304 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Surveys rarely work because you simple get data skewed in the favor of those who bother to answer the survey.

You can correct for that, to some degree, by weighting the results.

[Pasquale1234]

Realmzmaster wrote...
No number is going to tell you that. The data at best can only give a glimpse at what gamers may be thinking. Surveys rarely work because you simple get data skewed in the favor of those who bother to answer the survey. The forums do not work because they are equally skewed one way or the other or indecisive. Some Bioware opts for in-game data collection that one can opt out of if they wish. No measure is going to be completely accurate.

The amount of money and time to get that degree of accuracy is not worth the time or money. So imprecise data is used to arrive at unfortunately imprecise decisions. 

Bingo.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'm talking about things like repeated environments, with the only Pro being it allowed them to release the game on time.  

I look forward to the difference between "things that were done because there was no time to do anything else" and "things that were done because BioWare really wanted to" being more easily defined.

Okay, that's valuable.

But I'm not sure how we'd know.  Corridor levels are, I'm confident, much easier to design, but many games with full development schedules use them intentionally for that very reason.  There are always limited resources.

As it happens, I think the narrow corridors of DA2 were a much bigger issue than the re-use of levels.  I wouldn't really mind them re-using levels if they were re-using good levels.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

In all honesty, I agree that the play through data does little more than add one more point of data that paints a larger picture. Plus, it only reflects people who bothered to leave the feedback option enabled. In the end, DA3 will have to have some bits from DAO, which is regrettable, but understandable. DA2 was a much better game for me and I think it has a much better chance of drawing my FPS friends than DAO ever would have.

Amusing discussion though. :-)

[FaWa]

No one wants your FPS friends though. Thats not the kind of players DA is made for.

[DarthChicken]

FaWa wrote...

No one wants your FPS friends though. Thats not the kind of players DA is made for.

Bioware is a business. They want to attract fans from all over to play their game. If DA3 has features that draw a larger audience (whether they be from the FPS community or not), I can only see that as a good thing. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd prefer the game attract my RPG acquaintances than his FPS friends.

[Mr Fixit]

DarthChicken wrote...

Bioware is a business. They want to attract fans from all over to play their game. If DA3 has features that draw a larger audience (whether they be from the FPS community or not), I can only see that as a good thing. 

Why?

Why would a feature that draws a larger audience necessarily be a good thing in and of itself? I'm not saying it can't be, but it seems rather simplistic to automatically assume that just because a game expanded its audience, it must unequivocally be a positive thing.

All it proves is that more people bought it (and let's for simplicity's sake say that more people liked it as well, though that's far from given). Does it say anything about the quality of the new features and the game as a whole? 

Also, there's a matter of long-term sustainability of a franchise, where I believe the preferences of core players play an increasingly important part.

Modifié par Mr Fixit, 17 août 2012 - 04:13 .

[Realmzmaster]

I prefer that the game attract gamers from all walks of life. The more copies sold the more likely I will see future installments. If it attracts Sylyvius the mad's rpg acquaintances and interests RinpocheSchnozberry's FPS friends enough to try a crpg I am all for it.

If it draws a larger audience that is always good for a business. If the larger audience likes the game that is good for long-term sustainability of the franchise because they become part of the important core players.

[seraphymon]

Thats again like trying to have your cake and eat it to thinking. It just cant be done like they want. because gamers like a set genre for the most part. Trying to attract from other areas means sacrificing more effort put forth to make it for the crpg. DA2 tried that and while it may have appeased some, the results speak for themselves..

DA2 is regretibly going to have stuff from DA2. but DAo was 1000times better for me and ill always say should be more focused on growing from that and forget the **** that was DA2.

[snfonseka]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

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

Roughly 4 million people played DAO and were too bored by it to finish it in the face of other releases.  A little under half the people who played DA2 enjoyed it enough to finish the entire game in the face of other releases.  That's a much better ratio.  DA3 just had to draw a larger crowd and I'll finally have the game I want!

If you really want to know what game the people really like, you can't do a market analysis based on that ratio only.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I prefer that the game attract gamers from all walks of life. The more copies sold the more likely I will see future installments. If it attracts Sylyvius the mad's rpg acquaintances and interests RinpocheSchnozberry's FPS friends enough to try a crpg I am all for it.

