1230 réponses à ce sujet

[Gjefflin]

I know that this is has been spoken about to death, but my problem with the change is that in DA:O there is so much replayability due to the fact that you had 6 different beginning storylines. I like having the option to play as a different race or looking at a new world through the eyes of a Lord, a slave or even a forest dwelling rebel. I like ME as well...but this new change really makes me sad about the direction the franchise is going.

I'm an old school RPG'er and I am the owner of a very large group of RPG'ers called "RPG Guardians of the Keep" on Yahoo. There was MUCH rejoicing when DA:O was announced and it was going to be a throwback to the old "Baldur's Gate" series which by the way I STILL play to this day. I'm sure that DA 2 will be a decent (dare I say good) game. However, I and the others of my group are extremely disheartened about the direction all RPG's are going which is the hybrid "Action/Shooter/RPG" route.  I thought that Bioware was going to lead the charge back to the traditional type of RPG's, but it appears that they are joining the gangs of other lemmings and following trends instead of continuing to forge their own path.

Modifié par Gjefflin, 15 juillet 2010 - 09:12 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

We're all on the forum because we are BioWare's target audience.

Not true.  We were BioWare's target audience 12 years ago.  Now the target audience for every AAA game is the public at large, and the public at large doesn't hang out on a game developer's social network.

This is why I try to ask for features that won't impact the gameplay experience of that target audience.  They see what ever game they're supposed to see, but I'm trying to maintain features (or options) that allow the games to be played in a style that was more common back when we were the target audience.

[Morroian]

Jallard wrote...
Maybe!?! It really isn't about carrying on with my created characters from DA:O as much as it is playing a preset character in a third-person perspective. I want to be the character not some animated Shepard. I think we are all concerned that DA2 will be more like ME and ME2, but with swords.

Numerous great RPGS eg. The Witcher and Planescape Torment have main characters with even less customisability, so criticisms that restricting the player to Hawke makes it like ME carry no weight, and are not qualitave criticisms but merely personal preferences. From the sound of it Hawke is very customisable anyway.

Jallard wrote...
And, quite honestly, I don't see much replayability with DA2. So, for me it will be a waste of time, effort and hard earned cash.

Ridiculous comment with so little info being provided to date.

Modifié par Morroian, 15 juillet 2010 - 10:51 .

[CarlSpackler]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Jimmy Fury wrote...

We're all on the forum because we are BioWare's target audience.

Not true.  We were BioWare's target audience 12 years ago.  Now the target audience for every AAA game is the public at large, and the public at large doesn't hang out on a game developer's social network.

This is why I try to ask for features that won't impact the gameplay experience of that target audience.  They see what ever game they're supposed to see, but I'm trying to maintain features (or options) that allow the games to be played in a style that was more common back when we were the target audience.

Which really does cut to the heart of the matter here.  The community posting here is a very small subset of the people who purchased, played, and enjoyed DAO.  Its also one of the reasons I started this thread was to ask why and when the change in direction was decided.  It seemed that they had a very successful product developing a game that for the most part did appeal to the audience of 9-12 yrs ago.  David answered me as best he could, and while we all have our theories and suspicions as to what mandated the change in direction, we may never get the official word.  It was just all rather puzzling to me, as I figured they would have looked at DAO's success, looked at its storytelling model and said "Hey, this still works, let take another whack at it."  But for their own reasons they didn't, ok, I've moved on from my initial shock and am actively looking forward to DA2.  But being part of the subset here, I have an outlet to ask my question, express my disapointment (politely) and as Sylvius said, ask for features that hopefully they will be able to implement.  

Modifié par CarlSpackler, 15 juillet 2010 - 09:25 .

[AlanC9]

Gjefflin wrote...
However, I and the others of my group are extremely disheartened about the direction all RPG's are going which is the hybrid "Action/Shooter/RPG" route.  I thought that Bioware was going to lead the charge back to the traditional type of RPG's, but it appears that they are joining the gangs of other lemmings and following trends instead of continuing to forge their own path.

Huh? There's no evidence that DA2's going for action-RPG combat. Edit: the combat system changes seem to be for the consoles only.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juillet 2010 - 09:28 .

[tbsking]

Morroian wrote...

Jallard wrote...
Maybe!?! It really isn't about carrying on with my created characters from DA:O as much as it is playing a preset character in a third-person perspective. I want to be the character not some animated Shepard. I think we are all concerned that DA2 will be more like ME and ME2, but with swords.

