738 réponses à ce sujet

[zsom]

The Serge777 wrote...

I do think this "new vision" will be a success IF Bioware addresses some of the clear shortcuts (reused maps and such) and the story execution. The superficial complaints of Companion appearance and voiced PC and all that are irrelevant. The issue is whether or not the story and game play are excellent. DAO had the former, but was not as successful with the latter; we experience the reverse with DA2. Now, Bioware has the opportunity to get it right in their next fantasy game. We, as fans, just need to give them chance. We need to be respectful AND thoughtful in our criticisms if we want them to be heard. The vociferous and, quite frankly, rude and personal attacks don't encourage them to listen to us. Reasoned, reasonably objective reflection does.

Agree 100 + 1 %

Edit: Ok.. I only agree to 99% I don't think DAO had such an excellent story.

And I hit the quote instead of the edit.. this just isn't my day..

Modifié par zsom, 28 mai 2011 - 03:30 .

[MikeP999]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

DA2 is an inferior game to DA:O in every way except armor models, thanks primarily to the very well designed Champion Armor.

DA series needed a REFINEMENT not a REBOOT.

Why the F REBOOT a game in part 2 of the series when part 1 was wildly successfull and praised by both fans and critics. Origins consistently outscores DA2 by fans and critics all over the web.

Mike Laidlaw and Bioware have gone beyond the point where talking about their games is going to convince me of anything. They spout PR drivel and refuse to talk straight. The fact that so many of you just parrott back the PR hype is amusing and disturbing. The amount of people that latched on to the whole 'evolution of rpg's' and 'they hate change' memes is extremely depressing.

Well said, I think the best course of action with your given sentiment is to wait a good month or two prior to purchasing the next Dragon Age installment.  That way, there's a greater chance of being well informed of quality or lack there of.  I enjoyed aspects of DA2 and many that I don't.  I take it with a grain of salt and enjoy what I can.  Everyone has an opinion and expectation and you're right, much of the feedback has been met with wishy washy answers or no direct response at all.  Not unexpected though.  There's always going to be people that defend or refute the responses of a developer/designer.  Unfortunately for many here, they cannot value the opinion of others, likely due to lack a maturity level. The result is verbal abuse or extreme sarcasm.  I've been spending more time on Witcher 2 boards, for some reason the maturity level / respect for other's opinions is higher. 

[andar91]

I don't know specifics about how DA2 did in reaching new audiences, but I can see the importance of it. I think the trick (something that they, perhaps in some ways, did wrong) is not to transform the game too much, but to bring people into the genre. AKA an rpg should still be an rpg; I don't believe in turning one into a fps or something just to attract a wider audience, but to make the rpg elements themselves more accessible to those who may not be familiar with them.

[Addai]

Could we not have threads calling out devs by name in the thread title? Even if you clarify that it's "constructive," it invites trollish people to make it personal. And if it were me, I'd get pretty sick of seeing my name in thread after thread.

[aliastasia]

True, but his response to the critiques has basically been "hater will be haters" and "not everybody was ready for something that didn't follow DA:O canon" - personally, I don't really care ab the canon as such, if it looks fun, I'll play it - repeatedly, and I don't care if it's an FPS or an RPG. I am one of the casuals who just wants a good gaming experience. This wasn't quite it.

http://www.eurogamer...ge-ii-interview

/A

[In Exile]

I think that Bioware, so long as they are heavily committed to story-telling (cinematic or otherwise) will have a hard time reaching a tremendous audience. Mass Effect has yet to reach DA:O in terms of sales, I believe, and even if they make ME3 a well constructed shooter and even if they add multiplayer to that, I think you'll still find all the talking portions to generate little interest.

Though there is one major thing Bioware has going for it as it tries to appeal to a larger market: narcissim. Create yourself in game is something that, moving foward, Bioware can push with.

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...

Could we not have threads calling out devs by name in the thread title? Even if you clarify that it's "constructive," it invites trollish people to make it personal. And if it were me, I'd get pretty sick of seeing my name in thread after thread.

I just want to echo this. Moreover, it's not as if being a subsidary for EA actually gives Mr. Laidlaw the power to plan out the future of the IP. He's just the lead designer for the game. I'd wager a very large part of what he does is execute the vision given by upstairs (e.g. find a way to reach a larger audience at a lower cost).

Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't think anyone cackles and wishes to release an unfinished or poorly implemented product.

