4 réponses à ce sujet

[Guns]

 If people want to get into the series and know whats going on they should play the first two games. You shouldn't waste time and resources on an intro for new players or a character like James Vega. You don't go to a movie sequel and expect to understand it without seeing the first one. Video games should be no different especially ones focused and driven on story. 

[Stanley Woo]

Products created using established worlds/settings are made for a general audience as well as for fans of the world/setting. It is a little silly, not to mention the height of arrogance, to refuse newcomers access to a world/setting you happen to enjoy. After all, you had to have become a fan of the world/setting at some point, and you certainly didn't get in on the ground floor of every single world/setting you currently enjoy.

How many of us became Star Wars fans by watching the original movie in theatres in 1977? how many became fans at the Empire Strikes Back? Or Return of the Jedi? how many became fans when The Phantom Menace was released? How many became fans when The Clone Wars television series came out? how about when Timothy Zahn's book trilogy? Star Wars has a 35 year history and is an established part of our cultural zeitgeist. Implying that everyone who became a fan of Star Wars after 1977 (or worse yet, after you yourself did) is not worthy of being such a fan is ridiculous.

Stop catering to newcomers? Absolutely not. Today's newcomers are tomorrow's veterans. And really, fandom should be all about inclusion, not exclusivity. Be excellent to each other.

[Stanley Woo]

Valcutio wrote...
We're not talking about an outdated movie from the 70s. We're talking about the finale of a modern video game.

Has fandom changed that significantly in 30 years that the analogy is not relevant? When did you become a Star Wars fan? If you say anything except "when I saw Star Wars in theatres in 1977," you're no longer allowed to provide any feedback on Star Wars and no developer will listen to anything you suggest you want to see in future Star Wars products. You are also not allowed to wear Star Wars clothing, play Star wars games, or use Star Wars quotes in conversation, because obviously you're not a True Fan™. You see where this kind of thinking get you? Exclusion, exclusion, exclusion. Fandom is supposed to be about sharing your love of a world/character/setting/product.

Remember, you want producers to not cater to newcomers, so you should be okay with this. Anyone who is a fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager, Enterprise, New Frontier, Imzadi, Star Fleet Academy, or even The Motion Picture are disallowed from shouting "KHAAAAAAAAAAAN!" because they obviously became fans after the original series aired in 1966. Never mind that many of us weren't born yet, but remember, we'd be considered newcomers by the TrueFans so we don't deserve a Star Trek product that caters to us.

I'm all about being inclusive but not at the expense of alienating your core audience - the ones that made you what you are. And I don't think anyone appreciates being called arrogant for wanting the series to continue to be what made it such a success.

Ask 100 people what they like about a given setting/series/product and you will receive multiple answers, some of them contradictory. The more people who are fans, the more likely it is that you'll have conflicting ideas. Let's take the Mass Effect series as an example. Some people liked the aiming system in Mass Effect 1, yet others preferred the aiming system in Mass Effect 2. Because combat is a core system that many other systems are built around, which system do we use? If we listen to the ME1 fans, we certainly don't "cater to newcomers," but we might end up with a less effective system. If we go with the ME2 system, we'd be "catering to newcomers" and potentially "alienating the core audience," which is also bad.

You see the dilemma here? Not specifically "catering to the newcomer" or "alienating the core audience" means we get to make the game we want to make--isn't that also an important consideration here?--and hopefully more and more people will enjoy it each time. If a player is so hung up on the way ME1 works and can't/won't consider other, perhaps better, ways of doing things, whose responsibility is that? I would say that it is the individual's user who decides whether to hop on the bandwagon rather than the developer "catering" to one group over another.

Edit: And the only reason I post is because of DA2. There was a lot of talk of catering to new players. We all see how that turned out, eh? Don't make the same mistakes.

If "mistakes" were made, they were not based on which group we "catered" to. We tried a lot of different things in Dragon Age II, one of which was addressing some of the concerns players had with the combat systems in Dragon Age Origins. some players felt that Origins combat was not responsive or fast enough, and they really didn't like the attack shuffle or the sometimes long delay times between activating an ability and seeing the results. This is where "button = awesome" came in--the desire for instant gratification when using combat abilities. If anything, many of the changes we made were done as a result of fan feedback. Original fans, at that! Some of these fans just didn't want to admit that they might have been the cause of us changing things in a way they didn't agree with.

Edit 2: And the fact that you mention the Phantom Menace just terrifies me.

It is a perfect example to use when discussing fandom and old vs. new fan expectations and desires.

[Stanley Woo]

Valcutio wrote...
I agree. GAMES are for everyone. Mass Effect 3 is for fans of Mass Effect 1 and/or 2. Just like Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were for fans of A New Hope.

"A New Hope"??? True Fans™ call it "Star Wars" because that was the name of the movie upon release. Anyone who calls it "A New Hope' obviously came into the franchise later and is not allowed to enjoy "The Empire Strikes Back." That movie was made for us, the True Fans™

See? the more exclusive I get with my statements and the more adamant I am about insisting I am the only, best, or correct audience that should be catered to, the sillier I sound.

[Stanley Woo]

I really appreciate the thought you put into your post, fivefingaslap18, but I'm going to cut it up into tiny chunks in order to respond.

fivefingaslap18 wrote...
I think what the OP wants is to really allow the story to continue without the problem of reintroduction.

This is absolutely fine, but remember that BioWare/EA is a business, and as such, will try to make as much money as it can on a product. Given that videogame budgets have increased significantly in the last decade while game prices have stayed relatively the same, games have to sell more in order to be profitable. the same goes for movies. You know why the vast majority of movies are rated PG? Because that's the rating that is the most accessible to the greatest number of potential viewers, and therefore, has the greatest potential for sales.

However, I think what we're worried about is that while those who have played 1 and 2, or 2 and then have gone back to 1 or have not done so will pick up the game at the 3rd installment.

Why are you concerned about what other people buy or don't buy? You want a product that appeals to you, right? Why do you care about what Joe Gamer or Susie MassEffectFan thinks of the product? Does it matter to you how other people play our game? Or why they purchased it?

For EA, to say BioWare must change it's mantra as a gaming company is not unexpected, but it is unacceptable.

I think you're exaggerating a little too much in this paragraph. You make it sound like EA's acquisition of BioWare was forced, that EA has such control over BioWare that everything we do is micromanaged up the wazoo. This is not the case. EA recognizes BioWare's talent and commitment to quality, which is one reason it bought us in the first place. You generally don't acquire a talent like, say, Steve Nash (NBA basketball), and then tell him how to dribble or when to shoot or who to pass to whenever he gets the ball. No, you give him general guidelines regarding what you expect of him, you provide feedback if there are problems, and you support him because you've spent a lot of money acquiring him. You want to let him do what he does best, which is play basketball. Well, maybe he makes a wicked Denver omelette, but he's never invited me to breakfast.

I'm not angry that you include new things. I'm angry how you implement them. DA2 is a hyped up, and bribed travesty.

And it's at this point in the paranoid, hyperbolic diatribe that I stop listening to what you have to say. If you can't be constructive and keep a civil tongue, then I'd rather not deal with you. Equating Dragon Age II with the American banking crisis and the global economic problems is ridiculous. It's a frigging videogame, for Pete's sake. Let's maintain some perspective here. Disliking stuff we do is fine. Suggesting things we could do better next time is even better. But saying we should never have tried anything new, or that anything you don't like is proof of conspiracy, fraud, and/or incompetence is one of my pet peeves on this forum.

If that's the way you want to argue, we're done here. I ain't playing that way.