223 réponses à ce sujet

[erynnar]

T764 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

T764 wrote...

@ Dragoonlordz.

I doubt that i'm the only one but i ended up buying three copies of Origins on two different systems and a percentage of copies sold were to people who didn't like it and wouldn't buy a sequel.

Has Origins sold better? Absolutely.
Does 4+ million sales = 4+ million fans? Very unlikely.

In Exile's statement is not entirely wrong.

If two games are sold, one has many people negative about it and one positive about other the positive one will sell vastly more. People are not positive about things they don't like, if something has high sales it's because more people enjoyed it than it's less successful competitior. Like = more sales, dislike = less; just because 'some' people don't like it doesn't change that fact. In the end thats the exception that proves the rule.

His comments is like a fox circling a fence around chicken coop, he keeps going around until see's a tiny gap in fence and tries to force way in exploiting that gap or '****** in the armour figurativley speaking' but given (see above paragraph) being a true fact so that gap wasn't a gap after all, the fox is now trying to dig his way under the fence.

There are two main ways people on BSN argue about things they do the going around in circles looking for the ****** in armour or the other method of moving goal posts.

I didn't read the rest of In Exiles posts on the subject so i'll take your word on it, many people (not you specifically) will use the number of sales in a way to imply that every copy sold equals a fan of the game as opposed to just being a copy sold.

I personally don't like the 'high sales=good game' stance because it will not factor in things like people who buy and don't like the game, people who rebuy the game, marketing, where people buy, genre and (very much dependent on the game in question) any stock issues that may arise, all of these things can affect sales as much as a game being 'good' or 'bad'.

I don't see how DAO equates to malaise for DA2. I have read plenty on these forums who claimed to hate DAO, or only played it once, or whined about Ostagar, the Deep Roads and the Fade who bought DA2 and claim to love it to pieces.

It just seems another backhanded way of bashing DAO and blaming it for DA2's shortcomings. And/or I could just be too thick to see how DAO (despite all the other things you mentioned) selling so well if it was such a crap game especially for so long. You'd think, that if it really generated that kind of "meh" feeling then the sales wouldn't still be going and it would have died a long time ago. Nor would the sales have spiked after word of mouth got out about DAO (*shakes fist at fate and xkg for not being on*).

Now, if DA3's sales are meh, I can see that being because of DA2. There were a hella lot of pre-orders from fans of DAO for DA2. Enough, and that maybe why, I am scratching my head at how DAO supposedly making people apathetic could garner such large numbers of pre-orders, which I would think wouldn't have been there if DAO was such a such a **** pile as some like to make it out to be. So if the numbers are down, well then they lost more fans than the shiny new audience they were going for.

If, however, the numbers are good, and or better, than they did gain more than they lost.  Really, I think we have to wait for DA3 to see the health of the franchise.

Me, I didn't like DA2. I did like Legacy. I love DA and it's world, lore, and the characters (mostly). I want to keep adventuring there. I am willing to treat DA2 like a big old glitch if DA3 is more like DAO and Legacy. So, I hope it sells well enough we get to keep on keeping on in a world I have come to love.

[Dragoonlordz]

Greg Zeschuk sums it up pretty well imho taking his comments about Bethesda and applying it to the DA franchise so far.

“Another thing that was actually very productive we learned from Oblivion is how a game is the sum of its parts, but often something greater than that. If you picked Oblivion apart, you could nitpick about certain things, but when you put it all together it was just a spectacular package. And in fact, it’s that package that’s the impressive thing.

For me while there may be some minor aspects in DAO that for some might be flawed the overall product was highly impressive however the same for me cannot be said about DA2, which had both failures in the single aspects and when all together as an entity of a product it fell short in that regard too. Now they made corrections in direction with Legacy but until an expansion comes out a long one or next title, the overall product which what matters will not know if it can get back to something that impresses me again like DAO did for me and many others.

