559 réponses à ce sujet

[screwoffreg]

Anyway if these numbers are to be believed, DA has out shined ME 2? I highly doubt there is going to be such a surge of ME 2 sales in the near future that the game will overtake DA. The momentum is already in DA's favor if the reported numbers are true.

[TheMadCat]

screwoffreg wrote...

ME 2 SHIPPED two million units, not sold.  I am trusting EA's internal figures over anyone others.  It was on their quarterly report that they gave the 3+ million number for DA and I believe they mentioned the sales for ME 2.  Why would they underreport sales figures?

Shipped vs sold is a common confusion.  Final Fantasy XII, for example, claims to have shipped 5.2 million units but in no way has sold that many.

Goddamn I love it when people reply to posts without fully reading and comprehending them..

I am well aware that these were numbers shipped, which is why I said and I quiote...

though that was EA's sales to retailers.

And as I said, I find it very hard to swallow that retailers overshot their estimate that much. Sitting on 400k units 4 months after release for an AAA title as hyped and touted as Mass Effect 2 in literally unbelievable. And these two million shipped stats are also EA's internal figures so not like they were pulled from the blue sky. Someone misinterpreted some data somewhere, 1.6m for ME2 on both platforms for an entire quarter seems way to low all things considered.




 

It begs the question why developers even give the "shipped" number.  I can ship 50,000,000 units of something but if only 1,000,000 sell, who cares?

Well, considering the publisher would have been paid for those 50m units I would assume they would care, greatly.

[nuclearpengu1nn]

Chris Priestly wrote...

Dragon Age 2? What's that?

its where MORRIGAN returns remember?

[yoda23]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Odd, I was just thinking of coming here and making a post about "learn lessons from ME2 about what NOT to do in DA2". Dumbing down gameplay, discarding emotional attachments, etc.

I hold out hope that if they do have plans to make a DA2 that they don't make all those same mistakes over again.

+1 

[InfectedMite]

I am not concerned. Bioware won't ruin Dragon Age 2 for a few noobs.

[libreQc]

you could be surprise... because there isn't only a few. There is an army of them, playing oblivion calling it the best game ever. When the play DAO, they start whining about the graphic and the story( it is too complex for there little brain). They are trying to corrupt Bioware, so we must find them and burn them! Who's with me?
(sorry, i just really hate oblivion lol)
(oh and i forgot, now they are playing Fallout 3. The graphic of oblivion suck now so it isn't a good game for them anymore)

Modifié par libreQc, 16 mai 2010 - 05:00 .

[dan107]

maxernst wrote...
NWN2 didn't have repetitive combat?  You've got to be kidding me.  The entire first chapter was just endless repetitive combats.  Sure, there were more small areas but the actual gameplay was almost entirely one combat after another.  It did get better in the last two acts, but the first seemed to go on forever.  How many bandits and thieves do I need to kill?

The crucial difference is that in NWN2 combat was very frequently broken up by dialogues. You always had a story based objective that you were fighting for, and some kind of pay off in story progression and exposition that kept you interested. In other words good pacing. I can't recall a single dungeon crawl in NWN that lasted more that 30 minutes (except maybe at the very end). DA has several that are over 2 hours of NOTHING but combat.

I'd guess that the percentage of time spent in combat is higher in most RPG's than in a game like Half-Life. It's the only way they can pad out the game for 100 hours of gameplay.  Personally, I'd rather have a really good quality 20-hour game, but the market as a whole won't pay $60 for that.

Half-Life 2 developer commentary should be required viewing for all game developers. They essentially give away the formula for one of the best paced games ever made.

AlanC9 wrote...
But there's just as much combat in all those games. The dungeons are shorter, but you find the same stuff in the next one. You're not talking about the combat, you're talking about the pacing

Indeed I am talking about the pacing. Like I said in my post, my problem is not with the type of combat in DA, but the fact that it can drag on for HOURS with no break in between.

gingerbill wrote...
Apart from the deep roads theres not many times you are in combat for a long peroid of time and i enjoyed that as it was a change of pace , i felt like i was miles from civilisation fighting.

Urn of the Sacred Ashes was the worst offender by far, but the werewolf temple and the mage tower dragged on for about twice as long as they should have as well.

Tirigon wrote...

In ME1 and even more in ME2 the combat plays a much larger role than in DAO....

AlanC9 wrote...
And I have absolutely no idea what you're thinking of when you put ME on that list.

Point me to a place in ME1 or 2 where you're looking at a 2+ hour dungeon crawl with no storyline progression.

[AlanC9]

screwoffreg wrote...
 I am trusting EA's internal figures over anyone others.  It was on their quarterly report that they gave the 3+ million number for DA and I believe they mentioned the sales for ME 2.

Not where you linked, they didn't. That's a secondhand report. 

Anyone know what "sold-in" means as a term of art?

BioWare™, a division of Electronic Arts Inc. (NASDAQ: ERTS), announced today that Mass Effect™ 2 has sold-in over two million units worldwide in its first week of release

http://news.ea.com/p...713&newsLang=en

[AlanC9]

dan107 wrote...


