220 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

In Exile wrote...

So a lazy post has DA2 beat?

Well, it certainly didn't seem like a specifically scripted consequence, so emegent narrative, maybe?

In Exile wrote...
Even if Bioware would have kept DA2 as DA:Exodus (which if you peek around the files seems to have been the original name) I don't think it would have meant that there was a DA:O2 in the works. 

I think the fact that Bioware was straight up about the changes they were making to the franchise is good. I appreciate honesty. 

Marketing told some serious *ahem* alterations of the in-game reality, but Bioware never hid the fact this was not DA:O2. 

No, I don't think there would've been a DA:O 2 in the works either. But calling it Dragon Age 2 does create some expectations about how the game would be.

BioWare was more or less honest in how they would be changing certain mechanics but I think marketing really created a distorted image of what the game was actually going to be in the end. So much so, that aspects which are the logical opposites of pre-release hype and discussion are being touted by fans as innovative features, e.g Powerless Hawke vs Rise to Power and "every decision matters" (or something like that).

While people could appreciate the game's combat being sped up, many couldn't deal with the God awful way waves was implemented or the exploding enemies, of how enemy design was handled, etc etc. While people could appreciate the fact the game was focused on a single city, they couldn't deal with how static and lifeless it was. While people appreciated the move away from a mute protagonist, many could not deal with how inaccurate the paraphrasing was, or how limiting the tonal dialog felt. While people could appreciate the focus on a more "grey morality", they couldn't handle how over the top and unrealistic it was portrayed.

Then there's the aspects of meaningless choices and the recycled environments. Et cetera, et cetera.

Confronted with these flaws (though many are subjective), they wonder why BioWare went so far from the Origins' winning formula which invariably leads to the "I wanted DA:O 2 instead of this crap" train of thought.

At least that's my take. Of course, the whole fact that it's a sequel does create expectations.

I mean, not every franchise follows in the same direction, slowly building in each iteration. But really, the majority do (hence the sequel), creating that expectation.

I personally would've liked a Dragon Age 2 that did what it promised, rather than what I felt was a very flawed and ultimately, mediocre or average game. A DA:O 2 would've been much preferred and actually the more logical solution, considering the development time of DA 2.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 11 août 2011 - 08:33 .

[AtreiyaN7]

mrcrusty wrote...

To be fair, they are not directly applicable, with Ultima Underworld not actually part of the main Ultima series and Fallout 3 being made by a different developer with a different game engine almost a decade after the last game.

But I'd agree with the idea that it wouldn't people's opinions of the game. It would however, change people's opinions of BioWare drastically if they had a hypothetical DA:O 2 in development which promised to fall under DA:O's design and mechanics rather than having BioWare indicate that DA 2's direction is the only direction moving forward. Because then, you'd have a main series of games falling under the direction of Origins and the possibility of side games that experiment more and follows DA 2's direction.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Ultima Underworld does take place in the same world (albeit you are in the Stygian Abyss), and you do, in fact, take on the role of the Avatar, the main protagonist of the Ultima series proper. It's a spin-off that takes place after the events of Ultima VI in the timeline (along with the second Underworld game). However, you can see its influence in the series proper with Ultima IX, where Origin makes that leap to a 3D world. The "Ultima" name on the games was never a guarantee that gameplay would be exactly the same, and if we're going to be sticklers about it, all you have to do is look at Ultima VIII and Ultima IX - they were radically, radically different in appearance and how they played (and they were, most assuredly, part of the main numbered series).

As for Fallout, the devs were different - yes, but FO3 was based on the existing property and took place in the same world setting. I cite it because it is roughly analogous to the DA:O & DA2 situation since it's really about the world setting and not one specific person (even though you get many nods to the previous games and characters like Harold and Bob). Would Bethesda's vision of the Fallout universe have been any different if they'd named it Fallout: The Capitol Wasteland? Or would people's perception of the game have changed in any way? Te only things I think you can rightly expect in a Fallout game are exceedingly cheeky humor, grim post-apocalyptic environments, and a trusty Pip-Boy (all in a tweaked alternate reality with a 50s vibe).

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 11 août 2011 - 08:57 .

