T
TorontoReign
Guest
We have a thread for discussing the games we are currently playing, but nothing to discuss general gaming news, rumors, reviews, etc, so here we go. I found this article over at IGN of all places. It is related to Disgaea but one part in particular stuck out. It was a bit of a surprise hearing it from a mainstream journalist. In an industry that is trying to broaden their customer base at all costs it is nice to hear of a developer who caters strictly to their audience rather than stripping the "niche" game mechanics to appeal to more people.
"Taking care of the fans who’ve gotten you here is often better than trying to bring in imaginary new ones.
Conventional wisdom, across most consumer industries (video games included) is that growing your customer base is tantamount to success. Part of that is coming up with huge new story/gameplay twists to anchor your sale’s pitch around. “It’s the (insert annual franchise) you love, but now with co-op multiplayer/in the future/with zombies!!!” Just as often, this means cutting things developers think create a barrier to entry for new players. Bioware infamously stripped Dragon Age of most of its substantial RPG depth for the second entry in the series, shifting the focus to hack-and-slash style combat for the stat-phobic masses. There’s no real way to measure, in terms of units sold, whether or not this helped or hurt the franchise financially, but that’s not really the point.
The point is that people like me, who loved Dragon Age: Origins for being the modern-day Baldur’s Gate we’d been craving, were left with little to enjoy in Dragon Age 2, and no, the fact that it helped the franchise sell more copies overall didn’t make me feel any better about that. The message being sent was clear to me: tapping into a potential market of people who typically ignore this genre was more important than keeping the people who support it happy."
It is refreshing to hear this coming from a review site that typically gives a pass to games that simplify mechanics, like Fallout 4 for instance.
Here is the full article for your viewing pleasure.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/07...aign=Blogroll&abthid=5599b916ed027c0b75000007
"Taking care of the fans who’ve gotten you here is often better than trying to bring in imaginary new ones.
Conventional wisdom, across most consumer industries (video games included) is that growing your customer base is tantamount to success. Part of that is coming up with huge new story/gameplay twists to anchor your sale’s pitch around. “It’s the (insert annual franchise) you love, but now with co-op multiplayer/in the future/with zombies!!!” Just as often, this means cutting things developers think create a barrier to entry for new players. Bioware infamously stripped Dragon Age of most of its substantial RPG depth for the second entry in the series, shifting the focus to hack-and-slash style combat for the stat-phobic masses. There’s no real way to measure, in terms of units sold, whether or not this helped or hurt the franchise financially, but that’s not really the point.
The point is that people like me, who loved Dragon Age: Origins for being the modern-day Baldur’s Gate we’d been craving, were left with little to enjoy in Dragon Age 2, and no, the fact that it helped the franchise sell more copies overall didn’t make me feel any better about that. The message being sent was clear to me: tapping into a potential market of people who typically ignore this genre was more important than keeping the people who support it happy."
It is refreshing to hear this coming from a review site that typically gives a pass to games that simplify mechanics, like Fallout 4 for instance.
Here is the full article for your viewing pleasure.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/07...aign=Blogroll&abthid=5599b916ed027c0b75000007