597 réponses à ce sujet

[Renegade133]

Well at first i didnt like the idea of co op for ME3 and was thinking of cancelling then i thought you idiot your robbing yourself of the narrative because of a feature that me even be fun and i havent lol

[NOD-INFORMER37]

N7recruit11207 wrote...

they are gaining! i still believe that the five top companies are Ubisoft, Square Enix, Bethesda, EA, and Bioware. mix EA and Bioware together and what do ya get?! one of the most influental RPG that changed the game genre forever

We got  the most influental RPG that changed the game genre forever with just Bioware. Adding EA may have helped a LITTLE bit but its like saying adding maggots to your club sandwich is good for nutrients . xP

[Dragoonlordz]

Hathur wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

You know. I've never even heard of X-Com Apocalypse.

I.... wha...... surely ...... You're breakin my heart here.

.... Sure it was a mediocre, buggy, infuriating, poorly conceived piece o......

Ok. Nevermind, I take back my initial outrage.. it's probably best you haven't heard of XCOM Apoc. 

Shush you, it isn't that bad, it was fun. It was a good game but not as good as Enemy Unknown or personally even though was buggy I liked Terror From the Deep too.

[SandTrout]

EA is not a developer. They are a publisher, and therefor should not be categorized with BioWare.

[JeffZero]

Well about the ones you went out with last... Ubisoft is pretty dreadful as soon as you take away Assassin's Creed and Square Enix isn't even a shadow of what it used to be. But hey, it can re-release twenty-year-old games with high-definition graphics 'til the cows come home, because, you know, they're not coming home for a long time.

I mean, that's just my opinion of course. No need to go spreading it around.

[Ancient Metal]

Probably. Just due to the simple fact Mass Effect is available on three platforms. When Mass Effect came out in 2007 it was an X-Box 360 exclusive and got ported to PC later on. The game is now also on PS3, so I'm sure their base is larger.

As far as sales? Eh. I hear The Elder Scrolls is a sales Behemoth. Single player rpg.

[Gatt9]

Il Divo wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...


Your claim is all off the core gamers aren't against adding features that will attract the casual gamer.  Core gamers don't want the addition of casual attracting features at the expense of core game feature and feature improvements.

And that's exaclty what happens in the case of RPGs involving DnD. For a core gamer of an RPG, one of the key aspects is the rule set. However a game, above all else, needs to be accessible. The less accessible its rule set, the more difficult for a casual gamer to become involved. The more complex the rules, the more difficult it is to make that rule set accessible.

Most games literally rely on the convention X button reloads, Y jumps, etc. Games like Baldur's Gate are probably the least accessible available, since they assume that the player either is willing to read the manual or has an intimate understanding of the DnD rules. I pose (yet again) the hypothetical scenario of being required to read a book before watching a film. As a casual movie goer, you probably wouldn't be willing to undertake such an endeavor.

There's alot of problems with what you're trying to assert.

First,  you aren't referring to the Casual/Core distinction correctly.  You're assuming there's some giant number of Casual gamers who're genre neutral,  and Core gamers dedicated to each genre,  this is not correct.  The correct distinction would be that each genre has it's own Casual/Core group in isolation,  and members of both groups have understanding of the fundamental concepts.

Meaning,  there are Casual RPG players and Core RPG players,  and they both have good understanding of the fundamental rules and concepts.  The Casual-FPS-Only players do not count,  they don't know the rules,  and they simply do not care.  They're not going to buy an RPG.

Now some people exist in multiple groups,  but there's no giant collection of genre-neutral "Casuals".  You yourself illustrate this,  because you start discussion Action-Adventure Casuals and their familiarity with that genre's concepts.

There is a finite limit to each genres potential market,  the potential market for any given game is not the total of all gamers.  It is the total of all gamers who like that genre.

To put it another way,  and use your examples,  when Hollywood decides to budget and project Saw 12's potential market,  they do not look at how many tickets Pirates of the Caribbean sold.  They look at how many tickets all of the other recent Horror movies sold.  Because they know that just because a person went to see a movie,  doesn't make them a potential sale for every movie.  They realize people have genre preferences and familiarity.

It's quite honestly one of the biggest problems with the Game Industry today.  They keep thinking there's some secret formula to selling a copy of a game to every owner of a given platform,  instead of doing what Hollywood does and diversifies and budgets the genres to their historical market potential.

So in short,  the problem is not the "Casual" gamers in any genre.  The problem is incompetent executives who have not figured out yet that you cannot sell a copy of a game to every gamer,  a lesson you think everyone would've figured out 30 years ago when Atari went bankrupt making more ET cartridges than there were Atari 2600's.

[didymos1120]

SandTrout wrote...

They are a publisher, and therefor should not be categorized with BioWare.

