227 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

So then how does one access what is good? Do you use the opinions of posters here on the BSN? If that is the case then the opinion on DA2 being good or not is definitely split. So to whom does Bioware listen?

Does Bioware base its decision on the data that it gathers no matter how imperfect that may be? The data may not tell the whole story but it may give a piece of it. The data that the OP talks about gives another piece of the puzzle, but again not the whole story.

Does Bioware simply stick to its vision and let the chips fall where they may?

Does Bioware listen only to Ralmzmaster, Fast Jimmy and Sylvius the Mad and make only the game we want? (Taking into consideration that we do not entirely agree with each other.)

Or better yet listen only to Realmzmaster and make the game he wants which is a guaranteed sale?

I believe that Bioware is doing me a disservice by not producing the game I want, but YMMV.

[Fast Jimmy]

The inherent problem of anyone designing a game "for" anyone is else is that

A) you may never know what will truly please someone else and

no one knows to ask for what hasn't been created yet.

Making a game like no one has ever seen before is a daunting task. One that can only be accomplished through mountains of dedication and countless hours of hard work. But not only that, it needs a fire, a burning creative dream and a vision for what you want the game to be, what you want it to do. Sometimes, you just have to ignore the fans and make the game you are most passionate about.

Oftentimes, that passion comes through and players feel it, are energized by it. Sometimes, the finished product has a disconnect between the amazing vision you imagined and the final product, which may have bugs, less developed features, a lack of coherency due to lack of screening or any number of other things.

But even so, you will still have made a game that you were passionate about. And for that, people cannot help but respect it, even if it isn't what everyone wanted.

[silentassassin264]

The problem with that, Fast Jimmy, can be summed up by the name "Mass Effect 3". I saw how the devs were all excited and hopeful about it on twitter and on the forums and the response was less than respectful. There were actually threads (that got locked obviously) about assaulting Mac Walters and Casey Hudson. Expecting a fanbase to respect you for trying hard is asking way too much. They didn't joke about this being the Bioware Sociopathy Network for no reason.

[cJohnOne]

I think a game made for Ralmzmaster, Fast Jimmy and Sylvius the Mad would be great. Except nobody else would be much interested in it.

[Cygnus x1]

I completed Dragon Age Origons a couple times (have another play through going now) DA2-completed, and actually prior to DAO I did not like RPGs.
I made the mistake of getting Elder Scrolls Oblivion,beautifull game for its time but You know what?
Its F****** Tediouse.
Everytime I try to get into that game I just say hell with it.

DAO was balanced and kept me interested without the tediose crap,Of course the fade was a bit overboard lol.
I liked DAO because of the story/companions/gameplay and the NON tediouse time wasteing ease of pick up and play.

Oblivion promises 100s of hours of gameplay but I think 90% is wandering aimlessly,Managing Inventory and having your equipment wear out then you have to go repair the crap.

FallOut3 was another RPG that was easy to get into.Similar to oblivion but they somehow eliminated these sink hole time traps, at least you could repair your gear anywhere in game.
I completed FallOut3 too.

I see why they cant make RPGs the old school ways, Its because gamers are no longer teens that sit in their rooms for 10 hours a day.
Its entire families now and universal. they need to make it accesable yet not tediouse.

[Amycus89]

Well, I liked the game enough to buy both the retail and steam version - but I obviously only bothered to install and play one of the copies. Hence I have replayed DA:O at least 14 times by now, and made several mods for it - and yet my steam account says that I have played DA:O less than 0 hours. 

You can't blindly trust statistics. I can prove that ice cream prevents colds by using statistics, since the sales of icecream will rise steadily as summer approaches, while it falls as winter comes along.

Modifié par Amycus89, 29 novembre 2012 - 05:31 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Plaintiff wrote...

You're assuming Bioware doesn't have the telemetry on how many times a game is replayed. They do.

Is anyone criticising how BioWare uses the data?  I'm only criticising how the OP used the data.

