118 réponses à ce sujet

[Ridwan]

Vandicus wrote...

M25105 wrote...

... Once again I got to question you guys.

You expect Bioware to make this super expensive, highly voice acting intensive, massive game with very detailed background lore, but you only want it to appeal to the already existing playerbase? Reality check folks, Dragon Age 3 needs new players in order to keep justifying the costs. Origins and DA 2 barely even broke the 3 million mark, considering the budget it's NOT GOOD BUSINESS (marketing is factored in here too and yes I know, they haven't released the budget for DA: Origins or Dragon Age 2, but consider the fact that Spiderman 3 from Activision had a budget of 35 million dollars, I think it's reasonable to assume that the DA games have a higher budget, so let's say over 35-45 million).

Let's make a fantasy game here to figure out how much Bioware made on Dragon Age 2 for example.

The budget was 35 million, they sold 3 million copies and EA takes the major cut, leaving Bioware with 2 dollars pr. unit sold. That's 2,3 million dollars. Sounds a lot to some? Well factor in how many employees there are at Bioware now too, who gets paid the most etc.

Hell, you should be HOPING, that they can bring more people interested in the RPG genre so that it actually increases the sales of the game and gets easier for developers to justify making high budget RPGs.

It's like there's this super elitism on this forum, where you all pretend to speak ye ol' English (mixed with French words) who loathe anyone not belonging to your tight knit circle. That and those that only care about romances.

Movie budgets far outstrip video game budgets in general. Bioware is a subsidiary company of EA, wholly owned by EA's investors(previously owned by the founders). It doesn't really work like that at all(though EA itself is not publicly traded).

Now it is good business to try and appeal to more consumers, just saying your numbers are probably on the high end, and that's not how Bioware works for EA. EA is not simply Bioware's publisher, they own the company.

How's the number high end? You're saying Spiderman 3 THE VIDEO GAME (not the film) had a higher budget than Dragon Age? That doesn't make sense, you know that.

[Plaintiff]

Yes, let's completely ignore new gamers and what they want to play in favour of an aging audience that will eventually become extinct. In fact, why stop there? Let's immediatly halt production of all media that could conceivably be enjoyed by anyone under the age of fifteen.

[Emzamination]

Plaintiff wrote...

Yes, let's completely ignore new gamers and what they want to play in favour of an aging audience that will eventually become extinct. In fact, why stop there? Let's immediatly halt production of all media that could conceivably be enjoyed by anyone under the age of fifteen.

*taps* But Dragon age is a mature game for ages 17+.

[Xerxes52]

Would it be wrong to say I want a Dragon Age version of The Wire at some point?

Modifié par Xerxes52, 23 octobre 2012 - 05:41 .

[Plaintiff]

Emzamination wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Yes, let's completely ignore new gamers and what they want to play in favour of an aging audience that will eventually become extinct. In fact, why stop there? Let's immediatly halt production of all media that could conceivably be enjoyed by anyone under the age of fifteen.

*taps* But Dragon age is a mature game for ages 17+.

The rating of the game is irrelevent to my point, and age barriers are different across different countries. In Australia, M-rated games are considered suitable for fifteen year-olds, but I could've just as easily said "let's stop producing enjoyable entertainment for anyone under thirty" and the point would be the same.

[Meltemph]

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.

I think shows like Homeland, Dexter, and Game of Thrones, True Blood, Hell even Grimm is showing legs kind of defeats that idea, that the problem is making it open to new comers.  I'd say marketing fail has as much to do with it as anything, and also sub-par quality.  Also, I am pretty sure Arrested was going to get picked up by another TV company, but Hurwitz didnt want to, cause there was nothing left to do essentually.

You dont need to, imo, cater to new or old audiences(and I think history will back me up on this), all you need to do is make a high auality game/story/ect and make sure your marketing team isnt terrible.  You make the best game you guys an envision and I dont think you have to worry about the other crap. 

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.

I dont see any real long term profit from even worrying about such a thing, and I think you would be hard pressed, when dealing with art/movies/books/tv to show where you have to even worry about it, unless there are actual problems with what you are making/giving to the consumers(or marketing fails).

