As someone playing a game, it's understandably not common to do. People are often thinking about things like entertainment on an emotional basis, and that's not generally conducive to critical analysis.
As someone who is aware of game analytics and considering how the amount of time players invest into a game and what they spend their time on within a game reflects on the design of the game, it's a very telling factor.
It'd again be the reason it's normal for companies to track customer lifetime value, session time, and sessions played.
Applying it backwards to yourself as a consumer to see how yours or others behavior and play time can show trends within a game as well as reflect on the content and quality of it is simply a way of getting some frame of reference for the well-being of a game.
There's a reason some people like to pull stats about daily active users. It's the same thing going on there. I don't expect the average person to quantify things in such a manner without cause, but when you're trying to have a deeper discussion about a topic is it really unreasonable to bring in more data to quantify?
As someone playing a game, it's understandably not common to do. People are often thinking about things like entertainment on an emotional basis, and that's not generally conducive to critical analysis.
As someone who is aware of game analytics and considering how the amount of time players invest into a game and what they spend their time on within a game reflects on the design of the game, it's a very telling factor.
It'd again be the reason it's normal for companies to track customer lifetime value, session time, and sessions played.
Applying it backwards to yourself as a consumer to see how yours or others behavior and play time can show trends within a game as well as reflect on the content and quality of it is simply a way of getting some frame of reference for the well-being of a game.
Our team just create experiences and lets the marketing team figure that out As a developer we were not concerned with whether Hellblade was longer than 8 hours or not. We just created the game. It sold well and continues to do so. CLV is useful for games as service but not for games as experiences. Two different design philosophies.
And we are discussing a title which is a game as a service.
As a dev team you might ignore things, as a dev studio this is subject matter that bears relevance. That marketing team has to work with what you guys make, and in many cases with publishers you also as a dev team have to factor in executive decisions that are made in response to marketing and data analytics. You are not often operating in isolation.
As someone playing a game, it's understandably not common to do. People are often thinking about things like entertainment on an emotional basis, and that's not generally conducive to critical analysis.
As someone who is aware of game analytics and considering how the amount of time players invest into a game and what they spend their time on within a game reflects on the design of the game, it's a very telling factor.
It'd again be the reason it's normal for companies to track customer lifetime value, session time, and sessions played.
Applying it backwards to yourself as a consumer to see how yours or others behavior and play time can show trends within a game as well as reflect on the content and quality of it is simply a way of getting some frame of reference for the well-being of a game.
Our team just create experiences and lets the marketing team figure that out As a developer we were not concerned with whether Hellblade was longer than 8 hours or not. We just created the game. It sold well and continues to do so. CLV is useful for games as service but not for games as experiences. Two different design philosophies.
And we are discussing a title which is a game as a service.
Actually all manner of titles have been discussed in this thread
But the title the thread is about, and the title that was the topic of discussion in the conversation you poked into, was Anthem. Other titles have been brought up as examples, not as the central topic.
And we are discussing a title which is a game as a service.
Actually all manner of titles have been discussed in this thread
But the title the thread is about, and the title that was the topic of discussion in the conversation you poked into, was Anthem. Other titles have been brought up as examples, not as the central topic.
Do not play mindless semantics.
back to the petty huh? smh same old Limnic carry on
It's petty to ask you don't play word games when the single game we have cycled back on time and again is Anthem and the fact it is a live service?
A fact that was restated not but a few posts above yours?
If you think a preference for reasonable conversation is petty, I am concerned for those that have to work with you.
Portal was Orange Box. I doubt people would have been as apt to pay $40-$60 for a 3 hour game by itself, that it was bundled with Half-Life 2 and TF2 was a primary offset in cost. Bioshock, in contrast is a title with a "12 hour" narrative, along with achievements and some replay ability. Uncharted, as noted, has multiplayer.
