147 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

If you can do twitch, they're bearable.

Even on a twitch level (and I loathe twitch, so I'm already excluded), the first one was just so repetitive.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

I'll take a really solid, polished game with memorable characters, an excellent story, engaging combat, and gorgeous environments over all the innovation in the world.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

If you can do twitch, they're bearable.

Even on a twitch level (and I loathe twitch, so I'm already excluded), the first one was just so repetitive.

I have heard the second one is better with the story/choice aspect and MUCH better with the combat. Like TW1 was a first draft and TW2 was the final product. From what I understand, there's nothing that happens in TW1 that can't be covered in a quick round of Wikipedia.

[Korusus]

I wish BioWare operated more in terms of Rockstar or Blizzard or Bethesda. You've found your niche, now perfect it. Take time to polish your game and build that reputation. BioWare used to be on that same level and had that kind of reputation. BioWare for some reason has always been hesitant to embrace their niche and so we get crazy out-of-left-field stuff that sometimes works (Mass Effect) and sometimes really doesn't (Jade, DA2). They fail to realize their greatest success comes from when they embrace the formula that works for them (DA:O).

Evolution, not Innovation.

Modifié par Korusus, 19 mars 2013 - 11:46 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Korusus wrote...

I wish BioWare operated more in terms of Rockstar or Blizzard or Bethesda. You've found your niche, now perfect it. Take time to polish your game and build that reputation. BioWare used to be on that same level and had that kind of reputation. BioWare for some reason has always been hesitant to embrace their niche and so we get crazy out-of-left-field stuff that sometimes works (Mass Effect) and sometimes really doesn't (Jade, DA2). They fail to realize their greatest success comes from when they embrace the formula that works for them (DA:O).

Evolution, not Innovation.

"Niche market" is apparently a swear word in AAA development these days. If you aren't making a game that can move as many copies as Angry Birds, then you shouldn't be making games at all. That's the idea, at least. 

Which is ludicrous, of course. Knowing your audience, delivering what you've become known for and improving things through refinement, not through drastic revamping, are what should follow successful releases. This may sound like a crumudgeon's thinking, but we see no problem at all with crumudgery in franchises like Madden and Tiger Woods, which continue to sell millions upon millions of copies by giving their fans exactly what they think they are going to be buying, with minor tweaks and new features. 

If Tiger Woods came out and instead of swinging the golf club by pulling the joystick back and then swinging forward, in a semi-realistic golf swing fashion, they went to some type of quick-time event where you had to line up Tetris blocks in less than five seconds, fans would be irate. Does it matter that introducing gameplay from a popular game like Tetris into a popular game like Tiger Woods should, at least on paper, make sense? No, of course not. It is not what the fans are expecting or wanting. If EA Sports wanted to do a new golf franchise that did crazy things like that, they could be fine in doing so and it would be evaluated on its own merits. But to change an existing franchise into something that its fans don't recognize and then say "but it's still golf, what are you guys complaining about?" is not innovation. Its mucking things up because someone in a corner office thought it would be brililant.

Refinement and improvement of existing features and gameplay elements with the implementation of a few new ones is what keeps franchises fresh. Producing a "dramatic revisioning of the series" is code word for "we're going to try something totally different but we didn't want to run the risk of not having as many sales so we kept the same franchise name to pull people in." 

[Plaintiff]

^ Curmudgeon

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

^ Curmudgeon

No $^%t? I've been spelling that wrong my entire life. 

Go figure.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 20 mars 2013 - 12:24 .

[Il Divo]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

I'll take a really solid, polished game with memorable characters, an excellent story, engaging combat, and gorgeous environments over all the innovation in the world.

Word.

[Allan Schumacher]

"Niche market" is apparently a swear word in AAA development these days.

This is probably more true than you realize.

Go suggest to fans of a reasonably large kickstarter and suggest that they are just a niche.

[David7204]

I really do not like the implication that there is somehow an awesome world of epic video game storytelling right around the corner or something that hasn't been explored because developers are just too simple-minded or lazy.