Point me to a place in ME1 or 2 where you're looking at a 2+ hour dungeon crawl with no storyline progression.

Maybe I'm faster at DA combat than you are? I found the long combat sequences in both games to be about the same length.

[TheMadCat]

AlanC9 wrote...

Not where you linked, they didn't. That's a secondhand report. 

Anyone know what "sold-in" means as a term of art?

Not sure, never heard that terminology before and Google wasn't exactly helpful given the wording. Maybe a more technically correct way of simply saying "sold x amount of units"?  Maybe it's the term used to reference sales between a manufactures/publishers and retailers, that's possible given the context of the article.

[AlanC9]

You Googled it too, eh? Yeah, it's no help with a hyphenated phrase.



Over on the ME board they've been kicking around a figure of 6 million total shipped for ME2. I have no idea where that came from.

[Artillis22]

Humm weird, not sure why mass effect 2's sales aren't up their with dragon ages. I actually like mass effect and mass effect 2 more then the dragon age game. I like them both and play them both mind you. But I like mass effect 2 better and actually think all things considered mass effect 2 has a better and deeper story and plot. It is a different kind of game though but shares similar properties with dialog and such and romances that other bio ware games have. Though as far as story and plot and game play I think bio wares much older title baulders gate series shines above them all. It's over 10 years old and I still play it.



Any way I don't care for these big general game producing companies and think bio ware could and should just stand on their own and break off from the big corporate gaming giants that fail,.kind of like blizzard did.

[VampireCommando]

GreyWarden36 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Dragon Age 2? What's that?

its where MORRIGAN returns remember?

Dude you are now a god in my eyes.

[SDNcN]

Artillis22 wrote...

Any way I don't care for these big general game producing companies and think bio ware could and should just stand on their own and break off from the big corporate gaming giants that fail,.kind of like blizzard did.

You mean Activision Blizzard?

[soteria]

AlanC9 wrote...

Not where you linked, they didn't. That's a secondhand report. 

Anyone know what "sold-in" means as a term of art?

BioWare™, a division of Electronic Arts Inc. (NASDAQ: ERTS), announced today that Mass Effect™ 2 has sold-in over two million units worldwide in its first week of release

http://news.ea.com/p...713&newsLang=en

Based on this (see below paragraph) I'd guess "sold in" just means what they shipped/sold to retailers, but not necessarily what actually sold.

The publisher also provided some shipment updates on its recent titles. Last year's holiday blockbuster Assassin's Creed II has now sold in nearly 9 million copies to retailers, while the casual-focused Wii game Just Dance is approaching 3 million copies sold in to retailers. And while the publisher didn't give specific numbers for other titles, it did say that Red Steel 2 on the Wii met its most recent sales forecasts, and Avatar (especially the Wii edition) surpassed them.

Compare the language used to this quote:

During a call with analysts, EA CEO John Riccitiello, COO John Schappert, and CFO Eric Brown discussed highlights of the previous and coming years. These included:
--The executive team noted that Mass Effect 2 has sold through more than 1.6 million units through both retail and digital means in Europe and North America. In January, the publisher said BioWare's acclaimed sci-fi role-playing game had shipped 2 million units worldwide.

I can't explain the difference between "sold through 1.6m" and "shipped 2m," but my guess is that "sold in" and "shipped" are more or less synonymous and don't necessarily indicate what retailers sold to consumers.  Assuming the use of "sold through" is intentional and it means what it sounds like, I'd guess that means what was actually sold.  So what happened to the other 400k, and is that normal?  I don't know.  I don't know enough about the retail industry to say if still holding 20% of your stock after a few months is good, bad, or indifferent.

Modifié par soteria, 19 mai 2010 - 05:59 .

[TimeTraveler]

all,



having completed DAO & DAA - I think DAA was a quick grab for $30 of my money. No romance! No personal campaigns! Lots of long cut scenes! Too little interaction with your group. Played most of the game without a Rogue [I play a mage] so I wasn't able to unlock any chests or doors until I got Sig in the Deep Roads. It took me 27 hours til DAA was completed. Instead of DA2, why don't they go back to DA0 and make it better - better & indepth dialogue, better campaigns, better interaction, more life-like characters, better music, more choices. Get rid of all the 'loading' screens - Fallot 3 was much much better. Most gamers have top notch equipment & their machines are able to handle more action without bogging down, although it did happen to me. I had forgotten I left World Community Grid running with 8 pipes & 100% computer capacity & the fight scene came to a screeching grinding halt. Had to turn off the computer & restart the game.



DAO is a fun and exciting game. DAA - not so much.



timetraveler

[Lintanis]

Dragon Age 2:The Sims lol

[AuraofMana]

This is my greatest fear in regard to Dragon Age 2. I'm afraid they'll go the Mass Effect 2 route and just dumb down the RPG aspects. If DA2 ends up being a hack 'n' slash action game with a dialogue system tacked on to it, I'm not buying it.

Because RPG means inventory. Seriously, go read the Wikipedia article on RPG. Just because it lacks the inventory system you want doesn't mean it's not a RPG.

Oh, by the way, hack-and-slash games count as RPG's. Shows how much you know.

