987 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Oopsieoops wrote...
*Shrug* I was never one to criticize them on those grounds. At any rate, I'd say it's not them trying to make money so much as doing so in a short-sighted and mullish manner.

I disagree. I think DA2's virtues were the production schedule and cost. It had a tremendous backlash, but I don't think that could have been predicted. 

But their fanbase is not COD's and they have no know-how to make games which would compete with COD for its market. To try to do so is a fools errand.  

The purely capitalist goal would be to learn how to do it to capitalize on bigger marketshare, or to find ways that that fanbase could buy their games. To change the product enough to draw them in. Which is, shockingly, what is happening.

OTOH they do have a huge know-how on how to make excellent RPGs for their already stabilished fanbase, not to mention customer fidelity and goodwill. Exploring and catering to a niche market has it's own set of advantages, all of which are being squandered by BW, and that's the gist of most critiscisms.

Exploring and catering to a niche market will always mean niche profit. And a capitalist insitutition is based on the incentive to expand beyond the niche profit and product and to reach much grander global profits. 

Venerating capitalism and then talking about exploiting niche fanbases is silly. A purely capitalist industry will not care about others other than vis a vis opportunity cost. 

If 10 fans hate you, but you gain 100 sales one time then you've made the short-run of 10 production cycles.

So no, giving up their fanbases and already stabilished niche market to pursue a path that's a lot more competitive, unforgiving, and on which they have zero experience and on which most of the skills they acquired during all these years have nearly no value at all is not a sound strategy to make money.

What you say is incredibly stupid - but that's not the strategy. Implementation aside, the goal is to transition to an increasing share of that audience to improve profits while altering your game with each iteration.

Bioware never made an MMO, and MMOs were not much like story based games... but TOR was a project that Bioware undertook anyway, to make an MMO with their flavour. Just like ME is a shooter with Bioware's flavour. 

Modifié par In Exile, 01 septembre 2011 - 05:48 .

[Oopsieoops]

In Exile wrote...

Oopsieoops wrote...
*Shrug* I was never one to criticize them on those grounds. At any rate, I'd say it's not them trying to make money so much as doing so in a short-sighted and mullish manner.

I disagree. I think DA2's virtues were the production schedule and cost. It had a tremendous backlash, but I don't think that could have been predicted. 

The first sentence is a mistake since DA2's production was inbued into DAO's since the lore, the world, etc upon which DA2 was built was made during DAO's time. The second on is IMO just mindblowing, considering how much backlash DA2's direction was causing from the moment it was announced. Also, it's hard to swallow one couldn't conceive an obvious rush-job with so much recicled areas and half-working machanics would be poorly received.

But their fanbase is not COD's and they have no know-how to make games which would compete with COD for its market. To try to do so is a fools errand.  

The purely capitalist goal would be to learn how to do it to capitalize on bigger marketshare, or to find ways that that fanbase could buy their games. To change the product enough to draw them in. Which is, shockingly, what is happening.
 

Ideally for them would be to grab both markets, but as it happens that's about as likely as the same venue attracting both fast-food and high-class markets. They like not only different things but also outright opposite things, and trying to please both invariably ends up pleasing none. Which is, shockingly, what happened.
Also, I must say the mainstream market isn't as golden as most think. It's bigger, but also more competitive, unstable and unforgiving.

OTOH they do have a huge know-how on how to make excellent RPGs for their already stabilished fanbase, not to mention customer fidelity and goodwill. Exploring and catering to a niche market has it's own set of advantages, all of which are being squandered by BW, and that's the gist of most critiscisms.

Exploring and catering to a niche market will always mean niche profit. And a capitalist insitutition is based on the incentive to expand beyond the niche profit and product and to reach much grander global profits. 

You don't have any training in business theory do you? In free competition profit rates in every market converge to the same level. What happens is that niches have less competion an therefore have an easier time making profits. They also enjoy stability and confirmed revenue, which if capitalized correctly is far more attractive than purely a bigger market. For instance did you know that while Pepsi and Coke sales plummelted during the downturn Royal Crow continued to grow completely unaffected? Both pepsi and coke have rather average, unspecial tastes, so while they can grab a a bigger market slice, their customers quickly substitute when the prices go up. So although the mainstream cola market is bigger, RC gains more by sticking with their niche market.

In Exile wrote...
Venerating capitalism and then talking about exploiting niche fanbases is silly. A purely capitalist industry will not care about others other than vis a vis opportunity cost.
If 10 fans hate you, but you gain 100 sales one time then you've made the short-run of 10 production cycles.

