393 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

Are you suggesting that these outside influences only apply to prequels, Pinecone?

Pretty much, he cannot give a better explanation so he resorts to "there might be other explanations we are missing" read "I do not like the idea that a prequel might be canned a priori"

I am open and willing to admit that those games, all of them, fell short for other reasons....AFTER someone finds that reason, I will not disregard all the empirical evidence because "well, maybe there us another reason we cannot see"

[Tesserariuss]

If a sequel, most likely a sequel, then they're gonna canonize the ending. When you started ME2 as a default char the council from ME was always presumed dead, the destiny ascension blown to pieces etc. So it wouldn't be the first time.

[Sion1138]

SC0TTYD00 wrote...

Just dropped in because I heard something. What I have is a bit vague but it sounded logical. I havent been on here for ages.

Apparently the story of the new game is similar to how humans made their way into the galaxy. Remember how we opened up the Charon relay and then the first contact war kicked off.

Some other new unknown alien race apparently does the same thing. Joins the galactic community, starts invading and then it all kicks off. So we're fighting a similar war from the other point of view.

Speculation from everyone? Sounds cool to me.

Sounds nice, where'd you hear it?

[ElitePinecone]

essarr71 wrote...

Are you suggesting that these outside influences only apply to prequels, Pinecone?

No, I think they apply to every game sale. The reasons why people buy or don't buy things are extraordinarily complex (that's why we have marketing and consumer psychologists), and there are other external factors (time of release, competing games, the box art, whatever) that probably influence why certain games are hits and some flop. I don't think it's ever as simple as "this game is a prequel, and all prequels perform poorly, so this game will perform poorly". Without understanding the circumstances of each release I don't believe it's possible to make such a sweeping statement, if the original assumption is even true in the first place. 

Basically: I think that while you can draw very simple and general relationships between certain influences and things like game sales ("fewer people buy games when the economy is bad"), it's a very tricky thing to do and needs to be done with the right data - and even then, proving a cause-and-effect link is problematic. Fundamentally there's always going to be a huge number of influences that we either don't pick up or can't explain, because people don't act in ways that neatly correspond to sweeping theories. 

[ElitePinecone]

crimzontearz wrote...

I am open and willing to admit that those games, all of them, fell short for other reasons....AFTER someone finds that reason, I will not disregard all the empirical evidence because "well, maybe there us another reason we cannot see"

Firstly, I don't think the evidence you're using is very rigorous, if your contention is that prequels (all prequels? recent prequels? we need to be more specific) mean poorer sales. We'd need to find all of the games that fit whatever category you're using, and accurate sales data for all of them plus the other games in the series. Picking and choosing examples is not a good idea, unless your conclusion is something like "well, some recent games I picked that were prequels sold badly but I don't know the actual numbers". 

The idea of confounding variables ("reasons we cannot see") are enormously important in research and statistics. 

Observing that "these games are prequels" and "these games sold badly" tells us nothing about the relationship between these two things. They could've occured entirely by coincidence, if there were more factors involved than just the ones you're looking at. The ice-cream murder relationship in that link above is a fun example of this. 

My point is not that there can't be a relationship between a game being a prequel and a game selling poorly - it's that without understanding why people bought or didn't buy these particular games, it's impossible to make that judgement on obervation alone. 

Until you find out why people didn't pick up Tomb Raider by going out and talking to them, concluding that it was *because* the game was a prequel is premature. Maybe some of them hated the boxart, or didn't trust the studio, or the game wasn't marketed properly, or the theme of the game didn't resonate, or it got bad reviews - I have no idea, and I'm not going to start speculating because that's a waste of time. Since we have neither the resources nor the information to dive into the causality, we can practically never make accurate predictions or assumptions about why games sell or don't sell.

[crimzontearz]

Which is where you start ignoring that this was not just an issue of tomb raider but it plagued MANY games from many franchises spanning a few years, from different studios, at different point of the franchise cycle, on many platforms with different (albeit usually positive) critical reception....the one thing clearly in common? They were spin off or prequels.

Ockham's Razor....I am holding its handle

[Stakrin]

Tesserariuss wrote...

