304 réponses à ce sujet

[StElmo]

Realmzmaster wrote...

coles4971 wrote...

Having low expectations does not then make a game good.

I prefer to go in with no expectations, but that is not the case for everyone. I judge each game on its own and not by comparison. This is why if you look at my ratings I rate BG1 higher than BG2 even though most gamers have BG2 rated higher than BG1.

Having no expectations allows me to judge each game on its merits, but YMMV.

Ultimately, you are right. Comparing only leads to misery.

[Yrkoon]

 They called it Dragon age 2. How in the world does anyone expect us to to go into the game with the mindset that it's something other than a sequel to the previous Dragon age game they played?

If I bought and drove a ferrari for 2 years and loved everything about it, and then ferrari put out a cheap, crap economy car  comperable to a Honda Civic and called it a sequel to their classic previous model, then YES, it's going to lose points based on the fact that it's supposed to be a Ferrari, not a Honda Civic.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 21 août 2012 - 02:13 .

[wsandista]

Yrkoon wrote...

Bar that. They called it Dragon age 2. How in the world does anyone expect us to to go into the game with the mindset that it's something other than a sequel to the previous Dragon age game they played?

Not only that, but it was also billed as a Dragon Age game. Even if it wasn't billed as a sequel it would have been compared to the other Dragon Age. Hell, it has been compared to other Bioware games, because they are Bioware games.

[Morroian]

Do we really have to rehash old arguments like whether its a sequel or not?

[Realmzmaster]

Yrkoon wrote...

 They called it Dragon age 2. How in the world does anyone expect us to to go into the game with the mindset that it's something other than a sequel to the previous Dragon age game they played?

If I bought and drove a ferrari for 2 years and loved everything about it, and then ferrari put out a cheap, crap economy car  comperable to a Honda Civic and called it a sequel to their classic previous model, then YES, it's going to lose points based on the fact that it's supposed to be a Ferrari, not a Honda Civic.

Read my post I said I do not compare games to each other. I have a checklist of points that I rate my games on. I did not say others can do the same thing. YMMV. I know what I do. What you do is your business. Ultima went from 1 to 9, Might and Magic from 1 to 9 and Wizardry from 1 to 9. I rated each game in and of itself. That is what I do. What you do may vary.

[Realmzmaster]

wsandista wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

Bar that. They called it Dragon age 2. How in the world does anyone expect us to to go into the game with the mindset that it's something other than a sequel to the previous Dragon age game they played?

Not only that, but it was also billed as a Dragon Age game. Even if it wasn't billed as a sequel it would have been compared to the other Dragon Age. Hell, it has been compared to other Bioware games, because they are Bioware games.

Again I do not care about comparing games. I have a checklist that I use to rate the games. Which why in my ranking BG1 comes before BG2. I also run down the checklist before I purchase a game which is why I did not buy The Witcher 2 or Skyrim. They both have combat and control systems that I do not like. The Witcher 1's control system was at least like NWN. The Witcher 2 is not. It requires keyboard and mouse specifically. You could play Witcher 1 without a keyboard the same as DA2, BG1 and BG2, NWN. I have Wticher 2 sitting on my self unopened because it was a gift.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Morroian wrote...

Do we really have to rehash old arguments like whether its a sequel or not?

I hope that answered the question to your satisfaction.

[Yrkoon]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Read my post I said I do not compare games to each other. I have a checklist of points that I rate my games on. I did not say others can do the same thing. YMMV. I know what I do. What you do is your business. Ultima went from 1 to 9, Might and Magic from 1 to 9 and Wizardry from 1 to 9. I rated each game in and of itself. That is what I do. What you do may vary.

Realmzmaster wrote...
Again I do not care about comparing games. I have a checklist that I use to rate the games. Which why in my ranking BG1 comes before BG2. I also run down the checklist before I purchase a game which is why I did not buy The Witcher 2 or Skyrim. They both have combat and control systems that I do not like. The Witcher 1's control system was at least like NWN. The Witcher 2 is not. It requires keyboard and mouse specifically. You could play Witcher 1 without a keyboard the same as DA2, BG1 and BG2, NWN. I have Wticher 2 sitting on my self unopened because it was a gift.

Not sure why you're under the impression that either of us was  responding to anything you said.

I certainly wasn't.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 21 août 2012 - 11:26 .

[Gotholhorakh]

In precis:

"According to the data:

1. Fewer people bought DA2 than DA:O. This does not matter we'll discount that.

2. Fewer people completed DA2 than DA:O. This does not matter we'll discount that.

3. Dividing bought/completed for both games produces similar results that are roughly expected, but the DA2 figure is slightly higher than that for DA:O. This does matter and is why I conclude that DA2 held more people's interest than DA:O.

<tommy cooper>Just like that!</tommy cooper>"

(if you don't get the reference, please to fix)

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 21 août 2012 - 04:07 .

