212 réponses à ce sujet

[Aaleel]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

aftohsix wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Well, considering DA2 is a punchline anywhere else and flamebait even on this forum...

My point is you can't back that statement up with facts.  Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

I'll put it this way.  I've seen Bioware developers say the data they have access to shows that the majority of people who played Dragon Age 2 hold a favorable opinion of it but that they all have a few common issues they'd like to see fixed.

I've also seen Forum poster X say that the game sucks and everyone thinks it sucks.

Who would you choose to believe?  The person who has access to empirical data or the one that is just saying things?

How would they know this?  Did they send out questionnaires, phone polls, polls on this site?  They have data that may show how many people finished the game, stuff like that but knowing people's actual opinion of the game is impossible unless you actually talk to people or have people fill something out.

Most people tend to not complete games they dislike, especially long ones. Sure, there are some hard core completionists and gamerscore junkies who must have everything, but in a sample size of millions of data points (which they have), they tend to be outliers. The metrics they pull from the game itself provide a lot of insight.

Roughly 50% of the people who started Mass Effect 2 actually finished it. If DA2 posts similar numbers, then it's reasonable to conclude that folks were compelled enough by the game to finish it, and thus liked it enough to see it through to the end. It may not be a perfect representation, but it's close enough because most people who don't like doing something stop doing it.

I finished it, and so did a lot of other people who ended up not liking it.  A lot of the people who post in this forum finished the game and have a negative opinion.  I even tried to play it again, because I always try to play every game at least twice.  Once without guides or mods to see what I can find myself, and then again.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Whatsupnewyork wrote...

AAHook2 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Still.do.not.care.

Critics are as reliable as doomsayers announcing the world is going to end on *Insert date* because *Insert ridiculous omen/biblical reference/gibberish*.

Frankly, I disagree with many ratings Bioware games have received. While I love the BG series as well as ME2, IMO they redefine the word overrated with their over the top ratings.

And these days, while an excellent game, TW2 is hyped to the point of overrated worship.

So yeah, critics.......LOL.

You are really pushing the envelope of stubborness to the point of ingnorance.

If you enjoyed the game, that's fine, but a WHOLE LOT of people feel cheated and hard done by purshasing this game, especially the special editions.

Yet still, you can't let it go that people feel this way. Why?
Your behavior at this point is honestly as trollish as any naysayer, becuase despite the evidence staring you right in the face, you still insist that it's an anomaly that this title release is...HATED. By many.

That's Persephone for 'ya. Biggest hippocrite going.

I think some of it is just a reaction to ceaseless, childish displays of emotion.

[aftohsix]

Aaleel wrote...

I finished it, and so did a lot of other people who ended up not liking it.  A lot of the people who post in this forum finished the game and have a negative opinion.  I even tried to play it again, because I always try to play every game at least twice.  Once without guides or mods to see what I can find myself, and then again.

One of my main points is that this forum alone is not a good representative sample of ALL people who played Dragon Age.

For lots of reasons not the least of which is that people such as myself that favor the game are most certainly in the minority here because so many others like us were chased off the forums shortly after launch with pitchforks and torches.

[Aaleel]

aftohsix wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

I finished it, and so did a lot of other people who ended up not liking it.  A lot of the people who post in this forum finished the game and have a negative opinion.  I even tried to play it again, because I always try to play every game at least twice.  Once without guides or mods to see what I can find myself, and then again.

One of my main points is that this forum alone is not a good representative sample of ALL people who played Dragon Age.

For lots of reasons not the least of which is that people such as myself that favor the game are most certainly in the minority here because so many others like us were chased off the forums shortly after launch with pitchforks and torches.

No one is saying this forum is good sample.  I was responding to the post that said people don't finish things they don't like.  A lot of the people who criticize the game on this forum finished it, so that's not true.

Some of the bigger gripes with the game are that it fell apart in the 3rd act, or that the final choice didn't matter.  These people had to have finished the game.

Modifié par Aaleel, 21 juin 2011 - 07:47 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Aaleel wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

aftohsix wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Well, considering DA2 is a punchline anywhere else and flamebait even on this forum...

My point is you can't back that statement up with facts.  Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

I'll put it this way.  I've seen Bioware developers say the data they have access to shows that the majority of people who played Dragon Age 2 hold a favorable opinion of it but that they all have a few common issues they'd like to see fixed.

