Canadish wrote...
ItsToofy wrote...
I'm at the stage where I'm trying to help Arl Eamon by infiltrating his castle and defeating the undead lurking within his walls...
It's a good stage...
lmao! So you also broke out Origins again after Dragon Age 2?
Currently at the undead attack on the town myself
erynnar wrote...
Canadish wrote...
ItsToofy wrote...
I'm at the stage where I'm trying to help Arl Eamon by infiltrating his castle and defeating the undead lurking within his walls...
It's a good stage...
lmao! So you also broke out Origins again after Dragon Age 2?
Currently at the undead attack on the town myself
Awwww yeeaaahhhh!
aliswann10 wrote...
Man some of you guys must have be living WAY better than me when one of the things that ****** you off the most and seems to occupy most of you time is how much you hate a video game and the time you spend ranting and raving on forums like spoiled children throwing tantrums to get mommy and daddy's attention. When I get that concerned about something it's usually something major like maintaining my household or some grave injustice in the world or family concerns etc. It must be nice........PS. Bioware and EA hear everything you naysayers rant about, but they probably don't care. They're going to keep moving right ahead with the franchise and most likely none of you will be happy with where they're going. Your words are falling on deaf ears.
Ryzaki wrote...
I never grieved in the first place.
Zjarcal wrote...
Ryzaki wrote...
I never grieved in the first place.
Hehe, same here.
No need to point out the irony of the rest of your post, but really, if they do not listen to their consumers it's going to cost them, sure they should ignore the downright troll hatred, but for the most part that's not what I see, I see a lot of people who feel they paid too much for this game, given Biowares past reputation a lot of fans put their trust in them, that trust was abused by calling it Dragon Age, now if they had called it something like Hawkes story and sold it for around $40 I doubt very much we'd have seen the kind of negative feedback they are currently getting.aliswann10 wrote...PS. Bioware and EA hear everything you naysayers rant about, but they probably don't care. They're going to keep moving right ahead with the franchise and most likely none of you will be happy with where they're going. Your words are falling on deaf ears.
Filament wrote...
Ryzaki wrote...
I never grieved in the first pace.
Zjarcal wrote...
Ryzaki wrote...
I never grieved in the first place.
Hehe, same here. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/joyful.png[/smilie]
Persephone wrote...
Zjarcal wrote...
Ryzaki wrote...
I never grieved in the first place.
Hehe, same here.
And here. Loving the game immensely!
DJBare wrote...
No need to point out the irony of the rest of your post, but really, if they do not listen to their consumersaliswann10 wrote...PS. Bioware and
EA hear everything you naysayers rant about, but they probably don't
care. They're going to keep moving right ahead with the franchise and
most likely none of you will be happy with where they're going. Your words are falling on deaf ears.
it's going to cost them, sure they should ignore the downright troll
hatred, but for the most part that's not what I see, I see a lot of
people who feel they paid too much for this game, given Biowares past
reputation a lot of fans put their trust in them, that trust was abused
by calling it Dragon Age, now if they had called it something like
Hawkes story and sold it for around $40 I doubt very much we'd have seen
the kind of negative feedback they are currently getting.
Sabariel wrote...
Cupcake stage!
...What? That's a real stage o' grief
Sorry, Sylvius, but I have to take you to task on this one. You're attributing the differences between these two teams' records to luck, yet you have failed to mention anything about team ERA, fielding percentage, opponent's on base percentage or average with runners in scoring position,etc. I saw two games this weekend decided by fielding errors. That's not luck. Defense often makes all the difference. Furthermore, I noticed a left-handed pitcher who normally has a great move to first started dropping his left shoulder every time before he threw over, but not when he went home. I noticed, so did the other team's manager, who sent the signal to steal, and his player reached second. I saw a .390 batter (college) pick up his left foot before every swing. I said to my wife, "he'll never catch up to a fastball if he keeps doing that." Sure enough, he struck out on high heat. Four times. Statistics say that shouldn't have occurred. Granted it was a small sample, but it was predicted with 100% accuracy by me and by the other team. These things are not statistically quantifiable by any records currently being kept, yet they had an immense impact on the games, and they can hardly be described as "luck." I don't follow MLB, so I don't know if these teams had identical pitching and defensive stats, but you might want to be a little more thorogh with your examples if you're going to berate someone else for misunderstanding statistics. Metrics are great for understanding how to use the rules of the game to your best advantage, but they'll never tell you when the opposing pitcher is dropping his shoulder, or when the wind is going to gust out to left.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The 2004 team and the 2011 team were both built using metric - very similar metrics. Theo Epstein hasn't changed that much.Haexpane wrote...
