game attack and dismiss anyone who might not like the game, as your post proves. But I could link you to threads on other forums where people are definitely not pleased about the game, and have explained why extensively. Those people who hold a different opinion don't bother to post here, since they get attacked and ignored when voicing their opinion. The "backlash" is happening in more places than just here, no matter how much you want to dismiss it as "10 people" who don't like the game.

[Shadowbanner]

Maria13 wrote...

Re: Consolizacion...

Actually it was 176 posts but still, very literate and very well argued, repeating the same things many disillusioned posters on these forums have said... And the original Spanish article itself is an extremely balanced assessment. Perhaps I should translate it.

Fine, 176 posts. But there are many more threads like that in Meristation talking of the general disappointment with DA2. Anyway people can talk and write what they like; at the end of the day what counts is the sales figures. Money -or lack thereof- talks.

But these people were not trolls, they argued very well, they weren't being merely dismissive of the changes done to DA:O "just because".

The editorial article was excellent and was spot on the current consolization trend we've seen in ME2 and now decisively on DA2 and is being hinted on ME3. For RPG-lovers this trend is a source of major concern.

Modifié par Shadowbanner, 07 mai 2011 - 01:08 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

They've been stunned because their resistance = 2 + 7 = - 3. They failed to resist the stun attack. In any case. They're a big company. People still support them and are buying their petty item DLC.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 07 mai 2011 - 01:15 .

[DanaScu]

abaris wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

If anything I strongly suspect they will talk themselves into compounding their error (which is why I worry about the upcoming DA2 DLC) and convince themselves that they didn't change DA2 from DAO enough.  (Yes, that's asinine on the face of it, but that's how people think in a bunker mentality...which is why IMX it almost never ends well)

Either we'll see the predictable crash and burn, or EA management will step in and kill the Franchise.  I hope I'm wrong, but that's how I see it.

-Polaris

EA management, according to recent interviews, seem to be quite happy with the course taken - and they want it for ME3 too, "taking opportunity for larger market ... PR blahblah" included..

As for DLCs - when has there ever been a DLC really worth its money? You can count them on the fingers of one hand. For me, only Lair of the Shadow Broker comes to mind, everything else for the whole product line was only clothing, armor, weapons and similiar reduntant stuff.

They may be happy to a point. Isn't there information out that they are bringing back "rpg" elements for ME3? If they were completely happy with the hot-rod-samurai-push-button-AWESOME experience they would be taking more stuff away from ME3, not adding things back. I doubt, given the interviews, that the DA people will take any hint whatsoever from this though.  As far as dlc goes, my brother will never bother to finish the game. I very strongly disliked the game, and played his copy. I'm not going to add more "stuff" to a game I strongly dislike. I will probably never buy the game at all. Instead of tweaking and fixing the things that needed it in Origins, they completely gutted the game and started over, changing things that didn't desperately need it. Combat needed tweaked; darkspawn not so much. How much could have been done with DA2 if they hadn't had to redo so much?

[abaris]

Aaleel wrote...

And Mike Laidlaw said they shoot for a 90 metacritic score. So based on how far they're going to fall short of those goals, something must be going through their heads.

If he really said this, he must have lost touch with reality long before even publishing the game. The game, even if you leave out all the individual problems with certain elements, is still equipped with a liveless city and repetitive dungeons and environments. It should have been clear from the start that this approach isn't worth a 90.

I could imagine to rate it somewhere between 70 and 80 if I as an individual wasn't put off by most every gameplay element it has to offer.

[Teredan]

you reap what you sow, nuff said...

[abaris]

DanaScu wrote...

They may be happy to a point. Isn't there information out that they are bringing back "rpg" elements for ME3? If they were completely happy with the hot-rod-samurai-push-button-AWESOME experience they would be taking more stuff away from ME3, not adding things back. I doubt, given the interviews, that the DA people will take any hint whatsoever from this though.

There's a recent interview floating around, I think 4th of May, with one of the EA generals, where he more or less says, pushing back the release date is because of taking the opportunity to adress a larger market. Quote: "Shooter meets RPG".

