227 réponses à ce sujet

[SpunkyMonkey]

Folk have other things to do in their lives apart from play games. Having said that DA:O is so addictive I find it surprising that so many did not finish the game.

The playthrough's I didn't finish were due to wanting to re-build my character, so maybe that's an issue - getting into the game and finding out that the playstyle you chose isn't fun or to your taste.

For me that's a really tough decision for game developers - how do you give the player an experience he wants without risking a build they don't like, but also maintain the element of surprise and wonder when new talents become available.

KOA:R attempted it nobely, but I really didn't like how it worked in practice and thought it felt messy.

Maybe it's time that developers started incorporating a "memory" system into the game, whereby skills/talents/spells which are rarely used fade in power and if a player wants to get rid of one in favour of the other they simply don't use it for X amount of time, giving them back exp/talent/skill etc. points to spend elsewhere?

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

The trick Bethesda miss is that by having a main plot they actually restrict the feeling that there's a big wide world out there to shape as the player see fits.

They should give the player a motive to get started and allow the player to take it from there. Say the village in which the player has lived for 20 years being invaded and destroyed, so the player then has to go out and make a new life for themselves. That could then branch off however the player wanted. Chuck in a few rumours of great treasures, vixens, mystical places etc. to give them a motive to find things and away you go.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 29 novembre 2012 - 10:27 .

[Plaintiff]

Amycus89 wrote...

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.

Sales dropping steeply early on is to be expected, though. It's the way videogames have worked for a long time, which is why there's such a huge push to boost preorder sales and early purchases through Day 1 DLC and other perks. The sales pattern for DA:O is an anomaly, not just for Bioware but for games generally.

There are probably a number of reasons why both games sold in such disparate numbers, but I don't think the success of DA:O could have been replicated, even if DA2 had been the "true sequel" that people say it wasn't.

[esper]

Viktoria Landers wrote...
]

Maria Caliban wrote...

That means the game needs to be mostly appealing to their needs which is often not a good thing.

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.’

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.

Sorry, to be butting in on the argument, but the essence of an RPG is the ability to roleplay your character. Different choices an walkthroughs (Did you mean playthrough here?) is not necessary for it.

Rpg's where you are forced into a set characther can have one choice and still be an rpg. Hell, it can have none. Granted I prefer choices because I prefer to form some of control of the development the characters personality myself, but it is not a necessity. Premade roles do exist.

As for the number of different walkthroughs that is even less. I have played through my 'canon' Hawke around 5 times by now, that is because I enjoy playing as her. I also have different characters, yes, but that is only because I love da2. Most games, even roleplaying, I never have more than one playthrough and that is mostly because I don't have time and thus often get distracted midways through. If the people who play the game never completed it, but still think it was fun and buy the sequel because of that, the game has not failed. From the developer's/writer's perspective, though. I would be frustrated that people doesn't finish the game.

You opinion are just an opinion. What constitute and RPG and thus the 'essence' are there absolutely not agrement on here on BSN.

[Lucy Glitter]

 I played tons of games I enjoyed but never finished. Doesn't mean I didn't like them.

Same with TV shows or whatever. Doesn't mean anything.

[frankf43]

I never finished the main quest in Oblivion but played through the game about ten times. I just didn't like the main quest plot, but i still brought Skyrim on release day.

I've always finished Biowares games though the Baldurs Gate series NWN DA:O DA:2

I only ever play Western Fantasy RPG or Stratagy Games so look forward to their release.

Modifié par frankf43, 29 novembre 2012 - 01:53 .

[frankf43]

Bioware had a long break in making Western Fantasy RPG's between NWN in 2003 and DA:O in 2009 I for one was gagging for another WFRPG from Bioware as they were always my faviourate developer. I would have brought DO:A no matter what the reviews or other word of mouth had said.
The last few years we have been spoilt for choice with titles to play so gamers can be picky with wath they buy.

[Darth Death]

Finishing a game, what does that imply? That it was a good game? That the gamer had a good gaming experience? I finished both DA2 & ME3 and hated them with all my heart, so what does that suggest by me completing it? Such stats are irrelevant.

[hoorayforicecream]

Darth Death wrote...

