764 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The point is not really that DA:O sold or was liked. It's whether that would be the case if it was "remade" and sold in todays market.  

...what?

"Remade?" "Sold in today's market?"

People arguing for a voice protagonist because it has to keep up with today's technology do realize that DA:O came out in November 2009? And that it was selling DLC and Expansion Packs, using its same model and gameplay, through October 2010? 

And, further, that voiced main characters have been the standard for action video games since... oh, I don't know... Metal Gear Solid or Resident Evil in the late 90's? This isn't some new invention that games just now got on board with... games have been doing fine without it for over a decade now.

So I'm not buying the "Bioware must keep up with technology" argument. They didn't have to do it with Baldur's Gate, they didn't have to do it with NWN, they didn't have to do it with KOTOR, they didn't have to do it with Jade Empire, they didn't have to do it Origins... heck, they didn't even have to do it with Sonic Chronicles!

In addition to voiced main characters being a decade+ old technology, Skyrim is 12 million and one reasons why Bioware doesn't "have" to cater and bend to this idea. This is a choice they are making to move towards more of a cinematic, story-telling game, instead of an RPG game. 

[AkiKishi]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

The point is not really that DA:O sold or was liked. It's whether that would be the case if it was "remade" and sold in todays market.  

...what?

"Remade?" "Sold in today's market?"

People arguing for a voice protagonist because it has to keep up with today's technology do realize that DA:O came out in November 2009? And that it was selling DLC and Expansion Packs, using its same model and gameplay, through October 2010? 

And, further, that voiced main characters have been the standard for action video games since... oh, I don't know... Metal Gear Solid or Resident Evil in the late 90's? This isn't some new invention that games just now got on board with... games have been doing fine without it for over a decade now.

So I'm not buying the "Bioware must keep up with technology" argument. They didn't have to do it with Baldur's Gate, they didn't have to do it with NWN, they didn't have to do it with KOTOR, they didn't have to do it with Jade Empire, they didn't have to do it Origins... heck, they didn't even have to do it with Sonic Chronicles!

In addition to voiced main characters being a decade+ old technology, Skyrim is 12 million and one reasons why Bioware doesn't "have" to cater and bend to this idea. This is a choice they are making to move towards more of a cinematic, story-telling game, instead of an RPG game. 

Final Fantasy X was released in 2001 and was the last FF where you could name the protagonist. Part of that being it was not possible to refer to the character by name in speech. Ano Otoko might work in Japanese. But calling your love "him" in Engllsh, not so much.

If Bioware were making something like Skyrim I would not be saying the same things. But they are not, they are making cinematic games.

Cinematic is the key here. Skyrim is a very different design.

[Jormundgander]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

If we were still talking about DA:O I would agree with you. But DA2 is fixed in all but name. Not only that,but it still fails to offer the variability that you got in the Witcher2 with regards to actions and consequences.This is in part to Bioware not being brave enough to take that final step and fix the character competely.

Or they could just go back to supporting player-created characters...

Already said that they will not be dropping VA or the wheel.

And because of that, I am not buying it. The wheel doesn't connect with a medieval-fantasy game. Numeric answers give that kind of feeling but not a modern wheel. I only pray to be improved, and to remove the childish icons that tell us if we are good, bad or neutral, sarcastic... that's just awful.

And why VA? I mean, Dragon Age character creator must mean something... Why giving him/her a voice? Unless Claudia Black is the female voice (Morrigan is the main character) and Sandal is the male voice, I won't buy it as I said. Because I can see what they are trying to sell us... an hibrid.

They ruined Mass Effect essence by following "the wider audience path"They are ruining Dragon Age because of the same reason... So bad. I preffer games that don't claim a wider audience but a special audience, considering that these are the kind of games that can be memorable and unique. Dragon Age Origins is unique, a great RPG, while Dragon Age 2 is an hibrid, a bad RPG.

Modifié par Jormundgander, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:56 .

[Jormundgander]

While Mass Effect was a great RPG, Mass Effect 3 is just an hibrid... A cinematic-interactive experience... But not so memorable as Mass Effect 1 (the original was much more better in terms of RPG and nostalgic component).

Just the same as it's happening with Dragon Age. The only difference is that the graphics in Dragon Age cannot be compared to Mass Effect. When they do a Dragon Effect that looks like Sacred Ashes trailer, then I will accept Bioware products.

