302 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

Are you sure the problem isn't on your end?

 

Anyway, whether it makes sense to you or not doesn't change what it is, the games that are currently better than Bioware and other media due to being more artistically distinct and breaking molds and all that are making a lot of money. While Bioware may no doubt make money and have all that going for them possibly for years in the future or whatever their relevance as far as hardcore gaming goes is 100% gone

 

Here are the Top Ten selling games for 2015:

 

1. Call of Duty: Black Ops III (Xbox One, PS4, 360, PS3, PC)
2. Madden NFL 16 (PS4, Xbox One, 360, PS3)
3. Fallout 4 (PS4, Xbox One, PC)
4. Star Wars: Battlefront (Xbox One, PS4, PC)
5. Grand Theft Auto V (PS4, Xbox One) 360, PS3, PC)
6. NBA 2K16 (PS4, Xbox One, 360, PS3)
7. Minecraft (360, Xbox One, PS3, PS4)
8. FIFA 16 (PS4, Xbox One, 360, PS3)
9. Mortal Kombat X (PS4, Xbox One)
10. Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare (Xbox One, PS4, 360, PS3, PC)

[AlanC9]

It's just that you're packing sone awfully weird assumptions In there. Emotional and intellectual engagement can't be a business strategy too? TV and films have been working on those lines for decades, and literature's had that as the plan forever. Some works go for that, others go for other stuff.

The argument only works if we set up a silly strawman as the "trend."

it doesn't help that the rest of your argument relies on vague blather like "artistically distinct." This isn't even coherent; PS:T was way more artistically distinct than BG2, but was a worse game because.... why was that, again? Because you liked BG2 better? OK, but then artistic distinctiveness doesn't do anything.

And where did you get the notion that Bio was trying to "turn over" the D&D setting?

[MissOuJ]

Trust it to BSN to hear a phrase that basically says "We want to encourage more people to buy our game" and predict doom and gloom... particularly when, about 3 months post-launch, there's going to be at least one thread on BSN arguing if ME:A is "selling well enough / better / worse than X game that's TOTALLY MORE AWESOME"

 

Also, during an event called Investor Day, you'd think saying "actually, we were intending to market this game that we have poured XXX million of your money into to only the previous games' hardcore fanbase which, incidentally, is pretty much impossible to please " would be incredibly dumb. They're basically saying "We intent to extend our appeal beyond hardcore gamers, ergo more buyers, ergo more money, ergo more value for your investment".

[AlanC9]

It's what we do.

[Fandango]

That EA are talking publicly about broadening the appeal of Mass Effect means that it's highly likely Bioware have been given that mandate.

 

Joy! 

[Han Shot First]

Gamer scene? What's that?

The suit doesn't know either.

[InterrogationBear]

People really need to learn how to decode investor speech. All he is saying is: "We will sell more games than last time and safe money during development by using Frostbite (synergy)."

 

Every AAA game is made for a general audience becasue they have to sell several million copies to break even.

[Guanxii]

It's about damn time for the masses to get on board. Gameplay, graphics, animations, & environment design will be so much better than Bethesda's Fallout 4 and if they get the exploration and the story right and improve the co-op experience and get the marketing right this time they could take back the RPG crown and win over some borderlands crossover.

[SardaukarElite]

What the hell is the "core gamer audience?"

 

I think it's the part with the seeds and stalk that you throw away after eating the tastier bits. 

[In Exile]

But we aren't talking about corporate law. We're discussing whether or not changing the product in order to market it to a wider audience is a good move or not.

Think about "New Coke" to get a better idea of the direction he was going in.

We're absolutely talking about corporate law, based on this point:

 

EA has the problem that they're caught in the trap of wanting to please their investors and running their company as if its purpose is to please investors.

 

[...]

 

The purpose, the sole and only purpose of a company, is to provide goods and/or services to supply the demand for those goods and services. That's it. That's all there is.

 

 

That's clearly raising the issue of corporate duties, not business judgment. 

[In Exile]

Large parts of the studio quit ahead, and instead of rebuilding it EA basically made the remnants churn out C&C 3 (which I liked, actually, but not everyone did) Red Alert 3 (which was mediocre at best) and C&C 4 (the franchise killer, basically). So while EA doesn't share all the blame, it does have a significant hand in that studio's downfall, and later demise. The RTS genre is still reeling from that loss. Who makes those games today, apart from Blizzard and Relic?