I think(not you guys, but in general) game/movie/tv/book developers and publishers like to use this idea as a crutch as to why something doesnt do as well as they wanted.  Frankly, it more then likely is either your marketing team was terrible, for properly setting expectations and getting the word out, or the development team just under delivered(I know it is easy to say, since I am not making games, but that is the reality of the market more often then not).

I dont even understand why the idea of having to cater to a certain market is even considered, when it comes to something like movies/books/games.  This isnt like you are trying to make a couch that you want to sell, and making sure everyone is comfortable is the way to do this.  Game development is an art, as much as movies/books are.  Just make a damn good game and I'm sure it will work out quite fine(as long as your marketing team isnt fail) and dont worry about the new or old people.

Modifié par Meltemph, 23 octobre 2012 - 06:10 .

[AlexJK]

Nizaris1 wrote...

So DA3 cannot target new players.

Don't be ridiculous, of course it can. Any background information that the player needs will be provided in dialogue and/or codex entries. Other than that, the game explains itself. You don't need to have played as a Grey Warden in DAO to read the codex entry explaining what they are. And you don't need to have played the warrior/rogue/mage class system from the previous games to understand the same system in DA3.

[AlexJK]

Meltemph wrote...

I dont even understand why the idea of having to cater to a certain market is even considered, when it comes to something like movies/books/games.  This isnt like you are trying to make a couch that you want to sell, and making sure everyone is comfortable is the way to do this.

Interesting choice of analogy - and quite wrong. Making a couch isn't about making sure it's comfortable for everyone. Furniture companies produce lots of couches with different characteristics (shape, size, material, firmness, plumpness, etc.) in the knowledge that couch A will appeal to person A, and couch B to person B, and so on.

Game development is an art, as much as movies/books are.  Just make a damn good game and I'm sure it will work out quite fine(as long as your marketing team isnt fail) and dont worry about the new or old people.

Game development is not an "art" for the majority of large commercial game developers, certainly including Bioware. (And even if it were, "art" does not sell based on its quality; it sells based on its promotion, previous work by the same artist, and so on.)

Bioware is a commercial game developer who, ultimately, must make money from their games. Designing them in a certain way, to appeal to as large a market as possible, new players as well as old, is (obviously?) one way to increase sales, and therefore accomplish the goal of making more money.

This isn't a bad thing for "old" players of course - the more money Bioware makes from the Dragon Age series, the more investment can and will take place in that series in the future. This can only be a good thing!

Modifié par AlexJK, 23 octobre 2012 - 08:06 .

[The Elder King]

Emzamination wrote...

hhh89 wrote...



Your opinion isn't very reasonable. There are number of reason why a person wouldn't put their registered copy in the BSN, and having a older registration date doesn't make you wiser, or more important, or anything else.
By your logic, I shouldn't dictate me in the tone in which I should post. Which, if I post in tone that aren't appropriate for a forum, is what you should do.
You seems very pride of being "older" than other members, which is a think who should have no relevance.

Too bad, soo sad for them Ai? The bolded is when the post  started to make no sense to me.

What do you mean with "Ai"? Do you mean AI? Are you suggesting I'm no human?
About the bolded part, I obviously intended "you shouldn't dictate me". I made an error when I was writing my post. I was writing fast, and I forgot to check.
And what you didn't understand about my last phrase? I remember more than once that you said to a "younger" member "welcome to the BSN newbie", and from the post I quoted you implied that younger member should know their place when talking with older member. Which makes absolutely no sense.

[Ridwan]

Do some of you actually want RPGs to be less profitable? Still waiting for answer, by the way.

[dsl08002]

Me3 was to appeal new players and look what happened,

[Ridwan]

dsl08002 wrote...

Me3 was to appeal new players and look what happened,

Has nothing to do why ME 3 failed (it didn't either), some of you are blowing Vega out of porportion. ME 3 "failed" cause of a crappy ending and content and missions that failed to live up to expectation due to clearly not having enough time to be finished.

Modifié par M25105, 23 octobre 2012 - 08:39 .

[ianvillan]

Pauravi wrote...

Ooooooh, hahaha.  Sorry, my mind was stuck on DA2, I didn't even think about ME3.

