299 réponses à ce sujet

[DriftSpace]

Melca36 wrote...
It was a half completed game. 

Yeah, and where's the other half? It's called "Dragon Age 3," which is basically the game we've all been beta-testing the engine/mechanics for; that beta-test is called Dragon Age 2, for which we all were duped into paying $60+.

[The Executioner]

DriftSpace wrote...

Melca36 wrote...
It was a half completed game. 

Yeah, and where's the other half? It's called "Dragon Age 3," which is basically the game we've all been beta-testing the engine/mechanics for; that beta-test is called Dragon Age 2, for which we all were duped into paying $60+.

No you were duped i liked DA2 it could have been better but then so could Origins.

[The Executioner]

Killing the same Darkspawn over and over gets old and that's why i can't seem to get into Awakenings at all. At least in DA2 i was able to kill Qunari and other humans. You could do that ''some'' in Origins but i think you see my point. The best part of Origins was the confrontation of Logain and the politics not the Dragon( though it was satisfying to kill it) at least for me. In DA2 i had two of those type confrontations really three. No spoilers so i can't be more specific. Origins was a great game but DA2 was not that bad.

[Fallstar]

The Executioner wrote...

DriftSpace wrote...

Melca36 wrote...
It was a half completed game. 

Yeah, and where's the other half? It's called "Dragon Age 3," which is basically the game we've all been beta-testing the engine/mechanics for; that beta-test is called Dragon Age 2, for which we all were duped into paying $60+.

No you were duped i liked DA2 it could have been better but then so could Origins.

Nice informative post there. You really refined your opinions for us. 

To be perfectly honest I don't think what happened with DA:2 had much to do with EA. I think that Bioware honestly thought they had a decent product, hence all the "OMGZZ How cOMe Biow4re is zo surPris3d" threads. As such, I think you should rest the succes or failure of DA:2 at the feet of Bioware. At the end of the day, if Bioware have any professional pride at all, if they had thought DA:2 was a significantly inferior game to Origins they would have got an extension on their deadline - for sure gaming runs on a tight schedule and it's not as easy as "Well, I didn't finish making those new areas last night because House was on, please can I have a few extra months?". But it would surely have made more financial sense for EA to give DA:2 a couple of months of polish and achieve significantly higher sales  than they did.

EA is a business - the rules of business are to treat your merchandise as commodities, caring too much about the products leads to bad decisions. But based on that incredibly sheer crash in DA:2 sales after a couple of weeks, compared to Origins which was going strong for 5+weeks, I think we can see that even for people with $ pupils it is obvious that having more development time - say 3 months - would pay for itself, if not soley in DA:2 sales, at least in less people thinking to themselves, "what is going on? Where's my tactical camera/autoattack/dialogue trees/dual wielding&archer warriors/item descriptions/[insert favourite cut feature here] ? Damn, this is not like the game I bought and loved, I suppose there's no point sticking around for dlc/DA:3."

[casamar]

We're this funny combination where we understand the commercial pieces but we're also willing to take risks that we think are sensible - and  we're willing to take risks that may seem kind of crazy. We're still driven to a certain degree by that intuition that we had back in the day -Greg Zeschuk

This quote reminds me of a cartoon by Hugh McLeod- to paraphrase "Artists don't have to suffer. No-talent, clueless, hacks who call themselves artists have to suffer"

[DriftSpace]

The Executioner wrote...
At least in DA2 i was able to kill Qunari and other humans. You could do that ''some'' in Origins but i think you see my point. The best part of Origins was the confrontation of Logain and the politics not the Dragon.

First, I think judging the quality of a game by the variety of things which you are able to kill is troubling, to say the least. One word: Pac-Man; you have some ghosts, they are all pretty much the same, but the game-play in spot-on, evocative, and challenging. Pac-Man remains one of the most revered nd challenging games of all time. Super Mario Bros.: Goombas and Koopas, but does that make it bad? No, and far from it. Generations of great games have been crafted with few adversarial character models. A good game is about the way the game plays, and not about how many different head models you can expode. Aside from that: the homogeny of darkspawn models was also supposed to give you the impression that they were drones; this was further emphasized by the new design of the desciples and the unique look of the Architect. Different models represent different ideas and cultural variance; similar models represent similar ideas and cultural homogeny.

