764 réponses à ce sujet

[deuce985]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Yes, I actually heard about that mod through John too. Didn't know about it until he mentioned it. I'm thinking about picking up Arma 2 just for that mod. Steam should have a summer sale next week, so I'll see if it's on there cheap.

But anyways, back on topic. I agree with that bolded.

You're right. It's hard to say what causes major success for some of these games. But looking at DA:O, it had mod support too. Now DA2 sold less than DA:O. DA2 also didn't have a toolkit. How much do you think DA:O's success on PC was to modding? Of course, I'm speaking purely about PC when it comes to appeal/sales. The way I understand it, DA:O actually sold great on PC. Now obviously I don't think a toolkit was the deciding factor of why DA2 sold less than DA:O. But I think it's still something that contributed to that.

What I'm saying is, I think publishers/devs underrate the value at which modding increases the potential gain in sales increase. Do they have any market research that looks into this? Or have  you ever seen any? Publishers/devs seem to look at PC gaming as nothing more than a niche market these days. Yet,  they have huge commercial successes like Diablo 3 that prove that wrong.

The point I'm trying to make, is devs/publishers are broadening their appeal for console gaming but they're not doing it on PC anymore. Why? The market is there. I think I saw a article where EA gained almost 30% of their revenue from PC gaming. That's a huge % of revenue even though console is bigger. That's still nothing to ignore.

Battlefield 3 built itself on PC first and gave some perks to PC gamers. Look at their numbers. Battlefield always does well on PC. 

You can argue it takes established franchises before PC gets out of that niche market where it shows a game can be a huge commercial success on the platform. But then I say, look at something like DA:O, which sold very well on PC and was a new IP. Bioware started their rep on PC. It's still there. I'm not saying Bioware games need to only cater to PC gamers, I'm just saying I'd like to see them throw us a few more bones on design decisions we'd prefer. If not in the console versions, at least in our PC ports. I think that would go a long way in broadening the appeal in the PC market and increasing Bioware/EA's revenue.

PC gaming isn't mainstream and the features we look for in gaming aren't the same as console. I hate generalizing but I really don't know anybody who is a average Joe that PC games. I have a PS3 and gaming PC. When I fire a game up on my PS3, I expect it to play differently than my gaming PC. Vice versa for my PC. I want ease and accessibility in my PS3 and I want a more niche experience on PC. Sometimes I just want to kick my feet back and relax on my big screen. Sometimes I want to get into the hardcore tactics of a CRPG that I can only get on PC. It seems like less and less games give PC ports the features they deserve(even small ones). They seem to be more pure console ports than anything these days...

Modifié par deuce985, 30 juin 2012 - 08:03 .

[AkiKishi]

Cimeas wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Bethesda games are still ridiculously successful on console platforms too though, so the modding tools can't be the only reason for their large success.

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

Back home from College last Winter I head my younger brother and his friends (They must be 14/15), who usually only ever play Call of Duty or casual games on their iphones, talking about Skyrim.   At first I couldn't believe my ears, somehow these people, used to 5 hour single player campaigns in which the only choice is whether to swap weapons with someone you have just killed, were discussing a huge, complex, open-world roleplaying game!

Out of interest I asked them if they'd ever heard of Dragon Age or Mass Effect.  A few said they'd heard of Mass Effect, but they didn't know exactly what it was, and no-one had heard of Dragon Age.   So I began wondering, what did Skyrim do right?  

It must be it's advertising.  A dark, brooding figure on a rocky crag, a live action trailer with a dragon, only a few words about an amazing 'cinematic' adventure in a 'huge open world'.   Not a gameplay trailer in sight, and to see one you'd have to go to affiliate sites specifically for gaming fans like IGN or Gamespot.    Skyrim succeeded because the hype of hardcore gamers caught on to the general public, and the advertising campaign was very vague in showing what the game was about. 

