This argument:

"Change isn't bad!"

"Change isn't good!"

"It's good and here's why"

"well that's just stupid, shut up!"

"no you shut up!"

"WAH WAH WAH"

"WAHWAHWAHWAH!!!!"

It's both guys! =D You're all right and wrong at the same time! Isn't life grand?

Change can be both good and bad, and to not change is both good and bad. In the end, if everything stayed the same it would just svck. What we must understand is that it's not a one way road. Ideas can be retro-active. In the end, we can come to clear and concise reasoning to what was good and what is bad, and all the inbetween(which is pretty much everything). This argument is pointless and so is this thread. Negative Nancies will remain negative, and Optomistic Olsens will strive to see the good in it. Many of us are driven harder to see one way, but in the end we have the power. Let's just not approach it like a bunch of elitist jerks, k? Cause in the end that's the only thing being done in these arguments.

True. Good points.
Firstly, I would like to say that as an optimist, I would hope that no game developer (not producer) of any quality or character would choose to put their business goals primary to their creative goals when determining game components. I recognize that this is not always the case, but it should be in some situations...

Failing that, Secondly, BGS has moved past the cautious phase of game creation. They have proven themselves as an excellent developer with excellent products, and people will buy them regardless, (at least as long as they continue to be great experiences) which is why they are now free to take the time that they need, higher the people that they want, and do almost anything that they want to in their games. And that has led them to the great strategy of building each game from the bottom up, and not being afraid to change things that weren't perfect before in favor of new ways of doing things that might be better.

And as people who post on this forum, we are all certainly going to get the game. So it is much harder for you to argue that your position is one that BGS should take seriously... After all, if you were really not going to buy the game based on whether they made a few bad changes then you wouldn't be here...

What you want to say is that you don't care if there's a TES:VI?



You wouldn't believe how quickly a good reputation can be squandered. There was even a time when the pharmaceutical industry was seen as just as much demigods as doctors. Today, they're largely perceived as crooks forging data to rip off the people, If something is already very good, chances are that changing them radically is not going to make them better but worse. "at least as long as they continue to be great experiences" is the key point here. Because if they aren't, it will be that much harder to get another chance.



Sorry, but I don't think you understand how this works. First, my position is one that's based on some experience in marketing and on plenty of marketing theory. Second, it's not enough for Bethesday that I buy the game. What they need me to do is to buy the game early to maximise the profit. I didn't do that with Oblivion, so there... People who wait until the GOTY edition is in the bargain bin maybe allow Todd to have one more cup of coffee for a few days, but that's that. In any case, you seem to believe that whether or not I buy the game has anything to do with whether BGS should take my position seriously. That's pretty much like saying "facts don't matter". One sale more or less isn't going to cut it.

That wouldn't be change for the sake of change anymore. Plus the OP didn't just say people shouldn't be afraid of change, he implied that people would argue against change purely out of fear, suggesting that their was no logical argument against change.

Change with a logical, rational basis to it can most likely fit in the 'good' category. Unless it so changes a thing that it is no longer recognizable. That is bad.
Change because a stuffed suit wants his/her name on a box and no other reason is most likely going to be bad, if not fatal.
Change for the sheer hell of it has another name. Chaos. And while chaos can be bad or good, it almost universally is destructive.
Change to stay inside the lines etched out by an out of date paradigm is usually known as cutting off your nose to spite your face. And usually results in your being plowed under by someone who embraced a better paradigm and wound up making your effort look sad and dated.

Nice. I enjoyed hearing your professional opinions on those two points. I disagree with you, but we have amicably presented our positions, and now I understand where you're coming from. Valid arguments.



I'm a little more concerned with how personally you seem to be attacking my perspective in your response here. I do understand a great deal about this point, and as it turns out I have marketing experience of my own to fall back on. I totally get your numbers argument, which is very relevant when talking about BGS as a company/firm producing a product, but the numbers are only half of the story. Individual opinion is a product of many factors, but the business savy of a decision to keep making what they have already liked or to build on that and shoot for something new isn't one of them. People are swayed by flashy images, and buzzwords. And the majority of the public opinions will be swayed into purchasing this game for it's "new," "enhanced," "re-designed from the ground up," and "exclusive" features a hell of a lot more than for it's "similar to gameplay," "tried-and-true features," and "reused development methodology". It turns out that if they promote the idea that this game is better than anything that has come before from their studio, and totally different from all the other titles releasing from other developers that they will sell better than if they tell everyone that it is essentially the same thing as five years ago with a few improvements. It stands to reason therefore that people prefer change in their games to stagnation even if it 'wasn't broke' before...