fuckle85

1 hour ago, crispy4000 said:

Never implied they weren't.  I was speaking about discussion, not brand recognition.


Do these franchises generate continual internet talk proportionate to their success?  Not typically.  You said that yourself about CoD.  People are still constantly talking about these franchises, but its mostly in dedicated communities siphoned off from the larger gaming audience.

Popular perception elsewhere online can also shift: in others stereotyping the playerbase, extolling a competitor, criticizing monetization, etc.  At the end of the day, there's still a ton of people coming back to them games as devoted fans.  Different strokes for different folks.


That's one of the many problems of placing too much emphasis on the Internet's opinion at large.  Not everyone will have the patience for the same games.  Tastes are a selective thing.  At least with sales, we have a better metric on what has broader appeal.
 

A vocal minority is not, by definition, "indicative of the overall opinion."  There's times it is, but IMO, you're mistaken to place this much emphasis on it with how often it's off the mark.  (ie: sales vs forum discussion)

 

The other problem here is that you're trying to broaden the online reaction to such a degree to where there is no emergent voice.
 

Lumping Era+Gaf+Reddit+Twitter+Twitch+Facebook+Discord+whatever else togther... it's all going to get very murky.  Full of subnetworks/circles that don't interact much with a larger collective about the game.  And differing majority/minority opinions across outlets. 

What "doesn't seems like it has a lot of hype" is most definitely the result of how you percieve social bubble you interact with.  But if I've tried to make any point in this thread, it's that when game is discussed a lot, viewed a lot, and pre-ordered a lot, it has appeal and can be expected to sell a lot.

Reviews, message board reactions, enthusiast repution, etc, hardly is factor into its initial success at launch if all the above is there, and the game isn't a dumpster fire.  Or at least a bigger one than Anthem.

 

I've never said that sales alone account for a game's reputation.  But I do know that with franchises like CoD, there's many more people enjoying them than most other retail games in a given year.

In a nutshell, I take issue with the degree you've overstated the importance of internet reputation to "success" for highly marketed and highly discussed games.

*perception that louder voices are indicative of general opinion.  

Also the fact that popular perception shifts is implied in the phrasing of the term itself, so no need to explain.  As I've mentioned earlier,  I'm know that press coverage, discussion and the quality of the actual game more than anything tend to determine how it shifts. 

Reviews, message board reactions, "enthusiast" reputation (whatever that means), etc, don't necessarily determine how successful a game can be, but they can indicate it, as we saw with Anthem and Mass Effect Andromeda and see with games that generate lots of buzz like Spider-man and RDR.  Call i the hype effect or the "this game looks like trash" effect or whatever you'd like,  sometimes it can and does happen and is easily observable and can be predicted via reactions online (from streamers, reviewers and anyone else).  Andromeda wasn't even that bad, nor was Mass Effect 3's ending, but here we are in an existence where 3's ending was retconned because of fan disappointment and the entire series is on hiatus now for probably several reasons including the inability of Andromeda matching the expectations from buyers that was building up since the third game.  

I know that popular opinion and the opinion of all consumers are not particularly useful when discussing the merits of games, but I'm a) somewhat cynical and feel skeptical that most video game players have the critical thinking skills to be aware of this and/or have the most discerning palettes (which might explain why so many endless early access janky steam games often sell as much as they do imho) and b) pretty sure much of the game industry agrees with me and looks at reactions to their games online even if for no other reason than to get marketing data (but follow enough lead devs on twitter or on Era and you realize sometimes genuine feedback, depending on how it's articulated and from whom, is gained as well). 

Anywho, if your main point is that when a game is discussed a lot, viewed a lot and shows that it has appeal and sales potential, that it's only from marketing data pulled from surveys and focus testing in real life and that the discussions of it on social media and active gaming and entertainment boards (some of which developers themselves post on) aren't considered as well, than I think you're understating how influential reviews and online discussions about a game can be.  But if you concede that marketing data via stuff like focus testing is often prioritized while streamer and reviewer impressions, online discussions and the quality of the game itself all simultaneously can contribute to both short and long term success of a game, then you actually agree with me. 

