778 réponses à ce sujet

[addiction21]

I am curious as to what a "average BioWare fan" is. Are there some standards to meet? Are there above and below average BioWare fans?

I ask because I would like to make sure in the future I act accordingly.

Modifié par addiction21, 17 juillet 2012 - 09:27 .

[Maclimes]

addiction21 wrote...

I am curious as to what a "average BioWare fan" is. Are there some standards to meet? Are there above and below average BioWare fans?

I ask because I would like to make sure in the future I act accordingly.

The average Bioware fan is one who is dead set on wanting Bioware to make the game they want to see, regardless of Bioware's intention of ever doing so.

[GodWood]

addiction21 wrote...
I am curious as to what a "average BioWare fan" is. Are there some standards to meet? Are there above and below average BioWare fans?

I ask because I would like to make sure in the future I act accordingly.

Do you play Bioware games as first and foremost a 'romance simulator'?

If so then you are the average Bioware fan.

[Maclimes]

GodWood wrote...

addiction21 wrote...
I am curious as to what a "average BioWare fan" is. Are there some standards to meet? Are there above and below average BioWare fans?

I ask because I would like to make sure in the future I act accordingly.

Do you play Bioware games as first and foremost a 'romance simulator'?

If so then you are the average Bioware fan.

This poster's sarcasm reminds me: Another defining trait of an average Bioware fan is to tell people that they are wrong for enjoying aspects of a game they don't enjoy.

Like Hawke? You're wrong. Dislike Hawke? You're also wrong.
Enjoy the romance in the game? You're wrong. Don't like the romance? Also wrong.
Like full itemization and stats? Wrong. Like streamlined interfaces and easy action? Wrong. Cinematics? Wrong. Choices? Wrong.

The important thing to remember is that all of your opinions are actually 100% verifable, universally agreed upon fact. Anyone who disagrees is wrong.

[Cimeas]

But Sylvius, the whole point is that Bioware is mainstream now. That is how they have built up as a studio. sure, they could make cheaper games with a smaller team and still profit, but they would have to fire people, which isn't good for anyone really. Every studio wants to expand, and they couldn't do that without aiming for a larger audience.

Right or wrong, I'm certainly not advocating Bioware start laying off people so it can go back to a small company making hardcore RPGs.

[addiction21]

Maclimes wrote...

This poster's sarcasm reminds me: Another defining trait of an average Bioware fan is to tell people that they are wrong for enjoying aspects of a game they don't enjoy.

Like Hawke? You're wrong. Dislike Hawke? You're also wrong.
Enjoy the romance in the game? You're wrong. Don't like the romance? Also wrong.
Like full itemization and stats? Wrong. Like streamlined interfaces and easy action? Wrong. Cinematics? Wrong. Choices? Wrong.

The important thing to remember is that all of your opinions are actually 100% verifable, universally agreed upon fact. Anyone who disagrees is wrong.

So then the only true BioWare fans have always been and can only be those that liked Shattered Steel and believe BIoWare betrayed their original fans by moving into RPGS?

Thank you. I always knew I was right no matter how much I enjoyed the Baldur's Gate games, KoToR, DA:O, DA2, and the Mass Effect series.

[Pasquale1234]

Maclimes wrote...

Man, the more and more I think about it, I realize that's exactly what it is.

Rogue/Mage/Warrior .... Import character decisions from game to game ... "RPG" style stats, but no focus on strategy or tactics ... Constant humor (often silly or inappropriate) ... Each game is set in a different country in the larger world ... Focus on collecting items to complete quests, as opposed to performing actions or making decisions ... Downplayed roleplaying in favor of a memorable, personal hero ...

Dragon Age is not the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate at all ... It's the spiritual successor to Quest For Glory. It just took them a game or two to realize it.

Excellent points, though I think they're applicable to DA2 rather than DA as a whole.  It seems a lot of people enjoyed the antics of smarty-pants Hawke, and weren't real bothered about the lack of any overall goal for the protag.

Cimeas wrote...

But Sylvius, the whole point is that Bioware is mainstream now. That is how they have built up as a studio. sure, they could make cheaper games with a smaller team and still profit, but they would have to fire people, which isn't good for anyone really. Every studio wants to expand, and they couldn't do that without aiming for a larger audience.

Right or wrong, I'm certainly not advocating Bioware start laying off people so it can go back to a small company making hardcore RPGs.