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
Well, it certainly didn't seem like a specifically scripted consequence, so emegent narrative, maybe?

That would suggest that Ian Polaris doesn't have a scripted response to DA2, and I'm not sure I'm willing to go that far yet. 

In Exile wrote...
No, I don't think there would've been a DA:O 2 in the works either. But calling it Dragon Age 2 does create some expectations about how the game would be.

That's certainly true. But then the issue is what elements. As you might know, I happen to think that DA:O and DA2 are very similar in design. 

BioWare was more or less honest in how they would be changing certain mechanics but I think marketing really created a distorted image of what the game was actually going to be in the end. So much so, that aspects which are the logical opposites of pre-release hype and discussion are being touted by fans as innovative features, e.g Powerless Hawke vs Rise to Power and "every decision matters" (or something like that).

Like I said: to say that marketing ''exagerrated'' a  little is to say that Hawke had multiple race origins. 

While people could appreciate the game's combat being sped up, many couldn't deal with the God awful way waves was implemented or the exploding enemies, of how enemy design was handled, etc etc. While people could appreciate the fact the game was focused on a single city, they couldn't deal with how static and lifeless it was. While people appreciated the move away from a mute protagonist, many could not deal with how inaccurate the paraphrasing was, or how limiting the tonal dialog felt. While people could appreciate the focus on a more "grey morality", they couldn't handle how over the top and unrealistic it was portrayed.

Then there's the aspects of meaningless choices and the recycled environments. Et cetera, et cetera.

Confronted with these flaws (though many are subjective), they wonder why BioWare went so far from the Origins' winning formula which invariably leads to the "I wanted DA:O 2 instead of this crap" train of thought.

At least that's my take.

I think it's the opposite. Confronted with the differences with DA:O, fans demanded that DA2 ''wow'' them. Basically, all the things that fans forgave in DA:O, they wouldn't overlook in DA2. Suddenly, the fact that quests that should logically overlap didn't (e.g. the timeline in DA:O, or the Connor quest & any other quest as a timer, etc.) suddenly became huge, gripping flaws. On top of that, Bioware suddenly to implement some ridiculously stupid features, like the waves, recycled environments, etc. 

And so our upset fans, already more critical of the game for its design, ended up seeing ****ty designs at every corner, and went out and proclaimed that DA2 was fail. 

I personally would've liked a Dragon Age 2 that did what it promised, rather than what I felt was a very flawed and ultimately, mediocre or average game.

DA2 offered (marketing wise) a lot of what I would have wanted to see in an RPG. But the mess that was delivered, well... it pissed me off. 

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Filament wrote...

Honestly, strictly in terms of naming, "Dragon Age: Exodus" would seem to suggest more of a similarity following from "Dragon Age: Origins" than "Dragon Age 2" does. Not that I think it matters.

Good point, but people like their numbers.

[txgoldrush]

taine wrote...

Zanallen wrote...

And yet few people take issue when Final Fantasy VI is different from V which was different from IV.

They named the game Dragon Age 2, not Dragon Age: Origins 2.

FFVI was not very different from V, or IV, or III or II or I for that matter. 

I can see why people are getting worked up, but really this is just marketing speak from someone who is, as far as I've been able to tell, not really involved at all in the actual game-making process. Not that I don't have respect to the Dr.s for founding a great company, but I find it difficult to take anything they say as more than empty PR. 

One thing I do have a question about though is Bioware's persistent claim that they somehow innovated with DA2. Now, I actually had fun with the game and do not hate it with the passion of some people around here, but I fail to see how DA2 did anything that could be considered innovative (inventing or applying new ideas). The framed narrative and more personal narrative? Been done before, most recently in Assassin's Creed 2. Time skipping narrative? Also done before, and has never worked well. If anything, the combat reminded me more of a clunkier KotOR than anything new.

I'm not asking this to be snide, it just seems incongruous. Not that anyone from Bioware is likely to respond to questions about marketing speak. Perhaps they mean that they were trying something new *for themselves* rather than for games? If so, then all the talk of innovation comes off as a bit self-satisfied.

