583 réponses à ce sujet

[Yrkoon]

txgoldrush wrote...


And so Bioware RPGs are all the same? LOL

Define Bioware RPG?

In fact, the gameplay in all Bioware games are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.

DEFINE GAMEPLAY.  lol

[Slayer299]

Persephone wrote...
Again, no. Inaccurate numbers on both games. Both are inaccurate nonsense. The only one knowing the actual figures is Bioware. And DAO did not sell 5 mill. All the numbers I read about vary between 3.00-3.5 million. Not 5. It also had almost 2 years, an expansion and DLC to boost sales. The comparison lacks coherence, fairness and accuracy. Will DAII ever outsell DAO? I doubt it. But the comparison is ludicrous at this point.

Persephone, last EA Quarterly I read it stated that DAO sold over 4 million actually.

[xkg]

Slayer299 wrote...

Persephone wrote...
Again, no. Inaccurate numbers on both games. Both are inaccurate nonsense. The only one knowing the actual figures is Bioware. And DAO did not sell 5 mill. All the numbers I read about vary between 3.00-3.5 million. Not 5. It also had almost 2 years, an expansion and DLC to boost sales. The comparison lacks coherence, fairness and accuracy. Will DAII ever outsell DAO? I doubt it. But the comparison is ludicrous at this point.

Persephone, last EA Quarterly I read it stated that DAO sold over 4 million actually.

VGchartz shows 3,8 mils without PC sales for USA.
Do you think that DAO for PC sold about 700 000 in USA ? Easily.
Sum it up  =  at least 4,5 mil

So it looks like VGChartz sales data isn't so inacurate.

Modifié par xkg, 17 juillet 2011 - 01:00 .

[csfteeeer]

xkg wrote...

Slayer299 wrote...

Persephone wrote...
Again, no. Inaccurate numbers on both games. Both are inaccurate nonsense. The only one knowing the actual figures is Bioware. And DAO did not sell 5 mill. All the numbers I read about vary between 3.00-3.5 million. Not 5. It also had almost 2 years, an expansion and DLC to boost sales. The comparison lacks coherence, fairness and accuracy. Will DAII ever outsell DAO? I doubt it. But the comparison is ludicrous at this point.

Persephone, last EA Quarterly I read it stated that DAO sold over 4 million actually.

VGchartz shows 3,8 mils without PC sales for USA.
Do you think that DAO for PC sold about 700 000 in USA ? Easily.
Sum it up  =  at least 4,5 mil

So it looks like VGChartz sales data isn't so inacurate.

Don't forget that THOSE numbers don't included Digital Sales, which i think was the only only distribution place for DAO.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
That was provided as major reasons for the change to how the game begins, at least. In any case if the data from achievement websites are anything to go by, it didn't work out to well -- the percentage of people who gave up on DA2 without finishing doesn't seem to differ much from DAO.

Even though DA2 was ostensibly received much worse? That's very interesting. 

[In Exile]

csfteeeer wrote...
Don't forget that THOSE numbers don't included Digital Sales, which i think was the only only distribution place for DAO.

DA:O PC? It sold retail copies too. 

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Even though DA2 was ostensibly received much worse? That's very interesting. 

DA2 is also shorter which should be probably taken into account. Although the more i think about it the less sure i am if there's really anything that can be read from the number of people who quit the game before finishing it. E.g. Portal also has ~50% ratio of people who gave up on it mid-way, and it's like, 5 hours long total *and* acclaimed pretty much universally?

[csfteeeer]

In Exile wrote...

csfteeeer wrote...
Don't forget that THOSE numbers don't included Digital Sales, which i think was the only only distribution place for DAO.

DA:O PC? It sold retail copies too. 

Yes, PC.

then i don't know why they don't show the american pc sales.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...

DA2 is also shorter which should be probably taken into account. Although the more i think about it the less sure i am if there's really anything that can be read from the number of people who quit the game before finishing it. E.g. Portal also has ~50% ratio of people who gave up on it mid-way, and it's like, 5 hours long total *and* acclaimed pretty much universally?

DA2 wasn't much shorter for me for the same completion % on the same difficulty, but to each their own. 

If that's true, maybe the real conclusion is 50% of people never finish games, regardless of whether or not they like them. Which you allude to. 

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

If that's true, maybe the real conclusion is 50% of people never finish games, regardless of whether or not they like them. Which you allude to. 

I'm not sure about the conclusion myself; at the moment it goes somewhat like "no matter how hard you try and how good your game is, odds are it won't please half --or more-- of the people who try it enough to make them finish it". It'd also appear that quality shortage doesn't impact the completion rate too much -- that based just on numbers for Portal and DAO (where i'd consider Portal to be far more polished, and with its length also easier to finish) to avoid the controversy over quality of DA2..

