309 réponses à ce sujet

[Gotholhorakh]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

aftohsix wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...


Nope.    And this isn't a matter of opinion.  it's Mathamatics. When  we're dealing with upwards of  6000 votes, on 3  gaming platforms, a few dozen "0" scores is not enough to affect the overall  rating beyond a point or two.  period.  especially when they're balanced out by a few dozen  10s.

And the individual reviews for all three platforms are there for anyone to sift through and read anyway.   So  no one really has to take my word for it.   I  do, however, take issue with the fact that some people here are simply dismissing those 0's away as invalid.   Not all of them are. There are  tons of LONG and painstakenly detailed  reviews   where a user meticulously explains why he/she gave the game a 0.

What percentage of people who bought DA2 took the time to review it on Metacritic do you think?  So what you're saying is that Mathmatically a percentage of overall owners of DA2 didn't like the game.

Really?     Do we actually  have to explain the concept of representative  sampling to you guys?

It's funny you should bring up representative sampling. I also realize that many folks will probably just TLDR this, but I found it interesting, and some others might too.

There was a very interesting talk at the GDC this year by the guy in charge of EA's Freemium division, mostly about Battlefield Heroes (a free to play shooter that announced the 7 million player mark as of May of this year). In December of 2009, they broke what many consider the cardinal rule of microtransactions - they started selling weapons that were more powerful than those freely available. The differences were around 10%... a submachine gun with bigger magazine size (45 vs 40), a shotgun with slightly higher crit rate (4% instead of 2.5%), and a knife that did 30 damage instead of 28. Overall, around 10% power boost.

The blowback was huge, large enough to get picked up by the bigger gaming media, and large enough to generate hugely angry threads on the forum with hundreds of pages of posts. People threatened to quit, they posted pictures of pornography, the amount of vitriol was staggering, and everyone thought that they had failed, and that the game was doomed.

Interesting, but doesn't that whole phenomenon rest on the core experience being the same as, or improved upon what drew people in, with the same community playing it, and an endlessly replayable online experience in the first place?

I mean every counter-strike revision since the year dot has had people screaming, but with few exceptions people will return to the core experience being offered day in day out and play with their online friends - it's the same with WoW. In the case of DA2 I get the impression that people who don't like it... well just don't replay it - and to be honest I can't see any earthly reason for people to continue playing a single player game they don't like.

As for the "OMFG this game is asterisks" reaction mentioned by somebody above, well that's exactly the reaction I did have, but if you've already bought it and you've already seen the backlash/poor reviews, you might as well try and get your money's worth. I'm told it's possible to enjoy it.

IronSabbath88 wrote...
I'm in the minority here obviously.
I
liked Dragon Age 2. I thought it was fun for what it was. As good as
Origins? No. But good, nonetheless. I enjoyed it, and that's all that
matters to me.

Indeed, that's all that should matter - I may think the game plays like absolute ass, but I envy you in that.

4chan blather

There are very few conspiracy theories which aren't nuts. Mathamatatoes or not, that is not one of them.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 26 juillet 2011 - 05:17 .

[erynnar]

aftohsix wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Now... you might argue that these data are exceptions and not the norm, or that Dragon Age 2 is the exception and not the norm, but I think that passionate fans on forums are pretty much the same everywhere. Forums represent around a low single-digit percentage of users who care, and they are in no way representative of anything but the most passionate userbase of the game.

Thank you.  This is exactly what I was getting at.  I was pointing out that the kinds of people who take the time to write a user review on Metacritc are arguably the most passionate of a fanbase.  Due to this fact the reviews are largely irrelevant to anyone but other passionate fans (and in my case, still are.)

Example:  Take a poll of my friends on what their favorite sport is?  95% would say swimming.  Take a poll on all the people in the USA.  Most would probably say football.

The user average of 4.whatever is irrelevant because it doesn't accurately represent all users of DA2.  

No, they don't. But combine the critique numbers with  that with sales...*shrugs*

[hoorayforicecream]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Interesting, but doesn't that whole phenomenon rest on the core experience being the same as, or improved upon what drew people in, with the same community playing it, and an endlessly replayable online experience in the first place?

The core experience was also fairly significantly changed by their update. The game went from being able to easily maintain several weapons from a few hours of daily play to a single weapon unless you broke the wallet out and started paying for stuff. I think that's a fairly radical core gameplay change, and definitely one deserving of backlash.

