| It's not excusable, even considering that RPGs are a more story-focused genre. Fact is the combat still makes up a large chunk of gameplay for a lot of RPGs, so getting the combat right is crucial or you have 50% of a game that is just shit. Admittedly I haven't played Fallout or Elder Scrolls, but a large part of that is because from the gameplay videos I've seen the combat does look utterly boring or clunky. Examples of WRPGs that get it right I think are KOTOR and Mass Effect. I don't consider Zelda to be an RPG, it is an adventure puzzle game first and foremost with some vague RPG elements, but the combat works well enough for what it does. |
OmegaSietsAug 11, 2015 2:57 PM
kingcity20 said: Oh for the love of -_- nvm gotta love MAL |
| well how do you set up your character exactly? that may give everybody a better perspective on what you trying to say. |
| So Zelda is an rpg now? |
 |
| It depends on how "Bad" it really is. I really wanted to enjoy "Traysia" on the Genesis, but the combat system sucked so bad that I had to quit playing it almost immediately. |
 |
sullynathan said: You guys are missing the point. You partake in so much combat in these games that you can't just ignore it. It doesn't matter of that's not the focus of the genre but the fact that it's there and it's still not done well is a problem. No it is not. Morrowind and Deus Ex have some of the weakest combat in RPGs that aren't turn based and they're still the best RPGs of all time. If the combat is weak without the world, lore and all the important stuff being proportionally better THEN it becomes a problem. But RPGs would take 10 years to develop if literally EVERYTHING was perfect. Hence, you sacrifice what's least important. Let's say two different studios with the same quality of pre-production both have 20 million bucks to make an RPG. For every million they can buy an imaginary point of quality to any aspect of their game. (Total abstraction, but follow) Company A: 5 mill to world scope and content 5 mill to voice acting 5 mill to character writing and story 4 mill to soundtrack and visuals 1 mill to systems and in-game economy/ progression combat and animation is "left over", as in, released in just a rudimentary state. Company B: 4 mill to world scope and content 4 mill to voice acting 4 mill to character writing and story 4 mill to soundtrack and visuals 3 mill to combat and animation 1 mill to systems and in-game economy/ progression Company B's game has better combat, but lost something important doing it, and as such made a worse, more unfocused game. |
Red_TuesdayAug 12, 2015 2:08 AM
 |
| Nope gameplay is the most important part of games |
| Mediocre combat is ok if the other parts of the game, mainly the story and characters for an rpg, are good. If the combat is terrible I probably won't play it even if everything else is great, would be a bit of a chore to play through |
| bad combat should never be excused, mainly because its relatively easy to make a combat system and hard to do everything else think of all the people creating this huge world (witcher 3 for example) and all the story and background which takes so many man-hours and then you have some mediocre/crappy combat which could've been infinitely much better with several hours of thinking more and then several hours of coding more. the "combat system" is one-time thing, you create it and its done, its not like open world or story content which is big and time-consuming to make, which is why it should always be good+ |
lots of music -  |
| No it shouldn't, GAMEplay is the most important thing in a GAME. It's fucking ridiculous that so many developers still haven't realised this. |
Red_Tuesday said: sullynathan said: You guys are missing the point. You partake in so much combat in these games that you can't just ignore it. It doesn't matter of that's not the focus of the genre but the fact that it's there and it's still not done well is a problem. No it is not. Morrowind and Deus Ex have some of the weakest combat in RPGs that aren't turn based and they're still the best RPGs of all time. If the combat is weak without the world, lore and all the important stuff being proportionally better THEN it becomes a problem. But RPGs would take 10 years to develop if literally EVERYTHING was perfect. Hence, you sacrifice what's least important. Let's say two different studios with the same quality of pre-production both have 20 million bucks to make an RPG. For every million they can buy an imaginary point of quality to any aspect of their game. (Total abstraction, but follow) Company A: 5 mill to world scope and content 5 mill to voice acting 5 mill to character writing and story 4 mill to soundtrack and visuals 1 mill to systems and in-game economy/ progression combat and animation is "left over", as in, released in just a rudimentary state. Company B: 4 mill to world scope and content 4 mill to voice acting 4 mill to character writing and story 4 mill to soundtrack and visuals 3 mill to combat and animation 1 mill to systems and in-game economy/ progression Company B's game has better combat, but lost something important doing it, and as such made a worse, more unfocused game. Deus Ex is an rpg? Company B sounds like it would make the better game. |
