597 réponses à ce sujet

[JeffZero]

tonnactus wrote...

Well Bioware had to gain new fans because other companies exist now that do far better rpg games. Sadly for Bioware, the ones who did Deus Ex Human Revolution for example also delivered far better combat than a boring whack a mole that Mass Effect 2 is...

Nah, I'll seriously take ME2's combat over DXHR's any day of the year.

[Thompson family]

JeffZero wrote...

...  I know that just makes it sound like I'm whining ...

No it doesn't. I'm surprized game companies release any reliable data at all, and I'm certainly not surprized it's hard to find.

[JeffZero]

Thompson family wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

...  I know that just makes it sound like I'm whining ...

No it doesn't. I'm surprized game companies release any reliable data at all, and I'm certainly not surprized it's hard to find.

Yeah, pretty much. 

[CAPSLOCK FURY]

I was under the impression that sites like that are unable to track online transactions. Unless that was just a lot of hot air and/or has been changed, I doubt you'll be able to find anything that's really reliable.

[Thompson family]

CAPSLOCK FURY wrote...

I was under the impression that sites like that are unable to track online transactions. Unless that was just a lot of hot air and/or has been changed, I doubt you'll be able to find anything that's really reliable.

True, but until somebody comes up with some better numbers my assumption is that the errors in vgchartz figures, however bad, don't work for or against any one game when comparing it to others. Therefore, they serve as at least a rough indicator of how successful one game is compared to another.

[Hathur]

JeffZero wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Well Bioware had to gain new fans because other companies exist now that do far better rpg games. Sadly for Bioware, the ones who did Deus Ex Human Revolution for example also delivered far better combat than a boring whack a mole that Mass Effect 2 is...

Nah, I'll seriously take ME2's combat over DXHR's any day of the year.

Speaking as someone who really loved Deus EX HR I have to agree, the combat didn't feel too special to me (it was fun... but I think I enjoyed smooshing stuff in ME2 quite a bit more).

The appeal in Deus EX for me was atmosphere, story, exploration, etc... it was a delightful and even relatively believable world to play in. 

Truly a lovely and memorable game... but the combat seemed less exciting than ME2 (but still fun!) 

Modifié par Hathur, 16 octobre 2011 - 02:09 .

[shepskisaac]

Thompson family wrote...

CAPSLOCK FURY wrote...

I was under the impression that sites like that are unable to track online transactions. Unless that was just a lot of hot air and/or has been changed, I doubt you'll be able to find anything that's really reliable.

True, but until somebody comes up with some better numbers my assumption is that the errors in vgchartz figures, however bad, don't work for or against any one game when comparing it to others. Therefore, they serve as at least a rough indicator of how successful one game is compared to another.

Not to mention, their older numbers are usually good since they take official numbers from publishers into account. I know for sure their Tomb Raider sales for example are rather spot on (except the completly missing ones of course)

[JeffZero]

CAPSLOCK FURY wrote...

I was under the impression that sites like that are unable to track online transactions. Unless that was just a lot of hot air and/or has been changed, I doubt you'll be able to find anything that's really reliable.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that is one factor in it. When I get more time later I'm going to ask me industry-insider guru sorts of contacts for a list of reasons. And maybe a better source...

[JeffZero]

IsaacShep wrote...

Thompson family wrote...

CAPSLOCK FURY wrote...

I was under the impression that sites like that are unable to track online transactions. Unless that was just a lot of hot air and/or has been changed, I doubt you'll be able to find anything that's really reliable.

True, but until somebody comes up with some better numbers my assumption is that the errors in vgchartz figures, however bad, don't work for or against any one game when comparing it to others. Therefore, they serve as at least a rough indicator of how successful one game is compared to another.

Not to mention, their older numbers are usually good since they take official numbers from publishers into account. I know for sure their Tomb Raider sales for example are rather spot on (except the completly missing ones of course)

Yeah, good point.

[JeffZero]

Hathur wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Well Bioware had to gain new fans because other companies exist now that do far better rpg games. Sadly for Bioware, the ones who did Deus Ex Human Revolution for example also delivered far better combat than a boring whack a mole that Mass Effect 2 is...