Numerous great RPGS eg. The Witcher and Planescape Torment has main characters with even less customisability, so criticisms that restricting the player to Hawke makes it like ME carry no weight, and are not qualitave criticisms but merely personal preferences. From the sound of it Hawke is very customisable anyway.

Jallard wrote...
And, quite honestly, I don't see much replayability with DA2. So, for me it will be a waste of time, effort and hard earned cash.

Ridiculous comment with so little info being provided to date.

But you go into both of those games with the understanding between player and designer that Geralt and The Nameless One are all preset characters. The Witcher's Geralt is the protagonist of the Witcher in all its varied forms. Hawke, especially if you've played DAO, gives the mere illusion of customization when the reality is that he's far less customizable, especially compared to DAO. The Warden in DAO was entirely your own character. With certain options limited, and with Hawke being voiced, he simply won't be your own character; he will be Hawke.

[Jimmy Fury]

oh for...
when I said "we are bioware's target audience" I meant we as in weeeeeEEEeeeeee
{waves virtual arms around in the air indicating everyone on the bioware forums}
The total population of the forums represents a slice of the total target audience, we've got the RPGers, the Action fans, the "casual" gamers, the hardcore gamers, the KOTOR fans, the DA fans, the ME fans, the BG fans, the JE fans, the consolers, the PCers, the acheivement addicts, the lore addicts, the "gimme somethin sexay!" crowd, the fangirls, the slashgirls, the gaymers, the fanboys, the elf lovers, the dwarf lovers, the sci-fi geeks, the comic geeks, the fantasy geeks, and all of the many assorted overlaps between them.
We're the target audience. Not the evil alien outsiders that exist elsewhere, not just the people who have a different opinion, all of us. You're the target audience and I'm the target audience and that girl lurking and watching us who only cares about getting a cute elf in the next game (we know you're watching ) is the audience.
The bro who only plays madden football and dunks peoples heads in toilets, he's not the audience.

[Gjefflin]

AlanC9 wrote...

Gjefflin wrote...
However, I and the others of my group are extremely disheartened about the direction all RPG's are going which is the hybrid "Action/Shooter/RPG" route.  I thought that Bioware was going to lead the charge back to the traditional type of RPG's, but it appears that they are joining the gangs of other lemmings and following trends instead of continuing to forge their own path.

Huh? There's no evidence that DA2's going for action-RPG combat. Edit: the combat system changes seem to be for the consoles only.

I beg to differ.  It's a fact that there's only going to be one main character.  The same character that we will ALL be playing.  Also, the description of the type of game it's going to be sounds an AWFUL lot like Mass Effect.  What would you classify that game as if not an "Action/Shooter/RPG"?

[AlanC9]

Gjefflin wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Gjefflin wrote...
However, I and the others of my group are extremely disheartened about the direction all RPG's are going which is the hybrid "Action/Shooter/RPG" route.  I thought that Bioware was going to lead the charge back to the traditional type of RPG's, but it appears that they are joining the gangs of other lemmings and following trends instead of continuing to forge their own path.

Huh? There's no evidence that DA2's going for action-RPG combat. Edit: the combat system changes seem to be for the consoles only.

I beg to differ.  It's a fact that there's only going to be one main character.  The same character that we will ALL be playing.  Also, the description of the type of game it's going to be sounds an AWFUL lot like Mass Effect.  What would you classify that game as if not an "Action/Shooter/RPG"?

I said combat. One main character has nothing whatsoever to do with the combat.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juillet 2010 - 09:59 .

[AlanC9]

tbsking wrote...
But you go into both of those games with the understanding between player and designer that Geralt and The Nameless One are all preset characters. The Witcher's Geralt is the protagonist of the Witcher in all its varied forms. Hawke, especially if you've played DAO, gives the mere illusion of customization when the reality is that he's far less customizable, especially compared to DAO. The Warden in DAO was entirely your own character. With certain options limited, and with Hawke being voiced, he simply won't be your own character; he will be Hawke.

So DA2 is different from DAO. Yep, that's true.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juillet 2010 - 10:09 .

