559 réponses à ce sujet

[Chromie]

Tirigon wrote...

EA is like the Archdemon´s Blight: They move on, almost unstoppable, consuming everything in their path and leaving only waste behind. Let´s hope BioWare or at least another company finds an able Warden to stop them.

While EA still isnt the best company I think they have gotten a litte better just a little...Activision seems to be taking their place

[Hollingdale]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

Broken1477 wrote...

I have an idea; let's make the entire user interface one click! Let's get rid of the pesky inventory system, let's just have one weapon, armor, and accessory/spell set that upgrades when your character and party members automatically level-up. Wait, we should also strip out the cumbersome quest, codex and conversation systems, and remove most of the voice acting…my God, we’ll not only make it so a 5-year-old can play it, but we’ll save a fortune!!!! Let's dump the entire remaining budget into graphics and marketing. If we can make a few trailers and commercials with some universally recognizable voice actor and bombard them all with eye-candy cinematics, the game will sell itself! As long as we don’t let any of those horribly negative reviews slip through, and we buy a few “Game Of The Millennium” awards from gamer magazines, we’ll get a huge first few weeks of revenue before they all realize the game is crap and we’ve bastardized the franchise. By then, we’ll have hit that all important bottom line. Never mind the fact that, when we release a quality RPG, like the Baldur’s Gate, Neverwinter Nights and KotOR franchises, people are STILL buying and playing them...TWELVE YEARS LATER.

mmm i suppose that bioware did all the things above to mass effect 2
However it was outsold by dragon age and his laundry list dialogue

I like how you throw in ''remove most of the voice acting in there'' Broken, cause casuals who want action games just love text!

Furthermore the critique against ME2 on theese boards is ridiculous and originates from narrowminded value dogmatism as regards to the rpg genre. All you do is bash ME2 for it's lack of some of the classic elements that make up a typical rpg without taking into consideration that is in fact a game that deviates from this typical rpg formula and which is more of an action/rpg hybrid. Alternatively people actually do understand that it is a hybrid but see anything that deviates from the classic RPG as automatically inferior, which the expression ''casualized'' is a good example of.

Because when you look at the actual combat in Mass Effect 2 and compare it to Mass Effect 1 you will see that it is (despite the slimmed down skill tree) much more varied. In ME1 pistols were imba and different weapons all felt very much alike and combat was very basic. In ME2 different weapons are good at different things and theres a great variety in regards to the arsenal of weapons, combat is also more tactical and controlled thanks to the cover system. Also let's not forget that the sidequests of ME2 own those of ME1 hard.

In short you bash the relative lack of certain classical RPG elements while completely ignoring the fact that they were more than made up for by improving other things.

[Aratark]

I want to see DA2 come out with a good story and more class specific story content. A story that is almost identical for a mage, rogue or warrior gives me less reason to pick the game up for a second play.

This whole 'casualised' argument appears to be a bit of a dead end. If I enjoy a game, I don't care if it has a full, partial or no inventory. I don't care if the skills you can pick are linear or level related. I want a game I like.

I've been a table top rpger for many years as well as a pc/console player. And my main concern has always been 'Do I like the story.' Doesn't matter how good the mechanics are, if the story sucks, I'm not gonna see much of the mechanics, cos the mighty power off buttton will be invoked.

I understand that companies want to make money, in fact need to make money to survive. If to do this, they need to retool a game to appeal to a broader audience, this is unfortunately an economic reality. I'd love to see a game that comes out and ticks all my boxes with regard to gameplay, graphics, story line and mechanics, but they'd sell about 4 copies of it. I'd have no issue with BW/EA bringing out DA Lite for the mass market, hell it may even be fun to play, as long as DA2 meets my requirements. DA Lite may even bring more people to play DA2, which should mean more cash to spend on it and an improved experience for all.

Edit: I apologise for the almost meandering style of writing, I'm currently attempting to multi task and am doing 4 things badly.  Hopefully my boss doesn't notice that 3 of the things I'm doing badly I shouldn't be doing at all.

Modifié par Aratark, 19 juin 2010 - 02:50 .

[Sidney]

Broken1477 wrote...

Sidney wrote...
Yes, we all like the "this is awsome feel" when we find something but the problem is that 99% of what you find is "Darkspawn Longsword" or "Wooden Shield" and not "Super Cool Magical Sword". I want to find the magic sword, I never again want to find a lump of steel used by a guard and tote it around.