[marshalleck]

In Exile wrote...

Perhaps I'm naive, but I don't think anyone cackles and wishes to release an unfinished or poorly implemented product.

Depends. What's the profit margin?

See Obsidian's Knights of the Old Republic II for an example. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 28 mai 2011 - 06:20 .

[Guitar-Hero]

I don't exactly think wanting to sell more copies is restricted to Laidlaw, i would think all devs have a wish to see their game do well, games are art but they are also a product, i just think he has a problem grasping the concept of marketing # YOU CANNOT PLEASE EVERY ONE.

Now what does that mean?
Well you have to find a focus, a demographic, as Brent Knowles himself said DA2 isn't an action game or a stragety game
It tries to be both and does neither very well, and look at the pre game marketing, it was clearly marketed as a game that delivers "the awesome experience" which makes alot of older gamers cringe, so driven towards a younger generation, which were unlikely to buy the game as most of them would probably find it boring.

[devSin]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Using purely hypothetical numbers, if BioWare can sell a million copies of a game using Dinosaur Game mechanics (like DAO/BG/NWN) and it takes them five years of time and effort, that game is a failure compared to one that sells 750,000 every 18 months.

It's not simply hypothetical; it's nonsense.

How much of the work done in that five years directly benefited Dragon Age II? Certainly the engine they used. The lore. The scripting work to define and refine the base systems and AI. The workflow established to create quality content to build up a game for the engine. The marketing and support to introduce and sell the franchise to the public.

You can't simply say Origins took five years whereas Dragon Age II took two years, so it's more profitable. Dragon Age II wouldn't be close to what it is if it weren't for some of the work done in the preceding five years. In your fantasy comparison, both games started at the same spot; in reality, Dragon Age II was already at the finish line when it started, and as such, they were able to simply move the line a bit farther ahead.

aliastasia wrote...

Laidlaw comes from gaming journalism and was console editor for a gaming website before working on Jade Empire and Mass Effect 1. (and some additional design on ME2) Based on that, it seems this is his first gig as lead designer for a game on a genre he has no specific love for.

As far as I know, Mike Laidlaw was never credited for anything on Mass Effect? And he was credited only with writing for Jade Empire (so unless you're trying to say he failed so bad because of Henpecked Hou, it's hardly relevant to your point). And he was there for some part of NWN design (one or both of the expansions).

As for writing about video games (I refuse to use the 'j' word to describe it), so what? David was in hotel service before he came to BioWare. I think Mark D. was still in school. Luke was a writer for every game they've ever done, even Baldur's Gate (so at least some of that abysmal punctuation and grammar was his). By your estimation, does that mean that David doesn't know what games even are, Mark doesn't know how to do anything but play games and party, and Luke can't put a coherent sentence together?

Modifié par devSin, 28 mai 2011 - 06:54 .

[In Exile]

marshalleck wrote...
 Depends. What's the profit margin?

See Obsidian's Knights of the Old Republic II for an example. 

Let me rephrase that: I don't think any developer (and I use this to refer to the individuals actually working on the game) want to release a half-finished product.

As an executive, well... I'd argue it was your job to get the best margin. As a corporation, you're legally obligated to.

[aliastasia]

@devSN - I looked up the credits in the wrong manual - my bad. He is credited in the Mass Effect 1 manual:

Add’l Design
Rafael Brown
Charly Carlos
Eric ****nan
Chris Hepler
Scott Horner
Mike Laidlaw
(and others)
-page 32

As for background - I didnt mean to say noone without a tech/gamer bg should be lead on games or other projects - did mean to convey that maybe it's not easy as lead on a game like this, specially not first solo flight as lead designer - it's too easy to compromise and it's too easy to say yes to the awesome because of enthusiasm and pressure.

And that observation is more based on what I see myself when working in SWE than a direct dislike of Laidlaw, even though I do have a massive distaste for the EuroGamer utterings.

/A

[MonkeyLungs]

Steffen wrote...

I don't exactly think wanting to sell more copies is restricted to Laidlaw, i would think all devs have a wish to see their game do well, games are art but they are also a product, i just think he has a problem grasping the concept of marketing # YOU CANNOT PLEASE EVERY ONE.