[tbsking]

AlanC9 wrote...

tbsking wrote...
But you go into both of those games with the understanding between player and designer that Geralt and The Nameless One are all preset characters. The Witcher's Geralt is the protagonist of the Witcher in all its varied forms. Hawke, especially if you've played DAO, gives the mere illusion of customization when the reality is that he's far less customizable, especially compared to DAO. The Warden in DAO was entirely your own character. With certain options limited, and with Hawke being voiced, he simply won't be your own character; he will be Hawke.

So DA2 is different from DAO. Yep, that's true.

Yes, different in a way that's putting people off to it.

[Grommash94]

tbsking wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

tbsking wrote...
But you go into both of those games with the understanding between player and designer that Geralt and The Nameless One are all preset characters. The Witcher's Geralt is the protagonist of the Witcher in all its varied forms. Hawke, especially if you've played DAO, gives the mere illusion of customization when the reality is that he's far less customizable, especially compared to DAO. The Warden in DAO was entirely your own character. With certain options limited, and with Hawke being voiced, he simply won't be your own character; he will be Hawke.

So DA2 is different from DAO. Yep, that's true.

Yes, different in a way that's putting people off to it.

Some people, perhaps. But even BioWare knows you can't please everyone all the time. The best way to show them that you think all these changes are unnecessary? Don't buy the game. If enough people do that, then they will be forced to change. If not, then perhaps the differences are for the best.

Modifié par Grommash94, 15 juillet 2010 - 10:14 .

[AlanC9]

Some people, yep. Sucks to be them.



Everyone's going to go into DA2 with the understanding that this time the protagonist is Hawke. Some people will like that, others won't, many won't especially care.

[Addai]

tbsking wrote...

But you go into both of those games with the understanding between player and designer that Geralt and The Nameless One are all preset characters. The Witcher's Geralt is the protagonist of the Witcher in all its varied forms. Hawke, especially if you've played DAO, gives the mere illusion of customization when the reality is that he's far less customizable, especially compared to DAO. The Warden in DAO was entirely your own character. With certain options limited, and with Hawke being voiced, he simply won't be your own character; he will be Hawke.

I think this will especially be the case because we're being told that DAO was not about our Warden at all, it was about Thedas ("so get over it").  So this is Hawke's story, and once it's done, it's done.  It may seem a subtle thing, but it makes for a PC in which you can feel even less invested than in Mass Effect.

[Jimmy Fury]

tbsking wrote...
The Warden in DAO was entirely your own character. With certain options limited, and with Hawke being voiced, he simply won't be your own character; he will be Hawke.

See I really don't get this argument. The Warden had some customization options yeah but not every single tiny aspect of him/her was up to the player. We only had control over what the devs gave us control over.
My mage has never once been able to not help jowan. It's not an option. If you ever want to leave the tower you have to go get Jowan's phylactery. There's no option to set him and Lily on fire. There's no option to run to Cullen and get them both shanked in the kidney. You have to follow the plot the developers give you and your "choices" are only those options you are provided with.
My cousland has never been able to kill duncan and stay with his mother. My dalish was never able to say "meh no that's cool I've lived a good life I can die now". I never played a dwarf but i'm almost certain they didn't have the choice to go join the Circle with Dagna.
You always go with duncan, you always survive the joining, you always go into the wilds, you always fight the ogre, and so on and so on. 
The Warden had a set last name and yes, the Warden had a voice! It was a crappy one that most people used a mod to shut up but it was there.

The only difference between The Warden and Hawke is that Hawke can't be an elf or a dwarf. That's it. That's all we know. I get why people are put off by the idea that they'll lose control of the character but we have no idea if we will or not.

[Davasar]

In Exile wrote...

Davasar wrote...
But, by appealing to the lowest common denominator, they are going to suffer for quality and bask in the light that is mediocre games that abound in the industry.  By leaving their loyal fanbase behind, they will certainly enjoy the fickle mass market when the next new shiny comes along.

That is a recipe for long term failure for the sake of short term gain.

The lowest common denominator? You're really going to go there? You want to play the niche market is special and brilliant and anyone who likes anything else is a moron card?

As inconceivable for you as it might be, very sophisticated and capable people have very legitimate reasons for defining an RPG in a way you do not. Would you like a debate on whether or not literary interpretation of dialogue in cRPGs is legitimate? The degree to which fixed NPC responses must neccesarily determine tone and limit characterization? The nature of false choice and characterization? The logical inconsistency of "using your imagination" in a visual medium with fixed outcomes?

