597 réponses à ce sujet

[FataliTensei]

CAPSLOCK FURY wrote...

FataliTensei wrote...

There's alot of things that could have been done differently that weren't, and in ME3 I don't know what we'll get, but it won't be as balanced at ME1 (moreso the PC version than the console one), we are never getting that again. We just need accept it an move on, we can try to voice our concerns on here but we will be beat down by BW Fanboys who believe Bioware can do no wrong, people who prefer shooters and action games and like the dumbing down process because it makes it easier for them to play and newcomers who feel the need to get on here and just post things like "butthurt" and "nerdrage".

In closing a thread like this does nothing, Bioware DOES NOT CARE and the best you can hope for with intelligent discourse on this board is snarky comebacks with no real reasoning, posts that bring in random anecdotes about sock companies and argue against an argument instead of actually arguing a point, and people who just brush you off with some snide comment.

Say whut?

Random **** that stands out in my head from stuff I've read on this board over the past few months.

[FedericoV]

Il Divo wrote...
Sure, in this day and age it could sell more. But the rule set of DnD is large enough that there are books designed to explain to players who are unfamiliar how the gameplay mechanics work. In the case of BG, I recall that the developers provided a lengthy manual as well. The more "prep time" required before I can engage in any product, the less likely I am to bother trying. It essentially serves as a barrier to entry.
I should also point out that the appeal of BG was not simply in the gameplay mechanics but in the story being told (BGII) and that Bioware had not done a swords n sorcery setting since Neverwinter Nights. By invoking Baldur's Gate, they essentially told fans "Hey, we're throwing out another fantasy epic" which drove everyone crazy. It's not clear if DnD mechanics would have worked towards that goal.

DnD at the times of the BG series was a very accessible game system because of three main reasons:

- 90% of the CRPGs in the history of the genre untill BG1 were based on D&D and stole mechanics, conventions and such. Those conventions were estabilished. Only a few games used different ruleset based on GURPS and such.
- Every person interested in an RPG had played at least one DnD session and knew the basic of the rule system.
- With a few exceptions (World of Darkness and GURPS) D&D has been the only successfull RPG in the history of gaming, to a point where playing an RPG and playing D&D were considered to be synonymous.

Then, Diablo2 and the MMOs came in the picture and everything's changed: for good or bad, I do not know. D&D and pen and paper gaming are basically dead and buried. Right now, D&D would not help selling a game that much. World of Warcraft is the D&D of our times.

Infact, I believe that DA:O sold more than DA2 even because it was closer to a single player MMO than DA2 (the unfamous MMOPurguer). In that sense, it was more casual than the sequel .

PS: The Baldur's Gate trilogy is still on amazon top 100 sales chart in the US (some months ago it was selling more copies than DA2). There are a lot of people who buy, play and mod those game still. Bg 1 and 2 (and generally the IE games) are some of the most popular titles on GoG, if not THE most popular. So, there are still a lot of people interested in deep rule systems and such. Only, the AAA maket has gone completely crazy and games costs too much to be developed, so players like me are marginalized into a niche. But I'm not sure that EA/Bioware are usigin the right strategy if they put all eggs in to one basket.

Modifié par FedericoV, 16 octobre 2011 - 05:56 .

[staindgrey]

Gatt9 wrote...

staindgrey wrote...

Haha I know it sounds pretty bleak, but essentially that's what happened to people wanting a true DA:O sequel. By adding the "II" at the end of the title, Bioware gave false hopes for the game. Really, it would've benefited by simply being called "Dragon Age: Hawke's Rise" or something. They feel like entirely different games based in the same universe, with tiny cameos made by former characters, nothing more.

The GOOD NEWS though is Bioware's awareness of what they did right and wrong in the game. In their DLC, they've really tried to remedy the biggest complaints by altering enemy combat, locales, etc. as much as they could within the DAII engine. Plus they have some deliciously self-aware dialogue in the game itself, like when characters complain about being in Kirkwall way too much (one of the biggest complaints against the game, period).

