1113 réponses à ce sujet

[N7Raider]

Alex_SM wrote...

N7Raider wrote...
how can it influence future games if it changed nothing?  Would GoW had influenced anything had it not revolutionized cover systems?  Not likely.  Would Halo CE had influenced anything had it not perfected FPS controls on consoles?  Of course not.  So how is that Skyrim can revolutionize rpgs when it stuck to a dated formula and changed nothing?  And as for digital sales you're still making assumptions, if you mean pirated than yes it's likely it's over 1 million but you are making assumptions, vgchartz claims that many number of units sold over 3 platforms and doesn't take into account trade ins, multiple purchases etc.  Also as others have brought up we don't use sales as an indication of quality.  

Digital sales nowadays are around 50% of PC gaming market (and I'm talking about sales, not piracy), look at any detailed  games report (Newzoo have really good ones). And Valve (Steam owners) is telling Skyrim is their biggest oppening ever, so more than one million is a really safe bet.  

The 10 million boxed units shipped is not something made up, is official word from Bethesda. 

I'm not talking about quality (I already said I didn't played Skyrim, don't know how good or bad it is), but the impact of the game. A game doesn't need to be a good game to influence everything (as COD saga is doing everyday, for example). It just needs sell gazillions of copies to make everyone else rip-off their formula.  

That formula may not be new, may be the same Bethesda is being using for the last 10 years, but is different from everyone elses formula. Bethesda's approach on gaming is special. There are no Bethesda-like games out there. The closest thing I can think about is Stalker, but still are far from each other. 

You can call it dated, you may hate it, but numbers say gamers like it. It's being awarded Game of the Year everywhere, both by reviewers and readers, it's selling an insane amount of copies (much more than Oblivion) and it's making people everywhere wonder why the rest of the games are always made up of narrow corridors. 

This has the potential to be a game-changer. Time will tell, but it looks so. 

PD: VGChartz's data is wrong in lots of games. Most PC data is completely wrong. 

PD2: Cover system of Gears of War is not revolutionary. It's really well implemented, but during the previous  years quite a few games used really similar systems. GOW just sold millions and millions of copies. And that's the reason everyone rips-off GOW and not Kill Switch (2003) or Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter (some months before GOW), or Rainbow Six: Vegas (same month as GOW), etc... the sales. 

The formula isn't new for Bethesda it isn't even new for games, open world games have been around for years, the only thing skyrim did that was different was make the map twice as big.  Bethesda's approach is nothing more than making an over sized map and repeating various side missions.  If your argument for sales is impact than how do you explain oblivion?  It's not like Oblivion was a small indie game no one ever heard of it still sold over 6 million units, if it was going to influence anything it would've already happened.  I could even say the same thing about Fallout 3, it follows basically the same formula as skyrim except it has guns and it sold around 7 million units.  If it was going to influence anything we would've already seen it, of course even if it does influence anything all it will mean is developers will put more emphasis on making oversized maps/repeat side missions and put narrative and character development on hold.  

[Alex_SM]

Just take a look around. Everyone is excited about Skyrim, everyone loves it, everyone talks about it. It's the game of 2011 and will probably end 2012 over 15-17 millions units sold.

There wasn't so much fuzz about Oblivion or Fallout. 

Just look at steam stats, there's a lot more people playing it everyday than Modern Warfare 3 (PC). The peak of Skyrim doubles MW3 peak.  

Modifié par Alex_SM, 02 janvier 2012 - 02:38 .

[N7Raider]

Alex_SM wrote...

Just take a look around. Everyone is excited about Skyrim, everyone loves it, everyone talks about it. It's the game of 2011 and will probably end 2012 over 15-17 millions units sold.

There wasn't so much fuzz about Oblivion or Fallout.

