608 réponses à ce sujet

[outlaw1109]

I just wanted to point out (because people forgot?) neverwinter nights.  The original, not the garbage obsidian called a sequel.  I just skimmed this topic of Obsidian and Bethesda...I saw several instances of people suggesting that some games sell more than anything Bioware has published.  I'll be honest, after extensive searching online, I've only discovered that there were over 4 million copies sold of NWN.  I can't find anything specific.  That's only the core game, not any of the expansions btw...
To those of you who didn't get the pleasure of NWN, I feel sorry for you.
To those of you saying that money isn't as important as w/e else is out there, I say that you seem to forget why these companies are in business.  When these people make a game (regardless of whether or not they enjoy it) they're after the bottom line.  How much they have to spend versus how much of a return they will see on that investment.
With that said, someone else mentioned that DA2 began development BEFORE they even knew DA:O's success.  This is slightly inaccurate.  They began development just a few weeks after DA:O was released, which meant that they averaged the sales they had achieved over that period of time and PROJECTED what they would inevitably earn from the game.  That's just how the business works.  They're not going to sit around and wait for special reviews or public opinion.  Development is driven by sales and in many instances decisions are made based off of projections.

To the OP, I honestly think it means very little.  As many people have stated on this thread, we know so very little of this game to make a judgement of how complex/uncomplex it may be.  They may be streamlining the game, but what does that mean, exactly?  Does that mean that they're cleaning it up so that the voice actor for the main character says exactly the option you picked in the dialogue?  Does it mean that, instead of time standing still while you journey from place to place, it actually progresses as you play?  Those are both examples of things I believe could be improved upon from the original dragon age.  Streamlining could also mean the removal of Maces because they're just an ungodly weapon to kill someone with.  Who knows what they mean?  Unless they specifically say (which they haven't btw) that they plan on streamlining everything so that DA 2 looks more like Mario World, then I don't think we have anything to worry about. 

I was initially concerned with DA:O because of EA, but after its success, I can say that I will preorder DA:2 before christmas.

[AlanC9]

Meltemph wrote...

Not sure exactly how book sales work honestly... I mean, we had Software Guide books and things of that nature, but there was no return policy form the publishers end with the books we ordered. As for software... We were never able to return software that we ordered... Maybe Walmart or something like that would have a deal like that, but I never heard of such a thing.

That sounds to me, like a very weird practice... I mean, if a company like Apple didn't let us just return what we didn't sell or any company for that matter, I don't see how manufacturers would'n't get completely screwed over.  I mean, that does not even make sense to me, that would mean all the risk is on the manufacturers side and the retailer takes 0 risk on their purchases.

If a software company actually does have a policy like that, I've never encountered it(although to be fair it has been a couple years since I worked in that type of job), and in this environment, I would call them a pretty stupid company.

Hey, I didn't say it made sense. IIRC the whole system came about as a way to prop up a collapsing retail system back during the Depression. And now that bookstores aren't doing all that well again it's not easy to change it.

If you get a couple beers into my ex-boss he'll say that the whole industry is just hanging on until print goes away completely, and it's not really worth it to mess with the status quo anymore.

So when a game flops the retailers take the hit rather than the publisher? And what kills a bad developer isn't so much the loss on that project as the loss of confidence in their next one?

[AlanC9]

outlaw1109 wrote...

I just wanted to point out (because people forgot?) neverwinter nights.  The original, not the garbage obsidian called a sequel.

What do you figure was wrong with NWN2?

[Meltemph]

So when a game flops the retailers take the hit rather than the publisher? And what kills a bad developer isn't so much the loss on that project as the loss of confidence in their next one?

If they don't order more copies because a game is sitting on the shelf, that is how they fail(FFXIV anyone?). I would consider retailers not buying their game anymore a pretty big deal. I mean, we rarely had big software titles ever jsut sit in our store. Only time we had problems is when we ordered to many "some where in the middle" items.



It's not like retailers are forced by manufacturers/publishers to order as many copies/items as they ordered. Why would it be the manufacturers fault that a store ordered to many copies? Only items I was ever able to return was Bose/Klipsh Home Theater systems.

[Meltemph]

Now that I think about it though, bigger stores could have consignment deals with the big retailers... Never really thought about that, although, I don't know why they would do it, other then having complete control over their products.

Edit: The more I think about it, the more I think that they could use it... I guess if you look at it from a consignment POV, then amount shipped does gets more fuzzy, since we all have seen games sit on store shelves for months upon months.