Either way I'm gonna leave it at that because this thread really is getting kinda derailed rn and holy shit is this a boring subject to debate.

6 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

What evidence?  We’ve seen public outcry on forums, twitter, etc, be a mismatch for sales for many times this gen.  Watch Dogs.  Both Battlefront games.  Mass Effect Andromeda.  Sea of Theives.  Etc.

 

We’ve seen games that didn’t get discussed often on gaming sites sell gangbusters.  Wildlands.  Madden.  CoD WW2.  LoL.  Minecraft.  Etc.

 

Not to mention almost the entire F2P market.  A lot of game communities out there that pretty much only converse with themselves.  If they’re motivated to post at all.  There’s tons of revenue being generated there.

 

You seem to dismiss the idea of a vocal critical minority.  I’m convinced at this point that the general public isn’t as nitpicky or loud as the enthusiasts.  It only makes sense, as it’s played out time and time again.  To make a counterarguement, we need better evidence that the vocal opinion can reliably reflect takeaways of those who don’t comment.  Or who might be drowned out by the enthusiasts.

 

Now we're gonna act like Madden, CoD, LoL and Minecraft aren't popular games that everyone knows about? Ok.  

I'm not dismissive of fact that there is a vocal minority out there (the perception that the louder voices which are critical of a game are indicative of the overall opinion about a game).  I just don't think it's accurate to say the reaction online as a whole, from all the active gaming boards like Era and Gaf to Reddit and all the social media platforms from Twitter to Twitch, is that of a vocal critical minority or whatever.  Maybe on a single message board or social media platform alone, but not the entire internet.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that the reaction to Mass Effect 3's ending online was negative, so the ending was changed, just like I don't think it was a coincidence that there were some short term PR issues No Man's Sky team had to contend with after the fiasco with the rage on steam, or that ME:A and the studio that made it are no longer slated to make another one after the backlash that was shown online. And arguing that sales alone account for a game's reputation ignores that and the fact that CoD Infinite Warfare and Advanced Warfare, the top selling games of their years, get put on sale faster and in the bigger picture aren't talked about as much as a God of War or Red Dead Redemption.  But again, this argument can go on forever because we're arguing over something in which data that proves one of us completely wrong is elusive. There are examples that a game had tons of sales success when impressions online indicated otherwise, and vice versa.  These things are sometimes hard to predict, sometimes not. Ultimately though, it seems pretty clear that public perception, sales and critical reception ALL have impact on a game's success and can influence each other and the long and/or short term success of a game, and that's what my point is, so I'm confused as to why anyone would seem to take a position against it.

5 hours ago, Duderino said:

How does your argument account for Watch Dogs, Ghost Recon Wildlands, No Man Sky, Mafia III, etc?  What do you make of Days Gone's current success on the Amazon charts?  Seems only fair to consider all the evidence, right?

I think your point is very applicable to games going from bad (little to no buzz) to worse (widespread negativity), but I do question how well it fits here.

Well, don't remember making a claim with certainty about how much success Days Gone's would have other than saying it doesn't seem like it has a lot of hype, and that short term and/or long term success isn't guaranteed so I hope it does well. I guess that's a controversial statement though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

3 hours ago, Duderino said:

There are ample concrete examples in this thread of AAA tittles smeared online, far worse than anything thrown at Days Gone, that performed way better than message boards, youtubers, articles, and even reviews would indicate.  If there is a strong correlation, why has it failed to make a sizable difference on soo many occasions?   

 

Which brings us to Days Gone.  

Why would its success be any more at the whim of internet negativity?  Is a hot take like “gamers are sick of zombies” really enough to burry Days Gone’s future?

I dunno, tbh I'm kinda over this debate having presented what I feel is enough evidence to back up my argument.

Now I'm just fascinated by all the freudian slips in your post here. 

1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

Is this intended to be a reaction to my last post? 

Dang, ya got me, buddy.