Second, while I agree that the political aspects of Origins were certainly part of its appeal, I don't agree that it was the best part; the thing that I miss more in DA2 is just being able to PLAY the game in the way that wanted, you know, like ROLE-PLAYING games are supposed to allow players ... to play a ROLE. Instead I was forced to play a pre-designed character in a pre-designed story that doesn't really branch, and all with horrible (and LESS functional) controls. Taking control away from the player in a ROLE-PLAYING game is rarely a good thing; good role-playing games are made by having a variety of options/play-styles which the player can use and not use at their discretion; a good role-playing game responds to those choices with variances in the story, environments, and dialogue, and the more detailed the responses the better the experience. DA2 took that model, dumbed it down to make it more accessible to "new" players in an effort to cash-in on the hype generated by Dragon Age: Origins, and essentially released a sub-par game.

It was rushed to cash-in on the hype, and lots of people who have played games for many years are not dumb enough to not notice. It'sreally, really obvious, and the BioWare interview confirms it; those guys are trying desperately to convince themselves that they made the right decision.

[DriftSpace]

casamar wrote...

We're this funny combination where we understand the commercial pieces but we're also willing to take risks that we think are sensible - and  we're willing to take risks that may seem kind of crazy. We're still driven to a certain degree by that intuition that we had back in the day -Greg Zeschuk

This quote reminds me of a cartoon by Hugh McLeod- to paraphrase "Artists don't have to suffer. No-talent, clueless, hacks who call themselves artists have to suffer"

This phrase is problematic because it begs the question "what is suffering?" Is suffering a lack of financial success, or is it a mindset? I would argue that it is the latter, and that real artists don't "suffer" because they are not beholden to anything and create art for its own sake, but in the context of business ventures -- like our discussion about video game design with regards to marketing and profitability -- it could be construed to equate "suffering" with a lack of financial success, which I think is inaccurate.

[The Executioner]

DuskWarden wrote...

The Executioner wrote...

DriftSpace wrote...

Melca36 wrote...
It was a half completed game. 

Yeah, and where's the other half? It's called "Dragon Age 3," which is basically the game we've all been beta-testing the engine/mechanics for; that beta-test is called Dragon Age 2, for which we all were duped into paying $60+.

No you were duped i liked DA2 it could have been better but then so could Origins.

Nice informative post there. You really refined your opinions for us. 

To be perfectly honest I don't think what happened with DA:2 had much to do with EA. I think that Bioware honestly thought they had a decent product, hence all the "OMGZZ How cOMe Biow4re is zo surPris3d" threads. As such, I think you should rest the succes or failure of DA:2 at the feet of Bioware. At the end of the day, if Bioware have any professional pride at all, if they had thought DA:2 was a significantly inferior game to Origins they would have got an extension on their deadline - for sure gaming runs on a tight schedule and it's not as easy as "Well, I didn't finish making those new areas last night because House was on, please can I have a few extra months?". But it would surely have made more financial sense for EA to give DA:2 a couple of months of polish and achieve significantly higher sales  than they did.

EA is a business - the rules of business are to treat your merchandise as commodities, caring too much about the products leads to bad decisions. But based on that incredibly sheer crash in DA:2 sales after a couple of weeks, compared to Origins which was going strong for 5+weeks, I think we can see that even for people with $ pupils it is obvious that having more development time - say 3 months - would pay for itself, if not soley in DA:2 sales, at least in less people thinking to themselves, "what is going on? Where's my tactical camera/autoattack/dialogue trees/dual wielding&archer warriors/item descriptions/[insert favourite cut feature here] ? Damn, this is not like the game I bought and loved, I suppose there's no point sticking around for dlc/DA:3."

Nobody thinks DA2 was prefect but it doesn't warrant the torch and pitchforks reaction either. If you don't like it fine but that opinion is not universaly held.

Modifié par The Executioner, 05 octobre 2011 - 12:25 .

[Fallstar]

The Executioner wrote...

DuskWarden wrote...

The Executioner wrote...

