764 réponses à ce sujet

[Pasquale1234]

Cimeas wrote...

Skyrim sold 12 million copies.   Why?  
Their advertising campaign.

... or it could just be a great game with a lot of history behind the franchise and broad-based appeal.

[deuce985]

Yes, being an established franchise is definitely another reason Skyrim is selling crazy. That's a proven fact across the industry. Established franchises sell more because people know what to expect.

In Dragon Age's case, DA2 hurt them because it was such a big change from DA:O. At least Bioware had the balls to try something different. Most devs never stray from the formula they establish in their first game. And that's when you really start to milk the living hell out of a franchise.

To be honest, I'm starting to get tired of Bethesda's formula. They did a radical change with their franchise in Morrowind. That game was amazing and I still think it's the best ES game by far. Since that point, all they've done is recycle the same game with less features in it...while I love Skyrim, Bethesda has creativity problems. Too much feels the same in all their games. It's like they have a philosophy to pile endless content on you and never polish it. All the dungeons looking the same, exact same dragon encounters, quests that are the same, etc. I'll take 15 quests that are all completely unique over 200 quests that are the same...

Modifié par deuce985, 29 juin 2012 - 11:41 .

[deuce985]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

Skyrim sold 12 million copies.   Why?  
Their advertising campaign.

... or it could just be a great game with a lot of history behind the franchise and broad-based appeal.

Think it's also the lack of real competition for TES. I for one can not think of a game that comes near to it. People who like this kind of game will certainly buy it when it comes out. As the franchise exists for a longer period of time the fans will buy and also there are new customers to serve.

They have games that are similar but aren't on that scale.

Fallout is another hugely popular game by them. People just like their formula. I think it has a lot to do with the choice they give the player. The game has so much play variety, it's ridiculous. People like open games where they're not restricted. That's something Bioware needs to learn in their games or player agency as they call it. They need to give more control back to us.

[LobselVith8]

Deuce985 wrote...

At least Bioware had the balls to try something different.

By going against the very things they spoke out against during the release of Origins, like a voiced protagonist? I don't see what there is to applaud about making Dragon Age II into a hack and slash game. I don't find anything to applaud about an abysmal storyline that has asinine and insane characters making ridiculous choices or a passive protagonist who falls into a coma for years at a time. Simply because it's different doesn't mean Bioware should be applauded. It's painfully repetitive - Dragon Age II has you going through the same dungeons and caves over and over again... even dealing with some of the same villains. The fact that the devs have said that Dragon Age III will take a lot from Dragon Age II makes me think it'll face many if the same problems with its narrative and gameplay.

[Allan Schumacher]

Yes but the modding is one reason it's still huge on PC.

I wish they had market research to prove modding increases sales on your game because it really does. Especially when you have a massive mod community like Elder Scrolls. It doesn't matter how mainstream Skyrim is, PC players know they can fix any "flaw" they see in a Bethesda game. That's why it still sells millions on PC. They don't turn a cold shoulder to their PC players.

Modding helps, but is that really the reason why it sells millions on the PC? It sells millions on the console as well. Diablo 3 sells millions on the PC without mod tools. Clearly you don't need mod tools to sell millions on the PC.

It's tough to dissect why the game is specifically popular, but given that it's very successful on other platforms that don't offer modding tools, I have trouble attributing the success of Skyrim on the PC to the modding tools. Why wouldn't the factors that led to success on the consoles be the primary contributors to the success on the PC as well?

You can look at games like ArmA II and DayZ (as you mention), and also games like Counterstrike which undoubtedly spurred on Half-Life sales for a long time. Neverwinter Nights also had a long shelf life and I think the toolset really helped with that as well. I do recognize that mods do have the power to help sales. Is that the case for Skyrim though?

Games that heavily rely on user generated content are interesting because I think it represents a shift from games as a product to games as a platform.

[AngryFrozenWater]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

Skyrim sold 12 million copies.   Why?  
Their advertising campaign.