But if you enjoy politics, sir, you may actually find a lot to love in DA2. I won't elaborate unless you really want to know, since we shouldn't get too far away from the original topic. Just know that, if you spend 7 years in the same city-state, politics and relations are bound to be a hot topic.

i would argue that Bioware didn't learn a thing from what went wrong in DA2.  Primarily because their leads on the project spent weeks blaming the problems on fans who didn't accept the horrid gameplay they passed off as "The future of gaming!",  rather than accept that they made abyssmal design decisions.

In fact,  Gaider was posting weeks after releasing,  talking about removing even more of the dialgoue wheel and replacing it with icons,  despite that being one of people's bigger problems with the game.

Further,  I think your post illustrates exactly that they didn't understand what went wrong.  "Within the confines of the DA2" engine.  It's the DAO engine,  putting it right back to where it outsold ME2 is trivial. 

Finally,  Kirkwall wasn't people's biggest complaints.  The wheel of "Idon'twannahaftaread",  warping enemeies,  enemies exploding at the slightest touch,  people bouncing around like anime characters on meth,  diablo-ish combat,  loss of customization,  those were the biggest complaints.

So I'd venture they learned almost nothing. 

Of course they'll defend a game they just released. But constant negative feedback in specific areas over and over again for months and months create change, rather than a knee jerk reaction right after release.

And the DA2 game engine is definitely different because it's already in a finished game. Expecting huge, sweeping changes through means of basic DLC is unreasonable due to budget and time constraints. How many new game purchases would they earn if they released a revamped DLC that played nothing like the original game, versus how much extra time they'd have to spend on making such a DLC?

Within the confines of what they can work with, they've clearly tried to address as many fan complaints as possible. Enemies spawn differently, and don't suddenly appear in waves like they do in the main game. Legacy, while short, offered some customization when it came to Hawke's key-- again, minor, but it's something. MotA felt like the closest thing to DA:O since DAII's release, and had some of the best production values we've seen yet for the game, all while they constructed a brand new area with typical fantasy side quests for unlocking new items. 

Again, the changes you expect are, I believe, completely unreasonable for the DAII team. We'll see for certain how much they listened when the next game in the series comes out; that team will have far more freedom for changes.

Also, side note: Not everyone hated the exact same things you hated, but I'm fairly certain NO ONE enjoyed spending the entire game in one city. That was my point.

[Il Divo]

staindgrey wrote...


Also, side note: Not everyone hated the exact same things you hated, but I'm fairly certain NO ONE enjoyed spending the entire game in one city. That was my point.

More than that, I think the issue people had was that Kirkwall did not change at all in the seven years which Hawke spends there. NPCs are always in the same location, the city set-up never changes, and the city itself felt quite small, especially compared to Jade Empire's Imperial City or Mass Effect's Citadel. The city didn't come "alive" as Bioware intended, imo. The re-use of environments did not help either.

But otherwise, I agree with your post. I also find most arguments against the wheel to be incredibly weak, or rather they focus on all the wrong aspects. If the problem is "reading", it's because you chose not to read the responses, nothing else.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 05:52 .

[Reptillius]

Actually there were other successful RPG's... D&D was just the best known of the medevil fantasy variety.

The Middle Earth game... also known as the Lord of the Rings RPG has been around for a long time. Seen a revival and a wider known audience thanks to the movies and reprint of the books.

Things like Mechwarrior also has a large influence on its own genre's of games though they got away from RPG's much quicker and you can still see their influences in some things today as another example.

Also of that time there were many games that were basic enough that they were using their own system but DnD had some generic enough ideas that you could claim things were stolen but that doesn't mean they necessarily were.

And I knew several that played a few CRPG's and barely knew what DnD was. I played all during those years. Much more avidly than I could ever do today.

The problem with the newest forms of D&D are they are basically pen and paper clones of MMO's. Just go look at say WoW or a couple of the other big MMO's right now. then look at the power layout and the choices in how you can power up your classes as you level if you don't believe me.

There is a lot of PnP Gaming going on that we aren't necessarily seeing but that isn't really necessarily what companies have a desire to make anymore.

