9 réponses à ce sujet

[Viktoria Landers]

I was just reading some statistics which I was unaware of and I thought to share my views with you guys. Apparently only 36% of the people who played Dragon Age Origins ever completed it, a game that was named Game of the Year, was highly praised and it was the first of the DA series.

What does this number show us? That number shows that all of us who completed DAO even once are in fact a minority. And those who played a second walkthrough, in order to choose different choices this time and obviously experience the RPG to it's full potential are even less. Probably less than 10%

That means there is the majority of players behind every game who buy the video game and probably some extra DLCs, play a little with it and eventually get bored and drop it. Subsequently they are also not involved afterwards in the forums or anywhere else, that's why they are silent too.

So when corporations produce video games and seek to have big sales (that's not a bad thing of course), they want their product to appeal to their potential customers and the silent majority will obviously give them the biggest part of the revenue. That means the game needs to be mostly appealing to their needs which is often not a good thing.

That's why I think they are doing a disservice to us, who love these series and desperately want it to be something good.

Modifié par Viktoria Landers, 28 novembre 2012 - 05:53 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Just because someone doesn't complete the game doesn't mean he doesn't replay it. Nor does it mean he moves on to something else.

The OP's analysis is shallow.

Be careful taking one's own experiences and ascribing them to other people, however.

Take this as you will, but I consider you very unique among the gaming population (based on my interactions with them for the better part of 15 or so years).

[Allan Schumacher]

I have never finished Skyrim; even though I have played that game, everyday, since it came out, at least an hour or so, on average (usually late at night, to wind down).

Bethesda's games are the worst games for assessing quality based on whether or not someone completed the main plot. I'd argue the main plot for those types of games are included simply for the people that find a game lacking if it doesn't have one.

[Allan Schumacher]

Melca36 wrote...

It shows me that a great many gamers are lazy and want things handed to them instead of having to play.

Its a sad reflection of society. I had no problems finishing BOTH games but then again I am NOT lazy and I dont want instant gratification.

I dislike the word lazy. In fact, many of the people that don't finish games is because their lives are busy and they are doing a lot of other things. You have no insights into why someone didn't complete the main quest, or even why they play video games.

I know all about databases and i also know that data can be manipulated to get whatever answer you like.

Sorry, but when you make the distinction that I am counting your playthroughs as "7 completed, 14 not completed" rather than a binary "Completed the game" demonstrates that you're not entirely understanding the system at play here.

You may understand databases, but you've become outright dismissive of the conclusion based on "well they could just do whatever they want with the information they have" (this starts to enter the realm of conspiracy theory), as well as "Their data is incorrect because of the situation I have described."  (That is, that we count each of your incomplete playthroughs as another incomplete playthrough).

The latter reason shows you have incorrectly made assumptions about the telemetry system, while the former is akin to not liking the conclusion, so drawing your own logical conclusion that prevents cognitive dissonance.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 29 novembre 2012 - 12:59 .

[Allan Schumacher]

And DAO was much the same; for the longest time, I just did not want to bother with the boss battle at the end. One of my kids had a down and dirty playthrough so I watched their boss battle. Every time I got to Denerim, I just started a new character. So for a long time, I would have been included with that mysterious percentage who never finished the game - but I played DAO over and over again - especially with mods.

A statistic is one thing; its meaning can be something altogether different. More data needs to be collected before any hypothesis on why people stop playing a game can be verified. We just do not know, at this point, why.

Keep in mind we don't have just a single data point. You may have not have officially ended the game (and sure, you'll be included among the millions of other data points that also did not), it doesn't exist in a vacuum. We'll still see that you're one of the ones that got all the way to the end and just didn't finish it.

We'll also see that you played the game much longer than most other people.

[David Gaider]

Icinix wrote...
I hate seeing analytics used in game development - you can't break down an individual or a groups experience into a set of numbers and graphs.

That's true. You want to avoid drawing erroneous conclusions-- we can know what people did, but not necessarily why they did it. The good thing that this information does is help us not rely solely on anecdotal evidence. We know exactly how many people do what in the game, and that at least informs our decisions if not dictate them.

