1306 réponses à ce sujet

[batlin]

wsandista wrote...

Very well

Some one please answer this: Why is DA2 the right direction? It didn't sell more and wasn't received as well as DAO, but some have refuted those standards as measures of quality. Please explain how a game that preformed worse both commercially and critically then it's predecessor moved in the right direction.

I have asked this question once and will continue to ask it until I get a logical answer.

I'd say the only logical answer to that last question is "it didn't"

[Xewaka]

batlin wrote...

wsandista wrote...
Very well
Some one please answer this: Why is DA2 the right direction? It didn't sell more and wasn't received as well as DAO, but some have refuted those standards as measures of quality. Please explain how a game that preformed worse both commercially and critically then it's predecessor moved in the right direction.
I have asked this question once and will continue to ask it until I get a logical answer.

I'd say the only logical answer to that last question is "it didn't"

Despite selling less, it earned them more money, because the production time was 10 months compared to the several years of DA:O; thus, higher returns from DA 2. In that regard, DA2 went in the right direction.

[batlin]

Xewaka wrote...

Despite selling less, it earned them more money, because the production time was 10 months compared to the several years of DA:O; thus, higher returns from DA 2. In that regard, DA2 went in the right direction.

Yes, but Bioware probably shouldn't expect to get that amount of profit with DA3 thanks to DA2's quality. DA2 was a bigger financial success for Bioware, only because they already had DA:O's engine in place and because fans of DA:O didn't know what they were in store for when they preordered and bought DA2 in the first week. The latter is a benefit DA3 will not have.

So which was the bigger success: the game that drove up interest in a brand new game series and provided the engine for future games to use, or the one that made more money thanks in no small part to the previous game and will in all likelihood drive sales down for the next installment of the series?

[zyntifox]

batlin wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Despite selling less, it earned them more money, because the production time was 10 months compared to the several years of DA:O; thus, higher returns from DA 2. In that regard, DA2 went in the right direction.

Yes, but Bioware probably shouldn't expect to get that amount of profit with DA3 thanks to DA2's quality. DA2 was a bigger financial success for Bioware, only because they already had DA:O's engine in place and because fans of DA:O didn't know what they were in store for when they preordered and bought DA2 in the first week. The latter is a benefit DA3 will not have.

So which was the bigger success: the game that drove up interest in a brand new game series and provided the engine for future games to use, or the one that made more money thanks in no small part to the previous game and will in all likelihood drive sales down for the next installment of the series?

I am one of those that pre-ordered DA2 without watching trailers or reading articles about it; i thought this was a no-brainer since DA:O was the best game i've played. Don't think that is something i will do again. Don't get me wrong i might eventually buy it, given that it's not another dragon age 2/god of war game with some dialogue options, but my Bioware pre-ordering days are over.

[batlin]

Cstaf wrote...
I am one of those that pre-ordered DA2 without watching trailers or reading articles about it; i thought this was a no-brainer since DA:O was the best game i've played. Don't think that is something i will do again. Don't get me wrong i might eventually buy it, given that it's not another dragon age 2/god of war game with some dialogue options, but my Bioware pre-ordering days are over.

Same here. I'm already grateful for making the decision to not preorder any more BW games because it saved me from buying ME3.

[sickpixie]

wsandista wrote...

Very well

Some one please answer this: Why is DA2 the right direction? It didn't sell more and wasn't received as well as DAO, but some have refuted those standards as measures of quality. Please explain how a game that preformed worse both commercially and critically then it's predecessor moved in the right direction.

I have asked this question once and will continue to ask it until I get a logical answer.

I'd say it's because they addressed complaints some people had with Origins (player character is a mute emotionless puppet in dialogue cutscenes, cutscenes in general aren't dynamic enough, combat is too slow and uninteresting to watch, art style looks too much like Lord of the Rings, rogues and warriors don't have enough interesting abilities, rogues require too much micromanagement, mage spells have too much phased obsolesence and too many ineffective choices, the beginning is too unforgiving, and so on). Granted not everyone saw these as flaws and some may take issue with how they addressed them, but it's a fair assumption to make that those who'd prefer a carbon copy of Baldur's Gate aren't the majority regardless of how loud they are on the internet.

