Filament wrote...
Which is meaningfully different than your first generalization, I would say.
I wouldn't.
If the number of people that buy a game and subsequently review it as positive or negative aren't an indicator of the general feeling about how the game was recevied, then you are saying there IS no way to determine if the game was liked or disliked. Which is pure poppycock. The entire bedrock principles of both democracy and free market economics is based off of the idea that people will vote their preferences (in the case of the free market, votes are done with the dollar) and voice those concerns in publc and private venues. If that WASN'T the case, then the entire system would fail overnight.
We were talking about the number of people who bought DAO vs DA2. Stretching that data onto like and dislike is like putting a condom on a fire hydrant, since you like analogies so much. 
Now it's spewing out with conclusions like twice as many people like the Skyrim approach so they should make Dragonrim, or Torment is a trash game that they shouldn't bother looking at for any reason.
This is not the discussion. We are not saying DA:O was a better game than DA2. We are not saying Skyrim was a better game than DA2. We are certainly not saying DA:I should chase either DA:O or Skyrim design principles simply because DA2 sold less than them. We are talking about numbers - who outnumbers who.
I think if you take all the information available it is probably hard to deny DA2 was "less well received," but I don't see the point in bringing it up. There are people who liked DA2 and bash DAO, mythical as they might be, and the opposite who are not so mythical, and a number of people who liked both games. It is mainly between the latter two that most of this arguing takes place, with the second group mistaking the third group for the first one all too often, IMO. I think Wozearly's original point that all of this tribal bickering is pointless and annoying was a good one.
I don't disagree. There was definitely a mindset right after DA2 came out that Bioware was "chasing" some demographic or gamer type with DA2 that caused them to make the decisions the way they did. And, therefore, anyone who did like DA2 was part of this demographic that Bioware was pandering to and therefore the reason the game wasn't something they enjoyed.
That's not really fair, I agree. But there is a kernel of truth in there. People, for instance, who say that they hate a silent PC and would only play a game with a voice were a market Bioware was trying to reach with DA2, so Bioware wound up creating a main character with much less player agency due to, in part, the voiced character.
That, to me, is a result of creating two fanbases who value two very different playstyles and games. They excluded the fanbase that found the player agency and roleplaying as the strongest part of Origins for other fans that appreciated the cinematic approach of DA2 more than a "blank, boring protagonist who never talks" as I've heard some say.
Those are two diametrically opposed groups. Sure, there could be a sweet middle spot, but it is an incredibly thin tightrope, walking between allowing the player control over their character enough to feel it is "theirs" while also making the PC entertaining or engaging enough for those who would prefer to have less direct control and instead want to watch the story unfold.
But it still just shows the obvious - people were overly critical of each other post-DA2 because Bioware, knowingly or not, drew battle lines between their game preferences. I think they seriously underestimated the backlash such changes would have, as well as possibly didn't quite understand why fans enjoyed the previous game's design chocies as much as they did.
Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 24 octobre 2013 - 05:42 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