[csfteeeer]

tmp7704 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Even though DA2 was ostensibly received much worse? That's very interesting. 

DA2 is also shorter which should be probably taken into account. Although the more i think about it the less sure i am if there's really anything that can be read from the number of people who quit the game before finishing it. E.g. Portal also has ~50% ratio of people who gave up on it mid-way, and it's like, 5 hours long total *and* acclaimed pretty much universally?

wow.
too many people buy games they don't like.

Modifié par csfteeeer, 17 juillet 2011 - 04:03 .

[Yrkoon]

In Exile wrote...

If that's true, maybe the real conclusion is 50% of people never finish games, regardless of whether or not they like them. Which you allude to. 

That seems  like a perfectly reasonable  conclusion to me.  Which is why I saw  red flags the moment I heard Mike Laidlaw cite the DA:O's "quitter" numbers as  one of the reasons why  Bioware decided to 'simplify' DA2.   He saw the numbers, then concluded that it had something  to do  with DA:O's design  (he claimed some nonsense about a wall of stats  discouraging players or whatever).  In other words, this is a classic example of having  perfectly good metric data and then spectacularly  MISINTERPRETTING it.

 Because the  fact of the matter is that lots of people simply quit playing games.  It happens.    We're in  the rental age.  We're in a "quick fix" age.  We're in an age where people will go out and buy 3 games at a time and play them for a week  then  sell them back  or trade them in then start the process all over.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 17 juillet 2011 - 04:37 .

[FieryDove]

Yrkoon wrote...

 Because the  fact of the matter is that lots of people simply quit playing games.  It happens.    We're in  the rental age.  We're in a "quick fix" age.  We're in an age where people will go out and buy 3 games at a time and play them for a week  then  sell them back  or trade them in then start the process all over.

It's been like this for years, even before hard data gathering began. Some people get bored and move on to next shiny. I would think with the economy this would slow down. People can't be spending as much or in some cases much at all on entertainment like they used to, but who knows.

Game trading/renting...another bane for companies like EA. I wonder how they plan to stop it. They have mentioned several times they do not like it.

[OdanUrr]

FieryDove wrote...

Game trading/renting...another bane for companies like EA. I wonder how they plan to stop it. They have mentioned several times they do not like it.

Go digital and discontinue release of physical copies. That's the main drive behind Steam and Origin.

[FieryDove]

OdanUrr wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

Game trading/renting...another bane for companies like EA. I wonder how they plan to stop it. They have mentioned several times they do not like it.

Go digital and discontinue release of physical copies. That's the main drive behind Steam and Origin.

The entire world needs better internet access to be downloading whole games I would think first...yes? No?

[OdanUrr]

FieryDove wrote...

The entire world needs better internet access to be downloading whole games I would think first...yes? No?

I heartily agree. And that's just one of the most obvious flaws behind that concept.

[csfteeeer]

FieryDove wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

Game trading/renting...another bane for companies like EA. I wonder how they plan to stop it. They have mentioned several times they do not like it.

Go digital and discontinue release of physical copies. That's the main drive behind Steam and Origin.

The entire world needs better internet access to be downloading whole games I would think first...yes? No?

a million times, this.
i seriously hope the industry is not stupid enough to make such a move, it would never work, the companies can easily expect a drop in sales.

[OdanUrr]

csfteeeer wrote...

a million times, this.
i seriously hope the industry is not stupid enough to make such a move, it would never work, the companies can easily expect a drop in sales.

It's happening with books already. More and more people are downloading books in portable readers as opposed to buying a mass market paperback, let alone a hardcover. Still, a game is undoubtedly heavier so you'd need a fast Internet connection to make it happen. Since not everyone has such a connection you're effectively alienating some of your clients or even potential clients.

[In Exile]

Yrkoon wrote...
That seems  like a perfectly reasonable  conclusion to me.  Which is why I saw  red flags the moment I heard Mike Laidlaw cite the DA:O's "quitter" numbers as  one of the reasons why  Bioware decided to 'simplify' DA2.   He saw the numbers, then concluded that it had something  to do  with DA:O's design  (he claimed some nonsense about a wall of stats  discouraging players or whatever).  In other words, this is a classic example of having  perfectly good metric data and then spectacularly  MISINTERPRETTING it.

Isn't Mike Laidlaw just a project manager, basically? I don't think he has input on the business side, aside from how to reach goals that EA sets out (e.g. find a way to maximize competion %).

