150 réponses à ce sujet

[termokanden]

Maria Caliban wrote...

If you're like me and you don't replay games you're... also going to dislike the recycled areas.

Almost everyone agrees that the recycling of areas was excessive. It's hardly a divisive topic between those who like DA 2 and those who don't, or those who replay and those who don't.

But it definitely keeps away the replayers, which was my point.

[Sutekh]

termokanden wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

If you're like me and you don't replay games you're... also going to dislike the recycled areas.

Almost everyone agrees that the recycling of areas was excessive. It's hardly a divisive topic between those who like DA 2 and those who don't, or those who replay and those who don't.

But it definitely keeps away the replayers, which was my point.

Not "definitely". I'm a replayer. I disliked the recycled areas (like everyone and their uncle). I count eight completed DA2 playthroughs. "Areas" is quite low on my list of reasons to replay a game, especially RPGs.


I've seen a good number of people here stating they have multiple playthroughs despite recycled areas.

[termokanden]

Fine, I can't speak for everyone. It kept me away. And yes, the recycled areas were the main reason.

[Yrkoon]

Maria Caliban wrote...

What is it about replaying things that you like?

Fast Jimmy answered this question about as well as it can be answered, but my take:

When a game  (typically an RPG) captures my interest, it usually does so  comprehensively, as in, more than just its story or its puzzles.   On my very first playthrough I'm usually already wondering what its like to play a different build, or take a different path, or use a different weapon, or choose a different dialogue choice.

Also,  when it's my first experience with an  IP,  I  often times don't 'get' the fine details of the game world's  plot and/or lore  the first time through, so  naturally my second playthrough will be far more meaningful and thought provoking.  Witcher 2 is  a perfect example of this.  I didn't know what the hell was going on, or who anyone was the first time I played.  My second playthrough of TW2  was approximately 20 times more awesome than my first, as I was finally able to make sense of the a amazing convoluted plotline.  Unfortunately though  for me the Witcher 2 doesn't offer  much in the way of character customization, so I don't see myself replaying  it as many times as, say, Morrowind, or BG2, or DA:O.

That and I love  mastering games.  I've played BG2 so many times, that I can Solo Ascension on Insane difficulty.... with a Druid.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 21 avril 2012 - 01:37 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sutekh wrote...

termokanden wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

If you're like me and you don't replay games you're... also going to dislike the recycled areas.

Almost everyone agrees that the recycling of areas was excessive. It's hardly a divisive topic between those who like DA 2 and those who don't, or those who replay and those who don't.

But it definitely keeps away the replayers, which was my point.

Not "definitely". I'm a replayer. I disliked the recycled areas (like everyone and their uncle). I count eight completed DA2 playthroughs. "Areas" is quite low on my list of reasons to replay a game, especially RPGs.


I've seen a good number of people here stating they have multiple playthroughs despite recycled areas.

I'm glad someone did make this distinction. I have seen countless players on the forums who loved DA2, defended it staunchly, AND completed over half a dozen playthroughs.

So to say "oh, fans who like DA2 never played it over to see how stale it is" isn't an entirely accurate conclusion. The reason I have heard they play it over is rather interesting to me, personally. I hear that the number one reason to playthrough again is not differing plot branches or ending possibilities, but the ability to have different interactions with the companions (either as a rival or a friend, or a rivalmance, etc.). It would seem the biggest fans of DA2, the ones who got as much replay enjoyabilitiy out of it as I did out of DA:O are people who throughly enjoy the conversation options with their companions.

Which is a completely foreign concept to me, I suppose, but I find it even more fascinating possibly becasue of that very fact.

People loved these companions so much, that they sat through hours of the same combat, same dialogue, same quests and same areas just to see their different responses in different situations. The reason I loved the companions in DA:O was their personality and how their own history came unveiled through the course of the game (Sten's reason for being imprisoned, how the Qun affected his life, his discovery of cookies; Leliana's transition from being nutty priest girl to elite assassin, her description of Orlais that breathed it to life in our minds, her shared obsession with the rest of the female gender for the phenomenom of "shoes"; etc.,etc.,etc.). In DA2 we see some of that, with Anders discussing the plight of the mage, and Fenris discussing his life as a slave, but these stories felt too personal for me to imagine the world that they came from. But it did make me visualize them as people more.