... or it could just be a great game with a lot of history behind the franchise and broad-based appeal.

Think it's also the lack of real competition for TES. I for one can not think of a game that comes near to it. People who like this kind of game will certainly buy it when it comes out. As the franchise exists for a longer period of time the fans will buy and also there are new customers to serve.

Correct.

It is also a very different game to play. It is not completely story driven. The idea is that the player has lots of freedom and does not need a main story to have fun. You have to be open to that. If you want the game to hold your hand then TES is not for you. Most characters in TES are shallow, in the sense that they have no deep dialogues, but instead they have their own little lives and act like citizens, soldiers, merchants, bandits, etc. They do not appear because the story requires them (like an actor entering a stage), but they appear because they exist in the game and you encounter them and that can trigger a quest. The fun is finding out what it is all about and play, within limits, how you want to play. On top of all that there are larger story arcs. There is a lot to do. There is a incredible amount of detail in all of that. Love it or hate it, but a lot seem to enjoy that.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 30 juin 2012 - 12:25 .

[Pasquale1234]

deuce985 wrote...

They have games that are similar but aren't on that scale.

Fallout is another hugely popular game by them. People just like their formula. I think it has a lot to do with the choice they give the player. The game has so much play variety, it's ridiculous. People like open games where they're not restricted. That's something Bioware needs to learn in their games or player agency as they call it. They need to give more control back to us.

I'm not sure I can define it in any way that makes sense, but from my pov, DA lost it's identity with DA2 - or at least changed it dramatically.  It wasn't just the story, locations, or characters that changed - but just about every gameplay feature was massively morphed into something very different.  Toss in the complete redesign of the UI, different art style, and redesigns of formerly familiar elves, kossiths, darkspawn, and other beasties - and it feels almost like an entirely new IP, or at least a very different interpretation of the world.

In DAO, I felt like I was able to create a character from scratch and understand that character's personality, morality, tastes, interests, and motivations.  I also felt that the setting and story served as a backdrop for me to role-play that character and actively co-create the story.  In contrast, DA2 handed me a mostly pre-defined character and asked me to guide her through a specific storyline.  The cinematic storyline was moved front and center; instead of serving as the medium for role-playing.  There is very little to compare in the way that I experienced these two games.

And from what we've been hearing from the devs, this "new-improved" formula is where they intend to stay.

[wsandista]

Cimeas wrote...

Skyrim sold 12 million copies.   Why?  
Their advertising campaign.

DA2 also had an advertising campaign, that targeted the same audience, as did ME3. I remember seeing all three games have commercials aired on CC, particularly during the Daily Show or Colbert Report. Skyrim succeeded because Bethesda makes a niche product(non-linear open-world sandbox with a main plot that is completely optional(yes you can make a mainstream game that fills a niche BTW, see COD)) and makes that product well.

DAO was also quite good at what it did(party-based RTw/P RPG that has a heavy focus on main plot and not cinematic based storytelling), and sold well as a result. DA2 did not do as well because it id not fill the niche as well as DAO, and failed to adapt to the new niche(cinematic RPG focused on a "semi-fixed" PC) well enough to draw enough new customers in.

We can't ever know if DA2 would've performed better in the market if it had been DAO2, but it is a logical conclusion when you look at pre-order cancellations and some of the negative feedback(which was to a much higher degree than DAO).

[batlin]

deuce985 wrote...

In Dragon Age's case, DA2 hurt them because it was such a big change from DA:O. At least Bioware had the balls to try something different. Most devs never stray from the formula they establish in their first game. And that's when you really start to milk the living hell out of a franchise.

Lol...I'm going to go ahead and asusme you didn't play Morrowind and Oblivion, because if you did you'd know that they are two very different games. But whereas in DA they sacrificed a lot of what made DA:O great in their changes from DA2, in TES the changes did not sacrifice quality or quantity.

