608 réponses à ce sujet

[adembroski11]

Dang it, I've written this message three times and erased it all three times having thought of something previously not considered.



I don't think we do ourselves any favors comparing Fallout to Dragon Age. Same genre, but vastly different approaches and worlds.



Taking the inventory system, for instance, out of Fallout the way Mass Effect did would be a travesty. Salvaging is a major part of Fallout lore, and it makes sense that it would be your character's primary means of survival. Loot is a big part of the Fallout universe; just look at the Brotherhood of Steel. A powerful faction whose existence is predicated on scouring the wastes for lost technology.



In the Mass Effect setting, however, it stands to reason that the primary source of funding and equipment would be government issue (ME1) or Cerberus issue (ME2). In Dragon Age, most companions we come across who are 'qualified' to join us on whatever adventure we're engaged in are likely to have acquired weapons and armor that they favor. Ancestral weapons, custom weapons, etc.. Eliminating the inventory/loot system in DA just makes more sense than it does in Fallout.



Fallout's hardcore mode was inspired by numerous mods that a certain type of user uses in Fallout. I am one to use it, but I saw at least one review that specifically said the user should not enable hardcore mode. So it's not for everybody, and it wasn't universally praised.



Eating, drinking, sleeping... all have a place in a gritty post-apocalyptic open world. It does not have a place in Dragon Age or Mass Effect.

[StingingVelvet]

Yellow Words wrote...

I think AC2 added a lot more depth and complexity than AC1. Sure, the game might not be fort knox but I don't see the need for a game to be hard in order to be complex. They added a lot of great stuff like the ability to swim, blend into more crowds, improved eagle vision new ways to assassin targets and so on. And the glyphs, don't forget the glyphs!

The glyph things were cool, actually I would say those were my favorite part of the game.  Some of those puzzles were pretty complext too, so I grant you that one.  Still, when I played AC2 I didn't feel like the gameplay was deeper or more complex on average, it just felt more varied.  Maybe wider versus deeper, to keep the silly adjectives rolling.

Yes, story is their (BioWare) strength, it's something they have always done well. Mix that good story with some of the best NPCs in the industry and you'll have a winner in my books. For me when it comes to characters and story, no one can beat them. I was a bit hesitant when some of the changes were announced but one should also look at what they're adding to the game. Not just things that they take away.
I know they said that they want people who are new to Dragon Age to be able to get right into the game without having to much trouble. But I still don't think they are taking away depth and complexity from the game. The impression I've gotten so far is that it will still be there.

Yeah, Bioware do story and characters very well, it's one of the reasons I love their games.  I would say some characters in New Vegas rival any Bioware character, like Yes Man or Chief Hanlan, but overall New Vegas is more about presenting an overall story that is interactive, more than it is about writing cinematic storytelling and clearly defined NPCs that shine on their own.

I'll also say that I like action games as well as RPGs, so when Mass Effect 2 came out and was more of a shooter than an RPG I was kind of bummed at the loss of RPG mechanics, but I still LOVED the game as a shooter.  Similarly if Dragon Age 2 ends up being more of an action RPG like Divinity 2 or Oblivion instead of a tactical RPG like Origins I will still probably love the game, because I like action RPGs too.  I'll be disappointed it is no longer a tactical RPG though, as we get so few of those now-a-days.  Basically sum it up as "I like action games too but I don't want EVERY game to be an action game!"

[StingingVelvet]

stormhit13 wrote...

This really isn't related to the discussion; and since I haven't kept up on every single post it's probably already been said-- but hardcore mode in NV wasn't THAT much of a change. It essentially just becomes a more restrictive weight limit. In fact, it's my experience it basically makes the game play the same as FO3, because in general everything weighs a little less than in 3. Without hardcore on you can carry basically whatever you want all of the time. The food and water aspects are just throwaways, because similar to FO3, radiation is just not any kind of threat. That's the big key, really, and they didn't change it at all. You never have to think twice about when or what to eat or drink because you're never in any kind of danger of ODing on radiation. So while I guess it's true that from a marketing perspective it appeals to a more niche audience, in practice it really didn't mess with how one plays the game very much.

Hardcore mode was mostly about added roleplaying, you have to eat, sleep and drink and your companions can die... it makes the game feel more realistic for people who like to really, really roleplay their character.

