10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Massadonious1]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

So if you admit games like Heavy Rain AND Mass Effect 1 can make a profit, why the hell are so little titles like them released compared to the plethora of shooters?

Did you selectively not read my post at all? Like I said, some companies are niche companies. A company like Bungie has a reliable fanbase/market to draw from. They're going to keep putting out shooters like Halo because they make a profit from shooters like Halo. It would be like Blizzard making anything but a MMO/RTS or a Diablo based dungeon crawler.



Companies like Quantic Dream feel like they can make a profit from games like Heavy Rain. Other companies simply don't, or like I mentioned, already have successful IP's/genres to draw from that they don't need to test the waters with something that may backfire.



If you want to keep thinking that the industry is out to hold you down, that they're afraid of being innovative for whatever reason, then that's your perrogative. I can't frame it any simpler than this, and I'm not about to have a circular argument with you.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Did you selectively not read my post at all? Like I said, some companies are niche companies. A company like Bungie has a reliable fanbase/market to draw from. They're going to keep putting out shooters like Halo because they make a profit from shooters like Halo. It would be like Blizzard making anything but a MMO/RTS or a Diablo based dungeon crawler.

Companies like Quantic Dream feel like they can make a profit from games like Heavy Rain. Other companies simply don't, or like I mentioned, already have successful IP's/genres to draw from that they don't need to test the waters with something that may backfire.

If you want to keep thinking that the industry is out to hold you down, that they're afraid of being innovative for whatever reason, then that's your perrogative. I can't frame it any simpler than this, and I'm not about to have a circular argument with you.

Why does a company have to be "niche" in order to produce top notch story telling that's not at the expense of combat? What is so niche ABOUT that? No movie genre is considered niche. Why do certain video games have to bare that name?

[Lumikki]

In general people has one very interesting personality. If they don't like something, they often need to blame others or something else. How ever, most of the time the real problem is found by looking mirrow.

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 juin 2010 - 09:53 .

[FlyingWalrus]

Games like Heavy Rain simply don't come around very often. That's the sort of title you usually only see once or twice in a console cycle. The reason very likely isn't genre discrimination, as you may think. Just try to think about how much effort it takes to create a game like that. A linear experience like a first-person shooter is far easier to develop because there are few varying factors to take into account and develop for.

Either that, or it's time to expand your horizons and/or consoles. The PSP and PC are a virtual repository of niche RPG titles.

There are many excellent shooter games out there, but there are at least three terrible shooter games in the trash heap for every A+ title out there. Same with every genre, and the fact only becomes more noticable the more games there are for it.

And as a last note, there are very niche films made for very niche markets, as there are books, and websites, and various other media. That's simply the nature of the beast.

Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 16 juin 2010 - 10:01 .

[FlyingWalrus]

worm_burner wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

However, some developers are clearly just niche developers. Do you really expect companies like Bungie or Infinity Ward to go completely off the reservation and start making squad/story based RPG's, not based on any of their current IP's, just for the heck of it, or just to gain credibility with the story/RPG kiddies? They have a stable and reliable fanbase that will consistently buy their games/expansions and spend ridiculous amounts of cash on equally ridiculous things like map packs and weapons. Why on earth would they do anything to jeopardize that?

So by this logic Bioware wouldn't stray off of its rpg roots to make a third person/linear shooter, oh wait...

And from what ive seen a lot of people are not happy with the changes that were made and are losing confidence in future projects (me included).

Then don't buy them. See ya?

Honestly, it's not surprising for game developers to try out new things. Did you know that Bungie, before they created Halo, primarily made light real-time strategy games? Then they made the FPS Marathon. And after that, they created Oni, and from there... Halo. Which was originally an RTS game but wound up being a FPS game.

It's silly to begrudge gamemakers for branching out. The first Mass Effect was plainly stated as their first foray into action-based gameplay.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Lumikki wrote...

In general people has one very interesting personality. If they don't like something, they often need to blame others or something else. How ever, most of the time the real problem is found by looking mirrow.

Suuure. 'Cause I'm a developer that has an entire team under me and we can whip up an epic gaming experience ourselves. Nobody holds the blame at all. You're content with mediocrity Lumikki. Whatever is thrown your way, you'll take it. It takes a lot of effort to make a game, so just be content with what you get, right? Gamers like myself, Drago, nozy, etc just have way too high elitist standards, correct?