Whereas Dragon Age would release a demo, show gameplay footage, hold panels at conventions, there were probably 15 minutes of gameplay videos released before launch for Skyrim.  And the hype caught on, infectiously, until people who weren't playing were 'missing out', much like those not going to the most awesome-est *ever* party on campus.

-John

I've never seen a Skyrim advert on TV (in the UK) I saw a couple of DA2 and ME3 practically hired the Sci Fi channel.
Skyrim must be a very good game it's been in the top 100 of Amazon UK for almost a year and half now. Potential value alone means it wins over almost anything out there in single player game time.

One of these days I will get around to it.

[AkiKishi]

deuce985 wrote...
 Vice versa for my PC. I want ease and accessibility in my PS3 and I want a more niche experience on PC. Sometimes I just want to kick my feet back and relax on my big screen. Sometimes I want to get into the hardcore tactics of a CRPG that I can only get on PC. It seems like less and less games give PC ports the features they deserve(even small ones). They seem to be more pure console ports than anything these days...

If you want "Hardcore Tactics" buy a handheld. Or Disgaea:Absence of Justice or a Promise Unforgotten (both on the PS3). Those will equal or beat any tactics you have seen in a PC game.

[Cimeas]

Skyrim sold 2 million of it's 12m copies on PC.

Yes, that's right, a *sixth* of the copies sold were on PC. And I would say that maybe half those PC players won't even install mods.

Skyrim is part of a successful franchise (The Elder Scrolls). But the thing is, until Skyrim, TES was not GTA size, it wasn't getting COD sales. Now it is up there in the big 5 moneymakers in Western gaming. (World of Warcraft (10m+ active players for 5 years), Battlefield (BF3 sold 13m I believe), COD (20m a year?), GTA (GTA IV sold 20m) and now TES.)

Had it sold 4m, it would have been a raging success. But those last 8m copies, they are 100% due to the quite frankly magnificent advertising campaign that Bethesda hired some geniuses to do. (And no, I'm not part of them )

[Cimeas]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Bethesda games are still ridiculously successful on console platforms too though, so the modding tools can't be the only reason for their large success.

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

Back home from College last Winter I head my younger brother and his friends (They must be 14/15), who usually only ever play Call of Duty or casual games on their iphones, talking about Skyrim.   At first I couldn't believe my ears, somehow these people, used to 5 hour single player campaigns in which the only choice is whether to swap weapons with someone you have just killed, were discussing a huge, complex, open-world roleplaying game!

Out of interest I asked them if they'd ever heard of Dragon Age or Mass Effect.  A few said they'd heard of Mass Effect, but they didn't know exactly what it was, and no-one had heard of Dragon Age.   So I began wondering, what did Skyrim do right?  

It must be it's advertising.  A dark, brooding figure on a rocky crag, a live action trailer with a dragon, only a few words about an amazing 'cinematic' adventure in a 'huge open world'.   Not a gameplay trailer in sight, and to see one you'd have to go to affiliate sites specifically for gaming fans like IGN or Gamespot.    Skyrim succeeded because the hype of hardcore gamers caught on to the general public, and the advertising campaign was very vague in showing what the game was about. 

Whereas Dragon Age would release a demo, show gameplay footage, hold panels at conventions, there were probably 15 minutes of gameplay videos released before launch for Skyrim.  And the hype caught on, infectiously, until people who weren't playing were 'missing out', much like those not going to the most awesome-est *ever* party on campus.

-John

I've never seen a Skyrim advert on TV (in the UK) I saw a couple of DA2 and ME3 practically hired the Sci Fi channel.
Skyrim must be a very good game it's been in the top 100 of Amazon UK for almost a year and half now. Potential value alone means it wins over almost anything out there in single player game time.

One of these days I will get around to it.

Really?  Skyrim adverts were all over ITV and 4, as well as Sky and the movie channels from what I remember.   And there were like 4 in every tube station on the Underground.

[bEVEsthda]

Cimeas wrote...

Skyrim sold 2 million of it's 12m copies on PC.

