GOTY means nothing because for one, we don't know how many of those websites EA paid to give a perfect score and second, it doesn't matter how many good reviews it gets if a lot of the fans (Bioware's customers) are unhappy with the game.
What about the GOTY awards that are based on player votes?
Have to say I never expected them to care too much for the metacritic response, but it does sound like Mike is disappointed the game didn't make it to the 90 mark.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
You don't know? EA payed everyone to vote.
You didn't get your money?
It's nonsense, of course, but that's how these guys and gals work. I've lost count of how many times someone implied or just yelled EA was paying me for liking the game.
I don't think anyone was paid myself, but I still don't think much of those reviews anyways. It came at a time when people needed a new game in this vein.. and it's not complete crap.. And it doesn't have much competition either.
But the whole Game of the Year thing makes it sound more awe inspiring than it really is. It's just a decent game. I'll leave it at that.
As for nailing their formula, I'm bummed out by that. Since I think they did some things better with DA2. I don't want them to have some impression that they did things wrong in the past, and are simply nailing it now. I think that game was treated in the opposite fashion: A lot of undeserved negativity. And now Bioware has been left with the impression it's only doing something right now.
What about the GOTY awards that are based on player votes?
Well, it's not like 2014 was an awesome year for games anyway, so there wasn't much competition to begin with. I would actually love if DAI got delayed again and come out this year instead. It would be interesting to see how many GOTY it would won then.
I don't think anyone was paid myself, but I still don't think much of those reviews anyways. It came at a time when people needed a new game in this vein.. and it's not complete crap.. And it doesn't have much competition either.
But the whole Game of the Year thing makes it sound more awe inspiring than it really is. It's just a decent game. I'll leave it at that.
As for nailing their formula, I'm bummed out by that. Since I think they did some things better with DA2. I don't want them to have some impression that they did things wrong in the past, and are simply nailing it now. I think that game was treated in the opposite fashion: A lot of undeserved negativity. And now Bioware has been left with the impression it's only doing something right now.
The issue is, look at some other games on that list. Most of them are just games. Some of them are truly standouts in their genre, or in gaming as whole, but many of them are simply solid games in their genre.
Release date is a big deal, as we've seen. Something like The Walking Dead likely wouldn't have had a chance against The Last of Us. There are games on the list I enjoyed, some I didn't. I like Bioshock for instance, but I don't think it holds a candle to System Shock 2, or Bioshock: Infinite. Resident Evil 4 was an awesome game, but I would have put it far behind F.E.A.R., Devil May Cry 3, and Psyconauts. My point is, a lot of games on that list are just games, very few broke new ground (as good, and well executed as Uncharted 2 is, it's still the same formula as Drake's Fortune for example).
I'll agree with your final point. DA2's primary issue, in my mind, was a lack of development time, and polish. I'm also frustrated that the moral taken from the backlash was to scrap almost everything that I enjoyed from the game. That said, I generally like the result, Inquisition does a lot of things well in my eyes. I'll gladly admit the game's flawed in one key area, and that's sidequest with meaningful choices, and the lack of quest-givers with stories to pursue and development.
Edit: Saying that if the game came out this year it would have failed to win awards is irrelevant. Someone else once pointed out, if the game came out in 2000 it would have dominated the competition and like smashed sales records. If it came out in 2012 it likely would have won, and if it came out this year it may not have. Here's more news, if most anything went against something like Half Life, or The Last of Us, it would have lost, whether it be this, or The Witcher, or whatever. If Half Life 3 dropped tomorrow, then there's a good chance that anything that comes out in 2015 is out of luck come awards time. Timing is important, but Game of the Year awards are usually a pretty solid indicator of, at the very least, a good game. Absolutely none of the games on that list I would consider bad, even if Walking Dead isn't my cup of tea.
The point about the GOTYs is not that DAI is the best game ever, it isn't,
but it is a decent game.