I've also seen Forum poster X say that the game sucks and everyone thinks it sucks.

Who would you choose to believe?  The person who has access to empirical data or the one that is just saying things?

How would they know this?  Did they send out questionnaires, phone polls, polls on this site?  They have data that may show how many people finished the game, stuff like that but knowing people's actual opinion of the game is impossible unless you actually talk to people or have people fill something out.

Most people tend to not complete games they dislike, especially long ones. Sure, there are some hard core completionists and gamerscore junkies who must have everything, but in a sample size of millions of data points (which they have), they tend to be outliers. The metrics they pull from the game itself provide a lot of insight.

Roughly 50% of the people who started Mass Effect 2 actually finished it. If DA2 posts similar numbers, then it's reasonable to conclude that folks were compelled enough by the game to finish it, and thus liked it enough to see it through to the end. It may not be a perfect representation, but it's close enough because most people who don't like doing something stop doing it.

I finished it, and so did a lot of other people who ended up not liking it.  A lot of the people who post in this forum finished the game and have a negative opinion.  I even tried to play it again, because I always try to play every game at least twice.  Once without guides or mods to see what I can find myself, and then again.

Unfortunately, you are probably also in the group of outliers out of the millions of data points. There might be dozens of people like you, hundreds, maybe even thousands, but when you're looking at a sample size of hundreds of thousands to millions, these numbers aren't a huge factor (still in the single digit percentage category at most). It's a well-known fact that the people on any forum represent a tiny fraction of the people who actually bought and played the game, and it's also well-known fact that the people on any forum are the most vocal and hard core of the fans, and are thus not representative of the actual audience of the game. It's like going to a sci fi, game or comic book convention, your average fan does not dress up like a paladin in tier 2 raid armor, argue about how Joe Quesada RUINED SPIDER-MAN FOREVER, or complain about how in season four, episode 17, 35 minutes and 17 seconds in, how the dialogue directly contradicted what was said in season two, episode 9, 12 minutes and 46 seconds in.

Thinking that folks like these are representative of the entire fanbase is silly. It doesn't mean that their claims are invalid, because the hardest core fans are the ones who care the most and they often have some good insights. I think that there are a lot of valid criticisms of DA2 from those who disliked it, and I know that the Bioware devs do too, and they've said as much. However, that doesn't mean that your attitude is a prevailing one, or that you're somehow in the majority. Thinking that you are is folly.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 21 juin 2011 - 07:48 .

[Aaleel]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Unfortunately, you are probably also in the group of outliers out of the millions of data points. There might be dozens of people like you, hundreds, maybe even thousands, but when you're looking at a sample size of hundreds of thousands to millions, these numbers aren't a huge factor (still in the single digit percentage category at most). It's a well-known fact that the people on any forum represent a tiny fraction of the people who actually bought and played the game, and it's also well-known fact that the people on any forum are the most vocal and hard core of the fans, and are thus not representative of the actual audience of the game. It's like going to a sci fi, game or comic book convention, your average fan does not dress up like a paladin in tier 2 raid armor, argue about how Joe Quesada RUINED SPIDER-MAN FOREVER, or complain about how in season four, episode 17, 35 minutes and 17 seconds in, how the dialogue directly contradicted what was said in season two, episode 9, 12 minutes and 46 seconds in.

Thinking that folks like these are representative of the entire fanbase is silly. It doesn't mean that their claims are invalid, because the hardest core fans are the ones who care the most and they often have some good insights. I think that there are a lot of valid criticisms of DA2 from those who disliked it, and I know that the Bioware devs do too, and they've said as much. However, that doesn't mean that your attitude is a prevailing one, or that you're somehow in the majority. Thinking that you are is folly.

You mean the 1.5 million who bought this game.  The entire sample size if everyone left the data collecting option on is not millions.  Actually I saw numbers and about half the people finished DA2, just like Origins, and apparently just like ME2.

Also as I said in another post one of the main problems some people had was that the 3rd act was unfinished and felt rushed, and that the last choice didn't matter.  So obviously people had to finish the game to know these things.