Uh...so don't pick it up?

You functionally can't.

First, you have to look to see that it sucks. Second, if Bioware would fix their world view where many of the best "Super Cool Magic Item X" stuff wasn't something you could just buy I would skip stuff. Things like the Rose Thorn and gosh I think most of the best staves, rings, pendants and such are all things you buy not "earn" via quests and combat. If all you could buy were minor items like "normal" swords, armor and low rent type stuff then I'd happily pass on looting but that isn't the way the Bioware world has ever worked.

I often wonder why "Wonders of Theadas" isn't a main questing target rather than the Deep Roads because there's a lot more and better loot in there than underground.

[Tsuga C]

David Gaider wrote...
...and often carry with them an implication that said audience is less discerning and less worthy of attention.

This is a given. 

[SkullandBonesmember]

I doubt it since Dragon Age is all elven lore and there are no guns so there's no other fanbase that will pull the entitlement card.

[Broken1477]

Sidney wrote...

You functionally can't.

First, you have to look to see that it sucks. Second, if Bioware would fix their world view where many of the best "Super Cool Magic Item X" stuff wasn't something you could just buy I would skip stuff. Things like the Rose Thorn and gosh I think most of the best staves, rings, pendants and such are all things you buy not "earn" via quests and combat. If all you could buy were minor items like "normal" swords, armor and low rent type stuff then I'd happily pass on looting but that isn't the way the Bioware world has ever worked.

I often wonder why "Wonders of Theadas" isn't a main questing target rather than the Deep Roads because there's a lot more and better loot in there than underground.

Point made, but I'd still prefer a massive inventory to a very limited one.  Just my $.02.

[LadyJaneGrey]

Aratark wrote...

I want to see DA2 come out with a good story and more class specific story content. A story that is almost identical for a mage, rogue or warrior gives me less reason to pick the game up for a second play.

This whole 'casualised' argument appears to be a bit of a dead end. If I enjoy a game, I don't care if it has a full, partial or no inventory. I don't care if the skills you can pick are linear or level related. I want a game I like.

I've been a table top rpger for many years as well as a pc/console player. And my main concern has always been 'Do I like the story.' Doesn't matter how good the mechanics are, if the story sucks, I'm not gonna see much of the mechanics, cos the mighty power off buttton will be invoked.

I understand that companies want to make money, in fact need to make money to survive. If to do this, they need to retool a game to appeal to a broader audience, this is unfortunately an economic reality. I'd love to see a game that comes out and ticks all my boxes with regard to gameplay, graphics, story line and mechanics, but they'd sell about 4 copies of it. I'd have no issue with BW/EA bringing out DA Lite for the mass market, hell it may even be fun to play, as long as DA2 meets my requirements. DA Lite may even bring more people to play DA2, which should mean more cash to spend on it and an improved experience for all.

This.

[Aratark]

Wow, I think someone liked what I said This is unusual. I normally get told to sit down and shut up.



On a side note, I thought of a couple of things I would like to see in DA2, more cross class skills and sub-specialisations.



While I understand why Rogue gets lock pick and mages get spells etc, the idea that individuals are that one dimensional is a little off-putting. Personally, I can shoot a rifle, pick some locks, cook, fix a motorbike along with a number of other things. If a mage could buy one or 2 slots of lock pick, a rogue can choose to use a level or two of S&S, I don't think it would break the game, even if it does mean paying 2 points per level for them.



With regard to sub specialisations, I'm looking at something along the lines of after taking Assassin for your rogue, yo'u can then choose to use another specialisation slot on e.g. Ninja (people may choose to look at this as a more eastern style assassin if they don't want the image of all dressed in black, throwing shurikens) or Antivan Crow. These would then provide further specialisation skills/bonuses, but you couldn't take Duellist, cos you've used your slot. Would take more imagination on the part of the devs, as well as more work, but could add more definition to your character.

[facialstrokage]

Broken1477 wrote...

