Fast Jimmy wrote...
DICE studios were bought out in 2004 for their Battlefield 1942 IP, and were soon closed in all but name, resulting in nearly 15 Battlefield sequels, just since 2004... with no other games coming out of the studio's name. And then this has spread like wildfire recently with EA's mobile gaming acquisitions, which are numerous.
Modifié par Suprez30, 19 octobre 2012 - 03:59 .
Allan Schumacher wrote...
Naughty Bear wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
How come people always make Call of Duty references with respect to EA decisions?
Because just like CoD, EA also churns out the same yearly crap. Need For Speed, Fifa and every known sports game and we are all aware or should be that EA strives to get the CoD sales. Hence why every remake or game thy produce most likely contains mindless combat in some form or shape.
Or they forgot EA does not make CoD.
I think if we're honest with ourselves, though, the only reason why we wouldn't like soemthing like this is because it's not specifically the type of game WE want to play.
It's hard to fault Activision for pressing on the Call of Duty games, since they keep breaking sales records. At what point do people step back and go "Activision is giving their customers exactly what they want, and the customers demonstrate this buy purchasing the game?"
Yes, EA does it with their sports games in particular. I'll never understand the big deal, though, because a game like FIFA is very, very popular and if I don't feel there's significant change I just don't buy a particular version. The last COD I bought was the first Modern Warfare, and the last sports game I picked up was NCAA Football last year. I skipped out on all the sports games this year because they don't interest me enough.
Modifié par Blacklash93, 19 octobre 2012 - 04:22 .
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
No. At least, I haven't heard anything about that being the case.Mesina2 wrote...
Doesn't Bethesda owns Obsidian now?
Mesina2 wrote...
Doesn't Bethesda owns Obsidian now?
Modifié par legion999, 19 octobre 2012 - 05:09 .
legion999 wrote...
Mesina2 wrote...
Doesn't Bethesda owns Obsidian now?
No, I believe Obsidian were only contracted to develop Fallout:New Vegas. Nothing more, nothing less.
spirosz wrote...
legion999 wrote...
Mesina2 wrote...
Doesn't Bethesda owns Obsidian now?
No, I believe Obsidian were only contracted to develop Fallout:New Vegas. Nothing more, nothing less.
I'm assuming similar to KOTOR 2?
Many of us have been gaming long enough to know the consequences for a beloved studio once it's acquired by EA.Milan92 wrote...
*Fails to see the big deal of this idea*
Allan Schumacher wrote...
Naughty Bear wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
How come people always make Call of Duty references with respect to EA decisions?
Because just like CoD, EA also churns out the same yearly crap. Need For Speed, Fifa and every known sports game and we are all aware or should be that EA strives to get the CoD sales. Hence why every remake or game thy produce most likely contains mindless combat in some form or shape.
Or they forgot EA does not make CoD.
I think if we're honest with ourselves, though, the only reason why we wouldn't like soemthing like this is because it's not specifically the type of game WE want to play.
It's hard to fault Activision for pressing on the Call of Duty games, since they keep breaking sales records. At what point do people step back and go "Activision is giving their customers exactly what they want, and the customers demonstrate this buy purchasing the game?"
Yes, EA does it with their sports games in particular. I'll never understand the big deal, though, because a game like FIFA is very, very popular and if I don't feel there's significant change I just don't buy a particular version. The last COD I bought was the first Modern Warfare, and the last sports game I picked up was NCAA Football last year. I skipped out on all the sports games this year because they don't interest me enough.
Modifié par deuce985, 19 octobre 2012 - 08:57 .
That's nice except you know not everyone wants combat taken out infact some folks here want Bioware to make the combat a bigger part of the game and also mods are impossible to implement on consoles aswell I hope you aren't suggesting Bioware shaft the console players to appease pc players:whistle:.Fast Jimmy wrote...
Not to hop right back in here with another rants, but... well, I think I'm going to hop back in here with another rant.
Games like sports sims or shooters have very large replay value.
Sports games are inherently fun to play (if you enjoy them, that is), so it doesn't matter if you are playing game 1, or game 100, its still roughly the same level of enjoyment. Doing something like winning the national championship tournament doesn't "end" the game... as many games give you the option of just continuing into the next season. Features like "build my player" add to this as well, where you can feel progression across playing dozens, if not hundreds, of games which can run 20-40 minutes of game time each run.
Shooters are usually known for fairly small single-player campaigns, but have large, long-running multiplayer functionalities. Recently, these have included equipment upgrades, a leveling mechanism, achievements, etc., so that the player isn't just death matching for the 100th time, but rather they are grinding towards the top of the Leader Board, or are trying to get that next unlockable.
RPGs don't have these types of draws. You can't do a turn-based or pause-and-play combat multiplayer. And combat, in general, is looked down on by many fans on these forums, who would ask for a Super Casual mode or a no-Combat mode that let's them get to what they REALLY care about - conversations and dialogue.
Which is hard for Bioware. If they can't extend their shelf life by adding in a low-resource feature like combat multiplayer, and adding content that let's you play the game nearly infinitely would cost more money than it would ever generate, how then can they compete?
The answer is simple. Its not adding Multiplayer to a DA game, or having tons of random dungeons that only offer loot, combat and no story (like what a Diablo game does). The answer is to allow the story to keep going. To have more dialogue be made, quests be generated, characters be written and stories continued at no extra cost to Bioware... keeping the players engaged, lowering the costs of "needing more content" for the next game and possibly making some money in the process.
How could such a thing happen?
Simple. Toolkits. Mods. User generated content.
If Bioware made a wildly divergent, deeply engaging 30 hour game (short by Bioware/RPG standard) that offered lots of choice, lots of good story and interaction and included a mod kit where players, at no cost to Bioware, could generate tons of content that people would then play and continue to gain interest out of the game, then the average Bioware RPG could rival a FPS' multiplayer, or a sport sim's longevity.
Instead of pushing these solutions for other genres into genres where they don't belong, why not use the methods already developed to make the gaming model more profitable? If Bioware could put out a game with a 20-30 hour single player campaign (and it would have to be EXCEPTIONALLY good 20-30 hours, with lots of replay value itself) and then included mod tools that they fully supported, I don't know why Bioware couldn't generate a game every 18 months, with new content and updates to the mod kit.
Bioware could even charge a developer's fee for the mod kit, or do a transaction counter when downloading the mod, to give the modder and Bioware a small cut. I wouldn't mind paying $1 or $2 for a good mod. And if the developer got half and Bioware got the other half, I think it would be a great way to both incentivize modders to create great content quickly, it would also help pay for the toolkit for Bioware (and add a little profit padding as well).
Is this a perfect, rainbows and sunshine solution? No. Many gamers will cry foul. But we are already calling foul about many of the design decisions made (action combat, voice protagonist, forced multiplayer in future titles, social media integration), so why not make a choice that gives gamers what they have been requesting (a toolkit) with some caveats about price and then not try and mimic what other genres have been doing in an attempt to garner a larger audience or make more money?
End rant #2.
Fast Jimmy wrote...
^
Yes, they also made Mirror's Edge, my apologies. It came out in 2008, after the studio itself was shutdown.
Mesina2 wrote...
Doesn't Bethesda owns Obsidian now?
Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 19 octobre 2012 - 09:19 .
CrustyBot wrote...
Game of the Year, all years. (Too lazy to photoshop something with Battlefield instead)
Retour en haut
