1230 réponses à ce sujet

[Arrtis]

new art director wanted it to be so it was.

[wikkedjoker]

I just sort of realized something i just said. Technically we each and everyone of us ARE the Warden. And if this story is being narrated to us, than wouldn't that mean that its being told to the Warden. Maybe I'm looking to deep into the rabbit hole.

Or maybe I'm right.

I would like to see what Biowares take on the player being the Warden is.



I mean If they view the player as the Warden, then essentially anything narrated to us is being narrated to the Warden and everything they have done would make 100% sense.



Think about it, this is Hawke's story, and for some unknown reason he is a static character. Even though there is no REAL reason he needs to be one. WELL I guess he couldn't be a Dworf because his sister is a Mage.



Anyways, the story of Hawke is being told to us, very interesting

[Vaeliorin]

soteria wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...
Right, and it leads to bad and boring design. What a tank needs to be is an unappealing target to attack while having tools to prevent allies from being attacked. DA:O was doing pretty well in this regard until they implemented mechanics which encourage or enforce people to attack the tank.

What do you mean?  Short of drawing attention away from the squshy members of the party, what can a tank do?

Not to put words in his mouth, but to me Taunt is a problem in DA:O.  It does too much too well, doesn't scale, and isn't particularly interesting.  You press the button and everything attacks you until it dies.  Tanking/aggro can be a fun minigame, but it was poorly implemented in Dragon Age.

Tanking can be fun, but the problem with implementing a complex aggro-holding system in DA is that it would almost require the player to be constantly controlling the tank.  Having played a tank in many MMOs, it's rare that you can let a global cooldown go by without doing something and still manage to hold aggro, and DA's tactics system simply wouldn't have been able to handle something like that very well.

That's not to say that I wouldn't like some added complexity in the aggro system, but I think we'd need a more robust system of setting up AI for it to work without forcing people to play the tank most of the time (and sadly, my thread asking for more robust AI capabilities got all of 2 replies before being buried under everything else.)

[wikkedjoker]

Terror_K wrote...

But that would only fit if the art design changes ONLY for this game and then goes back to the DAO style for future ones. In which case, why change the style at all?

Well, if you want my honest opinion. DAO's graphics are dated, and when you use a new system or an updated one than the look of the game is bound to change. This happens A LOT in games. Look at Mario, look at Halo, Zelda. ETC

I however hope with the new art, and better graphics. There is diverse and unique loot, I mean its pretty bad deves that moders are making better looking armor than whats in the game.

Just sayin.   

[UltraBoy360]

Terror_K wrote...

UltraBoy360 wrote...

If that's the case - were you furious when Star Trek TMP and all subsequent TV shows upgraded the look of the Klingons?

That's a bit different, because the original klingons came from a lack of budget and make-up expertise at the time. And, yes, Enterprise's take on that was awful, but then Enterprise was horrible and constantly ruining Star Trek throughout. Worf's little comments in DS9's "Trials and Tribbleations" brought a smile to my face though and I thought it should have been left at that.

In either case, DAO's original art design certainly didn't suffer budget and technology constraints. Part of DAO's appeal was its look and feel and that seems to have gone out the window now entirely. As I said before, I'm glad I hadn't invested in the IP as a fan as much as I had Mass Effect, because otherwise I'd be selling a lot of stuff and feeling even more put out. Mass Effect is probably even more visually defined by its artistic style than DAO is after all. Both I feel are games that were just as defined by their artistic nature as they were by their lore and setting. If the ME people suddenly said, "Y'know... from now on all asari are going to have long green hair instead of head fronds and all salarians are going to have hammerhead shark eyes" would that seem right to you? It's the same thing here as far as I'm concerned. DAO's visual style, to me, is part of what defines it. And now that's just thrown out the window for a completely new approach.

