125 réponses à ce sujet

[Ekliane]

“Change is coming to the world. Many fear change and will fight it with every fiber of their being. But sometimes, change is what they need the most. Sometimes, change is what sets them free.”

[MadMaximoff]

divinity OS is a bad game??!?? WTF

Yes, it is.

There's a reason every twitch streamer switched off the game within an hour or two, same reason I don't feel compelled to play it.

It's hiding behind indie game genre.

[artgeek25]

Yes, it is.

There's a reason every twitch streamer switched off the game within an hour or two, same reason I don't feel compelled to play it.

It's hiding behind indie game genre.

how does that categorically signify that it is a bad game?? I think it's brilliant.

[LinksOcarina]

There are differences between things always staying the same in a gaming series, and not keeping certain elements for more than one part of a series, regardless of how well it was implented and recieved. How can we have this discussion about Dragon Age, when so far each installement was drastically different from the other?

 

I never thought much of people who keep insinuating that all those unhappy with things not staying the same are somehow against change in general (and yes, there are players like that as well). Change coming in form of improving existing things imo has a better chance of being welcomed than change that seemingly arbitrarily cuts or replaces game elements that were already working well. 

 

And of course there will never be a scenario where everyone is happy, that's just how it is. 

 

Of course, but the constant complaining does nothing either, since that tends to be the driving force for change as well.

 

I would also agree, we can't have this discussion with Dragon Age. But we also don't need to either, because what good does it do? 

 

I saw a video recently regarding the Mass Effect series, and it talked about the tonal and fundamental difference between the three games, and how most of the changes were necessary for the series to grow, while simultaneously giving us a new perspective on the trilogy each time; liking the first game to a Movie, and the second and third to a TV serial cinematically and tonally, for example.

 

  It made me realize something; we put too much stock in pursuing something to be the same all the time. Familiarity gives us comfort and easy playing and what have you, but it doesn't let us experience things in a different perspective. It presumes such changes are always bad and not respectful to the source material, yet that source material is bigger than our notions of what we see as being respectful. We can talk about the differences from a mechanical standpoint, a cinematic one, a thematic one, even in little things like how the world interacts with you or who or what you meet. We can analyze the game in different ways because they are different each time, it gives the games a richness beyond just the "Oh that's an open world game" or "Oh that combat style is more tactical" and so forth. Is there really no value in expanding that scope further?

 

I don't know, maybe i'm just rambling at this point. 

[LinksOcarina]

Double Post, my apologizes.

[Spectre 117]

Metacritics users score. A lot of people trust the users more than the critics. If you look at other high profile RPG games then DAI scored lower than many of them. I feel like Witcher will get at least 9 to 10 score by most reviewers, and I'm not even like the Witcher. People are gonna compared this game to the Witcher even though they're different, I know the reason why but probably keep quiet to avoid a flame war. 

 

2014 and trusting user reviews that boils down 10/10 GREATEST GAME EVAR or -10/10 WORST THING THAT HAS EVER EXISTED? 

[BlacJAC74]

Yup, that's the long and short of it, most gamers usually give games 9-10 if they like it and 1-0 if they didn't enjoy it.  Rarely do you see 6's or 7's.  Hell, most gamers think a game is a failure if it doesn't score between 8.5 and 10.  That says it all really.

[Spectre 117]

how does that categorically signify that it is a bad game?? I think it's brilliant.

 

Judging by his statements, he is not saying that the game is bad because it is an indie game, but rather that the term indie game is being used as a excuse to justify some of the game's shortcomings. 

[Spectre 117]

Yup, that's the long and short of it, most gamers usually give games 9-10 if they like it and 1-0 if they didn't enjoy it.  Rarely do you see 6's or 7's.  Hell, most gamers think a game is a failure if it doesn't score between 8.5 and 10.  That says it all really.

 

And in PC it's even worse. Because there will always be that one guy that says the game is unplayable, but forgets to mention that he tried to run a 2014 game with an intel celeron.

 

In fact, metacritic user ratings are so bad, that I think Forbes and a few other pages made some articles disccusing the subject. 

[MadMaximoff]

how does that categorically signify that it is a bad game?? I think it's brilliant.

That's personal preference but like another poster stated, the game does have massive short comings (Clunky and awful UI, Awful voice acting, battle system that isn't anywhere near as fun as it could be) and people are excusing these things because they are saying "It's an Indie developer"

Had DA: I came out like that, it would have been universally panned.

