300 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

I agree that you get more hours of content in the games so should pay more, but to say that the games should now be worth $20-$30 more because the cost has suddenly increased is absurd.

The Movie industry is constantly growing and the size of productions and after work of movies is increasing yet the movie industry knows that we wont go to the movies if they said they would cost $20 more to see.

And movie tickets now cost almost double what they did fifteen years ago. You could see a movie on opening day for $5 back in the late 90's. That price has now gone up to $10 in virtually every area. Yet video game prices have remained the exact same.

If movie prices went up from $5 to $10 all at once, people would freak out. Since they, instead, steadily increased prices over the years (heck, a movie used to cost a NICKEL), they are able to keep up with both increased costs AND inflation. Video games have had the same price (in some instances, even CHEAPER) than they were in years past. That's why paid DLC and microtransactions exist.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 décembre 2013 - 01:49 .

[ianvillan]

David7204 wrote...

Actually, CGI is consistently getting cheaper and more versatile and has been for decades. It's enormously easier to do certain stunts and effects with CGI than other means developers had to use not long ago.

CGI is Computer Generated Imagery the same as computer game creation, If CGI is getting cheaper for the movie industry why is it getting more expensive for games. 

[Hellion Rex]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And movie tickets now cost almost double what they did fifteen years ago. You could see a movie on opening day for $5 back in the late 90's. That price has now gone up to $10 in virtually every area. Yet video game prices have remained the exact same.

Video games have been almost the same. I remember when I was 9 or 10, a little more than a decade ago, they had console games for $49.99, and they now run for what, $59.99?

[Sanunes]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Other mediums really don't have additional content at all. What you get is what you get.

Not true. Movies (and to lesser extent, books and music) release cut content all the time. But they do so, again, months, if not years, after the initital release. The cut content from movies is fully completed and finished, BTW. Many film producers show early/advance viewings wih multiple scenes/endings and gauge viewer reaction to determine what should be in the final product. 

Yet the movie industry has never had two versions of a movie come out the opening day, one with the vanilla sotry and one with "extra content" story for more money. And that is to the movie industry's credit. 

To me there is a difference with games and then other media when adding additional content, for DLC and such isn't content that is just sitting around, its normally content that is either finished or created from scratch so its more then just sitting in an editing room for awhile, they spend a lot of time creating it from scratch.

[David7204]

First of all, because as graphics improves, things like animation need to improve alongside them. And those things don't necessarily become easier like they do for movies. Often times they become a great deal harder.

Secondly, because games continue to rapidly improve in graphical quality. While movies, and in particular certain types of movies has basically topped out. The physics are already perfect, the light and shadow are already perfect. They really don't have any place to go.

Modifié par David7204, 17 décembre 2013 - 01:59 .

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

It's only a model if it's good. And my faith in that crucial element is not robust.

Your personal tastes don't matter in this discussion. AT ALL. 

The company is making money. They are able to fund not only sequels to their game, but also new IPs (like the upcoming Cyberpunk 2077). The model is viable. Companies can do it. 

If your consumers can point to a comparable product (a cinematic, stat-based RPG with choice and consequence) and see that they are not charged for extra features, then guess what? Free market economics says the consumer can boycott your product, all the while bad mouthing it for being greedy. The "truth" of the matter is irrelevant - if you can't respond back with a convincing, easily grasped narrative of why your product costs more but delivers less, then you will lose the PR, public perception battle. 

And, to be frank, Bioware hasn't won a public perception battle in over half a decade. Regardless of how you think their games are, they have been on the losing end of consumer goodwill because they have not responded in ways that quiet thei critics and/or win their fans. And charging more when the lublic perceives you badly is a poor business decision as well. 

[Xamufam]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I had no idea a 93 was a mediocre score. What does that make the Witcher 2 at an 88, exactly?

I guess being sardonic doesn't work with you.

What's the user score for ME3? DA2?

Compare it with the user score for the Witcher 2.

I guarantee you did not look at the User Score for any of them.

I listed you the scores.

ME3 - 5/10

DA2 - 4.3/10

The Witcher 2 - 8.4/10.

didn't metacritic remove user scores fom me3, it's one of the few games if not the only one Metacritic removed user scores

www.gamefront.com/metacritic-users-bomb-mass-effect-3-with-low-scores/

kotaku.com/5891060/metacritic-says-it-removed-rule+violating-mass-effect-3-user-reviews

[David7204]

Jimmy, that is flatly nonsense. Saying BioWare has been continually looked down upon for half a decade is saying everybody thinks which Mass Effect and Dragon Age are crap. Which is just very, very, silly, and more importantly, completely wrong.