And when a new art director comes along to work on an IP he should adapt to fit the universe and setting, not the other way around. Otherwise we end up with Michael Bay's Transformers all over again and the whole thing becomes completely foreign. I don't care if BioWare agreed to let him rejig the look of DAO, as a fan I say that was a bad move. Or should I say "as a former fan" I say that's a bad move?"

Look, I see what you're saying, it was due to budget constraints, but still, the visual style of the movies was way different to TOS - budget reasons or not, it was still a change. What you're saying is you're OK with THAT (budget) motive, and not with whatever you perceive Bioware's motive to for changing DA style.

I think fantasy lends itself to different art styles and interpretations, but as I said, I am personally not keen on the new style - I hope it improves from the shots we've seen or I grow to like it. I think I'm willing to give it a chance because I've always been a comics fan - so adapting to new pencillers/inkers on my favourite titles is par for the course. Also, I've seen art styles I initially didn't like and became quite fond of. I would hate a new art style for ME3, but I don't mind it for DA2 - new story, new part of the world, narrator - not sure why.

There's always analysis of the changes Bioware makes whether it's here or ME and much of that is often laid at EA's door. But I'm with In Exile. I think they're making the games THEY want to make and like to play.

[soteria]

Tanking can be fun, but the problem with implementing a complex aggro-holding system in DA is that it would almost require the player to be constantly controlling the tank. Having played a tank in many MMOs, it's rare that you can let a global cooldown go by without doing something and still manage to hold aggro, and DA's tactics system simply wouldn't have been able to handle something like that very well.

That's not to say that I wouldn't like some added complexity in the aggro system, but I think we'd need a more robust system of setting up AI for it to work without forcing people to play the tank most of the time (and sadly, my thread asking for more robust AI capabilities got all of 2 replies before being buried under everything else.)

Yes, but surely there's a middle ground between pressing a single button once a fight to force everything to attack you and handling a swipe/maul/mangle rotation and keeping a full lacerate stack up while strafing counter-clockwise around a room.

One thing they could have done is make Assault a sort of aoe attack--stun the current target and slash across, damaging enemies in front of the warrior, or something. I guess the problem is sword and shield warriors want to be tanks, but taunt is their only tool for gathering multiple enemies. As for AI, we can hope they take some notes from the advanced tactics mod, which I understand is quite popular.

[Vaeliorin]

soteria wrote...

Tanking can be fun, but the problem with implementing a complex aggro-holding system in DA is that it would almost require the player to be constantly controlling the tank. Having played a tank in many MMOs, it's rare that you can let a global cooldown go by without doing something and still manage to hold aggro, and DA's tactics system simply wouldn't have been able to handle something like that very well.
That's not to say that I wouldn't like some added complexity in the aggro system, but I think we'd need a more robust system of setting up AI for it to work without forcing people to play the tank most of the time (and sadly, my thread asking for more robust AI capabilities got all of 2 replies before being buried under everything else.)

Yes, but surely there's a middle ground between pressing a single button once a fight to force everything to attack you and handling a swipe/maul/mangle rotation and keeping a full lacerate stack up while strafing counter-clockwise around a room.

I imagine there is.  But you have to remember that this was Bioware's first game that really used anything more than a "who did the most damage" to determine aggro.  Hopefully DA2 will offer a more complex aggro mechanic (even though it seems like they want to "streamline" the skill system.)

One thing they could have done is make Assault a sort of aoe attack--stun the current target and slash across, damaging enemies in front of the warrior, or something. I guess the problem is sword and shield warriors want to be tanks, but taunt is their only tool for gathering multiple enemies. As for AI, we can hope they take some notes from the advanced tactics mod, which I understand is quite popular.

Yeah, it's kind of weird that from anything other than a simple taking damage perspective (thanks to shield wall and shield tactics), sword and shield warriors are probably the worst tanks (of melee warriors).  The lack of any sort of AoE and their comparatively low damage just makes them come up short.  Honestly, I much prefer using a two-handed warrior as a tank (I adore Two Handed Sweep.)