That's not the only example of added depth and complexity in New Vegas.  The factions system is a big one, as is the new damage threshold system, both mentioned in the OP.  Probably the biggest improvement was limiting the perks and stat increases to force you to have a more limited character.  I know some shrug these changes off but if you go to RPG forums and read the comments on New Vegas it is truly amazing how much effect these relatively small changes have on the game for RPG fans.  The simple fact that I can choose who I side with and who my enemies are make New Vegas a 10 times better game than Fallout 3, where the Enclave were that bad guys no matter what.

[StingingVelvet]

adembroski11 wrote...

I don't think we do ourselves any favors comparing Fallout to Dragon Age. Same genre, but vastly different approaches and worlds.

As said many times, this thread is about comparing the motivations of the developers of the two titles, not the two titles themselves really.  Some discussion about the different kinds of RPG the two games are is inevitable and relevent to the question of adding complexity to a game in 2010, but the thread has unfortunately become more about compring the games than the actual reason.

Fallout's hardcore mode was inspired by numerous mods that a certain type of user uses in Fallout. I am one to use it, but I saw at least one review that specifically said the user should not enable hardcore mode. So it's not for everybody, and it wasn't universally praised.

Eating, drinking, sleeping... all have a place in a gritty post-apocalyptic open world. It does not have a place in Dragon Age or Mass Effect.

As I just wrote to someone else, hardcore mode is hardly the only change to New Vegas that adds depth and complexity.  And just as an aside, I would welcome a mode that added some elements of New Vegas' hardcore mode to Dragon Age.  Companion death would be cool, as would something like potions having individual weight.

[The Masked Rog]

StingingVelvet wrote...

stormhit13 wrote...

This really isn't related to the discussion; and since I haven't kept up on every single post it's probably already been said-- but hardcore mode in NV wasn't THAT much of a change. It essentially just becomes a more restrictive weight limit. In fact, it's my experience it basically makes the game play the same as FO3, because in general everything weighs a little less than in 3. Without hardcore on you can carry basically whatever you want all of the time. The food and water aspects are just throwaways, because similar to FO3, radiation is just not any kind of threat. That's the big key, really, and they didn't change it at all. You never have to think twice about when or what to eat or drink because you're never in any kind of danger of ODing on radiation. So while I guess it's true that from a marketing perspective it appeals to a more niche audience, in practice it really didn't mess with how one plays the game very much.

Hardcore mode was mostly about added roleplaying, you have to eat, sleep and drink and your companions can die... it makes the game feel more realistic for people who like to really, really roleplay their character.

That's not the only example of added depth and complexity in New Vegas.  The factions system is a big one, as is the new damage threshold system, both mentioned in the OP.  Probably the biggest improvement was limiting the perks and stat increases to force you to have a more limited character.  I know some shrug these changes off but if you go to RPG forums and read the comments on New Vegas it is truly amazing how much effect these relatively small changes have on the game for RPG fans.  The simple fact that I can choose who I side with and who my enemies are make New Vegas a 10 times better game than Fallout 3, where the Enclave were that bad guys no matter what.

QFT.
I certainly hope DA2 delivers in these things, because DA:O delivered in this as well. I am especially looking forward to the rivalry/friendship system. That should add a lot of RP depth to interactions with companions.

[ErichHartmann]

Permanent death in Dragon Age would only makes sense if it's part of the story.

[Estel78]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

The fact that FO3 sold well only makes NV more relevant; DA:O sold quite nicely as well, better than ME2 as we all know.

Do we? Are you comparing DA:O on PC, X360 and PS3 to ME2 on PC and X360? That's not a fair comparison. You need to compare the figures for respective platforms.

[StingingVelvet]

ErichHartmann wrote...

Permanent death in Dragon Age would only makes sense if it's part of the story.

It would become part of the story when they die, that's kind of the point.  Take DA:O for instance, all it would take is adding some camp dialogue about that person dying to make it work.  I suppose Alistair's death would cause some minor tweaks at the Landsmeet, but nothing insane since you can already end up with a different ruler than him anyway.  Other than Allistair no one's loss would really effect the main narrative.

For gameplay reasons have your last three companions fall unconscious, rather than die, to preserve the 4-man party.  Or have that as only an option, so people can ruin their chances of finishing if they want.

Done.

[Vylan Antagonist]

The quoting and counter-quoting is getting a little out of hand, so in the interest of not having increasingly sprawling megaposts, I'll assume readers can look up to see the original quotes.