Edit: Also, I would argue that the core experience of Dragon Age - a fantasy squad based RPG with companions, interaction and story, was unchanged. I would argue that details like origins, combat design, encounter design, and environment details are not part of the core experience.

As for the "OMFG this game is asterisks" reaction mentioned by somebody above, well that's exactly the reaction I did have, but if you've already bought it and you've already seen the backlash/poor reviews, you might as well try and get your money's worth. I'm told it's possible to enjoy it.

The important thing to note is that the data aren't saying that you aren't entitled to your opinion. The data just says that your opinion isn't anywhere near as widespread as people seem to think it is. You're free to do whatever it is you like, but claiming that the majority of people agree would most likely be fallacious.

erynnar wrote...

No, they don't. But combine the critique numbers with  that with sales...*shrugs* 

EA's happy with the sales. Happy enough to green light additional Dragon Age projects and use the brand to encourage and reassure their shareholders anyway. 

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 26 juillet 2011 - 06:01 .

[erynnar]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Interesting, but doesn't that whole phenomenon rest on the core experience being the same as, or improved upon what drew people in, with the same community playing it, and an endlessly replayable online experience in the first place?

The core experience was also fairly significantly changed by their update. The game went from being able to easily maintain several weapons from a few hours of daily play to a single weapon unless you broke the wallet out and started paying for stuff. I think that's a fairly radical core gameplay change, and definitely one deserving of backlash

As for the "OMFG this game is asterisks" reaction mentioned by somebody above, well that's exactly the reaction I did have, but if you've already bought it and you've already seen the backlash/poor reviews, you might as well try and get your money's worth. I'm told it's possible to enjoy it.

The important thing to note is that the data aren't saying that you aren't entitled to your opinion. The data just says that your opinion isn't anywhere near as widespread as people seem to think it is. You're free to do whatever it is you like, but claiming that the majority of people agree would most likely be fallacious.

erynnar wrote...

No, they don't. But combine the critique numbers with  that with sales...*shrugs* 

EA's happy with the sales. Happy enough to green light additional Dragon Age projects and use the brand to encourage and reassure their shareholders anyway. 

Yes, so far. I was just pointing out that no one from either side of the aisle should take reviews, and here on the forum as proof that their opinion is widespread.  And yes, it was enough to get more DLC and DA3. As I've said before, only time will tell.

[trying_touch]

i loved DA2's new story-telling direction, it was subtle in telling you the overarching story, there were less instances that didn't affect the core tale, and the art direction fits the grittier setting...

that said, character development and relationships feel a bit lacking... sometimes a romance develops too abruptly (partly from the seven year cycle), your characters change (not just talking about clothes) very little in those years they've been in the city... the passing of time doesn't have the same impact as it should, making the seven year timeline feel unneccesary/tacked-on for effect...

what got me the most was the lack of a modding toolset... DAO's modding tools gave way to new hairstyles, new armor and costume designs, new quest lines, and higher replayability... you won't find those here

[Phaelducan]

The sales were pretty good, particularly considering the short development time and the radically different direction they went with the game. I would imagine a meeting at EA about the sales including a very frank discussion about the number of Origins fans DA2 may have lost versus the amount of new players to the franchise.

Indeed, only time will tell, but I am pretty confident that EA (and also Bioware) was satisfied with the financial success of DA2. Ecstatic? Completely satisfied? No, but for what is essentially an experiment in the RPG genre you can't really argue that the game wasn't quantifiable as a success.

Also, meta-critic user scores aren't always garbage (look at Homefront, for example) but for anyone who really rated DA2 a 0 or 1 clearly never played Big Rigs, Superman 64, or E.T. for the 2600. Come on guys, you have to be at least vaguely fair if you want to be taken seriously. There are bad games.... and then there are BAD games. DA2 was nowhere near the category of the aforementioned titles. A user score of anything lower than a 4 or 5 just isn't very credible on metacritic, no more than a rating higher than 8 or 9. Someone might think DA2 is a 9 or 10, but I'd be very curious to see what they are comparing it to and what their reasons were. Same with a 1-4.

There is plenty of other material to benchmark with, and with all the references readily available to play and compare, I have yet to see any justified score of less than 5 or higher than 8. Anywhere in that range you can get a lot of useful information out of a review, but above or below you are more than likely to find blind fanboyism or blind hate.

