223 réponses à ce sujet

[filetemo]

Xallah wrote...

And wasn’t the number of companions one of the most memorable things about ME?

I loved it, but many reviewers felt like so many companions, stories and loyalty quests overshadowed a dull main quest making the game more of a dirty dozen recruit with no plot.

Again, if several thousands of customers recruited only the minimum number of companions to advance the main quest, that's content developed and unplayed.And costs money.

It's about finding the balance I guess.

[filetemo]

philbo1965uk wrote...


I don't understand why this appears to come as a shock to you...is this the only Genre you play ?

yes, it is a shock to me. It is a shock that people would buy story-driven single player rpgs and not finish them. This genre implies a different type of player and different kind of expectations.

You can play countless hours of need for speed or gtaiv racing cars and blowing things up without finishing a single race or mission

You can play sports games and never finish a single player career mode, if all you want is play separate matches against the cpu or online.

You can pick need for speed and apply an "unlock all cars" cheat to start racing in singular races.

In DAO you can't grind, can't roam freely, fight for the sake of fight against respawning oponnents or go to a village and kill merchants and quest givers.You play for the progression of the story. Why would you not finish the game?. Do you find the gameplay boring? not interested in the story? overwhelmed by the optional quests? too much lore to remember who is who? Your parents bought it without knowing what was it? Is there other games that demand your attention more?

[Piecake]

filetemo wrote...

Xallah wrote...

And wasn’t the number of companions one of the most memorable things about ME?

I loved it, but many reviewers felt like so many companions, stories and loyalty quests overshadowed a dull main quest making the game more of a dirty dozen recruit with no plot.

Again, if several thousands of customers recruited only the minimum number of companions to advance the main quest, that's content developed and unplayed.And costs money.

It's about finding the balance I guess.

Characters have always interested me more than plot, so to me, that was not a bad thing as well. 

n their podcasts (cant remember which one) they do say that one of the things they learned from DAO feedback was that gamers loved interacted with their characters and wanted to learn more about them.  They also found the average side-quest pretty boring.  So, to solve this they say that there will be a lot more character quests in DA2 than DAO. 

Hopefully that will ease your mind a bit because pointless DAO sidequests turning into optional character development quests definitely sounds like a good thing

[Lord Gremlin]

There is a reason a lot of people never finished ME1 and DAO: both games have a lot of filler content. Boring same-looking dungeons/planets with boring same 3 types of enemies. Deep roads anyone? Exploring on Mako? I've completed DAO several times (see profile), but that's because I'm into gaming and really loved the story.

As for ME1 I've completed it once mostly as renegade and never replayed, as most of game is dull as ****. I say - get rid of filler. If you can add more great content - fine. But if it's like DAO - 20 hours of awesomeness buried inside 100 hours overall... Look, I have a life. I'd rather have 20 hours but with NO damn filler at all.



Right now I'm playing Final Fantasy XIII... Those guys at Square Enix have same problem as Bioware with filler content. Yes, I want to know what happens next, but why must I kill 1000 damn frogs/darkspawn/whatever to get there?

[filetemo]

Piecake wrote...



Hopefully that will ease your mind a bit because pointless DAO sidequests turning into optional character development quests definitely sounds like a good thing

yes it does.

but it's been confirmed that "collect ten potions for the apostates guild"  type-quests are present too. And not even I usually do those.
The one I did complete was "orphans of the blight" in awakening, because rather than telling you to collect random things, it was compelling to know what the scammers would tell you to do next. A filler-type of quest well done.

[philbo1965uk]

filetemo wrote...

philbo1965uk wrote...


I don't understand why this appears to come as a shock to you...is this the only Genre you play ?

yes, it is a shock to me. It is a shock that people would buy story-driven single player rpgs and not finish them. This genre implies a different type of player and different kind of expectations.

You can play countless hours of need for speed or gtaiv racing cars and blowing things up without finishing a single race or mission

You can play sports games and never finish a single player career mode, if all you want is play separate matches against the cpu or online.

