304 réponses à ce sujet

[Chiramu]

Un-fun gameplay belongs to Mass Effect 1; where you go around playing expecting to be able to kill things like an FPS, headshots don't kill enemies and random **** happens in combat.

DAO has absolutely wonderful gameplay compared to that . DA2 was a dumbed down version of the first Dragon Age.

[Gibb_Shepard]

The title is factually incorrect OP. How does it feel to be a liar? What a horrid burden you take on; hiding the truth behind lies. I couldn't imagine being in such a dishonest place. I bet you're a used car salesman irl.

[brushyourteeth]

I've replayed DA:O from start to finish seven times, and am starting my eighth.

I've finished DAII.... twice.

Guess I'm not a person?

I'm not saying it wasn't a good game, but in my opinion it did not live up to the original.

[Cyberarmy]

I finished DA:O completely only 3 times.7-8 of my characters stopped progress or dead for RP reasons.
I finished DA2 twice and second one was only for helping my friend.

[Das Tentakel]

DA: O: 1 near-complete playthrough, 1 complete, a handful of shorter attempts.
Total amount of hours played: 160-200? Big smiley face.

DA2: Completed, around 40 hours played, still deeply disappointed about it.
Wanted to stop several times, but carried on because I felt you have to finish a game like DA2 before you can have a fully formed opinion about it.

Based on a statistically reliable sample of 1 (me) the conclusion is:
Nearly 100% of those people who finished DA2 did this so they could justifiably rant about how bad DA2 was compared to DA:O. The OP is the exception who proves the rule.
If this trend continues, 50% of 1 million people will complete DA3, finishing the game in 20 hours on average and ranting for at least 4 years on BSN how terrible DA3 was compared to DA2 compared to DA:O.

And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Edmonton…

[nightscrawl]

Both games' completion rates are still better than some other BioWare titles, which show that the amount of time a game has been released does not necessary tally with the percentage of players who complete it. 40 per cent of players completed the original Mass Effect, for example, while only 36 per cent beat Dragon Age Origins. 41 per cent of Dragon Age 2 users struggled to the end.

All that means is exactly what is specifically stated there: 36% completed DAO and 41% completed DA2. That's all. To infer anything from that data is a mistake.

Regarding DAO specifically, this doesn't mean anything, not to mention that only a 5% gap is nothing to write home about, in addition to the fact that DAO is considerably longer than DA2.

There have been several examples on these very forums of people playing through the origin stories numerous times, for whatever reason, and then not completing that character. Perhaps they didn't like the way their character looked after having left the CC screen, maybe they stopped playing for some RP reason, maybe they had already played through the game once and decided to try the several other origin options. No one knows.

David Gaider said that, while they collect data and keep all sorts of stats on such things, they can't tell why  a player made any one decision, even referencing game completion specifically in saying "And just because a minority of players finish a game doesn't mean you don't put in an ending."

Modifié par nightscrawl, 14 août 2012 - 07:53 .

[SirGladiator]

I finished both games, but theres a fair number of games I dont finish because either I'm having so much fun I don't want it to be over, or because I'm afraid the ending will ruin the fun I've already had, or something like that, so it just works out that I never finish it. There's plenty of reasons why somebody might not finish a given game. Its surprising to learn that a majority of players never finish the game, but certainly in the case of DAO and DA2, the endings are good, and if you haven't gotten to it yet you should, they're fun (and in the case of DA2, the ending credits music is the exact same song that plays at the end of Season One of Pretty Little Liars, that was a really cool, and weird, coincidence).

[nightscrawl]

SirGladiator wrote...

I finished both games, but theres a fair number of games I dont finish because either I'm having so much fun I don't want it to be over, or because I'm afraid the ending will ruin the fun I've already had, or something like that, so it just works out that I never finish it. There's plenty of reasons why somebody might not finish a given game. Its surprising to learn that a majority of players never finish the game, but certainly in the case of DAO and DA2, the endings are good, and if you haven't gotten to it yet you should, they're fun (and in the case of DA2, the ending credits music is the exact same song that plays at the end of Season One of Pretty Little Liars, that was a really cool, and weird, coincidence).

I don't understand though... how can you not finish something if you're enjoying it? Do you start over? Are you referring to games with mission type things that you just do repeatedly, so you never do the final one(s) that lead to the end?

If it's something like Skyrim, GTA, one of those Arkham Batman games where there is a ton to do and you don't necessarily have to follow the main narrative I can understand. But a game like Dragon Age, or even something relatively simple like a Zelda game has a beginning, middle, and end.

You made a lovely dwarf btw.

[kingjezza]

So do those figures take into account the fact that Origins had 6 different beginnings. I mean even if you only played the game through once the chances are you gave the other beginnings a go.

I don't know how Bioware's figures work, do they can't every single started game or how many accounts have a full single play through.

[dheer]

Oh no, however will we cope with how 5% more people "struggled to the end" of DA2?

Couldn't have anything to do with how much shorter the game was. Not a chance.

[ElitePinecone]

eyesofastorm wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-13-less-players-completed-mass-effect-3-than-finished-mass-effect-2

:lol:

The case against games like DAO?  Shut.  DA2 carved out the boring parts, and kept the fun parts.  People don't walk away from enjoyable experiences.  DA2 was more enjoyable than DAO for most people. 

You might note that significantly more people completed Origins though as 36% of 6 million is significantly more than 41% of 2 million.

This.

What's the point of making the game more playable if you lose half to two-thirds of your audience in the process?

[jillabender]

nightscrawl wrote...

All that means is exactly what is specifically stated there: 36% completed DAO and 41% completed DA2. That's all. To infer anything from that data is a mistake.

Regarding DAO specifically, this doesn't mean anything, not to mention that only a 5% gap is nothing to write home about, in addition to the fact that DAO is considerably longer than DA2.

