EJ107 wrote...
I honestly will never under the fuss about "isometric" combat. I always assumed that the reason all combat was 2D-ish in older games was because it was trying to imitate tabletop games and because of the limitations of the technology then, I don't see why people would want that in modern games.
And yet, Obsidian just raised over $4 million to produce a 2D isometric game.EJ107 wrote...
I honestly will never under the fuss about "isometric" combat. I always assumed that the reason all combat was 2D-ish in older games was because it was trying to imitate tabletop games and because of the limitations of the technology then, I don't see why people would want that in modern games.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And yet, Obsidian just raised over $4 million to produce a 2D isometric game.EJ107 wrote...
I honestly will never under the fuss about "isometric" combat. I always assumed that the reason all combat was 2D-ish in older games was because it was trying to imitate tabletop games and because of the limitations of the technology then, I don't see why people would want that in modern games.
Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 octobre 2012 - 06:45 .
Upsettingshorts wrote...
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And yet, Obsidian just raised over $4 million to produce a 2D isometric game.EJ107 wrote...
I honestly will never under the fuss about "isometric" combat. I always assumed that the reason all combat was 2D-ish in older games was because it was trying to imitate tabletop games and because of the limitations of the technology then, I don't see why people would want that in modern games.
How many times does Chris Avellone have to say, in no uncertain terms, that the number of donors contributing to Kickstarters does not reflect anything remotely close to a crack in publishers' business model for people to stop claiming otherwise.
How large do you imagine AAA budgets are by comparison? Twice as large? Five times? Ten times? Twenty times?
What are the numbers for any given, well-received multiplayer game? More than the 75,000 backers? Ten times more? A hundred times more? Five hundred times more?
Furthermore we have absolutely no idea what corners Obsidian are cutting to produce a game so cheaply, and I'm not necessarily referring to content.
I like Kickstarter and hope games like Project Eternity and Star Citizen do well. But perspective and context matter, especially when people are making a habit of citing 75,000 and $4,000,000 as a lot.
Modifié par deuce985, 20 octobre 2012 - 06:35 .
deuce985 wrote...
I'm not trying to refute your point because I agree with it. I just thought it was interesting how little game development $$$ goes into the major blockbuster games. Marketing seems to be where the majority of the money goes with very few exceptions. Rockstar games seems to be a huge victim of really bad management. Almost every game they make goes through development problems and hits the $100 million mark.
Like Max Payne 3 flopping.
Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 20 octobre 2012 - 06:37 .
Upsettingshorts wrote...
deuce985 wrote...
I'm not trying to refute your point because I agree with it. I just thought it was interesting how little game development $$$ goes into the major blockbuster games. Marketing seems to be where the majority of the money goes with very few exceptions. Rockstar games seems to be a huge victim of really bad management. Almost every game they make goes through development problems and hits the $100 million mark.
Like Max Payne 3 flopping.
Yeah I'm not trying to say "lots of money equals a good game" but I am trying to say that the numbers underyling Project Eternity or Wasteland 2 are hardly even close to being the kind of emphatic statement endorsing a particular game genre that people seem to think it is.
It's on an entirely different and much smaller scale.
Not to mention gamers tend to undervalue the money spent on things like marketing, because they're already invested and know about things and don't see the value in it.
Also I should point out that the flop of Max Payne 3 had over five times as many sales as Project Eternity has backers as per the time of that article. Scale.
Rawgrim wrote...
Realmzmaster wrote...
Exactly, as I have stated before the silliness did not begin with DA2. So I do not blame just DA2 for it and give DAO and DAA a pass. All the weapons in DA2 were not oversized. It is fantasy.Rawgrim wrote...
http://i14.photobuck...xZweihander.png
Really?
As I asked before in other threads How much realism do you want in your fantasy?. What is acceptable for some it unacceptable for others.
that pic was from DA2, by the way.
The realism should stick with the realism introduced in the first game. Pretty much a golden rule. If we are toldshown that nobody can use magic except for mages, switching from that in game 2 ruins the "realmism" especially if there is no explanation for it. Talis leaping 50 feet backwards through the air, and landing on a ledge 20 feet up from a stand still position, breaks the "realism" in the game. Just an example. Rogues having 50 000 smokebombs, firing 5 arrows up into the ceilling, and 200 of them raining down (done by a rogue not a mage) also breaks the realism. Allthough that one got introduced in Awakening. When you set the groundrules in game 1, don`t change it later. Thats what i am getting at. Its like the hobbits learning how to fly at the end of Return of a King.
Modifié par Realmzmaster, 20 octobre 2012 - 07:59 .
Why can't rpgs feature fast combat? and DA2 felt more like Hawke was fighting for his life as it was more hectic and no if you rushed through the main story Origins wasn't 100 hours+Solmanian wrote...
more game of thrones less dragon ball Z. combat in DA2 was to flashy and exagerated. We wanted something more realistic and rough, like your hero is actualy fighting for his life and not throwing hadukens... When I say I want a more fluid combat, it doesn't mean I don't want the pause&play, that the bread and butter of this games, I mean I want the combat to feel more realistic than a couple of bots repeating the exact same moves again and again. Also hits should hit harder; when you hit someone in DA:o you took a nice chunk of his Healthbar, but in DA2 it felt like you're giving him paper cuts.
Too many companies in their race to innovate forget to keep the good things that draw us to their games to begin with. What made me a fan of BW was how cerebral their games were: you had a ton of carefully crafted side quests, and tactical combat which made you calculate your every move. Look how successful Xcom:EU is: people miss the classics. People are playing an RPG, they aren't as interested in fast paced action (thats what action games are for), but a game that makes them think. Thats why battlefield and call of duty have a campaign you can finish in two hours and DA:o is a 100+ hours experience.
deuce985 wrote...