Yes, that's right, a *sixth* of the copies sold were on PC. And I would say that maybe half those PC players won't even install mods.

Skyrim is part of a successful franchise (The Elder Scrolls). But the thing is, until Skyrim, TES was not GTA size, it wasn't getting COD sales. Now it is up there in the big 5 moneymakers in Western gaming. (World of Warcraft (10m+ active players for 5 years), Battlefield (BF3 sold 13m I believe), COD (20m a year?), GTA (GTA IV sold 20m) and now TES.)

Had it sold 4m, it would have been a raging success. But those last 8m copies, they are 100% due to the quite frankly magnificent advertising campaign that Bethesda hired some geniuses to do. (And no, I'm not part of them )

Advertising is important. No doubt. But it can't really achieve such sales on its own. No. Skyrim mainly depended upon the word of mouth -reputations of it's predecessors, which are not only TES, but also FO3. That reputation is what has person after person saying "look pay attention to this". They don't even have to be aware of that reputation themselves in advance. The important thing is that they become aware, through their community communication,  of that a such reputation have long existed, exists.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 30 juin 2012 - 11:35 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Cimeas wrote...

Skyrim sold 2 million of it's 12m copies on PC.

Yes, that's right, a *sixth* of the copies sold were on PC. And I would say that maybe half those PC players won't even install mods.

Skyrim is part of a successful franchise (The Elder Scrolls). But the thing is, until Skyrim, TES was not GTA size, it wasn't getting COD sales. Now it is up there in the big 5 moneymakers in Western gaming. (World of Warcraft (10m+ active players for 5 years), Battlefield (BF3 sold 13m I believe), COD (20m a year?), GTA (GTA IV sold 20m) and now TES.)

Had it sold 4m, it would have been a raging success. But those last 8m copies, they are 100% due to the quite frankly magnificent advertising campaign that Bethesda hired some geniuses to do. (And no, I'm not part of them )

Advertising helps no doubt (although I don't recall any ads, but I hardly recall ads.... which doesn't necessarily mean they aren't working...)

The cynic in me also thinks it drew a lot of attention because it's graphically very impressive as well.

[deuce985]

Cimeas wrote...

Skyrim sold 2 million of it's 12m copies on PC.

Yes, that's right, a *sixth* of the copies sold were on PC. And I would say that maybe half those PC players won't even install mods.

Skyrim is part of a successful franchise (The Elder Scrolls). But the thing is, until Skyrim, TES was not GTA size, it wasn't getting COD sales. Now it is up there in the big 5 moneymakers in Western gaming. (World of Warcraft (10m+ active players for 5 years), Battlefield (BF3 sold 13m I believe), COD (20m a year?), GTA (GTA IV sold 20m) and now TES.)

Had it sold 4m, it would have been a raging success. But those last 8m copies, they are 100% due to the quite frankly magnificent advertising campaign that Bethesda hired some geniuses to do. (And no, I'm not part of them )

Meh, it's a combination of many things. I don't think you can just say it's advertising. Skyrim is also even more accessible than Oblivion/Morrowind were. That plays a big part into it too. I think what Alan said on graphics is a interesting topic. I do believe some people make their purchases based  towards an attractive game graphically. As stupid as it might sound. In Skyrim's case, it helps bring their world alive and it certainly helps their atmosphere. Which is two very important things in any ES game(especially to me). The fact it's an established franchise and word from everyone's mouth that gets out is also free advertising. That's your best advertising right there...everyone talking about it. In Skyrim's case, it gained universal appraise as game of the year. People talk about this and it draws more interest. Also, you have to consider Skyrim released in the holiday season, which is when games are bought the most.

It's just a lot more variables than simply saying advertising is the reason it gained those extra 8 million copies sold.

I think that's why DA:O saw itself steadily gaining sales as it aged. Word got out and people were more interested in it. Something like modding on PC just added extra value to the package to help people justify a purchase. Just like multiplayer does in some games, it makes it more attractive.