The problem is that they completely changed the style of a very successful, critically acclaimed franchise and it tanked. There were quite a few people who cancelled their pre-orders of DA2 (or simply chose not to buy it) once they saw the demo, which means that the reduced sales were not solely because of the other problems with the game, but the overall gameplay and style changes. Net result is that DA2 sold about half as many copies as DAO, and it sure looks to me like a lot of people who bought DA2 likely won't be buying "The Next Thing".  They're going to need to reach a lot more new customers in order to make "The Next Thing" financially viable.

And speaking of the franchise, people who are massively disappointed with the direction of a game series are less likely to invest in any of the other associated media.  Why continue to invest interest in a game world when the devs have made it clear that they're not going to make any more games I can play?

Another way to grow a business is to start another franchise.  Heck, they could have created some new series set in Thedas, in a different age, with fixed or semi-fixed protags, and made them all voiced, cinematic, paraphrased dialog wheel, what have you.  Then they would have had another spin-off franchise, and still left the original Dragon Age - and quite possibly its fan base - intact.  Instead, those who are still around cover a very broad spectrum in tastes and preferences, and it is impossible to satisfy all of them.

[Cimeas]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

Man, the more and more I think about it, I realize that's exactly what it is.

Rogue/Mage/Warrior .... Import character decisions from game to game ... "RPG" style stats, but no focus on strategy or tactics ... Constant humor (often silly or inappropriate) ... Each game is set in a different country in the larger world ... Focus on collecting items to complete quests, as opposed to performing actions or making decisions ... Downplayed roleplaying in favor of a memorable, personal hero ...

Dragon Age is not the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate at all ... It's the spiritual successor to Quest For Glory. It just took them a game or two to realize it.

Excellent points, though I think they're applicable to DA2 rather than DA as a whole.  It seems a lot of people enjoyed the antics of smarty-pants Hawke, and weren't real bothered about the lack of any overall goal for the protag.

Cimeas wrote...

But Sylvius, the whole point is that Bioware is mainstream now. That is how they have built up as a studio. sure, they could make cheaper games with a smaller team and still profit, but they would have to fire people, which isn't good for anyone really. Every studio wants to expand, and they couldn't do that without aiming for a larger audience.

Right or wrong, I'm certainly not advocating Bioware start laying off people so it can go back to a small company making hardcore RPGs.

The problem is that they completely changed the style of a very successful, critically acclaimed franchise and it tanked. There were quite a few people who cancelled their pre-orders of DA2 (or simply chose not to buy it) once they saw the demo, which means that the reduced sales were not solely because of the other problems with the game, but the overall gameplay and style changes. Net result is that DA2 sold about half as many copies as DAO, and it sure looks to me like a lot of people who bought DA2 likely won't be buying "The Next Thing".  They're going to need to reach a lot more new customers in order to make "The Next Thing" financially viable.

And speaking of the franchise, people who are massively disappointed with the direction of a game series are less likely to invest in any of the other associated media.  Why continue to invest interest in a game world when the devs have made it clear that they're not going to make any more games I can play?

Another way to grow a business is to start another franchise.  Heck, they could have created some new series set in Thedas, in a different age, with fixed or semi-fixed protags, and made them all voiced, cinematic, paraphrased dialog wheel, what have you.  Then they would have had another spin-off franchise, and still left the original Dragon Age - and quite possibly its fan base - intact.  Instead, those who are still around cover a very broad spectrum in tastes and preferences, and it is impossible to satisfy all of them.

No one's denying that Dragon Age 2 was bad, but I think it's time to step back and see *why* it failed.  On the BSN, everyone likes to blame DA2's failure on their own personal reasons.   

Like variety of locations?  DA2 failed because it didn't have enough places
Like protagonist with personality?  DA2 failed because Hawke was boring
Like race customization? DA2 failed because it didn't let you decide your race
Like origins? DA2 failed because it didn't have origins
Like silent protagonist? DA2 failed because it didn't have a silent protagonis
Like better endings? DA2 failed because the ending wasn't fleshed out
Like long games? DA2 failed because it didn't have enough content
Like more 'concise' games? DA2 failed because it was full of filler-fighting
Like action combat? DA2 failed because you still had auto-target, click to auto-attack combat
Like tactical combat? DA2 failed because they removed the tactical camera
Like more companions? DA2 failed because there weren't enough companions
Like more colorful art style? DA2 failed because it had a darker art style

SOME of these reasons are more valid than others.   Each individually or combined may have stopped some from liking/purchasing the game, but there are a few key reasons why the game did poorly IMHO. 