[Realmzmaster]

batlin wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

In Dragon Age's case, DA2 hurt them because it was such a big change from DA:O. At least Bioware had the balls to try something different. Most devs never stray from the formula they establish in their first game. And that's when you really start to milk the living hell out of a franchise.

Lol...I'm going to go ahead and asusme you didn't play Morrowind and Oblivion, because if you did you'd know that they are two very different games. But whereas in DA they sacrificed a lot of what made DA:O great in their changes from DA2, in TES the changes did not sacrifice quality or quantity.

You are correct Bethesda just scarificed story. The story in Oblivion was absymal compared to Morrowind. Skyrim's also pales in comparison. Fortunately for  Bethesda that is not why gamers buy their games.

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

I really hope they bring back actual RPG elements. Now when I say "RPG Elements" I mean a good nonlinear story with a lot of tough choices that matter and characters that are not emo, annoying, or dumb who**es. Also bring back my skills please. Why level up 2 things? I want an RPG where I can completely choose my characters route of progression.

Past Bioware games that I have played were classics. I played them over and over again and again. Heres a list and Iook what happens as the releases become more recent or the originals recieve sequels:

Kotor 1 (2003): 10 times give or take.
Mass Effect (2007): Over 20 times.
Dragon Age Origins (2009): 4-5 times.
Mass Effect 2 (2010): 10 times give or take.
Dragon Age 2 (2011): 1 time, can't even bring myself to finish a second playthrough.
Mass Effect 3 (2012): 2 times.

Modifié par SpEcIaLRyAn, 30 juin 2012 - 04:10 .

[batlin]

Realmzmaster wrote...

You are correct Bethesda just scarificed story. The story in Oblivion was absymal compared to Morrowind. Skyrim's also pales in comparison. Fortunately for  Bethesda that is not why gamers buy their games.

Like I said, they made changes without sacrificing what made the previous game good.

Also Skyrim is clearly more about ambient stories than just the one (or two) main questlines. Even 100 hours in I still run into small "plots" as I wander around.

Modifié par batlin, 30 juin 2012 - 05:03 .

[deuce985]

batlin wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

In Dragon Age's case, DA2 hurt them because it was such a big change from DA:O. At least Bioware had the balls to try something different. Most devs never stray from the formula they establish in their first game. And that's when you really start to milk the living hell out of a franchise.

Lol...I'm going to go ahead and asusme you didn't play Morrowind and Oblivion, because if you did you'd know that they are two very different games. But whereas in DA they sacrificed a lot of what made DA:O great in their changes from DA2, in TES the changes did not sacrifice quality or quantity.

Yes...I did play them.

I thought Morrowind was much better than Oblivion. It was more pure with more RPG elements. Oblivion removed a lot of what I liked about Morrowind. I use to like getting high stats, like super high athletics and using that to my advantage. Oblivion was good too, it  just wasn't as good as Morrowind, IMO. They made it more appealing but they sacrificed some key elements that were in Morrowind.

Morrowind's world was infinitely better to explore compared to Oblivion.

I still think Morrowind is better than both Oblivion and Skyrim. But I enjoy Skyrim/Oblivion a lot...

Modifié par deuce985, 30 juin 2012 - 05:06 .

[Realmzmaster]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

batlin wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

In Dragon Age's case, DA2 hurt them because it was such a big change from DA:O. At least Bioware had the balls to try something different. Most devs never stray from the formula they establish in their first game. And that's when you really start to milk the living hell out of a franchise.

Lol...I'm going to go ahead and asusme you didn't play Morrowind and Oblivion, because if you did you'd know that they are two very different games. But whereas in DA they sacrificed a lot of what made DA:O great in their changes from DA2, in TES the changes did not sacrifice quality or quantity.

You are correct Bethesda just scarificed story. The story in Oblivion was absymal compared to Morrowind. Skyrim's also pales in comparison. Fortunately for  Bethesda that is not why gamers buy their games.