Modifié par deuce985, 30 juin 2012 - 07:19 .

[Brockololly]

Cimeas wrote...

Skyrim sold 2 million of it's 12m copies on PC.

Yes, that's right, a *sixth* of the copies sold were on PC. And I would say that maybe half those PC players won't even install mods.

I'm guessing you're getting those numbers from VGchartz which isn't exactly the most reputable source.

In any case though, Skyrim consistently put up insane numbers of concurrent users on Steam, since it was a Steamworks game. Better than Call of Duty. Sure, it likely sold less than the console versions but you have to take into account that many PC copies were likely sold digitally at the $60 price point which means far more money coming to Bethesda per PC copy sold compared to retail console copies.

Cimeas wrote...
Skyrim is part of a successful franchise (The Elder Scrolls). But the thing is, until Skyrim, TES was not GTA size, it wasn't getting COD sales. Now it is up there in the big 5 moneymakers in Western gaming. (World of Warcraft (10m+ active players for 5 years), Battlefield (BF3 sold 13m I believe), COD (20m a year?), GTA (GTA IV sold 20m) and now TES.)

TES was big with Oblivion. Skyrim just capitalized on that success. The marketing was good (lord knows it was far better than BioWare marketing) but I think word of mouth and TES games having established their own niche (fantasy sandbox) was just as important in their sales.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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?

I think you need to compare Skyrim to other multiplatform games being sold on PC. Again, at release, Skyrim was setting all kinds of records on Steam for concurrent users beating out even Call of Duty, which was new around that time too. Both of those franchises sell well regardless and yet Skyrim was dominating Call of Duty on Steam. Maybe its that fantasy games or sandbox games like that draw a stronger audience on PC than consoles? But then you have PC only features, like mods, that probably help the PC sales to some extent too.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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).

Certainly many people don't use mods, even PC gamers. But I think having a game come with fleshed out support for mods can be the sort of value added feature that might cause someone to buy the PC version over the console version, all things being equal. Not unlike how games like New Vegas or Alpha Protocol or the Witcher 2 have their branching narratives with fully fleshed out choices/consequences- even if I don't play every narrative path, the fact that I know that content is present in the game makes the game more valuable to me. Same with mods- even if I don't use many or even any, the fact that I can get into them at some later time adds value to the game, IMO.

Personally, the reason I played Origins multiple times was due to mods. Not huge conversions or brand new adventures even, but just a ton of smaller, little mods that taken all together make a night/day difference in eliminating little annoyances, like the white teeth mod or the dialogue fix mods or tooltip mods and so forth. Same goes with Skyrim or Fallout- you add in a bunch of smaller mods and it can make a big difference in how the game feels.

And certainly, having played around with mods, they keep me playing a game long after release. So that if they ever come out with DLC, I'm probably going to be more likely to get the DLC if a given game is still on my radar. That was certainly the case with Origins for me and probably will be with Skyrim too. The way Bethesda is constantly adding in new features like mounted combat in their patches helps too.


And the other thing with Skyrim and many Steamworks games is that they're supporting Steam Workshop. That's a value added feature right there in having Steam visibly support mods and making the process of using mods a little easier. Although the nexus mod downloader is pretty easy to use too.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
Advertising helps no doubt (although I don't recall any ads, but I hardly recall ads.... which doesn't necessarily  mean they aren't working...)

The only big Skyrim marketing I remember was their initial gameplay trailer, and then a couple of their ads, like the live action one.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The cynic in me also thinks it drew a lot of attention because it's graphically very impressive as well.

That's not being cynical, that's being a realist. If you want a game to get mainstream attention, the easiest way to do so is to have it look impressive. Why else did a glorified tech demo like Star Wars 1313 get so much attention at E3? It looked nice.So with something like Skyrim, those big sweeping vistas and the huge environment shots not only are nice to look at in ads or trailers but since people know the core of what an TES game is based on past experience and word of mouth (tons of exploration and freedom) they can look at those ads and know that they'll be able to play around in that pretty looking world.