 |
| well how about easy to understand and navigate menus? i think those are important too. |
| I think mediocre combat is inherent to RPGs because the games have to accommodate people who are more into the whole stat building thing, item management and weapon/item cycling, rather than visceral combat with a lot of mobility. A lot of buttons have to be allocated to those systems. I don't much enjoy looking at menus for half the game, being unable to jump and only having a strong and regular attack, in addition to a few obligatory spells. I also don't like having attacks that are much less effective than they should be just because of the stats. That's what I see in action RPGs. I find turn-based RPGs even lamer. To me, the action-adventure genre is far superior, but I don't see the genre utilized as effectively as I want. The broadness of the action-adventure genre allows it to borrow the best elements from different genres and leave out the worst. |
EzekielAug 12, 2015 11:37 AM
| @Red_Tuesday >combat is the least important Lolwut It doesn't even matter if it's the most or least important (which isn't true at all), it's still an aspect of the game and will be judged accordingly so. Morrowind is far from the best RPG. Baldur's Gate I and II, the KOTOR games, the Souls games and Fallout I, II and New Vegas (off the top of my head) are miles better than anything Bethesda has ever made, including Morrowind. I haven't played Deus Ex that much so I can't comment on it. I have played it for a bit but it looks like a stealth/action game with very vague RPG elements. And yeah, company B will make the better game, easily. Ezekiel said: I think mediocre combat is inherent to RPGs because the games have to accommodate people who are more into the whole stat building thing, item management and weapon/item cycling, rather than visceral combat with a lot of mobility. A lot of buttons have to be allocated to those systems. I don't much enjoy looking at menus for half the game, being unable to jump and only having a strong and regular attack, in addition to a few obligatory spells. I also don't like having attacks that are much less effective than they should be just because of the stats. That's what I see in action RPGs. I find turn-based RPGs even lamer. To me, the action-adventure genre is far superior, but I don't see the genre utilized as effectively as I want. The broadness of the action-adventure genre allows it to borrow the best elements from different genres and leave out the worst. Can you list some examples of great action-adventure games? Just curious. |
VoidlingAug 12, 2015 12:02 PM
Voidling said: Not many. Like I said, I don't see the genre used as effectively as I want. Majora's Mask is my favorite.Can you list some examples of great action-adventure games? Just curious. |
| No, the only thing that can get a pass in an RPG these days is a mediocre story as it's all been done to death, I can care less if the story is shit, but if the battle system sucks, the game sucks. |
 |
Ezekiel said: I think mediocre combat is inherent to RPGs because the games have to accommodate people who are more into the whole stat building thing, item management and weapon/item cycling, rather than visceral combat with a lot of mobility. A lot of buttons have to be allocated to those systems. I don't much enjoy looking at menus for half the game, being unable to jump and only having a strong and regular attack, in addition to a few obligatory spells. I also don't like having attacks that are much less effective than they should be just because of the stats. That's what I see in action RPGs. I find turn-based RPGs even lamer. To me, the action-adventure genre is far superior, but I don't see the genre utilized as effectively as I want. The broadness of the action-adventure genre allows it to borrow the best elements from different genres and leave out the worst. Play gothic 1 & gothic 2: night of the raven |
|
sullynathan said: Ezekiel said: I think mediocre combat is inherent to RPGs because the games have to accommodate people who are more into the whole stat building thing, item management and weapon/item cycling, rather than visceral combat with a lot of mobility. A lot of buttons have to be allocated to those systems. I don't much enjoy looking at menus for half the game, being unable to jump and only having a strong and regular attack, in addition to a few obligatory spells. I also don't like having attacks that are much less effective than they should be just because of the stats. That's what I see in action RPGs. I find turn-based RPGs even lamer. To me, the action-adventure genre is far superior, but I don't see the genre utilized as effectively as I want. The broadness of the action-adventure genre allows it to borrow the best elements from different genres and leave out the worst. Play gothic 1 & gothic 2: night of the raven The Gothic games have a great immersive world and nice difficulty, but the combat system isn't their strong point. |
