Too much story in modern games? *spawn

[Bigduo209]

There are over 100 million people playing games on Facebook...in the USA alone. Zynga has 220 million active users. That's more than all current-gen home game console sales combined.
http://www.viralblog.com/social-media/why-social-games-are-so-popular-on-facebook/

Angry Birds is at over 500 million downloads. I don't think Darksiders has quite gotten there yet. Maybe next year, right? I'm sure we're just on the cusp of comic book melodrama going mainstream, right?

People seem quite willing to PAY for story based games, so that is why we are getting them.

Or maybe we can come together on this issue to realize that people like BOTH. Just because one is more popular than the other doesn't mean either should be shunned like a red-headed stepchild. I can enjoy a game like Dead Space or Angry Birds Space in different but equal ways.

Remember now, variety is the spice of life.

I just wish the video game industry would keep that thought in mind, instead of trying to push one standard on everyone because "It's the future!".

 

[Sigfried1977]

And more people would buy Darksiders (or any other games with a heavier focus on story) if it didn't cost 60€ and required either a game console or at least a PC with some form of gaming hardware bits built into.

Facebook games are essentially free, and Angry Birds is almost free. One requires a browser, the other requires a phone. The comparison with big budget retail games doesn't make a lick of sense. No-one would buy Angry Birds for 60 bucks. Probably not even for 20 or 10. No-one would play any of the *ville games if there was a considerable entry fee either.
As for all the match 3 type of games. Sure, lots of people play them, but they don't all play the exact same ones. Bejeweled is not Montezuma is not Tetris. If you want to lump every story-free puzzle game together you might as well do just that with story heavy games. Puzzle Quest is a great selling puzzle game, and if it wasn't pretty much the only one of its kind more people would probably play something similar.

 

[Prophecy2k]

There are over 100 million people playing games on Facebook...in the USA alone. Zynga has 220 million active users. That's more than all current-gen home game console sales combined.
http://www.viralblog.com/social-media/why-social-games-are-so-popular-on-facebook/

Angry Birds is at over 500 million downloads. I don't think Darksiders has quite gotten there yet. Maybe next year, right? I'm sure we're just on the cusp of comic book melodrama going mainstream, right?

So your answer to the question of evidence to support your notion of more people not wanting story in their games over those that do, is that millions of people play free games on their phones?

I'm not seeing the logic in that statement at all.

So if angry birds and farmville had narratives, there'd be far less popular? And how does that at all mean anything to console gamers?

It's not evidence for anything other than the fact that people like to play casual games on their phones. That does preclude any desire or non-desire to play story based games on consoles. It doesn't preclude anything... :-S

 

[fearsomepirate]

And more people would buy Darksiders (or any other games with a heavier focus on story) if it didn't cost 60€ and required either a game console or at least a PC with some form of gaming hardware bits built into.

You're delusional if you think the potential audience for the kind of hyper-dorky, self-important, comic book-style fantasy stuff in Darksiders has a potential audience anywhere near that of Angry Birds, regardless of the cost. What you don't seem to understand is that there are millions and millions and millions of people who are completely turned off the kinds of things geeks get excited about. You could give Punisher comics, Star Wars toys, and Magic cards away for free, and a pretty large segment of the population would still turn them down.

As long as people like you have yourselves convinced that the reason your average 29-year-old woman is more likely to be into Farmville than Batman: Arkham City is price and advertising, and are largely in control of the game industry, there's a lot of money out there that simply won't be made.

Bigduo209 gets it.

 

[ERP]

There very little if any evidence that the increase in sales of $0.99 phone/tablet games and freemium facebook gaming has had any impact on Console and PC games sales.
From this I'd infer they are just different markets, and there is scope to make money in both.

On pricing, Steam offers developers the ability to try pricing strategies side by side, offer one random group a game at $29.99 and another the same game at $59.99, and see what the impact in sales is. Obviously there is no published data on these studies, but I haven't seen games on Steam get cheaper in general, implying that isolated price drops don't generate sufficient extra sales to make dropping the price worth while.

