304 réponses à ce sujet

[Scarlet Rabbi]

Sold less then half of it's predecessor, had 1 cave and dungeon, choice didn't matter one bit in the end and an expansion was cancelled because retailers said nobody would buy it.

Does it really matter how many people reached the ending of either game? Which was the better game, in terms of quality and quantity? The awesome button may've hand-held more people to the end of God of War, I mean Dragon Age 2, that doesn't speak to the overall quality of the game, nor the care given to it when it was being developed. These DA2 lovers will always try to convince every one else that the shorter, non-choice driven, developed in 18 months Mass Effect clone is the better game, by any means. It's adorable bordering on irritating. But we all have the right to say these things I suppose.

[CS420]

Honestly, this doesn't surprise me. Between the sluggish combat animations, impersonal costumes, and confusingly over designed morality choices, Dragon Age Origns was quite a tedious game to play. I also found the addition of more bisexual love interests to be quite motivating in the grind to complete the game. Alistair's narrow minded sexual preferences frustrated me even more than the Fade level.

[jillabender]

It may be that the OP is right to argue that a game made in exactly the same style as DA:O wouldn't sell well. But, with complete respect, I don't think that bringing up statistics will convince anyone who didn't like DA2 that Bioware should make another game exactly like it, or convince anyone who preferred DA:O that DA2 was the superior game.

Of course, some people still like to argue about what kind of game will sell, and that's fine, as long as it's in good fun.

But speaking just for myself, I've played through DA:O eight times with six different characters. I own all of the DLC content, and I've created many more characters who I hope to play through the game with.

I had fun playing DA2, and even finished it a few times, but I doubt that I'll ever play it again. Although I liked some things about it, the re-used environments, the wave combat, and the fact that Hawke felt peripheral to the central conflict of the story, were all things that got in the way of my enjoyment.

DA:O, on the other hand, is a game that I'm still playing and enjoying years after buying it, because its tactical combat encourages strategy in a way that makes me want to experiment with different stats and abilities, and because its story encourages role-playing in a way that makes me want to experiment with characters with different worldviews and personalities.

So, to summarize, the OP may be right to argue that a new game made in the style of DA:O wouldn't sell well (at least, I think that's his argument – feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting ). But that doesn't affect my enjoyment of DA:O.

I have confidence that DA3 will be more enjoyable for me than DA2. But if it's not, I won't be too terribly disappointed, because I'll still be playing DA:O for a long time to come.

Modifié par jillabender, 14 août 2012 - 04:50 .

[Camcanovi]

Not surprising DA2 having more refined combat and interesting story. Only thing buggin me was the same environments again and again.

[Melca36]

Camcanovi wrote...

Not surprising DA2 having more refined combat and interesting story. Only thing buggin me was the same environments again and again.

They are changing the combat for DA:3. People want to do more than hack and slash and wait for waves of enemies coming out of the sky

[The Hierophant]

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.

This makes no sense, the designation of sandbox has no bearing on the quality of the game's story & characters. (think GTA:SA & 4)

[The Hierophant]

*double post*

Modifié par The Hierophant, 14 août 2012 - 12:10 .

[Korusus]

jillabender wrote...


So, to summarize, the OP may be right to argue that a new game made in the style of DA:O wouldn't sell well (at least, I think that's his argument – feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting )

I don't think you can extrapolate sales or potential sales from these figures at all.  If that were the case than DA2 should have sold more than DA:O and it didn't.  There's really nothing to base any argument of "DA:O2 woulnd't sell well" on, because the one thing we have to go on (DA:O's sales figures) are unusually high even for 2-3 million which is typical for BioWare.  There's absolutely nothing to base that on.  People said DA:O wouldn't sell well using its formula...and then it did sell very well and yet people still cling to that tired argument.

[Xewaka]

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'm replaying Fallout New Vegas right now. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The sandbox is there if you want to play in it, yet FNV's main plot is brilliant, and a joy to see unfold, twist, and curl as you progress to whichever ending you choose.

[jillabender]

Korusus wrote…

I don't think you can extrapolate sales or potential sales from these figures at all. If that were the case than DA2 should have sold more than DA:O and it didn't. There's really nothing to base any argument of "DA:O2 woulnd't sell well" on, because the one thing we have to go on (DA:O's sales figures) are unusually high even for 2-3 million which is typical for BioWare. There's absolutely nothing to base that on. People said DA:O wouldn't sell well using its formula...and then it did sell very well and yet people still cling to that tired argument.

Oh, I completely agree with you – I don't think the idea that a game in the style of DA:O wouldn't sell well follows at all from the statistics the OP brought up.

My point was just that trying to demonstrate what kind of game will sell well isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't enjoy a certain kind of game that Bioware should make that kind of game.

For example, even if I could prove that a new game in the style of DA:O would be wildly successful, I doubt that anyone who didn't like DA:O would be convinced that Bioware should make a game in exactly that style.