 |
| Not really. As far as I know, a game is meant to be played and if the gameplay sucks then not even the story is enough to make it worth playing. |
Narmy said: sullynathan said: Play gothic 1 & gothic 2: night of the raven The Gothic games have a great immersive world and nice difficulty, but the combat system isn't their strong point. Gothic 2 had good combat but could still be improved. |
|
Voidling said: snip The Baldur's Gate and Planescape franchises are overrated by nostalgia-inflation, but I'll concede Fallout 2. Kotor can only be considered 'amazing' by pre-existing fans of the Star Wars franchise. In fact, Neverwinter Nights was a better game than KOTOR by comparison, KOTOR just had a big enough licensed fanbase to never shut up about it. |
|
| You play RPG's for the lengthy story, memorable characters, stat building, etc. If the story and characters suck in an 80 hour game, I'm not going to wanna power through it all. I don't see the point. Witcher 3's combat apparently sucks by most peoples standards, but I absolutely loved the game. Pumped 300 hours into it because of the rich questing, characters, and story environment. |
SolidusSmokeAug 13, 2015 6:14 AM
Red_Tuesday said: The Baldur's Gate and Planescape franchises are overrated by nostalgia-inflation Invalid. I played both of those games a little over a year ago and they're some of the best WRPGs I've played in my life, no nostalgia included. Also, I never mentioned Planescape Torment but I guess you can consider it better than Morrowind too, especially in the writing department. Kotor can only be considered 'amazing' by pre-existing fans of the Star Wars franchise. Not really. The games have very little in common with the movies so I can see everybody enjoying them, whether they are Star Wars fans or not. I'd say that being a SW fan just makes you appreciate the games even more. The games are very well written (especially the second one), immersive and the gameplay is well executed. That's why they are great games and some of the finest RPGs around. In fact, Neverwinter Nights was a better game than KOTOR by comparison, KOTOR just had a big enough licensed fanbase to never shut up about it. I've never played any of the Neverwinter Nights games so I can't comment on that. |
SolidusSmoke said: You play RPG's for the lengthy story, memorable characters, stat building, etc. If the story and characters suck in an 80 hour game, I'm not going to wanna power through it all. I don't see the point. Witcher 3's combat apparently sucks by most peoples standards, but I absolutely loved the game. Pumped 300 hours into it because of the rich questing, characters, and story environment. yea now imagine they put 5 hours more into making combat better ppl that "love" witcher 3 are bunch of filthy casuals. The game is "okay" but thats about it, couldve been way better |
| lots of music - |
incisorr said: SolidusSmoke said: You play RPG's for the lengthy story, memorable characters, stat building, etc. If the story and characters suck in an 80 hour game, I'm not going to wanna power through it all. I don't see the point. Witcher 3's combat apparently sucks by most peoples standards, but I absolutely loved the game. Pumped 300 hours into it because of the rich questing, characters, and story environment. yea now imagine they put 5 hours more into making combat better ppl that "love" witcher 3 are bunch of filthy casuals. The game is "okay" but thats about it, couldve been way better Personally, I actually liked the combat. Filthy casual? What does that even mean? Not cool to toss a blanket statement over every single person that enjoyed a game. |
| the combat is horrible and a waste of the world/settings/characters in witcher, i explained why in my first post, mainly because its easy to do good combat and the rest not so much filthy casual means someone with no experience or even proper expectations shoving his opinion and trying to brainwash the world / game devs you cant say "< xx game is good > " if you haven't seen at least a dozen games so you have some base to judge properly whats good and whats bad because humans in general are easily impressed by stuff like this, if you see a dog play football you'd be impressed and go around promoting it and giving it popularity but it turns out theres a dog that can play football while cooking omlette at the same time which you've never heard about so now you're spamming your propaganda over the world and the pro dog doesnt get noticed because of zerg of opinions of the other dog that was better advertised and isnt actually better thats it more or less |
| lots of music - |
| To each his own. I think it's worthy of all it's praise. And.. I've been gaming since you were still in diapers! So your "filthy casual" statement doesn't apply to me. =P |