The writing itself is neither the funniest comedy, best politically intriguing or greatest world changing via ingame universe to me it's average in all regards thats just how it felt to me. Its instead a title with characters that have little to no backstory through the game and appear shallow in themselves, using some jokes for humour in banter and then tied around 3 acts that are at best only loosely linked to each other with bottlenecking that is used far too much any lack of freedom or illusion of choices.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 03 août 2011 - 05:19 .

[T764]

@ erynnar.

My second comment was actually unrelated to Dragon Age.
I was aiming for a reminder that "one copy sold = one copy sold" rather than the percieved notion that "one copy sold = one new fan".

I should have also added that the developer, publisher and franchise can all affect sales.

If a game sells 2 million copies and you realise that a quarter of those sales are due to people buying multiple copies and another chunk are from people that dislike the game, 2 million sales is rather less impressive.

Games in some genres will sell better than others regardless of how good or bad the games actually are.

If you take Fallout 3, would the same game have sold as well if it was not part of the Fallout franchise and by an unknown developer? I would say no.

Unless i shop online i am stuck with Tesco being the closest i have to a games shop, so i can only buy the top 20 console games, so in my are that will affect the sales of those games that don't get a chart debut.

If a game is predicted to sell fewer copies and a seller gets a smaller amount of stock that can effect sales, you can't sell what you dont have.

I hope that is coherent and makes what i was trying to say clearer.

As for DA2 i would guess that the demo and then reviews and word of mouth affected the sales and with Origins i would guess that the add campaigns and the Bioware name boosted initial sales with word of mouth and reviews after.

[erynnar]

T764 wrote...

@ erynnar.

My second comment was actually unrelated to Dragon Age.
I was aiming for a reminder that "one copy sold = one copy sold" rather than the percieved notion that "one copy sold = one new fan".

I should have also added that the developer, publisher and franchise can all affect sales.

If a game sells 2 million copies and you realise that a quarter of those sales are due to people buying multiple copies and another chunk are from people that dislike the game, 2 million sales is rather less impressive.

Games in some genres will sell better than others regardless of how good or bad the games actually are.

If you take Fallout 3, would the same game have sold as well if it was not part of the Fallout franchise and by an unknown developer? I would say no.

Unless i shop online i am stuck with Tesco being the closest i have to a games shop, so i can only buy the top 20 console games, so in my are that will affect the sales of those games that don't get a chart debut.

If a game is predicted to sell fewer copies and a seller gets a smaller amount of stock that can effect sales, you can't sell what you dont have.

I hope that is coherent and makes what i was trying to say clearer.

As for DA2 i would guess that the demo and then reviews and word of mouth affected the sales and with Origins i would guess that the add campaigns and the Bioware name boosted initial sales with word of mouth and reviews after.

Oh, thought that's what you meant. But I am tired today and I wasn't sure. And you are a doll for clarifying for thick headed me. Well, I'm at work and reading in between cancer calls doesn't help. ROFL! Thanks for bothering to try and teach the likes me.

[Daveros]

erynnar wrote...

Again, I could see that if DAO hadn't sold as well, further along in the selling cycle. There was the usual spike from preorders, then it dropped off, then spiked upwards again and continued to rise (if I'm remembering the sales charts correctly, where is xkg when I need him?).  DA2's sales reflect just what it was, a game not nearly as good as it's predecessor, along with a word of mouth that on some levels was unfair, and on others not so much.

I still disagree with you that a lack of interest towards Origins has had no effect on the sales of DA2, but how much it had is left open for debate and discussion.

An interesting discussion, this. Thanks.

[ScotGaymer]

Ryzaki wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Personally I reckon that given DAO was Bioware's best selling game ever that Bioware already hit that good balance between various kinds of RPGs and whatnot making some of the changes in DA2 unnecessary.

Hopefully we will get an Expansion to fill in the gaps of the main game.

 

Really? 

I thought that was Mass Effect 2. 

Nope.

I am 90% sure that DAO outsold ME and ME2.