FFVI was way different from the other FF games before it, in fact it was the biggest evolution the series ever had in storytelling, and in doing so told one of the greatest stories in RPG history. It went away from the four elements, magic crystals, and evil forces as big bads and concentrated on the human condition with a murderous human as the villian. In fact, the later games recycle their plots over and over again. So while FF games do change their gameplay, they recycle their plot. FFVII even recycles FFVI's first half plot.

And thats why the series has gone downhill....they change so much in gameplay that they can't find a successful formula and they recycle their plot so everything feels cliche (and they recycle their plot despite different setting, characters, and set ups).

DAII is innovative FOR Bioware...it smashes the formula they have been doing over and over. DAO exposed them as recyclers of their plots. Ever see Hellforge's Bioware Cliche Chart?.....DAII would not fit on it except for the first and last row. And the frame story throughout is innovative for the WRPG genre and so was the time skip. Also the friendship/rivalry system was a good innovation which greatly expands on character development options. However, DAO was a VERY CONSERVATIVE game which innovated nothing. Everything was borrowed and nothing was new. DAII was not innovative in gaming however for an RPG and for a Bioware game, it is innovative.

And you say time skipping narratives don't work well.....ummmm here is one that does....



In fact its three loosely based acts based on a characters life just like DAII (although without the frame narrative and written by an American literary god).

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
snip

Don't get me wrong, I did agree with your end assertions that gameplay can change drastically within series and that a name change wouldn't have done anything to change opinions, just not with your specific examples. UU is not considered apart of Ultima proper and Fallout 3 has extenuating circumstances that makes it clearly not applicable to DA:O - DA 2.

To be fair though, more often than not, a sequel takes an existing foundation and builds on it rather making major changes to the franchise, which are almost always a huge risk. I mean, there wouldn't be an expectation in the first place if it wasn't commonplace. Changing the series is the exception, not the rule. So I don't think it's fair to lay the blame entirely on the consumer as BioWare appears to be doing, especially since many of the changes were flawed in execution. I think that the general expectation of it being a sequel, along with the horrible marketing gave people flawed or false impressions of the game, especially if they decided to skip the demo, or pre-order the game in advance. There are also those who buy because they put blind faith in BioWare to deliver (lol).

Now whether they were saavy consumers or not to pre-order or buy, it has led to lost enthusiasm over the series and lost pre-orders and/or buys for future Dragon Age products, ones that would've not been lost had the game been a "Dragon Age: Origins 2".

Maybe there's been enough enthusiasm and loyalty generated by new fans of Dragon Age 2 to make up for the lost ones, but we won't see any results of that until a third game comes out. Usually, the initial success (pre-orders) of a game comes from how well received the previous one was.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 11 août 2011 - 09:23 .

[Zanallen]

mrcrusty wrote...

Good point, but people like their numbers.

People were going to have their expectations no matter what Bioware called the game. Merely because Origins came first, any other Dragon Age game was going to have some form of expectations. Bioware would have had to market DA2 as a whole new IP to avoid it. So really, it is silly to complain about the fact that there is a two in the title.

[taine]

txgoldrush wrote...

And you say time skipping narratives don't work well.....ummmm here is one that does....



In fact its three loosely based acts based on a characters life just like DAII (although without the frame narrative and written by an American literary god).

I was speaking from a perspective of video games, not all forms of storytelling. It doesn't work in games because it robs the player of agency and forces events on them, and really that is the antithesis of what games are supposed to be about -- interactivity, and being driven by the player. It works just fine in literature and film, because those are non-interactive mediums.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Zanallen wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Good point, but people like their numbers.

People were going to have their expectations no matter what Bioware called the game. Merely because Origins came first, any other Dragon Age game was going to have some form of expectations. Bioware would have had to market DA2 as a whole new IP to avoid it. So really, it is silly to complain about the fact that there is a two in the title.

To some degree, but there's an impact on consumer expectations when you add a number implying a direct sequel to it. I would bet New Vegas would've gotten a much colder reaction had it been called Fallout 4, for example.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 11 août 2011 - 10:12 .