DriftSpace wrote...

Melca36 wrote...
It was a half completed game. 

Yeah, and where's the other half? It's called "Dragon Age 3," which is basically the game we've all been beta-testing the engine/mechanics for; that beta-test is called Dragon Age 2, for which we all were duped into paying $60+.

No you were duped i liked DA2 it could have been better but then so could Origins.

Nice informative post there. You really refined your opinions for us. 

To be perfectly honest I don't think what happened with DA:2 had much to do with EA. I think that Bioware honestly thought they had a decent product, hence all the "OMGZZ How cOMe Biow4re is zo surPris3d" threads. As such, I think you should rest the succes or failure of DA:2 at the feet of Bioware. At the end of the day, if Bioware have any professional pride at all, if they had thought DA:2 was a significantly inferior game to Origins they would have got an extension on their deadline - for sure gaming runs on a tight schedule and it's not as easy as "Well, I didn't finish making those new areas last night because House was on, please can I have a few extra months?". But it would surely have made more financial sense for EA to give DA:2 a couple of months of polish and achieve significantly higher sales  than they did.

EA is a business - the rules of business are to treat your merchandise as commodities, caring too much about the products leads to bad decisions. But based on that incredibly sheer crash in DA:2 sales after a couple of weeks, compared to Origins which was going strong for 5+weeks, I think we can see that even for people with $ pupils it is obvious that having more development time - say 3 months - would pay for itself, if not soley in DA:2 sales, at least in less people thinking to themselves, "what is going on? Where's my tactical camera/autoattack/dialogue trees/dual wielding&archer warriors/item descriptions/[insert favourite cut feature here] ? Damn, this is not like the game I bought and loved, I suppose there's no point sticking around for dlc/DA:3."

Nobody thinks DA2 was prefect but it doesn't warrant the torch and pitchforks reaction either. If you don't like it fine but that opinion is not universaly held.

I was referring to where you said: " i liked DA2 it could have been better but then so could Origins." Well obviously, very few things in existence could not be made better. I also did not go all 'torch and pitchforks' on DA:2. I don't see the need to over-react, DA:2 is IN MY OPINION just another bad game. It happens to the best developers.

[DriftSpace]

The Executioner wrote...
Nobody thinks DA2 was prefect but it doesn't warrant the torch and pitchforks reaction either. If you don't like it fine but that opinion is not universaly held.

I never made such a claim about my opinions; my opinions originate from me. It does so happen that my opinions are echoed (in a myriad of voices and colors) on other sites (namely the metacritic user reviews), but I'm not arrogant enough to assert that my opinion -- or any "opinion" is "universaly held." (sic) If it was universal it wouldn't be an opinion, would it?

About "torch and pitchfork reaction(s)": this is how consumers tell companies they want things to change; the purpose of this message board is to facilitate a dialogue between the developers and gamers to make better games. Dragon Age 2 was specifically NOT the result of anything players requested (aside from improved graphics and faster-paced combat), and was mostly designed to cash-in on the positive reviews garnered by Dragon Age: Origins, even though the two games are quite different.

I have a right to express my opinion and what I do and do not like about games. In fact, as an artist myself, I appreciate it when people articulate what they don't like abot my art in eloquent ways a lot more than I appreciate synchophantic praise.

Modifié par DriftSpace, 05 octobre 2011 - 12:34 .

[The Executioner]

DriftSpace wrote...

The Executioner wrote...
At least in DA2 i was able to kill Qunari and other humans. You could do that ''some'' in Origins but i think you see my point. The best part of Origins was the confrontation of Logain and the politics not the Dragon.

First, I think judging the quality of a game by the variety of things which you are able to kill is troubling, to say the least. One word: Pac-Man; you have some ghosts, they are all pretty much the same, but the game-play in spot-on, evocative, and challenging. Pac-Man remains one of the most revered nd challenging games of all time. Super Mario Bros.: Goombas and Koopas, but does that make it bad? No, and far from it. Generations of great games have been crafted with few adversarial character models. A good game is about the way the game plays, and not about how many different head models you can expode. Aside from that: the homogeny of darkspawn models was also supposed to give you the impression that they were drones; this was further emphasized by the new design of the desciples and the unique look of the Architect. Different models represent different ideas and cultural variance; similar models represent similar ideas and cultural homogeny.

