222 réponses à ce sujet

[Lebanese Dude]

are there more likes but the dislikes are louder because they have something to prove)?

 

Yes.

[Dreamer]

"people like me"

 

Actually it's not anecdotal, I was paraphrasing a statistic that was drummed into me when I worked for a call centre. For every 1 person who gives positive feedback, 9 will give negative.

That is a statistical fact, it may not have originally been related to games, but it nevertheless holds true, you only have to check through the pages of this forum to see the apparent ratio of dislikes to likes - (or are there more likes but the dislikes are louder because they have something to prove)?

 

Again, are you suggesting a statistical minority's opinion is more or less valid because of its vocality?

[Dreamer]

And actually this.

This thread is getting a bit circular, as threads like this do...

 

You can stop any time you like. Or have you already decided that you're "right" and therefore need to belabor the point, proving once and for all that haters hating your favorite game should shut up because it "won awards gaiz!"?

 

I love Inquisition.

 

I strongly dislike people using its accolades to minimize criticism.

[Lebanese Dude]

I take it neither are you?

 

The common reaction to people winning something is being happy. He's assuming game developers are people.

[keyip]

That's not true. Big-budget publishers thank you for continuing to perpetuate the myth, however.

 

 

It has nothing to do with publisher profits, and nothing to do with one or two low-budget games able to make it big. If you don't realise that game development costs are rising exponentially, especially now new consoles are out, you're incredibly ignorant of the industry.

[Dreamer]

The common reaction to people winning something is being happy. He's assuming game developers are people.

 

Ah, so it's an assumption. I guess I just don't understand why it matters what the developers feel about the awards? They got paid, they're happy to have jobs too. Maybe that might have something to do with why developers target awards?

[Dreamer]

It has nothing to do with publisher profits, and nothing to do with one or two low-budget games able to make it big. If you don't realise that game development costs are rising exponentially, especially now new consoles are out, you're incredibly ignorant of the industry.

 

I'm more cognizant of the fact that much of the rising cost of video game development appears to be related to grossly-inflated marketing budgets and the reliance on making games look good (as opposed to playing well). Both of these things are unnecessary and the indie scene is rubbing their faces in it mightily.

[dreamgazer]

The common reaction to people winning something is being happy. He's assuming game developers are people.

 

 

I'd say they derived some personal gratification from the awards and nominations.

[keyip]

 

Ah, so it's an assumption. I guess I just don't understand why it matters what the developers feel about the awards? They got paid, they're happy to have jobs too. Maybe that might have something to do with why developers target awards?

 

Publishers attaching bonuses onto Metacritic is not a new thing. There was a mighty outcry when Bethesda bullied Obsidian relating to such a clause. What this has to do with awards is fairly minimal, though.

[Dreamer]

 

Publishers attaching bonuses onto Metacritic is not a new thing. There was a mighty outcry when Bethesda bullied Obsidian relating to such a clause. What this has to do with awards is fairly minimal, though.

 

 

You don't see how it might be significantly related to rewards based on popularity?

[keyip]

I'm more cognizant of the fact that much of the rising cost of video game development appears to be related to grossly-inflated 

 

It isn't.

 

A conservative estimate concluded that game development costs rose from between 4 and 5 times when the console generation moved from PS2 to PS3. So the average PS2 game cost roughly 5 million dollars to make, the average PS3 game from between 20-30 million dollars to make. This is WITHOUT marketing costs.

[Lebanese Dude]

Ah, so it's an assumption. I guess I just don't understand why it matters what the developers feel about the awards? They got paid, they're happy to have jobs too. Maybe that might have something to do with why developers target awards?

Do you go to undergraduate graduation ceremonies and tell students that they are not likely to get jobs for another year?

 

There's no need for cynicism. Blood, sweat, and tears over four years were spent to create a product and they are receiving recognition for it. 

Regardless of your feelings on the matter, just congratulate them or say nothing at all. Putting people down is just ... sigh whatever. 

 

Maybe you have strong feelings on awards in general. Perhaps you should discuss them in the proper award-givers' forums? I dunno. *shrug*

[keyip]

You don't see how it might be significantly related to rewards based on popularity?

 

So all awards are popularity based, are they?

[keyip]

Both of these things are unnecessary and the indie scene is rubbing their faces in it mightily.

 

Most indie developers close down and quit. It's only a relative handful who can eke out a reasonable profit. Why? Because Indie games struggle to sell in any great number, probably because most consumers think they're only worth 5 bucks.

[Dreamer]

It isn't.

 

A conservative estimate concluded that game development costs rose from between 4 and 5 times when the console generation moved from PS2 to PS3. So the average PS2 game cost roughly 5 million dollars to make, the average PS3 game from between 20-30 million dollars to make. This is WITHOUT marketing costs.

 

No? Are you sure?

