65 réponses à ce sujet

[Stompi]

I'm glad that they are developing both series, because DA + ME > almost every other game.

If I had to choose, I would probably choose DA because I'm not really a Sci-Fi fan and Dragon Age is the longest singleplayer I have played in many years. I'm glad that I don't have to.

[Abriael_CG]

Veex wrote...
I never said Dragon Age needed the assistance of sales from Mass Effect to continue to be the game it is. I stated that the additional revenue from a more commercially successful project like Mass Effect 2 will help make Dragon Age the game it should be. Gaining additional funds and resources can do nothing but help bolster an ambitious project like Dragon Age, I don't really see how that is a debatable point.

Does Dragon Age have enough of a fan base for it to continue to develop? Absolutely. Will more resources help that development? Yes.

Dragon Age is already the game it should be. It won't become "the game it should be" thanks to ME2's sales. "More commercially successful"? Where exactly did you get that data? ME2 sold a lot, but that's far from saying that it already outsold DA:O. It quite probably didn't, even because DA:O already started bringing in additional money with the DLCs and will soon with an expansion (while it's most probable the ME2 won't have a boxed expansion at all).

Mass Effect 2 is primarily a console game, as such it will have the sales curve of a console game. High at the beginning, but will slow down fast. Dragon Age: Origins is primarily a PC game, and is having and will have the sales curve of a PC game, sloping down much slower than a console game, expecially due to the high moddability that will keep the contents fresh and up to par with newer games, like it happened with Oblivion.

So no. Mass Effect 2 is not yet a "more commercially successful project" and it's definitely not ya given that it will be. As much as ME2 is a good game (with whole ton of cut corners, that do hamper it's quality a bit), it's success simply has no bearing to Dragon Age 2, that is an equally successful game in it's own right and most surely doesn't need any "additional" funding from other sources.

[Loerwyn]

Dragon Age, for me, is by far the more superior game. It's got a deeper storyline, a good selection of characters who are all well written with pretty plausible stories and I find that the interface is just a lot better. I've played RPGs for over a decade, and 2 of those years were spent playing WoW heavily so it's a pretty natural feel for me. I actually cared about my character and what happened to her. I actually shouted "YES!" when Gorim said he'd go back to Orzammar with her, for example.
ME2 was a great game, but I've never really felt like picking it back up now I've finished it. It was a very... Hmm, I can't really put words to it, but I don't feel it really has the replay value DAO does. I'm a huge fantasy nut, but I fell in love with the Mass Effect universe, but something about ME2 didn't click with me in the same way Fallout 3/Dragon Age have.

Modifié par OnlyShallow89, 07 février 2010 - 02:10 .

[Fhaileas]

DAO by far! Abriael_CG has nicely articulated the reasons as to why.



ME1 was a great game but ME2 was absolutely abysmal in comparison -- I would go so far as to say it was loathsome and did quite a bit to tarnish Bioware's image in my mind.

[highcastle]

I agree with the OP. I've been a BioWare fan since the Baldur's Gate days, so Dragon Age is really more of my cup of tea to begin with. But I really enjoyed ME1 and was eager to get my hands on the sequel. Unfortunately, I just didn't find it as engaging as DA or ME1. The heart of DA lay in all its side characters, who behaved and reacted to you just like real people. But ME2's NPCs didn't want anything to do with you until their loyalty missions...and these cropped up halfway through the game, meaning you had a bunch of sullen people on your ship who wouldn't talk to you before that. I was more annoyed with them than anything else, and was so frustrated going into the final mission, it failed to affect me at all.

In DA, however, NPCs talk to you and each other constantly. They always make their presence felt, and they only give you their personal quests when they've gotten to know you already. You know, like actual people. Plus, the choices you have to make in DA seem a lot more engaging. Since this is a no spoilers forum, I won't go into details on that account.

