79 réponses à ce sujet

[cJohnOne]

Here's where you mistaken. The sales for DAO where unusual. Comparing the two doesn't make sense except for being the sequel.

[Plaintiff]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

I disagree sales behaved normally and had a normal drop off. There is no evidence of this word of mouth thing that had to occur before it happened to have happened to effect sales.

Source.

Maybe they didn't drop off. Maybe they just never got off the ground at all.

Which could be for any number of reasons.

DA:O is an anomaly, its sales pattern isn't anything like the usual trend. Games, like all products, generally have their peak sales close to release time, and then they drop steadily from there.

Your 'source' is an article by a hobbyist gaming journalist with no experience or even a working knowledge of market analysis, so any speculations she has about why DA2 failed commerically are only as valid as the speculations of posters on this very forum.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Plaintiff wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

cJohnOne wrote...

I disagree sales behaved normally and had a normal drop off. There is no evidence of this word of mouth thing that had to occur before it happened to have happened to effect sales.

Source.

Maybe they didn't drop off. Maybe they just never got off the ground at all.

Which could be for any number of reasons.

DA:O is an anomaly, its sales pattern isn't anything like the usual trend. Games, like all products, generally have their peak sales close to release time, and then they drop steadily from there.

Your 'source' is an article by a hobbyist gaming journalist with no experience or even a working knowledge of market analysis, so any speculations she has about why DA2 failed commerically are only as valid as the speculations of posters on this very forum.

I never said it was valid. I just listed a source. I tried to find more, but they all linked to vgchartz. As I said, I think it's obvious why DA2 failed commercially. It was a mediocre game and a really bad sequel to a really great game. Just because you really liked it doesn't change the fact that the majority consider it a failure.

[cJohnOne]

Didn't DAO sell 3.5 million and DA2 sell 2 million? The chart seems a little off.  In direction I guess.

Modifié par cJohnOne, 01 septembre 2012 - 04:35 .

[TEWR]

Plaintiff wrote...
Financial success is reliant on a number of factors (most prominently marketing), but quality is not one. 

I wouldn't say quality isn't a factor. I think quality is a factor, but it is largely dependent on its own criteria that also contribute to the financial success of a game.

Word of mouth certainly helps -- or hinders -- the financial success of games. And word of mouth depends on the quality of a game.

Plaintiff wrote...

I do disagree. I think Bioware knew exactly what it wanted to do with DA2. I also think they succeeded. I think DA2 is an extremely good game.

Not to berate you for liking DAII or to say you're wrong for doing such -- I'm really not trying to say that -- but I can't see how you think they succeeded and how it's a good game.

I mean, Act 3 itself speaks volumes as to how rushed and incomplete DAII was. Even Bioware has come out to say they were rushed at the end of development and Act 3 suffered for it.

Conceptually, it was great. But do you really think they executed the concepts well enough? I certainly don't. I think that the game had a fantastic conceptual background, but fell flat on its face with the execution and while they began to bring up a fair deal of interesting concepts from a literary storytelling perspective, they weren't able to give them their due.

[Plaintiff]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Financial success is reliant on a number of factors (most prominently marketing), but quality is not one. 

I wouldn't say quality isn't a factor. I think quality is a factor, but it is largely dependent on its own criteria that also contribute to the financial success of a game.

Word of mouth certainly helps -- or hinders -- the financial success of games. And word of mouth depends on the quality of a game.

Plaintiff wrote...

I do disagree. I think Bioware knew exactly what it wanted to do with DA2. I also think they succeeded. I think DA2 is an extremely good game.

Not to berate you for liking DAII or to say you're wrong for doing such -- I'm really not trying to say that -- but I can't see how you think they succeeded and how it's a good game.

I mean, Act 3 itself speaks volumes as to how rushed and incomplete DAII was. Even Bioware has come out to say they were rushed at the end of development and Act 3 suffered for it.

Conceptually, it was great. But do you really think they executed the concepts well enough? I certainly don't. I think that the game had a fantastic conceptual background, but fell flat on its face with the execution and while they began to bring up a fair deal of interesting concepts from a literary storytelling perspective, they weren't able to give them their due.