That, to me, doesn't sound well, since it seems to imply, they're taking additional time to remove elements rather than adding new ones.

Modifié par abaris, 07 mai 2011 - 01:30 .

[IanPolaris]

abaris wrote...

DanaScu wrote...

They may be happy to a point. Isn't there information out that they are bringing back "rpg" elements for ME3? If they were completely happy with the hot-rod-samurai-push-button-AWESOME experience they would be taking more stuff away from ME3, not adding things back. I doubt, given the interviews, that the DA people will take any hint whatsoever from this though.

There's a recent interview floating around, I think 4th of May, with one of the EA generals, where he more or less says, pushing back the release date is because of taking the opportunity to adress a larger market. Quote: "Shooter meets RPG".

That, to me, doesn't sound well, since it seems to imply, they're taking additional time to remove elements rather than adding new ones.

Well at least for ME3 that are going back to a more ME1 structure (I remember seeing that in the same place) and remember that unlike DAO, ME was a hybrid shooter-RPG from the start so this emphasis might (and I emphasis MIGHT) actually work in ME3.  However, the general direction and attitude of EA and Bioware does increasingly worry me at least when it comes to Dragon Age as I've already explained.  I just hope I'm wrong.

-Polaris

[Maria13]

Shadowbanner wrote...

Maria13 wrote...

Re: Consolizacion...

Actually it was 176 posts but still, very literate and very well argued, repeating the same things many disillusioned posters on these forums have said... And the original Spanish article itself is an extremely balanced assessment. Perhaps I should translate it.

Fine, 176 posts. But there are many more threads like that in Meristation talking of the general disappointment with DA2. Anyway people can talk and write what they like; at the end of the day what counts is the sales figures. Money -or lack thereof- talks.

But these people were not trolls, they argued very well, they weren't being merely dismissive of the changes done to DA:O "just because".

The editorial article was excellent and was spot on the current consolization trend we've seen in ME2 and now decisively on DA2 and is being hinted on ME3. For RPG-lovers this trend is a source of major concern.

Agreed on all points.  And it is highly significant that these Spanish players who probably do not have much direct contact with their English speaking counterparts are voicing exactly the same criticisms... Bioware, take note.

[bossk-office]

The answer depends on actual sales, and on how much money DA2 makes. If it performs according to budget, Bioware will feel they did the right thing and the fanbase alienation was worth it. If it sells worse than expected – they’re shook.

I don’t think we know just how the game really is selling, and even if we did we certainly will never know what their budget looked like, so we’ll never know.

[DanaScu]

abaris wrote...

DanaScu wrote...

They may be happy to a point. Isn't there information out that they are bringing back "rpg" elements for ME3? If they were completely happy with the hot-rod-samurai-push-button-AWESOME experience they would be taking more stuff away from ME3, not adding things back. I doubt, given the interviews, that the DA people will take any hint whatsoever from this though.

There's a recent interview floating around, I think 4th of May, with one of the EA generals, where he more or less says, pushing back the release date is because of taking the opportunity to adress a larger market. Quote: "Shooter meets RPG".

That, to me, doesn't sound well, since it seems to imply, they're taking additional time to remove elements rather than adding new ones.

http://www.eurogamer...-no-multiplayer

Mass Effect 3 will offer more than one bad ending and more than one good
ending, depending on the turns your personal story makes. Your choice
of companions also affects the outcome.

The RPG elements of Mass Effect are being expanded for the third game.
Skill trees will be larger, and powers can evolve several times. In Mass
Effect 2 there were only four tiers of skill advancement. Weapon
mods return, not quite to the degree of Mass Effect 1 - but there's the
option to swap scopes, barrels, etc. This affects not only the
behaviour of the weapon, but also its appearance.
All weapons can apparently be used by all classes now, too, although only the soldier will be able to pack all options at once.

How this will work out, who knows? The implementation might totally suck. It might be improved over ME2.

I'm still waiting for reviews, even though I want to finish Shepard's story. I'm not going to be pre-ordering anything from EABioware again.

I have pre-ordered Skyrim, on the other hand. The pushing back the date might have something to do with other releases that are due out.