The issue I have with some of the debate from those who dislike the evolution in focus, is not that they express their disappointment with the more 'action style' gameplay which has actually been evolving that way for a long time, not just now, but that their disappointment expresses itself as 'I don't like it = it sucks = reviewers were paid off = loyal fans don't like it, and so on. That's their own perception talking.
It's perfectly possible to have a constructive discussion about that disappointment. I particularly found Darkly Tranquil's analysis to be both constructive, intelligent and really helpful for understanding where the concerns lay.
Additionally, one 'not being surprised' or 'suspecting', or believing something is 'probably true', does not make it so.
Don't get me wrong, now Frostbite 3 can handle animals (!) I would like to see future iterations of the series do more with gameplay, content and story, learning from DAI and what could be improved further.
From articles I've read about game development, I understand that features sometimes don't turn out as developers hope. Some of the things BSN complains about, BioWare will rightly dismiss as whining, other things they will recognise as conclusions they reached themselves and are on the list for attention next time.
The article with Mike shows that a good perception of reality is alive and well at BioWare and time at the office is not just spent polishing the GOTY's. There will always be things that are just too raw to be expressed in public, for the sake of the 'marketing face'.
How the next patch goes and the quality of future SP & MP DLC will also give a clue as to what is in BioWare's mind.
i don't think it's about disliking the evolution. if it was, some of us would play platformers instead of games such as DA, others would find more constructive pastime.
it's not about software evolution anymore, it's about streamlining and making games easier/cheaper to develop, maximizing profit by creating them as robust for new players (who don't have the time or will to learn more sophisticated mechanics) as platformers were, but with interesting, yet linear - easier to implement, story.
Have to say I never expected them to care too much for the metacritic response, but it does sound like Mike is disappointed the game didn't make it to the 90 mark.
@Lee T:
funny. i'm pretty convinced if those suits kept their hands away from DAI development and let the team really do what they wanted, the metascore would be much much higher
Yep, unfortunately the kind of people that climb their way up the food chain in these large structures are often convinced they are always right no matter the actual area of their field of expertise.
Yep, unfortunately the kind of people that climb their way up the food chain in these large structures are often convinced they are always right no matter the actual area of their field of expertise.
exactly! that's why studios which are not owned by publishers like EA don't exist... oh wait
It does not matter what studio it is the game eventually has to go out the door. Very few studios have the luxury of the game will ship when its done. Activision-Blizzard can do this because it has a cash cow in WOW. Valve can do it because it has Steam.
EA is trying to do it with Origin but EA is not there yet. CDProjectk's parent company has GOG.com, but even CDprojectk knows the game has to go out the door. Even with the delay given to CDProjectk I doubt they will be able to go back to the parent company and say we need more time Witcher 3 is not ready.
The product either goes out the door at in a suitable time frame or it gets canned. Companies will not keep putting money into a project that keeps getting delayed.
No company wants to put out a game that barely breaks even or loses money.
What about the GOTY awards that are based on player votes?
This have been long before covered. The amount of votes are barely noticeable. If you had something like 200.000 people voting and 50.000 people voted for Inquisition, which would account for something like 1% or the players which would still be too low but perhaps it could be considered something, but numbers don't even come close to this. A handful of fanatics voted and that's it.
This have been long before covered. The amount of votes are barely noticeable. If you had something like 200.000 people voting and 50.000 people voted for Inquisition, which would account for something like 1% or the players which would still be too low but perhaps it could be considered something, but numbers don't even come close to this. A handful of fanatics voted and that's it.
If you look on BSN on an average day you will see a handful of fanatics hating the game.
Did those fanatics not get the voting e-mail?
Or was it only selected fanatics who are allowed to vote about selected games?
Fanatics of all kinds are a representative (if fanatical) cross-section of the gaming population.
