579 réponses à ce sujet

[mdugger12]

mrcrusty wrote...

Success is meeting a goal. Failure is not meeting a goal.

Whether Dragon Age 2 failed depends on whether it met the goals and expectations of customers, fans, Bioware and EA.

If people expected Dragon Age 2 to be better than Origins and it wasn't to them, it was a failure from that perspective. Conversely, if you expected Dragon Age 2 to be better than Origins and it was to you, it is a success from that perspective.

Success and failure is relative to the goals it's trying to achieve.

Speaking from a marketing standpoint though, I'm sure that it didn't quite reach expectations in sale numbers. Which means...

True. But in the grand scheme of things 82/100 on metacritic would never be considered a critical failure and 1 million sales in the time period we're talking about would never be considered a commercial failure. But if it failed to live up to someones expectations or failed to sell how a developer thought.......... Thats a slightly different matter and I would be foolish to try and argue someone down over that.

[1000questions]

mdugger12 wrote...

It's not always that simple. If my goal is to get 100 on a test and I get a 90 no matter how disappointed I may be I didn't fail the test. I just came up short. Does it mean I need to fix a few things and work harder to do what I set out to do? Absolutely. But nobody would consider it failure.

Why you need assurance of other people now after the result  ?  Are you serious or did you even thought about what you are typing ?

Success is defined by people in their own way  and it varies from subject to subject.

You set the goal to achieve 100. Did you met your goal ? yes then you are successfull , if no then you have failed yourself....

how did the views of 3rd person come into play all of a sudden when you failed to meet your very own Target ?

Let me give you an excellent example.

You are a brilliant student, you have always been getting A+ grades, you set your target to study in MIT or Stanford or Harvard or any top colleges in the world but in your graduation you were just able to get D+ .

Now that score cant get you to your Target ie top colleges but D+ means you have passed your examination.... 

You are defining your success and yet you are deserting your own standard/definition....

[AkiKishi]

mdugger12 wrote...
It's not always that simple. If my goal is to get 100 on a test and I get a 90 no matter how disappointed I may be I didn't fail the test. I just came up short. Does it mean I need to fix a few things and work harder to do what I set out to do? Absolutely. But nobody would consider it failure.

Yes they would.

Little anecdote from the early life of Bob.

Bob was an A student who would study dilligently and get full scores on tests. Bob then discovered football and later girls. Bob also realised that even by "coasting" he could get B's and still be ahead of the curve.
Bobs school did not share his joy at this discovery and sent letters to Bobs parents citing "underachievement" despite still being in the top 10% of the class.

Moral of the story. Don't be suprised if people hold you to the standard you set for yourself.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 avril 2011 - 11:07 .

[mdugger12]

1000questions wrote...

mdugger12 wrote...

It's not always that simple. If my goal is to get 100 on a test and I get a 90 no matter how disappointed I may be I didn't fail the test. I just came up short. Does it mean I need to fix a few things and work harder to do what I set out to do? Absolutely. But nobody would consider it failure.

Why you need assurance of other people now after the result  ?  Are you serious or did you even thought about what you are typing ?

Success is defined by people in their own way  and it varies from subject to subject.

You set the goal to achieve 100. Did you met your goal ? yes then you are successfull , if no then you have failed yourself....

how did the views of 3rd person come into play all of a sudden when you failed to meet your very own Target ?

Let me give you an excellent example.

You are a brilliant student, you have always been getting A+ grades, you set your target to study in MIT or Stanford or Harvard or any top colleges in the world but in your graduation you were just able to get D+ .

Now that score cant get you to your Target ie top colleges but D+ means you have passed your examination.... 

You are defining your success and yet you are deserting your own standard/definition....

We aren't talking about A+ vs D. We're talking about, regardless of what my personal goal was, did I get a good enough grade to get into MIT. That's all that matters. We can remove the view of 3rd parties. In fact forget about how I perceive it and the rest of the fans. Even the scores from critics don't matter. The only thing that matters to EA in the end is money. Will they get more money from sales than it cost to make and market the game. It doesn't get much more basic than that.

[1000questions]

mdugger12 wrote...

We aren't talking about A+ vs D. We're talking about, regardless of what my personal goal was, did I get a good enough grade to get into MIT. That's all that matters. We can remove the view of 3rd parties. In fact forget about how I perceive it and the rest of the fans. Even the scores from critics don't matter. The only thing that matters to EA in the end is money. Will they get more money from sales than it cost to make and market the game. It doesn't get much more basic than that.