As you say, BioWare has more data, and they're almost certainly using it better than the analysis that opened this thread.

[ScarMK]

cJohnOne wrote...

I think a game made for Ralmzmaster, Fast Jimmy and Sylvius the Mad would be great. Except nobody else would be much interested in it.

I'd play the hell outta that.

[Plaintiff]

BrotherWarth wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

So then how does one access what is good? Do you use the opinions of posters here on the BSN? If that is the case then the opinion on DA2 being good or not is definitely split. So to whom does Bioware listen?

Does Bioware base its decision on the data that it gathers no matter how imperfect that may be? The data may not tell the whole story but it may give a piece of it. The data that the OP talks about gives another piece of the puzzle, but again not the whole story.

Does Bioware simply stick to its vision and let the chips fall where they may?

Does Bioware listen only to Ralmzmaster, Fast Jimmy and Sylvius the Mad and make only the game we want? (Taking into consideration that we do not entirely agree with each other.)

Or better yet listen only to Realmzmaster and make the game he wants which is a guaranteed sale?

I believe that Bioware is doing me a disservice by not producing the game I want, but YMMV.

Luckily Bioware is privy to more data than opinions of a-holes like me. They have sales data. And the sales data shows that DA2 is not as well-received as Origins and got less popular as time went whereas Origins gained popularity as time went on. And considering Bioware is in the business of selling games ignoring those facts would be pretty irresponsible.

Sales data is not a reliable indicator of a game's quality or popularity. Games are an 'experience good', which means in order to know if you like it, you have to pay for it first. All the sales data tells us is that a bunch of people bought Origins and then did not buy the sequel.

Typically, when a sequel of anything performs poorly, it's because people didn't like the first one very much.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 29 novembre 2012 - 05:55 .

[Amycus89]

Plaintiff wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

So then how does one access what is good? Do you use the opinions of posters here on the BSN? If that is the case then the opinion on DA2 being good or not is definitely split. So to whom does Bioware listen?

Does Bioware base its decision on the data that it gathers no matter how imperfect that may be? The data may not tell the whole story but it may give a piece of it. The data that the OP talks about gives another piece of the puzzle, but again not the whole story.

Does Bioware simply stick to its vision and let the chips fall where they may?

Does Bioware listen only to Ralmzmaster, Fast Jimmy and Sylvius the Mad and make only the game we want? (Taking into consideration that we do not entirely agree with each other.)

Or better yet listen only to Realmzmaster and make the game he wants which is a guaranteed sale?

I believe that Bioware is doing me a disservice by not producing the game I want, but YMMV.

Luckily Bioware is privy to more data than opinions of a-holes like me. They have sales data. And the sales data shows that DA2 is not as well-received as Origins and got less popular as time went whereas Origins gained popularity as time went on. And considering Bioware is in the business of selling games ignoring those facts would be pretty irresponsible.

Sales data is not a reliable indicator of a game's quality or popularity. Games are an 'experience good', which means in order to know if you like it, you have to pay for it first. All the sales data tells us is that a bunch of people bought Origins and then did not buy the sequel.

Typically, when a sequel of anything performs poorly, it's because people didn't like the first one very much.

The initial sales for DA2 was quite high however, it's just that they dropped very suddenly after the first few days. In comparison, the sales for DA:O were fairly strong for weeks afterwards, and even increased some days.

...which shows the power of word by mouth, if anything if you ask me.

Statistics here, and that's just for the consoles, that DA2 was primarly made for and then ported to PC:
http://www.escapistm...gon-Age-2-Sales

I do agree with you on your first paragraph though, numbers might not lie, but interpritations can differ wildly.

Modifié par Amycus89, 29 novembre 2012 - 06:15 .

[CaptainBlackGold]

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...

[quote]BrotherWarth wrote...

[quote]Realmzmaster wrote...