Leave the superior BS aside. You're not smart or special for having the tastes you do, and other people are not stupid for having the tastes that they do.

So wait...you're saying that only looking to get money at the cost of everything else is a way to go?  I'm sorry, but looking toward integrity and loyalty is superior.

The lowest common denominator in this case is "make money no matter what and who cares what happens".  Thats the kind of attitude that caused the financial crisis and the gulf oil spill.

Stop reading into the lines and placing your own rhetoric there.  I actually agree with some of what you said, but my statements had nothing to do with you as a person.  If you took it that way, then rethink it.

[tbsking]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

tbsking wrote...
The Warden in DAO was entirely your own character. With certain options limited, and with Hawke being voiced, he simply won't be your own character; he will be Hawke.

See I really don't get this argument. The Warden had some customization options yeah but not every single tiny aspect of him/her was up to the player. We only had control over what the devs gave us control over.
My mage has never once been able to not help jowan. It's not an option. If you ever want to leave the tower you have to go get Jowan's phylactery. There's no option to set him and Lily on fire. There's no option to run to Cullen and get them both shanked in the kidney. You have to follow the plot the developers give you and your "choices" are only those options you are provided with.
My cousland has never been able to kill duncan and stay with his mother. My dalish was never able to say "meh no that's cool I've lived a good life I can die now". I never played a dwarf but i'm almost certain they didn't have the choice to go join the Circle with Dagna.
You always go with duncan, you always survive the joining, you always go into the wilds, you always fight the ogre, and so on and so on. 
The Warden had a set last name and yes, the Warden had a voice! It was a crappy one that most people used a mod to shut up but it was there.

The only difference between The Warden and Hawke is that Hawke can't be an elf or a dwarf. That's it. That's all we know. I get why people are put off by the idea that they'll lose control of the character but we have no idea if we will or not.

But I could decide that my Cousland was going to do his duty no matter what. I could decide that he was the kind of person to tell his father that he would run the Teyrn while asking his mom why he couldn't ride off to battle. I could decide that my mage's friendship with Jowan was more important than his belief in the Circle's rules.

Within the limits set for us, it was very possible to come up with a unique character. The limits being imposed in DA2, however, will necessarily make it even more difficult to create a unique character. Though I am loathe to use this analogy, look at Mass Effect. You could really only play a nice Shepard or a mean Shepard, male or female.

[Davasar]

Grommash94 wrote...

Some people, perhaps. But even BioWare knows you can't please everyone all the time. The best way to show them that you think all these changes are unnecessary? Don't buy the game. If enough people do that, then they will be forced to change. If not, then perhaps the differences are for the best.

Quite right.  If the game isnt targeted at you, because you were part of the audience for DAO, and DA2 is not targeted at that audience (you, which Bioware has said is pretty much how it is)...

Then dont buy the game.

Modifié par Davasar, 15 juillet 2010 - 10:43 .

[AlanC9]

Davasar wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Davasar wrote...
But, by appealing to the lowest common denominator, they are going to suffer for quality and bask in the light that is mediocre games that abound in the industry.  By leaving their loyal fanbase behind, they will certainly enjoy the fickle mass market when the next new shiny comes along.

That is a recipe for long term failure for the sake of short term gain.

The lowest common denominator? You're really going to go there? You want to play the niche market is special and brilliant and anyone who likes anything else is a moron card?

As inconceivable for you as it might be, very sophisticated and capable people have very legitimate reasons for defining an RPG in a way you do not. Would you like a debate on whether or not literary interpretation of dialogue in cRPGs is legitimate? The degree to which fixed NPC responses must neccesarily determine tone and limit characterization? The nature of false choice and characterization? The logical inconsistency of "using your imagination" in a visual medium with fixed outcomes?

Leave the superior BS aside. You're not smart or special for having the tastes you do, and other people are not stupid for having the tastes that they do.

So wait...you're saying that only looking to get money at the cost of everything else is a way to go?  I'm sorry, but looking toward integrity and loyalty is superior.

The lowest common denominator in this case is "make money no matter what and who cares what happens".  Thats the kind of attitude that caused the financial crisis and the gulf oil spill.

Stop reading into the lines and placing your own rhetoric there.  I actually agree with some of what you said, but my statements had nothing to do with you as a person.  If you took it that way, then rethink it.

