118 réponses à ce sujet

[Palipride47]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Saying Bioware shouldn't try hard to attract new players is nonsensical. They need new players to build on their successes. No business can sustain a model of only appealing to an initial fanbase. Sales would just continually to go down.
There is a difference between attracting new players by making better, more engrossing games of a particular genre and attracting new players by adding elements of different genres. Dragon Age 2 added many elements of over-the-top action games to attract new players and also put less emphasis on role-playing elements. That was a objectively a mistake. Had they put their focus on adding more RPG elements they could have potentially attracted more of the RPG audience instead of a bit of the action audience and a bit of the RPG audience.
Splitting audiences to appeal to more people generally does not work.

To make sure this game isn't a total flop....
Bring back race op----oh. 

In all seriousness, what BrotherWarth said, because I'll basically repeat his point anyway.

Modifié par Palipride47, 22 octobre 2012 - 05:52 .

[saintjimmy43]

Okay, here, let me try to revise it:

"Do not try too hard


to appeal to stupid players."

[Cultist]

From 34:30
Video
...I think that nowdays it is important trying to constrain your projects as much as possible noyt because you are trying to reduce financial risk, but because you are trying to get your customers to tell you how to make product better as quickly as possible, so you can iterate it. And that's one of the important characterstics is to get feedback from your customers on which you doing right and what you are doing wrong...
...we find that best partner we have to get new customers are our existing customers...
- A guy who definetely knows absulutely nothing about game industry and how to make successful games.

Modifié par Cultist, 22 octobre 2012 - 06:21 .

[Ridwan]

Yeah Bioware, don't get more people into RPG, we need to feel special! Also make more romances, I don't care about gameplay, screw that I want to bang that hot chick that I just vendored my sword to.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

M25105 wrote...

Yeah Bioware, don't get more people into RPG, we need to feel special! Also make more romances, I don't care about gameplay, screw that I want to bang that hot chick that I just vendored my sword to.

There's better way to get people into your genre without blatantly shouting for them to jump in. Just saying.

[Palipride47]

Cultist wrote...

From 34:30
Video
...I think that nowdays it is important trying to constrain your projects as much as possible noyt because you are trying to reduce financial risk, but because you are trying to get your customers to tell you how to make product better as quickly as possible, so you can iterate it. And that's one of the important characterstics is to get feedback from your customers on which you doing right and what you are doing wrong...
...we find that best partner we have to get new customers are our existing customers...
- A guy who definetely knows absulutely nothing about game industry and how to make successful games.

Ummm...I actually think that is EXACTLY how DAO got so many players. 

[Ridwan]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Yeah Bioware, don't get more people into RPG, we need to feel special! Also make more romances, I don't care about gameplay, screw that I want to bang that hot chick that I just vendored my sword to.

There's better way to get people into your genre without blatantly shouting for them to jump in. Just saying.

How, by not telling them about your game, or not showing them gameplay videos? Just throw up some fancy box art, and hope the usual Bioware fans will spread the word to their friends, although reading this forum shows that most of the posters have some sort of irrational hatred to those that play other games like COD and Mario?

[DarkKnightHolmes]

M25105 wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Yeah Bioware, don't get more people into RPG, we need to feel special! Also make more romances, I don't care about gameplay, screw that I want to bang that hot chick that I just vendored my sword to.

There's better way to get people into your genre without blatantly shouting for them to jump in. Just saying.

How, by not telling them about your game, or not showing them gameplay videos? Just throw up some fancy box art, and hope the usual Bioware fans will spread the word to their friends, although reading this forum shows that most of the posters have some sort of irrational hatred to those that play other games like COD and Mario?

Who hates Mario? Certainly not me. Though I hate COD but that's because I prerer the first 4 only.

Beside how did Skyrim get 10 million sales? How did Half-life? How did Arkham City?

I don't remember their developers jumping saying they want the new audience and of course you need to show gameplay videos but you don't need to straight shout "This is the best place to start" to get new comers attention.

[Ridwan]

Adanu wrote...

John Epler wrote...

Arrested Development is one of my favourite television shows of all time. It's clever, it's intelligent, and it's funny. It is also, without a doubt, one of the worst TV shows for getting into at any point other than the very beginning, as the jokes build on each other and, by the end of the show, rely so heavily on a knowledge both of the characters and the previous events of the show that, to the uninitiated, they are - at best - mildly amusing. Much as I wish it weren't so, there is a valid reason why it did not achieve significant commercial success.

We will continue to make our new games appealing to both our existing audience and a new audience. If anything, DA seems like a better series for doing so, as we don't have the same protagonist and plot baggage going from game to game. So, yes, we will continue to appeal to new players. That's not to say we're going to sacrifice our design or plot in the service of this goal, but we're also not going to ignore them.