That being said, there's nothing necessarily wrong with arguing about what kind of game will sell well just for the sake of it. 

Modifié par jillabender, 14 août 2012 - 02:47 .

[The Hierophant]

EntropicAngel wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

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

This makes no sense, the designation of sandbox has no bearing on the quality of the game's story & characters. (think GTA:SA & 4)

Read what I said. I said nothing about the quality.

I said the focus.

The focus was geared more towards story, and characters though.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 14 août 2012 - 12:29 .

[Renmiri1]

Combat in DAO is almost unplayable to me. My BF flat out refuses to play it. The story is good but very cliche, gather a band of companions to defeat evil has been done to death since Tolkien.

DA2 had better combat and a nuanced story. I loved it and prefer it over DAO. But the math is clear. 2 million finished DAO and less than a million finished DA2. People prefer DAO.

[LobselVith8]

Scarlet Rabbi wrote...

Sold less then half of it's predecessor, had 1 cave and dungeon, choice didn't matter one bit in the end and an expansion was cancelled because retailers said nobody would buy it.

Does it really matter how many people reached the ending of either game? Which was the better game, in terms of quality and quantity? The awesome button may've hand-held more people to the end of God of War, I mean Dragon Age 2, that doesn't speak to the overall quality of the game, nor the care given to it when it was being developed. These DA2 lovers will always try to convince every one else that the shorter, non-choice driven, developed in 18 months Mass Effect clone is the better game, by any means. It's adorable bordering on irritating. But we all have the right to say these things I suppose.

From what the developers have said, Dragon Age III will be more of the same. I wonder how successful that game will be, when Dragon Age II piggybacked off the popularity of Origins to make its initial sales.

[Nefario]

Eh. This doesn't surprise me. While, on the whole, I think Origins was a far superior game, DA2 did benefit from improved pacing, and it could be argued that combat was balanced better (default difficulty was a bit more forgiving) and more engaging (backflip-explosion!!!). DA2 did some things better than Origins - things that make it more apt to hold a player's interest through to the end (or at least make it easier for a player to plough through). However, it did a number of things not-so-well - or at least not as well as Origins did - and that might have made it a bit harder for players to recommend the game to others.

[Blastback]

DA2 has a higher completion ratio yes. But that doesn't mean that more people played it to the end than Origins. DA2 sold fewer copies.

Also, there was less to play through than in Origins. And what about replays?

[wsandista]

So roughly 2,000,000 people manage to "complete" one game and 800,000 manage to "complete" another, and the latter is somehow better how?

As for "completion" (in this instance finishing the main storyline in a game), isn't really a good measurement for how well a game can hold people's interests.

Take Skyrim for example, I haven't "completed" it yet(or any TES game for that matter) as "completed" is used in the article, but I have played Skyrim much more than DA2 even though I completed DA2. Now according to your flawed logic, that would mean DA2 held my interest(in terms of enjoyment) more than Skyrim has, which is completely untrue.

Now DA2 has actually held peoples interest longer than DAO in the sense people are still complaining quite a bit about the changes they disliked in DA2 in the hopes that DA3 will not keep them.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Holy incomplete picture, Batman.

For some reason this strikes me as quite funny.

[wsandista]

EntropicAngel wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Holy incomplete picture, Batman.

For some reason this strikes me as quite funny.

It amused me as well. I don't think I've ever seen Sylvius NOT completely serious.

It is a pleasant surprise when it happens.

[jillabender]

wsandista wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Holy incomplete picture, Batman.

For some reason this strikes me as quite funny.

It amused me as well. I don't think I've ever seen Sylvius NOT completely serious.

It is a pleasant surprise when it happens.

Hehe… indeed!

[Sith Grey Warden]

41% completing a game vs. 36% is really not a big difference. Given an audience of the same size, only 1 in 20 more completed DA2 than DAO.

Of course, the audience isn't the same size. The fact that DAO hugely outsold DA2 means that those who did complete it,(or, based on above posts, didn't complete it but still enjoyed it) were more likely to recommend it and get their friends to buy it.

When one game sells several times as much as the other, that fact bears more significance to the question of "Which is better?" than a slight difference in completion rates.

[Ozzy]

The amount of people who completed DAO is basically more than the amount of people who purchased DA2, lol. I think that's a telling enough statistic.

That isn't to say that less people were inclined to buy DA2 because of Origins. On the contrary, the initial spike of sales demonstrates that a large amount were hyped up and excited for DA2. It's just that the amount of sales started dipping alarming, putting the fault in DA2's court. Obviously this is a simplification of the whole shebang but it is what it is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka 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'm replaying Fallout New Vegas right now. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The sandbox is there if you want to play in it, yet FNV's main plot is brilliant, and a joy to see unfold, twist, and curl as you progress to whichever ending you choose.

Furthermore, I would argue that the mere availability of the sandbox improves the delivery of the story overall, as the option to abandon the story makes the story (and the setting) more credible.