Modifié par Meltemph, 15 novembre 2010 - 07:28 .

[Meltemph]

Of course, they could also do what a lot of companies do and sell the product to wholesale warehouses to... Another thing I didn't think about, but I'm not sure how Wholesale Warehouses interact with manufacturers and retailers, since I had no reason to differentiate...



Who knows... Either way, unless the worst case scenario happens, shipped is a pretty big deal.

[Karlojey]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

I can't wait for Bioware or Obsidian to release a game where most of your gold stores come from stipends given to you by your employer, standard issue equipment is available via requisition (but realize that in a modern fire team, the assault rifle, machine gun, grenade launcher, and marksman rifle are all "standard issue" so there is ample breadth of outfitting possibilities) and additional funds, assistance, and equipment come from the side quests.
It would annoy all the right people ("where's my loot!?!?!") while still giving all the character customization and incentive to side quest while making me very happy. Rather than having to hope for good loot, all the good stuff is available if I'm willing to devote the acquisitions budget to it or do its side quest.

Liiiike, Alpha Protocol?

[MadLaughter]

And again, we are accused of having an agenda and hating everything about DA2.

[Grand_Commander13]

Karlojey wrote...

Liiiike, Alpha Protocol?

Oh don't get me wrong, Alpha Protocol was a step in the right direction.  Still too much looting though.  "That thug just dropped a roll of cash!  I saw it first!"

Anyway, does anyone find it odd that New Vegas is getting reamed for bugs that Fallout 3 had?  I mean, its review scores are getting dinged for them while Fallout 3 isn't...  How quaint...

[Augustei]

Ulous wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

Hear me out.

New Vegas added a lot of complexity and roleplaying back into the Fallout 3 paradigm.  The factions make decisions matter, as pleasing often means losing gameplay oppotunities with the other.  You can actually fail quests, for instance.  The damage threshhold system (DT) actually makes killing a Deathclaw with a pistol almost impossible, as you need a weapon that can bust through its armor.  The hardcore mode adds roleplaying elements like eating, drinking and sleeping, plus companion permanent death.  The stat and perk systems were redesigned to keep a player from being a master of everything.

Rather than be bashed for this Obdisian seems to have earned much praise for it.  Pretty much every review only points out bugs as a negative, but praises the new elements and increased weight of choices and dialogue.  In contrast games like Fable 3 and Arcania: Gothic 4 were bashed by reviewers for being too simplified and without any complexity.  I was happy to see this, as I think most "old school" RPG gamers like myself were worried we were headed toward even simpler games, but this is a light in the tunnel so to speak.

So... my question is, what does this mean for Dragon Age 2?  Things are kind of foggy right now with not a lot of information out there, but the general consensus is that things are being streamlined compared to DA:O.  Is this the opposite of what the market is actually looking for now?  Does the added complexity in New Vegas and how well it was received point more toward keeping the complexity of DA:O or even expanding on it?  Perhaps Western RPGs are familiar enough to mainstream gamers now that they crave the depth and complexity the old school crowd wants back as well?

And what does it mean for Bioware as a whole?  Does the sucess of New Vegas and the comments against Fable and Arcania mean anything to Bioware for the future?  Will they look more at adding complexity and roleplaying mechanics back into their games?  Mass Effect 2 ditched a lot of RPG elements, will Bioware maybe feel confident about putting those elements back in the game to some extent?

These are actual questions, I am not looking to make a subversive point.  I was really surprised by New Vegas and how RPG it was, and then surprised again at how much praise that got from both fans and reviewers.  I want to know if it effects the future of multiplatform RPGs, and Dragon Age 2 in particular.

The problem is that this could lead into a debate about what one considers RPG elements or not, for all it's good or bad points FNV is still miles away from being the old school clssic RPG and I don't think it was ever trying to be.

Secondly the RPG genre is changing and evolving, Bioware I believe are aware of this and are adapting accordingly, if they start making U-turns and taking steps backwards they run the risk of being left behind and/or ultimately being left bankrupt, while Lionhead Studios, Bethesda and Obsidian etc point their fingers and laugh.

Why Would Obsidian point their fingers and laugh at bioware for going bankrupt. Obsidian has already gone bankrupt before Lol!

[Augustei]

Wait never mind im thinking of black isle studios

[KLUME777]

StingingVelvet wrote...