SolidusSmoke said: You play RPG's for the lengthy story, memorable characters, stat building, etc. If the story and characters suck in an 80 hour game, I'm not going to wanna power through it all. I don't see the point. Witcher 3's combat apparently sucks by most peoples standards, but I absolutely loved the game. Pumped 300 hours into it because of the rich questing, characters, and story environment. Truthfully, the rpg's I've played have greatly been greatly varied. Take Witcher 2 for example, at the shortest I beat it in over 12 hours with all quests completed and the best gear. I wouldn't call that lengthy. Also, these games are action rpgs and you engage in a lot of combat and TW2 combat wasn't very good. I've played enough rpg's to tell when the combat works well in the context of said game. incisorr said: SolidusSmoke said: You play RPG's for the lengthy story, memorable characters, stat building, etc. If the story and characters suck in an 80 hour game, I'm not going to wanna power through it all. I don't see the point. Witcher 3's combat apparently sucks by most peoples standards, but I absolutely loved the game. Pumped 300 hours into it because of the rich questing, characters, and story environment. yea now imagine they put 5 hours more into making combat better ppl that "love" witcher 3 are bunch of filthy casuals. The game is "okay" but thats about it, could've been way better I haven't played Witcher 3 but it seems that a lot of the people and "critics" that praised it didn't actually play many rpg's, or non-Bethesda open world rpgs, or even Witcher 1 |
|
sullynathan said: I haven't played Witcher 3 but it seems that a lot of the people and "critics" that praised it didn't actually play many rpg's, or non-Bethesda open world rpgs, or even Witcher 1 Agreed. |
Voidling said: sullynathan said: I haven't played Witcher 3 but it seems that a lot of the people and "critics" that praised it didn't actually play many rpg's, or non-Bethesda open world rpgs, or even Witcher 1 Agreed. Played a lot of RPG's, think Witcher 3 is great. But, even if that wasn't the case, this is so clearly flawed logic it's kind of funny. It's also annoyingly arrogant. |
| "Yes, I have been deprived of emotion. But not completely. Whoever did it, botched the job." - Geralt of Rivia |
sullynathan said: I haven't played Witcher 3 but it seems that a lot of the people and "critics" that praised it didn't actually play many rpg's, or non-Bethesda open world rpgs, or even Witcher 1 TW3 has sold approximately 5 million copies by now and yet you think a large chunk of them weren't previously accustomed to RPGs? Unless someone has actually done a study on this, any one persons personal observation isn't going to cover more than a few hundred people at most out of 5 million total. It's a trivial portion. Furthermore it wouldn't matter if they weren't, even if they went on to play other games that they liked more, it would have to actually change their opinion of the game to the point they think it's bad in order for your argument to matter. Many of the most critically acclaimed RPGs have mediocre combat and honestly many of the ones that don't are either JRPGs (Tales of, Star Ocean, Souls) or indie (Bastion/Transistor). It's fine to not like games with mediocre combat but unless the standard for gaming reaches a point where every section of a game is nearly flawless, it's all subjective. Putting focus on the combat in most cases means that other aspects will suffer because of time and budget which means asking for better combat in most cases means asking for the story, characters, customization or some other aspect to suffer. The market as it is right now has plenty of RPGs for people who want mostly combat, mostly story or a mix of the two and it's better that way then to say that every RPG should be suited to the taste of just one of those groups of people. |
insan3Inquisitor said: Voidling said: Agreed. Played a lot of RPG's, think Witcher 3 is great. But, even if that wasn't the case, this is so clearly flawed logic it's kind of funny. It's also annoyingly arrogant. I am arrogant. I don't think the logic is that flawed. I've read a number of Witcher 3 reviews and some don't even compare the game to Witcher 1. It's almost like they forgot the game existed or they didn't play it. Thalos said: sullynathan said: I haven't played Witcher 3 but it seems that a lot of the people and "critics" that praised it didn't actually play many rpg's, or non-Bethesda open world rpgs, or even Witcher 1 TW3 has sold approximately 5 million copies by now and yet you think a large chunk of them weren't previously accustomed to RPGs? Unless someone has actually done a study on this, any one persons personal observation isn't going to cover more than a few hundred people at most out of 5 million total. It's a trivial portion. Furthermore it wouldn't matter if they weren't, even if they went on to play other games that they liked more, it would have to actually change their opinion of the game to the point they think it's bad in order for your argument to matter. Many of the most critically acclaimed RPGs have mediocre combat and