But because that's unlikely to happen, I preffer a game closer to Dragon Age Origins (more RPG, less cinematic component). More Awesome doesn't mean more memorable. I miss every companion from Origins, while I can barely remember the names from Dragon Age 2. That must mean something...

Bioware must focus on the character and the story, and give us more choice, a decent inventory (not only for the main character, but the rest of the party), and also the isometric view back for PC, and the extense, complex and meaningful dialogues from Origins where you can decide what to say and how to argue, not just what to "speak" with one tone or another (just like Hawke did, with 0 repercussion).

I want Morrigan and my Warden back. What I mean is that Bioware made that epic "love-story" possible, so why not concluding it?... "Change is coming", yeah. I didn't like the change, not that I feared it but just hated it (DA 2), so I want her back and with her all the essence from Origins.

Bioware did that DLC called Witch Hunt... they loosed the pantaloons for the fans as they did in the Extended Cut DLC for ME 3, but they didn't conclude anything in Witch Hunt (in fact, all begins there).

Morrigan is as relevant as Flemeth is, both should be the focus of the story in Dragon Age 3. And if there is any way to make the Warden return (not only as a statue icon, or somethin like that) I mean physically, I would buy the game even if I hated Dragon Age 2. If that's not happening, I will prevail as a Warden in Origins and Awakening. 

Hmmm, Awakening, a great expansion that I loved more than DA 2... So bad Bioware changed the "near to perfection" Dragon Age to convert it into a hack'n slash  - cinematic - interactive hibrid with 0 RPG component. 100% Awesome - 100% Aweful

P.D.: Sorry for the double post and my bad english  

Modifié par Jormundgander, 03 juillet 2012 - 05:00 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Or they could just go back to supporting player-created characters...

Already said that they will not be dropping VA or the wheel.

But they've also said they can improve the paraphrases.  How, I have no idea, but that they seem to be willing to try suggests they're not willing to abandon player control as you seem to want them to.

BobSmith101 wrote...

Cinematic is the key here.

Then cinematic is the problem.

And just because BioWare says they're committed to it is not reason for me to stop pointing out its failings.  If any aspect of a new game fails to reach a standard reached by a previous game, that's something consumers need to know.

[GodWood]

BobSmith101 wrote...
The point is not really that DA:O sold or was liked. It's whether that would be the case if it was "remade" and sold in todays market.

Remade? Sold to today's market?

It was only released in late 2009! It's not even three years old!

Skyrim is not cinematic. It draws very little attention to the protagonist from what I have seen.

If we're focusing on strictly 'cinematic' games then we need not look no further then DA:O.

It sold more then Witcher 2 and Deus Ex: HR.

[AkiKishi]

GodWood wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
The point is not really that DA:O sold or was liked. It's whether that would be the case if it was "remade" and sold in todays market.

Remade? Sold to today's market?

It was only released in late 2009! It's not even three years old!

Skyrim is not cinematic. It draws very little attention to the protagonist from what I have seen.

If we're focusing on strictly 'cinematic' games then we need not look no further then DA:O.

It sold more then Witcher 2 and Deus Ex: HR.

Three years is a long time in game terms. Since then we have had ME2/3,TW2 and DX:HR

Three years ago yes.But there is no way to know how well it would do today. The fact Bioware dropped it is quite telling. Either its got a poor cost/profit ratio. Or it just takes too long to make a game like DA:O. If it was that good of a money spinner EA would be all over it. Money is their bottom line.

 

[GodWood]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Three years is a long time in game terms. Since then we have had ME2/3,TW2 and DX:HR

Three years ago yes.But there is no way to know how well it would do today.

...
 
ME2 was released only 2 months after. DX:HR and TW2 both sold less then DA:O.The Dragon Age: Origins Ultimate Edition was released only 5 months before DA2 and it sold better.

The claim that games with a silent PC can't survive in today's market is absolutely ludicrous.

Either its got a poor cost/profit ratio. Or it just takes too long to make a game like DA:O. If it was that good of a money spinner EA would be all over it. Money is their bottom line.

Voiced protaganists cost significantly more.

[AkiKishi]

GodWood wrote...