Not that D:OS also was priced the same as a Triple A title on release and they had a blank cheque financial backing.

Therefore it has to be held to the same industry standard as similar priced games, not given a free pass.

Minecraft would have never taken off for instance if they charged 50 bucks from the offset.

[yankblan]

Apologies for not linking it, I'm not sure how to do it with an iPhone. But according to VGchartz, DA:I has sold 560k in the US. I went on to each platform to add up the sales, and it looks like globally it sold 1.1 million.
Not sure what to think here. It's not bad, but it's not good either, given EA's high standards for sales. And DA:I seems like it had a pretty big budget behind it, with a lot of marketing. I'm not an expert in this stuff, but if DA:I doesn't break 3 million by the end of 2014, I'm gonna be worried about the future of this series.

It's a RPG, won't see Madden or TLOU sales, not worried.

[XDamienDaKillaX]

Actually, they did say that. The game cost roughly 10 million to make and market, Square was hoping for 6 million in the first month. They hit that 6 million mark earlier this year.

So it is still technically a loss. But they are again, making a sequel.

My point is that AAA game "not selling" jepordizing future games is not exactly true anymore.

They broke even at the end of last year, not hit 6 million. If they never broke even, tomb raider 2 would never have been in development. Also, look at what happened to dead space 3. It matters.

[Epic777]

Buggy games can be great. In fact they often are. ...VtMB, FO3, ...and yeah Arcanum,...

 

User metacritcs seem, to me, to tell the truest story of a game in the end. Yes, there are 0/10 reviews from people who haven't even played the game, 10/10 from fanboys and whatnot. But in the end it tends to average out to something that in some way is deserved. As for professional reviews, is a 8.9 game almost as good as a 9.3? Nope. It can be both either complete crap or vastly superior to the 9.3 game. Different month, different hype, different company, different marketing budget. If a game ends up with 5.4 in user rating, otoh, there're always good reasons for it, and the rating is kinda deserved. Whereas a bad game can always get good professional reviewer scores, if a big publisher is marketing it.

 

As for DA:I, I'm sure it'll pick up in user ratings, as the game seem to have the qualities to do so. More gamers will discover it. And the current ratings are sort of deserved for now, as Bioware took a ****** on PC-users.

I also think that the DA:I franchise will be safe now. There will be a "DA4", i.e. DA:I 2. The DA franchise though, i.e. DA:O franchise, is utterly dead. Which is a pity. But who knows, maybe someday someone says "Hey, why don't we do a sort of spiritual successor to Dragon Age: Origins?".

"User metacritcs seem, to me, to tell the truest story of a game in the end". I disagree with this statement very much. User metacritics represents a certain customer demographic. Using Arcanum as an example, we can test if user metacritics tell the truest story of a game. 

 

Firstly Arcanum has a high user score, higher then DAI, Mask of the Betrayer and New Vegas. Planescape Torment is only game I have mentioned that has scored better. The user scores put Arcanum in a lofty position, a position in my opinion it does not deserve. Arcanum has serious flaws. It has a many bugs, glitches and oddities. It no sense of balance. Magic and Martial skills are far superior Technologist ever can be, which is ironic considering the steam punk setting. The music is mainly average at best, the soundtracks of the games I had mentioned above blow anything Arcanum has out of the water. The interface was clunky and the graphics dated. It is hard to believe that Baldur's Gate II was released a year before Arcanum. I could go on. Doesn't sound like Arcanum deserves that high rating because it doesn't.

[Julia Luna]

That's personal preference but like another poster stated, the game does have massive short comings (Clunky and awful UI, Awful voice acting, battle system that isn't anywhere near as fun as it could be) and people are excusing these things because they are saying "It's an Indie developer"

Had DA: I came out like that, it would have been universally panned.

Not that D:OS also was priced the same as a Triple A title on release and they had a blank cheque financial backing.

Therefore it has to be held to the same industry standard as similar priced games, not given a free pass.

Minecraft would have never taken off for instance if they charged 50 bucks from the offset.

The only reason I do not worship this game is because I cheated to find out what was the max level and it showed two major flaws (for me):
1 - You can't reach max level if you play to finish the game, even if you do explore exerything and do all quests

2 - In max level you can have everything maxed and I do absolutely hate every game that lets you max everything (hello Skyrim), for me limitations are very important so that character are unique in their builds, there is no point in being able to max everything out
Well, 1 means 2 will never happen but the simple fact that the game does not have in its code a decent progression for high level it spoils everything for me

 

See... all those problems brought up by other players did not bother me a single bit, I wouldn't even know that someone complained about them if I did not read your post but these two pecuiarities about max level ruined it all for me. People should stop judging RPGs as they judge other games, RPGs and subgenres have specific details that can make a game great or not. Character creation, character development, party customization, equipment customization and so on... there is also the story, many people like a solid story, others prefer a highly customizable one even if it is less epic, others like big armies to command, well, this is RPG. It is not like fighting game where you can just pick it and play and say: bad game, doesn't work ou good game, work.

