480 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

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?

 

I'm not saying it is inappropriate or misleading... just that the sample size was insanely small. 

 

Kotaku - DA:I won with 395 votes

The Escapist - DA:I won with 1,349 votes

GameInformer - DA:I won with 1,650 votes

 

 

There's nothing scientific about these polls. They don't have a large enough sample size to even remotely cover the amount of people who bought DA:I, let alone the gamer population as a whole. They require no knowledge of the competition, or even proof of game purchase, to make a vote. And the "march madness" bracket form of the competition results in multiple rounds of voting, with inconsistent participants and an ever-narrowing list of possible candidates, resulting in people picking game match ups and is not representative of the number of people who would vote for a game as the best game of the year, point blank.

 

This is entertainment, nothing more. Holding any of these up as anything more than "hey, this is fun - a game I like won a gimmicky contest" is just plain silly. It is fun - it is not evidence.

[hellbiter88]

This game could have been so much worse if they'd taken the traditional EA path and pushed the launch a year or two early. Truthfully, I think this game could still use another 6 months of work for little things here and there, but all-in-all i'm happy with the game and you can tell they worked really hard on it.

 

 

NOW--Dragon Age 4. I would happily give up wide empty spaces for a middle-ground packed with narrated quests. Also blood magic.

[Hiemoth]

I'm not saying it is inappropriate or misleading... just that the sample size was insanely small. 

 

Kotaku - DA:I won with 395 votes

The Escapist - DA:I won with 1,349 votes

GameInformer - DA:I won with 1,650 votes

 

 

There's nothing scientific about these polls. They don't have a large enough sample size to even remotely cover the amount of people who bought DA:I, let alone the gamer population as a whole. They require no knowledge of the competition, or even proof of game purchase, to make a vote. And the "march madness" bracket form of the competition results in multiple rounds of voting, with inconsistent participants and an ever-narrowing list of possible candidates, resulting in people picking game match ups and is not representative of the number of people who would vote for a game as the best game of the year, point blank.

 

This is entertainment, nothing more. Holding any of these up as anything more than "hey, this is fun - a game I like won a gimmicky contest" is just plain silly. It is fun - it is not evidence.

 

Of course it's not scientific, but here's the thing, I do not see how it could be scientific. The closest thing I can think of is to look at completion percentage, how many of the people who bought the game played it through. The thing with that, though, is that the long length does go against in that statistic and actually DAO wouldn't come up so good as people want it to in that comparison. And as a side note, the American political voting process is at the moment a perversion of statistical distributions due to gerry-mandering, yet somehow magically they still matter.

 

The point here is that no one in no conversation has said that these results are scientific. To put that as a requirement for the quality of game that would be almost impossible for any game to actually meet. Even saying that the players would need to have knowledge of the competition is moot, because if the voter is someone who doesn't like games like AC, why should they first play also that game before their vote mattered. The thing here is that those votes were open for all who wanted to vote. They did. In a number of those polls, DAI won Reader's Award. Why should Bioware not use this as a metric of success? And yeah, of course it is fun, but it is a metric of success. A similar metric of success was the amount of time people had spent playing the game. What would be, for you, the acceptable metric of success so they can say 'Hey, people enjoyed our game'? A survey done by every single person who bought the game.

 

Besides, you are actually focusing on the wrong detail. One Reader's award from any site could be dismissed based on the small sample size, as you point out. However, what we should actually look at the distributions of all the games published and how many awards each of them won from what we would determine to be qualified sites, which in this case would be sites that do not focus on a single genre. If your argument, that the sample size is so small that it makes things completely random would be true, then we should see a roughly even distribution between a number of published titles. However, if we saw one title gather much more victories than others, we might draw conclusions from, even though the sample size of the awards would still be small.

 

By the way, I must confess that I do find it somewhat amusing that according to my memory, the person who was vehemently arguing that BW should drop Day 1 DLC since it gave the perception that game resources might have been used on it mattered more than if they were, is arguing so deeply for the sanctity of the scientific process in this matter.

