480 réponses à ce sujet

[Melca36]

Do you work for Comcast or something?

Um no.  EA won that title in 2012 and 2013. They did not get WORST Company in 2014. I dont know who did

[KotorEffect3]

You would think people that buy their games and play them on a regular basis and bother registering for the said company's official forums would want the company to do well in order to support the franchises they care about.

[Hiemoth]

Um no.  EA won that title in 2012 and 2013. They did not get WORST Company in 2014. I dont know who did

 

I think it was Comcast.

 

By the way, just to check, your comment was probably about how that original result was as a response of people's reaction to ME3's endings?

[katokires]

It very funny, as much as I love dlux and wanting Bioware to completely fail the truth is that I don't even get this discussion...

So I will summarize the nonsense:

1. Inquisition sold well.

2. That's exactly why I hate the game and Bioware, because they changed to sell more.

3. The only reason for my mockery is that Inquisition sold a little more than Origins, and in my opinion they sacrificed too much for too little. Since I'm all for people detroying others for money, if they sell like twice of what Origins sold, ok, I take back my words, **** us, they are happy. But if game sell somewhere between 0%~50% more, I sincerely can't see how is it worthy your soul and pissing old fans by making a product completely different from the previous.

 

And please, cut the cr**, if you like Biowae games for their writting, great, I despise their writting, I liked their games for stats, talents and other mechanics. They changed, game became ****. But yeah, I know you people like this **** writting of theirs, keep liking it, I don't care, but it makes no difference, game changed. GAME changed. Writting didn't it is the same team of completely failed writters (not exactly) and they keep on writting uninteresting bullsh** you like as always.

[KaiserShep]

Is "crap" so bad that it must be censored behind asterisks? XD

[rigron]

This game had a great marketing and hype campaing that made a lot of people like me preorder it. I had the game preordered so I basically bought it on launch day and my purchase counts for this stadistic, BUT I won´t do the same with Dragon Age 4 because DA: Inquisition is not what was meant to be, it lacks a lot of promoted features during marketing campaing and has a lot of bad design decisions, it´s an inferior product from DA: Origins (although better than DA: 2) so for the next DA I´ll wait for the users reviews instead of the media reviews and probably I´ll get it at low price second handed

[SofaJockey]

Is "crap" so bad that it must be censored behind asterisks? XD

 

Maybe not, and better to use that than ****, ****, ******* and ************ !!

[joejoe099]

Maybe now Dragon Age will get the attention it deserves instead of Mass Effect.

 

I don't sound bitter, do I?

 

 

Dragon age ever being better than mass effect they say

[SofaJockey]

I basically bought it on launch day and my purchase counts for this stadistic, BUT I won´t do the same with Dragon Age 4 ...

 

ok. I think I'm going to make my purchasing decision for DA4 in 2017/18 based on what I want to do then,

not 3-4 years before release in a forum thread for the purposes of bravura...

[cronshaw]

It very funny, as much as I love dlux and wanting Bioware to completely fail the truth is that I don't even get this discussion...

So I will summarize the nonsense:

1. Inquisition sold well.

2. That's exactly why I hate the game and Bioware, because they changed to sell more.

3. The only reason for my mockery is that Inquisition sold a little more than Origins, and in my opinion they sacrificed too much for too little. Since I'm all for people detroying others for money, if they sell like twice of what Origins sold, ok, I take back my words, **** us, they are happy. But if game sell somewhere between 0%~50% more, I sincerely can't see how is it worthy your soul and pissing old fans by making a product completely different from the previous.

 

And please, cut the cr**, if you like Biowae games for their writting, great, I despise their writting, I liked their games for stats, talents and other mechanics. They changed, game became ****. But yeah, I know you people like this **** writting of theirs, keep liking it, I don't care, but it makes no difference, game changed. GAME changed. Writting didn't it is the same team of completely failed writters (not exactly) and they keep on writting uninteresting bullsh** you like as always.

calls this thread nonsense as if this entire forum isn't

[Fast Jimmy]

Ok, now I have to officially ask. Why are you still here?

 

If you're asking officially, I'm going to need to see some credentials.

[Fast Jimmy]

Except it is still a Reader's choice. To give you an example, the reader's of Kotaku were given a chance to vote for their favorite game. Some voted for AC:U. Some voted for FC4. And so forth. Out of that vote the largest amount of votes went to DAI and thus it won the vote. Thus there is nothing inherently deceiving or distracting for saying it won that Reader's Choice award. The same with any of other Reader's Choice awards. Even if it is a small sampling, or larger in some cases, it indicates that from the readers of that site, they thought that was the best game of the year.

 

I don't really pay attention to such awards, to be honest, but I am having great difficulties understanding what is your apparent distaste on this issue. The game wins an award that indicates that people liked the game. There is no indication that these votes for fixed outside some people who struggle to grasp that people liked the game. Should they be silent about it and hide it in their marketing? Should it be not mentioned in threads which directly discuss the success of the game?

