397 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

neppakyo wrote...
True, and also TW2 had more lines of dialogue than DA2 as well.

Wait, TW2 had more dialogue? I didn't find that in any playthrough.. maybe it's unique content + ambient?

I would have thought companions + the longer quest string conversations in DA2 would have meant DA2 had the longer dialogue count. Do you have a link to the difference? I'll try to google Fu it in the meantime.

I think BW tried to cover too much at once, and try to string it together with the thinnest veil of logic. With TW2 less in the companion department, the various other characters and NPC's were done very well, and I don;t think 'cheaped out'

I don't think the logic was cheap - the problem was that Bioware took the wrong design approach. They melded the worst elements of a linear story with an older RPG, and the older RPG fanbase didn't buy into the design at all and fought against it at every turn, which IMO led to the bad press being generated.

To give you an example: the 3 year gaps. Hawke does, effectively, nothing. The idea (I'd bet) was that players would fill in the content using their imagination. But instead, players rally against that.

One poster in particualr is angry that Hawke didn't spend the intervening years trying to involve himself in the mage templar conflict. Well, I think the idea is that the player would have filled in that gap to get Hawke to that point, meaning that the devs thought that this player would imagine Hawke trying to fix things and failing, leading to the showdown between the mages & templars in hightown outside the estate. But it totally backfired.

Don't get me wrong - Act III is bad, and I think that shows where the crunched time line came in full effect. But I don't think the design was lazy... it was just looking at the wrong things.

Basically I think the point is, they did more with less of a budget than DA2. DA2 felt a lot lazier, and slapped together without any care or fun put into the dev. If that makes sense.

A pet peeve of mine is the care argument. 

TW2 is too consolized for it to show care, especially with all the doubletalk coming from CD Projekt about it being a PC first game. The engine is absolutely PC first, but the rest of the game... I don't think so. CD Projekt was hoping for a hit, and they are putting their eggs in the 360 basket, so to speak. They developed the game for a gamepad and build a console UI they adapted to the PC, just like DA2. They removed a lot of elements (the camera, the tetris inventory, point and click to move and the overhead camera) to make it consistent with a gamepad, and they push some of the QA onto their userbase. Not very different from what ended up happening with DA2.

But they respond to it fast. They patch like mad, and they're workhorses, and that deserves respect. They want to make their product succesful, and they want to be a AAA developer and are pulling out all of the stops to do it.

They have a much, much better business model than EA. Free-DLC and releasing pre-order bonuses. They know how to manage their userbase better. Right now, they're clearly showing they're the more competent and the more capable developing studio.

But competence and execution =! care. Don't get me wrong - I'd pre-order any CD Projekt game in a second and they're now one of the top-tier devs. for me that I follow. But they're a business first, just like Bioware.

Hmm, IE, you're always interesting to argue with hehe.

Thanks. I try to stay fair-minded, so it usually happens I end up both praising and bashing a game in the same post. Like I just did with CD Projekt.

[Elhanan]

“Louis, Louis, Louis...Stil whining, Louis! Are you quite finished? I've had to listen to that for centuries!-Lestat” -
 
Interview with the Vampire

Modifié par Elhanan, 04 juin 2011 - 03:47 .

[Chromie]

Elhanan wrote...

“Louis, Louis, Louis...Stil whining, Louis! Are you quite finished? I've had to listen to that for centuries!-Lestat” -
 
Interview with the Vampire

I dout Tom Cruise could care less about games and no one is forcing you to read this.

Also Exile. Not sure how many words are in Dragon Age 2.

Modifié par Ringo12, 04 juin 2011 - 03:54 .

[Brockololly]

In Exile wrote...
Just look at the total amount of conversation between the two as a comparison. I replayed DA2 after TW2, and honestly, TW2 is a small game. It's excellently done, but it's a lot less ambitious than DA2 in terms of the ground they tried to cover.

The difference is that TW2 did what they set out to do well.

