223 réponses à ce sujet

[DanaScu]

AlanC9 wrote...

Jarek_Cousland wrote...

How is it games like Fallout and Elder scrolls get so much money and playtime as opposed to Bioware games?

Because you dont need to play the main story? Thats the only reason I could come up with.

Do they actually get more playtime? I've got no idea how long the average TES player plays the game

Average? I'm not really sure. What extends the ES games is the ability to mod. Remember Morrowind? People are still playing it, still making mods for it and still active on Bethesda's forums. Same for Oblivion. Some players have multiple hundreds of hours in their games. Now its happening again, although not to as great an extent so far, with Fallout 3.

[crimzontearz]

JrayM16 wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

john...you guys want me to play DA2 over and over?

Gimmie NG+ dammit

Lol I kid I kid......but seriously...gimmie

Seconded.

Damn straight

[Rixxencaxx]

JohnEpler wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I'm rather stunned that someone would not want to finish these games. The only thing I can think of is too short an attention span.

Or it could just be taste. For every 9 ME2 or DA:O playthroughs, there are 10 games I could barely head 10 hours in.

This is also beyond me. The list of games that I have purchased that I did not have an interest in finishing is a very very short list indeed.

I'm the same way.  Just not that much of a gamer that I "need" to finish a game just because it's there.  Story-based games are the ones I'm driven to finish.  I would have quit DAO, too, except for Alistair and the damn rose.  With Fallout 3, I had to find Dad.  And so on.  But people have lives, it's not like they're obligated to finish a game.  If they buy games anyway, why is this a bad thing for developers?  Someone who drops cash on a game without thinking much about it is a pretty valuable consumer to have.

Well, maybe as a publisher. But as a developer?

Developers put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into the games they make. While some people like to say we're lazy because we didn't put feature X or aspect Y into our game, the fact remains that for the last 5-6 months before a game reaches certification - most people are pulling 10-12 hour days and coming in on weekends. It's a labour of loves, and we're more than willing to put the time in because we believe in the product we're creating. And, most importantly - we want to show it off. We're like new parents - 'who wants to see pictures of our baby? Oh, that's a picture of when we stayed until 2AM in an alcohol and caffeine-fuelled madness only to figure out a simple and yet touching way of doing that scene in under an hour'.

We don't want you guys to just buy our game, play for an hour and then put it aside. Yeah, sure, we'll get the sale - but that's not the point, really. We don't want people to buy our games so we can buy gold-plated ponies and jetpacks. We want people to buy our games so we can keep making games. We love what we do, and we want people to play through them and then talk about them afterwards. We want you to go up to your friends and say 'Oh man, did you get to that part yet where that thing happens? I'm going to be honest, I cried like a baby.'

It's easy to dismiss us as being all about the money when we make decisions people disagree with. But if we were all about the money, I'm fairly certain most of us wouldn't be in the games industry. We do this because we love what we do, and we put everything into the stuff we make. We put it all on the table, lay it all on the line - whichever cliche you want to use. And we want you guys to see it, to experience it, to feel it. It's not about people buying our games, playing them and then moving onto the next. Never has been, and I wager it never will be for most of the people I work with.

So to end a somewhat rambling rant - you're right, in the end, you're not obligated to finish a game. Heck, I've got a massive backlog that I really need to pay some attention to someday. But we want you to finish the game. Because we put a lot of ourselves into the games we make, and we want you guys to experience that.

nice post but....
1) no party customization = money related...less armours less work less money to spend for development
2) no bird eye camera on pc = money related...less work on textures less money to spend for development
3) framed narrative =  money related no world map less work on areas and subquests
4) shorter than dao = obviously money related
5) more action oriented game = target casual gamers = money related

sorry but all your changes to the original formula are money related

Modifié par Rixxencaxx, 15 novembre 2010 - 08:45 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

nice post but....
2) no bird eye camera on pc = money related...less work on textures less money to spend for development
3) framed narrative =  money related no world map less work on areas and subquests
4) shorter than dao = obviously money related

2) How does zooming the camera out create more textures? All it does is widen your POV of the surrounding area. Everything you see in any kind of zoom out is already in the game to begin with. I may be wrong, but there is no "overhead texture" that they have to make.

3) How do you know there is no world map? In fact, the devs have stated that the world map exists, just a bit differently from Origins.

4) Unless it's not. Just because you CAN make a large game doesn't mean that you WILL.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 15 novembre 2010 - 08:56 .