Again, that shows you don't anything about business theory. The opportunity cost of converting a company from niche market to mainstream is enormous and the potential revenue uncertain. Like I said, having an stablished niche market is an incredibly valuable asset in capitalism. Also, there's no garantee that you will succeed in grabbing the new market, while it is certain that you will lose you previous. Those numbers have absolutely nothing to do with reality and in fact the exact opposite is demonstrated by DA sales. Numbers you pull out from you rear end are garbage as arguments.

Modifié par Oopsieoops, 01 septembre 2011 - 06:40 .

[Oopsieoops]

DP

Modifié par Oopsieoops, 01 septembre 2011 - 06:37 .

[Maconbar]

Oopsieoops wrote...

Again, that shows you don't anything about business theory. The opportunity cost of converting a company from niche market to mainstream is enormous and the potential revenue uncertain. Like I said, having an stablished niche market is an incredibly valuable asset in capitalism. Also, there's no garantee that you will succeed in grabbing the new market, while it is certain that you will lose you previous. Those numbers have absolutely nothing to do with reality and in fact the exact opposite is demonstrated by DA sales. Numbers you pull out from you rear end are garbage as arguments.

It's clear that there is risk associated with BW's decisions regarding DA but is it greater than the risk associated with SWTOR?

[In Exile]

Oopsieoops wrote...
The first sentence is a mistake since DA2's production was inbued into DAO's since the lore, the world, etc upon which DA2 was built was made during DAO's time.

No, it's not a mistake, because you're putting inordinate value on lore and setting, and not on what actually makes a computer game:

the engine, the assets, the gameplay, the ruleset, the QA, the models, the animations, the camera work, etc. etc. etc.

The second on is IMO just mindblowing, considering how much backlash DA2's direction was causing from the moment it was announced. Also, it's hard to swallow one couldn't conceive an obvious rush-job with so much recicled areas and half-working machanics would be poorly received.

ME2's backlash was explosive. And ME2 is Bioware's best rated game. 

Ideally for them would be to grab both markets, but as it happens that's about as likely as the same venue attracting both fast-food and high-class markets. They like not only different things but also outright opposite things, and trying to please both invariably ends up pleasing none. Which is, shockingly, what happened.
Also, I must say the mainstream market isn't as golden as most think. It's bigger, but also more competitive, unstable and unforgiving.

You're acting as if the "niche" market isn't unstable or unforgiving. Given how much the fanbase exploded over DA2, for changes that are all things considered still totally about a niche market (because an action-RPG is still not a traditional genre, like an FPS). 

Otherwise, the mainstream market is bigger, and your expected value for a "hit" is much higher. 

You don't have any training in business theory do you? In free competition profit rates in every market converge to the same level.

Are you seriously going to talk about perfect competition right now? That's not even reasonable theory-crafting. Talking about the video-game market as a perfectively competitive market with the ability to freely enter the market is not just ridiculous, it's inconceivable to even the most cursory analysis. 

The video game market is not perfectly competitive. The start-up costs are incredible and the entire industry is designed for to produce profits in the long-run, i.e. the basic assumption of perfect competition is violated. 

What we have is an oligopoly. 

What happens is that niches have less competion an therefore have an easier time making profits. They also enjoy stability and confirmed revenue, which if capitalized correctly is far more attractive than purely a bigger market.

No. That's not accurate at all.

AAA development costs are stable. Video-game prices are actually deflating. We're talking about a luxury good market run by oligopolies where the cost increases annually and sales/unit fall year over year. 

A niche market is unsustainable at AAA rates. You could cater to a niche... but the niche is indie development, not DA:O.

Both pepsi and coke have rather average, unspecial tastes, so while they can grab a a bigger market slice, their customers quickly substitute when the prices go up. So although the mainstream cola market is bigger, RC gains more by sticking with their niche market.

This comparison fails for several reasons. The first is that Coke and Pepsi already had mainstream audiences. The second is that even if you lose $$ to substitution, that doesn't mean that net shareholder return isn't greater than whatever growth a niche company experiences. Thirdly, companies that produce physical goods and suffer a cost of production per unit have to deal with expansion costs because their cost is the cost of production/unit.

Software companies don't pay a cost to produce any individual unit - they pay to produce the software itself, and that's a sunk cost at the onset. Profits in software come from recovering the sunk cost of development in full. 

Again, that shows you don't anything about business theory. The opportunity cost of converting a company from niche market to mainstream is enormous and the potential revenue uncertain.