Modifié par Phaelducan, 26 juillet 2011 - 06:22 .

[bEVEsthda]

erynnar wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

erynnar wrote...

No, they don't. But combine the critique numbers with  that with sales...*shrugs* 

EA's happy with the sales. Happy enough to green light additional Dragon Age projects and use the brand to encourage and reassure their shareholders anyway. 

Yes, so far. I was just pointing out that no one from either side of the aisle should take reviews, and here on the forum as proof that their opinion is widespread.  And yes, it was enough to get more DLC and DA3. As I've said before, only time will tell.

They'd be foolish to drop DA. Their challenge is to figure out how to make viable franchise out of it. Now.
As for sales, one has to be a fool to not consider the possibility that what sold DA2 was maybe mainly DA:O, not DA2 by itself.

The DLC is something I see as a test. By no means a complete test, since most critics of DA2 have left, and since the DLC is ofc aimed at those who liked DA2.

As for reviews and nerd-rage being representative or not, YouTube is the biggest media channel in the world. And comments and like/dislikes are not exactly favourable for DA2. Anyone who want to believe that everything is fine and dandy as it is with DA2, is - I would argue - not rational.

[Blastback]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

encourage and reassure their shareholders anyway. 

Well, I would speculate that that is partially a result of the shorter dev cycle.  DA2 didn't need to sell as much as Origins to make a proft.

[Phaelducan]

Again, just to be fair, you don't see a whole lot of people saying the game was "fine and dandy." What you see a lot from the people who liked the game is a complaint about recycled maps, lack of real options in the narrative, and various minor issues with a mechanic here or there.

However, just because the game had several flaws (some major, some minor) doesn't mean that liking the product makes one delusional or not rational. Fallout 3 and NV both were incredibly fun, but were buggy as hell and suffered fatal crashes from all kinds of stuff. At times those games WERE literally unplayable and you had to find work-arounds just to get out of a building without crashing.... yet often those games got 9's and 10's (deservedly, I think).

Just a little bit of perspective would be pretty useful when criticizing any game, so that it's done fairly (and again, in no way do I think DA2 deserves perfect scores, but I could at least see someone giving it an 8, whereas I think a 3 score is absurd).

[zvbxrpl]

SHORT ANSWER: No, it's not. It's a pretty ok game. Not great, but a serviceable action-RPG hybrid. But it combines love-it-or-hate-it elements with flat-out flaws in a way that, for a lot of people (Myself included.  I still liked it, and I want to do another playthrough, but I wish it had been better-executed), makes it a disappointing sequel to DA:O.

LONG ANSWER:

1.) Most of the gameplay changes undermined the fundamental appeal of DA:O, which was that it was more like old-school PC RPGs than a lot of what was on the market at the time: tons of dialogue, (relatively) punishing tactical combat, (relatively) in-depth possibilities for builds, and a wide array of choices and possible endings that gave it a ton of replay value. DA2 was an action-RPG hybrid like the Mass Effect series. It's OK as such, not as good as those games, but the point is that DA:O wasn't broke, and DA2 tried to fix it. The fact that the industry has moved away from the kind of RPG that DA:O was a throwback to, and is generally making RPGs more and more in the Mass Effect-DA2 model just makes this more disappointing.

1a). As a sidenote to point 1, a lot of the 'streamlining' done in DA2 was just plain bad. The new inventory, rather than get rid of useless inventory management (Or, as I like to call it, the "What the frak am I gonna do with all these wolf pelts?" problem), it eliminated a basic useful part of inventory management (It hardly needs to be said by now, but not being able to give good armors that Hawke can't use to party members that can use them is not fun, and gets more annoying each time.). Similarly, less sidequests equals less game. The solution to tedious sidequests is simple; make better sidequests. Instead, the DA2 designers put in fewer sidequests, and between the recycled maps and general shortness, the sidequests that were in the game felt more halfhearted, and were less fun.

1b). The extra blood and more stylized graphics (Also, did anyone else notice that the generic NPC women in DA2 were a couple cup sizes bigger than the ones in DA:O? Just sayin'.) weren't bad in and of themselves, but they definitely felt like style over substance (which is a form of dumbing-down, which is a big complaint about DA2. I think it's a bit more complicated than that) in light of what I described in point one.