DAII doesn't share as much with an MMO as many would like to claim. But I don't have the days worth of picking apart arguments it would take to explain how that is actually true at this point. But for starters. Most MMO's are rather free roam. Many to the point that you can wander in and out of at least some of the random buildings.

[The Interloper]

onelifecrisis wrote...

1. The bold bit is the exact problem I have with this theory of yours. The collectors harvest resources. Why send them out to harvest early, at a time when they are at risk, when you could send them out later when there is no resistance? Your entire hypothesis is pure guesswork with no evidence to back it up, and you openly admit the logical flaw in that guesswork.
 
2. What am I to do here? If I accept your guesses, I'm no better off. I've just traded one logical inconsistency for another. 
 
Umm, except the ones I stated, which you've so far only offered to swap for new ones.
 
3. And as for you "innocent until proven guilty" approach, just how much information does a story have to leave out before you consider it bad writing?

1. The main resistance was shepard. They killed shepard before starting. And remember, we don't know everything about the reapers. Maybe there was a reason for not pushing things back, be it practical or otherwise. Maybe Harby was impatient-he does kind of have a god complex. At any rate this issue is much smaller then what we started out with, and ME1 had similar issues. Hell, look at star wars; the emporer doesn't have to go to the death star. But he does it because he can't fanthom defeat; he's arrogant, and with reason. Is that a plot hole? Harby has it even worse then the emporer. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

2. How are my guesses a plot hole? For one, you only took issue with one part among many. And I'm not swapping it out for something entirely new; I'm reading between the lines of what's there. For instance we know humans killed a reaper. We know the reapers tried to make humans into a reaper. We know the reapers think this fate is "salvation." Add 2 and 2. This isn't completely random speculation. It's logic.

3. I have never denied that ME2 had bad writing. The point is I don't see how ME2's flaws are substantially worse then those in ME1, and I don't see how the flaws in ME1 are bad enough to give me an objective imperative to stop enjoying the story. And I especially don't see how the HR has that much bad writing at all, certainatly not as much as you insist it does. As for innocent until proven guilty, well, I challenge you to take any story as guilty (ie nonsensical) until proven innocent beyond all reasonable doubt, as you seem to be doing now, and try to enjoy it. Take the ending of return of the jedi. First word: Ewoks. Second word: Emperor. Apply your attitude there and see how it goes. Oh, or you could test it on this; ME1.

Is assuming "innocent first" technically a bias? Sure, but I think it's a fair one to make. Otherwise I can't enjoy anything. Suspension of disbelief is another phrase. You seemed eager enough to do this for ME1, so what's the big difference? Especially concerning the HR. Your arguments seem fickle to me and only work with the "guilty first" mentality.

onelifecrisis wrote...

1. Really I just didn't know what to say to that. It's my fault? Okay, whatever.

2. I assumed this was a concession.

3. In other words, it's either redundant or more foreshadowing.

4. After that you went on to talk about DLC and, honestly, I didn't even read that. Really, if a game's plot is such a mess that DLC is actually required to make sense of it then I've pretty much won the argument AFAIC.

5. Hmm. Convenient how anything that supports your argument, no matter how deeply buried in dialgue trees it is, counts as a plot development, but something that supports mine is something that was "just mentioned". Kinda like the way that plot defenders like yourself tend to hate being told that a story should or should not be told a certain way (e.g. killing the protagonist at the start of act 2 is bad writing) and then claim that the second part of a trilogy "should be dark". That's why I didn't respond to this one.

6.You already know what I think of people defending one bad piece of the story with another. We've been there, so I left this one.

1. Aaaand you avoided my point. Many games leave plot information in optional areas; collectible intel, etc. It's not the dev's fault if you didn't find it. At any rate state so if you're confused by my statement.

2. It is.

3. It's both, and I talked about both. You're right, it had nothing directly to actually do with destroying the reapers. But it's still a plot development of some import.

4. The DLC helps explain exactly what the point of building an HR was. It was not directly confirmed in ME2, no. But it was implied.
 
In ME1 exactly why the reapers were trying to destroy the galaxy wasn't explained either, or how they were going to do it without the citadel. Is that a plot hole? Moreover, how is that substantially different from ME2?
 