Generally, I think if something hasn't been done by now, there's going to be a very good reason why it hasn't been done. That doesn't mean that creativity and innovation don't exist, but we see reoccuring elements in video games because they work, and work well. There are very solid reasons why games like Heavy Rain haven't taken off real well and why games that focus on combat, for example, work very well.

Good stories depend on the same foundations they always have and always will depend on. Good conflicts, good characters, good themes, and so forth. No amount of innovation can substitute for that.

Modifié par David7204, 20 mars 2013 - 01:08 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

"Niche market" is apparently a swear word in AAA development these days.

This is probably more true than you realize.

Go suggest to fans of a reasonably large kickstarter and suggest that they are just a niche.

Touche.

But, to be fair, I think the reason Kickstarter fans would be angry at this is because the industry has responded to demands of the niche market with nearly dismissive attitudes. "Permadeath and camp resting? We can't implement these things that only a niche market has experience in and would want." Instead, they point to their funding success and say "See? Us tiny little niche market guys have done this!" Even though they, in all actuality, haven't "done" anything but fork over money, the gist is there - where once the term may have been viewed as a badge of pride, it now is industry code for "people who don't have enough numbers to matter."

After all, AAA RPGs are considered a niche market compared to mobile gaming, which can have tens of millions of players. So shouldn't we make more AAA RPGs like mobile games? Who cares about the die hard niche fans... more people want "Angry Dragons!" If we are making more people happy and enjoying our product, doesn't that make up for the ones we lost along the way?

For the record, I would actually be fully supportive of a DA/Angry Birds promotional crossover.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 20 mars 2013 - 01:27 .

[Plaintiff]

"Use your catapault to fling Mabari at the ramshackle forts set up by puppy-stealing Darkspawn!"

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

I really do not like the implication that there is somehow an awesome world of epic video game storytelling right around the corner or something that hasn't been explored because developers are just too simple-minded or lazy.

Generally, I think if something hasn't been done by now, there's going to be a very good reason why it hasn't been done. That doesn't mean that creativity and innovation don't exist, but we see reoccuring elements in video games because they work, and work well. There are very solid reasons why games like Heavy Rain haven't taken off real well and why games that focus on combat, for example, work very well.

Good stories depend on the same foundations they always have and always will depend on. Good conflicts, good characters, good themes, and so forth. No amount of innovation can substitute for that.

I would say it is because Heavy Rain is not a game that was marketted well. If you were to grill a number of people on this forum, a forum where games with good storytelling are valued more likely than you run-of-the-mill gaming site, many people couldn't tell you the slightest thing about Heavy Rain. It wasn't presented as a great story, it was presented as a concept game. Concept games are not easy to sell, especially when its not clear to gamers what concept you are actually talking about.

Much more innovative things have been attempted by games in the past and were even received really well for it. But as game design budgets became higher and higher, the cost of adding the "little details" in many games became exponential. Is it worth it to have the ability to bake bread in an RPG? Is it really a neat enough thing to be able to murder everyone in every major town to account for all the bugs, scripting and workarounds needed to make that work? Do we really want to make 90 different animal designs when animals don't even play a relevant part to the story?

Cheaper games could do some throwaway concepts that can add just the tiniest level of flavor to the world that can stick out. But when games go from costing $2 million to $20, things become much more hard-lined. You have schedules, you have revenue projections, you have costs analysis, you have marketing... all of this becomes a machine that can work to stifle creativity and innovation. Not to say it does completely (or even neccessarily the majority of the time), but it does happen. For a game to do something truly outside the box, it almost needs to have a small enough price tag to make sure it is not a collasal failure. Because if you pour too much into a game and it never pays off, then the developer is stuck holding the bag.

Which is why so many people enjoy the concept of Kickstarter. It means that if your game is funded, it will see the light of day (in theory). So a game that is not well received is, at the very least, not leaving the game makers in the negative. And even if the gains are modest, it isn't all that bad. If you have paid all of your employees for the game and, at the end of the first quarter, you have a hundred thousand dollars or so to split between two or three big cheeses, then that's not a terrible loss. On the other hand, if a company invested $2 million or so into your game and only saw less than a 5% gain for two years worth of work... well, they could have invested in T-bills and gotten close to that amount. Not a good use of their dollars, because they don't care what type of game is out there or what the status of the industry is like.