[erynnar]

Daveros wrote...

erynnar wrote...

Again, I could see that if DAO hadn't sold as well, further along in the selling cycle. There was the usual spike from preorders, then it dropped off, then spiked upwards again and continued to rise (if I'm remembering the sales charts correctly, where is xkg when I need him?).  DA2's sales reflect just what it was, a game not nearly as good as it's predecessor, along with a word of mouth that on some levels was unfair, and on others not so much.

I still disagree with you that a lack of interest towards Origins has had no effect on the sales of DA2, but how much it had is left open for debate and discussion.

An interesting discussion, this. Thanks.

I love chatting with you. :wub: *HUGGLES*

It's not that I disagree, per se. I just don't see logically how that's possible. As my argument is, I don't like CoD. Therefore I am not going to buy any CoD. And my lack of buying isn't going to hurt them. I am not the only non-CoD player. There are plenty of us (and CoD is just an example, or Fallout which I have, but I didn't buy the others, I dont' see their sales hurting either) And no, I dont hate either game, please know I am not insulting any fan of those games. I'll insult myself, I don't play them because I tend not to be good at them, and they are not my kind of game so I will work to get better at them. If that makes any sense.

Modifié par erynnar, 03 août 2011 - 09:53 .

[erynnar]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Personally I reckon that given DAO was Bioware's best selling game ever that Bioware already hit that good balance between various kinds of RPGs and whatnot making some of the changes in DA2 unnecessary.

Hopefully we will get an Expansion to fill in the gaps of the main game.

 

Really? 

I thought that was Mass Effect 2. 

Nope.

I am 90% sure that DAO outsold ME and ME2.

Interesting, I thought it was ME2 by a smidge.

[Daveros]

erynnar wrote...

I love chatting with you. :wub: *HUGGLES*

It's not that I disagree, per se. I just don't see logically how that's possible. As my argument is, I don't like CoD. Therefore I am not going to buy any CoD. And my lack of buying isn't going to hurt them. I am not the only non-CoD player. There are plenty of us (and CoD is just an example, or Fallout which I have, but I didn't buy the others, I dont' see their sales hurting either) And no, I dont hate either game, please know I am not insulting any fan of those games. I'll insult myself, I don't play them because I tend not to be good at them, and they are not my kind of game so I will work to get better at them. If that makes any sense.

My argument is that COD1 (for instance) is a very highly praised game, so you buy it. You don't like it, so you don't buy COD 2. Therefore, automatically, COD2 will sell less than COD1.

I have enjoyed this discussion immensely.

[erynnar]

Daveros wrote...

erynnar wrote...

I love chatting with you. :wub: *HUGGLES*

It's not that I disagree, per se. I just don't see logically how that's possible. As my argument is, I don't like CoD. Therefore I am not going to buy any CoD. And my lack of buying isn't going to hurt them. I am not the only non-CoD player. There are plenty of us (and CoD is just an example, or Fallout which I have, but I didn't buy the others, I dont' see their sales hurting either) And no, I dont hate either game, please know I am not insulting any fan of those games. I'll insult myself, I don't play them because I tend not to be good at them, and they are not my kind of game so I will work to get better at them. If that makes any sense.

My argument is that COD1 (for instance) is a very highly praised game, so you buy it. You don't like it, so you don't buy COD 2. Therefore, automatically, COD2 will sell less than COD1.

I have enjoyed this discussion immensely.

Yes, it would sell less, but I don't think it would make the kind of difference that would explain DA2's sales. Huge spike at the beginning (pre-orders) and then a huge drop, then an continued decline even with a free gift of ME2 (which I am ever so grateful for, no more stealing hubby's copy!).  My argument is, that if DAO "malaise" was the cause, then there wouldnt' have been half a mil sold in preorders alone, the first week.

Same here sweetie!! This has been most enjoyable. Or in the words of K-9, "Affirmative!" 