honestly many of the ones that don't are either JRPGs (Tales of, Star Ocean, Souls) or indie (Bastion/Transistor). It's fine to not like games with mediocre combat but unless the standard for gaming reaches a point where every section of a game is nearly flawless, it's all subjective. Putting focus on the combat in most cases means that other aspects will suffer because of time and budget which means asking for better combat in most cases means asking for the story, characters, customization or some other aspect to suffer. The market as it is right now has plenty of RPGs for people who want mostly combat, mostly story or a mix of the two and it's better that way then to say that every RPG should be suited to the taste of just one of those groups of people. Of course I don't think most of them are previously accustomed to rpg's, and if they were it is probably Skyrim since that was the game Witcher 3 was heavily compared to. Witcher 3 was heavily advertised as an open world game, sort of like how Skyrim was. A lot of people got into the game expecting Skyrim 2, if you look around the internet you will see this. Hell Skyrim sold so much more than Oblivion and Fallout 3 by being marketed the same way. Skyrim sold like 15 million copies, how many single rpg's do numbers like that? Open World games are the it genre right now. You advertise your game by saying you can go anywhere, do anything and the world is large and "will have over 200 hours worth of content" then people will eat it up. I can bet you Fallout 4 will sell outrageous amounts of copies too, I don't even remember Bethsoft calling it an rpg in their E3 Presentation. Then these developers need to improve the combat system in their games. These AAA devs have a large enough budget to do better especially when their games sell so well in comparison to rpg's of yesteryear. |
|
| I don't believe good stories and good combat are necessarily more expensive or costly than The Witcher 3. You don't need thousands of lines of dialogue and motion-captured custscenes to tell a good story. A story can be simple or visual. Was The Witcher 3 good because there was a lot of talking? I found much of it uninteresting and I often picked the options that would get me through the conversations faster. The cost of good combat can be mitigated with proper planning. The Witcher 3 has a lot of animations, but Geralt still controls horribly and his actions are quite limited. |
EzekielAug 13, 2015 9:19 PM
sullynathan said: Then these developers need to improve the combat system in their games. These AAA devs have a large enough budget to do better especially when their games sell so well in comparison to rpg's of yesteryear. I wouldn't call CDProjekt a AAA developer even though TW3 has the presentation of one. They only had a little over 200 employees where as companies like Blizzard have over 4,000, Bioware about 1,000 and Ubisoft has over 9,000. sullynathan said: I can bet you Fallout 4 will sell outrageous amounts of copies too, I don't even remember Bethsoft calling it an rpg in their E3 Presentation. Any heavily marketed western RPG can do well and while I'm sure Fallout 4 will do well too, it will still owe some thanks to the fanbase that it established from Fallout 3 and NV, both of which exceeded 5 million lifetime sales each. The same can be said for TW3 owing some thanks to TW2 which had lifetime sales of over 1 million copies. A lot of people who bought 2 also bought 3 and a lot of the people who bought 2 did it because they were looking for RPGs. Ezekiel said: I don't believe good stories and good combat are necessarily more expensive or costly than The Witcher 3. You don't need thousands of lines of dialogue and motion-captured custscenes to tell a good story. A story can be simple or visual. Was The Witcher 3 good because there was a lot of talking? I found much of it uninteresting and I often picked the options that would get me through the conversations faster. The cost of good combat can be mitigated with proper planning. The Witcher 3 has a lot of animations, but Geralt still controls horribly and his actions are quite limited. You're saying TW3 had poor story/dialogue but I don't think that's a prevailing opinion at all. I found it quite good. As well as the voice acting and atmosphere. The only thing I can hold against it is that I think TW2 had better choices and often more interesting outcomes. But there are things in TW3 that I feel other games could learn from such as presentation, atmosphere and the way quests and characters linked together or the way you'd find extra details or clues about a quest if you looked somewhere just a little out of the way, that could change your perspective of the quest itself. While I would have liked the last point to be expanded and used even more than it was, I have to say the fact it did it at all was a very fun part of the game. Again, compare a game like Dark Souls with a game like Witcher 3. On one hand you have Dark Souls, a game that has tight and precise controls that is all about timing and