 

[Arwin]

There very little if any evidence that the increase in sales of $0.99 phone/tablet games and freemium facebook gaming has had any impact on Console and PC games sales.
From this I'd infer they are just different markets, and there is scope to make money in both.

On pricing, Steam offers developers the ability to try pricing strategies side by side, offer one random group a game at $29.99 and another the same game at $59.99, and see what the impact in sales is. Obviously there is no published data on these studies, but I haven't seen games on Steam get cheaper in general, implying that isolated price drops don't generate sufficient extra sales to make dropping the price worth while.

Also, Darksiders is now one of the many full games available for PS+ Subscribers (along with Deux Ex, LBP2, Infamous 2, MotorStorm and several others). So even on consoles, business models are evolving.

 

[Prophecy2k]

You're delusional if you think the potential audience for the kind of hyper-dorky, self-important, comic book-style fantasy stuff in Darksiders has a potential audience anywhere near that of Angry Birds, regardless of the cost. What you don't seem to understand is that there are millions and millions and millions of people who are completely turned off the kinds of things geeks get excited about. You could give Punisher comics, Star Wars toys, and Magic cards away for free, and a pretty large segment of the population would still turn them down.

As long as people like you have yourselves convinced that the reason your average 29-year-old woman is more likely to be into Farmville than Batman: Arkham City is price and advertising, and are largely in control of the game industry, there's a lot of money out there that simply won't be made.

Bigduo209 gets it.

Nearly a hundred and forty million PS3 & Xbox 360s have been sold this generation. In an age where there has been a clear distinction made in the eyes of consumers between casual consoles (e.g. Wii) and the core (HD twins).

In my mind thats a potential audience for "hyper-dorky, self-important, comic book-style fantasy stuff " in the millions and millions.

Ergo you're wrong.

 

[Scott_Arm]

There is definitely a market for games with stories, but some games just get it wrong, in the way they implement it by wrestling control from the player too often. A good story (by game standards) can help a game, but I think anything average to poor is basically going to hurt more than it helps.

Counter-Strike is probably the best tactical shooter ever made. If they'd tried to slap a story on that, it would have been garbage. Wait, didn't they release a single-player Counter-Strike that nobody played?

I really love the Battlefield series, but why do they bother with the single player portion of the game? They're trying to bring in more people, but they'd be better off releasing more games more often by sticking with multi-player.

 

[Prophecy2k]

There is definitely a market for games with stories, but some games just get it wrong, in the way they implement it by wrestling control from the player too often. A good story (by game standards) can help a game, but I think anything average to poor is basically going to hurt more than it helps.

Counter-Strike is probably the best tactical shooter ever made. If they'd tried to slap a story on that, it would have been garbage. Wait, didn't they release a single-player Counter-Strike that nobody played?

I really love the Battlefield series, but why do they bother with the single player portion of the game? They're trying to bring in more people, but they'd be better off releasing more games more often by sticking with multi-player.

But then by your own admission isn't it just about implementation?

If a counter strike game was developed with a really compelling, well executed co-op campaign, that consisted of a series of cut-scene/scripting-lite scenarios to give a bit of context, but then relied on the players' own organisation and tactical abilities to complete, then surely that could be a worthwhile "addition" to the game for the benefit of those new to the franchise, or those just not interested in competitive multiplayer gaming?

I'd argue similar with BF. Had BF3's campaign been better developed, placing more emphasis on the mechanical gameplay aspects that people enjoy most about its MP, and crafting a solid SP experience around that, then surely it would have benefitted the game.

Story and SP modes don't have to take anything away from MP. Better to have them doen right, rather than not doing them at all in my view.

 

[Bigduo209]

Spoiler

You're delusional if you think the potential audience for the kind of hyper-dorky, self-important, comic book-style fantasy stuff in Darksiders has a potential audience anywhere near that of Angry Birds, regardless of the cost. What you don't seem to understand is that there are millions and millions and millions of people who are completely turned off the kinds of things geeks get excited about. You could give Punisher comics, Star Wars toys, and Magic cards away for free, and a pretty large segment of the population would still turn them down.

