Belonger wrote:Djarvik, not so sure I'm further from the truth. I think you speak like a fan and your economical analyse is therefore uncomplete.
I have the "economical numbers" to prove my point. It is not a point of view, rather a conclusion drawn after years of being involved at different capacities with tennis games. Numbers don't lie
Belonger wrote:It's not because tennis fans play tennis games that they want a deep, tough and demanding game. The core of the fans wants that - we want that ! - but not most of tennis fans in my opinion. Being a tennis fan doesn't mean you can spend a lot of time on a game to understand it. And this is what TS series is all about...
You say the"core of players" want complexity and then you dismiss it with "but not most tennis fans". A bit confusing. I agree about not being able to spend a lot of time on a game, and that is why ONLY the true fans stick it out, the casual ones never do. You don't need to look any further then VT series for the proof. Here is a "casual" tennis game that is rather well done from that point of view - failing. Failing to outsell the more Complex, Niche driven game as TS. What does that tell you? To me, it tells that a Tennis Console Game is simply not fun if it is not deep. It will not sell well, it becomes a glorified version of first game ever - Pong. And as great as it WAS, it is completely and utterly boring in today's day and age of Complex gaming. Just look around, the games become more complex now - not simpler. So to make a simple tennis game is basically equivalent of taking a step backwards.
The key to all this is stryking a balance between extreme depth/complexity and accessibility. Where accessibility should be a SMALL part. For example it should be relatively easy to pick up, but progressively harder with time invested. TS3 came REALLY close to it, the biggest issue was the new control scheme. TS4 should have been built on TS3 as most fans accepted TS3 at the end and it sold better then any other tennis game. TS4 should have been a "refined" TS3 as the fan base already knew the control scheme and would adapt fast. Instead, TS4 decided to go your route - make the game less complex and easier to access. The result is that TS4 failed to oversell TS3 with WAY more consoles(potential customers) available. Trust me, my opinion was similar to yours before TS4 came out - but I evolved it to what it is today.
Belonger wrote:I'm sure you met guys on world tour or even on exhibition games who have not played often and that you destroyed easily. I spoke with many of these guys (though I'm far from being a great TS4 player, but compared to the mainstream, I am) and they are fed up because they can't manage to play this game correctly because it asks many skills, tactical knowledges, etc. Then they quickly stop to play TS4 because the do not have time / they don't want to train and really improve. Maybe they would with TS3 because, as you've said here months ago, you can hope to win at TS3 even if you are less skilled than your opponent, thanks to risk shots. You can not at all at TS4 : you're a bit less good, you lose widely. You're much less good, you're totally crushed.
Some issues here. You describing people that BOUGHT the game already, went on WT and got crushed by a better player. At this point as far as Game Makers - mission accomplished, the game is sold. So the point you are making is about "keeping" the fan base rather then capturing new ground. To that I say that TS games are no different to any other game, including the casual VT. A new player will get crushed at ANY game, casual or complex. The simple fact is that games require skill development and the player who spent more time will likely be better. So that whole argument of yours fails....
As for TS3 having risk thus giving a chance for anyone to win, well, you might have misunderstood me. Most people that hated risk shots simply could not hit them. They complained about risk being OP and that ANYONE can win with risk.....do you see the Irony? Risk taking took LOTS of skill and practice, not to mention the obvious game strategy. All risk did was add ANOTHER layer of complexity to the game that was stripped down by TS4. Believe me, you being a new player and me a seasoned one - no amount of risk would save you from a sure bagel
You just can't out risk a lack of skill. You could get lucky of hit a good timing streak and actually win 1-2-3 games. But you will lose at the end, guaranteed. The reason you had more chances to compete it TS3 is because of the serve return mechanics that TS4 lacks. The serve in TS3 deepened not only on a serve rating of a player, but on a skill of a user as well. There were players who could ace you all day and out play on their serve having 50-60 in serve. They could place the serve well and vary it and it was effective. Something TS4 does not have. On the other extreme, the risk on returns allowed to turn the tables and balance the game, so now you could be a great risk returner and have a chance on most opponents serve.
TS3 truly allowed for a lot of different ways to win, and yes, after a certain level you HAD to use risk shots to have a chance, as players were simply too good to hit safe shots all the time. Remember, that "risk" is not a magic button, it was two different modifiers to your REGULAR shots. So if you time your shots well - you should be good at risk too. ....endless possibilities with these risks..
Belonger wrote:We'll see, in future, which way games editors will pick for next gen tennis games... which would be a quite good news it it will mean there'll be tennis games on PS4 and X-Box one
.
I love this particular argument
I feel that at this point I have formed an opinion that I believe to be correct. Tennis game world has to be geared towards a more Serious Fan then Causal Fan. In fact, the reason we don't have a new game now is precisely because ALL 3 makers went too casual and lost their shirts on sales figures.
Level 13 Edberg and counting...