Again, you are attributing to me a very overblown position, which I guess plays well for hyperbole's sake, but remains wildly inaccurate. As I said, it's a spectrum, not a binary value. Obsidian chose NOT to remake the wheel to pursue sales and instead focused their dev time on overwhelming amounts of content and a couple bones for the niche audiences. This was well received, even by the likes of Ice T. This is also precisely the opposite of what was supposedly merited by Bioware's stated metrics about what percentages of players see all of that content.



Meanwhile, Bioware is expending effort on redesigning the wheel. They are re-doing the art assets and they are revamping gameplay. This is NOT what Obsidian did. QED.



You are so intent on twisting my argument into your strawman (Noble developer versus iniquitous one) that you make my own points for me unwittingly. No, Obsidian did not attempt to reinvent a successful franchise (again) by shoehorning Gamebryo and FO3 into an isometric game. That would be a foolish waste of time. Instead, they followed up a successful entry with another successful entry that not only didn't go out of its way to attempt to cater to the MW2 players but even went so far as to write little love letters to the niche (I count at least 2 Somethingawful references).



Bioware is following up a successful game by revamping it. You are arguing that their scale (3.2 million vs. 5, I guess) constitutes a monumental difference, I don't feel that it is. Both games sold very well by game standards, far above the usual rates. Both games are successes. But only one felt the need to reinvent the core gameplay and art assets. That's a good bit of tremendously valuable development time that could have been spent elsewhere, particularly critical when you have a tight time table. The argument I was seeing justifying that decision was that if they hadn't pitched DA2 that way, it wouldn't have gotten made. Now, that decision might not have been the developers' to make, but someone in the organization made that call. And it doesn't seem like it was necessary, given that New Vegas moved (substantially or not) away from the 'mass market' and found tremendous success by focusing on massive amounts of content.



Some of that was mutually exclusive (although they took pains to minimize that). But in spite of your statements to the contrary, much of DO:A's content was mutually exclusive too. Obviously. Look at the origins alone, let alone follow-up plot threads in-game. If content isn't to some extent mutually exclusive, then choice is illusory. I know I've played games like that and they haven't been satisfying to me. Mutually exclusive content encourages replaying a game, because it suggests that the playthrough can feel substantially different.



You also attempted to imply I have an anti-console bias, because apparently you like ascribing qualities to people as much as you claim I like to do to developers. My only bias regarding consoles versus PCs is which plays better for me. I played FO3 on the 360, but DA:O on the PC.I enjoyed both on those respective platforms, but I do feel I missed out on Mods and the ability to fix bugs with console tweaks. Beyond that, I have no pre-existing prejudices for either option beyond the practical- Keyboard and mouse works well for some games, Controller is better for others, some games I don't mind being hunched over a keyboard, whereas others are more engrossing sprawled out on a couch in front of a big TV. Dragon Age:Origins was ostensibly a return to Bioware's, so I played it on the PC. I didn't resent the console release in the slightest and I'm sad to hear that it wasn't good.



I know you are intent on pursuing your own narrative of how you think my argument should read, but please follow closely-



1) Dragon Age: Origins was Bioware's best selling game ever.

2) We were told that it wasn't as profitable as it needed to be and that the sequel had to be pitched differently in order to get made.

3) With a tighter time table, valuable development time was spent re-doing artwork and refocusing gameplay to be more action oriented.

4) There seems to be a pretty clear linkage between these decisions, even if you refuse to stipulate to it.



To parallel:

1) Fallout 3 was very successful for Bethesda.

2) In developing a 'follow-up', Obsidian did not choose to redesign art assets or make radical departures in gameplay

3) They chose to focus on delivering massive amounts of content and still had time to devote dev cycles to features that appeal to a minority of their market

4) The game still sold well.



Does that mean that if Bioware had chosen to opt for a similar strategy, they would have automatically succeeded as well? Of course not. There are no guarantees.



Does it mean that it was possible to have done so? I certainly think so. I think it's a pretty clear argument in its favor. I think it validates their choice of focus (content versus graphical and gameplay overhauls).



And I think it leads back to what I lamented about Bioware's proclivity for tossing out something that wasn't working instead of fixing it. It's very akin to swapping the Mako sequences for Mineral scanning. I think the Mako bits were salvageable and I would have preferred that they be reworked slightly in lieu of moving cursors around. I think DA:O's gameplay and graphics were serviceable and if the console port had issues, they could have fixed them without abandoning the pausable order-based play entirely in favor of Musou-like instantaneity.

[David Gaider]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...
2) In developing a 'follow-up', Obsidian did not choose to redesign art assets or make radical departures in gameplay

Not to pick out one point or anything, but I'll just interject and suggest that Obsidian might also not have been at liberty to do so. It's not their IP, after all. Beyond that, continue with your conjecture.