Second, while I agree that the political aspects of Origins were certainly part of its appeal, I don't agree that it was the best part; the thing that I miss more in DA2 is just being able to PLAY the game in the way that wanted, you know, like ROLE-PLAYING games are supposed to allow players ... to play a ROLE. Instead I was forced to play a pre-designed character in a pre-designed story that doesn't really branch, and all with horrible (and LESS functional) controls. Taking control away from the player in a ROLE-PLAYING game is rarely a good thing; good role-playing games are made by having a variety of options/play-styles which the player can use and not use at their discretion; a good role-playing game responds to those choices with variances in the story, environments, and dialogue, and the more detailed the responses the better the experience. DA2 took that model, dumbed it down to make it more accessible to "new" players in an effort to cash-in on the hype generated by Dragon Age: Origins, and essentially released a sub-par game.

It was rushed to cash-in on the hype, and lots of people who have played games for many years are not dumb enough to not notice. It'sreally, really obvious, and the BioWare interview confirms it; those guys are trying desperately to convince themselves that they made the right decision.

I personally think that the story and characters are THE most important part of the gaming expierence not the other way around. Without the story and characters you have nothing.

[DriftSpace]

DuskWarden wrote...
I also did not go all 'torch and pitchforks' on DA:2. I don't see the need to over-react, DA:2 is IN MY OPINION just another bad game. It happens to the best developers.

Yes, it can happen to the best of developers, but it's not a necessity, and consumers (i.e. gamers) reacting to things they do not like -- whether it's "over-react(ing)" or not is a fairly contentious and questionable assessment -- is how the market changes in-favor of the consumer, as opposed to changing in-favor of the corporations. Yes, Dragon Age 2 was "just another bad game," but it happens to be a bad game which uses the name of a game which I liked, and a series for which I was hopeful. If we consumers (this can mean you too, if you care to participate in society instead of being on the sidelines of corporate takeover) speak out in volumes abot our dissatisfaction then we may effectively reduce the number of bad games released in the future.

[DriftSpace]

The Executioner wrote...
I personally think that the story and characters are THE most important part of the gaming expierence not the other way around. Without the story and characters you have nothing.

Then we seem to be in-agreement, which is confusing to me because the first complaintfrom you was that there was redundancy in some of the visual aspects of the game, specifically character design. For the record: DA2 has WAY more reduntant graphical aspects than DA:O.

I agree: story is very important, but if the game plays like crap then it's not much of a game. A game is a thing you play. If you don't care about play-control and just want story then go see a movie; I play games because I get to interface with the story, and the quality of that interface -- whether it's control options, or how the game reacts to decisions I make via those control options --  is therefore not only what makes it a "game," but is also a huge (if not the most important) factor when designing a game.

[The Executioner]

DriftSpace wrote...

The Executioner wrote...
I personally think that the story and characters are THE most important part of the gaming expierence not the other way around. Without the story and characters you have nothing.

Then we seem to be in-agreement, which is confusing to me because the first complaintfrom you was that there was redundancy in some of the visual aspects of the game, specifically character design. For the record: DA2 has WAY more reduntant graphical aspects than DA:O.

I agree: story is very important, but if the game plays like crap then it's not much of a game. A game is a thing you play. If you don't care about play-control and just want story then go see a movie; I play games because I get to interface with the story, and the quality of that interface -- whether it's control options, or how the game reacts to decisions I make via those control options --  is therefore not only what makes it a "game," but is also a huge (if not the most important) factor when designing a game.

Here's the thing i liked Origins and DA2 so were not going to agree on much in regards to DA2. Of course gameplay is important never said it wasn't but if the story and characters aren't great you have an average at best game. As for your go see a movie comment i'm going to let that go this time.

[DriftSpace]

The Executioner wrote...
As for your go see a movie comment i'm going to let that go this time.

What the hell does that mean? Is that a threat?

