1329 réponses à ce sujet

[Lebanese Dude]

I played through it three times and might do a 4th after patches/DLC. With around 300 hrs logged I'm not blind to the games faults however.
They did some good things with it but a lot was lost as well. I would like to see improvements next time. Not blindy accept things as they are.
Living with blinkers on must be nice though, but not for me.

There is a stark contrast between this post and the last.

One has to wonder whether the things you find to be so abhorrent as to warrant the content of your previous post is actually personal rather than due to the game itself. Perhaps you can adapt? It's clear that you have to some degree. Are you not having fun?

Nothing is perfect and improvements are always possible. That is undeniable. On the same note, it also important to make concessions in order to enjoy things. If you are incapable of doing so, then the game has evolved past tour tastes and you should move on.

Given that you have spent so much time, it's obvious that you are enjoying DAi, unless you're a masochist.

This also doesn't make you justified in framing your opinion as fact.

[AlanC9]

This thread is still going? Even with Sylvius here it feels likes a circular argument now.

I'm just hoping we can keep it going until DA4 comes out.

[atlantico]

Given that you have spent so much time, it's obvious that you are enjoying DAi, unless you're a masochist.

 

Speaking of people speaking in hyperbole... 

 

It's very easy to enjoy a game and find faults with it. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Lebanese Dude]

Speaking of people speaking in hyperbole...

It's very easy to enjoy a game and find faults with it. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Spending 300 hours voluntarily on an optional activity like playing a video game while not enjoying it and then contemplating doing more of it in the future is masochistic behavior.

If you have a valid counterpoint please educate me.

Also I don't think I've ever stated that DAI is flawless.

Why am I even responding?

[SofaJockey]

Agreed.  I'm a 'hardcore' Bioware fan.  I've been buying their games since the 90's.  I've bought every single one of their games since Baldur's Gate with the exception of the Sonic RPG.  The only one that I never beat was NWN. 

 

I also consider myself a 'hardcore' BioWare fan.

From BG & BGII - never really got into NWN, but KOTOR was wonderful. Missed Jade Empire. ME and DA (all of them) have been different levels of glorious.

 

ME2 was the peak for me.

There are also different parts of DAO/2/I and ME3 that I rank highly and I recognise parts in each game that are less well realised.

 

But story and characters are the drivers.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well, you apparently disagreed with me.
 
To answer your question: It is common knowledge that overall sales over a games' "lifetime" are more important than day one resp. launch sales.

Common knowledge is worthless.

 

Moreover, lifetime sales of a newly released game obviously aren't yet available, so why bother talking about it?

 

 

Aha, and on what do you base your educated guess?

Anyway, look here. Average playtime according to HowLongToBeat is is 84 hours.
 

113 * 10 ^ 6 h / 84 h = 1.5 * 10 ^ 6 

 
"Oh noes, EA only sold 1.5 million copies of teh game. Teh world come crashing downs arounds me, bestest RPGs eva no sell good."
 
Sarcasm aside, I personally think 84 hours is too high for a game with 150+ hours of filler content, my personal educated guess is that the average playtime is somewhere between 40 to 60 hours, but you wanted some evidence and there you have it. Evidence.

Evidence of what?  How long it takes people to beat the game?

 

How many people beat the game?  What does the completion curve look like (what is the distribution of completion percentage among players who don't beat the game)?

 

I haven't finished the game yet.  I rarely finish games.  Most players are like me.  The vast majority of players of BioWare's games don't finish BioWare's games.

 

I didn't base my guess on anything.  I pulled it out of the air, which is exactly where you got yours.  Without actual relevant data, all claims are equally useful (not at all).

[DooomCookie]

Development costs + marketing were probably something between 80 to 150 million dollars. EA does indeed have to sell 2.5 to 4+ million copies to break even.

 

No way.  That would have been setting it up to fail.  Did DAO even sell those numbers?  Like the staff member earlier was saying, decent sales weren't guaranteed after DA2, so they wouldn't have spent so much expecting great sales.