It doesn't matter, your argument was sales equals impact, Oblivion and Fallout 3 also had high sale numbers and they made no impact!  And there was plenty of buzz and excitement over Gears 3, Arkham City and Modern Warfare 3, but no one's arguing those games are revolutionizing anything.  There was 3 times as much buzz for Halo 3 back in 2007 but no one was saying that innovated anything, so now all of a sudden skyrim changes everything becasue of buzz?  What?!?  And you can't assume it will finish with that many units sold, it's not gonna have legs like a mario game so that's totally absurd to think it will sell anywhere near 15 million.  Also no not everyone loves skyrim, I hate it, go on metacritic and see that it has a 5.2 user rating on PS3, I've seen other people on this board state they're sick of it, it's overrated etc.  Of course there's more people playing it on stream than MW3 most people buy MW3 on consoles, go look at the top 20 games on xbox live and see that skyrim is getting beat by games nearly 2 years old.  

Modifié par N7Raider, 02 janvier 2012 - 02:47 .

[Alex_SM]

N7Raider wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Just take a look around. Everyone is excited about Skyrim, everyone loves it, everyone talks about it. It's the game of 2011 and will probably end 2012 over 15-17 millions units sold.

There wasn't so much fuzz about Oblivion or Fallout.

It doesn't matter, your argument was sales equals impact, Oblivion and Fallout 3 also had high sale numbers and they made no impact!  And there was plenty of buzz and excitement over Gears 3, Arkham City and Modern Warfare 3, but no one's arguing those games are revolutionizing anything.  There was 3 times as much buzz for Halo 3 back in 2007 but no one was saying that innovated anything, so now all of a sudden skyrim changes everything becasue of buzz?  What?!?  Also no not everyone loves skyrim, I hate it, go on metacritic and see that it has a 5.2 user rating on PS3, I've seen other people on this board state they're sick of it, it's overrated etc.  

Neither Oblivion neither Fallout had this insane start. This one is a candidate to top3 (or maybe top1, depends in how good it holds) of this generation. We are not talking about a 5-8 millionss game, but a potential over 20 millions.

Then: 

Gears of War 3 didn't influence anything because the influence was already made. Games can't become more GOWish than they already are. The same goes for MW3, the influence is already made.  And the same goes for Halo 3, influence was already made with previous installements. 

You can't influence the rest of the world twice with the same arguments, but you can influence it with an old, but previously ignored, argument. 

The PS3 rating comes due to bad performance, nothing to do with game concept. Lots of people giving bad ratigs call the game great anyway. 

And as a final note (I'm a big tired of this argument): I think you don't think this would change anything, because you don't want it to change anything. Just because you hate it. Is not a rational conclusion, but a passionate one. 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 02 janvier 2012 - 02:58 .

[argonian persona]

Alex_SM wrote...

Just take a look around. Everyone is excited about Skyrim, everyone loves it, everyone talks about it. It's the game of 2011 and will probably end 2012 over 15-17 millions units sold.

There wasn't so much fuzz about Oblivion or Fallout. 

Just look at steam stats, there's a lot more people playing it everyday than Modern Warfare 3 (PC). The peak of Skyrim doubles MW3 peak.  

Wow. I didn't know it was dominating MW3 on PC that badly. Steam (Valve) seems to confirm how well its selling.

It's odd seeing counter-reaction from fans in denial over objective statistics. Mathematics. For so long lots of people who disliked CoD had frustration over its influence on the gaming industry, due to CoD sales statistics. It might be the flip side of the coin, soon.

I think it is a game changer, obviously. But how far will it go? The market for TES continues to expand massively with each incremental release. Where is the endgame? How much more of a market will be obtained? Will Bethesda rpgs soon overtake total CoD sales? I believe, and you might agree, that based on statistical projection you can infer its at least a possibility.

BioWare has been adamant in wanting the CoD market for ME3, but are they neglecting the TES/Fallout market? If ME3 is indeed very linear, and we will find out if it is or not when the game is released, will it have a detrimental impact on those exhausted of restricted gameplay, and thus impact reception and sales?

[Bluko]

I like Skyrim and probably consider it more of a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate then what Dragon Age has offered thus far. (You can read books in-game.)