[Saintthanksgiving]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

When a reasonable person sees Jaws II as a book besides another book called Jaws, that person should reasonble expect to read a tale about another Great White Killer Shark or something very much like it. At very least, the reader would be well within his rights to be outraged if Jaws II turned out to be a cookbook regarding the culinary attributes of Bovine Jaws when it was sold by Jaws, had almost the same cover and trademark as Jaws, sold by the same company as Jaws, etc.

Fair enough. So when I see a game called Dragon Age 2, I should reasonably expect it to be a game that takes place in the Dragon Age. Like the first game.

this is not a fight because Hawke replaced the Warden.  This is an argument that Dragon Age II sold hundreds of thousands of Pre-Orders based on the popularity of ORIGINS, when DA2  was a completely and intentionally different gameplay expierience.  By Bioware's own admission, they failed to "manage the expectations" of ORIGINS fans... which is to say that they allowed ORIGINS fans to believe that they were buying something that they were going to enjoy, when they knew full well there was going to be a problem.

• Maybe they were banking on the fact that DA2 was going to be awesome, and all sins would be forgiven.
• Maybe they thought DA2 would grab enough of the Mass Effect and COD audience that pissing off Origins fans wouldn't matter.
• Maybe they got a little too ambitious in "revolutionizing" the RPG and didnt realize that they had gone a little too far before it was too late.
• Maybe they DID revolutionize the RPG, but werent able to realize their vision because of a deadline that cared more about releasing in sync with Mass Effect III than the quality of a finished product.

 Regardless, telling the customer that he is to blame for trusting a company to deliver the promised product is at least ridiculous, and at most a TORCH AND PITCHFORK WORTHY insult.

rabble rabble rabble

[furryrage59]

Don't know why i keep doing this to myself. Just as my rage starts to subside and i come to terms with the murder commited upon Dragon age with it's sequel (dramatic yes, but how i feel about it), i read threads like these and it comes boiling back up.

If i was rich, i would personally fund the devlopment of DA:O2 . Now, where did i put that map to the secret diamond mines

[LeBurns]

I can hardly do better than the quote in my sig to voice my opinion and frustration about the whole DA2 ordeal.

I know that BioWare knows they blew it. But they have to say what they have to so that EA doesn't figure it out. But to me it's a lie, I know it's a lie, and I'm just so sick of hearing it over and over again. The DA universe died IMO, but at least I can keep playing DA:O over and over again.

[Captain Sassy Pants]

Zanallen wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Good point, but people like their numbers.

People were going to have their expectations no matter what Bioware called the game. Merely because Origins came first, any other Dragon Age game was going to have some form of expectations. Bioware would have had to market DA2 as a whole new IP to avoid it. So really, it is silly to complain about the fact that there is a two in the title.

And here we have it: It should have been a new IP, what with all of the radical design changes. Simple as that. 

They kept the "Dragon Age" monicker to get people who enjoyed the first to buy the second, which they did, which lead to the huge, front-loaded pre-order sales.

Had it had been a new IP, you wouldn't have had nearly the war these forums have turned into. I don't like the ME style of game, at all. I don't go onto their forum and tell them all how bad the game is. If this were a new IP, I would have followed that mindset. However, I really liked DA:O, and it induces a sort of rage to see the IP you liked changed for no reason whatsoever.

[Captain Sassy Pants]

Saintthanksgiving wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

When a reasonable person sees Jaws II as a book besides another book called Jaws, that person should reasonble expect to read a tale about another Great White Killer Shark or something very much like it. At very least, the reader would be well within his rights to be outraged if Jaws II turned out to be a cookbook regarding the culinary attributes of Bovine Jaws when it was sold by Jaws, had almost the same cover and trademark as Jaws, sold by the same company as Jaws, etc.

Fair enough. So when I see a game called Dragon Age 2, I should reasonably expect it to be a game that takes place in the Dragon Age. Like the first game.

this is not a fight because Hawke replaced the Warden.  This is an argument that Dragon Age II sold hundreds of thousands of Pre-Orders based on the popularity of ORIGINS, when DA2  was a completely and intentionally different gameplay expierience.  By Bioware's own admission, they failed to "manage the expectations" of ORIGINS fans... which is to say that they allowed ORIGINS fans to believe that they were buying something that they were going to enjoy, when they knew full well there was going to be a problem.