ME2 was released only 2 months after. DX:HR and TW2 both sold less then DA:O.The Dragon Age: Origins Ultimate Edition was released only 5 months before DA2 and it sold better.

The claim that games with a silent PC can't survive in today's market is absolutely ludicrous.

Either its got a poor cost/profit ratio. Or it just takes too long to make a game like DA:O. If it was that good of a money spinner EA would be all over it. Money is their bottom line.

Voiced protaganists cost significantly more.

Never claimed that. All I said was if you tried to resell DA today would it do as well.

Then why has EA Bioware turned it's back on a more profitable venture ? Something obviously put them onto the change of direction.

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Three years ago yes.But there is no way to know how well it would do today. The fact Bioware dropped it is quite telling. Either its got a poor cost/profit ratio. Or it just takes too long to make a game like DA:O. If it was that good of a money spinner EA would be all over it. Money is their bottom line.

As Allan Schumacher pointed out in another thread, it would have been much cheaper to make DA2 if they'd kept all of the systems from DAO and just written new content.

I suggest that BioWare chose the direction they did for DA2 because they feared a decline in demand for a DAO-style game.  There is no evidence for such a decline, but we also have no data to suggest there is not.

[Pasquale1234]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Never claimed that. All I said was if you tried to resell DA today would it do as well.

Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

The fact that even now DAO is selling at a higher price than DA2 might mean something...

Then why has EA Bioware turned it's back on a more profitable venture ? Something obviously put them onto the change of direction.

Excellent question.  Perhaps they thought it less risky...

[The Hierophant]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Never claimed that. All I said was if you tried to resell DA today would it do as well.

Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?

The fact that even now DAO is selling at a higher price than DA2 might mean something...

Then why has EA Bioware turned it's back on a more profitable venture ? Something obviously put them onto the change of direction.

Excellent question.  Perhaps they thought it less risky...

They probably thought that if the game was more mainstream or dumbed down that it would sell more copies. 

Modifié par The Hierophant, 04 juillet 2012 - 05:54 .

[Kidd]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Even then though, my empathy towards other character's still helps feed into understanding how the situation plays out.  While I can grin as my Revan convinces Zaalbar to kill Mission in KOTOR, I can also understand how that decision makes Zaalbar and Mission feel.

You heartless monster  I was role playing a character who I knew would take the moment to kill Zaalbar and Mission, but I was feeling horrible myself as my character kept making Zaalbar do those horrible things x) Horrible in a good way of course, it's great that a game can make you feel so strongly.

[batlin]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Never claimed that. All I said was if you tried to resell DA today would it do as well.

Then why has EA Bioware turned it's back on a more profitable venture ? Something obviously put them onto the change of direction.

DA:O came out in 2009 and used DA:O games sell for more than DA2 games do...exactly what makes you think DA:O wouldn't do as well today than it did in the far distant past of 2009?

[Fast Jimmy]

batlin wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Never claimed that. All I said was if you tried to resell DA today would it do as well.

Then why has EA Bioware turned it's back on a more profitable venture ? Something obviously put them onto the change of direction.

DA:O came out in 2009 and used DA:O games sell for more than DA2 games do...exactly what makes you think DA:O wouldn't do as well today than it did in the far distant past of 2009?

Ha. This.

The argument that people couldn't, wouldn't and shouldn't have to put up with such "archaic" features and gameplay is laughable to me. This won Game of the Year less than 31 months ago and was, until ME3, the best selling Bioware game of all time. What fantasy land people are living in that makes them think that 90% of how the game was executed wasn't marketable, profitable or workable in this "distant future" we live in is comical.

[Fast Jimmy]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Then why has EA Bioware turned it's back on a more profitable venture ? Something obviously put them onto the change of direction.

Because EA is notorious for having horrible business sense about how to manage its IPs. They buy sucessful developers, milk them of every dime they can squeeze from their franchise with horrible tactics to "get them to sell more" and then, when they are done, they auction off the worthless, dead branches like a sports car that had been smashed into walls at high speeds one too many times. 

Just ask Will Wright. Or Richard Garriot. Or John Resnick. Or Les Edgar. Or Brett Sperry. Soon it will be the Doctors of Bioware on this list, of that I have absolutely zero doubt.