Just because your point has been covered before doesn't add any logic to the sentiment sadly 
On balance, in numerous player-voted GOTYs, DAI was most successful,
so from a fanatics perspective it was, er, hated least 
@Realmzmaster
no one here argues a game must be profitable. otherwise there is no point in wasting time creating it.
my post is directed at Psychevore's patronizing and annoying post in which he/she claims developers are incompetent people who don't recognize when it's time to stop adding new 'cool' features and focus on polishing.
franky, i think the guys he believes are there to keep project financially feasable are the ones that scream 'put giants! make it more skyrim!' instead of encouraging devs to be more original and focus on their strengths.
i don't think it's about disliking the evolution. if it was, some of us would play platformers instead of games such as DA, others would find more constructive pastime.
it's not about software evolution anymore, it's about streamlining and making games easier/cheaper to develop, maximizing profit by creating them as robust for new players (who don't have the time or will to learn more sophisticated mechanics) as platformers were, but with interesting, yet linear - easier to implement, story.
Somebody, hit a nail on the head.. 
I also think that this brings up an interesting division in the demographics. Younger crowd is used to liner easier games, older crowd was used to complex games, and feels like the newer games are too easy and dumbed down (and it bores them). Younger crowd used to liner/lazy games, complains that complex game is too hard.
@Realmzmaster
no one here argues a game must be profitable. otherwise there is no point in wasting time creating it.
my post is directed at Psychevore's patronizing and annoying post in which he/she claims developers are incompetent people who don't recognize when it's time to stop adding new 'cool' features and focus on polishing.
franky, i think the guys he believes are there to keep project financially feasable are the ones that scream 'put giants! make it more skyrim!' instead of encouraging devs to be more original and focus on their strengths.
franky, i think the guys he believes are there to keep project financially feasable are the ones that scream 'put giants! make it more skyrim!' instead of encouraging devs to be more original and focus on their strengths.
What do you base that on please?
Why would a parent company get into that detail?
They hire studio directors to make those decisions and project manage the game within a budget for them, surely.
I also think that this brings up an interesting division in the demographics. Younger crowd is used to liner easier games, older crowd was used to complex games, and feels like the newer games are too easy and dumbed down (and it bores them). Younger crowd used to liner/lazy games, complains that complex game is too hard.
I don't really think that's how the demographics work. Or at least, it's not something that rings inherently true. Many "older" gamers have families and their time gets severely limited, so they may appreciate shorter, simpler games. In any case, many older gamers on this board like DA: I, so either the demo point doesn't totally ring true, or DA: I is not a dumbed down/lazy game.
franky, i think the guys he believes are there to keep project financially feasable are the ones that scream 'put giants! make it more skyrim!' instead of encouraging devs to be more original and focus on their strengths.
While that's possible, I don't really see any evidence for it. It's equally plausible that those most excited to make the game (the devs) are the ones most subject to the lure of feature creep, whereas the suits are more concerned about getting the game out in a reasonable fashion.
This have been long before covered. The amount of votes are barely noticeable. If you had something like 200.000 people voting and 50.000 people voted for Inquisition, which would account for something like 1% or the players which would still be too low but perhaps it could be considered something, but numbers don't even come close to this. A handful of fanatics voted and that's it.
I've been on the BSN too long to buy the authenticity of this argument. If 200,000 people had voted on a "Biggest Disappointment" poll and DA: I won, would you apply this argument or use it as evidence that fans didn't like the game?
(to AWTEW) That is very much a generalisation of not only both crowds but also old and modern games.
Quote
"I think there's a desire for pursuing that a little further but it doesn't have to end that discussion. It's a bit of tightrope, and one that I can't possibly discuss - biggest spoilers in the universe! [But] it's something we're very cognisant of."
Sounds like they will pursue what happened in that cutscene which is what I was hoping for.
What do you base that on please?
Why would a parent company get into that detail?They hire studio directors to make those decisions and project manage the game within a budget for them, surely.
if publisher has the power to do this, the publisher may as well sit in sprint sessions and frown upon any brilliant idea dev team came up with, which in his mind won't sell and it's pointless waste of time, whilst spouting copy&paste propaganda
/shrug
Eh. They got a whole extra year and released the game with broken skills, while adding two extra love interests of which one turns out be to be critical to the plot.
I think that speaks for itself.
well, you got a point
Retour en haut