Perhaps the difference in TW2 as opposed to DA2 however is that the entire second Act of TW2 is going to be different, so in one playthrough you're not seeing a good chunk of dialogue  anyway? And having that level of branching narrative is pretty ambitious for a game.

But I don't doubt DA2 likely has more dialogue than TW2. Although I think TW2 makes better use of the dialogue than DA2.

And I know I've seen estimates of TW2's word count or line count to compare to DA2...

Edit: 'd above. So TW2 has ~130k words. DA2 supposedly has 400k words while Origins had ~1 million words.

In Exile wrote...
But they respond to it fast. They  patch like mad, and they're workhorses, and that deserves respect. They  want to make their product succesful, and they want to be a  AAA developer and are pulling out all of the stops to do it.

I agree on the consolization with TW2, but it must be said that they wouldn't be able to patch up the console versions nearly as fast as they've been doing for the PC.

In Exile wrote...
They have a much, much better business model than EA. Free-DLC and releasing pre-order bonuses. They know how to manage their userbase better. Right now, they're clearly showing they're the more competent and the more  capable developing studio.

Totally agree- they know their audience better than BioWare with DA and they're saying all the right things and backing it up with stuff like DRM free games, fast patches, an engine that looks great on PC and free content. That kind of attitude does a good amount to quell the grumbling there might be of the more consolized aspects of the game I think.

Modifié par Brockololly, 04 juin 2011 - 04:06 .

[neppakyo]

If I reacall DAO had around 54,000 lines of dialogue and DA2 had around 30,000 lines. Wish I could find the source I had for it.

hehe, and they're changing the UI for TW2 for the 360, might be simpler, not sure. And I do agree they have a much much better business model than BW/EA.

When I said more care and fun, just by watching the dev videos, and even the april fools 'Saviours of Queens' video it seem like they were having a blast doing the game.

[topster88]

Well wrote...

I just curious.Didnt they make  ME 1 in that time frame?

I'd be REALLY surprised if that were the case; ME1's development had to create a whole new engine IIRC

[Chromie]

topster88 wrote...

Well wrote...

I just curious.Didnt they make  ME 1 in that time frame?

I'd be REALLY surprised if that were the case; ME1's development had to create a whole new engine IIRC

ME1 is on the Unreal Engine. Just tweaked it a bit. 

Modifié par Ringo12, 04 juin 2011 - 04:23 .

[neppakyo]

topster88 wrote...

Well wrote...

I just curious.Didnt they make  ME 1 in that time frame?

I'd be REALLY surprised if that were the case; ME1's development had to create a whole new engine IIRC

Nope.

They had to learn to use the Unreal Engine in non-FPS First Person mode.

[topster88]

Ringo12 wrote...

topster88 wrote...

Well wrote...

I just curious.Didnt they make  ME 1 in that time frame?

I'd be REALLY surprised if that were the case; ME1's development had to create a whole new engine IIRC

ME1 is on the Unreal Engine. Just tweaked it a bit. 

Aha, my mistake

[Well]

neppakyo wrote...

topster88 wrote...

Well wrote...

I just curious.Didnt they make  ME 1 in that time frame?

I'd be REALLY surprised if that were the case; ME1's development had to create a whole new engine IIRC

Nope.

They had to learn to use the Unreal Engine in non-FPS First Person mode.

The reason I am curious is were there members from the DAO teamed pulled to help with the project?

[neppakyo]

Well wrote...

The reason I am curious is were there members from the DAO teamed pulled to help with the project?

Unlikely.

The more likely scenario is pulling people from everywhere in Bioware to work on TOR, so its not released in 3 years

[Chromie]

Well wrote...


The reason I am curious is were there members from the DAO teamed pulled to help with the project?

Dragon Age: Origins was made by the orginal crew of BioWare Edmonton
ME2 was made from less than half of the team who made ME1 and a lot of new EA recruits.

I guess you could compare the credits from the manuals.

[Well]

Ok thanks all.

[Everwarden]

David Gaider wrote...
I imagine the people who enjoyed DA2 will be looking forward to DA3, yes, unless your supposition is that everyone who bought DA2 was unhappy?

