joshko wrote...
You may try to be candid, but you end up being Candide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Ha! The Internet - battleground of truth sayers since 1994!
I may be dangerously close to being on topic, but what was your opinion on my clarification of linear vs. choice-driven games on the last page, Allen?
Err... en guarde!
What Bioware has become known for is weaving choices into a fairly
linear story to give it a varied experience. For instance, you couldn't
have the option in DA:O of slaying the Archdemon, then challenging
Loghain at the Landsmeet, then gathering the treaties. That would make
no sense. But we were given options about how to gather the treaties,
how we treat Loghain at the Landsmeet, who we want to crown in his place
and how to approach the problem with slaying the Archdemon. These
choices have in-game consequences, as well as the fact that they offer
endings that can result in a slightly (or even a greatly) different
story on each playthrough.
So do you think Bioware's fanbase
wants plot decisions that are refelected in game? Or would a
sufficiently excellent story on the rails, with the option to romance
who you choose, be more in line with what the fanbase expects?
LightningSamus wrote...
Alot of games this gen are made to please a wider audience.
Fallout 3 itself was and and it got more people into the series while the fans who played the original Fallout games were disappointed as the gameplay had changed and that Bethesda was ruining their franchise.
A lot of SP games have added MP to expand their audience, this is how the industry is going.
I see the point in wider audience, companies do not always make money on their games and other competitors will steal their sales.
Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not. expanding the audience is a bad thing it's just that they need to keep their original fans happy too an d do it right.
It's hard to please everyone
sickpixie wrote...
Are you unfamiliar with Fallout fansites like No Mutants Allowed, Duck and Cover, and RPG Codex or are you suggesting they're not that signficant when compared to the whole?Allan Schumacher wrote...
I just want to comment that I'm a huuuge fan of the first two Fallout games, and I have no beef with Fallout 3. In fact I really enjoyed it. It's presentation wasn't quite as enjoyable as the first two for me, but I don't feel it was ruining the franchise (a "true" Fallout 3 wasn't on the horizon and possibly would never happen anyways).
Fallout New Vegas is a fantastic game IMO, and I just recently loaded up all the DLC and Sawyer's mod for it. So fun!
Maybe I'm an outlier, but I feel many fans of the original Fallout games still enjoyed Fallout 3 and really enjoyed New Vegas.
Additionally, Troika wanted to license Fallout to make a successor more in line with the first two (and with Activision's backing, oddly enough; apparently they were okay with it being a mid-budget title), but Bethesda won the bidding. Such is life.
bEVEsthda wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
Those are good points, though I think any usage of the terms "accessibility" in this thread are more referring to "how appealing" a game is for a variety of people.
The COD games (since they get brought up a lot) aren't particularly "accessible" but based on their sales are evidently quite appealing.
No. That's a false deduction. A couple of CoD games were really good. But I wouldn't say that CoD games of late has been particularly appealing. I regard quite a number of other games much more appealing. But I still buy (and play) every CoD game, because I have a pretty good idea of what I'll be getting. But not even that is the true reason I buy them. It's become a habit. It's like I have all the others, - why shouldn't I have the next?
They have achieved that. The automatic customer. Bethesda has achieved the same. I, of course, have bought every game since Morrowind, but I now mean they have achieved that on a wider scale, just like CoD.
wsandista wrote...
Realmzmaster wrote...
A study conducted for PopCap shows 1 in 5 casual gamers are physically or mentally challenged.
www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/survey-disabled-gamers-comprise-20-of-casual-video-games-audience-57442172.html
Oh god. Realmzmaster I think you just gave some of the extreme hard-core gamers a talking point that will be used over and over to bash casual gamers.
And I'm fairly hopeful about this, as in a PAX vid I saw they did say they were going to try and fix the issues with importing your save games and making sure the flags set correctly, something they wouldn't bother with if they weren't going to continue importing decisions.
bEVEsthda wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
The only false deduction occurring here is that when I say "the games are quite appealing" I mean for everyone. Obviously the games are not appealing to you. They aren't appealing to me either (last one I played was COD 4).