So - and this is the important part here - if Bioware makes their companions are detailed in their emotions as in DA2 but also as real with their personal quirks as in DA:O, then I think many DA2 players will be happy to come along for the ride, regardless of other mechanics, gameplay and story items.

In short, I think DA2 fans and DA:O fans CAN like the same DA3 game. Because the DA2 fans who bleed for the game, who played it more times than many of us can fathom, did it for the companions. If they can strike a balance between the companions personalities of DA:O and DA2, (and improve the dialogue system for us to not accidentally end up in bed with some of them) then I don't see why they can't implement branching plots, more tactical combat, character customizability (in some form or fashion) and more diverse environments and keep a large portion of the fans happy. 

Oh, and an ending. Please, for the love of all that is holy Bioware... don't skimp on the ending ever again. Its becoming your Achilles heel.

[YohkoOhno]

bEVEsthda wrote...
So if you're going to consider finishing metrics, you first need an understanding how that, actually, really, relates to marketing the successor. By contrast, how radically changing the contents, under a label, affects the market is very well known. A long history shows that it always leads to a disaster.

I agree, but I also think that even if Bioware themselves might have miscalculated, that doesn't mean metrics don't mean anything.  I doubt DA2s design decisions came soley from metrics.  (And radical changes can work, I've studied business and seen where it does work--sometimes you need a radical change--don't oversimplify that).

I used TW2 as an example, just from the data available by looking at "Global Acheivements" on Steam.  The companies also have access to just how and when people play.  They could tell, for instance, if you are playing TW2 each weekend or if you abandoned the game months ago and stopped playing.  

So, I do think Metrics are important.  There are pros and cons, as explained here:

http://www.penny-arc...episode/metrics 

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yes.

Despite constant assurances to the contrary.

I'm not preordering, and not buying until I see reviews. I most likely wont buy at all, because it's unlikely that Origin is going away, and I will not be bullied by PC-spying into buying a console copy of the game.

This.

I didn't buy ME3 and won't buy DA3 because of Origin. I'll see how it plays out in the future.

Also, if the game rams multiplayer down your throat like ME3 apparently does, that's another reson to pass on it.

[Yrkoon]

YohkoOhno wrote...
I agree, but I also think that even if Bioware themselves might have miscalculated, that doesn't mean metrics don't mean anything. I doubt DA2s design decisions came soley from metrics. (And radical changes can work, I've studied business and seen where it does work--sometimes you need a radical change--don't oversimplify that).

I used TW2 as an example, just from the data available by looking at "Global Acheivements" on Steam. The companies also have access to just how and when people play. They could tell, for instance, if you are playing TW2 each weekend or if you abandoned the game months ago and stopped playing.

So, I do think Metrics are important. There are pros and cons, as explained here:

http://www.penny-arc...episode/metrics

^True, but that's not saying much. Metrics are tools, so of course they're going to be useful, and can be important.

Hammers are tools too. When used right, they can help you build a house, or a car, or anything else that's awesome. But any misguided fool can also  use a hammer to, you know... do something really bad, like kill someone, or destroy a house or car.

No one intelligent dismisses metrics away. And no one in the industry would ever say that Metrics are useless. The problem here is that Metrics live and die by their use. For example: metric data dictates that ~80% of gamers don't finish games that they play. A misguided Developer would conclude from this metric data that game endings are therefore, a waste of resources, so in their next game, they decide to slap together some cheap, meaningless ending to save money.

Is that smart? Nope. That's dumb. That's what happens when Metrics are misinterpretted and misused.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 21 avril 2012 - 02:25 .

[bEVEsthda]

YohkoOhno wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...
So if you're going to consider finishing metrics, you first need an understanding how that, actually, really, relates to marketing the successor. By contrast, how radically changing the contents, under a label, affects the market is very well known. A long history shows that it always leads to a disaster.