Modifié par Aaleel, 21 juin 2011 - 07:53 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Aaleel wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Unfortunately, you are probably also in the group of outliers out of the millions of data points. There might be dozens of people like you, hundreds, maybe even thousands, but when you're looking at a sample size of hundreds of thousands to millions, these numbers aren't a huge factor (still in the single digit percentage category at most). It's a well-known fact that the people on any forum represent a tiny fraction of the people who actually bought and played the game, and it's also well-known fact that the people on any forum are the most vocal and hard core of the fans, and are thus not representative of the actual audience of the game. It's like going to a sci fi, game or comic book convention, your average fan does not dress up like a paladin in tier 2 raid armor, argue about how Joe Quesada RUINED SPIDER-MAN FOREVER, or complain about how in season four, episode 17, 35 minutes and 17 seconds in, how the dialogue directly contradicted what was said in season two, episode 9, 12 minutes and 46 seconds in.

Thinking that folks like these are representative of the entire fanbase is silly. It doesn't mean that their claims are invalid, because the hardest core fans are the ones who care the most and they often have some good insights. I think that there are a lot of valid criticisms of DA2 from those who disliked it, and I know that the Bioware devs do too, and they've said as much. However, that doesn't mean that your attitude is a prevailing one, or that you're somehow in the majority. Thinking that you are is folly.

You mean the 1.5 million who bought this game.  The entire sample size if everyone left the data collecting option on is not millions.  Actually I saw numbers and about half the people finished DA2, just like Origins, and apparently just like ME2.

Also as I said in another post one of the main problems some people had was that the 3rd act was unfinished and felt rushed, and that the last choice didn't matter.  So obviously people had to finish the game to know these things.

I don't know the exact sales figures. I'm not sure where you got it; most people use VGChartz, but it is fairly specious. In any case though, the sample size is still in the hundreds of thousands (at least two orders of magnitude above the forums, likely 3 or more). Like I said, the people on the forum aren't representative. 

I'm not saying that you don't have a valid opinion, because you do. I'm just saying your opinion is hardly the prevailing one, due to the factors involved.

Edit: And, in the long run, there really isn't much practical difference between these two opinions of the game:

1. I hate the game. Act 3 was rushed, I hate how boring wave combat is, and reusing environments over and over is the worst thing ever. This game is the worst thing ever!

2. I thought the game was pretty good. However, I felt that act 3 was rushed, and I didn't like how almost every fight had waves. Also, I wish there were more areas and zones to go through; I felt like I kept seeing the same ones. If they fix this stuff in the next game, I'd be much happier.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 21 juin 2011 - 08:16 .

[Aaleel]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I don't know the exact sales figures. I'm not sure where you got it; most people use VGChartz, but it is fairly specious. In any case though, the sample size is still in the hundreds of thousands (at least two orders of magnitude above the forums, likely 3 or more). Like I said, the people on the forum aren't representative. 

I'm not saying that you don't have a valid opinion, because you do. I'm just saying your opinion is hardly the prevailing one, due to the factors involved.

Show me where I said my opinion was the prevailing one.  It amazes me how much I see how critics of the game are trying to pass of their opinion as fact, or the right one.

But in this thread one person has said the majority of people had a favorable opinion of the game, cited no quotes, links or sources.  And then you make a blanket statement that people don't finish games they don't like, which means the vast majority of people who finished must have had a favorable opinion of it.  Which once again is backed up by nothing.  How is this fact?

People are complaining about something and then doing the exact same thing.

[csfteeeer]

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't say I agree with what they did. They rushed the game out to cash in, because doing another game like Origins was not a finacialy viable option.

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

hmm

well.... CD Projekt RED spend almost 4 years on The Witcher 2, and 4.5 years on The Witcher 1, and they are DEFINETELY not a billionaire company.

hmmm.... Bethesda, they may publish several games every year, but as a dev team, they take their time.

....ArenaNET, has been working on Guild Wars 2 since 2007 (or at least that's the date it was announced, they might have started working on it before)

.... and who could forget Blizzard? they announced Diablo 3 all the way back to 2008 , still hasn't come out.
StarCraft 2, announced in 2007, confirmed to be in work since early 2006, released in 2010.

oh.... RockStar , La Noire, announced in 2006, released in 2011, Red Dead Redemption , announced (well, hinted actually) in 2005, released in 2010.

the list goes on....