Modifié par DanaScu, 07 mai 2011 - 01:52 .

[moilami]

I have no problems with DA2 series. I don't buy them anymore. Problems solved. My life is much better when I just ignore ****ty games.

[Phaedros]

IanPolaris wrote...

Phaedros wrote...

They must have been really stunned..

..to make some of the design decisions they did...

No.  I think it's undestandable if you look at it the right way.  I think the design decisions were dictated by:

1. A stupid short dev cycle time.
2. The assumption (and I do blame Mike Laidlaw for this) that if Mike Laidlaw like a change to make the game better for him that the gaming audience in general would agree.  (Which honestly shows abysmal ignorance of the market he inherited as well as some rather IMO shocking arrogance)

-Polaris

That's pretty much exactly what I meant.. we are in total agreement (especially about the shocking arrogance he appears to display at every opportunity)  

[abaris]

IanPolaris wrote...

ME was a hybrid shooter-RPG from the start so this emphasis might (and I emphasis MIGHT) actually work in ME3. 

-Polaris

The only difference between ME and DA are the guns and the setting. Yes, you shoot instead of hack, but the RPG elements were still there - even in the second instalment. If this EA guy now says, they want to remove something, it certainly won't be the shooting elements, but the complexity.

And that's the general problem I have with mass appeal, because its usually catering to the lowest common denominator. Which always is beer gobbling couch potato having some difficulties writing their own name.

Modifié par abaris, 07 mai 2011 - 01:55 .

[Aaleel]

abaris wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

And Mike Laidlaw said they shoot for a 90 metacritic score. So based on how far they're going to fall short of those goals, something must be going through their heads.

If he really said this, he must have lost touch with reality long before even publishing the game. The game, even if you leave out all the individual problems with certain elements, is still equipped with a liveless city and repetitive dungeons and environments. It should have been clear from the start that this approach isn't worth a 90.

I could imagine to rate it somewhere between 70 and 80 if I as an individual wasn't put off by most every gameplay element it has to offer.

http://www.eurogamer...nterview?page=2

"If the Metacritic isn't where we want it to be, and honestly our goal
as a studio is to try and aim more for 90, then our next step will be
to, very easily, go through those reviews, go through fan feedback,
especially over some time - as opposed to the day-one initial response -
and look at that in a measured way and say, what didn't work, what did
work, where did we go too far, where did we not go far enough, where was
there just an inherent dissonance, and try to refine the experience and
try to move forward for any future products."


Edit:  Also on the reused areas.

There are some things I think that are certainly fair criticisms: the
re-use of the levels is something we knew was a bit of a risk, but we
wanted to make sure there was more content rather than less, so re-using
some of the spaces and coming to them again was certainly one we were
careful about and tried to re-use as artfully as we could.

Where was the artful reuse lol.

Modifié par Aaleel, 07 mai 2011 - 02:05 .

[Sabriana]

Jerrybnsn wrote...

I'm curious: do you think there's still room for a more, "grognard"-driven RPG in the vein of BG2 in the modern marketplace?

ML: It presents an intriguing thought experiment: is it viable to have a game that's closer to Baldur's Gate 2 in terms of the raw mechanics and execution? I don't think there's anything preventing it. However, I do think that, as a genre, if RPGs can't evolve and can't change -- and I know people yell at me for daring to use the word "evolve" -- but if they can't change or experiment, then the genre itself is going to stagnate. Not only in terms of mechanics, like in rehashes and stuff, which I think we mostly manage to avoid, but the bigger problem is that if we don't have RPGs that present a different type of experience, then we kind of encapsulate our potential audience to people who enjoy just that experience, and we drive others away


no more traditional RPG...get over it people

Doh! That explains a lot. I've been reading over and over where the ciritcs are hit with "You just can't handle change". I always wondered where the heck that came from. Now I know. Parroting, nothing more. Geez.

We have lots of RPGs that present different types of experiences already. From Obisdian to Bethsoft to CDProjekt and more. That's silly talk. One thing you can't change is the basic(s) of the RPG. Because then you don't have a RPG anymore. You have a hybrid. Hybrids aren't necesarrily bad, but they quite often are. Bad and cheap. Dime a dozen. Dive into any bargain bin, you'll be sure to find lots of them. Good luck competing in the mainstream. It'll be against a huge list of sellers.

