302 réponses à ce sujet

[Giantdeathrobot]

I'm not excluding marketing here, I'm talking about this idea that BW/EA has that they need to do something extraordinary and different to appeal to this potential fanbase that is just out there somewhere waiting to get into their games.  When really all they have to do is make a great game.  Because the foundation is already there for ME just as it's already there for Witcher and Uncharted.  Heck I would say the foundation was stronger for Bioware as most people wasn't as hooked on the first Uncharted and Witcher game but loved Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect 1. However, CDPR and Naughty Dog went on to please their fanbases by building on their foundation with much better squeals (whether they were popular or not) while Bioware was too focused on reinventing the wheel and ended up not pleasing anyone or very many, the opposite of what they set out to do.  (ie DA2, and ME3). But they still got lots of sales from them...at least with ME 3.

 

BW already did the hard work with DAO and ME1, they created a new game and developed a fan base for it. All they had to do was keep making the next game good or better than the last one by improving on what they already do well (Like ME2). Yet they always try to do the whole "appeal to those outside our core fanbase" spiel.   And end up with a DA 2 or a "you don't have to play the first two games." ME 3.  And I say this as a person who liked DA 2 and loved ME3 (except the ending), but I can acknowledge that neither game was well received or outstanding.  Not even Inquisition was an outstanding title for BW (despite all the hype and marketing) and it won GOTY.

 

Bioware is like an American grocery store that suddenly wants to be a Japanese grocery store in hopes of finding people who may want some Japanese groceries.  When really all they have to do is put quality American products on their shelves and offer up one Isle for Japanese products or something.

 

TW3's marketing campaign generated good word of mouth, which is by far the best marketing tool in existence.  It didn't hurt that it already had a core fanbase that was happy and willing to direct newcomers to the franchise. Another thing CDPR did was hold twitch streamings of the game before release so gamers could see how the game actually played.   But overall, TW3 was a great game when you actually sat down and played it.  If the game was utter garbage, it doesn't matter how strong CDPR's marketing game is, the title would just be another poorly received title that sold a lot of copies.

 

 

 

Thing is, CDPR did the same thing. They changed their combat system completely for TW2, more than what Bioware changed for DA2 or ME2. They changed the skills and potion system with every game. The progression of combat in The Witcher was towards an action-based combat, for instance by making the gameplay twitch-based in TW2 or making potions be consumed instantly with no preparation required in TW3. TW3 also rode on the open-world craze that has been the norm since Skyrim, whereas the first two games were far more limited in scope. I am sure those changes were tailor-made to draw in people who liked more popular games such as Bethesda RPGs or the Batman Arkham series.

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, quite the contrary as TW1's gameplay was horribly dull. But let's not pretend CDPR had some sort of purity of vision while Bioware stole ideas left and right, because that's just not what happened. You can argue CDPR did it better, and I'd agree to a degree, but not that it never changed its course to suit the market.

 

As to the bolded, Battlefront was an intensely mediocre game and sold far, far more than any non-Bethesda RPG ever will. Heck, I consider Fallout 4 a very mediocre game too, and it most definitely outsold TW3. ''Just make a good game'' is part of the parcel, aye, but it's far from everything. To say nothing of crappy mobile games like Clash of Clans that make more money in a year than Bioware and CDPR make combined in several.

[Sylvius the Mad]

We just need to convert you to the dark side.

Embrace the glory of action combat.

It takes me out of character.

I would rather be focused on my character's mental state rather than have to actively watch for visual cues regarding combat.

My ideal combat design would have an auto-pause when an enemy was sighted, let me give orders if necessary, and then unpause to see how it turns out. If necessary, because I'd like a DA2-style combat tactics system, so I might not need to do anything. And, I shouldn't have to manually control any of the characters if I don't want, leaving them all to act autonomously (like the original Dungeon Siege).

[Sylvius the Mad]

I would be more skeptical of a company that couldn't find any way to say they want to gain market share... e.g. if they had said something like: "We are making ME:A to specifically appeal ONLY to hard core RPG enthusiasts in such a way that no casual gamer would possibly like this game." It would be akin to flushing the entire company down the toilet in the eyes of its investors. When talking to their investors, every company pretty much HAS to say they want to grow market share and appeal to more people... it's just the way the galaxy works.

We should absolutely expect these remarks.

They don't mean anything.