Anyway, innovation isn't dead or anything. But it just costs a pretty penny more to implement. So it needs to be perceived as more of a "sure thing" rather than just a "good idea" before developers commit these days. Which can lead to some "good ideas" never seeing the light of day, just like it always has.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 20 mars 2013 - 01:28 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

"Use your catapault to fling Mabari at the ramshackle forts set up by puppy-stealing Darkspawn!"

Curse those Darkspawn and their puppy stealing ways!

[Allan Schumacher]

Touche.

But, to be fair, I think the reason Kickstarter fans would be angry at this is because the industry has responded to demands of the niche market with nearly dismissive attitudes.

I refer to them as niche because I feel that they are. I think it sucks when niches aren't considered because it isn't economically viable, which is why I love things like digital distribution and even movements like Kickstarter.

The barrier of entry in appealing to a niche is much lower now. This is a good thing.

People equate niche to irrelevant. I don't believe that a niche is irrelevant, but it's considered a pejorative for sure.

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Touche.

But, to be fair, I think the reason Kickstarter fans would be angry at this is because the industry has responded to demands of the niche market with nearly dismissive attitudes.

I refer to them as niche because I feel that they are. I think it sucks when niches aren't considered because it isn't economically viable, which is why I love things like digital distribution and even movements like Kickstarter.

The barrier of entry in appealing to a niche is much lower now. This is a good thing.

People equate niche to irrelevant. I don't believe that a niche is irrelevant, but it's considered a pejorative for sure.

I couldn't agree more. And I think niche will soon become a badge of honor thing again. "I play a game that involves permadeath and five party member creation with full customization. You've probably never heard of it. It's called Grimoire."

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 20 mars 2013 - 01:41 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I couldn't agree more. And I think niche will soon become a badge of honor thing again. "I play a game that involves permadeath and five party member creation with full customization. You've probably never heard of it. It's called Grimoire."

Eh, I'd prefer it to just be niche. I'm not a fan of any sort of "hipster" type badge of honor, because quite frankly I am very tired of the exceptional amount of adversarial positions between gamers on the internet. The last thing I want to see is people talking down to others because Project Eternity ends up becoming a huge hit and anyone feeling as though they are better simply because they backed it.

Like a game that I don't care for? That's awesome I'm glad it was able to be produced for you to enjoy. I think this strengthens gaming as a whole!

I'd like my niche games to be nothing more than niche. "I play a game that involves permadeth and five party member creation with full customization. It's called Grimoire" is preferred.

[Fast Jimmy]

^
Hmmmm... are we talking about the same Internet here? I may be confusing it with something else.

Joking aside, no matter what hobby/venue/industry you are in, you will have those who view themselves as upper echelon. It's human nature. Whether its music, movies, video games, wine, whiskey, cigars, cars, gardening, sports, Kung Fu or kittens, there's always going to be people who know more than the average person and looks down on the unwashed masses of the world with either smug satisfaction or an insulting level of pity.

That's the way the world spins, as far as I'm concerned. Heck, even being a non-specialist makes people feel like their opinion is more valid (" Idon't have all the industry jargon and mindset, so I can see past all the barriers that exist that you all don't" mentality).

But I digress... lower barriers to entry for new titles, especially titles which hold less risk value to their developers (like a fully funded Kickatarter project should) are all very good things. A very interesting time to be a gamer, for sure.

[Direwolf0294]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
The last thing I want to see is people talking down to others because Project Eternity ends up becoming a huge hit and anyone feeling as though they are better simply because they backed it.

This is almost certainly going to happen. I've seen the start of it already. "Oh, you like Mass Effect? That's not an RPG. I play real RPGs like Project Eternity" etc.

[Allan Schumacher]

This is almost certainly going to happen. I've seen the start of it already. "Oh, you like Mass Effect? That's not an RPG. I play real RPGs like Project Eternity" etc.

Oh I know. Lets try not letting it get us down and to keep paying it forward that it's okay for people to like different things!