I have some issues with execution, yes, but I think not as many as you. I don't put as much value in execution as I do in concept.

For me, almost every "flaw" goes back to the timeskips, which I feel were not only unnecessary, but even harmful, in that they damaged the verisimilitude of the story, and thus my suspension of disbelief. As far as gameplay is concerned, I couldn't care less. For me, gameplay is merely a means to access the narrative. If the two elements are well-integrated, that's a bonus. If they aren't, I don't care.

By the same token, good gameplay will rarely save a game if the story doesn't interest me. I find Skyrim and Kingdoms of Amalur to be dull and uninspired when it comes to story (although Skyrim's ****ty UI did not escape my notice).

Despite my personal greivances with DA2, my overall opinion is still that the game was pretty damn good, I enjoy it more than Origins, that much is certain. It makes me sad that it failed, because it looks like DA3 is returning to the standard "epic quest, defeat ultimate evil" plot that is ubiquitous in the Fantasy genre. I'm sure Bioware will do it very well, as they did with DA:O, but it is nonetheless depressing that they appear to be shying away from further experimentation, and have resolved to play it relatively safe.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I think DA3 is likely to have more in common with DA2 than Origins.

[Aggie Punbot]

Plaintiff wrote...

DA:O is an anomaly, its sales pattern isn't anything like the usual trend.

Has it occurred to you to ask just why it (Dragon Age: Origins) was an anomaly? Learning why it became such a sleeper hit will give you a very good idea as to why Dragon Age 2 did not follow the same pattern.

[Plaintiff]

TS2Aggie wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

DA:O is an anomaly, its sales pattern isn't anything like the usual trend.

Has it occurred to you to ask just why it (Dragon Age: Origins) was an anomaly? Learning why it became such a sleeper hit will give you a very good idea as to why Dragon Age 2 did not follow the same pattern.

Well, what made it an anomaly doesn't really matter because anomalies can't be re-created. That's what makes them anomalies.

I suspect that the increasing sales of Origins over time have a lot to do with it being talked up by hardcore Bioware fans who wanted people to experience a "classic RPG" in the style of Baldur's Gate (I have no idea if it's like Baldur's Gate, I've never played Baldur's Gate). This wold be a (rare) instance where word of mouth was a more effective form of marketing than the usual methods.

However, a lot of people buying it does not mean that a lot of of people liked it. As I said earlier, to know if you'll like it, you have to play it.

According to Bioware's telemetry, a significant portion of people who started Origins never finished it even one time. Regardless of whether or not they enjoyed what they played, they may have decided not to purchase DA2 on that basis (especially since a major point of the marketing was the ability to carry choices over from the previous game).

Of the people that did complete Origins, a significant portion only completed it once. Now that may be for any number of reasons, but it's practically a certainty that some of them simply did not enjoy it, and chose not to buy DA2 because they weren't interested in continuing with the franchise.

And then you factor in the people who didn't like what they heard prior to the release, the people who didn't like the demo, the people who read negative reviews first, the people who bought DA:O on the advice of staunch Bioware fans, only to hear from those same mouths that DA2 was "nothing like" its predecessor...

[Plaintiff]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

I think DA3 is likely to have more in common with DA2 than Origins.

Well, we already know that I don't consider DA2 to be very different from DA:O to begin with.

Pretty much the only difference I care about is that DA2 broke away from the conventional story formula of fantasy videogames. DA3 is returning to that formula, so as far as I'm concerned, it's undoing the only important change.

[Little Princess Peach]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Please BW don't give us a mix of Angry Birds , CoD and Skyrim with GlaDos as villain

to me that discribes da2 in a nut shell

[mesmerizedish]

Hahahahahaha.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Anders destroying the Chantry in Kirkwall.

[Mr Fixit]

Plaintiff wrote...


I suspect that the increasing sales of Origins over time have a lot to do with it being talked up by hardcore Bioware fans who wanted people to experience a "classic RPG" in the style of Baldur's Gate (I have no idea if it's like Baldur's Gate, I've never played Baldur's Gate). This wold be a (rare) instance where word of mouth was a more effective form of marketing than the usual methods.