Bioware, as a studio, is looking at Anthem as a live service. It's campaign is itself already set up like that with cliffhanger to fit added content over time, and fills out the core of the gameplay for it with the looter-shooter design philosophy. This is where the concern comes in that the content delivered is simply not what it needed to be to pad out the game as it's intended live service. The plot is over quickly and the looter-shooter mechanics deplete quickly. To "finish" it in ~30 hours, and then wait something like a month or so before new content or gear to drop, is an issue when the live service model is the intended design.
It's the same problem as waiting for new narrative elements to drop in a game like Warframe.
It "can" be played as a narrative experience. And then you have to either a) wait a long time for them to finish that narrative experience or b) just be done with it. While there's noting stopping a player from just dropping the game, it would be again the point to make that they game was intended to be made for players to consume over a long time. If it cannot stay afloat between major content releases, it's got a problem as a live service.
Portal was Orange Box. I doubt people would have been as apt to pay $40-$60 for a 3 hour game by itself, that it was bundled with Half-Life 2 and TF2 was a primary offset in cost. Bioshock, in contrast is a title with a "12 hour" narrative, along with achievements and some replay ability. Uncharted, as noted, has multiplayer.
for the fourth time in this thread you again missed the point.
More so correcting the point. You tried to claim a price to time ratio by examples that, if put into context, were not what you represented them to be. Like the "3 hour" Portal.
If you think you're making a point, then perhaps you need to try rephrasing it. No one's gonna get it if you don't actually say it.
Seeing as my conversation with Lahnmir was about the whole time/cost thing, and the comment you quoted sat right in line with the things I'd discussed on that topic with him. I addressed it as it related to the original discussion. I would be at a loss to what your intended point is then if you think I missed it.
And on that token, if you wish to say I missed it, then why would you be against clarifying it so it would stop being missed?
Chiding someone about a subject, while refusing to actually discuss the subject to clarify anything, is quite the childish approach.
So instead, we just have you for two posts now making derisive gestures instead of a reasonable discussion, and you'd like to claim I'm the one who is arguing for argument's sake?
Hell, you came back to this thread two hours later just to post that response to me when you were clearly present to respond previously based on the time stamps.
Clearly, we know who's not "a better person than that".
And you ran back here two hours later just to make a troll post after having already made a separate comment.
Clearly, you have a hard time with it.
I'm only replying because you're commenting to me. Coincidentally, most my posts in this thread have been me making replies to others that have commented to me.
And then here you decided to make a taunting remark, and actively refuse to explain yourself while making continued replies.
@SBFord Can you explain what the proper procedure for people behaving this way is?
That requires it to be worth the cost. Each Mass Efect title, for the same cost, gave me at least double that play time with a solid story.
Anthem gave a more generic experience in half the time, but same cost. The value per dollar just does not add up well.
And you have to account for the type of game this is. Bioware released this game with a plan to keep supporting post release as a live service.
A live service is meant to be played ongoing, not for 30 hours and dropped. I can understand those agreeing with you not knowing this, as at least one of them showed they were unaware of genes before, but you at least should understand that a genre meant to be persistent requires a persistent user experience.
Thanks for the explanation. You could also say that the ME games offer an insane amount of fun for the money, unless you don’t like them, then they offer very little. What I am trying to say is that value is personal. I bought Hellblade for 40 bucks, finished it in 10 hours enjoyed myself more then I did with the entire ME trilogy for instance.
A live service means a company keeps supporting and adding to the game, it doesn’t mean it needs to have X hours of content to qualify. Its all about expectations and personal preference, its almost impossible to objectively tell others if something is worth it.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That ignored the non-subjective factor. Cost per hour. A game that costs $60 and returns 30 hours vs a game that costs $60 and returns 60 hours. One is simply the more effective title. Then you contrast that to other live services that run for considerably more hours.
And it's to that end on live services as well. The game doesn't need everything in it at release, it needs to be functional as a live service. IE, where's the replayability and cause for investment. Given the broken nature of the loot and many other standing bugs in the game and inability to replay missions outside of queuing for quick play which dominantly results in broken missions, there is a distinct lack.