I'm glad ME2 has had such success, since it'll ensure BioWare stays around to keep making games. It's just not my personal idea of a great game. Dragon Age is.

[NotMyName13]

Gameplay wise:

ME1 was like a big slice of cake: good ratio of icing and cake. ME2 had much better icing, but they forgot to include the cake.

Both are good once in a while, but I would much rather have the steak and potatoes that DA serves up everyday(even though I am a huge SciFi fan).

Modifié par NotMyName13, 07 février 2010 - 04:31 .

[pharos_gryphon]

Despite some ideological issues (the decision to axe gay romance in ME series being the main one), I'm very much a fan of both games. Bioware just doesn't know how to make bad ones. That being said, I think ME works better in the short term but would hold up less to extended scrutiny. DA on the other hand is a much more diverse setting with the possibility for any number of exciting spin offs, be they games based out of Orlais, or delving into the Qunari culture... there's that sense of a cohesive, complex, and fleshed out world that seemed a little lacking in ME's intergalactic society that could be summed up as 'aggressive bird people', 'blue hot chicks', and 'smart salamanders'. Obviously I'm making a gross generalization since ME -does- have an in depth story and well told plot with memorable characters... but as a setting, for the long term, DA seems the more valuable property.

[Llane Lightbringer]

The whole argument is moot.



It's like comparing apples and strawberries.

[Abriael_CG]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

ME2 was a great game, but I've never really felt like picking it back up now I've finished it. It was a very... Hmm, I can't really put words to it, but I don't feel it really has the replay value DAO does. I'm a huge fantasy nut, but I fell in love with the Mass Effect universe, but something about ME2 didn't click with me in the same way Fallout 3/Dragon Age have.

I'll tell you why (or at least my own reason why). DA:O has a widely branching choice system. Decision in the game go from the "purely good" to the "quite evil" with a few in-between, and there are several choices that are simply choices, without one being "better" than the other, or having a clear moral value. They're simply more equally viable areas of the game to explore.

On the other hand, the mass effect series has only two viable choices, paragon and renegade (neutral ones are inconsequential, and they only deprieve you of valuable points). Paragon is the ultimate paladin and Renegade is the ultimate idiot with his brain burned by steroids (chaotic stupid). This tends to polarize many gamers, that tend to find only one of the two options playable. For instance, I hate the way renegade shepard behaves, it's completely idiotic, so I'm not going to have fun playing it. This basically leaves me only one route in the game to play, with very few variation. All things considered Mass Effect basically has only two fixed tracks with a few switches in between, and whatever you do, you always know in what tracks you are, because the game TELLS you what choice is the paragon and which one is the renegade one. You don't even need to think about it.

This hampers the replayability of the game majorly.

in addition to that, character builds in Mass Effect aren't that different from each other. Whatever class you chose, the experience will vary but only marginally. Also, your companions will always be the same, there will be no change in their abilities.

In Dragon Age character builds can vary a LOT (even for most NPCs) and this means that the experience of playing different classes, or even different builds in the same class, can make the gameplay very different. Add to this the different origins (that in ME are almost inconsequential), and you get an immense difference in variation between the two games.

With companion it's the same. In ME there's generally one companion for each mission that will react differently than the other. varying the companions you carry with you won't add much to the game. In  DA:O there's a whole other level of variation, between banter and interaction will change a lot depending on who you bring.

In conclusion. Wheter you have very poralized "moral" ideas on your character or not, DA:O has the potential of being many different games, encouraging replayability a lot. ME is always the same game, or, if you don't have problems with playing the space village idiot, two. It's longevity is much more limited.

After my first playthrough i didn't feel compelled to play ME2 again, until some major DLC (probably Kasumi) will be added. DA:O? I'll probably play it over and over until DA2.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 07 février 2010 - 07:30 .