You also seem to be edging back into the "it has to be explained now" territory, which is a terrible way to evaluate a series. Especially concerning the robot gods.

5. Hehe. Good one.
But what does this remind me of? Oh, that's right. It reminds me of how the plot attackers like to dig super deep and use implications to find any sort of possible contradiction they can find, but refuse to do so and insist on taking things on face value (not specifically said? Didn't happen!) whenever it suits their purposes, covering their ears and singing whenever someone points out the obvious explanation. Or say there's not one way to write  a sequel and then argue like there is. Or that they can make up stuff to inalidate the plot but nobody can do the opposite. Bias works both ways, you know. And before you say "but you're still biased too!" refer back to the first #3.

Also, I don't know about others but we can argue all day about how the second act of a trilogy might have been. My point when I say things like "it's a transition piece" or "it's supposed to be dark" (don't think I ever said that though) or "the villian's don't have to be explained now" I'm saying it works and has appeared in stories before. The existance alternate methods of storytelling, even if they might have worked, does not equate bad writing.
 
And you still conveniently forgot to adress my point about the revelation concerning the genophage in ME2, which definitley developed that plotline beyond what it was in ME1. Introduced in ME1, expanded in ME2. Simple. Unless you're trying to say tht the large amount of expositon about the genophage in ME2 is "deeply buried"?
 
So you didn't respond because you thought my argument was...weak? Okay...I thought that would have encouraged you.
 
6. And you know my response to that assertion. Also, the stories I've seen this in include classics. I'm not talking about more pulp entertainment.
 
If this is going to continue, should we switch to PMs? I'd rather keep full time plot hole discussion out of the thread.

Modifié par The Interloper, 16 octobre 2011 - 06:06 .

[staindgrey]

Il Divo wrote...

staindgrey wrote...


Also, side note: Not everyone hated the exact same things you hated, but I'm fairly certain NO ONE enjoyed spending the entire game in one city. That was my point.

More than that, I think the issue people had was that Kirkwall did not change at all in the seven years which Hawke spends there. NPCs are always in the same location, the city set-up never changes, and the city itself felt quite small, especially compared to Jade Empire's Imperial City or Mass Effect's Citadel. The city didn't come "alive" as Bioware intended, imo. The re-use of environments did not help either.

But otherwise, I agree with your post. I also find most arguments against the wheel to be incredibly weak, or rather they focus on all the wrong aspects. If the problem is "reading", it's because you chose not to read the responses, nothing else.

You know what I just realized?

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask did what DAII wanted to do, only way, way better. Like a decade before DAII was released.


...how have I never realized this? I'm ashamed.

[Il Divo]

staindgrey wrote...


You know what I just realized?

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask did what DAII wanted to do, only way, way better. Like a decade before DAII was released.


...how have I never realized this? I'm ashamed.

Hmm, probability was not on our side it seems. Of all the console Zelda releases, Majora's Mask is the only one I haven't played. But I do know about the city/3 day format. What about the game did you think it handled much better than DA2? 

[staindgrey]

Il Divo wrote...

Hmm, probability was not on our side it seems. Of all the console Zelda releases, Majora's Mask is the only one I haven't played. But I do know about the city/3 day format. What about the game did you think it handled much better than DA2? 

The idea expressed before-- that Bioware was hoping to make the city "come alive", but failed-- was actually achieved in MM. Each day feels completely separate from the ones before and after. Shopkeepers and citizens alike move. The person you need to see may be in the Inn at noon of Day 1, but he may also be in the Milk Bar after 10pm on Day 2. Or he may not even be in town on Day 3.

Every part of the city feels distinct with a different cast of characters and groups to encounter, and it's structured much like Kirkwall in that it has separate sections that you have to move between (north for "Hightown", west for "Darktown", etc.). But the citizens move between them; they don't just stand idly. The mail delivery guy will move along his route, and you can even follow him through the whole thing if you wish, and then hang out with him back at the post office at the end of his shift.