It's not really much of a distinction, considering Bioware is just a division of EA.  Not to mention all the other wholly-owned development studios they've got, a number of which use the EA name.  I.e, you're arguing over branding, not what they actually do.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

There's alot of problems with what you're trying to assert.

First,  you aren't referring to the Casual/Core distinction correctly.  You're assuming there's some giant number of Casual gamers who're genre neutral,  and Core gamers dedicated to each genre,  this is not correct.  The correct distinction would be that each genre has it's own Casual/Core group in isolation,  and members of both groups have understanding of the fundamental concepts.

Meaning,  there are Casual RPG players and Core RPG players,  and they both have good understanding of the fundamental rules and concepts.  The Casual-FPS-Only players do not count,  they don't know the rules,  and they simply do not care.  They're not going to buy an RPG.

Now some people exist in multiple groups,  but there's no giant collection of genre-neutral "Casuals".  You yourself illustrate this,  because you start discussion Action-Adventure Casuals and their familiarity with that genre's concepts.

There is a finite limit to each genres potential market,  the potential market for any given game is not the total of all gamers.  It is the total of all gamers who like that genre.

To put it another way,  and use your examples,  when Hollywood decides to budget and project Saw 12's potential market,  they do not look at how many tickets Pirates of the Caribbean sold.  They look at how many tickets all of the other recent Horror movies sold.  Because they know that just because a person went to see a movie,  doesn't make them a potential sale for every movie.  They realize people have genre preferences and familiarity.

It's quite honestly one of the biggest problems with the Game Industry today.  They keep thinking there's some secret formula to selling a copy of a game to every owner of a given platform,  instead of doing what Hollywood does and diversifies and budgets the genres to their historical market potential.

So in short,  the problem is not the "Casual" gamers in any genre.  The problem is incompetent executives who have not figured out yet that you cannot sell a copy of a game to every gamer,  a lesson you think everyone would've figured out 30 years ago when Atari went bankrupt making more ET cartridges than there were Atari 2600's.

Or the problem is that, quite simply, any casual fan can engage in any other genre, except for RPGs, on an immediate level.
 
If I want to teach you how to play a fighting game, here are the rules: X is punch, Y is kick, R is block. There exist complex combos to victory, but the core basics are there.

If I want to teach you how to play a shooter, here are the rules: R is shoot, X is reload, and Y is jump. There exist complex shooting tactics to victory, but the core basics are there.

In establishing the distinction, you are assuming the casual market's genre, when it is not immediately apparent. Do casual gamers prefer shooters because they like shooters? Or do they prefer shooters because they are more immediately accessible, in keeping with the time/effort available to a casual gamer?

Baldur's Gate does not follow this scenario. If you want to learn the game mechanics, well, good luck. Read the manual. Or play the game, where the rules are not really existent. In other words, many old school RPGs are not "pick up and play" in the style of any other genre. Demonstrate why casuals can (or should) play a game with a 50 page + manual where the game's intro isn't capable of explaining all of the mechanics in a user-friendly manner.

The movie example illustrates that in engaging any medium, no one expects to be forced into scenarios contrary to the experience. Reading a book for a film should not be necessary; reading a manual for a video game should not be necessary.

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 octobre 2011 - 04:22 .

[Ancient Metal]

Most casual gamers I know have consoles for one of two reasons: Call of Duty or Madden.

Their consoles become in essence Call of Duty / Madden machines in and of themselves, the new games they buy being the yearly installments of those franchises, regardless of quality or lack of quality.

Those types of gamers I suspect are very high. They aren't going to care at all about Mass Effect 3

[Jorina Leto]

SandTrout wrote...

EA is not a developer. They are a publisher, and therefor should not be categorized with BioWare.

*sigh*

EA onws Bioware.
EA is Bioware

[Zanallen]

Jorina Leto wrote...

*sigh*

EA onws Bioware.
EA is Bioware

To put it more clearly, Bioware is the RPG development division of EA.

[Darkeus]

It could depend on how this turns out. If Mass Effect 3 is screwed up by Galaxy at War then BioWare stands to lose quite a few fans. People will leave in disgust if they wreck one of the greatest game series ever for EA and a quick money grab.

If it works out, I don't think they will gain the fans they are trying to target. But they might convince some naysayers (Like myself) that they can pull something like this off without harming or shortening a solid Single Player Experience. If that happens, it may help to attract more fans in the future for other Mass Effect games as word of mouth on how fun BioWare co-op can be spreads.

[Terror_K]

BioWare really are pandering too much to the casual and mainstream market to the point of seeming to even give their old fans the middle-finger, and if recent comments are to be believed they aren't turning away from this whole "have their cake and eat it too" approach either. They admit DA2 was a failure and promise to do better, but they're not even learning from their mistakes and just trying to still branch out to the same audience as every other developer, even if it means ruining their existing IPs. They even admit to it, but claim to want to take their old fans along as well, but just don't seem to get the fact that they can't given the way they're going about it. Now they're making bad decision after bad decision and despite claims of humility and listening to their fans, too much evidence to the contrary is present.

