139 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Harmless Crunch wrote...
Ah I wasnt implying that EA should have milked the cash-cow I was jusy saying I was suprised EA didnt.

They sort of did in a way. They rushed Dragon Age 2 so they could capitalise on the success of the previous game. That's half of milking the cash cow.

@Warheadz:

rofl.jpg

[Oopsieoops]

mrcrusty wrote...
Also, Dragon Age 2, Fallout: New Vegas and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. All these games were in development for a period of around 18 months. All games released around the same time, in case people think that the IWD games are not a good comparison.

The difference between DA:RtP and New Vegas (never played AC so I can't comment on it) is that FNV never tried to reinvent ut's predecessor. Quite on the contrary, the changes from F3 were markedly conservative. It plays the same, it feels the same. IOW, the changes were improvements instead of departures. And that's what most people don't seem to grasp, the difference between improvement and departure. 
JE Sawyer knew he had to pick his battles, and focused on only touching things which were reasonably attainable within his timeframe, and which wouldn't depart from F3. Unlike Laidaw. And guess what, his game succeeded, while DA flunked.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Oopsieoops wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...
Also, Dragon Age 2, Fallout: New Vegas and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. All these games were in development for a period of around 18 months. All games released around the same time, in case people think that the IWD games are not a good comparison.

The difference between DA:RtP and New Vegas (never played AC so I can't comment on it) is that FNV never tried to reinvent ut's predecessor. Quite on the contrary, the changes from F3 were markedly conservative. It plays the same, it feels the same. IOW, the changes were improvements instead of departures. And that's what most people don't seem to grasp, the difference between improvement and departure. 
JE Sawyer knew he had to pick his battles, and focused on only touching things which were reasonably attainable within his timeframe, and which wouldn't depart from F3. Unlike Laidaw. And guess what, his game succeeded, while DA flunked.

That was exactly the point I was trying to make. Or was it? I'm not sure.

In any case, that's a point I agree with.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 02 mai 2011 - 02:25 .

[Harmless Crunch]

mrcrusty wrote...

Harmless Crunch wrote...
Ah I wasnt implying that EA should have milked the cash-cow I was jusy saying I was suprised EA didnt.

They sort of did in a way. They rushed Dragon Age 2 so they could capitalise on the success of the previous game. That's half of milking the cash cow.

I guess so sort of taking all the worst stuff about milking a cash cow (Rushed, buggy Etc) and reinventing the wheel (Alienating fans Etc)

[Harmless Crunch]

Warheadz wrote...

Sorry for going off-topic but this is hillarious.
I am so bookmarking this thread just for that!

[Oopsieoops]

mrcrusty wrote...

Oopsieoops wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...
Also, Dragon Age 2, Fallout: New Vegas and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. All these games were in development for a period of around 18 months. All games released around the same time, in case people think that the IWD games are not a good comparison.

The difference between DA:RtP and New Vegas (never played AC so I can't comment on it) is that FNV never tried to reinvent ut's predecessor. Quite on the contrary, the changes from F3 were markedly conservative. It plays the same, it feels the same. IOW, the changes were improvements instead of departures. And that's what most people don't seem to grasp, the difference between improvement and departure. 
JE Sawyer knew he had to pick his battles, and focused on only touching things which were reasonably attainable within his timeframe, and which wouldn't depart from F3. Unlike Laidaw. And guess what, his game succeeded, while DA flunked.

That was exactly the point I was trying to make. Or was it? I'm not sure.

In any case, that's a point I agree with.

I was agreeing as well.

[Warheadz]

Oopsieoops wrote...

The difference between DA:RtP and New Vegas (never played AC so I can't comment on it) is that FNV never tried to reinvent ut's predecessor. Quite on the contrary, the changes from F3 were markedly conservative. It plays the same, it feels the same. IOW, the changes were improvements instead of departures. And that's what most people don't seem to grasp, the difference between improvement and departure. 
JE Sawyer knew he had to pick his battles, and focused on only touching things which were reasonably attainable within his timeframe, and which wouldn't depart from F3. Unlike Laidaw. And guess what, his game succeeded, while DA flunked.

I think Obsidian did excellent job on Fallout: New Vegas. Although I had some minor issues with the disguise system, for example, it was an improvement over Fallout 3. They even took a few lessons from the community by bringing weapon mods in. Pretty much everything just worked better. And I was even able to roleplay a stealthy rogue

Though Obsidian really needs to get their **** together in one area: The amount of bugs and technical issues in their games is really unforgivable.