Nah, I'll seriously take ME2's combat over DXHR's any day of the year.

Speaking as someone who really loved Deus EX HR I have to agree, the combat didn't feel too special to me (it was fun... but I think I enjoyed smooshing stuff in ME2 quite a bit more).

The appeal in Deus EX for me was atmosphere, story, exploration, etc... it was a delightful and even relatively believable world to play in. 

Truly a lovely and memorable game... but the combat seemed less exciting than ME2 (but still fun!) 

Oh yeah, from what I've played of it the atmosphere is exceptional. 

[onelifecrisis]

The Interloper wrote...

1. Their fault. They didn't pause to probe legion for info, they don't get it. Consequence of their choice. Also, as I recall the exact 95% statistic is hard to get, but the general impression that the heretics are only a fraction of the geth population is most certainately not.
2.It foils the reaper's plans. It doesn't help in actually destroying them, yes, but that's allright. As you admitted, ME1 (among other things)  had lots of moments like that. Destroying Saren's base, for instance. It still has plot significance. Same here.
3. Yes, it is.
4. Indeed. If nothing else was true, this plot revelation alone gives ME2's main story meaning. 
5. Set up for ME3, in which the genophage will play a major role in uniting the salarians and krogans, which in turn will be important for defeating the reapers.
6. Within ME2 it elaborates on what the collectors are up to. Overall nothing, no.
7. What's wrong with forshadowing? Again, setting the stage for future events. There's nothing insignificant with that, is there?
8. Gets shepard back on his own and sets stage for open cerberus conflict in ME3.
9. And again, #1. While it is admittedly a bit strange they made it so hard to find, it just confirms what was obvious to most people. By which I mean me . But seriously, I don't think that many people were so confused by the HR. And even if the stuff wasn't in the game but we knew about it-ie hidden files-we would at least know there's a solid explanation. And after all, the only serious problem with leaving important stuff out of the story, ie creating mystery ( and I think the robot monsters are the obvious topic to skip info on for the sake of atmosphere. It just isn't the same if their inner workings are explained 10 minutes in, or even halfway. Things like this can usually get away with never being fully explained, actually) is if there is no explanation or consistant logic working under the hood, even if the reader/player/etc will never see it. The mere presence of this explanation, even if it is hard to find, confirms this is the case. That's the way I see it, anyway. 
10. It appears in ME3 they are one and the same. But we don't know what cerberus's game is yet, so the point is moot.

Plus the DLC, greatly expanding the cast of inner circle characters (ie party members) and possibly player specific stuff as well. Even though not everyone romanced Tali or whatever, it's still significant within the individual shepard's story. Let's not forget that this is an rpg, and some of the significant plot and character events are up to the player, who can choose which one happens or whether they happen at all.

Hello Interloper

WRT #2, you mean the reapers' plan to build a human reaper from [nobody knows what] to do [nobody knows what]? I'd bet that this human reaper plan barely even gets mentioned (let alone explained) in ME3. Why? Because it has jack sh!t to do with anything except giving Shepard something to do in ME2.

WRT #5, this was already setup by ME1. You could leave out all the genophage stuff in ME2 and nothing would be any different. Mordin even says this: "[I/we] could recreate [the data], but then [I/we] could always have recreated it."

WRT #7, there's nothing "wrong" with foreshadowing, but it's not a development or advancement of anything, especially when it could just be a red herring.

WRT #8, Shepard is only on his own because of the events at the start of ME2. ME2 puts the plot in reverse, then shifts back into forward until it's back where it was at the end of ME1, and you call that plot advancement?

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 16 octobre 2011 - 02:24 .

[staindgrey]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Hello Interloper

WRT #2, you mean the reapers' plan to build a human reaper from [nobody knows what] to do [nobody knows what]? I'd bet that this human reaper plan barely even gets mentioned (let alone explained) in ME3. Why? Because it has jack sh!t to do with anything except giving Shepard something to do in ME2.