[Vylan Antagonist]

Estel78 wrote...

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

The fact that FO3 sold well only makes NV more relevant; DA:O sold quite nicely as well, better than ME2 as we all know.

Do we? Are you comparing DA:O on PC, X360 and PS3 to ME2 on PC and X360? That's not a fair comparison. You need to compare the figures for respective platforms.

 
Why? What difference does it make? When I made the point that it was Bioware's best selling game, whether or not that statement  is 'fair' to ME2's feelings wasn't relevant. It still isn't. DA:O was Bioware's bestselling game. Period. Full Stop. When responding to the argument that FO3 is different somehow, that's all that's relevant.

If you really want to quibble about it just to be pedantic, a much more salient post script would be that DA:O's dev cycle was much longer, so it had more invested into it than ME2. ME2 could easily have generated more revenue. But it still doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it's reasonable to compare DA:O to FO3 in terms of sales. They are both big sellers.

[StingingVelvet]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

And I think it leads back to what I lamented about Bioware's proclivity for tossing out something that wasn't working instead of fixing it. It's very akin to swapping the Mako sequences for Mineral scanning. I think the Mako bits were salvageable and I would have preferred that they be reworked slightly in lieu of moving cursors around. I think DA:O's gameplay and graphics were serviceable and if the console port had issues, they could have fixed them without abandoning the pausable order-based play entirely in favor of Musou-like instantaneity.

It kind of feels like different degrees of being reactionary.  Bioware, in both Mass Effect and Dragon Age, seems to have responded to criticism by reacting strongly and removing entire aspects of gameplay, rather than refine.  Obdisian reacted to some roleplayer criticism of Fallout 3 by adding subtle improvements that are almost invisible to more casual players.

That's kind of an interesting difference.

[Vylan Antagonist]

David Gaider wrote...

Vylan Antagonist wrote...
2) In developing a 'follow-up', Obsidian did not choose to redesign art assets or make radical departures in gameplay

Not to pick out one point or anything, but I'll just interject and suggest that Obsidian might also not have been at liberty to do so. It's not their IP, after all. Beyond that, continue with your conjecture.

I don't know either, nor to what extent. But it seems reasonable that they *could* have focused on different walking animations (they changed the gun-holding animations, for example) and more viscerally appealing looking equipment and faces. I don't think that would have been a wise allocation of their resources, but they probably could have done it, sparing Fallout Nexus the need of making a couple of the endless hair and facial texture mods.

But your point is well taken, maybe they lacked much effective latitude. Still, that just brings the credit for the decision back to the publisher instead of the developer.

And really, the publisher is the one I'm getting at 'faulting' (if it can even be considered something to fault) in the case of DA2's design focus. And I won't know if I'm terribly off base or not until I see a Gamasutra post mortem.

[Estel78]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

Why? What difference does it make?

You pointed out DAO sold more than ME2. I think it also needs to be pointed out why that is the case, not to be misleading.

[Catsith]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

1) Dragon Age: Origins was Bioware's best selling game ever.

2) We were told that it wasn't as profitable as it needed to be and that the sequel had to be pitched differently in order to get made.

People keep saying it was their best-selling game ever, but didnt Bioware develop and ship both Mass Effect games in the time it took them to develop and ship DA:O? In that case, #2 makes perfect sense.

[StingingVelvet]

Catsith wrote...

Vylan Antagonist wrote...
1) Dragon Age: Origins was Bioware's best selling game ever.
2) We were told that it wasn't as profitable as it needed to be and that the sequel had to be pitched differently in order to get made.

People keep saying it was their best-selling game ever, but didnt Bioware develop and ship both Mass Effect games in the time it took them to develop and ship DA:O? In that case, #2 makes perfect sense.

Well, they released Awakening and could have released more very similar content if they wanted to.

[Vylan Antagonist]

Estel78 wrote...

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

Why? What difference does it make?

You pointed out DAO sold more than ME2. I think it also needs to be pointed out why that is the case, not to be misleading.

As I explained in the parts you snipped, it's just not relevant to the context. It just doesn't matter why it sold more. It's not a discussion of those two games' relative merits, even you accepted the proposition that game sales are the best metric for determining that. Someone said Fallout 3 and FO:NV weren't comparable to DA:O because FO3 was a big seller. In that context, I responded that DA:O was a big seller too, Bioware's biggest. It was. Whether that's attributable to the genre, the platforms released on, the time tables, the launch windows, whatever- None of that matters. At all. Flatly put, DA:O was the best selling Bioware game ever (as far as I know). That doesn't diminish ME2 in the least.

