I agree about some of the backlash against Inquisition: it feels like some people made up their minds before the game came out, and then looked for things to hate on. There are legitimate complaints, and then there's nitpicking.
Sure, some people probably pick nits, but they are few and far between. Irrelevant even.
Most complaints are completely justified.
Yeah, I wasn't a member when ME3 came, out, but I read the forums, and it was pretty bad. I agree about some of the backlash against Inquisition: it feels like some people made up their minds before the game came out, and then looked for things to hate on. There are legitimate complaints, and then there's nitpicking.
yeah.
As an aside, here is a taste of it for those who never felt it. Did a piece back when I was writing for a games website in 2012. Sadly the site doesn't exist anymore but thankfully we have internet archive.
I should recover this for safe keeping...
Oddly enough, some of the same arguments from that are cropping up here...mostly on the social issue side of things.
Oddly enough, some of the same arguments from that are cropping up here...mostly on the social issue side of things.
Really.
How about you look at things in context and see how those comments stack up against the 12000 posts on UI, crashes, gameplay and other stupid things about the game, and ask yourself if you're not trying to manufacture drama?
Really.
How about you look at things in context and see how those comments stack up against the 12000 posts on UI, crashes, gameplay and other stupid things about the game, and ask yourself if you're not trying to manufacture drama?
As I said, social issue side of things, story, characterization, romance, and the like.
What you describe is mostly technical issues regarding gameplay and the UI, and it is also limited to the PC crowd in most instances.
That is the context in a nutshell. Nothing really groundbreaking here.
ETA: I actually agree the technical issues are much more important in the long run though, for what it's worth.
ETA: I actually agree the technical issues are much more important in the long run though, for what it's worth.
I think most people would agree. Which is why that PC thread has 500 pages and any thread on social issues loses steam manages 5, on a good day.
I think most people would agree. Which is why that PC thread has 500 pages and any thread on social issues loses steam manages 5, on a good day.
I'm not sure what that proves except that the PC thread doesn't ever go someplace where it needs to be locked
No idea what your on about, yet again. Most threads on this social nonsense are quite open. They just fall down the ranks pretty fast.
I don't know about that, but I'm sure those fine gentlemen may well have to brush up on their CVs after DA:I.
Not because it was a disaster, but because it's not a success. Again.
If you say so, after all, if anyone would know whether or not Inquisition has been successful it would be a forum member whose membership has reached 22 days....
DA:I may be a failure. I have no idea. I'm not privvy to EA/BioWares internal finances. What I do know is, if it had been a disaster of 'heads will roll' proportions, those heads would have rolled and Mike Laidlaw would not have jetted off to PAX South and there wouldn't be continuing patches and, well...I'm sure everyone here gets the point.
If you say so, after all, if anyone would know whether or not Inquisition has been successful it would be a forum member whose membership has reached 22 days....
DA:I may be a failure. I have no idea. I'm not privvy to EA/BioWares internal finances. What I do know is, if it had been a disaster of 'heads will roll' proportions, those heads would have rolled and Mike Laidlaw would not have jetted off to PAX South and there wouldn't be continuing patches and, well...I'm sure everyone here gets the point.
Aside of financial:
maybe the holidays really are over.
If you say so, after all, if anyone would know whether or not Inquisition has been successful it would be a forum member whose membership has reached 22 days....
DA:I may be a failure. I have no idea. I'm not privvy to EA/BioWares internal finances. What I do know is, if it had been a disaster of 'heads will roll' proportions, those heads would have rolled and Mike Laidlaw would not have jetted off to PAX South and there wouldn't be continuing patches and, well...I'm sure everyone here gets the point.
DA:I isn't a failure, though it is in some people's eyes, nor is it a success. And that's what it needed to be: big success.
DA2 wasn't a failure either, nor was it successful. Not managing to outsell it's predecessor, but it was cheaper to make. Two times in a row Darrah, Laidlaw and Gaider have failed to make a big hit. Mass Effect big hit. After these years in development, tying up good money.
It's actually one of the reasons why DA:O was changed. Years in development, critical success, but not big enough of a success for EA.
But yeah, I've been a member at BSN since 2002. Maybe. Or maybe not. Either way, it wouldn't change anything that I wrote.