WRT #5, this was already setup by ME1. You could leave out all the genophage stuff in ME2 and nothing would be any different. Mordin even says this: "[I/we] could recreate [the data], but then [I/we] could always have recreated it."

WRT #7, there's nothing "wrong" with foreshadowing, but it's not a development or advancement of anything, especially when it could just be a red herring.

WRT #8, Shepard is only on his own because of the events at the start of ME2. ME2 puts the plot in reverse, then shifts back into forward until it's back where it was at the end of ME1, and you call that plot advancement?

...wow. I've never seen such a blunt and... true argument about this. Of course, one could argue that we learned more about the Reapers' motivations in their constant extinction cycle (evolving themselves through some sort of technology using organic life, thus needing organics to evolve in order to continue their evolution), but that's about it, unless Cerberus plays a bigger part than an enemy who isn't made up of huge machines. The Collectors are obviously small time, and were conveniently wiped out at the end, leaving us with the exact same enemy in the exact same situation as we'd had at the end of ME1.

Essentially, we could just say ME2 was all about characters, not global plot. WHich, of course, is reinforced by the fact that so few of the missions in ME2 actually advance the main plot; everything seems to revolve around building and maintaining Shep's team, with the Collectors being a looming, inactive threat, save for a couple specific points in the story.

[The Interloper]

onelifecrisis wrote...

WRT #2, you mean the reapers' plan to build a human reaper from [nobody knows what] to do [nobody knows what]? I'd bet that this human reaper plan barely even gets mentioned (let alone explained) in ME3. Why? Because it has jack sh!t to do with anything except giving Shepard something to do in ME2.

WRT #5, this was already setup by ME1. You could leave out all the genophage stuff in ME2 and nothing would be any different. Mordin even says this: "[I/we] could recreate [the data], but then [I/we] could always have recreated it."

WRT #7, there's nothing "wrong" with foreshadowing, but it's not a development or advancement of anything, especially when it could just be a red herring.

WRT #8, Shepard is only on his own because of the events at the start of ME2. ME2 puts the plot in reverse, then shifts back into forward until it's back where it was at the end of ME1, and you call that plot advancement?

2. They were bulding it from human organic mass to at the very least replace their lost brethren and possibly even to honor humanity. I thought that was obvious; of all the complaints about ME2's plot, those surrounding the HR make among the least sense to me. We don't know everything, but we have more then enough hints for the sequence to make sense and it's heavily implied more information will be forthcoming. But we've treaded that ground before. As for the actual plot, as I already said sure, destroying the HR doesn't help us destroy the rest of the reapers, at least not directly. It's not meant to, at least within the plot of ME2. It explains (or at least significantly narrows down the possibilities of) what and who the reapers are, which I believe you conceeded was pretty dang important. The events of Empire strikes back didn't really do much to help destory the empire, but we discovered what was behind the villian's mask and by extension, who the hero really was. ME2 doesn't have the last part (though your conduct in victory was a  great way to develop your shepards character) but I think the principle is very similar. Saving the colonies was a side effect to a larger thing that does indeed have plenty of plot significance.

5. It was just mentioned. In ME2 we got to see it firsthand and found out that the genophage can be dispelled, which completely changes the issue and will undoubtedly explain the open hostilities between krogans and salarians in ME3. As for the data, I could have sworn I heard it confirmed that what you did with it will make a difference. I suspect/hope that even if you can rebuild the data, having to do so will still make a difference compared to just having it ready to roll.

7. All I'm saying is that it's not insignificant. I do agree it didn't directly and obviously advance the main story. But we don't know what it's exact significance is yet, so again we can't make a permanant judgement.

8. The plot is in motion. Sure it's technically not building on itself, but I've read several stories where the protagonist builds something over the course of the story and then looses it all, so this is hardly unprecedented. As it is forcing shepard to loose and regain the public credibility and momentum he built in the last game is instrumental in determining the course of ME2's plot (joining cerberus, etc) and probably ME3, as we know in that the galaxy still hasn't woken up and united against to the reaper threat even when they invade.

