597 réponses à ce sujet

[Thompson family]

Re: Original Topic

Judging by the way the people who bellyache the most never seem to leave, it's a very safe bet BW is gaining a lot more than they are losing.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Thompson family wrote...

Re: Original Topic

Judging by the way the people who bellyache the most never seem to leave, it's a very safe bet BW is gaining a lot more than they are losing.

That presumes they actually buy the product. 

Things I learn here about ME3 are going to play a role in deciding whether or not I actually buy it, so I have incentive to stay.

[Thompson family]

Things I learn here about ME3 are going to play a role in deciding whether or not I actually buy it, so I have incentive to stay.

So there's a chance you won't buy ME3 and will leave?

"At least you've given me a glimmer of hope in my final hours" or something like that. Thanks.

[CannotCompute]

I'm sure some of the people complaining on here will have ME3 sitting in their drives even before I arrive at the store.

Modifié par CannotCompute, 14 octobre 2011 - 05:55 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Thompson family wrote...

Things I learn here about ME3 are going to play a role in deciding whether or not I actually buy it, so I have incentive to stay.

So there's a chance you won't buy ME3 and will leave?

"At least you've given me a glimmer of hope in my final hours" or something like that. Thanks.

I'll still be here for ME1, ME2, etc...

[streamlock]

Well, I'm not reading through all 10 pages, but...I can write 10 pages.

The long and short? Yes, they are gaining more then they are losing. The #1 reason for this is of course going multiplatform. With ME3 coming out on the PS3, I wouldn't be surprised if it sells as many copies as the previous two combined across all platforms.

Normalizing for that though, I think it is dependent on the franchise. ME, and KOTOR before it was 1st and foremost developed for consoles. ME was always developed as some type of hybrid game, and yes starting in ME2 they are moving away from familiar territory. They might have taken two steps forwards and one step back in many ways, including fandom, but it was a net gain forward in both general reception and sales, and I think fans.

DA is a mixed bag. The 1st one was a PC game forced onto consoles. The 2nd one was designed I think more for the console crowed, and rushed out the door for some quick $'s. That being said, I think they may have lost more then gained, or at least hit neutral.

It will take a few years to answer that in the MMO space....

Anyway, no one can fault any developer for wanting to broaden their audience. The problem is by catering to the lowest common denominator as Bioware has been leaning toward, the 'fans' they are gaining can hardly be called fans at all. They are predominantly young, have no brand loyalty, beyond what their friends are playing, and will jump ship for whatever instant gratification entertainment they can get a hold of between watching repeats of Jersey Shore or reading Charlie Sheen's blog-or whatever.

So another developer is going to come along, realize that a deep gaming experience, complexity, storytelling and edge of your pants excitement are not mutually exclusive, take a risk and release something that strips away both the traditional Bioware fan, and the sheep gamers both.....then annoyingly be bought out by a huge publishing house.

I think if you look at some recent releases, and future ones-you will see thing happening already. Kinect, Co-op, map-packs, 90 million dollar advertising campiagns competitive MP (look for this in the next major ME franchise release)....Bioware is chasing an elusive and fickle target audience.

To summarize.... If you look at it this way, they are doing nothing but losing "fans", but are maximizing their sales by roping in 'everyone else'. This a great short term strategy, but long term a more hungry, and lithe developer will find the former fans wanting, give them what they want, and the cycle will continue.........

But until then, ME3 there I come-sans the MP.

[Killjoy Cutter]

CannotCompute wrote...

I'm sure some of the people complaining on here will have ME3 sitting in their drives even before I arrive at the store.

I'm sure you're right.  Many people lack the courage of their convictions.

[Killjoy Cutter]

streamlock wrote...

Anyway, no one can fault any developer for wanting to broaden their audience. The problem is by catering to the lowest common denominator as Bioware has been leaning toward, the 'fans' they are gaining can hardly be called fans at all. They are predominantly young, have no brand loyalty, beyond what their friends are playing, and will jump ship for whatever instant gratification entertainment they can get a hold of between watching repeats of Jersey Shore or reading Charlie Sheen's blog-or whatever.

So another developer is going to come along, realize that a deep gaming experience, complexity, storytelling and edge of your pants excitement are not mutually exclusive, take a risk and release something that strips away both the traditional Bioware fan, and the sheep gamers both.....then annoyingly be bought out by a huge publishing house.

I think if you look at some recent releases, and future ones-you will see thing happening already. Kinect, Co-op, map-packs, 90 million dollar advertising campiagns competitive MP (look for this in the next major ME franchise release)....Bioware is chasing an elusive and fickle target audience.