As long as people like you have yourselves convinced that the reason your average 29-year-old woman is more likely to be into Farmville than Batman: Arkham City is price and advertising, and are largely in control of the game industry, there's a lot of money out there that simply won't be made.

Bigduo209 gets it.

Get what? I think you're misinterpreting my statement. I said there is a market for both (as in an audience that enjoys both types of games), meaning there doesn't have to be a huge separation between mobile/casual games and more traditional ones.

Nearly a hundred and forty million PS3 & Xbox 360s have been sold this generation. In an age where there has been a clear distinction made in the eyes of consumers between casual consoles (e.g. Wii) and the core (HD twins).

In my mind thats a potential audience for "hyper-dorky, self-important, comic book-style fantasy stuff " in the millions and millions.

Ergo you're wrong.

But is that really a distinction that's been created by consumers? Or an ideal belief that's been perpetuated by console makers, 3rd-parties, and an over-expectant segment of gamers?

The PS1 and PS2 were big hits because of their variety of games, from Crash/Spyro to Madden/Live both consoles were big hits from every age range. When did consoles have to be hardcore OR casual in order to make money?

The industry went in a stupid direction with the PS3/360 to focus super realistic graphics instead of making fun games for all ages, the Wii simply took a market that was being ignored after the PS1/PS2 days and ran with it. If EA and other publishers advertised other more interesting games like they advertised Madden/COD we wouldn't be in this mess.

But then by your own admission isn't it just about implementation?

If a counter strike game was developed with a really compelling, well executed co-op campaign, that consisted of a series of cut-scene/scripting-lite scenarios to give a bit of context, but then relied on the players' own organisation and tactical abilities to complete, then surely that could be a worthwhile "addition" to the game for the benefit of those new to the franchise, or those just not interested in competitive multiplayer gaming?

I'd argue similar with BF. Had BF3's campaign been better developed, placing more emphasis on the mechanical gameplay aspects that people enjoy most about its MP, and crafting a solid SP experience around that, then surely it would have benefitted the game.

Story and SP modes don't have to take anything away from MP. Better to have them done right, rather than not doing them at all in my view.

Now this I fully agree with. Both MP and SP should be done well, taking away from one mode to satisfy the other isn't changing anything.

 

[tuna]

I really love the Battlefield series, but why do they bother with the single player portion of the game? They're trying to bring in more people, but they'd be better off releasing more games more often by sticking with multi-player.

They bother with the single player portion because their market research shows it will lead to higher sales. How much do you think a multi-player only BF3 would have sold?

 

[Scott_Arm]

But then by your own admission isn't it just about implementation?

If a counter strike game was developed with a really compelling, well executed co-op campaign, that consisted of a series of cut-scene/scripting-lite scenarios to give a bit of context, but then relied on the players' own organisation and tactical abilities to complete, then surely that could be a worthwhile "addition" to the game for the benefit of those new to the franchise, or those just not interested in competitive multiplayer gaming?

I'd argue similar with BF. Had BF3's campaign been better developed, placing more emphasis on the mechanical gameplay aspects that people enjoy most about its MP, and crafting a solid SP experience around that, then surely it would have benefitted the game.

Story and SP modes don't have to take anything away from MP. Better to have them doen right, rather than not doing them at all in my view.

Yes, we do agree. It is about implementation and quality of writing. Unfortunately, many games fail miserably at both and I honestly think they'd be better off not even trying. A reasonable story can add a lot to a game, but if you do it wrong it hurts a lot more than it helps. There are many types of games that don't need stories, so it isn't worth the risk.

 

[Scott_Arm]

They bother with the single player portion because their market research shows it will lead to higher sales. How much do you think a multi-player only BF3 would have sold?

Probably very well and it would have cost them a lot less money and time to make.