 

I'd say RPGs are a relationship, not a game, the great RPGs are RPGs that make you stabilish a relationsip with the game, surely not the best games. The best RPGs are never the ones with best combat systems, best graphics, best UI or stuff like that. Is a roleplaying game, if it allows you to roleplay what you want it is a great game, could someone honestly say that Skyrim deserved to be the best game considering that combat system and levelling system? It is laughable, but as a RPG it was amazing.

 

DOS did not work for me, worked for many people and there is no way in hell you could call it a bad RPG, it have lots of new features, it is a dream come true to all classic RPG players, it is strategic, it is beautiful and it is big, free and great. Again, for those 2 stupid reasons above I refuse to play the game again and lost all the interest in it, and I have no issue with someone saying it is a bad game, but not a bad RPG, because in the specifics of RPG the game rocks.

 

Funny thing is that I played 119 hours of DAI, and will probably play more like 500 hours, and I hate the game, but hate also does stabilish a relationship, like rivalry in DA2. With Original Sin, that I think is a much better game I couldn't feel anything, so I will never play it again. This is the thing about RPGs, with fighting games, when I hate it, I just don't play, there is no relationship, just game, it is either good, and I play, or bad and I don't.

[bEVEsthda]

And the flipside of all that is people complain about it being too much of the same thing. Pokemon has that issue going on with it, to the point where hitting upwards of 20 million for a generation is difficult to achieve at best for that franchise, even the jump to 3D models over sprites was not fully effective in the end for a lot of people. And most folks around her make fun of Call of Duty for doing the same thing for going on seven plus years now. I don't think that is the ideal of what sequels should be, chasing imaginary numbers like they mean something. 

 

 

You will find some people complaining about something, all the time. So that is no argument. Sales figures are.

I have bought and played almost all the CoD games since its launch. I only stopped very recently, but might very well pick up another title yet. Call of Duty don't do the same thing. They have made small evolutionary changes to the gameplay. Like they went auto-health (which I, predictably didn't appreciate so much). They have varied the combat environments (I don't mean just the 3D graphics, I mean in tactically and emotionally relevant ways). They have varied the mission types. Basically the same things that are done inside every game, from section to section, only in a larger scale. They have introduced other, different gameplay in chosen missions, that lets you see a different side to warfare than the infantry. They have killed off the protagonist. They have made the games increasingly unrealistic. A direction I certainly don't like, because what pulled me to these games from the beginning was the mood, atmosphere of authenticity. They have made the games increasingly frantic in pace, a trait I consider consolish. Other consolish gameplay elements introduced, include things like kilometer long jumps with snowmobiles over canyons and similar nonsense.

But all changes have been very gradual steps. The franchise started as WW2 FPS with a very realistic feeling, with missions and settings closely modeled on real WW2 events and battles, and is now just another typical 3D, non-stop console action fodder.

 

They have stayed very true to some gameplay mechanisms though. The games are very linear, and very scripted. Unlike many other shooters, you don't progress in the game by killing everyone. You progress by pushing forward. Except for in-mission tasks that must be completed, like blow up those things, and defend this position. They have also stayed true to another thing, the crazy high production values. They make the kind of money where they can really indulge in that.

 

Personally, I'm no fan of the direction of the changes to the character of the game, towards unrealistic fantasy action. I also kinda suspect CoD have been able to keep a good deal of its audience thanks to the MP elements. That's the murmur I hear, people who are not happy with those changes. But maybe CoD is slowly, progressively changing it's audience? Maybe the old couldn't be kept indefinitely anyway, and the game need newer generations of gamers? Anyway, slow progressive evolution.
Obviously they are doing something right by that, if the point ever was to make money.

 

One can probably argue from some idealistic POW that we don't need any sequels. Every game should be new. But the fact now is that sequels in successful franchises make money.

