17 réponses à ce sujet

[Yalision]

I do hope players will be able to choose their respective race this time around, unless Dragon Age moving forward means to focus on human exploits. I know Mike Laidlaw said they would have full transparency through development of this next product. I wonder where we should set our expectations on this?

[David Gaider]

syllogi wrote...
It's pity; it's something most people want

I think that if one were to ask a fan "do you want more options?" the answer would always be yes-- regardless of the cost. Cost is not an issue to a fan, and neither should it be. We, of course, have no such luxury.

The difference here is that the fans see that they had three race options in DAO and only one in DA2... and thus that's less, and thus inferior, with the trade-off being not in evidence or simply not being worth it in their eyes. Which is a fair comparison, it being a sequel and all. There's no inherent benefit to race selection itself insofar as it being an RPG goes, so long as there are customization options (either in the story or in chargen)-- whether there's enough such options is really the trick, and on that front we'll be talking more once we have stuff to show.

Modifié par David Gaider, 26 mars 2012 - 06:42 .

[David Gaider]

Joseph627 wrote...
Agree completely, i would have actually like playing as an elf protagonist but not if they would look like the elves from da2.

It's probably worth mentioning that elves were only played by 15% (or less? I don't remember the exact number) of DAO players... as in ever. Meaning only 15% even tried the elven origins on one of their playthroughs.

Which is not to say the new elven look in DA2 would make it more or less popular, if offered... or anything, really, other than that the DAO elves were not inherently popular options to begin with.

I think this is one of those places where the telemetry doesn't lie. Race options are very popular with a smaller group of players-- to them, the expense is totally worth it. But the vast majority of players will only pick humans, even when options are offered. Whether there's any value to those people that such options exist, even if not taken, is the only intangible element in the equation (and should probably not be underestimated).

Modifié par David Gaider, 26 mars 2012 - 07:38 .

[David Gaider]

renjility wrote...
I wonder how accurate those numbers are, because for those achievements to upload you have to allow the game to log you in, which was not obligatory in DAO. You could have had the very strange occurrence of many people who happen to play elves and/or dwarves not bothering to connect their account. :innocent: Just saying.

For DAO you had to specifically disallow telemetry to be delivered-- and that's separate from the login. Considering our sample size of data is in the millions of individual players, I don't think it can really be discounted as statistically inaccurate.

[David Gaider]

Great_Horn wrote...
So only 480.000 players have shown interest in the both elves origins (15 %). Is there some data about the distribution? I would assume that more player would have picked the Dalish then the city elf origin.

Elven mage was the most popular elf origin, by far. Then the city elf, then the dalish. Don't remember the distribution, sorry, just that city elf and dalish were both well behind. All I remember is the dwarf origins: 3% for the dwarven nobles, 2% for the dwarf commoner.

I don't know if you can translate into an actual number based on shipped units, or at what point these figures were arrived at. Either way, it's a pretty notable trend.

Regardless, does having a low percentage of use mean we don't do it? I don't think so-- there's only so far you want to take that argument, lest you arrive at a point where you say that all content is required to be seen by every player. At that point you have no choices... and, like I said, there's a certain value to players that choices exist even if they aren't taken. So it's good to notice the trend, if not to have the trend always dictate response.

Modifié par David Gaider, 26 mars 2012 - 11:02 .

[David Gaider]

Imrahil_ wrote...
You're right about that, but I believe it's one of those places where it's horribly misinterpreted.

I haven't offered any interpretation of that data other than in response to the person who said that the new look for DA's elves could make them less popular as a player race-- to which I said that elves weren't a popular player choice to begin with. And they're not. I'd hesitate to interpret one line of data beyond that. I've no more idea than any of you how the people who did pick elven PC's felt about it (though I do know how many went on to use the characters they created), and like I said before there's value to choices even when they're not taken.

We don't eliminate minority content just for the sake of it being minority-- if so, then we wouldn't have female PC's or gay romances either. So please don't assume we're interpreting or using the data in a certain way. This kind of info begs the question of how much effort/resources should be spent on something that few people use, yes, but the answer does not generally translate into "none" unless there are other issues at play.

Modifié par David Gaider, 27 mars 2012 - 01:52 .

[David Gaider]

adlocutio wrote...
You seem to have drawn a general conclusion that because most people didn't play these races in Origins that means they wouldn't in any DA game, correct?

Why would I seem to have drawn such a conclusion? I've said nothing of the kind.

Do you have any way of knowing how these trends might be different if the races themselves were presented differently?