Just because I don't agree with you doens't mean there's hostility here. Story in a game without adequate gameplay mechanics is a frustrating movie; that was the point. Do you disagree? Sounds pretty straight-forward to me.

If you liked DA2: good for you. I didn't, but maybe that's because I'm more familiar with BioWare's history, have played more fantasy role-plying games, and have higher expectations. I don't know, but I'm not about to speculate about you; all I know is that in my 25+ years of gaming Dragon Age 2 was a big, big letdown ... to me, and lots of other people. This isn't a flame war. If you're satisfied then why are you wasting your time here? BioWare doesn't need you to defend them; they have lawyers and paid game critics to do that.

Obviously you're just the person who they were aiming at with this game, so you win. For me: it was a company and a franchise I've had high-hopes for which were totally dashed. Serves me right for having expectations, so I lose. If you wanted a contest: there are the results.

You and me and everyone else who likes and does not like DA2 are on the same team: we're consumers who want to play games we like. Chill.

Modifié par DriftSpace, 05 octobre 2011 - 01:12 .

[Brockololly]

DuskWarden wrote...
To be perfectly honest I don't think what happened with DA:2 had much to do with EA. I think that Bioware honestly thought they had a decent product, hence all the "OMGZZ How cOMe Biow4re is zo surPris3d" threads. As such, I think you should rest the succes or failure of DA:2 at the feet of Bioware.

But thats the catch now- by Zeschuk's own admission, BioWare is EA. So sure, the Doctors may be in total control of BioWare now, but it would seem to me that they're more focused on the $$$$ side of things now and are acting like their ol' mentor Riccitiello has taught them.

I'm not begrudging them from trying to make money- hell, they're a business, thats their job. But I think whoever is making these big decisions with their franchises are making some questionable decisions. So something like setting the release date of DA2- I don't think its any coincidence that it came out in March, the last month of EA's Fiscal Q4. They weren't going to delay that game because they didn't want it to slip into the next fiscal year (and also into more competition).

If you look at some of the past interviews or transcripts from earnings calls for EA, the one thing hammered home again and again by the likes of Frank Gibeau, John Riccitiello or Eric Brown is how getting products out the door on time is a big deal. And rightfully so from a business POV, but the problem is when you're so focused on shipping something and not the quality, thats how you kill a franchise. Thats why DA2's sales were great initially and then fell off a cliff.

I don't know that the higher ups at EA/BioWare are so interested in making quality games so much as games that sell really really well. To the extent they'll toss any focus tested or perceived popular feature at a given game/franchise if they think they can milk it for a couple extra dollars. I just think the higher ups are not considering the quality of the games they're making and instead are more focused on how to monetize them via DLC, microtransactions, pushing Origin for digital sales and so forth. Or they're prioritizing features/aspects to the designers which they think can be monetized easily- like shoving multiplayer into ME3 ( its inevitable).

So while initial sales of something like DA2 might help EA's Fiscal Q4 earnings report in the short term with investors, if they keep pushing that direction, thats how they're going to kill off their franchises pretty quickly. I just think that at least with DA2, EA/BioWare set a hard deadline and the people in charge of DA made some poor decisions with what they could try to get done in that amount of time.

But EA/BioWare realized the kind of product they were shipping out- there is a reason they didn't give out many advance copies to reviewers- and bit the bullet on getting the good initial sales based on Origins and will just deal with the aftermath come DA3. Thats why you're getting all the rubbish PR about making DA3 the best of Origins and DA2- the truth is that it will just be whatever the devs can get together by their set in stone deadline, whether its any good or not. With DA2, it would seem EA/BioWare was ok with a ho-hum quality game in exchange for the good initial sales.

[The Executioner]

DriftSpace wrote...

The Executioner wrote...
As for your go see a movie comment i'm going to let that go this time.

What the hell does that mean? Is that a threat?

Just because I don't agree with you doens't mean there's hostility here. Story in a game without adequate gameplay mechanics is a frustrating movie; that was the point. Do you disagree? Sounds pretty straight-forward to me.

