1230 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

David Gaider wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
I'm no marketing expert, but I would just think that on the initial reveal of a sequel to an old school game, you would want to play to your base and solidify support from the "hardcore" fans first before trying to emphasize how drastically different the game is when many enjoyed the older feel of the original just fine.

If we've changed things wouldn't you rather we just said so?

We're not apologizing for these changes, nor are we trying to hide them. This is still Dragon Age to us. It feels a bit like the people who tried to argue with us that our "Baldur's Gate spiritual successor" couldn't be called that because it didn't have every feature that BG did-- we know what a Dragon Age game should feel like, to us, and to be honest I don't think it rests in player VO/not player VO or a dialogue wheel. We think it rests in the choices the player gets to make, the world and characters you're interacting with and the story you get to experience.

Granted, it would be nice if we showed some more things that the particular group which hangs out on these forums would like-- but I have the feeling that no matter how much information we divulged on the announcement it would never quite be enough for you guys. So letting you guys absorb this part before seeing more of what's actually in the game is maybe not a bad idea. Like I've said many times now, you'll see for yourselves in time whether the game's for you... but I think if you're assuming that, even though the same people are working on it who worked on Origins that it won't feel like a Dragon Age game just because, say, your player character talks that you're probably selling us a bit short.

While I mostly agree wtih you in spirit, David...

This is becoming something of a tautology for you.

"The game is being changed this way because we design the game and feel it should be this way."
is like
"I am a game designer because I design games.  The sky is blue because it is a blue sky."

My fear is that the gaming industry (including BioWare at this point, I'm sad to say) is moving with the rest of the entertainment industry into trying to find this "mythical" mainstream audience.  All this does is make mish-mashes of genres and mediocre products that large numbers can go "eh, it was alright" about.
Bottom line, it makes finanacial sense - better to have 2/3rds of the game consumers buying and forgetting your game in a couple months than 1/3rd of the game consumers buying and loving your game to death.

The dialog wheel combined with the "cinematic" approach combined with the forced naming and limiting of choices on the MC combined with the forced recruiting of x number of allies (yes, I know you can "choose" to not recurit them, but you have like 6 to choose from and you can take all 6 for example)...
I love Final Fantasy, but I thought the BioWare people were mocking JRPGs?  Why are they moving closer and closer to that "set character, set party, closed storyline" model of RPG?

As I've often said, I'll most likely end up buying DA2.  And probably liking it a lot.
But I waited years for DAO and am in love with the game (even though, yes, it sacrificed a few sacred cows of mine.)  Right now DA2 looks to be sacrificing a few more sacred cows, and my herd is looking so thin that I'm afraid I won't survive the winter.

[Jallard]

David Gaider wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
I'm no marketing expert, but I would just think that on the initial reveal of a sequel to an old school game, you would want to play to your base and solidify support from the "hardcore" fans first before trying to emphasize how drastically different the game is when many enjoyed the older feel of the original just fine.

If we've changed things wouldn't you rather we just said so?

We're not apologizing for these changes, nor are we trying to hide them. This is still Dragon Age to us. It feels a bit like the people who tried to argue with us that our "Baldur's Gate spiritual successor" couldn't be called that because it didn't have every feature that BG did-- we know what a Dragon Age game should feel like, to us, and to be honest I don't think it rests in player VO/not player VO or a dialogue wheel. We think it rests in the choices the player gets to make, the world and characters you're interacting with and the story you get to experience.

Granted, it would be nice if we showed some more things that the particular group which hangs out on these forums would like-- but I have the feeling that no matter how much information we divulged on the announcement it would never quite be enough for you guys. So letting you guys absorb this part before seeing more of what's actually in the game is maybe not a bad idea. Like I've said many times now, you'll see for yourselves in time whether the game's for you... but I think if you're assuming that, even though the same people are working on it who worked on Origins that it won't feel like a Dragon Age game just because, say, your player character talks that you're probably selling us a bit short.