Modifié par csfteeeer, 21 juin 2011 - 08:58 .

[Gotholhorakh]

I thought the review could have been much more detailed and exhaustive in its criticism of the game, but I suppose the guy is going to try and make it fairly snappy and not a ten page analysis.

Overall I thought the score was proportionate and fair.

[Realmzmaster]

csfteeeer wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't say I agree with what they did. They rushed the game out to cash in, because doing another game like Origins was not a finacialy viable option.

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

hmm

well.... CD Projekt RED spend almost 4 years on The Witcher 2, and 4.5 years on The Witcher 1, and they are DEFINETELY not a billionaire company.

hmmm.... Bethesda, they may publish several games every year, but as a dev team, they take their time.

....ArenaNET, has been working on Guild Wars 2 since 2007 (or at least that's the date it was announced, they might have started working on it before)

.... and who could forget Blizzard? they announced Diablo 3 all the way back to 2008 , still hasn't come out.
StarCraft 2, announced in 2007, confirmed to be in work since early 2006, released in 2010.

oh.... RockStar , La Noire, announced in 2006, released in 2011, Red Dead Redemption , announced (well, hinted actually) in 2005, released in 2010.

the list goes on....

CD Projectk Red is owned by CD Projectk which is the biggest PC game publisher in Central Europe, mostly definitely in the upper millionaire club.

Bethesda Softwares LLC who is subsidary of ZeniMax Media (owners of id Software, Arkane studios,Tango Gameworks and Machinegames). Note that Bethesda is a LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) which gives it some autonomy from ZeniMax Media. Bethesda Softworks is also a publishing company that publishes other developers games. Bioware is not. Bethesda Softworks derives income separate from the in-house game studio (BGS). Therefore is can allow certain development teams to make their own schedule.

ArenaNet owned by NSoft Corporation. The reason for the long development time for Guild Wars 2 is because three of the principals left Areanet to go to NC West and the other principal quit to form his own company leaving only Mike O'Brien to head up Guild Wars 2.

Activision Blizzard can afford to have long development times given the steady cash cow that is WOW. Few other companies have this kind of cash infusion each month. So it can afford to allow development times more time.

Rockstar games is owned by Take-Two Interactive. Rockstar games consist of several development studios which were bought by Take-Two and incorporated into the original Rockstar. Also several independent studios are associaited with Rockstar and give income to Rockstar and Take-two.

The point in this is that each company has a steady stream of money coming in and have some autonomy that Bioware does not have.

Bioware is wholly owned by EA and given a budget to follow and told how much time they have. In fact the doctors themselves are slowly moving into leadership positions at EA.

If development time was the indicator of a great game Duke Nukem Forever should have been perfect at 13.5 years!

[csfteeeer]

Realmzmaster wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't say I agree with what they did. They rushed the game out to cash in, because doing another game like Origins was not a finacialy viable option.

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

hmm

well.... CD Projekt RED spend almost 4 years on The Witcher 2, and 4.5 years on The Witcher 1, and they are DEFINETELY not a billionaire company.

hmmm.... Bethesda, they may publish several games every year, but as a dev team, they take their time.

....ArenaNET, has been working on Guild Wars 2 since 2007 (or at least that's the date it was announced, they might have started working on it before)

.... and who could forget Blizzard? they announced Diablo 3 all the way back to 2008 , still hasn't come out.
StarCraft 2, announced in 2007, confirmed to be in work since early 2006, released in 2010.

oh.... RockStar , La Noire, announced in 2006, released in 2011, Red Dead Redemption , announced (well, hinted actually) in 2005, released in 2010.

the list goes on....

CD Projectk Red is owned by CD Projectk which is the biggest PC game publisher in Central Europe, mostly definitely in the upper millionaire club.

Bethesda Softwares LLC who is subsidary of ZeniMax Media (owners of id Software, Arkane studios,Tango Gameworks and Machinegames). Note that Bethesda is a LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) which gives it some autonomy from ZeniMax Media. Bethesda Softworks is also a publishing company that publishes other developers games. Bioware is not. Bethesda Softworks derives income separate from the in-house game studio (BGS). Therefore is can allow certain development teams to make their own schedule.

