122 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

That's pretty crappy considering people who tend to play Bioware games will replay them.

It's hard to reconcile this with the published completion and save-import numbers.

[RVallant]

Like I said, most people don't replay the games. They just don't; the tracking data is absolutely unequivocal on this. Hell, a solid majority don't finish even once.

Therefore, if this problem only reveals itself on your second and subsequent playthroughs, most players will never experience it.

This doesn't mean that Bio shouldn't do such content -- if that was the rule then non-human PCs wouldn't have come back, since the tracking data also shows that the vast majority of players only play humans.

 

Yes most gamers are fire and forget types with the attention span of a gnat. Given the low number of completions though you have to wonder how the backlash for the ending was so high. 

 

That's pretty crappy considering people who tend to play Bioware games will replay them.

 

My sentiments is that "Bioware games" target a specific breed of gamer, those who invest in a story and the emotions within - or rather 'roleplayers' of some sort. The shift with Dragon Age was away from the roleplayer and more towards the "shoot and forget and what was I doing just now?"

 

ME went the same way with the shooter-hybrid (from RPG-shooter to Shooter-RPG) I think the ME3 stats are an eyesore for RPG fans as they absolutely prove the demographic that ME attracted was the typical good-guy-soldier-dudebro shooter fan.

 

Regarding the "people replaying the game", I seem to remember reading somewhere that, for Steam games that give achievements for getting through the tutorial or completing the first mission or similar, on average about 15-20% of people who own the games don't even have those achievements. So basically, a not insignificant chunk of the income the devs/publishers will get from a games actually come from people who don't even play it. Those who will go as far as to play it more than once are in a definite minority....

 

This has been known through PS/Xbox achievements, a lot of achievements show a considerable drop off in the % with each stage and level. Usually 90% get through the first tutorial 80% through the first and second levels and then the big drop off is the third stage where it drops to 60 then it drops to 50 then 40 and the final stages are 20-10%.

 

 

 

 

The gamers who replay games are in the minority (Unless you are talking multiplayer). Most gamers may complete a game once.  Let's face it most cRPGs require a large time investment. DAO,DA2. or DAI require a time investment of upwards of 60-100 hours to complete. For whatever RL issues or game issues (gamers moving on to other games they bought) gamers may not make a second playthrough. That is assuming they get through the first playthrough.

 

Some gamers abandon the first playthrough for a variety of reasons.

 

For example, I am on my second playthrough, but this time it will take me longer to complete it because I am also playing Wasteland 2. Others simply move on to other games.

 

Actually MP is a whole different ball game, in fact for MMO's in general the statistics have proven for a long time now that competetive multiplayer users are in the minority compared to co-operative multiplayer, which is challenged by solo-play multiplayer elements. Of course, that's to do with MMORPGs, but I thought it was interesting because the most vocal MMO nut are the anti-solo, hardcore PvP crowd and yet they are the absolute minority period.

 

Console wise, I'm not convinced MP is the be all end all. Also statistics aren't everything, I'm sure there's plenty who don't have an online connection or withhold tracking info (I know where it's optional I sign out of it) and some statistics don't correlate - I'd have expected those 40% long service people to have done better with Wrex for example - never mind that 40% is pretty good numbers for a continuing throughput of gamers (assuming that only tracks them joining from ME2 or replaying Me3).

 

Anyway; I agree with the OP, but that's this day and age really. I complete my games, in fact I make it a mission to do so. But a lot of people don't, my friends get distracted by rubbish such as Destiny, (gotta keep up the pew pew!) and my nephew (age 15) has probably only completed Call of Pew Pew fifty thousand times and baulks at having to listen to conversations longer than five minutes.

 

Just gotta accept, gamers like us are a minority, a dying breed and Bioware reckons we're not quite a lucrative market compared to those pew-pew flash guys.

[AlanC9]

Regarding the "people replaying the game", I seem to remember reading somewhere that, for Steam games that give achievements for getting through the tutorial or completing the first mission or similar, on average about 15-20% of people who own the games don't even have those achievements. So basically, a not insignificant chunk of the income the devs/publishers will get from a games actually come from people who don't even play it. Those who will go as far as to play it more than once are in a definite minority....

I've got a few like that myself. When an already-discounted game you're interested in gets into one of those 75%-off sales, you might as well pick it up even if you don't know when you'll get around to playing it.

[Draining Dragon]

Draining Dragon approves +1

[AlanC9]

ME went the same way with the shooter-hybrid (from RPG-shooter to Shooter-RPG) I think the ME3 stats are an eyesore for RPG fans as they absolutely prove the demographic that ME attracted was the typical good-guy-soldier-dudebro shooter fan.

It was interesting that the percentage of players playing soldiers went down from 50+ to 43 between ME2 and ME3, while the percentage playing BroShep actually increased from 80 to 82. I haven't seen equivalent stats for any DA game, though.