[Vicious]

ME2 gets more support than DA2/DAA and superior DLC. Seriously they have a large DLC incoming and they just recieved a new patch which makes planet scanning MUCH less annoying.

[searanox]

My biggest wishes for Dragon Age 2:



1) Multiplayer - because when playing an in-depth single-player RPG, I feel like my experience would be enhanced by the sound of screaming thirteen-year-olds, and bumbling fools who don't know how to play the game properly.



2) More DLC - I love giving away my money to EA, especially if I get almost nothing in return for it! I suggest making add-ons that are even more useless than that Feastday one, and charging five times as much money for them.



3) Cash shop - you know, I hate playing games, especially if it requires me to spend time. I think that good players (i.e. those with more money) should be able to skip all that pointless "gameplay" nonsense and just get to the stuff that matters - loot.



4) More loot! - speaking of loot, didn't I mention that shiny trinkets are way, way cooler than complex, balanced game mechanics and interesting stories and characters? Well, they are! I think that all the development time on Dragon Age 2 should be spent on the creation of functionally identical, but visually distinct, items that make me feel like a total virtual badass. Who needs fun and intrigue when you've got a GIANT MOTHER****ING SWORD, ****ES?

[Vicious]

So... you want DA2 to be Diablo 3?

Modifié par Vicious, 19 mai 2010 - 03:17 .

[Tsuga C]

searanox wrote...

My biggest wishes for Dragon Age 2:

You really need to use more emoticons as I'm not sure that the [blank]ing [blank]tards at EA will fully perceive the tongue-in-cheek nature of your post.    

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

The problem with this is that it makes combat balancing much more difficult for the devs.  When you know what resources the party will have at the beginning of every fight, you're able to make fights that will push the party to the edge every time, while with D&D style casting you have to be more forgiving (not that this is something they actually took advantage of in DA, sadly.)

Honestly, D&D style casting (and limited use items) always resulted in me never using spells unless I absolutely had to (haste is usually enough to get through most difficult encounters that don't specifically require a spellcaster in my experience) and as such, the mage in my party spent most of the time as a useless tag along.

Honestly, I much prefer the DA style of combat/casting, because it actually allows me to do fun things in combat other than just sit there and auto-attack.

Your mage was being a safety net.  Is a safety net useless just because you didn't fall?  Allow me to quote from David Mamet's Heist:

JOE: You ever cheat on a woman? Something, stand her up, step out on her?

DON: What?

JOE: Ever do that?

DON: Yeah.

JOE: Did you have an excuse?

DON: Yeah.

JOE: What if she didn't ask?  Was your alibi a waste of time?

I suggest that good game design using a BG-style strategic approach would be to have the combat encounters require efficient strategy.  Design them to require a large number of resources to defeat, and then if a player's strategy leaves him with insufficient resources then he will fail.

It makes the whole dungeon one puzzle rather than each encounter a stand-alone puzzle on its own.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 mai 2010 - 06:23 .

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
The problem with this is that it makes combat balancing much more difficult for the devs.  When you know what resources the party will have at the beginning of every fight, you're able to make fights that will push the party to the edge every time, while with D&D style casting you have to be more forgiving (not that this is something they actually took advantage of in DA, sadly.)

Honestly, D&D style casting (and limited use items) always resulted in me never using spells unless I absolutely had to (haste is usually enough to get through most difficult encounters that don't specifically require a spellcaster in my experience) and as such, the mage in my party spent most of the time as a useless tag along.

Honestly, I much prefer the DA style of combat/casting, because it actually allows me to do fun things in combat other than just sit there and auto-attack.

Your mage was being a safety net.  Is a safety net useless just because you didn't fall?  Allow me to quote from David Mamet's Heist:

JOE: You ever cheat on a woman? Something, stand her up, step out on her?

DON: What?

JOE: Ever do that?

DON: Yeah.

JOE: Did you have an excuse?

DON: Yeah.

JOE: What if she didn't ask?  Was your alibi a waste of time?

I suggest that good game design using a BG-style strategic approach would be to have the combat encounters require efficient strategy.  Design them to require a large number of resources to defeat, and then if a player's strategy leaves him with insufficient resources then he will fail.

It makes the whole dungeon one puzzle rather than each encounter a stand-alone puzzle on its own.

Sure, and I can understand how people can like that approach.  I prefer one where every single character is able to participate in each combat to the fullest of their abilities, however.  Besides, there's almost nothing more annoying than spending an hour or two making your way through a dungeon, only to come to the end of it and find that you're not able to beat it because you lack the resources, and having to replay the whole dungeon.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Besides, there's almost nothing more annoying than spending an hour or two making your way through a dungeon, only to come to the end of it and find that you're not able to beat it because you lack the resources, and having to replay the whole dungeon.

Here we simply disagree.

I had to replay all of Orzammar and the Deep Roads my first time through DAO because I couldn't roleplay coherently and defeat Caridin (I had Shale with me the first time), so I backed up to before I met Shale, redid Warden's Keep, redid Orzammar and the Deep Roads, and then got Shale.

The replayed section took me 25 hours.