How would you feel if gaming companies wanted to appeal to people who don't play video games?

[Spectre1]

How would you feel if gaming companies made characters in an attempt to appeal to people who never have played video games?

For example Bioware could gave us a girly female knight with a feminine hairstyle and personality but yet is physically strong and fearless in battle? She also likes stuffed animals and cosmetics but yet is skilled with a sword.

 

 

This character would be aimed at the sorority and cheerleader type females at American schools and colleges.

Do you think such a character would be stupid and unrealistic?

[Hulk'O'Saurus]

terrified...

[algroth]

What would these forums be without Spectre1's ever so insightful and thought-provoking topics?

[ShadySands]

He's back on cheerleaders so all is right in the world

Edited February 4, 2018 by ShadySands

[Boeroer]

Nice picture!

 

I would play it - I like strong women with a feminine hairstyle. Doesn't need to like stuffed animals, but who cares?

[Jozape]

 

 

How would you feel if gaming companies made characters in an attempt to appeal to people who never have played video games?

 

How would you feel if movie companies made characters in an attempt to appeal to people who have never watched movies?

 

This is the wrong question. Make a game that is broadly appealing through subject instead of pandering and any problem there may be will solve itself.

 

That doesn't mean you shouldn't have character A instead of character B. But you can't rely on such novelties to draw people in and keep them.

 

Super art by the way.

[Tagaziel]

How would you feel if gaming companies made characters in an attempt to appeal to people who never have played video games?

Girls? Playing my games? BUT WHAT ABOUT THE COOTIES

[redneckdevil]

If written and executed well, I wouldn't care. Hell could be a good thing as it would give different things that we aren't used to seeing.

[Farbautisonn]

I have abandoned all hope for Bioware.

Even if they did a complete 180 degrees and went straight back to storytelling instead of pew-pew, even if they got rave reviews from critics and players over a new RPG, chances are I would still boycut BiowEAre.

[Yosharian]

How would you feel if gaming companies made characters in an attempt to appeal to people who never have played video games?

 

For example Bioware could gave us a girly female knight with a feminine hairstyle and personality but yet is physically strong and fearless in battle? She also likes stuffed animals and cosmetics but yet is skilled with a sword.

 

 

This character would be aimed at the sorority and cheerleader type females at American schools and colleges.

 

Do you think such a character would be stupid and unrealistic?

This is either one of the most misleading posts I've ever read on these forums or a rather poor attempt at humour...

 

> How would you feel if gaming companies made characters in an attempt to appeal to people who never have played video games?

 

Developers need to appeal to their core audience in order to retain that audience that made them money in the first place.

 

if Obsi wants to make an RPG for cheerleaders or non-gamers that's their choice, but it will not be on my purchase list

 

As for the picture you posted, there's nothing there that wouldn't belong in a serious RPG.

 

> likes stuffed animals and cosmetics

 

What kind of stuffed animals and/or cosmetics were available in medieval eras?

Edited February 19, 2018 by Yosharian

[SonicMage117]

How would I feel?

 

Well, they have already been doing it for years (If you need examples I can give, feel free to ask them) and I've never heard anyone complaining about it. Personally, I'm glad for it because there are tons of awesome people who think "Video games are for nerds" and so they never give it a try... then comes along one of these types of companies who ae hellbent on getting non-gamers to play.

 

In other words, game companies who focus on non-gamers have never been a bad thing. This isn't uncommon. When I go into a board game store, there is always a worker who asks me "Have you ever played this game?" And if I say no, then they'll ask "Would you like to learn?" Same exact thing here.

 

This is especially a common practice if the company already has an established franchise/playerbase. Why not expand their audience? So then, you see, it doesn't make sense to the normal consumer of that business but it definitely makes sense from a smart and strategic business mindset.

[Farbautisonn]

I do not mind Gaming companies trying to attract more playes. As long as they stay loyal to their fanbase. And thats a problem with alot of gaming companies.

They either dumb down the product, or "StrEAmline" it. We have seen it with Bioware and with Bethesda. They have branched out to attrack more "pew pew" players, but have skimped on lore, ingame logic, and dialogue.

FO4 I only did one playthrough. After I had done it, I felt "Meh" about it. I have more time logged with PoE than with FO4. Alot more playthroughs too. I want a good story over pew pew. And only pew pew / Hack Slash if it supports the story.

[Valmy]

How would you feel if gaming companies made characters in an attempt to appeal to people who never have played video games?