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Games like Heavy Rain simply don't come around very often. That's the sort of title you usually only see once or twice in a console cycle.

Very true.

FlyingWalrus wrote...

The reason very likely isn't genre discrimination, as you may think. Just try to think about how much effort it takes to create a game like that. A linear experience like a first-person shooter is far easier to develop because there are few varying factors to take into account and develop for.
Either that, or it's time to expand your horizons and/or consoles. The PSP and PC are a virtual repository of niche RPG titles.
And as a last note, there are very niche films made for very niche markets, as there are books, and websites, and various other media. That's simply the nature of the beast.

First of all, throwing in optional dialogue, choices, and a few different endings wouldn't take that longer. The development process would be longer, sure, but not by much. Besides, linear games like GTA4 take 4 years from start to finish. ALL games of that caliber take years to develop, so that's a non-issue. PSP and the PC do nothing for me. I'm a console player through and through. I can't recall any game released on the PSP or even DS that's as in depth as Heavy Rain or Mass Effect. PCs on the other hand just don't give me that immersion that consoles do.

[SkullandBonesmember]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Then don't buy them. See ya?

WE HAVE NO FREAKING CHOICE FOR THE BILLIONTH TIME.

[Lumikki]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

WE HAVE NO FREAKING CHOICE FOR THE BILLIONTH TIME.

Is the problem that there is no choises or no choise is good enough for you.
What that tells for you?

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 juin 2010 - 10:32 .

[FlyingWalrus]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

The reason very likely isn't genre discrimination, as you may think. Just try to think about how much effort it takes to create a game like that. A linear experience like a first-person shooter is far easier to develop because there are few varying factors to take into account and develop for.

Either that, or it's time to expand your horizons and/or consoles. The PSP and PC are a virtual repository of niche RPG titles.

And as a last note, there are very niche films made for very niche markets, as there are books, and websites, and various other media. That's simply the nature of the beast.

First of all, throwing in optional dialogue, choices, and a few different endings wouldn't take that longer. The development process would be longer, sure, but not by much. Besides, linear games like GTA4 take 4 years from start to finish. ALL games of that caliber take years to develop, so that's a non-issue. PSP and the PC do nothing for me. I'm a console player through and through. I can't recall any game released on the PSP or even DS that's as in depth as Heavy Rain or Mass Effect. PCs on the other hand just don't give me that immersion that consoles do.

That's a pity, because most gamers (including myself, who plays primarily on consoles) will tell you that most of the really deep RPG experiences are on the PC. Pretty much anyone here will tell you that Dragon Age is better on the PC. I believe them, but alas, my computer cannot support it.

This is a combination of the audience and the medium. PCs in general aren't very well suited for action-based games (obvious exceptions abound), but they are a fantastic platform for strategy games and RPGs. The fact that the space available is only limited by the size of the hard drive makes it so that very long and complex experiences may be delivered on the PC. I'm sure QD would have loved to release Heavy Rain multiplatform, but the PS3 is currently the only console with the kind of medium large enough to support the size of the game.

You neglect to take into account that GTA4 also had a budget in excess of $100 million. It had a staff of thousands working for four years putting that game together, and it's still a mostly linear experience. If they had tried to make it any more multilinear than it already is, chances are the development cycle would've taken a year or two longer.

Consoles are simply a more action-oriented platform. This isn't a bad thing, but you may be looking in the wrong place for what you want.

WE HAVE NO FREAKING CHOICE FOR THE BILLIONTH TIME.

Furthermore, this is unnecessary, on top of being wrong. Unless someone's put your thumbs to the screws, you always have a choice. What are you going to do come ME3's release date?

Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 16 juin 2010 - 10:37 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Then don't buy them. See ya?

WE HAVE NO FREAKING CHOICE FOR THE BILLIONTH TIME.[/i][i]

[Onyx Jaguar]

worm_burner wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

worm_burner wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

However, some developers are clearly just niche developers. Do you really expect companies like Bungie or Infinity Ward to go completely off the reservation and start making squad/story based RPG's, not based on any of their current IP's, just for the heck of it, or just to gain credibility with the story/RPG kiddies? They have a stable and reliable fanbase that will consistently buy their games/expansions and spend ridiculous amounts of cash on equally ridiculous things like map packs and weapons. Why on earth would they do anything to jeopardize that?