[Il Divo]

It was interesting that the percentage of players playing soldiers went down from 50+ to 43 between ME2 and ME3, while the percentage playing BroShep actually increased from 80 to 82. I haven't seen equivalent stats for any DA game, though.

 

What was the ME1 Soldier percentage, out of curiosity? I remember it being the highest played class, but I don't remember where I saw those figures. 

[Ieldra]

It was interesting that the percentage of players playing soldiers went down from 50+ to 43 between ME2 and ME3, while the percentage playing BroShep actually increased from 80 to 82. I haven't seen equivalent stats for any DA game, though.

That's completely unsurprising. ME3's soldiers were wimps in comparison with ME2's. At the same time, ME increasingly forced stereotypical male action hero tropes on Shepard. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of female players dropped significantly after ME2. The final Arrival dialogue almost makes me feel dumber for having sat through it, and ME3 continued with that throughout its story. 

 

Meanwhile, I don't think DA ever appealed to the same demographic, and I don't think it's trying to do that now. It isn't actually stupid rather than constrained, and roleplaying as such isn't bad. Those limits are annoying but bearable. The story, however, is drastically affected as things become less complex.   

[Nefla]

If we're not going to get much in the way of real choice or divergence anyway, then I'd rather have them make a well done linear story that flows smoothly from one part to the next with everything tying together. The plot of DA:I (and DA2) was to me a bunch of random, unrelated events with an excuse tacked on as to why each was relevant.

[ThreeF]

 The plot of DA:I (and DA2) was to me a bunch of random, unrelated events with an excuse tacked on as to why each was relevant.

My guess is much of it has to do with scrapping the Hawke idea. There is a lot of wrapping up going on in DAI, the "lets sweep it under the carpet and forget it existed" kind and this is also probably why the next game is moved to a different location.  I just hope the next game is not another prologue, we  already have three.

[AlanC9]

That's completely unsurprising. ME3's soldiers were wimps in comparison with ME2's. At the same time, ME increasingly forced stereotypical male action hero tropes on Shepard.

But would a player know those things before he'd actually played it? (Male action hero tropes make me more likely to play a female PC, but I'm no one's idea of a typical gamer.)
 

I wouldn't be surprised if the number of female players dropped significantly after ME2. The final Arrival dialogue almost makes me feel dumber for having sat through it, and ME3 continued with that throughout its story.

Meaning that women gamers have better taste? Yeah, I can see that.

[AlanC9]

What was the ME1 Soldier percentage, out of curiosity? I remember it being the highest played class, but I don't remember where I saw those figures.

All they ever said was that it was more than all other classes combined.

[In Exile]

Like I said, most people don't replay the games. They just don't; the tracking data is absolutely unequivocal on this. Hell, a solid majority don't finish even once.

Therefore, if this problem only reveals itself on your second and subsequent playthroughs, most players will never experience it.

This doesn't mean that Bio shouldn't do such content -- if that was the rule then non-human PCs wouldn't have come back, since the tracking data also shows that the vast majority of players only play humans.

The weird stat is that some gamers buy games *they never play* .

[ThreeF]

The weird stat is that some gamers buy games *they never play* .

one reason might be that they collect games.

[Ieldra]

But would a player know those things before he'd actually played it? (Male action hero tropes make me more likely to plsy a female PC, but I'm no one's idea of a typical gamer.)

That would be my first reaction, but if stupidity is involved, no matter of gender-swithing can really save it.

Meaning that women gamers have better taste? Yeah, I can see that.

Depends on the genre....

[Ieldra]

The weird stat is that some gamers buy games *they never play* .

I have some games in my Steam library I never played. Almost all of those I got through package deals, but one or two lost appeal after a few minutes of playing and I never found the motivation to continue.

[the Dame]

If we're not going to get much in the way of real choice or divergence anyway, then I'd rather have them make a well done linear story that flows smoothly from one part to the next with everything tying together. The plot of DA:I (and DA2) was to me a bunch of random, unrelated events with an excuse tacked on as to why each was relevant.

 

And attempt to ride the "Epic" train. Just listing all what happens to Inquisitor makes my head spin.

It certainly hilarious (Varric's remarks, for example), but not ''epic'', in my opinion.

[tris1]

dragon age origins was the best dragon age game and was much longer with many more options that actually effect the outcome better while dragon age inquisition the story was very short and boring at times

[Apollexander]

I more or less agree with you leldra. Sometimes the quests in DAO have different gameplay for different choices, like you say, in Brecilian, in Orzammar, in Redcliffe. It's like "act to choose" in DAO while it's like "choose and then act" in DAI. Is it a feeling like the RGB-choice in ME3? I don't know, because I haven't played ME series.

 

But I don't feel that DAO's main quests are more natural. Everyone seems to be just waiting for the Warden to decide their fates. That also makes me feel a little artificial. For example, in the landsmeet, defeating Loghain is good. But for the monarch selection, I can choose Anora or Alistair and everyone there just agrees. In comparison, in Halamshiral I can save Celene or not because I can intervene the assassination or not. And I can choose the outcome because I have the proofs of their conspiracies. I'm not saying DAO's quests are unreasonable, but DAI's quests are presented better in this respect.