I suspect most people who got DA2 were lukewarm about it, rather than screaming and pissed. That isn't the sort of thing that builds brand strength, though. 

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

Valcutio wrote...
The only reason DA2 sold even remotely as well as it did is because of the DA:O fans. Do you REALLY think you'll have that advantage when DA3 rolls around?

I imagine the people who enjoyed DA2 will be looking forward to DA3, yes, unless your supposition is that everyone who bought DA2 was unhappy? I don't think that's true. Either way, it'll depend on what kind of game DA3 turns out to be, won't it?

Except how many people that bought DA2 actually enjoyed it enough to pre-order DA3?  That's the "money" question.  In addion, I will note in passing that raw profitability matters far less than meeting or failing to meet expectations, and I think we both know that DA2 failed to meet expectations and failed rather badly at that.

As for the "money" question, assuing a DA3 is actually made, we won't know for sure until it hits the shelf (or is up for preorder).  However, we CAN look at the relative sales curve of both games (and yes adjust for the fact that DAO was released during the holiday season and DA2 was not). We find that DA2 will likely either not make or barely make 2 million "sold through" sales (per VChartz which is the best publically available info we have) which is perhaps 40% of DAO's sold-through numbers (and DA2 really should be more than a 100% of DAO not 40%) and we further find that perhaps a quarter to a THIRD of this 2 million comes from pre-orders! 

Although this is not hard proof, it certainly suggests that your core target audience is ambivalent towards DA2 at best and that implies that you might have half the market you had initially for DA2 for DA3 if you are lucky.

That's my take.

-Polaris

[Everwarden]

IanPolaris wrote...
Although this is not hard proof, it certainly suggests that your core target audience is ambivalent towards DA2 at best and that implies that you might have half the market you had initially for DA2 for DA3 if you are lucky.

That's my take.

-Polaris

Your take is typically right on the money. I salute you, sir!

[Elhanan]

IanPolaris wrote...

Except how many people that bought DA2 actually enjoyed it enough to pre-order DA3?  That's the "money" question.  In addion, I will note in passing that raw profitability matters far less than meeting or failing to meet expectations, and I think we both know that DA2 failed to meet expectations and failed rather badly at that.

As for the "money" question, assuing a DA3 is actually made, we won't know for sure until it hits the shelf (or is up for preorder).  However, we CAN look at the relative sales curve of both games (and yes adjust for the fact that DAO was released during the holiday season and DA2 was not). We find that DA2 will likely either not make or barely make 2 million "sold through" sales (per VChartz which is the best publically available info we have) which is perhaps 40% of DAO's sold-through numbers (and DA2 really should be more than a 100% of DAO not 40%) and we further find that perhaps a quarter to a THIRD of this 2 million comes from pre-orders! 

Although this is not hard proof, it certainly suggests that your core target audience is ambivalent towards DA2 at best and that implies that you might have half the market you had initially for DA2 for DA3 if you are lucky.

That's my take.

-Polaris

I would think the market for DA3 is not restricted to those that only played DAO and/or DA2, but is as wide as the RPG market can bear. Just because there may be those critical of DA2 does not equate to a loss of the market for the next game. And while pre-orders may decline, they may not and actually increase due to several factors including holidays, economy, price, reviews, lack of current competition, etc.

Perhaps I am misreading this post, and readily admit I know nothing of economics and business, but for all we know, DA3 could possibly grab the attention of the public for whatever reason, and outsell both prequels

[Jackel159357]

In the end the question is whether or not bioware is happy with the reaction to Dragon Age 2.

[Cody211282]

Jackel159357 wrote...

In the end the question is whether or not bioware is happy with the reaction to Dragon Age 2.

I think a better one would be if EA is happy with the sales numbers, because at the end of the day that's all that really matters.

[topster88]

IanPolaris wrote...

Except how many people that bought DA2
actually enjoyed it enough to pre-order DA3?  That's the "money"
question.  In addion, I will note in passing that raw profitability
matters far less than meeting or failing to meet expectations, and I
think we both know that DA2 failed to meet expectations and failed
rather badly at that.