Mr. Gadier,

As for me this voice-over thing isn't the problem. Characterization is, however. I really don't want to be limited to a Dudly DoRight: Or, someone from 300, or Shepard. I want to be the character, albeit, male or female, Elf or Human; Dwarf or mouse. I want to see the passion, the romance and the character interaction. It seems like all that will be lost in DA2: and that saddens me. Is that wrong in wanting Dragon Age 2 to have all that? What exactly are you all thinking anyway? Didn't Bioware and EA take in enough revenue with Dragon Age Origins and Awakening? Thank you.

Modifié par Jallard, 12 juillet 2010 - 05:49 .

[CarlSpackler]

MerinTB wrote...
As I've often said, I'll most likely end up buying DA2.  And probably liking it a lot.
But I waited years for DAO and am in love with the game (even though, yes, it sacrificed a few sacred cows of mine.)  Right now DA2 looks to be sacrificing a few more sacred cows, and my herd is looking so thin that I'm afraid I won't survive the winter.

Very well said.

[the_one_54321]

MerinTB wrote...

I love Final Fantasy, but I thought the BioWare people were mocking JRPGs? Why are they moving closer and closer to that "set character, set party, closed storyline" model of RPG?

Forgive me for finding this much more amusing than disconcerting. Serious foot-in-mouth moment for that one fellow with the big mouth.

I'm actually expecting this much of the announced style directions to go fairly well. I'm expecting more freedom than people are fearing at the moment. After hearing that PC tactical combat mechanics will remain in tact, I am much less fearful.

[Brockololly]

David Gaider wrote...
If we've changed things wouldn't you rather we just said so?

This is true- a little honesty and candor goes a long way. I think as of now though, we just have a bunch of vague marketing claims on how much things have changed and nothing concrete gameplay wise to view and judge for ourselves. So by only having to rely on the couple of marketing scraps that have been thrown to us "hardcore" fans and forum goers, its hard to discern whats just souped up marketing speak that every game gets and how the actual game plays.

David Gaider wrote...
We're not apologizing for these changes, nor are we trying to hide them. This is still Dragon Age to us. It feels a bit like the people who tried to argue with us that our "Baldur's Gate spiritual successor" couldn't be called that because it didn't have every feature that BG did-- we know what a Dragon Age game should feel like, to us, and to be honest I don't think it rests in player VO/not player VO or a dialogue wheel. We think it rests in the choices the player gets to make, the world and characters you're interacting with and the story you get to experience.

Yeah, fair enough. I think the disappointment many people are feeling isn't so much that DA2 won't have a great story or characters, its that by changing the mechanics of interacting with the story and characters you lose some of the decidely old school, BG style RPG that many fans of Origins enjoyed. And by pushing in a new system no one here has exactly tried, I fear at least that the new gameplay mechanics will inhibit my ability to care as much about the story or characters- kind of how the Awakening dialogue system wasn't as robust in my opinion as Origins and in turn I didn't care as much about the characters there. But we'll only know once we've tried the game.

David Gaider wrote...
Granted, it would be nice if we showed some more things that the particular group which hangs out on these forums would like-- but I have the feeling that no matter how much information we divulged on the announcement it would never quite be enough for you guys. So letting you guys absorb this part before seeing more of what's actually in the game is maybe not a bad idea. Like I've said many times now, you'll see for yourselves in time whether the game's for you... but I think if you're assuming that, even though the same people are working on it who worked on Origins that it won't feel like a Dragon Age game just because, say, your player character talks that you're probably selling us a bit short.

Of course we will want MOAR! but its just that the marketing claims thus far don't carry any evidence of the changes made and just going off of wishy washy marketing buzzwords tends to freak people out more than it hypes them up, especially those that liked Origins just fine. And whle the voiced PC is an issue, it goes beyond that too with the changes like the visual style, combat and so on. We just have to tough it out and take what we're given and try to decide in due time whether DA2 has enough of what we liked in DAO to warrant a purchase.