I do kinda feel like rewatching this again though

4 hours ago, Man of Culture said:

People play games like Souls or Monster Hunter for the challenge, for the struggle and to revel in victory against seemingly impossible odds. It's the same reason people play insane bullet hell shooters or try the hardest possible songs in beat saber. There is value in struggle and overcoming what you once thought to be an impossible task. There is value in the physical and mental improvement people go through when playing these games. What people like you seem to forget is that struggle and learning from failure brings satisfaction once they improve enough to see a payoff for their investment. It's a massive fucking hit of dopamine.

4 hours ago, number305 said:

I think the two sides that are having this argument in this thread have different views of video games.

 

Some people view games like children's toys.  They are there to amuse you and to have fun with.  And that is certainly true with many video games.

 

The other viewpoint is that video games can be elevated to an art form.  If this is your point of view then as a developer you would want your art to be experienced as you intended and not have other modes forced into your art by outside forces. 

4 hours ago, Man of Culture said:

 

From games definitely fall into the latter.

Sometimes methinks we take video games too seriously.  The best games are mindblowing serotonin rushes, possibly even helpful in treating mental illness and improving problem solving skills and hand-eye coordination.  Video games offer experiences that stave off boredom in social situations (multiplayer games, party games) and/or gifting the opportunity to have and share experiences that would never be possible in real life: Traveling through interstellar space, fighting robot dinosaurs, assuming the role of a badass shinobi, walking through and interacting with each other's dreams, etc.

But most developers, critical darlings included, refuse to say that the purpose of the games they make fulfills the same potential of art.  Not to sound like an art master, but as I understand art is usually intended as a political statement via the emotional expression of the artist who uses talent to articulate a philosophy for the purpose of engaging with the viewer/listener/ect to achieve the result of a better and more widespread understanding of said philosophy.  Games can do this as well, and FromSoft is an example of this, but for the most part the medium of video games is kinda inherently designed as escapist entertainment more than a medium comprehensibly suitable for disruptive, serious political statements that lead to personal growth.

Long story short, it's just games bro, and that's ok!

FromSoft is an interesting case since their games being hard is systemic of a core philosophy of their game design and in service to the high amount of focus and button inputting required for players to succeed in combat and make progress. How it's possible make games like that more accessible to anyone with physical disabilities is a complicated discussion to have.  I kinda wonder if easier difficulty modes might not be as ideal as making their games compatible with peripherals that are designed around various needs of someone physically disabilities (as opposed to the controllers that are packaged in with consoles).

13 hours ago, Duderino said:

 

I’d agree that Streams and Lets Plays are having a notable impact when it comes to promoting additional sales.

 

But media that is fueled primarily by criticism and concerns, whether it’s overtly negative articles phishing for clicks, dramatic YouTubers seeking self-affirmation, or drive-by comments on gaming forums or social media, very little if it ever reaches a wide enough audience to make an impact.  Why?  Because the appeal of this content only resonates with a very small, insular group of consumers.

 

The negative voices collectively amount to a drop in a bucket compared to the impact of positive buzz.

I think this is an optimistic but potentially inaccurate take.  It's easy to see a message boards thread and the amount of complaining and nitpicking and chalk it up to  "just insulated messageboard culture", but when you're talking about a large accumulative userbase across multiple boards and social media platforms and opinions expressed from various corners of the world, it seems possible to me the internet response to games can be indicative enough of offline reactions as well, and there's not much evidence I'm aware of that contradicts this.  Do you have proof this isn't the case?

Also I don't think "a drop in the bucket" accurately describes the extent to which the attitudes of complaining/entitlement/non-constructive criticism/passions/etc you see everywhere on the internet may both reflect and influence the sales and potential cultural impact of games unless you're referring to the far more extreme and toxic subcultures in gaming, which ARE a vocal minority and are definitely not perspectives considered by most of the industry, or even entertained on most of the popular message boards, at least not as much these days. 

But there's still a prevalence in other various reactions online, negative or otherwise that you see among game consumers, and game studios still on some level consider these reactions when making their products since one of their main goals is to please a broad audience.

That said, unless there's actual quantitative data that can pinpoint the extent of how influential consumer reaction is and how much that, along with streams and professional reviews, impact financial success and cultural impact of a games, we're mostly just a bunch of dudes on a message board speculating here.  