If it draws a larger audience that is always good for a business. If the larger audience likes the game that is good for long-term sustainability of the franchise because they become part of the important core players.

I prefer a game to be good.
"too many cooks spoils the dish". If you try to appease everyone you'rell appease no one. You can't simply lump stuff together willy nilly anymore than you can make a great dish by trying to appease people whole like sweet, sour, salty and bitter.
I want good games. And such games are practicly always a product of clear goal. Focus, well-thought out games. Even if I don't personally like the genre or the game, I can recognize a good game. I can respect it even tough I personally am not attracted to it.
Alas, I didn't find any of those qualitites in DA2.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I'd rather we talk about stuff with legit pros and cons - as opposed to noise (repeated environments, paratrooper bad guys) that the development cycle/engine forced on the game.

But those ARE part of the game and as such ARE legit pros/cons.

[Realmzmaster]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I prefer that the game attract gamers from all walks of life. The more copies sold the more likely I will see future installments. If it attracts Sylyvius the mad's rpg acquaintances and interests RinpocheSchnozberry's FPS friends enough to try a crpg I am all for it.

If it draws a larger audience that is always good for a business. If the larger audience likes the game that is good for long-term sustainability of the franchise because they become part of the important core players.

I prefer a game to be good.
"too many cooks spoils the dish". If you try to appease everyone you'rell appease no one. You can't simply lump stuff together willy nilly anymore than you can make a great dish by trying to appease people whole like sweet, sour, salty and bitter.
I want good games. And such games are practicly always a product of clear goal. Focus, well-thought out games. Even if I don't personally like the genre or the game, I can recognize a good game. I can respect it even tough I personally am not attracted to it.
Alas, I didn't find any of those qualitites in DA2.

I want a good game that attracts other players and broadens the audience. That way developers continue to make games. I do not care if you make a good game I care nothing about because I will not be spending my money on it. I want a game that I like whose appeal can broaden the fan base. It does not matter if a game is critically acclaimed and a financial flop.  PST was one of my favorite games but it was a financial flop so no more games in that vein have seen the light of day.
At the end of the day businesses have to make money. It does not matter how good the game is if it makes no profit.

[Realmzmaster]

seraphymon wrote...

Thats again like trying to have your cake and eat it to thinking. It just cant be done like they want. because gamers like a set genre for the most part. Trying to attract from other areas means sacrificing more effort put forth to make it for the crpg. DA2 tried that and while it may have appeased some, the results speak for themselves..

DA2 is regretibly going to have stuff from DA2. but DAo was 1000times better for me and ill always say should be more focused on growing from that and forget the **** that was DA2.

To each their reach. I liked DA2. I liked DAO. Neither has what I want in an crpg. I doubt that the vast majority on this forum except for a notable few would want everything I want in a crpg. As fast Jimmy has said he has his vision of a perfect crpg and I have mine.  I am stuck playing games with features other people want, but totally lacking in the features I want. So as long as I can have fun with the game I will be fine. I also have no problem with having my cake and eating it, because I have to settle with the crpgs that are being produced. As StM said DAO was the compromise. But, YMMV.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 17 août 2012 - 07:01 .

[deuce985]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

I prefer that the game attract gamers from all walks of life. The more copies sold the more likely I will see future installments. If it attracts Sylyvius the mad's rpg acquaintances and interests RinpocheSchnozberry's FPS friends enough to try a crpg I am all for it.

If it draws a larger audience that is always good for a business. If the larger audience likes the game that is good for long-term sustainability of the franchise because they become part of the important core players.

I prefer a game to be good.
"too many cooks spoils the dish". If you try to appease everyone you'rell appease no one. You can't simply lump stuff together willy nilly anymore than you can make a great dish by trying to appease people whole like sweet, sour, salty and bitter.
I want good games. And such games are practicly always a product of clear goal. Focus, well-thought out games. Even if I don't personally like the genre or the game, I can recognize a good game. I can respect it even tough I personally am not attracted to it.
Alas, I didn't find any of those qualitites in DA2.

I want a good game that attracts other players and broadens the audience. That way developers continue to make games. I do not care if you make a good game I care nothing about because I will not be spending my money on it. I want a game that I like whose appeal can broaden the fan base. It does not matter if a game is critically acclaimed and a financial flop.  PST was one of my favorite games but it was a financial flop so no more games in that vein have seen the light of day.
At the end of the day businesses have to make money. It does not matter how good the game is if it makes no profit.