learning the enemy patterns and the game itself has absolutely no story presented upfront (though some very interesting and engaging lore through items and its use of visuals), the core appeal of the game is overcoming the challenges that are presented through its combat and exploration. Now on the other hand you have Witcher 3, which is an open world game about finding secrets, completing quests and experiencing the story and making your own choices to see where they'll eventually take you. The combat itself is very much separate from the rest of the game (in fact, the game quite literally locks you out of doing pretty much anything other than combat once you've entered it until you run out of aggro range or kill whatever you've aggroed), the combat controls can be clunky and don't really mesh with the rest of the game because of that very obvious lockout of non combat mechanics. It does feel like a side element, but it's still serviceable. Of course the game would be even better if it had tighter combat, but it already has reason enough to buy it for its story and characters, just like Dark Souls has reason enough to buy it for its combat and doesn't need (and in my opinion, would suffer from) adding a bunch of in-your-face story. The good thing is fans of one don't have to be fans of the other and nobody is forced to enjoy the merits of both. At the end of the day if the question was "would you like every RPG to have good combat?" I think you'd have to be crazy to say no. But I think it's a pretty spoiled opinion to think that no matter how much time is put into a world, story or cast of characters the combat should be just as good as a game that skimped on those aspects and focused solely on combat. If we were to unanimously put a single aspect of gaming so far above the rest, developers would no longer have reason to spend time making the other aspects good, because they'd see very little return for their time and money. Because everyone would be hung up on whether or not that one single aspect is good or not. |
| Even when the combat system is stellar, I'm still just playing for the story that's being told. Combat will always be second to me in an RPG. I value an engaging narrative, characters and atmosphere so much more. And to be honest... I've never really found myself nitpicking at the combat system in an RPG. Maybe because I know what to expect from the genre going into it? |
| [quote=Thalos] sullynathan said: Then these developers need to improve the combat system in their games. These AAA devs have a large enough budget to do better especially when their games sell so well in comparison to rpg's of yesteryear. I wouldn't call CDProjekt a AAA developer even though TW3 has the presentation of one. They only had a little over 200 employees where as companies like Blizzard have over 4,000, Bioware about 1,000 and Ubisoft has over 9,000. sullynathan said: I can bet you Fallout 4 will sell outrageous amounts of copies too, I don't even remember Bethsoft calling it an rpg in their E3 Presentation. Any heavily marketed western RPG can do well and while I'm sure Fallout 4 will do well too, it will still owe some thanks to the fanbase that it established from Fallout 3 and NV, both of which exceeded 5 million lifetime sales each. The same can be said for TW3 owing some thanks to TW2 which had lifetime sales of over 1 million copies. A lot of people who bought 2 also bought 3 and a lot of the people who bought 2 did it because they were looking for RPGs. Witcher 3 sold more than Witcher 1 & 2 combined. A lot and I mean a lot of people bought this game because it was advertised as a Skyrim killer and it was a new large "living open world". AAA means that it had a high budget and high levels of promotion which Witcher 3 has and it's a best seller of the year so it was AAA game by a AAA developer. |
|
sullynathan said: Witcher 3 sold more than Witcher 1 & 2 combined. A lot and I mean a lot of people bought this game because it was advertised as a Skyrim killer and it was a new large "living open world". AAA means that it had a high budget and high levels of promotion which Witcher 3 has and it's a best seller of the year so it was AAA game by a AAA developer. Sequels tend to outsell their predecessors as a result of building a fanbase which in turn helps spread word of mouth and with the success of each title, more money can be put into marketing and shiny graphics to attract more customers. Fallout NV outsold 3. Fallout 3 outsold Fallout 2. Fallout 4 is going to outsell NV. The same happened between Skyrim, Oblivion and Morrowind. Keep in mind that year after year, gaming becomes more and more "mainstream" and 5 million sales 15 years ago would be mindblowing success where as today it's about the average of a high budget game. TW3 used its time and money extremely wisely and the game had a total budget (including marketing, which actually exceeded the cost of the game itself) of about 60-65 million dollars. Compare with some other games: Skyrim - 85 million dollars. Tomb Raider (considered a failure by SE at/until 7 million copies sold) - 100 million dollars. Average CoD game - 200 million dollars. GTA5 - 250 million dollars. Destiny - 500 million dollars. Not only does it lag behind a lot of AAA games in budget, but the entire company itself has a little over 200 employees, not all of which worked on TW3 as Cyberpunk 2077 was still being developed on the side as they continued work on TW3. Money isn't everything. With a smaller team working on a project you can get more focus and consistency, but you aren't going to have a world as large as TW3 that is reasonably dynamic and still have had time to perfect every feature. |