• Maybe they were banking on the fact that DA2 was going to be awesome, and all sins would be forgiven.
• Maybe they thought DA2 would grab enough of the Mass Effect and COD audience that pissing off Origins fans wouldn't matter.
• Maybe they got a little too ambitious in "revolutionizing" the RPG and didnt realize that they had gone a little too far before it was too late.
• Maybe they DID revolutionize the RPG, but werent able to realize their vision because of a deadline that cared more about releasing in sync with Mass Effect III than the quality of a finished product.

 Regardless, telling the customer that he is to blame for trusting a company to deliver the promised product is at least ridiculous, and at most a TORCH AND PITCHFORK WORTHY insult.

rabble rabble rabble

Woo said, before the game came out, that they fully expected to lose fans, and were banking on bringing in new ones to replace them (which fully pissed me off at the time... and still does). They knew exactly what they were doing. 

[Monica21]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...
As for Fallout, the devs were different - yes, but FO3 was based on the existing property and took place in the same world setting. I cite it because it is roughly analogous to the DA:O & DA2 situation since it's really about the world setting and not one specific person (even though you get many nods to the previous games and characters like Harold and Bob). Would Bethesda's vision of the Fallout universe have been any different if they'd named it Fallout: The Capitol Wasteland? Or would people's perception of the game have changed in any way? Te only things I think you can rightly expect in a Fallout game are exceedingly cheeky humor, grim post-apocalyptic environments, and a trusty Pip-Boy (all in a tweaked alternate reality with a 50s vibe).

I guess you missed the huge uproar in the fan community even before FO3 was released. Bethesda is on record as stating that they weren't going to do isometric "because that wasn't what they did well." A huge number of Fallout fans didn't bother buying it.

To be honest, I only judge Fallout by the standard of Oblivion (which really, it isn't very hard to top Oblivion) because of the change in developer and because of the lapse in time. Fallout 3 is better in terms of roleplay and choice and consequence than Oblivion, but it's not better or funnier or even as good as Fallout 2.

[Travie]

Captain Sassy Pants wrote...
Woo said, before the game came out, that they fully expected to lose fans, and were banking on bringing in new ones to replace them (which fully pissed me off at the time... and still does). They knew exactly what they were doing. 

...and then the game was a horrible failure. The End.

(I love happy endings)

[Dragoonlordz]

Lets be honest about one thing though, if it was a new IP the initial sales would be a fraction (tiny one at that) of what DA2 sales initially was because those pre-orders the majority of them were from people who bought DAO and liked that style of game.

DA2 is not the same style, its not even the same engine, idiology, direction or even plot structure. Throwing in a simular title, couple cameos and codex entries does not make it the same tbh. Bit like give someone some jelly beans they hand you a coin (you like the coin) next time you hand them some jelly beans expecting another coin due to fact they tell you will get another coin but will be of different denomination instead they hand you a baloon with coin painted on it (you don't fall for the trick because it's obvious) and you don't like the baloon.  Then people on BSN (some of them) end up turning around and have a go at you for saying you didn't want a baloon afterwards.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 août 2011 - 02:48 .

[AloraKast]

What is making me a very sad panda indeed is that, due to the marketing campaign and these negative sentiments that come across to the DA:O fans (unintended as they may be), I have learned to take what Bioware is saying with respect to the DA franchise with A LOT more reserve than I would like... especially from a company with such a solid history as Bioware.

Whenever the issue circles back to official announcements, interviews from the game makers with respect to the DA franchise, my shields immediatelly go up and I'm looking around wildly, as if fully prepared for a horde of ninjas to leap up from every direction and attack me. Which it totally ridiculous, but there you have it.

My relationship with a company like CD Projekt is vastly different, because I fully give them the benefit of doubt, because thus far they have given me no reason whatsoever to be wary of them; rather they have seemingly gone out of their way to make me feel valued and appreciated. I understand that not everyone may have that kind of a relationship with them, because perhaps they don't particularly enjoy their product, but I am speaking to how that developer handles their dialogue with the public, I suppose how their marketing campaign works. But that's just the point; their dialogue with their fans doesn't come across as some PR speak but rather like two friends having a chat.