A rare instance? I'd say it's one of the most important ingredients behind success. I sincerely doubt that German cars have the reputation they have (and the sales to back it up) just because of good marketing. The same goes for pretty much everything, and yes, Justin Bieber included. When people talk, it gets heard. Simple as that.

However, a lot of people buying it does not mean that a lot of of people liked it. As I said earlier, to know if you'll like it, you have to play it.

According to Bioware's telemetry, a significant portion of people who started Origins never finished it even one time. Regardless of whether or not they enjoyed what they played, they may have decided not to purchase DA2 on that basis (especially since a major point of the marketing was the ability to carry choices over from the previous game).

Of the people that did complete Origins, a significant portion only completed it once. Now that may be for any number of reasons, but it's practically a certainty that some of them simply did not enjoy it, and chose not to buy DA2 because they weren't interested in continuing with the franchise.

Аn insignificant metric. We just don't know why someone did or didn't complete the game. And that's true for all games, especially those that are very long.



I also point you to this link.

pamkato.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/only-1-in-10-play-the-whole-video-game-implications-for-serious-game-development/

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Wow, look at those GTA IV numbers. GTA V is going to tank, hard.

[philippe willaume]

Plaintiff wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Financial success is reliant on a number of factors (most prominently marketing), but quality is not one. 

I wouldn't say quality isn't a factor. I think quality is a factor, but it is largely dependent on its own criteria that also contribute to the financial success of a game.

Word of mouth certainly helps -- or hinders -- the financial success of games. And word of mouth depends on the quality of a game.

Plaintiff wrote...

I do disagree. I think Bioware knew exactly what it wanted to do with DA2. I also think they succeeded. I think DA2 is an extremely good game.

Not to berate you for liking DAII or to say you're wrong for doing such -- I'm really not trying to say that -- but I can't see how you think they succeeded and how it's a good game.

I mean, Act 3 itself speaks volumes as to how rushed and incomplete DAII was. Even Bioware has come out to say they were rushed at the end of development and Act 3 suffered for it.

Conceptually, it was great. But do you really think they executed the concepts well enough? I certainly don't. I think that the game had a fantastic conceptual background, but fell flat on its face with the execution and while they began to bring up a fair deal of interesting concepts from a literary storytelling perspective, they weren't able to give them their due.

I have some issues with execution, yes, but I think not as many as you. I don't put as much value in execution as I do in concept.

For me, almost every "flaw" goes back to the timeskips, which I feel were not only unnecessary, but even harmful, in that they damaged the verisimilitude of the story, and thus my suspension of disbelief. As far as gameplay is concerned, I couldn't care less. For me, gameplay is merely a means to access the narrative. If the two elements are well-integrated, that's a bonus. If they aren't, I don't care.

By the same token, good gameplay will rarely save a game if the story doesn't interest me. I find Skyrim and Kingdoms of Amalur to be dull and uninspired when it comes to story (although Skyrim's ****ty UI did not escape my notice).

Despite my personal greivances with DA2, my overall opinion is still that the game was pretty damn good, I enjoy it more than Origins, that much is certain. It makes me sad that it failed, because it looks like DA3 is returning to the standard "epic quest, defeat ultimate evil" plot that is ubiquitous in the Fantasy genre. I'm sure Bioware will do it very well, as they did with DA:O, but it is nonetheless depressing that they appear to be shying away from further experimentation, and have resolved to play it relatively safe.

hello i am from the other camp.
Ie i much prefered DA:0 than DA:2.
but really up to act II that was a good game. and i think as TEWR, that there was lots of good concept that did not end up working that well.
but yes I liked the story and the way it was told. 

I think the perequation of things that brush you against the fur outnumber the thing you like is what makes a game successfull. So expectation has a lot to do with it.

For me combat in DA:0 was like skyrim or KOA:R, and playing DA:0 with two mages or a ultimate build is the same So it is not inherent to DA:2 per say. Ie the companion where usually just dudes that taged along, and did not see fit to unterupt what they were doing to do what I was asking. (any mages, isabella and varic being the main culprit here). So it was easier to "skyrim/witcher  it".


