[POLL] Let's settle this - did you buy Dragon Age: Inquisition?

[Grunker]

A game sells a fuck-trillion because it is fun

Eh, no. No it doesn't. We have plenty of supporting evidence for the contrary. E.g. the entire Assassin's Creed series.

Also, for the record, it's a strawman to present things like I said "good games cannot sell." I said nothing to that effect in my post at all. My only point was that the spending habits of Codexers where not relevant for the success or failure of indie games as regarded potential purchases of DA:I.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

I'm not buying this shit. I'll keep my "DAI" memories where they belong, with a very real Italian romance.

 

[Slow James]

Eh, no. No it doesn't. We have plenty of supporting evidence for the contrary. E.g. the entire Assassin's Creed series.

It's fun to drop down off of buildings and stab people in the face.

Is it boring and repetitive after doing it for five games? Sure. Without a doubt. But it was undeniably fun the first time anyone picks it up and tries it.

 

[Roguey]

Joshua Eric Sawyer has decreed Assassin's Creed 2 fun, thus it is so.

The others may be terrible, sure.

 

[Shadowfang]

Fun is a subjective term, even though it can be defined objectively, and should be kept far from any discussion.
To me harsh realisitc sims are fun while to others popamole shooters with regen is where the fun is at.

 

[Grunker]

Eh, no. No it doesn't. We have plenty of supporting evidence for the contrary. E.g. the entire Assassin's Creed series.

It's fun to drop down off of buildings and stab people in the face.

In theory, yes. In Assassin's Creed? No.

Even many AC players admit that they're playing for the (god-awful) story.

Joshua Eric Sawyer has decreed Assassin's Creed 2 fun, thus it is so.

The others may be terrible, sure.

It's a horrible piece of shit with story and gameplay carefully crafted to appeal to 15-year-old manchildren who think templars and assassins are really cool. Assassin's Creed and Assassin's Creed 2 are actual, literal testaments to everything you can do wrong when designing a sandbox - repetitive, carbon-copied activities that don't even vary in packaging, meaningless, tacked-on progression systems to invest but a semblance of purpose into those repetitive activities, and really bad core systems.

I know, I've played both due to a deal with one of my friends (he played Fallout 1 and 2 in turn). He was of the opinion that 1 was shit and 2 was good, but I can't see why since they're by and large identical games.

 

[agris]

Definitely didn't buy it. I grew up with Bioware, but they haven't been the company that I knew in a looooong time.

I noticed that a lot of the posters in the DA:I thread I've never see post anywhere else (general RPG, strategy gaming). I think there's a lot of codex sub-cultures. I heard there's even a general discussion section...

 

[Slow James]

Also, for the record, it's a strawman to present things like I said "good games cannot sell." I said nothing to that effect in my post at all. My only point was that the spending habits of Codexers where not relevant for the success or failure of indie games as regarded potential purchases of DA:I.

You make it sound like Codexers like a form of fun the mainstream can't like. That's not true. That fun cannot be found for both groups in the same game. That's not true.

Changing the formula in DA to a flat, shallow action game with limited tactical gameplay and options isn't working to be both things to all players, it's insulting the intelligence of everyone involved.

 

[Ninjerk]

Didn't and won't.

 

[Grunker]

Also, for the record, it's a strawman to present things like I said "good games cannot sell." I said nothing to that effect in my post at all. My only point was that the spending habits of Codexers where not relevant for the success or failure of indie games as regarded potential purchases of DA:I.

You make it sound like Codexers like a form of fun the mainstream can't like.

No, I don't. that's exactly what I'm not saying. My only point is that Codexers buying DA:I has nothing to do with the success or failure of the variety of RPGs that some of us like.

Changing the formula in DA to a flat, shallow action game with limited tactical gameplay and options isn't working to be both things to all players, it's insulting the intelligence of everyone involved.

Perhaps. How does this - in any way, shape or form - relate to my point? I know shit about shit when it comes to DA:I. I haven't played it or watched any videos of it, just read a few posts by codexers I respect.

 

[I'm Big Into Anal]

i get my game recommendations from various, trusted sources [of which codex is but one] and literally and actually NONE of them can truthfully recommend this game as one requiring my interest so no; havent bought and likely never will even on sale.

 

[IncendiaryDevice]

There seems to be some confusion about "what's with all the PC hate?" in some quarters. And "I don't understand all the whining" etc etc etc. Let me explain the primary basis for this with a neat little catchphrase:

Dragon Age is a PC RPG series - you can't play DA:I with just a mouse.