Once again: you are wrong about what a niche is in video-gaming. Bioware was never a niche company. BG was never a niche product. AAA development costs were what Bioware always faced. We are not talking about

But if we look a Bioware RPGs themselves as a "niche" you're still wrong about breaking down opportunity cost. 

For one, you're already defining this as a dichotomy: go from one to the other, instead of slowly transition per release while growing your audience. For another, you're completely failing to account for cost.

Like I said, having an stablished niche market is an incredibly valuable asset in capitalism.

No, you're still wrong. You're wrong because you're basing this off industry and not software. 

Also, there's no garantee that you will succeed in grabbing the new market, while it is certain that you will lose you previous.

That's ridiculous. You're talking about pulling things out of my rear end, and then you talk about certainly losing fans when expanding out of a niche and having "uncertain" gains? Lol. 

Those numbers have absolutely nothing to do with reality and in fact the exact opposite is demonstrated by DA sales. Numbers you pull out from you rear end are garbage as arguments.

Ah, but the number of people who didn't pre-order DA2 because of all the research they did and the love they had for DA:O that you based entirely on your own experience, that was based on years of market research, right?

Modifié par In Exile, 01 septembre 2011 - 07:08 .

[Liaren]

I like both. But I have to say I prefer a voiced protagonist more. I as many I reckon was I bit worried during the development of DAII when it was known that the protagonist would be voiced. I thought that I wouldn't feel as attached or feel more like I guided the character than be it. But after playing with a voiced protagonist I wouldn't have had it any other way. Sarcastic Hawke is just awesome.

What I liked in DA:O though was that you didn't have to stick to a specific emotion: Diplomatic, sarcastic or aggressive. (I know you don't HAVE to, but it is better to stick to one I think.) You could be a bit more varied in your dialogue rather than be nice all the time or crack jokes every second. I suppose this isn't directly related to a silent or voiced protagonist but indirectly it kind of is.

The one who voices the character is very important though. I like the woman who voiced the female Hawke a lot. Her delivery is perfect. But Jeniffer Hale, the woman who voiced female Shepard, not as much. I do like it, but not as much as Hawke's. I'm not sure why actually.

Modifié par Liaren, 01 septembre 2011 - 07:17 .

[Oopsieoops]

[quote]In Exile wrote...

[quote]Oopsieoops wrote...
The first sentence is a mistake since DA2's production was inbued into DAO's since the lore, the world, etc upon which DA2 was built was made during DAO's time. [/quote]

No, it's not a mistake, because you're putting inordinate value on lore and setting, and not on what actually makes a computer game:

the engine, the assets, the gameplay, the ruleset, the QA, the models, the animations, the camera work, etc. etc. etc.
[/quote]

The argument still stands.

[quote]
[quote]The second on is IMO just mindblowing, considering how much backlash DA2's direction was causing from the moment it was announced. Also, it's hard to swallow one couldn't conceive an obvious rush-job with so much recicled areas and half-working machanics would be poorly received.[/quote]

ME2's backlash was explosive. And ME2 is Bioware's best rated game. 
[/quote]

Not nearly as much as DA2's.

[quote]
[quote]
Ideally for them would be to grab both markets, but as it happens that's about as likely as the same venue attracting both fast-food and high-class markets. They like not only different things but also outright opposite things, and trying to please both invariably ends up pleasing none. Which is, shockingly, what happened.
Also, I must say the mainstream market isn't as golden as most think. It's bigger, but also more competitive, unstable and unforgiving. [/quote]

You're acting as if the "niche" market isn't unstable or unforgiving. Given how much the fanbase exploded over DA2, for changes that are all things considered still totally about a niche market (because an action-RPG is still not a traditional genre, like an FPS).
Otherwise, the mainstream market is bigger, and your expected value for a "hit" is much higher. 
[/quote]

The fanbase exploded over their attempt at abandoning the niche, not for staying on it. At any rate what I'm reffering to is how much you can get away with in the RPG market in terms of graphics, engine, and even gameplay in comparisson to other markers. The essential in RPGs are story and writing, which is the cheapest element.

[quote]
[quote]
You don't have any training in business theory do you? In free competition profit rates in every market converge to the same level.[/quote]
Are you seriously going to talk about perfect competition right now? That's not even reasonable theory-crafting. Talking about the video-game market as a perfectively competitive market with the ability to freely enter the market is not just ridiculous, it's inconceivable to even the most cursory analysis. 
The video game market is not perfectly competitive. The start-up costs are incredible and the entire industry is designed for to produce profits in the long-run, i.e. the basic assumption of perfect competition is violated. 
What we have is an oligopoly. 
[/quote]
I'm not talking about perfect competition, I'm calling the mainstream market highly competitive. And it's precisely because of the high barriers to entry you're mentioning that makes pursuing it less advantageous than most think, specially for a company that already has huge advantages in the niche market. Though my argument isn't pursuing it per se so much as pursuing it in detriment of the niche market.

