By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
 

Do the announced changes at Halo Studios (prev. 343 Industries) have you optimistic for the future of the franchise?

Yes 16 50.00%
 
No 12 37.50%
 
Still need convincing (sp... 4 12.50%
 
Total:32
G2ThaUNiT 5 days ago

Dooooooope!



Around the Network
BasilZero 5 days ago
G2ThaUNiT said:

Dooooooope!

No update on that rumor of the remake of the first game or was that debunked?



G2ThaUNiT 5 days ago
BasilZero said:
G2ThaUNiT said:

Dooooooope!

No update on that rumor of the remake of the first game or was that debunked?

Oh we won't hear anything on that for at least another year or two. This is just new content for what's already been released with Infinite and MCC.

So a Halo CE remake will still be just a rumor.



chakkra 5 days ago
Machiavellian said:
chakkra said:

I think you summarize the issue pretty well there. That is a problem that many franchises have encountered recently: In their eternal quest to attract a new audience, they ended up alienating their original one. I don't know why they keep doing this; it should be obvious by now that that strategy is way too risky.

Probably because if you do not grow your audience it becomes stagnant.  The old fans complain you doing to much or they complain you are not doing enough and its an ever endless cycle that continues until they all just fade away.  I consider GOD of War as a prime example.  I remember when this GOD of war was shone with 3rd person perspective and just about every GOD of War fan went crazy including myself.  The game appealed to a totally new audience but because the game was good, it also was able to turn over die hards like myself because the game was fun.  Developers hate having to do the same thing over and over again never being allowed to actually try new ideals always being held back by the fans who say they want something new but never really do.  Sometimes creative teams really want to be creative and not held down.  The key of course is that the game they make that moves away from the old must be good.  What I have seen from a number of positive reviews is that the game is good.  So yeah, its going to not appeal to the old guard as much but if its good enough, it might convert a few over and grow its audience. 

I mean, I would take an stagnant audience over a shrinking one any day of the week. Especially if that gamble would cost me years of work and more than 100m dollars.

As per devs wanting to do "something new".. well, that is where Management's job comes in. I think managers across the board have become soft in recent years. A good manager should be able to sit their creative directors and very gently tell them: "Sweetie, I know you want to feel good about yourself, believe me, we all do, but the job of hundreds of people are on the line here, not just yours".



Machiavellian 5 days ago
chakkra said:
Machiavellian said:

Probably because if you do not grow your audience it becomes stagnant.  The old fans complain you doing to much or they complain you are not doing enough and its an ever endless cycle that continues until they all just fade away.  I consider GOD of War as a prime example.  I remember when this GOD of war was shone with 3rd person perspective and just about every GOD of War fan went crazy including myself.  The game appealed to a totally new audience but because the game was good, it also was able to turn over die hards like myself because the game was fun.  Developers hate having to do the same thing over and over again never being allowed to actually try new ideals always being held back by the fans who say they want something new but never really do.  Sometimes creative teams really want to be creative and not held down.  The key of course is that the game they make that moves away from the old must be good.  What I have seen from a number of positive reviews is that the game is good.  So yeah, its going to not appeal to the old guard as much but if its good enough, it might convert a few over and grow its audience. 

I mean, I would take an stagnant audience over a shrinking one any day of the week. Especially if that gamble would cost me years of work and more than 100m dollars.

As per devs wanting to do "something new".. well, that is where Management's job comes in. I think managers across the board have become soft in recent years. A good manager should be able to sit their creative directors and very gently tell them: "Sweetie, I know you want to feel good about yourself, believe me, we all do, but the job of hundreds of people are on the line here, not just yours".

Oh course you would take a stagnant audience but that is because you are thinking of the situation as a consumer.  Each iteration of the game has not increased its audience but instead dwindled it.  You can either continue to go down the same route or try something totally new.  Either a developer has confidence in their direction and what they can do or they can fade away.  One thing for sure, doing the same thing where each iteration not giving you any results probably isn't going to change either.  So why not go for a new audience.

You call it soft but that is exactly how a game becomes stagnant.  "Hey, just shut up and do the same crap you already bored of doing and have no passion to continue to do anymore."  That is pretty much how I see it.  When the passion is gone, you only get subpar results.



Around the Network
Machiavellian 5 days ago
Mnementh said:
Machiavellian said:

Probably because if you do not grow your audience it becomes stagnant.  The old fans complain you doing to much or they complain you are not doing enough and its an ever endless cycle that continues until they all just fade away.  I consider GOD of War as a prime example.  I remember when this GOD of war was shone with 3rd person perspective and just about every GOD of War fan went crazy including myself.  The game appealed to a totally new audience but because the game was good, it also was able to turn over die hards like myself because the game was fun.  Developers hate having to do the same thing over and over again never being allowed to actually try new ideals always being held back by the fans who say they want something new but never really do.  Sometimes creative teams really want to be creative and not held down.  The key of course is that the game they make that moves away from the old must be good.  What I have seen from a number of positive reviews is that the game is good.  So yeah, its going to not appeal to the old guard as much but if its good enough, it might convert a few over and grow its audience. 