Now what does that mean?
Well you have to find a focus, a demographic, as Brent Knowles himself said DA2 isn't an action game or a stragety game
It tries to be both and does neither very well, and look at the pre game marketing, it was clearly marketed as a game that delivers "the awesome experience" which makes alot of older gamers cringe, so driven towards a younger generation, which were unlikely to buy the game as most of them would probably find it boring.

I guess one must ask themselves: "How do we sell more RPG's?" "Do we sell more RPG's by making our games even more RPG and even better at their genre? Or do we sell more RPG's by watering them down, simplifying systems and trying to make the game more accessible?"

I honestly don't think that making the game 'more accessible' is actually a strength from an artistic or economic standpoint. 

Lots of talking, NPC interaction, tons of cutscenes ... these kinds of thing will be present whether the game is streamlined or not. Reading stuff, multiple ways to complete quests, companion interaction and 'boring talking' are all roadblocks to true mass appeal. So why cater to those kinds of gamers?

If they grew a pair and made their games more hardcore and stepped up the production values, offered real branching pathways, increased rather than decreased options for gameplay, added more reading and talking and interaction and way more non-combat stuff to do .... I think they would take the gaming world by storm.

It is total mythology that RPG's need to be simplified to make them more appealing and there is no evidence to back this up. Look at how many straight up action RPG's just don't sell well at all.

[Alex Kershaw]

We all know that he failed. It is nonsensical to think that people will suddenly start liking this genre of games simply because crafting was changed, bodies explode and every item became called 'ring' or 'amulet'. Dragon Age: Origins is their best selling game the company has ever made. It is proven that there is a huge market for this genre of games and watering the game down - as proven by Dragon Age 2 - will do nothing but alienate the current fans.

It seems that for games that aren't casual multi-player titles such as Call of Duty or FIFA, a game's sales depend on how well the game performs critically, so why not just focus on what worked - Dragon Age: Origins, rather than changing things for the sake of it? I actually would be fascinated to have a conversation with the person who decided that calling every item in the game by a generic name - what could possibly have been going through his mind?

EDIT: I know lots of people who like to play games like Call of Duty, Gears of War, FIFA, etc, which seems to be the market Bioware want (and have said in interviews that they want, including at their own conferences about Mass Effect 3). None of them own Dragon Age 2, yet many of them own Mass Effect 2, and many of them own Dragon Age: Origins? Why? Because they were told how great it was through word-of-mouth, so they picked it up. Sure, they didn't talk to all of the characters at camp or on the ship but they still bought and liked the game. They won't buy Dragon Age 2 because they were told it isn't very good. I don't see how watering down the game helps in any way.

Modifié par Alex Kershaw, 28 mai 2011 - 09:07 .

[Guitar-Hero]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Steffen wrote...

I don't exactly think wanting to sell more copies is restricted to Laidlaw, i would think all devs have a wish to see their game do well, games are art but they are also a product, i just think he has a problem grasping the concept of marketing # YOU CANNOT PLEASE EVERY ONE.

Now what does that mean?
Well you have to find a focus, a demographic, as Brent Knowles himself said DA2 isn't an action game or a stragety game
It tries to be both and does neither very well, and look at the pre game marketing, it was clearly marketed as a game that delivers "the awesome experience" which makes alot of older gamers cringe, so driven towards a younger generation, which were unlikely to buy the game as most of them would probably find it boring.

I guess one must ask themselves: "How do we sell more RPG's?" "Do we sell more RPG's by making our games even more RPG and even better at their genre? Or do we sell more RPG's by watering them down, simplifying systems and trying to make the game more accessible?"

I honestly don't think that making the game 'more accessible' is actually a strength from an artistic or economic standpoint. 

Lots of talking, NPC interaction, tons of cutscenes ... these kinds of thing will be present whether the game is streamlined or not. Reading stuff, multiple ways to complete quests, companion interaction and 'boring talking' are all roadblocks to true mass appeal. So why cater to those kinds of gamers?

If they grew a pair and made their games more hardcore and stepped up the production values, offered real branching pathways, increased rather than decreased options for gameplay, added more reading and talking and interaction and way more non-combat stuff to do .... I think they would take the gaming world by storm.

It is total mythology that RPG's need to be simplified to make them more appealing and there is no evidence to back this up. Look at how many straight up action RPG's just don't sell well at all.