One thing that does seem to be pretty clear though is the quality of the game itself can significantly determine how successful critically, culturally and financially it will be, but sometimes this isn't the case either.  

On 4/6/2019 at 1:01 PM, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

6 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

And I'll summarize my thoughts to this... Forums and message boards and even reviews do not significantly represent the public's response or reception to a particular game. Message boards tend to be fickle and insular and the bottom line ( revenue) is far more of a determining factor to what direction companies go in than the perceived reception of message boards. Also Mass Effect Andromeda was successful but the pause on the development of more Mass Effect games seems to be due to the internal disorganization of Bioware and less a reaction to message boards. The development of Anthem and the latest Dragon Age seems to be throwing that whole studio in disarray. I would guess that THAT is more of a reason why Mass Effect is on hold than it's reception from message board posters. Bioware could put out a Mass Effect game next week and it would still sell well... let's not kid ourselves. But the voice of the consumer IS becoming more influential because of the internet, this is definitely true.

Basically this. Sales ultimately matter more to studios and publishers, but what I was trying and I suppose failing to express is an acknowledgment of the symbiotic relationship between sales numbers, reviews and public perception that can and often does exist. The only thing I have to add/reiterate is I think the extent of how influential the voice of the consumer is can be difficult to quantify and varies depending on the game and studio.  Sometimes popular opinion of players can effect sales of some games, and it's reflected via the reaction online across multiple sources.

2 hours ago, Bacon said:

Never saw a Godzilla film until the 2013 one. Holy shit was that a letdown. Literally Big Jaws. 

How was Jaws a letdown!?  Or was Godzilla a letdown to you not just because of lack of Zilla but you didn't find the characters to be interesting?

Also watch Shin Godzilla.

This was an april fools gag?

If not, I don't understand the excitement for GRRM helming the story instead of FS.  His stories are good because he writes sprawling, detailed novels with complex character development and an impressive amount of narrative threads simultaneously woven together.  FromSoft's storytelling style is almost the complete OPPOSITE of that, featuring sparse writing, story primarily told through visuals and obscure lore.  What GRRM might bring to the table is unpredictable deaths of main characters, but I just don't see how his method of storytelling will make the jump to an interactive medium intact.

What most game studios need aren't writers known for sprawling, complex narratives, but the ability to write clever dialogue (and actors to make it sing).  Dialogue in games is still pretty heavily featured as part of the experience, but it's also what tends to hold story-driven games back the most.

5 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

If I ask for a mech game, I want a game where I control a mech (not necessarily a mech sim), not a game where I run around as a dude and fight mechs and OCCASIONALLY get my own mech.

 

But I guess that means we need more concise descriptors when asking for games. If I asked for a mech game and someone recommended me Titanfall, I'd be very disappointed. I'd want Mechs In My Veins by Mechsuit McGee, not Poppin' Dudes (feat. Mechs) by Pilot McFuck!

Fair enough, but isn't saying Titanfall's not a mech game because you mostly play sans mech kinda like saying Godzilla 2013 isn't a Kaiju movie just because Godzilla had far less screentime than the human characters?

2 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

I say it's a vocal minority because most people who play games don't care enough to participate in internet message boards to discuss them.  The people spending effort detailing what could be changed are the enthusiasts.  There is such a thing as a forum bubble.

Twitter does give a better gauge.  Same with Youtube.  (Days Gone has tracked well on both.)  But unless there's a sustained outcry, a lot of that just ends up being white noise for games with large marketing budgets.  Pre-release, the metrics are worth more than content of that commentary.  Even if it's just a confirmation that they had a pitch that can sell.
 

Mass Effect isn't dead.  Andromeda sold too well for it to be.  The only real casualty is Bioware Montreal.

It's a lot safer to return to it than EA's dormant IPs that had commercial bombs.  If it takes a while before we get another, it'll be because Bioware has too much else on their plate.  Sames goes for Bethesda and Fallout.
 

Anything could happen.  But it would be an outlandish prediction to think it won't be at this point.  Like I said, at worst, it looks like the Ubisoft playbook.

