31 réponses à ce sujet

[riccaborto]

 I noticed that as BioWare Games' Quality decreases, also the Party Members number in their games do...

Think of the companions of Kotor, Mass Effect 2, or DA Origns (a lot.......)

and now think of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3. They say it is because so you have more attachment, and the chance to go deeper into the characters... but IMHO the companions from Origins and Kotor were more and more deep then the ones of DA2 or ME3...<_< 

[LeBurns]

The fact that BioWare games are not what they used to be is no secret to anyone.

I suppose as graphics and such increase that more time is spent on making that look right (which would be needed I suppose) and less on followers and story.

Granted I would like the best of both world and have great graphics and world environment and more (and more interesting) followers also.

[Big I]

ME1 had only 6 companions and was a great game. ME2 was also great, but the squad didn't get enough dialogue (for example you can only talk to Garrus 2 or 3 times). As far as ME3 goes, the problems in that game were not the characters or how much time you got to spend with them.


Bioware can and has made great games both with large casts of companions and relatively small ones. It only doesn't work when the underlying goals and systems of companion interaction fall flat with the audience (for instance I disliked Anders in DA2 because of how different they made him and because his whole arc is just watching him go crazy).

[areuexperienced]

Correlation does not imply causation.

[Sejborg]

 That depends on how they use their budget.
Let's say they use 10 moneys per character in one game, and they have 10 character. That is a budget of 100 moneys for the companions. 
Then for the sequel they say that there will only be 5 companions. They have the same amount of moneys to make the sequel as they had for the first game. So that is 20 moneys per character, and one would expect those characters to be twice as good, since the budget per character now is twice as big. 
But in the second game, they still only use 10 moneys per character. That way they get 50 moneys that they can use on day one DLC so you have something to pay extra for. 

[Fraq Hound]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Bioware can and has made great games both with large casts of companions and relatively small ones. It only doesn't work when the underlying goals and systems of companion interaction fall flat with the audience (for instance I disliked Anders in DA2 because of how different they made him and because his whole arc is just watching him go crazy).

This.

Though if you disliked Ander's in DA2, that actually makes him a success, not a failure.

When you know you've failed at creating a character is when people are indifferent towards them.

Personally I was indifferent towards almost the entire cast of DA2. Then the few characters that actually did illicit an emotional response from me were balls'd up in other ways.

Example 1:
I actually liked Merril but her story arc was broken because of a bug that made her scenes play out of order. Awesome! <_<

Example 2:
Isabella, who I really disliked, disappeared mid story. It was one of the few really compelling moments in that game when I told her I wouldn't help her out, and then poof... Nothing. I never saw any rammifications of that choice, never got any resolution concerning the fate of her character.

Maybe that WAS the rammification but it was extremely unsatisfying.

Modifié par Fraq Hound, 22 août 2012 - 09:22 .

[LinksOcarina]

Fraq Hound wrote...

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Bioware can and has made great games both with large casts of companions and relatively small ones. It only doesn't work when the underlying goals and systems of companion interaction fall flat with the audience (for instance I disliked Anders in DA2 because of how different they made him and because his whole arc is just watching him go crazy).

This.

Though if you disliked Ander's in DA2, that actually makes him a success, not a failure.

When you know you've failed at creating a character is when people are indifferent towards them.

Personally I was indifferent towards almost the entire cast of DA2. Then the few characters that actually did illicit an emotional response from me were balls'd up in other ways.

Example 1:
I actually liked Merril but her story arc was broken because of a bug that made her scenes play out of order. Awesome! <_<

Example 2:
Isabella, who I really disliked, disappeared mid story. It was one of the few really compelling moments in that game when I told her I wouldn't help her out, and then poof... Nothing. I never saw any rammifications of that choice, never got any resolution concerning the fate of her character.

Maybe that WAS the rammification but it was extremely unsatisfying.

Oh man...you strike gold with those first comments on why the cast of Dragon Age II is so damn good, but then break my heart with the examples you give!

That bug was fixed, as far as I know, if it matters at all. I presume no. As for Isabella, it makes sense if she runs off, because thats the resolution. Got to remember, you have a game that is telling a narrative in games, so resolutions between all characters may be either in-game, or meant for a bigger purpose. Alistar, Zevran, Leliana, and Morrigan are proof of that, as an example. I suspect Isabella, Anders (depending on his fate), Sebastian, and Hawke will be others as well that follow suit.

