259 réponses à ce sujet

[pdusen]

"Gaming sites love DAI, but actual fans of game not so much. Players tend to give it much lower scores, for example on Metacritic critic have given it 85/100 (average) and players 5.8/10 (average), none of critics have given negative review when majority of reviews from players are negative there. There is quite bit of difference on what players like and what critics like I guess.

I wish people would stop treating metacritic as though it were in any way an accurate gauge of how users feel about a particular game.

[Panda]

I wish people would stop treating metacritic as though it were in any way an accurate gauge of how users feel about a particular game.

 

It's somewhat easy place to compare numbers on and give more exact info, but I guess looking in the DAI forums and what people dislike about the game gives some idea as well. Or just looking threads on this sub-forum about how people don't want the game to be like DAI ^^ 

 

For example:

 

http://forum.bioware...age inquisition

http://forum.bioware...age inquisition

 

It's not like I'm only one who is nervous about ME:A following DAI.

[Mathias]

Unless you have evidence that the new team would rather be making something else and are thus unenthusiastic about ME:A you are fabricating these concerns out of thin air.

 

I've been speaking in speculative context for the most part of this thread. Of course I don't have any hard evidence, but I do have my reasons to feel this way. I don't agree that I'm fabricating anything out of thin air. That's where you and I stand apart. 

 

In 2011 did I have any hard evidence that the quality of writing was going to drop hard in Mass Effect 3? No. All I had was this giant red flag when Casey Hudson said "ME3 is the best place to start the trilogy." Is that evidence? No. But it was enough to have me concerned. And then I played the intro to ME3 and saw that the writers took priority towards catering to new players over the old. 

 

 

​Personally, I'm calling shenanigans. At the sheer rate of movies released per year, Marvel is the quintessential example of milking a brand. There will never come a point where Marvel says "You know what, we've made enough movies, time to close the franchise". As long as they have ticket sales, that's not going to stop any time soon, regardless of their layout of "phase 1" "phase 2", etc.
 

 

Why should they when their movies have been both a commercial and critical success? It's also worth pointing out that they've had a plan for a while now of telling this overarching story leading up to Infinity War. So whether they're milking or not, it can't be denied they've been very successful so far and that fans have responded very positively towards it. So I don't see the issue here.

[Il Divo]

 

Why should they when their movies have been both a commercial and critical success? It's also worth pointing out that they've had a plan for a while now of telling this overarching story leading up to Infinity War. So whether they're milking or not, it can't be denied they've been very successful so far and that fans have responded very positively towards it. So I don't see the issue here.

 

So what exactly is your argument here? Mass Effect as a franchise has also been a commercial and critical success, regardless of fan uproar over the ending. If that's the argument we're putting down, you haven't provided any demonstrable difference between the two.
 

Bioware may as well keep making Mass Effect games because, like Marvel, people will keep buying them.

[Mathias]

So what exactly is your argument here? Mass Effect as a franchise has also been a commercial and critical success, regardless of fan uproar over the ending. If that's the argument we're putting down, you haven't provided any demonstrable difference between the two.
 

Bioware may as well keep making Mass Effect games because, like Marvel, people will keep buying them.

 

I was talking about how open Marvel is about the future for their series.

[Mathias]

 

The ratio of "filler" quests in DA:I to companion and story quests is almost the same as the much lauded DA:O. I have posted this numerous times the facts just don't stand up to this notion that DA:I is this vast wasted land of "filler" quests to meatier quests. It simply not true, there are roughly 5.5 (as i recall) side/filler quests in DA:O compared to ever Main quest or companion quests and in DA:I there are about 6.40 side quests to every companion/main story quest. It is less than one extra quest per "story' quests AND more importantly you need far fewer side quests to keep pace with the main quest in terms of level, as it is VERY easy to out level the main quest in DA:I.

 

The truth is that you can do far fewer side quests per story quests in DA:I than you need to do in DA:O. This narrative that DA:I is filled with filler is false. The facts do not support this position at ALL.

 

This is a quote of a post i made a while ago with all the math facts and sources comparing vanilla DA:O and DA:I.

 

 

 

If you're gonna break it down by the numbers I won't argue with the part about which game technically had more filler. But if people are walking away from DA:O with smiles on their faces, and the same people are walking away from DA:I complaining too much about how side content overtook the main story, then something is wrong, and it was how it was all presented. I mean you can't just say "Well according to my calculations, DA:I is mathematically the better way for them to present their games", because human beings aren't that simple. That's just not a real proper way to try and evoke a positive emotional response from them. So number crunching aside, if a lot of fans are being very vocal about ME:A not being like DA:I, then DA:I shouldn't be how they present their future games. 

 

That said, it took me 50 hours to pretty much 100% DA:O, but it took much longer to 100% DA:I. And I know for a fact I spent more time doing main story content in DA:O than I did DA:I. So whatever numbers you want to crunch is fine with me, I won't tell you you're wrong. But I'm saying from my personal experience, I don't feel the same way you do. 