I like the way you think. I agree with you 100%

Skyrim is a perfect example for me personally. Do I think it's the best Elder Scrolls game? No. Morrowind is. Skyrim is the biggest financial success ever for Bethesda. Why? Because the appeal is broader in the game. Even though it's not better than Morrowind in my eyes, I still love Skyrim very much. I'm more than willing to set certain compromises aside in Elder Scrolls to see the franchise grow. Now, we'll be seeing an even bigger Elder Scrolls game next time it rolls around. I'd imagine Fallout 4 is going to blow Skyrim away too.

However, in DA's case, it doesn't really make sense why Bioware changed their formula so much. DA:O sold close to 4-5 million copies. That can't be seen as a financial disaster and if it was, Bioware needs new management.

When you consider DA:O was a new IP and still saw such critical/commercial success, it's even more baffling why Bioware changed the core up so much.

Modifié par deuce985, 17 août 2012 - 07:08 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I do not care if you make a good game I care nothing about because I will not be spending my money on it.

You're ignoring opportunity costs.  Only a finite number of games are produced.

[Sylvius the Mad]

deuce985 wrote...

However, in DA's case, it doesn't really make sense why Bioware changed their formula so much. DA:O sold close to 4-5 million copies. That can't be seen as a financial disaster and if it was, Bioware needs new management.

I don't think DAO was viewed by EA as a financial disaster.  I think it was viewed by EA both as a risk to do it again (since taking 4+ years to make a game makes the costs of failure quite high), and as an opportunity to cash in.  Since DAO did sell 4 million copies, perhaps they thought the way to maximise profits was to ake a cheap game and release it really soon.

In fact, we even heard from one of the BioDevs that the reason the "2 years of DLC" plan for DAO was scrapped was because EA wanted to capitalise on DAO's success with a quick sequel.

Unfortunately, given only 11 months, BioWare failed to make a quality game.

[Das Tentakel]

deuce985 wrote...

Snippity-snap

...in DA's case, it doesn't really make sense why Bioware changed their formula so much. DA:O sold close to 4-5 million copies. That can't be seen as a financial disaster and if it was, Bioware needs new management.

When you consider DA:O was a new IP and still saw such critical/commercial success, it's even more baffling why Bioware changed the core up so much.

I don’t think BioWare changed the formula that much. They tried to tweak the components of that formula, meaning party-based combat, character customisation, an overall rather linear plot (normally pretty basic) etc, but the components themselves were still there. It’s more like they fiddled with the settings of a piece of equipment without really taking the necessary time and care to get it right, with less than stellar results. Anything from a Godawful noise coming out of your speakers to a Black Currant pie exploding in your face.

BioWare still gets a couple of brownie points from me for trying to move away from their normally rather basic linear plots. At the same time, I am sorely disappointed in their utter failure to execute it properly. If any RPG studio should have been able to do it, BioWare with its experience and resources should have been the one.
But that’s trying to look inside BioWare from the outside. I suspect there’s some internal structural / organisational and company-cultural aspects involved in the DA2 debacle too, rather than just not devoting enough resources to the game’s development, but that’s just a hunch and purely personal. I hope my hunch is wrong.

[MissOuJ]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I want a good game that attracts other players and broadens the audience. That way developers continue to make games. I do not care if you make a good game I care nothing about because I will not be spending my money on it. I want a game that I like whose appeal can broaden the fan base. It does not matter if a game is critically acclaimed and a financial flop.  PST was one of my favorite games but it was a financial flop so no more games in that vein have seen the light of day.
At the end of the day businesses have to make money. It does not matter how good the game is if it makes no profit.

Agreed.

I hate when some old-school RPG fans complain that the game mechanics/combat system is too "dumbed down" - what, you mean it's more user friendly and in general easier to use? How horrible. Or how a series is now "bad" because "casual gamers came and now it's too mainstream" - what are we, hipsters?

I get that people want richer RPG experiences, but without money coming from the "mainstream" markets there's no way a studio can produce that kind of game with the sort of graphics we see (and seem to demand) these days. If it means streamlining the combat system so that we grimmy platform-lovers might pick a copy and fall in love with the RPG genre (as happened in my case), that's kinda what has to be done.