Did you know that the original Watch Dogs sold over 10 million copies? 
Think about what the perceived reception was to that game post-release.  Then ask yourself if it's reflected in that number.

To clarify, that's not a prediction for Days Gone.  But it's a point worth considering when we talk about reception over time and recipes for AAA success.

So is it possible to prove that the the combined amount of users observed on twitter and popular message boards reacting to your game aren't expressing opinions that are indicative of the general reaction of the majority of buyers of your game?  If sales are super high, usually reactions online wont effect your IP or studio much, but there are times when it definitely can.

I'm not debating that pre-release metrics are more valuable to studios than opinions on social media and messageboards.  I'm pointing out the fact that at some point developers might often take all of those into considerations and make decisions based on that.

Mass Effect is/was a massive IP.  Bioware seems to have put it on hold for a long time because they know the sequel to Andromeda would likely not perform nearly as well, going by the reaction to it.  Even though they patched out much of the jank, that first impression was a doozy. If they thought it could still be a huge hit after that I don't see why a sequel wouldn't be greenlit.  Putting a major IP like that on ice is a pretty big deal and shows how consumer opinion and reviews, for better or worse, can sometimes have an impact on IPs and studios as much as sales.

Anywho, I feel like this argument has run its course.  For me at least.  Do sales matter? Absolutely.  Do public opinion and reviews also factor into the success of a game? Yes, and that's all I'm trying to point out.

1 hour ago, crispy4000 said:

I'd bet AAA publishers/developers listen much more intently to their focus group testers and mock reviewers than forum posters, especially prior to release.

After release, forums/reddit/reviews become the vocal minority of their player-pool who cares enough to talk about the game critically.  I agree that it shapes future development.  But there's still a balance to be struck between addressing those opinions, creative vision and appeal writ large.  Of those three, the latter two are probably the most important to commercial success for an AAA game.

The fact that Mass Effect Andromedia sold so well also supports what I'm saying here.  We can talk about how much it tarnished the name of the franchise.  How EA reacted by shutting the developer down as a response (as they do).  But the game still sold well, in spite of ME3's ending too.  Like the Star Wars prequels, people will knowingly partake in messy follow-ups just to experience it for themselves.  Forum dwellers and casual audiences alike.

To piggyback off what you said earlier in this thread, I believe Days Gone could review in the upper 70's and still sell great, get sequels, etc.  That would be taking a page straight out of Ubisoft's playbook.

One would hope the opinions of industry peers and really anyone who can offer insightful critique are prioritized, but game IPs often live or die by consumer opinion too, so seems like that would be considered as well.

I'm not sure how the response to a game on twitter or massive forums like Era or r/gaming would that of a vocal minority.  If anything wouldn't those be useful sources of feedback developers might check to know the general public's reaction to their games?

Errrm, no, that Mass Effect Andromeda example I mentioned doesn't really support your point at all, lol.  It sold very well, but mixed reviews and consumer backlash were the nail in the coffin of not only that game, but the entire franchise.  For a while, at least.

Anywho, I'm rooting for Bend, but I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that success of Days Gone isn't guaranteed.

I for one can't wait to see more of the uplifting romance between Jon and Dany.  May they live happily ever after and have lots of children.

2 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

Ultimately, I don't think Days Gone is one of those games that message board/enthusiast reactions will determine the success of in any meaningful way. 

I've grown more doubtful and more doubtful about that influence as a whole for AAA titles.  I suppose for some 'ongoing' games it can lead to playerbase drops.  Games with heavy online components have something to worry about.  But out of the gate?  Battlefront 2 under-performed only marginally, a total mismatch to the extent of the uproar.  Fallout 76 and Anthem still outsold better games the month of their releases.  A good marketing campaign seems to underwrite any noise enthusiast gamers make (ie: polarizing takes of RDR2).  Or even a lack of discussion and so-called 'hype' (ie: Ghost Recon Wildlands).

It shows how little power we have at big budget game launches.  I could share your cynicism in how gamers can impact developers with smaller budgets.  I've seen it done effectively, and maliciously, with games I very much enjoyed.  But if a game is big enough to get a television commercial, we're not affecting much of anything.  Big budget, open-world games with a mainstream pitch are going to sell anyways.  That's just how I see it now.