The mere fact that the game sells a lot is evidence enough that the game is appealing to people. People wouldn't by the game unless it appealed to them in some capacity. The fact that you and I may not care for the game doesn't mean that the game is not a popular game.
Actually, what I tried to suggest here, is that CoD no more achieves all its sales due to just merit, but because of buyers habits. This is true of me and everyone I know who buy CoD games, except one.
hussey 92 wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
So you feel the game is worth $20 to you. That sounds reasonable.
I feel it's a safe assumption that the million plus that pick up the game on release day for $60 probably enjoy the game as well. Certainly enough to justify paying $60 for it. Otherwise they'd wait for the price to go down.
Many people buy the $60 dollar game without realizing it's just worth $20 to them. Thats what happened with DA2.
wsandista wrote...
Well, all of us will just have to see how they turn out. I know some people that didn't pitch in to Shadowrun Returns, but still intented to buy the game, and I'm almost posititve that Wasteland 2 will get sales outside of those who donated. Then you have to factor in "word-of-mouth" exposure, which can possibly boost sales(word-of-mouth is hwat got me to buy DAO). Again, this is just speculation, but your probably right about the sucess of the high profile kick-starter games determining if kickstarter-funded games becoming prevalent in the market.
I think chipped in around $30 as well BTW.
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
I'm sure the games will have post release sales too. Hopefully lots because it means the game is good! I'm just saying that the game doesn't actually need any sales to be successful. The fans all effectively preordered the game 18 months in advance.
There's nothing else like that in gaming. BioWare cannot make a game and still call it a success if it doesn't sell a single unit.
Allan, if a Kickstarter game like Wasteland 2 had a totally non-cinematic approach to story-telling, lots of old-school cRPG stats and mechanisms, silent PC and all sorts of other things some here on the forums are begging for, and it is completely financed by the supposed 'niche' players AND it ships more than, say, 1.5 million copies, do you think EA and Bioware will begin realizing it's not a niche market after all?
Realmzmaster wrote...
I am sure most developers will take notice, but the other side of the coin is also true. Developers will take notice if the compamies involved fail to deliver or the number of sales does not exceed the number of people who donated. The people who donated and received the game will be happy, but it will still remain a niche with no growth.
The big point is that the developers have to deliver the product and that is no small hurdle.
But that's the thing that always bothers me with the likes of EA and other big publishers seemingly so intent on only developing blockbusters- why? Isn't it more risky throwing tens of millions of dollars at a game as opposed to what Fargo is doing with Wasteland 2 in making a game that's only about 3 million and can be more focused in catering to a niche audience as a result?
Even something like ARMA II and Day-Z- the ARMA games cater to a pretty specific niche and yet they seem to be doing all right, especially with Day-Z. Yet as rough around the edges as something like Day-Z may be, its the reason ARMA II is still the number one selling game on Steam for about the last 2 months. And I can't see a big publisher ever trying something like Day-Z without trying to blow it up into some big huge production.
And with these Kickstarter games like Wasteland 2, it doesn't even really need to sell any copies in order for to be successful. They've already broken even and any copies sold is straight profit, especially with the likely higher margins they're getting via digital downloads as opposed to all the extra costs associated with retail. Compare that to how many big supposedly "AAA" games that flop out of the gates after having tens of millions sunk into them and countless marketing dollars.
But that's the thing- so long as the Kckstarter game is funded and the game comes out and the funders are happy, anything more is a bonus. That's something Fargo has explicitly stated with Wasteland 2. He doesn't care if it reaches some mythical mainstream audience or millions of sales. He's making the game he wants to make for the people that funded the project.
wsandista wrote...
Anyways, TES games should also be brought up in this discussion. They have always been open-world sandbox games and have been successful largely because they do one thing and they do it very well. Despite removing attributes and skill customization at character creation, they have stayed with the formula that people enjoyed for most previous titles(not counting Oblivion because that wasn't very good). My point is that instead of appealing to a wider audience by including/removing/tweaking features that may attract their interest, consistently making a niche game well will draw a steady audience.
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.
Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 30 juin 2012 - 07:01 .
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)
Retour en haut