To summarize.... If you look at it this way, they are doing nothing but losing "fans", but are maximizing their sales by roping in 'everyone else'. This a great short term strategy, but long term a more hungry, and lithe developer will find the former fans wanting, give them what they want, and the cycle will continue.........

This part sums up a major concern I have very well.  Excellent writing, sir. 

[Walker White]

Rejoining after coming back from the conference.

Merci357 wrote...

But I object against the bolded part. Right, most often there is no repecc option (in DA2 is a respecc potion, if I'm not mistaken, however), but do you honestly think you need a perfect character to beat the game, or to enjoy it?

If suboptimal builds can kill you or prevent progress in the game, then yes.  If I am forced to go back to a much earlier save to fix a problem with a character build, I am likely to quit the game.  I almost did that with DA:O.  That is the problem with giving a player too much choice in the beginning.

In DE:HR I had no idea from the start how good many of the skills were. Getting certain ones (e.g. heavy objects, Icarus landing) was pretty crucial at various parts in the game if you did not want to go combat (because combat in DE:HR was awful).  On the other hand, some skills were never useful.  I have never seen a convincing argument that Fortitude is a useful Hacking skill in that game. 

As a result, I always had to keep Praxis skills in reserve so that I could buy the skill I needed when I needed it.  Until the end game, I never had less than 4 free Praxis.  At one point in the game I had 10 unspent Praxis points because I was unsure what to spend it on, and wanted to save it when needed.

The key problem here is the Tyranny of Choice.  It is a well-studied psychological principle that too much choice can make people miserable.

Modifié par Walker White, 14 octobre 2011 - 06:08 .

[JeffZero]

Walker White wrote...

Rejoining after coming back from the conference.

/jealous 

[Walker White]

streamlock wrote...

yway, no one can fault any developer for wanting to broaden their audience. The problem is by catering to the lowest common denominator as Bioware has been leaning toward, the 'fans' they are gaining can hardly be called fans at all. They are predominantly young, have no brand loyalty, beyond what their friends are playing, and will jump ship for whatever instant gratification entertainment they can get a hold of between watching repeats of Jersey Shore or reading Charlie Sheen's blog-or whatever.

And I thought I was reaching the "kids get off my lawn" stage.

[The Interloper]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

1. I did not say that ME3 would be indistinguishable from HALO or CoD.   I did not say that all shooters are the same.
I did say that EA has made a blatant push to draw in the players of those sorts of games in with the trends in the Mass Effect and Dragon Age franchises since they "took over".  

You can disagree with what I said, but please disagree with what I actually said.

2. How on earth did you get "I know everyone doesn't like this cause I do"  out of what I said.  Please read again: 

1.I'd say that a person who keeps buying or playing a series of games despite the games becoming something other than what that person really wants or enjoys, is the blind fan. 

Nothing there states, implies, or hints that everyone dislikes everything I dislike.  Nothing there states, implies, or hints that they should.  My statement, read at face value with no baseless inferences, only states that people who stick with something even after it changes into something they don't actually like or enjoy, would be the blind fans -- stated in opposition to the silly claim made by someone else that leaving a franchise or series because it changes makes one a blind fan. 

1. Now that we've verified what you think, what's the problem with them trying to appeal to two crowds at once? It's quite possible and the series has been doing that from the beginning, and rather successfully, and as I pointed out other games have done it as well. I don't see what the problem is here at all. What's "blatant"? Is it compromising the series vision (of a TPS with integrated rpg mechanics focused on SP, as opposed to turning into a plain TPS like GoW wherin MP is a major focus from the beginning) and quality? Does it jarr with the gameplay style by trying to appeal to a crowd that has nothing to do with the gameplay(ie adding a cooking sim to appeal to houswives! What could possible go wrong)? That's what I assumed "blatant" and "don't make a game that appeals to everyone" meant, and that's what I assumed you were implying ME3 was doing. So if that's not it, what are you implying? What's the issue here? Does the idea that anything of import happened because of EA's orders (which we aren't even sure of) make you feel dirty, regardless of whether or not those additions actually have the problems I mentioned above? I don't understand.

2. I apologize if I misread you, but it seemed to me that you spend most of your time arguing against blind loyalty. You then defined what blind loyalty was. So you seemed to me to be defining what your opponents thought, and I was pretty sure that's not what most of them are thinking and said so.

[streamlock]

Walker White wrote...

streamlock wrote...

yway, no one can fault any developer for wanting to broaden their audience. The problem is by catering to the lowest common denominator as Bioware has been leaning toward, the 'fans' they are gaining can hardly be called fans at all. They are predominantly young, have no brand loyalty, beyond what their friends are playing, and will jump ship for whatever instant gratification entertainment they can get a hold of between watching repeats of Jersey Shore or reading Charlie Sheen's blog-or whatever.

