Dragon Age: Inquisition

[NOK222]

The Qunari aren't COOL ENOUGH. The need to be COOLER. Let's COOL THEM UP. Let's give them some HORNS so they will be WAY COOLER. And we'll explain it away with the worst retconning since Klingons got headridges. Don't worry, it will be SUPER X-TREME COOL!

 

Sorry to break this circle jerk, but they were always supposed to have horns. http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/7259276&lf=8

 

Gosh, why does Gaider have to be such an ass about it though?

[alanschu]

One of my biggest beefs is when people blame EA (as in corporate EA) for DA2's schedule.

Edited September 13, 2013 by alanschu

[decado]

Who cares what someone says they "intended"?  That's not the issue.  They changed them after they were already part of the lore and visualized, and did so with a hilariously terrible retcon, and it seems quite obvious why they did it.

Edited September 13, 2013 by decado

[NOK222]

One of my biggest beefs is when people blame EA (as in corporate EA) for DA2's schedule.

 

Then it was your guys choice as to make the nine months development time? What kind of game developers would purposely sabotage themselves like that? And then you want to be called artists. 

 

 

Who cares what someone says they "intended"?  That's not the issue.  They changed them after the fact and did so with a hilariously terrible retcon, and it seem quite obvious why they did it.

 

I give Bioware **** all the time, but even the most critical of people liked the new design of the Qunari. 

Edited September 13, 2013 by NKKKK

[decado]

One of my biggest beefs is when people blame EA (as in corporate EA) for DA2's schedule.

 

Hey, I blame EA because I'm trying not to blame BioWare.  If I can go ahead and blame BioWare, let me know lol.  I'll oblige!

Edited September 13, 2013 by decado

[decado]

 

One of my biggest beefs is when people blame EA (as in corporate EA) for DA2's schedule.

 

Then it was your guys choice as to make the nine months development time? What kind of game developers would purposely sabotage themselves like that? And then you want to be called artists. 

 

 

Who cares what someone says they "intended"?  That's not the issue.  They changed them after the fact and did so with a hilariously terrible retcon, and it seem quite obvious why they did it.

 

I give Bioware **** all the time, but even the most critical of people liked the new design of the Qunari. 

 

 

Man, it's not about whether or not people liked it.  It's about how they did it, and the reason behind it.  That people actually liked it could be no more than a happy accident. 

[Volourn]

"considering DAII sales were lower than DA:O sales. Which, in the world of video games, is almost impossible.  Sequels almost always make the same amount of money as the original, or more."

 

No, it isn't. in fact, the opposite is often true. Afterall, if the first game sells  2mil, and let's say 25% hated it, you likely just lost a good chunk of the first game's paid customers.

 

In the DA1-DA2 case, while DA2 sold less it also cost far elss and likely still made a healthy profit. Afterall, it did sell more than 2mil easily.

 

 

"Wait, what do you mean the C&C was pretty damned good? I found that no matter my choices, everything turned out mostly the same. don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the game, but the C&C was not one of the high points."

 

As far as the fubar ending (as I mentioned above) with the two psycho end bosses, the C&C is very good. All of the companions  have  multiple thinsg that could happen based on you decisions. Quests in act 2 and act 3 are largely dependent on quests you did and how you did them in earlier acts.

 

ie. That  quest with the young half elf mage has  a lot of various conclusions based on your actions.Some good some not so good.

 

Compared to the vast majority of RPGs, DA2 has fantastic C&C.  You can lose out on  lots of quests based on your decisions, also what you decide in quest A could effect whether or not you get  quest B, or quest C. You can end up losing almost all your companions based on your decisions. I think Varric is the only exception (maybe Merrill?).

[decado]

"considering DAII sales were lower than DA:O sales. Which, in the world of video games, is almost impossible.  Sequels almost always make the same amount of money as the original, or more."

 

No, it isn't. in fact, the opposite is often true. Afterall, if the first game sells  2mil, and let's say 25% hated it, you likely just lost a good chunk of the first game's paid customers.

