276 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

erezike wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Yeah, I'd hardly blame ME3's faults on EA. The story decisions are made by Hudson and Walters, ultimately. It'd be nice if you could blame the big faceless corporation, but it's just real people who are involved in this.

Im with streetmagic on this one. and he knows we dont often agree.
Rightly put streetmagic, rightly put.

the funny part? EA, the big evil faceless corporation apologized recently for Origin being awful....not sure if they will actually do anything about it but they at least accepted it was awful and people did not like it.


 
Did Mac and Casey do the same? Uh...if they did could someone point me to it?

[Erez Kristal]

I actually like origins more than steam.
It feels more video gamey.

They still have some problems with money transitions and with the quality of their games...

Modifié par erezike, 01 juillet 2013 - 01:54 .

[crimzontearz]

StreetMagic wrote...

Darksiders is an open world game? I'm curious now.

it is, there are loading times (masked by portals in Darksiders 2) but it is open world.


 

 
Great games btw, the art direction alone is gorgeous

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

crimzontearz wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

they made it more action oriented because RPG's don't sell well.It was a generally futile attempt to attract gamers

Bethesda would love to have a word with you

im sure it's not the RPG elements the reason people buy bethesda games.

You said RPGS do not sell well, Bethesda games are RPGs and they sell well and are critically acclaimed. Skyrim sold 10 million copies without having to cater to the COD crowd.

RPG elements is not it's selling point,it's because it's open world like GTA.Open world games sell well

Far Cry 3 is an open world game, it did not sell nearly as well.

neither did Saint's row, Darksiders 1-2, RDR and the list goes on. Skyrim has enough RPG elements that if you are not into it at least a little you are screwed AND it is marketed as an RPG. By your coin no game ever is truly an RPG or sells well for being an RPG because there are other features that attract people and I call bull**** on that.

the difference:Saints row 3 and far cry 3 have sold more than 4 million darksiders 2 has sold over 1 million.I don't even know what darksiders is all about,i suppose it's a pure RPG

Modifié par IntelligentME3Fanboy, 01 juillet 2013 - 01:56 .

[Erez Kristal]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

I'm still trying to figure out when Mass Effect wasn't about blowing stuff up.

it was always about blowing stuff. 
Mass effect 2 reduced the overused stats and identical equpment.
But it improved on the dialouge and athmosphere. rpg elements, which for me are more important.

mass effect 3 had more equipment and stats to play with. but reduced a lot the dialouge and athmosphere - rpg elements.

I am aware there is more recorded dialouge in me3 but its more of a movie, less a game

[crimzontearz]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

they made it more action oriented because RPG's don't sell well.It was a generally futile attempt to attract gamers

Bethesda would love to have a word with you

im sure it's not the RPG elements the reason people buy bethesda games.

You said RPGS do not sell well, Bethesda games are RPGs and they sell well and are critically acclaimed. Skyrim sold 10 million copies without having to cater to the COD crowd.

RPG elements is not it's selling point,it's because it's open world like GTA.Open world games sell well

Far Cry 3 is an open world game, it did not sell nearly as well.

neither did Saint's row, Darksiders 1-2, RDR and the list goes on. Skyrim has enough RPG elements that if you are not into it at least a little you are screwed AND it is marketed as an RPG. By your coin no game ever is truly an RPG or sells well for being an RPG because there are other features that attract people and I call bull**** on that.

the difference:Saints row 3 and far cry 3 have sold more than 4 million darksiders 2 has sold over 1 million.I don't even know what darksiders is all about,i suppose it's a pure RPG

it is actually less of an RPG than Far Cry 3, it is more about collecting items and platforming/traversing.

My point remains

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

I guarantee you that most people who play skyrim see it more as an open world action adventure game,not RPG

[spirosz]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

I guarantee you that most people who play skyrim see it more as an open world action adventure game,not RPG

I'm the opposite tbh.  I've roleplayed about 4 different characters, that each have a different influence on the "world" itself. 

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

spirosz wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

I guarantee you that most people who play skyrim see it more as an open world action adventure game,not RPG

I'm the opposite tbh.  I've roleplayed about 4 different characters, that each have a different influence on the "world" itself. 

haha,i'm the opposite to u,i fill the game with mods and then go on a killing spree for the lulz

Modifié par IntelligentME3Fanboy, 01 juillet 2013 - 02:16 .

[crimzontearz]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

I guarantee you that most people who play skyrim see it more as an open world action adventure game,not RPG

 
LOL right, because the fact that there a crapton of non combat related skills and the best possible equipment is obtainable only through the use of such skills and methodical builds AND you are prompted progression for each level and failing to progress sensibly results in insanely punishing fights makes it totally accessible to the action adventure crowd


 
Yep, totally legit

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

crimzontearz wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

I guarantee you that most people who play skyrim see it more as an open world action adventure game,not RPG

 
LOL right, because the fact that there a crapton of non combat related skills and the best possible equipment is obtainable only through the use of such skills and methodical builds AND you are prompted progression for each level and failing to progress sensibly results in insanely punishing fights makes it totally accessible to the action adventure crowd


 
Yep, totally legit

totally legit is the fact most rpg's suck and don't sell well.