I still have not finished Skyrim because of the lack in story. Fell in love with Morrowind which was an absolutely awesome game to play. Oblivion I did finish but played it many hours less then Morrowind because it didn't tantalise me as much as Morrowind. Went for the main quest almost straight away after I did some levelling.

Lack in depth is something that strikes me as a franchise has released more games on a same theme. With this I mean story wise, and the kind of quests that are offered f.e. For me it feels like there is less love and attention given into it.

TES Skyrim had more then enough devellopment time but still is a much lesser game then Morrowind imho. Not only a lot of time can make a great game.

The problem with Oblivion is that it's a big FedEx/bodyguard storyline. The ending of Oblivion storyline has your character being a spectator to the big battle and not a participant. The other problem for me is that your character always starts as a prisoner who is to  fulfill a prophecy.  I played enough of Skyrim to know I did not care for it. I used a friend's copy. He got tired of it because he did not find the story engaging. I would go back to playing Morrowind, but arthristis in the left hand makes long playing sessions impossible. That is why I prefer Bioware's system of using the mouse which I can operate for long periods with my right hand. 

[batlin]

deuce985 wrote...

I thought Morrowind was much better than Oblivion. It was more pure with more RPG elements. Oblivion removed a lot of what I liked about Morrowind. I use to like getting high stats, like super high athletics and using that to my advantage. Oblivion was good too, it  just wasn't as good as Morrowind, IMO. They made it more appealing but they sacrificed some key elements that were in Morrowind.

Morrowind's world was infinitely better to explore compared to Oblivion.

I still think Morrowind is better than both Oblivion and Skyrim. But I enjoy Skyrim/Oblivion a lot...

Again though, it's the freedom and exploration elements that make TES great, and that's what Oblivion did better than MW. Sure, Oblivion's landscape wasn't as alien as MW's, but there was more content there and a much bigger world (that wasn't all brown). Even though Morrowind had a better, say, story, it still didn't really stand up to other games at the time, but then that's not what most people played it for.

DA:O however was played for it's story and for its classic RPG elements. Both of these things were sacrificed in DA2.

[PaulSX]

wsandista wrote...

Skyrim succeeded because Bethesda makes a niche product(non-linear open-world sandbox with a main plot that is completely optional(yes you can make a mainstream game that fills a niche BTW, see COD)) and makes that product well.

Skyrim wins simply because it has much more contents and looks beautiful. this is the same reason why GTA and RDR can reach a huge hit. Skyrim overall is still a fairly linear game compare to other hardcore world RPGs like fallout 1,2, NV and Gothic 3.

[batlin]

suntzuxi wrote...

Skyrim wins simply because it has much more contents and looks beautiful. this is the same reason why GTA and RDR can reach a huge hit. Skyrim overall is still a fairly linear game compare to other hardcore world RPGs like fallout 1,2, NV and Gothic 3.

Ok, I'll grant you that Skyrim isn't THE most nonlinear game out there, but in what possible way is it more linear than the Fallouts or Gothic 3? Sure, Gothic 3 didn't have unkillable NPCs, but if you killed the wrong person (and there were a LOT of wrong persons) you could actually make the game unbeatable. That's not really the same as non-linear, it's like "stay within these boundaries or it's a permenant game over"

[PaulSX]

batlin wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

I thought Morrowind was much better than Oblivion. It was more pure with more RPG elements. Oblivion removed a lot of what I liked about Morrowind. I use to like getting high stats, like super high athletics and using that to my advantage. Oblivion was good too, it  just wasn't as good as Morrowind, IMO. They made it more appealing but they sacrificed some key elements that were in Morrowind.

Morrowind's world was infinitely better to explore compared to Oblivion.

I still think Morrowind is better than both Oblivion and Skyrim. But I enjoy Skyrim/Oblivion a lot...

Again though, it's the freedom and exploration elements that make TES great, and that's what Oblivion did better than MW. Sure, Oblivion's landscape wasn't as alien as MW's, but there was more content there and a much bigger world (that wasn't all brown). Even though Morrowind had a better, say, story, it still didn't really stand up to other games at the time, but then that's not what most people played it for.