2). The game felt rushed. No two ways about it. It was buggy and full of recycled maps. That it is shorter than DA:O, with a smaller-scale story is not at all a bad thing, except maybe that more game is usually preferable to less game (but the comparatively low replay value contributes more to DA2 being "less game" than the fact that a single playthrough takes fewer hours). But the rushed feeling made the game's shortness disappointing in a way that it wouldn't have been if we got a game without bugs and with a bunch of original (if small) dungeon crawls.

2a). Adding to the problem of shortness is the fact that better graphics and full voice-acting are a mixed blessing. DA:O had graphics that were behind the times, for sure, and both of Hawke's voice actors give very good performances. But the flipside is that (1) a fully-voiced protagonist has conversations that cost more money, take more time to record, and, most importantly, take up more space on the disc; and (2) sub-par graphics are also cheaper and less data-intensive, and the low-tech look can be mitigated by inspired art direction (Though, to be blunt, both Dragon Age games are kind of lacking there, though the loading/Varric's narration screens look great). The upshot of this is that the maps might look kind of 2008, but they'll all be original, gameplay-wise.

3.) Without being spoilery, the story is totally not everyone's cup of tea. I liked it, but it was definitely easy to dislike. The choice at the end of Origins about how to kill the Archdemon had some unavoidable downside to it. Either you die, or Alistair dies for you (which, IIRC, only happened if you had maxed his approval, so the warden loses either a lover or a friend), or Morrigan goes off and has a demon-baby (This was a real downer ending to the romance arc. She ultimately chooses to follow in Flemeth's footsteps, and you can almost redeem her, but not quite.). Most of the plot developments in DA2 make this inevitable bittersweet ending seem positively optimistic. Without getting into spoilers, a lot of your moral choices don't change much. The plot generally consists of things that threaten to go bad going bad, and Hawke does as much harm as good. NPC's, including your party members, will make some very bad decisions that make things worse, regardless of what you do, and, as the Cassandra/Varric interludes indicate, things in Thedas end up less stable than they were (for better or worse), and the blame is laid at Hawke's feet for this. DA:O was an epic where the warden saved the world. DA2 is a biopic where the Champion of Kirkwall gains power and fame, but leaves a lot of death and destruction in his/her wake, and in the end it's unclear whether said Champion is a force for good or evil. Which I like, but, given the grimdark feel of a lot of the game (and, yes, it is more grimdark than DA:O, even though DA:O had its dark elements), is almost definitely off-putting to a lot of players.

Modifié par zvbxrpl, 26 juillet 2011 - 07:13 .

[Saintthanksgiving]

[troll post removed]

Modifié par Stanley Woo, 26 juillet 2011 - 07:59 .

[Gotholhorakh]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Interesting, but doesn't that whole phenomenon rest on the core experience being the same as, or improved upon what drew people in, with the same community playing it, and an endlessly replayable online experience in the first place?

The core experience was also fairly significantly changed by their update. The game went from being able to easily maintain several weapons from a few hours of daily play to a single weapon unless you broke the wallet out and started paying for stuff. I think that's a fairly radical core gameplay change, and definitely one deserving of backlash.

Edit: Also, I would argue that the core experience of Dragon Age - a fantasy squad based RPG with companions, interaction and story, was unchanged. I would argue that details like origins, combat design, encounter design, and environment details are not part of the core experience.

Right, I'd make two distinct points in reply to this, the first one is an aside - that for me personally (as I have said before) the core experience was moved sideways just enough from one game to the next to make it "of no entertainment value" for me.

There, that's that out of the way -  I don't want to get bogged down on that point, the reason I mention that is to make a very clear distinction between that and my next point, which is unassociated with it:

When I say the core experience is different, I'm referring explicitly to it being a different actual package, a new single player game in itself, and there being no online play with the same community to sustain any kind of "motivated" replayability for someone who isn't thrilled with it - when something worth a backlash happens in an online FPS or MMORPG, there's still a reason to fire it up again, even if only to see if it got better or more ignorable.

With a single player game somebody isn't thrilled with, you don't have that continuity of (parts of) the "core experience" saying "ok, but still come and play me". Joe Sixpack can just stop playing it and never bother again, maybe revisiting it if it gets patched, but then again, maybe not.

I think the lunatic fringe of fans who stay invested after disappointment when it's not a day-to-day FPS clan or MMORPG habit they're thinking about, are a rare breed indeed.