[Pasquale1234]

Cimeas wrote...

No one's denying that Dragon Age 2 was bad, but I think it's time to step back and see *why* it failed.  On the BSN, everyone likes to blame DA2's failure on their own personal reasons.   
.
.
.
SOME of these reasons are more valid than others.   Each individually or combined may have stopped some from liking/purchasing the game, but there are a few key reasons why the game did poorly IMHO. 

Agreed.

What I expect is going to happen, though, is that they are going to address a few things that they felt were obvious flaws (recycled maps, lack of choice) and toss a bone toward a couple of other areas (improve paraphrasing, changeable iconic looks) and otherwise continue as is.  That may capture the attention of those who generally like (or would have if they had bought it) the current gameplay style, but it will do nothing to bring back the DAO fans who bailed because they don't like the gameplay changes.  It will also usher out quite a few other people who can't play / accept this direction.

So, they'll be bringing forth the 3rd installment in a series for a fanbase that is deeply divided, with many who have left or are on their way out the door.  I can't imagine a riskier way to try to grow a business.

[Kileyan]

Cimeas wrote...

But Sylvius, the whole point is that Bioware is mainstream now. That is how they have built up as a studio. sure, they could make cheaper games with a smaller team and still profit, but they would have to fire people, which isn't good for anyone really. Every studio wants to expand, and they couldn't do that without aiming for a larger audience.

Right or wrong, I'm certainly not advocating Bioware start laying off people so it can go back to a small company making hardcore RPGs.

How about this. Instead of saying we can't do those kind of games anymore, because we are a huge game company that has grown beyond that, how about have a small studio in the company still make these "cheap" games from the past, these hardcore rpgs that will still be profitable, but not XBOX triple AAA Cally of Duty profitable.

Sounds like a win to me, you already have the built in old timer fanbase who yearn for such games, and you also have millions of other fans who via Mass Effect have grown recognize that Bioware lable as games they enjoyed. You might just get some big cross over sales of the Call of Duty crowd.........well maybe.

I guess I am saying Bioware has been stating for a couple of years that they have changed and grown, they need to Call of Duty sized sales, they need the Xbox gamers dollars. I don't blame them for going for it, PC gaming is slowing way down. Maybe now that they have a decent brand name and their BIOWARE logo means something to console gamers, use it both ways. Cashing in on games console gamers think they want, and also attacting them to different games, like the older style rpgs of Bioware.

But nevermind, I think this is the realm of indies, Bioware has gotten huge, there is no such thing as a small side project, everything they do is serious business and a millions of dollar EA stock affecting mega project.

[Maclimes]

Cimeas wrote...

No one's denying that Dragon Age 2 was bad, but I think it's time to step back and see *why* it failed.  On the BSN, everyone likes to blame DA2's failure on their own personal reasons.   

Like variety of locations?  DA2 failed because it didn't have enough places
Like protagonist with personality?  DA2 failed because Hawke was boring
Like race customization? DA2 failed because it didn't let you decide your race
Like origins? DA2 failed because it didn't have origins
Like silent protagonist? DA2 failed because it didn't have a silent protagonis
Like better endings? DA2 failed because the ending wasn't fleshed out
Like long games? DA2 failed because it didn't have enough content
Like more 'concise' games? DA2 failed because it was full of filler-fighting
Like action combat? DA2 failed because you still had auto-target, click to auto-attack combat
Like tactical combat? DA2 failed because they removed the tactical camera
Like more companions? DA2 failed because there weren't enough companions
Like more colorful art style? DA2 failed because it had a darker art style

SOME of these reasons are more valid than others.   Each individually or combined may have stopped some from liking/purchasing the game, but there are a few key reasons why the game did poorly IMHO. 

See, that's the main problem. I liked the voiced protagonist. I didn't mind the lack of origins. I liked the art style. Whereas someone else didn't like these things, but maybe they enjoyed some of the aspects I didn't. So, what Bioware has to figure out, is WHICH elements are truly bad, and which are just disliked by a vocal minroity of forum goers. Let's face it, if you read this forum, you'd think that DA2 was a huge flop. Not at all true. Based on the sales numbers, DA2 was a commercial success.

[batlin]

Maclimes wrote...

Based on the sales numbers, DA2 was a commercial success.