DA:O however was played for it's story and for its classic RPG elements. Both of these things were sacrificed in DA2.

In my opinion Skyrim sacrificed lots of RPG elements too. To me, DA2's unsuccess is mainly due to lack of actual contents and BioWare's lag in technology. And they made a huge mistake by frequently reusing maps which killed this game.

[batlin]

suntzuxi wrote...

In my opinion Skyrim sacrificed lots of RPG elements too.

Such as? All I can really think of is how there's no way to charm people with speechcraft, but compared to how speechcraft was handled in Oblivion, no speech minigame is better than whatever the hell that was.

To me, DA2's unsuccess is mainly due to lack of actual contents and BioWare's lag in technology. And they made a huge mistake by frequently reusing maps which killed this game.

Not even. Sure the lack of content and reused environments were terrible, but the story was disjointed, the characters were unlikable, you're prevented from taking actions because it's convenient to the plot, and Hawke is nowhere near the most important person in Kirkwall, let alone Thedas since none of the choices you make actually make a difference.

[freche]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Yes but the modding is one reason it's still huge on PC.

I wish they had market research to prove modding increases sales on your game because it really does. Especially when you have a massive mod community like Elder Scrolls. It doesn't matter how mainstream Skyrim is, PC players know they can fix any "flaw" they see in a Bethesda game. That's why it still sells millions on PC. They don't turn a cold shoulder to their PC players.

Modding helps, but is that really the reason why it sells millions on the PC? It sells millions on the console as well. Diablo 3 sells millions on the PC without mod tools. Clearly you don't need mod tools to sell millions on the PC.

Diablo 3 is a no brainer, it's Blizzard and that is good enough. (If Lost Vikings wasn't released and Bliz would release it today it too would sell for millions)
As for Skyrim. On PC I think and hope modding is a huge benefactor, because I really hope the general PC gamer expect more from a game then what Beth. generally deliver.
As for console I think Bethesda have managed to build quite a console fanbase from F3 and FNV.
(and yes this will sound elitist but it's my opinion about the subject)
Console gamers don't expect and request the same level of quality in a game as I think a PC gamer does. And there is two reasons for that I think, 1. limited hardware resulting in limited games 2. They are used to their hardware limtied fps / tps games. And F3, FNV was really good games in Console standards.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, as someone that considers himself a PC gamer through and through, I actually don't typically download mods. The ones that I do are usually the interesting total conversions (like Counterstrike, and John Epler is really really trying to get me to play DayZ).

Yes, Blizzard has a reputation which helps sell games. I don't actually know how much the modding community really influences games. DayZ is probably the most interesting because it took a game that for all intents and purposes was NOT popular (ArmA II), and has made it significantly popular. I think the success of a mod like Counterstrike or Team Fortress was still buoyed somewhat by the fact that the games they were made on were very, very popular games to boot. They just sort of reached a critical mass and then suddenly the mod itself was shipping the base game.


Improved connectivity (i.e. sharing videos on youtube) I think really helps mods gain traction now than even back in 1999 with Counterstrike.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 30 juin 2012 - 07:01 .

[Dave of Canada]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but reading the previous posts, are some of you really holding up The Elder Scrolls series as remaining true to their roots? Most of it's previous fanbase hasn't moved past Morrowind, anything past it regarded as too simplified and made to appeal to more casual audiences.

[batlin]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but reading the previous posts, are some of you really holding up The Elder Scrolls series as remaining true to their roots? Most of it's previous fanbase hasn't moved past Morrowind, anything past it regarded as too simplified and made to appeal to more casual audiences.

No, people are holding it up as an example of a franchise that changed without sacrificing what its fanbase loved about it, namely the freedom it allows.

I agree that it's a shame how they constantly simplify equipment and stats, but the stats frankly weren't very good systems to begin with. If all you want is complexity then you may just want to play EVE.