I agree, but I also think that even if Bioware themselves might have miscalculated, that doesn't mean metrics don't mean anything.  I doubt DA2s design decisions came soley from metrics.  (And radical changes can work, I've studied business and seen where it does work--sometimes you need a radical change--don't oversimplify that).

I used TW2 as an example, just from the data available by looking at "Global Acheivements" on Steam.  The companies also have access to just how and when people play.  They could tell, for instance, if you are playing TW2 each weekend or if you abandoned the game months ago and stopped playing.  

So, I do think Metrics are important.  There are pros and cons, as explained here:

http://www.penny-arc...episode/metrics 

I think we're mostly in agreement.

The way gamers and gaming works, a game being seemingly "abandoned months ago" doesn't really mean much. It merely means that the gamer is playing some other game. Again, I'm sure most people here on this forum have a list of games they never intentionally or consciously "abandoned", and have always had the intention of finishing.

And more to the point: They may have every intention to buy the eventual successors to those games.

Radical changes to contents under market labels don't work out, unless the label is pretty much completely dead. And then it's a case of resurrection. Radical changes to what a company is doing, is a completely different matter.
(I would suspect though, that Bioware, despite of all their own smearing campaign of DA:O, didn't really get it that they were making radical changes. They probably assumed they were making improvements.)

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 21 avril 2012 - 02:21 .

[Transgirlgamer]

I think that what has happened with both DA and ME is that the first of each were made for PC then ported to console, (DA:Origins is clearly an RPG designed for using a mouse) while DA2 and ME2&3 were made for consoles then ported to the PC.

I'm not going to come out here and say PC is better than consoles. I don't want to start that flame war. But games are designed differently for PC then they are for a console and the difference shows when they are ported. A PC designed game doesn't port well to console and vice versa.

I think the change in approach is because of the rise in popularity amongst the wider public of consoles. A console doesn't go obsolete in 6 months as PC's used to when consoles first became popular. It's better now, you'll get 12-18 months of the rand new games at good-excellent quality with a PC, but a console gives 5-10 years of the same set up for a developer to work with. Which is 5-10 years between console upgrades. Considering a high end PC costs more than a new console even on it's release day, it's not a huge surprise that some people aren't willing to buy a PC then keep upgrading it to play the latest games.

It's why high street videogame stores often don't have much of a selection of PC games outside the chart ones whilst most of the store is taken up with console games, pre-owned, back titles and chart games.

Modifié par Transgirlgamer, 21 avril 2012 - 02:22 .

[In Exile]

bEVEsthda wrote...
I'm not sure I'm relieved by learning that you don't believe those things, but nevermind.
But as you seem to have guessed, I made that comment to help you. To spare you all the effort and time, typing up a load of various assertations.

Look, honestly, I think DA2 is too bad of a game to talk about a singular factor tripping it up. I liked DA2 (not loved or anything like that) because it had some core features I really enjoy (like PC VO + dialogue selection). But it had a lot of honestly bad and head-scratching featurest to it.

Contrast that with ME2, or ME3. ME2 was a good game. Lots of fans of ME1 disliked ME2, but there we could at least have an honest discussion about the direction and what role that had on the success of the game. and how it would impact ME3.

Which, if we run by your pre-order theory, was not very much. And then ME3 has been doing worse after the ending blow up, and since it's only one thing that's really catastrophic (unlike DA2) we can isolate that and talk about its effect on the game.

Whereas with DA:O, DA2 was both so very different, and so very bad (in so many ways) that talking about what made it flop is hard to say.

[In Exile]

YohkoOhno wrote...
I used TW2 as an example, just from the data available by looking at "Global Acheivements" on Steam.  The companies also have access to just how and when people play.  They could tell, for instance, if you are playing TW2 each weekend or if you abandoned the game months ago and stopped playing.