[In Exile]

Dragoonlordz wrote...
What are you talking about.. Sales of DA:O is because people liked the game so you should really stop the trying to confuse people and mislead. You even admit it yourself "hyped up + other factors like word of mouth, online ratings", people buy the game which they like then they use methods you just gave to promote it and then more people buy it on those reviews.  

I see reading is a weak spot. I said:

"What Moirran is saying is exactly that"

Which as you can see is not something I said.

Those new people who buy it like it and promote it to their friends and more people buy it, in other words people liking something is the reason why something sells well.

Look, I think DA:O was a very well received game and that its sales are indicative of popularity, but it's not that simple.

Let's say we have 10 people. 8 dislike the game (but don't hate it) so they shelf it and leave it at that. 2 really like it, so they tell 4 friends. 2 friends don't like the game, so they shelf it, but 2 really like the game. And they tell 6 friends. 2really like the game, 4 dislike it, and so on.

Just in my example, we've had positive word of mouth + sales, but out of the 20 copies sold, 14 don't like the game. Those 14 wouldn't buy a DA2, even if they bought DA:O.

That was the argument, and that was how I explained it. Again, it's not a position I endorse, but saying that it can't be a factor merely because of the # of sales isn't a coherent argument.

Why do you think DA2 hasn't sold so well overall so far? Its because a lot of people did not like it so word got around as to why and had an effect on sales the same applies for when people promote it in positive light you get higher sales. Simple common sense applies they are directly linked, high sales does mean people bought because other people liked it then those also liked it and told their friends and so on.  

Well, no, it's not like that. In that argument, DA2 sells poorly because it sells to less people (anyone who dislike DA:O won't care for the sequel). Their freinds that reccomended DA:O hate DA2, so they say DA2 sucks. Those people might have liked DA2 (unlike DA:O) but don't buy it based on the opposite 'bad' word of mouth effect even if more people would have liked it.

Again, I agree that DA:O was better received, but your "common sense" is really wrong.

I don't really care much about everything else you said however that last statement you made is wrong.

No, it isn't. 

[In Exile]

[quote]tmp7704 wrote...

That's like saying "i love my family" is no different than "i love humanity". [/quote]

No, it isn't.

Because you could actually do what Hawke's family did in DA2: flee the blight. 

Except DA:O does not allow this. Save family/friends = stop the Blight, and that's just a false dillema. 

Which is why it's I <3 Ferelden. 

[quote]Yes, and stopping the blight while it's still in Ferelden saves these as well as the denizens of Ferelden. Doing it the other way, not so much.[/quote]

And if I had magical powers to raise the dead, that would make a lot of people happy. But that doesn't mean I have magical powers to raise the dead. 

It's the same with DA:O - there's no reason to believe that Alistair/Flemeth's insane treaty plan will work, or is even the best choice.

[quote]At the moment you're asked to make your choice Orlais, Antiva and even Tevinter have their own forces ready and able to defend them. Forces which won't gain much from two more fresh wardens joining them. Ferelden, not really.[/quote]

Who cares? If you believe in stopping the Blight, then it's about what choice you believe is best. Like Duncan would have done (if only I could have saved Gaidner's post where he said this) I would favour leaving Ferelden to burn while bringing word to the Wardens about the Blight.
[quote]I'd imagine being sent to retrieve these treaties by the senior warden of Ferelden in the first place, is a good sign they were seen as valuable tool by people far more experienced than Alistair and (seemingly) Flemeth as well.[/quote]And there's no evidence Duncan is compentent. In fact, there's lots of evidence Duncan is really incompetent in the battle plans.

Not to mention Duncan was looking at using the treaties when Orlesian Wardens were on the way, Loghain & Cailin had an entire Fereldan army, and things were looking up.

Post-Ostagar, the situation is different.

And the PC is not Duncan. Maybe Duncan believes that people will care for the Warden order, but we've just seen Loghain not give a damn and sell them out to (as far as we know) remove Cailan and take the crown. 