IF THAT WAS THEIR ONLY GOAL....

now only EA/Bioware official can answer if their ONLY GOAL was to make more money from sales than the cost of making DA2 (including advertisements,marketing spin offs etc etc )

[mdugger12]

BobSmith101 wrote...

mdugger12 wrote...
It's not always that simple. If my goal is to get 100 on a test and I get a 90 no matter how disappointed I may be I didn't fail the test. I just came up short. Does it mean I need to fix a few things and work harder to do what I set out to do? Absolutely. But nobody would consider it failure.

Yes they would.

Little anecdote from the early life of Bob.

Bob was an A student who would study dilligently and get full scores on tests. Bob then discovered football and later girls. Bob also realised that even by "coasting" he could get B's and still be ahead of the curve.
Bobs school did not share his joy at this discovery and sent letters to Bobs parents citing "underachievement" despite still being in the top 10% of the class.

Moral of the story. Don't be suprised if people hold you to the standard you set for yourself.

lol Bob should have been better at looking like he was working hard.

I get you dude and you're not wrong. But being an RPG fan I've never really paid attention to sales figures to tell validate if a game is good or not. Or even critics for that matter. I like DA II. It wasn't better than DA:O and it wasn't what I thought it would be but I can't say I did't enjoy playing it. To me it was a success. If we have to look at sales, 1 million in a few weeks is a success for any video game in the current market. If we look at the reviews, for the most part professional critics were positive. I think Bioware makes better games than most developers could ever make. If they feel this game was a failure then they should try to get better. Which they always seem to do anyway. But an actual failure in todays market could mean that developer gets shut down. I don't even want to pretend thats the case in this situation because I didn't like everything Bioware did with this particular game.

[AkiKishi]

mdugger12 wrote...
I get you dude and you're not wrong. But being an RPG fan I've never really paid attention to sales figures to tell validate if a game is good or not. Or even critics for that matter. I like DA II. It wasn't better than DA:O and it wasn't what I thought it would be but I can't say I did't enjoy playing it. To me it was a success. If we have to look at sales, 1 million in a few weeks is a success for any video game in the current market. If we look at the reviews, for the most part professional critics were positive. I think Bioware makes better games than most developers could ever make. If they feel this game was a failure then they should try to get better. Which they always seem to do anyway. But an actual failure in todays market could mean that developer gets shut down. I don't even want to pretend thats the case in this situation because I didn't like everything Bioware did with this particular game.

Two things about DA2 though.

1. It's a sequel.
2. It was designed to be a mass market game.

A sequel to a good game should do better, it has the name to attract people. If you read Inon Zurs interview he explicitly states DA2 was rushed to capitalise on the success of DA.

Bioware have gone on record time and time again about how DA2 is appealing to the mass market. Hence all that streamlining stuff. However, it's still only just keeping pace with DA's sales, a game that was designed around the hardcore RPG market. Given that the mass market is many times larger, that's a fail.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 avril 2011 - 11:27 .

[mdugger12]

1000questions wrote...

mdugger12 wrote...

We aren't talking about A+ vs D. We're talking about, regardless of what my personal goal was, did I get a good enough grade to get into MIT. That's all that matters. We can remove the view of 3rd parties. In fact forget about how I perceive it and the rest of the fans. Even the scores from critics don't matter. The only thing that matters to EA in the end is money. Will they get more money from sales than it cost to make and market the game. It doesn't get much more basic than that.

IF THAT WAS THEIR ONLY GOAL....

now only EA/Bioware official can answer if their ONLY GOAL was to make more money from sales than the cost of making DA2 (including advertisements,marketing spin offs etc etc )

At the end of the day thats what keeps the doors open and allows them to make games. It doesn't matter how many sales or what review score they want. The overall goal of staying in business is a given and takes priority over whatever other goals they set for themselves.

Now having said that, for the purposes of our discussion, what you expected and what  you consider a success is also valid. I'm simply saying in this case, success is based on perception.

[Edhriano]

Well try to think that all this negative feedbacks and criticism as
" don't do this crap again ! " list for DA2 DLC or DA3 (maybe).

Before you can fix a bridge you need to know that the bridge
actually need fixing, if no one ever speak up then you won't be
able to use the bridge when you really really need it ....
but then again you could try using the plane  .

But seriously I am very disappointed with DA2.
The tittle " Dragon Age " alone is the main reason I bought it, now I wish I hadn't.
Maybe if DA2 actually have more of the key elements that made DA:O a great
game it would make a decent sequel. well ... maybe ... 

Modifié par Edhriano, 06 avril 2011 - 03:24 .

[Wolfehunter]

I'm just glade I didn't waist any money on the crapware... Such a waist from bioware.. I understand EA.. but bioware putting out garbage? Oh well.. And they call it a RPG... hahaa more like action game. I was expecting something much better.. I'm guessing I will have to wait till they're sequel.. Or another game company to make something better. Have fun with it guys hehehee...