If a sequel, most likely a sequel, then they're gonna canonize the ending. When you started ME2 as a default char the council from ME was always presumed dead, the destiny ascension blown to pieces etc. So it wouldn't be the first time.

not really. Picking a default for those who don't import and canonizing a choice everyone got to make, to make everyone make the same choice is totally different. 
That said I wouldn't have a problem if they just picked a canon to go off of, or if they made loophole where no matter what you pick you end up in the same spot, I would just be happy about a sequel.

[ElitePinecone]

crimzontearz wrote...

Which is where you start ignoring that this was not just an issue of tomb raider but it plagued MANY games from many franchises spanning a few years, from different studios, at different point of the franchise cycle, on many platforms with different (albeit usually positive) critical reception....the one thing clearly in common? They were spin off or prequels.

Ockham's Razor....I am holding its handle

I still don't think you've actually comprehended the difference between correlation and causation, but whatever. Even if we're only trying to establish correlation, there are significant issues with what you said above. 

Just saying that there are many examples doesn't make it relevant or useful. If we were doing this properly, you'd get *every* prequel/spin-off from whatever period you're looking at, look at their sales figures compared to previous entries, and use that data to draw some conclusions. Not some prequels, but every single one. 

If you're trying to assert the existence of a general rule that "prequelness" in itself *inherently* leads to poorer sales, it needs to hold true in all or most cases. Picking half a dozen games and saying they prove a theory is, again, poor statistical methodology. If you're claiming that there's something unique about prequels that leads to commercial failure, it should be evident that every prequel has had horrible sales figures. I don't know if this is the case but you're welcome to do some research.

Picking only high-profile prequels that have had poor sales is tempting but ultimately misguided, for a fairly obvious reason - your theory misses out on all the evidence from all the games it doesn't include. If you're trying to make a wider point about the relationship between a game's time period and its success, it needs to be based on as many points of data as you can find. Limiting it to the ones that you mention above weakens its ability to be a general theory.

[Sion1138]

ElitePinecone wrote...

I still don't think you've actually comprehended the difference between correlation and causation, but whatever. Even if we're only trying to establish correlation, there are significant issues with what you said above. 

Just saying that there are many examples doesn't make it relevant or useful. If we were doing this properly, you'd get *every* prequel/spin-off from whatever period you're looking at, look at their sales figures compared to previous entries, and use that data to draw some conclusions. Not some prequels, but every single one. 

If you're trying to assert the existence of a general rule that "prequelness" in itself *inherently* leads to poorer sales, it needs to hold true in all or most cases. Picking half a dozen games and saying they prove a theory is, again, poor statistical methodology. If you're claiming that there's something unique about prequels that leads to commercial failure, it should be evident that every prequel has had horrible sales figures. I don't know if this is the case but you're welcome to do some research.

Picking only high-profile prequels that have had poor sales is tempting but ultimately misguided, for a fairly obvious reason - your theory misses out on all the evidence from all the games it doesn't include. If you're trying to make a wider point about the relationship between a game's time period and its success, it needs to be based on as many points of data as you can find. Limiting it to the ones that you mention above weakens its ability to be a general theory.

Let me try and put a different spin on the argument.

First of all, we are not talking about games in general, but games in which the story is an important selling point.

Hence, I ask the following: Is knowing the outcome of future events in any way detrimental to one's enjoyment of a story?

This question I can answer from experience, it's one of those rare things that can be considered a matter of common sense. And the answer is affirmative. In varying degrees and with the odd exception, but as a general rule, it does.

Next I ask: Is decreased potential for enjoyment of the story detrimental to the sales of a video game to which the same is an important selling point?

And here again, the answer is yes.

So the conclusion is that as a general rule, all other things being equal, "prequelness" is directly associated with lower sales. There are exceptions and one would have to go into great detail in order to define exactly what kind of prequel will and what kind will not be subject to this rule, but that's not the point here.

The general rule is there and it need not apply to every single instance there is since the matter in question is not deterministic.

Modifié par Sion1138, 28 novembre 2013 - 10:30 .

[Karlone123]

While I do hope it is a sequel and not a prequel, I'm not getting my hopes up incase Bioware denies the rumours, which ptobably will not be for a while until a ME4 is fully revealed.

