Page 5 of 7
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:50 pm
Obviously, game development has to be fantastic, but how do you feel game developers get more commercial success?
A - Word of mouth
B - Advertising
C - Editorial Reviews
Please vote now as it will be counted!
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:55 pm
Initial Sales: B-Advertising
Long Run: A-Word of mouth (mostly) + C-reviews
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:01 pm
My first instinct is to go with Word of Mouth; it spreads pretty fast, and is more of a "personalised advert"; whoever tells you about it presumably knows your rough tastes and preferences, and tells you basically what you want to hear. Puts the right "spin" on it, as it were.
However, I presume that word of mouth does not reach the sheer numbers that a big advert would; a poster on the side of a bus, for example, would be seen by hundreds of thousands, if not more, every day. The flipside being, of course, that very few people will actually take notice of an advert.
So perhaps a review is the desired middle ground. A publication such as PCGamer - to take an example totally at random
>_> - is read by almost exactly the right demographic which a video game advert wishes to target, and providing the review is favourable, will make a huge impression on the reader. Many times I have bought a game based on a glowing review from a magazine, and usually it turns out for the best.
Just remember what made Uplink famous; many people here will cite PCGamer as the only reason they ever heard of Introversion.
So I think I'll have to go for C, but it's close. We all know how different and unrelated commercial and critical success can be.
Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:09 pm
Though advertisements might increase the number of people that hear about a game, almost all the recent games I've played I got to know through word of mouth, either personally, or from internet sites I like to read. All were either abandonware, or indie games.
I'm not sure about the general public, but I don't listen to reviews that much. So, I vote A.
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:16 am
Personally it's a combination of A + C for me. I learn about an interesting game from some the websites and blogs I visit, generally I don't get much from word of mouth in RL since I'm much more of a game freak than my friends, I also don't buy gaming magazines but occasionally knick some of my friends'. So anyway I see an interesting game concept, go to the official site or a fan site to see more details and if it still holds my interest I search it on metacritic to make sure it isn't absolutely abysmal. If it meet all three of those requirements it probably gets a purchase.
For the general public though I have to say you need a combination of all three. Advertising generates enough interest for word of mouth to start and for people to write and read reviews which in turn generate more word of mouth about how good the game is from the people who purchased it. Also reviews are very good at generating negative word of mouth, I've seen a well advertised interesting sounding game but then seen bad reviews have put me off a fair few purchases.
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:24 am
Well I might be splitting hairs here a bit but word of mouth is a form of advertising isn't it?
For example I hadn't heard of Aquaria until somebody mentioned it on the IV forums effectively advertising it - I checked it out and bought the game.
So the answer is that A, B and C are all important but you can sell your game without B, much more difficult without A or C. I don't know how much traditional magazine, TV, billboard advertising costs but I suspect it's a lot so the tricky thing will be judging the return from this type of advertising.
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:16 am
D - A good demo version
For me, any combination of A-C can make me notice a game, but unless there are other factors massively speaking for a game (coming from a developer I trust being the best reason), I won't buy anything without giving the demo a spin. From the three choices, C works best for me and I'd like to believe A has the least influence
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:13 pm
Does anyone want to share there favourite part and thoughts of the game play for Darwinia?
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:20 pm
I must admit to be a big girls blouse when it comes to Darwinia...I haven't been able to play it since I got to the stage where the red Darwinians appeared.
Well I just find it uncomfortable killing Darwinians...I know the red one's have gone bad but still...it was a complete shock when they appeared. I cannot recall having such an emotional reaction to a video game...
...maybe Multiwinia will "cure" me
Re: Thanks guys
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:20 pm
martinmir wrote:Does anyone want to share there favourite part and thoughts of the game play for Darwinia?
I liked Darwinia from the get-go. It was different and concentrated on the gameplay, which is the most important part of a game. Shiny graphics don't always make a good game.
During the beta testing getting a first look at it I loved the sounds most of all. Don't know why I did. You'd move close to the trees and it sounded...forestishlike while in a computer. Ok not much sense I know.
Also as you progress and the good doctor tells you more and more about the Darwinians, for example when he pasted his face as the sky so they built statues, then when they used a trunk port to try and talk to "god" by pointing it at the soul repository and stealing his mail. The whole thing was rather immersive as you watch the little guys develop, especially when they got lasers and started attacking anything that came near them. When the red darwinians arrived it looked like genocide, and was closely fought on some levels that you were never sure you'd actually suceed. You'd try, try again, and finally hit on a good strategy.
Overall, the simple graphics, great gameplay, and the sounds, definately the sounds, made it good for me.
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:48 pm
What I liked most of Darwinia was the details and the presentation. Darwinians are the 2D sprites that scream in fear, jump of joy, pay tribute to the dead, run away when you point a turret at them, have a past, a present and future (these last three presented to us by the good doctor). They live on a stylized 3D world that feels organic.
They are perhaps the only videogame characters I actually feel bad about tormenting for giggles.
In sum, I like Darwinia because its 2D catatonic looking protagonists are more deep and complex than many of the State of the art 3D, with advanced facial expression technology characters we find in many modern games (Yes, so called Prince of Persia, I'm looking at you)
As for gameplay, I don't really know what to say, it can be fast or slow paced, repetitive or varied depending on how skilled/suicidal the player is and how much he enjoys each of the toys.
Also: Soul Destroyers are both the biggest pain and the coolest (read creepiest) enemy in the game (One tear shed for every lost soul
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:18 pm
If a Darwinian/Multiwinian was a celebrity who would he/she be like? Actors, Musicians, Gaming Figures, ETC>>>
Think about the personality here as well as image...
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:41 am
My first answer would be an emotional lemming but comparing game characters to game characters is really cheating. I'm not sure about a celebrity, though the idea of a blockbuster Darwinia/Multiwinia movie is hilarious. Something like Bruce Willis is Multiwinia no. 203945, charging headlong into the throngs of other multiwinians, fighting for glory and his colour.
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:11 am
I'd say Sigourney Weaver, but clearly what I actually mean is Ripley, and even then, I can't entirely see a Darwinian screaming "Get away from her, you BITCH!" at a Soul Destroyer, but damnit, if anyone's still making Darwinia mods, I want to see that.
How about Sylvester Stallone, for those many, many, gloriously ultra-violent scenes?
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:12 am
I would have to say the Gove-nah Arnie... A buffed pixel Connan or Terminator, or even the military commando from Predator.