[David Gaider]

MerinTB wrote...
While I mostly agree wtih you in spirit, David...

This is becoming something of a tautology for you.

"The game is being changed this way because we design the game and feel it should be this way."
is like
"I am a game designer because I design games.  The sky is blue because it is a blue sky."

I agree. It does end up sounding that way, but that's because people keep asking me to explain the obvious.

My fear is that the gaming industry (including BioWare at this point, I'm sad to say) is moving with the rest of the entertainment industry into trying to find this "mythical" mainstream audience.  All this does is make mish-mashes of genres and mediocre products that large numbers can go "eh, it was alright" about.
Bottom line, it makes finanacial sense - better to have 2/3rds of the game consumers buying and forgetting your game in a couple months than 1/3rd of the game consumers buying and loving your game to death.

Maybe.

I'd suggest maybe taking a look here: www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/publishers-note/7688-Publisher-Note-10-E-for-Everyone-Except-Me

It's not a bad article, in terms of explaining some of the realities we face. I don't think it's the entire reason these choices were made, as DAO was quite successful on its own, but it certainly addresses the idea you're expressing.

As I've often said, I'll most likely end up buying DA2.  And probably liking it a lot.
But I waited years for DAO and am in love with the game (even though, yes, it sacrificed a few sacred cows of mine.)  Right now DA2 looks to be sacrificing a few more sacred cows, and my herd is looking so thin that I'm afraid I won't survive the winter.

I like this turn of a phrase. Well done!

Sacred cows are yummy.

[RyuAzai]

Honestly, I saw a lot of this "OMG MY GOD WHAT ARE YOU DOING" from Mass Effect fans going into Mass Effect 2.



Lots of their fears where way out of the ball park, and Mass effect 2 was an amazing game.



Action adventure, rpg, whatever you wanna 'class it as' I was still so involved with the characters. On the edge my seat as you tried to survive the final mission. It effected me with characters and story that I loved.



I just think it is a waste of time to freak out over this stuff so much. When the game comes out you can play it, and see how it makes you feel. Until then you really have no idea how it is gonna effect you. You just don't.



I am really looking forward to this game, I like the approach, and bioware is always a company I know will deliver a great game into my hands.



Until I am proven wrong, that is the way I think. So thanks David, to all of you at bioware for making amazing games.

[Jallard]

David Gaider wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
While I mostly agree wtih you in spirit, David...

This is becoming something of a tautology for you.

"The game is being changed this way because we design the game and feel it should be this way."
is like
"I am a game designer because I design games.  The sky is blue because it is a blue sky."

I agree. It does end up sounding that way, but that's because people keep asking me to explain the obvious.

My fear is that the gaming industry (including BioWare at this point, I'm sad to say) is moving with the rest of the entertainment industry into trying to find this "mythical" mainstream audience.  All this does is make mish-mashes of genres and mediocre products that large numbers can go "eh, it was alright" about.
Bottom line, it makes finanacial sense - better to have 2/3rds of the game consumers buying and forgetting your game in a couple months than 1/3rd of the game consumers buying and loving your game to death.

Maybe.

I'd suggest maybe taking a look here: www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/publishers-note/7688-Publisher-Note-10-E-for-Everyone-Except-Me

It's not a bad article, in terms of explaining some of the realities we face. I don't think it's the entire reason these choices were made, as DAO was quite successful on its own, but it certainly addresses the idea you're expressing.

As I've often said, I'll most likely end up buying DA2.  And probably liking it a lot.
But I waited years for DAO and am in love with the game (even though, yes, it sacrificed a few sacred cows of mine.)  Right now DA2 looks to be sacrificing a few more sacred cows, and my herd is looking so thin that I'm afraid I won't survive the winter.

I like this turn of a phrase. Well done!

Sacred cows are yummy.