[crimzontearz]

1: party members have now unique models and animations....that costs MORE money than simple head swaps like in DAO



2: there IS a tactical camera on pc...and it is also free roaming. The devs are working on it



3: framed narrative =/= no world map....get your facts straight....the devs NEVER said therfe will not be explorations or subquests actually quite the opposite, they said clearly some side quests will change depending on when you complete



4: can't comment on that withou seeing the replay value features



5: untrue, the devs specified the game plays much like the original but faster...and that came from the sluggishness complaints

[DPB]

Yep, the world map is definitely not gone. In fact, at PAX Dan Lazin said that there would be 'extra dimension' to the world map, which is being designed by Tony Evans (former Obsidian and Lead Designer of Storm of Zehir). I've no idea what that means yet, but in that case it sounds like they're adding content there, not removing it.

Modifié par dbankier, 15 novembre 2010 - 09:02 .

[Bryy_Miller]

Well, #5 is partially true; I mean, they have not been shy about the fact that they are trying to expand their fanbase. Which, of course, is the goal of any company. Unless you're DC Comics. But I doubt BioWare wants the majority of their fans to be sexist manchildren.

[Rixxencaxx]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Rixxencaxx wrote...

nice post but....
2) no bird eye camera on pc = money related...less work on textures less money to spend for development
3) framed narrative =  money related no world map less work on areas and subquests
4) shorter than dao = obviously money related

2) How does zooming the camera out create more textures? All it does is widen your POV of the surrounding area. Everything you see in any kind of zoom out is already in the game to begin with. I may be wrong, but there is no "overhead texture" that they have to make.

3) How do you know there is no world map? In fact, the devs have stated that the world map exists, just a bit differently from Origins.

4) Unless it's not. Just because you CAN make a large game doesn't mean that you WILL.

http://www.kotaku.co...trategy-camera/

“For budgetary reasons, we focused our work on a 3rd person view, that
asks for very detailed and nice textures so that the player can admire
the game with a close-up view. With an aerial view [isometric] we should
cover much more ground and so create other textures. Now, the game
mainly sold on console, so we’re going the way of the audience”.

[DPB]

Rixxencaxx wrote...

http://www.kotaku.co...trategy-camera/

“For budgetary reasons, we focused our work on a 3rd person view, that
asks for very detailed and nice textures so that the player can admire
the game with a close-up view. With an aerial view [isometric] we should
cover much more ground and so create other textures. Now, the game
mainly sold on console, so we’re going the way of the audience”.

Mike Laidlaw has denied saying that, he says it was lost in translation by the French magazine that interviewed him.

[Bryy_Miller]

Yeah, that's not exactly the right translation.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 15 novembre 2010 - 09:10 .

[crimzontearz]

Wow that quote again? Not like it was not addressed before by the devs AND you are taking it out of context AND a more recent interview reiterates that there will be a tactical view

[lv12medic]

Well, zooming out the camera usually switches textures to a lower resolution set so systems don't explode with an orgasm of data. Kind of the same deal with textures and models disapearing after a certain distance with the low angle camera views. Ostagar on the bridge, you watch yellow flags magically appear out of thin air and such.

And as for the old Joystick magazine preview. Just remember Laidlaw says something in English, it was translated into French and the re-translated to English for Kotaku to understand. Copy of a copy error propagation and all that jazz.

*edit*
Hmm... you know with this "data" of who finished and didn't finish the game... Did anyone at Bioware/EA take into account or throw out all the useless data points.  I've made a bunch of characters fidiling around with mods and such for fun, but I only finished the game a couple of times?
*end edit*

Modifié par lv12medic, 15 novembre 2010 - 09:19 .

[hannibal555]

So the point is, not enough people ended their playthrough of DA:O and ME2, so there had to be made changes in the future games to end this, right?



Well, to make them shorter would obviously make more gamers play them through, that is only a logical conclusion.I can't help but to smile while writing this.

[DPB]

Besides, there have been at least a couple of previews that say that the tactical camera isn't that different.

http://www.gamesrada...93233136058/p-3

http://www.1up.com/d...age?cId=3180929

Modifié par dbankier, 15 novembre 2010 - 09:19 .

[hannibal555]

dbankier wrote...

Besides, there have been at least a couple of previews that say that the tactical camera isn't that different.

Wait for your apologies until the game is out ^^

[DPB]

hannibal555 wrote...

dbankier wrote...

Besides, there have been at least a couple of previews that say that the tactical camera isn't that different.