[quote]And when it comes to saving the most possible lives, it's arguable if abandoning chunk of them from the onset is going to contribute to this goal. In any case, at least gathering the extra armies is going to be more beneficial to overall war effort than two minor wardens could be on their own. It's not like the game tells you "and you will be forbidden from using these forces to support whoever else shows up to fight the blight in the meantime".[/quote]

It's not arguable, unless you think they can be saved in the first place. If you think Ferelden is lost (and post-Ostagar we have very good reasons to think so) then staying is just suicidal. If you can gather extra armies, is what you ought to say, because there's no reason to believe 400 year old treaties mean anything.

But let's say you believe they're more beneifical to the overall war effort - you're still coming right back to I <3 Ferelden, because you're suggesting you'd gather up these allies and... stay in Ferelden.

Not to mention that if we actually look at what the Wardens do, the entire plan becomes as stupid as Riordan's suicide by gravity, because you only have two living Wardens that could actually stop the blight.  
[quote]True, but for these less pessimistic it remains a viable motivation which isn't "i [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/heart.png[/smilie] Ferelden, because you just talked about how to save Ferelden lives and how to stay in Ferelden to fight the Blight.

There's no tactical value to Ferelden. 

[quote]By the same logic, who cares about Orlais, Tevinter, Antiva and others?[/quote]

I don't. As a Warden, I'd burn them all if it led to the death of the archdemon. It's 

[Dragoonlordz]

In Exile wrote...

You sure do like to grasp at straws don't you. Doesn't change the fact your merely trying to conjure up possibilities when in reality out of all possibilities there was only one reality and that is DAO sold well because people in general liked it and word got around how good it was on same note DA2 has so far not sold well because people in general did not like it word got around as to why which put people off buying. Your stance is not any different than conspiracy theory, list a possibility and claim thats what "could of, might of, should of" happened not based on facts but more along lines of theories "what if", when the reality/truth is simpler and what actually happened is one sold well because more people liked it and the other hasn't had such luck as of right now becuase people did not like it.

Now if you so wish to stick with your 'theory' by all means no-one's stopping you, just because one of the million possibilities exist in theory doesn't make it true. Maybe EA bought 1 in every 10 copies of DAO, maybe little grey men happened to like DAO as coasters so bought the majority or maybe no copies existed in first place and this is all a dream no-one but you really exist and everything is figment of your imagination. Just because you can come up with a 'theory' or 'possibility' doesn't make it what really happened.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 04 août 2011 - 04:33 .

[Daveros]

Dragoonlordz wrote...


You sure do like to grasp at straws don't you. Doesn't change the fact your merely trying to conjure up possibilities when in reality out of all possibilities there was only one reality and that is DAO sold well because people in general liked it and word got around how good it was on same note DA2 has so far not sold well because people in general did not like it word got around as to why which put people off buying.

Unfortunately, the only actual facts we have at our disposal is that Origins has quite possibly (as we can't count digitial distribution) outsold Dragon Age 2. The reasons for that could be quite different to what you or I believe. I believe, as well as the titanic amount of bad press DA2 recieved, DA:O being dull did not help DA2 one bit. That doesn't make it true. Conversely, I don't believe what you think is necessarily correct.

Anyway, debates about opinions only being opinions are rather dull, so I am sorry. I shall say no more on the matter.

[erynnar]

Daveros wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...


You sure do like to grasp at straws don't you. Doesn't change the fact your merely trying to conjure up possibilities when in reality out of all possibilities there was only one reality and that is DAO sold well because people in general liked it and word got around how good it was on same note DA2 has so far not sold well because people in general did not like it word got around as to why which put people off buying.

Unfortunately, the only actual facts we have at our disposal is that Origins has quite possibly (as we can't count digitial distribution) outsold Dragon Age 2. The reasons for that could be quite different to what you or I believe. I believe, as well as the titanic amount of bad press DA2 recieved, DA:O being dull did not help DA2 one bit. That doesn't make it true. Conversely, I don't believe what you think is necessarily correct.