Ok, I glanced through the article quoted above. So, the bottom line is all about cost VS. revenue. If Bioware were to create a Dragon Age sequel that emulated the first I would be willing to shell a $100 or more for the game: Simply, because I love playing DAO. It is my kind of game. However, I certainly would not pay that high a price for anything else.

Now convince me that I will love DA2 as much as DAO? Thank you.

Modifié par Jallard, 12 juillet 2010 - 06:08 .

[Carmen_Willow]

Dear Mr. Gaider:



I fully respect both your right and your company's right to take your game and your company in the direction you wish to take it. You are the ones risking both your money, your time and your company's reputation on the choices you make.



And I hope, for my sake, that your creative decision works well for me. I will certainly purchase DA:2 if for no other reason than my love for DA:O. Whether I shall be willing to purchase DA:3 will depend entirely on your and your company's ability to make a creative choice I can love.



Thiis, ultimately, is what a market is all about. I may not find your new direction entertaining, but it is entirely possible that enough other players will to make the rest of your franchise profitable for you and fun for your fans. No harm, no foul.



I shall, in memory of the money I have already spent in the DA franchise (as well as the money I intend to spend) fully avail myself of the privilege of ruminating ad nausem about what your changes will mean for me, along with other DA fans.



I hope to be shouting "hurrah" come next Spring (and not wailing and knashing my teeth in the outer darkness).

[Samb84]

David Gaider wrote...

Maybe.

I'd suggest maybe taking a look here: www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/publishers-note/7688-Publisher-Note-10-E-for-Everyone-Except-Me

It's not a bad article, in terms of explaining some of the realities we face. I don't think it's the entire reason these choices were made, as DAO was quite successful on its own, but it certainly addresses the idea you're expressing.

Thats exactly how I feel!!

I knew there where more of people like me out there! 

sad really...

Modifié par Samb84, 12 juillet 2010 - 06:11 .

[PSUHammer]

laradenton wrote...

 @Hammer6767 and Ecael

Now that these people have been properly analyzed and diagnosed by the our well trained and well known Internet psychologists, I think it is safe to say that they might have a chance of recovery. Bravo!

I understand that the "nerd rage" (or whatever you want to call it) some might display could be annoying, but that's no reason for you to say what you just did. If you really want to act properly, maybe it's better to answer only to those posts that really interest you, than trying to fight with people that you think you cannot reason with and treat them like you're their superiors.

Edited to reform the text.

Kind of like your post?  Just saying.... 

Modifié par Hammer6767, 12 juillet 2010 - 06:11 .

[the_one_54321]

Darth Gaider wrote...

I'd suggest maybe taking a look here: www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/publishers-note/7688-Publisher-Note-10-E-for-Everyone-Except-Me

That was an excellent article and it prompts a few questions from me.

Darth Gaider wrote...

we know what a Dragon Age game should feel like, to us, and to be honest I don't think it rests in player VO/not player VO or a dialogue wheel. We think it rests in the choices the player gets to make, the world and characters you're interacting with and the party-based combat.

How about a little itemization concerning the things you think are going to help DA][ reach a wider audience and still stay true to what a DA game should feel like?

From my point of view I'd like to see:

Well written characters

Players making important choices during the game

Tactical party based combat

A compelling story.



If you can provide all this (and I am certain you are capable of it) then I personally would think that proper marketing would be enough to propel this game into as many homes as it takes to help the company turn a profit. (speaking from the point of view of the article here)



At the same time there are a couple of things that I would like to see improved upon just in comparison to what is being offered by developers competing with you.

Better designed models

Better, less robotic animations

[magpie]

It seems to me that the direction DA seems to be taken is console - and therefore money - driven. The PS3 and 360 market expects VO, and to separately record different voices for each and every possible permutation of character would be vastly expensive, and obviously something that no game company could take on.

Whether or not this route is driven at Bioware 'level', or higher up the EA tree is anyone's guess, but it seems obvious that the days of being able to play out our stories in their world is at an end. The tale of Hawke seems at first glance to have more in common with the interactive movies pumped out in the 90s than with what most of us would seem to recognise as a role-playing game.

