And that's fair. But generally, many people who were not you complained a lot, and loudly, on the forums about how to make ME2 better. We took a lot of it into account when making ME2, so ME2 is necessarily a bit different. 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!bjdbwea wrote...
I for one actually liked the "slower" pace in ME 1, I liked freely walking around the Citadel, and I didn't see any "stoppages" in the story besides the ones I chose when doing side quests and exploration. And I don't need my games more "immediate" either. Was BG 2 "immediate"? Not really. Still it's considered your best game, at least by me, and by many others too. I hope I'm not too blunt, but it feels as if you're abandoning your old fans, whereas ME 1 (already!) was a very good compromise between action and RPG. That's of course only my personal opinion, and this is starting to swing away from the initial discussion. As I said, I could list my complaints here, but that would go too far.
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.
Sorry, but we're not always going to be able to tell you why something has changed or been cut or added, or why we even made X or Y decision. Ultimately, they're business decisions, and unless you have some kind of stake in the business, you ultimately don't need to know. We do try to tell you what we can, though, either through interviews and features on websites and print magazines, as announcements ont he website, or through conversation with developers.My original point - that there's very little communication - still stands. It's nice to have gotten some quite long replies from you here, but it doesn't change the fact. Even if you at BioWare think that one thing or another is the correct way to go, it would be nice to hear the reasons. That's not a demand, just a sentiment, that I think everyone who's voiced criticism shares.
For a customer, the worst thing a changed feature can mean is "I have to get used to something different" or "I don't like this new feature." For a company, that same change could mean thousands of dollars saved in development costs, hundreds of man-hours saved in system interaction bugs, or millions of dollars more in profit. So you'll have to cut companies a tiny bit of slack if they can't, don't or won't tell you the specifics of why.
You can interpret it however you like. I can't speak for anyone who's not me. Everyone's got their opinions, and I don't pretend that mine is the right one, the most popular one, or the only one.Can I interpret that as confirmation that some at BioWare do share my opinion, that ME 2 was actually not an improvement over ME 1 as a game? No, you don't have to answer that of course.
Again, you can interpret hoever you like. This is not something that I can speak to.I completely understand that you only exist as a company because - and as long - you are able to make money. Yet back in the days when you were independent, you would push back the release date if you weren't quite satisfied yet. And in the end, as far as I know, it was still profitable. I remember this even happened with KotoR 1, and I can imagine that it must have been hard to persuade LucasArts of the necessity. It goes without saying that this can not be done indefinitely, but beyond my personal opinion on some things, it seems obvious enough that numerous changes in ME 2 were due to a publisher who set an unchangeable release date.
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?"I find this worrying. So while, as I said, I completely understand the need to make money, back in the days BioWare stood for more, they had a different attitude. A vision, so to speak, always aiming higher. I know this is an idealistic view, but the matter of the fact is that you (BioWare) had this view.
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 Preislty and me to abuse in the meantime.In any case, even saying "sorry, this and that had to be cut because of
time", would be more satisfying than seeing criticisms ignored. At least
we would know which features or characters still matter, and might be
better in ME 3, and which ones were cut/changed for other reasons.
Retour en haut