[Malanek]

Sion1138 wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

I still don't think you've actually comprehended the difference between correlation and causation, but whatever. Even if we're only trying to establish correlation, there are significant issues with what you said above. 

Just saying that there are many examples doesn't make it relevant or useful. If we were doing this properly, you'd get *every* prequel/spin-off from whatever period you're looking at, look at their sales figures compared to previous entries, and use that data to draw some conclusions. Not some prequels, but every single one. 

If you're trying to assert the existence of a general rule that "prequelness" in itself *inherently* leads to poorer sales, it needs to hold true in all or most cases. Picking half a dozen games and saying they prove a theory is, again, poor statistical methodology. If you're claiming that there's something unique about prequels that leads to commercial failure, it should be evident that every prequel has had horrible sales figures. I don't know if this is the case but you're welcome to do some research.

Picking only high-profile prequels that have had poor sales is tempting but ultimately misguided, for a fairly obvious reason - your theory misses out on all the evidence from all the games it doesn't include. If you're trying to make a wider point about the relationship between a game's time period and its success, it needs to be based on as many points of data as you can find. Limiting it to the ones that you mention above weakens its ability to be a general theory.

Let me try and put a different spin on the argument.

First of all, we are not talking about games in general, but games in which the story is an important selling point.

Hence, I ask the following: Is knowing the outcome of future events in any way detrimental to one's enjoyment of a story?

This question I can answer from experience, it's one of those rare things that can be considered a matter of common sense. And the answer is affirmative. In varying degrees and with the odd exception, but as a general rule, it does.

Next I ask: Is decreased potential for enjoyment of the story detrimental to the sales of a video game to which the same is an important selling point?

And here again, the answer is yes.

So the conclusion is that as a general rule, all other things being equal, "prequelness" is directly associated lower sales. There are exceptions and one would have to go into great detail in order to define exactly what kind of prequel will and what kind will not be subject to this rule, but that's not the point here.

The general rule is there and it need not apply to every single instance there is since the matter in question is not deterministic.

Good post Sion.

[SC0TTYD00]

Sion1138 wrote...

SC0TTYD00 wrote...

Just dropped in because I heard something. What I have is a bit vague but it sounded logical. I havent been on here for ages.

Apparently the story of the new game is similar to how humans made their way into the galaxy. Remember how we opened up the Charon relay and then the first contact war kicked off.

Some other new unknown alien race apparently does the same thing. Joins the galactic community, starts invading and then it all kicks off. So we're fighting a similar war from the other point of view.

Speculation from everyone? Sounds cool to me.

Sounds nice, where'd you hear it?

I know right? As soon as I read it. I thought. Wow thats cool! I thought that it sort of lined up with the lore and those leaks we heard the other day about new races. I saw it on reddit  there was a thread (not even mass effect related but vgx related) there talking about Mass Effect in the comments. Someone posted a comment then literally a minute later it was gone. The reason I suspect that it might be true was for this reason. I mean like why would they delete it so fast. Maybe a dev or someone who knew a dev posted it and then thought, ahhh cwap! Better not. 

Or it could have been a troll that changed its mind. But don't trolls feed of the responses they get etc...

There was so little detail and I dont remember the username of the poster as it was gone so quick. Sorry I dont have more information everyone.

[Malanek]

Even if it was false information at least they went to the trouble of thinking up something interesting. I think it could also be interesting if in the process of rebuilding the relays, they reactivated an undamaged but dormant one, and something unpleasant came through.

[SC0TTYD00]

Well that would bring back the sense of mystery similar to what the Reapers had around them.

It kind of reminds me of ST: Voyager when the Borg open that door into Fluidic Space in order to expand and they end up being decimated by Species 8472 who are completely unlike anything anyone has encountered before.

[crimzontearz]

Sion beat me to it on the importance of the story in this case

That said, in the past two years, nearly EVERY prequel of high profile games tanked (proportionally) is it solely because of the fact they are prequels? Maybe or maybe not, I DO NOT CARE, my point remains that it constitutes a huge precedent for EA analysts to say "**** that, someone put a call in to Bioware and tell them a prequel will not be funded". It is obviously risky and in recent times sure shot games being prequels were especially effected.