ME1 had to end on a high note, and ME2 had to take it away to keep the tension and force shepard to work for it. It was a bit abrupt, but considering everyone would have been mad if Shep died at the end of ME1 it makes sense from a developmental standpoint. We could have had shepard not die and the reapers invade in ME2, but that would make the last two games completely different stories and once you get into what-ifs the discussion will never end.

[Gatt9]

Thompson family wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

I really can't stress enough how utterly unreliable vgchartz is. My GameFAQs buds would be laughing the blue off of everyone's asses for this. I'm just saying, it's really... not... a good source in general.

I'd love some better figures if you can point me in the right direction, JZ.

The ME2 numbers are inline with what the NPD released for the first 12 weeks of sales.  Not identical,  but inline. 

But from there,  we've gotta get into heavy analysis on these supposed "Better RPG companies".  Like we've gotta deal with Deus Ex's very heavy Shooter focus,  which I can't comment on the gameplay because I didn't buy it.

As far as Oblivion goes,  it launched into a market that didn't have any competition on release,  or for a year after it,  and the PC market was starved for an RPG for at least half a year prior.  At that point,  you could release nearly anything and sell.  But that doesn't make it a good game.

As far as Fallout 3's numbers go,  I'm having a *really* hard time believing that.  The NPD numbers indicated they sold maybe 2.x million before dropping off the charts,  and they never reappeared,  so I would contend 7 million is completely impossible.  If they'd actually sold 7 million,  they'd have reappeared on the official NPD sales figures.  I would guess that whoever made that chart up added the 4.6 million units Bethseda shipped as an initial shipment to the NPD numbers of how many of those units actually sold.  Given that my circuit city had the game 60% off and still couldn't sell it,  just a few weeks after release,  I'm pretty doubtful on 7 million.

Regardless,  people buy games because they're great,  not because of some bullet point on the back of a box.  The Sims sold 13 million units,  by the logic that gives us "These features must be in every game",  every game should be a copy of The Sims.

ME2 wasn't that great of a game,  because the combat was monotonous and the AI brain dead.  The side quests were uninspired at best,  and TBH a list of all of the worst kinds of side-quests in the last 30 years.  It's no surprise ME2 didn't sell as well as other games,  it's gameplay was largely badly designed and reeked of Lead Developers who'd no experience,  never saw an RPG before*,  and so young that they though all they had to do was mimic Gears of War and they'd sell 10 million units.

*Which really shouldn't come as a big surprise,  at least one of the Lead Developers hadn't actually seen an RPG before.  She tried to give herself credibility and claim she was a PnP RPG player...by inserting an image of the old red box D&D books and a pile of 6-sided dice.  Obviously she googled "D&D" not realizing that the original game was AD&D because she had no experience with it,  that her picture was of a beginers set,  and that D&D uses a half-dozen different types of dice.  No small wonder she implemented a laundry list of "Quests that should never be used".

[shep82]

Lukertin wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Lukertin wrote...

Fallout 3 was also a sequel that came out a lot of years after the original games and bears little gameplay relation to them (as opposed to Deus Ex). FO3 seemed to have sold around 3-4 million copies though, and when you look at New Vegas which was basically the 'spiritual' successor sequel to the original Fallout 3, when you account for the bugs that plagued NV, the majority of people still liked it less than FO3.

But the majority of hardcore RPG & old Fallout games fans value NV much higher than FO3

Yes, and yet FO3 & NV function as more evidence against your point and only serve to further Thompson Family's argument. The hardcore rpg genre is slowly dying. It isn't anywhere near dead, no, but it is beginning to die.

I disagree. Both were great games and great rpgs IMO.

[onelifecrisis]

2. So where were they going to get all the humans? Were they going to take on Earth with their 1 cruiser? And what were they going to do with it? "Honor humanity" you say? Sorry but... lolwut? Does this ring a bell?

"You touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding."

Punching gaping holes in a plot does not count as development in my book.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 16 octobre 2011 - 03:06 .