Anyway, debates about opinions only being opinions are rather dull, so I am sorry. I shall say no more on the matter.

HUGGLES! Before I go to bed. Yes, you think DAO was dull, and there is obviously a crowd that does. But I don't know that your crowd was large enough to make DA2's sales bad. Just like my not buying Fallout 2, and others like me. I don't think the 'not my cup of tea" crowd makes that much of a dent in sales of a sequel if at all. Again, I might find it more likely if there hadn't been half a mil of pre-orders for DA2. That number should only have gone up with the reviews from gaming magazines, and then if reviews from gamers had been good. But the numbers after their initial bump went down and kept going. DAO's sales chart is very different.

Again, not saying sales make a good game. But it sure as hell is an indicator that consumers think so, and the reverse is also true. Otherwise business classes would just tell you to ingnore consumers and you tell them what they want. It doesn't work that way.

[tmp7704]

In Exile wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

That's like saying "i love my family" is no different than "i love humanity".

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. You are extending feelings for a smaller, distinct group onto much larger group which is lacking the characteristics of the smaller group, the characteristics which cause the feelings in the first place. It's nonsense, and you know it.

Because you could actually do what Hawke's family did in DA2: flee the blight.

I'm sure a bunch of few hundreds of city elves would just get carried across the sea out of goodness of the ship captain's heart, when he/she could instead get paid handsomely for doing the same task by any of the dozens of refugees scrambling to get the hell out as well. I'm quite curious how the DA2 dalish clan have achieved that actually, because they face the same problem and the extra one of actually being dalish.

In any case, deciding to fight the blight in order to protect your family and friends rather than flee doesn't mean "i Ferelden" by any means -- it simply means instead that you consider fighting the blight to be a more viable way of protecting the well-being of your friends and family. Whether that's correct decision can be debated, but it doesn't change the actual motive. Which is what we're discussing.

And if I had magical powers to raise the dead, that would make a lot of people happy. But that doesn't mean I have magical powers to raise the dead. 

It's the same with DA:O - there's no reason to believe that Alistair/Flemeth's insane treaty plan will work, or is even the best choice.

No, in order for it to be similar to DAO -- the analogy would be there's evidence you may have magical powers to raise the dead. There's people telling you as much. And your stance is you won't even try if you indeed have them, but decide it's impossible without checking, and that's that.

Who cares? If you believe in stopping the Blight, then it's about what choice you believe is best. Like Duncan would have done (if only I could have saved Gaidner's post where he said this) I would favour leaving Ferelden to burn while bringing word to the Wardens about the Blight.

(..)

And there's no evidence Duncan is compentent. In fact, there's lots of evidence Duncan is really incompetent in the battle plans.

I think you pretty much countered your own point, here. 

It's not arguable, unless you think they can be saved in the first place. If you think Ferelden is lost (and post-Ostagar we have very good reasons to think so) then staying is just suicidal. If you can gather extra armies, is what you ought to say, because there's no reason to believe 400 year old treaties mean anything.

Of course we are talking about trying to gather the armies, it's not guaranteed. Nevertheless that's a possibility which is worth checking -- at the very least Orzammar is along the way you'd take to get out of Ferelden anyway.

I'd also disagree about your view of the treaties -- since the blight is going to eventually hit everyone anyway, adhering to them is quite beneficial. It's why they were made in the first place, precisely in case a blight would happen, and they were signed because they made sense. And that didn't change.

But let's say you believe they're more beneifical to the overall war effort - you're still coming right back to I  Ferelden, because you're suggesting you'd gather up these allies and... stay in Ferelden.

No, you are coming back to "i Ferelden" as the only possible reason to follow with the plot. Which becomes nonsensical when i just pointed out you can follow bulk of the plot without intention to fight in Ferelden at all. How does that make one's motives  to do so "i Ferelden"?