Like it or not, on the information presented thus far, DA2 will be us playing through their story, rather than being the masters of our own destiny. Of course, this was always the case, but in earlier games, it was certainly disguised better.

Like many people here, I have issues with some of the changes revealed;

VO, because no matter how good the actor used, Hawke will never sound right to me, as they'll always be what Bioware's Hawke sounds like, rather than mine.

Dialogue Wheel because I really, really want to see what I'm going to be saying, rather that sort of what I'll be saying.

class / Race restrictions for obvious reasons. I want to play my story, not yours.

All of these issues, I suspect, were done to simplify the design process, so cross platform versions of the game are easier - and therefore cheaper - to produce. Like it or not, This is big business now, and the game company that I and many others here loved needs to shift boxes, and that means pandering to a mass market rather than the closed little group we belong to.

[Lara Denton]

Hammer6767 wrote...

laradenton wrote...

 @Hammer6767 and Ecael

Now that these people have been properly analyzed and diagnosed by the our well trained and well known Internet psychologists, I think it is safe to say that they might have a chance of recovery. Bravo!

I understand that the "nerd rage" (or whatever you want to call it) some might display could be annoying, but that's no reason for you to say what you just did. If you really want to act properly, maybe it's better to answer only to those posts that really interest you, than trying to fight with people that you think you cannot reason with and treat them like you're their superiors.

Edited to reform the text.

Kind of like your post?  Just saying.... 

Are you saying you cannot be reasoned with?  OK, I was wrong about you, it can happen. 

[Addai]

David Gaider wrote...

Granted, it would be nice if we showed some more things that the particular group which hangs out on these forums would like-- but I have the feeling that no matter how much information we divulged on the announcement it would never quite be enough for you guys. So letting you guys absorb this part before seeing more of what's actually in the game is maybe not a bad idea. Like I've said many times now, you'll see for yourselves in time whether the game's for you... but I think if you're assuming that, even though the same people are working on it who worked on Origins that it won't feel like a Dragon Age game just because, say, your player character talks that you're probably selling us a bit short.

I could accept "just trust us" if:

a) The dev comments about Origins in the GI article matched in any way how I saw the game.  The things I loved about it are being called "broken," outdated, choppy, etc.  Mass Effect is unplayable to me, so to hear that Dragon Age needs to be Mass Effect-ized only makes me ask "why, Maker, why?!"

I had not already been disappointed in the expansion and DLCs.  Already in Awakening I felt like the franchise was moving away from the best parts about DAO, in particular by giving us a watered-down and scattered dialogue system.  I realize the dev teams for the original and the DLCs were different, but it convinced me that not everything with Dragon Age on it was a must-buy.

Modifié par Addai67, 12 juillet 2010 - 06:27 .

[PSUHammer]

laradenton wrote...

Hammer6767 wrote...

laradenton wrote...

 @Hammer6767 and Ecael

Now that these people have been properly analyzed and diagnosed by the our well trained and well known Internet psychologists, I think it is safe to say that they might have a chance of recovery. Bravo!

I understand that the "nerd rage" (or whatever you want to call it) some might display could be annoying, but that's no reason for you to say what you just did. If you really want to act properly, maybe it's better to answer only to those posts that really interest you, than trying to fight with people that you think you cannot reason with and treat them like you're their superiors.

Edited to reform the text.

Kind of like your post?  Just saying.... 

Are you saying you cannot be reasoned with?  OK, I was wrong about you, it can happen. 

Not at all.  I consider myself a man of reason.  But, you accomplished, in your post, the very thing you were trying to scold me for.  That is the hypocrisy mentioned elsewhere in this thread.  We are on an open forum, and if someone is going to post garbage (as I see it), I have the option to respond.  Your definition of proper isn't necessarily my definition of proper.  And, let's avoid straw man retorts referring to "psychologists" when someone posts a response to another post.  If that was the case…then everyone on this site has a PhD.