[quote]
[quote]What happens is that niches have less competion an therefore have an easier time making profits. They also enjoy stability and confirmed revenue, which if capitalized correctly is far more attractive than purely a bigger market. [/quote]No. That's not accurate at all.
AAA development costs are stable. Video-game prices are actually deflating. We're talking about a luxury good market run by oligopolies where the cost increases annually and sales/unit fall year over year. 
A niche market is unsustainable at AAA rates. You could cater to a niche... but the niche is indie development, not DA:O.
[/quote]

Those arguments are reforcing my points, not going against them... At any rate DAO managed to strike both niche and non niche markets, which is a remarkable achievement and which was squandered with DA2.

[quote]
[quote]Both pepsi and coke have rather average, unspecial tastes, so while they can grab a a bigger market slice, their customers quickly substitute when the prices go up. So although the mainstream cola market is bigger, RC gains more by sticking with their niche market.[/quote]This comparison fails for several reasons. The first is that Coke and Pepsi already had mainstream audiences. The second is that even if you lose $$ to substitution, that doesn't mean that net shareholder return isn't greater than whatever growth a niche company experiences. Thirdly, companies that produce physical goods and suffer a cost of production per unit have to deal with expansion costs because their cost is the cost of production/unit.
Software companies don't pay a cost to produce any individual unit - they pay to produce the software itself, and that's a sunk cost at the onset. Profits in software come from recovering the sunk cost of development in full. 
[/quote]

You misunderstood my analogy. Coke and Pepsi have more volatile markets just like the casual game market is more volatile. Regarding physical production it doesn't come into play in any way. RC doesn't expand into mainstream markets because increasing production would be costly, increasing production in response to increased demand is by definition a profitable action. In fact this argument is utterly groundless because if anything economy to scale would decrease costs per unity.

[quote]
[quote]Again, that shows you don't anything about business theory. The opportunity cost of converting a company from niche market to mainstream is enormous and the potential revenue uncertain.[/quote]Once again: you are wrong about what a niche is in video-gaming. Bioware was never a niche company. BG was never a niche product. AAA development costs were what Bioware always faced. We are not talking about
But if we look a Bioware RPGs themselves as a "niche" you're still wrong about breaking down opportunity cost. 
For one, you're already defining this as a dichotomy: go from one to the other, instead of slowly transition per release while growing your audience. For another, you're completely failing to account for cost.
[/quote]

This suggests me you misunderstood what we're aguing about in the first place. I never argued against BW trying to reach the mainstream market, I argued against it doing so in detriment of its already established niche market. IOW, if they want reach casual gamers they ought to do it with a franchise purposedly built for that. ME was such an attempt, and it was successful. DAO was a niche franchise (yes, I'm defining RPG itself as niche) and use it to reach the casual gamer was a huge mistake.

[quote]
[quote]Like I said, having an stablished niche market is an incredibly valuable asset in capitalism. [/quote]No, you're still wrong. You're wrong because you're basing this off industry and not software. 
[/quote]

If anything that holds more true regarding software industry than conventional goods.

[quote]
[quote]Also, there's no garantee that you will succeed in grabbing the new market, while it is certain that you will lose you previous. [/quote]That's ridiculous. You're talking about pulling things out of my rear end, and then you talk about certainly losing fans when expanding out of a niche and having "uncertain" gains? Lol. 
[/quote]

Abandoning something = certainly losing it. Honestly, I'd think that should be easy enough to understand. As for expanding into,  you're going into a new territory and as such the uncertainty is inherent.

[quote]
[quote]Those numbers have absolutely nothing to do with reality and in fact the exact opposite is demonstrated by DA sales. Numbers you pull out from you rear end are garbage as arguments.[/quote]Ah, but the number of people who didn't pre-order DA2 because of all the research they did and the love they had for DA:O that you based entirely on your own experience, that was based on years of market research, right?
[/quote]

Could you please quote me when I cited numbers? No? Well, I didn't think so. 


EDIT: typos

Modifié par Oopsieoops, 01 septembre 2011 - 10:53 .

[LordKinoda]

So it's actually the opposite of what you claimed, nuances can ONLY be achieved with a silent PC.