 

And by the way, that comparison to the EA vote is still really questionable, for reasons already mentioned here. The EA vote was a somewhat questionable crusade to discredit a video game company, just one of many instances that happened during that time period. The game award was a vote of people indicating which game they liked. If you do not see why this is a false equivalency, I really don't know what else to say, well write.

 

I'm very confused by this entire layer of text you've posted in response to me.

 

The Consumerist poll was just that - a poll. 

 

The visitors to the Consumerist website were given a chance to vote for their worst company. Some voted for Bank of America. Some voted for Walmart. And so forth. Out of that vote the largest amount of votes went to EA and thus it won the vote. Thus there is nothing inherently deceiving or distracting for saying it won the Worst Company in America award.

 

Yet if you DO mention it, people will be oh-so-quick to dismiss the voting, the system, the entire idea of online polls. Yet a GOTY poll is the straight-up Gospel of the masses?


If you do not see why this is a false equivalency, I really don't know what else to say, well write.

[Joseph Warrick]

Alright then  i can say:

Welcome To a Confirmed DA4 with more fetch quests given the success of DAI!!!!

 

ME1 was a success. The elevators were criticized. ME2 had no elevators.

 

DAI is a success. The filler content is criticized. _________________________

[KingTony]

Hahaha, this is great. Glad Bioware is getting what they deserve for making such awesome games.

Suk dix, h8ers!

[jsachun]

I only bought it because of DA:O. 

[Fast Jimmy]

ME1 was a success. The elevators were criticized. ME2 had no elevators.

 

DAI is a success. The filler content is criticized. _________________________

 

If you think that was the only complaint about ME1 or the only change between ME1 and ME2, then I feel like you aren't a person who is able to make effective analysis.

 

If you think the only complaint about DA:I is the glut of banal side quests or that changing nothing else outside of that about the game in a sequel will quiet the haters, then I'm glad you aren't going to be in charge of making said DA sequel.

[littlebrightpanda]

That may be true, but in my mind Edmonton lost the right to dictate the future of the ME series after ME3, as unfair as that might be of me to say about all the employees who were invovled with the game outside of the way it wound up. With what seems to be Mac at the helm to replace Casey, I have even LESS faith in the next game, regardless of the place in Canada it is developed.

 

If these are the people responsible for the Omega DLC, then at least the game should have decent combat and enemy encounters. Was it also the team doing the multiplayer? Even better regarding combat. Now the real worry lies with the story: Omega was decent in that regard, and if they don't rely too much on previous events, it could be okay. But please not another half-baked trilogy where themes don't matter and lore is made up. 

[Fast Jimmy]

If these are the people responsible for the Omega DLC, then at least the game should have decent combat and enemy encounters. Was it also the team doing the multiplayer? Even better regarding combat. Now the real worry lies with the story: Omega was decent in that regard, and if they don't rely too much on previous events, it could be okay. But please not another half-baked trilogy where themes don't matter and lore is made up. 

 

Decent enemy encounters? Omega was one long corridor fight. 

 

But yes, they are the same team who did the MP aspect of ME3.

[SofaJockey]

But please not another half-baked trilogy where themes don't matter and lore is made up. 

 

To be honest with you, I think all the lore is made up ... 

[littlebrightpanda]

Decent enemy encounters? Omega was one long corridor fight. 

 

But yes, they are the same team who did the MP aspect of ME3.

 

In differently skinned corridors. And they were dark! 

 

What I meant with decent combat and encounters, they at least felt a bit more interesting than the usual corridor fight in ME, because either you were in a very small corridor, or a very large one, instead of the usual medium size. Also the enemies were a bit more aggressive, which made me use melee more than usual. Everything forcing me to change up my combat behavior is a good thing. 

 

And that's why the multiplayer was kind of fun. It didn't let me do my usual stuff in combat. If they keep that up, I will be happy during combat. Probably just me, and probably only during combat. 

 

The thing is, will they be able to use the engine in such a way that they can actually do that? DAI's fights were incredibly repetitive and I don't know about the other games using it, but enemy AI might not be a strength. Not that I want the Alien from Alien: Isolation in there, but better AI should be possible in the usual corridor fights? Or very dumb AI in large areas, maybe that's the trade-off...

[littlebrightpanda]

To be honest with you, I think all the lore is made up ... 

 

Yeah, but there's lore made up in the middle of the trilogy, ignoring previously established rules, and lore made up at the beginning, following  the universes' logic to the end. 

[Lars Honeytoast]

I think it was Comcast.

 

By the way, just to check, your comment was probably about how that original result was as a response of people's reaction to ME3's endings?

 

Not sure if this was your intent or not, but the original voting of EA as worst company was due to the borderline criminal working conditions they impose on their employees in order to meet deadlines. Whether these deadlines were possibly the cause of some aspects of ME3 being rushed (I think so actually, but that's outside of the point) doesn't matter. The vote was determined based mostly on employee satisfaction as opposed to customer satisfaction.

 

Anyone have any idea on how we could investigate the actual sales figures of Inquisition? Do retailers make this type of data public? If so, we could possibly make a (admittedly, very general) estimate as to how well the game actually sold. I'm pretty curious. Not trying to comment on the quality of the product, but it is surprising to me that this would be BioWare's most successful launch; I consider it their fourth best game.