The problem here is word of mouth. That's what's poisoned Bioware consistently. And that's how TW2 - which had a lot of hiccups at release, built up a reputation. CDProjeckt made a game designed to be ported to console. They had a lot of changes from TW1 (for the worse, IMO) to make it console friendly. But did that lead to accusations? No, because they massaged their PC audience the right way. And the business model is also more intelligent, to boot.

Whoever is in charge of customer service/care at Bioware/EA just is not very good at managing the consumer base. It's as if there's this singular idea that building hype for the game is important, while ignoring that if everyone thinks your product is garbage, all the hype in the world can't save it.

[Dakota Strider]

Yrkoon wrote...

YohkoOhno wrote...
I agree, but I also think that even if Bioware themselves might have miscalculated, that doesn't mean metrics don't mean anything. I doubt DA2s design decisions came soley from metrics. (And radical changes can work, I've studied business and seen where it does work--sometimes you need a radical change--don't oversimplify that).

I used TW2 as an example, just from the data available by looking at "Global Acheivements" on Steam. The companies also have access to just how and when people play. They could tell, for instance, if you are playing TW2 each weekend or if you abandoned the game months ago and stopped playing.

So, I do think Metrics are important. There are pros and cons, as explained here:

http://www.penny-arc...episode/metrics

^True, but that's not saying much. Metrics are tools, so of course they're going to be useful, and can be important.

Hammers are tools too. When used right, they can help you build a house, or a car, or anything else that's awesome. But any misguided fool can also  use a hammer to, you know... do something really bad, like kill someone, or destroy a house or car.

No one intelligent dismisses metrics away. And no one in the industry would ever say that Metrics are useless. The problem here is that Metrics live and die by their use. For example: metric data dictates that ~80% of gamers don't finish games that they play. A misguided Developer would conclude from this metric data that game endings are therefore, a waste of resources, so in their next game, they decide to slap together some cheap, meaningless ending to save money.

Is that smart? Nope. That's dumb. That's what happens when Metrics are misinterpretted and misused.

"There are three kinds of lies:  Lies, damn lies, and statistics,"  (Benjamin Disraeli). 

Statistics, such as metrics do have their uses.  But statistics rarely can capture every nuance, detail or issue.  Sports fans can recall many contests, where if you only looked at the statistics after the game, without the score, you would have thought Team A, beat the stuffing out of Team B.  But, then the scoreboard dismisses those statistics, when it is shown that Team B was the victor.

You can take a look at the poll linked in my signature for another example.  Simple questions, basically for fun, to see if I could tell the difference between people that preferred either DAO or DA2 from each other, based only on a very small part of their gaming history.  Looking at those results, a uber Pro DAO (anti DA2) person could claim that people preferred DAO over DA2 by a 80% to 20% margin.   The "statistics" prove it after all.   However, if you are being objective, all you could claim based on that number of participants, is that it seems to be a significant trend, and you could not make an assumption on the actual percentages.  AND it should be repeated, the purpose of the poll was not to see who liked which game better (since many people liked both), but as to which version of DA you would prefer DA3 to emulate.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 21 avril 2012 - 02:35 .

[YohkoOhno]

Radical changes to contents under market labels don't work out, unless the label is pretty much completely dead. And then it's a case of resurrection. Radical changes to what a company is doing, is a completely different matter.

But what are you defining as a label?

Dragon Age? Both that and Mass Effect are already Transmedia labels, and I don't think they created either world thinking that it was meant to be a RPG first and foremost?

Bioware? Honestly, its the fans who are saying Bioware is an RPG maker, not the company. I don't see the word "RPG" on my ME3 box, for instance. This might be something the fans established for Bioware and something Bioware as a brand is trying to grow out of.

[FieryDove]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

I think that what has happened with both DA and ME is that the first of each were made for PC then ported to console, (DA:Origins is clearly an RPG designed for using a mouse) while DA2 and ME2&3 were made for consoles then ported to the PC.

If I remember right ME was ported by someone else, it was an xbox only game someone can correct me if wrong. ME2 was ported by BW themselves I think. I liked the first port much better. Sigh

In Exile wrote...