You can pick need for speed and apply an "unlock all cars" cheat to start racing in singular races.

In DAO you can't grind, can't roam freely, fight for the sake of fight against respawning oponnents or go to a village and kill merchants and quest givers.You play for the progression of the story. Why would you not finish the game?. Do you find the gameplay boring? not interested in the story? overwhelmed by the optional quests? too much lore to remember who is who? Your parents bought it without knowing what was it? Is there other games that demand your attention more?

That can easily be explained...console have a culture all of their own..play the game a month and trade in.

So that explains why so many players haven't completed the full game.They have low attention span and retail has cultivated the trade in mentality.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Generally its not just RPGs, the majority of most players who play any game will not finish that game.

[Zhijn]

Its very high risk for any company/publiser to make a multi million game, especially rpg's.

Now i dont know how much DAO sold overall but if they didnt profit on it or enough (+advertising) the chance of a similar sequel is low, and the chance of a sequel that target a wider audience is higher (we call em mainstreamers, right?). And last, the chance of creating new IP's in a near future drop aswell (not counting BioWare, yet!).

Its all about sequels now. And the innovation is left to indie/browser games. ^_ ^

I gues they could just bump up the price on M games to oh i dont know, 80-100$? Eeek the hate that would flow!.

Modifié par Zhijn, 15 novembre 2010 - 01:03 .

[FedericoV]

As far as I know, no public data has been released on DA:O, but only about ME2.

Having said that, it would be very superficial to read those data and react just cutting content here and there or streamlining the gameplay. ME2 is the epithome of streamline and that choice have improoved the game in many ways, but still 50% of players have not completed the game. So? Should they streamline the game even more? Or should they try to understand why many gamers do not complete the games they bought? Or should they consider it as a natural behaviour of many casual gamers?

Modifié par FedericoV, 15 novembre 2010 - 01:03 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Back in my day games were 80-100 dollars and no one complained!

[filetemo]

philbo1965uk wrote...



That can easily be explained...console have a culture all of their own..play the game a month and trade in.

So that explains why so many players haven't completed the full game.They have low attention span and retail has cultivated the trade in mentality.

bioware data showed that an almost equal proportion of pc players and console players left the game unfinished.

[Lord Gremlin]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Generally its not just RPGs, the majority of most players who play any game will not finish that game.

True - most people who played Killzone 2 never killed Radek. But KZ2 kept people occupied with multiplayer and DLC sold well. DA2 is supposed to keep people entertained with singleplayer - it should be intense and with a lot of replay value.

[Lord Gremlin]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Back in my day games were 80-100 dollars and no one complained!

They cost exactly that much for consoles in most of Europe.

[Piecake]

philbo1965uk wrote...

filetemo wrote...

philbo1965uk wrote...


I don't understand why this appears to come as a shock to you...is this the only Genre you play ?

yes, it is a shock to me. It is a shock that people would buy story-driven single player rpgs and not finish them. This genre implies a different type of player and different kind of expectations.

You can play countless hours of need for speed or gtaiv racing cars and blowing things up without finishing a single race or mission

You can play sports games and never finish a single player career mode, if all you want is play separate matches against the cpu or online.

You can pick need for speed and apply an "unlock all cars" cheat to start racing in singular races.

In DAO you can't grind, can't roam freely, fight for the sake of fight against respawning oponnents or go to a village and kill merchants and quest givers.You play for the progression of the story. Why would you not finish the game?. Do you find the gameplay boring? not interested in the story? overwhelmed by the optional quests? too much lore to remember who is who? Your parents bought it without knowing what was it? Is there other games that demand your attention more?

That can easily be explained...console have a culture all of their own..play the game a month and trade in.

So that explains why so many players haven't completed the full game.They have low attention span and retail has cultivated the trade in mentality.

assumptions, generalizaitions, and insults always make a fine basis for an argument

[FedericoV]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Back in my day games were 80-100 dollars and no one complained!