Nope, I don't think it's sunk in yet. Let's try again...

Dragon Age is a PC RPG series - you can't play DA:I with just a mouse.

Hmmm, still doesn't seem to be making any headway in the minds of some. One more time, then I'm giving up...

Dragon Age is a PC RPG series - you can't play DA:I with just a mouse.

Unless I'm wrong, of course, because I haven't played it yet, because, as far as I'm aware... you can't play it with just a mouse.

 

[Slow James]

Fun is a subjective term, even though it can be defined objectively, and should be kept far from any discussion.
To me harsh realisitc sims are fun while to others popamole shooters with regen is where the fun is at.

Both are fun, if packaged correctly.

Do we demand stats and numbers when playing Mario? Do we want special perks and XP levels when playing Doom? No, of course not. Because it's not genre nor does it fit the mold of the game in how it is presented.

A game with attributes that doesn't let you control them is poor design. A game with a party that pushes you to play a game controlling only one with limited group control is a waste. This is a tease and almost a blatant insult, where the controls are shown to the player, but implied that it is too complicated to trust the player to not mess it up, so they just remove the chance for you.

Hand holding can work in games, but not when the game is trying to simultaneously giving the player of control and options.

If I gave the right prompts and questions, I could get any CoD dudebro to say he likes all the aspects of a turn based game like Divinity: Original Sin. And I could lead questions and talk up a game to make your average Codexers get excited about a button mashing mindless action fest... the issue is about expectations and packaging.

Games like DA:I present themselves as RPGs, but treat all players like they just got off the short bus by saying "you'll just mess our game up and not play it right if we have you control." They also package themselves as an action game with multiplayer, which will appeal to a larger group, since a larger number of players have been proper exposed to action and MP games.

And I think that's part of the problem with RPGs today - developers naturally assume most players won't like this type of game without ever even trying to understand what it is about these games that capture the player's sense of fun in the first place.

/rant

 

[Shadowfang]

So if someone doesn't find Il-2 1946 or Superbike 2009 fun is because they are bad sims?
You speak as if people don't have personal preferences.

 

[SniperHF]

Haven't even played/purchased the first one at bargain bin prices. No way I'm paying $60 for part 3.

and from looking at RK47 sacrificing more of his shreds of sanity,

If you must. I watched that video of him hunting some creature and well

 

[Turjan]

I didn't buy DA:I. The Dragon Age games are not really my cup of tea. I bought both, DA:O Ultimate and DA2 in some cheap pack, but I don't really like either, so I guess it would be the same here. I watched several of rk47's videos, and it's the same stupid standard Bioware story all over again. I've played that already a few times.

Edit: Does anyone know which indie game Pope Amole was specifically talking about?

 

[Slow James]

So if someone doesn't find Il-2 1946 or Superbike 2009 fun is because they are bad sims?
You speak as if people don't have personal preferences.

Not that they are bad sims, no. Not that people can't have personal preferences.

But the reason some people like sims is 1) they like the ability to imagine controlling and doing exciting things, like racing a motor bike and 2) the idea that the player can feel they can improve, develop or solution for getting better results by figuring out the mechanics.

1 is self explanatory. 2 is a strong fun motivator, as it gives the feeling of finding a backdoor or secret method, where the player's intuition and problem solving is rewarded.

Regardless, it's easy to say "Superbike 2009 is too technical and is simpym for the sim-fanatic." It's much deeper to analyze why players that like this developed that preference and find fun in it, so that the game could be developed to not only provide a strong experience for the expert, but also walk (slow walk if necessary) the neophyte to enjoying a game's full mechanics set by identifying what is specifically fun and engaging.

Not saying this needs to be done in every game, or even that a developer would want to do so... but it just seems a waste to me that entire genres will always remain niche and stagnant largely because developers don't seem focused on developing an experience that can turn new players into hardcore players and instead seek to dumb down everything while throwing crumbs from the table to those enjoy more detail and control.

 

[Shadowfang]

The real waste is the amount of niche games that disappeared to give room to more mainstream experiences.
I see what you mean and i agree with most of it, what i disagree is your use of word fun.

Anyway, come to my home for some gay sex. I heard it is fun.

 

[Outlander]

I quit on the beginning of DA:O. Which actually was not taken from an inventory.