 

Since the EA merger, meanwhile, Bioware has released 5 games, three Dragon Ages and two Mass Effects. Of those, DA2 is the only one I blame EA for, since it was clearly rushed to capitalize on DA:O's success. Apart from that? Those games certainly weren't perfect, but any flaws they have I attribute to Bioware themselves. EA didn't write the deplorable main plots of ME2/ME3, ordered DA:O to be so brown and visually bland, or made Bioware skip their classes on how to design side-quests in Inquisition. 

 

The only EA studio I can recall being manhandled by EA in recent years is Visceral, what with them shoe-horning a multiplayer mode and generic actions sequences in DS3, which bloated the budget so much the game didn't make strong returns even with millions of copies sold. Oh, and maybe DICE with Hardline and Battlefront, but it's really unclear how much it's EA's fault here. Methinks DICE had a bad concept with Hardline, and spent too many ressources on graphics for Battlefront. But maybe the latter game was rushed to release before The Force Awakens.

 

That to me sounds like a story of mismanagement rather than malice - and from everything I've heard about old EAs failures (and even present EAs failures) it seems like they have serious management issues, and a general lack of insight into their own market's mentality. They're like an anti-CDPR: a company who shares the exact same business goals, but has wholly mastered the art of pandering to the more reactionary elements of the customer base to generate positive word of mouth. 

 

Though I think the RTS genre died a more natural death, like the old cRPG genre. It can only come back with indie games - you'd basically need the old Westwood to crowdfund. 

[In Exile]

Just anti-trend anti-business logic whatever, anti-mainstream, the kind of thing where instead of expecting to get this safe kind of answer or response it's something that actually probes deep into your psychology and tend to give you an actual emotional response. 

 

Typically, the pattern is to "trendize" something after it's done that in order to "prove" that trends and safe can win but since it always takes place over the corpose or body of something that wasn't all it really is is just an extended fantasy. 

 

A fantasy that costs real time, energy, and such, but a fantasy nonetheless. 

 

But that's silly. These games were super-mainstream at the time they were being made. It was Bioware that tried to break that trend, by effectively moving closer and closer toward cinematic and linear story-telling, narrowing down the scope of the protagonist, altering the gameplay formula - this was all "counterculture" by your definition. Hell, moving cRPGs away from the PC and toward consoles was itself "countercounteral" in the sense that it went against the mainstream at the time. 

 

But anyway, these were not indie studios back in the day, working on some principle. These were huge and valuable developers, many of whom were (unfortunately) badly run but desperate to get those sweet, sweet stable high-end multinational conglomerate cash. 

[In Exile]

It's just that you're packing sone awfully weird assumptions In there. Emotional and intellectual engagement can't be a business strategy too? TV and films have been working on those lines for decades, and literature's had that as the plan forever. Some works go for that, others go for other stuff.

The argument only works if we set up a silly strawman as the "trend."

it doesn't help that the rest of your argument relies on vague blather like "artistically distinct." This isn't even coherent; PS:T was way more artistically distinct than BG2, but was a worse game because.... why was that, again? Because you liked BG2 better? OK, but then artistic distinctiveness doesn't do anything.

And where did you get the notion that Bio was trying to "turn over" the D&D setting?

 

The awful gameplay, probably.  

[SolNebula]

Ironically when EA corporate executives put hope in one of their games my hype takes a severe hit....can't explain why...if on the other hand they would not mention the game that much I would have a much better positive attitude towards it.

[Navasha]

I have never really seen a game made better by "broadening its appeal".  

[Catastrophy]

It's never a good thing when things break, is it? And breaking beyond sth. sound like real trouble. I hope they can fix it. Pardon my English abysmalness.

[UpUpAway]

Trust it to BSN to hear a phrase that basically says "We want to encourage more people to buy our game" and predict doom and gloom... particularly when, about 3 months post-launch, there's going to be at least one thread on BSN arguing if ME:A is "selling well enough / better / worse than X game that's TOTALLY MORE AWESOME"

 

Also, during an event called Investor Day, you'd think saying "actually, we were intending to market this game that we have poured XXX million of your money into to only the previous games' hardcore fanbase which, incidentally, is pretty much impossible to please " would be incredibly dumb. They're basically saying "We intent to extend our appeal beyond hardcore gamers, ergo more buyers, ergo more money, ergo more value for your investment".