So by this logic Bioware wouldn't stray off of its rpg roots to make a third person/linear shooter, oh wait...

And from what ive seen a lot of people are not happy with the changes that were made and are losing confidence in future projects (me included).

Then don't buy them. See ya?

Honestly, it's not surprising for game developers to try out new things. Did you know that Bungie, before they created Halo, primarily made light real-time strategy games? Then they made the FPS Marathon. And after that, they created Oni, and from there... Halo. Which was originally an RTS game but wound up being a FPS game.

It's silly to begrudge gamemakers for branching out. The first Mass Effect was plainly stated as their first foray into action-based gameplay.

I have no problems with companies branching out, and ME1 is a good example of that.  But you wouldn't switch game styles during the series.  ME1 is an action-rpg and ME2 is a third person shooter (emphasis on shooter).  For a the ME series the gameplay should be refined not rebuilt from game to game.  If they want to make a more shooter oriented game wait til after the trilogy not put it in the middle.  Or at least dont over emphasize these aspects at the cost of what made the previous so great (dialogue, exploration, STORY).

This happens all the time, in fact outside of Call of Duty and Halo very rarely do you see a sequel that is so similar to its predecessor.  Things needed to be addressed and they were and quite frankly for many of us, for the better. 

[FlyingWalrus]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

worm_burner wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

worm_burner wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

However, some developers are clearly just niche developers. Do you really expect companies like Bungie or Infinity Ward to go completely off the reservation and start making squad/story based RPG's, not based on any of their current IP's, just for the heck of it, or just to gain credibility with the story/RPG kiddies? They have a stable and reliable fanbase that will consistently buy their games/expansions and spend ridiculous amounts of cash on equally ridiculous things like map packs and weapons. Why on earth would they do anything to jeopardize that?

So by this logic Bioware wouldn't stray off of its rpg roots to make a third person/linear shooter, oh wait...

And from what ive seen a lot of people are not happy with the changes that were made and are losing confidence in future projects (me included).

Then don't buy them. See ya?

Honestly, it's not surprising for game developers to try out new things. Did you know that Bungie, before they created Halo, primarily made light real-time strategy games? Then they made the FPS Marathon. And after that, they created Oni, and from there... Halo. Which was originally an RTS game but wound up being a FPS game.

It's silly to begrudge gamemakers for branching out. The first Mass Effect was plainly stated as their first foray into action-based gameplay.

I have no problems with companies branching out, and ME1 is a good example of that.  But you wouldn't switch game styles during the series.  ME1 is an action-rpg and ME2 is a third person shooter (emphasis on shooter).  For a the ME series the gameplay should be refined not rebuilt from game to game.  If they want to make a more shooter oriented game wait til after the trilogy not put it in the middle.  Or at least dont over emphasize these aspects at the cost of what made the previous so great (dialogue, exploration, STORY).

This happens all the time, in fact outside of Call of Duty and Halo very rarely do you see a sequel that is so similar to its predecessor.  Things needed to be addressed and they were and quite frankly for many of us, for the better. 

Yes, as he said. You will very rarely—almost never—find a game series whose titles haven't had sometimes dramatic changes in between installments. That's simply the nature of game development. I'm willing to bet that the kind of gameplay that's on ME2 would never function on the clunky version of Unreal Engine that ME1 ran on, for example.

And contrary to Onyx's statements, even games within FPS titles often undergo dramatic changes. The shift from limited health to regenerating health in Halo to Halo 2 was a very dramatic game design change, and not one that everyone was entirely happy with. Halo 2 to Halo 3 was mostly the same, though; 3 was mostly a refining of 2's game mechanics. The upcoming Halo Reach, however, plays very differently.

And Call of Duty games are virtually incomparable to one another. The jump between CoD3 to CoD4 is massive.

Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 16 juin 2010 - 10:52 .

[Pocketgb]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

It's silly to begrudge gamemakers for branching out. The first Mass Effect was plainly stated as their first foray into action-based gameplay.

Indeed. I was actually hoping for more of a "return to roots" futuristic top-down RPG with cover and gun mechanics. Instead I was given an action/RPG.

This isn't to say I'm not overjoyed with what Bioware's given us with the Mass Effect series so far, but dang. Envisioning a more traditional RPG set in the ME universe that uses similar mechanics as seen in Dawn of War 2 (which has a seriously fun campaign, check it out, guys!) makes my mouth water.