Because the  fact of the matter is that lots of people simply quit playing games.  It happens.    We're in  the rental age.  We're in a "quick fix" age.  We're in an age where people will go out and buy 3 games at a time and play them for a week  then  sell them back  or trade them in then start the process all over.

I wouldn't be surprised. And some people have a tendency to finish stuff even if they think it's ****. 

tmp7704 wrote...
I'm not sure about the conclusion myself; at the moment it goes somewhat like "no matter how hard you try and how good your game is, odds are it won't please half --or more-- of the people who try it enough to make them finish it".

Why would you think people would finish a game even if they like it?

It'd also appear that quality shortage doesn't impact the completion rate too much -- that based just on numbers for Portal and DAO (where i'd consider Portal to be far more polished, and with its length also easier to finish) to avoid the controversy over quality of DA2..

Unless you want to argue that the same % of people liked DA2 as they liked DA2 (though obv. less total #s), I think making the % complete about liking doesn't really work. 

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

Why would you think people would finish a game even if they like it?

I don't quite get the question -- the "even" part throws me off?

Personally if i like a game, i keep coming back to it and playing it until it reaches come conclusion. Be it the ending in RPG or enf od campaign in strategy game or whatever. If it fails to pull me strong enough at some point i may put it away and don't come back.... so that's where the "pleasing the player enough to make them want to finish it (i.e. play until there's no more game to play)" comes from.

At the same time the "you can't please all people all the time" comes to mind, obv.

Unless you want to argue that the same % of people liked DA2 as they liked DA2 (though obv. less total #s), I think making the % complete about liking doesn't really work.

I think it can work if (based on the Portal & DAO points) you presume that plotting something like "average satisfaction with the game" and "% of players who completed the game" gives you some sort of logarithmic curve -- it rises quickly, but then plateaus at ~50% level for the most of its length. Or to put it in another way, a game doesn't need to be perfect to get near that 50% completion rate. But even a perfect game won't push much past that, if any.

Modifié par tmp7704, 17 juillet 2011 - 03:48 .

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
I don't quite get the question -- the "even" part throws me off?

To clarify, I mean: why do you think that just because someone likes a game, that's motivation enough to finish the game?

Personally if i like a game, i keep coming back to it and playing it until it reaches come conclusion. 

Me too. If I like games, I replay them until I melt the disk. This is why games are always worthwhile as an investment for me.

Be it the ending in RPG or enf od campaign in strategy game or whatever. If it fails to pull me strong enough at some point i may put it away and don't come back.... so that's where the "pleasing the player enough to make them want to finish it (i.e. play until there's no more game to play)" comes from.

I'm the same way; I don't think we can generalize this, though.

At the same time the "you can't please all people all the time" comes to mind, obv.

Of course.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

To clarify, I mean: why do you think that just because someone likes a game, that's motivation enough to finish the game?

You're right (if i understand what you're getting at) it's totally possible there's always going to be some percentage who won't finish the game despite liking it. Be it due lack of time, distraction or whatever. I have no idea how large that group may be, though.

[Lotion Soronarr]

JaegerBane wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...
I'm afraid I don't understand what your point is, here. I'm fully aware of what he's saying - clearly, 'any' warden wouldn't do, as Darkspawn Chronicles makes pretty clear.

Darkspawn Chronicles is pretty much a "what could have happened" little spinoff. Emphasis on could.
It has 0 canonicity or relevance.
It is no indication that another Warden (even Alistair) would fail.

No offence Lotion, but total denial doesn't actually count as an argument. Since Darkspawn Chronicles shows a 'what if' scenario if your Warden had died during the Joining, claiming it has no relevance to a debate about whether another could have done the Warden's job is simply nonsense. There's no good reason to doubt any of it, at all.

Darkspawn Chroonicles is a little spin-off where the Darkspawn have the power of save/load and thus cannot loose.
It's also a possible alternate scenario. I don't recall ever hearing a dev say that Alistair definately would fail.
Even more relevant, since that event never actually happened.

Do note which words I underlined.

[FieryDove]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Darkspawn Chroonicles is a little spin-off where the Darkspawn have the power of save/load and thus cannot loose.
It's also a possible alternate scenario. I don't recall ever hearing a dev say that Alistair definately would fail.
Even more relevant, since that event never actually happened.

Do note which words I underlined.

I think they did a good job of it. I do believe that would have happened if the warden had died in the joining. (Sorry Alistair)

But as you say, a possible outcome so...we can't know for sure.

[dheer]

In Exile wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Well apparently more than half didn't bother to finish Origins (IIRC). So I wonder why they'd want to try out DA2.

This may be part of the reason why Bioware changed DA2's presentation and combat as they did. 

That might be true. Sadly, misreading metrics seems to be all the rage in the game industry these days.