So that's why ME3 will probably be my last BioWare game the way things are going. Not that future BioWare games might not be appealing, but I'm not happy with the way they've been treating me as a longtime fan. DA2 saw to me not buying another Dragon Age product after not only getting the original game, but the expasion, all DLC and David Gaider's two novels. Not so much due to the game itself, but the way Mike Laidlaw and the other devs went about it: purposefully changing a series that set out to be an epic, fantasy RPG for the PC that took BioWare back to their roots and was a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and turning it into a weak, hack'n'slash action game for consoles aimed at the mainstream gamer of today. I almost feel physically ill whenever I think about it, it frustrates me and annoys me that much.

[Wannabe_Overlord]

It'll still sell but if ME3 is as bad as many naysayers say than they wont be around for the ME spin-offs.

After how messed up DA2 was compared to DAO I know that I wont be getting DA3 unless many major changes have been made.

[Fugiz]

I guess the topic would be true if those that said they are never buying a Bioware game and are done, actually left instead of haunting us incessantly.

I have played every bioware console game since Kotor and only DA2 has given me cause to pause. And its true if DA2 had been my first Bioware game I would have loved it but you cant except bioware not to make changes to their games or to evolve. Its not just about about money but its human to want to improve. ME2 and DA2 both took risks. ME2 was a success and DA2 sucks. Both had people promising never to buy Bw games ever.

As to appealing to the "casual" gamer, playing RPGs does not sound casual to me and ME2 and DA2 requires a significant investment of your time. It seems to me that Bioware is actually targeting new customers among which are the so called casual gamers and they do this by dumbing down their games. This is unfortunately does not work because the truth is that solid, fun and creative gameplay mechanics will attract the casual gamer just as well only even better is that it does not alienate core gamers and will still bring in new gamers. About the fans I dont think they have anything to worry about. Im getting ME3 I would get TOR but i cant afford the subscription fees. so there good or bad still a fan.

[asdfasgasd]

Fugiz wrote...

I guess the topic would be true if those that said they are never buying a Bioware game and are done, actually left instead of haunting us incessantly.

In my case, this is exactly what is going to happen after ME3. I really should reserve further judgement however, without full knowledge of ME3 to see the path Bioware has taken. Worth checking out, though it may be  awhopping 40-50 $ wasted.

[Morducai]

To me it really boils down to sales and money. A game can get all the praise in the world but if it fails to resonate with people then clearly something went wrong. With ME2 the change clearly resonated with old and new gamers as it generated more sales then the first game.

With DA2 the formula clearly failed. Bioware might have attracted new people that would other wise never dream of playing an RPG but at what price? Say what you will and justify it any way you want, I'm looking at you Mr. Laidlaw, but the fact of the matter is that DA2 sold considerably less then DAO. Imo, Laidlaw was the wrong guy for this game as his vision for it is just not the right one.

At the end you have to treat each game as it's own entity. You can not take a formula that worked for one game and apply it to another and expect it to some how work.

[Gibb_Shepard]

DA2 had much lower sales than DAO, but ME3 will have record breaking numbers. So no, ME3 will bring in enough fans to compensate for their dwindling DA franchise and more.

[CroGamer002]

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.

[CrazyCatDude]

tez19 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

tez19 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Well, excluding Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate 1, I've enjoyed everything that Bioware's ever done. As an original fan since KotOR came out, I haven't noticed any decrease in quality. Actually, quite the contrary, since ME2 is one of my favorite games.

Seriously mate? Dragon Age 2?

Seriously. I still consider it substantially better than both BG1 and NwN from a presentation standpoint. My real issue with it is the length, Act 3 and the lackluster use of Hawke's family.

However it is much worse than DA:O and Dragon Age 2 was the first game they put out after the 'casual aiming' was adopted.

That is a matter of opinion.  I for one enjoyed DA2 much more than DA:O.

[whywhywhywhy]

Gatt9 wrote...

There's alot of problems with what you're trying to assert.

First,  you aren't referring to the Casual/Core distinction correctly.  You're assuming there's some giant number of Casual gamers who're genre neutral,  and Core gamers dedicated to each genre,  this is not correct.  The correct distinction would be that each genre has it's own Casual/Core group in isolation,  and members of both groups have understanding of the fundamental concepts.

Meaning,  there are Casual RPG players and Core RPG players,  and they both have good understanding of the fundamental rules and concepts.  The Casual-FPS-Only players do not count,  they don't know the rules,  and they simply do not care.  They're not going to buy an RPG.