[AlanC9]

 
I haven't finished the game yet.  I rarely finish games.  Most players are like me.  The vast majority of players of BioWare's games don't finish BioWare's games.
 

And this actually is a known fact.

FWIW, DA2 has a higher completion percentage than DAO.

[DooomCookie]

 

10% gave up in the prologue
45% (total) gave up before the Skyhold
65% didn't make it through Abyss/Wicked
75% quit before Pride
80% stopped before the final fight

 

I haven't played the game yet (huuuge backlog) so could someone give me rough completion times while crit pathing for the above stages?  By the sounds of it, it takes about 40-50 hours to crit path the whole game.

[devSin]

I haven't played the game yet (huuuge backlog) so could someone give me rough completion times while crit pathing for the above stages?  By the sounds of it, it takes about 40-50 hours to crit path the whole game.

The critical path is really short. You mostly just need to get power (which you can eventually buy) to unlock the main story missions, which can all be done consecutively. Most of the world is entirely optional and can be ignored.

I think somebody on the forums did it in 30 hours, but you need to know what you're doing first, so that's probably going to be the minimum (except for speed running). Less if you don't really care about talking to people or completing any optional objectives in the story missions.

[dlux]

No way.  That would have been setting it up to fail.  Did DAO even sell those numbers?  Like the staff member earlier was saying, decent sales weren't guaranteed after DA2, so they wouldn't have spent so much expecting great sales.

60 million dollars is the budget of a typical AAA game without marketing costs. IIRC EA had 250 people working on the game during full production and it took 4+ years to finish, so yeah, it was very very expensive game to make.

 

Here is a prominent failure of a game: Kingdoms of Amalur needed to sell 3 million copies to break even.

 

BTW DA:O sold 3.2 million copies in 3 months. So yeah, it sold very well.

[DanteYoda]

Its probably for the best..

 

Funnily i felt Kingdoms of Amalur was far superior to this game, its still one of my most beloved RPG's i've ever played to this day, flop or not to me it was amazing and far better than DA:I

[Eelectrica]

There is a stark contrast between this post and the last.

One has to wonder whether the things you find to be so abhorrent as to warrant the content of your previous post is actually personal rather than due to the game itself. Perhaps you can adapt? It's clear that you have to some degree. Are you not having fun?

Nothing is perfect and improvements are always possible. That is undeniable. On the same note, it also important to make concessions in order to enjoy things. If you are incapable of doing so, then the game has evolved past tour tastes and you should move on.

Given that you have spent so much time, it's obvious that you are enjoying DAi, unless you're a masochist.

This also doesn't make you justified in framing your opinion as fact.

I don't hate the game, there's a things they did well.

 

First time through was wow, this world looks amazing. Perhaps I should have stopped right there, but there were things I still wanted to do.

2nd time was 'ok yeah it looks good, but apart from Skyhold, it's kind of empty'

3rd playthrough, was a struggle to finish, Once I'd beaten the biggest dragon with an under levelled group, the game was really over right there, but I still had to push on to get the achievement.

A 4th playhthrough right now would be masochism, and as for adapting, yep, next time around I'll adapt and use a save game editor or CE. I'm done picking up elfroot, deep mushrooms etc.

 

The map quests were OK, at least they involved some thought in terms of matching the terrain to the map.

Astrariums were fun, but I was hoping for some challenging ones. Never happened.

 

What I would like to see next time around since it appears where going to get another one is more populated areas. Or hell even an area that isn't populated and we do some investigating to find out what the hell happened, why did everyone vanish?

The game I think to look at is Fallout New Vegas. I can point the cursor to  a spot on the map, go there, and more than likely find something interesting.

 

They need to ramp up the difficulty of the puzzles, they were too easy. Yes they need a few easy ones so people know what's going on, but after that, enough with the hand holding.

We explore enough to claim a quarry, we should be getting a steady stream of resources.