And you know what? I really wish that we could go back to having that kind of a relationship with Bioware, especially considering our long history together. Preparing for battle is the last thing I want to have to do when dealing with one of my favourite game developers. I am looking for that honest contact on a human level... can we please try to get back to that?

Bioware, is it too much to ask for your marketing folks to take a hard look at the message you are trying to convey AND the current PR campaign and try to convey your message in a different, less confrontational way? I am certainly not looking for you to start bashing DA2, it being your current product that you are trying to sell. But please, PLEASE move away from the DA:O (and by extention, DA:O fan) bashing. Move away from suggesting I am a total and complete moron who doesn't know what's good for her simply for enjoying DA:O and looking for a similar (note I use the word similar and not exactly the same) experience from the sequel... that I am completely and utterly disposable and don't matter whatsoever, because it was decided you wanted to appeal to a different and more profitable audience - despite me being a loyal, supportive fan of yours for years and years.

IMO, this is where the problem exists. At the beginning, yes the emotions ran high and it's understandable that passionate fans will express their disappointment just as passionately. But some time has gone by and we are STILL seeing the same arguments and passion expressed by scorned fans BECAUSE the very same communication message is being used that infuriated and enraged the fanbase in the first place, never letting the fire and rage die down and giving the opportunity for sense to prevail.

*sad panda* I want my friend back, Bioware.

[Monica21]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Lets be honest about one thing though, if it was a new IP the initial sales would be a fraction (tiny one at that) of what DA2 sales initially was because those pre-orders the majority of them were from people who bought DAO and liked that style of game.

I don't think that's true. People are far more forgiving of problems in a brand new IP than they are of problems in an existing IP. The goal is to expand and refine what you have and what was done well, not to change it entirely. And if the sales would have been so small, how did DA:O sell so much more? Origins sold because of word of mouth and industry reviews, not because it was a sequel and there were a bunch of pre-orders.

[Dragoonlordz]

Monica21 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Lets be honest about one thing though, if it was a new IP the initial sales would be a fraction (tiny one at that) of what DA2 sales initially was because those pre-orders the majority of them were from people who bought DAO and liked that style of game.

I don't think that's true. People are far more forgiving of problems in a brand new IP than they are of problems in an existing IP. The goal is to expand and refine what you have and what was done well, not to change it entirely. And if the sales would have been so small, how did DA:O sell so much more? Origins sold because of word of mouth and industry reviews, not because it was a sequel and there were a bunch of pre-orders.

Forgiving is not the same as purchasing. People are far more cautious about purchasing a game from a new IP than an established one in general. This is true for me and everyone I know in real life not just few BSN forumites. I am also not sure about your overall point in general because seems to me your agreeing with me...

The whole baby steps are better than radical change because baby steps your always going forward, radical change every single time leads to stepping in reverse and going backwards to some degree which happened with ME series 1, 2 then step back for 3 and now DA series 1, 2 and step back for 3. Seems a pattern within Bioware more than anything, an idiology first title being great second take risks and then third cutback step in reverse to try to being  back anyone they have lost between 1 and 2. Better way is baby steps as said that way your not going to lose hardly anyone from 1, 2 and improvements attract others this wont require stepping back instead adding via more baby steps to those existing 1 and 2 for the 3rd including keeping the original groups. ME they got away with it because the change was far less radical but DA series shows the serious flaw in their strategy / idiology. Sometimes devs get lucky following that strategy but far more often it doesn't work as happened here the end result in some cases is those devs that make that risk dont get 'lucky' end up closing down especially franchise within that dev company as they fail to get back the groups they have lost.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 août 2011 - 02:56 .

[Monica21]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Lets be honest about one thing though, if it was a new IP the initial sales would be a fraction (tiny one at that) of what DA2 sales initially was because those pre-orders the majority of them were from people who bought DAO and liked that style of game.

I don't think that's true. People are far more forgiving of problems in a brand new IP than they are of problems in an existing IP. The goal is to expand and refine what you have and what was done well, not to change it entirely. And if the sales would have been so small, how did DA:O sell so much more? Origins sold because of word of mouth and industry reviews, not because it was a sequel and there were a bunch of pre-orders.

