227 réponses à ce sujet

[Dhiro]

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.

Lazy seems a bit harsh. For example, I can't bring myself to complete DA: O a fourth time with my dorf lady because I hate everything Origins' art style stands for. Though I am lazy, so maybe I'm not the best example.

[Melca36]

Dhiro wrote...

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.

Lazy seems a bit harsh. For example, I can't bring myself to complete DA: O a fourth time with my dorf lady because I hate everything Origins' art style stands for. Though I am lazy, so maybe I'm not the best example.

I actually prefer the art style to Origins than DA2 (ALthough I liked the ART in the Wounded Coast and MOTA)

Most of DA2 was stale and generic and dont get me started on those silent badly rendered 2 dimensional people scattered around Kirkwall:sick:

[silentassassin264]

It isn't laziness, it is short attention span. While I have finished the game well over 10 times, I could easily see why someone would get to the Deep Roads, forget why they were there in the first place, and put the game away and play something else. The Fade was a giant space flea from nowhere level that could be taxing to finish simply because it came from literally nowhere. Going through the Brecelian Woods mission could also get rather boring and attention span killing.

[Foolsfolly]

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.

That's a huge and crazy assumption to make.

There are many reasons why someone wouldn't finish a game. Among them there's the fact that real-life could get in the way (marriage, death in the family, work gets more intensive) to the fact that they may not actually like the game. And there's plenty of things in-between.

To assume someone's lazy for not finishing a video game is weird. For one it's like saying someone who doesn't watch a movie from beginning to end is too lazy.

[eyesofastorm]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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).

The gaming population?  Sylvius is unique among the *human* population.... not that there's anything wrong with that.  Keep on rockin' Sylvius.  

[Rinji the Bearded]

Dhiro wrote...

Lazy seems a bit harsh. For example, I can't bring myself to complete DA: O a fourth time with my dorf lady because I hate everything Origins' art style stands for. Though I am lazy, so maybe I'm not the best example.

You got through it three times?!   All playthroughs after my first stopped at Ostagar. 

[cJohnOne]

Yeah but ME2 had a complition rate of 56% which I assume it better than average. I assume they did something right to achieve this rate. DA2 had a complition rate of 41% which I assume is more average. DAO's 36% I conjecture was due to having a fade section and a bridge puzzle.

[Rawgrim]

i got through DA:O 5 times. Going for different party combinations and different romances etc. Great fun. Done 3 playthroughs of DA2. Will probably do one more for each game right before the 3rd one comes out.

[Melca36]

Foolsfolly wrote...

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.

That's a huge and crazy assumption to make.

There are many reasons why someone wouldn't finish a game. Among them there's the fact that real-life could get in the way (marriage, death in the family, work gets more intensive) to the fact that they may not actually like the game. And there's plenty of things in-between.

To assume someone's lazy for not finishing a video game is weird. For one it's like saying someone who doesn't watch a movie from beginning to end is too lazy.

Maybe I was wrong to make that assumption but for $60 I FINISH games.   There is something called the save function.  Thats the beauty of games.

Perhaps people are too much in a hurry and are willing to pay MORE for LESS then? 

[Rawgrim]

cJohnOne wrote...

Yeah but ME2 had a complition rate of 56% which I assume it better than average. I assume they did something right to achieve this rate. DA2 had a complition rate of 41% which I assume is more average. DAO's 36% I conjecture was due to having a fade section and a bridge puzzle.

The bridge puzzle was actually "dumbed down" for consoles. No idea why. i noticed it after i bought it on xbox and played through the game on that one.

[Melca36]

cJohnOne wrote...

Yeah but ME2 had a complition rate of 56% which I assume it better than average. I assume they did something right to achieve this rate. DA2 had a complition rate of 41% which I assume is more average. DAO's 36% I conjecture was due to having a fade section and a bridge puzzle.

Bridge Puzzle was a cake walk. None of these players better play Guild Wars 2 then. Those Puzzles are difficult.

The Fade was fun in Origins and was cheap in DA2.

[CaptainBlackGold]

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.

SNIP.

I am with you on this one, Sylvius. I had a real problem finding characters for ME2 and 3 because I had started numerous games, got to a particular point, then put it aside for one or another reasons. When I tried to import a character, I found out of the literally dozens of games I had started, I had only completed a couple. However, I only played through ME-3 once - and vowed never to do it again

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).