The only "death sentence" is if the publisher misread the popular appeal.  Or can't sustain momentum if the game is 'ongoing.'

Thing is, lots of devs take note of feedback from message boards, and the audience's response to a game can affect to varying degrees what current and future decisions a studio makes, indie OR major.  Sites like Reddit, NeoGaf and Era are so active with so many users that it's odd there would be any distinction made between players on those boards and the rest of your audience.  Users on those sites are a significant portion of your audience after all (though there's definitely an argument to be made about how much stock should be put in most opinions expressed on online forums, which feedback is constructive vs short sighted, toxic, etc).

There are many examples of this ranging from positive to negative.  Capcom tried to make a more simplified Devil May Cry game with DMC2, and it was the last time that happened. Mass Effect fans were livid over 3's ending, so it was retconned because reasons.  MGS fans throwing fits over Raiden in MGS2 inspired some later gags in the series, possibly even that character's development (you have to wonder to what extent Raiden becoming the most badass cyborg ninja in the series was an intentional subversion of what many MGS fans felt about him years eariler). 

Remember that cringey period from the early-mid 2000's when several games suddenly became "mature", AKA added more guns, blood and tits and "edginess"?  Also remember how many other Overwatch-likes there were for a minute (Lawbreakers, Battleborne, etc)?  And now multiplayer shooters are of course trending away from games like Overwatch towards battle royale modes.

Then there's Mass Effect: Andromeda. It sold well!  It was the second best selling ME game ever, but the controversy surrounding the quality of the game itself (specifically with graphics and story) played a significant role in the series being put on hiatus.  Audience feedback not only influences some creative decisions from studios; it can have a domino effect on which franchises and industry trends are popular, relevant or irrelevant. 

These are some examples that illustrate the fact that not just sales but also critic and audience reception can in part dictate industry trends and what happens to  IPs.  A game like Days Gone might sell fine at first, but reviews and word of mouth can impact how well it keeps selling and what the sequels will be like, if any. Ultimately, most video games are not intended as art as much as escapist entertainment products, so consumers have quite a bit of pull regarding what gets made and how it's made.

So far I think Days Gone seems like a game where reviews could influence how successful it is. If its gameplay and story delivers and results in some respectable review scores, I imagine it'll transcend the "eh, kinda seems like another zombie apocalypse game" concerns to allow it to become something special, whereas lukewarm reviews could cement it as just another open world zombie game, even if sales are good initially.  

4 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

The idea that we should be downplaying a game as something lesser because it might not become an internet forum/gamer culture darling is ridiculous.  Not every game needs to strive for that in order to be good, or even to bring something new to the table.  I don’t think it helps to see it black & white either, as there’s a spectrum between popoluar and enthusiast appeal.  It often isn’t mutually exclusive either, as I don’t expect it to be here.

 

But to play along, if Days Gone needed to make its mark in something beyond its general quality or sales, I think it’s evident that the hoard tech and way the game’s animal/human/zombie factions migrate and interact is a start.  We haven’t seen a game go this quite far with it in either respect.  It strikes me as something that could only be realized this generation.  How often can that be said in earnest?

 

At this point, It’s a more reasonable to question the game’s eventual quality at release than if it’s doing anything of particular note.  It wouldn’t have gotten so much attention at its initial E3 showing if it wasn’t.

 

Oh, and being a first entry in a new franchise is very different scenario than a game in a popular annualized series.  Apples to oranges comparison, especially when it comes to long-standing impact.

Yep. We're mostly in agreement here as I've already touched upon several points you've mentioned in this post, but just so we're 100% on the same page, if the bolded statement is intended to be a reaction to my arguments ITT keep in mind once you read my posts carefully that the idea you're talking about isn't a claim I made or a stance I've personally taken.  I DO think it might be a common perception often seen expressed on messageboards though (and offline too, for that matter) and it can to some extent dictate the success of some games and much of the content that gets produced in the industry, for better or worse.  If you were to hear me speak at length about this you'd realize I have a somewhat cynical view of video game consumers for the most part.