True, but for these less pessimistic it remains a viable motivation which isn't "i  Ferelden.

 because you just talked about how to save Ferelden lives and how to stay in Ferelden to fight the Blight.

And i have talked how for a selfish person that could be done with the goal of putting himself/herself in good light, gaining fame of a saviour, armies at one's command and gratitude of Thedas at large. None of these having anything to do with "i Ferelden" because with this motivation Ferelden is just convenient means to your actual goal.

It's not unlike a politician who kisses babies on camera, not because he loves babies, but because these babies have parents who cast their votes and who will react positively to such displays.

Modifié par tmp7704, 04 août 2011 - 11:56 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Daveros wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...


You sure do like to grasp at straws don't you. Doesn't change the fact your merely trying to conjure up possibilities when in reality out of all possibilities there was only one reality and that is DAO sold well because people in general liked it and word got around how good it was on same note DA2 has so far not sold well because people in general did not like it word got around as to why which put people off buying.

Unfortunately, the only actual facts we have at our disposal is that Origins has quite possibly (as we can't count digitial distribution) outsold Dragon Age 2. The reasons for that could be quite different to what you or I believe. I believe, as well as the titanic amount of bad press DA2 recieved, DA:O being dull did not help DA2 one bit. That doesn't make it true. Conversely, I don't believe what you think is necessarily correct.

Anyway, debates about opinions only being opinions are rather dull, so I am sorry. I shall say no more on the matter.

DAO was one of the highest selling RPGs on consoles this wasn't because the majority of people bought it, did not like it then told their friends they did not like it to which their friends thought oh I'll go out and buy this game that is not liked. Like I said common sense applies.

[Morroian]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

DAO was one of the highest selling RPGs on consoles this wasn't because the majority of people bought it, did not like it then told their friends they did not like it to which their friends thought oh I'll go out and buy this game that is not liked. Like I said common sense applies.

Thats very close to a strawman. 

[Dragoonlordz]

Morroian wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

DAO was one of the highest selling RPGs on consoles this wasn't because the majority of people bought it, did not like it then told their friends they did not like it to which their friends thought oh I'll go out and buy this game that is not liked. Like I said common sense applies.

Thats very close to a strawman. 

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't make it less true to the reality of what happened. In life I think you'll find the most likley and highest possibility answer in general almost always tends to be the true one, no matter how many other theories you can come up with in the end all that proves is you have a vivid imagination. 

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You sure do like to grasp at straws don't you. Doesn't change the fact your merely trying to conjure up possibilities when in reality out of all possibilities there was only one reality and that is DAO sold well because people in general liked it and word got around how good it was [snips] when the reality/truth is simpler and what actually happened is one sold well because more people liked it and the other hasn't had such luck as of right now becuase people did not like it.

You claim there is a huge and wonderful audience for DAO games.  Prove it.  Where are all the RPG games just like DAO?  There aren't any.  Any non-niche RPG you point out is going to be a hybrid of an another kind of game.  That's what people want.  They demonstrate their desire with money.  DAO was popular because it was a throwback and fun for old time's sake.  That's what I bought it.  I would be as likely to buy DAO2 as I would NWN3 or BG3... both of which are the same kind of game as DAO.  And both of which never got off the drawing board.   Why is that?  Because the developer didn't want to make money off them... or because the developer couldn't make money off of them?  

;)


Facts are facts:  No one make games like DAO anymore because that kind of storytelling is a dead end, it's boring, and most gamers won't pay for it.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

erynnar wrote...

HUGGLES! Before I go to bed. Yes, you think DAO was dull, and there is obviously a crowd that does. But I don't know that your crowd was large enough to make DA2's sales bad. Just like my not buying Fallout 2, and others like me. I don't think the 'not my cup of tea" crowd makes that much of a dent in sales of a sequel if at all.