And even on the subject of mods again and visuals, just look at stuff like the iCEnhancer mods for games like GTA4 or ENB for Skyrim. Even if you never use those mods on PC, it gets people excited about the franchise and keeps the game in people's mind long after they've come out based on the fancy visuals alone.

Modifié par Brockololly, 30 juin 2012 - 08:47 .

[bEVEsthda]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The cynic in me also thinks it drew a lot of attention because it's graphically very impressive as well.

Well, I dunno.  Graphically impressive games are common. Skyrim has some other, really amazing and mindblowing features.
Did you for instance know that the entire game plays out in ambient gameplay?  I mean really! I remember the kickass feeling in the beginning of Halflife, when you realized it wasn't just another movie. But actually REAL gameplay. Everything.   So priceless. But that was long ago, who'd guess one could still experience that today, eh?
And no voice that runs away in some dismaying autodialogue. Fabulous.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 30 juin 2012 - 11:13 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Did you for instance know that the entire game plays out in ambient gameplay?

This is an innovation toward which all games should strive.

[deuce985]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Did you for instance know that the entire game plays out in ambient gameplay?

This is an innovation toward which all games should strive.

I feel kinda stupid here, seeing as I probably should know what he's talking about.

What exactly are you guys talking about when you say ambient gameplay?

[Sylvius the Mad]

deuce985 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Did you for instance know that the entire game plays out in ambient gameplay?

This is an innovation toward which all games should strive.

I feel kinda stupid here, seeing as I probably should know what he's talking about.

What exactly are you guys talking about when you say ambient gameplay?

It means you never enter a new gameplay mode.  The game's mechanics are applied consistently all of the time.  There's no special set of rules for combat, for example.

Ideally, I'd like to see games use ambient conversations (like NWN) rather than cinematic conversations as well as ambient combat.
DA2 is very heavy-handed in not having ambient combat, by changing regen rates compared to non-combat gameplay, plus by limiting the use of combat abilities to when the state of combat is formally established by the game.

DAO does this to a lesser extent.

[Fast Jimmy]

My main concern is when experiencing conversations win ambient gameplay, I get bored vey easily. I walk around the room, check for loot, hop in place, organize my inventory, etc. everything except actually listen to the person with my full attention. This is doubly true when I know the conversation is going to result in combat.

When switching to a cutscene or a talking head for dialogue, I am sucked in to that conversation whole-heartedly. Plus, watching a conversation unfold from a third person perspective, especially if it is zoomed out to an overhead camera angle like most of DA:O and DA2 are, makes me feel less like I am in a conversation, more that I am watching two actors talk. I feel it would harm immersion sinificantly.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 juillet 2012 - 02:27 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

You are watching two actors talk. Neither of those people is you.

Immersion of this sort isn't something I see as valuable. That's why I dislike the first-person interfaces in TES or FO3.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You are watching two actors talk. Neither of those people is you.

Immersion of this sort isn't something I see as valuable. That's why I dislike the first-person interfaces in TES or FO3.

Ah, see, that is where we disagree. If I am creating a character, I envision them as me. If I want to play as a character who is polar opposite of my normal self, I still play that game as me, but just a me where I am pretending to be someone else. I don't control an actor who is playing a part, I AM the actor playing the part. 

Or actress, such as the case may be. 

[Fallstar]

In the UK at least, the advertising campaign for Skyrim was fairly well done. There were a fair few TV adverts, and that live action trailer got everyone talking. I guess those live action trailers are pretty expensive to do, but they are really effective. That one even got my dad (who normally plays football manager only) interested in Skyrim.

I'm not sure if it's something Bioware would ever consider.

As for Skyrim's sales, I think it's mostly due to the fact that Bethesda do what they do exceedingly well, they generally improve on the formula and stick you in the middle of a new location/story, but you know what you're buying, and you know there's a huge amount of bang for your buck. 