 

Likes X10!

[ZipZap2000]

We're absolutely talking about corporate law, based on this point:

EA has the problem that they're caught in the trap of wanting to please their investors and running their company as if its purpose is to please investors.

[...]

The purpose, the sole and only purpose of a company, is to provide goods and/or services to supply the demand for those goods and services. That's it. That's all there is.


That's clearly raising the issue of corporate duties, not business judgment.

He's not talking about it from the perspective of corporate law he's framing his statement.

And I think you know that. But would prefer to not to address the overall sentiment of his post.

But if we want to go this route he's technically not wrong. Trading for goods and services predates currency. Its purpose is to secure goods and services in a fashion that benefits both parties.

[10K]

It's about damn time for the masses to get on board. Gameplay, graphics, animations, & environment design will be so much better than Bethesda's Fallout 4 and if they get the exploration and the story right and improve the co-op experience and get the marketing right this time they could take back the RPG crown and win over some borderlands crossover.

HA! Opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has one.

[Steelcan]

the best way to "break beyond" your core audience is to make good games, BioWare hasn't delivered a stand out amazing title in quite some time and I'll be surprised if this one upends that trend

[Sylvius the Mad]

OK, but RPGs -- either kind -- aren't formally defined.

I'd like to fix that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Every AAA game is made for a general audience becasue they have to sell several million copies to break even.

That's a problem.

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri was made by a company that employed 17 people, including administrative staff.

Technological advancement should be exerting a deflationary force on game development. These ballooning costs are absurd.

[Steelcan]

That's a problem.

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri was made by a company that employed 17 people, including administrative staff.

Technological advancement should be exerting a deflationary force on game development. These ballooning costs are absurd.

You;d think so, but that reasoning doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, to use the new technological advances you need people who are trained in using it, and I imagine they would be more expensive to hire and keep on than people who can work outdated technology.  Also for the big AAA titles like ME:A you can't get away with such a small team unless you want a development phase lasting a decade or more.  They need animators, artists, writers, and what not.

 

If this was a small game without tons of characters to write, animate, get voice acting for, then a smaller dev team would be ok, but it's not that kind of game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If they aren't pulling in enough money for a AAA developer to continue making games with the rising costs of development, then they pretty much have to change what they are by necessity.

Traditional RPGs found themselves a niche genre in an industry that was having the cost of making games constantly going up while the price of buying them wasn't changing. They weren't winning people over, and the core fans weren't deemed enough to sustain development of future games.

There was little reason for costs to be going up. If BioWare, after KotOR, had pivoted to become an independent developer who distributed their own games digitally (through the infrastructure of the BioWare store that they had already set up for NWN), they could have published DAO themselves and not needed traditional publishers.

I actually suggested it at the time. And then Valve basically did the same thing when they started Steam.

Steam shows us that smaller studios can produce and sell high quality small market games. But BioWare went a different direction, first fully voicing the NPCs (something to which I objected when they first did it in 2003), and then adding cinematics.

Cinematics and voice acting are incredibly expensive, and add nothing at all to the game. Nothing about the gameplay changes at all with the addition of non-interactive content.

While Origins sold rather well they also changed quite a bit by streamlining a lot of stuff compared to Baldur's Gate, to the point where many traditional RPG fans complained about the "dumbing down" of the system.

Granted. At the time, I described DAO as my compromise position. I would compromise that far, but no further.

I hold to that.

Not long before that, Bethesda also decided they needed to make some changes in order to keep Elder Scrolls going as a series and so Oblivion also streamlined things.

The action combat kept me from following TES that closely.

To many people, those games had already stopped being what they were. Both Oblivion as an Elder Scrolls game and Origins as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate.

DAO was never the successor to Baldur's Gate. If anything, it was the successor to Baldur's Gate 2, a very different game.

DAI is the successor to Baldur's Gate.

[Steelcan]

I have the solution to all your requests Sylvius