It's possible. It's also possible that many people picked human noble simply because that was the default in Origins, or because they didn't really know what the difference would be with the other races... or because they "looked weird". Or because people like the familiar. There could be many reasons.

Isn't this the way Bioware games are trending, though, because of the expense of cinematic storytelling? I thought I read on these forums that so-called "duplicate" content was to be avoided because of development costs.

It depends on the resources we have available. When we have an acute shortage of time to spend, it only makes time to spend the majority of it on content that more people will see. That doesn't mean not spending any elsewhere-- it's not something that is done by design, no. I know it's difficult from your side to draw a line between things that were done because we had little choice (vis a vis the resources on hand) and things that were done because we intended to do them (regardless of how well they were or weren't executed, relatively speaking), but it'd be advisable that you maintain the idea that such a distinction does exist.

Modifié par David Gaider, 27 mars 2012 - 02:05 .

[David Gaider]

renjility wrote...
But doesn't 15% of your millions of player data translate into a fair amount of players who have chosen to play as an elf?

It means 15% at least tried making an elven PC at some point, yes. 15% is still a pretty significant chunk, but it's a far cry from the 80% who played human. Without trying to discern the reasons behind such disparity, it's still worthy of note.

Hm. Perhaps it's best if I don't repeat any more of these numbers, if people are going to start second-guessing how we're interpreting them. Nobody has said that the players who made elven PC's are insignificant in number, or that those numbers are a reason to have or not have them.

[David Gaider]

Maria Caliban wrote...

One thing that the 80% number doesn't show, but I believe BioWare knows, is that people like options even if they never use them.

I bought the Witcher 2 when it came out. If you don't know, there are two different Chapter 2s depending on a choice you make in the game. And the chapters are a good length. I played through one path and uninstalled it, but I still thought it was awesome that the other path existed.

This is correct. As I've said several times, there's value to choices even when they're not taken-- so you really only want to take the figures so far in terms of using them as the sole benchmark for determining their overall value to the project.

If I was to use those numbers for anything, as a "for instance", it would be in underlining how many origins we had for each race. Maybe we would have been better off having one dwarf origin and two elven origins, and put more work into additional human origins (and perhaps kept the ones we cut). Or maybe it underlines that we should have sold the other races/origins better to the new player, so they knew what those options meant when they started the game. There's lots of ways you can take that.

And don't take the 80% as gospel, incidentally. That's me making mental subtraction against the other numbers which I do recall-- but, as someone mentioned earlier, they probably wouldn't add up to 100%. So I'm probably wrong on that front. I remember the DA2 telemetry better than DAO telemetry, but DAO is obviously the only benchmark we have when it comes to racial choice.

Modifié par David Gaider, 27 mars 2012 - 07:31 .

[David Gaider]

Momiji.mii wrote...
I sort of wish we could see those numbers, if only to prove those who claim to speak for everyone wrong. Also, because the numbers of what choices players did in their playthroughs interest me.

I sometimes wish we would post those numbers, too... for the vague pleasure of seeing the fans on these forums confronted with indisputable evidence of just how much in the minority they are. I think there's an impression that some people get that, because everyone else who comes to the forums talks about things like multiple playthroughs, that this is a normal thing.

Of course, with that knowledge comes a fear that their value is thus less because it's not backed up by numbers-- which seem to be really important to some folks, in terms of validation. So it's probably best not to.

[David Gaider]

Imrahil_ wrote...
Really?  So, in a thread titled "Regarding Player Race in DA3", in response to the fact that DA:O included racial choices, DA2 didn't include racial choices, & people are asking you to include racial choices in DA3... you offered up that only 15% of DA:O players had played as Elves, but you weren't interpreting that data in any way?

Just throwing it out there, were you?  For no reason?  It just so happens that in a thread asking you to bring back racial choices you quoted that stat, with no interpretation whatsoever?  Come on, play fair.  Just come out & say you've already decided not to include racial choices for DA3.

It was mentioned that the new look for elves would make them potentially less popular as a player race choice. I think the fact that the old look for elves weren't an incredibly popular choice as it was is quite relevant. So it's hardly "for no reason"... which, I assume, you would have discovered for yourself had you read the posts in question.

Insofar as to what we're doing or not doing for the future of DA3, we'll discuss the details when we can actually discuss them in full-- and discuss the good news as well as the bad (depending on where you stand).

Or you could just make assumptions about what we're doing, and our motivations. Out of a sense of "playing fair", I suppose.

Modifié par David Gaider, 28 mars 2012 - 03:21 .