[Fast Jimmy]

In differently skinned corridors. And they were dark! 

 

What I meant with decent combat and encounters, they at least felt a bit more interesting than the usual corridor fight in ME, because either you were in a very small corridor, or a very large one, instead of the usual medium size. Also the enemies were a bit more aggressive, which made me use melee more than usual. Everything forcing me to change up my combat behavior is a good thing. 

 

And that's why the multiplayer was kind of fun. It didn't let me do my usual stuff in combat. If they keep that up, I will be happy during combat. Probably just me, and probably only during combat. 

 

The thing is, will they be able to use the engine in such a way that they can actually do that? DAI's fights were incredibly repetitive and I don't know about the other games using it, but enemy AI might not be a strength. Not that I want the Alien from Alien: Isolation in there, but better AI should be possible in the usual corridor fights? Or very dumb AI in large areas, maybe that's the trade-off...

 

Well, if pre-release talk can be believed (and that's a big if this early in the game's infancy), they will be focusing a lot more on open world (or open worlds, as it were, being space and all), so I'm not sure if that will play into it.

 

Think all of the respawn combat in DA:I being things like Husks or Rachni. And then dragon fights being Thresher Maws. And the Citadel being a tiny little shopping section where you barely have anything to interact with.

[Hiemoth]

Not sure if this was your intent or not, but the original voting of EA as worst company was due to the borderline criminal working conditions they impose on their employees in order to meet deadlines. Whether these deadlines were possibly the cause of some aspects of ME3 being rushed (I think so actually, but that's outside of the point) doesn't matter. The vote was determined based mostly on employee satisfaction as opposed to customer satisfaction.

 

Anyone have any idea on how we could investigate the actual sales figures of Inquisition? Do retailers make this type of data public? If so, we could possibly make a (admittedly, very general) estimate as to how well the game actually sold. I'm pretty curious. Not trying to comment on the quality of the product, but it is surprising to me that this would be BioWare's most successful launch; I consider it their fourth best game.

 

And Walmart or Comcast is known for having ideal working conditions? And by the way, I am not completely certain we are discussing the same poll as the Consumerist runs its award as a reader poll with a March Madness style brackets.

 

EA has rough reputation as an employer, at least it did, and I have no interest in defending a company exploiting its workers. It is something that seems rampant in video game industry as a whole, as also in a lot of other creative industries, and it is sad that isn't dealt with more. Having written that, there are a couple of details I would like to point out. The original information about EA working conditions surfaced around 2004 or 2005, if I remember correctly, gaining a lot of attention and declarations of changes in workplace in EA. The change, based again on everything I've read, has been bumpy, but there have also been also been a lot of improvements. The curious thing, for me, is that this suddenly became the most relevant thing for everyone in 2012 and 2013, pushing aside Comcast who has a vile reputation as an employer or Bank of America that had been actively destroying the American Economy. Funnier still, the fact that the original whistleblower and several other people came forward to discuss how much things had improved at EA, yet they were ignored. But apparently those working conditions improved within a year with such a clear margin that they no longer were even competing for the top place.

 

Again, I have little in defending EA. It still has a lot of things to fix and improve, and I hope that they do. But, for that vote, considering all the things swirling around at the time and the discussions relating to it, for me seemed to have been heavily driven by ME3.

 

As another question, VGChartz is a site to check for a collection of sales numbers. It is imperfect, but it will give you the idea. I am, though, slightly curious why you feel the publisher would publicly lie about this being their best launch since that is something that can be shown by numbers and would get them in to a lot of problems if proven false.

 

EA has a bad reputation, at least it did, and I have no interest in defending anyone

[Hiemoth]

I'm very confused by this entire layer of text you've posted in response to me.

 

The Consumerist poll was just that - a poll. 

 

The visitors to the Consumerist website were given a chance to vote for their worst company. Some voted for Bank of America. Some voted for Walmart. And so forth. Out of that vote the largest amount of votes went to EA and thus it won the vote. Thus there is nothing inherently deceiving or distracting for saying it won the Worst Company in America award.

 

Yet if you DO mention it, people will be oh-so-quick to dismiss the voting, the system, the entire idea of online polls. Yet a GOTY poll is the straight-up Gospel of the masses?


If you do not see why this is a false equivalency, I really don't know what else to say, well write.

 

People didn't dismiss the Consumerist poll because it was an online poll, they dismissed it since based on a lot of things going at that time it very much seemed to be driven by something than the actual deeds of the company. The question is not whetever or not it was an online poll or not, no one is attacking Consumerist for instance, but rather what was driving those votes.

 

On that note, you did actually ignore the central question in my post. Each of those reader's polls was done by a representative group of players with a lot of the sites being notable gaming sites. If readers at a number of those sites chose in a vote that did not seem to be rigged in anyway that they felt DAI was the best game of the year and Bioware publicity uses this as an example of the successful response of the game, how is that inappropriate? How is it misleading? Do you have some argument why it is not actually a representative metric? Do you have a better metric to show as a way of the public reception?