If anyone finds this terribly disappointing, well, that's unfortunate.

The ME team tried too hard to get new players in ME3 and the game suffered for it. There is nothing wrong with telling people to start from the beginning. You don't start reading a book from the middle, do you?

Ok, I know we just got told not to talk about ME 3, but seriously, what? You know what the game suffered from? A crappy ending and not enough content. That's nothing to do with new players. You guys want Bioware to make these amazing, but highly expensive games that requires a lot of time and talent, but you don't want them to get more players into it?

[KingRoxas]

 Well ain't that a good/productive thread title. haha

Modifié par Kingroxas, 22 octobre 2012 - 06:55 .

[Ridwan]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

M25105 wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Yeah Bioware, don't get more people into RPG, we need to feel special! Also make more romances, I don't care about gameplay, screw that I want to bang that hot chick that I just vendored my sword to.

There's better way to get people into your genre without blatantly shouting for them to jump in. Just saying.

How, by not telling them about your game, or not showing them gameplay videos? Just throw up some fancy box art, and hope the usual Bioware fans will spread the word to their friends, although reading this forum shows that most of the posters have some sort of irrational hatred to those that play other games like COD and Mario?

Who hates Mario? Certainly not me. Though I hate COD but that's because I prerer the first 4 only.

Beside how did Skyrim get 10 million sales? How did Half-life? How did Arkham City?

I don't remember their developers jumping saying they want the new audience and of course you need to show gameplay videos but you don't need to straight shout "This is the best place to start" to get new comers attention.

They got it through good marketing and previous games as well as word to mouth. I hardly found anyone ever talking about DA 2 before it came out, but everyone was hyped for Skyrim. So Bethesda is doing something right when it came to marketing their game, while Bioware fell flat.

Half-Life was praised to the skies by every critic, (back when ratings actually meant something, though still some suspcious high reviews, but less frequent) and Batman is freaking Batman. Hell, my own mother knows Batman.

And once again, there's nothing wrong to make adds, videos that excites players unfamiliar with a product. It's how you reach across.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

M25105 wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

M25105 wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

M25105 wrote...

Yeah Bioware, don't get more people into RPG, we need to feel special! Also make more romances, I don't care about gameplay, screw that I want to bang that hot chick that I just vendored my sword to.

There's better way to get people into your genre without blatantly shouting for them to jump in. Just saying.

How, by not telling them about your game, or not showing them gameplay videos? Just throw up some fancy box art, and hope the usual Bioware fans will spread the word to their friends, although reading this forum shows that most of the posters have some sort of irrational hatred to those that play other games like COD and Mario?

Who hates Mario? Certainly not me. Though I hate COD but that's because I prerer the first 4 only.

Beside how did Skyrim get 10 million sales? How did Half-life? How did Arkham City?

I don't remember their developers jumping saying they want the new audience and of course you need to show gameplay videos but you don't need to straight shout "This is the best place to start" to get new comers attention.

They got it through good marketing and previous games as well as word to mouth. I hardly found anyone ever talking about DA 2 before it came out, but everyone was hyped for Skyrim. So Bethesda is doing something right when it came to marketing their game, while Bioware fell flat.

Half-Life was praised to the skies by every critic, (back when ratings actually meant something, though still some suspcious high reviews, but less frequent) and Batman is freaking Batman. Hell, my own mother knows Batman.

And once again, there's nothing wrong to make adds, videos that excites players unfamiliar with a product. It's how you reach across.

Uh, I'm not arguing about that. I'm just arguing that you don't need to keep mentioning "best place to start" or "new players can join in" so much to attract a crowd.

[Adanu]

M25105 wrote...

Adanu wrote...

John Epler wrote...

Arrested Development is one of my favourite television shows of all time. It's clever, it's intelligent, and it's funny. It is also, without a doubt, one of the worst TV shows for getting into at any point other than the very beginning, as the jokes build on each other and, by the end of the show, rely so heavily on a knowledge both of the characters and the previous events of the show that, to the uninitiated, they are - at best - mildly amusing. Much as I wish it weren't so, there is a valid reason why it did not achieve significant commercial success.

We will continue to make our new games appealing to both our existing audience and a new audience. If anything, DA seems like a better series for doing so, as we don't have the same protagonist and plot baggage going from game to game. So, yes, we will continue to appeal to new players. That's not to say we're going to sacrifice our design or plot in the service of this goal, but we're also not going to ignore them.

If anyone finds this terribly disappointing, well, that's unfortunate.

The ME team tried too hard to get new players in ME3 and the game suffered for it. There is nothing wrong with telling people to start from the beginning. You don't start reading a book from the middle, do you?