I dunno, I don't really think it takes anything at all away from the RPG aspect to include those modes either for action gamers (and lets be real, ME was half action game from the very beginning) or for people who have already played through the game a bunch of times and skip through the dialogues anyway.  It was probably extremely easy to implement -- all they do is leave out most of the dialogue after all -- and the fact that those modes exist doesn't at all hurt those of us who simply leave the switch on "RPG" all the time.  I forgot that it was even an option until you mentioned it; the fact that such a thing exists is of zero importance IMO.

I dont really think it was much of a problem with the idea of having the 3 different modes, I do believe it takes more time and resources than you think it does but I was wondering if the inclusion of 3 different modes actually encouraged more new players to the series.

As long as Bioware makes the best RPG game they can and dont included features that dont belong just for the sake of getting new players then I believe the game will speak for it self, If they then wish to add the 3 different modes for new players then I have no problem with it.

[The Elder King]

ianvillan wrote...


I dont really think it was much of a problem with the idea of having the 3 different modes, I do believe it takes more time and resources than you think it does but I was wondering if the inclusion of 3 different modes actually encouraged more new players to the series.

As long as Bioware makes the best RPG game they can and dont included features that dont belong just for the sake of getting new players then I believe the game will speak for it self, If they then wish to add the 3 different modes for new players then I have no problem with it.

I somehow agree, though it depends on the cost of the three different modes. Plus, Story mode made no sense to me. Why not make a  easier level than casual, or making causal easier? Did they made Story mode so that people wouldn't think bad of themselves for playing on casual (or a lower level)? There is nothing bad in playing the easiest level.

Modifié par hhh89, 23 octobre 2012 - 09:28 .

[ianvillan]

hhh89 wrote...

ianvillan wrote...


I dont really think it was much of a problem with the idea of having the 3 different modes, I do believe it takes more time and resources than you think it does but I was wondering if the inclusion of 3 different modes actually encouraged more new players to the series.

As long as Bioware makes the best RPG game they can and dont included features that dont belong just for the sake of getting new players then I believe the game will speak for it self, If they then wish to add the 3 different modes for new players then I have no problem with it.

I somehow agree, though it depends on the cost of the three different modes. Plus, Story mode made no sense to me. Why not make a  easier level than casual, or making causal easier? Did they made Story mode so that people wouldn't think bad of themselves for playing on casual (or a lower level)? There is nothing bad in playing the easiest level.

I agree about story mode making no sense but if there focus groups say it attracts new players then they can put it in the game if they want.

[The Elder King]

ianvillan wrote...


I agree about story mode making no sense but if there focus groups say it attracts new players then they can put it in the game if they want.

Yeah, I don't care much in the end, the end results is the same if you create a mode or put a new easier difficulty level, though in terms of marketing I believe is better to say "we have a new mode for people interested only in the story and not in the combat" than "we have a new, easier difficulty mode".
I want them to make great games/rpg which are successful. If those features attracts new players, good for them.

Modifié par hhh89, 23 octobre 2012 - 09:41 .

[Meltemph]

Interesting choice of analogy - and quite wrong. Making a couch isn't about making sure it's comfortable for everyone. Furniture companies produce lots of couches with different characteristics (shape, size, material, firmness, plumpness, etc.) in the knowledge that couch A will appeal to person A, and couch B to person B, and so on.

Point missed. Either way, my point was, you cant try and get the general opinion of "the majority", however the hell people think they can do that.

Game development is not an "art" for the majority of large commercial game developers, certainly including Bioware. (And even if it were, "art" does not sell based on its quality; it sells based on its promotion, previous work by the same artist, and so on.)

Huh? You going to source this? Cause all the games I know that sell well are of very high quality. I dont know of any game that is considered a big seller that is a "crap quality" game.

Bioware is a commercial game developer who, ultimately, must make money from their games. Designing them in a certain way, to appeal to as large a market as possible, new players as well as old, is (obviously?) one way to increase sales, and therefore accomplish the goal of making more money.

To claim what this "mass market" is, is useless, when you are doing with games/movies/books(hell when you are dealing with a lot of things). Unless you are trying to make something incredibly niche to appeal to a large group of people. Most things that are popular, when it comes to things like this is normally because something about it is of high quality, production value, or they have an amazing marketing team.