ArenaNet owned by NSoft Corporation. The reason for the long development time for Guild Wars 2 is because three of the principals left Areanet to go to NC West and the other principal quit to form his own company leaving only Mike O'Brien to head up Guild Wars 2.

Activision Blizzard can afford to have long development times given the steady cash cow that is WOW. Few other companies have this kind of cash infusion each month. So it can afford to allow development times more time.

Rockstar games is owned by Take-Two Interactive. Rockstar games consist of several development studios which were bought by Take-Two and incorporated into the original Rockstar. Also several independent studios are associaited with Rockstar and give income to Rockstar and Take-two.

The point in this is that each company has a steady stream of money coming in and have some autonomy that Bioware does not have.

Bioware is wholly owned by EA and given a budget to follow and told how much time they have. In fact the doctors themselves are slowly moving into leadership positions at EA.

If development time was the indicator of a great game Duke Nukem Forever should have been perfect at 13.5 years!

Oh yeah.... i forgot about Valve, and Valve is not owned by anybody.

[Loc'n'lol]

Valve owns Steam... They could stop making games altogether and keep making profits.

[csfteeeer]

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

Valve owns Steam... They could stop making games altogether and keep making profits.

ahh S**t i forgot about that

[Anathemic]

Realmzmaster wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't say I agree with what they did. They rushed the game out to cash in, because doing another game like Origins was not a finacialy viable option.

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

hmm

well.... CD Projekt RED spend almost 4 years on The Witcher 2, and 4.5 years on The Witcher 1, and they are DEFINETELY not a billionaire company.

hmmm.... Bethesda, they may publish several games every year, but as a dev team, they take their time.

....ArenaNET, has been working on Guild Wars 2 since 2007 (or at least that's the date it was announced, they might have started working on it before)

.... and who could forget Blizzard? they announced Diablo 3 all the way back to 2008 , still hasn't come out.
StarCraft 2, announced in 2007, confirmed to be in work since early 2006, released in 2010.

oh.... RockStar , La Noire, announced in 2006, released in 2011, Red Dead Redemption , announced (well, hinted actually) in 2005, released in 2010.

the list goes on....

CD Projectk Red is owned by CD Projectk which is the biggest PC game publisher in Central Europe, mostly definitely in the upper millionaire club.

Bethesda Softwares LLC who is subsidary of ZeniMax Media (owners of id Software, Arkane studios,Tango Gameworks and Machinegames). Note that Bethesda is a LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) which gives it some autonomy from ZeniMax Media. Bethesda Softworks is also a publishing company that publishes other developers games. Bioware is not. Bethesda Softworks derives income separate from the in-house game studio (BGS). Therefore is can allow certain development teams to make their own schedule.

ArenaNet owned by NSoft Corporation. The reason for the long development time for Guild Wars 2 is because three of the principals left Areanet to go to NC West and the other principal quit to form his own company leaving only Mike O'Brien to head up Guild Wars 2.

Activision Blizzard can afford to have long development times given the steady cash cow that is WOW. Few other companies have this kind of cash infusion each month. So it can afford to allow development times more time.

Rockstar games is owned by Take-Two Interactive. Rockstar games consist of several development studios which were bought by Take-Two and incorporated into the original Rockstar. Also several independent studios are associaited with Rockstar and give income to Rockstar and Take-two.

The point in this is that each company has a steady stream of money coming in and have some autonomy that Bioware does not have.

Bioware is wholly owned by EA and given a budget to follow and told how much time they have. In fact the doctors themselves are slowly moving into leadership positions at EA.

If development time was the indicator of a great game Duke Nukem Forever should have been perfect at 13.5 years!

Wrong buddy.

Activision Blizzard is not Blizzard. Activision has no say in Blizzard's games. Activision Blizzard, despite it's name, is the merge between Activision and Vivendi (the french parent company of Blizzard).

Yeah EA bought out BioWare and owns them, BioWare however chose to stay. I'm pretty sure a competent team like BioWare could go out and start heir own dev company, Blizzard employees have done it, look at ArenaNet. If BioWare wanted to form their own company of ArenaNet I'm sure they'd do good. But they chose to be under the influence of EA. So putting the blame solely on EA is trivial.

[Realmzmaster]

Anathemic wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't say I agree with what they did. They rushed the game out to cash in, because doing another game like Origins was not a finacialy viable option.