It does need the ability to persist as a live service, otherwise you play it and drop it and the "live service" means absolutely nothing.
I definitely agree with the second part of your post, I have no clue about how broken or buggy Anthem is, I haven’t played it yet.
I really can’t agree with the first part though, it isn’t about length of a game versus costs, its about enjoyment versus costs, length means nothing if the enjoyment isn’t there and that enjoyment is personal. Like I said before, lets just agree to disagree, I get what you are saying, I just don’t think you are right.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
This is basically just you saying you prefer to use a subjective metric over an objective one.
Time/cost gives a clear point on the value for how much that time cost the consumer to experience. It's certainly better if you enjoyed it, but fact is, they still paid for it. The longer something plays for, the lower that cost ratio tends to be, and you'd also generally be safe to assume they are entertained if they are willing to stick with it like that.
A game being short, but costly, still makes it costly even if you enjoyed it. Only then, do you factor in if your enjoyment was great enough versus the time vs cost to make that worth it.
That's rather the point right there. Having a blast for five minutes at $60 a pop is not generally considered sustainable entertainment. something that's relatively fun for five minutes at $0.25 a pop is.
If the return per those five minutes, or hour/whatever time scale is too dragged out, then the cost ratio is broken any ways. If it's too high, then it's not worth the cost regardless of being fun.
Hence where people like me sit with Andromeda. We can soundly say we find the game is fun, but it is simply not worth the current price point because the cost over time for the content delivered is currently not in balance.
I enjoy very, very long games too, or average games for a decent price. I simply can´t agree with the rest though, you try to shoehorn objectitvity into an entertainment product, I can´t rhyme that. We are in danger of trying to keep explaining our views to each other without us getting any closer but I´ll give you one final example of why I can´t agree with you.
I own Asura´s Wrath on the PS3. Its a 60 bucks game that only lasts 7 hours, an anime power fantasy full of nonsense. I have loved every minute of it and that means I spent roughly 8,5 bucks an hour for pure quality (imho of course). I also own Eve Online, which I bought for 20 bucks and came with a free month offering hundreds of hours of entertainment. I lasted 1 hour and found it a horrible game. So I spent 20 bucks an hour even though the game was cheaper AND offered more content. So, which one offers more value? Its a personal thing.
Don't assume I think you are wrong btw, you just see it differently then I do, nothing wrong with that.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Good points. Portal is probably one of the best examples in gaming. 3 hours to beat it and it remains an all time favorite of many a gamer. Or Bioshock which runs at about 12 hours. Or Uncharted games with 8 to 15 hours plus a multiplayer component. For a game like Anthem that has a story running through it's core it can be played for just the story for that type of experience or it can be played as a game for service type game and it plays well for that. This type of hybrid experience plane is all too common in developer circles now. For good or for bad.
I think the second part is crucial when talking about Anthem. The game seems to suffer from a bit of an identity crisis not being A. A full blown, epic, story based game or B. A service type of game with boat loads of content. I think a lot of the discontent comes from people fully expecting A or B, what they got was a bit of both. I also think that people that went in with an open mind not expecting either are having a much, much better time, that would also explain the huge difference in opinions.
As for me, I caved in and bought the game yesterday and have been playing for an hour or two. It is a gorgeous game on ultra and controls are great. The moment to moment gameplay seems solid but the many loading screens are an annoyance. I was also quite surprised at their length, I have no game that takes longer then 10 seconds to load, this one surpasses that easily. But still, so far its been fun.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Post edited by lahnmir on
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Will be curious your opinion once you hit end game.
Issue that's been run into isn't necessarily that things are "two games at once", as the structure of the story telling is delivered in the same bytes as you would experience in some prior similar games, and tethers itself right off the bat to the mechanics that pervade the rest of the game.
Part of the issue to be brought up being, in the first three missions you are introduced to the three main gameplay activities for mission mechanics, and then repeat those same three things for every mission after. The narrative itself they integrated into their content cycle too, leaving cliffhanger expressly to conclude at an eventual later date.