My issue is with the rampant illogical complaints on this forum (threats of boycotts, insinuating that if you liked ME2 you are a simpleton, etc.).  Frankly, it gets tiring reading through a decent discussion between good fans and the development/writing team when you have to wade through the “BIOWARE SUX” crap posts.  In that case, I will continue to call it as I see it.

Modifié par Hammer6767, 12 juillet 2010 - 06:33 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

I'd suggest maybe taking a look here: www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/publishers-note/7688-Publisher-Note-10-E-for-Everyone-Except-Me

I really enjoyed that article.  Thank you.

I do wish BioWare (which has some terrific developers) would maintain a niche division in the style of Matrix Games (mentioned in the article), so that we could continue to have games with features that appeal to the older audience.

I've said before that graphical advancements beyond NWN really do nothing for me, so the vast majority of these massively larger game budgets is wasted resources (from my perspective).  Cinematic presentation, for example, is something we never saw in 2001 (or 1997, or 1985), and those games didn't suffer for it.  In fact, many of them were better, because the features that had to be removed to accommodate cinematic presentation (a persistent text-box, a combat log) were features I genuinely liked.  And I miss them.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 juillet 2010 - 07:00 .

[Lara Denton]

Hammer6767 wrote...

Not at all.  I consider myself a man of reason.  But, you accomplished, in your post, the very thing you were trying to scold me for.  That is the hypocrisy mentioned elsewhere in this thread.  We are on an open forum, and if someone is going to post garbage (as I see it), I have the option to respond.  Your definition of proper isn't necessarily my definition of proper.
My issue is with the rampant illogical complaints on this forum (threats of boycotts, insinuating that if you liked ME2 you are a simpleton, etc.).  Frankly, it gets tiring reading through a decent discussion between good fans and the development/writing team when you have to wade through the “BIOWARE SUX” crap posts.  In that case, I will continue to call it as I see it.

If you would have bothered, you would have seen that the matter has been discussed farther and I have explained my stance that I believe there are different ways to respond to something you don't like. Common sense would probably cover it, but there's no point, really, in discussing what "proper" is for one or another and that's that. 

[Foolsfolly]

I knew this approach would be taken.



Why? Because Mass Effect was so successful? Because BioWare wants to pander to the masses?



Nope. Not even close.



It's because of the origins, you see. They weren't handled up to BioWare's standard but they were handled as best as I could see them being handled. They had no effect really on anything and certain origins felt completely messed up (Human Noble had your brother completely disappear and your character couldn't be bothered with looking for him is easily the worst offender). The best they could do was reference your race/gender from time to time.



Mass Effect also had this problem with Shepard's origins which are completely forgotten by ME2.



So when the sequel came up (and I knew it would) there was two options. Cut out the origins and have you just be the Warden and allow the player to roleplay the origin (ala Dragon Age: Awakening) or limit it to one well written origin with a far reaching impact into the story of the game. They choose the correct option.



While I'll miss playing as my favorite race (Dwarf), I think it's worth it to have a well done origin with meaning and a lasting impact.

[bzombo]

David Gaider wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
While I mostly agree wtih you in spirit, David...

This is becoming something of a tautology for you.

"The game is being changed this way because we design the game and feel it should be this way."
is like
"I am a game designer because I design games.  The sky is blue because it is a blue sky."

I agree. It does end up sounding that way, but that's because people keep asking me to explain the obvious.

My fear is that the gaming industry (including BioWare at this point, I'm sad to say) is moving with the rest of the entertainment industry into trying to find this "mythical" mainstream audience.  All this does is make mish-mashes of genres and mediocre products that large numbers can go "eh, it was alright" about.
Bottom line, it makes finanacial sense - better to have 2/3rds of the game consumers buying and forgetting your game in a couple months than 1/3rd of the game consumers buying and loving your game to death.

Maybe.