If you liked DA2: good for you. I didn't, but maybe that's because I'm more familiar with BioWare's history and have higher expectations. I don't know, but I'm not about to speculate about you; all I know is that in my 25+ years of gaming Dragon Age 2 was a big, big letdown ... to me, and lots of other people. This isn't a flame war. If you're satisfied then why are you wasting your time here? BioWare doesn't need you to defend them; they have lawyers and paid game critics to do that.

You and me and everyone else who likes and does not like DA2 are on the same team: we're consumers who want to play games we like. Chill.

I'm not defending anyone just giving my opinion and your condescending statements are not going unnoticed.I'm not making threats but if this is going to stay civil don't make personal comments

Modifié par The Executioner, 05 octobre 2011 - 01:18 .

[DriftSpace]

Brockololly wrote...
I'm not begrudging them from trying to make money- hell, they're a business, thats their job.

I really appreciated what you had to say, but I singled-out this part because when BioWare started their job was to make great games, and the idea was that if the games were good enough they would make money. We've had an obvious paradigm-shift with the entrance of EA into the picture; quality does not equate to sales, and EA backs-up that philosophy with their massive success by selling the same sports games in different packaging to people for decades.

So, yes, while it is "their job" NOW to make money, the focus used to be on the quality of the game first, and the money second; now the focus is on the money, and it is at the expense of quality. This is a universal phenomenon in almost every single industry on the planet; cut-corners to inflate profit, and quality takes a dive.

Modifié par DriftSpace, 05 octobre 2011 - 01:21 .

[DarkDragon777]

Very good performance doctors, very good performance.

[DrFumb1ezX]

I'm still kinda wondering where some of the more... virulent, for lack of a better word, haters for the game got the idea that their trust has been betrayed. Perhaps more specifically, why they believe that their faith in Bioware was lost after DA2. So ONE "mediocre" (to some) game is released after a never-ending string of good games, and all of a sudden, you can never trust Bioware again? What? How do you reconcile that?

If you didn't bother researching the game, or even waiting for peer reviews, then it's your own fault. It's your wallet. Not Bioware's.
Plus, I'm almost certain that most retailers give full refunds within the first week of buying a game, so if you didn't like it in that time period, you didn't get "ripped-off".

I, personally, had quite a bit of fun playing DA2. That said, it was seriously flawed, and I really hope Bioware can amaze me for DA3.

If you can't respond civilly to my post, please send me a PM instead. I'd rather not have Mr. Woo or Epler close this thread. Thank you.

[DriftSpace]

soccerchick wrote...

I'm still kinda wondering where some of the more... virulent, for lack of a better word, haters for the game got the idea that their trust has been betrayed. Perhaps more specifically, why they believe that their faith in Bioware was lost after DA2. So ONE "mediocre" (to some) game is released after a never-ending string of good games, and all of a sudden, you can never trust Bioware again? What? How do you reconcile that?

If you didn't bother researching the game, or even waiting for peer reviews, then it's your own fault. It's your wallet. Not Bioware's.
Plus, I'm almost certain that most retailers give full refunds within the first week of buying a game, so if you didn't like it in that time period, you didn't get "ripped-off".

I, personally, had quite a bit of fun playing DA2. That said, it was seriously flawed, and I really hope Bioware can amaze me for DA3.

If you can't respond civilly to my post, please send me a PM instead. I'd rather not have Mr. Woo or Epler close this thread. Thank you.

I don't think there's any lack of civility here; seems pretty good so far.

You make some good points; it is one game in a pantheon of many, and I sure did play the demo and think to myself "oh crap, this game is going to suck, what have I done by paying for the game in-full before it was released?" but whether or not that's my fault or the fault of a company -- who, by yor own admission, has a good track record "ONE 'mediocre' game" -- which I trusted. Gray area, I think; it's at least not becoming of a consumer to 
defend a company who (again, by your own admission) released something "seriously flawed".

Additionally: I think it's more responsible of me to complain about a product which I don't like -- stating specifically why I am dissatisfied -- instead of simply returning the game (if that were possible) to an uninvested retailer with no explanation. How does that make for better games?