In short, the town came alive. As they approached oblivion, you actually felt it in their actions. People left town, or we could see their personality changing as they faced their fears. It was even reflected in the music, as it changed from Day 1-3 to relflect the overall mood.

Day 1: 
Day 3: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=IjXutKsizE8


In addition, though, despite the town being a huge focus of the game, there were still other areas outside of it that needed to be explored. The mountains, canyons, ocean and forest all felt new and original when you visited them-- the Wounded Coast, Sundermount and the Bone Pit paled in comparison. The only area outside of Kirkwall, sans-DLC, that had any real personality was the Deep Roads, and we only get to visit those at very specific points in the game.


Again, I can't believe I've never seen these similarities before. I'm ashamed to call myself a Zelda aficionado lol.

Modifié par staindgrey, 16 octobre 2011 - 06:47 .

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...


Considering how the Council tends to squeal any time someone mentions "Prothean Artifact", I'm fairly certain they would. 

Then tell me where are other prothean artifacts on the citadel other then the beacon...
Research Stations are the places for Prothean Artifacts.Not the heart of galactic politics.

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...


Then tell me where are other prothean artifacts on the citadel other then the beacon...
Research Stations are the places for Prothean Artifacts.Not the heart of galactic politics.

Research station and heart of galactic politics are not mutually exclusive, especially considering the nature of the Citadel. I find it rather funny that given the implications of Saren's "discovering" Sovereign that the Council wouldn't see fit to examine it at some point, or send top experts in the field to deal with, at which point we can see the Indoctrination issue take hold. .

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 07:12 .

[JeffZero]

staindgrey wrote...
Again, I can't believe I've never seen these similarities before. I'm ashamed to call myself a Zelda aficionado lol.

I actually haven't played DA2 but the thought did occur to me based on the way Majora's Mask handled its denizens and atmosphere. Lovely concept.

[tonnactus]

Thompson family wrote...

Nice try at changing the subjet, tonnactus, but the argument you made was that DA:O had better sales than ME2, which was barely true.

Funny how you disrespect your own criteria now. Combined with Ps3 sales Dragon Age sold more copies then MAss Effect ,not only barely more anyway.

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...
I find it rather funny that given the implications of Saren's "discovering" Sovereign that the Council wouldn't see fit to examine it at some point, or send top experts in the field to deal with, at which point we can see the Indoctrination issue take hold. .

First Saren had to explain how he actually find it and learn to control it...(its not done with see what a nice thing i found)
Then a lot of top field experts would know how Protean Ships looked and worked the sovereign have nothing in common with them.(and some ai-experts would figure out very fast what the ship is/ indoctrination took weeks at least)

Then reapers want to stay hidden like mentioned in the first game until they strike.

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...


First Saren had to explain how he actually find it and learn to control it...(its not done with see what a nice thing i found)

It's a space ship, you control it like a space ship. Honestly, you're insulting Saren if you think he's not intelligent enough to devise an explanation for this. Or, he can simply tell them the exact method he found Sovereign.

Then a lot of top field experts would know how Protean Ships looked and worked the sovereign have nothing in common with them.(and some ai-experts would figure out very fast what the ship is/ indoctrination took weeks at least)

Then reapers want to stay hidden like mentioned in the first game until they strike.

It took significantly shorter for the Cerberus infiltration team in ME2. And as Saren demonstrates, indoctrination can be subtle to the point where you are not aware of it. The only advantage he had in that scenario was that he was aware of what indoctrination was, which any expert in the field couldn't know.

[onelifecrisis]

@The Interloper

"The main resistance was shepard. They killed shepard before starting."
Very weak.

"You're making a mountain out of a molehill."
You do that a lot when you're cornered. Wave a hand and dismiss it as a molehill. Normally I'd stop debating at that point, but you said that it confuses you when I do that so I'm explaining right here in plain english that you've lost this point.

Also, as an aside, when you pile enough molehills on top of each other you get a mountain. ME2's central plot isn't a plot with holes, it's just a bunch of holes and nothing else.

