At this point I think I want the game to sell amazingly well just to spite the people who want the series to die because it dared to do things that they personally do not like.
Although from what information we do have, I imagine it'll sell enough to get a sequel.
I'm like... I mean... What?
Have people been eating up the Bioware "PC game by PC players" and the "Back to the RPG roots" without ever digesting it?
Let's see... Off the top of my head, stuff that is obviously missing, CORE RPG elements, optimization, etc.
Congratulations for not understanding the term "spiritual successor".
I hope it's selling well so we can get a few good story based DLC's. At least 3 as we got with ME3.
Not saying the game is perfect, but I haven't really played much else since getting DA:I so I think it's still pretty damned good.
Looking forward to my second playthrough, now that my first seems to be close to the end.
I think the digital numbers are going to be surprising. I know a bunch of people who bought the game, and who got it digitally - versus one person who got a boxed copy (me).
I just want a real expansion, like Awakening.
Your rant is just that the UI is bad - which is what I said - and that the ruleset isn't D&D. But that's not what a spiritual successor means as a phrase.
The only valid point here is the loot level lock and the area locks. There was no magical loot in BG almost - getting +1 weapons was a huge deal. The loot wasn't level locked because even having the uber loot didn't alter the base game substantively, and all of this comes back to the ruleset.
The zone lock is the real criticism here and that's not like BG1. It's closer to BG2. But the empy areas and minor quests is the basic design principle from BG1.
Edit: I should say that BG1 unlocked most nonstory areas right away vs. DAI but even that's not 100% true.
And DAI obviously has noncombat skills. Those are the perks. They suck, but they're there as much as the DAO skills.
Awesome. Your reply is that a factual argument is not a valid point (and we're talking about role-playing and immersion here).
So, here is the stuff that is not valid, from my post - according to you:
- no descriptions on items
- no autoattack
- no weapon swapping
- no access to inventory or skills (combined with only 8 slots to actually equip skills)
- stat allocation at the beginning of the game (and in DA:O, stat allocation on level-up)
- Ubisoft style quests (flag gathering, shard scouting etc.)
Just because it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean it doesn't bother other people.
In fact, if you search the forums, you'll easily see these are issues that bother a great number of people who are/were expecting a "back to the BW roots" RPG.
Also, the perks are absolutely nothing like actual non-combat skills in BG/DA:O.
There is no persuasion or pickpocketing or trap making, etc. Now, that is a fact, you can't actually spin a fact and be successful at it.
You could actually build a proper thief in those games, make more money off of thieving or persuasion, plan battles around traps etc.
Additionally, you could get absolutely everywhere in BG1, other than the story maps (which are, in order, Nashkel Mines, Cloakwood Mines, Baldur's Gate and return to Candlekeep).
In BG2, you could go anywhere except the Assylum/Underdark - but BG2 wasn't even close to BG1 in terms of exploration.
They modeled their exploration after Skyrim, and I don't think they even tried to hide it.
Now, to be clear, I thought that was the best part of the game (exploring the wild areas, doing the "main" story in that particular zone), but they still failed to see what actually makes an open world game great, rather than good.
It's been said repeatedly, the world is "fake".
Skyrim has a living world in which you happen to exist. Its people walk, talk, work, rest, sleep.
They react to you, guards react to you. You can interact with objects, thieve and pillage and build and kill - the world changes according to what you do.
And there's a day and night cycle.
None of this is in DA:I, and while it's less obvious in the wilds, it's absolutely jarring in cities and castles and villages.
People just stand there, they don't move or do anything, you can't interact with them. It feels like a cardboard, fake world specifically designed for you to quest in.
As for your comment about the loot and how BG handled it, without fear of giving you imbalanced gear...
You do realize you could kill Drizzt and get the best weapons and armor in the game at like level 2/3.
All you needed was a Wand of Monster Summoning and a few hundred arrows.
You could find the best wizard ring in the game at level one (outside the Inn), one of the best armors in the game at level 1(Nashkel fields), etc.
Game let you explore, fight and succeed - or fail - on your own terms.