The 5 year wait and the anticipation that came with that leading to everyone raving about it to everyone when it was announced helped a bit no doubt too.

[Wulfram]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

My main concern is when experiencing conversations win ambient gameplay, I get bored vey easily. I walk around the room, check for loot, hop in place, organize my inventory, etc. everything except actually listen to the person with my full attention. This is doubly true when I know the conversation is going to result in combat.

I have a similar experience, yeah.  I don't really enjoy Skyrim's ambient conversations when they go beyond a line or two.

edit:  Though any extended non-interactive content can have a similar effect unless it's really really cool.  I play computer games to do things, not to watch things.

Modifié par Wulfram, 01 juillet 2012 - 06:05 .

[Josielyn]

To be honest, when I played the first Dragon Age, I paid lots of attention to ambient conversations, and I was ever the cultural observer. My favorite especially was the crazy old Chantry lady in Denerim who kept talking about food (ham) when she was reciting the Chant of Light! It really increased my enjoyment of the game. Dragon Age 2 it didn't seem as important, as I was rushing to get to the next cutscene so I could actually talk to my companions. I was ready to always buy the next expansion of DAO, but I did not bother buying any of the expansions for DA2. So where I was telling all of my friends and relatives "you MUST buy Dragon Age Origins!" I did not feel very emotionally attached to Dragon Age 2, though I thought the characters and voice actors were great, and the combat was great, it was more of an entertainment for me than something that would "Change your entire idea of RPG forever". I did, however, really enjoy the magical mirror that would let you change your appearance in case you didn't get it right the first time. That one really topped the Character Creator in Origins. It would be nice to have a downloadable DA3 Character Creator to get your hero ready, and your enthusiasm up several months before the launch of the demo. No need to rush with the final product - with amazing appetizers people will stick around for the main course even if it takes longer. I think the work people have done on mods show how we all want to customize our own gameplay experience so it suits us, at least in a visual way. I.E. that is MY Allistair, or that is MY Leliana. There are so many other game companies that have the environmental variety masterpiece down pat, but Bioware will continue to be come out on top if they keep doing what they do best, creating main heroes, and supporting characters and societies that we care about enough to keep playing long enough to hang on for the next DLC.

Modifié par Josielyn, 02 juillet 2012 - 12:53 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You are watching two actors talk. Neither of those people is you.

Immersion of this sort isn't something I see as valuable. That's why I dislike the first-person interfaces in TES or FO3.

Ah, see, that is where we disagree. If I am creating a character, I envision them as me. If I want to play as a character who is polar opposite of my normal self, I still play that game as me, but just a me where I am pretending to be someone else. I don't control an actor who is playing a part, I AM the actor playing the part. 

Or actress, such as the case may be.

I create the character and set him loose in the world.  That is why I think any effort on the part of the game designers to get the player to experience an emotional reaction is futile.  My character might experience emotions, but my emotional state is entirely predictable when I'm roleplaying.  I'm calmly enjoying watching my character's behaviour.  He might be excited or frightened or angry or in love, but I'm still just a guy sitting in a dark room.

[Goldrock]

i wont even compare dao and da2 mainly becuas eit took them somewhere around 6-7 years to develope dao. where da2 took them maybe what a year ,year and a half to pop it out i loved both games i loved dao because it felt like old balders gate withhow long and how fleshed out all the lore was. I loved da2 because it had a nice cinematic feel to it which bioware seems to have turned into more story orientated and cinematic now where the older games were more hardcore rpish.

[AlexanderCousland]

Look...