They cost exactly that much for consoles in most of Europe.

True, especially on PS3. That's why I allways laugh about people who says that they cannot afford to play on the pc. I mean, you like consolle more? Ok, fine. But not say that gaming on consolle is cheaper because it's not true.

Modifié par FedericoV, 15 novembre 2010 - 01:07 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Think of it as difficulty versus time constraints.

Take out too much and the game can get boring and unengaging. Player quits
Put in too much the game can get confusing and frustrating. Player quits
Keep it the same but scale it further, game gets too difficult. Player quits
If the level design is uneven, player gets frustrated. Player quits
If it is buggy and crashes or destroys a save. Player quits
If it is just not their bag. Player quits
If they do not have enough time and they put off beating it, they risk not returning.
If they play a lot of games there is a chance they might not beat this game

Many, many more reasons.

Also I'd like to add that if you take out too much but still keep it "active" (as in not an adventure game" you also risk the game becoming too difficult as giving the player options gives them "outs" so to speak to work with.  

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 15 novembre 2010 - 01:07 .

[Lord Gremlin]

FedericoV wrote...

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Back in my day games were 80-100 dollars and no one complained!

They cost exactly that much for consoles in most of Europe.

True, especially on PS3. That's why I allways laugh about people who says that they cannot afford to play on the pc. I mean, you like consolle more? Ok, fine. But not say that gaming on consolle is cheaper because it's not true.

Well, high-end PC actually cost a lot. That said, there are many reasons to prefer console. 

Anyway. The most important thing for each game is being enjoyable and entertaining. I don't care about some old RPG standards - if I want to play BG2 I will play BG2. On PC. Don't try to resurrect old combat mechanics. Combat mechanics in Origins is a FLAW, overshadowed by amusing story and characters. I like that Bioware got the message. Although less Origins is a bad idea - customization is important in all modern games.

Truth be told, my PC can run DAO but I still play on PS3. Platform loyalty, you might say. Still, PC is good for old games and games that don't come out on PS3.

[Captain Iglo]

Dont forget that a lot of console gamers only rent their games for a few days play as far as possible and then bring it back...thats how I do it with most of my PS3 games...except some special cases like Red Dead Redemption or Uncharted 2 I always rent a game...play it a day or 2 and then bring it back...I buy it then about 5-6 months later when it costs less.

[Xallah]

Jarek_Cousland wrote...

Xallah I like your leadership skills. Bringing the fans together and what not, where as I'm more likely to sit in the back of the room and make snarky comments.


I'm with everything you said

Thank you!

filetemo wrote...

I loved it, but many reviewers felt like so many companions, stories and loyalty quests overshadowed a dull main quest making the game more of a dirty dozen recruit with no plot.

Again, if several thousands of customers recruited only the minimum number of companions to advance the main quest, that's content developed and unplayed.And costs money.

It's about finding the balance I guess.

I have some friends that shara the opinion, that ME2 was more about layalty missions than the main quest. Though I think these are different things. First the main plot had it's drawbacks and the loyalty missons naren't the ones to blame. Second is that it's a trilogy, maybe here we just recruiting companions for the epic third part, who knows! But people musn't overlook the fact that the games are connected )

And I also think there's a problem that many people just don't have enought passion and tolernce to explore every corner of the game, to ecruit all the companions. And i think these qualities are essential for an RPG player.

Piecake wrote...

Characters have always interested me more than plot, so to me, that was not a bad thing as well. 

Absolutely share your opinion here )))

Piecake wrote...

n their podcasts (cant remember which one) they do say that one of the things they learned from DAO feedback was that gamers loved interacted with their characters and wanted to learn more about them.  They also found the average side-quest pretty boring.  So, to solve this they say that there will be a lot more character quests in DA2 than DAO. 

Hopefully that will ease your mind a bit because pointless DAO sidequests turning into optional character development quests definitely sounds like a good thing

That's good )))

Modifié par Xallah, 15 novembre 2010 - 01:19 .