[crimzontearz]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

I guarantee you that most people who play skyrim see it more as an open world action adventure game,not RPG

 
LOL right, because the fact that there a crapton of non combat related skills and the best possible equipment is obtainable only through the use of such skills and methodical builds AND you are prompted progression for each level and failing to progress sensibly results in insanely punishing fights makes it totally accessible to the action adventure crowd


 
Yep, totally legit

totally legit is the fact most rpg's suck and don't sell well.

troll confirmed...reported

[Sheepie Crusher]

erezike wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Yeah, I'd hardly blame ME3's faults on EA. The story decisions are made by Hudson and Walters, ultimately. It'd be nice if you could blame the big faceless corporation, but it's just real people who are involved in this.

Im with streetmagic on this one. and he knows we dont often agree.
Rightly put streetmagic, rightly put.

I'll have to disagree on that, It doesn't make sense to me that what has been a space opera for 2 games will suddenly shift most of it's focus to retaking Earth 

[JonathonPR]

In order to get money for a project the proposal needs to meet certain criteria. The finished project then needs to be as close to the proposal as possible to convince the financier that future proposals can be trusted.

EA only markets their more publicised games to a few broad demographics. When it comes to anything in first or second person with guns they have a hard time understanding what demographics they can appeal to that are not in their broad demographic targets. This rolls back into their problem in how they deal with stockholders. They actively attract short term investors. EA has to convince them that in at least the next year or preferably next quarter they will have a successful release. Microtransactions cover them in the time between releases but it is the first few months after a release that they are concerned about. EA has to simplify their games for their stockholders and other investors. Most investors are not passionate or in any way interested in what they invest money to for any other reason than the return. It is $ and time in relative to $ out. The variables have to be simplified to convince investors.

Bioware is not performing the same as pre EA because they have to get their proposals through people who would rather be working in the movie industry. It is why the games are shifting to a summer action flick feel rather than slower paced book or tv series with a multi season arc. They will try to tie a series together like they have in the past but each game going to be made to attract people to each release on their own. You start the Song of Ice and Fire series with A Game of Thrones. The Lord of the Rings starts in the Fellowship. Harry Potter starts with the Sorcerer's Stone. It is great when a sequel is so good that is can stand on its own like Baldur's Gate 2, but having played the first it was only possible because of the development and ties to its predecessor. Future Mass Effect games will not have the connection they need to maintain a multigeneration or even multi decade dedicated fan base. Unless there is a radical change in EA and Bioware.

[remydat]

darthrevaninlight wrote...

Nay, sir.

All I mean is focus on a single genre as your primary. Allow the rest to be sidenotes. Either make me3 a tps and tps largely. Or make it an rpg and rpg largly.

The rpg aspect is my personal preference and not meant to be taken before the larger concept. 

But I have said what I mean to the best of my ability. I have tried my best to communicate what I mean. I hope you do not take offense and that you do not make assumptions about all RPGErs because you dislike what I say.

No offense taken.  I am mostly an RPGer myself which is why I for example have never played any COD game or any Halo game besides the first one.  I think there are a lot of gamers like me who have been frustrated because RPGs offerred a good story but often times too much story combined with sh*tty combat mechanics while TPS offerred good combat mechanics but the stories were typically too weak with not enough choice.

I think ME3 is actually the way forward.  You build an RPG type story and you build TPS combat mechanics.  And you then give the player the choice to decide how much RPG and TPS they want to play.  Throw in Multiplayer and you have a game that can appeal to a wide target audience.

[Cainhurst Crow]

crimzontearz wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

I guarantee you that most people who play skyrim see it more as an open world action adventure game,not RPG

 
LOL right, because the fact that there a crapton of non combat related skills and the best possible equipment is obtainable only through the use of such skills and methodical builds AND you are prompted progression for each level and failing to progress sensibly results in insanely punishing fights makes it totally accessible to the action adventure crowd


 
Yep, totally legit

totally legit is the fact most rpg's suck and don't sell well.

troll confirmed...reported

Yup, most likely a troll.

I will say this though, just because that got me thinking. While rpg's do not suck, I will say that I don't think they do to well, at least compared to other game genre's out there. Hard to hear, yes. But I'm not really seeing evidence of less action and more "rpg-ey" games doing well in the late 2000's/early 2010's.

[Sir DeLoria]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

I guarantee you that most people who play skyrim see it more as an open world action adventure game,not RPG

 
LOL right, because the fact that there a crapton of non combat related skills and the best possible equipment is obtainable only through the use of such skills and methodical builds AND you are prompted progression for each level and failing to progress sensibly results in insanely punishing fights makes it totally accessible to the action adventure crowd

Yep, totally legit

totally legit is the fact most rpg's suck and don't sell well.

Skyrim: ~ 13 Million copies sold in 6 months

[Iakus]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I will say this though, just because that got me thinking. While rpg's do not suck, I will say that I don't think they do to well, at least compared to other game genre's out there. Hard to hear, yes. But I'm not really seeing evidence of less action and more "rpg-ey" games doing well in the late 2000's/early 2010's.