This isn't a bad thing for "old" players of course - the more money Bioware makes from the Dragon Age series, the more investment can and will take place in that series in the future. This can only be a good thing!

This is with your assumption that making a game for a "majority" market is something that works. CoD isnt popular because it is CoD, CoD is an incredibly well put together FPS. WoW is so popular not because it was "mass appealed" but because of how well put together it was. All the fail FPS and MMO's that try and literally copy these games, that dont do near as well helps back this point up.

Great development trumps just about anything. Also, I'm not in favor of favoring the "old players" at all. Just I see nothing that indicates that making games in mind, specifically for new players(at least story wise), works.

That isnt to say that making a game, with the idea of having everyone able to pick it up and play it is a bad idea, but that they should make the best gamne/story/mechanics and ect, the best way the know how, without trying to "corner a market".

[Rune-Chan]

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.

That is fair enough.

The issue a lot of people have though, is that the games seem to be trying to appeal to a new audience, while not retaining what made the fans of the previous games enjoy them in the first place.

For example, not many people chose to play DA:O because they heard it had the most action packed and awesome combat in modern gaming. The lore, the story, the characters, and the style and setting are what the game was praised and loved for. People liked the world and the character designs.

Dragon Age 2 was sold as a fighting game. The box says "Dragon Age 2 - "think like a general, fight like a SPARTAN". Now, ignoring how ridiculous that claim is considering the simplicity of the combat, that's not the kind of thing that drew people into the series at all first time around, and it's not the kind of thing that is really going to win people over to join in with the second. If people want that kind of game, they have a very large selection to choose from.

Simply put: Is Dragon Age 2 known as a game that had a fantastic combat system?

The answer is no. Of course there are people who like it, some even prefer it, but the game was advertised for it's combat system, but it sure as hell isn't getting praise for it. So it seems to have failed in it's attempt to cater to a different audience by working so hard on something that nobody even asked for.

If the game had basically been Origins, but with all the issues fixed, and everything that was liked improved upon, you'd have had a lot more praise and a lot more copies sold. The problem with Bioware games seems to be that they don't seem to really know what they want to be. They seem to want to both appeal to the old fans and draw in the new ones and normally end up annoying the former and being ignored by the latter.

Games such as Borderlands 2 and Batman Arkham City are a perfect example of how a sequel can do even better than it's predecessor without trying to "appeal to a wider audience". They stuck with the same basic idea, but expanded upon it, and improved it. Those who liked the originals love the sequels even more, and a lot of people who didn't like it, now do because they are improved.

Dragon Age (and Mass Effect, but different forum and all that) on the other hand, seem to work on the ideology of "If it isn't perfect, remove it rather than improve it" and "What would somebody who wasn't interested in the last game want to see in order to play this one."

Simply put, it makes more sense to improve on what you have, and hope that the huge amount of praise from the previous game entices new people (as well as an abundance of word of mouth), as opposed to trying to cater to different markets via experimentation.

That's just my opinion anyway.

Modifié par Machines Are Us, 23 octobre 2012 - 06:43 .

[DreamwareStudio]

M25105 wrote...

Do some of you actually want RPGs to be less profitable? Still waiting for answer, by the way.

There's a trick to increasing profitability for a series regardless of genre. Expand upon the previous game(s) while not alienating those who purchased the previous game(s). The Elder Scrolls, the Witcher series, and the Baldur's Gate series are good examples of how to do that. There are many others I haven't mentioned. Likewise, there are several examples of how not to do it.

Dragon Age is not thus far.  It may in fact become the epitome of how not to continue a series as the changes between DA:O and DA 2 were so drastic EA ended up with a fractured customer base for the DA series. They now run the risk of alienating both camps (follks who prefer the more traditional RPG of Origins to those who prefer the more action oriented nature of DA 2). The divide is evident not only here but in other social media. Neither side wants a compromise, which is exactly what EA is trying to give. This is compounded by the fact they are working with a smaller fan base given the amount ot customers they lost with DA 2. I think EA would have been better off going in one direction or the other. At least then there would be one camp that was (mostly) happy and would generate positive word-of-mouth. More likely, there's going to be a crap storm of negativity from both DA:O and DA 2 people.

Modifié par google_calasade, 23 octobre 2012 - 07:00 .