Simple version:

Fallout New Vegas was praised for adding depth and complexity. Fable 3 and Gothic 4 were bashed for removing depth and complexity. Does this mean anything to Dragon Age 2 and Bioware? More specifically, will this
impact review scores? Sales? Public opinion? Will the game be effected in some minor way?
__________________________________________________________________

Long version:

New Vegas added a lot of complexity and roleplaying back into the Fallout 3 paradigm.  The factions make decisions matter, as pleasing often means losing gameplay oppotunities with the other.  You can actually fail quests, for instance.  The damage threshhold system (DT) actually makes killing a Deathclaw with a pistol almost impossible, as you need a weapon that can bust through its armor.  The hardcore mode adds roleplaying elements like eating, drinking and sleeping, plus companion permanent death.  The stat and perk systems were redesigned to keep a player from being a master of everything.

Rather than be bashed for this Obdisian seems to have earned much praise for it.  Pretty much every review only points out bugs as a negative, but praises the new elements and increased weight of choices and dialogue.  In contrast games like Fable 3 and Arcania: Gothic 4 were bashed by reviewers for being too simplified and without any complexity.  I was happy to see this, as I think most "old school" RPG gamers like myself were worried we were headed toward even simpler games, but this is a light in the tunnel so to speak.

So... my question is, what does this mean for Dragon Age 2?  Things are kind of foggy right now with not a lot of information out there, but the general consensus is that things are being streamlined compared to DA:O.  Is this the opposite of what the market is actually looking for now?  Does the added complexity in New Vegas and how well it was received point more toward keeping the complexity of DA:O or even expanding on it?  Perhaps Western RPGs are familiar enough to mainstream gamers now that they crave the depth and complexity the old school crowd wants back as well?

And what does it mean for Bioware as a whole?  Does the sucess of New Vegas and the comments against Fable and Arcania mean anything to Bioware for the future?  Will they look more at adding complexity and roleplaying mechanics back into their games?  Mass Effect 2 ditched a lot of RPG elements, will Bioware maybe feel confident about putting those elements back in the game to some extent?

These are actual questions, I am not looking to make a subversive point.  I was really surprised by New Vegas and how RPG it was, and then surprised again at how much praise that got from both fans and reviewers.  I want to know if it effects the future of multiplatform RPGs, and Dragon Age 2 in particular.

120% agree. Also, Fallout New Vegas is an instant 9.4/10 for me.

I was surprised and happy about the changes made to New Vegas, and for the reviews. It proves that Old School/Hardcore games can be successful. DAO did it, New Vegas did it.

ME2 did'nt do it (it did'nt sell well, as far as i know)

[KLUME777]

GreenSoda wrote...

FNV's success will have zero impact on DA2 -obviously. (We are too far along in the dev. cycle).

...also one single title doesn't break the trend. You'd be surprised how many FNV players actually complained that it wasn't more like F3 and how F3's story telling was superior (I'm not even joking on that one).

There's also the point that -even though FNV is a success- F3 still was more successful and actually also got higher ratings across the board.

F3 has been out for 2 years now, NV less than a month, and ive seen many (more than half) that praise NV and think its better than F3. Even if they didnt, most give the game above 8.5, marked down only becasue of glitches.

[KLUME777]

Khayness wrote...

Nothing for BioWare. Obsidian is superior in game mechanics, BioWare excels in storytelling.

I would say Obsidion excells at both (KotOR 2 and Alpha Protocol had fantastic stories). Its just that Fallout is not superly orientated around story, so it doesnt have a superb story. Obsidion sucks in the glitch department though.

[Onyx Jaguar]

KLUME777 wrote...

ME2 did'nt do it (it did'nt sell well, as far as i know)

Everything I have seen has said it has sold well.  Yahoo, other game sites, that token VGChartz thing everyone shows to say it hasn't sold well.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 15 novembre 2010 - 12:49 .

[KLUME777]

Ulous wrote...

The people who are pointing out FNV's sales what is your point? If you are saying that it has sold so much because it is RPG classic then I believe you are wrong, the kind of people that played Fallout 3 and who are now playing FNV are the same people that usually wouldn't touch an RPG with a ten foot pole, add on top of that it attracts RPG fans as well then you have a huge selling game, can't people see that is what Bioware are doing with DA2? Appealing to the RPG fans as well as those who possibly wouldn't bother? That's the way i see it anyway.

Thats a steaming pile of BS because I, and many othersw on this thread, am a huge fan of both companies, Bioware, Bethsda and Obsidion.

[KLUME777]

Herr Uhl wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

It's a very general point, I don't want to get bogged down by specific examples.  The point is that Obsidian added in more complexity and depth and were rewared with favorable comments from reviewers and players alike.  What form that added depth takes on would depend on the game...