[Fast Jimmy]

Of course it's not scientific, but here's the thing, I do not see how it could be scientific. The closest thing I can think of is to look at completion percentage, how many of the people who bought the game played it through. The thing with that, though, is that the long length does go against in that statistic and actually DAO wouldn't come up so good as people want it to in that comparison. And as a side note, the American political voting process is at the moment a perversion of statistical distributions due to gerry-mandering, yet somehow magically they still matter.

The point here is that no one in no conversation has said that these results are scientific. To put that as a requirement for the quality of game that would be almost impossible for any game to actually meet. Even saying that the players would need to have knowledge of the competition is moot, because if the voter is someone who doesn't like games like AC, why should they first play also that game before their vote mattered. The thing here is that those votes were open for all who wanted to vote. They did. In a number of those polls, DAI won Reader's Award. Why should Bioware not use this as a metric of success? And yeah, of course it is fun, but it is a metric of success. A similar metric of success was the amount of time people had spent playing the game. What would be, for you, the acceptable metric of success so they can say 'Hey, people enjoyed our game'? A survey done by every single person who bought the game.

Besides, you are actually focusing on the wrong detail. One Reader's award from any site could be dismissed based on the small sample size, as you point out. However, what we should actually look at the distributions of all the games published and how many awards each of them won from what we would determine to be qualified sites, which in this case would be sites that do not focus on a single genre. If your argument, that the sample size is so small that it makes things completely random would be true, then we should see a roughly even distribution between a number of published titles. However, if we saw one title gather much more victories than others, we might draw conclusions from, even though the sample size of the awards would still be small.

You aren't getting what I'm saying - I agree. There IS no way for it to be scientific, accurate or useful for proof of anything. There's way too many factors to account for, including self-selection and an insane amount of bias.

Since it doesn't mean anything, people should stop acting like it does. However...

By the way, I must confess that I do find it somewhat amusing that according to my memory, the person who was vehemently arguing that BW should drop Day 1 DLC since it gave the perception that game resources might have been used on it mattered more than if they were, is arguing so deeply for the sanctity of the scientific process in this matter.

...you have me here. And it proves my point - the perception that DA:I was the best game of the year, beloved by many, is strong. And, therefore, it is reality.

I'm not 100% convinced it is TRUE, but it is the reality we are living in, regardless.

[leaguer of one]

I'm not saying it is inappropriate or misleading... just that the sample size was insanely small. 

 

Kotaku - DA:I won with 395 votes

The Escapist - DA:I won with 1,349 votes

GameInformer - DA:I won with 1,650 votes

 

 

There's nothing scientific about these polls. They don't have a large enough sample size to even remotely cover the amount of people who bought DA:I, let alone the gamer population as a whole. They require no knowledge of the competition, or even proof of game purchase, to make a vote. And the "march madness" bracket form of the competition results in multiple rounds of voting, with inconsistent participants and an ever-narrowing list of possible candidates, resulting in people picking game match ups and is not representative of the number of people who would vote for a game as the best game of the year, point blank.

 

This is entertainment, nothing more. Holding any of these up as anything more than "hey, this is fun - a game I like won a gimmicky contest" is just plain silly. It is fun - it is not evidence.

 The sample size excuse is baseless. Anyone arguing with that with vote is missing the fact that

a. People have to care enough to vote.

b.They need to not the niche of the voters.

c.They need to take in the variable of the vote.

 

I can understand your argument if say it was a poll on how favorable abortion is and all the votes were done by people in the bible belt. But these votes are far form being the narrow.

 

The are done by gaming site that generally fallow every genre of gaming which only get attention from people who are interested in a vary of games. No if this was from hardcore rpgs sites which have a heavy da fan base in them then you would have a point....But it's not. These are sites where people with varied game taste come to look up info and news on games, talk about it and argue about it. On top of that da is part of a niche genre.

 

Now dai won game of the year with many sites on top of winning user votes for game of the year as a niche title. All together around 200 awards as a niche title. These are gamers voting for a game of a genre they don't as a whole do not commonly play or games in genres they do if they do care to vote.

