RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS THREAD!

[Morgoth]

I would argue that BioWare is a sort of a brandname as well.

They are. Bio been a star among the mainstream since the release of Kotor.

 

The only reason why they don't sell so good as Rockstar or Blizzard games is because they never got the chance to really develop something truly spectacular and ambitious. Rockstar can spend a $100 million and 5-6 years development time, Blizzard the same if they want. Imagine Bioware would set out with such a budget and timeframe to make some reactive open-world GTA style game, with their capability, they sure as hell would land a title that sells 15 million units as well.

 

There's hope that if SWTOR is a huge success and guarantees a high income revenue, Bio might be able to have more latidude and time for their future titles, not being forced to pop out mediocre games every 18 months. With EA being their masters though, I doubt that.

[Niten_Ryu]

Bioware also don't like to do open world sandboxes. Like 'em or not, GTAs and (often crappy) Bethesda games sell really well. Bioware's other weakness is lack of extremely solid shooting mechanics. I dislike most things about Modern Warfare brand but damn they create fine shooting mechanics. Now they go directly against World of Warcraft. Not World of Warcraft 7 years ago but today. I'd argue that designing MMOG features that keep players interested (from casual to hardcore) for years is probably hardest thing to do correctly in gaming biz.

[Nepenthe]

Bioware also don't like to do open world sandboxes. Like 'em or not, GTAs and (often crappy) Bethesda games sell really well. Bioware's other weakness is lack of extremely solid shooting mechanics. I dislike most things about Modern Warfare brand but damn they create fine shooting mechanics. Now they go directly against World of Warcraft. Not World of Warcraft 7 years ago but today. I'd argue that designing MMOG features that keep players interested (from casual to hardcore) for years is probably hardest thing to do correctly in gaming biz.

Well the feedback on the leak was that the shooting mechanics were greatly improved, at least on the console side, so it looks like that's something they've paid attention to.

 

It's funny, considering that the "openness" was a fairly big element in BG1 - I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility, even if the tech they've been using lately generally creates levels that are the antithesis of open.

 

I feel I also should praise Obsidian here, FONV is the only open world game I've really enjoyed playing (and, well Vice City, but a lot less so).

[meomao]

You kididn' right? While BIO isn't on the same level as those companies when it comes to populairty to unilaterlaly claim that NOBODY buys gams because of the BIO logo is beyond silly. I'd wager BIO has quite a few (mil+) fans who buy pretty much anything with their name on the box - including those who tend to be highly critical of them.

 

Yes, the "nobody" is a generalization. I'm simply saying that Bioware is not a recognized brand. There are lots of people who buys Valve's, Blizzard's or Rockstar's games simply because the name of those companies is on the box. Just look at LA Noire. I'm not sure that the Bioware logo has the same effect. I'm a Bioware fan, not a critical one, but I've not bought NWN, ME and Kotor at the time of their publishing because I wasn't interested in those project and/or I do not own an Xbox. I bought them cheap many months after. I will follow the new franchise but if I'm not hooked by the concept, I will wait to read some reviewad buy it on some kind of sale.

 

So, maybe it's just me, but the new franchise won't sell because there is a Bioware Dublin logo on the box, but only if it reaches the interest of old and new players becuase of its features. Having said that, there is no harm in trying to become as popular as those other companies. But as it is now, I believe that Bioware may have popular games but it's not a popular brand.

 

BG is BIO's most light RPG title ever. No coincidence it was their first.

 

To discuss that topic, we should find a common definition for the term RPG first. Since I'm pretty sure that we will never reach a common ground, it's hard to reply. Having said that, imho, in term of freedom/exploration, economy, customization and stat based rules/combat (wich are typical elements of an RPG), BG I is more RPGish than most Bioware's games of late. It's less rpgish in term of dialogues and in depth interactions with the NPCs but I'm not really sure that it's a good thing for Bioware or that the focus on writing has improved their games a lot. While playing BG 1, many players were writing their version of the story, their romances and so on. There was a lot of space to fill with your imagination. With their last titles (DA:O excepted) there is little and less space for that kind of spontaneous and emergent storytelling.