And personally, I love to see sequels to games I really like a lot. Why shouldn't I want more of the same if I like it? DA:O? So I want another piece of apple pie with custard, why does the cook now suddenly serve me marshmallows and jelly beans? Because it's supposed to be popular with kids? I angrily demand apple pie. The cook says "I listen to my customers", then he returns with apple flavor jelly bean pie and marshmallow creme.

 

Why did I keep buying the CoD games when I already had been dissatisfied by some of the new directions? Because they were small, and I still knew what I would get. And that it would be good enough to entertain me, even if it wasn't the best game ever. I'll still take that apple pie with custard.

 

 

The strange thing for me is also this attitude that people have for games sometimes.  You say staying "true to the game" and "respecting it", are keys to making good sequels, but those are very hollow terms. What are you respecting, first off?  The lore? The characters? The game itself and how it was played?

 

These type of things make no sense to me, such attachment to a game is good, but what are you really attached to? Yes you can enjoy the system and how the game is presented, but isn't it a little presumptuous, and unrealistic, to assume it will always be like that, with all games in a series? How do you actually evolve further, push boundaries, and come up with new ideas then?

 

 

And yet both questions seem easy to answer.

Let's take the last one first: If you want to make a different game, explore a different game idea, - make a new franchise. If you want marketing help from an established franchise, or the same world, lore, characters, you keep founding it on the same IP, but you start a new franchise. Making the distinction clear, with the title of the game, shouldn't be hard. It's not something new, just think about Mechwarrior and Mech Commander games, for instance.

 

As for the first question, one should think hard about how the current audience relate to the game. Completely changing the atmosphere and mood of the game by switching art direction (design, rendering, animations) is a really bad idea. If we leave such self evident matters, what are the players doing, what mood are they in, what details do they find fun to fiddle with, what do they expect from the gameplay?

Why would anyone think it's a good idea to dramatically change gameplay? It's the core of the game's soul.

(In case of DA:I, it was necessary, but mainly because DA2 had already ruined everything and created a tabula rasa).

 

A game sequel should definitely progress. But it can do so by improving on what's already there, in terms of interface and gameplay details. It can and should improve definition of the game world, as hardware technology progress. Usually, I think it's pretty obvious what changes one would want for a sequel (not that one often gets it, exactly).

And then I think most details and elements of gameplay can always be improved, without removing them completely and replacing them with a different game. Some small things maybe need to be removed because they don't contribute to immersion and feel, are irrelevant and tedious. Some new things maybe can be introduced to increase the richness of the game. I think one need to think about what the gamers are doing. In terms of cRPGs, I think two things spring to mind. Role playing the personality of the player's own, created character. And molding the created character's abilities, in relating to the environment and relating to combat. Leaving any of these two things by wayside, or crippling them, doesn't seem a good idea.

 

And look to an old game franchise like Sim City. What were those gamers doing? That game was played much like solitaire. City planning and micro-managing and watching a big city evolve, a big creation by the player, over many sessions and many days. The new MMO Sim City game didn't much respect that. There are still cities growing, but that's the main similarity. Maybe that fact wouldn't hurt Sim City so much, because there was a decade long gap, and it could maybe live on its own qualities, much like FO3. But it totally disrespected one major feature and interest of the old Sim City games: Creating the city and creating a big city. That was the fun part for the majority of players. It's impossible in the new Sim City. That part was replaced by some type of sense of achievement in adapting a small city to its "regional" environment. Why the *** would Sim City's old fans think that is fun? I don't. To me, it's no sequel, neither is FO3. They have to create their own mindshare and own franchises. And FO3, at least, did. Sim City, otoh, is a yet another, flashy, visually beautiful, expensive EA-marketing fantasy that achieved it's paltry sales, mostly on launch, entirely on it's name, but totally forgot why the players played the old Sim City games in the first place. 

 

I hope that the DA:I franchise can now establish itself. It seems like a good game that deserves it. And I will most likely play it some day. But right now I'm not throwing myself at it. Both because of the botched PC-interface, and because it doesn't seem to be quite the type of game I'd hoped for. It is the Dragon Age I.P. I think you're right about that. It's just not the DA:O franchise, it's the DA:I franchise. EA/Bioware obviously think DA:I has better commercial chances. One thing I can see about DA:I, without playing it, is that so many gameplay elements have been ruined solely by enforced marketing schemes. 'Iconic' looks for instance. And various major changes to adapt to a MP- $-milking scheme. DA:I can be good enough to more than survive that of course. Probably is. But it still annoys me.

[DemGeth]

Long post above me lol.

So yes for those meta critic people no user score doesn't effect sales that much.