Ok, I know we just got told not to talk about ME 3, but seriously, what? You know what the game suffered from? A crappy ending and not enough content. That's nothing to do with new players. You guys want Bioware to make these amazing, but highly expensive games that requires a lot of time and talent, but you don't want them to get more players into it?

I want to make games that are sensible with how they handle new players and don't treat us like five year olds. 'Mainstreaming' games is a goddamn curse. I'm all for streamlining things like DA2 did with the menus and combat animations and whatnot... but mainstreaming has killed quite a few games.

I'm not going to talk about the ME3 ending.

[Quicksilver26]

Adanu wrote...

The ME team tried too hard to get new players in ME3 and the game suffered for it. There is nothing wrong with telling people to start from the beginning. You don't start reading a book from the middle, do you?

If you mean the middle of a series I read the 5th the Dresden Files first and even though i didn't really know who everyone was i still vastly enjoyed the book. I then read the series from the beginning. If you mean start any book in the middle will that wouldn't work and no one would have any reason to do that unless they read the book before and i don't know where you're going with that.

[EricHVela]

Who you target for new players can easily determine who you can keep from existing players.

If existing common themes have not enticed a group of players, the only thing left is to make changes to have more common themes for those players. However, you can't have it all. Something's gotta give. The more you change for the new group, the more you lose from the existing group.

As the OP said "Do not try too hard to appeal to new players."

Yet, let's face it. This is a business. If there's a group of players that they feel is worth grabbing at the expense of existing player loyalty, they should do it. It doesn't mean, though, that they'll change so much as to lose everyone or even lose most people. Sometimes, all it takes is just moving the net by a little bit to catch more fish without losing too many of the ones you've been catching.

I hope that last example is the case here.

[Realmzmaster]

The objective of any business is to make profit. There are several ways to do that. One is to only market for the present audience and charge them a higher price for the product or expand the audience to get new buyers and keep the price stable.
Not attracting new buyers will eventual kill the company. I know changing a product too much for the existing base will lose buyers from the present audience. The company must make the decision whether changing can net more buyers than what is lost.
Eventually the decision for change must be made.
Now you can argue that the change should have been  incremental from DAO to DA2. Which would be fair. The change from DA2 to DA3 being more incremental to the point if you compare DA3 to DAO you would see the vast difference.
The other train of thought is to do the radical changes now and see what happens. It is a gamble, but a company that is afraid to gamble will eventually get left in the dust. Fortune it is said favors the bold.
I would rather Bioware try and fail than never to try at all. Otherwise DAO may never have happened. I guess I could still have been happy playing BGIII.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 22 octobre 2012 - 09:16 .

[Monica83]

John Epler wrote...

Arrested Development is one of my favourite television shows of all time. It's clever, it's intelligent, and it's funny. It is also, without a doubt, one of the worst TV shows for getting into at any point other than the very beginning, as the jokes build on each other and, by the end of the show, rely so heavily on a knowledge both of the characters and the previous events of the show that, to the uninitiated, they are - at best - mildly amusing. Much as I wish it weren't so, there is a valid reason why it did not achieve significant commercial success.

We will continue to make our new games appealing to both our existing audience and a new audience. If anything, DA seems like a better series for doing so, as we don't have the same protagonist and plot baggage going from game to game. So, yes, we will continue to appeal to new players. That's not to say we're going to sacrifice our design or plot in the service of this goal, but we're also not going to ignore them.

If anyone finds this terribly disappointing, well, that's unfortunate.

"So, yes, we will continue to appeal to new players. That's not to say
we're going to sacrifice our design or plot in the service of this goal,
but we're also not going to ignore them."

You already did it in the switch between Dragon age origins and Dragon age 2 just to make a point...

[Pauravi]

ianvillan wrote...

They should make the best RPG game to appeal to RPG gamers not change the game for a different audience.

Do you have any idea how many long and fruitless arguments there has been about what constitutes an "RPG", and what sort of games or features an "RPG gamer" wants?  Using those three letters as if they have some universally agreed-upon definition makes this statement, at its core, so vague as to be meaningless.

If you want to make a meaningful statement, you need to first define the things that you believe an "RPG gamer" is interested in.

ianvillan wrote...

I would also like to know how many new fans the inclusion the of action mode, story mode and RPG mode actually brought in and if it was worth the resources to implement the feature.

What are these "action mode", "story mode", and "RPG mode"s that you speak of?

[Adanu]

Quicksilver26 wrote...

Adanu wrote...

The ME team tried too hard to get new players in ME3 and the game suffered for it. There is nothing wrong with telling people to start from the beginning. You don't start reading a book from the middle, do you?