We'll find out in the next year or so as the Kickstarters start rolling out, I guess.

[remydat]

The Elder Scrolls series is more akin to GTA with swords and magic IMO. The story and plot is almost secondary and only serves to give you stuff to do while you explore the open world. I have played every Elder Scrolls game since Morrowind made its way to the Xbox and yet I can't really remember much about what the plot was about nor can I tell you much about any memorable characters in those games..

So sure it has RPG elements but do people really care about the characters or the plot? There is no overarching sense of morality in the game especially when I have never felt any sort of sadness over the countless people I kill every time I join the Assassin's Guild or Brotherhood.  It has never once crossed my mind not to join them because I didn't want to kill innocents so I don't think people really care about consequences in that game much the same way people don't care about banging a hooker in GTA and then killing her to avoid paying her money.

It's popularity I would argue is mostly do to the fact there is a lot of sh*t you can do in such an open world again like GTA and not because of an emotional attachment to the plot or characters which I feel is a requirement for a true RPG. Of course maybe other gamers do develop such an attachment.

Modifié par remydat, 01 juillet 2013 - 07:01 .

[crimzontearz]

There is...it is just vastly underplayed.

[AlanC9]

JonathonPR wrote...

In order to get money for a project the proposal needs to meet certain criteria. The finished project then needs to be as close to the proposal as possible to convince the financier that future proposals can be trusted.

EA only markets their more publicised games to a few broad demographics. When it comes to anything in first or second person with guns they have a hard time understanding what demographics they can appeal to that are not in their broad demographic targets. This rolls back into their problem in how they deal with stockholders. They actively attract short term investors. EA has to convince them that in at least the next year or preferably next quarter they will have a successful release. Microtransactions cover them in the time between releases but it is the first few months after a release that they are concerned about. EA has to simplify their games for their stockholders and other investors. Most investors are not passionate or in any way interested in what they invest money to for any other reason than the return. It is $ and time in relative to $ out. The variables have to be simplified to convince investors.

Bioware is not performing the same as pre EA because they have to get their proposals through people who would rather be working in the movie industry. It is why the games are shifting to a summer action flick feel rather than slower paced book or tv series with a multi season arc. They will try to tie a series together like they have in the past but each game going to be made to attract people to each release on their own. You start the Song of Ice and Fire series with A Game of Thrones. The Lord of the Rings starts in the Fellowship. Harry Potter starts with the Sorcerer's Stone. It is great when a sequel is so good that is can stand on its own like Baldur's Gate 2, but having played the first it was only possible because of the development and ties to its predecessor. Future Mass Effect games will not have the connection they need to maintain a multigeneration or even multi decade dedicated fan base. Unless there is a radical change in EA and Bioware.

My main problem with this analysis is that there's an implicit assumption that independent Bioware thought of itself as a maker of niche RPG product, rather than the mass-appeal cinematic stuff they do now. My impression is that Bio has always been headed in the interactive movie direction; they went cinematic as far and as fast as their technology would take them. And the D&D and Star Wars licenses are as mass-market as you get in those genres.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 juillet 2013 - 07:09 .

[TheProtheans]

remydat wrote...

So sure it has RPG elements but do people really care about the characters or the plot? There is no overarching sense of morality in the game especially when I have never felt any sort of sadness over the countless people I kill every time I join the Assassin's Guild or Brotherhood.  

I'd just say you're bad at role playing or you don't get character connections unless they're forced on you like in action games.
Ignoring the question you wrote first, the later part screams to me that should only be playing Skyrim once or if not all and definitely casually.

[Arcian]

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

The new buzzword is "open-world."

"I used to be a Spectre.

Then I took a varren to the knee"

Doesn't translate that well. The "arrow to the knee"-joke is actually an old nordic metaphor for getting married. The wife is the arrow.

So unless you are implying that the varren is...

*sharp nasal inhale* Implications... unpleasant.

[remydat]

TheProtheans wrote...

I'd just say you're bad at role playing or you don't get character connections unless they're forced on you like in action games.
Ignoring the question you wrote first, the later part screams to me that should only be playing Skyrim once or if not all and definitely casually.

I disagree.  I can get into the Witcher, Mass Effect, Star Wars, Dragon Age, and a slew of other RPGs.  Are you honestly telling me Elder Scrolls has memorable characters and NPCs.  Elder Scrolls is about the open world and the lore.  It is not about individual characters IMO.  I mean honestly give me a character or plot line from the game that really resonated with you personally and tell me why?

And yes most of the time when I play Elder Scrolls games I only play it once through.  There is nothing really in the story that requires a second playthrough especially when to complete everything requires hundreds of hours. 

Also the fact it is so buggy kills the RPG feel of the game.  When I kill Ulric Stormdragon his dead body stays in the castle and can't be removed and when I bought the house in that same city which had blood and skeletons all over it because it was being used for rituals, all that blood and skeletons stay in the house which which basically ruined that house for me.

Put it like this, if you removed the open world aspect of the Elder Scrolls games, I would have little interest in playing it just for the story or characters.  If you still would play it then to each his/her own.