Edited November 8, 2011 by meomao

[meomao]

[

RockStar has succeeded at it, but had they released a subpar Red Dead Redemption the brandname RockStar would have taken a hit. Since there's plenty of people who aren't aware that different people made those games compared to GTAs.

 

That's true but look at LA Noire. The game is mediocre at best and the sandbox is purely aestetic but it sold better than any Bioware game ever made. And RDR is truly a great game, so it's hard to discuss "if".

 

I would argue that BioWare is a sort of a brandname as well. People know to expect a certain kind of game, when they see the name BioWare on the box. Also a certain level of quality is expected even though Dragon Age 2 most likely did enough to damage to tarnish some of that reputation.

 

But as DA2 sales seems to show, if the reception of one of their title is controversial, it won't sell that much just because it's developed by Bioware. 2+ million copies and most were DA:O fans. That's the distinction I'm trying to make. Bioware have fans of their singular franchises. Not "Bioware" fans in the same way as Valve or Blizzard does.

Edited November 8, 2011 by meomao

[Morgoth]

Let's not forget that LA Noire was only Rockstar published (developer was Team Bondi). Rockstar still made a bunch of stinkers though, like the Manhunt series.

[Nightshape]

"Bio's never done action well,"

 

They've done action awesomely well. Both JE and ME are both awesome action rpgs.

 

 

 

"honey, volo went bat %$#@ insane around 2004...

 

It's been pretty the same since then."

 

You guys need to stop trollinga dn flaming and stick with topic.

 

Telling the truth isn't trolling.

[Jaesun]

Ian Frazier (of U5:Lazarus fame) is Lead Designer of the upcoming Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning and did a Codex Exclusive review:

 

http://www.rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=242

 

:bro:

[Volourn]

"It's funny, considering that the "openness" was a fairly big element in BG1 -"

 

And, they got slammed for it on the BG boards.

 

 

"But as DA2 sales seems to show, if the reception of one of their title is controversial, it won't sell that much just because it's developed by Bioware. 2+ million copies and most were DA:O fans. That's the distinction I'm trying to make. Bioware have fans of their singular franchises. Not "Bioware" fans in the same way as Valve or Blizzard does."

 

That's ridiculous. People but DA1 because of the BIO brand. The 2mil+ tyhat bought DA2 were also fans of BIO.

 

BIO may not have the fanbase of Valve or Blizzard but they surely have a rather large one and have had one since BG. The fact you buy multiple BIO games tells me you are one.

 

 

"So, maybe it's just me,"

 

It's justb you. If we are going to use perosnal anedotes to prove a point I'm gonna argue that neither Valve or Blizzard don't have a fanbase as I don't buy games just because their names are on the boxes. Heck, i tend to not buy their games. No Diablo 2 or WOW for me and I only rented Diablo 1 on the console way back when. I guess they don't have a fanbase either, right?

 

 

" but the new franchise won't sell because there is a Bioware Dublin logo on the box,"

 

It will sell because of the BIO brand. JE sold 1.5-2mil copies based solely on the BIO name. DA, and ME are both hits because of the BIO brand. NWN sold on the BIO brand 9don't say D&D brand because the majority of D&D games do not sell that well: see POR2, IWD2, and TOEE all released about the same time). What was the big difference between the four - BIo was by far the most popular of those 3 companies).

 

 

"But as it is now, I believe that Bioware may have popular games but it's not a popular brand."

 

BIO has popular games because they are a popualr brand. They don't need to sell as much as another company to have a popular brand. Plenty of successful and popular brands (in movies, music, tv, and books) are popular brands without being the top seller - that's what niches are.

[Morgoth]

I'm going to throw it the MDK guess to cover my bases.

MDK still belongs to Interplay.

 

It's either a new IP, or maybe they revive one of the old Pandemic franchises, Mercenaries, which I certainly hope is not the case.

[meomao]

BIO may not have the fanbase of Valve or Blizzard but they surely have a rather large one and have had one since BG. The fact you buy multiple BIO games tells me you are one.