More options to role play our character, not everything has to be a huge decision, just enough to give our character some flavour.

Having everything stacked in Haven/skyhold meant the rest of the world felt empty.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens with Witcher 3. Will it show how open world should be done? Or will it be another game with a large, but ultimately empty maps with filler content.

 

Combat was fun - like Borderlands is fun, but a little over simplified. It was very rare that I'd get my butt kicked and have to go back and figure out what went wrong and adjust.

[Eelectrica]

Speaking of people speaking in hyperbole... 

 

It's very easy to enjoy a game and find faults with it. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Exactly, nothings perfect, and at some point they have to call it done.

 

I'm actually looking forward to seeing what they do with the DLC. since they probably won't be making a lot of huge areas, I'm hoping they do a couple of areas crammed with interesting content. Guess we'll see.

No need to rush the DLC out the door though, take the time to get it right.

[dlux]

Common knowledge is worthless.
 
Moreover, lifetime sales of a newly released game obviously aren't yet available, so why bother talking about it?

Once again, lifetime sales (or sales over the first few months) are more important than launch (day one) sales. Overall revenue over a game's lifetime is higher than revenue during launch (day one).

Why are you having such a huge problem understanding such a simple concept?
 

Evidence of what?  How long it takes people to beat the game?
 
How many people beat the game?  What does the completion curve look like (what is the distribution of completion percentage among players who don't beat the game)?
 
I haven't finished the game yet.  I rarely finish games.  Most players are like me.  The vast majority of players of BioWare's games don't finish BioWare's games.
 
I didn't base my guess on anything.  I pulled it out of the air, which is exactly where you got yours.  Without actual relevant data, all claims are equally useful (not at all).

I never said the average playtime was exactly 84 hours, maybe you should try reading my post again.

Average playtime of all players is obviously somwhere between 0 to 84 hours and also much closer to the median of 42 hours than to the extreme values (0 and 84 hours). Simple math really.

Then you have to take into account that some people complete games more than once. Some people sell their games after they play them (the used game market is huge), which also negatively affects games sales. Don't forget rentals. Who knows if the 130 million hours is even correct, it could be higher or lower.

The game is most definitely not a blockbuster. I wouldn't even be surprised if DA:O sold better than DA:I.

[AlanC9]

The game is most definitely not a blockbuster. I wouldn't even be surprised if DA:O sold better than DA:I.

This is pretty weak tea, isn't it?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Simple math really.

If the math truly were simple, you could show it to us.

But you're just making things up. You can't have any founded idea what the 0-84 distribution curve looks like without more information.

[dlux]

This is pretty weak tea, isn't it?

Almost as weak as your constant snarky remarks.

 

If the math truly were simple, you could show it to us.

But you're just making things up. You can't have any founded idea what the 0-84 distribution curve looks like without more information.

I don't need an exact distributon curve to know that the average playtime is much, much closer to the median than to the extreme values. It is quite obvious, but I'll play 8th grade math teacher and prove it:

IIRC 30% of gamers actually complete games on average. If 30% complete and the other 70% don't even play a single minute of a game (!) which is completed in an average of 84 hours (in this case DA:I), then the average playtime is... 25 hours.

Is 25 closer to 42 than to 0? Yes it is. And that was just an example, the average playtime is of course much higher because most of the other 70% do actually play the game.

 

Deny it all you want, the average playtime is actually closer to the median than to the extremes. Much closer. Like I said, simple math.

[Dio Demon]

Almost as weak as your constant snarky remarks.

 

I don't need an exact distributon curve to know that the average playtime is much, much closer to the median than to the extreme values. It is quite obvious, but I'll play 8th grade math teacher and prove it:

IIRC 30% of gamers actually complete games on average. If 30% complete and the other 70% don't even play a single minute of a game (!) which is completed in an average of 84 hours (in this case DA:I), then the average playtime is... 25 hours.