Upsettingshorts wrote...
deuce985 wrote...
I'm not trying to refute your point because I agree with it. I just thought it was interesting how little game development $$$ goes into the major blockbuster games. Marketing seems to be where the majority of the money goes with very few exceptions. Rockstar games seems to be a huge victim of really bad management. Almost every game they make goes through development problems and hits the $100 million mark.
Like Max Payne 3 flopping.
Yeah I'm not trying to say "lots of money equals a good game" but I am trying to say that the numbers underyling Project Eternity or Wasteland 2 are hardly even close to being the kind of emphatic statement endorsing a particular game genre that people seem to think it is.
It's on an entirely different and much smaller scale.
Not to mention gamers tend to undervalue the money spent on things like marketing, because they're already invested and know about things and don't see the value in it.
Also I should point out that the flop of Max Payne 3 had over five times as many sales as Project Eternity has backers as per the time of that article. Scale.
Yup.
I'm very interested to see how some of these Kickstarter projects do commercially. I hope they do well and it opens the eyes of publishers. Something tells me they won't be huge blockbusters though. Mostly a niche market, IMO.
whihc makes me wish to buy a gaming pc again inorde to play it. Obsidian rules. ALpha protocol was such a great RPG.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And yet, Obsidian just raised over $4 million to produce a 2D isometric game.EJ107 wrote...
I honestly will never under the fuss about "isometric" combat. I always assumed that the reason all combat was 2D-ish in older games was because it was trying to imitate tabletop games and because of the limitations of the technology then, I don't see why people would want that in modern games.
Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...
Aulis Vaara you're ignoring how 4 was one of the series best sellers as most "old-Skool" fans do. Really why wouldn't Capcom go in that direction to appease a whiney minority?Oh pulease
Modifié par Aulis Vaara, 20 octobre 2012 - 01:52 .
I've been saying for years that AAA game budgets are too big. When Firaxis made Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, the entire company employed 17 people. 17.Upsettingshorts wrote...
How large do you imagine AAA budgets are by comparison? Twice as large? Five times? Ten times? Twenty times?
They shouldn't have wanted to throw tens of millions at them. These games don't need a huge marketing budget, because there isn't a broad market for them. These games don't need lots of bells and whistles, because those bells and whistles are designed to be appealing to that broader market.As it stands though, the numbers are probably what publishers thought they were, which is likely why they told these developers they wouldn't throw tens of millions at them to make these games in the first place.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
These games should be able to be made cheaply enough that they're a huge success with only 200,000 copies sold.
Market success should be measured by ROI, not by raw sales figures. And ROI takes a big hit when production costs grow unabated. With improving technology, these production costs should be falling, not rising. Making Baldur's Gate now should be cheaper than making Baldur's Gate in 1997. So why are game budgets vastly larger than before?
No, they haven't. The consumers who expect that are consumers who wouldn't have been consuming the content without those features. As Allan explains, the people today who are derided as having forgotten how to play older games are people who never knew how to play those older games, because they weren't gamers 25 years ago (or wouldn't have been, had they been there).AlanC9 wrote...
Well, the "why" there is that people are expecting expensive stuff. But of course, they've been taught to expect that stuff.
If your customers are traditional gamers, they're basically all on the internet.One of the issues here is that cheap games aren't very easy to market.
Retail should have gone away long ago. As soon as retail packages stoped adding actual value (like manuals), the entire retail model because entirely unnecessary. I was calling on BioWare to switch to a pure digital distribution model as far back as 2004. They explained to me that they couldn't include full manuals anymore because the manuals were too heavy, and that instantly made boxed copies a waste of time and effort.Not to mention the whole retail shelf space issue, but that's going away anyhow.
Persephone wrote...
Mages: DAII. 100% improvement
Warriors: DAO. Warriors were WAY too fast and nimble in DAII.
Archers: DAII.
Two handed rogues: Meld DAII and DAO, best of both.
Encounters and strategies: LEGACY
Upsettingshorts wrote...
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And yet, Obsidian just raised over $4 million to produce a 2D isometric game.EJ107 wrote...
I honestly will never under the fuss about "isometric" combat. I always assumed that the reason all combat was 2D-ish in older games was because it was trying to imitate tabletop games and because of the limitations of the technology then, I don't see why people would want that in modern games.
How many times does Chris Avellone have to say, in no uncertain terms, that the number of donors contributing to Kickstarters does not reflect anything remotely close to a crack in publishers' business model for people to stop claiming otherwise.
How large do you imagine AAA budgets are by comparison? Twice as large? Five times? Ten times? Twenty times?
What are the numbers for any given, well-received multiplayer game? More than the 75,000 backers? Ten times more? A hundred times more? Five hundred times more?
Furthermore we have absolutely no idea what corners Obsidian are cutting to produce a game so cheaply, and I'm not necessarily referring to content. Did the team take pay cuts? If so, is the argument that they ought to do that in order to service a niche community? What happens if the game isn't ready and they run out of funding, who pays them then? Are we assuming that literally everyone working on Project Eternity in any capacity is a big 2D RPG fan? Is anyone on this board or elsewhere even thinking of this stuff when they throw figures around?
I like Kickstarter and hope games like Project Eternity and Star Citizen do well. But perspective and context matter, especially when people are making a habit of citing 75,000 and $4,000,000 as a lot. None of that is to say the game won't end up being finished to a high standard and sell well enough to get a lot of people to notice. As it stands though, the numbers are probably what publishers thought they were, which is likely why they told these developers they wouldn't throw tens of millions at them to make these games in the first place.
Retour en haut
