1306 réponses à ce sujet

[wsandista]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Well now here is a question then. Did anyone here play A Game of Thrones by Cyanide Studios?

The reason I ask is because the combat and RPG mechanics are a throwback of sorts to that type of game Origns was. But, the game is not that good. 

So, is it really a winning formula, or is Dragon Age just an exception to the rule regarding its mechanics, which, like it or not, are fairly archaic by modern standards? That, if you ask me, is a more important question.

Also, regardless of sales in this case, Dragon Age is not going anywhere. This is a multimedia franchise now, not just a game series. Even if the sales tank, the games will still come out, like Final Fantasy. So again, it becomes an exception to the rule because the comics, the novels, hell the anime, are all proof of its own success. 

How exactly are they the same formula? From the combat trailer I saw, the GoT RPG looks little like DAO, or any RTwP rpg.

Modifié par wsandista, 05 juin 2012 - 03:59 .

[wsandista]

Filament wrote...

I could infer a bunch of things. The product that people are buying is a lot more than just the game itself. It's EA. It's BioWare. It's all the hype surrounding the game and the backlash against it. It's backlash against perceived industry collusion. It's expectations. DAO had years and years of hype and a different set of expectations, and there's also the simple caprices of the market.

What different expectations were those exactly? I was expecting an excellent RPG that I've expected from Bioware since 2003. If I am not mistaken, Dragon Age was marketed as the "spiritual successor" to Baldur's Gate. That is what I expected from both games, DAO pleased me, while DA2 did not. My expectations did not change, the product did.

So when people say the numbers are simply an indictment of the game itself, that ignores a huge amount of factors that affect the purchase of a game that have nothing to do with the quality of the game itself. I should think these factors are especially significant when we're talking about sales figures, which depend chiefly on people's perception of the game without having actually played it themselves. (granted, there was a demo) But even as far as reviews are concerned, these 'meta' factors still play a role.

Sales figures do determine how viable a product is, and low sales are an indictment of a product. If a product does not sell as well as a previous product marketed to the same audience, then something must be wrong with it. Look at DAO sales, they were much higher in the weeks after release than DA2, why do you think that is?

The game itself has separate issues. It's rushed. It makes a lot of departures from the original. It has a nontraditional storyline. Even if we ignore all other factors and accept the premise that "people bought DA2 less because they judged the game itself to be worse," we still have to be more specific. In what way? Some have assumed it's because of the departures from the original. But which ones? All of them? Different people have different things they were and weren't okay with, we can't really treat them as a monolith. And how do we know it's not because those departures simply weren't executed well? That's what a lot of detractors on these boards themselves will argue. And how much of the backlash rested solely on the perception of it being a rushed, underfunded cash-in off a successful title? How much is simply a judgment of overall quality and not based on any individual departure from the original?

Why did the DA2 expansion(or DLC not really sure) Exalted March get cancelled? Why does it look like there will be no Ultimate Edition to be sold? Judging from data available, it is because DA2 is simply not believed to be commercially viable to warrant further investment. Whether this stems from implementation or the idea itself differs from person to person, I assumed that this topic was created to discuss exactly "what went wrong". I seriously doubt most who purchased either DA stop buy here to provide input the sample size is much more limited, especially when it seems like most individuals here seem to be the most partisan of their general group(This applies to me).

The numbers don't seem to answer any of these questions. They only tell us that, all things considered, people didn't buy DA2 as much as they did DAO. Though if I had to guess with no evidence to back myself up, I would say all of the factors I listed played some role, to what extent I don't know.

This is what this thread is for, to discuss exactly what went wrong with DA2. DA3 will only get adequate funding if it is believed to be commercially viable. If not, the IP is either discarded or licensed/sold to someone else. I don't really think anyone spending there free time posting on BSN wants DA to fail(I sure as hell don't), I mean, if you dislike the series why even waste your time talking about it. My point is that unless DA3 looks commercially viable, it will either get inadequate funding or not be made at all, part of determining the commercial viability of DA3 is to deduce where the general discontent with DA2 stems from and what most would like DA3 to be like.

Sorry if this rambles on, I'm quite tired now.

Modifié par wsandista, 05 juin 2012 - 04:50 .

[hussey 92]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Also, regardless of sales in this case, Dragon Age is not going anywhere. This is a multimedia franchise now, not just a game series. Even if the sales tank, the games will still come out, like Final Fantasy. So again, it becomes an exception to the rule because the comics, the novels, hell the anime, are all proof of its own success. 

I believe DA2's expansion was cancelled do to the declining sales of DA2.  So sales can have a big effect on even multimedia franchises.  

Also alot of people consider the Dragon Age franchise to only be good for one game (Origins).  So DA3 will determine how good of a franchise Dragon Age really is.
 

Modifié par hussey 92, 05 juin 2012 - 04:47 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Well now here is a question then. Did anyone here play A Game of Thrones by Cyanide Studios?

I don't.

LinksOcarina wrote...

The reason I ask is because the combat and RPG mechanics are a throwback of sorts to that type of game Origns was. But, the game is not that good.

Ah I see. Just as I suspected.

LinksOcarina wrote...


So, is it really a winning formula, or is Dragon Age just an exception to the rule regarding its mechanics, which, like it or not, are fairly archaic by modern standards? That, if you ask me, is a more important question.

I don't play The Game of Throne. I'm not impressed and I'm not interested to play it. Solely based on Trailers and Review. Mind you the reviews are positive.

I think what constitue DAO uniqueness compare to The Game of Throne is BioWare's own reputation and fanbase. I was a Neverwinter Nights fan so BioWare's name isn't something new to me. If you ask me, I bought DAO after a year after it was release. So product awareness it also one of the factors which could contribute to why DAO wasn't a smash hit after release compared to Sykrim or ME 3 or even DA 2. There wasn't much hype about DA O on the net. But then again I was into strategy games and modding more than RPG, since RPG beside JRPG was a big flop to me. I only came across DAO, one year later, when I search for Neverwinter Night 3 and Mods. But it was modding community that drive me to purchase DAO. So mod is another factor that explain DAO slow growth in sales and still sell today. It's a minor factor but still a decisive factor that keep DAO's name on the radar, among modding community, at least. And advantage that fully utilized by TES series - Over 2 millions total downloads recorded at Skyrim Nexus alone. And if you combined those figures with Steam downloads, that figure could easily beat any top selling games that BioWare have ever produce. 