 

I'm not denying that they have a large follower base and I've allready said without a single problem that I'm a Bioware fan and that I follow their games. I simply do not believe that their logo sells on its own.

 

If we are going to use perosnal anedotes to prove a point

 

Look, it's not only anedoctal evidence. It's just the consistency in terms of numbers and "typical fan" between the different Bioware's franchises. You look at ME sales and DA sales and you see a huge gap. Read the boards of both game and you can see a loto of differences too. You look at RDR or LA Noire sales and you see that sales are close in terms of number. There are tons people willing to pass from a Western shooter to a Noire adventure because it's a Rockstar game. The same is not true for Bioware games.

 

It will sell because of the BIO brand. JE sold 1.5-2mil copies based solely on the BIO name. DA, and ME are both hits because of the BIO brand. NWN sold on the BIO brand

 

Bio brand will help the game gathering attention from the chore audience of Bioware and the press and grant some minimum sales of 1/1,5+ million copies. That will help off course. The rest is on the game behalf: word of mouth and reception from the gaming community. And it's not the same effect of popular brands developing a new IP. If Blizzard would announce a new IP in 6 months it will sell 3-4 million copies on PC only, just because it's Blizzard.

 

BIO has popular games because they are a popualr brand. They don't need to sell as much as another company to have a popular brand. Plenty of successful and popular brands (in movies, music, tv, and books) are popular brands without being the top seller - that's what niches are.

 

You are right: Bioware's chore audience is a niche. And niches are not brand, that's my point. They can become brands but they are not. Then, everything can change in the following year.

Edited November 8, 2011 by meomao

[WDeranged]

Game dev's favourite is Baldurs Gate

[Volourn]

"You look at ME sales and DA sales and you see a huge gap."

 

ME2 and DA sold aboutt he same copies. It shoukldn't be a complete surprise that BG1, BG2, NWN, and KOTOR all sold 2.5-3mil copies. Seems like a solid fanbase to me. Only JE didn't quite reach that 2mil plateau (1.5-2mil). then ME2 sold about 3mil. Then off of that DA sold 4mil+ as did ME2. DA2 sold 2mil+ in the first month alone - something BIo's earlier RPGs did not. This is based on BIO's brand name.

 

ME series and DA series are two rather different games yet they basically sold abotut he same.

 

BIO is a recognizable brand. It's funny that you are arguing that BIO isn't a popular brand yet the common complaint from the anti BIO contingent is that BIO can get 'away with crap' and still sell.

 

 

"You look at RDR or LA Noire sales and you see that sales are close in terms of number. There are tons people willing to pass from a Western shooter to a Noire adventure because it's a Rockstar game. The same is not true for Bioware games."

 

BIO games tend to sell in the same range. Where are you getting otherwise?

 

 

 

"And it's not the same effect of popular brands developing a new IP."

 

How do you think ME and DA brands got recognization - because it was BIO developing it. Some rinky dinky dev surely wouldn't have got them to sell that many. Even The Witcher was as successful as it was due to its tie in with the BIO name.

 

BIO is a popular branmd with a huge audience. EA didn';t pay a billion+ for a company name that wasn't popular. It's also why EA is going out of their way to make as many BIO x divisions as possible because they believe the BIO name sells games. And, the history of the past 10+ years proves it. Over and over and over.

[entrerix]

the bioware name sold me DA2. it looked like crap but i figured it would be still worth $60. won't make that mistake again.

 

note: DA2 wasnt terrible, it just wasn't worth $60

[greylord]

How do you think ME and DA brands got recognization - because it was BIO developing it. Some rinky dinky dev surely wouldn't have got them to sell that many. Even The Witcher was as successful as it was due to its tie in with the BIO name.

 

BIO is a popular branmd with a huge audience. EA didn';t pay a billion+ for a company name that wasn't popular. It's also why EA is going out of their way to make as many BIO x divisions as possible because they believe the BIO name sells games. And, the history of the past 10+ years proves it. Over and over and over.

