538 réponses à ce sujet

[otis0310]

Repurposing a game, or changing a the course of a game so drastically in the middle of development, is never a good idea.

 

Games are like buildings, you get all the blueprints, all the material, all the people together and start building it.  Then, right after building the first floor of a shopping mall the owner come up and says:

 

"I had a revelation from God!  So now we want to make a grand cathedral to His name as a result.  But since I don't want to pay more money for time and materials, just build the cathedral around whatever you just made, it will work out fine."

 

Well, it doesn't.  The first floor of the cathedral was supposed to be a shopping mall, and since you didn't want to pay to rebuild it correctly it will stay that way.  This will effect the arhcitecture and style of the entire building, and the people going to church will have hard time not noticing that their pews are where a Starbucks was supposed to go.

 

Same thing witha computer game, you cannot just make a multi-player game and change it to a single player game and not have people say "And this is where the multiplayer PVP zone was supposed to be....."

[Elhanan]

Repurposing a game, or changing a the course of a game so drastically in the middle of development, is never a good idea.
 
Games are like buildings, you get all the blueprints, all the material, all the people together and start building it.  Then, right after building the first floor of a shopping mall the owner come up and says:
 
"I had a revelation from God!  So now we want to make a grand cathedral to His name as a result.  But since I don't want to pay more money for time and materials, just build the cathedral around whatever you just made, it will work out fine."
 
Well, it doesn't.  The first floor of the cathedral was supposed to be a shopping mall, and since you didn't want to pay to rebuild it correctly it will stay that way.  This will effect the arhcitecture and style of the entire building, and the people going to church will have hard time not noticing that their pews are where a Starbucks was supposed to go.
 
Same thing witha computer game, you cannot just make a multi-player game and change it to a single player game and not have people say "And this is where the multiplayer PVP zone was supposed to be....."

And yet, DAI appears to be a rather significant success. Never say never....

[Maconbar]

Lack of a Fex PC.

[FynAch]

Post me $160...had to revise the cost for shipping...need you and several others to implement ''challenge''.

Your amazing passive aggressiveness against anyone (collective) just pointing out obvious failings in the game release is.....obvious.

 

I thought stepping up, onto and over small obstacles was so cool .....they got rid of that.

[Twistedes]

Feels like an offline mmo

Not because of the size of this open world, but because of those stupid small side quests. Come on Bioware, you can make better side quests instead of stupid **** like those herding quests.

[otis0310]

Feels like an offline mmo

Not because of the size of this open world, but because of those stupid small side quests. Come on Bioware, you can make better side quests instead of stupid **** like those herding quests.

 

 

Actually the fact that the story quests don't even take place in the wide open world makes it feel like an MMO.  Think of SWTOR, you have the big open world to explore like Tattoine.  But it is all a static neverhcanging world that never responds to anything you do, just like DAI.  And the story quests?  They feel like the instances you walk into during a class quest in SWTOR.  Sure the decisions you make are important while inside that instance, and maybe the next one you walk into as well.  But the wide open world around you remains unaffected and doesn't care.  Just like DAI.

 

Not to mention their ability to tell  decent stories has taken a significant hit in the last couple of years after firing half of their people (go figure).  All the retconning of lore they did in this game and ME3 is ludicrous.  (No the march against the Dales was not a real Exhaulted March because only Orlais was involved.)

 

Not to mention the whole "The Chantry wants peace with the mages and does not support the Templars because we really didn't mean what we said about mages being evil for a thousand years"  The only reason they backed off of that one is because EA didn't have the balls to show how the Chantry should have responded; by trying to kill all mages.  Which would then cause enormous devastation because the average citizen would see the chantry as being opressive and tyranical and thus causing a monumental crisis in faith.  This of course would be why the inquistion would have had real power, by picking up Andraste's mantel during a crisis of faith, people would turn to the Inquisition as the alternate faith.

 

That would have been a great story, and we could have found out more about the fade, and the real events surrounding Andraste.   And I swear that seamed to be the direction they were going after DA2.  But instead they pulled out a recycled villain and used him in a more politcally correct story where they do not have to actually have the courage to paint a religious order, even a fictitious one, as an antagonistic force.

 

I am sorry for ranting.  But they discarded or retconned almost everything in DA2 as well as the Chantry's own tenants in DAI.  The Divine and the Grand Clerics would not want peace.  "Magic is meant to serve man, not to rule over him", which in their mind means all mages are to be locked up so they cannot abuse their power.  This is the core tenant of the Chantry, and yet when the mages rebel the Chantry wants to broker peace?  No, just no, the mages are breaking Andraste's first law by going rogue, they would want war.   The chantry would see it as the duty of every loyal follower to hunt down and destroy all mages.