Wait for your apologies until the game is out ^^

I doubt I'll be apologising, since all I care about is if there's camera mode where it isn't tethered to the selected character. The height of the camera isn't that important to me, only that it can be moved about freely at some level, and that's what we seem to be getting.

[Dave of Canada]

Honestly, I would've completely been fine with a shorter Origins. Deep Roads and Fade stopped me from playing multiple playthroughs, I need to essentially "detox" myself from the game if I want to replay it so I don't gouge out my eyes from the Deep Roads and Fade segment.



Though I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.

[Bryy_Miller]

hannibal555 wrote...

dbankier wrote...

Besides, there have been at least a couple of previews that say that the tactical camera isn't that different.

Wait for your apologies until the game is out ^^

Why would there need to be an apology? Because someone was wrong about a video game? Let's not get that petty, please.

[Koralis]

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
This is also beyond me. The list of games that I have purchased that I did not have an interest in finishing is a very very short list indeed.

I didn't say I bought the game. I just said that there are lots of games I don't play until the end. But it appears that people don't open 10% of the games they buy, which to me is just insane.

I've got a few of those.  Games on the shelf for $7 and I think,"hey, cool...l supposed to be decent" and then just never get around to playing.

I enjoyed Half-life and bought half-life 2, really really looking forward to it.  When I actually played HL2 though it would make me physically ill.  The nausia was overwhelming.  I didn't get far in that game.

Had a game given to me for christmas by my brother-in-law.... it wasn't really my sort of game though so never even installed it.


On the other hand, there are some games I'll play over and over and over again.  If Awakenings hadn't ticked me off so much with the de-looting bug I'd probably still be playing DAO and would have pre-ordered DAO2.  Right now I'm on the fence.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Blessed Silence wrote...

My husband beat both games with no problem so I dunno what they are talking about.

I beat ME easily, and going to beat ME2 today.

Only reason I didn't finish DA:O was because my computer crashed and I lost everything >.>

This has happened to me EVERYTIME I TRY TO BEAT PLANESCAPE TORMENT >

[Bryy_Miller]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Blessed Silence wrote...

Only reason I didn't finish DA:O was because my computer crashed and I lost everything >.>

This has happened to me EVERYTIME I TRY TO BEAT PLANESCAPE TORMENT >

Ditto.

[crimzontearz]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Honestly, I would've completely been fine with a shorter Origins. Deep Roads and Fade stopped me from playing multiple playthroughs, I need to essentially "detox" myself from the game if I want to replay it so I don't gouge out my eyes from the Deep Roads and Fade segment.

Though I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.

yes the fade was.......bad

I have done 3 playthroughs in arow since october 18th....(when I stopped after the 30th or so ME2 playthrough to get ready for DA2) ...and the Fade always ALWAYS makes me put the controller down for about a day afterward

[crimzontearz]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Blessed Silence wrote...

Only reason I didn't finish DA:O was because my computer crashed and I lost everything >.>

This has happened to me EVERYTIME I TRY TO BEAT PLANESCAPE TORMENT >

Ditto.

never happened to me on PST...finished it three times

[lv12medic]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Blessed Silence wrote...

My husband beat both games with no problem so I dunno what they are talking about.

I beat ME easily, and going to beat ME2 today.

Only reason I didn't finish DA:O was because my computer crashed and I lost everything >.>

This has happened to me EVERYTIME I TRY TO BEAT PLANESCAPE TORMENT >

Heh, I had this problem with Neverwinter Nights 2.  I got about two-thirds of the way through the game and corrupted save files.  All of them. 
ANGER HATE RAGEQUIT! 

[Xallah]

Crimson Sound wrote...

A huge portion of players who never finish the game are people that start a new game and end up ditching that character for various reasons. I have ditched several characters in ME1, ME2, and DAO simply because they looked ugly or I screwed up their stats at the beginning.

One reason, which is for example relevant for me. I tend to take breaks from games. Sometimes I simply don't have time enough, sometimes I need some time to digest all the emotions or make decisions or I leave for a couple of months and can't play. And these breakes can be up to a year and even more. It's good my Xbox isn't conneced to the internet or i'd provide some strange data

Dave of Canada wrote...

Honestly, I would've completely been fine with a shorter Origins. Deep Roads and Fade stopped me from playing multiple playthroughs, I need to essentially "detox" myself from the game if I want to replay it so I don't gouge out my eyes from the Deep Roads and Fade segment.

Though I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Yep, the fade part is long and I don't relly have a desire to replay it...

Modifié par Xallah, 15 novembre 2010 - 09:45 .