3 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Oh he meant Advanced Warfar not Modern Warfare which is what I thought he was talking about... NOW his @fuckle85 point makes a little more sense. So it was MY mistake not his... I got my COD'S confused 

I think I might have actually typed in Modern Warfare in one of my earlier edits (or possibly Infinite Warfare).  I'm tellin' ya, it's almost like there's a fuckton of COD games and most of them, despite selling a lot, aren't that memorable!  hehe

4 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

We need to clarify what the hell we're talking about. 

 

Call of Duty Advanced Warfare was released in 2014 and didn't inspire shit. 

 

Call of Duty Modern Warfare was released right around Bioshock 1 and is regularly cited as one of the most influential games of all time. I assume this is what fuckle (lol) is talking about, and if that's the case he / she is quite misinformed about the general perception of that game. 

No, I'm talking about Advanced Warfare. 

It wasn;t a top-selling game in that series but it still sold a lot!  It's a COD game, after all.

4 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

Wait - you actually DO mean Advanced Warfare? 

 

This changes everything and is a very odd argument to make. 

The reason I mentioned it is because even though it was undoubtedly one of the top selling titles of that year, it had very little impact beyond that.  This is true of several games in the COD series.  Point being, again, that sales are just one component that determine how truly successful a game will end up being.  You have to factor in critical reception and how a game resonates with audiences as well.

5 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

If you think Bioshock had more of an impact on the game industry than COD Advanced Warfare then... I don't know what to say. And I think message boards are closed environments that often take on their own subjective realities that have little to nothing to do with what is actually happening in the real world. Like everywhere else on the internet, they can lead to confirmation bias amongst likeminded people and videogame message boards are no different. In the minds of a lot board dwellers, games and movies in particular that are successful (from financial, critical, and audience perspectives) are seen as failures for reasons I STILL have yet to understand and vice versa. Again. you're arguing that pop cultural impact matters and then diminish the cultural impact that one of the most popular games ever (COD Advanced Warfare) has had on the industry. 

I'd be interested in hearing why you think Advanced Warfare, which, as far as I know is mostly remembered for digital Kevin Spacey, had more impact on games and pop culture in general than Bioshock.  Bioshock is not only a huge influence for many games ranging from Soma to We the Happy People to much of Arkane's output, but also influential in other media (the makers of Westworld and Guillermo del Toro for example, cite it as an influence)

Message boards feel that way because one of the common threads (no pun intended) regarding the tone of discourse on online forums is that most everything comes down to complaining and arguing.  I've accepted over time that for the most part this seems to be the primary social function of the message board (that and trolling and various forms of abuse that would get someone punked out in reality).  And as someone who works in the entertainment industry, you deserve to vent about that more than most. 

I just think, due to the nature of how prevalent the internet and by extension social media is, boards and places like twitter and reddit indicate a fairly accurate sample size of audiences who consume entertainment.  The frustrating part is that passions often seem to overtake critical thinking which can have negative consequences in society and on the entertainment industry itself.  Even on resetera, I'm often met with bewilderment and pushback for pointing out the uselessness of "clout" unless it's a director or writer who already has an insanely consistent track record, like a Tarantino or Charlie Kaufman.  The amount of judgement and assumptions from most of the public about who is talented enough to be trusted to helm a film should mean zilch in a post-Krasinski and Peele world, but you still see doubters, haters and dick-riders all the time.  This kind of behavior gets you laughed out of creative industries, so it's odd and amusing that so many passionate movie/game/music/etc fans online seem oblivious to it while continuing to engage in it themselves.

7 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Both sold well, were critical successes and are remembered fondly. What exactly are you trying to say?

Advanced Warfare sold significantly more than  Bioshock 1 did. A LOT more.  The latter is mostly remembered as an iconic moment from last gen that brought new experiences to the table: art direction, storytelling, world building.  Clunky shooting mechanics aside,  it's remembered as a pivotal moment in video games to this day.  Fans still dress up as Bioshock characters at game cons, there are still discussions going on about it's story and world, etc.  Is the same true for Advanced Warfare?  Is it as revered to this day? Or is it more accurate to say the latest Call of Duty tends to have more relevance in the minds os audiences than past entries of the franchise (with some exceptions, like Modern Warfare). There are several games which have passable sales, or even sell terribly, but seem to be in the lexicon longer than many top selling games. And many games sell very well but are not much better than shovelware.