I dont really care how the combat is done in the DA series, but i would like team work to have a greater importance. 
phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 01 septembre 2012 - 09:57 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Mr Fixit wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...


I suspect that the increasing sales of Origins over time have a lot to do with it being talked up by hardcore Bioware fans who wanted people to experience a "classic RPG" in the style of Baldur's Gate (I have no idea if it's like Baldur's Gate, I've never played Baldur's Gate). This wold be a (rare) instance where word of mouth was a more effective form of marketing than the usual methods.

A rare instance? I'd say it's one of the most important ingredients behind success. I sincerely doubt that German cars have the reputation they have (and the sales to back it up) just because of good marketing. The same goes for pretty much everything, and yes, Justin Bieber included. When people talk, it gets heard. Simple as that.

However, a lot of people buying it does not mean that a lot of of people liked it. As I said earlier, to know if you'll like it, you have to play it.

According to Bioware's telemetry, a significant portion of people who started Origins never finished it even one time. Regardless of whether or not they enjoyed what they played, they may have decided not to purchase DA2 on that basis (especially since a major point of the marketing was the ability to carry choices over from the previous game).

Of the people that did complete Origins, a significant portion only completed it once. Now that may be for any number of reasons, but it's practically a certainty that some of them simply did not enjoy it, and chose not to buy DA2 because they weren't interested in continuing with the franchise.

Аn insignificant metric. We just don't know why someone did or didn't complete the game. And that's true for all games, especially those that are very long.



I also point you to this link.

pamkato.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/only-1-in-10-play-the-whole-video-game-implications-for-serious-game-development/

Haha, yeah. I don't know why people keep bringing up how many times Origins got finished. I only finished the game once, but I did a lot of alternate playthroughs.

As for Skyrim, still never finished...

[Provi-dance]

Plaintiff wrote...

jpzgoku wrote...

Really? Quality of a product in no way correlates with how successful that product is or will become?

Generally, no.

 

Keep in mind that the quality correlates much less with what you think is good, Plaintiff.

[Maria Caliban]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Filament wrote...

What a surprise, they're interested in a successful game because of how successful it is...

The only thing I'm surprised by is that this thread exists. I rather thought that it obvious that a successful game would merit being looked at.

They're going to change parts of the game to be more like Skyrim because of how successful Skyrim was, not because it did anything innovative or out of the ordinary for that series.

Queue the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Doesn't BioWare know that it's a high school garage band and not an actual business that has to pay the salary of several hundred people?

[Melca36]

cJohnOne wrote...

Didn't DAO sell 3.5 million and DA2 sell 2 million? The chart seems a little off.  In direction I guess.

Actually Origins sold like 5 million and DA2 sold 2 Million

[Melca36]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

I think DA3 is likely to have more in common with DA2 than Origins.

They said they would be combining what worked in DA2 as well as more elements from Origins so I would not expect a DA:2 clone if I were you

Modifié par Melca36, 01 septembre 2012 - 09:42 .

[Provi-dance]

Melca36 wrote...

They said they would be combining what worked in DA2 as well as more elements from Origins so I would not expect a DA:2 clone if I were you

Now if only we knew what exactly they think worked in DA2.

[ianvillan]

Melca36 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

I think DA3 is likely to have more in common with DA2 than Origins.

They said they would be combining what worked in DA2 as well as more elements from Origins so I would not expect a DA:2 clone if I were you

So far all we have heard about are the elements of DA2 they plan to keep, they haven't said anything about what they want to bring back from Origins.

I asked about them bringing back Isometric view and there has been no answer to the question. If they cant answer one simple question about an Origin feature but can answer about what they consider superior features about DA2 that are returning, then what hope is there for an even mix of DA2 and Origins.

Before DA2 was released all you would hear was how bad Origins was and how much better DA2 is in every way, so when the ones in charge of the next game think Origins was terrible and still rave about most of DA2 it says where the next game is heading.

I would just like a Bioware blog about what the devs liked if anything about Origins and what they would like to bring over from that game.