As for the "money" question, assuing a DA3 is actually made, we won't know for sure until it hits the shelf (or is up for preorder).  However, we CAN look at the relative sales curve of both games (and yes adjust for the fact that DAO was released during the holiday season and DA2 was not). We find that DA2 will likely either not make or barely make 2 million "sold through" sales (per VChartz which is the best publically available info we have) which is perhaps 40% of DAO's sold-through numbers (and DA2 really should be more than a 100% of DAO not 40%) and we further find that perhaps a quarter to a THIRD of this 2 million comes from pre-orders! 

Although this is not hard proof, it certainly suggests that your core target audience is ambivalent towards DA2 at best and that implies that you might have half the market you had initially for DA2 for DA3 if you are lucky.

That's my take.

-Polaris

Well-put.DA2's high initial sales were unquestionably thanks to the number of pre-orders they had from people who enjoyed DA:O so much. Unless they make it VERY clear to consumers that they are going to fix everything people disliked about DA2, DA3's sales are going to look like DA2's minus a large chunk of however many they had thanks to pre-orders.

Elhanan wrote...

I would think the market for DA3 is not restricted to those that only played DAO and/or DA2, but is as wide as the RPG market can bear. Just because there may be those critical of DA2 does not equate to a loss of the market for the next game. And while pre-orders may decline, they may not and actually increase due to several factors including holidays, economy, price, reviews, lack of current competition, etc.

Perhaps I am misreading this post, and readily admit I know nothing of economics and business, but for all we know, DA3 could possibly grab the attention of the public for whatever reason, and outsell both prequels

DA2 had the benefit of having DA:O as a pretense of quality. DA3 will not. It's that "whatever reason" you speak of that their marketing team needs to figure out fast, and hopefully they'll opt to simply make the game better instead of grasping for audiences of other genres to make up the difference.

Modifié par topster88, 04 juin 2011 - 07:26 .

[Elhanan]

topster88 wrote...

... DA2 had the benefit of having DA:O as a pretense of quality. DA3 will not. It's that "whatever reason" you speak of that their marketing team needs to figure out fast, and hopefully they'll opt to simply make the game better instead of grasping for audiences of other genres to make up the difference.

There would seem to always be a chance for any sequel to out-sell the prequels; reason I am guessing that the unplayed Final Fantasy or Ultima series were so extensive.

DA3 may be defined on it's own merits, with DA2 being only one of many factors in the purchase. And not all share your bias against DA2; a point you still fail to see.

[Denizen89]

Having played through many times during my first week after the March 8th release , which was spring break for me, I was disappointed with the final product. The story was no where near as good, filled with holes that are not fully explained, plus characters acting out of character, blatant brushing off of DA:O history. I did loathe act 3 of the game it was a clear show that the game was rushed to the finish without any real regard. Act 2 and Act 1 I enjoyed though especially act 2. The story was great there.
I enjoyed the new item layout and companions fixed armor, having some control over the combat unlike the first's push X and watch them hack each other to death; but more on this later, What I did not enjoy about the game play is that it felt lost in translation, the waves of enemies did not help this it only compounded on it. The Mages while an enjoyable class are still overpowered while the Warrior and Rogue are left out. The romances are very lacking in depth which was a bad thing for the game as they were incredibly dull and not to mention while I am for equal representation making the companions mostly Bi or gay did make it too simple and a tad high school. I am fine with having options for gay romances, just give an equal amount of attention to the other side. I loved the dialogue wheel that made the dialogue choices much more simple and easy to do.
The aesthetics however simply fall flat. Repeated use of a dungeon map with minor variations is a big thing that really irked me after two playthroughs, it was cheap. The voice acting was ok, there are some great lines when given the sarcastic option especially a certain one in act 3. But a lot of places had some bizarre things happen. Anders being an example. The redesign of the Hurlocks already had me doing the face palm. However the qunari had an excellent redesign. The city of Kirkwall itself and the surrounding areas were really lifeless and badly articulated for a current generation system. The facial animations of emotion were absolutely terrible and killed certain moments of the story.