[LordRikerQ]

Does anyone think Bioware/EA will actually listen to the complaining? If anything it'll push them to move forward and replace the vocal minority of Hardcore audiences with the more casual one who wont whine on every outlet they can over minor things.

Thats just business, they'll just blame poor sales if any, on angry nerds raging then actually looking to learn for this. Since EA Took over Bioware has been going in this direction, and given the policy at EA, this isnt going to change at all.

Modifié par LordRikerQ, 06 avril 2011 - 03:00 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Failure? No.  It's an entertaining game in its own right. 


Letdown? Definately. It is not the game it could have been. It's not the game that DA:O is.  Bugs, linear railroad story, etc.

At least with patches, the myriad of bugs can be fixed.

(DA:O had a point you couldn't avoid -- killing the Archdemon. But that was a goal for the protagonist and his/her allies. You wanted to get to that point, it was the final focus of the entire story. DA2 has multiple unavoidable points -- you and your character are along for the ride. The ending is going to happen, and nothing you can do will change it, no matter how much you want to.)

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 06 avril 2011 - 03:14 .

[dfstone]

The Sims!? Seriously someone listed The Sims as a failure? Thats one of the longest running, biggest selling computer game franchises of all time. How on earth is that failure?

[Efesell]

dfstone wrote...

The Sims!? Seriously someone listed The Sims as a failure? Thats one of the longest running, biggest selling computer game franchises of all time. How on earth is that failure?

Obviously because they don't like it.

That's generally how this works.

[Efesell]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

(DA:O had a point you couldn't avoid -- killing the Archdemon. But that was a goal for the protagonist and his/her allies. You wanted to get to that point, it was the final focus of the entire story. DA2 has multiple unavoidable points -- you and your character are along for the ride. The ending is going to happen, and nothing you can do will change it, no matter how much you want to.)

It's not really so different.  You hit tons of unavoidable points in Origins and a lot fo them only different in whether or not you wanted to do the Mean thing or the Nice thing.

It was less on rails than DA2 but rather than being open it was more that you just occasionally got off the cart and looked around for a few seconds before continuing on.

[Alpha1234]

For me, Bioware always was the studio that had that legacy of games of classic fantasy party RPG with a combat system which stood out from the crowd.
I accepted the ME franchise because it was a sci-fi rpg, and i liked the system that went along with it.

I've very rarely been disappointed by any game since i think of myself as pretty open minded, but with Dragon Age 2 i was just sooo disappointed.. i really wanted to like it, but it simply isnt what i expect from a Bioware fantasy game!

I see people on the forum, and devs in interviews talking about that the "haters" doesnt like change, but the problem is that the changes made to this game made it more "bland".. the game shifted in the spectrum towards were all the generic rpgs are.

Bioware was special and practically the only ones successfully using a "mature" combat system and a party based mechanic in an rpg. I feel that with DA2, they've moved themselves away from that place and tried to blend in with the crowd.

Remember what made you famous Bioware! Games like BG,BG2 and NWN! If there's one thing gamers crave, its another game like those! I thought DA:O made that very evident! Improve your formula, dont change it!

[AlanC9]

How was DA2 less party-based than DAO, Alpha?

[Alpha1234]

AlanC9 wrote...

How was DA2 less party-based than DAO, Alpha?

In terms of the control of your party, there's a lot less things you could do with your party. Equipping armor\\weapons for example. Not having an option to have a conversation on the spot.. i probably could think of more.

My biggest gripe is that the combat isnt semi-realistic (with emphasis on semi) in DA2  as it was in BG,NWN or DA:O.
For an example killing about 80 human lives just so that Aveline & her boyfriend could have a romantic patrol was one aspect that put me off.

Modifié par Alpha1234, 06 avril 2011 - 09:53 .

[Gatt9]

LordRikerQ wrote...

Does anyone think Bioware/EA will actually listen to the complaining? If anything it'll push them to move forward and replace the vocal minority of Hardcore audiences with the more casual one who wont whine on every outlet they can over minor things.

Thats just business, they'll just blame poor sales if any, on angry nerds raging then actually looking to learn for this. Since EA Took over Bioware has been going in this direction, and given the policy at EA, this isnt going to change at all.

I'm pretty confident EA's only got about 2-3 years left to it.  EA's pushing titles out faster and faster,  with little attention to quality,  with the expected decrease in revenues.  There's a very real chance that Star Wars won't do very well at all,  there's a good bit of negative word of mouth about it.

There's a chance that the NFL will lock out players in 2011,  forcing EA to release an entry without a season to support it,  which will very likely lead to significantly lower sales.