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

hmm

well.... CD Projekt RED spend almost 4 years on The Witcher 2, and 4.5 years on The Witcher 1, and they are DEFINETELY not a billionaire company.

hmmm.... Bethesda, they may publish several games every year, but as a dev team, they take their time.

....ArenaNET, has been working on Guild Wars 2 since 2007 (or at least that's the date it was announced, they might have started working on it before)

.... and who could forget Blizzard? they announced Diablo 3 all the way back to 2008 , still hasn't come out.
StarCraft 2, announced in 2007, confirmed to be in work since early 2006, released in 2010.

oh.... RockStar , La Noire, announced in 2006, released in 2011, Red Dead Redemption , announced (well, hinted actually) in 2005, released in 2010.

the list goes on....

CD Projectk Red is owned by CD Projectk which is the biggest PC game publisher in Central Europe, mostly definitely in the upper millionaire club.

Bethesda Softwares LLC who is subsidary of ZeniMax Media (owners of id Software, Arkane studios,Tango Gameworks and Machinegames). Note that Bethesda is a LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) which gives it some autonomy from ZeniMax Media. Bethesda Softworks is also a publishing company that publishes other developers games. Bioware is not. Bethesda Softworks derives income separate from the in-house game studio (BGS). Therefore is can allow certain development teams to make their own schedule.

ArenaNet owned by NSoft Corporation. The reason for the long development time for Guild Wars 2 is because three of the principals left Areanet to go to NC West and the other principal quit to form his own company leaving only Mike O'Brien to head up Guild Wars 2.

Activision Blizzard can afford to have long development times given the steady cash cow that is WOW. Few other companies have this kind of cash infusion each month. So it can afford to allow development times more time.

Rockstar games is owned by Take-Two Interactive. Rockstar games consist of several development studios which were bought by Take-Two and incorporated into the original Rockstar. Also several independent studios are associaited with Rockstar and give income to Rockstar and Take-two.

The point in this is that each company has a steady stream of money coming in and have some autonomy that Bioware does not have.

Bioware is wholly owned by EA and given a budget to follow and told how much time they have. In fact the doctors themselves are slowly moving into leadership positions at EA.

If development time was the indicator of a great game Duke Nukem Forever should have been perfect at 13.5 years!

Wrong buddy.

Activision Blizzard is not Blizzard. Activision has no say in Blizzard's games. Activision Blizzard, despite it's name, is the merge between Activision and Vivendi (the french parent company of Blizzard).

Yeah EA bought out BioWare and owns them, BioWare however chose to stay. I'm pretty sure a competent team like BioWare could go out and start heir own dev company, Blizzard employees have done it, look at ArenaNet. If BioWare wanted to form their own company of ArenaNet I'm sure they'd do good. But they chose to be under the influence of EA. So putting the blame solely on EA is trivial.

You are under the impression that the holding company of ActivisionBlizzard has no say over its subsidary. They allow Blizzard and keep its leadership to run itself because it is profitable. Let Blizzard run into difficulty andor make a decision that goes counter to the parent company,  see if the parent company does not intervene.

Yes the employees of Bioware could leave and form their own company. It would mean leaving their IP and name which is now owned by EA. Also I doubt David would be able to write novels using the Dragon Age name or IP. Also given the fact that starting a development studio requires money, resources and a publisher.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

aftohsix wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Well, considering DA2 is a punchline anywhere else and flamebait even on this forum...

My point is you can't back that statement up with facts.  Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

I'll put it this way.  I've seen Bioware developers say the data they have access to shows that the majority of people who played Dragon Age 2 hold a favorable opinion of it but that they all have a few common issues they'd like to see fixed.

I've also seen Forum poster X say that the game sucks and everyone thinks it sucks.

Who would you choose to believe?  The person who has access to empirical data or the one that is just saying things?

Well, how about you conduct an experiment? Go to a SRS of forums, and talk about how awesome Dragon Age 2 is. See what reaction you get 

Also, don't buy what a company tells you about the reception to its own games. That's PR, not objectivity. See also: Duke Nukem Forever.

[erynnar]

Aaleel wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

aftohsix wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Well, considering DA2 is a punchline anywhere else and flamebait even on this forum...