 

 

I studied this data extensively for my research.  You are 100% wrong.  Most sequels -- even mediocre ones -- make the same or more money  (and/or sell the same number of units) than the games that preceded them. 

Edited September 13, 2013 by decado

[NOK222]

Ignore Volourn

 

 

Man, it's not about whether or not people liked it.  It's about how they did it, and the reason behind it.  That people actually liked it could be no more than a happy accident. 

 

You're grasping for straws. People retcon all the time, and this was handled just fine. I'm only mad at Gaider's attitude. "Lel we're not telling you, because **** you" 

[entrerix]

as far as im concerned, qunari didnt exist before DA2.  that one guy, sten, in DAO, he was just a large bigoted human with a learning disability.  (ie an american) 

 

oh self burn!!!!

[licketysplit]

 

 

One of my biggest beefs is when people blame EA (as in corporate EA) for DA2's schedule.

 

Ok then I'll blame Bioware. The game seemed like it cut corners in every way. But whatevs. like I said, DA:I seems like an honest enough effort.

Edited September 13, 2013 by licketysplit

[Malekith]

One of my biggest beefs is when people blame EA (as in corporate EA) for DA2's schedule.

Who should they blame than? It's EA or Bioware. There is no third party.

[decado]

You're grasping for straws. People retcon all the time, and this was handled just fine. I'm only mad at Gaider's attitude. "Lel we're not telling you, because **** you" 

 

 

It was handled horribly.

 

The Qunari retconn was so hamfisted I almost choked.  "Well actually, all Quanri have horns except for special Qunari.  Who, coincidentally, were the only kind of Qunari you saw in Dragon Age: Origins.  And also, every single description of the Qunari in the first game somehow magically omits this most basic of descriptions, but that's not a big deal and is totally believable."  It was probably one of the worst retcons in the history of nerdrage.

Edited September 13, 2013 by decado

[entrerix]

they really said that?  it would have been better just to say "the qunari in DAO were stupid, these are better, so we fixed it"

[NOK222]

 

You're grasping for straws. People retcon all the time, and this was handled just fine. I'm only mad at Gaider's attitude. "Lel we're not telling you, because **** you" 

 

 

It was handled horribly.

 

The Qunari retconn was so hamfisted I almost choked.  "Well actually, all Quanri have horns except for special Qunari.  Who, coincidentally, were the only kind of Qunari you saw in Dragon Age: Origins.  And also, every single description of the Qunari in the first game somehow magically omits this most basic of descriptions, but that's not a big deal and is totally believable."  It was probably one of the worst retcons in the history of nerdrage.

 

 

Your immersion was broken that much? replay DAO with the Qunari mod then, it worked for me. 

[Tale]

One interesting thing about the Qunari is that the first cinematic in DA2 with drawings of them even has them be hornless. But that's more trivia than anything significant.

[decado]

Anyways, back to DA:I

 

I am willing to give the game a go, depending on what I see in a demo or whatnot.  That's all I can really trust, anymore.  I can't get excited about what is essentially a PR and branding campaign.  

[NOK222]

One interesting thing about the Qunari is that the first cinematic in DA2 with drawings of them even has them be hornless. But that's more trivia than anything significant.

 

Huh, then maybe Gaider really is full of it

[Serrano]

One interesting thing about the Qunari is that the first cinematic in DA2 with drawings of them even has them be hornless. But that's more trivia than anything significant.

 

I put that down to horn envy from the artist. 

[alanschu]

 

One of my biggest beefs is when people blame EA (as in corporate EA) for DA2's schedule.

 

Hey, I blame EA because I'm trying not to blame BioWare.  If I can go ahead and blame BioWare, let me know lol.  I'll oblige!

 

 

I'd prefer you to hold us accountable for it, yes.  People wholly overstate the difference, as though the "independent BioWare" suddenly had full on freedom to deliver games whenever they like.