Point being, in long term, the pop cultural impact of a game matters.  Not that audiences always get it right, but it gets to a point where hype is almost palatable leading up to a game's release, and a good indication of not only how much it might sell, but how long it continues to sell and how impactful it is with audiences. Sometimes the reverse of hype can happen too which can turn on a franchise.  Anthem comes to mind.  Before the game was even out you could practically feel the disappointment in the air. It sold well, but poor reviews and word of mouth are not doing it any favors.  Though sometimes poor critical reception alone doesn't kill a franchise.  From what I understand multiplayer games usually fare better than single player ones in that regard.  

Anyway, both critical response, fan reaction, and sales numbers matter simultaneously, and sometimes messageboards like Resetera and NeoGaf, while not indicative of everyone playing video games, have such an immense amount of users that sometimes they can be accurate indicators of how a game will be received.

This is what I meant (sales, critical response, fan reaction) when I said "Days Gone might do ok" in my initial post ITT

1 hour ago, Duderino said:

 

Good reviews would certainly help, but by the day it’s becoming increasingly clear that there is a large amount of buzz surrounding the game.  Days Gone has its detractors for sure, but the concerned rhetoric is looking increasingly out of touch with the game’s sales potential.

 

For a little context Days Gone is currently the #1 selling PS4 tittle on Amazon.  Comparatively MK11, the other big April release, is sitting at #10.

Again, I'm making a distinction between sales numbers success, critical reception and word of mouth hype - for example the difference between How Call of Duty Advanced Warfare is remembered and Bioshock 1 is.

Though to be fair potential sales success can be easier to quantify.

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

 

 

 

One of the main sales guys, along with Zhuge and Mat from NPD, who posts on Reset. IIRC, all of the ones who have spoken say the game is tracking really well. You'd have to tweet them for specifics, but I expect Days Gone to do very well outside the message board bubble.

True, I meant from both a sales, critic and word of mouth perspective.  Sometimes a 7.5-7.9 is a viewed by many as a death sentence to games that are actually still pretty fun.  Review scores can have a lot of pull, so if DG reviews well it'll probably stir more hype and make it more of an event than word of mouth (online at least, i don't have many friends who game irl) right now seems to indicate.

Feels like hype is low for this one but I'm rooting for Bend.  It looks a bit troped out honestly (Sons of Anarchy meets Walking Dead story, strong Last of Us vibes, zombie apocalypse, open world wilderness setting, cinematic action/adventure OTS shooter from Sony, and so on) compared to several AAA hits and anticipated releases this gen, but the dynamic ecosystem of undead, humans and wildlife and how it interacts with the player and can present unique gameplay scenarios.  If DG ends up having impressive gameplay that results in high release day metacritic scores it'll probably do ok.

On 4/4/2019 at 4:56 PM, Anathema- said:

 

The difference is in how the inconsistencies are wielded. On on the one hand, for Christians it's used to undermine the notion of faith by pointing out the illogic, for Muslims it's used to insist they're barbarians-in-waiting. To Christians they profess pluralism is possible without the Bible, to Muslims they profess pluralism is impossible with the Koran. Christians range from misguided to malicious and Muslims range from violent to not-violent-yet. And all the while it's not even religious fanatics that are shooting, stabbing and blowing us up. Not to the same level as white terrorists. So yeah, you can miss me with the "just critiquing the religion" bullshit that I would have expected you to be too smart to fall for.

You're aware that many of the white extremists attacking people tend to identify as and/or have connections to white jesus christians/cultural christians, right?

 "new used game" deals at gamestop.

Just got to General Tenzen.  Man, now this is a fun boss fight.  It's not super challenging and the flow of combat feels good and does a solid job of teaching you how to parry better so I keep letting myself die just to fight him again.  Makes me wish there was a way to replay bosses after you defeat them.