You use word of mouth to supports your argument that DAO sold well because people talked it up... then you deny word of mouth from jilted girlfriends has any impact on DA2's lower sales.  You can't have it both ways.   :P:P

[Persephone]

Addai67 wrote...

Anarya wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

I understand how certain fans criticized Origins in the "predictable" aspect, but that element of a story exists in most games anyway. But to imply that DA2 is somehow darker and more grim??? Seriously, Origins is far darker, not only in the story, but in atmosphere and especailly with the characters.

Origin's darkness is mostly countered by the PC's ability to fix things.  It ends with the world set to rights and the player gloriously triumphant.  While Hawke generally fails, and the game ends with them either fleeing in defeat or complicit in an atrocity.

This, exactly. Maybe people define "dark, mature" stories differently than I do, but a "hero" story in which the hero ultimately can't really save the day, even if s/he succeeds? That's pretty dark.

This gets a bit subjective and thus useless, but IMO the clowny, exaggerated aspect of DA2 works against its goal of telling a dark, mature story. 

One can call DAII a lot of things but clowny/exaggerated/over the top? Puleaze, DAO was way more exaggerated.

As for what you are describing, sounds like Fable III, not DAII. (Except for a few very moving moments)

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I don't see why DA2 couldn't have all three kinds (or have them on a more equitable level), when ME1 and Origins had all three.
This whole "choices in DA2 are personal" is nothing new and was in both games that I mention.

While I agree that the story-related choices should have been more...powerful....neither ME1 nor DAO matches DAII when it comes to character-molding via personality, relationships etc. IMHO anyway.

[Dubya75]

Persephone wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I don't see why DA2 couldn't have all three kinds (or have them on a more equitable level), when ME1 and Origins had all three.
This whole "choices in DA2 are personal" is nothing new and was in both games that I mention.

While I agree that the story-related choices should have been more...powerful....neither ME1 nor DAO matches DAII when it comes to character-molding via personality, relationships etc. IMHO anyway.

Once again, you speak the truth Persephone!

[csfteeeer]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You sure do like to grasp at straws don't you. Doesn't change the fact your merely trying to conjure up possibilities when in reality out of all possibilities there was only one reality and that is DAO sold well because people in general liked it and word got around how good it was [snips] when the reality/truth is simpler and what actually happened is one sold well because more people liked it and the other hasn't had such luck as of right now becuase people did not like it.

You claim there is a huge and wonderful audience for DAO games.  Prove it.  Where are all the RPG games just like DAO?  There aren't any.  Any non-niche RPG you point out is going to be a hybrid of an another kind of game.  That's what people want.  They demonstrate their desire with money.  DAO was popular because it was a throwback and fun for old time's sake.  That's what I bought it.  I would be as likely to buy DAO2 as I would NWN3 or BG3... both of which are the same kind of game as DAO.  And both of which never got off the drawing board.   Why is that?  Because the developer didn't want to make money off them... or because the developer couldn't make money off of them?  

;)


Facts are facts:  No one make games like DAO anymore because that kind of storytelling is a dead end, it's boring, and most gamers won't pay for it.

2 things:

1. You're under the assumption that every person who bought DAO bought it because it was supposed to be a throwback and "BG's Spiritual Successor", but assuming that is idiotic thinking, Most of the people who bought DAO didn't bought it because of that, they bought it because they had interest in it and it was marketed well, as well as being the Product of a well-known company.
There is an Audience for DAO, it's a patient and calmed audience who wants to have deep experiences with their RPGs, otherwise explain to me why games such as The Witcher series sell so much.

2.That's no fact.
People payed for DAO and People liked it, that's what made the game sell well because it had  a great word of mouth, and something like that can severily increase the popularity of a game, even if it has no marketing at all (Demon's Souls.), that's why Origins is one of the most Succesful RPGs of the last few years, and one of the most popular ones of this Generation, but it wasn't popular for being Old-School, it was popular because people liked it.
You don't know what people thinks, but if you want to believe you do, fine.