 

 

 

None of that stuff would bother me a bit, in fact I would really enjoy it. But that is not how gaming companies do things to try to appeal to non-gamers. They make it flashier and designed to imitate other media that does have a mass audience. But, of course, almost everybody does play video games of some kind now so are we talking about how we might have felt in 1998 or something?

[Valmy]

 

 

 

What kind of stuffed animals and/or cosmetics were available in medieval eras?

 

 

Several kinds. Google it.

[Bartimaeus]

That's an odd image to use. There's much more annoying and/or outright bad character designs in games that ARE designed to appeal to gamers!

 

I don't really like the idea of "design by committee" to begin with, whether it's meant to appeal to gamers or meant to appeal to non-gamers, and the same with movies and TV and their viewers. Get someone with an actual vision (...and a decent helping of common sense to make sure the project doesn't become a trainwreck) and see where that takes you.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Bartimaeus

[Iconoclast12]

Game developers have been trying to appeal to the masses for years now... Hence the reason why so many newer games suck and are so dumbed down, because the average player thinks it's too hard or too this or too that...  The hardcore gamer is the minority in this day and age... 

[Gizmo]

Developers need to appeal to their core audience in order to retain that audience that made them money in the first place.

One would think, but I didn't see that happen with FO3; or... if it did, then they destroyed and defamed a grand RPG series just to appeal to their core TES audience—the ones who had made them money, but not for any product like the Fallout series.  And in this it was like selling ice cream to the Inuit... meaning without the cream; ice cream without the cream; replaced with something else.  Fallout without the cream (the core game mechanics); replaced with something else. It was something else that was promoted and popularized by them; something else bearing the Fallout name... and now that name means something else.  

Edited March 9, 2018 by Gizmo

[Yosharian]

 

Developers need to appeal to their core audience in order to retain that audience that made them money in the first place.

One would think, but I didn't see that happen with FO3; or... if it did, then they destroyed and defamed a grand RPG series just to appeal to their core TES audience—the ones who had made them money, but not for any product like the Fallout series.  And in this it was like selling ice cream to the Inuit... meaning without the cream; ice cream without the cream; replaced with something else.  Fallout without the cream (the core game mechanics); replaced with something else. It was something else that was promoted and popularized by them; something else bearing the Fallout name... and now that name means something else.

 

 

Fallout is a special case because it's so popular and people are so interested in getting another Fallout game that they'll almost buy anything that has the Fallout name on it.

 

Fallout 4 has deviated so far from what Fallout used to be that it's almost unrecognisable, mechanically, as a Fallout game, but it still sold well.

 

That's not the same as the situation smaller developers find themselves in: they rely on their core audience a lot more.

 

Even with Bethesda, there are many that didn't buy Fallout 4, and if the next Fallout doesn't return to its roots a bit more and abandon some of the crappier elements that Beth tried to introduce, which even they admit were mistakes, then there will be an even bigger backlash.

 

Look at Bioware: they abandoned their core audience completely, and the result is that none of their previous core audience gives a **** about them more.

[Valmy]

 

 

 

 

 

Fallout is a special case because it's so popular and people are so interested in getting another Fallout game that they'll almost buy anything that has the Fallout name on it.

 

 

It was not popular at all before Beth got their hands on it. I mean sure it was popular for us but it only ever sold a few hundred thousand copies. Gizmo is right, Bethesda made it to appeal to the TES crowd not the Fallout crowd. 

 

Fallout 4 sold over 10 million copies. It was an order of magnitude more popular and profitable than anything made to appeal to the core Fallout audience would be. I don't see any evidence to suggest that appealing to the core gets financially rewarded. If it did Obsidian would not be kickstarting games.

Edited March 14, 2018 by Valmy

[Yosharian]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fallout is a special case because it's so popular and people are so interested in getting another Fallout game that they'll almost buy anything that has the Fallout name on it.

 

 

It was not popular at all before Beth got their hands on it. I mean sure it was popular for us but it only ever sold a few hundred thousand copies. Gizmo is right, Bethesda made it to appeal to the TES crowd not the Fallout crowd. 

 

Fallout 4 sold over 10 million copies. It was an order of magnitude more popular and profitable than anything made to appeal to the core Fallout audience would be. I don't see any evidence to suggest that appealing to the core gets financially rewarded. If it did Obsidian would not be kickstarting games.

 

 

> I don't see any evidence to suggest that appealing to the core gets financially rewarded.

 

That wasn't exactly the argument I was making.

 

That said, Bioware is an example of what happens when you abandon your core audience.  You make a lot of money, but the long-term survival of the developer is harmed.

[IronMagus]

personally i think that as long as the hairstyle wasnt long and free you could get away with almost anything for a female character aka female spider-man.......