 

That says everything in itself. DAI is clearly well received and will liked. That can't be argued

[Hiemoth]

You aren't getting what I'm saying - I agree. There IS no way for it to be scientific, accurate or useful for proof of anything. There's way too many factors to account for, including self-selection and an insane amount of bias.

Since it doesn't mean anything, people should stop acting like it does. However...


...you have me here. And it proves my point - the perception that DA:I was the best game of the year, beloved by many, is strong. And, therefore, it is reality.

I'm not 100% convinced it is TRUE, but it is the reality we are living in, regardless.

 

And my point was that since it is impossible to have a true scientific result, you need to sometimes rely proxy results, such as independent voters, no matter the sample size, choosing it the best game of the year.

 

Somewhat amusingly, I don't personally consider it the best game, actually it is my least favorite of the Dragon Age games, but I also understand that not every game is made for me. Taste is about as unscientific as it gets, although I guess there are some psychologists just waiting to jump on me for that statement. As such, the game clearly garnered a positive reaction in the kind that Bioware should bring out in advertising. Otherwise it would irresponsible for them

 

I also respect that while we may disagree strongly on some things, you are consistent in your opinions.

[Andrew Lucas]

Bioware deserves the recognition, DAI was great, and I'm happy to be part of this family, despite the ups and downs over the years.

Fingers crossed for another successful launch, The Next Mass Effect!!

[DarthSideus2]

Congrats to EA , and more specifically Bioware. I love this game . I have well over 200 hours of combined play time and can't wait for some SP dlc.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

I don't know what we are talking about here. What is up for debate? That DAI sold well? There is no objective way to prove that without being a fly on the wall at EA.

Regardless, talk says it sold well enough to get DLC and I'm betting a 90% chance we get a DA4.

That DAI is good? Idk, man. That's up for debate but it ls definately the MOST ambitious Bioware game ever made. Most ambitious since Mass Effect one. Biggest undertaking it's ever had to do.

Considering that it should be considered okay. Bioware always been a small studio at heart. But they get bigger with each game.

Why is this thread even past the first page WTF are you guys talking about?! Game sold okay. Nobody is upset with its performance critically and sales wise.

[Joseph Warrick]

If you think that was the only complaint about ME1

Never said that.

or the only change between ME1 and ME2

Never said that.

If you think the only complaint about DA:I is the glut of banal side quests

Hmmm no, didn't say that.

or that changing nothing else outside of that about the game in a sequel will quiet the haters

Nope. Not that either.

Whoa man. Your reply was impressive in a way.

[Fireheart]

I really wonder how it did so well... The only thing good I feel this game has, is the cameos from past characters. I really hated this game when I finished it. Even early in while playing it, I felt no joy and was wondering when the truths of all the reviews I had read would come to light but they never did. I forced myself to finish playing, patiently waiting for the moment it would get good, but it never did. I am so sad I spent so much money on it, bought the deluxe edition and everything. When I first finished the game, I was filled with rage and would've given the game a 0/10. However, it has been nearly a month since then, and now that my mind is calm, I can gladly give it a 5. I think this game is bad. Really really bad.

 

However, I don't wish for bad things to happen to Bioware. I just worry how all this success will go to their heads. Will future DA games have a terrible story with more uninteresting companions, and pointless quests/stupid "power" system to force you to do things in the game you don't want to? I just hope they haven't lost their path with all the praise (and equal amount of criticisms). If DA4 comes out looking like DAI, then I will consider myself done with the series. I don't even plan on buying the dlcs for DAI, if there will be any. I don't want to give Bioware anymore of my money. But I have invested quite a lot into the series. If anything, I can always watch youtube videos of future dlcs and games. At least that way I don't lose money.