 

I was with you right up until this point of your post, since I also got DA2 off of Bio's good name and that did significant damage to it. I'll get ME3 since it's a different game and hope due to Bio's good name it's good as well...but if that one stinks...Bio's good name is no longer a good name...more like TRASH).

 

However...when you stated the witcher was as successful due to Bio's name...I shook my head in pure wonder and thought...what are you SMOKING. I still know no connection between the Witcher and Bio...in fact I first heard of The Witcher from PCgamer and my first exposure to gameplay was a Demo off of one of their discs which had the Witcher on it. Unless somehow Bio owns and publishes PCgamer...I'm thinking you've lost it on that one.

Edited November 9, 2011 by greylord

[Tigranes]

TW1 used a super-heavily modified version of the Aurora Engine, and that was mentioned prominently in the earliest coverage. It's still debatable how much TW1 benefited marketing-wise, but there's the connection.

[greylord]

TW1 used a super-heavily modified version of the Aurora Engine, and that was mentioned prominently in the earliest coverage. It's still debatable how much TW1 benefited marketing-wise, but there's the connection.

 

Ah, and something I wasn't really aware of. I'm not certain tons of others did either. I think TW1 probably had far more success through advertisement articles (like PCGamer) and other places rather than ANY connection it had to Bioware.

[Jaesun]

note: DA2 wasnt terrible, it just wasn't worth $60

 

It was terrible. It's the first BioWare title I will never purchase or ever play.

[Nightshape]

Game dev's favourite is Baldurs Gate

 

This isn't a shock, the game is genuinely perceived as being absolutely legendary by every single game dev I've met, myself obviously included thus.

[Malcador]

Saint's Row 4 in the works

 

Also another COD game next year. But that's hardly news, I guess.

[Volourn]

"However...when you stated the witcher was as successful due to Bio's name...I shook my head in pure wonder and thought...what are you SMOKING. I still know no connection between the Witcher and Bio...in fact I first heard of The Witcher from PCgamer and my first exposure to gameplay was a Demo off of one of their discs which had the Witcher on it. Unless somehow Bio owns and publishes PCgamer...I'm thinking you've lost it on that one. "

 

Uses BIO's engine. Was heavily hyped oin the BIO boards including having Witcher devs which was heavily mentioned in the reviews. No way does the Witcher get the pimping and the press it got without having BIO's name attached. Heck, BIO's name is right on the box. I know for a fact I'd likely never would have ehard of The Twicther if it weren't for BIO. And, for that, I'm still mad at BIO, because TW is one of the worst purchases I've ever made. Overrated piece of crap. I cna't beleive I was actually looking forward to it.

 

 

"It was terrible. It's the first BioWare title I will never purchase or ever play."

 

L0LZ

 

 

"note: DA2 wasnt terrible, it just wasn't worth $60"

 

DA2 is awesome. And, it's way ebtter than trash like BG1 and KOTOR.

[entrerix]

im sure in 15 years every game dev will be citing how they were inspired to make rpg's because of how amazing dragon age 2 was.

 

 

oh wait.

[Volourn]

What does that prove? Nothing.

 

DA2 is a sequel. Sequels don't get the love.

 

BG2 is astly superior to BG1 in every way but BG1 gets credit ebcause it came first.

 

Bottom line is DA2 > BG1 + KOTOR

 

No contest.

[Orogun01]

im sure in 15 years every game dev will be citing how they were inspired to make rpg's because of how amazing dragon age 2 was.

 

 

oh wait.

That statement made want to bash you on the head with a 9 iron, no offense or hostility intended.

[Nepenthe]

DA2 was released in a climate where any failure by Bioware would be pounced on a by a bloodthirsty pack (who was really primed for it by the marketing), and they happily obliged the pack by leaving in a few absolutely glaring flaws (though I, personally, considered them to be very minor ones). It's not the punchline a lot of people have made of it, in fact it's not even Bioware's worst game. Whether it's worth the "full price" or not... well, a lot of you guys seem to be more frugal with you gaming than I am.