First Cerberus resurrect Shepard, which makes no sense.
Then Shepard agrees to work for Cerberus, which makes no sense.
Then the council refuse to believe in reapers, which makes no sense.
Then Shepard starts recruiting badasses, which makes no sense.
Then Shepard meets the VS, and they make no sense.
Then he meets Liara, and she makes no sense either.

That's the first half of the plot of ME2.

"How are my guesses a plot hole? For one, you only took issue with one part among many."
Yeah - the part that made no sense.

"It's logic."
When logic leads you to a contradiction, it means that your original assumptions were wrong. That's logic 101.

"I have never denied that ME2 had bad writing. The point is I don't see how ME2's flaws are substantially worse then those in ME1"
I disagree. I didn't notice a lot of plot holes in ME1. Some bad writing, sure, but not too many plot holes. Certainly not enough molehills to make a mountain.


"In ME1 exactly why the reapers were trying to destroy the galaxy wasn't explained either, or how they were going to do it without the citadel. Is that a plot hole? Moreover, how is that substantially different from ME2?"
In ME1 the main plot was about stopping Saren. You don't even find out that Sovereign is a reaper until near the end, and even then your main objective (stopping Saren) remains unchanged. It's true that little is explained about the reapers, but what little information you do get doesn't create any holes in the main plot. By the time you start ME2 the main plot has changed, as explicitly stated by Shepard at the end of ME1: "The reapers are coming, and I'm going to find a way to stop them."

"It reminds me of how the plot attackers like to dig super deep and use implications to find any sort of possible contradiction they can find"
Both sides dig as deep as is necessary to try to make sense of the plot. The fact that both sides do tend to dig very deep and, more often than not, still not manage to make any sense of the story, speaks volumes about the quality of the writing.



"...but refuse to do so and insist on taking things on face value (not specifically said? Didn't happen!) whenever it suits their purposes, covering their ears and singing whenever someone points out the obvious explanation. Or say there's not one way to write  a sequel and then argue like there is. Or that they can make up stuff to inalidate the plot but nobody can do the opposite. Bias works both ways, you know. And before you say "but you're still biased too!" refer back to the first #3."
Hey, ranting is my job. Yours is to be annoying.


"And you still conveniently forgot to adress my point about the revelation concerning the genophage in ME2, which definitley developed that plotline beyond what it was in ME1. Introduced in ME1, expanded in ME2. Simple. Unless you're trying to say tht the large amount of expositon about the genophage in ME2 is "deeply buried"?"
How is it developed? You said that we learned that the genophage can be undone but this doesn't strike me as much of a revelation. We already have genetic engineering in today's technology. IMO most of the genophage stuff in ME2 centered around Mordin and his personal struggle with it, which was really great and enjoyable stuff, but it really does nothing whatsoever to advance the main plot. And before you put any words in my mouth, I'm not saying that everything should advance the main plot, I'm just saying that something should. And This is not an example of one of those things.

"If this is going to continue, should we switch to PMs? I'd rather keep full time plot hole discussion out of the thread."
You already know I'm happy to respond to PMs. Send, and you shall receive.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 16 octobre 2011 - 08:13 .

[tonnactus]

Il Divo wrote...


It's a space ship, you control it like a space ship.

This is silly. To know how silly this is its enough to look at modern airplane cockpits compared with the ones 50 years ago.

Honestly, you're insulting Saren if you think he's not intelligent enough to devise an explanation for this.

Its doesnt matter how intelligent he is.Other not dumber then himself and beeing actually scientists and not soldiers would found a lot of discrepance in his explanations he wouldnt even be aware of.

It took significantly shorter for the Cerberus infiltration team in ME2.

There were inside the reaper all time.No reason a citadel research team would do something comparable stupid to this.(alone for the fact that wouldnt hide the ship from others)

Modifié par tonnactus, 16 octobre 2011 - 08:06 .

[Il Divo]

tonnactus wrote...

This is silly. To know how silly this is its enough to look at modern airplane cockpits compared with the ones 50 years ago.

Or actually provide a coherent counter-argument. Your post makes the mistake of implying that Saren has no way of prepping this deception. He can put as much thought into it as he would recruiting the Geth for an unnecessary war against the Citadel.