Finishing a game, what does that imply? That it was a good game? That the gamer had a good gaming experience? I finished both DA2 & ME3 and hated them with all my heart, so what does that suggest by me completing it? Such stats are irrelevant.

There are more data points than just "Did you finish?". Telemetry data also answers questions like:

- How many times did you reload?
- How many times did you start the game?
- How much time did you spend on each quest?
- How much time did you spend in the character creator?
- How many characters did you actually create?
- How many times did you die?
- Where did you die?
- What did you die of?
- Which abilities did you use most often?
- How often did you use them?
- Which story decisions did you make? (Werewolves or elves, templars or mages, Anvil of the Void, Bhelen or Harrowmont, etc.)
- Who did you romance?
- Did you romance someone?
- How far did your romance go?
- How many crafting material nodes did you find?
- What did you spend your gold on?
- What did you craft?
- Which vendors did you spend the most time at?
- Which NPCs did you speak to?
- Did you buy DLC?
- How much DLC did you buy?
- How far in the DLC did you get?
- All of the above questions as they apply to the DLC
- I'm sure you can think of more questions in this vein

These sorts of questions provide context about your game. And while they may not present a very accurate picture of everyone, millions of players have provided this sort of data to Bioware as they played the game. This allows them to derive statistics like "36% of players have actually finished the game" or "about 20% of players actually initiated a romance in ME2, and of those players, 20% romanced Tali and 40% romanced Miranda".

Telemetry data isn't used to track individuals, since it's all anonymous anyway. It's used to note trends in the way players play. It's aggregated and compared to the other millions of players who also play the game.

[Fawx9]

Plaintiff wrote...

Amycus89 wrote...

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.

Sales dropping steeply early on is to be expected, though. It's the way videogames have worked for a long time, which is why there's such a huge push to boost preorder sales and early purchases through Day 1 DLC and other perks. The sales pattern for DA:O is an anomaly, not just for Bioware but for games generally.

There are probably a number of reasons why both games sold in such disparate numbers, but I don't think the success of DA:O could have been replicated, even if DA2 had been the "true sequel" that people say it wasn't.

That still doesn't mean the original was to blame for the sequels lack of success.

In my own expeience I had exams during the release of DA2 so I was putting off getting knowing me as at would have just been a bad idea. However a friend, who loved the first game (multiple playthroughs, dlc, etc) ended up getting it and played through on one of the higher difficulties. The fact that he basically ripped the game openly on vent during his playthrough surprised the hell out of me, and delayed me from getting the game until it was on sale some time later(still havent played it though) as afterwords I read some reviews and found that he didn't soley go crazy.

When word of mouth coming from core fans is split or worse you run a huge risk of that hurting sales, whether or not the original was good. The only exception to that is michael bay films.

[DMWW]

Viktoria Landers wrote...

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.

...

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.

My point is that it's not "usually not in a good way", because one major way they influence the game development is by vastly increasing the resources available to make it.

[Plaintiff]

Fawx9 wrote...

That still doesn't mean the original was to blame for the sequels lack of success.

I did say there were probably a number of reasons.

[AlanC9]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

 I played tons of games I enjoyed but never finished. Doesn't mean I didn't like them.

Same with TV shows or whatever. Doesn't mean anything.

I imagine it meant something for the TV shows if people stopped watching them over time.

[AlanC9]

Darth Death wrote...

Finishing a game, what does that imply? That it was a good game? That the gamer had a good gaming experience? I finished both DA2 & ME3 and hated them with all my heart, so what does that suggest by me completing it? Such stats are irrelevant.

hoorayforicecream handled most of the substance. But yeah, there's no telemetry difference between a player who hates the game, plays it all the way through once, and quits, and a player who loves the game, plays it all the way through once, and quits.

[Maverick827]

This thread exists in some weird void where haters/RPG Elitists attack the OP because they think he's saying that games should be built for the "silent majority" and not for them, and fanboys/casuals attack the OP because they think he's saying that games are being made for the silent majority and that they don't deserve it.

It seems like both sides are engaging in some sort of "who can take the most misinterpreted offense" contest.