RPGs go through changes lots of times, else I'd be crying bitter tears for losing the sprites. WotC drove me nuts with their ever-changing rules. I sighed and accepted them. Until 4ed. I hate 4ed. With a passion.

I do hope that the anger and criticism isn't driving them in the opposite direction of leaning ever further toward the genre mish-mash that was DA 2. To me, it's a game that has no clue what it is. It had a little bit of everything, and that was "in your face" in the atrocity that was act III.

The Bioware DA might be shocked. They never really had to deal with such a sh*tstorm. Sure, there were always complainers, but nothing of the now happening backlash has ever happened to them. So it's entirely a mystery how they deal with it. If they even do. Unfortunately, reading things here and in interviews,etc. leads me to assume that they won't budge. They could also simply shrug it off. They did in the past, but in the past they could. Because things always calmed down, and the fans always came around. It doesn't appear to happen this time around, and rightly so.

DA 2 was a terrible game for bioware. It was average for anyone else, but it was not Bioware worthy. Not on any scale. I hope they are listening. I hope they realize that the RPG "niche" is far larger than they let themselves be talked into believing. A good RPG can bring in its cost of production and then some. A good RPG can bring in new players. New RPG players that is. Neither the genre nor the player core is dying out. Not yet. Not quite yet.

[IanPolaris]

panchamkauns wrote...

The answer depends on actual sales, and on how much money DA2 makes. If it performs according to budget, Bioware will feel they did the right thing and the fanbase alienation was worth it. If it sells worse than expected – they’re shook.

I don’t think we know just how the game really is selling, and even if we did we certainly will never know what their budget looked like, so we’ll never know.

We can't know for certain how DA2 is doing compared with expectations, but we can make some reasonable guesses.

1. Independant accouting tells us that DA2 has "sold-through" (this is the number that counts since this reflects actual sales to the customer) of about 1.5 million to date (ignore the Sell-in announcement...that's garbage..."sell-in"==Shipped).

2.  We know that at the same point in DAO's lifecycle, it was well over 2 million perhaps more.

3.  We know that ME2 sold better than ME1 with many of the similiar sorts of changes to ME2 to ME1.

4.  We know that DAO ultimately had a sold-through number of about 3,.5 million + over all platforms. 

5.  We know given the current data trends, that DA2 will sell about 2million (sold through) when all is said and done AT BEST.

Given all the above data and when you compare sales of ME2 to ME, you can come to the reasonable expectation that if DAO sold 3.5 million overall ultimately, then DA2 should have sold at least five millions (which corresponds with some leaked pre-publication targets for DA2)...and the profit expectations would have been geared accordingly.

So if we put this guesswork together (and I'll admit it's guesswork albeit educated guesswork), I think it's safe to say that DA2 has been a financial dissapointment at best and depending on how much later units were discounted, might even be a financial disaster when compared with corporate expectations.

Just my crude analysis.

-Polaris

[Whisky]

Shock? I doubt it. They aimed for the CoD fans, so of course they knew from the beginning that DA2 would upset RPG fans.

And Laidlaw said this before, he loves to re-use areas, he loves waves. He thinks those are very nice features and they will certainly be in DA3 again. (sigh)

[IanPolaris]

Whisky wrote...

Shock? I doubt it. They aimed for the CoD fans, so of course they knew from the beginning that DA2 would upset RPG fans.

And Laidlaw said this before, he loves to re-use areas, he loves waves. He thinks those are very nice features and they will certainly be in DA3 again. (sigh)

I actually think there is some shock.  It's blindingly obvious from the raw sales data along that DA2 is not appealing to the COD crowd and has alienated it's core market. (to what degree is arguable I suppose).  It's NOT going to sell as well as it's predecessor when it was supposed to expand the market for the franchise....and the changes have not been well received by it's customers or critics post-production.