I have an idea; let's make the entire user interface one click! Let's get rid of the pesky inventory system, let's just have one weapon, armor, and accessory/spell set that upgrades when your character and party members automatically level-up. Wait, we should also strip out the cumbersome quest, codex and conversation systems, and remove most of the voice acting…my God, we’ll not only make it so a 5-year-old can play it, but we’ll save a fortune!!!! Let's dump the entire remaining budget into graphics and marketing. If we can make a few trailers and commercials with some universally recognizable voice actor and bombard them all with eye-candy cinematics, the game will sell itself! As long as we don’t let any of those horribly negative reviews slip through, and we buy a few “Game Of The Millennium” awards from gamer magazines, we’ll get a huge first few weeks of revenue before they all realize the game is crap and we’ve bastardized the franchise. By then, we’ll have hit that all important bottom line. Never mind the fact that, when we release a quality RPG, like the Baldur’s Gate, Neverwinter Nights and KotOR franchises, people are STILL buying and playing them...TWELVE YEARS LATER.

That's funny you say that. But you have to realize, EA has a duty to its investors. They need to make money. And games like Dragon Age, as good as it is, lacks the audience as simpler games like Wii Fit and Mario Kart.

Check this out. It's stats for the gaming population as of this past year.
www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2009.pdf

As you can see, most people play games only as a social event. People prefer games that are simple and short. DAO does not qualify as such.

Does anyone know which EA games actually bring the most profit to the company? I can't see DA or ME bringing much as the cost of making the games must be pretty big.

[SkullandBonesmember]

facialstrokage wrote...

That's funny you say that. But you have to realize, EA has a duty to its investors. They need to make money. And games like Dragon Age, as good as it is, lacks the audience as simpler games like Wii Fit and Mario Kart.

EA president:Hmmm, you know what Mark? I feel like we need to make Dragon Age more casual. It's better for EA's profits.

Mark Darrah:So now at the expense of Bioware's fanbase again, like you did with Mass Effect, you're going to screw over Dragon Age?

EA president:Yes. Besides, you'll have more new fans and it's more money for you as well.

Mark Darrah: <_<

So that gives EA or any other gaming company the right to screw over the still large market for games like Dragon Age? In the span of 5 years shooter fans get 100+ of games that cater to their tastes, and fans of games like ME1 and Dragon Age, even Heavy Rain get maybe 30 tops.

[AlanC9]

There are all kinds of films released; not every movie is trying to be Transformers 6, even the ones from major studios. Why should the game market be any different?

[SkullandBonesmember]

AlanC9 wrote...

There are all kinds of films released; not every movie is trying to be Transformers 6, even the ones from major studios. Why should the game market be any different?

Uhh, was your post directed at me? If so, that's entirely my point. There SHOULD BE games for everybody's palette but there isn't. At least there aren't big enough portions to select from for all.

[AlanC9]

Nice work, NKKK



SBM, that post of mine seems to been from a different thread. Either I got confused or the website did

[facialstrokage]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

EA president:Hmmm, you know what Mark? I feel like we need to make Dragon Age more casual. It's better for EA's profits.

Mark Darrah:So now at the expense of Bioware's fanbase again, like you did with Mass Effect, you're going to screw over Dragon Age?

EA president:Yes. Besides, you'll have more new fans and it's more money for you as well.

Mark Darrah: <_<

So that gives EA or any other gaming company the right to screw over the still large market for games like Dragon Age? In the span of 5 years shooter fans get 100+ of games that cater to their tastes, and fans of games like ME1 and Dragon Age, even Heavy Rain get maybe 30 tops.

In short, yes. EA owns Bioware. I don't like it either, but that's just the way it is. In fact, I would say 100:30 is an understatement. How many games like DA and ME are out there total? There's probably dozens of ****ty casualized games out there for each one of these DA quality ones. It sucks that we get the shaft, but money drives the economy. What we call unfair businessmen call smart. Until hardcore gamers like us take the lead in consumption, games like DA will bow to casualization and compromise. The demand simply isn't there.

However, I do have an inquiry- someone please inform me: Why do all games cost the same (at least initially)? Why does a game like DA get the same price tag as a game like Madden? It doesn't seem like you get what you pay for. Either DA is too cheap, or Madden is too expensive in my opinion. I understand that this idea of you get what you pay for is reflected partially in the quanity sold, but in my opinion, wouldn't it make sense to make the minority hardcore gamers like us pay more for games like DA and ME (or charge less for games that suck)? Why don't game publishers price discriminate more?

Modifié par facialstrokage, 21 juin 2010 - 10:58 .

[Aratark]

facialstrokage wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

EA president:Hmmm, you know what Mark? I feel like we need to make Dragon Age more casual. It's better for EA's profits.