[bEVEsthda]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

In precis:

"According to the data:

1. Fewer people bought DA2 than DA:O. This does not matter we'll discount that.

2. Fewer people completed DA2 than DA:O. This does not matter we'll discount that.

3. Dividing bought/completed for both games produces similar results that are roughly expected, but the DA2 figure is slightly higher than that for DA:O. This does matter and is why I conclude that DA2 held more people's interest than DA:O.

<tommy cooper>Just like that!</tommy cooper>"

(if you don't get the reference, please to fix)

But it's a false conclusion nevertheless. I think we're more than waist-deep in various evidence of the exact opposite. And that's enough of that angle.

You're assuming some claimed data can be used as evidence for your conclusion. That much is clear. But why?

I really do hope that whatever EA/Bioware dudes, who might assume this metrics is of any use, aren't quite as simplistic as some posters in this thread. I find it more interesting to speculate about why this data has been made public (internal politics, PR, positioning relative to shareholders, bla, bla) , than about what it means (because it doesn't mean anything. - Really!).

But, ok, let's go there anyway.
Let's first ponder this question: Is a perfect completion rate possible?
- No. For many different reasons. Too many to even bother to list.

But let's continue: Is an as high as possible completion rate desirable? Really?

Reasoning a bit about it may cast some light: What might an "as high as possible" completion rate be? And what might it entail? As in the game content?

There are almost inumerable variables and dimensions to this. Keeping it as simple as possible, lets construct just one parameter: Complexity.

Wouldn't an interesting game seem too "boring", too "tedious" and "such a chore" to some gamers? And thus cause them to discontinue playing the game?
Wouldn't a dumbed down game seem too "mindlessly stupid", too "childish" to some gamers?
So people would, in this construed case, discontinue playing the game for opposite reasons. So where do we reach the *ideal* completion rate? And what might it be like? More or less than 50% ?

- But wait! Hold on for a moment. What is really important here? Wouldn't that be the sales of the game? The reputation of the game, as good or bad? Isn't that the bottom line? And more important than completion rate? How does the completion rate relate to that? Or does it even at all?

Again, reasoning about it may cast some light: Would the type of game, or the type as perceived/experienced by the gamers, affect completion rate? Regardless what these gamers might actually think about the game?
I typically finish FPS games, regardless if I think they're so great or not. It's just that it's such a straightforward march. And such an obvious task ahead. I typically never finish games like TES, despite spending thousands of hours. When I discovered Bioware and RPGs, I did so with BG. I absolutely loved BG. I thought it was one of the greatest things I've ever discovered in gaming. A whole new game, a whole new experience, one which I had wished for and imagined, but never previously experienced. Despite this, I didn't finish BG for more than like 18 months. Despite thinking the world of the game.

Why not? Because of an extremely common, possibly the most common, reason people don't complete a game: I had other things to do, including other games to play. And for all my obsession about BG, I didn't feel it was an urgent task to "complete" it. The way this often goes, is that a different game is purchased and tried. And then one is caught up in that, for some time. This doesn't mean that one doesn't appreciate the first game better. Just like the fact that one hasn't completed a game doesn't mean that one doesn't still plan to finish it.

Another reason was that BG was a very long game. So length also have to do with how soon (or at all) one finish a game. Shorter games are completed more, within a certain time. Does that mean shorter games are better? Or more appreciated?
 
I finished DA2, despite loathing the game, and absolutely hating everything it spelled out for the "new direction" of my previously beloved DA franchise. I completed it rapidly, because it was a straight line to do, fairly short as well, and just as simple and mindless as watching a stupid movie.
Did I appreciate it? - No! Why did I? Much because of DA:O, still, and otherwise in some sort of rage.
Did it "held my interest" longer than DA:O? - No!

Being generous to DA:O, one could say it's a bit like BG. And BG is a bit like TES. Games people aren't in any hurry to "complete". It's not really the point to finish them.

So basically, someone should shove that completion-metrics somewhere the sun don't shine. Particularly if you propose to compare as different games as DA2 and DA:O.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 24 août 2012 - 07:12 .

[WarriorCry]

Soo, not sure if anyone covered this or not, but let's look at another popular game franchise, Fable. More people I'm sure finished Fable 1 to completion than DA1 or DA2 combined. Do we grade a game's success or popularity only on this one merit? Just saying...

[cJohnOne]

WarriorCry wrote...

Soo, not sure if anyone covered this or not, but let's look at another popular game franchise, Fable. More people I'm sure finished Fable 1 to completion than DA1 or DA2 combined. Do we grade a game's success or popularity only on this one merit? Just saying...

While the jist of argument maybe okay,  I think you're making up statistics unless you know the completion rate of Fable that is.   On a side note I didn't finish Fable and don't like it either.