And I thought I was reaching the "kids get off my lawn" stage.

Ha! Rereading what I wrote I can see were it could have been interpreted like that.  My meaning was a bit more complex though.  Independent thought, fads, trends, conformism.......Probably not suited to these forums, but it's there if you look between the lines.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Walker White wrote...

Rejoining after coming back from the conference.

Merci357 wrote...

But I object against the bolded part. Right, most often there is no repecc option (in DA2 is a respecc potion, if I'm not mistaken, however), but do you honestly think you need a perfect character to beat the game, or to enjoy it?

If suboptimal builds can kill you or prevent progress in the game, then yes.  If I am forced to go back to much earlier save to fix a problem with a character build, I am likely to quit the game.  I almost did that with DA:O.  That is the problem with giving a player too much choice in the beginning.

In DE:HR I had no idea from the start how good many of the skills were, but getting certain ones (e.g. heavy objects, Icarus landing) was pretty crucial at various parts in the game if you did not want to go combat (because combat in DE:HR was awful).  On the other hand, some skills were never useful.  I have never seen a convincing argument that Fortitude is a useful Hacking skill in that game. 

As a result, I always had to keep Praxis skills in reserve so that I could buy the skill I needed when I needed it.  Until the end game, I never had less than 4 free Praxis.  At one point in the game I had 10 unspent Praxis points because I was unsure what to spend it on, and wanted to save it when needed.

The key problem here is the Tyranny of Choice.  It is a well-studied psychological principle that too much choice can make people miserable.

Too little choice makes me miserable. 

I don't need a game to hold my hand or tuck me in.

[Erszebeth]

I think they are losing a lot of fans. They're not making new ones, either, but they do sell more games. The problem is, a fan is different than a buyer.

[PaulSX]

I certainly wish they can gain more fans. Except baldur's gate series and dragon age origins, bioware really never delivered a quality RPG imo. and DAO is good only on dialog and choices. so I think they are wise to move to more hybrid type games. that's why I loved mass effect 2, just stop making those painful RPG mechanics.

[Killjoy Cutter]

The Interloper wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

1. I did not say that ME3 would be indistinguishable from HALO or CoD.   I did not say that all shooters are the same.
I did say that EA has made a blatant push to draw in the players of those sorts of games in with the trends in the Mass Effect and Dragon Age franchises since they "took over".  

You can disagree with what I said, but please disagree with what I actually said.

2. How on earth did you get "I know everyone doesn't like this cause I do"  out of what I said.  Please read again: 

1.I'd say that a person who keeps buying or playing a series of games despite the games becoming something other than what that person really wants or enjoys, is the blind fan. 

Nothing there states, implies, or hints that everyone dislikes everything I dislike.  Nothing there states, implies, or hints that they should.  My statement, read at face value with no baseless inferences, only states that people who stick with something even after it changes into something they don't actually like or enjoy, would be the blind fans -- stated in opposition to the silly claim made by someone else that leaving a franchise or series because it changes makes one a blind fan. 

1. Now that we've verified what you think, what's the problem with them trying to appeal to two crowds at once? It's quite possible and the series has been doing that from the beginning, and rather successfully, and as I pointed out other games have done it as well. I don't see what the problem is here at all. What's "blatant"? Is it compromising the series vision (of a TPS with integrated rpg mechanics focused on SP, as opposed to turning into a plain TPS like GoW wherin MP is a major focus from the beginning) and quality? Does it jarr with the gameplay style by trying to appeal to a crowd that has nothing to do with the gameplay (ie adding a cooking sim to appeal to houswives! What could possible go wrong)? That's what I assumed "blatant" and "don't make a game that appeals to everyone" meant, and that's what I assumed you were implying ME3 was doing. So if that's not it, what are you implying? What's the issue here? Does the idea that anything of import happened because of EA's orders (which we aren't even sure of) make you feel dirty, regardless of whether or not those additions actually have the problems I mentioned above? I don't understand.

2. I apologize if I misread you, but it seemed to me that you spend most of your time arguing against blind loyalty. You then defined what blind loyalty was. So you seemed to me to be defining what your opponents thought, and I was pretty sure that's not what most of them are thinking and said so.

IMO, there are certain game design priorities that just cannot be made compatible... you have to sacrifice one to focus on the other.  IMO, a story/RP-based TPS, focused on character and story, isn't really compatible with an MP-based TPS, at a fundamental level.  I give Bioware credit for, as far as we know, largely firewalling the SP and MP portions of ME3, although even the "galactic readiness" leakage is too much as far as I'm concerned. 