However Skyrim is nothing revolutionary. It's a good action RPG with a lot of content. And a lot of bugs. I don't think the game industry is under the effect of a "Post-Skyrim-Era" and I'm inclined to believe OP is trolling. Though I must be honest I don't think it will be long before Bethesda eclipses Bioware's games at this rate. Especially if they continue to improve their VA quality. Technically speaking Bethesda games offer much more. Bioware's only stong suits at the moment are cinematic presentation and more vivid characters.

Were it not for the cinematic conversations and the fully realized characters Bioware creates, Bethesda would have "won".

I'll be honest I'm kind of disappointed where Mass Effect has ended up. When ME1 came out it was very flawed and well bleak in terms of actual content. However I expected ME2 to have larger detailed environments to explore. More colonies to visit. I expected planets to be of the size of ME1's but with actual interesting environments you could roam around should you choose. More then just the barren hills of ME1 with a Merc Base. You know visiting colonies, seeing alien wild life, seeing actual ruins, having "space dungeons", exploring the uknown. Granted Mass Effect offers this to some extent, but you're basically stuck to linear pathways. There is no open jungle or mars wasteland to walk about on foot or drive/fly across. You cannot approach things differently, other then mission order. This is very much a sad thing for me as I think had ME2/ME3 stayed more true to the ME1 vision they truly would have been games of the decade.

In 5 years these games will be totally obsolete not only in graphics, but in gameplay content as well. Not to say Mass Effect games aren't fun or enjoyable now. But I doubt I'll wish to play these games in 2020. The conversations will likely look as bad as KOTOR does now, which is to say awful.  Without it's "looks" Mass Effect does not have much going for it. As an RPG it's noticeably short on stuff to mess around with, especially with ME2's streamling. Only thing you can change is class, and even then core gameplay remains largely the same. There's no real items to look for or attempt to get as they're basically given to you now. And as an action game it's not very outstanding either. Very typical cover shooter, which unfortunately makes the game fairly simplistic even on higher difficulties. If you include "cover" you must also include the option to destroy it. Otherwise all encounters end up as "shooting galleries" where the same exact thing happens every time.

Which makes repeated playthrus pretty boring, for me anyways. Honestly how or why anyone finds reason to play the games more then 6 times is beyond me.

Modifié par Bluko, 02 janvier 2012 - 02:59 .

[N7Raider]

[/quote]

Neither Oblivion neither Fallout had this insane start. This one is a candidate to top3 (or maybe top1, depends in how good it holds) of this generation. We are not talking about a 5-8 millionss game, but a potential over 20 millions.

Then: 

Gears of War 3 didn't influence anything because the influence was already made. Games can't become more GOWish than they already are. The same goes for MW3, the influence is already made.  And the same goes for Halo 3, influence was already made with previous installements. 

You can't influence the rest of the world twice with the same arguments, but you can influence it with an old, but previously ignored, argument. 

The PS3 rating comes due to bad performance, nothing to do with game concept. Lots of people giving bad ratigs call the game great anyway. 


[/quote]
Dude, skyrim will not sell over 20 million units, look at the sales data it does not have the legs to do so.
You contradicted yourself, you're saying Gears 3 nor Halo 3 could've innovated anything because the influence was already there well than how can skyrim influence anything when it changed nothing?  The only thing different between skyrim and a game like Assassin's Creed (other than gameplay, setting etc.) is that skyrim has a bigger map they're both open world games, where did they get the influence from?  Not from skyrim obviously.  
An old but ignored formula, really??  Are you serious man, Fallout 3 - 7 million, Oblvion -6 milion this is not an ignored formula, maybe skyrim is a little bigger than those two but this is not an ignored formula, Bethesda is not an indie stuido this is not there first AAA game, people know how bethesda games work you can not genuinely believe this is an "ignored formula".  Your PS3 argument is weak, yes it comes down to the bugs but I'm not gonna give a game I believe to be great a 0, and as stated here there are other people who don't like it because of the weak narrative and gameplay.  

[Alex_SM]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Gears of War 3 didn't influence anything because the influence was already made. Games can't become more GOWish than they already are. The same goes for MW3, the influence is already made.  And the same goes for Halo 3, influence was already made with previous installements. 
 