Whoever is in charge of customer service/care at Bioware/EA just is not very good at managing the consumer base. It's as if there's this singular idea that building hype for the game is important, while ignoring that if everyone thinks your product is garbage, all the hype in the world can't save it.

After so much trouble with EA CS including SWTOR I agree.

Modifié par FieryDove, 21 avril 2012 - 02:30 .

[termokanden]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm glad someone did make this distinction. I have seen countless players on the forums who loved DA2, defended it staunchly, AND completed over half a dozen playthroughs.

So to say "oh, fans who like DA2 never played it over to see how stale it is" isn't an entirely accurate conclusion.

Which is why that isn't what I said.

I believe recycled areas are a blight, and especially so if you replay the game. It definiitely ruined the second playthrough for me, and I would be very surprised if this hasn't scared away other people who replay the games they like.

This doesn't mean it scared away everyone and that you can't replay it, but at the same time you have to admit there is a connection between replayability and how much content is recycled.

It would seem the biggest fans of DA2, the ones who got as much replay enjoyabilitiy out of it as I did out of DA:O are people who throughly enjoy the conversation options with their companions.

I did enjoy that aspect and in fact that was why I wanted to replay the game in the first place. However, I got sick of wading through the same old caves and city streets over and over again and gave up.

[Transgirlgamer]

FieryDove wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

I think that what has happened with both DA and ME is that the first of each were made for PC then ported to console, (DA:Origins is clearly an RPG designed for using a mouse) while DA2 and ME2&3 were made for consoles then ported to the PC.

If I remember right ME was ported by someone else, it was an xbox only game someone can correct me if wrong. ME2 was ported by BW themselves I think. I liked the first port much better. Sigh

If that's the case then I'm wrong.  It just plays like a PC designed game to me though.  I don't think anyone will disagree that DA:O was designed for PC though.  I've played it on PC and on PS3 (I wanted a save to import to DA2 but drifted away to start playing something else three or four games ago) and it's definately better on PC in my opinion.  Of course I prefer ME2 and 3 on PC as well because of the controls (except in the bypassing in ME2)

[ScotGaymer]

I blame John Riccitielo.

It's all his fault. It's is his policies that are causing EA's share price to plummet and the company to force its dev teams to release games early to make up the shortfall.

The man was quoted as openly saying he would like have games developed and released in pieces, that is released sequentially, and players pay full price for each part.
I read the quotation of what he said and though he didn't outright say it, he seemed to be saying it like he couldn't get why it was wrong to want to do that.

So I don't know what the future holds for Bioware. Probably end up the same as Westwood.

For myself I have promised not to preorder a Bioware game again. And I swore without an expansion I wouldn't buy any DA2 DLC (a promise I have kept). And I swear that if the Extended Cut ending of ME3 sucks (which we are fully expecting it will) then I won't be buying any ME3 DLC either.
I would be lying if I said I won't buy another Bioware game, each will have to earn it's way onto my computer post release.

[In Exile]

Transgirlgamer wrote...
If that's the case then I'm wrong.  It just plays like a PC designed game to me though.  I don't think anyone will disagree that DA:O was designed for PC though.  I've played it on PC and on PS3 (I wanted a save to import to DA2 but drifted away to start playing something else three or four games ago) and it's definately better on PC in my opinion.  Of course I prefer ME2 and 3 on PC as well because of the controls (except in the bypassing in ME2)

ME1 was an Xbox 360 game first, and ported to the PC months later. I prefer it on the PC too, but it wasn't done by Bioware. the work was handled by "Demiurge", which is why their logo pops up on the PC.

DA:O was absolutely a PC first game, and DA2 switched this.

[Transgirlgamer]

In Exile wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...
If that's the case then I'm wrong.  It just plays like a PC designed game to me though.  I don't think anyone will disagree that DA:O was designed for PC though.  I've played it on PC and on PS3 (I wanted a save to import to DA2 but drifted away to start playing something else three or four games ago) and it's definately better on PC in my opinion.  Of course I prefer ME2 and 3 on PC as well because of the controls (except in the bypassing in ME2)

ME1 was an Xbox 360 game first, and ported to the PC months later. I prefer it on the PC too, but it wasn't done by Bioware. the work was handled by "Demiurge", which is why their logo pops up on the PC.