But in the end, I think what makes The Game of Throne popular despite being "a bad game" is marketing, overhyped reviews and different expectation - which DA 2  fail to compete with - probably due to backlash it received. 

LinksOcarina wrote...



Also, regardless of sales in this case, Dragon Age is not going anywhere. This is a multimedia franchise now, not just a game series. Even if the sales tank, the games will still come out, like Final Fantasy. So again, it becomes an exception to the rule because the comics, the novels, hell the anime, are all proof of its own success. 

I don't buy non-game material. But I tend to think those comics, the novels, anime etc.. depend largely on the success of DA games itself and BioWare's reputation. It will tank too if DA franchise still flop in the future. So it's not a safe bet unless those comics, novels etc become a phenomenon - and I doubt that would happen.

Just my 2 cent. . 

[batlin]

MissOuJ wrote...

For the love of... NO. I use tactical menu almost obsessively, even on the lower difficulties. If I hadn't figured that out I'd probably not have been able to beat the game at all. And it's not just in combat: just picking up plot items when there are several "clickables" nearby (companions, merchants etc) is problematic

It must just be the ps3 version, because with the 360 I only had targeting issues when there's a selectable thing that isn't apparent on the screen, like a secret button on a statue.

Impossible to know: haven't tried it on PC

If you're being honest about your only complaints with DA:O being the control, character movement, and selecting objects, yes, I can guarantee you will have liked the PC version more.

In DA2 I love messing around with the builds, trying to find new party builds to try out and bid against the next gang boss who tries to ambush me

DA2's possible party builds are faaaar more limited than DA:O's were because 1) party members can only use one type of weapon 2) they can't wear different armor and 3) they only get one specialization.

You say that like it's an objective, quantifiable truth. Newsflash - it isn't. I am bored with the classical hero's journey style power fantasy protagonists - you might not be. I actually like the way Hawke is presented and how his/her story unfolds: the whole Kirkwall incident is the metaphorical perfect storm and s/he is the eye of the hurricane. I don't mind the railroading in DA2, just like I don't really mind it in DA:O either. If I did, I'd be playing Skyrim (or not, apparently its PS3 port had some serious technical issues as well). I love how the personal tragedies Hawke goes through shape him/her (in my mind if not directly in the game world - roleplaying here), how the slow boil finally comes to head and how it all plays out in the end. Playing DA2 is a bit like watching a game of Jenga: the situation starts to crumble, one block at the time, until it all comes crashing down. I find it absolutely facinating in an "how do the puzzle pieces fit" kind of way. It's an absolutely subjective opinnion, but that doesn't make it wrong or any less true or valid than yours.

That's subjective, yes, but the episodic and disjointed nature of the story, the lack of buildup to the events of act 3, Hawke's passive and reactionary nature, etc are not. Also? The rags-to-riches, oppressors vs. oppressee story has been done to death as well as the hero's journey has.

I know many people have actually said this already, but sales only indicate how many individual copies were sold. I'd imagine used sales, for example, aren't included. Second, the graph cannot in any way, shape or form include the amount of people who bought DA:O but didn't like it and so didn't buy DA2. The best you can get out of this metric data of yours regarding to which people prefered more, DA:O or DA2, is speculation. You also make baseless assumptions, such as that all people have played both games all the way through to even make that judgement, or that all people who played DA2 also played DA:O and vice versa.

No. We have two products, ceterus paribus. One sells more than the other. The only conclusion is that people liked that one more than they liked the other. This is not a philosophical debate. This is the reason Bioware scrapped the Exalted March DLC and no stores are interested in carrying the Ultimate Edition: people will not buy them, because they do not want them. At least, not nearly enough will buy to turn a profit from them. And yes, used sales are not taken into account, but guess what? Used sales almost always follow the trend of the new sales. If a game is really popular new, lots of people will buy it used. If a game isn't that popular. less people will buy it used. Unless you want to provide some information that would suggest that these sales are somehow different from the norm of how sales work, you have no argument here. I know you really want the general public to agree with you that DA2 isn't a disappointment, but all signs point to most people thinking DA2 is indeed a disappointment. Just be honest with yourself here.

Modifié par batlin, 05 juin 2012 - 07:13 .

[wsandista]

batlin wrote...

No. We have two products, ceterus paribus. One sells more than the other. The only conclusion is that people liked that one more than they liked the other. This is not a philosophical debate. This is the reason Bioware scrapped the Exalted March DLC and no stores are interested in carrying the Ultimate Edition: people will not buy them, because they do not want them. At least, not nearly enough will buy to turn a profit from them. And yes, used sales are not taken into account, but guess what? Used sales almost always follow the trend of the new sales. If a game is really popular new, lots of people will buy it used. If a game isn't that popular. less people will buy it used. Unless you want to provide some information that would suggest that these sales are somehow different from the norm of how sales work, you have no argument here. I know you really want the general public to agree with you that DA2 isn't a disappointment, but all signs point to most people thinking DA2 is indeed a disappointment. Just be honest with yourself here.

I agree with what you've been saying sir, but I have to point out that used sales generally mean that someone didn't feel a product was worth keeping so they returned it or sold it. So higher used sales can be interpreted as a negative, rather than a positive, especially if the market for used copies is flooded.

[TEWR]

batlin wrote...

3) they only get one specialization.

Arguable for some. Merrill has both Blood Mage and Keeper elements put into one tree. Anders has Spirit Healer and you could say a new one (Abomination). Fenris has abilities reminiscent of Templar/Spirit Warrior and Berserker. Fitting really, based on who they are as characters.

