1093 réponses à ce sujet

[chemiclord]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

This doesn't make any sense. What would stop developers from making games like BG2 again? Absolutely nothing.

In fact, if we look at Kickstarter, we can see that some of the most succesful Kickstarter projects are in fact RPG games similar to the good old RPGs like Baldur's Gate and Fallout.

I think what stops them is that such games appeal to a small niche of the gamer community, and the return on that investment isn't worth it for anyone outside the indie development market.  Let's say that a KS funded indie game gets 100,000 backers (which is pushing it, btw).  100,000 sales would an EPIC DISASTER for a AAA game company.  We're talking "shut the doors we're out of business" level of disaster.

Let's face it... the vast majority of gamers WANT the voice-overs, they WANT the expensive cinematics and game engine... and those things cost a lot of money that limit everything else.

[AlexMBrennan]

Let's say that a KS funded indie game gets 100,000 backers (which is pushing it, btw). 100,000 sales would an EPIC DISASTER for a AAA game company. We're talking "shut the doors we're out of business" level of disaster.

Kickstarter pledge =! Sale. It takes a lot more to commit money purely based on what the developers hope to achieve.

And sure, if you are assuming that all games cost as much to make as AAA games then obviously only games achieving AAA sales can be profitable.

[chemiclord]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Kickstarter pledge =! Sale. It takes a lot more to commit money purely based on what the developers hope to achieve.

And sure, if you are assuming that all games cost as much to make as AAA games then obviously only games achieving AAA sales can be profitable.

It's not a matter of these games not making money.  They obviously do, or not even indie publishers would do them.

It's a matter of return of investment.  Why would Bioware committ man hours to a game that would make say $3 million (this is NOT a specific number), when they could committ those same number of man hours to produce a game that would make $50 million?

[AlanC9]

chemiclord wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...
Kickstarter pledge =! Sale. It takes a lot more to commit money purely based on what the developers hope to achieve. 

And sure, if you are assuming that all games cost as much to make as AAA games then obviously only games achieving AAA sales can be profitable.

It's not a matter of these games not making money.  They obviously do, or not even indie publishers would do them.

It's a matter of return of investment.  Why would Bioware committ man hours to a game that would make say $3 million (this is NOT a specific number), when they could committ those same number of man hours to produce a game that would make $50 million?

Would the game projected at $3 million in revenue take the same number of man-hours to make, though?

[Seboist]

Yannkee wrote...

ME2 is not perfect but it's still my favorite video game.
ME3 is not a bad game, but I think it's a bad sequel to ME2 and a disappointing conclusion to Shepard's story.

On the contrary, ME3 is a "good" sequel to the nonsensical and pointless mess that was ME2.

ME3 delivered the goods with the prescedent ME2 started by killing the protagonist in the first five minutes for nothing other than plot contrived idiocy. The only direction there was to go from that is straight down.

[Iakus]

Morocco Mole wrote...

It's really amazing just how much bad writing is in ME2. Even for a videogame. I think the only things done well were TIM (which seemed to be a fluke) and a few of the loyalty missions. The Lazarus Project is probably the worst thing in the series though. And tells you all you need to know about the direction the series was going to go to.

It was.  Until Synthesis came along.  Now it has some competition.

[Seboist]

Morocco Mole wrote...

It's really amazing just how much bad writing is in ME2. Even for a videogame. I think the only things done well were TIM (which seemed to be a fluke) and a few of the loyalty missions. The Lazarus Project is probably the worst thing in the series though. And tells you all you need to know about the direction the series was going to go to.

Yeah, it's no exaggeration to say that ME2's plot(such as it is) is one of the most idiotic ones in gaming. Nothing from Lazarus, the space pokemon/spectre therapist premise and the collector plot makes an iota of sense.

Even simplistic plots like in Zelda or Ys give you more of a compelling reason for why you have to do what you're doing than ME2/3's "just because so and so said so".

Modifié par Seboist, 14 juillet 2013 - 05:21 .

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

Synthesis is stupid ..but it's an option.Project Dumbarus is forced

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Seboist wrote...

Even simplistic plots like in Zelda or Ys give you more of a compelling reason for why you have to do what you're doing than ME2/3's "just because so and so said so".

Meh, Zelda shouldn't be getting extra credit here.

It doesn't exactly take much thought to recycle the same plot device every game.

*insert evil threat*
*insert magic item capable of defeating threat without explanation".

Whether it's the Seven Sages or awakening the power of the Master Sword, every Zelda game follows a "because so and so said so" story.

[The Heretic of Time]

Seboist wrote...

Yannkee wrote...

ME2 is not perfect but it's still my favorite video game.
ME3 is not a bad game, but I think it's a bad sequel to ME2 and a disappointing conclusion to Shepard's story.

On the contrary, ME3 is a "good" sequel to the nonsensical and pointless mess that was ME2.

ME3 delivered the goods with the prescedent ME2 started by killing the protagonist in the first five minutes for nothing other than plot contrived idiocy. The only direction there was to go from that is straight down.