I agree, but most AAA titles aren't made for gamers they are made for profit (cynically speaking) though there are the ocational oddballs (such as LA Noir, TW2) 
When it comes to numbers the most popular games are angry birds, farmville and so forth and if you want people who have never touched a gaming medium before to play your game you have to make it accessible, unfortunately that comprimises the experience for us, the ones who have played games for as long as we can remember.
This is somewhat understandable though they risk alienating the ones who actually buy their games, pointing fingers however is redundant instead rejoice that gaming is being accepted as an art form, and blame the ones who make the games ie publishers and devs. (ofcourse within reason) for making these decisions.
We still have power as consumers to say no to a product and to demand better. thats why i think indie games are seeing a huge rise in development, because the devs. want to make games for us and for them, we still have power as consumers so support the games and more importantly devs. you believe in. 

[thenemesis77]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

Steffen wrote...

I don't exactly think wanting to sell more copies is restricted to Laidlaw, i would think all devs have a wish to see their game do well, games are art but they are also a product, i just think he has a problem grasping the concept of marketing # YOU CANNOT PLEASE EVERY ONE.

Now what does that mean?
Well you have to find a focus, a demographic, as Brent Knowles himself said DA2 isn't an action game or a stragety game
It tries to be both and does neither very well, and look at the pre game marketing, it was clearly marketed as a game that delivers "the awesome experience" which makes alot of older gamers cringe, so driven towards a younger generation, which were unlikely to buy the game as most of them would probably find it boring.

I guess one must ask themselves: "How do we sell more RPG's?" "Do we sell more RPG's by making our games even more RPG and even better at their genre? Or do we sell more RPG's by watering them down, simplifying systems and trying to make the game more accessible?"

I honestly don't think that making the game 'more accessible' is actually a strength from an artistic or economic standpoint. 

Lots of talking, NPC interaction, tons of cutscenes ... these kinds of thing will be present whether the game is streamlined or not. Reading stuff, multiple ways to complete quests, companion interaction and 'boring talking' are all roadblocks to true mass appeal. So why cater to those kinds of gamers?

If they grew a pair and made their games more hardcore and stepped up the production values, offered real branching pathways, increased rather than decreased options for gameplay, added more reading and talking and interaction and way more non-combat stuff to do .... I think they would take the gaming world by storm.

It is total mythology that RPG's need to be simplified to make them more appealing and there is no evidence to back this up. Look at how many straight up action RPG's just don't sell well at all.

Yes..they could take the gaming world by storm but they have been put in a timeframe by "think tanks".  The think tanks are  the same whever they go...it's about trends and what people tend to follow.  The gaming industry is getting far more simple then 4 to 6 years ago. People like MIke and David look for Trends in the gaming market and they adjust their polices to that.

I have seen that its not about how one wants to make the gamer happy or do the right thing, it's all about what they can target and get the most money out of. I would like to ask both Mike and Davd..when they sold out the passion for their carft for the simple money gambit, it makes them sell outs to the out right elitist. From the actions of both Mike and David, they are and have been long in line with the Elistist veiw, you don't matter, only what they think does and an thing other then their program in process is a 'thought crime". Hell, it written on the wall.  I have nothing for either of them and I know how they feel for the ones they would dem...useless.

Modifié par thenemesis77, 28 mai 2011 - 09:36 .

[Nerdage]

Steffen wrote...

I agree, but most AAA titles aren't made for gamers they are made for profit (cynically speaking) though there are the ocational oddballs (such as LA Noir, TW2) 
When it comes to numbers the most popular games are angry birds, farmville and so forth and if you want people who have never touched a gaming medium before to play your game you have to make it accessible, unfortunately that comprimises the experience for us, the ones who have played games for as long as we can remember.
This is somewhat understandable though they risk alienating the ones who actually buy their games, pointing fingers however is redundant instead rejoice that gaming is being accepted as an art form, and blame the ones who make the games ie publishers and devs. (ofcourse within reason) for making these decisions.
We still have power as consumers to say no to a product and to demand better. thats why i think indie games are seeing a huge rise in development, because the devs. want to make games for us and for them, we still have power as consumers so support the games and more importantly devs. you believe in. 

You think people who work for AAA developers don't care about games? You don't put hundreds -- if not thousands -- of hours into making something you don't care about, there are easier ways of making money. If not games themselves then their area of development (writing, programming, etc), but it requires a passion to put in the hours and effort needed to make a AAA game.