[Fraq Hound]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Oh man...you strike gold with those first comments on why the cast of Dragon Age II is so damn good, but then break my heart with the examples you give!

That bug was fixed, as far as I know, if it matters at all. I presume no. As for Isabella, it makes sense if she runs off, because thats the resolution. Got to remember, you have a game that is telling a narrative in games, so resolutions between all characters may be either in-game, or meant for a bigger purpose. Alistar, Zevran, Leliana, and Morrigan are proof of that, as an example. I suspect Isabella, Anders (depending on his fate), Sebastian, and Hawke will be others as well that follow suit.

I said that overall, the cast was weak, IMO. I remember liking Merril and disliking Isabella. The only thing I remember about everyone else is that they were not very memorable.

The bug was fixed a couple months after my play through, unfortunatly other issues with the game (i.e. Repetitive enemies, re-used assests, weak story, mostly uninteresting cast.) make additional play throughs problematic for me.

As to Isabella, I mentioned that the developers probably thought her disappearance was a good conclusion to her part in the tale. If that is the case, then fair enough, I personally just wasn't satisfied with that. The way that final scene with her went down, came off as forshadowing to me and I was expecting to see her again up until the credits rolled. Especially when you think about how Hawke had to personally clean up the mess she had made, even when you don't side with her and she runs off.

Keep in mind that this is all just my opinion. I don't mean to say that they were poorly written characters or that your wrong for liking them.

You aren't.

They just didn't click with me. Usually there's always a few that don't click with me in Bioware Games. Alistair, Jacob, Kaiden, Jolee Bindo, Sky, and Zaalbar are some examples of others who didn't.

The thing that makes DA2 unique is that there were only a few who did.

This discussion made me think of Henpecked Hou, I want a sequel to Jade Empire damnit!

[Narosian]

 games aren't what they used to be, nothing to do with bioware.

[Arius23]

I'd rather have fewer very well developed companions than an army of uninteresting and underdeveloped doogs

[Arthur Cousland]

Quality>quantity.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bioware stuck with 6 companions for DA3, and they really don't need to go higher than that. For the most part, I usually find myself taking the same companions along for the majority of the game, while the others only get used during their personal quests.

[FaWa]

DA2 had two trainwrecks (Merill and Anders) but they can't carry a cast of complete bore****s (Varric, Isabella) to success. And I had to actually google who the other companions were because I just forgot them. Aveline was good but tiring, Fenris was annoying but w/e I just reloaded my save and skipped his quest so I didn't have to deal with him. Then I told Isabella to **** off (tysm for including this option Bioware) Sibling was a complete ass (Particularly Carver), but thats what they intended so w/e. I ended DA2 with 4 companions and I wish I could've gotten rid of Varic because he is massively over rated, but a massive improvement over the previous token drunk dwarf so w/e.

DA1 had one massive trainwreck (Lelliana), a few very well written characters (Morrigan, Alistar). Speaking of Ali and Morrigan, isn't it funny how the two of the most one dimensional characters on paper were written so well they didn't seem at all one dimensional? I know a lot of people hate her, but thats what makes Wynne so hilar. She was supposed to be the nice old woman but ended up being a sour hag, which I love. Shen was actually really endearing, Oghren was just so awful and brought nothing new to the table in terms of characters we haven't seen before. I like Dog

Idk why I just posted all of that. But notice how ME2 has 400 companions and then none of them get any airtime in ME3 because lolsuicide mission

[Realmzmaster]

riccaborto wrote...

 I noticed that as BioWare Games' Quality decreases, also the Party Members number in their games do...

Think of the companions of Kotor, Mass Effect 2, or DA Origns (a lot.......)

and now think of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3. They say it is because so you have more attachment, and the chance to go deeper into the characters... but IMHO the companions from Origins and Kotor were more and more deep then the ones of DA2 or ME3...<_< 

The number of companions in DAO and DA2 are the same. If you wish to include dog then DAO has 10, but Dog is a summons in DA2 therefore still 10. Compare that to BG1 which has 25 and BG2 has 17. Neverwinter Nights has only 6. NWN, BG1 and BG2 are considered classics. So the quality does not decrease with the number of party members.