So influence wasn't made with the last 4 TES games?

Clearly not. Because none of them was a megablockbuster like this one. None of the previous ones makes it into the list of best selling games of any platform, this one is most likely to do it. 

Why should Activision look at Bethesda games before? There was no reason, their formula was more succesful. Now, with Skyrim and the huge grow in sales compared to Oblivion and FO3, that's not so clear. 

[Alex_SM]

N7Raider wrote...

Dude, skyrim will not sell over 20 million units, look at the sales data it does not have the legs to do so.
You contradicted yourself, you're saying Gears 3 nor Halo 3 could've innovated anything because the influence was already there well than how can skyrim influence anything when it changed nothing?  

No, I didn't contradicted myself. 

Never talked about innovation, but influence. It's not the same. You can influence without innovate, just being different than the rest. 

I'll show it with an example:

"Game A" uses "feature A" and sells gazillions of units. -> Everybody rips-off "feature A". 

"Game B" uses again "feature A" and sells gazillions of units. -> No one rips-off anything, because they already did it. 

Now, on the other hand.

"Game C" uses "feature C" and no one copies it. 

"Game D" uses again "feature C" and sells gazillions of units -> Everybody rips-off "feature C". 


See? That's what I'm saying. 

Also, Call of Duty didn't influenced anything while it was a 4-6 million units saga, but when it became a 10-20 millions monster. 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 02 janvier 2012 - 03:13 .

[Alex_SM]

jreezy wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

You may care or not about sales, but around 10-11 million copies sold in less than 2 months is freaking madness.

Does anybody know the actual sale numbers. Last time I checked they only shipped 10 million copies.

That doesn't include digital sales, where is (according to Valve) the biggest opening ever. 

[N7Raider]

Alex_SM wrote...

N7Raider wrote...

Dude, skyrim will not sell over 20 million units, look at the sales data it does not have the legs to do so.
You contradicted yourself, you're saying Gears 3 nor Halo 3 could've innovated anything because the influence was already there well than how can skyrim influence anything when it changed nothing?  

No, I didn't contradicted myself. 

I'll show it with an example:

"Game A" uses "feature A" and sells gazillions of units. -> Everybody rips-off "feature A". 

"Game B" uses again "feature A" and sells gazillions of units. -> No one rips-off anything, because they already did it. 

Now, on the other hand.

"Game C" uses "feature C" and no one copies it. 

"Game D" uses again "feature C" and sells gazillions of units -> Everybody rips-off "feature C". 


See? That's what I'm saying. 

No you did because in this scenario skyrim is game B and it used feature A, it did nothing to revolutionize rpgs or open world games.  And you can keep lying to yourself and act like this is the first AAA game Bethesda has had but anyone with some sense can tell that this is not their first huge game, it may have gotten off to a bigger start but it is not their first huge game, this is not an ignored formula, this is not their first top selling game as you've put it.  

[N7Raider]

jreezy wrote...

N7Raider wrote...
vgchartz claims that many number of units sold over 3 platforms and doesn't take into account trade ins, multiple purchases etc.  Also as others have brought up we don't use sales as an indication of quality.  

How the heck are trade-ins relevant to calculating sales figures?

huh...because one copy may have been sold twice, someone went into gamestop bought one copy traded it in next week and then someone else went in and bought the same copy.  

[Alex_SM]

jreezy wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Gears of War 3 didn't influence anything because the influence was already made. Games can't become more GOWish than they already are. The same goes for MW3, the influence is already made.  And the same goes for Halo 3, influence was already made with previous installements. 
 

So influence wasn't made with the last 4 TES games?

Clearly not. Because none of them was a megablockbuster like this one. None of the previous ones makes it into the list of best selling games of any platform, this one is most likely to do it. 

Why should Activision look at Bethesda games before? There was no reason, their formula was more succesful. Now, with Skyrim and the huge grow in sales compared to Oblivion and FO3, that's not so clear. 