Hmm. I saw the description that Dragon Age Veilguard is a mix of God of War and Guardians of the Galaxy. That is something, both are very popular games. But here is the thing: I played neither of them and have no interest to. I was interested in Dragon Age Veilguard, possibly even excited, but my excitement is evaporating by the minute. Veilguard seems to lose everything I love about RPGs.

You talk about stagnant, but what does it mean? I described Baldur's Gate 3 in the greatest game event as a 90s game utilizing modern technology, experience and budget (as gaming as a whole has grown *a lot*). So is BG3 a stagnant game? Probably. It won multiple game of the year awards being that stagnant.

I feel like stagnant is used as a term for: "genre I don't like". So let me declare every real-time game stagnant. BG3 has proven turn-based is the way to go, so every game should be turn-based, otherwise it is being stagnant.

You said about yourself: "I believe this Dragon Age probably more up my ally than previous entries as I never liked the series". So Veilguard is certainly a game, but maybe it is not a Dragon Age game. What is with people who previously liked the series? They have to look elsewhere. Well, another BG3 run for me then.

I personally do not like to read reviews that try to compare a game to another one which is usually the ones I just ignore as lazy.  Instead the reviews I like just talk about the game, how it plays, the story the interaction etc.  The main thing is does the game give you the tools to have fun and enjoy the experience.  One thing I believe is true is that Dragon Age developer wasn't happy or passionate about the previous games and thus doing the same thing again wasn't making them want to continue along that same route.  You either risk it all or do some hybrid mess that never makes anyone happy.  I rather a developer just risk it all for their vision than try to thread the middle.  Yes, the chance is that you miss the target but then again that is always the risk with video games.



G2ThaUNiT 5 days ago

HYPE!!!



chakkra 5 days ago
Machiavellian said:
chakkra said:

I mean, I would take an stagnant audience over a shrinking one any day of the week. Especially if that gamble would cost me years of work and more than 100m dollars.

As per devs wanting to do "something new".. well, that is where Management's job comes in. I think managers across the board have become soft in recent years. A good manager should be able to sit their creative directors and very gently tell them: "Sweetie, I know you want to feel good about yourself, believe me, we all do, but the job of hundreds of people are on the line here, not just yours".

Oh course you would take a stagnant audience but that is because you are thinking of the situation as a consumer.  Each iteration of the game has not increased its audience but instead dwindled it.  You can either continue to go down the same route or try something totally new.  Either a developer has confidence in their direction and what they can do or they can fade away.  One thing for sure, doing the same thing where each iteration not giving you any results probably isn't going to change either.  So why not go for a new audience.

You call it soft but that is exactly how a game becomes stagnant.  "Hey, just shut up and do the same crap you already bored of doing and have no passion to continue to do anymore."  That is pretty much how I see it.  When the passion is gone, you only get subpar results.

Hold on.. Where exactly did you get this info from?

This is what I found:

It doesn't look to me that the franchise was "dwindling" in any way.



shikamaru317 5 days ago

Yeah, Dragon Age Inquisition far outsold the first 2 games and outsold all of the Mass Effect games too, which isn't surprising considering it won GOTY in 2014, nearly all GOTY winners sell well. A follow-up that fixed some of the issues people had with Inquisition (too large, too open, etc.) would have done very well, and that was exactly what the initial Joplin build of Dragon Age 4 was (smaller, more narrative focused, set in Tevinter), but EA bungled the hell out of that by forcing Dragon Age 4's Joplin build dev team to assist the Mass Effect Andromeda and Anthem teams who were struggling, and then later cancelling the Joplin build to chase after GaaS instead, causing many Bioware veterans to quit in protest, including Mike Laidlaw (lead designer on Dragon Age Origins and creative director on the Joplin build of Dragon Age 4). The final end product of Dragon Age: The Veilguard is a hodgepodge of ideas and systems from both the Joplin build and the live-service Morrison build of Dragon Age 4, with lots of modernization sprinkled in. 

I really don't think that Bioware needed to reinvent the series with Veilguard the way they seem to have done. A game that combined the things that people liked about each of the 3 previous games would have done very well I think: The origin system and strong storytelling and impactful story decisions of Origins; a somewhat smaller, more focused setting and stronger companion relationships like Dragon Age 2; and a modernized and improved version of Inquisitions combat. Instead they basically tried to reinvent the wheel, entirely new art design that is designed to draw in younger gamers, barely any impactful story decisions compared to the earlier games, ultra modern action combat system, etc. 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - 5 days ago

G2ThaUNiT 5 days ago