[Maria13]

I've played about 7hrs of ME2 and over 100 of DA. I must say DA is a hands down winner. Quite apart from the fact that DA is more my cup of tea, ME2 just feels infantile in comparison. No depth, not much politics, the combat is shoot, shoot, shoot like an arcade game. Combat is far trickier and more strategic in DA. And that's not even going into the area where DA is the master, the relationships...

[ArconisX]

I think a lot of it is that the games focus on different aspects of gaming.

ME2 is more about gun fights, action, and exploration and ultimately saving the galaxy.

DA:O was never really about combat, but, about the characters and how they interact to a much higher degree then ME1 or ME2. I personally think it comes down to the targeted audiance and what those steotypes like in a videa game.

I like both games myself, but, ME2 has got me for awhile just because I like an action shooter RPG more than a pen and paper RPG which is what DA:O comes down to when you look at the combat system. I agree with the characters in DA:O have much greater meaning, but, the entire game revolves around the characters and their role in defeating the blight where ME2 is about a fight.. Also keep in mind ME is a space opera and we haven't seen the final part of it yet and I have a feeling ME3 is going to bring everything together in a very "I see why they did that now!" way.

[Onyx Jaguar]

This thread is Blasphemy!

Just on stability alone I mean ME2 is well polished, DA almost seems like a Beta release by comparison.

EDIT:  Then again I am a massive ME fanboy, as well as a fanboy for polished games (Hurrah Nintendo!)

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 08 février 2010 - 09:57 .

[astrallite]

People vote by their wallets. Seems like Mass Effect is already on par with Dragon Age in 1 week.

[alek2702]

ME2 is a fun game but I prefer DAO.

DA is all about characters and story while ME (especially 2) is more about fighting. It's just a matter of which one you prefer.

[Abriael_CG]

astrallite wrote...

People vote by their wallets. Seems like Mass Effect is already on par with Dragon Age in 1 week.

Not really. Not even close actually.
And the comparison is unfitting. You're comparing an established IP with a new one. Commercially speaking it's a skewed comparison (established IPs always sell more, expecially at the beginning).

[Wompoo]

Can't see myself playing more then 2 games of ME2 at a push. The story is light and not terribly satisfying, actually totally forgettable. The end boss almost made me laugh, it was so damn childish. DA:O's story and characters annoy me quite often (personal tastes), but provides a superior experience in every way. Companion interaction is dismal in ME2, wasn't all rose in in DA:O either, but still far far more entertaining.

[fchopin]

ME2 is not in the same class as DA:O, not even close.



ME1 is one of my favourite games, shame bioware changed the theme of the game and turned it in to a shooter game.

If bioware wanted to make a shooter game i would have no problem but why change a game like ME1 when it was doing great.

[spernus]

fchopin wrote...

ME2 is not in the same class as DA:O, not even close.

ME1 is one of my favourite games, shame bioware changed the theme of the game and turned it in to a shooter game.
If bioware wanted to make a shooter game i would have no problem but why change a game like ME1 when it was doing great.

ME is probably not the game they wanted to make,but Bioware lacked experience with the Unreal engine and shooters.

By the way,Dragon age:origins sold 2 700 000 copies and shipped 3 200 000. It doesn't need Mass effect to be viable in any shape or form.

Mass effect 2 will outsell it,but Dragon age is perfectly viable.

[Vicious]

ME2 is pretty awesome, more epic than DAO which is a tad too 'Bioware formulaic'

[Gilsa]

I love both games. I wish the romances in ME2 were slightly better (DAO spoiled me), but they're both fantastic games. I could not pick between the two. I'm just happy they're both produced by the same company -- that's quality work they've put into their games. DAO has great replayability and ME really allows me to be ruthless without worrying if a companion is going to disapprove. Shepard is the **** in charge and everyone else has to fall in line, period.