Anyway, it turns out I did get more replies in that AI thread (even a dev reply) but it basically amounted to a "Just wait, we're making it better" which doesn't really mean anything at all.

[Jallard]

I have been playing DA:O for sometime now and I am quit comfortable with the game play. However, it does bother me sometimes that when I am playing a Rogue or warrior or Mage, all of the enemy NPC's attack Alisair: So, pretty much I have to sometimes chase afer them to get them to fight me. Still, though, I enjoy the style of play that's in DO:A. It works. It's the interaction and the choices that I make in fighting style. For example, when I am playing a Mage I am still face-to-face with the enemy, not a mile away --as I sometimes find Morrigan. The fact of the matter is, most of the time my characters have much better stamina that say, Alistair; who as a tank is virtually useless at times. I guess what I am trying to say here is that it would suck to only have to hit "F" to fight, and then watch it!?!

Modifié par Jallard, 19 juillet 2010 - 11:47 .

[Serissia]

My quick 2¢, I'm currently not impressed w/ DA 2 in the least. From the information that has been released thus far it seems like multiple steps backwards not forwards. Hopefully the trailer that is being released next month will change my mind; honestly though I'm not holding my breath.

[Jallard]

Jallard wrote...

I have been playing DA:O for sometime now and I am quit comfortable with the game play. However, it does bother me sometimes that when I am playing a Rogue or warrior or Mage, all of the enemy NPC's attack Alisair: So, pretty much I have to sometimes chase afer them to get them to fight me. Still, though, I enjoy the style of play that's in DO:A. It works. It's the interaction and the choices that I make in fighting style. For example, when I am playing a Mage I am still face-to-face with the enemy, not a mile away --as I sometimes find Morrigan. The fact of the matter is, most of the time my characters have much better stamina that say, Alistair; who as a tank is virtually useless at times. I guess what I am trying to say here is that it would suck to only have to hit "F" to fight, and then watch it!?!

Alright! I am going out on a limb here. I have stated before that I never liked Mass Effect, but to understand the direction that (EA) Bioware is going with DA2, I have purchased the digital version of ME2 to play it. Thus, I will be more informed when I come back to this thread with my thoughts and/or fears for DA2. Thank you.

[CarlSpackler]

In Exile wrote...


It would be silly to think that EA is not involved in setting a direction for Bioware. But Bioware is independently profitable. EA will use their tremendous resources and market research to tell Bioware what features a succesful game has. But it's pretty clear they bought Bioware because they had no hand in the kind of market Bioware produces for. And honestly, right now, our market is largely a Bioware exclusive. The Fable series is market to the same group, the Witcher is, Obsidian is still barely holding on but producing games.... EA doesn't want to have Bioware design FPS because they can already do that with other assets.

There's no doubt that with a Bioware being a subsidiary, there will be influences. But Bioware, IMO, will keep the core of what they think is important to how they design games. I just don't think they see the same thing as important as some of their fans. And if their development history is any indication, that has nothing to do with being owned by EA.

While I agree with a lot of what you've said, I take some issue with this point.  While I don't neccessarily think EA is the great evil they are painted as, nor do I think they are currently the driving force behind every mistep, it certainly wouldn't be the first time a parent company has corrupted a profitable subsidiary.  I understand your point here, but I've seen it time and time again where a parent company looks at a sub, sees that it is profitable, looks at some of their other subs and decides to "streamline" their overall production and as a result the quirky profitable sub begins to resemble their corporate siblings.  And profitable hasn't been a true litmus test for success in publicly traded companies for a long time.  The litmus test has become profit margins that hit projections.  Even though a sub may be earning 8% profit every year, and common sense would say "hey they aren't costing us anything, in fact we're making some change here," too often it comes down to "Well our other subs are cranking 12%-20%, lets dump or change this sub to get it up to our other levels and help increase our share price."  Now as I've said I'm not saying this is happening now, but neither do I think its a "silly" accusation as you put it.  I hope it never happens and Bioware retains the kind of clout it needs to remain as seemingly independant as it currently is.  Still its not such a short walk in the corporate world form profitable darling to corporate clone.

