And an irrelevant one in the grand scheme of things, because as you said, better is subjective in this instance, so the majority's opinion usually doesn't matter to the individual.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the "majority's opinion usually doesn't matter to the individual." Companies usually do track 'majority opinion" in some way... and I suspect Bioware has internally taken some note of TW3's reception by the critics long before now.
All this objective/subjective is silly all societies incorporate concepts of right and/or wrong into everything.
Most here are just frustrated and confused their models don't work games people are going to gravitate to and they don't, so it must all be "impossibly subjective" and because it doesn't fit paradigm about what's good or bad. In the US right and wrong for instance are based on patriarchical models of morality, right is if your a man to be very evil and harsh, anything else is wrong, woman must be pure and good and dumb and everything else is wrong. It's instilled at an early age and reinforced through years of compulsory education.
In fairness, other societies just impose their own brand which may or may not be problematic in a different way, but nonetheless.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the "majority's opinion usually doesn't matter to the individual." Companies usually do track 'majority opinion" in some way... and I suspect Bioware has internally taken some note of TW3's reception by the critics long before now.
Well it matters to the developer but not really to the individual player.
The fact that I think TW3 is a better game is completely irrelevant to people who like DA:I more. It doesn't somehow affect their enjoyment of Inquisition, unless they really feel the need to have their opinion validated by random strangers on the internet.
But that's just it, the game was advertised as a "rise to power" Hawke going from penniless refugee to Champion of Kirkwall.
But whatever you think of the story (and I admit, I didn't find it awful) many people simply didn't feel that rise.
Though that's separate from the limited choices and consequences issue you raised earlier -- the question there is whether the kind of power that Hawke rises to is actually useful. Turns out you can do some things, but you can't do others, and the really big stuff turns out to be in the "other" category.
This, of course, is a staple of historical heroic literature. But if you want to say that it comes across as a bait-and-switch in the CRPG context, feel free.
Alot of ppl expressed "disappoint" for the ending that all. Over all ME 3 isnt a bad game. The 3 color ending didnt set well. That probably all.
ME3 had problems, star kid; dreams (if they had to include dreams why not have the one you left behind giving you the nightmares); no/or little neutral options; Shepard turning into a character I didn't always recognize; but yes, the ending is why I played it 3 or 4 times instead of the 20 - 30 replays I did with ME1 and 2. And their other games. I still pull out KOTOR, JE and the DA group.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the "majority's opinion usually doesn't matter to the individual." Companies usually do track 'majority opinion" in some way... and I suspect Bioware has internally taken some note of TW3's reception by the critics long before now.
So it matters in the sense that majority opinion determines what games get made, at least in the AAA space. For instance, we're going to see exploration bolted on every CRPG for the next few years whether it makes sense or not.
It doesn't somehow affect their enjoyment of Inquisition, unless they really feel the need to have their opinion validated by random strangers on the internet.
I'm not sure it's enough to just enjoy a game for some folks. You need to cultivate a nice, robust hatred for other game, too.
Though that's separate from the limited choices and consequences issue you raised earlier -- the question there is whether the kind of power that Hawke rises to is actually useful. Turns out you can do some things, but you can't do others, and the really big stuff turns out to be in the "other" category.
This, of course, is a staple of historical heroic literature. But if you want to say that it comes across as a bait-and-switch in the CRPG context, feel free.
But Hawke can make numerous choices that can affect Kirkwall. Most of those turn out to have minimal effect, if that. For spending a decade in a city "rising to power" Hawke's decision have very little impact.
Hawke becomes rich and famous, but until mark of the Assassin doesn't rally rub elbows with anyone of consequence save as a hired merc.
Leandra, the Bone Pit, Grace, Elthina, even the sibling (to a greater or lesser degree)... Hawke is so plagued by tragedy, the is Dragon Age's Butt-Monkey
edit: I actually think DAI's Inquisitor was a too-strong response to that, as you go from condemned prisoner to savior of Thedas with rather unseemly haste...
Well it matters to the developer but not really to the individual player.
The fact that I think TW3 is a better game is completely irrelevant to people who like DA:I more. It doesn't somehow affect their enjoyment of Inquisition, unless they really feel the need to have their opinion validated by random strangers on the internet.
That depends. It obviously matters to some individual players, since some people do decide what they buy based on critic reviews and, therefore, never give themselves the opportunity to make a personal judgment. That bad reviews will convince some prospective purchasers to not try the game is, I suspect, one reason why developers track critical opinion, is it not?
I like CDPR a lot more than BioWare these days. But really though who cares, why does anyone care? Its not that hard to ignore threads. I mean sure it would be great if BioWare gave a crap about there forum but that's not the world we live in.
That depends. It obviously matters to some individual players, since some people do decide what they buy based on critic reviews and, therefore, never give themselves the opportunity to make a personal judgment. That bad reviews will convince some prospective purchasers to not try the game is, I suspect, one reason why developers track critical opinion, is it not?
I think that mostly just convinces people to buy the game, but doesn't necessarily alter their opinion of how much fun they had with it.
It matters to the marketing of the game, just not nearly as much to how much the actual player liked the game.
I'm not sure it's enough to just enjoy a game for some folks. You need to cultivate a nice, robust hatred for other game, too.
Yeah, unfortunately the evidence is that at least those who frequent gaming forums do this a lot.
Yeah, unfortunately the evidence is that at least those who frequent gaming forums do this a lot.
You can probably extrapolate it out to pretty much anything that human beings take an interest in, but yes, gamers specifically are frequently a common thread..
So it matters in the sense that majority opinion determines what games get made, at least in the AAA space. For instance, we're going to see exploration bolted on every CRPG for the next few years whether it makes sense or not.