[Iakus]

Yep... so everyone around here can just get back to whining about there being no information.  Honestly, this forum is like a group of circling piranha waiting for anything they can use to chew Bioware apart.

Wait, there was information in among all those meaningless buzzwords?

[UpUpAway]

We should absolutely expect these remarks.

They don't mean anything.

 

 

Precisely... we should absolutely expect companies to say such things to their investors... but that doesn't stop the BS that goes on here on BSN picking apart every little word, using it to slam Bioware, and predicting ultimate and total failure for every game they create... trashing (ETA - meant to say "crushing") anyone who has any hope for this game being any good in the process.

 

@lakus - read on to my second post... you'll catch up eventually.

[von uber]

But the thing about Mass Effect is, it appeals to a very specific niche: nerdy sci-fi and RPG fans. It isn't like Halo, or GoW, or CoD. I really don't see how Mass Effect would truly appeal to a wider audience or casual gamers without massively watering down the RPG elements of it..

 

 

Disagree. I'm not particularly interested in sci-fi (read a few Banks, watch a bit of Star Trek etc) over anything else, nor am I a massive fan of RPG's (I bounced right off the supposed classic Baldurs Gate 2 for example).

I've played (and liked) the CODs up to COD 4 and have played the crap out of Paradox's strategy games. Some of my favourite games ever are Streets of Rage 2 and Gran Turismo 2. I also love Life is Strange, yet disliked Dishonoured.

People are not so simple to be defined as a specific niche, and are generally willing to like anything if given the chance.

[shepskisaac]

I read the article and all I can think of it auto-translation from EA corporate talk: "if it doesn't sell 10 million like we ordered Bioware to deliver despite ME3 selling only 6 million we will use it as an excuse to further shooter-ize/streamline Andromeda 2".

[Cyonan]

It takes me out of character.

I would rather be focused on my character's mental state rather than have to actively watch for visual cues regarding combat.

My ideal combat design would have an auto-pause when an enemy was sighted, let me give orders if necessary, and then unpause to see how it turns out. If necessary, because I'd like a DA2-style combat tactics system, so I might not need to do anything. And, I shouldn't have to manually control any of the characters if I don't want, leaving them all to act autonomously (like the original Dungeon Siege).

 

I wasn't really being serious.

 

but if you were wondering why those of us who enjoy action combat enjoy it, it's because we aren't focused on trying to RP our character during it. When I'm playing Half-Life it's not cause I'm trying to define the mental state of Gordon Freeman, but rather I'm focusing on the combat itself.

 

I don't much see the point in a combat where the player doesn't do anything. Might as well just roll a d20 and if it lands on a 1, you die. I prefer that I should have to manually control at least one character.

[Giantdeathrobot]

I read the article and all I can think of it auto-translation from EA corporate talk: "if it doesn't sell 10 million like we ordered Bioware to deliver despite ME3 selling only 6 million we will use it as an excuse to further shooter-ize/streamline Andromeda 2".

 

I'm not sure that would be a bad thing gameplay-wise, within reason of course. I much prefer ME as a shooter with RPG elements (ME 2-3) than as a RPG with shooter elements (ME1). 

 

Honestly, I think in terms of combat mechanics ME3 was just right. Add some new weapons, powers, mobility (jump packs or somesuch) and weapon mods, make the shooting have more kick, and I'm happy.

[UpUpAway]

I've often wondered how the gaming industry is going to address this market which is probably in the process of changing (I would guess). That said, I don't really pay much attention to such things.

But, I have noticed a trend over the last decade or so towards more mature games, or at least a greater balance between titles that appeal to certain age demographics.

For gamers born in the mid-80s (and beyond), we grew up with video games. They were a large part of our childhood, and the industry has done a great job with keeping us invested. Because if all they ever did was make Pokemon games, the majority of us would have lost interest long ago.

So, I'm pretty sure most of us will be playing video games well into old age. Or whatever post-2050 crazy equivalent to a video game will be, provided that the realism doesn't give us a heart attack. And for a gamer, honestly - that probably wouldn't be a bad way to die anyways.

And I'm only marginally joking there.

But the thing about Mass Effect is, it appeals to a very specific niche: nerdy sci-fi and RPG fans. It isn't like Halo, or GoW, or CoD. I really don't see how Mass Effect would truly appeal to a wider audience or casual gamers without massively watering down the RPG elements of it.