[Lord Gremlin]

Captain Iglo wrote...

Dont forget that a lot of console gamers only rent their games for a few days play as far as possible and then bring it back...thats how I do it with most of my PS3 games...except some special cases like Red Dead Redemption or Uncharted 2 I always rent a game...play it a day or 2 and then bring it back...I buy it then about 5-6 months later when it costs less.

Hm, hardy an international trend. Although it's true for USA.

[Captain Iglo]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Hm, hardy an international trend. Although it's true for USA.

Well I see a lot of it here in germany too.

[Stick668]

I'm reminded of a pair of interviews on Eurogamer.

Gabe Newell (Half-Life and Valve) followed by Warren Spector (Deus Ex and whatever company he's currently at).

Essentially, Newell says "We like to design so that all our efforts are visible in one playthrough. Spending time on making six possible paths means the player may only see one sixth of your work. Bit of a waste."

And Spector replies in detail. Exact quote: "For players, a multipath/multisolution game offers the knowledge that if they're clever they will see and do things no one else has ever seen or done. How can you not want to play a game like that?"

It's interesting reading. I have a lot of respect for both fellows and it's amusing to see actual game developers gracefully tackle a common "forum topic" as it were.

---

Anyways. If by "streamlining" you mean "increasing quality density", I'm all for that. Let's say the statistics indicate most people will "only" stick around for twenty hours... well, let's make those twenty hours bloody awesome? More satisfied customers, more money, more available games for us. (Contrast this extreme hypothetical with the opposite: they make a 200-hour game that confuses, baffles and bores everyone except for, let's say, half the people on this forum. The game sells twelve copies, Bioware gets stripped for parts and twenty-three people cherish the game forever while bitterly blogging about glory days past.)

And if by "streamlining" you mean "removing options" I don't object to that on principle. I honestly don't care if I have three dialogue options or nine. (Or none, though I highly doubt that will happen here, common slippery slope arguments notwithstanding.) I loved Planescape: Torment and I loved Mass Effect 2. The former was book-ish and the latter was cinematic. Both were great. But I should probably mention I've replayed ME2 five or six times. Torment, I've completed once and restarted five times. This tells me something.

To bring this back to the OP:

You may be right about "inevitable". But while I have opinions about the handling of DLC (for one, cosmetic changes and special weapons are not "pay-worthy content"; they're horse armor and other phrases beginning with horse)...

I don't see inevitability as "doom". It's all just change.

[Taritu]

One thing people need to remember is that DAO was Bioware's best selling game every. Yes, it sold better than ME2. Maybe ME should DAOized?



Or maybe not, since they're two different types of games.

[Taritu]

Oversimplify and you have what happened to the second Deus Ex game. There is a line to be walked, go too far over it and you lose something. So many options that decision paralysis is reached = bad, but more decisions which are significant and clear = good.

[Ziggeh]

Stick668 wrote...
Anyways. If by "streamlining" you mean "increasing quality density", I'm all for that. Let's say the statistics indicate most people will "only" stick around for twenty hours... well, let's make those twenty hours bloody awesome? More satisfied customers, more money, more available games for us. (Contrast this extreme hypothetical with the opposite: they make a 200-hour game that confuses, baffles and bores everyone except for, let's say, half the people on this forum. The game sells twelve copies, Bioware gets stripped for parts and twenty-three people cherish the game forever while bitterly blogging about glory days past.)

And if by "streamlining" you mean "removing options" I don't object to that on principle. I honestly don't care if I have three dialogue options or nine. (Or none, though I highly doubt that will happen here, common slippery slope arguments notwithstanding.) I loved Planescape: Torment and I loved Mass Effect 2. The former was book-ish and the latter was cinematic. Both were great. But I should probably mention I've replayed ME2 five or six times. Torment, I've completed once and restarted five times. This tells me something.

I think it's fair to say a lot of people are misusing the term, as if by definition streamlining is a bad thing