Majority opinion probably does influence the decisions companies make about how they design their games into the future. That is, they probably make efforts to glean future trends from what is popular today. What they interpret from those indicators though probably varies though from company to company. Any company can still misread (or mis-predict) what will be popular 3 and 4 years away. Some companies are more consistent at reading trends "correctly" than others, but the success of anything is certainly not guaranteed. Again, my point is that the time frame for doing all of that analysis with respect to deciding what direction to take ME:A happened ages ago. Even if Bioware now feels they may have misread the trend, they still would, IMO, not be well advised to drastically change their set course for ME:A too much based merely on the success of another game... and for all we know, they may have predicted the trend for early 2017 perfectly despite having possibly "missed" a little with DA:I back in 2013 or earlier (when they announced that game).
The way I've read the OP and the title is that he/she is wanting Bioware to suddenly shift the course of ME:A to be like TW3... and regardless of whether one likes TW3 or not, I'm saying that it is just not a good idea to change things like that this late in development.
edit: I actually think DAI's Inquisitor was a too-strong response to that, as you go from condemned prisoner to savior of Thedas with rather unseemly haste...
Most people would have spread that out over more than one day.
~Varric Tethras
Bioware is the norm and CDPR is the exception to the norm. Bioware are shackled by EA, this we all know, and so are many many other developers who are shackled to their publisher (with the exception of Blizzard). Of course the core of the game is done so nothing would change by then, we will see what they will show us in a week. Creating games are a massive investment that the executive suits will want to keep them as safe as possible, so you will see mostly singular trend setters and legions of games that go with what works and nothing more, Bioware is not different. Expect ME:A to be closer to TW3 than DA:I was. Like DA2 tried to capitalize on ME2's success, and DA:I tried to capitalize on the rise of open world games (and maybe it was a canceled MMO half way into development).
The problem is that the fanbase sees some which should be "cons" as "pros", like the "coolness" of Renegade Shepard.
I will give you great characters and great DLC, but here is the thing. Why should I pay for a proper ending of the game? Why not have the Shadow Broker be part of the plot and have Liara take his spot as part of the plot to find the Collectors? Why can't the Suicide Mission be to stop the Arrival?
the "problem" that you are referring to, is your opinion on what the problem is. just like how it was ppl's opinion that renegade shepard was "cool" in me2. everyone's entitled to their opinion but that doesnt make any one of them a fact. its not a fact that that is indeed a problem with ME2 or its fanbase.
and to counter the point of the arrival dlc, the same could have been said about the From the Ashes dlc in me3 as well as the leviathan dlc. personally those two sets of content existing as dlc felt like a joke to me, and the catalyst was the punchline, but that's just my opinion.
BioWare should not make TW3 set in space.
The DAI = MMO argument never made a heck of a lot of sense. Would EA really have wanted two Bio MMOs?
If it looks like an MMO, plays like an MMO, and plagued by rumors about having been developed as an MMO...
Well, there's probably some fire under that smoke.
Besides, TOR is desperately trying to pretend that it's actually a SP game because it failed to meet expectations as a supposed "WOW killer",
especially considering the supposedly high development costs, and have been circling down the drain for awhile now,
so the "two Bio MMO's" argument isn't very accurate.
If it looks like an MMO, plays like an MMO, and plagued by rumors about having been developed as an MMO...
Well, there's probably some fire under that smoke.
Besides, TOR is desperately trying to pretend that it's actually a SP game because it failed to meet expectations as a supposed "WOW killer",
especially considering the supposedly high development costs, and have been circling down the drain for awhile now,
so the "two Bio MMO's" argument isn't very accurate.
One small correction:
While TOR definitely wasn't the WoW-killer it was hyped to be, it is not "circling the drain" It's apparently one of the more profitable (non Warcraft) MMOs out there.
And yes, combat-wise, DAI definitely felt like a multiplayer game in a single player "campaign mode"
And I think EA would support anything and everything that would encourage players to whip out their credit cards and microtransaction away.
If it looks like an MMO, plays like an MMO, and plagued by rumors about having been developed as an MMO...
Well, there's probably some fire under that smoke.
Besides, TOR is desperately trying to pretend that it's actually a SP game because it failed to meet expectations as a supposed "WOW killer",
especially considering the supposedly high development costs, and have been circling down the drain for awhile now,
so the "two Bio MMO's" argument isn't very accurate.
but it doesn't look like an MMO, Dragon Age has always played like a hotkey MMO since Origins, and the rumours appear to be completely baseless.
The side quests being linear is about the only real thing that would suggest any sort of actual MMO design.
It's a stretch to say that ToR is circling the drain considering that it got a second expansion not all that long ago. Sure it failed spectacularly in trying to dethrone World of Warcraft, but it did seem to finally carve itself out a niche and is getting regular content updates.
Considering that DA:I came out a year and a half ago and ToR is still kicking, I would say that the two MMOs is perfectly accurate.
I don't have any MMO experience. How does MMO combat feel?And yes, combat-wise, DAI definitely felt like a multiplayer game in a single player "campaign mode"
I don't have any MMO experience. How does MMO combat feel?
I know that threat management is an MMO-derived concept -- which I hate, FWIW -- but that's not DAI-specific.
I don't know about MMOs specifically, but you did mention threat management.. Which is part of the "Trinity" of multiplayer play: tank, damage, healer (or "barrier" in this case) Maker help you if you try to stray from your assigned role. All the DA games had this to some degree, but it felt especially rigid in DAI.
I don't know about MMOs specifically, but you did mention threat management.. Which is part of the "Trinity" of multiplayer play: tank, damage, healer (or "barrier" in this case) Maker help you if you try to stray from your assigned role. All the DA games had this to some degree, but it felt especially rigid in DAI.
Retour en haut