You seem to be confusing influence with popularity, although I'm not even sure if influence was the right word to use to begin with.

I don't think I'm confusing it. 

My pont is: It's is selling so well that the rest of the developers will look at it and use some of its features to get the "Skyrim crowd". 

[Alex_SM]

N7Raider wrote...

huh...because one copy may have been sold twice, someone went into gamestop bought one copy traded it in next week and then someone else went in and bought the same copy.  

But that money doesn't make it to game companies. 

[argonian persona]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Gears of War 3 didn't influence anything because the influence was already made. Games can't become more GOWish than they already are. The same goes for MW3, the influence is already made.  And the same goes for Halo 3, influence was already made with previous installements. 
 

So influence wasn't made with the last 4 TES games?

An example of something that didn't exist was, for example, nearly 100 different spells visually implemented like BioShock, categorized neatly into Five Schools.

-Destruction
-Conjuration
-Restoration
-Illusion
-Alteration

No amount of detail has ever existed in any environment (imo), let alone more than 16 square miles of surface terrain (excluding the over 150 different handcrafted dungeons) filled with variation in landscapes and colors. There is an ecosystem of wildlife. Shadows are perfectly rendered. Textures can be rough up close at times, but this means there is room for improvement. I'm sure you'll see Bethesda focus on that next game....likely Fallout 4...probably just now getting into development.

Gameplay balance is also much improved. As a pure mage, I can attest to the magicka system. Much time was spent balancing it. Of course, so variation goes into other gameplay factors, most notably Alchemy. If I take the time to catch butterflies draining nectar from a flower or the dozens of different fish swimming underwater, then subsequently spend time and effort improving Alchemy, potions can influence how my mage performs. Enchanted loot the same way. But even with those seemingly infinite variables, pure magicka use is nearly perfectly balanced.

Like any game in a series, its a continued refinement. The key is having more and more and more and more every game to coincide with that refinement.

Modifié par argonian persona, 02 janvier 2012 - 03:21 .

[Alex_SM]

N7Raider wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

N7Raider wrote...

Dude, skyrim will not sell over 20 million units, look at the sales data it does not have the legs to do so.
You contradicted yourself, you're saying Gears 3 nor Halo 3 could've innovated anything because the influence was already there well than how can skyrim influence anything when it changed nothing?  

No, I didn't contradicted myself. 

I'll show it with an example:

"Game A" uses "feature A" and sells gazillions of units. -> Everybody rips-off "feature A". 

"Game B" uses again "feature A" and sells gazillions of units. -> No one rips-off anything, because they already did it. 

Now, on the other hand.

"Game C" uses "feature C" and no one copies it. 

"Game D" uses again "feature C" and sells gazillions of units -> Everybody rips-off "feature C". 


See? That's what I'm saying. 

No you did because in this scenario skyrim is game B and it used feature A, it did nothing to revolutionize rpgs or open world games.  And you can keep lying to yourself and act like this is the first AAA game Bethesda has had but anyone with some sense can tell that this is not their first huge game, it may have gotten off to a bigger start but it is not their first huge game, this is not an ignored formula, this is not their first top selling game as you've put it.  

I never said this is their first big game or the first which sells well. I'm saying this is the first who enters in competition at the "Call of Duty level". And that's why it may be a game-changer, because the rest of the developers may start thinking about "appealing the Skyrim crowd", like they now try to appeal the "Call of Duty crowd". 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 02 janvier 2012 - 03:20 .

[Mclouvins]

Skyrim is not going to revolutionize the game development for the simple reason that it would be near impossible to develop a game which incorporates the size and detail of the world while not making serious sacrifices elsewhere, a process which if followed would basically lead to Bethesda clones and nothing more. As an example let's look at Square Enix who recently announced plans to remaster FFX for current/future systems. The immediate response to this was why not remake FFVII, which has all of the spin-off/peripheral products and their response was that developing a game like that with all of the modern features would take too long and be too expensive to be feasible.

You can fight over the merits and faults of open-ended sandbox type games compared to more guided narrative games like the ME franchise but presuming that they are going to hybridize and adopt the strengths from both is rather unrealistic and unworkable for development houses and publishers.