And I strongly hope that will happen

[The Night Mammoth]

If it's a prequel, it obviously depends on what exactly the story concentrates on.

For example, just a prequel which is just a more detailed retelling of events we already know plenty about, like some soldiers fighting turians in the First Contact War, would probably be terrible.

If, however, it's a prequel which frames a story in a different way or concentrates on certain aspects, it might work. Halo: Reach is the example I think suits best. We already know Reach is going to fall, so the story isn't about whether we can save Reach, it's about a small group of characters, the locations, and another mission that we didn't know about at the time.

So, if the story was about some unknown plot that was occurring at the same time as the First Contact war, for example, and concentrated on some aspects of the lore we didn't know about, like turian culture maybe, and focused on the characters rather than relying on the fact that it's named event we all know about, it might be successful. I doubt this is going to be the case, but hey ho.

[crimzontearz]

Reach is an odd case.....as we are not even sure reach happened really

[SC0TTYD00]

They have taken multiple polls and they have always pointed to "No we dont want a prequel"

If it ends up being a prequel then it proves once and for all that BW don't listen to their fans.

[EatChildren]

Tesserariuss wrote...

If a sequel, most likely a sequel, then they're gonna canonize the ending. When you started ME2 as a default char the council from ME was always presumed dead, the destiny ascension blown to pieces etc. So it wouldn't be the first time.

Plus, as I said, I think it would be important to view "Mass Effect 4" as not a sequel to Shepard's trilogy, even if it is in spirit. BioWare has made a pretty big deal about the fact the game probably won't be called Mass Effect 4 because that implies continuity of an ongoing arc, which we'd naturally associate with the Shepard trilogy, something they wish to distance themselves from.

I think that's an important point of divergence that some fans need to consider in regards to how a sequel would handle canonisation, for a series as difficult as Mass Effect. The themes and essence of the "trilogy story" can be given a sequel, or "next chapter" of sorts, but that does not constitute as a "sequel" to "my Shepard trilogy". Ideologically in narrative they're really very different, each coming with its own set of issues and implications, as well as advantages.

And if a sequel comes I think that will be the heart of it: a sequel/next chapter to "Mass Effect", the franchise as a whole. But not a sequel/next chapter to "Mass Effect EatChildren's Shepard Trilogy".

[Barhador]

Wow, the first race mentioned definitely sounds like what the Raloi might look like.

[BaneForever]

As long as it's not a prequel then I am interested. Would like it set 400 years after Mass Effect 3 ending.

[NeonFlux117]

Sounds fake. I bet it is. And whats a Raloi??? Dafuq is that? Some sort of space creature? Raloi. I can honestly say I haven't heard of them before. They're not in any of the books or games. Really what is his mystical enigmatic creature!!!

[Han Shot First]

This thread proves IT.

[EatChildren]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

Sounds fake. I bet it is. And whats a Raloi??? Dafuq is that? Some sort of space creature? Raloi. I can honestly say I haven't heard of them before. They're not in any of the books or games. Really what is his mystical enigmatic creature!!!

They were mentioned in Mass Effect 3 as an extension of the Mass Effect 2 Cerberus Network news feed. The latter introduced them as a space-flight avian species that was welcomed into the Citadel/galactic community, and an audio news feed while on the Citadel in Mass Effect 3 states that the Reaper invasion caused them to withdraw from Citadel community and destroy their space faring  technology, hoping to convince the Reapers they were a pre-flight species and thus be spared during the harvest.

Most likely scenario is that at some point very early during Mass Effect 3's pre-production they were conceptualised as a new species to introduce in Mass Effect 3, but the narrative changed (plus cuts due to time) and they were no longer part of the production plan. Similar to the Yahg, which from memory BioWare did state they wanted to expand on in Mass Effect 3, hence their introduction in Lair of the Shadow Broker, but the only actual exposition they got in Mass Effect 3 was one brief scripted cameo.

[SwobyJ]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

Sounds fake. I bet it is. And whats a Raloi??? Dafuq is that? Some sort of space creature? Raloi. I can honestly say I haven't heard of them before. They're not in any of the books or games. Really what is his mystical enigmatic creature!!!

I hope you're not serious. Raloi are in lore. ME2 Cerberus News, ME3 in-game news.