There have been several examples on these very forums of people playing through the origin stories numerous times, for whatever reason, and then not completing that character. Perhaps they didn't like the way their character looked after having left the CC screen, maybe they stopped playing for some RP reason, maybe they had already played through the game once and decided to try the several other origin options. No one knows.

David Gaider said that, while they collect data and keep all sorts of stats on such things, they can't tell why  a player made any one decision, even referencing game completion specifically in saying "And just because a minority of players finish a game doesn't mean you don't put in an ending."

Well said – I think that reading too much into the figures the OP posted would be a mistake.

[brushyourteeth]

Das Tentakel wrote...

DA: O: 1 near-complete playthrough, 1 complete, a handful of shorter attempts.
Total amount of hours played: 160-200? Big smiley face.

DA2: Completed, around 40 hours played, still deeply disappointed about it.
Wanted to stop several times, but carried on because I felt you have to finish a game like DA2 before you can have a fully formed opinion about it.

Based on a statistically reliable sample of 1 (me) the conclusion is:
Nearly 100% of those people who finished DA2 did this so they could justifiably rant about how bad DA2 was compared to DA:O. The OP is the exception who proves the rule.
If this trend continues, 50% of 1 million people will complete DA3, finishing the game in 20 hours on average and ranting for at least 4 years on BSN how terrible DA3 was compared to DA2 compared to DA:O.

And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Edmonton…

[Sylvius the Mad]

Chiramu wrote...

Un-fun gameplay belongs to Mass Effect 1; where you go around playing expecting to be able to kill things like an FPS, headshots don't kill enemies and random **** happens in combat.

I loved ME1's combat.  It was just about the perfect implementation of BioWare's traditional real-time-with-pause stat-driven gameplay presented through a shooter interface.

I was shocked when ME2 abandoned that design.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cyberarmy wrote...

I finished DA:O completely only 3 times.7-8 of my characters stopped progress or dead for RP reasons.

This is important.  A playthrough might be complete from the player's point of view without being complete from the developer's point of view.

[Darth Death]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

DA2 was more enjoyable than DAO for most people.  

Ah, DAO was too complex for the causal gamers I suppose. 

[Allan Schumacher]

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.

[Morty Smith]

So more people finished the 20-30 hour title than the 60-100 hour title? figures.

[coles4971]

Darth Death wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

DA2 was more enjoyable than DAO for most people.  

Ah, DAO was too complex for the causal gamers I suppose. 

Because herpderp casual gamers are stupid.

You know, maybe casual gamers just aren't interested in the time investment required of DA:O. As much as I love the game, I doubt a casual gamer is going to want to sink 50-100 hours in to one game's story.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

This is the best kind of story.

[Cimeas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

Un-fun gameplay belongs to Mass Effect 1; where you go around playing expecting to be able to kill things like an FPS, headshots don't kill enemies and random **** happens in combat.

I loved ME1's combat.  It was just about the perfect implementation of BioWare's traditional real-time-with-pause stat-driven gameplay presented through a shooter interface.

I was shocked when ME2 abandoned that design.

IN PRINCIPLE, ME1's combat isn't a problem.  But in practice, a game shouldn't have a reticule to let the player aim, and then when the bullet would OBVIOUSLY hit the target (unless it was a rare anomaly) it's a 'miss'. Similarly, if you NG+ at level 60 in Mass Effect, you can practically aim in the opposite direction of the enemy and still hit.  

Either have click to target combat an make it all stat based, or make combat like a TPS/FPS *WITH* RPG elements.   

Imagine this:  You 'aim' where the bullets/abilities go, but *how* much damage the bullet does, and what effects it creates on the enemy, are decided by stats.  Best of both worlds, it seems

[Ianamus]

Many of the people who bought DA:O and grew bored of the game and didn't complete it would simply have not bought Dragon Age 2. The majority of people who bought Dragon Age 2 likely played Origins and enjoyed it, and would therefore be more likely to play Dragon Age 2 through to completion. 

Modifié par EJ107, 14 août 2012 - 06:39 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cimeas wrote...

IN PRINCIPLE, ME1's combat isn't a problem.  But in practice, a game shouldn't have a reticule to let the player aim, and then when the bullet would OBVIOUSLY hit the target (unless it was a rare anomaly) it's a 'miss'.

The reticle was gigantic.  You always fired somewhere in the reticle, but if the reticle was larger than your target then sometimes you would miss.

Either have click to target combat an make it all stat based, or make combat like a TPS/FPS *WITH* RPG elements. 

ME's cone of death was click-to-target with stat-based resolution.  But instead of digital target selection, it offered analog taret selection.  I would argue that analog is better because it allows the player more freedom.

For example, if there are two adjacent targets in ME, but each is individually too small to fill the reticle, then your chance of hitting one of them is less than 100%.  A traditional target selection would resolve the hit chance normally.  The ME's analog approach allowed the player to aim at both of them simultaneously.  The the two targets together completely fill the targeting reticle, then the hit chance now reaches 100%, but there's no way to know which target will be hit.

ME's combat system had significant advantages over traditional RPG target selection.  I would equate the improvement in moving from traditional RPG combat to ME combat as equivalent to moving from turn-based combat to real-time-with-pause combat. 

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 14 août 2012 - 06:43 .

[FieryDove]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[I loved ME1's combat.  It was just about the perfect implementation of BioWare's traditional real-time-with-pause stat-driven gameplay presented through a shooter interface.

I was shocked when ME2 abandoned that design.

Me too. Sigh


To the OP:
Good try, but sorry. My 189 wardens trump your 6 Hawke's.

[GreenSoda]

So...

Shorter game-length, don't bother with replayability and include multiplayer ? Sounds like a winning formula.





Not.