 

Sorry for ranting, again.

 

 

PS.

 

Recently I heard that these are sort of game we can expect from Bioware in the future.  No...just no, if that's the case they are not getting more of my money.  I never bought any DLC for ME3 because that game sucks, and I certainly won't for this game. 

 

In fact, even though I spent lots of money on Sims 3, I cannot see myslef buying anything for SIms 4 either, because that game also sucks.  That is three franchises destroyed because of their need to see all games as multiplayer:  Mass Effect, Dragon Age, The Sims.  I had it with EA.

[Elhanan]

Actually the fact that the story quests don't even take place in the wide open world makes it feel like an MMO.  Think of SWTOR, you have the big open world to explore like Tattoine.  But it is all a static neverhcanging world that never responds to anything you do, just like DAI.  And the story quests?  They feel like the instances you walk into during a class quest in SWTOR.  Sure the decisions you make are important while inside that instance, and maybe the next one you walk into as well.  But the wide open world around you remains unaffected and doesn't care.  Just like DAI....

Never may mean different things to some it seems, as I recall in DAI that Towers, Keeps, bridges, walkways, alliances, weather, etc; Crestwood is almost re-defined due to choices that are made. And in SWTOR, changes can be made and accepted based on Player selections, but if the Player selects to return to a planet that was decimated in their own storyline, that is on them; not the freedom of choice allowed in the game.

[DSiKn355]

And yet, DAI appears to be a rather significant success. Never say never....

 

What makes you say it was a "significant success"?

 

Is that just from a personal view?

[Rawgrim]

What makes you say it was a "significant success"?

 

Is that just from a personal view?

 

It is what he is paid to say.

[Rawgrim]

And yet, DAI appears to be a rather significant success. Never say never....

 

Justin Bieber is a significant success too. As are the Twilight books.

[DSiKn355]

It is what he is paid to say.

 

 

Justin Bieber is a significant success too. As are the Twilight books.

 

LMAO

 

I see...

[Elhanan]

What makes you say it was a "significant success"?
 
Is that just from a personal view?

Nope; the shareholders. See link in the article:


http://www.gamasutra...mp_physical.php

In today's earnings report [PDF] EA reported a (Non-GAAP) profit of $806 million from net revenue of $4.32 billion for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015, driven primarily by sales of games like Battlefield Hardline and Dragon Age: Inquisition.

That's an increase of roughly 20 percent in revenue over the $3.58 billion EA reported for the 12 months prior, and almost $10 million more than the $4.25 billion in revenue the company predicted it would drum up this year....

[DSiKn355]

Nope; the shareholders. See link in the article:


http://www.gamasutra...mp_physical.php
 

 

But all that means is the game was advertised well and sold lol.

It doesn't show how many kept the game, praised the game, sold the game, complained about the game etc etc etc

 

All that says is "This game sold"

 

Does that make the game a "significant success"? For sales maybe but that is all lol.

[Terodil]

Does that make the game a "significant success"? For sales maybe but that is all lol.

While I am definitely with you in your assessment of DA:I, sales is all that does count for EA. Continuity, artistic value, lore, absence of bugs etc. are all irrelevant to them as long as they don't have a direct effect on the bottom line. And loss of good-will due to bad quality is sadly not readily measurable -- and when it shows in a few years, all the decision makers will already have moved on to other companies and left the onus of cleaning out the piled-up mess to their unfortunate successors.

Also I'm somewhat doubtful about how to make a point about the quality of the game when it reaps GOTY awards left and right. I personally think that all those people who gave it GOTY were either a- desperate because it was the least bad game out of a host of even worse games in that year or b- paid by EA or c- delusional or d- easily pleased. I personally think DA:I is bad, a huge disappointment. It's the first BW game I have absolutely no desire to replay. But that is hard to communicate if the numbers are against you.

[Elhanan]

But all that means is the game was advertised well and sold lol.
It doesn't show how many kept the game, praised the game, sold the game, complained about the game etc etc etc
 
All that says is "This game sold"
 
Does that make the game a "significant success"? For sales maybe but that is all lol.

Other sources appear to confirm:

http://www.forbes.co...ir-stock-price/

[HereticDante]

The rude people who will find anything to ****** about in a great game as though they could make anything even half as good. 

 

Couldn't have said it better.