But the NPC's only have a set amount of ways to respond. Would you not respond differently to derision than sarcasm ? Of course you would, but they NPC's don't because they only have a certain set of lines to use. Therefore any imagined nuances are moot because of the NPC's response to your line. At least with the voiced PC you get to hear the full line exactly how the writers intended it to be spoken and reacted to by the NPC's.

...and not just cheaper but more easily subject to modification when one of the innumerable re-designs occurs mid development prompting a change in dialogue.

One could not call me an expert on voice actors, but I think it's reasonable to assume that they have some kind of line in their contracts where if they need to be called back for re-writes they can without too much undo fuss.

...but if instead of giving a speech you held up placards that your audience had to read, you'll find that with words you'll raise a lot less army and a lot more no one cares.

Heh, got a good chuckle out of this post.

It's like watching a movie and having to read from the script for one character's dialogue (basically, like the old silent films).

Never really thought to say it like that, wish I did

I find it funny that people are willing to criticize EA/Bioware on one had for chasing $$ and designing games to appeal to the greates market possible, and then criticize DA2 on grounds that it sold less than DA:O and that the DA:O fanbase ought to be catered to on the basis of how much $$ Bioware can make.

Isn't irony fun ?

What I liked in DA:O though was that you didn't have to stick to a specific emotion: Diplomatic, sarcastic or aggressive. (I know you don't HAVE to, but it is better to stick to one I think.) You could be a bit more varied in your dialogue rather than be nice all the time or crack jokes every second. I suppose this isn't directly related to a silent or voiced protagonist but indirectly it kind of is.

You can vary your responses just as much with the voice character as you said. Sticking to one type of response it not realistic. Do you always respond sarcastically to every type of situation you come across in your own life ? No, you do not. Sometimes you reply a little angry, sometimes you try to reach a comprimise, sometimes you get right to the point. So why would you want to do any different in the game. I think it makes more sense to have one main type response i.e. sarcastic where you choose that 80% of the time, and the other 20% you pepper in the other respones for flavor and realism. Least that's how I look at it.





And this market talk is interesting and all, but what does it end up having to do with "Voiced vs. Silent" ?

[Oopsieoops]

LordKinoda wrote...

So it's actually the opposite of what you claimed, nuances can ONLY be achieved with a silent PC.

But the NPC's only have a set amount of ways to respond. Would you not respond differently to derision than sarcasm ? Of course you would, but they NPC's don't because they only have a certain set of lines to use. Therefore any imagined nuances are moot because of the NPC's response to your line. At least with the voiced PC you get to hear the full line exactly how the writers intended it to be spoken and reacted to by the NPC's.

Mismatches between what you intended and what your interlocutor understood happen IRL with you as well no? Sometimes you say something genuinely meaning and it's perceived as derison, and sometimes you say something sarcasticaly and it goes completely over their head. So I don't see NPC's mismatches as problems, but rather as features  that enhance immersion and realism.

[Vicious]

It's not going anywhere and I am thanking the Maker. If I wanted to completely customize a character, then I pull out a pen and paper.

So I don't see NPC's mismatches as problems, but rather as features that enhance immersion and realism.

That's completely fair, but unfortunately there is a disconnect for plenty of other people that creates a problem, particularly when you choose a normal seeming dialogue option and characters respond as if you kicked a puppy, simply because you had no idea what the character's 'tone' was because, well, you're reading it on-screen.

Both have their pro's and con's. But as long as they keep using high quality voice actors, I will stay in that camp.

Not a Mark Meer fan.

[FaWa]

Multi-Race PC>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Voiced. I'd absolutely love love love to have both but thats a very unrealistic thought.

[Vicious]

Given the information at PAX, it definetly smells like another voiced human protagonist to the rescue for DA3. I don't think Dwarves or Elves work with the Divine too much.

[jbrand2002uk]

KLUME777 wrote...

Eudaemonium wrote...
*snip*

Voiced protagonists helps me to cement the 'not me' vibe: I am experiencing (and to an extent crafting) the experiences of Garrett/Marian Hawke/Commander Shepard/Etc, who are individuals with a certain history, certain (albeit  player-mutable) desires and a voice that is their own in a world that is not my own. I am not playing myself in a fantasy world. I do not read  books to read about myself, or watch movies to see myself, thus I,  similarly, do not play games to play myself. [I should probably state  that I did do this when I first played Baldur's Gate, despite playing a  female dual-wielding half-elf fighter/mage, which I most certainly was  not]. There is no problem with playing yourself, its just not what I (prefer to) do, and thus I prefer voiced protagonists over silent ones.