My week of eight playthroughs with no guide gave me the impression that they rushed this game, and gave no heed to what made Origins great. Plus sales figure I have read for this instalment are around 1.3-1.5 million sold to customers. With over 2 million at store shelves and after a month of observing those copies are not going anywhere soon. The vast difference in User and critic rating says several things; fanboys of Origins are trolling that to death, the Bioware employee caught reviewing the game does indeed raises a couple red flags, and that the critics are part of the mainstream gamer that love simplicity and are horrible at following anything that has more than one entry. An example of that would be Fable 3 and perhaps the Fable series in general. Would I give the game an 8? No.. Would I give it lower than a 5? no..

I would give this game a 5 because of what I have seen. As for them reacting to our reaction I think they are because I agree with Polaris when he says the dev team has a bunker mentality when taking criticisms. Read interviews after launch. Plus I fear for future installments of Dragon Age being a worse kind of simplicity than Fable, but no where near the disaster of Star Wars TFU2.

[Denizen89]

Elhanan wrote...

topster88 wrote...

... DA2 had the benefit of having DA:O as a pretense of quality. DA3 will not. It's that "whatever reason" you speak of that their marketing team needs to figure out fast, and hopefully they'll opt to simply make the game better instead of grasping for audiences of other genres to make up the difference.

There would seem to always be a chance for any sequel to out-sell the prequels; reason I am guessing that the unplayed Final Fantasy or Ultima series were so extensive.

DA3 may be defined on it's own merits, with DA2 being only one of many factors in the purchase. And not all share your bias against DA2; a point you still fail to see.

Something you fail to see with Final fantasy is that they actually cared for their fanbase for quite some time until recently. There is also a large amount of quality in the earlier titles such as VII, VIII, IX, and X. The amount of time they took on each one is staggering and their attention to what makes them classics in the first place. Plus they had a great understanding of their fans and did not try to simplify or go for the casual gamer. You are also failing to see the point of opinion of sequels and how a bad title can kill a franchise. DA 3 will be an entry in this series and of course the other two will be thrown in on comparison to the gamer. If they loved the first one but dispised the second I would not count on them buying the third just because of the name and the previous entry. It works that way in movies as well some of the time. But your also not wrong in saying DA3 will be judged on its merits by critics. In the end however it is the popular opinion that rules over the critical one and that a fanbase that has been wronged or pissed off will have fewer returns the longer it goes.

[In Exile]

Denizen89 wrote...
I would give this game a 5 because of what I have seen. As for them reacting to our reaction I think they are because I agree with Polaris when he says the dev team has a bunker mentality when taking criticisms. Read interviews after launch. Plus I fear for future installments of Dragon Age being a worse kind of simplicity than Fable, but no where near the disaster of Star Wars TFU2.

I don't think the interviews are a good indicator of pulse, because no developer is going to come out and say a product they have on the shelf and are trying to unload is ****. Even if a developer wanted to, there'd be a gag order on them from investors and it's very possible the person doing so could get sued.

[topster88]

Elhanan wrote...

There would seem to always be a chance
for any sequel to out-sell the prequels; reason I am guessing that the
unplayed Final Fantasy or Ultima series were so extensive.

DA3
may be defined on it's own merits, with DA2 being only one of many
factors in the purchase. And not all share your bias against DA2; a
point you still fail to see.

Banking on "the chance"
that a sequel would out-sell its predecessor is not a very sound
marketing plan, especially when you can't pinpoint a reason why it
would.

And like Ianpolaris pointed out, a great deal of DA2's initial high sales were due to preorders; people who likely only bought the game because of DA:O's pretense. Unless they give us a reason to forget about DA2's shortcomings, it's fair to say there will not be as many preorders as DA2 had, and indeed if DA3 does not wind up addressing the problems in DA2 without introducing new problems altogether, sales will fall like a rock soon after the release date.