As I see it then, DAO was way more complex than FO3, hence they need to lower it to reach new vegas level.

This isnt F3, this is New Vegas. Have you played New Vegas because its very differernt than F3 (very).

[KLUME777]

In Exile wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...
Siding with a faction changes the "world" quite a bit by changing which areas become friendly and hostile.

To me, that just isn't a big change. Fallout NV just isn't a world that feels alive or engaging to me. Just pre-programmed automatons going on about their altered routes.

So to me, all that NV means for DA2 is a reminder why I only do business with Bioware.

Because characters standing idle in Denerim all day is so much better...

I feel the opposite, i think the NV world is very alive.

Dont get me wrong, i love DAO to bits, but you unfairly bashing on NV.

[KLUME777]

Harcken wrote...

Well, I look at it this way. Dragon Age combat was lacking, but the roleplay was good; so they focused on the combat. In Fallout 3, the combat was good, but the RPG elements were lacking; so they focused on the RPG mechanics.

I love both Obsidian and Bioware, but I would have to say Obsidian storylines and dialogue is superior, but Bioware polish and gameplay systems are the best. Opposite of someone else's view, and like some other guy said, a merged Bioware/Obsidian would be cool in a dream world.

Again, this thread is about Fallout New Vegas. I was unaware Fallout New Vegas was also called Fallout 3.

[Piecake]

KLUME777 wrote...

Harcken wrote...

Well, I look at it this way. Dragon Age combat was lacking, but the roleplay was good; so they focused on the combat. In Fallout 3, the combat was good, but the RPG elements were lacking; so they focused on the RPG mechanics.

I love both Obsidian and Bioware, but I would have to say Obsidian storylines and dialogue is superior, but Bioware polish and gameplay systems are the best. Opposite of someone else's view, and like some other guy said, a merged Bioware/Obsidian would be cool in a dream world.

Again, this thread is about Fallout New Vegas. I was unaware Fallout New Vegas was also called Fallout 3.

he was commenting on fallout new vegas, at least partly.  He said that FNY focused on rpg elements because they were lacking in fallout 3

[KLUME777]

Ulous wrote...

StingingVelvet wrote...

I liked Alpha Protocol, but that is neither here nor there.

This thread is doing what a lot of forum threads do, which is dance around the point and look for competitions and rivalries. That is not the intent. The question is simple, and I may update the OP to reflect this:

Fallout New Vegas was praised for adding depth and complexity. Fable 3 and Gothic 4 were bashed for removing depth and complexity. Does this mean anything to Dragon Age 2 and Bioware? More specifically, will this impact review scores? Sales? Public opinion? Will the game be effected in some minor way?

It's not about whether you prefer the more guided and cinematic Bioware style or the more open Betheda style, it's about adding versus removing depth.

Yes but why would Bioware concern themselves about adding/removing depth based on FNV when that isn't why the game has done so well?

I would say the reason why i enjoy the game so much is because it adds a lot of dephth and new features, its not exactly like Fallout 3.

[KLUME777]

relhart wrote...

Alocormin wrote...

I don't care what the OP thinks. Bioware has not watered down any of their franchises for simplification's sake, and they never will.

I'm trying to decide if you are being sarcastic or not, but on the chance you aren't... "streamlining" and " simplifying" are pretty much the key descriptors of both ME2 and DA2, and have been used by devs themselves.  The fact they HAVE done it isn't even debatable (well not rationally debatable anyways)  The only thing that is, is the "why" of it. 
Snickering PC elitest like me will suggest it was done to appeal to the attention spans of the console generation out there, while Dev post (I have seen) claim that's just coincidentlly the game they wanted to make anyways.  Which might be true, and DA2 might be better for it, (I think it will certainly SELL better anyways)

I dont believe it will sell better, but only because not everyone who bought DAO will buy DA2, because not everyone liked DAO, and dont follow DA2 like us forumites. I dont think they willl get a huge increase in new players either.

Unlesss of coarse they have a crapload of excellent marketing. Which is possible.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Don't care. I'm playing them both, and I'd rather live in a world where I can play both rather than choose between one or the other.

[KLUME777]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
And then NV has the whole silent PC thing going for against it...so...

Do you honestly see Fallout as being a better game with the main character having a voice? because that would be Completely out of place.

[Onyx Jaguar]

You know in the older Fallouts with everyone around having a voice I could easily see the protagonist have a voice.



Granted the newer ones are so different from the older ones.