[Beama Beorhtost]

 Isn't amazing how all of the EA/BW public critics have changed their minds in the last year? I wonder what's changed, and I bet is not just a change of CEO

[DSiKn355]

While I am definitely with you in your assessment of DA:I, sales is all that does count for EA. Continuity, artistic value, lore, absence of bugs etc. are all irrelevant to them as long as they don't have a direct effect on the bottom line. And loss of good-will due to bad quality is sadly not readily measurable -- and when it shows in a few years, all the decision makers will already have moved on to other companies and left the onus of cleaning out the piled-up mess to their unfortunate successors.

Also I'm somewhat doubtful about how to make a point about the quality of the game when it reaps GOTY awards left and right. I personally think that all those people who gave it GOTY were either a- desperate because it was the least bad game out of a host of even worse games in that year or b- paid by EA or c- delusional or d- easily pleased. I personally think DA:I is bad, a huge disappointment. It's the first BW game I have absolutely no desire to replay. But that is hard to communicate if the numbers are against you.

 

I understand and agree.

I feel DA:I has only selled this well due it previous titles namely DA:O.

If it was a new title it wouldn't have sold as good.

And a sales chart does show game quality.

 

 

Other sources appear to confirm:

http://www.forbes.co...ir-stock-price/

 

Still only sales and nothing about game quality.

 

For example Battlefield Hardlines which is a "significant success" according to you as it helped as much as DA:I had significant problems on launch which prevented the game from working properly and still has a ton of problems.

 

But just because it sold well does that mean its a great game when it doesn't even work properly?

 

Being biased towards a game you like is fine as that's your personal choice which you are perfectly entitled to but don't lie and try and tell people the game is a "significant success" all because of sales which reflect nothing on the game's quality.

 

For me DA:I is a Lada dressed up as a Porsche,

It has smooth textures worthy of a 2014 game but it's animations are that of a pre 2009 game or worse which then reduces the overall quality of the graphics.

 

Just look at this DA:I kissing scene when compared to Heavy Rain from 2010.

 

 

And then this:

 

 

Notice the difference in animation? Mouths actually moving? No faces colliding?

what's the point in having high quality textures if your animations are gonna be sub-par and let the overall quality down?

 

The poor attempt on graphics is also the same level of poor attempt on the gameplay when the game was intended as another purpose but then changed midway.

[Elhanan]

DAI was ranked #4 on this non-industry list:

[DSiKn355]

DAI was ranked #4 on this non-industry list:

 

 

Really one group of people?

And the same group of people that put a hack and slash and a beat'em up above DA:I?

It really says alot lol.

[CronoDragoon]

Really one group of people?
And the same group of people that put a hack and slash and a beat'em up above DA:I?
It really says alot lol.

What supports your thesis that DA: I only sold well due to branding?

[Torgette]

Really one group of people?

And the same group of people that put a hack and slash and a beat'em up above DA:I?

It really says alot lol.

 

Dark souls 2 was average, but what's wrong with Bayonetta 2 and Smash Bros? Personally my GOTY for 2014 was Far Cry 4.

 

 

Notice the difference in animation? Mouths actually moving? No faces colliding?

what's the point in having high quality textures if your animations are gonna be sub-par and let the overall quality down?

 

The poor attempt on graphics is also the same level of poor attempt on the gameplay when the game was intended as another purpose but then changed midway.

 

Heavy Rain was one of the most awkwardly animated games ever though, so much attention to detail 70% of the time - but the other 30% is hilariously bad.

[Elhanan]

Really one group of people?
And the same group of people that put a hack and slash and a beat'em up above DA:I?
It really says alot lol.

Well, I could add more reviews, GOTY Awards, sales info, and the like, but am guessing there will never be enough evidence to sway the detractors. However, it should be noted that Forbes reviewers did not love the game as many others, yet still give it credit from a business perspective, as well as a new approach:

http://www.forbes.co...ge-inquisition/

The naysayers may not ever like the game; does not detract that the apparent marketplace and sizeable (if not outright majority) of Players and reviewers have a different opinion.

[DSiKn355]

What supports your thesis that DA: I only sold well due to branding?

yeah.

Branding and past glories of Bioware.

 

For me I don't see how BioWare gets rated so highly tbh.

 

I have played SW:KOTOR 1&2, ME Trilogy and now the DA trilogy and The trilogies start well but end terribly.

ME was different because ME2 was the best out of the 3 whereas DA:O is the best out of the 3.

 

BioWare feel like lazy developers to me.

DA:I is just new smoother textures put on top of old character models and old animations.

 

They could have atleast up'd the quality of animations to match the graphics like any other game that is claiming to be "Next Gen" would do.

[CronoDragoon]

yeah.
Branding and past glories of Bioware.

I asked what supports your belief that branding (and the BioWare name) are the only reasons DA: I sold well.