[QueenPurpleScrap]

The problem with using statistics to make a point is that you should know how the numbers are collected and used. Is the 36% referred to by the OP the number of people who played the game and finished it at least once or is it based on the number of games started? I didn't see an explanation in the article referred to either. I can see, by its design, that Origins might have many games started but not completed through to the epilog in order to experience the different origins. I am probably in the minority of replayers in that I don't like to leave things unfinished.
I have two versions, PS3 and PC, and have many, many playthroughs and a better than 90% completion rate. It would be !00% except that I had some conflicting mods which caused CTD too often to make finishing viable.
I would argue, that if somebody is going to argue about gamers finishing a game, or what gamers want based on completed games, they should make sure they are talking about the number of users and not the number of games started. If they want to know why a game wasn't finished they should conduct a poll. It wouldn't be perfect, and wouldn't include everybody. I suppose they could send an email to all registered users and collect data that way.
That's my two cents for the day, er moment.

[Fredward]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

There are more data points than just "Did you finish?". Telemetry data also answers questions like:

- How many times did you reload?
- How many times did you start the game?
- How much time did you spend on each quest?
- How much time did you spend in the character creator?
- How many characters did you actually create?
- How many times did you die?
- Where did you die?
- What did you die of?
- Which abilities did you use most often?
- How often did you use them?
- Which story decisions did you make? (Werewolves or elves, templars or mages, Anvil of the Void, Bhelen or Harrowmont, etc.)
- Who did you romance?
- Did you romance someone?
- How far did your romance go?
- How many crafting material nodes did you find?
- What did you spend your gold on?
- What did you craft?
- Which vendors did you spend the most time at?
- Which NPCs did you speak to?
- Did you buy DLC?
- How much DLC did you buy?
- How far in the DLC did you get?
- All of the above questions as they apply to the DLC
- I'm sure you can think of more questions in this vein

These sorts of questions provide context about your game. And while they may not present a very accurate picture of everyone, millions of players have provided this sort of data to Bioware as they played the game. This allows them to derive statistics like "36% of players have actually finished the game" or "about 20% of players actually initiated a romance in ME2, and of those players, 20% romanced Tali and 40% romanced Miranda".

Telemetry data isn't used to track individuals, since it's all anonymous anyway. It's used to note trends in the way players play. It's aggregated and compared to the other millions of players who also play the game.

Bioware gets ALL of that every time I log in from my game and don't uncheck that information thingy?!

They're watching...

Always watching...

[hoorayforicecream]

QueenPurpleScrap wrote...

The problem with using statistics to make a point is that you should know how the numbers are collected and used. Is the 36% referred to by the OP the number of people who played the game and finished it at least once or is it based on the number of games started?

The easiest way would be to check if you have beaten the Archdemon, and counts on a per-account (Origin/BSN/PSN/XBL/etc.) basis. In order to access your DLC and such, you need an online account. This counts the number of unique accounts with a registered copy of DAO that have "finished the game", i.e. defeated the final boss. You'll get the occasional outlier (like you and I... I also bought the PS3 and the PC versions of the game), but this is a pretty rare occurrence since not many people buy the same game repeatedly.

They do count how many accounts finish the game, and how many times each account finishes the game. The Mass Effect 2 team released some of their statistics as well:

If they want to know why a game wasn't finished they should conduct a poll. It wouldn't be perfect, and wouldn't include everybody. I suppose they could send an email to all registered users and collect data that way.
That's my two cents for the day, er moment.

It's a lot easier to just gather information built in. If you ask in a poll, you run the risk of people not remembering specific details or even being accurate, and telemetry is opt-in (though on by default) as well. If you don't want to be counted, you can always click the 'submit anonymous information to Bioware' option off.

I'm actually putting in telemetry hooks in the game I'm working on right now, in order to check stats like how many created characters the player makes, how long they spend playing this particular game mode, when they succeed or fail, whether they get the extra difficult objective, whether they quit or finish, etc.

There's a lot of nitty gritty details that the developers care about that a player won't remember or answer accurately in a poll.

Heck, one of the most-tracked statistics in all sorts of games is just "How long do you stand in one place without moving?"

[Alek the Great]

esper wrote...

Viktoria Landers wrote...
]

Maria Caliban wrote...

That means the game needs to be mostly appealing to their needs which is often not a good thing.

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.’

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.

Sorry, to be butting in on the argument, but the essence of an RPG is the ability to roleplay your character. Different choices an walkthroughs (Did you mean playthrough here?) is not necessary for it.