Yes, thanks to its first week of release when people were expecting something at least as good as Origins. You better believe DA3 will not be met with as much enthusiasm. Unlike DA2, DA3 will have to be a genuinely good game in order to be successful.

Modifié par batlin, 18 juillet 2012 - 02:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maclimes wrote...

This is the second time in a week that I've been forced to wonder how you managed to survive to get wherever you are today. Do you not know how to learn by doing?

In the real wordl, sure.  But there I can control for variables and repeat experiements again and again with tiny variations to see what happens.  CRPGs don't grant me anything like that much freedom (and they probably can't, nor should they have to).

Simple comprehension?

I don't understand what you mean.

Did you not see the soft green olive branch, the goofy smiling mask, or the glowing red fist and get an indication of what they mean?

An "indication" isn't nearly precise enough.  A rigid definion, universally applied, would be necessary to determine how those lines are going to be delivered.

I insist that any amount of surprise here is too much.  The player should know - before he selects a dialogue option - exactly what that selection will cause his character to say and do.  Otherwise, the player cannot select anything at all with confidence that it will not break his character.

Also, the stats tell you how they work. You just have to hover over them.

What does +138 Cold resistance do?  Where would I find that in the UI?

No one would distribute technical or office software that was this poorly documented.  Why should we accept it for games?

I think you'll find that the vast majority of humanity learns better by doing, not by simply reading about it.

Everything learnable is learnable from a book.

What about Quest For Glory? I think that game series is the absolute best comparison to DA2 I've ever seen. It's an Action/Adventure game, with RPG elements. Set protagonist, but you make his decisions as he goes (what little "decisions" there are in QFG, anyway).

I never played that.  I avoided Adventure games once I realised I just didn't like them.

Also, I suppose that's the ultimate argument here. Bioware is moving the DA series away from RPG, more towards Adventure. It's up to your personal preference whether or not that's a good thing.

In addition, I'd like them to admit it.  If they are intentionally making games that are no longer roleplaying games, I want them to say so, rather than continuing to call them something they are not.

If that's the game they want to make, then market it like that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cimeas wrote...

But Sylvius, the whole point is that Bioware is mainstream now. That is how they have built up as a studio. sure, they could make cheaper games with a smaller team and still profit, but they would have to fire people, which isn't good for anyone really. Every studio wants to expand, and they couldn't do that without aiming for a larger audience.

Every bureaucracy wants to expand - that doesn't make expansion a good thing.

Also, you're assuming that they would make the same number of games.  I'm saying they could make smaller games but more of them, and have a larger ROI while doing it.

Right or wrong, I'm certainly not advocating Bioware start laying off people so it can go back to a small company making hardcore RPGs.

BioWare already routinely undergoes a "reduction in force" when they complete projects.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 juillet 2012 - 07:32 .

[AkiKishi]

Maclimes wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

No one's denying that Dragon Age 2 was bad, but I think it's time to step back and see *why* it failed.  On the BSN, everyone likes to blame DA2's failure on their own personal reasons.   

Like variety of locations?  DA2 failed because it didn't have enough places
Like protagonist with personality?  DA2 failed because Hawke was boring
Like race customization? DA2 failed because it didn't let you decide your race
Like origins? DA2 failed because it didn't have origins
Like silent protagonist? DA2 failed because it didn't have a silent protagonis
Like better endings? DA2 failed because the ending wasn't fleshed out
Like long games? DA2 failed because it didn't have enough content
Like more 'concise' games? DA2 failed because it was full of filler-fighting
Like action combat? DA2 failed because you still had auto-target, click to auto-attack combat
Like tactical combat? DA2 failed because they removed the tactical camera
Like more companions? DA2 failed because there weren't enough companions
Like more colorful art style? DA2 failed because it had a darker art style

SOME of these reasons are more valid than others.   Each individually or combined may have stopped some from liking/purchasing the game, but there are a few key reasons why the game did poorly IMHO. 

See, that's the main problem. I liked the voiced protagonist. I didn't mind the lack of origins. I liked the art style. Whereas someone else didn't like these things, but maybe they enjoyed some of the aspects I didn't. So, what Bioware has to figure out, is WHICH elements are truly bad, and which are just disliked by a vocal minroity of forum goers. Let's face it, if you read this forum, you'd think that DA2 was a huge flop. Not at all true. Based on the sales numbers, DA2 was a commercial success.

What makes DA2 bad is the number of a contradictory elements.