DA2 on the other hand, as Oopsie said, didn't improve as much as it abandoned. That's bad, from the point of the view of the sequel itself and from the POV of the fans. I am going to say what I have been saying ver and over again, so please forgive me if I'm being repetitive, but Hawke's story should have been a spin-off, not a sequel.

[FellowerOfOdin]

You want to see how good sequels are made? Ask Obsidian. New Vegas showed exactly how a good sequel is made: you don't alienate the people who liked the previous game and you keep the previous game's basic concepts and strengths but in the sequel, you realize the weaknesses and work on them. Here you go, NewVegas, AAA game, much better than FO3.

Want to see how NOT to do a sequel? Ask Bioware.

Want to see how NOT to do a MMORPG? Ask Bioware.

Want to see how to sell your soul? Ask Bioware.

[FubarCFSnafu]

I did not mind the changes made, my biggest gripe was how they promoted the game.
* The 10 year time line
* Your actions make a difference

I thought it was going to be great story and plot based upon my previous experiences with Bioware, this time it fell real flat. To me the game was rushed which is why the the storyarc/plot seemed disjointed. T game would ahve made more sense by saying you rise to be the champion of Kirkwal and remove the 10 year time frame, since it seemded to have happened quickly enough and nothing changed anyway during that entire time anyway.

The problems associated with the game have been listed many times and I agree with all of them.

Also, when the lead designer responds with a "Suck it up, princess" it just belies the arrogance and what they actually feel towards everyone who bought their products.

Modifié par FubarCFSnafu, 02 mai 2011 - 05:17 .

[Cutlasskiwi]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

You want to see how good sequels are made? Ask Obsidian. New Vegas showed exactly how a good sequel is made: you don't alienate the people who liked the previous game and you keep the previous game's basic concepts and strengths but in the sequel, you realize the weaknesses and work on them. Here you go, NewVegas, AAA game, much better than FO3.

Want to see how NOT to do a sequel? Ask Bioware.

Want to see how NOT to do a MMORPG? Ask Bioware.

Want to see how to sell your soul? Ask Bioware.

It did alienate my roomie who loves Fallout 3, but he has slightly strange taste in games so I'll let that one slide. I'm just happy that DA2 wasn't as filled with bugs as New Vegas was. 

* Baldur's Gate II, Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age 2. All great sequels in my book. 
* Tor is not really a game I'm following so I can't comment on it.
* Not bothering with this one.

[TOBY FLENDERSON]

Great article, hopefully the devs catch on that the original fans make or break a sequal.

Modifié par TOBY FLENDERSON, 02 mai 2011 - 10:06 .

[erynnar]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Excellent article.

I don't agree that gameplay/mechanics must always stay the same for sequels to succeed, but I do think you have to think of your core fans first when doing a sequel rather than trying to bring in gamers who prefer, say, shooters to RPGs.

What Shadow said. Thanks for the article!

[myztikrice]

Mass Effect 2 sold much better than ME1 and is one of the highest reviewed games of all time. You can't say 'durp DA2 failed as a sequel because DAO sold more' and then say 'ME2 made the series lose much of its core userbase.'

[Foolsfolly]

myztikrice wrote...

Mass Effect 2 sold much better than ME1 and is one of the highest reviewed games of all time. You can't say 'durp DA2 failed as a sequel because DAO sold more' and then say 'ME2 made the series lose much of its core userbase.'

Dude, just do as I do. Ignore those who bash ME2. ME2's the best BioWare game of the last 10 years and loads better than ME1.

If someone's opinion says otherwise (or outright hates ME2) I just ignore them. They're not worth your time. Just look at professional reviews and metacritic user scores to see ME2's not worse than ME1 by most standards.

[jds1bio]

I think the article's title was really just an excuse to highlight the fanbase vs. non-fanbase foci that people seem to think Dragon Age and Mass Effect games polarize.

Portal 2 still isn't for everyone, and its price has dropped also despite having just been released. And the blanket "developers should develop for the fanbase" assumes that the fanbase is 3 million strong, except that:

- sales don't equal fanbase
- forumgoers don't equal total fanbase, just a fraction
- the fanbase can't agree on the best features of any particular game

Bitmob needs to work a bit harder at this.