You said the changes were made to appeal to the "lowest common denominator." If someone likes the changes on their own merits, he's in that lowest common denominator. I don't really see any way to spin this into a non-insulting statement.

If you actually meant to say something else, what was it?

[Davasar]

AlanC9 wrote...

Davasar wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Davasar wrote...
But, by appealing to the lowest common denominator, they are going to suffer for quality and bask in the light that is mediocre games that abound in the industry.  By leaving their loyal fanbase behind, they will certainly enjoy the fickle mass market when the next new shiny comes along.

That is a recipe for long term failure for the sake of short term gain.

The lowest common denominator? You're really going to go there? You want to play the niche market is special and brilliant and anyone who likes anything else is a moron card?

As inconceivable for you as it might be, very sophisticated and capable people have very legitimate reasons for defining an RPG in a way you do not. Would you like a debate on whether or not literary interpretation of dialogue in cRPGs is legitimate? The degree to which fixed NPC responses must neccesarily determine tone and limit characterization? The nature of false choice and characterization? The logical inconsistency of "using your imagination" in a visual medium with fixed outcomes?

Leave the superior BS aside. You're not smart or special for having the tastes you do, and other people are not stupid for having the tastes that they do.

So wait...you're saying that only looking to get money at the cost of everything else is a way to go?  I'm sorry, but looking toward integrity and loyalty is superior.

The lowest common denominator in this case is "make money no matter what and who cares what happens".  Thats the kind of attitude that caused the financial crisis and the gulf oil spill.

Stop reading into the lines and placing your own rhetoric there.  I actually agree with some of what you said, but my statements had nothing to do with you as a person.  If you took it that way, then rethink it.

You said the changes were made to appeal to the "lowest common denominator." If someone likes the changes on their own merits, he's in that lowest common denominator. I don't really see any way to spin this into a non-insulting statement.

If you actually meant to say something else, what was it?

Trying to make money at the cost of everything else is not a good way to go about things...but, I could be a huge minority here with that feeling....

Cutting out features or "streamlning" just to make a fast buck flies in the face of basic marketing:  keep your target audience and attract more by improvement of existing product and adding a few new features.  You dont do it by changing basic fundamentals.

This costs money, and I admit it is much cheaper to do the game in the current way they are doing it.

That is the lowest common denominator: making money at the expense of all else.

Modifié par Davasar, 15 juillet 2010 - 10:53 .

[Jimmy Fury]

tbsking wrote...
Within the limits set for us, it was very possible to come up with a unique character. The limits being imposed in DA2, however, will necessarily make it even more difficult to create a unique character. Though I am loathe to use this analogy, look at Mass Effect. You could really only play a nice Shepard or a mean Shepard, male or female.

but we don't know what limits are being set in DA2!  That's the only part of the argument I actually have a problem with. If we knew what the limits were then, sure, ok, cool i might even agree. but we don't! There's no list of limits anywhere so I don't understand how people keep talking about them as if they know what they are.

And honestly my Shepard had a lot more depth than that. His mother was alive (thanks to the spacer/war hero origin), he got along better with Aliens than he did humans, he's never been a fan of Cerberus, and he has gradually gotten over his blood boiling hatred of AI. He was mean and nice at the same time, it all depended on who he was talking to...

Addai67 wrote...
I think this will especially be the case
because we're being told that DAO was not about our Warden at all, it
was about Thedas ("so get over it").

The problem with this is that what was actually said is that Origins wasn't about your warden. It was about The Warden and The Warden's mission.
Your Warden and My Warden may be two extremely different people so how would they continue both of our stories fairly?

[tbsking]

Davasar wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Davasar wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Davasar wrote...
But, by appealing to the lowest common denominator, they are going to suffer for quality and bask in the light that is mediocre games that abound in the industry.  By leaving their loyal fanbase behind, they will certainly enjoy the fickle mass market when the next new shiny comes along.

That is a recipe for long term failure for the sake of short term gain.

The lowest common denominator? You're really going to go there? You want to play the niche market is special and brilliant and anyone who likes anything else is a moron card?

As inconceivable for you as it might be, very sophisticated and capable people have very legitimate reasons for defining an RPG in a way you do not. Would you like a debate on whether or not literary interpretation of dialogue in cRPGs is legitimate? The degree to which fixed NPC responses must neccesarily determine tone and limit characterization? The nature of false choice and characterization? The logical inconsistency of "using your imagination" in a visual medium with fixed outcomes?