Modifié par CarlSpackler, 19 juillet 2010 - 02:57 .

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...
And when a new art director comes along to work on an IP he should adapt to fit the universe and setting, not the other way around. Otherwise we end up with Michael Bay's Transformers all over again and the whole thing becomes completely foreign. I don't care if BioWare agreed to let him rejig the look of DAO, as a fan I say that was a bad move. Or should I say "as a former fan" I say that's a bad move?"

Nothing wrong with not liking an artstyle change. But it's pretty obvious that this is an internal Bio matter, not "network" interference. 

I should have linked that Gamasutra piece:

http://www.gamasutra...f_computer_.php

[Jallard]

I just purchased the digital version of Mass Effect 2, to see for myself why everyone is worried: and, already I hate it. What a waste of $29.95. The character creater, unlike in DA:O, sucks. The characters in the game are totally distorted and disfigured. And the game play isn't condusive to my play style. For example, I am in Freedom's Progress and I am stuck. Miranda and that other turkey keep telling me to "Take cover" and "They will guard the door." There is no access to the door number 1 and, number 2, there is no telling where to go from here? The directional arrow is useless, as I can go any further than where I am. I can even retrace my steps. Little wonder why everyone is worried that Bioeware is going to turn DA:O into Mass Effect 2?!?

[Jimmy Fury]

Terror_K wrote...

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

It almost seems to me that most of the talent has gone to SWTOR or something. Seems to be the only BioWare game since DAO that has good things about it, is staying true to its source material

Out of curiosity, how can DA2 not remain true to the source material?

David Gaider (and the rest of the writing team) is the source material. It's entirely their world. They're still writing it so I don't comprehend how it could possibly stray from their desire as the creators of the story...

Darkspawn don't even look like darkspawn any more. That alone just gives the whole thing a "retooled by the network" vibe to me. Seems to be Bethesda did a better job of sticking to the Fallout lore than BioWare are with their own IP. And given that they've said they'll just readily change anything up to suit their whimsy doesn't give me much hope. How can I get into a series that won't even stay consistent within itself? Where the things I like can just change and be thrown out the window and replaced with any random thing with no logical reason? Any IP needs a certain consistency and familiarity to it or it ceases to be what it was and becomes something else entirely. There are books for DA, a comic series and an upcoming anime film amongst other things... how are we supposed to embrace these things when what they are is likely just tossed aside and replaced by this new entity that claims to be Dragon Age now?

So some visual changes are enough to declare something untrue to the source material? Worse actually, visual changes that may very well be explained in the story, make it untrue to the source material?
Sorry, I was hoping for a nice debate on this one but I just can't do it.
As a comic geek my brain simply can not comprehend how a change in art style could throw someone completely off a title. I'm not attempting to diminish or dismiss what you're saying or anything. I really just can't comprehend it. I've spent most of my life watching the stories I love go through a new art change every couple of months. Heck, if an artist gets sick or can't finish an issue for some reason, it'll switch art styles multiple times in a single issue! So, for me, it's not really something I even notice anymore. As long as the story holds true to the writers' vision then to me that's true to the source material.

[Stanley Woo]

Terror_K wrote...
And when a new art director comes along to work on an IP he should adapt to fit the universe and setting, not the other way around. Otherwise we end up with Michael Bay's Transformers all over again and the whole thing becomes completely foreign. I don't care if BioWare agreed to let him rejig the look of DAO, as a fan I say that was a bad move. Or should I say "as a former fan" I say that's a bad move?"

Exactly. Look at Batman, for example. No matter what medium he's portrayed in, he looks exactly the same. Or Spider-Man, who looks identical regardless of whether you see him in the comic books (and remember, no matter which comic book he's in or which artist draws him, he looks exactly the same), in the 1908s Spider-Man and his amazing Friends cartoon, the more 1990s Fox cartoons, the more recent cartoons, the Japanes live-action show, the newspaper comic strip, the 1970s Electric Company shorts, or the modern movies.