[Erstus]

It's somewhat easy place to compare numbers on and give more exact info, but I guess looking in the DAI forums and what people dislike about the game gives some idea as well. Or just looking threads on this sub-forum about how people don't want the game to be like DAI ^^

For example:

http://forum.bioware...age inquisition
http://forum.bioware...age inquisition

It's not like I'm only one who is nervous about ME:A following DAI.

What more concerning is the devs stating that MEA will bridge open-world content with the main story very similar to how DAI did.....

[Il Divo]

I was talking about how open Marvel is about the future for their series.

 

Sure, "open". ​But that doesn't really change the key point here. If critical and commercial success is all that matters to making more of a product, Bioware has hit both points. New IP often means risk. Hell, look at Assassin's Creed in recent years. I'm not sure whether we'd say they still have critical success, but their games keep on selling pretty well.

[Panda]

What more concerning is the devs stating that MEA will bridge open-world content with the main story very similar to how DAI did.....

 

Yes, it already sounds so bad   

 

Why are they telling these things to us like it's something positive is mystery to me. Are they going to kill hype? Warn people in advance?

[Mathias]

Sure, "open". ​But that doesn't really change the key point here. If critical and commercial success is all that matters to making more of a product, Bioware has hit both points. New IP often means risk. Hell, look at Assassin's Creed in recent years. I'm not sure whether we'd say they still have critical success, but their games keep on selling pretty well.

 

That's true, new IP's are a risk. But in terms of the Mass Effect franchise, it would be nice if Bioware does have great plans for the franchise and it's fans, instead of "Well let's just develop this game and see what happens I guess." 

 

I would like going into ME:A, knowing there's a bright future ahead for this franchise.

[Mathias]

Yes, it already sounds so bad 

 

Why are they telling these things to us like it's something positive is mystery to me. Are they going to kill hype? Warn people in advance?

 

I think part of the issue is ME:A was well into development by the time fans started being vocal about how much they disliked how DA:I handled balanced Open World and Main Story.

[Sidney]

I actually wrote about this in another thread so I will just copy paste it:
 
"Gaming sites love DAI, but actual fans of game not so much. Players tend to give it much lower scores, for example on Metacritic critic have given it 85/100 (average) and players 5.8/10 (average), none of critics have given negative review when majority of reviews from players are negative there. There is quite bit of difference on what players like and what critics like I guess.
 
I wouldn't say DAI a last straw, not really even bad game, but it was game with many faults, some from design, some from bugs that never got and will be fixed and the game is just simply far from the overwhelming positive reviews it got from game critics"
 
It scares me that game like DAI is seen as success, because it failed in many aspects that people like Bioware's games and is not even that loved within actual gamers. It scares me cause I think ME:A might just do what DAI did without looking into anything that players found wrong with the game: big empty maps, short main story, next to no side quest, fetch quest, lack of cinematic dialogue, bugs..

User reviews are almost wholly useless on those sorts of sites as in any other self selection set unhappy people tend to be the most likely participants.

DAI is as you said far from perfect but sales speak more than reviews and sales are apparently very good.

[Sidney]

If you're gonna break it down by the numbers I won't argue with the part about which game technically had more filler. But if people are walking away from DA:O with smiles on their faces, and the same people are walking away from DA:I complaining too much about how side content overtook the main story, then something is wrong, and it was how it was all presented. I mean you can't just say "Well according to my calculations, DA:I is mathematically the better way for them to present their games", because human beings aren't that simple. That's just not a real proper way to try and evoke a positive emotional response from them. So number crunching aside, if a lot of fans are being very vocal about ME:A not being like DA:I, then DA:I shouldn't be how they present their future games. 
 
That said, it took me 50 hours to pretty much 100% DA:O, but it took much longer to 100% DA:I. And I know for a fact I spent more time doing main story content in DA:O than I did DA:I. So whatever numbers you want to crunch is fine with me, I won't tell you you're wrong. But I'm saying from my personal experience, I don't feel the same way you do.

I've said this before, no you didn't spend more time on the main quest in DAO. What DAO did was structure the game in such a way that all the side quest filler was largely subsumed in other activities. Think about the Roads and all the crap collection and side quests down there. The thing is that you were doing all that in order to "unlock" the Branka part but you did that merely by slogging through a lot of tedious trash mob fights and topsider, asunder collection type quests.

By comparison how DAI would have handled it was to have a Deep Roads map/region filled with the asunder and other types quests that would then unlock a wholly different region that required inquisition points to go handle that would have been the Branka map.

The effect is that time wise your allocation of actual story versus side winds up being the same but the DAO methods creates the illusions on connectedness that DAI rips away. That isn't an arguement FOR DAIs structure - I preferred DAOs- but merely showing how structure can affect the perception of time.

[Kevinc62]

I don't have huge expectations for MEA, but that's just my cynical self. 