My point is you can't back that statement up with facts.  Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

I'll put it this way.  I've seen Bioware developers say the data they have access to shows that the majority of people who played Dragon Age 2 hold a favorable opinion of it but that they all have a few common issues they'd like to see fixed.

I've also seen Forum poster X say that the game sucks and everyone thinks it sucks.

Who would you choose to believe?  The person who has access to empirical data or the one that is just saying things?

How would they know this?  Did they send out questionnaires, phone polls, polls on this site?  They have data that may show how many people finished the game, stuff like that but knowing people's actual opinion of the game is impossible unless you actually talk to people or have people fill something out.

Most people tend to not complete games they dislike, especially long ones. Sure, there are some hard core completionists and gamerscore junkies who must have everything, but in a sample size of millions of data points (which they have), they tend to be outliers. The metrics they pull from the game itself provide a lot of insight.

Roughly 50% of the people who started Mass Effect 2 actually finished it. If DA2 posts similar numbers, then it's reasonable to conclude that folks were compelled enough by the game to finish it, and thus liked it enough to see it through to the end. It may not be a perfect representation, but it's close enough because most people who don't like doing something stop doing it.

I finished it, and so did a lot of other people who ended up not liking it.  A lot of the people who post in this forum finished the game and have a negative opinion.  I even tried to play it again, because I always try to play every game at least twice.  Once without guides or mods to see what I can find myself, and then again.

Just for ****s and giggles in your debate with hooray...finished it twice (don't ask me how, I have no idea) and I didn't log on so BioWare will never see if I did or not. They would have to take my word for it. Since I thought the heavy handed twisiting my arm..CHOOSE, CHOOSE A SIDE NOW and then how Act 3 ended..yeah. I was not amused.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Roughly 50% of the people who started Mass Effect 2 actually finished it. If DA2 posts similar numbers, then it's reasonable to conclude that folks were compelled enough by the game to finish it, and thus liked it enough to see it through to the end.

Or, "how many people finished it" is a measurement of how short and easy your game is I mean sh*t, I played Modern Warfare 2 through to the end, but you won't hear me talking about how good it is.

[KnightofPhoenix]

KilrB wrote...
Well I only know English, but thanks to Google maybe one of these will meet with your approval:

التنين السن 2 المصات!
Dragon Age 2 gücünü zaptetti!
龙腾世纪2吸！
Dragon Age 2 é unha merda!
Dragon Age 2 χάλια!
ड्रैगन 2 चरणों बेकार है!
ドラゴンエイジ2は最低だ！
ಡ್ರ್ಯಾಗನ್ ವಯಸ್ಸು 2 ಹೀರುವಾಗ!
드래곤 에이지 2 구려!
Змејот Години 2 смрди!
Umur Dragon 2 menghisap!
بازی Dragon Age 2 داره!
Dragon Age 2 jest do dupy!
Dragon Age 2 é uma merda!
Dragon Age 2 e de rahat!
Dragon Age 2 отстой!
Драгон Аге 2 суцкс!
Dragon Age 2 es una mierda!
டிராகன் வயது 2 ஏமாற்றுகிறது!
ڈریگن 2 عمر بیکار ہے!
דראַקאָן אַגע 2 סאַקס!

The Arabic one is incorrect,.

It should be:
عصر التنين ٢ خرية

And if you want French: L'Age des Dragons 2 est une merde.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 juin 2011 - 10:57 .

[erynnar]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

KilrB wrote...
Well I only know English, but thanks to Google maybe one of these will meet with your approval:

التنين السن 2 المصات!
Dragon Age 2 gücünü zaptetti!
龙腾世纪2吸！
Dragon Age 2 é unha merda!
Dragon Age 2 χάλια!
ड्रैगन 2 चरणों बेकार है!
ドラゴンエイジ2は最低だ！
ಡ್ರ್ಯಾಗನ್ ವಯಸ್ಸು 2 ಹೀರುವಾಗ!
드래곤 에이지 2 구려!
Змејот Години 2 смрди!
Umur Dragon 2 menghisap!
بازی Dragon Age 2 داره!
Dragon Age 2 jest do dupy!
Dragon Age 2 é uma merda!
Dragon Age 2 e de rahat!
Dragon Age 2 отстой!
Драгон Аге 2 суцкс!
Dragon Age 2 es una mierda!
டிராகன் வயது 2 ஏமாற்றுகிறது!
ڈریگن 2 عمر بیکار ہے!
דראַקאָן אַגע 2 סאַקס!