Is 25 closer to 42 than to 0? Yes it is. And that was just an example, the average playtime is of course much higher because most of the other 70% do actually play the game.

 

Deny it all you want, the average playtime is actually closer to the median than to the extremes. Much closer. Like I said, simple math.

Wha??? Using your method let's see how many people actually purchased the game.

 

113 million hours divided by 25 = 4 520 000 people have bought the game on average already. Using your logic.

 

Then we use the other one.

 

113 million hours divided by 42 = 2 690 476 people on average have bought the game.

 

But 42 hours would be for a completionist playthrough the main plot could probably be beaten in that if people skipped most of the side content.

 

I'd estimate it to be around 25.

[dlux]

113 million hours divided by 25 = 4 520 000 people have bought the game on average already. Using your logic.

Read again. The average playtime is more than 25 hours. Much more. Nobody said it was exactly 42 hours either though.

 

Even then you still have to take in account rentals and the used games market which also negatively affects sales. The 113 million hours is also not 100% accurate either.

[Dio Demon]

Read again. The average playtime is more than 25 hours. Much more. Nobody said it was exactly 42 hours either though.

 

Even then you still have to take in account rentals and the used games market which also negatively affects sales. The 113 million hours is also not 100% accurate either.

You just proved Sylvius point and that is you cannot produce accurate approximations of the numbers of DA:I.

 

All we know is that DA:I exceeded expectations. This creates the impression that DA:I is doing very well. If EA is caught lying their stockholders can sue them if needed. It does not behoove EA to lie.

 

But then again denial is a fun thing.

[AllThatJazz]

Read again. The average playtime is more than 25 hours. Much more. Nobody said it was exactly 42 hours either though.

 

Even then you still have to take in account rentals and the used games market which also negatively affects sales. The 113 million hours is also not 100% accurate either.

Indeed. And you also have to take into account the people who play offline, those who have opted out of sending data to EA, and people who have bought the game but for whatever reason haven't played it yet, all of which are positives in terms of sales numbers but aren't included in the 113 million hours.

 

So ... what? Like Despair Demon and Sylvius said, there is no way to accurately estimate sales based on the 113 million hours. The only real information we have to go on in this regard is EA's quarterly earnings report.

[keyip]

If the average playtime was only 12 hours then that would mean that many people hate the game.

 

 

I should point out that 10 hours was about the amount of time a vast number of people put into Origins before dumping it. Probably less than 10 hours actually.

[keyip]

BTW DA:O sold 3.2 million copies in 3 months. So yeah, it sold very well.

 

Shipped 3.2 million copies. There was no mention of sale figures.

 

http://editorialanon...ell-in-and.html

 

Origins sold poorly relative to its budget. You should just come to terms with it already.

[dlux]

You just proved Sylvius point and that is you cannot produce accurate approximations of the numbers of DA:I.

 

All we know is that DA:I exceeded expectations. This creates the impression that DA:I is doing very well. If EA is caught lying their stockholders can sue them if needed. It does not behoove EA to lie.

 

But then again denial is a fun thing.

No, you don't understand the math as you have just demonstrated.

 

The launch exceeded expectations, which probably means day one sales including preorders, they never said a single word about how sales overall were. EA isn't lying anyway, you just fail to interpret their PR jazz.

 

Indeed. And you also have to take into account the people who play offline, those who have opted out of sending data to EA, and people who have bought the game but for whatever reason haven't played it yet, all of which are positives in terms of sales numbers.

 

So ... what? Like Despair Demon and Sylvius said, there is no way to accurately estimate sales based on the 113 million hours. The only real information we have to go on in this regard is EA's quarterly earnings report

Who said anything about accurate estimates? All I can tell is that the game sold less than 3 million copies, so it isn't the blockbuster DA:O killer that EA hoped for when they mutilated the franchise.

 

That also reflects upon the lackluster chart data and mixed user reception. It would explain why EA is not boasting about amazing sales numbers.