Forgiving is not the same as purchasing. People are far more cautious about purchasing a game from a new IP than an established one in general. This is true for me and everyone I know in real life not just few BSN forumites. I am also not sure about your overall point in general because seems to me your agreeing with me...

I missed the "initial sales" part of the post I quoted. If this were a brand new IP do you think sales would have caught up to DA:O by now, or stagnated like it appears it's doing? 

And you can't forgive something you haven't purchased, can you? Yes, there were problems in DA:O, but those are things that you hand-wave because "it's new, they'll fix it next time." The story was compelling, the antagonist and the villian were compelling, the party members were compelling. Those things all made whatever gameplay decisions that in the end mattered as much as your gameplay decisions in DA2 more palatable because the world you're playing in is engrossing and believable. DA2 seems to be lacking any compelling characters, even your own. The story isn't even very interesting. Maybe those things would be forgiven because people would have been blown away by the ninja spinning combat moves, but right now it looks like nothing more than something to distract the player from the surroundings.

[Rixxencaxx]

I think that Bioware will understand how many new fans they caught with da2 when they will launch da3 and everyone will leave it on the shelf....

[Dragoonlordz]

Monica21 wrote...

I missed the "initial sales" part of the post I quoted. If this were a brand new IP do you think sales would have caught up to DA:O by now, or stagnated like it appears it's doing? 

And you can't forgive something you haven't purchased, can you? Yes, there were problems in DA:O, but those are things that you hand-wave because "it's new, they'll fix it next time." The story was compelling, the antagonist and the villian were compelling, the party members were compelling. Those things all made whatever gameplay decisions that in the end mattered as much as your gameplay decisions in DA2 more palatable because the world you're playing in is engrossing and believable. DA2 seems to be lacking any compelling characters, even your own. The story isn't even very interesting. Maybe those things would be forgiven because people would have been blown away by the ninja spinning combat moves, but right now it looks like nothing more than something to distract the player from the surroundings.

As I implied if was new IP the sales would be even lower than stands right now because it wouldn't have been using the fanbase of the original title to draw in more sales. Imho DA2 sales would be less than half of what it is right now but there's no way of knowing for sure and it's just a guess. The true sales of this game are the ones that exclude the initial couple weeks sales of which most are pre-orders if the title is a sequel after DAO. When you exclude those pre-orders what you get to see is that DAO is still outselling DA2. That speaks for itself that as a standalone product it is doing worse when exclude initial pre-orders. Now theres lots of variables involved that could make it one thing or the other and yes it's more a global statement generalisation I made but seems to feel right to me.

People tend to want new radical ideas and change to be done in new IPs myself included regardless of risk because it means their own favorite series doesn't become the guinea pig and won't be ruined, I made an entire thread about such discussion before and got verbally attacked by the fanatic defenders before where I basically said if doing something radical then do it in a new IP was my preference..

Bioware will never make CoD level of sales, in fact no RPG ever has come even close.. If they honestly believe they can then they are diluding themselves. Their MMO could at best make around same as WoW in pulling in sales but thats because of the genre much like the RPG genre in itself will never and has never been as big as other genres. Knowing that then should of stuck with baby steps improvements because it will continue to increase sales as it brings the old fans and adds to them instead of radical change where (almost always) you lose the old ones and very rarely pull in enough new ones to make up for it. Examples like FO are not the same, where they lost a lot of old fans the reason they gained so many new ones was not based on the RPG element of the game, what they gained was the FPS crowd because the game was not an RPG it was now a FPS with some RPG elements.

It's a risk that tends not to pay off and results in closure of franchises and even development companies in some cases. DA2 took that risk and the results are quite damming in themselves when a previous title is outselling the new one many years after it's release and include a massive drop in overall sales to boot. Their risk never paid off and by continuing that direction adds to the inital risk where that drop from say 6 to 4 might then become 4 to 2 in sales, if lucky that 4 might become 5 but it will not go from the new 4 to 7.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 11 août 2011 - 04:17 .