What else ... oh yeah, where can I return software that's been opened? I used to work for a record store which sold games and movies, and I also used to work for EB Games and GameStop, and let me tell you: if people came in with open games (or any media) requesting a return because they "didn't like it," they would have-it-out with the manager, who would either deny the return -- saying that they can only exchange open software for the same thing because of pirating and copyright concerns -- or give store credit in RARE cases. I also never said "ripped-off," so I don't know why that's in quotes. GameStop even has something called a "performance guarantee" for which gamers pay extra, and that extra cost up-front specifically allows gamers to return games because they don't like them; it's about the same as a rental fee. If you don't pay for the "performance guarantee" you don't get to return the OPEN game because you didn't like it.

So you are welcome to be "almost certain," but as someone who has worked in the industry and who still works in the consumable media industry: the ability to return open (copyable) media to a retailer is not something which many stores (except Costco) practice, and is not a sustainable business model.

As far as "researching" a game goes: the only information available to gamers -- before a demo is released, or before retail copies are disseminated for review --  is what the COMPANY makes available to the gamers, and why would EA release information that would make DA2 seem as different as it is from DA:O? Answer: they would not. Also: reviews can be BOUGHT. Case-and-point: go to metacritic and check out the number of glowing "professional" reviews as compared to the amount of disparaging "player" reviews.

There is no judging a game until you play it yourself; this is just a fact. If anyone judges anything without directly experiencing it then not only are they fools, but they obviously don't value (or lack) the ability to make judgements of their own accord ... "soccerchick."

Modifié par DriftSpace, 05 octobre 2011 - 01:50 .

[DriftSpace]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Very good performance doctors, very good performance.

Ha!

Modifié par DriftSpace, 05 octobre 2011 - 01:48 .

[ElitePinecone]

Brockololly wrote...
Thats why DA2's sales were great initially and then fell off a cliff.

They're saying it's a commercial success, though. Clearly it sold well enough to make up for the cost of development. 

There's every chance pre-orders for DA3 (and initial sales) will be well down, given the disappointment - but it's not like the franchise is about to collapse on itself. Sure, DA2 didn't sell anywhere near as many units as DAO, but its development costs were (apparently) so much smaller. 

I agree that if DA3 doesn't improve drastically from its predecessor, it'll be difficult to see where the future of the franchise is, but it's still making money. 

DAO's huge success was almost certainly through word of mouth and reputation, ditto for DA2's train-wreck of a sales chart. DA3 could go either way depending on the next year(s) of development. 

[DriftSpace]

ElitePinecone wrote...
They're saying it's a commercial success, though. Clearly it sold well enough to make up for the cost of development. 

Yeah, but commercial success can be bought; that's the entirety of the investment banking industry; put money in some places, make more from others. There was a lot of advertising behind DA2, and the success of the preceeding game made it an easy sale. Commercial success has nothing to do with the quality of the product; comsumers don't respond to quality as much as they respond to social stimulus and marketing.

Modifié par DriftSpace, 05 octobre 2011 - 01:47 .

[The Executioner]

soccerchick wrote...

I'm still kinda wondering where some of the more... virulent, for lack of a better word, haters for the game got the idea that their trust has been betrayed. Perhaps more specifically, why they believe that their faith in Bioware was lost after DA2. So ONE "mediocre" (to some) game is released after a never-ending string of good games, and all of a sudden, you can never trust Bioware again? What? How do you reconcile that?

If you didn't bother researching the game, or even waiting for peer reviews, then it's your own fault. It's your wallet. Not Bioware's.
Plus, I'm almost certain that most retailers give full refunds within the first week of buying a game, so if you didn't like it in that time period, you didn't get "ripped-off".

I, personally, had quite a bit of fun playing DA2. That said, it was seriously flawed, and I really hope Bioware can amaze me for DA3.

If you can't respond civilly to my post, please send me a PM instead. I'd rather not have Mr. Woo or Epler close this thread. Thank you.

I agree and Bioware will never make gamers happy with every game they make. Fallout i didn't like it some people loved it, i don't think it's a bad game just not a game i could get into. I'll add this DA2 didn't live up to the hype obviously some felt it was way below Bioware standards. We do expect and are demanding that DA3 is a better game or we will find our entertainment elsewhere.

Modifié par The Executioner, 05 octobre 2011 - 02:01 .