You have CC but you can't create your own character.
You have fast combat speed but you still have a tactical interface.
You have this idea that DA2 is newbie friendly ,then pack it with things like CCC which even some of the vets here can't handle.
You have this idea of tactical combat , then have things falling from the sky in the most untactical manner imaginable.

DA 2 is pulling in too many directions and barely reaching mediocre in any of them.If you contrast that with games like Witcher2 and Deus Ex, those games have features that compliment not contradict.

[Cutlasskiwi]

BobSmith101 wrote...

You have CC but you can't create your own character.

See, I have never been able to create my own character in a BioWare game. None of their games have ever come close to the tabletop freedom so I never try because that would only lead to great disappointment. I've always seen it as BioWare's character that I get to control at a certain point in their life and modify to a certain extent.

So when people say things like remove the CC and make it a fixed protagonist like Geralt I always shake my head. Because I still play BioWare games the same way I always have and the CC have always been there. The only difference I can find is that my playstyle is more supported now (3rd person).

[AkiKishi]

Cutlasskiwi wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

You have CC but you can't create your own character.

See, I have never been able to create my own character in a BioWare game. None of their games have ever come close to the tabletop freedom so I never try because that would only lead to great disappointment. I've always seen it as BioWare's character that I get to control at a certain point in their life and modify to a certain extent.

So when people say things like remove the CC and make it a fixed protagonist like Geralt I always shake my head. Because I still play BioWare games the same way I always have and the CC have always been there. The only difference I can find is that my playstyle is more supported now (3rd person).

Working within a background is standard for PnP. Rarely will the DM let you just make up anything you like. It's how much the games impose on the present that has changed. For example.

In ME2 Shepard sees Talis face. The player does not.
In DA2 Hawke greets a bunch of people the player has never seen before.
In ME3 it opens with a character you have never seen before even though Shepard seems to know them.
DA2 has huge "black outs" where Hawke dissapears for years but does not change. Like going into a stasis chamber.
Paraphrase - unless you are the type that speaks without thinking, what you say should never come as a suprise. 

While it's not going to bother someone who 3rd persons. It does represent a very fundamental shift to requiring 3rd person to rationalise it.
If you are going that far, you may as well fix the  character and push out the advantages of the cinematics and paraphrasing to drive the story rather than give the character multiple ways to say the same thing.

[bEVEsthda]

Cimeas wrote...
No one's denying that Dragon Age 2 was bad, but I think it's time to step back and see *why* it failed.  On the BSN, everyone likes to blame DA2's failure on their own personal reasons.   

Like variety of locations?  DA2 failed because it didn't have enough places
Like protagonist with personality?  DA2 failed because Hawke was boring
Like race customization? DA2 failed because it didn't let you decide your race
Like origins? DA2 failed because it didn't have origins
Like silent protagonist? DA2 failed because it didn't have a silent protagonis
Like better endings? DA2 failed because the ending wasn't fleshed out
Like long games? DA2 failed because it didn't have enough content
Like more 'concise' games? DA2 failed because it was full of filler-fighting
Like action combat? DA2 failed because you still had auto-target, click to auto-attack combat
Like tactical combat? DA2 failed because they removed the tactical camera
Like more companions? DA2 failed because there weren't enough companions
Like more colorful art style? DA2 failed because it had a darker art style

SOME of these reasons are more valid than others.   Each individually or combined may have stopped some from liking/purchasing the game, but there are a few key reasons why the game did poorly IMHO. 

I'd like to apply a more holistic perspective. It's not a given thing that DA2 is "bad", in an objective way.
 It has weaknesses, yes, but so does every game ever released.

The general perception, of DA2, sank like a lead weight, because a majority - in my estimate at least 80% - of the early 1.5 mil customers didn't like the game. And not only that, but they were pretty upset about it. What they purchased wasn't just another dud game, something most people surely are used to take in the stride. It was something they felt insulted and betrayed by.

When you then start to ask the question, "constructive criticism", you will get a list of flaws.
This approach has two very significant problems, which IMO need to be considered:

1:- Every game has flaws. And even a considerable number of them. Any person, wanting to bash any game, has no difficulty in finding things to criticize. That person will come up with a long list. And even people liking the game would agree with a good share of them.
An excellent indication of how hard it is to determine significance, is the many examples in this forum where DA2 fans argue (rightly or wrongly) that features, criticized by DA2 critics, are also present in games these critics like, as DA:O or TES.