[/quote]
Sales data is not a reliable indicator of a game's quality or popularity. Games are an 'experience good', which means in order to know if you like it, you have to pay for it first. All the sales data tells us is that a bunch of people bought Origins and then did not buy the sequel.

Typically, when a sequel of anything performs poorly, it's because people didn't like the first one very much.
[/quote]

With one caveat; initial sales of DA2 were incredible - and though we cannot know for sure, it is at least plausable that the reason was that a lot of people pre-ordered it because they liked DAO.

Sales of DA2 then took a nose dive - which again, we cannot know for sure why, but it is at least plausable that the reason was that word got out that a lot of people were dissatisfied with where they took the franchise.

All this is speculation of course - and your comment above is pertinent; we do not know the real reason.

Hopefully with all the data that Bioware has collected, they have a much better understanding of why DA2 did not do as well as DAO - and will make the necessary changes.

[Iron_JG]

FWIW, I've replayed DA:O, DA:A and DA2 (plus most DLC) several times, though I probably have more unfinished than finished playthroughs. That's a hang-up on my part, as I have trouble varying my playthroughs. I tend to finish the game one way I like, and then replay it that way. I was horrible with ME about this. It's a compliment to the games in a sense, because I connect to the characters in ways that are hard to shake. (I.e., "How can I NOT sex up Liara?" and "How could Alistair not be my bro?").

But that's neither here nor there. I am curious, however, how Bioware takes gamers not finishing a game (at least once) as a judgment on it. With finishing the game as a sign of engagement (especially in heavily story-driven games, unlike Elder Scrolls games), I'd think the goal would be to get them to finish as much as possible. Consumers' intensity (such as through complete and multiple playthroughs) helps suck in new customers and signals a strong market for follow-up content.

I wonder how they aim to up the finish rate for DA:I. Vaguely saying, "Make the best game possible," while a key fundamental, only goes so far. Its predecessors were well-reviewed and received (with DA2 receiving more caveats) and yet there they sit unfinished by so many.

Modifié par Iron_JG, 29 novembre 2012 - 06:21 .

[Conduit0]

I think the reason so few people ever finished DAO can be summed up in four words, "its really bloody long".

The average single player game is around 20 hours long, compared to DAO where you could expect between 70 and 80 hours on your first play through. The average gamer simply doesn't have the time and/or the attention span necessary to finish a game that long. Either they get pulled away from the game by real life and lose interest, or they get distracted by some other game that just came out.

So I don't think the low completion rate is a negative reflection on DAO, but rather a reflection on the nature of the average gamer.

[Iron_JG]

To be clear, I'm not trying to be passive-aggressive; I enjoyed both games greatly. But my thinking, from a business standpoint and even simple pride, is that a minority of gamers completing the game would be frustrating. Imagine you're a movie director, and people only sit through 1.5 hours of your two-hour movie. You'd want to figure out how to keep people in their seats.

To develop the thought more, I gather Bioware uses its telemetry data to to holistically judge how engaged gamers were -- average percentage complete, which side quests were performed and which weren't, etc. But that information can't be interpreted as, "well the game maybe doesn't need an ending because few people will play it." Neglected/bad endings in story-driven experiences drag the whole work down. So there are practical and artistic reasons to want to push the gamer past the finish line. Granted, only so much can be done -- Bioware can't get people vacations, make spouses chill out, dispose of dead hookers and so on (I yearn to be mistaken here, obviously). But I'm still curious as to what gets done differently to sustain engagement.

Modifié par Iron_JG, 29 novembre 2012 - 07:12 .

[slimgrin]

Conduit0 wrote...

I think the reason so few people ever finished DAO can be summed up in four words, "its really bloody long".

The average single player game is around 20 hours long, compared to DAO where you could expect between 70 and 80 hours on your first play through. The average gamer simply doesn't have the time and/or the attention span necessary to finish a game that long. Either they get pulled away from the game by real life and lose interest, or they get distracted by some other game that just came out.

So I don't think the low completion rate is a negative reflection on DAO, but rather a reflection on the nature of the average gamer.