[didymos1120]

Alex_SM wrote...

I never said this is their first big game or the first which sells well. I'm saying this is the first who enters in competition at the "Call of Duty level". And that's why it may be a game-changer, because the rest of the developers may start thinking about "appealing the Skyrim crowd", like they now try to appeal the "Call of Dury crowd". 

It's got a looooong way to go before it gets there.  MW3?  Sold 6.5 million on launch day.  Skyrim?  Has sold about 3.5 million in over a month.  Not bad at all, but not even remotely in the same league.

[Bluko]

argonian persona wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Just take a look around. Everyone is excited about Skyrim, everyone loves it, everyone talks about it. It's the game of 2011 and will probably end 2012 over 15-17 millions units sold.

There wasn't so much fuzz about Oblivion or Fallout. 

Just look at steam stats, there's a lot more people playing it everyday than Modern Warfare 3 (PC). The peak of Skyrim doubles MW3 peak.  

Wow. I didn't know it was dominating MW3 on PC that badly. Steam (Valve) seems to confirm how well its selling.

It's odd seeing counter-reaction from fans in denial over objective statistics. Mathematics. For so long lots of people who disliked CoD had frustration over its influence on the gaming industry, due to CoD sales statistics. It might be the flip side of the coin, soon.

I think it is a game changer, obviously. But how far will it go? The market for TES continues to expand massively with each incremental release. Where is the endgame? How much more of a market will be obtained? Will Bethesda rpgs soon overtake total CoD sales? I believe, and you might agree, that based on statistical projection you can infer its at least a possibility.

BioWare has been adamant in wanting the CoD market for ME3, but are they neglecting the TES/Fallout market? If ME3 is indeed very linear, and we will find out if it is or not when the game is released, will it have a detrimental impact on those exhausted of restricted gameplay, and thus impact reception and sales?

Well people are getting sick of CoD. Sort of like what happened with Guitar Hero. I don't think too many are excited for MW4. CoD is fun, but it's getting to be too much of the same. You can only do the same thing so many times before it gets boring and driving yourself insane. A lot of folks grumble about changes made in the Elder Scrolls, but generally speaking they help keep the games fresh. Skyrim's dual-wielding aspect for example does much to enhance the gameplay and set it apart from other games.

I'm done with CoD myself. Black Ops is it for me as I still can't get over the fact how MW3 looks virtually indentical to MW2. I played a bit with my Step Brother and I do not regret not jumping on the bandwagon.

I'm happy Skyrim is doing well, because it is a very good game and what I'd consider ideal for an Action RPG. My only problems with it are the bugs and the fact that it has severe issues on the PS3 it seems. Hopefully Bethesda will take these issues to heart, otherwise their complaceny fixing "bugs" could start to hold them back I'm very optimistic to see what Bethesda will give us the next console generation though. I'm not sure what to think of Bioware anymore. Dragon Age: Origins did not impress me at all. And ME2 "dumbed down" some things a bit too much for my liking. For everything ME2 did better then ME1, taking a step forward, it also seemed to do something worse, taking a step back. I simply cannot consider ME2 "better" then ME1. To me both games are equally good, but for different reasons.

I really do hope ME3 is the best yet, but I fear it relies too much on ME2. Which will only make it a fixed version of ME2 at best. Although I've basically surrendered to this idea now and have my expectations for the game set pretty low.

[N7Raider]

jreezy wrote...

N7Raider wrote...

jreezy wrote...

N7Raider wrote...
vgchartz claims that many number of units sold over 3 platforms and doesn't take into account trade ins, multiple purchases etc.  Also as others have brought up we don't use sales as an indication of quality.  

How the heck are trade-ins relevant to calculating sales figures?

huh...because one copy may have been sold twice, someone went into gamestop bought one copy traded it in next week and then someone else went in and bought the same copy.  

So used copies? Yeah I don't think those matter.

yes they do

Modifié par N7Raider, 02 janvier 2012 - 03:31 .