As we all know, art directors are not permitted to demonstrate initiative, creativity, or, you know, have any say in art direction. They are forced to sublimate all their creativity and do exactly what those before him did. that's how properties like McDonald's, Scooby-Doo, Rice Krispies, Geico, Sesame Street, and Coca-Cola have survived this long--by keeping the same art direction they originally had and not looking any different than they originally did. Ever.

Seriously, though, I know folks are afraid of change, but regardless of how you think it looks, how about seeing how it plays--you know, because it's a game from a company you say you are/wer a fan of--before walking off in a huff and taking your ball with you?

[2papercuts]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
And when a new art director comes along to work on an IP he should adapt to fit the universe and setting, not the other way around. Otherwise we end up with Michael Bay's Transformers all over again and the whole thing becomes completely foreign. I don't care if BioWare agreed to let him rejig the look of DAO, as a fan I say that was a bad move. Or should I say "as a former fan" I say that's a bad move?"

Exactly. Look at Batman, for example. No matter what medium he's portrayed in, he looks exactly the same. Or Spider-Man, who looks identical regardless of whether you see him in the comic books (and remember, no matter which comic book he's in or which artist draws him, he looks exactly the same), in the 1908s Spider-Man and his amazing Friends cartoon, the more 1990s Fox cartoons, the more recent cartoons, the Japanes live-action show, the newspaper comic strip, the 1970s Electric Company shorts, or the modern movies.

As we all know, art directors are not permitted to demonstrate initiative, creativity, or, you know, have any say in art direction. They are forced to sublimate all their creativity and do exactly what those before him did. that's how properties like McDonald's, Scooby-Doo, Rice Krispies, Geico, Sesame Street, and Coca-Cola have survived this long--by keeping the same art direction they originally had and not looking any different than they originally did. Ever.

Seriously, though, I know folks are afraid of change, but regardless of how you think it looks, how about seeing how it plays--you know, because it's a game from a company you say you are/wer a fan of--before walking off in a huff and taking your ball with you?

yeah but taking a series thats supposed to be "dark" and making it look cartoony kind of goes against the atmosphere of the other titles doesn't it?

[the_one_54321]

Because Micheal Bay's Transformers wasn't awesome at all. Nope. No awesomeness there.

Wow, that was sarcastic, even for me. I'm blaming Stan and his last post for that.
Personally, I don't even see all of this "OMG it's sooooo different and I don't like it!" that's going around. There's no lighting or shadows in the screen shots yet, and that makes a difference on perceived quality. Not actual, quality but perceived. I'll wait for delivery stage images to make any kind of judgment. That said, SWtOR delivery stage imagery is unspeakably terrible, so I'm not holding my breath either.
Thus far there seems to have been some improvement in the modeling, and that's a big plus. Improved models were badly needed. Now we need to see more models and some animation. More or less things seem to be going in a positive direction. Here's hoping that it stays that way.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 19 juillet 2010 - 05:24 .

[Davasar]

I think it's always wonderful when someone says they "dont care" or are "unimpressed" by very salient points. In fact, the outright refuse to acknowledge them. What this translates to is that no matter how well presented your point or how well proven, they will just put on blinders and ignore anything good you have said, and rather argue somantics, gramatic errors or cherry pick tidbits of what was typed without presenting the whole point in oder to make their own position seem better.



You cannot make pigs sing, so dont try.



If you dont like that they have made the game to target a differing audience then you despite your product loyalty, then dont buy the game.



Simple.

[the_one_54321]

2papercuts wrote...
yeah but taking a series thats supposed to be "dark" and making it look cartoony kind of goes against the atmosphere of the other titles doesn't it?