The Arabic one is incorrect,.

It should be:
عصر التنين ٢ خرية

And if you want French: L'Age des Dragons 2 est une merde.

You know, the word **** can look so pretty in so many languges...:lol::lol:

[Kimberly Shaw]

Persephone wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

I didn't say I agree with what they did. They rushed the game out to cash in, because doing another game like Origins was not a finacialy viable option.

DAO not financially viable ?
That's just ridiculous.

No dev studio will devote 5+ years of dev time to a single game nowadays. With production costs being ridiculously high. Forget it.

Persephone...I like you and all...but please try to use your head next time you want to make a baseless statement. Skyrim took that many years and is coming out in November.  That fact alone makes you fail at the internet..and I don't want you to fail because I like you.

[Hurbster]

Y'know I read this thread and all the mumbo-jumbo and stats and all that stuff and I have to say the ONLY opinion that should matter is your own.

I have to admit quite a lot of amount of disappointment with the game after completing it, for the reasons that have been discussed in this forum ad nauseum. I'm just wondering how many people played the demo and had second thoughts. I can appreciate people liking this game, I really can't myself though. And yes I am a big fan of DA:O, maybe that is the problem. A better solution might have been to do what Bethseda did with the Battlespire and Redguard offshoots of the Elder Scrolls games - have them as side games.

[Anathemic]

Realmzmaster wrote...

You are under the impression that the holding company of ActivisionBlizzard has no say over its subsidary. They allow Blizzard and keep its leadership to run itself because it is profitable. Let Blizzard run into difficulty andor make a decision that goes counter to the parent company,  see if the parent company does not intervene.

Yes the employees of Bioware could leave and form their own company. It would mean leaving their IP and name which is now owned by EA. Also I doubt David would be able to write novels using the Dragon Age name or IP. Also given the fact that starting a development studio requires money, resources and a publisher.

Actually it goes Vivendi > Activision Blizzard > Blizzard Entertainment

Vivendi and Blizzard Entertainment already have good long-lasting mutal relationship, and judging form so many years of working together any discourse would be easily negotiated and solved. Vivendi doesn't want to lose Blizzard and Blizzard doesn't want to lose the developmen freedom granted by Vivendi.

This is all my personal opinion, but after what I've seen of DA2 and DA:O DLC's I'd say it's better to restart and let the DA franchise die off. From what I've seen it's not going to go anywhere if this trend continues.

[Realmzmaster]

Anathemic wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

You are under the impression that the holding company of ActivisionBlizzard has no say over its subsidary. They allow Blizzard and keep its leadership to run itself because it is profitable. Let Blizzard run into difficulty andor make a decision that goes counter to the parent company,  see if the parent company does not intervene.

Yes the employees of Bioware could leave and form their own company. It would mean leaving their IP and name which is now owned by EA. Also I doubt David would be able to write novels using the Dragon Age name or IP. Also given the fact that starting a development studio requires money, resources and a publisher.

Actually it goes Vivendi > Activision Blizzard > Blizzard Entertainment

Vivendi and Blizzard Entertainment already have good long-lasting mutal relationship, and judging form so many years of working together any discourse would be easily negotiated and solved. Vivendi doesn't want to lose Blizzard and Blizzard doesn't want to lose the developmen freedom granted by Vivendi.

This is all my personal opinion, but after what I've seen of DA2 and DA:O DLC's I'd say it's better to restart and let the DA franchise die off. From what I've seen it's not going to go anywhere if this trend continues.

Actually Vivendi is the majority stockholder (52%) in the merger of Activision Blizzard. The CEO and President of ActivisionBlizzard  is the former CEO of Activision. The Chair of the board of ActvisionBlizzard is former member of and CEO of Vivendi Gamesi. Vivendi cannot lose Blizzard because it owns the majority of the stock.
The employees it could lose but all IP and games would remain with Activision Blizzard. Blizzard is not an independent company. It has a good relationship with its owners that allows them a level of freedom others may not have.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 22 juin 2011 - 05:02 .