[David Gaider]

Imrahil_ wrote...
Just kidding.  I'm just poking fun at how you characterize people who criticize.  I'm not really trying to be disagreeable for the sake of it.  I just find your posts dismissing of others' opinions sometimes funny when juxtaposed with your own posts from other topics.  No harm done. 

Speaking only for myself, I'm not being dismissive of anyone other than those who are already being broadly dismissive-- both of my participation in the discussion, and of those who disagree with them. I'm well aware that there are many divisive opinions at work on the forums, and beyond the fact that some people seem determined to be confrontational I'd say it's a pleasant enough atmosphere to offer some insight on topics that many here seem to appreciate-- even if I can't offer details on what I'm working on just yet.

Beyond that, I'd say passive-aggressive responses aren't really helpful. I won't be responding to you again, in case communication was actually your goal. Which, if not, is really too bad.

Modifié par David Gaider, 28 mars 2012 - 05:26 .

[David Gaider]

BobSmith101 wrote...
One thing I would like to know about the stats. Are they really because people are choosing to be something, or because they are just taking the default option presented ? If you changed the default option to Elf , would there be a lot more people playing elves ?

Soldier is by far the most popular class in ME3 . It's also the class that Shepard defaults to if you choose quick start.Is that a coincidence ? Or are people just taking the easy option as presented ?

We can't really know the answer to this... which is why we look upon telemetry with a critical eye. It can be helpful information to see the trends, but you never want to treat them as gospel as there's bound to be more behind what you're seeing than numbers will tell on their own. It's more indicative of the end results, as opposed to the cause.

[David Gaider]

nightscrawl wrote...
Maria Caliban's earlier post about the small portion of players who complete the romances (if accurate) is a perfect example. Bioware wants their games to have these romance options, so they design them that way, even though a small portion of players even see the content.

This is true. We still put an ending into the game, for instance, despite how few players actually see it.

[David Gaider]

ICevoL wrote...
if the PC is able to be elven in DA3, please let them wear shoes!  I remember finding it extremely distracting that Fenris and Merrill were tromping around through Maker-knows-what in their bare feet, not to mention if a melee enemy with massive boots would have stomped on their toes...

I think I can safely say that this is a battle I appear to be winning.

[David Gaider]

renjility wrote...
There's a battle about elves' shoewear or lack thereof among the developers?

If you can take a look at the forums and see how a bunch of people, all of whom feel passionate about the same thing, disagree with each other vociferously on even the most minor aspects of the game... then you might begin to grasp how a bunch of developers, who are all geeks and who have WAY more personal stake in the outcome, might bicker endlessly over just about everything.

My "Laws of Naming Stuff" didn't come from the forums, after all. They're rules I made to prevent meetings from descending into chaos. The worst arguments occur over the things that are essentially the most aesthetic in nature.

Modifié par David Gaider, 28 mars 2012 - 02:17 .

[John Epler]

TwistedComplex wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

I think that if one were to ask a fan "do you want more options?" the answer would always be yes-- regardless of the cost. Cost is not an issue to a fan, and neither should it be. We, of course, have no such luxury.

A Bioware developer talking about how they don't have enough money to go above and beyond is the most vomit enducing thing I've ever seen.

Why? Because David was honest?

Games have a finite budget, both in money and man hours. Sure, we'd love to be able to spend years and years and as many millions of dollars as we need to make the absolutely perfect, no holds-barred best game ever, but that's unrealistic. Eventually, we have to release a game. And, more than that - we have to at least break even, if not make a profit. That's how the world works.

If that's the most 'vomit inducing thing' you've ever seen, then you've lived an incredibly sheltered life. Or you feel that hyperbole is the best way to get your point across - which it really isn't.

Modifié par John Epler, 30 mars 2012 - 05:46 .

[John Epler]

flub3 wrote...

This might be the greatest thing I have ever seen a dev post. Actually pointing out to the fans that this is a business? And that you guys need to make money? Unheard of. I love when the devs come onto the forums, skip all the PR crap, and post something honest. Thank you.

Well, for the majority of us, it really is about our passion for games - but at the end of the day, we are still a business, and resources are not infinite. As it is, we probably break most of the predictive tools because of 16-hour days and 7 day work weeks, but there's only so far you can go with crunch.

We're lucky, in that, by and large, we don't have to worry about the financials. Production and project management get to deal with that side of things, and we get to make the games. Personally, I don't envy them, but they're a necessary part of game development, at least when you're talking about a dev studio with salaried employees, expenses (whether regular such as rent, or irregular such as outsourcing). We need to make sure that we're able to sustain ourselves.