[aries1001]

To cite my latin teacher 'de gustibus non disputandum est' meaning 'taste cannot be discussed.'
And yet, we do it still - also on DA2.  It is fairly lentgthy post, so here's a short tl;dr summary:

tl:dr:
DA2 is good game, the strengths are the characters, the dialogue, the story, the weakness is the combat. User interface is quite good. Customization is fine. Dialogue wheel is fine. Game rates between 8-9/10.


And now on to the long text

I'm not that far into the game (I've only played the game for about 12 hours), so I haven't really seen the re-used enviroments yet. I'm at the Sundermount Mountain Peak now; I just met Merrill - very scary character, very young and very -ahem- idealistic...

I have seen the enemies that pop out of nowhere, the enemies that overwhelm you and your party when entering a building etc. etc. I have also encountered enemies whcih have dropped from ledges, enemies which have chased after me etc. etc. And they were killing me - in numbers. Untill I remembered my lessons learned playing BG1 and BG2 - just back up a bit and draw the enemies out one by one. I've also learned how to make use of the environment; a staircase is a great place for your mage to be casting spells - untill suddenly assasins decloak and hit your mage. But they would do the same in BG1 and BG2 as well. (it's like their -ahem- job description). It was and is a bit much, nevertheless. I do understand, however, the reason behind this: enemies calling for help, reinforcements being called to help the enemies. The way it is done is just -ahem- -cough-- not good. It should be somewhat fixed, if not fixed completely in the Legacy DLC, for DA2.

I greatly like the story so far, it's tale of tragic and loss, and mirrors somewhat the tale of my own family as my father lost his business and his children (us) were left to fend for themselves. I like the characters as well, Varric is -eh- hoot, and laugh, a charlatan, and great fun. Bethany is as sisters should be, Fenris is the most tragic figure I've yet to meet in a Bioware game - his story made a deep emotional impact on me. Precisely the reason I play Bioware games...for the story, the dialogue, the characters...

As for the exploration part, I like Kirkwall. I expected it to be nearly empty and lifeless. And yet, people abound...And yes, they do stay in the same place all through the game. But so has characters in every other Bioware game, going back to BG1 and BG2, done. There's a night version of Kirkwall and a day version of Kirkwall and the transition between them are very smooth and painless. I find the user interface to be very gamer and user friendly - the user interface for the skills and abilities as well. However, I do find that if you don't want to use the auto-level up feature, it is somewhat confusing as to what skills and abilities you should select when leveling up. Having played DA: Origins, Awakening and most of the DLCs, I knew what sort skills and and abilities I wanted. I could, however, see that people who didn't play DA: Origins would have trouble deciding.
I even like what they have done with the customization, I like the loot button, I like the fact that you can give the followers belts, necklaces and rings. I would suggest that it would be better if we also could give them say boots. We can give them different weapons as well, I like this too. From the very first day, and from the demo, I have liked the dialogue wheel; the icons for the tone you'll need to look at, though. Game rating is, imo, somewhere between 8-9/10...

Modifié par aries1001, 26 juillet 2011 - 08:49 .

[yodayodayo]

I love it and i don't think it is a bad game. I like how the Mage has improved, along with the Rouge.
I never used to like being the Mage in DA:O but i really do like it in DA 2. I love how you character talks aswell unlike DA:O were the warden would just go "Yes" and "Would you like me to get a ladder for you, so you can get off my back."

[aries1001]

I forgot to mention that I found the lack of a tactical overview camera - cough- not a very good decision, indeed. It is very difficult to get an overview of the combat, especially when there's so many enemies around as there are in DA2.

[Nonorules]

Ylhaym wrote...

1.DAO
2.DA2
3.DAA

Origins is better than Dragon Age 2. But it is a good game. And it is not as bad as some of the people says it is.

Seconded.DA2 is not as bad as people try to make it out.
It certainly has flaws,but i think the developpers got it seeing how the first DLC was.

[Yrkoon]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

aftohsix wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...


Nope.    And this isn't a matter of opinion.  it's Mathamatics. When  we're dealing with upwards of  6000 votes, on 3  gaming platforms, a few dozen "0" scores is not enough to affect the overall  rating beyond a point or two.  period.  especially when they're balanced out by a few dozen  10s.

And the individual reviews for all three platforms are there for anyone to sift through and read anyway.   So  no one really has to take my word for it.   I  do, however, take issue with the fact that some people here are simply dismissing those 0's away as invalid.   Not all of them are. There are  tons of LONG and painstakenly detailed  reviews   where a user meticulously explains why he/she gave the game a 0.