...
BTW, why are your posts "points and arguments", and mine are "rants"?
is this a rant too? Is it too long, badly constructed, or something? Filled with blatant lies?
You not liking it doesn't make it a "rant".
Like I said, I enjoyed DA:I, played through it twice. And it's a good game.
But not great, and definitely not a great RPG.
And it's so obviously trying to appeal to your average "non-RPG" gamer that I can't honestly see how someone who is into deep RPGs can claim that Bioware did, indeed, go back to their roots on this one.
Awesome. Your reply is that a factual argument is not a valid point (and we're talking about role-playing and immersion here).
Once more, little picture stuff which reveals you don't understand the term.
Everybody I know that plays games has a copy. And the stores where I live are always sold out. So I don't know but it seems to be doing well to me. Maybe that is just where I live though. It may not be doing as well elsewhere. Also, I agree with others here; bad PC controls, a few bugs, great everything else.
Just guessing on budget and the small amount of marketing but I'd put 2-2.5 mill copies putting them in the black.
I just want a real expansion, like Awakening.
That... would be nice actually. Something that takes what the game did right and sheds what it did wrong. Full expansion rather than 3-4 small dlcs would be nice.
Awesome. Your reply is that a factual argument is not a valid point (and we're talking about role-playing and immersion here).
A "factual" argument is invalid when the facts its putting forward are irrelevant to the point at issue. I didn't say that DAI does any of the things you're complaining about in your post. It doesn't. It should. That's not what we're discussing here. None of those things are "core" parts of the BG1 design - they're intrinsic to D&D and the infinity engine in particular.Awesome. Your reply is that a factual argument is not a valid point (and we're talking about role-playing and immersion here).
So, here is the stuff that is not invalid, from my post - according to you:
- no descriptions on items
- no autoattack
- no weapon swapping
- no access to inventory or skills (combined with only 8 slots to actually equip skills)
- stat allocation at the beginning of the game (and in DA:O, stat allocation on level-up)
- Ubisoft style quests (flag gathering, shard scouting etc.)
Just because it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean it doesn't bother other people.
In fact, if you search the forums, you'll easily see these are issues that bother a great number of people who are/were expecting a "back to the BW roots" RPG.
Also, the perks are absolutely nothing like actual non-combat skills in BG/DA:O.
There is no persuasion or pickpocketing or trap making, etc. Now, that is a fact, you can't actually spin a fact and be successful at it.
You could actually build a proper thief in those games, make more money off of thieving or persuasion, plan battles around traps etc.
Additionally, you could get absolutely everywhere in BG1, other than the story maps (which are, in order, Nashkel Mines, Cloakwood Mines, Baldur's Gate and return to Candlekeep).
In BG2, you could go anywhere except the Assylum/Underdark - but BG2 wasn't even close to BG1 in terms of exploration.
They modeled their exploration after Skyrim, and I don't think they even tried to hide it.
Now, to be clear, I thought that was the best part of the game (exploring the wild areas, doing the "main" story in that particular zone), but they still failed to see what actually makes an open world game great, rather than good.
It's been said repeatedly, the world is "fake".
Skyrim has a living world in which you happen to exist. Its people walk, talk, work, rest, sleep.
They react to you, guards react to you. You can interact with objects, thieve and pillage and build and kill - the world changes according to what you do.
And there's a day and night cycle.
None of this is in DA:I, and while it's less obvious in the wilds, it's absolutely jarring in cities and castles and villages.
People just stand there, they don't move or do anything, you can't interact with them. It feels like a cardboard, fake world specifically designed for you to quest in.
As for your comment about the loot and how BG handled it, without fear of giving you imbalanced gear...
You do realize you could kill Drizzt and get the best weapons and armor in the game at like level 2/3.
All you needed was a Wand of Monster Summoning and a few hundred arrows.
You could find the best wizard ring in the game at level one (outside the Inn), one of the best armors in the game at level 1(Nashkel fields), etc.
Game let you explore, fight and succeed - or fail - on your own terms.
...