If you don't know who any of these people are, Google them and the companies they founded. Look at the havoc, devastation and complete financial ruin EA caused them, their employees and their IPs.

EA has an amazing eye for upcoming talent in smaller studios and enough solid money making sports franchises that get them cash inflows so they can continue to leverage more and more debt to buy smaller studios with promising IPs. They then have almost zero idea how to improve the developers they buy, mostly because they don't need to, they only need to milk their names for a few years to make more money off them then they paid. Its a  business model that has served them well the past two decades, but more and more gamers are becoming wise to their ploys and know to just stop buying any games made by developers bought out by EA, as they are unabashed of lower quality the longer they are owned by the publisher. That's why their stock is taking a nose dive, because people aren't being fooled into buying their crappy games anymore.

Bioware was one of the best developers EA ever bought out. The hope that they could battle against EA, that they could stand tall against the large amount of mediocrity and base gameplay that comes out of the publishing house was a hope that seemed strong with the release of ME1 and DA:O, both over a year after the EA buy out. But it seems that is not the case. Bioware held out, but they are falling victim in the same exact way other quality developers did before them. 

When people think of evil, soulless, harmful corporations, EA seems to top the list (as can be seen by Fortune Magazine's recent poll voting them the worst company in the world).


EDIT: Was this too over the top? I can never tell.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 06 juillet 2012 - 01:04 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Because EA is notorious for having horrible business sense about how to manage its IPs. They buy sucessful developers, milk them of every dime they can squeeze from their franchise with horrible tactics to "get them to sell more" and then, when they are done, they auction off the worthless, dead branches like a sports car that had been smashed into walls at high speeds one too many times. 

I think it has to do with their internal structure.  The developers need to pitch their games to EA's marketing department, because EA won't fund a game unless they think they can sell a game (which is smart).  But to determine whether they can sell a game, they rely on their marketers to decide whether they know how to advertise a game, and that's their mistake.

EA should adopt some sort of data-driven market analysis rather than relying on marketers to use their gut.  Honestly, they should hire economists to make these decisions for them.

And EA probably thinks they are using data-bdriven market analysis, but I guarantee they're misinterpreting it.  Even BioWare's description of the metrics they collected from DAO makes several unfounded assumptions.

[wsandista]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Because EA is notorious for having horrible business sense about how to manage its IPs. They buy sucessful developers, milk them of every dime they can squeeze from their franchise with horrible tactics to "get them to sell more" and then, when they are done, they auction off the worthless, dead branches like a sports car that had been smashed into walls at high speeds one too many times. 

I think it has to do with their internal structure.  The developers need to pitch their games to EA's marketing department, because EA won't fund a game unless they think they can sell a game (which is smart).  But to determine whether they can sell a game, they rely on their marketers to decide whether they know how to advertise a game, and that's their mistake.

EA should adopt some sort of data-driven market analysis rather than relying on marketers to use their gut.  Honestly, they should hire economists to make these decisions for them.

And EA probably thinks they are using data-bdriven market analysis, but I guarantee they're misinterpreting it.  Even BioWare's description of the metrics they collected from DAO makes several unfounded assumptions.

I argee with this post.

EA doesn't seem to really understand the RPG market. Making games cinematic and hiring big-name actors to voice NPCs is not the way to appeal to the consumers in the RPG market.

[Xewaka]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Then why has EA Bioware turned it's back on a more profitable venture ? Something obviously put them onto the change of direction.

Development time. DA:O development time was absolutely ludicruous for current industry standards, and the most expensive commodity in game development is programmer time. Hence they switched model for a faster turnaround.
There's a reason DA2 feels hurried. It was. To recoup from the losses of the abnormally long development of DA:O and make the IP profitable. So yes, DA:O sold more, still sells more than DA 2. That does not mean DA:O is more profitable; taking costs into account, DA2 has been the most successful to them.

[Allan Schumacher]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Even then though, my empathy towards other character's still helps feed into understanding how the situation plays out.  While I can grin as my Revan convinces Zaalbar to kill Mission in KOTOR, I can also understand how that decision makes Zaalbar and Mission feel.

You heartless monster  I was role playing a character who I knew would take the moment to kill Zaalbar and Mission, but I was feeling horrible myself as my character kept making Zaalbar do those horrible things x) Horrible in a good way of course, it's great that a game can make you feel so strongly.