I'm part of the very large group whose opinion on BioWare has certainly shifted upwards in the past half-decade. Considering I had no idea they existed until very late 2009.

You need to throw the idea that everyone is sulking about Mass Effect and Dragon Age not being Baulder's Gate or whatever where it belongs - the garbage.

Modifié par David7204, 17 décembre 2013 - 02:04 .

[Fast Jimmy]

eluvianix wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And movie tickets now cost almost double what they did fifteen years ago. You could see a movie on opening day for $5 back in the late 90's. That price has now gone up to $10 in virtually every area. Yet video game prices have remained the exact same.

Video games have been almost the same. I remember when I was 9 or 10, a little more than a decade ago, they had console games for $49.99, and they now run for what, $59.99?

There are console games today that are still $49.99 at release as well. Not EVERY game today is $60. But the majority are. Just like they were fifteen or so years ago. 

People act like the first day a game has a sticker price of $64.99 that the Apocalypse is about to occur. And that's a problem. 

[Hellion Rex]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

There are console games today that are still $49.99 at release as well. Not EVERY game today is $60. But the majority are. Just like they were fifteen or so years ago. 

People act like the first day a game has a sticker price of $64.99 that the Apocalypse is about to occur. And that's a problem. 

Well...my wallet might consider it the Apocalypse lol:lol:

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

First of all, because as graphics improves, things like animation need to improve alongside them. And those things don't necessarily become easier like they do for movies. Often times they become a great deal harder.

Secondly, because games continue to rapidly improve in graphical quality. While movies, and in particular certain types of movies has basically topped out. The physics are already perfect, the light and shadow are already perfect. They really don't have any place to go.

Can you tell it's CGI? Yes?

Then they have places to go. Just like video games do. 

[Star fury]

Skorm777 wrote...

 I was pretty impressed with the quality of posts and
maturity level on this forum when I began visiting frequently only a month ago.

LMAO. Bsn and "the quality of posts and maturity level" in one sentence.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Rolling Flame wrote...

Khayness wrote...
Never underestimate the power of rage when it can get you cupcakes. In three different icing colors even!

Too bad they all taste the same.

Zing!

[wolfhowwl]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
And, to be frank, Bioware hasn't won a public perception battle in over half a decade. Regardless of how you think their games are, they have been on the losing end of consumer goodwill because they have not responded in ways that quiet thei critics and/or win their fans. And charging more when the lublic perceives you badly is a poor business decision as well. 

Half a decade? 

They seemed to be doing fine until 2011 when TOR and DA2 happened.

People ate up Origins and Mass Effect 2.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 17 décembre 2013 - 02:11 .

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

Jimmy, that is flatly nonsense. Saying BioWare has been continually looked down upon for half a decade is saying everybody thinks which Mass Effect and Dragon Age are crap. Which is just very, very, silly, and more importantly, completely wrong.

I'm part of the very large group whose opinion on BioWare has certainly shifted upwards in the past half-decade. Considering I had no idea they existed until very late 2009.

You need to throw the idea that everyone is sulking about Mass Effect and Dragon Age not being Baulder's Gate or whatever where it belongs - the garbage.

I'm not talking about game quality, I'm talking about public perception. Bioware has TONS of baggage right now of poor public perception - perceptions that they are greedy and charge for on-disc DLC. Perception that their story quality has declined. Perceptions that EA is the evil puppet master making allnofnthe decisions. Perceptions that the company will lie straight to the face of the consumers. 

Whether or not these perceptions are 100% true or not is COMPLETELY irrelevant. As is the fact that it is often personal preference. Because if you ask a random person on the street who follows video games but never played a Bioware game, the per eptions they will have are VERY different than what would be said five years ago. Even "I don't know w ho they are" is better than "oh, man, those are the guys that did the be ending they jad to re-release, right?" 

[Skorm777]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

To steer this back on topic a bit, I would like to know why you, the OP, have come to the conclusions about bioware that you have. I mean, I understand wanting bioware to succeed, we all do deep down. But I don't see the argument of dragon age 2 being anything but a learning experience for them to know what never to do again, rather then a triumph.

And beyond that are some other factors, but mainly it's this sentiment that confuses me.

I appreciate the effort. Getting down to the ugly stuff was
the idea of this thread, but people going on about Americanization, 9/11, and
arguing about mismatched review links are burying the discussion that I want to
have.

To answer your question directly, how do I see DA2 as a
triumph? I don't. I was just illustrating that in half the time it took Bethesda to make
a supposed blockbuster RPG, an incomplete Bioware team trumped that RPG in several categories. Said categories being story, comrades, dialogue, lore, and my in own opinion, art. Art meaning
object design such as weapons, armor, and locations.

