• From: Oregon, US
  • Registered: 2007-09-29
  • Posts: 115

Re: KotOR: MMORPG.

yultemsee wrote:

mass appeal =/= good game

In fact its normally the opposite.

I assume you mean every game except Gears of War, Sonic, Grand Theft Auto, Half-Life 2, Burnout, Rogue Squadron, etc.

Yeah-- I specifically excluded Halo and World of Warcraft which are the subject of much debate. tongue

But from what I've seen, most really famous games are the best; it's why they became famous after all. Maybe 10% of them didn't live up to the hype and disappointed... Devil May Cry 2, Matrix, Tomb Raider, etc, but my point is... the list of famous evils is much smaller than the list of famous goods. And so I have great hope for KOTOR3, and Spore.

____________________________

ShadowfaxSTF is the name you'll see, as I strike first. The FS Manual, a must-read.
Proud user of the First Strike Mod Wiki, feel to browse our collections and add more fine winery!

Shadowfax's Website

  • Donau
  • Stormtrooper Recruit
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2007-10-31
  • Posts: 1

Re: KotOR: MMORPG.

generalrievous wrote:

omfg, I still cant see the reasoning behind a kotor mmo it would be a complete and utter failure to say the least.

Edit: just found something you all should see http://lucasarts.com/company/release/news20071030.html this better be kotor3

I can actually see the logic, this technically doesnt have to be a KOTOR MMO, it is a Star Wars MMO set in the KOTOR era.  The whole KOTOR timespace has only been mentioned when pertaining to the game or in tiny snippets, this would grant the developers an incredible amount of freedom to make a good game. Unlike SWG where they were partially bound to keep in Canon with the New Hope-Empire Strikes Back era (they certainly are taking freedom now with all the damn jedi). 

I could easily see a KOTOR MMO, and I could see it doing well, especially if BioWare is at the helm.

  • Registered: 2007-10-01
  • Posts: 207

Re: KotOR: MMORPG.

yultemsee wrote:

mass appeal =/= good game

Hum I'm interested in the (flawed) mathmatical analogy of this.

Mass Appeal is probably best represented as a function of how good a game is, of course with other variables thrown in for good measure (like publicity, a low learning curve, an easy to get into story, etc etc).

You will NOT get Mass Appeal for games like Spider Man 3 because if anyone played it they would go insane! With that said your 'equation' could better be written as:

Mass Appeal=((Type Apeal+Game Quality)*Publicity Presentation+Innovation)

Here Type Apeal= the consumer's tendency to like the Style of the game (RPG, FPS, RTS) and how easy it is to catch on to (Halo would be one that scored high in this area, Madden is another, BioShock wouldn't score as high as Halo with TYPE APEAL due to its layered and multiple gameplay options)

But this doesn't really matter as you didnt mean to be taken litterally... I hope (this is just my overdriven brain) so please forgive my excentricies. -_-


In fact its normally the opposite.

Odd, I would significantly doubt that for a simple reason: People like quality for money! If a game is broken and unfun people will NOT buy it. Surprised?

Bioshock got surprising Mass Appeal and it is a great game.
Gears of War got good Mass Appeal and it is a good game.
Silent Hill has a good following and it is a good series.
Halo has a LARGE following and it is a fun game.
Half-Life 2 has Mass Appeal and it is a good game.
Final Fantasy has incredible Mass Appeal and all games are very good.
Battlefield good penetration and appeal all games are solid after a couple of patches wink

I can see a trend with How good a game is and its appeal.

Okay well maybe its because I'm looking at only the good games that have mass appeal... what about the bad games that have mass appeal?

I'd talk about Madden but despite its formulaic annual approach which is not the best it is still A GOOD GAME.

You don't see very many games that are buggy and stiff that are high on Mass Appeal.

In the end what you do see is alot of Good but underapritiated games which is very unfortunate but can not be helped when some people only spend $200 dollars on video games a year.

  • Registered: 2007-09-30
  • Posts: 1,058

Re: KotOR: MMORPG.

Lance Haith wrote:
yultemsee wrote:

mass appeal =/= good game

Hum I'm interested in the (flawed) mathmatical analogy of this.

Mass Appeal is probably best represented as a function of how good a game is, of course with other variables thrown in for good measure (like publicity, a low learning curve, an easy to get into story, etc etc).

You will NOT get Mass Appeal for games like Spider Man 3 because if anyone played it they would go insane! With that said your 'equation' could better be written as:

Mass Appeal=((Type Apeal+Game Quality)*Publicity Presentation+Innovation)

Here Type Apeal= the consumer's tendency to like the Style of the game (RPG, FPS, RTS) and how easy it is to catch on to (Halo would be one that scored high in this area, Madden is another, BioShock wouldn't score as high as Halo with TYPE APEAL due to its layered and multiple gameplay options)

But this doesn't really matter as you didnt mean to be taken litterally... I hope (this is just my overdriven brain) so please forgive my excentricies. -_-


In fact its normally the opposite.

