Does our feedback matter one bit to Blizz Writers?

[Turalyon]

You're using Fallout 3 as an example of epic singleplayer. Hey, I'm looking for my father, a middle aged man, maybe you've seen him?

WoL is shakespear compared to FO3.

Maybe he's referring to New Vegas?

[pure.Wasted]

Maybe he's referring to New Vegas?

No, I meant vanilla.

Louis, I'm surprised you'd pick on FO3 with Heavy Rain in that mix. My point clearly was not that all of these games succeeded, but rather that they were totally single player and they were a hit with the fans and the critics.

The poster I was responding to suggested that there is no longer a market for single player games. I respectfully disagree. First, because a game can gain points for its "story" even when its plot sucks (because story is not only plot); second, because crappy plots getting good marks for single player doesn't mean that GREAT plots won't get BETTER marks for single player.

The market for great single player stories is very clearly there.

[Louis]

Yeah sorry, I just really enjoy bashing FO3 for some reason. To be fair to Betheshda they have some so bad it's good moments, but I don't know if they were intentional or not.

I don't own a PS3.

FO3 was a hit with it's fans? Well the Betheshda lovers ate it up, so you may be half right. The other half of the fans got what tehy wanted with New Vegas, which was made possible by Betheshda putting Obsidian in charge.

As for the market... I don't know if it's been a net gain or loss. Over the years, CoD has been pressuring everyone into MP, and EA said something to the effect of "Single player games are a thing of the past." which doesn't bode terribly well for Bioware and the numerous SP properties under their belt. On the other hand Betheshda and Obsidian are barely capable of scraping a fun SP game together let alone MP, Taleworlds are still cranking out fun adventure games, possible challengers have emerged from The Witcher and Batman... but like I said, the SP purity has been taking terrible terrible damage in the meantime, so who really knows.

single player games are finished says EA

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/12/09/ru...ll-include-mu/

[Turalyon]

My point clearly was not that all of these games succeeded, but rather that they were totally single player and they were a hit with the fans and the critics.

The poster I was responding to suggested that there is no longer a market for single player games. I respectfully disagree. First, because a game can gain points for its "story" even when its plot sucks (because story is not only plot); second, because crappy plots getting good marks for single player doesn't mean that GREAT plots won't get BETTER marks for single player.

The market for great single player stories is very clearly there.

There will always be a market for single-player games provided there's a 'gimmick' associated with its presentation, setting, gameplay or whatever. Bioshock and Fo3 have the conceit of being FPS which everybody seems to love whilst Mass Effect has RPG elements which people like. Heavy Rain has the interaction and the feeling of control over the story.

However, I'm not sure that there is a (big) market for single-player games touting story (in the strictest sense) alone as the 'gimmick'. Just look at the decline of adventure games - how many adventure games in recent times do you know of are doing great business (and which aren't throwbacks to nostalgia - Monkey Island, Sam & Max) compared to more mainstream FPS, RPG, etc? Heavy Rain, I guess is an exception to this, but is it doing well because of its story being the selling point or is it because it's a novelty/ curiosity that shines amongst all the other FPS, RPG and simulation games out there? If the main reason why Heavy Rain sold because of its "story", how come there is still no resurgance of similarly themed games afterwards?

[GnaReffotsirk]

Turalyon, I think it's about the fast-paced thing. Or the 3-minute rule.

[pure.Wasted]

However, I'm not sure that there is a (big) market for single-player games touting story (in the strictest sense) alone as the 'gimmick'. Just look at the decline of adventure games - how many adventure games in recent times do you know of are doing great business (and which aren't throwbacks to nostalgia - Monkey Island, Sam & Max) compared to more mainstream FPS, RPG, etc? Heavy Rain, I guess is an exception to this, but is it doing well because of its story being the selling point or is it because it's a novelty/ curiosity that shines amongst all the other FPS, RPG and simulation games out there? If the main reason why Heavy Rain sold because of its "story", how come there is still no resurgance of similarly themed games afterwards?

Maybe I should grab a Firebat suit for this, but...

Have you considered that adventure games might have died out as a genre because they deserved to? Traditional ones, that is. A similar argument came about during SC2's alpha/beta days, when someone said that they lamented the inclusion of RPG elements in the meta-campaign and it didn't feel "traditional," to which I said that traditional RTS's simply don't have a right to exist now that superior technology is there to allow us to do what we couldn't in the past. There's no reason not to create these hybrids that allow for more in-depth characterization.