*snip*

The thing i dislike most about voiced Protagonists is that it is like watching a movie or reading a book. When i play a Western RPG, i want to be able to roleplay the character as myself, I want to imagine that i am in that world, that i am the Warden etc.

If I wanted to view a story about another person, i would watch a movie, read a book, play every videogame that isn't an RPG, and then Play the modern RPG's that do have voices. The Silent protagonist is fastly becoming extinct en route for a more cinematic appproach, and that leaves no more RPG's outside of Bethesda to roleplay myself as.

Videogames are a unique media in that they are interactive, unlike movies and books, and that they have the ability to envision yourself into the games world. We are losing that, while trying to copy movies' cinematics.

Personally i find it selfish that gamers want Dragon Age to be voiced when you already have Mass Effect. I like cinematic games as well, like Mass Effect, Uncharted, God of War, but we need variety, and i don't want to lose the few games we have that are silent, because those are my favourite. Dragon Age started off silent, and then changed to voiced. There are many, many games that are cinematic in approach. Leave something for us folks that like silent, will you please!

not to sound like a book anorak but your wrong about books not being interactive i have the old dungeons and dragons books like tale of the winter wizzard which at certain points had multiple choices for you to make 
eg
choice 1= turn to page 150
choice 2=turn to page 75
choice 3= turn to page 12
and the thing was you didnt know the consequences of your choice til you turned to the relevant page some choices could lead to your death for example .

[Vicious]

choice 1= turn to page 150
choice 2=turn to page 75
choice 3= turn to page 12

Those books were awesome. That's also, well, pretty much every RPG ever.

[jbrand2002uk]

exactly Vicious

[LordKinoda]

 

So I don't see NPC's mismatches as problems, but rather as features  that enhance immersion and realism.

Heh, you just keep holding hold on to that rope and won't let me pull you into the muck 
If it works for you, all the power to you. It just doesn't do it as well for me because it's not as logical, realistic, or entertaining.

Not a Mark Meer fan

Mark is awesome. You know it deep down inside 

[AxemanYako]

Voiced, but not by much. Silent did have more dialog options, and the voice was pretty much inside my head as if I were reading a book. However, with the voiced dialog my character just seemed to fit in and things seemed more natural.

[Meltemph]

I either want everyone voiced or nobody. Not a fan of everyone else talking except the protagonist.

[KLUME777]

[quote]LordKinoda wrote...

[quote]This is why its hard to just change Shepherds' face look, let alone the race.[/quote]

Yeah, because each race of people has a distinctive tone or dialect unique only to it. /sarcasm
[/quote]

Its nothing do do with racial tone, and everything to do with same voice coming out of different face. Imagine if Fenris had Anders voice, and Anders still had Anders voice? Its wierd, and thats why all my Shepherds look the same, because its the same character.

[quote]
[quote]That's not the same thing, though you make it sound relevant. In ME, if you play a femShep, that means Jennifer is your PC's voice. In KoTOR, she was just the voice for Bastila Shan and the PC was silent anyway.[/quote]

Different that she isn't your character, but not her work in general. I thought she was good in KOTOR, didn't really like her performance in ME. Simple. Even though I didn't play past Eden Prime I have watcehd alot of videos to see comparisons between her and Meer. Just doesn't fit for me.

[/quote]

Thats the problem with voice, it just turns a lot of people off playing because they don't like the specific voice.

[quote]
[quote]I persoanlly, and nearly all of the time, play female characters.[/quote]

And you're a guy ? Interesting, but not totally unprecedented. A lot of guys play fem toons. Just don't pull out that played out homophobic "I play fem toons because I'd rather see a girl's butt than a guys for hours and hours" line. So silly.
[/quote]

I mostly only play women characters. I just like it. Though i didn't much like Jennifer Hale in ME, way too rough and deep, i never imagine my characters like that in SP games, thats why i like them so much more (then again, Meer was even worse).

[quote]
[quote]The only potential problem I can imagine in this is if this forum somehow contains a disproportional percentage of of people from either side compared to the total population, but I see no reason to think so.[/quote]

I'll be the first one to tell you I'm no statistician. However I still think it's low. Considering MILLIONS of people have played this game and DAO. And I'd wager not even half, or even a quarter, of the people who play the game actually visit this forum or voice their opinion about the game somewhere else. There could still be a great number of people who like one side as opposed to the other. But with ME's success...I'm more inclined to think that there are more for voiced.

[/quote]

Dragon Age Origins was more successful than Mass Effect.