DA:O was absolutely a PC first game, and DA2 switched this.

Fair enough.  I was wrong about ME1.  I knew that DA:O couldn't have been a console first game though.  Too much like pretty much every other RPG I've played (in terms of how it plays) for it not to be.  Which isn't to say I think DA:O is exactly the same as evry other RPG I've played just the feel of the gameplay is.


Does anyone know if Bioware had designed a game for consoles before ME1?  If not then that could be why it feels more like a PC game to me.

Modifié par Transgirlgamer, 21 avril 2012 - 03:07 .

[The Elder King]

Transgirlgamer wrote...


Fair enough.  I was wrong about ME1.  I knew that DA:O couldn't have been a console first game though.  Too much like pretty much every other RPG I've played (in terms of how it plays) for it not to be.  Which isn't to say I think DA:O is exactly the same as evry other RPG I've played just the feel of the gameplay is.


Does anyone know if Bioware had designed a game for consoles before ME1?  If not then that could be why it feels more like a PC game to me.

Jade Empire. It was released first on the original Xbox. As ME was released first on Xbox 360.

Modifié par hhh89, 21 avril 2012 - 03:16 .

[aries1001]

bEVEsthda wrote...

aries1001 wrote...
To end, let me say this:
DA2 sold about 2 million games with a development time of say 1½-2 years, while DA:O sold about 4 million games with a development time of at least 5, if not closer to 7 or even 8 years. The return of investment, was much higher for DA2 than it was DA:O - and that's someting board members understand.

But you're implying conclusions from that which are not valid.

1: DA2 sold in 2 mil, due to expectations from retailers' experience of DA:O. I believe it's now clear that DA2 failed to sell through 2 mil. Let's say close to 2 mil, doesn't matter so much.
Now, - did DA2 sell all those games? - No! DA:O sold the vast majority of those close to 2 mil copies of DA2.

So these sales represent a return of the investment in developing DA:O, not DA2!

2: Will the ~80% who where bitterly disappointed with DA2 buy a similar successor again? - No!

And therein lies DA3's biggest problem: How to market it? Because DA2 has killed the market. How is that a good return of investment?

Finally, you imply that DA:O, during development, cost the same amount of man-hours per year as DA2. We don't know that. But I think there are good reasons to believe otherwise. Also, since DA2 employed components developed during DA:O creation, DA2's full development time is actually longer than you take into account. And a proper successor to DA:O would have a similar, and in fact even greater advantage, since it would have had less changes.

My point is and was this:

DA2 sold maybe 2 million games, but did so with a dev time of  2 years. DA: O was in development  6-8 years
and sold 4 million copies, not 6 million or 8 million copies. Thus it stands to reason that the investment in DA2 made a quicker and faster return than DA2 did. And how do you that 80% were unsatisfied with DA2. I haven't seen such a figure anywhere...

[Transgirlgamer]

hhh89 wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...


Fair enough.  I was wrong about ME1.  I knew that DA:O couldn't have been a console first game though.  Too much like pretty much every other RPG I've played (in terms of how it plays) for it not to be.  Which isn't to say I think DA:O is exactly the same as evry other RPG I've played just the feel of the gameplay is.


Does anyone know if Bioware had designed a game for consoles before ME1?  If not then that could be why it feels more like a PC game to me.

Jade Empire. It was released first on the original Xbox. As ME was released first on Xbox 360.

I guess it's not that then.  Ah well.  I was just curious.  I don't actually have any form of Xbox so it doesn't really matter to me.  Most of my gaming these days is on my PC and when I do play a console, I use my PS3.

[byzantine horse]

I'll just chip in and with regards to the OP say this: Mr Laidlaw was very adamant on the point of "promises" at PAX East: They aren't giving any. If anyone at this point is reading into any statements as promises then those people are wrong. That's all.