Me too, couldn't bring myself to go on after the first proper village. And I used to be a completionist too, but now I actually value my time more than shitty video games.

 

[DeepOcean]

I was buying it before I saw the combat, the very first time I seen the explosions covering half the screen and characters jumping around like crazy fucks and I didn't know what WTF was happening, I gave up.

 

[Lyric Suite]

BTW, Infinitron, I think Pope Amole II's points about codexers buying it being some kind of travesty are ludicrous. Firstly, for most adult, working people (so not me until I finish this master's ), DA:I's pricetag is a random grab for spare change in the pocket.

Secondly, Pope infers that codexers buying DA:I are choosing not to buy something else. Well, certainly not because of money reasons. I doubt most poor-as-shit codexers are spending their wad on this game, and if you're lower middle class and above living in a Western country (i.e. part of the main source of sales for this game), you'll have no issues forking out 10 bucks for any indie game what might interest you.

In essence, I find no basis for a claim as preposterous and unfounded as "codexers buying DA:I are actively hurting the creation of indie RPGs."

In fact, if we investigated, there might even be truth in the reverse statement. Many gamers spend loads of money on games they never play because they promise one or two of the same trappins promised by [AAA game they like]. Just look at all the fags who gave money to our favourite Kickstarters like Wasteland 2 or Pillars of Eternity because they expected romance or Fallout 3-like mechanics or whatever the fuck retarded thing they were hoping for. That's mainstream cash going into our interests.

In all other areas of economics, mainstream products are necessary for the existance for a sub-market to exist at all. The same can easily, and is probably, true here.

I'm not saying it is, we really have no clue, it's just that I have a fucking hard time spotting how on earth Codexers throwing their dollars at DA:I could ever hurt the production of the games we like. The reason DA:I sells a fuck-trillion and [insert Pope's favourite RPG] doesn't is because DA:I has mainsteam appeal, while whatever Pope and the rest of us really like doesn't.

And let's be honest: no matter how we slice it and how much the Codex has grown, representative of mainstream tastes it is not.

A game sells a fuck-trillion because it is fun. That's why Minecraft, which by any stretch of the imagination should have been a total failure according to what the mainstream audience likes in a game. Blocky graphics, limited combat, no cutscenes, no voice acting... yet it is one of the highest selling games out right now.

Turn based games are SO impossible for the mainstream gamers... until you look at a game like FF10, which was wildly successful and turn based as fuck.

Silent protagonists can't sell in today's market... except every Bethesda game ever, so fuck your face, publishers.

Games with deep systems like crafting aren't what players want... until suddenly every game wants to do crafting, it's the cool thing all the kids love.


Features of a game do not make it antiquated or unplayable, nor do things like voice acting and action combat make something immediately fun to the masses. It is all about presentation, pacing and how enjoyable it is to just pick up and play. You can have a text-based game with no graphics that is bought by millions if you make the game enjoyable enough and grab the player's imagination and sense of fun.

The problem is that you can make things LOOK fun with some flashy graphics and whiz-bang gameplay demos. Which sells almost as good as games actually BEING fun. The same can be said of the movie industry, where movies with high production value and flashy trailers can sell tickets before people realize the movie isn't nearly what it was presented to be.

Don't forget about games like Farmville being extremely popular despite being isometric and 2D.

Wonder who decided on all those things. Probably some marketing douche who doesn't even play games, but still thinks he knows what sells and what doesn't because he went to business school.

 

[Slow James]

The real waste is the amount of niche games that disappeared to give room to more mainstream experiences.
I see what you mean and i agree with most of it, what i disagree is your use of word fun.

Anyway, come to my home for some gay sex. I heard it is fun.

Has anyone studied it and tried to pinpoint the readings why it is fun and how we can transition someone from mainstream/casual hetero sex to more grognard homo sex?

If not, then I'm not interested.

 

[Slow James]

Don't forget about games like Farmville being extremely popular despite being isometric and 2D.

Wonder who decided on all those things. Probably some marketing douche who doesn't even play games, but still thinks he knows what sells and what doesn't because he went to business school.

Nah. They don't teach you to think that way in business school.

They don't think "what features will sell the best" they think "what are the cheapest features we can put in to make a game as quickly as possible that people will buy?"

 

[Lyric Suite]

Well, none of those things are cheap. So i guess it isn't the marketing retards. Who else then?

 

[Achiman]

Key problem with gay sex is another erect penis in the same room. My own freaks me out as it is...