 

Let's look at something like Origin.  If you read up on the Escapist's recap, Origin sold to EA because... they were bankrupt.  Due to the economic climate, Garriot was unable to obtain financing from banks, and given that he already ran the business model of "Well if we need more money I guess I'll just invest some more of my own money" and the extreme risk that that came with doing that, he found himself in a situation where he needed to seek other avenues to keep the staff employed and the studio open.

 

 

 

 

I studied this data extensively for my research.  You are 100% wrong.  Most sequels -- even mediocre ones -- make the same or more money  (and/or sell the same number of units) than the games that preceded them.

 

I admit, I do look forward to reading your thesis.

 

 

EDIT: Removed some commentary that really was just not necessary.

Edited September 13, 2013 by alanschu

[alanschu]

 

One of my biggest beefs is when people blame EA (as in corporate EA) for DA2's schedule.

Who should they blame than? It's EA or Bioware. There is no third party.

 

 

BioWare.

[decado]

 

 

One of my biggest beefs is when people blame EA (as in corporate EA) for DA2's schedule.

 

Hey, I blame EA because I'm trying not to blame BioWare.  If I can go ahead and blame BioWare, let me know lol.  I'll oblige!

 

 

I'd prefer you to hold us accountable for it, yes.  People wholly overstate the difference, as though the "independent BioWare" suddenly had full on freedom to deliver games whenever they like.

 

Let's look at something like Origin.  If you read up on the Escapist's recap, Origin sold to EA because... they were bankrupt.  Due to the economic climate, Garriot was unable to obtain financing from banks, and given that he already ran the business model of "Well if we need more money I guess I'll just invest some more of my own money" and the extreme risk that that came with doing that, he found himself in a situation where he needed to seek other avenues to keep the staff employed and the studio open.

 

 

I'm not really sure what you are trying to get at here.  I was merely remarking on big publishers' known behavior of buying up studios and essentially squeezing them into a business model they were never designed to operate with.  This happens every day in other businesses that don't include video games: big company buys small company, changes the rules, squeezes every last bit of profit out of it that they can, and if it tanks, oh well.  Sell it.  Brian Fargo talked extensively about this attitude after he left EA.  And this has happened to studios in the past.

 

So let's review this history, here. EA acquires BioWare, and then all of a sudden the franchise takes a huge dump, and most of that is squarely based upon the much shorter development time the second time around.  Is the consumer supposed to think this isn't a coincidence?  Maybe it is, but can you blame a person for being skeptical?

 

Regarding my research, my thesis is largely focused on consumer reaction to professional criticism.  But you can verify what I'm saying by looking at a site like VG Chartz (though I only suggest them as a last resort!).  But it is simple to compare the numbers.  Most sequels will earn at least the same amount of money (or at least sell the same amount of units) as the game that came before them.  When you start getting into games numbered 3 or 4 and so on, that number can shift as people lose or gain confidence in the franchise.  But it usually takes a few games before that dip starts happening.  For it to happen with a direct sequel means there is a problem.

 

By the way, don't take any of this personally.

Edited September 13, 2013 by decado

[NOK222]

Maria gave another good reason a few pages earlier. 

[Malekith]

 

 

One of my biggest beefs is when people blame EA (as in corporate EA) for DA2's schedule.

Who should they blame than? It's EA or Bioware. There is no third party.

 

 

BioWare.

 

Ok.

I blame BioWare for most things, i just thought that publisers dictate the timeframe of their games.

[entrerix]

i'm also not totally bought into the whole

 

"DAO was SOOOO MUCH BETTER than DA2"

 

i don't think those games are that far apart in terms of quality.  origin was much larger and polished feeling, and lacked the non-existent level design and empty space feeling of DA2, but DA2 wasn't a total failure either, varic was cool, and the combat definitely had its moments of punchy fun

 

DAO was, i think, a better game overall, but the difference to me was not as large as it seems to be for some folks