Now some people exist in multiple groups,  but there's no giant collection of genre-neutral "Casuals".  You yourself illustrate this,  because you start discussion Action-Adventure Casuals and their familiarity with that genre's concepts.

There is a finite limit to each genres potential market,  the potential market for any given game is not the total of all gamers.  It is the total of all gamers who like that genre.

To put it another way,  and use your examples,  when Hollywood decides to budget and project Saw 12's potential market,  they do not look at how many tickets Pirates of the Caribbean sold.  They look at how many tickets all of the other recent Horror movies sold.  Because they know that just because a person went to see a movie,  doesn't make them a potential sale for every movie.  They realize people have genre preferences and familiarity.

It's quite honestly one of the biggest problems with the Game Industry today.  They keep thinking there's some secret formula to selling a copy of a game to every owner of a given platform,  instead of doing what Hollywood does and diversifies and budgets the genres to their historical market potential.

So in short,  the problem is not the "Casual" gamers in any genre.  The problem is incompetent executives who have not figured out yet that you cannot sell a copy of a game to every gamer,  a lesson you think everyone would've figured out 30 years ago when Atari went bankrupt making more ET cartridges than there were Atari 2600's.

Thanks for holdng it down.  I was busy doing something else.

Il Divo wrote...
Or the problem is that, quite simply, any casual fan can engage in any other genre, except for RPGs, on an immediate level.

Incorrect.  Every game and genre has a learning curve some are steeper then others.  But once learned most players casual or other just need a bit of time to get better oriented.  I'll explain more as I go along.

Il Divo wrote...
If I want to teach you how to play a fighting game, here are the rules: X is punch, Y is kick, R is block. There exist complex combos to victory, but the core basics are there.

Agreed but in a game like this you have levels of proficiency.  Beginner intermidiate and advanced.  A casual isn't going to hop right in multiplayer without any experience and trade blows with experienced veterans.  They will get beat so badly most quit/stop playing not only the game but the genre.

Il Divo wrote...
If I want to teach you how to play a shooter, here are the rules: R is shoot, X is reload, and Y is jump. There exist complex shooting tactics to victory, but the core basics are there.

Same as above.  Just starts simple as any genre does (standard game design for any genre) then ramps up difficulty but again in multiplayer, hurt locker.  Sniped, fragged(grenaded), mine, flashbang + hand gun, assualt rifle+ rush and etc.  Learning the maps is only the beginning.

Il Divo wrote...
In establishing the distinction, you are assuming the casual market's genre, when it is not immediately apparent. Do casual gamers prefer shooters because they like shooters? Or do they prefer shooters because they are more immediately accessible, in keeping with the time/effort available to a casual gamer?

His point stands I really doubt the majority casuals who got a system to play madden and other sports titles are looking to play ME or shooters.  I doubt it some might but it's definately not the norm.

Il Divo wrote...
Baldur's Gate does not follow this scenario. If you want to learn the game mechanics, well, good luck. Read the manual. Or play the game, where the rules are not really existent. In other words, many old school RPGs are not "pick up and play" in the style of any other genre. Demonstrate why casuals can (or should) play a game with a 50 page + manual where the game's intro isn't capable of explaining all of the mechanics in a user-friendly manner.

I like a good manual means the developer has paid attention to detail, nothing wrong with a little read.  Besides, a good RPG manual is more like a reference anyway.  Most games follow a introduction stage/level(s) before "getting into" the heavier gameplay that's standard basic game design.  The difference is their's more to take in over time.

Il Divo wrote...
The movie example illustrates that in engaging any medium, no one expects to be forced into scenarios contrary to the experience. Reading a book for a film should not be necessary; reading a manual for a video game should not be necessary.

According to who ?  Who set that standard ?  The industry ditched manuals to cut cost and not for any other reason.

It all boils down to if the game is fun to that casual a learning curve won't discourage someone who's having fun or finds the game interesting.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 14 octobre 2011 - 08:40 .

[whywhywhywhy]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

Dear whiners,

-snip-

Haters gonna hate, I guess, right?

Your a self-labeled hater aparrently.  Anyway the topic is about Bioware's decline.  Or how I like to say, Complete absorbtion into EA.

[jeweledleah]

as far as manuals are concerned... I remember having to read a manual for pretty much every new game I would start playing, whatever genre. manuals used to be the norm... then companies switched to in game tutorial levels because those are more fun for the player, are made and marketed as part of the game and don't have printing costs. its not that the games have gotten that much dumber. its that publishers have gotten trickier and smarter about how they introduce the player to the game

incidentaly - lack of a decent Tutorial AND manual was one of Witchers issues...one they have corrected with ultimate edition.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 14 octobre 2011 - 08:49 .

[DeathDragon185]

Haters are always more vocal than the people who give praise. more so on BSN