That said, RPGs have been gaining more widespread acceptance, and with recent successes like Fallout 4, maybe Andromeda can be a massive hit while also remaining true to the ME formula.

But, it does worry me a little when they say things like this. But maybe I'm just old, and the time's are a changing. I looked at the news of the Mass Effect: New Earth ride and I thought "that's cool. But who would really give a **** about this besides hardcore Mass Effect fans?". But the fact that it exists means I'm probably wrong.

EDIT: After typing that, I just had the horrifying realization that as pre-millennial gamers become progressively older, some gaming company is probably going to market to them by creating some virtual reality shuffleboard game or something. What a depressing thought.

 

http://www.arcade-mu...hp?game_id=9534

 

1978 - don't know if it's available on PC yet.  Found a YouTube video of it!

 

 

... but don't typecast us older folks... we resist being stuffed into "niches" just as much as you younger pups.

[SKAR]

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

Have some faith. Every bioware game is amazing.

[Hazegurl]

Thing is, CDPR did the same thing. They changed their combat system completely for TW2, more than what Bioware changed for DA2 or ME2.

 

They built on their foundation whereas BW failed because they didn't do that. BW started scrapping things that no one had issues with, and added things that went against their original story to please fans (DAI).  DA 2 became a water colored cartoon because even the style was changed. Granted I hated the browns in DAO but they could have done something else other than the style they had for DA2.  DA now lacks any sort of identity and primarily appeals to its hardcore fans. Funny how that turned out.  There is nothing wrong with improving your system, I already stated that both Uncharted and Witcher improved and focused on what they did right. Yeah they followed trends, used popular mechanics et al, but in the end they did it to the point of creating a good product, they still focused on what they knew they could do right. ME2 also improved, note I never lumped it in with ME3, DA2, and DAI. The problem is that BW tries to scrap nearly everything in a vain attempt at popularity and mass market appeal and typically fails whenever they do.  Perhaps they should focus more on using trends and so on to make a coherent product. 

 

 

As to the bolded, Battlefront was an intensely mediocre game and sold far, far more than any non-Bethesda RPG ever will. Heck, I consider Fallout 4 a very mediocre game too, and it most definitely outsold TW3. ''Just make a good game'' is part of the parcel, aye, but it's far from everything. To say nothing of crappy mobile games like Clash of Clans that make more money in a year than Bioware and CDPR make combined in several.

 

Of course it did. It's freaking Star Wars. JJ Abrams even crapped out a bad movie and it sold well....All of this has more to do with its hardcore fans than anything else.   Fallout 4 wasn't a bad game imo. They attracted me to the series by adding a VA for their PC. They did something different and attracted a new player.....However, do I think FO 4 was an outstanding game that would make me shell out cash for their next game? Not really. Maybe if they write a better story and IDK, create a better game, maybe...but I certainly wouldn't call myself a fan nor am I interested in buying past Fallout games no matter how much their hardcore fans say I should.

 

What can MEA do to attract new players and actually keep them? Does anyone even know or is it just vague marketing speak being defended here?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I wasn't really being serious.

I usually can't tell.

but if you were wondering why those of us who enjoy action combat enjoy it, it's because we aren't focused on trying to RP our character during it. When I'm playing Half-Life it's not cause I'm trying to define the mental state of Gordon Freeman, but rather I'm focusing on the combat itself.

I get that. I just don't really find action combat interesting. It seems like a pointless exercise.

And since I'm roleplaying my character the rest of the time, having to stop doing that in order to fight things just interrupts the flow of the game.

I don't much see the point in a combat where the player doesn't do anything. Might as well just roll a d20 and if it lands on a 1, you die. I prefer that I should have to manually control at least one character.

To me, combat is there to make the world seem more real (much like NPCs), which is also why I object to gameplay/lore segregation. Having combat not conform to the game's lore undermines what I think the point of combat is.

It's also a good test for the character I've built. The possible outcomes of a combat encounter (including defeat) contribute a lot to the emergent narrative I'm building through my choices. Character creation and tactics design and inventory management are choices that might have combat relevance.

I basically want combat to work like a simulation that tests the characters I've built to see if they come out the other side.

I'm not typically trying to win combat encounters, either. I'm just trying to play them in a way that advances my characters goals.

[The Elder King]

Have some faith. Every bioware game is amazing.

For you. Other people might not have the same opinion.