[Playest]

 wouldn't a better statistic be how many people decided to play through again? I HATED DA 2 by the mid way point but it dragged me kicking and screeming to the end of of respect for Origins. The frist game i've played half a dozen times and could play half a dozen more. 

[Realmzmaster]

Playest wrote...

 wouldn't a better statistic be how many people decided to play through again? I HATED DA 2 by the mid way point but it dragged me kicking and screeming to the end of of respect for Origins. The frist game i've played half a dozen times and could play half a dozen more. 

Probably not, because a lot of gamers only make one playthrough and then they are on to the next game.  Also given the point that Origins can take anywhere from 70 to 100 hours to complete thet time between different playthroughs could be long. Some people do play one right after the other. Other people may have months in between playthroughs.  So data is normally collected within a set time period.

Also the percentage could be even smaller compared to the number of copies sold. Gamers may start a second playthrough but not finish it. In this thread alone you have gamers who started several playthrough to look at each Origin and never finished them.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 24 août 2012 - 11:06 .

[Nefla]

andar91 wrote...

I think saying that it was more enjoyable is drawing rather a lot from just that statistic. For one thing, I think the length had a lot to do with it. Not to mention slightly easier gameplay from DA2.

Exactly. I bet a much higher percentage of people completed angry birds than Skyrim, that does not make angry birds a masterpiece of a game, it makes angry birds short and easy. Just like DA2.

[cJohnOne]

Yeah but MassEffect 2 had a 56% completion rate which seems impressive to me.

[Realmzmaster]

Nefla wrote...

andar91 wrote...

I think saying that it was more enjoyable is drawing rather a lot from just that statistic. For one thing, I think the length had a lot to do with it. Not to mention slightly easier gameplay from DA2.

Exactly. I bet a much higher percentage of people completed angry birds than Skyrim, that does not make angry birds a masterpiece of a game, it makes angry birds short and easy. Just like DA2.

True, but it does make angry birds a game people seem to want to play. It does not have to be a masterpiece. It simply has to be fun and addictive. 

[Rogue Unit]

Nefla wrote...

andar91 wrote...

I think saying that it was more enjoyable is drawing rather a lot from just that statistic. For one thing, I think the length had a lot to do with it. Not to mention slightly easier gameplay from DA2.

Exactly. I bet a much higher percentage of people completed angry birds than Skyrim, that does not make angry birds a masterpiece of a game, it makes angry birds short and easy. Just like DA2.

And if DAO had a higher completion rate than DA2 you wouldn't be using that as evidence as to why DAO was the better game? Right.

[cJohnOne]

Why wouldn't they? It would be evidence that DAO was a better game if it had a higher complition rate than DA2 because those are very similar games.

[The Hierophant]

Rogue Unit wrote...

Nefla wrote...

andar91 wrote...

I think saying that it was more enjoyable is drawing rather a lot from just that statistic. For one thing, I think the length had a lot to do with it. Not to mention slightly easier gameplay from DA2.

Exactly. I bet a much higher percentage of people completed angry birds than Skyrim, that does not make angry birds a masterpiece of a game, it makes angry birds short and easy. Just like DA2.

And if DAO had a higher completion rate than DA2 you wouldn't be using that as evidence as to why DAO was the better game? Right.

Using the completion rate of a game to indicate superiority is too subjective.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 25 août 2012 - 01:04 .

[cJohnOne]

Yeah, I assume DAO is the better game but it has a lower complition rate. So to say complition rates show superioity is wrong. I don't see how that is subjective unless ratings of games is considered subjective.


hmmm a I think a higher complition rate is evidence of a better game but it isn't conslusive, I guess. and there I though I was contraticting myself.

Modifié par cJohnOne, 25 août 2012 - 01:19 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

I take it you never played Fallout New Vegas before?

It's a sandbox game. As enthralling as the story may be, if the story was the focus it wouldn't be sandbox.

I disagree.  I think that the focus of FONV is the story.  It just happens to be set in a sandbox world.

Sure the player can choose to run around and do other stuff than the story, but so much time and effort were put into the story elements of the game.

Agreed. It's a very story driven game and most of the quests (there's a lot!) are tied to the main story in one way or another. It's actually incredible what Obsidian accomplished in such a short amount of time. I believe they now hol the Guinnes World record for most amount of quests in a video game. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, 'sandbox' does not automatically mean a lack of emphasis on story or characters. It simply means the game is not linear. As Mordin would say, "Sloppy thinking. Must correct."

[LinksOcarina]

I am so glad the tastes of what people like need to conform to the OP's line of thought.

We need more thinking like that.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I am so glad the tastes of what people like need to conform to the OP's line of thought.

We need more thinking like that.

What do you mean?

[cJohnOne]

Yes I think reality has aligned with RinpocheSchnozberry's tastes. boy that guy has a long screename!

Modifié par cJohnOne, 25 août 2012 - 03:59 .