Even if there is a season,  EA's licensce expires in 2012.  I doubt that it'll be renewed as an exclusive license.  The original Developer is currently suing EA because he discovered they've been using his original code in every single title,  and there's alot of noise about anti-trust suits.  It's very likely the NFL will decide to issue non-exclusive licenses.  Further indicating this is the NFL only extended EA's contract by one year,  it was supposed to expire this year,  so the NFL must be having some concern.

That'll be a massive blow to EA,  that's pretty much their major lifeline.  Without that shoring them up,  all they have is the half-baked titles they push out each year,  and that's *not* going to support a company the size of EA.

Especially since their Day 1 DLC and poor treatment of PC Players isn't making them any friends. 

[dslatimore]

The sales numbers are good for Dragon Age 2, so I doubt it's a flop or a failure.

I'm on my second playthrough and am having fun. Lots of other people are having fun. It's a fun game.

Yes, there are some disappointments, but it's still a fun game and it's selling well.

[Stegoceras]

Gatt9 wrote...
I'm pretty confident EA's only got about 2-3 years left to it.  EA's pushing titles out faster and faster,  with little attention to quality,  with the expected decrease in revenues.  There's a very real chance that Star Wars won't do very well at all,  there's a good bit of negative word of mouth about it.
 

I doubt EA even has much of a say in The Old Republic,(feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that's Lucasarts terrain isn't it? and they have hopefully put their years of  rushing (Star Wars) games well behind them. I actually have fate in the title and that it will do well, just look at the time and effort Bioware has stuck into it as compared to a certain more recent game.

Sorry for the off-topic.

Edit: So looked it up and apparently Lucasarts handed everything to EA,
well bummer... still so much time and money spent it'll surely hit all
the right spots, besides I'm sure Lucasarts has some say in it all.

Modifié par Stegoceras, 07 avril 2011 - 01:00 .

[1varangian]

Bioware and the DA universe is what I had the highest hopes for with the RPG genre. But I'm afraid DA2 will pale in comparison with both Skyrim and the Witcher 2. RPG's are my favourite genre so in my eyes DA2 is a massive disappointment.

[Wra1thstouch]

From what I recall, it took BioWare years to make DAO. Then suddenly DA2 is out a year or so later. Do I think DAO was better? Yes, for the most part.

DAO:
pros
-great story
-nonlinear "open" feel of the game
-different venues, i.e. I wasn't trapped in Kirkwall
-race/class story intro
-so many itemsets, so little time
-lots of interesting npcs
-revenant battles and the loot thereafter (those battles were so much fun and randomly found anywhere)

cons
- terrible graphics
- slow fighting
- annoying mabari hound

DA2:
pros
- awesome graphics
- combat system much quicker and smoother
- Hawke-sexuals
- Sundermount (that whole mountain top was awesome)
- Flemeth's updated sprite
- templar-mage rivalry!

cons
- seemed short.. though looking back at the hours I spent on both games, they were about equal
- class stats and class item restrictions -- yawn.. they made my classes boring!
- gifts were not as much fun as DAO
- trapped in kirkwall! FFS let me out! I'm tired of fragging kirkwall
- over-reused prefab caves and houses. Anyone else tired of looking at the exact same "dungeons" over and over and over again?
- hardly any itemsets.  Those there were were always class-restricted, which brings me to the next point...
- I couldn't equip my NPC's in armor and gear of my choice

Modifié par Wra1thstouch, 06 avril 2011 - 11:39 .

[Ponendus]

I would say: generally considered not as good as Origins, but that doesn't mean it's a failure.

[Mantaal]

My Personal Opinion is: Yes DA2 was a failure.
Its not a bad game but if you look at DA:O and after that at DA2. well .. wow thats almost the biggest Fail of a 2nd Game of all times. I mean .. you have something really good and you delete 60% of that Product and add 10% new to it and want to sell it again? Really?
Thats a fail for me.

Let me explain that a bit more: (My english isnt the very best but i try anyways) 

You have a Game and its content is 100% (thats no rating just the story, how large the game is, Races, classes, Items and so on)
You make an Addon that adds, lets say, 10 % to the Content (new items classes Races.....)
So you got a Produkt with 110% content.

And now you make a 2nd Game after the first one. You might remove something because it didnt work out well.
So you are down to 90%.
Here is the part where Bioware normaly adds a Huge amout of new stuff to get the 2nd game, up to 150% - 200% of the first one. (More classes, Races, more items, more features, larger Game world more Quests ...)
That is what happend to Baldurs Gate2, NwN2 (even it was not from Bioware).
But DA2 was only 50% of the first game. That doesnt make the Game bad. Its just a huge Failure if you make a Game that much smaller then the one you already made. Less Races, less classes, less Maps, smaller Game world, less of everything.

If that isnt a Failure i dont know what it is.

Modifié par Mantaal, 07 avril 2011 - 12:20 .