No way. DA:O is a good game, I'll admit. But it has long stretches of boring, pointless combat - point, click, watch it play out...for bloody ever. Real time with pause doesn't automatically make it more tactical, sorry. Just a hell of a lot slower. And with a hell of a lot more combat as blatant filler. If this was the type of combat Jennifer Hepler was citing when she said she'd rather skip it, I agree. Now if you want to use your argument citing the old school turn-based RPG's, fine. But don't pretend DA:O was anything but a bastardization of old and new, very much influenced by Hollywood cinema of the day and Tolkein. 

Modifié par slimgrin, 29 novembre 2012 - 07:33 .

[Conduit0]

slimgrin wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

I think the reason so few people ever finished DAO can be summed up in four words, "its really bloody long".

The average single player game is around 20 hours long, compared to DAO where you could expect between 70 and 80 hours on your first play through. The average gamer simply doesn't have the time and/or the attention span necessary to finish a game that long. Either they get pulled away from the game by real life and lose interest, or they get distracted by some other game that just came out.

So I don't think the low completion rate is a negative reflection on DAO, but rather a reflection on the nature of the average gamer.

No way. DA:O is a good game, I'll admit. But it has long stretches of boring, pointless combat - point, click, watch it play out...for bloody ever. Real time with pause doesn't automatically make it more tactical, sorry. Just a hell of a lot slower. And with a hell of a lot more combat as blatant filler. If this was the type of combat Jennifer Hepler was citing when she said she'd rather skip it, I agree. Now if you want to use your argument citing the old school turn-based RPG's, fine. But don't pretend DA:O was anything but a bastardization of old and new, very much influenced by Hollywood cinema of the day and Tolkein. 

I'm not quite sure I get what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that people didn't finish DAO because, its really bloody long? Hmm, I think some other chap said something along those lines as well.

slimgrin wrote...
And with a hell of a lot more combat as blatant filler.

I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh at this, and not even for the anal grammar **** reason of starting a sentence with the word and either. They used combat as "filler", thats like saying Nintendo used platforming as filler in the last Mario game. Combat is the core gameplay mechanic, without it you no longer have a game, you have a mildly interactive movie. Thats not to say you don't have a point about DAO's combat, since it was often as slow as a quadruple amputee tortoise. But that really just goes back to my whole, "Its really bloody long" argument and likely why we ended up with DA2's combat where everyone is apparently hopped up on a caffeine-meth-coke cocktail.

But my main point seems to have been missed entirely, and that is, as long as people are dropping the game simply becuase they didn't have time to finish it, and not because they didn't enjoy the game, than it doesn't really matter if most people never finish the game. Because if thats the case, than the only way to increase the completion rate, would be to significantly shorten the game. Which would obviously be a huge disservice to the fans.

Modifié par Conduit0, 29 novembre 2012 - 08:36 .

[Orian Tabris]

silentassassin264 wrote...

Expecting a fanbase to respect you for trying hard is asking way too much. They didn't joke about this being the Bioware Sociopathy Network for no reason.

I'd say that sounds like a better anagram! Better AND closer to being true (though "Social" can be either functional or dysfunctional).

The reason why the BSN is this way, is the same reason the whole internet is so random. It's because not everyone has the same opinions, and not everyone wants to be serious. There are reasons within reasons why the BSN is this way, and why the internet is so random, and it'd be literally impossible to identify all of them. However, I think saying that feelings sums up all of them.

'Everyone' is a variable. And 'a variable' applies to everyone. This sounds like I'm repeating myself, but trust me, I'm not. It's really difficult to explain data, when it includes so many people (who apply to so many different things within the one heading), from so many different places.