Mark Darrah:So now at the expense of Bioware's fanbase again, like you did with Mass Effect, you're going to screw over Dragon Age?

EA president:Yes. Besides, you'll have more new fans and it's more money for you as well.

Mark Darrah: <_<

So that gives EA or any other gaming company the right to screw over the still large market for games like Dragon Age? In the span of 5 years shooter fans get 100+ of games that cater to their tastes, and fans of games like ME1 and Dragon Age, even Heavy Rain get maybe 30 tops.

In short, yes. EA owns Bioware. I don't like it either, but that's just the way it is. In fact, I would say 100:30 is an understatement. How many games like DA and ME are out there total? There's probably dozens of ****ty casualized games out there for each one of these DA quality ones. It sucks that we get the shaft, but money drives the economy. What we call unfair businessmen call smart. Until hardcore gamers like us take the lead in consumption, games like DA will bow to casualization and compromise. The demand simply isn't there.

However, I do have an inquiry- someone please inform me: Why do all games cost the same (at least initially)? Why does a game like DA get the same price tag as a game like Madden 09? It doesn't seem like you get what you pay for. Either DA is too cheap, or Madden is too expensive in my opinion. I understand that this idea of you get what you pay for is reflected partially in the quanity sold, but in my opinion, wouldn't it make sense to make the minority hardcore gamers like us pay more for games like DA and ME (or charge less for games that suck)? Why don't game publishers price discriminate more?

Why should I pay more for a game cos it's a good game?  I don't want to play Madden, so it could be sold at £2 or £200 and it doesn't matter.  No company is gonna come out and say their new release sucks, so who will drop the price? 

I have friends who wouldn't touch DA with a barge pole, but who would play Madden, so surely from their point of view DA should be cheaper and Madden more expensive.  This essentially equates to games being released with similar price tags.  Obviously a game that has only had a small development cycle could be released at a cheaper price, but companies like to make money.  As do I.  It also depends on the retail outlet and their profit margin, if they want to discount a game, it is their choice.  Maybe one of the devs could let you know how much BW receive per disk sold, so you can see the distributor/retailer profit margin.

[facialstrokage]

Aratark wrote...

Why should I pay more for a game cos it's a good game?  I don't want to play Madden, so it could be sold at £2 or £200 and it doesn't matter.  No company is gonna come out and say their new release sucks, so who will drop the price? 

I have friends who wouldn't touch DA with a barge pole, but who would play Madden, so surely from their point of view DA should be cheaper and Madden more expensive.  This essentially equates to games being released with similar price tags.  Obviously a game that has only had a small development cycle could be released at a cheaper price, but companies like to make money.  As do I.  It also depends on the retail outlet and their profit margin, if they want to discount a game, it is their choice.  Maybe one of the devs could let you know how much BW receive per disk sold, so you can see the distributor/retailer profit margin.

You don't think it's justifiable to charge more for a better game? I do. You get what you pay for. With the array of information out there like IGN and Gamespot, gamers can know if a game is worth the money, or they can rent the game beforehand. If they don't think it's worth it, then just don't buy it.

And with your example, if your friends wouldn't touch DA in the first place, then it doesn't matter if the price is $60 or $70. It only matters if they would've bought it for 60 but not for 70. But let's admit it, the demand for a game like DA I would imagine is pretty inelastic. I think I can speak for many people that I'd pay a bit more for a game like DA. I'm not saying they should charge like $100, but like an extra $5 bucks would still be worth it to me. Either that, or other game companies could lower their prices. For example, I think Dante's Inferno was fun, at least the demo. But I wouldn't spend $60 on it, maybe $35 tops. Had they lowered the price, I might've bought it.

Let's be honest with yourself, if DA costed like 5,6, or maybe 7 bucks more (I'm not talking about special editions, I'm talking about if every copy increased in price,) would you still have bought it. I'm not asking you whether or not you'd be happy with the increase in price- no one would- but if it actually costed a bit more, would you have still bought it?

How bout this: would you be willing to spend an extra 10 bucks on DA2 if they charged more?

I know I would.

Modifié par facialstrokage, 21 juin 2010 - 11:15 .

[facialstrokage]

nevermind this statement.

Modifié par facialstrokage, 21 juin 2010 - 11:14 .

[Aratark]

I think the issue comes down to who defines a better game. DA:O is, in my opinion, a good game. However, people who play FPS or Racing games don't believe so. So a particular section of the games playing market will define one game as amazing, while another section will look at it as a waste of space.