Its doesnt matter how intelligent he is.Other not dumber then himself and beeing actually scientists and not soldiers would found a lot of discrepance in his explanations he wouldnt even be aware of.

"Hey! I found this ship in the middle of nowhere!" has discrepancies in it? Sounds like you're desperate for discrepancies. It's about as credible as the beacon unearthed on Eden Prime.

There were inside the reaper all time.No reason a citadel research team would do something comparable stupid to this.(alone for the fact that wouldnt hide the ship from others)

No reason a citadel research team would perform actual research aboard the ship their studying? Sounds like you're reasoning backwards. Sovereign's a Reaper, ergo the researchers should avoid it. Unfortunately, logic doesn't work like that.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 octobre 2011 - 09:06 .

[Thompson family]

tonnactus wrote...


Funny how you disrespect your own criteria now. Combined with PS3 sales Dragon Age sold more copies then Mass Effect ,not only barely more anyway.

You have a point, but it was an honest mistake, tonnactus. The reason I didn't add the DA:0 PS3 figures in was an error on my part. I did not know there was a PS3 version. So I compared just Xbox 360 and PC sales.

Therefore, DA:0 sold 3.9million all-platform copies. ME2 sold 3.3m, on all platforms, an 18 percent difference.

But correct me if I'm wrong, tonnacuts, but did the DA:O PS3 release run simultaneously with the Xbox 360 release? ME3 was ported months later, and you still can't play ME1 on the Sony system. Therefore, even you have to admit those factors had more than enough sales impact to account for much, if not all, of the difference between the two.

Xbox 360 users choose between those two games by only 5 percent -- but PS3 owners prefer fantasy to space opera by 2-to-1? That makes no sense at all.

Modifié par Thompson family, 16 octobre 2011 - 09:56 .

[Gatt9]

Thompson family wrote...

tonnactus wrote...


Funny how you disrespect your own criteria now. Combined with PS3 sales Dragon Age sold more copies then Mass Effect ,not only barely more anyway.

You have a point, but it was an honest mistake, tonnactus. The reason I didn't add the DA:0 PS3 figures in was an error on my part. I did not know there was a PS3 version. So I compared just Xbox 360 and PC sales.

Therefore, DA:0 sold 3.9million all-platform copies. ME2 sold 3.3m, on all platforms, an 18 percent difference.

But correct me if I'm wrong, tonnacuts, but did the DA:O PS3 release run simultaneously with the Xbox 360 release? ME3 was ported months later, and you still can't play ME1 on the Sony system. Therefore, even you have to admit those factors had more than enough sales impact to account for much, if not all, of the difference between the two.

Xbox 360 users choose between those two games by only 5 percent -- but PS3 owners prefer fantasy to space opera by 2-to-1? That makes no sense at all.

DAO was day & date on PS3,  ME2 was months later and had the issue of being the second entry in the series without the first available on the platform.

You'd probably see a narrower margin,  but I question how much narrower,  if ME2 had been treated as ME was on the platform.  There's an enourmous number of problems with the PS3 installed base numbers,  not the least of which is that a sizeable portion of it's first year's sales were people buying it for the bluray because it was cheaper than a dedicated player,  and it never sees games.  I know that's what I did,  and I played a grand total of 4 games on it in the 5 years I had it before it died.. 

[Gatt9]

Reptillius wrote...

Actually there were other successful RPG's... D&D was just the best known of the medevil fantasy variety.

The Middle Earth game... also known as the Lord of the Rings RPG has been around for a long time. Seen a revival and a wider known audience thanks to the movies and reprint of the books.

Things like Mechwarrior also has a large influence on its own genre's of games though they got away from RPG's much quicker and you can still see their influences in some things today as another example.

Also of that time there were many games that were basic enough that they were using their own system but DnD had some generic enough ideas that you could claim things were stolen but that doesn't mean they necessarily were.

And I knew several that played a few CRPG's and barely knew what DnD was. I played all during those years. Much more avidly than I could ever do today.