Rpg's where you are forced into a set characther can have one choice and still be an rpg. Hell, it can have none. Granted I prefer choices because I prefer to form some of control of the development the characters personality myself, but it is not a necessity. Premade roles do exist.

As for the number of different walkthroughs that is even less. I have played through my 'canon' Hawke around 5 times by now, that is because I enjoy playing as her. I also have different characters, yes, but that is only because I love da2. Most games, even roleplaying, I never have more than one playthrough and that is mostly because I don't have time and thus often get distracted midways through. If the people who play the game never completed it, but still think it was fun and buy the sequel because of that, the game has not failed. From the developer's/writer's perspective, though. I would be frustrated that people doesn't finish the game.

You opinion are just an opinion. What constitute and RPG and thus the 'essence' are there absolutely not agrement on here on BSN.

RPGs..... not about choice?  Excuse me, I need to go laugh in the corner for a few hours.

[esper]

Alek the Great wrote...

esper wrote...

Viktoria Landers wrote...
]

Maria Caliban wrote...

That means the game needs to be mostly appealing to their needs which is often not a good thing.

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.’

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.

Sorry, to be butting in on the argument, but the essence of an RPG is the ability to roleplay your character. Different choices an walkthroughs (Did you mean playthrough here?) is not necessary for it.

Rpg's where you are forced into a set characther can have one choice and still be an rpg. Hell, it can have none. Granted I prefer choices because I prefer to form some of control of the development the characters personality myself, but it is not a necessity. Premade roles do exist.

As for the number of different walkthroughs that is even less. I have played through my 'canon' Hawke around 5 times by now, that is because I enjoy playing as her. I also have different characters, yes, but that is only because I love da2. Most games, even roleplaying, I never have more than one playthrough and that is mostly because I don't have time and thus often get distracted midways through. If the people who play the game never completed it, but still think it was fun and buy the sequel because of that, the game has not failed. From the developer's/writer's perspective, though. I would be frustrated that people doesn't finish the game.

You opinion are just an opinion. What constitute and RPG and thus the 'essence' are there absolutely not agrement on here on BSN.

RPGs..... not about choice?  Excuse me, I need to go laugh in the corner for a few hours.

Not everyone play crpg my friend.

[Realmzmaster]

Polls and surveys do not work well unless a very large number of people participate in them. Even then the information gathered can be as suspect as the telemetry data gathered by Bioware. The problem is that all data is open to different interpretations depending on who is looking at it. Also people's personal bias can color how the data is interpreted.

As far as completion ratio goes for me it is always 100%. I start a character I will complete the entire game with that character. I have done it with every crpg I have played. That just me. It is how I roll.
I always leave the module for gathering data on because I know the developers look at it. It will not tell the whole story, but it gives a piece of the puzzle.

I would rather have some data at hand to make a decision with rather than no data at all. I sure no one here wants Bioware to ignore there opinion. That does not mean that you will get what you want. If that is how you base if Bioware is listening or not you are setting yourself up for disappointment. As I have told many people yes I hear you but it does not mean I have to do what you say. Bioware maybe or may not be listening, but the final decision rests with them.

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

QueenPurpleScrap wrote...

The problem with using statistics to make a point is that you should know how the numbers are collected and used. Is the 36% referred to by the OP the number of people who played the game and finished it at least once or is it based on the number of games started?

The easiest way would be to check if you have beaten the Archdemon, and counts on a per-account (Origin/BSN/PSN/XBL/etc.) basis. In order to access your DLC and such, you need an online account. This counts the number of unique accounts with a registered copy of DAO that have "finished the game", i.e. defeated the final boss. You'll get the occasional outlier (like you and I... I also bought the PS3 and the PC versions of the game), but this is a pretty rare occurrence since not many people buy the same game repeatedly.

They do count how many accounts finish the game, and how many times each account finishes the game. The Mass Effect 2 team released some of their statistics as well:

If they want to know why a game wasn't finished they should conduct a poll. It wouldn't be perfect, and wouldn't include everybody. I suppose they could send an email to all registered users and collect data that way.
That's my two cents for the day, er moment.