[jbrand2002uk]

wsandista wrote...

batlin wrote...

Ooookay, regarding the xp gain from party members in camp, I brought it up because someone said that they only gained xp to match your level when they were recruited. I was wrong too, but a bit less off the mark.

Let's get back on topic please!

Very well

Some one please answer this: Why is DA2 the right direction? It didn't sell more and wasn't received as well as DAO, but some have refuted those standards as measures of quality. Please explain how a game that preformed worse both commercially and critically then it's predecessor moved in the right direction.

I have asked this question once and will continue to ask it until I get a logical answer.

As I have already said sales figures are not indicative of a products quality for example the Ford Model T was the best selling automobile of its era and yet it is one of the most badly desgined vehicles to drive as the controls make no sense at all.

As for critics, no sensible person takes what they say seriously for their job title is self evident critic is an abbreveation of the word criticise which in laymens terms means to pick faults, regardless most of these so called critics when pressed reveal they know almost next to nothing about their field.
Regardless of this though a critic is still one individual giving his/her opinion which is not made more valid by their posistion.

So therefore Critical acclaim is also irrelevant and not indicative of quality either.

[eroeru]

Way to not answer the question.

And you contradict yourself constantly, you've stated many times beforehand where DA2's ratings were dissed that reviewers are good for their word.

Are you getting money for this type of "trolling" fanboyism?

[hoorayforicecream]

wsandista wrote...

Very well

Some one please answer this: Why is DA2 the right direction? It didn't sell more and wasn't received as well as DAO, but some have refuted those standards as measures of quality. Please explain how a game that preformed worse both commercially and critically then it's predecessor moved in the right direction.

I have asked this question once and will continue to ask it until I get a logical answer.

You're overgeneralizing. There are problems with inherent design principles, and there are problems with implementation. The former is about how the game plays in general. The latter is fixed with better scoping, more development time, and more tuning.

One of the problems I felt they had in DAO was the overall uneven pace of combat. Practically every combat the game had had me in a situation where the first 25% was interesting because I was identifying and taking out high value targets, and then the remaining 75% was boring cleanup after the interesting targets were taken care of.

Their solution to this was the waves of enemies in encounters. Rather than front-loading all of the challenges in almost every fight, you'd have additional challenges appear all throughout the fight. However, the implementation wasn't very good, because the encounters they built were often repetitive and the spawning broke verisimilitude when you could see enemies appear out of nowhere.

This isn't to say that the concept of wave combat is inherently broken. The Legacy DLC showed us that it is definitely doable in an interesting manner that doesn't necessarily break immersion. Practically all of the comments about Legacy I've read, regardless of what else they thought of Legacy, praised how the wave combat had been "fixed". In my mind, it had never been broken to begin with, it just wasn't implemented well.

Compare this to a fundamentally unsound design principle, such as the Detective Vision feature in Batman: Arkham Asylum. In B:AA, Detective Vision is a vision mode where things that aren't immediately apparent become visible to Batman. Enemies, interactive environment objects, clues, etc. all stand out in bright colors, while normal mode they don't. And there's no time limit or penalty for using Detective Vision, aside from seeing the game in odd colors. It is a strictly superior way to play the game (as in you get strictly more information and more options) with no penalty, aside from the fact that it makes the game look kinda ugly. And that's why it's a bad feature - it makes the game's visuals conflict with the gameplay at a fundamental level, and that's a bad thing. They'd have to fundamentally change how the system is designed in order to make the use of Detective Vision a good feature.

This is what I mean when I say that DA2 went in the right direction. It focused on several areas that they felt DAO was lacking, and made design improvements to them. The fact that they weren't entirely able to convert doesn't mean that the design principles were fundamentally unsound.

[Melca36]

eroeru wrote...

Way to not answer the question.

And you contradict yourself constantly, you've stated many times beforehand where DA2's ratings were dissed that reviewers are good for their word.

Are you getting money for this type of "trolling" fanboyism?

He does this constantly.  Just better expect it from him.