[AllThatJazz]

 

 

However, I don't wish for bad things to happen to Bioware. I just worry how all this success will go to their heads. Will future DA games have a terrible story with more uninteresting companions, and pointless quests/stupid "power" system to force you to do things in the game you don't want to? I just hope they haven't lost their path with all the praise (and equal amount of criticisms). If DA4 comes out looking like DAI, then I will consider myself done with the series. I don't even plan on buying the dlcs for DAI, if there will be any. I don't want to give Bioware anymore of my money. But I have invested quite a lot into the series. If anything, I can always watch youtube videos of future dlcs and games. At least that way I don't lose money.

I do appreciate how you feel, but I really don't think you should be too concerned here. I mean, despite the success of DAO they didn't seek to replicate it exactly in DA2, they tried other things. ME2 was by no means a carbon copy of ME1. After the success of KotOR, they didn't immediately launch themselves into KotOR2, they instead worked on new IPs.

 

While I imagine DA4 will borrow from DAI to a degree (a more open world than Origins for example), I think they'll also mix it up a little and try other things - again, some of which will work and some of which won't.

[katokires]

I do appreciate how you feel, but I really don't think you should be too concerned here. I mean, despite the success of DAO they didn't seek to replicate it exactly in DA2, they tried other things. ME2 was by no means a carbon copy of ME1. After the success of KotOR, they didn't immediately launch themselves into KotOR2, they instead worked on new IPs.

 

While I imagine DA4 will borrow from DAI to a degree (a more open world than Origins for example), I think they'll also mix it up a little and try other things - again, some of which will work and some of which won't.

How is this supposed to be anything nearly good?

I first played Street Fighter 2 in 1994 if I'm not mistake, I used to play Mortal Kombat before that. Since 1996 when I finally learned how to perform hadouken and shoryukens without failures it works. Every single Street Fighter game I can buy with my eyes closed because I'm sure that even if there are no Ryu and Ken there will still be the hadouken motion. Of course hadouken is a simple exemple, like quarter circle forward and half circle backward from The King of Fighters series. That USED TO BE the Bioware's case up until DA2. So no, they NEVER did things differently, and that's why I loved them. From BG to DA2 I played their game exactly the same, even the way I navigate through maps was the same until this bulshit with DAI.

Let's see from BG to DA2:

Jump? No. DAI yes.

Button mashing? No. DAI yes.

Click to move? Yes. DAI no.

Stat distribution either on creation or level ups or both? Yes. DAI no.

Skills that matter outside combat? Yes with exception from DA2 and DAI.

Boring combat and gameplay? Yes. DAI no. (And yes boring is good and desireable, the most desireable thing in fact, if I wanted action I would go play action games)

So, I get it that in your head and in the head of other players (the majority) there are other things important in the games but for a person like me that had these as the only reason to play and love Bioware games, DAI is the first to throw their legacy COMPLETELY in the trash. DAO started, yes, but kept the most important. DA2 was a step further but most was there as you see in my list. DAI is total crap.

So yeah, how conforting that DA4 will be different if they have been making each game worse since the moment they made BG2... from BG2 on worse, worse, worse, worse... till they reach DAI. So, am I to expect anything good from DA4, no. I know it will be even worse, Bioware proved me this in 10 years , that they can only get worse each day.

But works for them, worse games, higher sales.

[Fast Jimmy]

Never said that.
Never said that.
Hmmm no, didn't say that.
Nope. Not that either.

Whoa man. Your reply was impressive in a way.

I live to serve.

[AllThatJazz]

How is this supposed to be anything nearly good?

I first played Street Fighter 2 in 1994 if I'm not mistake, I used to play Mortal Kombat before that. Since 1996 when I finally learned how to perform hadouken and shoryukens without failures it works. Every single Street Fighter game I can buy with my eyes closed because I'm sure that even if there are no Ryu and Ken there will still be the hadouken motion. Of course hadouken is a simple exemple, like quarter circle forward and half circle backward from The King of Fighters series. That USED TO BE the Bioware's case up until DA2. So no, they NEVER did things differently, and that's why I loved them. From BG to DA2 I played their game exactly the same, even the way I navigate through maps was the same until this bulshit with DAI.

Let's see from BG to DA2:

Jump? No. DAI yes.

Button mashing? No. DAI yes.

Click to move? Yes. DAI no.