2:- The debate around the listed flaws, as well as the list itself, is heavily tainted by the opinions of people who like DA2.
The problem with that should  be very obvious. At least if you're seriously interested in finding out exactly why those who dislike DA2 do so.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 18 juillet 2012 - 11:24 .

[bEVEsthda]

So, if you then have a forum (where DA2 fans are greatly over-represented, in particular after a year has passed), and solicit for feedback, and then weigh the criticized points after seeming concencus, what are you most likely to end up with?

A) - A shortlist of obvious items, which almost anyone can agree with, but which didn't really stop anyone, who liked DA2, from enjoying the game in the first place.

- An understanding for a developer (previously demonstrably clueless, who purposefully made this POS and then cheerfully published it), about where the chain truly snapped.

[bEVEsthda]

I greatly fear that DA3 eventually will prove that Bioware went with 'A'. I also think they're prone to gravitate towards 'A' by their own bias. The feed-feedback-back we've got from Bioware sofar is very sparing, but certainly worrying. I've tried many times to warn about only listening to criticism from people who like DA2 (or only criticism DA2 fans agree with). But I've seen preciously few signs that they seriously consider concerns, voiced only by people who emphatically disliked DA2. The most we've got sofar, is the 'fingertip' (or fingernail tip) of the 'customizable' iconic armour.

I think it might be fair enough that they don't want to tell us anything before they have anything to show. We're not getting forward anyway, so it has to be that way. I suppose. But doesn't that mean that they have already committed themselves then?

I've said this many times before, and I'll say it again: DA2 didn't fail because of flaws. It failed because of the type of game it wanted to be.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 18 juillet 2012 - 11:38 .

[ianvillan]

bEVEsthda wrote...

I greatly fear that DA3 eventually will prove that Bioware went with 'A'. I also think they're prone to gravitate towards 'A' by their own bias. The feed-feedback-back we've got from Bioware sofar is very sparing, but certainly worrying. I've tried many times to warn about only listening to criticism from people who like DA2 (or only criticism DA2 fans agree with). But I've seen preciously few signs that they seriously consider concerns, voiced only by people who emphatically disliked DA2. The most we've got sofar, is the 'fingertip' (or fingernail tip) of the 'customizable' iconic armour.

I think it might be fair enough that they don't want to tell us anything before they have anything to show. We're not getting forward anyway, so it has to be that way. I suppose. But doesn't that mean that they have already committed themselves then?

I've said this many times before, and I'll say it again: DA2 didn't fail because of flaws. It failed because of the type of game it wanted to be.

I agree and would also bring up where people in another thread asked about having the full text displayed by hovering over the paraphrase but David Gaider said no that it wasn't what they wanted to do. Doesn't that mean that they have already decided in what they are going to do and this talk of having discusions and feedback is just talk.

[Xilizhra]

Honestly, if they went with B in your summation, it seems like they'd remove a lot of the things that I, and other people who did like DA2, actually liked about the game more than DAO. It's entirely possible that by trying to be more like DAO, they'd alienate DA2 fans. Is that really a smarter move than trying to keep the people they have while expanding it enough to draw a few others back in?

[AkiKishi]

Xilizhra wrote...

Honestly, if they went with B in your summation, it seems like they'd remove a lot of the things that I, and other people who did like DA2, actually liked about the game more than DAO. It's entirely possible that by trying to be more like DAO, they'd alienate DA2 fans. Is that really a smarter move than trying to keep the people they have while expanding it enough to draw a few others back in?

If you break it down to a numbers game DA2 sold less than a quarter of DA:O. DA2 was likely cheaper to make, though how that figures into the profit , thats anyone guess.

What is important is how many people feel the were "tricked" by DA2 and will subsequently avoid DA3. Generally on the boards here, that's a bit of an empty threat (although having said that I rented both DA2 and ME3). Once word got out that DA2 was a shadow of the game DA:O was , the sales dropped off a cliff.

The pre-order levels will be the first indication of any knock on effect from DA2.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 18 juillet 2012 - 12:52 .

[Xilizhra]

Honestly, though, how many people really have the game ruined from having a voiced PC or the current combat system? To me, it seems that the flaws of DA2 that the ones who liked DA2 pointed out were compounding issues that those who liked DAO more could still have stood to play DA2 if they didn't have said flaws. If those can be fixed, I think most people would come back, and many of the ones who wouldn't wouldn't have come back anyway.