[Onyx Jaguar]

True, CoD3 doesn't resemble 2 or 4 at all from a design standpoint. World at War however pretty much plays like CoD4

[SkullandBonesmember]

[quote]FlyingWalrus wrote...

You neglect to take into account that GTA4 also had a budget in excess of $100 million. It had a staff of thousands working for four years putting that game together, and it's still a mostly linear experience.[/quote] If they had tried to make it any more multilinear than it already is, chances are the development cycle would've taken a year or two longer.[/quote]

Fine. Quantic Dream is a smaller developer. It took 4 years to make Heavy Rain. Before Konami was really big, with only one Metal Gear Solid title under them, they released Shadow Of Destiny in 2 and half years and it was well praised. But most story enriched games are from big name, established companies, so that's no excuse.

[quote]FlyingWalrus wrote...

Furthermore, this is unnecessary, on top of being wrong. Unless someone's put your thumbs to the screws, you always have a choice. What are you going to do come ME3's release date?[/quote]

[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

[quote]Teknor wrote...

Who forces you to play a sh*tty game ? Yes none,  you just love whining.[/quote]

I know in all likelihood you've probably already read at the very least one of my multiple posts where I need to repeat myself, but here we go again.

Shooter fans get dozens of games that cater their tastes released every year. How many games like Mass Effect do story driven fans get released for them each year? Enough to count on only one hand. So when a game like Mass Effect 2 is released, it's not as if we have a variety to pick from, whether it sucks or not, we have to take it. There aren't many games that allow you to dictate what the main character says with choices and multiple endings. There is however a plethora of games with lots and lots of 'SPLOSHUNS. Even though there's a huge market for games such as Mass Effect, Heavy Rain, Indigo Prophecy, etc.[/quote]

[Onyx Jaguar]

That really doesn't make much sense at all

[Orchomene]

Playing on PC, I do agree that I have the choice to not buy games like ME2 if I don't like those kind of games. Yet, I'd rather have found a way to know that it was far from being a RPG and was not a very interesting game story-wise. But ok, I'll just be more careful, not a problem.

But for my comrades that are playing on consoles, I feel a bit sad to see that overall quality of games are more and more disappearing behind the necessity of good graphics and straightforward stories. I can only say that it seems to be cyclic. Some years ago (between 5 and 10 years), some people thought that the cRPG were dead. Yet, the RPG concept got back.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

That really doesn't make much sense at all

Shooter fans, or in a more general sense, combat fans have lots to pick from every single year. Deep story fans have maybe 6, and 3 of those 6 usually end up like Mass Effect 2 in one way or another. What about that doesn't make sense?

[Pocketgb]

[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

There is however a plethora of games with lots and lots of 'SPLOSHUNS. Even though there's a huge market for games such as Mass Effect, Heavy Rain, Indigo Prophecy, etc.[/quote][/quote]

Why'd Bioware make Jade Empire?
At the time everyone was all about Ninja Gaiden and God of War. Action games were quite popular in this time frame. Was Bioware attempting to enter the fray as well, trying to bring in an action title of their own - or were they just branching out, trying something different?

If ME2 is "for teh monies", I highly doubt Bioware has any worry about that. They've pretty much reached Valve status, where if it's got 'Bioware' anywhere on the cover it's going to rake in some form of heavy duty bucks. Dragon Age is a great example of this. It's not to say DA sucked - far, FAR from it - rather that it has quite a lot of features that people would claim to be "daunting": Lots of dialog, lots of choices, etc. Yet boom, it was a success.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 16 juin 2010 - 12:35 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

[quote]Pocketgb wrote...

If ME2 is "for teh monies", I highly doubt Bioware has any worry about that. They've pretty much reached Valve status, where if it's got 'Bioware' anywhere on the cover it's going to rake in some form of heavy duty bucks. Dragon Age is a great example of this. It's not to say DA sucked - far, FAR from it - rather that it has quite a lot of features that people would claim to be "daunting". Lots of dialog, lots of choices, etc. Yet boom, it was a success.[/quote]

The thing is, ME2, and already established first game in a trilogy, did a complete 180 with minimum stats, much more of a focus on combat and at the same time stripping a good portion of dialogue. Now I'm taking a preemptive approach here since I know too well the result of the last point I made about dialogue.