I'd also say the rise of indie games is more down to the low cost of development and relatively low risk, you can basically keep throwing out games until one sticks, and that someone who worked on either Dragon Age (for example) would be far more attached to that one game than an independant developer would be to any one of their games. But that's another topic.

[Everwarden]

Perles75 wrote...
 Trolls and prejudiced haters please abstain.

Typically trolls don't acknowledge that they are trolls, so this is a kinda pointless thing to say.

On topic: The Laidlaw Mantra obviously didn't work, because it spat in the face of his core audience and didn't get him the widespread appeal he was aiming for. That's a failure. 

Modifié par Everwarden, 28 mai 2011 - 10:09 .

[RangerSG]

In Exile wrote...

marshalleck wrote...
 Depends. What's the profit margin?

See Obsidian's Knights of the Old Republic II for an example. 

Let me rephrase that: I don't think any developer (and I use this to refer to the individuals actually working on the game) want to release a half-finished product.

As an executive, well... I'd argue it was your job to get the best margin. As a corporation, you're legally obligated to.

That wasn't Obsidian's choice, that was Lucas Art's, who also complicated things by pulling out the rug and making them change elements of the plot midway through without lengthening development time. The TSL story is quite sordid.

Not that I don't think Obsidian is infamous for overreaching, but with TSL there were reasons.

To the OP: No, it didn't work, objectively sales have been lower than DA:O's were. Subjectively, reviews were lower than DA:O's and DA2 is criticially the most lukewarmly received game in Bioware's stable since pre-Baldur's Gate. Costs may have been lower, but there was no expansion of the market.

I think it's because they've been given a poor understanding of what the market expects. I think the entire idea of "Streamlining" is a fantastic way to kill the franchise. The market will respond to a quality product. People will reach out of their comfort zone for something they think will be fun. They won't respond, by and large, to being patronized by a hybrid game if it isn't fun and interesting to play.

I don't think DA2 was an 'epic' failure. But it was a needless one, because the recipe for success was obvious, and like the Clash, they had it in their hands and broke it.

Modifié par RangerSG, 28 mai 2011 - 10:21 .

[The Serge777]

Everwarden wrote...
On topic: The Laidlaw Mantra obviously didn't work, because it spat in the face of his core audience and didn't get him the widespread appeal he was aiming for. That's a failure. 

No, he/Bioware did NOT spit in the face of his core audience.  (This is the kind of hyperbolic language we should avoid...  It doesn't help anything or anyone.)  I count myself among that group and I am not and was not offended by Bioware's decision to make changes to the DA2 franchise.  My relative disappointment in this game (and I use relative because I really like this game and prefer playing it to DAO even if the latter handled certain story elements better) is in recognition that they did not achieve what they set out to achieve in terms of plot accountability to player decision. 

Virtually every other relavent RPG trope is present in this game, so the issue here not a failure to meet expectation; rather, the issue is that they failed to provide a story strong enough to transcend the more superficial issues most "fans" disenchanted with the game seem to want.  Had the story (namely, the ability to affect the plot) been stronger, we'd have fewer complaints.

And I'd love to see where people are finding the numbers that support the notion that this game isn't doing well.  I'm not saying they're wrong...  I'd just like independent confirmation.

Modifié par The Serge777, 28 mai 2011 - 10:24 .

[RangerSG]

The Serge777 wrote...

Everwarden wrote...
On topic: The Laidlaw Mantra obviously didn't work, because it spat in the face of his core audience and didn't get him the widespread appeal he was aiming for. That's a failure. 

No, he/Bioware did NOT spit in the face of his core audience.  I count myself among that group and I am not and was not offended by Bioware's decision to make changes to the DA2 franchise.  My relative disappointment in this game (and I use relative because I really like this game and prefer playing it to DAO even if the latter handled certain story elements better) is in recognition that they did not achieve what they set out to achieve in terms of plot accountability to player decision. 

Virtually every other relavent RPG trope is present in this game, so the issue here not a failure to meet expectation; rather, the issue is that they failed to provide a story strong enough to transcend the more superficial issues most "fans" disenchanted with the game seem to want.  Had the story (namely, the ability to affect the plot) been stronger, we'd have fewer complaints.

And I'd love to see where people are finding the numbers that support the notion that this game isn't doing well.  I'm not saying they're wrong...  I'd just like independent confirmation.

The Wiki page for DA2 has a link to indicated sales data to date. It is significantly lower.

[Alex Kershaw]

zsom wrote...

