Stanley Woo wrote...
Now that we've made 2 games, and hopefully figured out where we want to go with it or what kind of game we're making, the "differences" in future ME products will likely not be as pronounced as they were between 1 and 2. We're not abandoning anyone. We do a lot to ensure the game is still enjoyable to folks who prefer a bit of a slower RPG, but we can only do so much when we're also trying to attract new players and those we want to introduce RPGs to. We've had lots of FPS and TPS fans tell us this was their first RPG, and how much they loved it!
Well, that does sound encouraging. Somewhat. I hope then that ME 3 will a bit closer to ME 1. I can only speak for myself of course, but as an RPG player I don't think you'd get much money from me for ME 3 if it stays like ME 2. I would probably wait until the price drops, or buy the game second-hand. It's a matter of principle just as much as me simply not "needing" a game like this all that much. I looked forward to ME 2 a lot, but had I known how it would turn out, I already could've and probably would've waited.
You certainly noticed that there now are many complaints too, often saying you went too far in simplifying the game for the shooter fans. So here's hoping a better balance will be found next time.
I have say though, you could always have improved the combat aspect, and still told a story of the quality from ME 1. These things are not mutually exclusive, except if you want to admit to thinking your new audience has a short attention span, is easily confused, and can't appreciate grand stories. But somehow I doubt you would say that.
Stanley Woo wrote...
Unfortunately, nostalgia is a double-edged sword. If everything else were the same as in 1997, then another BG-type game might be possible. But just as it's not 1997 anymore, and BioWare isn't a 100-man company anymore, so too our games are going to be not the same as they were in 1997. Believe me, I have fond memories of Saturday morning cartoons from the 80s, and I'm disappointed that they're not nearly as good now as they were then. They are different, however, and different doesn't necessarily mean bad.
Yes, of course. Actually, BG 2 and ME 1 are my favourite games ever. Both very different, but I enjoyed both a lot, more than any other game. ME 1 was new and great, but in many aspects ME 2 was a step back. Again, of course you know the main criticisms.
Stanley Woo wrote...
Oh, I'm sure you'll find we haven't changed very much at all in some ways. Things work just a little bit differently now that we are part of a larger organization. We had a different attitude? Sure we did. We no longer have to work ourselves to death to achieve our goals. A vision? Unchanged. But "stood for more?" I dunno about that. What exactly did we "stand for?"
A strive for perfection. Many companies produce games, but nearly all BioWare games were pieces of art, and that was your intention. It wasn't just a product. You went the extra mile, you polished, you implemented content that wasn't strictly necessary (and that some players might never see), you didn't shy away from implementing stuff that meant more work. Just one example: In ME 1 you could do missions in any order, you could re-visit most places, and often things were a bit different, depending on your previous actions. In ME 2 doors close behind you at every second step, most areas are completely static, levels are very linear, and you can't go back anywhere once you've done the mission.
Basically, at every third corner in ME 2, it is visible that time constraints were a major consideration. The game still works, of course, but the attention to details, the going the extra mile, it just isn't there like it was in previous BioWare games. As I said before, sometimes you would even push back the release date - and still, importantly, made a profit, for all I know. I understand that it's not your decision anymore, but you should know that the effect is quite visible, and unfortunately detrimental to the quality of your games.
That's how I see it anyway. I'm realistic enough to know that you'll never become the company again that you once were, and my lamenting on a forum is completely irrelevant, but that's my answer to your question anyway.
Stanley Woo wrote...
I can't ever promise you that each and every criticism someone brings up is going to be addressed, least of all to their satisfaction. I can't even promise that we'll say anything you want to hear. I can promise, however, that we love our community and enjoy their feedback. So I wouldn't be surprised to see developers interacting with the community once again when we get to a certain stage of development. At the very least, you have people like Chris Priestly and me to abuse in the meantime. 
I wonder though, to whom will they listen... And will they answer some of our questions?
Modifié par bjdbwea, 18 mai 2010 - 04:42 .
Retour en haut
I did however, very much enjoy that BG did not made your character so ridiculously powerfull that it had to be nerfed for BG2. The transition between the games was smooth and natural.
Told the developers to draw in shooter fans and casual gamers. Of course I can't blame EA for doing what they always do and what they exist for - trying to maximize profits - but one effect was for the story to be cut into many shorter, unrelated pieces to make it more palatable. It had to be, as Mr. Woo himself said earlier in this thread, more "immediate". That's usually a sure way to make it more superficial and less deep as well, and this indeed happened in ME 2.