It's only true for some characters, like Aveline, Varric, Isabela. They have Guardian, Bard, and Duelist respectively and that's it. Again fitting, given that's all they've ever tried to be.

Bethany and Carver are stuck with one spec too, but it's due more to it being their profession really. Well, Carver anyway. Bethany's isn't so much a profession, but I think it still applies.

I'm not disagreeing with your point though that party builds are more limited in comparison to DAO -- I don't see any reason to disagree with your point, based on my DAII experience -- but #3 isn't a complete factor as to why that's so.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 juin 2012 - 05:46 .

[batlin]

robertthebard wrote...

Lower sales may indeed be telling, but when reasons for lower sales are requested, what do you respond with?  Oh yeah, stuff like this, which people that didn't buy the game didn't see, couldn't see, since they came from different games, of course, your position is that the lower detailed pic is better, right?

No, I said the higher-detailed pic is better. The higher-detailed pic, meaning the one with more polygons, is DA:O's hurlock.

I guess my response, instead of being diplomatic about your choices here should have been:  Do you need to borrow my glasses, so that you can see the examples you provided here sucked to "prove your point".  The reason half your posts get ignored by me is that you didn't have a point.

Why do the examples suck? Both are in-game rendered cutscenes of hurlocks. Tell me, what side-by-side comparisons WOULD you prefer? This one?

https://encrypted-tb...0gwF_Iw4ZAhutpwhttps://encrypted-tb...p3BFso8Xq8g1luA

Or how about this one?



I can find more if you want

So your point here is that, put quite simply, the only reason people didn't like the game is just because?  You do allude to bad press being the reason, but vehemently deny one source of bad press.  Again, you have no point, it's either agree with you, or tolerate walls of text with things like this to support "People didn't like it, for no apparent reason, other than stuff in game they couldn't have seen:

Have you been ignoring every post of mine for the past 39 pages? I have explained a PLETHORA of reasons people would not like like this game. And because those people did not like the game, likely for many of the reasons I and many, many others on this board have posted, told others that this game isn't good.

I really love this strawman.

Joo keep using dat whord. I do not think it means what joo think it means.

A website that set out to prove a point, proved it, and of course my response to this graph got the brush off, since the logic was too much for the "they didn't buy it because they didn't like it" arguement.  Now, bring something to the table that shows where potential customers said the reason they didn't buy it was because they didn't like it as opposed to they didn't like what they were reading in whatever mediums, which would include these forums, and then we have a basis to discuss from.  So far, sales numbers meaning people that never played the game didn't like it is debunked by the simple fact that I didn't buy it until a few weeks ago, and I didn't buy because of bad press, and I regret the decision.  Now, unless you're going to tell me that I don't know what I do or don't like, you really have no point to respond to.  I really hope this is clear.

Yeah, I get it, you're saying that people who haven't bought the game can't know if they'd like it. This was never a point I made. I said a lot of people didn't buy it because many of those that did buy it did not like it. Big difference.

You seem to be under the impression that this means that there's probably a lot of people who didn't buy the game that may actually have liked it had it not been for the game's bad rap. And you'd be right. However in repsonse to that I would say that in order for the game to get a bad rap to begin with, a huge number of people who DID buy the game did not like it and had they known what the game would have been like to begin with, they would not have bought it. This is why I say the only explanation for DA2's low sales is that there were simply more people that hated the game than those that didn't.

You also seem to be under the impression that a game getting a bad rap is inherently disingenuous. This too is false. For example, it's because of DA2 that I decided not to buy ME3 until reviews for it came out, and I'm really glad I did that. Because although I heard great things about the game overall, I also heard about how the ending was a massive disappointment. As a result, I gave the game a rent, and agreed completely with the outcry about the ending. Saved myself a net $50 thanks to a game's bad internet rap.

I'm not leaving this thread because you won an arguement on the internet.  I'm leaving this thread because you don't have any points to discuss.

I've made plenty of points, you just conveniently left more and more of them out in your responses to me because can't prove you're right and now finally you're backtracking because you no longer can deny that Hawke is objectively a worse protagonist than the Warden.

It's not like you didn't buy the game, you did.  After buying it, and at least loading it, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there, you didn't like it.  More power to you, I don't care what you do or do not like.  As I have said, repeatedly on these forums, and possibly even in this thread, too lazy to go look, this is not an MMO, and I don't have to worry about whether there's room for you on my ingame block list to keep from reading your constant whinging about the game.  If you are unhappy, go away.  It's far easier on everybody, instead of starting obvious, successful I might add, troll posts.

And here we have come full-circle. Yeah, tell me to leave the forums because I dare have issues with a game I paid $60 for. So no, I won't go away.

[batlin]

wsandista wrote...

I agree with what you've been saying sir, but I have to point out that used sales generally mean that someone didn't feel a product was worth keeping so they returned it or sold it. So higher used sales can be interpreted as a negative, rather than a positive, especially if the market for used copies is flooded.

True,but for any game there are returns no matter how good it is, and if a game is popular enough the used price will be higher than an unpopular used game, which changes the demand in response to the supply.

Thatbeing said, the demand for popular used games will still be higher than demand for unpopular used games, so it's still fair to say that used sales generally follow the trend of new sales.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Arguable for some. Merrill has both Blood Mage and Keeper elements put into one tree. Anders has Spirit Healer and you could say a new one (Abomination). Fenris has abilities reminiscent of Templar/Spirit Warrior and Berserker. Fitting really, based on who they are as characters.

It's only true for some characters, like Aveline, Varric, Isabela. They have Guardian, Bard, and Duelist respectively and that's it. Again fitting, given that's all they've ever tried to be.

Bethany and Carver are stuck with one spec too, but it's due more to it being their profession really. Well, Carver anyway. Bethany's isn't so much a profession, but I think it still applies.