[Karolis]

But I don't feel that DAO's main quests are more natural. Everyone seems to be just waiting for the Warden to decide their fates. That also makes me feel a little artificial. For example, in the landsmeet, defeating Loghain is good. But for the monarch selection, I can choose Anora or Alistair and everyone there just agrees. In comparison, in Halamshiral I can save Celene or not because I can intervene the assassination or not. And I can choose the outcome because I have the proofs of their conspiracies. I'm not saying DAO's quests are unreasonable, but DAI's quests are presented better in this respect.

 

Okay okay I've got it:

 

A rookie, a goof, a crap lockpick, and an anti-shirt crusader-ess walk into Orzammar. The dwarves say, "Hey kid! Decide our future, willya?"

 

It would be a joke except it's true.

[Ieldra]

I more or less agree with you leldra. Sometimes the quests in DAO have different gameplay for different choices, like you say, in Brecilian, in Orzammar, in Redcliffe. It's like "act to choose" in DAO while it's like "choose and then act" in DAI. Is it a feeling like the RGB-choice in ME3? I don't know, because I haven't played ME series.
 
But I don't feel that DAO's main quests are more natural. Everyone seems to be just waiting for the Warden to decide their fates. That also makes me feel a little artificial. For example, in the landsmeet, defeating Loghain is good. But for the monarch selection, I can choose Anora or Alistair and everyone there just agrees. In comparison, in Halamshiral I can save Celene or not because I can intervene the assassination or not. And I can choose the outcome because I have the proofs of their conspiracies. I'm not saying DAO's quests are unreasonable, but DAI's quests are presented better in this respect.

If it actually was "choose and then act". It's not, however, most of the time. Things usually resolve themselves without any further intervention after you've chosen.

BTW, the rationalization behind the choices themselves, those I did not criticize. On the contrary, I said in my diary thread that it appears more thought went into why people are doing things in DAI, and I agree that DAI did rather well in that aspect. That doesn't change that the main quests lack complexity compared to DAO. DAO's feel more natural because they don't appear simplistic in their design, using the principle "How can we minimize the divergence in things players get to do while maintaining an illusion of choice?" but rather "What are feasible options to resolve this plot?" and then implement them. At least, that's how it comes across.

[rapscallioness]

Hmm, interesting, OP. I had not noticed that.

 

I thought it was that the main story quests felt too chopped up. I felt like I was always being dragged back SkyHold, or Haven, or to the War Table.

 

Quests in DAO like the Urn of Sacred Ashes, it felt like you were stuck in it until the grueling end. Having to make loot choices because you can't carry any more. Companions injured and not a apothecary in sight. I was exhausted at the end. In a good way.

 

Orzammar, too--although I did not know at the time that you could fast travel out, but I prefer the sense of major questing that a long area story line can provide.

[Ieldra]

@rapscallioness:
As opposed to many others, I liked DAO's Deep Roads (except for the part behind the Broodmother). They made me feel I was completely on my own in a hostile environment like no other quest in any other DA game. DAI's "Here Lies The Abyss" attempts the same, but it's much too short to be comparable in its impact.

[AlanC9]

Heh. Good thing this topic came up. I looked at my Steam library to see what I own but haven't played. Just L.A. Noire and Fallout:NV, as expected (plus a couple of Origin freebies). But I did also see Crusader Kings 2 is in there for the next five days, and is 75% off.

[Karolis]

DAO did have the advantage of, how do I put this, parallelism in its questline. So it could have "islands" of independent quests -- as in, The Redcliffe Quests and The Dalish Quests. Each island could have divergent outcomes all it wanted, but the choice didn't (much) affect the other islands. Seems like that setup allows for much more freedom in possible outcomes.

 

The decision to (mostly) linearize the storyline for DAI means that even if the devs wanted to diverge the hell out of Quest X, they'd damn well better have it all back together before Quest Y starts. In the end, what we get is a mix of a) inconsequential outcomes, and decisions that look like they diverge, but SURPRISE, they're actually the same in the end. Save Celene? Yay, crisis averted, Orlais is our ally! Let her die? Orlais is ... still non-crisis-ed! And our ally!

 

I guess the idea was to outsource quest repercussions to the War Table, but, I dunno, once it's Tabled it's just a game of shuffle-the-markers. It loses the immediacy and smack-in-the-face impact it might have had, and that's kind of sad. I wanna see the world evolve, dammit. Especially in a linear storyline.

[RVallant]

All they ever said was that it was more than all other classes combined.

 

Might that be because the 'default' and quick class selection is soldier? 

 

Those speeding through will pick that, hell it may be we've all clicked through on that first to see what the Soldier and mechanics are like before we re-start to do our main class? In which case the stats will be wrong.