Frankly I don't think they have a plan, and that was exactly what bite them in the ass with the original trilogy.

[Paulomedi]

I'm still waiting for a standalone Mass Effect game that's set on The Citadel. You would play as a C-Sec Officer, fighting crime (and/or the red tape), and discovering the Station's dark corners and secrets.

[Faust1979]

I don't think they have long term plans, I doubt they plan, probably just make one at a time and hope they sell

[Panda]

User reviews are almost wholly useless on those sorts of sites as in any other self selection set unhappy people tend to be the most likely participants.

DAI is as you said far from perfect but sales speak more than reviews and sales are apparently very good.

 

I don't think sales speak other than that the game was hyped and popular and that marketing worked. It doesn't mean that the game actually is good and liked though, since people don't usually come for seconds on what it comes to games.

[Mathias]

I've said this before, no you didn't spend more time on the main quest in DAO. What DAO did was structure the game in such a way that all the side quest filler was largely subsumed in other activities. Think about the Roads and all the crap collection and side quests down there. The thing is that you were doing all that in order to "unlock" the Branka part but you did that merely by slogging through a lot of tedious trash mob fights and topsider, asunder collection type quests.

By comparison how DAI would have handled it was to have a Deep Roads map/region filled with the asunder and other types quests that would then unlock a wholly different region that required inquisition points to go handle that would have been the Branka map.

The effect is that time wise your allocation of actual story versus side winds up being the same but the DAO methods creates the illusions on connectedness that DAI rips away. That isn't an arguement FOR DAIs structure - I preferred DAOs- but merely showing how structure can affect the perception of time.

 

That's part of what I meant by presentation. The filler in DA:O meshed quite well into the main story, that I never felt like I was wasting my time on drivel. In fact a lot of those side quests tied in to the main task I had, involving gaining the treaties from the different factions, so they felt very much like a part of the story. I didn't get that feeling from most of DA:I's filler. 

[Mathias]

I don't think they have long term plans, I doubt they plan, probably just make one at a time and hope they sell

 

And really, that's what my concern is in it's most basic form. 

[Killroy]

The ratio of "filler" quests in DA:I to companion and story quests is almost the same as the much lauded DA:O. I have posted this numerous times the facts just don't stand up to this notion that DA:I is this vast wasted land of "filler" quests to meatier quests. It simply not true, there are roughly 5.5 (as i recall) side/filler quests in DA:O compared to ever Main quest or companion quests and in DA:I there are about 6.40 side quests to every companion/main story quest. It is less than one extra quest per "story' quests AND more importantly you need far fewer side quests to keep pace with the main quest in terms of level, as it is VERY easy to out level the main quest in DA:I.
 
The truth is that you can do far fewer side quests per story quests in DA:I than you need to do in DA:O. This narrative that DA:I is filled with filler is false. The facts do not support this position at ALL.
 
This is a quote of a post i made a while ago with all the math facts and sources comparing vanilla DA:O and DA:I.

Not all filler is created equally. I enjoyed the sidequests in Origins. I was bored to death with the "sidequests" in Inquisition. The sidequests in Origins feel like added flavor and excitement. The sidequests in Inquisition feel like last minute additions to fill giant, lifeless maps.

[Faust1979]

Planning out is tricky and creating stories or planning out in advance is tricky just look at what happened to Xenosaga they had four or five games mapped out before hand and all that came crashing down when they were forced to wrap up the game's story in the third one. You never know how well it will do or what will have to be changed later on

[pdusen]

It's somewhat easy place to compare numbers on and give more exact info, but I guess looking in the DAI forums and what people dislike about the game gives some idea as well. Or just looking threads on this sub-forum about how people don't want the game to be like DAI ^^ 

 

For example:

 

http://forum.bioware...age inquisition

http://forum.bioware...age inquisition

 

It's not like I'm only one who is nervous about ME:A following DAI.

 

So you think that the fact that you can find people with a particular opinion somehow makes metacritic more objective? What in blazes are you talking about?

[Panda]

So you think that the fact that you can find people with a particular opinion somehow makes metacritic more objective? What in blazes are you talking about?

 

No, I offered alternative?

[pdusen]

No, I offered alternative?

 

Okay, except my criticism of Metacritic applies to BSN equally. You can't look at insular communities like this and take them as representative of gamers as a whole, when the truth is that most gamers don't consider themselves part of any community or go to any forum like this.

[Panda]

Okay, except my criticism of Metacritic applies to BSN equally. You can't look at insular communities like this and take them as representative of gamers as a whole, when the truth is that most gamers don't consider themselves part of any community or go to any forum like this.

 

I'm talking about gamers who are into Bioware and Bioware's games, not casual players who haven't played previous Bioware's games and just happened to pick DAI up.

 

The thing is that people who love Bioware's games didn't like DAI that much and have stated reasons why they didn't, sadly Bioware does seem to ignore these concerns and even uses things people are concerned about as selling points of game.