Yeah, ME2 left the Mass Effect story in ruins pretty much. BioWare wrote themselves into a corner.

With ME3, BioWare clearly tried ot fix the mess that ME2 created, but to no avail. ME3 still sucked despite the best efforts that BioWare put into it. They simply could not salvage the story that ME2 wrecked.

The fact that their lead writer is an incompetent hack didn't really make the task of salvaging the wreck that ME2 left any easier obviously.

[The Heretic of Time]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Even simplistic plots like in Zelda or Ys give you more of a compelling reason for why you have to do what you're doing than ME2/3's "just because so and so said so".

Meh, Zelda shouldn't be getting extra credit here.

It doesn't exactly take much thought to recycle the same plot device every game.

*insert evil threat*
*insert magic item capable of defeating threat without explanation".

Whether it's the Seven Sages or awakening the power of the Master Sword, every Zelda game follows a "because so and so said so" story.

That is not true.

Zelda always explains why said McGuffin is capable of defeating the big bad evil.

I wouldn't say those explanations are very deep, but at least in Zelda you know what the McGuffin is, you know why you are looking for the McGuffin and you know what the McGuffin is supposed to do.

That's more than I can say of Mass Effect.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 juillet 2013 - 05:34 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Morocco Mole wrote...

I wouldn't throw all the blame at Walters. Drew was still one of the lead writers for the majority of ME2 and should probably share at least some of the blame for the mess it turned out to be.

Oh I'm not saying Walters is the blame for the wreck that is ME3. I'm just saying that someone with his limited set of skills probably had a hard-time salvaging that wreck that ME2 left us with.

Drew is clearly also a writer with only very limited skills. He's a good example of a "ticking the boxes" writer. Drew is one of those writers that does things simply because A) it sounds cool or it is expected by the audience, so therefor it should be in there, or C) other great sci-fi series have it, so my series should have it too.

I wouldn't count Drew among the most creative writers, that's for sure.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 juillet 2013 - 05:39 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

That is not true. Zelda always explains why said McGuffin is capable of defeating the big bad evil. I wouldn't say those explanations are very deep, but at least in Zelda you know what the McGuffin is, you know why you are looking for the McGuffin and you know what the McGuffin is supposed to do. That's more than I can say of Mass Effect.

Zelda has always done this.

Every magical artifact used to defeat a big bad is powered by the plot.  Grab Ganon, create some special object made by the Gods (Sages or an item or both), and insert X number of temples of gameplay to stop him. Mass Effect is bad, but Zelda doesn't win any points for either creativity or depth. It's plot is uncomplicated by plotholes because it relies on authorial fiat to fuel the adventure.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 14 juillet 2013 - 05:46 .

[The Heretic of Time]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

That is not true. Zelda always explains why said McGuffin is capable of defeating the big bad evil. I wouldn't say those explanations are very deep, but at least in Zelda you know what the McGuffin is, you know why you are looking for the McGuffin and you know what the McGuffin is supposed to do. That's more than I can say of Mass Effect.

Zelda has always done this.

Every magical artifact used to defeat a big bad is powered by the plot.  Grab Ganon, create some special object made by the Gods (Sages or an item or both), and insert X number of temples of gameplay to stop him. Mass Effect is bad, but Zelda doesn't win any points for either creativity or depth. It's plot is uncomplicated by plotholes because it relies on authorial fiat to fuel the adventure.

Despite the recycled structure that every Zelda game follows, it still has a better and more solid plot than Mass Effect (well, ME2 at least).

Especially Zelda games like Skyward Sword and Majora's Mask are a lot deeper than just "collect X, defeat Y". Sure, it's not literary master piece and it certainly doesn't have the depth of say... The Witcher or... but keep in mind, Zelda is a game series created for all ages, but mainly for children.

Besides, Zelda is not even about the story. Zelda is about the sense of adventure and exploration. 


That said, I still stand by my point, that despite Zelda's straight-forward recycled plot, it still does more than Mass Effect.

Zelda always explains why you are searching for item X.
Zelda always explains where item X comes from.
Zelda always explains what item X is supposed to do and how item X works.

That's more than I can say of Mass Effect.

[Seboist]

StreetMagic wrote...

I like Project Lazarus for one reason.. and I think it's one that needs to be told : the continuing incompetence and carelessness of both the Alliance and Council. People might think having such idiotic government bodies isn't realistic, but I think it is. Just look at any governing body. Outside of smaller local ones, many get little done. I think that's the bigger point the team wanted to convey by having Shepard die and working with Cerberus.

That said, it does some damage to individual roleplaying. What if characters just never, ever, ever would work with Cerberus? It sucks for them. The story works better if you cut Cerberus some slack. A Shepard who does that would feel like it's a godsend that someone is finally helping.

Lol, wut? Even assclowns like Idi Amin have more depth than the council, who merely serve as a means for juvenile power tripping for the player.

"Politics" in ME is a complete joke.