 

"Nowadays, a huge portion of a game's budget resides in marketing, in fact, for some games, 200% of the budget will go into marketing while the game itself will cost anywhere between $10 and $20 million to actually design and produce."

[keyip]

No? Are you sure?

 

"Nowadays, a huge portion of a game's budget resides in marketing, in fact, for some games, 200% of the budget will go into marketing while the game itself will cost anywhere between $10 and $20 million to actually design and produce."

 

Yes, I'm talking pure development costs. Marketing is extra

[ElitePinecone]

Ah, so it's an assumption. I guess I just don't understand why it matters what the developers feel about the awards? They got paid, they're happy to have jobs too. Maybe that might have something to do with why developers target awards?

 

You don't understand why people like to win awards?

 

Have you never won an award in your life?

 

This is a weird thread.

[Dreamer]

Do you go to undergraduate graduation ceremonies and tell students that they are not likely to get jobs for another year?

 

There's no need for cynicism. Blood, sweat, and tears over four years were spent to create a product and they are receiving recognition for it. 

Regardless of your feelings on the matter, just congratulate them or say nothing at all. Putting people down is just ... sigh whatever. 

 

Maybe you have strong feelings on awards in general. Perhaps you should discuss them in the proper award-givers' forums? I dunno. *shrug*

 

This is tangential, but the happiness of the developers is not my concern; as a consumer, my own happiness is my concern. I express my gratitude by paying for the product (which includes the cost of "congratulations" in the form of revenue). I can further express my gratitude by indulging in extras--like upgrades and DLC.

 

Does it hurt the developers feelings to tell them the awards for the game on which they're making bank are meaningless? It does? You give me too much credit.

 

BioWare and EA are happy to take any delight they wish from the accolades their games receive. It doesn't change the fact that these popular awards do not substantively measure a game's quality. Period.

 

So all awards are popularity based, are they?

 

Just the ones based on popularity.

[keyip]

 

Just the ones based on popularity.

 

Which are in the minority.

[CronoDragoon]

Would you say 2014 was a good year for the game industry?

For the gaming industry or for people who play games? For consumers it was a fabulous year. We saw the rebirth of two genres (old-school cRPGs and horror games) while the indie scene continues to be healthy. Racing games received two excellent titles (though Driveclub had to be molded into one) and Nintendo pulled off an Empire Strikes Back off a year fir its fans.

One could argue that 2014 was a bad year for AAA games, but that may be good or bad for the gaming industry in the long run. Otherwise I don't think the gaming scene has been this rich in a long time.

[SofaJockey]

It means a lot of people on the internet voted it as the best game of 2014, which may or may not be significant depending on your personal views.

 

Technically somebody who says Inquisition is a good game isn't wrong. They aren't right either, but they still aren't wrong because it's all their opinion.

 

It all seems a bit silly to be arguing about it.

 

And as an aside, being GOTY does not mean bugs have miraculously disappeared, they haven't.

They still need patching naturally.

[Dreamer]

You don't understand why people like to win awards?

 

Have you never won an award in your life?

 

This is a weird thread.

 

I understand why people like to win awards, and while these companies are made of people, that's about where the comparison ends.

 

Accolades are delicious marketing material; they establish a developer or publisher as having a "good" track record. But you know what? All of Creative Assembly's awards meant diddly to me when Rome II failed to deliver. Maxis (my favorite developer of all time) had accolades to spare, and yet that told me nothing about the disaster I was paying to walk into with SimCity. The credibility established by their previous successes and awards led me to trust them as a consumer, and I was burned for it.

 

I think most awards are meaningless--especially when they're cynically used to drive sales. But when you want to give a kid a ribbon for her science fair project, sign me up!

[SofaJockey]

Fun fact: most of Bioware's game developers aren't you, and most of them seem pretty pleased with external recognition of their work.

 

That is, I guess, kinda the entire point of awards.

 

Look around their reception.

They treat that recognition as important and it's a nice ego reminder to the devs too.

[keyip]

One could argue that 2014 was a bad year for AAA games, but that may be good or bad for the gaming industry in the long run. Otherwise I don't think the gaming scene has been this rich in a long time.

 

2014 was a wonderful year for RPGs, lots of indie games coming out. Unfortunately the developers of Shadowrun are concentrating on another genre now (likely because Shadowrun didn't sell well) and Wasteland 2 only made 1.5 mil in their first 4 days (I say "only" because I have a funny feeling this included the 9 months it was on early access. The statement of how many copies Divinity:OS sold certainly did.) This makes me worry

 

Ironically enough, one of the reasons Divinity:OS sold so well is because of the pretty graphics.....

[samb]

To all the Gamergate consirosy theorist/tin foil heads, you reasoning is unsound.  If major companies have been bribing ALL news outlets then Activision-Blizzard should win every year as they are the biggest publisher in the market now.  That has not been the case.  Bad games will be called bad games no matter what.  You can disagree with the majority of the gaming population but Gamergate reasons is not a reason at all