I'm as much opposed to certain parts of ME3 for the trends they represent and continue, as I am opposed them as we're hearing they exist in ME3 itself.  It's as if more and more, everything has to be everything to anyone. 

[onelifecrisis]

Mesina2 wrote...

Are you guys sure Dragon Age lost a lot of fans?

I mean, more then a half of people didn't finished DA:O.

It is possible that most people though that game is too boring/long/hard to finish and didn't bother with sequel.

You need to put that statistic in perspective. The average hardcore SP game is played to completion by only 10% of the gamers who buy it. That's why BW were so pleased when a whopping 50% of ME2 players completed the game. If DA:O was completed by more than 10% of it's players then it was ahead of the curve, which makes your theory incorrect.

[JeffZero]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...
The average hardcore SP game is played to completion by only 10% of the gamers who buy it. That's why BW were so pleased when a whopping 50% of ME2 players completed the game. If DA:O was completed by more than 10% of it's players then it was ahead of the curve, which makes your theory incorrect.

Seriously? That's horrible.

[The Interloper]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

1.IMO, there are certain game design priorities that just cannot be made compatible... you have to sacrifice one to focus on the other.  IMO, a story/RP-based TPS, focused on character and story, isn't really compatible with an MP-based TPS, at a fundamental level.  I give Bioware credit for, as far as we know, largely firewalling the SP and MP portions of ME3, although even the "galactic readiness" leakage is too much as far as I'm concerned. 

2.I'm as much opposed to certain parts of ME3 for the trends they represent and continue, as I am opposed them as we're hearing they exist in ME3 itself. 

3. It's as if more and more, everything has to be everything to anyone. 

1. As you say, story based and MP based are not compatible. But from what we've seen and as you seem to admit, ME3 seems to be remaining SP based from all we've seen, like Assassins creed or bioshock or uncharted. And I still don't understand the fuss about galactic readiness.

2. Trends are a different matter. The most important thing for me good finish to the series. If BW stops making good rpgs from here on there's always Bethesda, and I like shooters anyway. At any rate, BW has shown they can reverse trends they started, like RPG streamlining or wave based combat (DA2) so this is hardly set in stone. Besides, unless I'm mistaken weren't you saying earlier that if they no longer have anything that appeals to you you'd just leave and not be broken up over the fate of the brand?

3. Which ME3 isn't doing. The crowds it is trying to bring in fit closely to the crowds it already appeals to, so to me this move makes some sense. It makes sense to not do it, but it also makes sense to do it.

[Hathur]

onelifecrisis wrote...
The average hardcore SP game is played to completion by only 10% of the gamers who buy it. That's why BW were so pleased when a whopping 50% of ME2 players completed the game. If DA:O was completed by more than 10% of it's players then it was ahead of the curve, which makes your theory incorrect.

I never understood how so few people don't bother to finish games they purchased. I've pretty much finished every game I've ever bought... I'll feel horribly guilty or foolish if I don't since I put down a lot of hard earned money to get the game in the first place (gaming is a bloody expensive hobby).

Are people so drenched in cash they can just toss 60 dollars at a game, play it a few hours and then toss it away before finishing it? 

A game would have to be exceedingly dull or broken for me to completely put it down without finishing. Though I tend not to have to do this since I research a game before I buy it so I know whether it is a good game for me or not.

Modifié par Hathur, 14 octobre 2011 - 07:04 .

[Volus Warlord]

Hathur wrote...

I never understood how so few people don't bother to finish games they purchased. I've pretty much finished every game I've ever bought... I'll feel horribly guilty or foolish if I don't since I put down a lot of hard earned money to get the game in the first place (gaming is a bloody expensive hobby).

Are people so drenched in cash they can just toss 60 dollars at a game, play it a few hours and then toss it away before finishing it? 

A game would have to be exceedingly dull or broken for me to completely put it down without finishing. Though I tend not to have to do this since I research a game before I buy it so I know whether it is a good game for me or not.

The explanation: ADHD

[onelifecrisis]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...
The average hardcore SP game is played to completion by only 10% of the gamers who buy it. That's why BW were so pleased when a whopping 50% of ME2 players completed the game. If DA:O was completed by more than 10% of it's players then it was ahead of the curve, which makes your theory incorrect.

Seriously? That's horrible.

I know. I read it in article recently. The author used this statistic to theorise that this is, perhaps, why the endings nearly always suck, because they're not a priority for the audience and therefore not a priority for the developer either.