THERE WAS MORE DIALOGUE RECORDED FOR ME2. Yeah. More recorded, ultimately less said.

[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

The following is what transpires when Bioware takes to marketing their games the way they do with ME2:

"Who cares about the story?

It's all about the gameplay and it looks sick."

Yeah. Who cares about the story.  

http://boards.ign.co...6/188331213/p2/

5th post down.[/quote]

[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

How is the combat emphasised over plot? I'll give you combat emphasised over RPG elements but not over plot. And considering that there is just as much (if not more) character interaction in ME2 than in ME1, how has it suffered?[/quote]

Let me spell it out for you. To get from the beginning of a main world to the end took about 35-45 minutes on average with my ME1 Shepard. After every main plot world we can see how everybody in our squad is with the exception of Tali, we could chat it up with Conrad again at the Citadel, we could check in with Anderson and Udina, and we could give the post mission report to the council. There was also the scenic view. When all is said and done, dialogue was even with the length of missions, sometimes even more. In addition there was a lot of dialogue and character interaction DURING the missions. Now let's look at ME2. We could get maybe 10 minutes of dialogue on average with SOME characters if milked dry. After those 10 minutes, we're thrown in with an hour long plus mission stopping for the occasional renegade/paragon interrupt. We can talk to angel only TWICE. Your entire squad is almost always too busy to speak with you. We have more squad members, but not more dialogue to reflect that. And there's hardly any discussion with anybody post main mission. Instead we get text to read from emails. The only time Anderson talks again is after meeting Ashley.

Face it. There's a reason groups like this were started-
http://social.bioware.com/group/1763/

We get more emotional satisfaction from chatting with the crew as opposed to headshots.[/quote]


[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

I think the problem with your argument is that BW can't have lots of companions with lots of dialogue, you have to choose one or the other and gameplay wise more companions is on the whole more interesting than the dialogue (which I suspect the majority of people skipped anyway).[/quote]

What's the point in having more companions if you can't chat with them? Just for more ways to kill any enemy? As Shepard would say, fun fun.[/quote]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

At least Mass Effect was trying be be an RPG, rather than trying its hardest not to be one while still fitting the definition like ME2. ME1's problems weren't solved with ME2, they were eliminated by just scrapping the issues entirely and falling back on overly simple shooter mechanics or just complete elimination. And said mechanics are dull, shallow and done to death.[/quote]

[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

Secondly, I completely agree with what was said on that youtube clip, but honestly ME2 has a lot of character interaction and as I stated earlier I actually thought most of ME2's characters were deeper than ME1's. Anyway, almost all good sci fi at some point gets around to everyone going off and shooting something.[/quote]

No it doesn't. Maybe out in the middle of a fight, but who the hell feels like having a chat for a few minutes just to be dropped RIGHT BACK into a fight? Not sure who it was but somebody FROM BIOWARE said, and I'm paraphrasing-
"There's just enough combat for you to look forward to relaxing after missions to get to know your squad and just enough socializing for you to look forward to get back into the action."

Which, was a complete lie.[/quote]

[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

[quote]geordiep wrote...

Storyline.... erm ME2 has a storyline? Too much 'making buddies' with crewmates too little kicking a**.[/quote]

Wow. Just wow.

Most of the fans that bit**** that the combat sucked in ME1 orgasmed playing ME2.[/quote]

[bjdbwea]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Then don't buy them. See ya?

Don't worry, I won't, if ME 3 doesn't improve significantly. But our only chance to maybe make that happen is to voice our opinion here. A very small chance, and I do suspect ME 3 will be an even more dumbed down, "streamlined" shooter, but a chance nevertheless. As SkullandBonesmember said, unfortunately there are almost no alternatives. Good RPGs were always rare, but most of the industry have already gone done the route BioWare is on now, so there are even less these days.

[Iakus]

Orchomene wrote...

Playing on PC, I do agree that I have the choice to not buy games like ME2 if I don't like those kind of games. Yet, I'd rather have found a way to know that it was far from being a RPG and was not a very interesting game story-wise. But ok, I'll just be more careful, not a problem

Bioware used to be the one company I'd buy any game they made, sight unseen.  They made rpgs, and good ones.  Still do I guess, what with Dragon Age and all. Still,  I have to be careful with this company too now,  Ah well, nothing lasts forever.