The problem with the newest forms of D&D are they are basically pen and paper clones of MMO's. Just go look at say WoW or a couple of the other big MMO's right now. then look at the power layout and the choices in how you can power up your classes as you level if you don't believe me.

There is a lot of PnP Gaming going on that we aren't necessarily seeing but that isn't really necessarily what companies have a desire to make anymore.

DAII doesn't share as much with an MMO as many would like to claim. But I don't have the days worth of picking apart arguments it would take to explain how that is actually true at this point. But for starters. Most MMO's are rather free roam. Many to the point that you can wander in and out of at least some of the random buildings.

You're absolutely right about D&D,  and I believe that to be part of the problem with the issue of "People who hate RPGs but want to claim they're RPG players".

D&D4 was an attempt to do exactly what DA2,  ME2,  and anything by Bethseda  tried to do,  remove all those icky RPG elements and put in non-stop action in it's place.  They commited the same cardinal sin that thsoe other games did,  tossed out all the lore,  all the checks and balances,  and made all character's near-identical in terms of potential rather than D&D's existing system of risk and trade-offs.

Which promptly split the market,  and effectively made D&D a non-factor.  No developer is really interested in designing a game that would come with a substantial number of people who hate it because of 4th edition.  This then gets us a bunch of people,  roughly 20 and under,  who have little to no experience playing PnP RPG's because D&D shot itself in the foot,  and have never seen a D&D CRPG.

So Bethseda wanders around going "This is what RPGs are now!" while trying to sell their latest adventure game,  and people actually buy into it because they've never actually played an RPG.  The herd mentality is really strong with video gaming for some odd reason,  as is idol worship.  Watch when a Developer does an interview,  he'll use a meaningless buzzword,  and suddenly half of the message board will repeat it twice per post as an arguement,  never realizing it's meaningless.  "Immersive!",  "Cinematic!",  (And usually as they hand us a clone of some other game) "Revolutionary/Evolutionary!".  So it's no small surprise that if some Developer makes a claim,  a ton of people jump on board.

It's gotten so pervasive that Normal even claims to be an RPG Player,  but doesn't know enough to realize that her pictures are of a beginner set and she's got the wrong dice.  To put this in perspective,  it's like trying to publicly claim you're an avid street racer while using pictures of a stock Geo Metro.

Things are changing though.  DA2 was recognized for what it was.  D&D's about to make a huge resurgence,  very closely tied insiders are stating 5th edition is on it's way,  and that's what Cooke was hired for.  Rumors are that the announcement was cancelled at the last moment at Gen-con.

[FedericoV]

Gatt9 wrote...
Things are changing though.  DA2 was recognized for what it was.  D&D's about to make a huge resurgence,  very closely tied insiders are stating 5th edition is on it's way,  and that's what Cooke was hired for.  Rumors are that the announcement was cancelled at the last moment at Gen-con.

Imho, you are making a lot of proofless assumption in your post. I hope too in a D&D resurgence (for the sake of variety in the CRPG genre and because I like party based tactical games) but DA2 was not "recognized for what it was" if you mean that players criticized it for the lack of old school RPG feature.

DA:O too lacked a lot of old school feature and mechanically was closer to Diablo 2 and WoW than D&D but no one questioned the result. The nature of DA2 gameplay is flawed, but what most people have complained about is the poor execution/production value of the game and the linear storytelling.

The games/events that have changed everything in the RPG genre are Diablo 2 and the MMO phenomenon that culminated in World of Warcraft. D&D 4 was flawed because it tried to appeal MMO players using their conventions without consideration for the fact that pen and paper players search different kind of experiences, I agree.

But the analysis at the base of the whole operation was right: WoW is the D&D of our times and no Monte Cook will be able to change that, sadly. A more classic 5th edition will only reinvigorate the old and existing fanbase and recover the players who shifted to Pathfinder but I doubt that it will be able to break the MMO monopoly on the RP world.

Modifié par FedericoV, 17 octobre 2011 - 07:43 .

[Brenon Holmes]

General discussion about RPGs can be taken to the Off Topic forum, specific discussion about DA can be taken to that forum... discussion about ME1 and ME2... etc. You know the drill.