I wouldn't say Anders' abomination mode counts as a whole new specialization, it's just one ability.

And yes they did seem to merge previous specializations into amalgams for Merril and Fenris, but even so they only get one skill tree for their specialization whereas before you would get two (Or three if you had Awakenings)

Modifié par batlin, 05 juin 2012 - 05:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

Actually the reason the Viscount calls for Hawkes aid is simple and quite clearly stated in the Dialogue, The Viscount had tried and failed numerous times to negotiate with the Arishok and failed part of His reasoning was due to Hawke's success at bringing back the viscount's son alive and unharmed but the main and most important reason was because and here's the punchline: The Arishok sent a letter to the Viscount asking for Hawke by name and only Hawke.This was due to Hawke eliminating that group of Tal-Vashoth a task the Arishok clearly stated he thought an outsider( i.e Non Qunari)would not be capable of therefore the Arishok began to respect Hawke as capable individual.

But there's still no choice there.  There's no action undertaken by Hawke that makes him exceptional.  He's chosen by the Arishok regardless of his past behaviour.

DA2 is no better than DAO in this regard.

[TEWR]

batlin wrote...

I wouldn't say Anders' abomination mode counts as a whole new specialization, it's just one ability.

And yes they did seem to merge previous specializations into amalgams for Merril and Fenris, but even so they only get one skill tree for their specialization whereas before you would get two (Or three if you had Awakenings)

But really, it all comes down to about the same number of points invested for those characters as it would for DAO. Or at least a similar amount.

It's one specialization in appearance for some companions. In actuality, it's two. And thus certain companions can have two specializations just as Origins did.

It's the same amount of points invested -- roughly if not an exact match -- for the same thing that Origins allowed.



Merrill's specialization is Keeper and Blood Mage put together, as I said. Now if we examine the tree itself in comparison to its DAO counterpart and in conjunction with Blood Mage, it comes down to the same amount of stuff.

 Wrath of the Elvhen is the equivalent of  One With Nature.  Both deal nature damage to the Keeper's foes.

 Arlathan's Grace (upgrade to WotE) is the equivalent and the enhanced form of  Thornblades. Both replenish the Keeper's health.

 Ensnare is basically another form of  Nature's Vengeance.

 Blood of the First is the same as  Blood Magic.

 Wounds of the Past and its associated upgrade are  Blood Control and Blood Wound, respectively. And in certain areas. Not exact, but enough of a similarity is present.

So again, the specializations for some companions are two in the guise of one. You still have two specializations for Merrill and Fenris.

Perhaps in future DA games, companion specializations should repeat this process. Two specializations in one tree, 3-4 talents/upgrades/whatever a piece.

There are some things, however, that I do draw issue with for the companions. The inability to equip other weapons for them, the inability to customize armor, Merrill's lack of a healing based tree that could be used on companions when it was stated as lore in DAO that she knew some of Marethari's healing arts, and a few other things.

Some of which you said earlier.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 juin 2012 - 06:26 .

[batlin]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

It's the same amount of points invested -- roughly if not an exact match -- for the same thing that Origins allowed.



Merrill's specialization is Keeper and Blood Mage put together, as I said. Now if we examine the tree itself in comparison to its DAO counterpart and in conjunction with Blood Mage, it comes down to the same amount of stuff.

Yes, it looks like the same amount of points can be invested as with two specializations, but then a couple of those are just extentions of already existing talents.

Although even if there were the same number of talents available to each party member as in DA:O, it would be better if we were at least given the ability to choose their other specialization.

[batlin]

On a side note, I believe I found the perfect comic that expresses my feeling toward this game

[TEWR]

I lol'd at the comic.

In case people can't see it because it's so small, here's the link:

It made me laugh, either because of what it's stating or because of what it is.

batlin wrote...

Although even if there were the same number of talents available to each party member as in DA:O, it would be better if we were at least given the ability to choose their other specialization.

Short of giving us two separate trees -- based on us picking what specialization it is -- with 8 talents per tree, I don't know how this could work.

Unless we have four talents associated with the companion's associated spec readily available and visible in their tree, and upon level up at a certain point we're given a prompt that asks which of the specializations available we'd like to pick.

But then you have to expend more resources to accomodate even more unique companion talents that reflect the specialization backing it.

Which while it would add replayability, it would possibly interfere with work in other areas. Combat, story, dialogue, etc.

And DAII suffered from horrifically unbalanced combat, a disjointed story which while it had great concepts, ultimately fell short on implementation, a poorly implemented (IMO) dialogue system, and etc. for the etc.

Those areas need more attention right now, if you ask me. Being able to choose the second specialization should be a later concern, if resources allow for it. Personally, I like the unique companion specializations, provided that they have two specializations in one and don't keep the PC from acquiring those specializations.

Mainly because I want Keeper, Ranger, Arcane Warrior, Battlemage, Spirit Warrior, etc. to return.

Now, there should be more recognition for the specializations the PC chooses. That's a fairly immediate concern.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 05 juin 2012 - 12:31 .

[batlin]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

And DAII suffered from horrifically unbalanced combat, a disjointed story which while it had great concepts, ultimately fell short on implementation, a poorly implemented (IMO) dialogue system, and etc. for the etc.

Those areas need more attention right now, if you ask me. Being able to choose the second specialization should be a later concern, if resources allow for it.

Now, there should be more recognition for the specializations the PC chooses. That's a fairly immediate concern.

Agreed. Also you can see the comic I posted in its large form by right clicking it -> view image

[Fisto The Sexbot]

According to Mike Laidlaw, we just can't understand the game.

[MissOuJ]

batlin wrote...

If you're being honest about your only complaints with DA:O being the control, character movement, and selecting objects, yes, I can guarantee you will have liked the PC version more.