What percentage of people who bought DA2 took the time to review it on Metacritic do you think?  So what you're saying is that Mathmatically a percentage of overall owners of DA2 didn't like the game.

Really?     Do we actually  have to explain the concept of representative  sampling to you guys?

It's funny you should bring up representative sampling. I also realize that many folks will probably just TLDR this, but I found it interesting, and some others might too.

There was a very interesting talk at the GDC this year by the guy in charge of EA's Freemium division, mostly about Battlefield Heroes (a free to play shooter that announced the 7 million player mark as of May of this year). In December of 2009, they broke what many consider the cardinal rule of microtransactions - they started selling weapons that were more powerful than those freely available. The differences were around 10%... a submachine gun with bigger magazine size (45 vs 40), a shotgun with slightly higher crit rate (4% instead of 2.5%), and a knife that did 30 damage instead of 28. Overall, around 10% power boost.

The blowback was huge, large enough to get picked up by the bigger gaming media, and large enough to generate hugely angry threads on the forum with hundreds of pages of posts. People threatened to quit, they posted pictures of pornography, the amount of vitriol was staggering, and everyone thought that they had failed, and that the game was doomed.

The actual result, however, was that the number of paying customers roughly tripled, while their new player signups were unaffected overall, and their churn (number of players leaving) was also unaffected. They actually did some research on their forum statistics (since only people with registered accounts could log in and post and such), and the results were pretty interesting.

78% of their users never touched the forums ever.
20% of the users visited to read at least once, but never actually posted.
2% of the users actually posted to the forum.

According to their data, the average forum poster spent 10 times the amount of money the average user did (total amount of money spent by all forum posters / number of total forum posters) compared to their overall average user. The majority of the posters who claimed they'd quit did nothing of the kind - they eventually went ahead and bought the very items they protested.

 

Right.  Except there's nothing in DA2's sales figures to suggest that the same thing is happening here.  And that's a point you're not going to be able to overcome, no matter how many anecdotal examples you cite.    The so called  'silent majority' you're hanging your hat on  only speaks with their  wallets.   And  DA2 has yet to even come close to breaking the 2 million units sold mark.  It's sold less than HALF of what its predecessor has sold.     

Modifié par Yrkoon, 27 juillet 2011 - 01:56 .

[Morroian]

aries1001 wrote...

As for the exploration part, I like Kirkwall. I expected it to be nearly empty and lifeless.

Yes, while they should have built the city better it isn't nearly as lifeless as some make out.

[Morroian]

Yrkoon wrote...
Really?     Do we actually  have to explain the concept of representative  sampling to you guys?

How representative is a sample based on a self selected poll with barriers to entry?

[hoorayforicecream]

Yrkoon wrote...

Right.  Except there's nothing in DA2's sales figures to suggest that the same thing is happening here.  And that's a point you're not going to be able to overcome, no matter how many anecdotal examples you cite.    The so called  'silent majority' you're hanging your hat on  only speaks with their  wallets.   And  DA2 has yet to even come close to breaking the 2 million units sold mark.  It's sold less than HALF of what its predecessor has sold.     

Big sellers during the quarter include Valve's Portal 2 (which sold 2 million copies between the two consoles and PC retail during the quarter), Dead Space 2, and Dragon Age 2, which have both surpassed 2 million copies life to date.

Source

[Night Prowler76]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Right.  Except there's nothing in DA2's sales figures to suggest that the same thing is happening here.  And that's a point you're not going to be able to overcome, no matter how many anecdotal examples you cite.    The so called  'silent majority' you're hanging your hat on  only speaks with their  wallets.   And  DA2 has yet to even come close to breaking the 2 million units sold mark.  It's sold less than HALF of what its predecessor has sold.     

Big sellers during the quarter include Valve's Portal 2 (which sold 2 million copies between the two consoles and PC retail during the quarter), Dead Space 2, and Dragon Age 2, which have both surpassed 2 million copies life to date.

Source

It was one of the EA big wigs who said this, but the main thing to remember is that when he said 2 million copies, he means 2 million copies shipped to retailers, not actually sold to consumers.

[Ghidorah14]

DA2, on its own, is a pretty good game.

But compared to DAO, its a pretty meh game.