Cartoony? Really? Are you sure that you aren't just projecting your own thoughts onto the images instead of objectively analyzing them? 
Seriously, pull up the Hawke screen shot and give a list of the aspects which specifically fit the moniker "cartoony." 
*awaits the inevitable list of qualities that have been interpreted right out of their skin*

[AlanC9]

Davasar wrote...

I think it's always wonderful when someone says they "dont care" or are "unimpressed" by very salient points. In fact, the outright refuse to acknowledge them.

What, you're asking for people to pretend to be impressed by arguments that don't actually impress them? Sometimes I'm too lazy to give a point-for-point rebuttal to an argument that's the same claptrap I've read five or six times this week. 

But as a special courtesy to you, I'll make sure to give your future points a full evaluation. Though I don't really expect any; your recent posts have shown a certain.... beaten quality. And I'll absolutely sign on for your "don't like it, don't buy it" position. As opposed to your different audience point, which isn't supported by anything except that a few fans don't like some of the proposed changes and typically don't like consoles either.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 juillet 2010 - 05:35 .

[soteria]

yeah but taking a series thats supposed to be "dark" and making it look cartoony kind of goes against the atmosphere of the other titles doesn't it?

I know some people who would say batman was kinda dark. It was a cartoon, and it looked (gasp) cartoony. Photo-realism =/= "dark."

[Jimmy Fury]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
And when a new art director comes along to work on an IP he should adapt to fit the universe and setting, not the other way around. Otherwise we end up with Michael Bay's Transformers all over again and the whole thing becomes completely foreign. I don't care if BioWare agreed to let him rejig the look of DAO, as a fan I say that was a bad move. Or should I say "as a former fan" I say that's a bad move?"

Exactly. Look at Batman, for example. No matter what medium he's portrayed in, he looks exactly the same. Or Spider-Man, who looks identical regardless of whether you see him in the comic books (and remember, no matter which comic book he's in or which artist draws him, he looks exactly the same), in the 1908s Spider-Man and his amazing Friends cartoon, the more 1990s Fox cartoons, the more recent cartoons, the Japanes live-action show, the newspaper comic strip, the 1970s Electric Company shorts, or the modern movies.

As we all know, art directors are not permitted to demonstrate initiative, creativity, or, you know, have any say in art direction. They are forced to sublimate all their creativity and do exactly what those before him did. that's how properties like McDonald's, Scooby-Doo, Rice Krispies, Geico, Sesame Street, and Coca-Cola have survived this long--by keeping the same art direction they originally had and not looking any different than they originally did. Ever.

Seriously, though, I know folks are afraid of change, but regardless of how you think it looks, how about seeing how it plays--you know, because it's a game from a company you say you are/wer a fan of--before walking off in a huff and taking your ball with you?

Woo! You're alive! and absolutely drenched in sarcasm. I mean seriously, wow, that was impressive

As for the new look of the darkspawn, I personally find it more lore friendly than the old look. They're born of humans and dwarves and Qunari so making them fleshier colors fits that origin much better than green genlocks and purple ogres. To me they look less cartoony (it is everyone's favorite descriptor these days but nobody seems to care that the old ogres were purple...) and more wrong. Not wrong as in the opposite of right, but wrong as in unnatural and disturbing.
So I quite like it myself.

[In Exile]

CarlSpackler wrote...
While I agree with a lot of what you've said, I take some issue with this point.  While I don't neccessarily think EA is the great evil they are painted as, nor do I think they are currently the driving force behind every mistep, it certainly wouldn't be the first time a parent company has corrupted a profitable subsidiary.

Which industry are we talking about, here? Again, I would certainly agree that this is possible, but I think the industry itself and the product the subsidary is producing is a very important part of the extent to which a parent company involves themselves in production.

I understand your point here, but I've seen it time and time again where a parent company looks at a sub, sees that it is profitable, looks at some of their other subs and decides to "streamline" their overall production and as a result the quirky profitable sub begins to resemble their corporate siblings. 

Could you provide examples?