[Angry_Elcor]

Sorry, I got as far as "Mass Effect Andromeda will break" before reacting like this:

 

 

I did play ME 3 MP on the PS3, after all.

[Cyonan]

I get that. I just don't really find action combat interesting. It seems like a pointless exercise.

 

When you get down to it, most of gaming is a pointless exercise. We do it cause we find it enjoyable.

 

It's also a good test for the character I've built. The possible outcomes of a combat encounter (including defeat) contribute a lot to the emergent narrative I'm building through my choices. Character creation and tactics design and inventory management are choices that might have combat relevance.

I basically want combat to work like a simulation that tests the characters I've built to see if they come out the other side.

I'm not typically trying to win combat encounters, either. I'm just trying to play them in a way that advances my characters goals.

 

but if you want to control 100% of one character, then you should have to control them during combat too. There should never be a "cruise control" option for that character, because you're supposed to control 100% of their actions.

 

The reason why I say it feels pointless is because the dice ultimately determines the outcome. Even in D&D no matter how good of a swordman my character might be, a nat 1 is an automatic failure. No matter how good my armour is, a nat 20 for the enemy will critically hit me.

 

If you aren't controlling your character at that point it's less roleplaying and more just gambling with the dice.

 

Actually with the line of thinking of "100% of one character" you shouldn't even have control over your companions. I should be able to give Morrigan orders in combat, but she should be able to disobey them if it doesn't suit her character and have her own distinct combat style based on her personality.

 

Which could make for an interesting game mechanic if done well.

[Seraphim24]

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. 

 

No games were super-mainstream in 1998, I think the only top seller until like 2005-07 or so was Super Mario Brothers 1 and some other Nintendo franchises. Outside of that it's a misconception that video games were mainstream in any way.

 

The rest of your point just made my point, many RPGs were all open-ended and Bioware was revolting against the D&D situation. I think maybe you assumed I was coming into defend the deep artistry of Torment or something like so many that came before when it was the opposite. I considered BG to be superior to much D&D in many respects even after having played the tabletop campaigns seriously.

 

Yeah actually nevermind both you and AlanC9 just assumed I was making the PST better because artistry which is too bad but if you read my posts again you'll see you were both arguing against a point that wasn't there.

 

I stated multiple times I found BG to be superior to PST and other hallowed CRPG games artistically or just in every way to make the point that Black Isle and Troika wasn't because going the artistic route was bad, it was that they were up against something even more artistic (Bioware games)

 

Just like I see games that are overall in every way and artistically better than the Baldur's Gate series and all of the Bioware games and I see them making lots of money nowadays. That's why I don't support the idea that trends or business logic matters with games.

[Seraphim24]

Anyway, I'm just pointing out that Bioware's mistake and been mistake is that they are trying to use business logic or chase trends to capture more gamers when literally all they basically have to do is what they started to do a little bit already which is surfing off the past achievements. If all they did was reliably give gamers a non-pandered genuinely gay character, a genuinely bisexual character, a bunch of jokes, save the world, fancy pants graphics, etc, and just stablize themselves around that identity plenty of people would still buy and play their games.

 

Bioware could be around 10 20 30 years even, but not around a new and unique identity... around the identity that has been consistent for them. Anything else is a waste of theres and their fanbase's time IMHO.

[Sylvius the Mad]

When you get down to it, most of gaming is a pointless exercise. We do it cause we find it enjoyable.

Granted.

but if you want to control 100% of one character, then you should have to control them during combat too. There should never be a "cruise control" option for that character, because you're supposed to control 100% of their actions.

If they're following the tactics I designed, I'm still controlling them. They're doing what I said they should do; I just didn't say it right now.

The reason why I say it feels pointless is because the dice ultimately determines the outcome. Even in D&D no matter how good of a swordman my character might be, a nat 1 is an automatic failure. No matter how good my armour is, a nat 20 for the enemy will critically hit me.

If you aren't controlling your character at that point it's less roleplaying and more just gambling with the dice.

But your choices affect the odds. It's more like poker than baccarat.

Really, the real world is unpredictable. You never really know when things are going to line up just right or just wrong. The dice are there to emulate that uncertainty.

Not having the dice makes the game world too clearly deterministic.

Actually with the line of thinking of "100% of one character" you shouldn't even have control over your companions. I should be able to give Morrigan orders in combat, but she should be able to disobey them if it doesn't suit her character and have her own distinct combat style based on her personality.