[Sylvius the Mad]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

As I have already said sales figures are not indicative of a products quality for example the Ford Model T was the best selling automobile of its era and yet it is one of the most badly desgined vehicles to drive as the controls make no sense at all.

They make perfect sense.  The parts all do what they're supposed to do.  That the accelerator is a lever rather than pedal is just different from how modern cars are built, but today's standard pedal arrangement hadn't yet been established when the Model T was designed.

[batlin]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

You're overgeneralizing. There are problems with inherent design principles, and there are problems with implementation. The former is about how the game plays in general. The latter is fixed with better scoping, more development time, and more tuning.

One of the problems I felt they had in DAO was the overall uneven pace of combat. Practically every combat the game had had me in a situation where the first 25% was interesting because I was identifying and taking out high value targets, and then the remaining 75% was boring cleanup after the interesting targets were taken care of.

There's a bit more to DA:O's combat than that. Oftentimes enemies will be strategically placed around the map which will make your contend with a variety of factors outside of "kill the strongest guy first". Factors like archers and mages above you, melee flanking you, physical obstacles like traps, exploding barrells, barricades, oil slicks, etc. With DA2 I can't think of any encounter outside a few of the boss fights that put you in any situation other than a big, open area with mobs rushing you from the edges. You say DA:O's combat is worse than DA2's because it always involves killing the strong guys first, but in DA2 it actually does always comes down to killing the strong guys first.

Modifié par batlin, 07 juin 2012 - 06:21 .

[Persephone]

batlin wrote...

Cstaf wrote...
I am one of those that pre-ordered DA2 without watching trailers or reading articles about it; i thought this was a no-brainer since DA:O was the best game i've played. Don't think that is something i will do again. Don't get me wrong i might eventually buy it, given that it's not another dragon age 2/god of war game with some dialogue options, but my Bioware pre-ordering days are over.

Same here. I'm already grateful for making the decision to not preorder any more BW games because it saved me from buying ME3.

Shame. It's a fantastic game. *Shrugs*

As for strategically placed enemies in DAO.... I am replaying it atm to run some updated Mods....

if those are strategically placed I....*snorts*

Modifié par Persephone, 07 juin 2012 - 06:34 .

[Melca36]

Persephone wrote...

batlin wrote...

Cstaf wrote...
I am one of those that pre-ordered DA2 without watching trailers or reading articles about it; i thought this was a no-brainer since DA:O was the best game i've played. Don't think that is something i will do again. Don't get me wrong i might eventually buy it, given that it's not another dragon age 2/god of war game with some dialogue options, but my Bioware pre-ordering days are over.

Same here. I'm already grateful for making the decision to not preorder any more BW games because it saved me from buying ME3.

Shame. It's a fantastic game. *Shrugs*

As for strategically placed enemies in DAO.... I am replaying it atm to run some updated Mods....

if those are strategically placed I....*snorts*

Why yes it is a good game but the developers have acknowledged missteps with it.  They want to make a game that appeals to all fanbases. Surely there is nothing wrong with that.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

DAO was a terrible game because it spent much too much time on boring stuff like useless combat and not enough time on worthwhile stuff like story and characters. I'm an adult now. I don't have time to sit on my ass and click each monster individually to see where 3% more damage can come from. DA2 was the absolute best path that RPGs can take... it just wasn't perfectly implemented. DA3 must continue the path of valuing fun (DA2) over boring (DAO).

[Sylvius the Mad]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

DAO was a terrible game because it spent much too much time on boring stuff like useless combat and not enough time on worthwhile stuff like story and characters. I'm an adult now. I don't have time to sit on my ass and click each monster individually to see where 3% more damage can come from. DA2 was the absolute best path that RPGs can take... it just wasn't perfectly implemented. DA3 must continue the path of valuing fun (DA2) over boring (DAO).

Okay, I'm just going to say it.

Spreadsheets are fun.

[batlin]

Persephone wrote...

Shame. It's a fantastic game. *Shrugs*

I gave it a rent. Not going to buy a game that phones in the ending to such a great trilogy.