The DAO experience railroaded us into slaying the Archdemon, but the illuision of player agency was near flawless. We felt like we were making World Changing choices (Fereldan Throne, OGB). Bioware did an excellent job of making the same result (Blight Defeated) happen differently for everyone. Dragon Age 2 was like.. Look ****.. Your sibling dies, your mom dies, and the chantry blows up no matter what you do ****er... Take that! Take That! Take That! Oh and by the way.. If you thought you killed somebody we sprinkeld some lyrium on them and they came back to life. I might be alone on this but DAO was the ONLY reason i replayed DA2 a couple times. And i got rewarded with a couple cameos and a two sentence mention of the greatest warden since Garahel! (you know..the last warden to slay an Archdemon) I mean i like hawke, but If Deafeating the Arishok is your claim to Fame...c'mon man. I mean i consider slaying the Alpha Wyvern or a High Dragon worthy of larger social recognition than slaying the Arishok. Anyhow...Great Box Cover Art, and fantastic game trailers seem to reach a "wider audience" but Re-using levels and promisimg choice where there is none wont. DAO type story and Travel, With DA2 combat, and you have yourselves a near perfect game. The way skyrim did dragon encounters was excellent...maybe copy that a litlle bit...just saying. Love both games tho! Dao was the best.

[jillabender]

Sylvius the Mad wrote…

I create the character and set him loose in the world.  That is why I think any effort on the part of the game designers to get the player to experience an emotional reaction is futile.  My character might experience emotions, but my emotional state is entirely predictable when I'm roleplaying.  I'm calmly enjoying watching my character's behaviour.  He might be excited or frightened or angry or in love, but I'm still just a guy sitting in a dark room.

That's interesting – it sounds like you prefer to separate your own emotions completely from your character's while role-playing. I can definitely understand that, and, speaking for myself, when I play Dragon Age: Origins, I'm most often "calmly enjoying" my character's reactions to events in the game world, as you put it.

That being said, I do strongly believe that computer and video games can evoke emotions, just as novels or movies can. When I first played through the Landsmeet in Dragon Age: Origins, I was so caught up in the story that my heart was racing in response to the emotional confrontations my character was engaged in, and I actually gasped at several points. I was no longer simply calmly watching the story and my characters' reactions unfold – I was personally invested in the story, and I had almost completely forgotten that I was just a player "sitting in a dark room."

So, I would say that while I sometimes prefer the experience of "calm enjoyment," I sometimes prefer the experience of losing myself in a character, the way that an actor might. For me, it depends a lot on my mood, and partly on the character I'm playing, but the majority of my playthroughs involve a bit of both.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that you, or anyone, should enjoy RPGs in the same way I do – I just thought I'd share my own experience.

Modifié par jillabender, 02 juillet 2012 - 03:48 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think roleplaying works best when the player completely compartmentalises his thoughts from those of his character. The character makes decisions based on the character's knowledge, and the character's opinions, the character's feelings, and the character's goals.

As the player, this is a hobby. It's something into which I invest tremendous amount of time. And I do it because I enjoy it. I always enjoy it. Roleplaying is always fun for me. It's never frightening. It's never heart-wrenching. It's a fun hobby.

[jillabender]

Sylvius the Mad wrote…

I think roleplaying works best when the player completely compartmentalises his thoughts from those of his character. The character makes decisions based on the character's knowledge, and the character's opinions, the character's feelings, and the character's goals.

As the player, this is a hobby. It's something into which I invest tremendous amount of time. And I do it because I enjoy it. I always enjoy it. Roleplaying is always fun for me. It's never frightening. It's never heart-wrenching. It's a fun hobby.

With complete respect, I don't think it's really possible to make absolute judgments about what style of role-playing "works best," because everyone finds different kinds of experiences rewarding. I know many people who approach role-playing in much the same way that you do, and I suspect that my style is a bit like yours in some ways, but I also suspect there are people who wouldn't find that style of role-playing fun (although you're free to think that it's their loss ).

I wouldn't say that I've ever found my personal style of role-playing to be frightening or heart-wrenching – I would describe it as intense at times, and exciting, and cathartic. But I know that not everyone wants that kind of experience while role-playing, which is why I play single-player cRPGs instead of MMOs or D&D – I'd rather not have to worry about conforming to other people's approaches to role-playing.

Modifié par jillabender, 02 juillet 2012 - 12:49 .