How about you be honest about my complaints when quoting me and add to the lis "less engaging combat mechanics" and "less interesting story". I don' care if you don't agree with those complaints - they're my problems with the DA:O and just brushing them off and then telling me "if you were really honest with yourself, you'd agree wiht me DA:O is universally better - as long as you play it on the PC" is absolute, no excuse BS.

batlin wrote...
DA2's possible party builds are faaaar more limited than DA:O's were because 1) party members can only use one type of weapon 2) they can't wear different armor and 3) they only get one specialization.

Again, that might be the case, but you assume I have any motivation to mess up with party builds in DA:O. I don't, because I don't enjoy the combat and always choose an "all-starts" party so I can get through combat as quickly as possible, or drop the difficulty down to Casual, spam talents until everything's good and dead and choose those party members whose party banter and comments I actually like to listen to. In DA2 I play Nightmare just for the extra challenge (even though some people complain it's too easy - for me, it's just right), try to build my party so there's always a way for me to set up CCC's when I most need them. That's not me lying, that's me telling about why I play DA:O vs why I play DA2: I play DA:O because I enjoy the world and more DA universe = good in my book, whereas I play DA2 because I actually enjoy to play it, combat and all.

batlin wrote...
That's subjective, yes, but the episodic and disjointed nature of the story, the lack of buildup to the events of act 3, Hawke's passive and reactionary nature, etc are not. Also? The rags-to-riches, oppressors vs. oppressee story has been done to death as well as the hero's journey has.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I actually like the fact that Hawke's motives change as the years go by. First, to help out his/her mother and protect him/herself or his/her sister, s/he has to take part in the Deep Roads expedition and try to reclaim his/her mother's heritage. In Act 2 the Qunari problem is the main issue, and Hawke gets drawn into it because s/he helped out Javaris because Hawke needed the money to get to the Deep Roads. Act 3 sees him/her trapped into the political nightmare that's mage-templar relationships in Kirkwall, because after the events and climax of the 2nd Act s/he's the only one with the political power to actually weight in on the conversation, in addition to Orsino (if you'd call his desperate plea for recognition of human rights "weighting in on the conversation"), Meredith and Elthina.

This doesn't make him/her passive, it does make him Lady Luck's (or, like the trailer put it, Destiny's) fool. Also, Hawke's character development bears many similarities to Heroine's journey (starting from a position of minimum priviledge, working their way up so s/he can establish their goals in life, getting what s/he wants and being unwilling to part with it and the rammification that come from that ect.) story structure model, which is really rare in video games. There's so much more to DA2 than "from rags to riches" or the oppressee vs the oppressor (which doesn't even fit if Hawke isn't a mage). In DA:O there's pretty much nothing else to it than overcoming the obstacles to be able to destroy the dragon: it's functional enough, but nothing new.

We have two products, ceterus paribus. One sells more than the other. The only conclusion is that people liked that one more than they liked the other. This is not a philosophical debate. This is the reason Bioware scrapped the Exalted March DLC and no stores are interested in carrying the Ultimate Edition: people will not buy them, because they do not want them. At least, not nearly enough will buy to turn a profit from them. And yes, used sales are not taken into account, but guess what? Used sales almost always follow the trend of the new sales. If a game is really popular new, lots of people will buy it used. If a game isn't that popular. less people will buy it used [citation needed]. Unless you want to provide some information that would suggest that these sales are somehow different from the norm of how sales work, you have no argument here. I know you really want the general public to agree with you that DA2 isn't a disappointment, but all signs point to most people thinking DA2 is indeed a disappointment. Just be honest with yourself here.

First of all, I think the term you're looking is ceteris paribus, ie. "all else being equal", which isn't really true: just being a sequel to DA:O raised certain undeniable expectations of DA2 - I, for one, only bought DA2 because I love, love the IP (seriously, I've been known to spend ages just reading the codex entries) - and I was pleasantly surprised. And again, you're not including people who didn't enjoy DA:O and so they didn't buy DA2, which they might've otherwise enjoyed. Nor are you including people who believed word-to-mouth and later discovered they actually enjoyed DA2, nor people who are new to the franchise and bought DA2 used because they didn't want to spend any extra money if they happened to hate it. I know that'swhat I did with Origins - didn't know if I was going to love it or hate it, so I didn't buy it until a year after the release. So I have the argument here that you're working with incomplete data and with existing preconceptions you can't get past.

Also, "general public agree DA2 was a disappointment" is a pretty steep argument - you did a poll? How about I tell you about this one guy with whom I ended up talking with in my local games retailer when I was looking for the Awakening expansion: he said DA2 was bad, and I was like "really? I enjoyed it", and another customer chipped in that they thought DA2 wasn't really that bad and that they personally had enjoyed it. The first guy the admitted he hadn't even played the game through - he'd stopped somewhere along the Act 1 because of technical difficulties, which is as good a reason as any to put a game down and not finish it (I said as much myself with all the technical problems I had), but you can't really say "the whole game is ****, I know because I played through less than 1/3rd of it". After our recommendations he actually ended up saying he might give it another shot.

So does my anecdata triump your anecdata? Of course not, but If you're so bent on "objectively prooving" the superiority of DA:O you might want to check your data and your presuppositions(and seriously, the image source itself kinda gives it away) before you enter the conversation.

[eroeru]

jbrand2002uk wrote...


Heres my post to which you originally responded:

I would agree with whykikyyouwhy the only way you could present your assertion that a sales graph shows that DAO was prefered by most over DA2 would be a graph showing results of a "customer satisfaction survey" collated from every single user worldwide who bought both games and played them both to completion at least 3 times each(once per class).

Also you make the assumption that most of DA2's sales could be accounted for as sales to customers who bought and enjoyed DAO and it would be a safe bet to guess that I'm not the only one who bought DAO on release played it thoroughly and hated it threw it in the bin then bought DA2 on release absoloutley loved it and decided in hindsight to give DAO another chance.

Aah, you're right, that's a well-enough reasonable position. Sorry for deterring. 