[Orian Tabris]

I'm just gonna post my stats for all BioWare games:

Baldur's Gate - stopped during my first playthrough, because it got too hard.
Baldur's Gate 2 - multiple characters, only about 2 playthroughs where I've gotten past losing Imoen; still playing both
Dragon Age: Origins - 10+ games, about 7 playthroughs to at least 85% of the game
"                                  ": Awakening - 6 games, about 5 completed
Dragon Age 2 - 7 playthroughs; 1 half-way through; 5 completed; and 3 demos completed, but 1 not
Kingdoms of Amalur - 1 demo playthrough

This might be an extreme minority, so I obviously have no idea what percentage of these individual data, apply to other BSN users, but it's here F.Y.I.

Modifié par Orian Tabris, 29 novembre 2012 - 08:52 .

[nightscrawl]

Viktoria Landers wrote...

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

You just ran through all of these numbers that basically justified Bioware's attempt to appeal to the masses. Why do you think they should then turn around and try to appeal to the smaller minority where they will not make as much money from doing so? And too, you don't seem to consider the fact that appealing to a larger audience is one reason they have a certain budget for their games. If the market were smaller, so might their budget be, and consequently we would have a smaller game. Everything is all connected. It should NOT be looked at in an "us versus them" way.

Let's just take for granted that all of the 10-20% minority who not only completed the game but also did a replay, and who post here on the BSN with their opinions are the ones Bioware is going to design their next game around. Who do they listen to? Do they listen to those who prefer the silent PC or the voiced PC? Do they stay with a faster combat or go back to a slower pace? Do they keep the herosexual LIs or go back to DAO style? Roleplay elements, exploration, open world, crafting, dialog wheel, tone icons, friend/rival vs approval/disapproval, save imports, DLC, on and on.

There are contrary opinions for ALL of these issues that have been discussed to death on the forums. Who are they doing disservice to? Even the faithful and dedicated few cannot ALL agree on a single issue. Just who exactly is Bioware supposed to cater to?

Foolsfolly wrote...

Honestly.... most gamers do not complete their games. Red Dead Redemption's one of Rockstar's best games to date and only 13% or so of those who bought the game actually completed it.

Why do people abandon games? Devs have been asking that question for a while. In DA:O and RRD's case they had great stories with great characters. So you can't say the story wasn't gripping (although, there are no doubt people who wouldn't like the stories). I think it's just the way of things. Any game with a storyline longer than 10 hours requires a lot of time and energy away from real life concerns that are hard to justify.

And if something bad happens (funeral for example) and you stop playing a game because of that.. it's really hard to come back to a character abandoned for a few weeks.

This has happened to me on a few occasions. I will start a DAO or DA2 play and then stop. Whether that is because a new patch for WoW was released, some real life concern or whatever, I might stop playing for a few weeks. By the time I come back to it again I don't have the same connection to the character, might not remember the choices I've made or where I am in relationships, and so forth. At that point I will just delete the save and start again. I recently deleted a 35 hour DAO save for just this reason.

That said, I've also done a full run of DAO six times, three of those include Awakening and other DLC, and I've played DA2 around a dozen times. I know I'm in a super minority as far as that is concerned.

Conduit0 wrote...

Thats not to say you don't have a point about DAO's combat, since it was often as slow as a quadruple amputee tortoise.

That's quite an image.

... as long as people are dropping the game simply becuase they didn't have time to finish it, and not because they didn't enjoy the game, than it doesn't really matter if most people never finish the game.

Most of this kind of information is gathered from a player's machine over the internet. They don't do widespread surveys or anything (although a survey after the credits would be interesting!)

If a player has a dozen DAO starts and most of them stop at Ostagar, they don't know if the player has the attention span of a gnat, whether they are just playing through the different origins, if they decided they hated something about their character's appearance, or if they stopped for some RP reason (their character gave the Wardens the finger and slipped off into the night, for example.)

In other words, the telemetry data is dumb. It only knows what it knows and nothing more.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 29 novembre 2012 - 09:34 .

[DMWW]

Surely (on the OP's logic) the silent majority is actually doing you a service?If Bioware was selling to 1/3 of the people they'd have to market the game at $200 or else (much more likely) put 1/3 the resources into it. Even more so if they were selling to fewer than 1/10 of the people.