It's a lot easier to just gather information built in. If you ask in a poll, you run the risk of people not remembering specific details or even being accurate, and telemetry is opt-in (though on by default) as well. If you don't want to be counted, you can always click the 'submit anonymous information to Bioware' option off.

I'm actually putting in telemetry hooks in the game I'm working on right now, in order to check stats like how many created characters the player makes, how long they spend playing this particular game mode, when they succeed or fail, whether they get the extra difficult objective, whether they quit or finish, etc.

There's a lot of nitty gritty details that the developers care about that a player won't remember or answer accurately in a poll.

Heck, one of the most-tracked statistics in all sorts of games is just "How long do you stand in one place without moving?"

This is all pretty interesting. 

Have you ever looked into how many people completed their first playthrough, versus others? I know a lot of people, for instance, beat DA:O and then replayed the game just to get to see the other Origins and stopped at Ostagar. Which is to say - would you be interested in looking at the weight of the first playthrough over others?

Also, when you talk about how long a player stands in one place without moving, does that include time on the menu? Or is that strictly just "this person left to go make a sandwich, as they are doing nothing but standing looking at a wall" type of tracking?

[Maria Caliban]

Maverick827 wrote...

This thread exists in some weird void where haters/RPG Elitists attack the OP because they think he's saying that games should be built for the "silent majority" and not for them, and fanboys/casuals attack the OP because they think he's saying that games are being made for the silent majority and that they don't deserve it.

It seems like both sides are engaging in some sort of "who can take the most misinterpreted offense" contest.

Your post seems to exist in a weird void where Viktoria is a man's name.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

There are more data points than just "Did you finish?". Telemetry data also answers questions like:

**Bunch o' questions**

These sorts of questions provide context about your game. And while they may not present a very accurate picture of everyone, millions of players have provided this sort of data to Bioware as they played the game. This allows them to derive statistics like "36% of players have actually finished the game" or "about 20% of players actually initiated a romance in ME2, and of those players, 20% romanced Tali and 40% romanced Miranda".

Telemetry data isn't used to track individuals, since it's all anonymous anyway. It's used to note trends in the way players play. It's aggregated and compared to the other millions of players who also play the game.

How is all that information processed? Does a group just get together after the game goes live and combs it for meaning? Do people search for specific aspects? Do you read reviews and then look at the data to see if any complaints/praise seems to reflect how players behave?

Because it seems like a massive amount of data.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 29 novembre 2012 - 07:41 .

[Fredward]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

This thread exists in some weird void where haters/RPG Elitists attack the OP because they think he's saying that games should be built for the "silent majority" and not for them, and fanboys/casuals attack the OP because they think he's saying that games are being made for the silent majority and that they don't deserve it.

It seems like both sides are engaging in some sort of "who can take the most misinterpreted offense" contest.

Your post seems to exist in a weird void where Viktoria is a man's name.

The "k" means it's the masculine spelling. XD

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

This is all pretty interesting. 

Have you ever looked into how many people completed their first playthrough, versus others? I know a lot of people, for instance, beat DA:O and then replayed the game just to get to see the other Origins and stopped at Ostagar. Which is to say - would you be interested in looking at the weight of the first playthrough over others?

Telemetry cannot answer "Why". It can only answer "Who", "What", "When", "Where", and "How". The interpretation of the data leads to the attempt to answer "Why".

That said, the vast majority of players who finish games only finish them once.

Also, when you talk about how long a player stands in one place without moving, does that include time on the menu? Or is that strictly just "this person left to go make a sandwich, as they are doing nothing but standing looking at a wall" type of tracking?

Many developers track all of those things. Time spent paused, time spent idle in menus, time spend idle without pressing anything, time spent without interacting with something, etc. Sometimes people will sit still and think about what it is they need to do. Sometimes they go for long periods just wandering around and not interacting with anything. Sometimes they go to make a sandwich. As I said, the "Why" is for interpretation. Most developers not only track how long they stand still, but the exact location they do so. Sometimes it's because of a particular vista, or a visual puzzle.

One of the games I worked on (a Sam and Max point and click adventure game) actually had a hint system that would kick in when certain conditions were met. It counted how many times you clicked on things with no result (no interaction), and added in the total time you stood in one place without moving. Once that reached a certain threshold (depending on difficulty level, and other set options), Max would offer a hint on what to do next.