[Vylan Antagonist]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

[And really, the publisher is the one I'm getting at 'faulting' (if it can even be considered something to fault) in the case of DA2's design focus. And I won't know if I'm terribly off base or not until I see a Gamasutra post mortem.

And to explain that even a little more, I'm just saying that if I'd had my druthers, you'd be getting forced to work a lot more, David, because I would have wanted you to focus on content, content, content, while the art team would be tasked with bringing more of your creations to life instead of redesigning and reconceptualizing the old ones. But since my druthers got lost in the mail, it's all about the Hot Rodding instead. And maybe that'll work out for the best in the end and Bioware will move those 10 million units. I'd be perfectly happy with that result, because it would mean that more DA would be forthcoming in the future. But for now, it just seems like efforts that could be going into more of the things I loved about DA:O are going into redesigning the presentation. I was grudgingly buying the argument (whether it was made entirely in my imagination or not) that this decision was a market necessity and now I'm wondering if maybe it was not.

For all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: "It might have been!"

[MerinTB]

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.

I haven't actually fully responded to the OP's question yet, but I will now...

I understand that this isn't comparing Dragon Age to Fallout 3, nor BioWare to Bethesda...
but game design decisions for sequels... more RPG elements and deeper play  and more content added for a sequel VS. streamlining and shortening length and eliminating RPG elements in favor of flashier, prettier gameplay for a sequel.

I get the question, and that it's not intended to be a hidden dig at Dragon Age 2 in the least.

In response, I think it matters little to Dragon Age 2, especially at this point.  Alpha Protocol's poor sales can be attributed to many things, one of those possibly being the "framed narrative" it uses.  But I still think that even if you could logically make such a direct connection (and I don't believe you could) that it wouldn't have any real bearing on Dragon Age 2 using a "framed narrative."

Now I'm not saying this because Fallout 3 and Dragon Age are different games, different in so many ways.

I'm saying it because Dragon Age 2 is all but finished at this point, and the only thing that BioWare or EA could possibly do now is try to market the game a bit more to that Fallout: New Vegas demographic, assuming it was a desire for them to try to.  I doubt they will - 5 million shipped is impressive, but it's not nearly the 10 million they want.

Going forward, however, some voices in BioWare who may have been arguing against the streamlining, who may have been fighting for more RPG elements and less constricting main characters and linear, railroading plots MAY have a little more weight behind their argument if New Vegas outsells Dragon Age 2 - maybe.

That's a lot of "may's" in there.

From many sources I am fairly confident there was some resistance inside of BioWare for the Dragon Age 2 direction for the Dragon Age franchise.  If that resistance still remains at BioWare and, in the end, they are still unhappy with the end results of Dragon Age 2.

Fallout: New Vegas could undersell or oversell Dragon Age 2.  There is almost no way to know that at this point.  I think DA2 will have a hard time beating Dragon Age: Origins numbers for a number of reasons, which is tangent to this discussion... but as such, since I do believe that F:NV is on course to eclipse DA:O's sales, DA2 will most likely (from how I see things at least) not beat F:NV's numbers.  But we can't know that at this point - it could outsell MW2 for all we know (though I wouldn't bet your life savings.)

So there's a lot of supposition in my response.

In the end, though, the effect of one game's sales (impressive at F:NV's sales are, they aren't record breaking for games overall) can be attributed to so many factors that you'd have to compare it to other games (Gothic 4, Fable 3, etc.) to see if there is a trend for streamlined RPG games selling more or less...
and even THAT will not be a big factor for the creative minds in game design - just fodder for bean counters and suits to lean heavily on the game design team to do X instead of Y as the market currently seems to show X sells better than Y.

F:NV sales and critical response to the game (compiled with Gothic 4 and Fable 3) could mark a bellwether in gaming audiences and trends that can help prognasticate DA2's potential sales and reception overall... but I wouldn't put too much stock in it.

Modifié par MerinTB, 17 novembre 2010 - 08:13 .

[StingingVelvet]

MerinTB wrote...

Going forward, however, some voices in BioWare who may have been arguing against the streamlining, who may have been fighting for more RPG elements and less constricting main characters and linear, railroading plots MAY have a little more weight behind their argument if New Vegas outsells Dragon Age 2 - maybe.