Haha, on a purely personal level, there was definitely an "Oh man that's cold!" when I did that hahaha.

There were some similar cases where my jerk Jedi in SWTOR did some evil things in disgust, and I the gamer felt awful about it lol.  But yeah, I think it's great when a game can illicit a response like that out of me.

[batlin]

Xewaka wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
Then why has EA Bioware turned it's back on a more profitable venture ? Something obviously put them onto the change of direction.

Development time. DA:O development time was absolutely ludicruous for current industry standards, and the most expensive commodity in game development is programmer time. Hence they switched model for a faster turnaround.
There's a reason DA2 feels hurried. It was. To recoup from the losses of the abnormally long development of DA:O and make the IP profitable. So yes, DA:O sold more, still sells more than DA 2. That does not mean DA:O is more profitable; taking costs into account, DA2 has been the most successful to them.

Well it was thanks to DA:O that DA2 was able to get out as soon as it was. There's no way they could have made a game like DA2 playable in the time they did had they not had DA:O's groundwork to work with.

[withneelandi]

The thing that baffles me about this "wider audience" issue is that games like Skyrim will rank pretty highly in the sales charts and seem to appeal to a pretty wide audience.

It is a pretty traditional RPG which seems to me to make very little concious attempts to pander to a wider audience, its just a good solid RPG that knows what it wants to do and does it well. Surely the lesson to marketing types should be that if you want to appeal to as wide an audience as possible there is no surer way than focus on making a good solid game. Thats why origins sold well, it was a good RPG that knew it was an RPG and people said to their friends "buy this game its fun".

Thats the best PR you can get.

[Fast Jimmy]

withneelandi wrote...

The thing that baffles me about this "wider audience" issue is that games like Skyrim will rank pretty highly in the sales charts and seem to appeal to a pretty wide audience.

It is a pretty traditional RPG which seems to me to make very little concious attempts to pander to a wider audience, its just a good solid RPG that knows what it wants to do and does it well. Surely the lesson to marketing types should be that if you want to appeal to as wide an audience as possible there is no surer way than focus on making a good solid game. Thats why origins sold well, it was a good RPG that knew it was an RPG and people said to their friends "buy this game its fun".

Thats the best PR you can get.

I GUARANTEE you... the only thing EA's marketing group will walk away with about Skyrim is that they had a live action tv commercial. That HAD to be the reason they've sold 12 million copies. 

I swear to everything holy - that is the only lesson they will learn there. 

[TonberryFeye]

I am sorely tempted to write a letter to EA describing what they do to games by way of analogy... like this one!

GOLF - THE EA WAY:
>Having 18 unique holes on a golf course is expensive. As such, the club will save money by making 9 holes, and duplicating layouts with slightly different start and end points.
>Instead of charging people to play a single game, we'll let them play the first 12 holes. When they reach hole 13 they will be asked to pay us more money to keep playing, and the same again at hole 16.
>To make more money, people aren't allowed to bring their own clubs - they have to rent our clubs, and we only give them one club to play with.
>The scoring system of Golf is confusing, so we'll make it like Football; the player with the most goals wins.

[Fast Jimmy]

TonberryFeye wrote...

I am sorely tempted to write a letter to EA describing what they do to games by way of analogy... like this one!

GOLF - THE EA WAY:
>Having 18 unique holes on a golf course is expensive. As such, the club will save money by making 9 holes, and duplicating layouts with slightly different start and end points.
>Instead of charging people to play a single game, we'll let them play the first 12 holes. When they reach hole 13 they will be asked to pay us more money to keep playing, and the same again at hole 16.
>To make more money, people aren't allowed to bring their own clubs - they have to rent our clubs, and we only give them one club to play with.
>The scoring system of Golf is confusing, so we'll make it like Football; the player with the most goals wins.

...if getting a golf ball into a hole resulted in everyone screaming "GOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLL!!!!!" then I think more people would watch golf.

I think if Bioware wanted to make a cinematic action fantasy game, they should have made a new IP. As it was, they thought they'd take their most successful franchise ever, turn it on its head for no real apparent reason at all other than to accommodate a different player fanbase than the one who liked the first game, and then are surprised when said fanbase is polarly divided and the game resulted in less sales.