Aside of financial:
- Biggest critical success for a BioWare game in a decade
- Calmest the BSN has been at game launch for several years
- And Patch 3 (version 2) is getting ok feedback.
maybe the holidays really are over.
A) Actually, both DA:O and ME are critically more successful.
B ) That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for success, more customers leads to more activity
C) Yes, Patch 3 version 2 is "ok".
DA:I isn't a failure, though it is in some people's eyes, it is not a success. And that's what it needed to be.
DA2 wasn't a failure either, nor was it successful. Not managing to outsell it's predecessor, but it was cheaper to make.
I've been a member at BSN since 2002. Maybe. Or maybe not. Either way, it wouldn't change anything that I wrote.
Fair enough - I was just looking at your "Member since" date and worked off that.
I'm confused, though. If it isn't a failure, why would Laidlaw/Darrah etc need to be sprucing up the CVs? Why would they be job hunting? (Assuming, of course, they weren't actually interested in finding another job).
Failure/Success are also not terms particularly open to interpretation. Especially when you are using them in a financial sense. It is a success if it made more money than it cost to make, allowing for a degree of opportunity cost from other potential uses for the development money. It is a failure if it made less than it cost to make.
If we are talking creatively, then fine, parts of it were a failure from my point of view, although on the whole I thought it was "creatively" successful. But if we are talking creative success/failure, then again...why would they be needing to look for other jobs? EA won't care, especially if the financial side of things stacks up, nor will people like Aaron Flynn - at least, not if the people claiming failure are being balanced by those claiming success.
Fair enough - I was just looking at your "Member since" date and worked off that.
I'm confused, though. If it isn't a failure, why would Laidlaw/Darrah etc need to be sprucing up the CVs? Why would they be job hunting? (Assuming, of course, they weren't actually interested in finding another job).
Well, I was looking at it from the financier's point of view, and I'm sure DA:I made a profit or will make a profit, but 3 years of development (though perhaps only 2 in active development) ties up the investment for that period of time.
This is one of the reasons there was never a DA:O-2, because DA:O didn't sell that well considering it had been in active development for more than 5 years, not all of them active development, full team development, but still.
Mass Effect, unexpectedly, became the blockbuster that the company needed, it was smaller, cheaper and didn't take as long to develop and was way more popular than DA:O.
So it was decided to move DA into something more like ME and the lead designer of DA:O resigned in the process. Laidlaw took over and in just over a year, he managed to churn out DA2. A reasonable success, considering the short development time and much lower costs than DA:O, but the fans hated it and it never managed to outsell DA:O, it's predecessor.
Laidlaw, Darrah and Gaider got a second shot with DA:I, to make Dragon Age a blockbuster franchise. After 3 years of development, it seems to be a moderate commercial success.
That's why I think they need to brush up their CVs. I don't think it would be reasonable to give them a third chance to make DA a blockbuster series, were I an EA executive. So DA:I making a profit is not enough, this isn't mom-and-pop capitalism. If this franchise is going somewhere in the future, I think it will be with new producers and team-leaders.
I don't know what EA's numbers are, but any AAA game with a 3 year development cycle has high demands.
As long as the game makes more money and profit than it cost to make and market EA (IMHO) will be fine with it and green light more DA games, dlc and maybe expansions. It also does not hurt that the game is critically acclaimed in many quarters.
I think most people would agree. Which is why that PC thread has 500 pages and any thread on social issues loses steam manages 5, on a good day.
As long as the game makes more money and profit than it cost to make and market EA (IMHO) will be fine with it and green light more DA games, dlc and maybe expansions. It also does not hurt that the game is critically acclaimed in many quarters.
This is not a mom-and-pop operation, there are goals set and they need to be met. And since EA could have just invested that money in something like Apple stock instead of investing in DA:I, they'd need twice back what they invested in the game.
Otherwise, it's just a waste of money. It's not just about profit, it's about a lot of profit. That's corporate capitalism, dear Realmzmaster.
But the PC thread is just weird. I mean I can't dismiss the dissatisfaction - I'm not satisfied with the PC UI either. But the complaints to me are so weird. A lot more about how you can't move forward holding LMB and RMB and a lot less on how the crafting and character selection UI is ass.
It's 500 pages, there's bound to be silly complaints as well. I definitely chimed in on how the crafting and character selection UI is ass. 
