My point is just that going by % of players that viewed the content isn't useful, because by that logic you'd have an equally good argument the game shouldn't even have an ending, it should just cut to black at some point.
Although its a different forum I'm kind of interested in why ME2 had a much higher completion than ME3. Did people hear about the endings and just not bother?
You never really know what the effect will be until the following game.
I don't find the figures about how many people finished the game especially surprising - in my gamer-heavy social circle, there are eight people who played DAO. Only two of us finished it. (And the other guy only finished it once. I'm the statistical outlier who played the whole thing nine times.)
Do you know when those six players quit playing? And why?
Various different points - all of them got past Ostagar, but none of them made it as far as the Landsmeet. One had a lot of problems with bugs and crashes and quit because he just couldn't get the game to run properly. (Weirdly enough, he had a lot less trouble with DA2 and happily finished that.) As for the other five, their problems boiled down to "the game was too long and I got bored." And lest anyone assume that these are 'casual' players who don't usually buy CRPGs, all my gamer friends are tabletop roleplayers and LARPers (which is how I met them) and most of them played the Baldur's Gate series back in the day. They just don't have time to invest eighty hours in a single game these days when something new and shiny is going to come along and distract them. Even the one other guy who finished complained that it was too long.
Now, personally, I don't think that DAO was too long or boring at all - I'd hardly have played it nine times if I did. But this is what my friends told me. Interestingly enough, the one who stopped playing because of bugs was the only one who bought DA2. People seem to assume DA2 lost sales solely because of poor word of mouth, but I can attest that there are at least some players who tried DAO and then didn't buy the sequel because they didn't like it enough.
DA2's a lot less buggy on my rig too, FWIW. Mostly it's the infamous lag issue.
I've always suspected that DA:O was too long. You can keep people playing longer in a plotless game because a player can just get in and out without committing to much, but Bio games are about the overall narrative. Sort of the difference between a heavily serialized TV show and a more episodic one.
DA2's a lot less buggy on my rig too, FWIW. Mostly it's the infamous lag issue.
I've always suspected that DA:O was too long. You can keep people playing longer in a plotless game because a player can just get in and out without committing to much, but Bio games are about the overall narrative. Sort of the difference between a heavily serialized TV show and a more episodic one.
The problem is that DA:O's plot goes nowhere. In between Ostagar and the Landsmeet, you basically have a huge number of filler quests that don't advance or relate to the main threat at all. The whole game is about stopping the darkspawn in Ferelden, but you're really mostly running errands the entire game.
It's the same story structure ME1 used between Eden Prime and Illos. You could add a lot of filler worlds there that don't really advance the plot all that much, and it's easy to lose interest in this type of story.
As much as I'm not a fan of JRPGs, their lengthy story at least goes somewhere.
The problem is that after getting about 15% into the game, you know exactly what the ending will be: stop the archdemon. Bioware needs to use its act structure better and build up to a conflict that isn't immediately revelead in the first 10 hours of a 90 hour game.
Biowares basic game goes like this.
Prologue - do 4 things in any order - end game.
Thats changed little from KOTOR and even BG2 was a case of gather some gold to advance the plot.
I can't think of any JRPGs offhand that require you to go outside of the main story unless its something you want to do. Its generally something that just makes the game easier.
I don't think the treaty quests are filler, because to me they stand on their own, but it's true they don't advance the main plot very much.
I think it's an inherent problem from how Bioware works, though. They seem to split the plot up between the writers and do all the bits simultaneously, which makes it difficult to really tie those bits together or strongly into the main plot. Obviously they don't work in total isolation or anything, and they do their best to bring it all together, but I feel like you can see the seams to greater of lesser extent.
And then you can add the desire to maintain an illusion of freedom by making the order optional and thus reducing the potential for the segments to play off one another and you tend to get a distinctly episodic game with only token nods to the main story line.
The problem is that after getting about 15% into the game, you know exactly what the ending will be: stop the archdemon. Bioware needs to use its act structure better and build up to a conflict that isn't immediately revelead in the first 10 hours of a 90 hour game.
Isn't this sort of what they were trying with DA2?
And then you can add the desire to maintain an illusion of freedom by making the order optional and thus reducing the potential for the segments to play off one another and you tend to get a distinctly episodic game with only token nods to the main story line.
Ever see the original outline for the NWN OC? It was much more linear than what we got; going to the hub-and-spoke chapter system meant that they had to yank out a fair amount of material that didn't work anymore.
But since CRPG fans currently use "linear!" as an insult, Bio's going to use optional order a lot.
I wouldn't object to that. I rarely see game endings.My point is just that going by % of players that viewed the content isn't useful, because by that logic you'd have an equally good argument the game shouldn't even have an ending, it should just cut to black at some point.
I'm sure if Bioware have learnt anything from recent games, it's that the ending doesn't really matter all that much
Isn't this sort of what they were trying with DA2?
It looks like it, but they didn't do a very good job of it.
I don't think the treaty quests are filler, because to me they stand on their own, but it's true they don't advance the main plot very much.
I see them as filler because their actual number and their internal content is irrelevant. We could have 4 quests, 2 quests, or 14 quests, and the actual state of the plot would be identical. Only Redcliffe was plot central. This is made worse by the relevation that the darkspawn cannot ever be defeated conventionally, meaning that the army is literally just a meatshield for the GWs.
I think it's an inherent problem from how Bioware works, though. They seem to split the plot up between the writers and do all the bits simultaneously, which makes it difficult to really tie those bits together or strongly into the main plot. Obviously they don't work in total isolation or anything, and they do their best to bring it all together, but I feel like you can see the seams to greater of lesser extent.
And then you can add the desire to maintain an illusion of freedom by making the order optional and thus reducing the potential for the segments to play off one another and you tend to get a distinctly episodic game with only token nods to the main story line.
TW2 has the illusion of freedom, but it also has 3 distinct story arcs. It's a better executed version of what DA2 tried and failed to do.
TW2 has the illusion of freedom, but it also has 3 distinct story arcs. It's a better executed version of what DA2 tried and failed to do.
That's not really an illusion then. Telling one characters story a number of ways is an alternative. In many cases it works better. When things fall apart with freedom is when the game continues on into another game. The games with the most variety would be stand alone.
Retour en haut