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.

[AlanC9]

Viktoria Landers wrote...
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.

I'm glad to see someone blaming the other players rather than the developers.

Given that a lot of people don't play the games to conclusion, some of Bio's design principles are questionable. Bio's always traded off breadth for length; you don't get massively different paths through their games because they reason, rightly, that most folks don't replay the games so they'd just miss a bunch of content. But if most folks don't finish at all, Bio might as well make the games shorter and more variable.

[unbentbuzzkill]

we live in a "microwave" society meaning we want things quickly, And to a point it has spawned some laziness in some gamers but just because you don't finish a game doesn't necessarily mean you're lazy. there could be a number of reasons why somebody doesn't finish a game, But does the data say how long they've had the game? Does it ask if they plan on actually finishing the game? Are they still currently playing the game, or if it was the only game bought in the same relative time span? statistical data is never 100%. Therefore relying on just data and polls is not always the correct course of action.

[AlanC9]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...
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.

I agree, but AFAIK Bio does collect that data, except from people who are stupid enough to turn the feature off. "Stupid" because this can only harm your own interests by making your personal play style seem less common than it is.

[Reznore57]

Most of the game i bought (rpg mostly ) i never finished.
Planescape Torment ,Jade Empire,Baldur's Gate ,NW2etc...

It's not about being "lazy" , mostly i get bored , get lost , lose a favorite companion (Morte!) , got stuck somewhere and that's it I'm fed up.
The game didn't hook me enough for me to keep on .
Why keep on playing if you're not having fun ?
There's no reason at all ...

[Wifflebottom]

Yeah I was surprised at how many people don't finish games. In the 5 years I've known my boyfriend I have seen him finish maybe two games and he's definitely a gamer and all but he just gets bored or buys something new before finishing. I don't understand it at all.

[ObserverStatus]

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

I disagree, the other 64% paid for the game too, that helps raise its production value for the rest of us.

Modifié par bobobo878, 28 novembre 2012 - 09:19 .

[AxeloftheKey]

This is why I tend to find the BSN populace a little silly, because we represent a miniature minority of Bioware game players, and same with most of the game-discussing internet.

[Foolsfolly]

Lightning Cloud wrote...

Wait a second... Did someone say Origins had an art style?

Well I guess "Generic Fantasy" is still technically a style, so I'll let you guys have that one.

There's nothing wrong with generic. For one thing it's familiar and thus easier to get people into it.

That doesn't mean I don't want to see something a touch outside of 'medeval Europe' from time to time. But modern fantasy tropes and Europe are really tightly tied together, ya know?

[JWvonGoethe]

Viktoria Landers wrote...

EDIT: My point was that reviews and word-of-mouth function as the best way for the 'minority' of completionists to have their views attain influence when it comes to sales and game development.

Yeap, that's our big weapon. But from what I guess you also agree with the statement that silent majorities have also their own impact to the game development.

All game developers are going to be interested in what 64% of their customers think of their game. If that majority really is 'silent,' however, then it's going to be very difficult to find out what they think. Consequently, their direct influence is going to be somewhat limited.

That means that the impact of a silent customer base on game development can only from developers making unfounded assumptions about the preferences of this audience. Sometimes these assumptions can be pessimistic, it's true.

An example here might be for a game developer to assume without any supporting evidence that the majority of people who did not finish their game refrained from doing so because those customers found combat too challenging. The reality could be that, conversely, they did not find combat interesting, which has nothing to do with low standards or a lack of ability - the complete opposite in fact. Make it more interesting and they will like it.

I think it is more fair to assume that people who do not like something have standards that are too high rather than too low, and so the answer should always be to make your game better, instead of worse. I don't really think I'm in too much disagreement with you here, but maybe I'm a little more optimistic when it comes to the process of game development.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 28 novembre 2012 - 09:45 .

[LinksOcarina]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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).

The gaming population?  Sylvius is unique among the *human* population.... not that there's anything wrong with that.  Keep on rockin' Sylvius.  

As much as I disagree with Sylvius' stances on many things, I give him credit for being like me in his convictions. 

That said, I am with Allan on this one, there is no way to say that the OP is shallow in their opinion. I think a more applicable approach would be to say that any data regarding the number of people completing a game will always be inherently flawed, which is why it needs a control group to iron out any discrepances in a formal study.