No idea what your on about, yet again. Most threads on this social nonsense are quite open. They just fall down the ranks pretty fast.
You do seem to have trouble following me. There are multiple "social nonsense" threads, and they don't all fall down the ranks. The really hot ones crash and burn, usually when folks start freaking out about "SJWs" or similar silliness. Meanwhile there's one PC thread which just keeps chugging along. Nothing wrong with that, but you couldn't do it with the "social nonsense" threads because you couldn't keep one going for that long without someone crashing it.
I think I understand you now, I was just not clear on what you meant by social nonsense.
A) Actually, both DA:O and ME are critically more successful.
B ) That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for success, more customers leads to more activity
C) Yes, Patch 3 version 2 is "ok".
Regarding A, all I have to do is point out DAI's award history and overwhelmingly positive professional reviews and feedback.
And no, some users complaining does not dilute the critical success, especially on their forum.
DAI's release wasn't perfect but it hardly faced the user backlash people here moan about. BSN is BioWare's forum so naturally those with issues gravitate here to a high degree. Most of the posts were also the same repeated 5 or so topics.
Even Reddit was generally much more positive than BSN and that's saying something.
Regarding B, is this a Goldilocks dilemma or something?
Is there some "just right" of people complaining so that the game is considered a sucess? What?
There's less complaint activity nowadays because more technical problems are being solved. Also, those who have already said their piece are waiting for a resolution or have moved on or adapted.. If you have to complain about the same subject for more than 2 months straight, I suggest a hobby.
In fact, the remaining "issues" that people still have with DAI are mostly functional rather than technical. Some of these complaints are so ridiculously nitpicky and/or half-assed as to warrant zero attention.
Also, this thread is about DAI winning an award for LGBT representation which has zilch to do with critical success.
There's no need to defile every positive thread with negative posts. It's the same few people too.
Sure, some people probably pick nits, but they are few and far between. Irrelevant even.
Most complaints are completely justified.
If there's one thing I'm certain of, it's that on BSN, nitpicking is anything but rare.
I would have to say that DA:I was a huge critical success, mainly because before I came here I never heard a single bad thing about it lol
I would have to say that DA:I was a huge critical success, mainly because before I came here I never heard a single bad thing about it lol
Guest_Lathrim_*
If anyone expected BSN to be as positive about BioWare's games as the rest of the internet, I'm afraid they fail to realise what the purpose behind these forums is. Alongside EA's Answer HQ and Twitter, this is the best place to list each and every criticism (and praise) about a product made by this company.
That said, a great deal of members are unaware of how to express their issues properly in both a way BioWare can use and in an appropriate manner for a completely public environment.
Regarding A, all I have to do is point out DAI's award history and overwhelmingly positive professional reviews and feedback.
You wrote something about DA:I being the most critically acclaimed Bioware release in a decade - and it isn't. That's all.
Regarding the calmness of the forums, you presented it as an indicator of some "success". It really isn't indicator of anything. I merely demonstrated that it could be interpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what you concluded.
Otherwise your attitude towards the issues other people have is beyond contempt.
If anyone expected BSN to be as positive about BioWare's games as the rest of the internet, I'm afraid they fail to realise what the purpose behind these forums is. Alongside EA's Answer HQ and Twitter, this is the best place to list each and every criticism (and praise) about a product made by this company.
That said, a great deal of members are unaware of how to express their issues properly in both a way BioWare can use and in an appropriate manner for a completely public environment.
Are you saying that altantico is making legitimate complaints? He or she is just arguing for the sake of argument. and trolling. He's been applying concepts from statistics and economics without really fully understanding them and w/o - key - explaining why they should apply. Apparently or all you can really conclude from his comments here is that he or she doesn't like DAI and doesn't like the representation of sexuality in the game.
Stats: claims non-repesentation but of undefined population. Use of concept of random sampling w/o explanation of relevance. No explanation as to why should apply to representation of sexuality in DAI. Based on his/her arguments and a proper understanding of the underlying concepts, you can in fact argue that the entire crew in DAI should be GLTQ or at least X% of each per person.
Econ: use of opportunity costs conept to explain expectation of profitability. No explanation of the difference between average and extraordinary returns to investment or why one of these should apply to EA. No discussion of how expectation of profits would be framed in video game enterprise.
Retour en haut