BG1 and BG2 have six member at one time in the party. NWN has two members in the party at one time. DAO only has four same as DA2.

Unless you are saying that DAO is not as good as BG1 and 2 but better than NWN.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Realmzmaster wrote...

riccaborto wrote...

 I noticed that as BioWare Games' Quality decreases, also the Party Members number in their games do...

Think of the companions of Kotor, Mass Effect 2, or DA Origns (a lot.......)

and now think of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3. They say it is because so you have more attachment, and the chance to go deeper into the characters... but IMHO the companions from Origins and Kotor were more and more deep then the ones of DA2 or ME3...<_< 

Unless you are saying that DAO is not as good as BG1 and 2 but better than NWN.

It's... true?

[Maria Caliban]

Fraq Hound wrote...

When you know you've failed at creating a character is when people are indifferent towards them.

No, you know you've failed with a character when people have an emotional reaction different from the one you intended for the character.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Fraq Hound wrote...

When you know you've failed at creating a character is when people are indifferent towards them.

No, you know you've failed with a character when people have an emotional reaction different from the one you intended for the character.

Both can apply.

[ShadowLordXII]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Fraq Hound wrote...

When you know you've failed at creating a character is when people are indifferent towards them.

No, you know you've failed with a character when people have an emotional reaction different from the one you intended for the character.

Both can apply.

Actually, having a polarizing character can be a positive aspect because they're multi-dimensional enough for some to find reason to love them and others to hate them.

You've only failed at creating a character when you don't try to give them...anything...or when everyone hates that character, but they're still the creator's pet.

[apascone]

riccaborto wrote...

 I noticed that as BioWare Games' Quality decreases, also the Party Members number in their games do...

Think of the companions of Kotor, Mass Effect 2, or DA Origns (a lot.......)

and now think of Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3. They say it is because so you have more attachment, and the chance to go deeper into the characters... but IMHO the companions from Origins and Kotor were more and more deep then the ones of DA2 or ME3...<_< 

IF that were true about less compaions and feeling more attached it, you actually have to like the characters. For me in ME3 the only character I really like is Garrus and in DA2 I only like Isabella. Which makes me not want to play the game agaon because I don't like the characters.

[Wulfram]

Draw your own conclusions

[FaWa]

Wulfram wrote...



Draw your own conclusions

lolpwnt DA2

[ledod]

Narosian wrote...

 games aren't what they used to be, nothing to do with bioware.

Very true.

[Realmzmaster]

Wulfram wrote...



Draw your own conclusions

The chart disproves OP's premise.

[cJohnOne]

I think Metacritic was useless for DA2 and ME3. Weren't they bombed or something.

Modifié par cJohnOne, 25 août 2012 - 03:52 .

[Satyricon331]

Wulfram wrote...

**graph**

Draw your own conclusions

I needed to practice matrix algebra anyway, so I thought it'd be fun if I were to find the least-squares line by hand, with just Windows' Calculator for the arithmetic.  (I was wrong.)  My data were slightly different than yours, I think - I found the highest Metacritic score for ME2 to be 96, when it looks like you have 95, and for DA2 I had 9 companions (Sebastian included since I included Shale for DAO).  I guessed the nuber of JE's companions as 8 since some sites counted some characters other sites didn't.

Anyway, I found the intercept to be about -14 (it was -13.85618...) and the slope to be about 0.3 (it was 0.2756...).  In other words, a game with a metacritic score of 0 should have about -14 companions, and for each 10-point gain in the score, you should have another 2.5 or 3 companions.  

So there is a correlation... but the R^2 value is approx. 0.058, which is really terrible.  It's largely BG1's fault - its contribution to the total sum of squares was 198.81, out of 298.9.  Even starting out, I was planning to do it a 2nd time omitting BG as an outlier, but it took a really long time to do this (I don't have a program), so maybe someone else will want to take a crack at it. 

tl;dr: There's a correlation but it's likely not the greatest explanation for metacritic scores. 

[LinksOcarina]

Wulfram wrote...



Draw your own conclusions

It's inaccurate. Jade Empire had 12 companions, 7 of which were fighters.