[grieferbastard]

Which franchise is more profitable in the long run? That's another good question. DA:O will probably produce more books and already has a pen and paper franchise but it's hard to say how profitable that will be. Besides, its production and marketing are pointed at people other than the existing DA:O fans. It won't even have a complete core rules set for 2 years and will require you to have over a half dozen books just to play a basic game (no non-core books) from levels 1-20. Also, pen and paper RPGs are not quite the market for soaking up the cash. Both have, I believe, two books out. No way to identify book sales by comparison I know of.

I suspect DA:O will generate the longer lifespan in its fans in terms of continuing to purchase games and DLC. ME2 is great cinema but pretty much empty on replay value when compared to DA:O.

Both are great games though, just two different markets.

[Kalfear]

grieferbastard wrote...

Which franchise is more profitable in the long run? That's another good question. DA:O will probably produce more books and already has a pen and paper franchise but it's hard to say how profitable that will be. Besides, its production and marketing are pointed at people other than the existing DA:O fans. It won't even have a complete core rules set for 2 years and will require you to have over a half dozen books just to play a basic game (no non-core books) from levels 1-20. Also, pen and paper RPGs are not quite the market for soaking up the cash. Both have, I believe, two books out. No way to identify book sales by comparison I know of.

I suspect DA:O will generate the longer lifespan in its fans in terms of continuing to purchase games and DLC. ME2 is great cinema but pretty much empty on replay value when compared to DA:O.

Both are great games though, just two different markets.

Im interested, how do you come up with the assumptions you make in your post?

I think DA:O is better but ME1 and 2 sold more copies then DA:O did sales wise.
ME has 2 novels that hit best selling list, I dont think the Dragon Age novels did 3rd ME novel in the works from what I hear.
ME has a limited comic book series now selling with a possible full time series in works
ME1 had 2 payfor DLCs, ME2 hasnt had any yet but some coming for sure.

So really outta your whole post, DA:O has pen and paper game. Traditionally (other then D&D) pen and paper games arent huge money makers.

So while I think ME1 was better then DA:O but DA:O was better then ME2, your arguement on the money seems rather bias and wishful to me. Simply a fan trying to back up his wish by making assumptions on numbers that probably dont support your veiw!

Fact is Mass Effect universe is catching on huge and if Bioware/EA puts the time and effort into it, they could possibly rival Star Wars or Star Trek with lore and followers. Nothing Dragon Age has put out suggests its following is on the same level as of yet and probably never will be as Fantasy is so over saturated and watered down where as fans always looking for that next new Sci Fi hit.

[Terror_K]

Well, there's also the fact that there's very little good sci-fi out there any more... at least not fresh new stuff. Aside from the fact that ME probably presents the best sci-fi entertainment experience since Serenity, it's also in full force in a time when sci-fi fans are fairly starved for sci-fi in the style Mass Effect provides. Sure, there's the odd stuff out there now, but it's not what I'd call the hardcore sci-fi. Mass Effect is by far the best current material out there for fans of Star Wars, Star Trek, Blade Runner, Firefly, Farscape, Babylon 5, etc.

Modifié par Terror_K, 09 février 2010 - 09:10 .

[Killian Kalthorne]

The changes in ME2 made it into a lesser game. I do find ME1 better than DA but DA is far better than ME2. ME2 barely beats out NWN1 and KotOR and i below Jade Empire. DA and ME1 are my top two Bioware games.

[SurfaceBeneath]

They're both very good games that are essentially of different genres that play nothing alike (classical tactical based RPG vs. Shooter/RPG hybrid). Saying one is flat out better than the other is just showing genre preference more than anything.

For what it's worth, I played both games for two weeks straight with every spare hour I had (2 playthroughs for Dragon Age, 2 and a half for Mass Effect 2). I don't think it's possible for me to choose between the two. I think I had more fun with Mass Effect 2 while I was playing it, but I'm pretty sure I'll get more play time out of Dragon Age.

Baldur's Gate 2 >= Dragon Age = Mass Effect 2 >>>>>>>>>> Mass Effect = Jade Empire = KOTOR

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 09 février 2010 - 11:06 .