Modifié par eroeru, 05 juin 2012 - 10:51 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

MissOuJ wrote...
Again, that might be the case, but you assume I have any motivation to mess up with party builds in DA:O. I don't, because I don't enjoy the combat and always choose an "all-starts" party so I can get through combat as quickly as possible, or drop the difficulty down to Casual, spam talents until everything's good and dead and choose those party members whose party banter and comments I actually like to listen to. In DA2 I play Nightmare just for the extra challenge (even though some people complain it's too easy - for me, it's just right), try to build my party so there's always a way for me to set up CCC's when I most need them. That's not me lying, that's me telling about why I play DA:O vs why I play DA2: I play DA:O because I enjoy the world and more DA universe = good in my book, whereas I play DA2 because I actually enjoy to play it, combat and all.

Then you shouldn't make such claim in the first place. Don't have motivation to try party build is not equal to party limitation. It's a false statement and people will response to it.

MissOuJ wrote...

You say that like it's a bad thing. I actually like the fact that Hawke's motives change as the years go by. First, to help out his/her mother and protect him/herself or his/her sister, s/he has to take part in the Deep Roads expedition and try to reclaim his/her mother's heritage. In Act 2 the Qunari problem is the main issue, and Hawke gets drawn into it because s/he helped out Javaris because Hawke needed the money to get to the Deep Roads. Act 3 sees him/her trapped into the political nightmare that's mage-templar relationships in Kirkwall, because after the events and climax of the 2nd Act s/he's the only one with the political power to actually weight in on the conversation, in addition to Orsino (if you'd call his desperate plea for recognition of human rights "weighting in on the conversation"), Meredith and Elthina.

This doesn't make him/her passive, it does make him Lady Luck's (or, like the trailer put it, Destiny's) fool.

More likely lady unlucky because everything then turn out "not" lucky. At any rate, I'd rather read your own motivation based on situation given than motivation that is the same with everyone's Hawke. 

MissOuJ wrote...
Also, Hawke's character development bears many similarities to Heroine's journey (starting from a position of minimum priviledge, working their way up so s/he can establish their goals in life, getting what s/he wants and being unwilling to part with it and the rammification that come from that ect.) story structure model, which is really rare in video games. There's so much more to DA2 than "from rags to riches" or the oppressee vs the oppressor (which doesn't even fit if Hawke isn't a mage). In DA:O there's pretty much nothing else to it than overcoming the obstacles to be able to destroy the dragon: it's functional enough, but nothing new.

Oh I would love to see such character develoment but the game just skip it "3 years later". Nothing much to see after treasure hunting - which is lame and cheap way - to explain sudden rise to power. Such a shame. I was expecting more detail and flesh out plot twist, conspirasy and power struggle from BioWare. Even the idea of betrayal is way too predictable, I actually welcome it  with a big smile. Doesn't affect me in sligthest except how amusing and amateur  the plot is. I mean come on. Most of us study Shakepears and read classics which detail on character development from socio-political aspect. Surely BioWare can do better than that.   

 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 05 juin 2012 - 09:40 .

[Melca36]

MissOuJ wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Hope you realize the developer have already said the combat for the next game would NOT be the same as DA:2s.

They said the speed will remain but it would be less stylized and have some elements from Origins return like tactics. Its not going to be hack and slash like it was for DA:2. I agree it was fun but after the 5th playthrough, it gets tedious.

Well, too bad. I'll have to check out the demo then when it comes out and see for myself if it's something I can get into or if they have changed it too much to my tastes. I still play DA:O, however, even with all the issues I'm having that I mentioned, because I just plain love the IP, so I probably wouldn't boycott, but I would be very dissapointed, nevertheless.

The fact is they lost a great deal of fans with DA:2.   They have to come up with a reasonable compromise to appeal to all fanbases and not just cater to one.

Not everyone likes Hack and slash, its just the way it is.

[batlin]

[quote]MissOuJ wrote...

\\How about you be honest about my complaints when quoting me and add to the lis "less engaging combat mechanics" and "less interesting story". I don' care if you don't agree with those complaints - they're my problems with the DA:O and just brushing them off and then telling me "if you were really honest with yourself, you'd agree wiht me DA:O is universally better - as long as you play it on the PC" is absolute, no excuse BS.[/quote]

Yeah, but AGAIN, my point was that the PC resolved all your problems with DA:O. The combat in DA:O can indeed be fast and furious but as you apparently couldn't even be bothered to explore all the facets of combat in DA:O you probably wouldn't have known that.

[quote]Again, that might be the case, but you assume I have any motivation to mess up with party builds in DA:O.[/quote]

That's fine, I'm just pointing out that that particular facet of DA2 you like is done better in DA:O.

[quote]You say that like it's a bad thing.[/quote]

When Varric is supposed to be telling Cassandra the relevant details about the mage/templar war? Yeah, it's a bad thing.

[quote]I actually like the fact that Hawke's motives change as the years go by. First, to help out his/her mother and protect him/herself or his/her sister, s/he has to take part in the Deep Roads expedition and try to reclaim his/her mother's heritage. In Act 2 the Qunari problem is the main issue, and Hawke gets drawn into it because s/he helped out Javaris because Hawke needed the money to get to the Deep Roads. Act 3 sees him/her trapped into the political nightmare that's mage-templar relationships in Kirkwall, because after the events and climax of the 2nd Act s/he's the only one with the political power to actually weight in on the conversation, in addition to Orsino (if you'd call his desperate plea for recognition of human rights "weighting in on the conversation"), Meredith and Elthina.[/quote]

Each act is only tied together by very very loose strands of events. The only relevant details in the game was where Hawke found the idol, how the idol wound up in Meredeth's hands, and how the war started. Nothing about Flemeth, nothing about the Deeproads, and nothing about the Qunari have anything to do with the information Cassandra wants. It exists just because.

[quote]This doesn't make him/her passive, it does make him Lady Luck's (or, like the trailer put it, Destiny's) fool.[/quote]

No, Destiny's Fool is when Romeo doesn't get the message that Juliet is only faking being dead. In the case of Hawke, s/he is too stupid to figure out that maybe a mage that had previously tried to blast a child into ashes may have some ill tidings in store for the Chantry.