[Corto81]

I can't believe there are still people out there comparing the two games, after all this time.

DA:O was a deep game with heart and soul, critically acclaimed, sold excellent and got fantastic fan reviews and feedback.

DA2 was a horrific, shallow, streamlined attempt to milk money out of people based on a successful original, and it sold less, got fan backlash and got weak reviews.

If they want to make DA3 an RPG, they'll have to go back to what made DA:O so successful.

The way to make better RPG is to make better, deeper RPGs, and not to chip out the RP elements and try to appeal to non.RPG players.
You end up with a half-assed mish-mash product that won't cut with the RPG crowd (BW's core fan base, the reason why they made it big) and will never attract enough non-RPG players to offset the loss of the RPG crowd.

...

The following is not an opinion, it is FACT:
DA:O was much more successful than DA2 in all departments:
- fan reviews
- critics
- and most importantly, sales
- I mean, even the DLCs for DA2 got canceled, that game - by BW standards - a flop.

Apart from faster movement, DA2 was a mess:
- cartoony combat
- enemy waves
- recycled areas
- awful companions (all of them one-dimensonal, most of them emo, dumb or naive, none of them nearly as deep or likeable or polarizing as someone like Leliana or Alistair or Morrigan)
- ridiculous story twists... I mean, some of it's worse than Diablo 3... And that's saying a LOT
- choices didn't matter at ALL
- no exploration
- "MMO" quests... nothing that will last more than 15 minutes, in case your casual CoD player can't manage the length it took to do something in BG or DA:O
- poor companion customization
- (to most) shallow and unlikeable main protagonist, and to me, it never felt mine, unlike the warden, Hawke is BW's toon...
- no race to choose from
- etc etc

How can anyone in their right mind, after all this time, go out and say DA2 is a better RPG than DA:O?

...

The sad thing is, DA3 is likely gonna blow as well, the voiced protagonist alone means no race selection, less content because how much time and money voicing the protagonist takes, and the returning conversation wheel with the little pictures in case you're too dumb to understand and read through the text in games like BG and DA:O.

...

Worst thing is, why is Bioware changing a successful recipe????
DA:O was a hit.
DA2 was a flop.
Witcher 2, Skyrim, Dark Souls... All deep RPG in their own way, smash hits.
All of these games delved deeper into the RPG core, the way the genre was first imagined as.
Be it exploration, choices, combat, etc... Nothing that holds your hand, they all went out to try and make a proper, deep RPG, not appeal to the CoD crowd.
Like DA:O.

Yet BW is sticking to the DA2 recipe. The "CoD" recipe.
Utterly amazing.

Modifié par Corto81, 17 août 2012 - 08:42 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

0/10.

[Mr Fixit]

Das Tentakel wrote...

I suspect there’s some internal structural / organisational and company-cultural aspects involved in the DA2 debacle too, rather than just not devoting enough resources to the game’s development, but that’s just a hunch and purely personal. I hope my hunch is wrong.

An interesting observation. Would you care to elaborate a bit on this?

[Jerrybnsn]

Corto81 wrote...


The sad thing is, DA3 is likely gonna blow as well, the voiced protagonist alone means no race selection, less content because how much time and money voicing the protagonist takes, and the returning conversation wheel with the little pictures in case you're too dumb to understand and read through the text in games like BG and DA:O.

...

Yet BW is sticking to the DA2 recipe. The "CoD" recipe.
Utterly amazing.

I don't know many people on this forum that plans on preordering DAIII or even buying it in the first six months of its release.  And that probably because the same team that designed DA2 and dumped on Origins when their game was released is making DAIII.  And with very, very little info about the upcoming third game in the series, nothing has been shown or said that they would make a game like Origins.


So there isn't much hope or faith for DAIII.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Why would a feature that draws a larger audience necessarily be a good thing in and of itself? I'm not saying it can't be, but it seems rather simplistic to automatically assume that just because a game expanded its audience, it must unequivocally be a positive thing.

The hope is that bigger sales means more money, more money means bigger budgets and bigger budgets means better voicework, more time for the cinematics, and more reward for the talent that makes the games.  Plus, spin off games in the franchise!   All good stuff.