If you mean the middle of a series I read the 5th the Dresden Files first and even though i didn't really know who everyone was i still vastly enjoyed the book. I then read the series from the beginning. If you mean start any book in the middle will that wouldn't work and no one would have any reason to do that unless they read the book before and i don't know where you're going with that.

If I meant in the middle of a series, I would have said in the middle of a series. I'm not being vague. I said IN THE MIDDLES of a BOOK. The Mass Effect Trilogy was one full story. Ignoring one part of it or another is just going to make you go 'wtf'? I rolled my eyes so badly when the ME dev team started talking about 'how ME3 was a great place to start'. No, it is not, and continually pushing that crap was making them look like mainstreaming fools.

[Pauravi]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Dragon Age 2 added many elements of over-the-top action games to attract new players and also put less emphasis on role-playing elements.

I have to disagree.  Exactly what elements are you talking about, and which RPG elements did they get rid of?

It seems to me that the major "action" element they added was simply to make combat move faster.
You could still pause combat any time, you could still queue up spells and powers, you still had to use positioning to your advantage, you could still use combinations of powers from different characters to your advantage -- honestly, I'm just not seeing the major difference other than aesthetics and feel.

BrotherWarth wrote...

That was a objectively a mistake. Had they put their focus on adding more RPG elements they could have potentially attracted more of the RPG audience instead of a bit of the action audience and a bit of the RPG audience.
Splitting audiences to appeal to more people generally does not work.

People use this term, "RPG elements", as if it had some agreed-upon definition.  Exactly what elements are you talking about?

The things that characterize the term "RPG" are different for many people.  I'm not saying that DA2 was an ideal game (although I did enjoy it) or that it included everything I wanted it to, but I don't think it was lacking any "RPG element" that Origins had that I cared about or that I thought was integral to the idea of an RPG.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Pauravi wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

I would also like to know how many new fans the inclusion the of action mode, story mode and RPG mode actually brought in and if it was worth the resources to implement the feature.

What are these "action mode", "story mode", and "RPG mode"s that you speak of?

This a trick question?

[Dessalines]

Fresh Bamboo wrote...

 Do not try too hard to appeal to new players.


that is all.

I remember Dragon Age: Origins were attacked by Old Bioware fans before it came out because it didn't look anything like Baldour's Gate, and it was trying to appeal to new players, especially the "Violent Trailer."

[Pauravi]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I would encourage demographics stop looking at gamers as gamers, but instead try and figure out why we, as people, enjoy different video games.

I think that's exactly what they do, though.

A lot of people assume out of hand that BioWare was trying to bring in "action gamers" with DA2.  I really don't think that's the case at all and, frankly, I don't see the action game in there.

Rather, I think that they looked at their demographics and the things that people talk about and said, "ok, well people always say that they like our stories and characters, and some people said that the combat was slow or clunky, so lets try to make our characters more distinctive and unique, to make an engrossing story, and to make combat more exciting without changing the actual mechanics of it too much".  They were just trying to play to their strengths and to fix a couple things people saw as weaknesses in DAO.

Although I wouldn't necessarily say that they got it exactly correct (there is always room for improvement after all), by and large I think they succeeded at their goals.  Unfortunately because the game was rushed, other elements fell by the wayside (exploration / number of areas, Act 3 was short, etc) , but I do not at all get the impression that they were trying to, as you say, "steal" a segment of the FPS market".

There was far too much wandering around and talking to realistically think that action gamers would get into it, and the only thing that changed in the combat was the speed.  All the tactical elements were still there, such as being able to pause, or queue up powers, or use combinations of abilities.  The differences in combat felt, to me, largely aesthetic.

[Pauravi]

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Pauravi wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

I would also like to know how many new fans the inclusion the of action mode, story mode and RPG mode actually brought in and if it was worth the resources to implement the feature.

What are these "action mode", "story mode", and "RPG mode"s that you speak of?

This a trick question?

No, not at all.  I mean, are you just referring to the fact that the game has cinematic or dialogue sequences, which the camera handles differently compared to when you're wandering around, or fighting?  You know, like Origins did?

[The Elder King]

Pauravi wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Pauravi wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

I would also like to know how many new fans the inclusion the of action mode, story mode and RPG mode actually brought in and if it was worth the resources to implement the feature.

What are these "action mode", "story mode", and "RPG mode"s that you speak of?

This a trick question?

No, not at all.  I mean, are you just referring to the fact that the game has cinematic or dialogue sequences, which the camera handles differently compared to when you're wandering around, or fighting?  You know, like Origins did?

ME3 had three different options in which you can play the game: Action, in which the dialogue choices are cut off; Story, in which the difficulty is even more decreased; and the RPG mode, the classical one.