That's a really great point, I like the way your mind works.

Thanks for actually posting on-topic as well, I appreciate it.

[Ziggeh]

MerinTB wrote...

Going forward, however, some voices in BioWare who may have been arguing against the streamlining, who may have been fighting for more RPG elements and less constricting main characters and linear, railroading plots MAY have a little more weight behind their argument if New Vegas outsells Dragon Age 2 - maybe.

That's a lot of "may's" in there.

You could also say that those arguing for DA to be more like a first person shooter would have more of a case.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 17 novembre 2010 - 09:42 .

[AlanC9]

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

Estel78 wrote...

Do we? Are you comparing DA:O on PC, X360 and PS3 to ME2 on PC and X360? That's not a fair comparison. You need to compare the figures for respective platforms.

 
Why? What difference does it make? When I made the point that it was Bioware's best selling game, whether or not that statement  is 'fair' to ME2's feelings wasn't relevant. It still isn't. DA:O was Bioware's bestselling game. Period. Full Stop. When responding to the argument that FO3 is different somehow, that's all that's relevant.

The question isn't ME2's feelings; that's just silly. The question is whether it's rational to compare a two-platform game to a three-platform game, discover that the three-platform game sold more than the two-platform game, and think you've proved something.

[Ryzaki]

I think it depends on how much more it sold. PS3 does have a smaller fanbase than the 360 no?

[Vylan Antagonist]

AlanC9 wrote...

Vylan Antagonist wrote...

Estel78 wrote...

Do we? Are you comparing DA:O on PC, X360 and PS3 to ME2 on PC and X360? That's not a fair comparison. You need to compare the figures for respective platforms.

 
Why? What difference does it make? When I made the point that it was Bioware's best selling game, whether or not that statement  is 'fair' to ME2's feelings wasn't relevant. It still isn't. DA:O was Bioware's bestselling game. Period. Full Stop. When responding to the argument that FO3 is different somehow, that's all that's relevant.

The question isn't ME2's feelings; that's just silly. The question is whether it's rational to compare a two-platform game to a three-platform game, discover that the three-platform game sold more than the two-platform game, and think you've proved something.

Again, if that's the question, who is asking it and why? Clearly it must be a matter of someone's feelings getting injured the moment they see the comparison. To reiterate-

1) Someone claimed that it wasn't reasonable to compare Fallout New Vegas to DA2 because Fallout 3 sold really well.

2) I replied that, if anything, FO3's excellent sales only made the comparison MORE relevant, because Dragon Age Origins sold very well too, in fact more than any other Bioware game to date.

That's it. That's the context.

So please, tell me how explaining away that fact with some sort of arbitrary footnote about Mass Effect 2 selling on fewer platforms has anything to do with the context? Should we also arbitrarily note that, hey, Baldur's Gate 2 was only sold on 1 platform, the PC, so it also deserves a special asterisk, and hey, MDK2 was only sold on the Dreamcast and PC so it also deserves a note because really, how many dreamcasts were there, and oh, what about installed bases at the times of each games sales, and how about market penetration, and...

No. Just no. There's no reason to even mention Mass Effect 2 in this scenario unless someone is feeling defensive about DA:O's bigger numbers. Seriously. Mass Effect 2 was a great game, but unless you have some sort of special attachment to it and corresponding sales inferiority complex, there's just no reason to squirm over DA:O's sales.

[Realmjumper]

Let me make one thing clear. Fallout New Vegas was a rushed garbage product that have severely crippling bugs at release.



Anyone who tells you otherwise either A) got lucky and didn't experience them or was payed to review the game positively.



Just go to youtube and search for yourself the bugs that game had. It should of never been released when it was.



So why was it released?



1. To cash in on the holiday rush 2. To avoid Call of Duty: Black Ops rush 3. Because Bethesda knew they could get away with it.



It's unacceptable to release a product in such a state. If I bought a gallon of milk and only 70% of it was useful while the other 30% might cause me bodily harm I don't think that company would be in business for long.



Fortunately for Bethesda the legion of Fanbois will purchase anything with the Fallout name on it. perhaps they will think twice after the disaster that is New Vegas. Don't talk to me about the patches because that shouldn't be necessary for the thousands of bugs. You kill those in QA before the product launches.



All in all New Vegas was a rushed product that seeked to capitalize on the loyal fanbase while not caring about the consequences of releasing a bug filled world.



Lets hope Dragonage 2 is far from what New Vegas has achieved.