Pricing a game on subjective factors isn't realistic, unfortunately. If a friend of yours could buy Madden 2011 at $20, cos you don't think it's very good, but he loves NFL games, but I have to pay £50 for FFXIII, cos you love RPG games, the market becomes unbalanced. And whose subjective viewpoint do they use?



Sticking to the games you mention, Madden and DA, I would assume that some of the price of Madden would incorporate payments made to the NFL for image rights and such, which would be passed on to the consumer, however, I could be wrong there. Whereas the DA IP was created by and on behalf of BW, so would be covered in normal salary.

[facialstrokage]

Yes, each game's "quality" is subjective. But from an business perspective, there's supply and demand, and also elasticity of demand. From an economic perspective, games are objectively better if more people buy that game than another because then they can charge more money to match the amount of available games being produced at the time. Also there's the idea of elasticity. Take Mario Kart for example, it's a pretty casual game. In that sense, people can do with or without it. Many like the game, and they'll buy it for $60, but they don't love it to the point if the price increases by say, $10, they would still get it. On the other hand, take DA. Most people who play DA are pretty into it, at least more than Mario Kart I'd say. If the price went up by $10, not as many people will shirk out of the game, they would still buy it. Try this analogy: Mario Kart is to DA what a nice TV is to cigarettes. People will respond to price changes in flat-screens more than they do to an addicting drug. So for games with a more hardcore fan base, I find it hard to believe they have the same price tag as more casual ones.



With that said, some games are objectively better than others. DA is better than Sonic the Black Knight. COD is better than NBA 2K. I don't think this sort of information is hard to obtain, so I don't understand why game companies don't capitalize on that.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Sports games are expensive because a whole lotta people have to get paid to make it happen.

[Arttis]

People if you want a game just for you put up the money to make it.

There will never be a perfect game just as there will never be a perfect sport,city,country,house,and world for everyone.Complaints will not make it happen.

The world is not like your parents where if you complain enough they will give in.

This is not directed at anyone im just bored a bit.

[Aratark]

@Facialstrokage



I don't disagree with your economic analysis, however people are already suggesting they may not buy DA2. If the price goes up as well, there may well be a drop in sales. Whereas a lowered price may well see the 'hardcore' DA fans buy it as well as the folk who look at it and think 'hmmm, looks ok and it's only £30.' I used to run a business and did very well on the basis of lower unit cost but more units sold.



Should point out that I play DA on a PS3, so I'm already paying more for the game than a PC user, when you consider the additional content I can't get, ie mods. Actually, I may have phrased that badly, PC players get more bang for their buck rather than I pay more is probably a better sentence. PS3 and Xbox owners will probably baulk more at additional cost for DA2, if there isn't more functionality/support for them. That is however a purely subjective statement.

[wanderon]

Isn't it pretty much a given that sequals for the most part generate fewer sales than original games anyway with perhaps a few exceptions? I'm fairly certain gaming companies expect smaller total sales for sequals and plan accordingly when budgeting resources.



As for the whole console vs PC pricing I'm not a big fan of the game companies designing games identically for both platforms in the first place since (IMO) it restricts them from adding many features that would work fine for PC becuase they wouldn't work for consoles and to a lesser extent vice versa.



I can certainly see why they would wnat to do so but that doesn't mean I have to like it -

[aries1001]

I have been playing the game now for about 10-12 hours. And I do hope that DA2 at least get some casualisation (if that's even a word?) e.g. is being made more accessible to all players. Especially in terms of the interface, the skills and the talents. I understand the reason behind shield bash and pommel strike, as well as the pinning shots archers can use. And the reason behind the mage's spells as well. However, I find there is way too many talents and skills to choose from in this game. And I haven't even found a use for half of them...





As for the story, the best part of it so far has been the desciption and the depiction of the Dalish Elves, Morrigan and Flemeth. The rest of the main quest reminds me sort of bit about Oblivion in which you also had to find allies for a defense (for a city, not a country). At least, that's how seems to be presented so far.



As for comparing Dragon Age: Origins to ME2, I have to say that ME2 is the better game (based on the demo, though) The story seems more focused, the plan is more clear, and the combat's base flows more naturally. DA: Origins seems to suffer from the same problem that D&D games (e.g. BG1 and BG2): Large areas with easy combat, then suddenly an area with much harder battles and combat.