Thalos said: sullynathan said: Witcher 3 sold more than Witcher 1 & 2 combined. A lot and I mean a lot of people bought this game because it was advertised as a Skyrim killer and it was a new large "living open world". AAA means that it had a high budget and high levels of promotion which Witcher 3 has and it's a best seller of the year so it was AAA game by a AAA developer. Sequels tend to outsell their predecessors as a result of building a fanbase which in turn helps spread word of mouth and with the success of each title, more money can be put into marketing and shiny graphics to attract more customers. Fallout NV outsold 3. Fallout 3 outsold Fallout 2. Fallout 4 is going to outsell NV. The same happened between Skyrim, Oblivion and Morrowind. Keep in mind that year after year, gaming becomes more and more "mainstream" and 5 million sales 15 years ago would be mindblowing success where as today it's about the average of a high budget game. TW3 used its time and money extremely wisely and the game had a total budget (including marketing, which actually exceeded the cost of the game itself) of about 60-65 million dollars. Compare with some other games: Skyrim - 85 million dollars. Tomb Raider (considered a failure by SE at/until 7 million copies sold) - 100 million dollars. Average CoD game - 200 million dollars. GTA5 - 250 million dollars. Destiny - 500 million dollars. Not only does it lag behind a lot of AAA games in budget, but the entire company itself has a little over 200 employees, not all of which worked on TW3 as Cyberpunk 2077 was still being developed on the side as they continued work on TW3. Money isn't everything. With a smaller team working on a project you can get more focus and consistency, but you aren't going to have a world as large as TW3 that is reasonably dynamic and still have had time to perfect every feature. You can't compare Witcher 3 budget with some other games that have super high budgets. You should have compared it to an average AAA game which the budget fits. Most companies don't use all their staff on one game either. I doubt new vegas outsold fallout 3. |
|
sullynathan said: Most companies don't use all their staff on one game either. I doubt new vegas outsold fallout 3. Which is why having a large staff helps. Unless you think a studio with 5000 employees is working on 25 games simultaneously. I doubt anyone has exact sales figures but both 3 and NV sold over 5 million, but NV reached that point faster. So I imagine it's maintained a lead. |
Thalos said: sullynathan said: Most companies don't use all their staff on one game either. I doubt new vegas outsold fallout 3. Which is why having a large staff helps. Unless you think a studio with 5000 employees is working on 25 games simultaneously. I doubt anyone has exact sales figures but both 3 and NV sold over 5 million, but NV reached that point faster. So I imagine it's maintained a lead. VG Chartz is a good enough website for tracking sales. Going by their sales figures, Fallout 3 has almost 10 million copies in sales while New Vegas has almost 8 million. |
|
sullynathan said: Thalos said: Which is why having a large staff helps. Unless you think a studio with 5000 employees is working on 25 games simultaneously. I doubt anyone has exact sales figures but both 3 and NV sold over 5 million, but NV reached that point faster. So I imagine it's maintained a lead. VG Chartz is a good enough website for tracking sales. Going by their sales figures, Fallout 3 has almost 10 million copies in sales while New Vegas has almost 8 million. VGChartz has extremely varied accuracy, sometimes it's spot on and sometimes it's half a million copies off. So you could be right, but I wouldn't trust it as a source. I used to use it but there's a reason I stopped. |
More topics from this board
» 2 questions about Danganronpa seriesBright_Horn - 2 hours ago |
1 |
by Timeline_man
»»
48 minutes ago |
|
» Gacha SurveyShizuna - Apr 11 |
46 |
by 0arche
»»
3 hours ago |
|
» What's the funnest local multiplayer game with friends.SnipeStrike - Apr 16 |
9 |
by FanofAction
»»
6 hours ago |
|
» Rarest/Coolest gaming related things you own.SnipeStrike - 10 hours ago |
3 |
by Theo1899
»»
8 hours ago |
|
» What are you playing right now? (v2) ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )anime-prime - Oct 4, 2020 |
3503 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
12 hours ago |