I'd suggest maybe taking a look here: www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/publishers-note/7688-Publisher-Note-10-E-for-Everyone-Except-Me

It's not a bad article, in terms of explaining some of the realities we face. I don't think it's the entire reason these choices were made, as DAO was quite successful on its own, but it certainly addresses the idea you're expressing.

As I've often said, I'll most likely end up buying DA2.  And probably liking it a lot.
But I waited years for DAO and am in love with the game (even though, yes, it sacrificed a few sacred cows of mine.)  Right now DA2 looks to be sacrificing a few more sacred cows, and my herd is looking so thin that I'm afraid I won't survive the winter.

I like this turn of a phrase. Well done!

Sacred cows are yummy.

thanks for the link. that was a great read. it practically said word for word how i feel about a couple interests of mine.

[Davasar]

Mr. Gaider,



I appreciate your honesty. What I and many are still waiting for is the answer to the question: Why?



Why change that which was commercially and critically successful. Basic marketing is that you keep your core, target audience by adding new features to that which made them happy, and improving other existing features.



The only logical conclusion is that these fans in a silent, but polite way were told to "screw off". That may not be the intended message, but what else are they left to think when the game isnt being made to their target demograph?



They are not being targeted anymore by the changes, that fact is plain.



So, please answer the question:



Why change it when you knew it would drive much of the core audience away?



If you say something like "we dont care about them anymore" or "We arent making games for them anymore" at least we will respect the candor.



What we dont want is shell gaming.

[DragonRageGT]

David Gaider wrote...
Sacred cows are yummy.

Not if you are from India, they aren't!

[Ecael]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ecael wrote...
It is much easier to insult a group of people that you know won't fight back - especially because they're not even here.

If you didn't notice, I was being sarcastic. Attacking either groop is juvenile, especially when one fashions himself a psychologist.

I know you were being sarcastic - however, most of the ME2 fan "group" isn't on the forum to speak for themselves.

laradenton wrote...

I missed that post. He's certainly not entitled to make that sort of comment, but to me it looks like being a troll, not a serious poster that actually tries to make a point, so ignore would have been more appropriate? Maybe things got a little too heated?

If this were an isolated incident, then it could easily be ignored. However, there's more than one person that continues to accuse BioWare of several "sins" rather than trying to understand why they make these changes to their games.

It's like they're all copy-pasting the same insults and biased assumptions.

[Lara Denton]

Davasar wrote...

Mr. Gaider,

I appreciate your honesty. What I and many are still waiting for is the answer to the question: Why?

Why change that which was commercially and critically successful. Basic marketing is that you keep your core, target audience by adding new features to that which made them happy, and improving other existing features.

The only logical conclusion is that these fans in a silent, but polite way were told to "screw off". That may not be the intended message, but what else are they left to think when the game isnt being made to their target demograph?

They are not being targeted anymore by the changes, that fact is plain.

So, please answer the question:

Why change it when you knew it would drive much of the core audience away?

If you say something like "we dont care about them anymore" or "We arent making games for them anymore" at least we will respect the candor.

What we dont want is shell gaming.

I'll just paste something I said earlier because I believe it fits in here as well:
"I think I've noticed a shift in the marketing style since they decided to wait for DA:O to be release at the same time with the consoles and since then, mostly everything that was about "tradition" and "old school" and other things that the "hardcore" fans find appealing were removed. So it could be that it is just the marketing that makes DA2 look so changed and that at its core, DA2 will still offer some of the experiences that made the original great!

ETA: I am being optimistic. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. :)"

Modifié par laradenton, 12 juillet 2010 - 07:02 .

[DragonRageGT]

Ecael wrote...

If this were an isolated incident, then it could easily be ignored. However, there's more than one person that continues to accuse BioWare of several "sins" rather than trying to understand why they make these changes to their games.

It's like they're all copy-pasting the same insults and biased assumptions.

Well, they haven't come close to tell us the why now, have they? Other than "it's our game and we do what we like with it"?