BTW, why are your posts "points and arguments", and mine are "rants"?
is this a rant too? Is it too long, badly constructed, or something? Filled with blatant lies?
You not liking it doesn't make it a "rant".
Like I said, I enjoyed DA:I, played through it twice. And it's a good game.
But not great, and definitely not a great RPG.
And it's so obviously trying to appeal to your average "non-RPG" gamer that I can't honestly see how someone who is into deep RPGs can claim that Bioware did, indeed, go back to their roots on this one.
My only complaint is there are not enough high level areas.
Additionally, you could get absolutely everywhere in BG1, other than the story maps (which are, in order, Nashkel Mines, Cloakwood Mines, Baldur's Gate and return to Candlekeep).
Much better. However, totalling up all the zones in the plot areas and the areas that are freely accessible, I come up with under 50% of the game maps being freely accessible. This is a very odd definition of being able to get "absolutely everywhere."
Just guessing on budget and the small amount of marketing but I'd put 2-2.5 mill copies putting them in the black.
I remember the target for dead space 3 was somewhere around 5 million copies for them to continue investing on the franchise, and they later reported that the game sales was below expectations and the franchise was scrapped.
A WAG would be that they want to grow 50% compared to how DA2 performed which would mean somewhere in the region of 3 million copies during the first 3 months. Given the performance I find it likely that they will reach that target.
Dead Space 3 had a massive marketing campaign though. That was some big time money sunk in.
And just looking now it sold under 2 mill...which at release probably put them around a mill...which probably didn't make a dent in the marketing budget though it may have covered production...
But yeah 3 mill for expectations sounds right cause that's pushing it about as high as one could reasonably ask, with a tidy little profit.
Edit*
Ah I had to look it up. Seems Dead Space 4 will be coming at some point, they shifted the devs to the new battlefield game. So expect a "reboot" in 2-3 years or so most likely.
Sure. If the criterion is how much of the printed map we can reach, then "absolutely everywhere" is still a bit overstated, but isn't crazy. In terms of square miles most of the game is freely accessible. Whether that's a sensible criterion is another matter.
Just guessing on budget and the small amount of marketing but I'd put 2-2.5 mill copies putting them in the black.
KoA: Reckoning had a massive budget and needed to sell just 1.5 million in first 90 days to break even (they got 1.3). Given that 38 Studios had no idea how to run a budget, my guess is that Dragon Age as a franchise will likely continue if they sell something like 2 million - which they will. Remember, crowded release date combined with the holiday season and the fact that Witcher 3 just got pushed back another 3 months means more people will buy Inquisition rather than wait to fill their RPG hole for another six months.
KoA: Reckoning had a massive budget and needed to sell just 1.5 million in first 90 days to break even (they got 1.3). Given that 38 Studios had no idea how to run a budget, my guess is that Dragon Age as a franchise will likely continue if they sell something like 2 million - which they will. Remember, crowded release date combined with the holiday season and the fact that Witcher 3 just got pushed back another 3 months means more people will buy Inquisition rather than wait to fill their RPG hole for another six months.
"Dragon Age: Inquisition -- Fill your RPG-hole." Catchy.
Is there a mod to remove all loot and creature scaling?
Actually there are. Several mods - some will remove everything but the landscape and you. Other mods remove all NPC and leave the animals, beefed up animals which react to you. Plays like a survival game at that point. Skyrim has several thousand realism mods. Why it's not fair to compare DAI to Skyrim. They are very different games.
I think the digital numbers are going to be surprising. I know a bunch of people who bought the game, and who got it digitally - versus one person who got a boxed copy (me).
I just want a real expansion, like Awakening.
i dont like talking about video games and sales. everyone always gonna bring the top selling games series and equate quantity with quality (which is totally untrue). CoD is the best example. It sells a ton...but imho is the same crap over and over. Elder Scrolls games sell a ton..but it is the same crap over and over.
they gonna make the same thing over and over cuz they know it will make money....happens with tv and movies too.
big sales =/= good stuff. just means it made a lot of money.
Retour en haut