I actually really like the sports analogy. Except it's not "no big deal" it's usually HUGE TV ratings decline.
The boston Red Sox are the perfect example of "build a team using metrics".
The 2011 red sox are the perfect "metrics" team, but they suck. The 2004 team was a goofball mix of odd personalities and none of them great "metric" type players. They were a ton of fun to watch, and won the world series when they were counted out in the first round of the playoffs.
You're just drawing some really poor conclusions based on a small sample size of 2011 data.
Look - compare the seasons so far of the Baltimore Orioles and the Seattle Mariners. The Orioles are 6-3 and lead the AL East. The Mariners are 2-7 and are last in the AL West.
But the two teams have actually played almost exactly the same quality of baseball. The Orioles are hitting .216/.282/.348, which if you adjust for parks and competition is about 27% below average. The Mariners are hitting 215/.285/.312, which if you adjust for parks and competition is about 28% below average. But the O's are hitting much better with runners on (while the M's hit better with the bases empty - and we have mountains of data which shows that this isn't a sustainable skill, so we're talking about random variance here), so they're turning their weak offensive output into wins much more efficiently than the M's are.
That doesn't make them better. That makes them luckier. And luck isn't a skill.
You're basically jumping to the same conclusions about the Red Sox - you're judging the construction of their team based on outcomes that aren't meaningfully related to team construction at these sample sizes.
I did not come here to talk about baseball. But your argument relies on a gross misunderstanding of statistics.
And it's exactly this sort of shoddy reasoning that leads to people misidentifying the features they like in games.
Modifié par Eterna5, 12 avril 2011 - 06:28 .
DA2 isn't really a departure from RPGs.Mecher3k wrote...
Damn, your hatred of DA2 must of caused you to skip years ahead in time.
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
DA2 isn't really a departure from RPGs.Mecher3k wrote...
Damn, your hatred of DA2 must of caused you to skip years ahead in time.
DA2 is a symptom of the departure that began over a decade ago.
In a small sample size, that's exactly what it is.mindbody wrote...
I saw two games this weekend decided by fielding errors. That's not luck.
There's a flaw in your premise. College competition is too uneven for the stats to be useful, so that he was a ".390 hitter" tells us almost nothing about his skillset.I saw a .390 batter (college) pick up his left foot before every swing.
You were lucky. If the kid had had a better eye he wouldn't have swung at those pitches.I said to my wife, "he'll never catch up to a fastball if he keeps doing that." Sure enough, he struck out on high heat. Four times.
Here, though, you are exactly right. Underserved markets are excellent investment opportunities. This is something I wish the game industry would learn from the movie industry.I hardly have enough time to play rpgs, let alone come on the internet and write about them, but if anyone out there is listening, there is an underserved niche market waiting for a well-crafted crpg which emphasizes roleplaying. I'm willing to help out by investing enough to keep the lights on somewhere; and I won't ask for a return until sales roll in... I bet there are other professionals like me, too.
Modifié par Loain, 12 avril 2011 - 08:38 .
Loain wrote...
I'm totally rocking acceptance. Don't get me wrong I did the
Denial "It'll get better it just has a rough start that's all".
Anger "Why the heck did I buy this piece of junk"
Bargaining "I'll buy the DLC if this gets better, promiss".
Depression "I guess it's over, the end of aneraage"
Then I played the game again . . . and again . . . and yeah again. To me
it's not just a decent, ok or good game it's a great game. It had been
the whole time I was just to blinded by what I thought it should be to
see it for what it is.
Modifié par Warheadz, 12 avril 2011 - 08:41 .
Retour en haut