As for strategically placed enemies in DAO.... I am replaying it atm to run some updated Mods....

if those are strategically placed I....*snorts*

I hope you're kidding, there are a great many encounters that have unique enemy placement.

[batlin]

[Spam images removed]

Modifié par John Epler, 08 juin 2012 - 04:36 .

[GethPrimeMKII]

I'll probably get flamed to hell for this, but I personally enjoyed DA2 a bit more than DAO.

[zyntifox]

Faerunner wrote...

^ Actually, there is because there's no way they can make a game that appeals to everyone. Different people have different tastes, and it's better to make a game that tailors to specific tastes than one that adds too many different (and often contradictory) types in one that becomes an incomprehensible mess. By trying to appeal to everyone, they'll appeal to no one (or very few).

This is one of the things DAO did right. It had a specific target audience in mind: fans of traditional cRPG's and Bioware's earlier games (like the BG and NWN franchises), so they were able to make a good quality game that knew what it was, who it was appealing to, and how to court its players.

DA2 decided to appeal to a completely different target audience and tried to court casual gamers and the semi-mindless explosive action game crowd (the kind of people that have no interest in traditional cRPG's) and just created a mediocre mess of different genres. There's not enough action to attract the action fans they wanted and there isn't enough RPG elements to please a lot of their original fanbase.

Now they spend so much time trying to appeal to different fanbases ("Oooh, our next game is going to combine all the best features of DA:O and DA2!") that I worry they won't be able to focus on making a good quality game. Know your audience and make a game, don't make a game and try to figure out what kind of audience you'll have left after the sales numbers come in.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And that quote from whoever it was who said "combine all the best feutures of DAO and DA2" is probabiliy going to be the reason why i in the end won't buy DA3. I understand and respect that there are people who liked DA2 and want more of it, i personaly did not, i just don't see how they can cater to two different fanbases without suffer a backlash from one of them.

Modifié par Cstaf, 07 juin 2012 - 09:23 .

[eroeru]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

DAO was a terrible game because it spent much too much time on boring stuff like useless combat and not enough time on worthwhile stuff like story and characters. I'm an adult now. I don't have time to sit on my ass and click each monster individually to see where 3% more damage can come from. DA2 was the absolute best path that RPGs can take... it just wasn't perfectly implemented. DA3 must continue the path of valuing fun (DA2) over boring (DAO).

Still not sure if serious.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

DAO was a terrible game because it spent much too much time on boring stuff like useless combat and not enough time on worthwhile stuff like story and characters. I'm an adult now. I don't have time to sit on my ass and click each monster individually to see where 3% more damage can come from. DA2 was the absolute best path that RPGs can take... it just wasn't perfectly implemented. DA3 must continue the path of valuing fun (DA2) over boring (DAO).

Okay, I'm just going to say it.

Spreadsheets are fun.

I know.  :)  And I hate them.  Let us drink to the misery that BioWare must feel at trying to make a game everyone will enjoy.  But if anyone can, it's them.

[Melca36]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

DAO was a terrible game because it spent much too much time on boring stuff like useless combat and not enough time on worthwhile stuff like story and characters. I'm an adult now. I don't have time to sit on my ass and click each monster individually to see where 3% more damage can come from. DA2 was the absolute best path that RPGs can take... it just wasn't perfectly implemented. DA3 must continue the path of valuing fun (DA2) over boring (DAO).

so you think 16 fedEX quests is depth?

Look I do agree with you in some aspects but for $60 I do not want a dozen instant gratification quests.

I would rather have 6 quests in the style of Magistrates Orders and Raiders on The Cliffs than a dozen fedEX quests.

I don't want things easily handed to me in the game.

[hussey 92]

eroeru wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

DAO was a terrible game because it spent much too much time on boring stuff like useless combat and not enough time on worthwhile stuff like story and characters. I'm an adult now. I don't have time to sit on my ass and click each monster individually to see where 3% more damage can come from. DA2 was the absolute best path that RPGs can take... it just wasn't perfectly implemented. DA3 must continue the path of valuing fun (DA2) over boring (DAO).

Still not sure if serious.

Yeah, I don't know what to make of that