[Lilaeth]

trying_touch wrote...

i loved DA2's new story-telling direction, it was subtle in telling you the overarching story, there were less instances that didn't affect the core tale, and the art direction fits the grittier setting...

that said, character development and relationships feel a bit lacking... sometimes a romance develops too abruptly (partly from the seven year cycle), your characters change (not just talking about clothes) very little in those years they've been in the city... the passing of time doesn't have the same impact as it should, making the seven year timeline feel unneccesary/tacked-on for effect...

what got me the most was the lack of a modding toolset... DAO's modding tools gave way to new hairstyles, new armor and costume designs, new quest lines, and higher replayability... you won't find those here

This.  Don't get me wrong, I've played DA2 through a few times, and generally enjoy it.  I just don't love it like I love DAO.  It feels like it's lacking in the relationship department - flirt with someone three times, and you're heading upstairs to Hawke's very uncomfortable-looking bed! 

I have used a couple of mods to give me access to different armour for Companions, but it really should be part of the game. 

[Jabba L4]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

aftohsix wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...


Nope.    And this isn't a matter of opinion.  it's Mathamatics. When  we're dealing with upwards of  6000 votes, on 3  gaming platforms, a few dozen "0" scores is not enough to affect the overall  rating beyond a point or two.  period.  especially when they're balanced out by a few dozen  10s.

And the individual reviews for all three platforms are there for anyone to sift through and read anyway.   So  no one really has to take my word for it.   I  do, however, take issue with the fact that some people here are simply dismissing those 0's away as invalid.   Not all of them are. There are  tons of LONG and painstakenly detailed  reviews   where a user meticulously explains why he/she gave the game a 0.

What percentage of people who bought DA2 took the time to review it on Metacritic do you think?  So what you're saying is that Mathmatically a percentage of overall owners of DA2 didn't like the game.

Really?     Do we actually  have to explain the concept of representative  sampling to you guys?

It's funny you should bring up representative sampling. I also realize that many folks will probably just TLDR this, but I found it interesting, and some others might too.

There was a very interesting talk at the GDC this year by the guy in charge of EA's Freemium division, mostly about Battlefield Heroes (a free to play shooter that announced the 7 million player mark as of May of this year). In December of 2009, they broke what many consider the cardinal rule of microtransactions - they started selling weapons that were more powerful than those freely available. The differences were around 10%... a submachine gun with bigger magazine size (45 vs 40), a shotgun with slightly higher crit rate (4% instead of 2.5%), and a knife that did 30 damage instead of 28. Overall, around 10% power boost.

The blowback was huge, large enough to get picked up by the bigger gaming media, and large enough to generate hugely angry threads on the forum with hundreds of pages of posts. People threatened to quit, they posted pictures of pornography, the amount of vitriol was staggering, and everyone thought that they had failed, and that the game was doomed.

It's rather funny that you should bring up microtransactions at this time, in view of the recent upheaval coming from the EVE Online community after the so-called 'monoclegate debacle', and with CCP representatives themselves in the following interview confessing that 'this is one of the largest instances of users unsubscribing en masse from their service'; disregard the subsequent paragraphs of corporate representatives attempting to downplay things as per usual. 

It's also very interesting to note that the guy you linked us to talking in that video was quite aware that a decrease in their game's playerbase was imminent after the update, but that the team's end-goal was to further increase profit margins with microtransactions, as the game does not generate any revenue without players making use of Battlefield Heroes' microtransactions service. All things considered, it's very rare to see an instance where a game that was 'free' to begin with get ruined by microtransactions in general ( unless they screw up entirely ) -- it's a different market to assess.

Going by that, you can decide yourself how much your example would relate to Dragon Age 2's case, and whether it's the norm or an 'exception'.

Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go take some more blurry, obscured, low-to-medium-settings pictures of Triss, so I can do an effective side-by-side comparison between her and some other games' characters, to justify each one's merits.

Modifié par Jabba L4, 27 juillet 2011 - 09:39 .

[aftohsix]

Jabba L4 wrote...

Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go take some more blurry, obscured, low-to-medium-settings pictures of Triss, so I can do an effective side-by-side comparison between her and some other games' characters, to justify each one's merits.

Because this was definitely relevant.  Read back a few pages.  Mr. Epler made a statement about insulting other users whether directly or indirectly still shouldn't be done.  I know I'm not the best example around here but I have been trying.