[Viktoria Landers]

[quote]nikihap wrote...
Okay first statistics is very subjective, what I mean by that is - since you haven't given us any form of link as where you got it[/quote]

I have included the source some replies below:

[quote]Viktoria Landers wrote...
Sure. Here is the source: http://uk.ign.com/ar...oadable-content

As you can see from the article's title, I intetionally didn't include the link in the first place because I didn't want the thread to end up into a Day-1 DLC discussion.[/quote]


[quote]Maria Caliban wrote...
[quote]Subsequently they are also not involved afterwards in the forums or anywhere else, that's why they are silent too.[/quote]
I disagree. You have no evidence of this. Lots of people post on internet forums about games they’ve played, even if they don’t finish the game. Every new release has a spate of new posters who log on just to express dissatisfaction (or sometimes pleasure) about an aspect of the game. We have no idea how many of them later finish it.

Personally, I express options about games I haven’t finished all the time.[/quote]
Obviously, there are exceptions. Noone expects that the 36% number is completely accurate either, but that's not the point. DAO was universally praised, yet judging by the amount of people who didn't complete it even once, one should assume that they should have complained if they were not silent.[/quote]


[quote]Maria Caliban wrote...
[quote]That means the game needs to be mostly appealing to their needs which is often not a good thing.[/quote]

This is where the argument falls apart. There’s no evidence that games which appeal to people who aren’t you are inferior in quality. You can only think so if your definition of quality is simply ‘what I, and people like me, enjoy.’[/quote]
Not exactly. I'm not referring to what I prefer to see and what not. I'm referring to the quality of the game. For example, the essence of a RPG is the numerous different choices and walkthroughs one could have. If the majority didn't even complete a single walkthrough, that means most of the different walkthroughs which were designed and included in the game, were not even touched except of a tiny minority. Which is bad. And that is not just a personal opinion, since this is what RPG is as I said before.

Hence this is a disservice to the fans who seek quality, irrelevant of our differences in what we like and what not.

Modifié par Viktoria Landers, 29 novembre 2012 - 09:36 .

[Celene II]

I totally agree with the OP. Broadening the game, yet making it shallow to appeal to more people just to get more money isnt the way to go.

Make the game for the serious fans who will play it, replay it, love it, post about it and even do cosplay with it. Those that are attracted by the broader appeal are casual fans if that and will still give you money even if the game is not streamlined for everyone.

[Viktoria Landers]

DMWW wrote...

Surely (on the OP's logic) the silent majority is actually doing you a service?If Bioware was selling to 1/3 of the people they'd have to market the game at $200 or else (much more likely) put 1/3 the resources into it. Even more so if they were selling to fewer than 1/10 of the people.

I am not pointing fingers and saying these are bad players and they should not buy the game in the first place. You are just trying to put things in my mouth, which I did not say.

The fact that I described an important disservice of the majority of players of Dragon Age, doesn't mean they didn't also make a service too, by buying the game. Yet that's not the point of my thread, to judge the actions of the majority.

The point of the thread is to analyze that the preferences of the majority influence the game development in several ways and usually not in a good way, like with the example I brought in my reply above.

Modifié par Viktoria Landers, 29 novembre 2012 - 09:51 .

[Kidd]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Does telemetry on time spent in the game inform the designers a lot? I have this tendency to go afk mid-playthrough on top of my general slowness with RPGs, thus I easily rack up well over 100 hours on many of my saves (I think my main ME2 Shep has spent just short of 200 hours in game, certainly many of those hours have been spent blindly staring at the galaxy map).

I'm mostly asking cause I'm curious, but I could also start saving when going afk and then load when I come back if it means giving better auto-feedback =) Then again I'm just one drop of water in an entire ocean so no matter what I do, I likely wouldn't change the overall statistics much. Still kinda curious to hear whether total play time factors into designing sequels at all.