We know how many people don't complete a game, but just because it's not a lot doesn't mean we shouldn't create an ending or put much effort into it. It does, however, mean we should look at the places where people tend to stop playing and try and figure out why that might be. We know that the vast majority take "good" options, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include "evil" ones... there might be value placed upon the fact a choice exists even if it's not taken. An individual might do something in a game for any reason, sure, but when you're talking about a sampling pool of this size you can look at events which are statistically significant and act accordingly.

I can see the fear that we might look at this information and discard options which are unpopular-- I think everyone who comes to a forum like this knows, in their heart of hearts whether they admit it or not, that they are far from the norm. The act of coming to this forum alone makes one an anomoly, never mind playing a game repeatedly or arguing on points of nuance for years on end. That's the definition of "hardcore" and that makes you a small, small minority of the audience-- that has always been the case and always will. There are people in the larger audience who might feel similarly about things, neither you nor we know for certain. This kind of information does, however, let us know how they play if not how they feel about it. That, at least, let's us ignore people who try to speak on their behalf regarding things that are factually incorrect (something, quite frankly, people on forums like to do a great deal)... but doesn't mean that we'll automatically also ignore opinions on things people have every right to have opinions on. That's also feedback, and it's useful.

If one's concern, however, is that a developer should only be listening to the hardcore audience because they're the ones willing to speak their minds, and ignore factual data because it might indicate most people don't play the game the way they do... well, that has never happened. Ever.  This simply makes us better-informed, nothing more.

[Allan Schumacher]

Most of DA2's first-week sales came from pre-orders according to Bioware. That means Origins had nothing to do with DA2's lower sales and only benefited its sales.

I just want to point out that your conclusion isn't substantiated by the statement you made. You're missing context and other information.

You're made a logical deduction that works within the confines of the assumptions you've made (which, in logic, is perfectly reasonable), but it requires your assumptions to be correct. You don't have enough information to validate that.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 30 novembre 2012 - 08:45 .

[David Gaider]

BrotherWarth wrote...
Unless you're asserting that no one who pre-ordered DA2 did so because they enjoyed Origins I don't see how my statement is anything but 100% accurate.

Of course you wouldn't. Just as we can't help but notice that posters who invoke economic data do so with extremely selective perception. I can't help but notice that, when sales data says the exact opposite of one's position, it suddenly becomes irrelevant and unmentioned.

Personally, I really wish that if posters wanted to make an economic argument rather than just talk about their personal feelings/perceptions they try a bit harder not to do it quite so badly. Because unless one's goal in doing so is to sound convincing solely to those who couldn't possibly know any better, it doesn't really help you in any fashion.

[Allan Schumacher]

I would totally acknowledge sales data that said DA2 was the bomb. Is there any? I will acknowledge it like... right now. I get what you are saying... confirmation bias is a mother****** and whatnot, but I think you guys are just as guilty of it as the folks on the other side of the line. I'll accept that you have a lot more data that "we" do, but most (?) of the data we have paints what seems to be a clear picture. I don't know.

Just to clarify, and this discussion should stop from here.

David did NOT state that DA2's sales were "the bomb" or anything like that.

This all spawned from a fallacious logical deduction that because DA2's first week sales were mostly preorders, the only conclusion [emphasis mine] is that DAO's contribution to the DA2's preorders were only positive.

I will state straight up that DAO likely led to people being encouraged to preorder DA2, but to make absolute and definitive statements about what motivates people that you cannot validate is not productive.

I don't know why the majority of the first week sales were mostly preorders. Nor do I know how this compares with other games. I don't know how this differs with respect to DAO. I don't know how this differs with respect to games that fit within all sorts of criteria. It's a sequel. It's a game that reimagined itself. I don't know if people that preordered the game liked DA2 or not. I don't know what percentage of DA2 preorders came from people that had actually played DAO.

Despite all this, it's perfectly fine for me to conclude I think that DAO's success positively contributed to DA2's success (and I think this is the case).

What is unacceptable is speaking in absolutes, and then ostensibly not recognizing your logical assumptions and then talking down to those that do not wholeheartedly agree with your absolute perspectives.


This discussion is now over.

[Allan Schumacher]

Since people have noticed (and decided to comment on it), yes I did delete some posts (including the ones that commented on post deletion). My reasons for doing so are between the posters in question and the moderating team.

From the site rules:

"There is a zero tolerance policy on any form of abuse towards staff, moderators or other Community members."


On that note I am closing this thread.