Which sentiment confuses you, my view of DA2 (which we've
hopefully covered) or my attitude towards Bioware?




The below reply came out a bit more argumentive and indirect
than I wanted it to, but it gets across some ideas I'd like to share, so I'll
leave it.



DA2 being anything but a learning experience is subjective.
For example, I hear a lot of animosity towards the focus on action combat in
place of tactical, and people immediately regard the transition as the problem.
However, given the development time of the game, it stands to reason that this
wasn't the pinnacle of what a responsive combat focused Dragon Age could be.


It could be argued that most of DA2 would have been good
given adequate development time, and that none of the changes would have been
negative. In the same sense, if they kept the tactical combat system but didn't
polish it, fairly likely it would end up just as hated.  


With these ideas, I argue that DA2 can be seen as something
besides a learning experience for them to know what to never do again.

It should be a learning experience for them to never do some
things, (such as release unpolished games, short/item pack DLC, and have
enemies appear out of nowhere throughout a fight) but not everything.

Modifié par Skorm777, 17 décembre 2013 - 02:17 .

[David7204]

The same thing could be and is said of 95% of studios in existence. Yes, they're not in best place right at the moment. But that whining is utterly omnipresent across video games. Greedy. Money-grubbing. On a decline and always has been since the dawn of video games. Lying about features. Dumbing down. None of it is the slightest bit unique or uncommon.

Modifié par David7204, 17 décembre 2013 - 02:16 .

[Fast Jimmy]

wolfhowwl wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
And, to be frank, Bioware hasn't won a public perception battle in over half a decade. Regardless of how you think their games are, they have been on the losing end of consumer goodwill because they have not responded in ways that quiet thei critics and/or win their fans. And charging more when the lublic perceives you badly is a poor business decision as well. 

Half a decade? 

They seemed to be doing fine until 2011 when TOR and DA2 happened.

Well, many fans were responding negatively to the now-infamous DA2 marketing campaign and its announced short dev cycle, which I feel Bioware responded pretty negatively too. Still, three or so years. Half a decade is five... so a rough generalization. I'll take the licks on that. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Troxa wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I had no idea a 93 was a mediocre score. What does that make the Witcher 2 at an 88, exactly?

I guess being sardonic doesn't work with you.

What's the user score for ME3? DA2?

Compare it with the user score for the Witcher 2.

I guarantee you did not look at the User Score for any of them.

I listed you the scores.

ME3 - 5/10

DA2 - 4.3/10

The Witcher 2 - 8.4/10.

didn't metacritic remove user scores fom me3, it's one of the few games if not the only one Metacritic removed user scores

www.gamefront.com/metacritic-users-bomb-mass-effect-3-with-low-scores/

kotaku.com/5891060/metacritic-says-it-removed-rule+violating-mass-effect-3-user-reviews

They did. They also made it so that only one account could access and vote on one computer.

Still, to see a 5/10 shows that there is indeed a divide from what critics think of the game and what the general consesus is. 

[Enigmatick]

So, do the mods actively avoid this subforum now? I'm pretty sure I could get away with a thinly veiled porn thread if I really put my mind to it.

[Fast Jimmy]

Enigmatick wrote...

So, do the mods actively avoid this subforum now? I'm pretty sure I could get away with a thinly veiled porn thread if I really put my mind to it.

Agreed. This thread should be in Off-Topic at best, locked/closed at worst. 

[Enigmatick]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Enigmatick wrote...

So, do the mods actively avoid this subforum now? I'm pretty sure I could get away with a thinly veiled porn thread if I really put my mind to it.

Agreed. This thread should be in Off-Topic at best, locked/closed at worst. 

So you agree that I should make a thread about posting fit women in skimpy outfits so that the community gets a good "feel" for what the Female Qunari should look like?

[dreamgazer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Still, to see a 5/10 shows that there is indeed a divide from what critics think of the game and what the general consesus is. 

It also shows that user-rating scores can easily be skewed and bombed at the whim of fickle players, if they desire. Even after cleaning up the scores, there's still plenty of zeroes and ones that mention a great game with a unsatisfying ending. 

EA and BioWare have a target on their back, and an ending that sapped the player's power-fantasy and contained only marginal choice and consequence was just what their aggressors needed.  A 5 for ME3, despite having its problems, is laughable. 

[dreamgazer]

Anyway ...

BSN: Same toxic time. Same toxic place.

It's a thing, it's apparently been a thing for a long time that has earned the site a reputation, and it'll likely stay a thing because the users lean on the site's previous history as an excuse for the attitude. 

[Skorm777]

Modifié par Skorm777, 17 décembre 2013 - 02:37 .