5 réponses à ce sujet

[filetemo]

They say they want to push the rpg genre, but it's not true, what they want is to make interactive adventures.

In bioware's wildest dreams, they get rid of inventory, skills, tactical combat, leveling up, customisation options and stats. All those heavy and difficult to learn rpg things that make them unatractive to casual gamers. They can't do it yet, because hardcore rpg gamers still have power, but they really would like their games to stop getting labeled rpgs, because that's like a stigma for the fps crowd.

Bioware's perfect game would be: premade character, choices, love interests, different endings and simple combat "press A to win" they are moving slowly to that, Heavy Rain with swords and magic.

Do you remember those books of "choose your own adventure"? that's what bioware wants to do.

They are forcing us to assume slowly the changes made to dilute the rpg traits, and in 5 years we will call bioware games "adventures" because the rpgs will be no more.

Then maybe, they'll get their dream of selling 10 million units.

[Stanley Woo]

oh yes we do. If you make me believe a character is like this, and make me love him for it, do not present it to me in a radically new form or you'll make me rage, and not only will I not buy your comic/movie/game/novel, but I will also flame you in your blog/forum/deeepest corner of the internet you hide in.

And that will accomplish precisely nothing. If someone decided to make Shepard into a transvestite cocaine addict (and, of course, we thought that it would work and sell and make money), all your raging and flaming would not change the direction of the game. It would not magically change Shepard into the character you want him to be. In fact, we could do whatever we wanted with Shepard without your permission, approval, or knowledge, and you'd have precisely zero control over it. That's what people mean when they say it's not your character.



I understand that you can feel a great connection to a character, and you want him to be a certain way, but guess what? Characters can change. Look at Batman, for example, or, rather, The Bat-Man. Look at the very different ways he is written and drawn. At some point, people started drawing him a different way, people started writing him a certain way. Times changed, comics changed, the world changed, and of course, Batman's stories changed to reflect what was happening in the world.



Is Batman "your" character? he's been around much, much longer than Dragon Age has. how much control do Batman fans have in what Batman scripts get approved? How much influence do Batman fans have on who's chosen as the next actor to play Batman, or what actor voices Batman, or who dubs him in foreign language versions of movies? How many times has DC Comics phones you to ask you what the next Batman game is going to be? Where's the website Batman fans go to in order to vote for which writer we want to write which Batman story featuring which Batman villain next?



What's that you say? All of these things are done by creative professionals under some kind of contract with the owner of the Batman license? And that these products are then marketed to Batman fans to enjoy or not, as they choose? You're saying that fans of a given character or setting or license or property are not active creators of those stories and games and movies? that they are consumers who "merely" love, consume, empathize with, and perhaps become attached to the character or property?



I'm being a little sarcastic because I think it's an important lesson to learn. As much as we love the characters and stories and worlds that affect us, we all are really only passive consumers of those characters, stories, and worlds. we would love for them to remain the way we love them, unchanging. But time and product move on. I don't like all Batman stories, I don't like all Batman actors, and I certainly don't like all the Batman films. but I love the character, and when a good writer writes (or a good artist draws) a good Batman story, I'll pick it up and I'll enjoy it for what it is. I will also enjoy it for how it expands my view of the character or world. If 1940's the Bat-Man is all you ever want to know or have of the character, that's fine. You can do that, and no one should judge you for that. but you'll be missing Dark Knight Batman, Knightfall Batman, killing Joke Batman, No Man's Land Batman, JLA Batman, OMAC Batman, as well as missing out on Tim Drake Robin, Spoiler, Year One Batman, the movies, and the animated series.



Yes, you may not like the directions taken by certain creators, but wouldn't it be better to go along for the ride to see what will happen in this world, or to these characters rather than lock everything into a single, restrictive paradigm? I dunno, it seems weird to me that people would rather hold onto one unchanging view than to explore views that one might never have thought of: Knightfall Batman, Spider-Man revealing his identity to Aunt May, Wash's demise in Serenity, Angel in charge of Wolfram & Hart, etc. We love characters and stories because of how they're portrayed and written and acted and drawn, whatever. Why, then, are we so against having those same characters do something in addition to something we already know and love and enjoy?

[Stanley Woo]

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Stanley, I think you need to put a spoiler tag on that post.

I'm pretty sure everything I mentioned is past the "statue of limitations" on spoilers by now.

[Stanley Woo]

Ensgnblack wrote...

I just caught up to reading the whole thread, and Stanely, I agree with everything you said there. COnsumers are not the ones creating the game. Let the designers design and purchase it if you endorse their product.

True. And let me reiterate that there's nothing wrong with loving a product, character, or setting so much that you don't want it to change, or so much that it becomes a part of you. Nothing wrong with that, despite my aversion to some of the fanfic and fan art out there. but stamping one's feet and saying "no, it can't change" and holding one's breath as if to stop creators from doing  their job is a little nonsensical.

Where would some of our most beloved characters and settings be without some kind of change or addition? i already used Batman as an example. Look at how much more popular the Lord of the Rings became after the movies came out. And the movies changed things, and purists were outraged! didn't stop the movies from being good and enjoyable and spawning many different board game products and RPGs and action figures and things.

i may be biased, but I don't think Dragon Age 2 is going to be the "death of all RPGs" or "killing of my favourite puppy" that some folks fear it will be. It certainly won't be quite the same as DAO, but we think it'll have more than enough "Dragon Age-ness" in it to keep folks satisfied. And even if you don't agree, that's just us having a difference of opinion rather than us deliberately ruining your favourite game and your favourite genre and the industry as a whole for no reason other than money money money money money bwahahahaha. it's a big difference.

[Stanley Woo]

Bryy_Miller wrote...
It must be so hard for you guys NOT to write paragraph long replies each time you visit the forums.

Oy, you don't know the half of it! Lol!

[David Gaider]

While this is a great philosophical dialogue about the nature of RPG's... it doesn't really belong here as it's way past being about DA2 any more. It belongs in Off Topic. I suggest moving it there, please.