Ariella wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
Yet, my inital question was and still is, why was a 180 done in the first place and what direction will the franchise take. Personally, DA2 was poor to rather mediocre and found myself to be largely indifferent to events and characters. Have I, or those who have been disappointed, forsaken the franchise? No, I don't think so, but other developers have provided products more akin to my tastes. So the franchise becomes more of a wait and see after release and what other competitors have in the works, rather than a given buy or pre order.
The 180 (as you call it; I didn't find it so) was done in the first place in response to criticisms of DAO both on the forum level and on the level of professional reviews. A word that was tossed around a lot in regard to DAO was generic. Another was "rip off". In the latter occurance, you can name your favorite author as many were thrown about: Martin, Jordan, and Tolkien being the most common. So the 180 was done, at least partially, in an attempt to give the franchise a more unique stamp. As I recall, the majority of the prelease promotional interviews etc mention this at least once.
You mention competitors, but really, does anyone else but Bioware do party and story based, custom player character games anymore? Bethesda's known for its open world, CD Project Red has only produced two games in the RPG genre, while story based have no customization and no party. Obsidian hasn't managed a successful IP yet (which is unfortunate because I kinda liked AP). Larian is coming out with a Divinity 3 last I heard, but again, not really party based and as much as I liked Divinity 2, the Slayer/DK didn't really have much in the way of personality and the story was very linear. I have no idea what if anything Lionhead has in store for Fable, but again, not exactly party based and very limited in the PC's personality. Radon's, of course, developing in the Dark Eye universe, but I could see where some people would find the statistical bent of the DE system a little much. Which pretty much leaves Bioware in a niche all by itself. So unless one is really broad in the concept of competition, no one else in the market does what Bioware does: deep story with a living cast of characters and a player character is customizable and personable.
But YMMV 
It was not I who called it 180, it was Mr. Laidlaw in his defence of DA2 after the release. Whether it was an actual 180 is largely irrelevant, the changes were percieved as drastic, regardless of the realities, and it is perceptions that will dictate how a product fares to a degree. ie marketing it as "the sequal to the RPG of 2009" created expectation and preconcieved notions of what is would be. Which predictably took a nose dive when the perception that DA2 was nothing like it predecessor and was rushed, was blanketed across the internet, regardless of whether it was or not.
The competition Bioware courts is going to be from RPG developers, its market is not going to be individuals who will only touch customisation and party based games only, that is far too deliniated and not a viable segment to support development costs. Particularly as I don't think that segment actually exists as a large player market, rather there is a nebulous concept of what is an RPG and what key concepts attract certain players to it. There might be certain aspects which will pull some RPG players towards a product more than others, but I don't belive that gamers will stick to such narrowly defined core concepts ie. customisation, party formation only etc.
These are Bioware's core competencies, they differentiate it from its competitors, who will try to take market share off each other, on such points Bioware has generally done a very good job, but it does not guarantee Bioware a viable market share. Particularly when players will jump from game to game such as TW2, Deus Ex 3, Skyrim, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Fable (but considering their last outing was rather poor I wouldn't consider them a serious contender at least for the meanwhile.). If I have £60 and I want to purchase these games, which ones will I go for? Each one has a different perception among players and exerts a different pull, via differentiation of the product from others through differing game aspects and design concepts.
For instance, (I know I'm using TW2, and I'd rather not, but as I haven't played Skyrim or Deus Ex 3 I can't really comment so I'm using the closest release in the RPGesque genre for comparison.)
The perception is that TW2's storyline was far more in depth than that of DA2's, the characters, NPCs also have recieved a lot of praise and it capitalised on the mature setting as many polls show that most gamers are in their 20's or older. These were part of Bioware's selling points, even in DAO, a dark fantasy, which it wasn't. It doesn't mean that DA as a franchise is defunct, it still has selling points which TW2 lacks, such as party members, and customisation etc. Yet, even here customisation and dialogue were more limited along with attributes and equipment etc.
TW2 has vastly more equipment and associated customisation. But, no protagonist customisation, you are Geralt, it is predefined, and some people won't like it, it is inevitable. But, unless that segment is numbering in the hundreds of thousands, it is not something to aim for exclusively and ignore the fact that people will buy TW2 even if they bought DA2. It is still competition for the money in one's wallet whichever way one examines it, especially if the reception of one creates the notion that the other developer is "the" RPG developer to watch.
As an aside, factor in graphical issues, I know it won't be so important to some, but to a lot it may be a deciding factor in a purchase on an undecided issue. This was not one of Bioware's competencies, but that seems to have shifted in ME3, as it overlaps somewhat with the more action orientated shooter market which is heavy on the graphics.
Bioware has a niche, what it is known for, and may I add, what it was very good at. That niche always have a smaller portion of players who exclusively support it, due to a particular RPG taste, but the vast majority will shift from one game to another depending on what it provides in comparison with the others creating a certain amount of overlap between market segments. It causes problems when a franchise becomes associated with a percieved poorly designed game, look at the comments on PC gamer on Deus EX, they gave it 94%, the first comment was "is this a real 94% or a DA2, 94%" PC gamer's association with giving inflated scores to a game which has then been harshly critcised has not done it any favours.
By the same token, DA2 suffers from the same stigmatism, however just or unjust it may be. EA themselves acknowledged that the game disappointed a lot of fans, of course couched in the usual PR drivel of a PLC. The market share remains under pressure, it will always garner some sales, but a lot of brand equity and a sizable portion of the original fanbase has either disappeared or is indulging in a wait and see attitude, particularly as I don't think it really attracted enough new gamers to make up for the potential loss of its original base.
As such, if DA2 or Bioware had no or little competition in that niche as you stated, the reception and stock shifted should have been similar to DAO's as that market should have supported the game's launch, due to the lack of competition for party based RPGs, theoretically at least on this premis, yet it didn't . As I don't see gamers sitting on their hands until DA3 comes out, there is the educated guess that they have gone elsewhere for their RPGs, at least for the moment. Thus Bioware's competition is othe RPG developers, what it does makes it a stand out as a marketable quality, but the relevant market is always subject to challenge and erosion from other developers inspite of this.
As to Dragon Age as a franchise, it would be something I would keep an eye on, rather than consider a spent IP, but I remain mindful of the direction and problems in DA2.
Modifié par billy the squid, 05 août 2011 - 01:42 .
Retour en haut