[OMTING52601]

Thompson family wrote...

OMTING52601 wrote...

But look at the numbers for DA2 juxtaposed against Origins ...

Why?  DA2 was blatently  a mistake that went too far and the founders of Bioware have said so. What more do you want?

Huh? Okay, so DA2 was a mistake - though it depends on who you quote at Bioware as to how bad a mistake it was, but that's moot. Your statement was that old fashioned RPG's are dying. I rebutt that isn't the case and I used more than DA2 as suggested proof. I'm not interested in a DA 2 flame fest. I was simply offering it's sales numbers versus other 'old fashioned' RPG's that have released recently as supportive evidence against your suggestion that all RPG's are going to move toward a less player agent friendly platform in future. While some companies may try this avenue, it seems logical to assume that said movement will be less economically profitable for those companies.

[shep82]

onelifecrisis wrote...

2. So where were they going to get all the humans? Were they going to take on Earth with their 1 cruiser? And what were they going to do with it? "Honor humanity" you say? Sorry but... lolwut? Does this ring a bell?

"You touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding."

Punching gaping holes in a plot does not count as development in my book.

What gaping holes? The plot is not that hard to get.

[Thompson family]

OMTING52601 wrote...

Huh? Okay, so DA2 was a mistake - though it depends on who you quote at Bioware as to how bad a mistake it was, but that's moot.

How is that moot?

Your statement was that old fashioned RPG's are dying. I rebutt that isn't the case and I used more than DA2 as suggested proof.

OK.

You are arguing that a blunder -- and something that we agree was a blunder and even the founders of Bioware has stated was a blunder -- is proof of your point.

If that's the best you can come up with, it's proof of mine.

[JeffZero]

I agree with Gatt regarding Fallout's sales; something doesn't quite add up here. But I can't get behind the sentiment that ME2 was anything less than great.

[staindgrey]

Something for us to note: Forumgoers are the minority here, not the majority. Out of 2 million+ potential customers, how many do you think come to forums to whine about ______ and claim they'll boycott if ______ isn't changed?

Let alone the pissed off forumers claiming they'll boycott who buy the game anyway.

[CAPSLOCK FURY]

staindgrey wrote...

Something for us to note: Forumgoers are the minority here, not the majority. Out of 2 million+ potential customers, how many do you think come to forums to whine about ______ and claim they'll boycott if ______ isn't changed?

Let alone the pissed off forumers claiming they'll boycott who buy the game anyway.

<insert pic of boycott Modern Warfare 2 Steam group>

[Thompson family]

staindgrey wrote...

Something for us to note: Forumgoers are the minority here, not the majority. Out of 2 million+ potential customers, how many do you think come to forums to whine about ______ and claim they'll boycott if ______ isn't changed?

Let alone the pissed off forumers claiming they'll boycott who buy the game anyway.

Of course they'll buy the game. What would they gripe about if they don't?

[OMTING52601]

Holy smack, dude. Are you being purposefully obtuse or am I really missing something?

DA 2 being a "blunder", after the fact, is moot. Hindsight being 20/20 and all. That doesn't change the fact that is was developed as, released as, and continues to be marketed as an RPG. I haven't seen Bioware pull the product from the shelf or relabel it, unless I missed something. As such, it's numbers are just as pertinent as any in a discussion where you, yourself, suggest that moving RPG's away from traditional and toward more linear, casual gamer style is inevitable because it's profitable. That is your position, right?

If so, then by throwing out data you don't like, your position is then built on supposition, not fact, which of course makes logical debate impossible.

Oh, my bad.

[onelifecrisis]

Thompson family wrote...

staindgrey wrote...

Something for us to note: Forumgoers are the minority here, not the majority. Out of 2 million+ potential customers, how many do you think come to forums to whine about ______ and claim they'll boycott if ______ isn't changed?

Let alone the pissed off forumers claiming they'll boycott who buy the game anyway.

Of course they'll buy the game. What would they gripe about if they don't?

Oh, there's ALWAYS something else to gripe about, trust me.