And i think you would be surprised, but being casual doesn't mean you like voiced. A lot of my casual gamer friends would prefer silent over voice, and one ADHD friend i know is crazy about Bethesda games, and when i showed him Mass Effect he didn't like it because the cinamatics of the voice are too boring. Yet he played DAO through to the end and loved it. And he's an avid Red Bull drinking CoD player.
[/quote]

[KLUME777]

[quote]In Exile wrote...



[quote]The second on is IMO just mindblowing, considering how much backlash DA2's direction was causing from the moment it was announced. Also, it's hard to swallow one couldn't conceive an obvious rush-job with so much recicled areas and half-working machanics would be poorly received.[/quote]

ME2's backlash was explosive. And ME2 is Bioware's best rated game. 

[/quote]

Apparently ME1 sold more. Good reviews does not equate good sales. And ME2 did not have massive backlash. Maybe on these forums upon release, but in the overall gamer world, it was very positively recieved (and im talking about users, not things like IGN), unlike DA2, which has had a negative reaction from virtually everywhere and everyone on the internet (cept ol' BSN of coarse!).

[quote]
[quote]
Ideally for them would be to grab both markets, but as it happens that's about as likely as the same venue attracting both fast-food and high-class markets. They like not only different things but also outright opposite things, and trying to please both invariably ends up pleasing none. Which is, shockingly, what happened.
Also, I must say the mainstream market isn't as golden as most think. It's bigger, but also more competitive, unstable and unforgiving. [/quote]

You're acting as if the "niche" market isn't unstable or unforgiving. Given how much the fanbase exploded over DA2, for changes that are all things considered still totally about a niche market (because an action-RPG is still not a traditional genre, like an FPS). 

Otherwise, the mainstream market is bigger, and your expected value for a "hit" is much higher. 
[/quote]

DA2 got backlash for obvious reasons; it is the opposite of what this specific niche market was after. Action RPG might be a niche market, but it wasn't Dragon Age's market, and therefore it lost out on sales because it lost its niche. And anyway, DA2 sold a million an Day 1 with pre-orders. Thats the niche being faithful.

And Furthermore, Bioware is not a niche market. 4.5 million sales is far more than most shooters get. That is a very sucessful market share, and far from niche, although it is niche in that it is more stable (unless you ****** off the market by pulling a DA2).

[/quote]

[Counterveil]

100% VOICED. I'm about as picky as it gets when it comes to video games. I really only play RPGs with any trur committment. The Mass Effect series spoiled me. So when I tried to play Origins and discovered the weirdly mute protag, it turned me way off. It's just bizarre when the main character is the ONLY one who can't talk! It doesn't make sense. Anyway, that was the sole reason I never finished Origins. I sold it and haven't looked back. I settled on getting DA2 only after I confirmed the protag will be voiced. Im stoked to hear this will be true in DA3 as well. If it weren't, I wouldn't buy it.

[In Exile]

[quote]KLUME777 wrote...

Apparently ME1 sold more.  [/quote]

No, it didn't. At one point it did, but it was also released longer.

Looking only at 360 data, ME2 sold 1,727,836, and ME1 sold 1,574,418. 

[quote]And ME2 did not have massive backlash. Maybe on these forums upon release, but in the overall gamer world, it was very positively recieved (and im talking about users, not things like IGN), unlike DA2, which has had a negative reaction from virtually everywhere and everyone on the internet (cept ol' BSN of coarse!).  [/quote]

I wasn't talking post-release. The poster was talking about pre-release fan anger. ME2 had very much fan anger on many forums.

[quote]DA2 got backlash for obvious reasons; it is the opposite of what this specific niche market was after. Action RPG might be a niche market, but it wasn't Dragon Age's market, and therefore it lost out on sales because it lost its niche. And anyway, DA2 sold a million an Day 1 with pre-orders. Thats the niche being faithful. [/quote]

DA2 had 700,000 pre-orders, and we have no idea whether it was the niche. I pre-ordered DA2, and as you know, I totally disagree with the niche on everything. So does Upsetting Shorts (too bad he doesn't post here). And who knows how many others?

[quote]And Furthermore, Bioware is not a niche market. 4.5 million sales is far more than most shooters get. That is a very sucessful market share, and far from niche, although it is niche in that it is more stable (unless you ****** off the market by pulling a DA2).[/quote]
[/quote]

I agree with you: Bioware isn't niche at all. Whether or not the "true" RPG fanbase is niche, well, that remains to be seen. 

Modifié par In Exile, 02 septembre 2011 - 10:49 .