What you don't seem to understand is that there are two paths before DA:
- they either reach the wider fanbase (like it or not.. that's the consoles)
- or they stop making fantasy rpgs.

No third way. There are tons of games that can reach a wide audience (ME for example), and if the Dragon Age team cannot match this success, then they won't receive any more funding.

So the question isn't whether to stick to the hard core rpg fanbase or "streamline" (god how I hate this word) it to get console players to buy it, it's "streamline" it, or quit.

DAO sold more than ME2 (true, DAO had PS3 but it certainly did not undersell...)

[Zanallen]

I don't think we can answer this with any certainty. DA2 was obviously rushed and the implementation of Laidlaw's vision wasn't as crisp as it could have been. If we had received a more polished version of DA2, I don't think we have have seen nearly as much backlash.

[Guitar-Hero]

nerdage wrote...

Steffen wrote...

I agree, but most AAA titles aren't made for gamers they are made for profit (cynically speaking) though there are the ocational oddballs (such as LA Noir, TW2) 
When it comes to numbers the most popular games are angry birds, farmville and so forth and if you want people who have never touched a gaming medium before to play your game you have to make it accessible, unfortunately that comprimises the experience for us, the ones who have played games for as long as we can remember.
This is somewhat understandable though they risk alienating the ones who actually buy their games, pointing fingers however is redundant instead rejoice that gaming is being accepted as an art form, and blame the ones who make the games ie publishers and devs. (ofcourse within reason) for making these decisions.
We still have power as consumers to say no to a product and to demand better. thats why i think indie games are seeing a huge rise in development, because the devs. want to make games for us and for them, we still have power as consumers so support the games and more importantly devs. you believe in. 

You think people who work for AAA developers don't care about games? You don't put hundreds -- if not thousands -- of hours into making something you don't care about, there are easier ways of making money. If not games themselves then their area of development (writing, programming, etc), but it requires a passion to put in the hours and effort needed to make a AAA game.

I'd also say the rise of indie games is more down to the low cost of development and relatively low risk, you can basically keep throwing out games until one sticks, and that someone who worked on either Dragon Age (for example) would be far more attached to that one game than an independant developer would be to any one of their games. But that's another topic.

Ofcourse they care, but as you yourself pointed out it costs more to produce AAA games, therefore they can't be as experimental with the games themselves, if you got the idea that i was implying that AAA devs. are not passionate or that they do not love what they do then that was not my intention, and also i strongly dissagree with you on perspective on indie games, that however is for another time.  

[aliastasia]

The Serge777 wrote...


Virtually every other relavent RPG trope is present in this game, so the issue here not a failure to meet expectation; rather, the issue is that they failed to provide a story strong enough to transcend the more superficial issues most "fans" disenchanted with the game seem to want.  Had the story (namely, the ability to affect the plot) been stronger, we'd have fewer complaints.

And I'd love to see where people are finding the numbers that support the notion that this game isn't doing well.  I'm not saying they're wrong...  I'd just like independent confirmation.

I politely beg to partially differ, but I will keep it short: I concur with the story arc being too weak, but if some of the plotholes, like walking around as an apostate in Kirkwall, with your staff on your back whilst talking to i.e Cullen or Meredith would have been taken care of the story would have been ...if not wonderful, believable, and suspension of disbelief is any game's stock-in-trade. but there's also the gameplay itself - the game does not provide a sense of mastery when trying to achieve something dififcult - not even on the higher levels, it's mash, not skill city. That feeling of mastery is actually important in a game. I'll not even go near the levels(again)

As for independent numbers - I took the liberty of performing a Google for you, so you can pick and choose, with no bias from anyone. 

Me, I don't have any issue whatsoever with profitmaking companies - I am willing to pay to be entertained and immersed, and if BioWare wants to sell that to me, Yay! BioWare! 
But they failed on DA:2. I've been amused, I've been somewhat entertained, I havent been all that immersed. I chose to believe the hype so I can't complain that much, but I do maintain Laidlaw failed in meeting user expectations. And based on that  and naturally declining sales (which is why we'll probably get DLC soon to boost them), in addition to the other issues ppl have w the game, my personal opinion on whether it was a success or not, is that it's not.. 

The game itself will probably win some awards and stuff, but with Witcher getting raves and DA:2 being snubbed in those same raves, and Skyrim slated for later this year, it's going to be interesting to see how well it does. 

/A