[quote]Also, Hawke's character development bears many similarities to Heroine's journey (starting from a position of minimum priviledge, working their way up so s/he can establish their goals in life, getting what s/he wants and being unwilling to part with it and the rammification that come from that ect.) story structure model, which is really rare in video games.[/quote]

All you're doing here is expounding on the rags-to-riches and oppressors vs. the oppressed plot (and Hawke not being a mage does not make it any less a theme of the game). Let me do the same thing with DA:O: You play as a Human/Elf/Dwarf Nobleman/Mage/Dalish/Casteless who encounters a great tragedy and must join an order of warriors in order to escape their fate. You are forced into an even worse situation when the entire order of warriors is betrayed and you, along with fellow warden Alistair, are Ferelden's last hope for rallying a defense against the evil Blight, made all the more difficult because the one who betrayed your people has taken control of the lands and deemed you an enemy of the kingdom!

You see? There's a bit more to DA:O than "da hero's journey", but that doesn't make it any less so, same as how DA2 isn't any less a rags-to-riches plot. And by the way? Tons of games do that same plot. GTA, Harvest Moon, even Rock Band.

[quote]First of all, I think the term you're looking is ceteris paribus, ie. "all else being equal",[/quote]

Just because I mistyped one letter doesn't mean I don't know what it means, thanks.

[quote]which isn't really true: just being a sequel to DA:O raised certain undeniable expectations of DA2 - I, for one, only bought DA2 because I love, love the IP (seriously, I've been known to spend ages just reading the codex entries) - and I was pleasantly surprised. And again, you're not including people who didn't enjoy DA:O and so they didn't buy DA2,[/quote]

If any comparable amount of people hated DA:O than those that hated DA2, explain why they put out an Ultimate Edition with four campaign DLC (One of them being 20 hours long) for DA:O while they can't even put out two campaign DLC for DA2 and no distributor will bother to carry its UE?

[quote]Nor are you including people who believed word-to-mouth and later discovered they actually enjoyed DA2, nor people who are new to the franchise and bought DA2 used because they didn't want to spend any extra money if they happened to hate it. I know that'swhat I did with Origins[/quote]

Nor am I including all the people who bought the game week 1 who wound up hating the game and proceeded to express their hatred for it. I would say that number about balances out the amount you're claiming would have bought it had it not been for them.

[quote]Also, "general public agree DA2 was a disappointment" is a pretty steep argument - you did a poll?[/quote]

No, but these guys did

http://www.metacriti...c/dragon-age-ii

Only 417/1563 approve.

[quote]How about I tell you about this one guy with whom I ended up talking with in my local games retailer when I was looking for the Awakening expansion: he said DA2 was bad, and I was like "really? I enjoyed it", and another customer chipped in that they thought DA2 wasn't really that bad and that they personally had enjoyed it. The first guy the admitted he hadn't even played the game through - he'd stopped somewhere along the Act 1 because of technical difficulties, which is as good a reason as any to put a game down and not finish it (I said as much myself with all the technical problems I had), but you can't really say "the whole game is ****, I know because I played through less than 1/3rd of it". After our recommendations he actually ended up saying he might give it another shot. [/quote]

I played through the entire thing. I thought the game was meh by the time I beat the deeproads, and I thought the game was an utter failure by the time I got midway through act 2. I slogged through it with the faint hope that things would get better, but it never did. You're always forced into inaction, all the sidequests are boring, tedious fetch quests, once you beat Act 1 you have literally been everywhere in the game, and the plot never gets better. I don;t want you to take my experience as the rule, same as I will not take yours as the rule, but I have not yet seen a poll of more than 100 people where the general consensus was not that they liked DA2 less than DA:O.

If you can find one, I would definitely like to see it.

Modifié par batlin, 05 juin 2012 - 10:26 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

batlin wrote...

Also, "general public agree DA2 was a disappointment" is a pretty steep argument - you did a poll?

No, but these guys did

http://www.metacriti...c/dragon-age-ii

Only 417/1563 approve.

We have better sample size. Over 3145 voters
Only 10% or 324 out of 3145 people love DA 2 and find it a great game.

Survey Time

Poll by Frewazhere can be found here 
Make what you will and let me know what you think. I hate analyzing numbers.  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 05 juin 2012 - 11:14 .

[MissOuJ]

batlin wrote...

Yeah, but AGAIN, my point was that the PC resolved all your problems with DA:O. The combat in DA:O can indeed be fast and furious but as you apparently couldn't even be bothered to explore all the facets of combat in DA:O you probably wouldn't have known that.

What, with 3 mages and triple Haste? Doubt it. Also doesn't fix the issue of missing CCC's (and no, Shattering doesn't count), doesn't change the fact that the combat just plain looks boring, doesn't change the fact that I enjoy the DA2 story more. End of.

batlin wrote...

When Varric is supposed to be telling Cassandra the relevant details about the mage/templar war? Yeah, it's a bad thing.

Because explaining in detail how the Kirkwall property law works and questing around finding the right shade of silk for the curtains is so thrilling? Skipping ahead to the more relevant parts is what pacing is about. Just because you don't like episodic story telling doesn't mean other people won't enjoy it or that it is "objectively bad" way of story structuring.

batlin wrote...
Each act is only tied together by very very loose strands of events. The only relevant details in the game was where Hawke found the idol, how the idol wound up in Meredeth's hands, and how the war started. Nothing about Flemeth, nothing about the Deeproads, and nothing about the Qunari have anything to do with the information Cassandra wants. It exists just because.