Which could make for an interesting game mechanic if done well.

I was talking about Mass Effect there. In a party-based game I typically want to play the whole party (like BG1, or Wizardry 8).

I was quite annoyed during DAO's development when they told me that I wouldn't be allowed to have the companions act as party spokesperson, and that the protagonist would have to do it. Apparently it hadn't occurred to BioWare to allow that, even though both BG and BG2 did (though BG2 didn't do it nearly as well).

[Shechinah]

DA 2 became a water colored cartoon because even the style was changed.

 

Wait, how was Dragon Age II water-colored? I've heard the cartoon criticism and the reasoning behind it before but I do not think I've ever heard this one.

[Cyonan]

But your choices affect the odds. It's more like poker than baccarat.

Really, the real world is unpredictable. You never really know when things are going to line up just right or just wrong. The dice are there to emulate that uncertainty.

Not having the dice makes the game world too clearly deterministic.

 

Well I'm not saying remove the dice from a game like Dragon Age, but if you make it so that you can script the game to play itself then the dice is the only thing that matters. You can just influence the numbers that are bad for you with character build.

 

In general I prefer that I have to take some level of direct control over the character in combat.

 

I was talking about Mass Effect there. In a party-based game I typically want to play the whole party (like BG1, or Wizardry 8).

I was quite annoyed during DAO's development when they told me that I wouldn't be allowed to have the companions act as party spokesperson, and that the protagonist would have to do it. Apparently it hadn't occurred to BioWare to allow that, even though both BG and BG2 did (though BG2 didn't do it nearly as well).

 

That was kind of just random musings about a game mechanic that could be interesting if done well. I wouldn't recommend BioWare switch to it in Mass Effect or Dragon Age.

 

BG1 seemed to work because, as far as I know, there was no dialogue that required a stat check. Something like Pillars of Eternity lets me talk to a NPC with any character, but all stat checks are still based off my PC. My current 12 Resolve character can't make use of Durance's high resolve during dialogue.

 

I actually like how Wasteland 2 did things, where the person you have selected is having their skills used in the checks. It lets you have dialogue where multiple party members are talking to a NPC rather than BioWare's style of "Primary PC does 90% of the talking, companions maybe make a passing comment about something".

[Seraphim24]

Welp I think this thread is about to be or has been multiquote battle'd™...

[Cyonan]

Welp I think this thread is about to be or has been multiquote battle'd™...

 

I recall mentioning a theory about that =P

 

but in this case, I'm mostly just going on about random thoughts. The only real debate going on in our quotes right now is "Should combat require direct player control or not?".

 

We always go so off topic from the thread too.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well I'm not saying remove the dice from a game like Dragon Age, but if you make it so that you can script the game to play itself then the dice is the only thing that matters. You can just influence the numbers that are bad for you with character build.

Right. That would be my preference.

NWN basically had combat like that (plus the excellent dance of death system) if you played a melee combatant. I really enjoyed it.

That was kind of just random musings about a game mechanic that could be interesting if done well. I wouldn't recommend BioWare switch to it in Mass Effect or Dragon Age.

I would and have.

BG1 seemed to work because, as far as I know, there was no dialogue that required a stat check. Something like Pillars of Eternity lets me talk to a NPC with any character, but all stat checks are still based off my PC. My current 12 Resolve character can't make use of Durance's high resolve during dialogue.

In BG, persuasion was based on charisma. The manual even suggested that you put a high charisma character in the first party slot.

And then it gave you a high charisma character (Imoen) as a party member almost immediately.

The mechanic worked the same way in BG2, but the dialogue was written as if the Bhaalspawn was always doing the talking. Later, Dave Gaider even conceded that he hadn't known when writing BG2 that other party members could act as spokesperson (Dave didn't work on BG1).

I actually like how Wasteland 2 did things, where the person you have selected is having their skills used in the checks. It lets you have dialogue where multiple party members are talking to a NPC rather than BioWare's style of "Primary PC does 90% of the talking, companions maybe make a passing comment about something".

One of many things Wasteland 2 did well.

[Hazegurl]

Wait, how was Dragon Age II water-colored? I've heard the cartoon criticism and the reasoning behind it before but I do not think I've ever heard this one.

The landscapes (mostly the buildings in Kirkwall) look sorta like a water color painting to me.