Odd, I would significantly doubt that for a simple reason: People like quality for money! If a game is broken and unfun people will NOT buy it. Surprised?

Bioshock got surprising Mass Appeal and it is a great game.
Gears of War got good Mass Appeal and it is a good game.
Silent Hill has a good following and it is a good series.
Halo has a LARGE following and it is a fun game.
Half-Life 2 has Mass Appeal and it is a good game.
Final Fantasy has incredible Mass Appeal and all games are very good.
Battlefield good penetration and appeal all games are solid after a couple of patches wink

I can see a trend with How good a game is and its appeal.

Okay well maybe its because I'm looking at only the good games that have mass appeal... what about the bad games that have mass appeal?

I'd talk about Madden but despite its formulaic annual approach which is not the best it is still A GOOD GAME.

You don't see very many games that are buggy and stiff that are high on Mass Appeal.

In the end what you do see is alot of Good but underapritiated games which is very unfortunate but can not be helped when some people only spend $200 dollars on video games a year.

=/= means does not equal

just look at all movie related games. they suck and sell the most. look at the charts and you will see many bad games in the top. Just like any other medium such as music and films the most popular are never any good.

"nobody ever went bankrupt by underestimating the taste of the American public"
and this holds true for most countries and things

http://www.fsmod.com/stats/fssig.php?player=btcc
Occupation: Hacker on steroids

INGAME NAME: btcc
  • Registered: 2007-10-01
  • Posts: 207

Re: KotOR: MMORPG.

Selling Well=/=Mass Appeal

Selling Well=Publicity, Franchise Name, Gullible Parents

Mass Appeal is more about a large group of people liking said game.

Movie games sell because of uninformed Parents buying their kids a "hip-cool-new" game and Publicity/Hype. Not to mention 'we' (I use that loosely as I don't buy into movie games) feel 'safer' buying a product we know something about than something we know nothing about.

  • Registered: 2007-09-30
  • Posts: 1,058

Re: KotOR: MMORPG.

Shadowfax wrote:
yultemsee wrote:

mass appeal =/= good game

In fact its normally the opposite.

I assume you mean every game except Gears of War, Sonic, Grand Theft Auto, Half-Life 2, Burnout, Rogue Squadron, etc.

Yeah-- I specifically excluded Halo and World of Warcraft which are the subject of much debate. tongue

But from what I've seen, most really famous games are the best; it's why they became famous after all. Maybe 10% of them didn't live up to the hype and disappointed... Devil May Cry 2, Matrix, Tomb Raider, etc, but my point is... the list of famous evils is much smaller than the list of famous goods. And so I have great hope for KOTOR3, and Spore.

Personally i didnt like gears of war, sonic depends whihc game, grand theft auto is ok but overrated, half life 2 and rogue squadron and the only real good games there. But that's my opinion.

Didn't you find gears of war really boring. Everything was grey

http://www.fsmod.com/stats/fssig.php?player=btcc
Occupation: Hacker on steroids

INGAME NAME: btcc
  • Registered: 2007-10-01
  • Posts: 207

Re: KotOR: MMORPG.

Gears was a very polished very well planned game. Its gameplay was both easy to understand and hard to master (I can't play online often with out getting the mess beat out of me). The visuals were stunning and shiney and, though a bit over the top with the Gothic theme (which fit perfectly with the psuedo-storyline and more importantly the situation), the diversity and pacing with the levels made up for it.

Sonic is a fun old school game (duh) though now it wouldn't nessecarily be seen as a killer game any more due to our improved expectations the first couple 2-D renditions were fantastic for their times and even the 3-d Sonic Adventures games were solid. Sadly the polish and gameplay didnt stay for games like Shadow The Hedgehog, Sonic Hero's (which was a hit or miss game), and the horrendous travesty that is Sonic the Hedgehog for 360 and PS3.

I loved GTAIII series and as someone who bought the GTAIII and Vice City bundle at $50 for the Xbox my mind loves those two games. I never played much of San Andreas but it was fun when I did at my uncles. GTA is not overrated, those games took much time to develop and it shows everywhere except for graphics which isn't a big issue for me. GTA offers something no other game did until its clones started popping up and failing. It went where very few other games went, gave freedom to the player when many other games didnt, and featured an intelligent story. Grand Theft Auto has approximately a 93% at Metacritic and the same at Gamerankings, user reviews average at about 9.1 out of 10 at both sites too. What does this mean? Well it means that for Fifty dollars the quallity of the game and the games gameplay is well worth it! Overrated would mean that people would say "OMG their is nothing in the world wrong with GTA <3 <3 <3".

Rouge Squadron II.... I'm mixed on that thing. It is fun and definately worth my 12 dollars but on the other hand if I had spent 50 dollars on it I'd have been pissed! The game has only a couple levels, no multiplayer, and definatly very little 'tactical depth' which soo many people seem to love. The orignal was muuch better and definately deserves a high ranking.