Which that is a hinging point for complaints of incomplete user experiences. If someone wanted an epic narrative, they are delivered part of one "to be concluded later" that suffers from some pacing issues and a big case of being plot-by-radio.
Moment to moment gameplay is thankfully the title's strong suit. The general movement and combat controls are pretty great, but the skills have been getting tinkered with a lot, and number crunching has been showing a hierarchy for gearing with little long term practical optimization, which is not helped by poor loot tables leading to mediocre gear bonuses.
That there is also only one of each for category in master weapons, and only a couple options for class gear, with none being added for ~a month is another concern since gearing at end game is very linear.
Aside from that, there had been growing bug lists previously shared on reddit tallying many issues that have caused inability for some people to progress their game at all.
For those that don't have such issue, it then cycles into the very thing we'd partially discussed previously in that the game is very simply an incomplete experience, short and the end game is not rewarding, leading to the sense that it is simply not worth the current price tag.
One of the most repetitive games I've ever played, where you watch loadscreens more than you actually play. Not worth a single dollar, imo, since you can get completely free games that are far better.
Level 27. Finished the story (which I thought was acceptable video game fair and better than ME:A, but not legacy Bioware quality) and got my first masterwork (a sniper rifle that deals more damage while you hover).
I am still having a great time, and think that the game is being overwhelmingly punished for what it isn't, rather than being reviewed for what it is.
Level 27. Finished the story (which I thought was acceptable video game fair and better than ME:A, but not legacy Bioware quality) and got my first masterwork (a sniper rifle that deals more damage while you hover).
I am still having a great time, and think that the game is being overwhelmingly punished for what it isn't, rather than being reviewed for what it is.
I see a lot of that going around. My question to you would be: Is what they delivered what they promised? If so, then yeah the issue is on the reviewers for having unreasonable expectations. If the reviewers are basing their opinions on what was actually promised, then the issue is with the developers/publisher.
You do not review an apple based on the expectations of eating an orange. That goes both ways. Don't sell an orange and deliver an apple.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Level 27. Finished the story (which I thought was acceptable video game fair and better than ME:A, but not legacy Bioware quality) and got my first masterwork (a sniper rifle that deals more damage while you hover).
I am still having a great time, and think that the game is being overwhelmingly punished for what it isn't, rather than being reviewed for what it is.
I agree that this type of thing happens a lot lately. Aside from the technical issues/bugs, Fallout 76 has an identity crisis as it doesn't know what kind of game it wants to be. I think Anthem suffers for the same thing.
They both are try to please different audiences and do a poor job at pleasing either one. Long time fans of Bioware criticize it for not delivering the type narrative based story they are known for and the loot shooter crowd criticize it for not having the same type of experience they have come to expect in that genre.
Bioware has done a poor job at trying to marry the two together and compound that all the technical/bug issues and some of the design decisions that were made and you get the kind of reviews it's received.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
Comments
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
As someone who is aware of game analytics and considering how the amount of time players invest into a game and what they spend their time on within a game reflects on the design of the game, it's a very telling factor.
It'd again be the reason it's normal for companies to track customer lifetime value, session time, and sessions played.
Applying it backwards to yourself as a consumer to see how yours or others behavior and play time can show trends within a game as well as reflect on the content and quality of it is simply a way of getting some frame of reference for the well-being of a game.
There's a reason some people like to pull stats about daily active users. It's the same thing going on there. I don't expect the average person to quantify things in such a manner without cause, but when you're trying to have a deeper discussion about a topic is it really unreasonable to bring in more data to quantify?
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
As a dev team you might ignore things, as a dev studio this is subject matter that bears relevance. That marketing team has to work with what you guys make, and in many cases with publishers you also as a dev team have to factor in executive decisions that are made in response to marketing and data analytics. You are not often operating in isolation.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Do not play mindless semantics.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
A fact that was restated not but a few posts above yours?