Stat distribution either on creation or level ups or both? Yes. DAI no.

Skills that matter outside combat? Yes with exception from DA2 and DAI.

Boring combat and gameplay? Yes. DAI no. (And yes boring is good and desireable, the most desireable thing in fact, if I wanted action I would go play action games)

So, I get it that in your head and in the head of other players (the majority) there are other things important in the games but for a person like me that had these as the only reason to play and love Bioware games, DAI is the first to throw their legacy COMPLETELY in the trash. DAO started, yes, but kept the most important. DA2 was a step further but most was there as you see in my list. DAI is total crap.

So yeah, how conforting that DA4 will be different if they have been making each game worse since the moment they made BG2... from BG2 on worse, worse, worse, worse... till they reach DAI. So, am I to expect anything good from DA4, no. I know it will be even worse, Bioware proved me this in 10 years , that they can only get worse each day.

But works for them, worse games, higher sales.

I apologise Katokires, but I'm not going to engage with you on the forums, because I don't think anything constructive or pleasant will come of it. Do take care of yourself though, and maybe try to find some balance/enjoyment somewhere (though clearly not in Bioware games). 

[SNascimento]

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

First it has to become a first tier franchise... 

[KaiserShep]

Boring combat and gameplay? Yes. DAI no. (And yes boring is good and desireable, the most desireable thing in fact, if I wanted action I would go play action games)

 

 

So just so I'm understanding this: boring combat and gameplay = good, because you don't want action? But doesn't "boring combat" pretty much indicate that combat still exists, thus there's still action, but it's simply uninteresting and tedious? Is this all a deep mushroom-induced fever dream?

[Back Lot Basher]

The bottom line is, some people are going to love DAI, and some aren't.  I know people who love Wes Anderson movies, while I can't stand them.  We all respond in our own way to various creative entertainment.  

 

These types of polls and awards are not scientific, but I believe they do reflect the overall positive response many, or even most, players have had to the game.  I enjoyed it enough to buy it on PS4 and Xbox One.

[Lebanese Dude]

 

 

Gif saved successfully.

[keyip]

But works for them, worse games, higher sales.

 

I think the phrase you're looking for is "less complex" games. The idea that more complexity is a better thing is an opinion. At the end of the day the average age of a gamer is in the mid to late 30s (heh, I'm not QUITE there yet.) These people have stressful jobs, complex relationships, and very real problems, they also no longer have the time or the luxuries people had in their youth. When these people want to sit down and play a game, their main goal is to be entertained. They're not looking for complexity, they've got plenty to deal with as it is, they're just something they can pick up and sink some time into. It's why romance and speculative-fiction are the highest selling book genres, and it's why games like Skyrim and Diablo sells buckets.

[KaiserShep]

But I'm just saying bullshit here

 

[WillieStyle]

I'm not saying it is inappropriate or misleading... just that the sample size was insanely small. 

 

Kotaku - DA:I won with 395 votes

The Escapist - DA:I won with 1,349 votes

GameInformer - DA:I won with 1,650 votes

 

 

There's nothing scientific about these polls. They don't have a large enough sample size to even remotely cover the amount of people who bought DA:I, let alone the gamer population as a whole.

 

 

This is false.  While user polls suffer from self-selection bias issues, the above sample sizes are more than large enough to be statistically significant samples.  As an example, public opinion polls will often use sample sizes of 500-1500 responders as representative of the electorate of the United States (>100 million voters).  

[keyip]

 

But I'm just saying bullshit here, 

 

Yep

[Andrew Lucas]

Yep

Precisely.

[Andraste_Reborn]

While most of the retarded people who like Inquisition I know are 20~25, don't know a single mother fucker over 25 playing and there iis even one with 15.

 

I don't know why I'm bothering to point this out, but I'm thirty-four (turning thirty five at the end of February, in fact), have been playing CRPGs since 1993, and so far I've sunk two hundred hours into Dragon Age: Inquisition and consider it time well spent.

 

It is not actually compulsory for Old Skool fans to think that everything is getting worse all the time.