And profitable hasn't been a true litmus test for success in publicly traded companies for a long time.  The litmus test has become profit margins that hit projections.  Even though a sub may be earning 8% profit every year, and common sense would say "hey they aren't costing us anything, in fact we're making some change here," too often it comes down to "Well our other subs are cranking 12%-20%, lets dump or change this sub to get it up to our other levels and help increase our share price."

I wanted to avoid being this specific. Yes, hitting projections is far more important than merely making money, because the opportunity cost of not making comparable money to other projects is the money you would have made had you released that other product.

Like I said - I very much believe EA is looking at Bioware, looking at their other departments, and looking at market research and saying, we believe feature X needs to be out and feature Y needs to be in to extend our market reach.

I certainly believe EA would push, for example, for graphics and gameplay to go in a particular direction. But at the same time, I think these are non-critical elements of a game for Bioware, because of how they have flipped their art-style and graphics as well as their gameplay elements from game-to-game.The only constant has been a dedication to story and story choice (to some degree). This is what I see Bioware as being uncompromising on.

Now plausibly EA could change this, as well, but realistically I think that would include removing a dramatic portion of the current Bioware staff. As is, Bioware is not good at things like gameplay and graphics and very good at things like story. Plausibly, their current staff could ignore one to improve at the other. But there is no guarantee they would be good at it. So I would think that a better indication of a dramatic change in outlook at Bioware is a dramatic increase in new faces and the removal of staples we are familiar with for years. 

Now as I've said I'm not saying this is happening now, but neither do I think its a "silly" accusation as you put it.  I hope it never happens and Bioware retains the kind of clout it needs to remain as seemingly independant as it currently is.  Still its not such a short walk in the corporate world form profitable darling to corporate clone.

I said it's silly [i[not[/i] to think they are involved, i.e. we have to take for granted there is some involvement. To me, it is only a question of how involved, but I happen to think EA will not touch the core of what Bioware is, which is the stories they produce relative to their customizable PCs, and to the degree that I want to purchase games from Bioware, this is enough for me.

[errant_knight]

Y'know I'm starting to find the 'afraid of change' line irritating. When it's just one person, you go 'well, that's a tad annoying'. When it's more than one, it sounds like political talking points, and MAN, do I hate being fed talking points!

This particular one makes it sound like I don't already know that I don't enjoy voice acting from a protagonist--because I've done that before--but fear the possibility out of unwillingness to try new things, for example. Played VO, know I don't enjoy it, no fear.

I also can see with my actual eyes that I don't care for the new art style. Does that mean it won't work? No. Does it mean I reject it out of fear? No. I just plain think its unappealing.

Saying 'people don't like change' reduced their opinions to knee-jerk response and means that no one needs to take them seriously--that's the fear talking, not reason or past experience. Buck up little camper! *Pats fan on head*

Modifié par errant_knight, 19 juillet 2010 - 05:46 .

[In Exile]

soteria wrote...
Just because they're saying a geek was proud of her superior intelligence doesn't mean they were actually saying RPG players are smarter. But yeah, there's definitely a superiority complex there. Of course, other people seem to consider us basement-dwelling virgins, which is unfair and untrue--my house doesn't even have a basement.

That doesn't make sense. If RPGs are for the hardcore, and the hardcore are proud of esoteric knowledge and proud of intelligence, then RPGs are for those proud of their inteligence. If you are proud of your superior intelligence, you clearly believe you are more intelligent than most; or are you saying that it is possible to believe you are stupid and phrase that as superior intelligence? Can't see how that would be possible outside of some sort of tongue-in-cheek sarcastic comment.

That being said, while there may well have been a stereotype of PnP players as being basement dwelling nerds, I don't think there is one anymore of cRPG players.

To be fair, its hard for me to be sympathetic to RPG fans when they feel the need to constantly remind me they think I am a moron for liking features other than they do.

Modifié par In Exile, 19 juillet 2010 - 05:50 .