 

[tuna]

Probably very well and it would have cost them a lot less money and time to make.

Probably. But EA's publishing department thought they would sell even more and that the additional income would be greater that the cost of adding a single player mode. And they have access to much more data than you have shown here.

 

[swym]

There are far more people playing plotless versions of falling block puzzles than Puzzle Quest.

I think that your biggest fallacy was comparing all the plotless versions of falling block puzzles together to puzzle quest. But if you take the average selling falling-block-puzzle game, it probably sold much less than puzzle quest.

You're talking past me. I'm talking about everybody. You're talking about yourself. Here's my point--there are lots of people for whom story is a big turnoff.

No, you're not talking about everybody. If you were to talk about everybody, you'd actually reckon that there is also a subset of people who find the complete lack of story in a video game a big turnoff.
How big is this subset and how does it compare to the subset of people who don't want a story in their game? We don't know. You can always claim that Tetris itself is the best selling puzzle game of all time (being bundled with the hardware probably helped). The same goes for Wiifit (how many people actually bought a copy of WiiFit without the balance board?)

But then again: up until the Sims, the best selling video game on the PC was Myst - a puzzle game with a plot driving something like 6 million sales. And we're talking games the people actually payed for, not games bundled with hardware. If what you are saying is true, how come that no plotless puzzle game managed to sell more copies than Myst? It sounds like basic math according to your statement: just remove the stupid plot and tens of million of people will buy your plotless Myst clone.

And yeah, there are people who lap that stuff up, but they're not 99% of the game-playing population, so there's no reason for 99% of the industry should be a love song to them.

I think that the question that matters more for game developers is where is 99% of the revenue (or potential revenue) coming from.

You're delusional if you think the potential audience for the kind of hyper-dorky, self-important, comic book-style fantasy stuff in Darksiders has a potential audience anywhere near that of Angry Birds, regardless of the cost

Yeah, the majority of the population is turned off by dorky fantasy stuff. I guess that's why fantasy movies don't sell, and fantasy films like the Avengers and Avatar are not two of the three best selling movies of all time. The Angry Birds movie will probably outsell these two combined because it has so much more potential audience!
Hold on, but isn't a bunch of birds trying to retrieve their lost eggs from the pigs who stole them accounts for some kind of thin mario-esque (your princess is in another castle) back story for the game? How come that similar catapult games with no story at all which before Angry birds didn't sell as many copies? Perhaps some basic premise can be sometimes better than having no story at all?

 

[Scott_Arm]

Are you really suggesting Angry Birds' story catapulted its sales astronomically above that of similar games?

 

[Scott_Arm]

Probably. But EA's publishing department thought they would sell even more and that the additional income would be greater that the cost of adding a single player mode. And they have access to much more data than you have shown here.

Well, with developers shutting down left and right and publishers teetering on bankruptcy, I can't say I have great faith in whatever analysts they're using to make budgeting decisions.

 

[tuna]

Well, with developers shutting down left and right and publishers teetering on bankruptcy, I can't say I have great faith in whatever analysts they're using to make budgeting decisions.

Well, with regards to BF3, EA's analysis seems pretty good. I do not know what actual examples you are reffering to, so it is hard to comment on your post.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Well, with regards to BF3, EA's analysis seems pretty good. I do not know what actual examples you are reffering to, so it is hard to comment on your post.

I could be perfectly wrong about Battlefield 3. Maybe the single player was a big boost. I still think developers need to play to their strengths, and in most cases that is not story or integrating story into gameplay.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Are you really suggesting Angry Birds' story catapulted its sales astronomically above that of similar games?

Nah, I think he's saying that by having an established setting, characters and effective story elements, together with the mechanical gameplay systems, it was all of those things together that contributed to the overall polish of the game and thus effected its incredible sales.

I think there's definintely something to be said for it, since every new re-skinned edition of Angry birds (e.g. christmas, rio etc etc) seems to be selling nicely, even though at its core its the exact same game.