I really fail to see how you can consider the strand of events loose. Qunari are important because that's how Hawke got his/her title - Cassandra even alludes she tought Hawke had planned it all out just to end up in a place of power. The mage oppression, which is strongly present in all acts - is really important regarding to the end game events. Have you just skipped half of the side quests and conversation options?

batlin wrote...
No, Destiny's Fool is when Romeo doesn't get the message that Juliet is only faking being dead. In the case of Hawke, s/he is too stupid to figure out that maybe a mage that had previously tried to blast a child into ashes may have some ill tidings in store for the Chantry.

Or, you know, s/he thinks 1) Anders has the situation under control because he's stopped fighting for mage rights after the incident (Anders codex entry Act 3), or 2) s/he doesn't want to put his/her friend/lover/companion in the hands of the Templars who have clearly abused people "in heir care", or 3) doesn't really have time to think about it, since s/he's busy with trying to keep the city falling on its *** any sooner than it needs to. You know, just my two cents.

batlin wrote...
Let me do the same thing with DA:O: You play as a Human/Elf/Dwarf Nobleman/Mage/Dalish/Casteless who encounters a great tragedy

The personal tragedy is pretty limited with almost everyone except HN, which is really heartbreaking, and Dalish, when you have to join the Wardens because you're tainted and leave your clan behing possibly for forever. Casteless gets what accounts to pretty much a promotion, DN hated pretty much both Bhalen and Trian and seems to be more broken up about losing his/her priviledged status than about anything else, CE gets pretty much a promotion as well (particularly if you're a male elf - for a female elf the situation is pretty much horrile all around). As a mage you get free "get out of the ****-up" card if you decided to help Jowain and a possibility to live outside the Circle etc.

"Personal tragedy" in these situations is nowhere near the scale of what Hawke goes through: s/he loses his/her home and sibling pretty much back-to-back right out of the gate (and it's even worse if Hawke a mage because Bethany and s/he are visibly really close), after which s/he is pretty much forced against his/her will to work as either a mercenary or a smuggler just to get his/her family into Kirkwall. After that s/he is faced with even more personal tragedy and hardships, and might just end up exactly as s/he started: a fugitive on the run. The emotional drama surrounding the main character in Origins isn't nearly as strong because you don't even really get to know your family and friends, nor do you spend time with them. I was actually a bit disappointed with my Cousland playthrough because after the first ~3 hours no one mentions your missing, presumed dead brother. I had almost forgotten about him altogether until I saw him in Alistair's coronation after the final battle. I don't feel anywhere near the same about Bryce as I feel about Leandra, nor about Fergus as I feel about Bethany, or even Carver.

batlin wrote...
Just because I mistyped one letter doesn't mean I don't know what it means, thanks.

Didn't quote the meaning because I thought you didn't know what it meant, but because I think using that term isn't valid in this case. Are you telling me DA:O and DA2 were in exactly the same positions, that the fact that DA2 was the sequel of DA:O didn't, in any way, have an effect on who bought DA2? Are you saying not one person who bought DA2 had any expectations of it (ie. it being like DA:O)? DA:O and DA2 were, in no way, on equal ground when they hit the shelves, which I personally think is one of the reasons for the overflowing negativity with some individuals. The fact is, DA2 is not a bad game just because it's not like Origins. There are plenty of worse games in existence, and I would argue there're also better games than DA:O in existence.

batlin wrote...

No, but these guys did

http://www.metacriti...c/dragon-age-ii

Only 417/1563 approve.

You do realise that's 1) Metacritic, and 2) really small sample size? Just the amount of people who answered is poll is less than 0.16% of the people who bought the game within 2 weeks of launch - not even including people who bought it later or bought it used. Calling this "general public opinnion" is a really big strech. Also, the game has generally favourable reviews by critics who play more games in a year than I have time to play in ten. Are you saying they're all lying, or are you one of the "ME3" conspiracy theorists who think BioWare/EA pay for reviewers to get favourable scores? Gaming journalism has some serious issues, true, but outright bribery isn't one of them.

But even if you went around asking every single person who has played both DA2 and DA:O which one was better, you'd still not get an "objective" opinnion on which one is "truly superior", because it is a subjective question where all answers are pretty much equal, and saying my experience is wrong and not equal because I belong in the (dubious) minority is BS.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 05 juin 2012 - 01:54 .

[eroeru]

^^ The question isn't whether anybody is wrong or not in whole, it's about what should Bioware do next.

All kinds of feedback tell the devs to not judge DA2 as good ("good" as the optimal solution, as a product), so we're better off ignoring public opinion for this discussion (after we are persuaded of the quite obvious fact that it gave off a strong signal of "dissatisfaction", which is all we need to proceed with the inquiry). The main question that we should discuss is that of WHICH parts of the game were so-very-significantly-dismaying. I.e. which things to change, and how much.

I'd vouch for a more radical opinion - that they'd need to change the very principles that were involved in making DA2, and settle for principles (and preferences) that would be more alike to those they had when making DA:O.

You can argue about this, but all in all, I have pretty solid argumentation in this conclusion (or at least not lesser than of the opposite, and I myself will argue and have argued that my opinion is far more solid than the alternatives, but this discussion is only within the realm of 1.) "speculation on what it was exactly that brought about the more critical dissatisfaction" - if it's only more minor details, changes in "starting-point" and "direction" will not be needed, and 2.) "is this piece of art (?) of more objective quality than the other").

If you don't agree with this more specific opinion of mine (and of many others), fine. Dismissing any of the values is also fine
(e.g. "art doesn't have objective quality"), it's an answer already, on which to build subsequent answers. But you cannot say DA2 was a success. It was not (in comparison with earlier Bioware, more specifically Origins - most of all evident in the measures of the clearly over-the-norm dissatisfaction), and it needs to be changed, more drastically than DA:O ever needed (which is because a game done with the same starting point as a successful game (a game with overwhelming praise, and no critical dissatisfaction) will be more probably more successful, as it will bring about less dissatisfaction - in this I'm vouching for the same principle ideas that made Origins, which does not mean I want the same game, or that it needs to follow the same narrative).

Simple enough. No?

Modifié par eroeru, 05 juin 2012 - 02:59 .