[Joseph Warrick]

Did it had a lot of marketing? London was filled with posters of Far Cry (you could see the dude with the pink suit in hundreds of bus stops) and especially Halo. There was a huge Halo poster in Piccadilly. I haven't seen a single DA:I ad outside of the internet.

[Shadow Storm]

Apologies for not linking it, I'm not sure how to do it with an iPhone. But according to VGchartz, DA:I has sold 560k in the US. I went on to each platform to add up the sales, and it looks like globally it sold 1.1 million.

Not sure what to think here. It's not bad, but it's not good either, given EA's high standards for sales. And DA:I seems like it had a pretty big budget behind it, with a lot of marketing. I'm not an expert in this stuff, but if DA:I doesn't break 3 million by the end of 2014, I'm gonna be worried about the future of this series.

 

It had to contend with GTA5, Unity and Far cry 3 all in the space of a week. Admittedly there is only one good game in that bunch after playing all 3 but most don't know that. There has also been many other recent releases as well. DAI barely got a mention in most circles and yet has shown up all the popular titles so far. Most people will only get one or 2 games and given the lack of coverage this game has had it wasn't a shock to hear this news. Also you must bare in mind this is Bioware we are talking about. Most people are still very sore and untrusting of them given the treatment of fans around ME3 and DA2. It sparked a clear drop of consumer confidence in their brand.

 

Word is getting out however that this game definitely was treated well by the team AND EA (thank god) so expect a rise of sales in the coming months. Personally i would trade in all the other games for this one. I find DAI entertaining and time consuming which is rare today. Unity was a disaster and GTA was same old same old. Wasn't all that fussed on Far Cry either but it had its moments. All in all i think the sales will pick up come Christmas.

[LinksOcarina]

Did it had a lot of marketing? London was filled with posters of Far Cry (you could see the dude with the pink suit in hundreds of bus stops) and especially Halo. There was a huge Halo poster in Piccadilly. I haven't seen a single DA:I ad outside of the internet.

 

It didn't, as I said if you noticed the marketing strategy for Inquisition it was very low key, probably under $2 million in terms of cost. 

[XDamienDaKillaX]

It didn't, as I said if you noticed the marketing strategy for Inquisition it was very low key, probably under $2 million in terms of cost.

I saw a commercial during The Walking Dead, thats about it. No posters on gamestop, nothing like the sort. Everything else was online.

[keyip]

I don't know why people are pointing at the numbers and laughing, this game sold more copies in its first week than the previous 2 DragonAge games combined. This tells me that Bioware are potentially heading in the right direction if they're seeking more sales. Will it reach 10 million? No. But it looks like it will easily surpass Origins figures. It was never going to get anywhere near Skyrim's figures, Bethesda have the exploration and combat gameplay down pat, Bioware (OTOH) included a ME2-esque search RADAR and a broken tactical view. Gameplay sells more than narrative when it comes to gaming and Bioware needs to up its game in that respect.

 

Shouldn't compare it to Mass Effect 3, different kinds of games.

[Guru VII]

Also the number, as pointed out by a few, does not account for digital sales. If we look at Destiny every fifth copy was a digital download and on the PC digital download had surpassed retails sales in 2010 and in 2013 it was estimated that 92% PC game sales were digital.

I imagine that number is lower for AAA titles like DA:I (cosndering that some people like to own the box, can get a physical copy cheaper and the most important thing, the physical copy actually exist, opposed to many new PC games), but I think it is safe to assume that if we accounted for digital download on PC we can at least double, if not triple the measly 0.18 million pshyical copies sold on the PC.

[michal9o90]

first of all it's already more than 1m counting North America and Europe together, and second, first week include what? Only this copies which was sold after 18 November 2014? or also include all pre-order and digital copies? If not, then the result is a big misunderstanding because propably there is already more than 2M copies sold.

[The Antagonist]

yikes the game is doing poorly. it's 16th in the UK behind games like mordor, super smash bros and pokemon.
www.chart-track.co.uk/index.jsp?c=p/software/uk/latest/index_test.jsp&ct=110015

[MrTijger]

This argument again? Its Always the same thing, when game A comes out there's folks that go "Game B will destroy Game A!!!" then when Game B comes out and isnt all its expected to be (which, by the way, it never is) then the narrative switches to "In 6 months time Game C will own all of them!!!"....and so we go on and on and on.

 

All this BS only creates one thing, dissatisfaction because no game can ever live up to the ridiculous amounts of self hype people inflict on it.