Leave the superior BS aside. You're not smart or special for having the tastes you do, and other people are not stupid for having the tastes that they do.

So wait...you're saying that only looking to get money at the cost of everything else is a way to go?  I'm sorry, but looking toward integrity and loyalty is superior.

The lowest common denominator in this case is "make money no matter what and who cares what happens".  Thats the kind of attitude that caused the financial crisis and the gulf oil spill.

Stop reading into the lines and placing your own rhetoric there.  I actually agree with some of what you said, but my statements had nothing to do with you as a person.  If you took it that way, then rethink it.

You said the changes were made to appeal to the "lowest common denominator." If someone likes the changes on their own merits, he's in that lowest common denominator. I don't really see any way to spin this into a non-insulting statement.

If you actually meant to say something else, what was it?

Trying to make money at the cost of everything else is not a good way to go about things...but, I could be a huge minority here with that feeling....

Cutting out features or "streamlning" just to make a fast buck flies in the face of basic marketing:  keep your target audience and attract more by improvement of existing product and adding a few new features.  You dont do it by changing basic fundamentals.

This costs money, and I admit it is much cheaper to do the game in the current way they are doing it.

That is the lowest common denominator: making money at the expense of all else.

I hear what you're saying, and Cthulhu knows I agree, but I don't know if that's what's happening here. To me, this just sounds like bad design choices. With such a small span of time between games, I more get the feeling that these were all made before they could clearly see the successes of DAO and their first attempt. Hopefully, they'll rethink. Or else, I guess I just won't be a fan of Dragon Age any more.

[AlanC9]

I get it, Davasar. I wasn't following you because your argument is nonsense, but I see you weren't deliberately trying to be insulting.

The game doesn't get cheaper because of any of the changes announced. If anything, VO will probably increase the costs

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juillet 2010 - 10:59 .

[tbsking]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

tbsking wrote...
Within the limits set for us, it was very possible to come up with a unique character. The limits being imposed in DA2, however, will necessarily make it even more difficult to create a unique character. Though I am loathe to use this analogy, look at Mass Effect. You could really only play a nice Shepard or a mean Shepard, male or female.

but we don't know what limits are being set in DA2!  That's the only part of the argument I actually have a problem with. If we knew what the limits were then, sure, ok, cool i might even agree. but we don't! There's no list of limits anywhere so I don't understand how people keep talking about them as if they know what they are.

And honestly my Shepard had a lot more depth than that. His mother was alive (thanks to the spacer/war hero origin), he got along better with Aliens than he did humans, he's never been a fan of Cerberus, and he has gradually gotten over his blood boiling hatred of AI. He was mean and nice at the same time, it all depended on who he was talking to...

Addai67 wrote...
I think this will especially be the case
because we're being told that DAO was not about our Warden at all, it
was about Thedas ("so get over it").

The problem with this is that what was actually said is that Origins wasn't about your warden. It was about The Warden and The Warden's mission.
Your Warden and My Warden may be two extremely different people so how would they continue both of our stories fairly?

We don't know the full extent of the changes, no, and when we do I and others will evolve our opinions accordingly. But we do know that you can only play as a human named Hawke, and we do know that he will be voiced. This all limits our options. A voiced Hawke will, be practical necessity, be relegated to either Nice, Cool, or Mean. There's simply no way it could be otherwise.

You pay a voice actor to deliver lines, there's no way he can deliver them in a way that conveys every intonation and every bit of subtext. If I feel that my character saying, "Have a nice day" is sarcastic, Hawke will still say "Have a nice day" like he means it.

[Davasar]

AlanC9 wrote...

I get it, Davasar. I wasn't following you because your argument is nonsense, but I see you weren't deliberately trying to be insulting.

The game doesn't get cheaper because of any of the changes announced. If anything, VO will probably increase the costs

Nonsense?

That depends.  If they have to write much less, then they can save there for sure.  For instance, if they are only two or three responses per dialogue choice and there are far fewer of them then in DAO, then they could probably save quite a bit on writing staff/time.

I realise this may confirm some fears of some of the gamers here, but if they are out to just make money (or save money in this case), thats a good way to do it.

Modifié par Davasar, 15 juillet 2010 - 11:02 .