Same thing for adventure games. Concepts like pixel hunting, mashing random items together in the hope that they'll produce some illogical, contrived effect, reading paragraphs of exposition on the game's background just to complete some puzzle... they aren't goods in and of themselves, they were simply limited tools of a limited technological era.

Just as there's no reason not to create an RTS/RPG hybrid in the vein of SC2, there's no reason not to create an adventure/FPS hybrid in the vein of Fallout 3 (which isn't to say that's the best mix of adventure/FPS, or that it was a game; I didn't say SC2 is the best mix of RTS/RPG, either), or adventure/action in the vein of Arkham Asylum, or adventure/horror in the vein of Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth.

Why are so many other games playing it safe? For the same reason that Transformers 2 broke box office records. Just because Transformers 2 worked doesn't mean movies like The Dark Knight or No Country for Old Men can't work better, or that audiences aren't waiting with anticipation. These just happen to take a lot more effort.

[Turalyon]

Have you considered that adventure games might have died out as a genre because they deserved to?

Of course. I was NOT advocating that SC or any other game should have just stuck to their roots. As you pointed out, it's a fast track to stagnation and eventually lead to indifference to people who should buy it.

All I was trying to say is that if people really wanted to buy games based solely on the story, traditional adventure games (where story would be supposedly 'king') would not have died out.

Why are so many other games playing it safe? For the same reason that Transformers 2 broke box office records. Just because Transformers 2 worked doesn't mean movies like The Dark Knight or No Country for Old Men can't work better, or that audiences aren't waiting with anticipation. These just happen to take a lot more effort.

You've tapped into something here. But I'd say that SC2 is a safe bet for Blizz in some ways - there's nothing really that innovative in the campaign that other games haven't already tried already (ie: upgrades for units after missions). Most of the other riskier things, like that Star Map and having dialogue choices, never made it into the game. They tried to experiment but it was half-assed in the end. The whole concept of RTS/RPG hybrid was done with Warcraft 3 and that worked better than what WoL came up with.

Still, the name "Starcraft 2" was always going to be a sure-fire winner no matter what Blizzard did. If they truly wanted to experiment, they'd of started a new IP by now instead of riffing on their only 3 IPs to death.

[SinsWage]

While PW and Tura make great points I think the real reason we're seeing a decline in story only games is because it provides zero incentive to keep a game around. Game publishers are at war with the used game market and they are doing everything they can to keep copies of games in your house. Decent multiplayer is a huge component in doing that as is well crafted dlc, to a lesser extent. As the whole scheme of license purchasing catches, and by that I mean once you buy a game it is tied to an account and can never be used by anyone else since the license is nontransferable, and publishers get to keep all the money each sale generates they will be willing to take more chances. As it stands now games with no multiplayer component are sold and resold many times over and the suits just don't want to take the risk.

[RussianSpy27]

@Pure.Wasted,

What would you think of a "Grim Fandango 2" with similar gameplay and hyped up graphics? I would play it in a heartbeat without considering that type of a game as having deserved to die out, or have I misinterpreted your example?

[hyde]

@Purewasted. I agree from a fan perspective with what you say. Blizzard should do their own thing.
But as a consumer and fan now - it feels like they are selling out since the Activision merger with WoW Success. Although they hold no accountability to anyone, the executives still get paid via stock options....easy way to drive up their stock price? Sell 25$ mounts on WoW, trilogize their games, cut budgets, etc.

Please just at least read the following quote, and the 2nd link. Yes they have boycotted it.


http://kotaku.com/5688166/hey-korea-...n-starcraft-ii
http://www.next-gen.biz/features/the...ft-ii?page=0,2

Even so, the numbers playing in PC baangs (net cafes) have been lower than expected, with only two to three per cent of Korean gamers playing SCII in the month after it was released. It’s a tiny number given that Korea is perceived as StarCraft’s home market, that the game was released in time for the school holidays, and that it launched with a $30m ad campaign. In fact, StarCraft II’s three-million-plus sales have been mainly in the wes

-EDGE Staff (Second link)

P.S. I edited this. I was just in a bad mood - not to mention I'm guilty of what I wrote haha. I feel that I should apologize for calling you naive. You have some valid points that I agree with deep down, but at this rate - Blizzard's size and what not is beginning to hit their old core audience. Nothing ever really gets "this big" and not lose something along the way.