If you think a preference for reasonable conversation is petty, I am concerned for those that have to work with you.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Bioware, as a studio, is looking at Anthem as a live service. It's campaign is itself already set up like that with cliffhanger to fit added content over time, and fills out the core of the gameplay for it with the looter-shooter design philosophy. This is where the concern comes in that the content delivered is simply not what it needed to be to pad out the game as it's intended live service. The plot is over quickly and the looter-shooter mechanics deplete quickly. To "finish" it in ~30 hours, and then wait something like a month or so before new content or gear to drop, is an issue when the live service model is the intended design.
It's the same problem as waiting for new narrative elements to drop in a game like Warframe.
It "can" be played as a narrative experience. And then you have to either a) wait a long time for them to finish that narrative experience or b) just be done with it. While there's noting stopping a player from just dropping the game, it would be again the point to make that they game was intended to be made for players to consume over a long time. If it cannot stay afloat between major content releases, it's got a problem as a live service.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
If you think you're making a point, then perhaps you need to try rephrasing it. No one's gonna get it if you don't actually say it.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Seeing as my conversation with Lahnmir was about the whole time/cost thing, and the comment you quoted sat right in line with the things I'd discussed on that topic with him. I addressed it as it related to the original discussion. I would be at a loss to what your intended point is then if you think I missed it.
And on that token, if you wish to say I missed it, then why would you be against clarifying it so it would stop being missed?
Chiding someone about a subject, while refusing to actually discuss the subject to clarify anything, is quite the childish approach.
So instead, we just have you for two posts now making derisive gestures instead of a reasonable discussion, and you'd like to claim I'm the one who is arguing for argument's sake?
Hell, you came back to this thread two hours later just to post that response to me when you were clearly present to respond previously based on the time stamps.
Clearly, we know who's not "a better person than that".
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Clearly, you have a hard time with it.
I'm only replying because you're commenting to me. Coincidentally, most my posts in this thread have been me making replies to others that have commented to me.
And then here you decided to make a taunting remark, and actively refuse to explain yourself while making continued replies.
@SBFord Can you explain what the proper procedure for people behaving this way is?
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
As for me, I caved in and bought the game yesterday and have been playing for an hour or two. It is a gorgeous game on ultra and controls are great. The moment to moment gameplay seems solid but the many loading screens are an annoyance. I was also quite surprised at their length, I have no game that takes longer then 10 seconds to load, this one surpasses that easily. But still, so far its been fun.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Issue that's been run into isn't necessarily that things are "two games at once", as the structure of the story telling is delivered in the same bytes as you would experience in some prior similar games, and tethers itself right off the bat to the mechanics that pervade the rest of the game.
Part of the issue to be brought up being, in the first three missions you are introduced to the three main gameplay activities for mission mechanics, and then repeat those same three things for every mission after. The narrative itself they integrated into their content cycle too, leaving cliffhanger expressly to conclude at an eventual later date.
Which that is a hinging point for complaints of incomplete user experiences. If someone wanted an epic narrative, they are delivered part of one "to be concluded later" that suffers from some pacing issues and a big case of being plot-by-radio.
Moment to moment gameplay is thankfully the title's strong suit. The general movement and combat controls are pretty great, but the skills have been getting tinkered with a lot, and number crunching has been showing a hierarchy for gearing with little long term practical optimization, which is not helped by poor loot tables leading to mediocre gear bonuses.
That there is also only one of each for category in master weapons, and only a couple options for class gear, with none being added for ~a month is another concern since gearing at end game is very linear.
Aside from that, there had been growing bug lists previously shared on reddit tallying many issues that have caused inability for some people to progress their game at all.
For those that don't have such issue, it then cycles into the very thing we'd partially discussed previously in that the game is very simply an incomplete experience, short and the end game is not rewarding, leading to the sense that it is simply not worth the current price tag.
I am still having a great time, and think that the game is being overwhelmingly punished for what it isn't, rather than being reviewed for what it is.
You do not review an apple based on the expectations of eating an orange. That goes both ways. Don't sell an orange and deliver an apple.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.