The very defensive tone I am seeing in many of these interviews tells me that at least the Bioware Dev team is shocked.  I also think they (for reasons already outlined) will draw exactly the wrong (and disasterous) conclusions.

-Polaris

Edit PS: I am a hard core RPer and I think many people posting on this thread are.  What's blindingly obvious to us, does NOT seem to be obvious at all to Mike Laidlaw who frankly (based on his history and comments) doesn't like or appreciate RPGs and certainly doesn't know how to design them.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 07 mai 2011 - 02:34 .

[abaris]

IanPolaris wrote...

We can't know for certain how DA2 is doing compared with expectations, but we can make some reasonable guesses.

1. Independant accouting tells us that DA2 has "sold-through" (this is the number that counts since this reflects actual sales to the customer) of about 1.5 million to date (ignore the Sell-in announcement...that's garbage..."sell-in"==Shipped).

2.  We know that at the same point in DAO's lifecycle, it was well over 2 million perhaps more.

3.  We know that ME2 sold better than ME1 with many of the similiar sorts of changes to ME2 to ME1.

4.  We know that DAO ultimately had a sold-through number of about 3,.5 million + over all platforms. 

5.  We know given the current data trends, that DA2 will sell about 2million (sold through) when all is said and done AT BEST.

Given all the above data and when you compare sales of ME2 to ME, you can come to the reasonable expectation that if DAO sold 3.5 million overall ultimately, then DA2 should have sold at least five millions (which corresponds with some leaked pre-publication targets for DA2)...and the profit expectations would have been geared accordingly.

So if we put this guesswork together (and I'll admit it's guesswork albeit educated guesswork), I think it's safe to say that DA2 has been a financial dissapointment at best and depending on how much later units were discounted, might even be a financial disaster when compared with corporate expectations.

Just my crude analysis.

-Polaris

Don't forget the price drop and different kinds of marketing vehicles (Free ME2), already occuring as early as week three. They may sell their share, but at which price?

DAII probably will be profitable, since the development cycle was short, but I very much doubt, it will be enough to call the change in strategy a success.

[Whisky]

IanPolaris wrote...
Edit PS: I am a hard core RPer and I think many people posting on this thread are.  What's blindingly obvious to us, does NOT seem to be obvious at all to Mike Laidlaw who frankly (based on his history and comments) doesn't like or appreciate RPGs and certainly doesn't know how to design them.

True. That's what I fear. Mike Laidlaw is obvious an action fans, he believes RPG = experience + leveling.

Bioware must do something, something.... I don't know.

[Johnny20]

I don't think they give a crap. 2 million sold, probably wont be a Dragon Age 3, laughing all the way to the bank.

[JaegerBane]

I think 'shock' and 'stunned' are a little OTT. I don't think the whole DA team are sat around a table contemplating seppuku, if that's what the message is.

On the other hand, judging by Laidlaw's comments so far, I think it's fair to say that they aware they badly misjudged how he fans would react to some of DA2's dafter screw-ups, like the recycled caves, dead plot and lack of player involvement in the story.

Much of the stuff they talk about as being the 'core concept' of DA seems to relate to how the game is played, which, frankly, I didn't feel was done that badly. It's telling, however, that their comments seemed to gloss over things like storyline, exploration and role-playing - clearly, the DA team managed to somehow get the idea no-one cared about this, and hence stupid things like canned storyline and recycled caves managed to get ok'd despite them being glaring problems that even the most ardent fans would have trouble supporting.

The fact that the Mass Effect team managed to ace all this stuff for the most part kind of blunts laidlaw's implications that you have to make a choice between old-school environments/story and modern gameplay. Ok, ME2 isn't baldur's gate, but it certainly didn't have the same issues DA2 did with narrative and environments.

I think, at the end of the day, the DA team have had quite a brutal wake-up call with DA2. They now know that they can't expect to achieve the same level critical acclaim that their previous games attracted if they're not going to think through what they're doing and use a bit more sense with the design of their games. They may claim it's just about the crusty old farts wanting everything back the way it was, but in reality, ME2 proved that isn't the case. Hopefully, DA3 will have a bit more thought put into it.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 07 mai 2011 - 03:11 .