[In Exile]

[quote]Oopsieoops wrote...

The argument still stands. [/quote]

As a testatement to the fact you make very bad arguments, yes. Not seeing how that is a good thing.


[quote]
Not nearly as much as DA2's.[/quote]

So? If the fan reaction pre-release mattered, ME2 should have been rated so much higher critically and commercially compared to ME1, by your reasoning. 


[quote]
The fanbase exploded over their attempt at abandoning the niche, not for staying on it.[/quote]

Again, if you think a console-first story-driven party based action-RPG is less niche than well, more a PC-first story-driven party based action-RPG I have a bridge on Mars you might be interested in.

[quote]At any rate what I'm reffering to is how much you can get away with in the RPG market in terms of graphics, engine, and even gameplay in comparisson to other markers. The essential in RPGs are story and writing, which is the cheapest element. [/quote]

You can get away in terms of graphics, really? I see you don't remember the wankfest over TW2's graphics and how DA:O & DA:A look like 3 year old games. 


[quote]I'm not talking about perfect competition, I'm calling the mainstream market highly competitive. And it's precisely because of the high barriers to entry you're mentioning that makes pursuing it less advantageous than most think, specially for a company that already has huge advantages in the niche market. [/quote]

It doesn't work that way. You can't scale production back to your use base. You have to scale production up to your development costs. 

More broadly, the high barriers to entry don't make the industry more competitive. That's just... there isn't even a way to reply to this other than to say I'm going assume your initial post about business theory was a joke.


[quote]Those arguments are reforcing my points, not going against them... [/quote]

No, they demolish your points. But since you're not going to address them, I'm also going to add that they are the secret to ending world hunger and their proper use improves sexual profficiency by 50%. Kind of how you just randomly said they reinforce your arguments without explaining how.


[quote]At any rate DAO managed to strike both niche and non niche markets, which is a remarkable achievement and which was squandered with DA2.[/quote]

Or maybe the RPG market is way bigger than you think, and that's why FO and TES sell 4,000,000+ copies. 


[quote]You misunderstood my analogy. Coke and Pepsi have more volatile markets just like the casual game market is more volatile. [/quote]

Volatility is irrelevant. Returns are what matter, and even valleys in a volalite market could be more lucrative than a constant peak in a niche market.


[quote]Regarding physical production it doesn't come into play in any way. [/quote]

Physical production matters, because you can scale-up or scale-down production, and your costs are proportional to your consumer base.

In a game, it doesn't quite work the same way. 


[quote]RC doesn't expand into mainstream markets because increasing production would be costly, increasing production in response to increased demand is by definition a profitable action. In fact this argument is utterly groundless because if anything economy to scale would decrease costs per unity.[/quote]

Economies of scale don't apply to software in the same way. Your costs are upfront, and AAA games require AAA audiences.


[quote]This suggests me you misunderstood what we're aguing about in the first place. I never argued against BW trying to reach the mainstream market, I argued against it doing so in detriment of its already established niche market. IOW, if they want reach casual gamers they ought to do it with a franchise purposedly built for that. ME was such an attempt, and it was successful. DAO was a niche franchise (yes, I'm defining RPG itself as niche) and use it to reach the casual gamer was a huge mistake.[/quote]
DA:O was an attempt at selling a game to the largest audience possible, which is just what ME was, which is just what KoTOR was, which is just what TOR is, which is just what... 

If you think DA:O was being marketed to a niche, watch the Violence trailer and get back to me. 


[quote]
If anything that holds more true regarding software industry than conventional goods. [/quote]

No, it doesn't. And if you're sticking to this point, and actually think evidence of cost reinforces your point, then we're done. 

[quote]Abandoning something = certainly losing it. Honestly, I'd think that should be easy enough to understand. As for expanding into,  you're going into a new territory and as such the uncertainty is inherent.[/quote]
Bioware isn't "abandoning" anything.  I don't know why you think just stating a term you use to feed into your argument will lead to me adopting it. The user base feels abandoned, but no one goes around thinking they're going to ****** in their user base's soup today. 

Repeatedly building the same product over and over is no less risky, because while you're failing to innovate, competitors (even in your niche!) can just eat up your market share. Pretending like a niche is stable is, again, ridiculous. 

[quote]
Could you please quote me when I cited numbers? No? Well, I didn't think so.  [/quote]

The other thread we're debating. I'm going to call you out for bad arguments, especially if you're rehashing them indirectly. 

[zimm4973]

 Silent, no question, atleast in an RPG, allows for so much more detail in game