6 réponses à ce sujet

[David Gaider]

Part of the problem, I think, is that people shut off their ears once they've heard what they want to hear (and that applies equally to both those in favor of DA2's direction as well as those opposed).

I myself have said on numerous occasions that there are many changes, to combat as well as RPG elements. Not everyone is going to be a fan of them. Some people will be, for sure. Some people who disliked DAO will like DA2 far more. Some people will, without a doubt, take those changes as "OMG it's not an RPG anymore!" --which really couldn't be further from the truth, but some will make the claim anyhow. Some people assume that because we are doing some features like Mass Effect's, we must do them in the exact same way and thus the entire game will be exactly like Mass Effect. It's not, but it not being exactly like Mass Effect doesn't make it exactly like DAO, either.

The truth, as it is with most of the cases on these forums, lies somewhere in the middle whereas some people always like to push it to the extremes. It's either THIS or THAT, nothing in-between. We either said THIS or THAT, with any cautions or explanations ignored.

And you can do that, if you like, but don't be surprised at the results.



We're open to criticism, and there's no need to shout down anyone who offers a dissenting opinion (although it does happen, sadly)... but neither is there any need to rant and rave, especially if you've already decided that DA2 isn't for you. That may very well be, after all, and fans of the game will simply have to accept that's the case. Sadly, everyone seems to take a very confrontational stance here, and look on any view as something that must immediately be disproven (or else BioWare will believe it's true, I guess is the assumption? Mustn't let that happen!)... and, again, this is true for both sides.

Relax, people.

Modifié par David Gaider, 06 octobre 2010 - 07:21 .

[David Gaider]

Meltemph wrote...
His main disagreement was that it was going with a lack of customization of his character, and also seemed to imply(at least back then) that they were discussing simplifying(relative to meaning I suppose) the tactical aspect of it.

He seems to infer that the main complaints where more because they were taking on a more cinematic/story telling approach, then one of the CRPG approach.  

I'll just point out that you might want to be careful about reading a lot into that. Brent was already gone before we got much into DA2's overall design, which has changed several times (in some big ways, even) since then. Could be that Brent might have thought those changes were worse/better, but people citing his post as "proof" of anything really shouldn't read more into it than what's there.

Either way, I miss Brent.

[David Gaider]

Right-- I didn't mean to spark a "what is an RPG?" discussion. Maybe it wasn't me, but either way if that's the kind of discussion you want to have please go do it in Off Topic. If you can't discuss this topic without getting into a throwdown over semantics, then I'll shut it down.

[David Gaider]

AlanC9 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Right-- I didn't mean to spark a "what is an RPG?" discussion. Maybe it wasn't me, but either way if that's the kind of discussion you want to have please go do it in Off Topic. If you can't discuss this topic without getting into a throwdown over semantics, then I'll shut it down.

It's kind of implicit in the topic, isn't it? The OP's issue was that he feels Bio marketing has been misleading in the case of ME, and might be misleading again with DA. But that puts what you expect from DA2 in play.

We can avoid talking about RPGs in general by talking specifically about what DAO is and what DA2 will be, I guess. And even about what ME1 and ME2 were, since the question of whether Bio's communications about those games were accurate is relevant.

Yes, but people don't keep on the topic of DA2. They go off on tangents and start debating the nature of RPG's-- and, no, that's NOT relevant to DA2. If the subject of DA2's RPG elements can't be discussed without going into it, than it doesn't belong here and was probably too general a subject to begin with.

[David Gaider]

TMZuk wrote...
So I guess it all comes down to that I'll stop buying Bioware games, since they no longer produce the sort of games I like. Shame, but well... Thanks for the games you did make. I'll probably buy ME3 just to see how Sheperd ends, but DA2? I doubt it.

That'd be too bad. See you around.

As for everyone else, of course one's personal definition of an RPG has relevance whether you consider DA2 enough of an RPG for you personally. There were people that felt DAO wasn't enough of an RPG, never mind DA2, so taking our statement to indicate we feel everyone (and especially you) will agree it's exactly the RPG you want is a bit unfair-- we consider it to have what is important about an RPG. We've been pretty up-front about the things we're changing, and while people can say whatever they like we don't feel that our game stops being an RPG any more than we feel it's become exactly like Mass Effect.

We're not apologetic about these changes, as we think there are things about Origins that needed improvement. Maybe not the same things some of you thought, but there you are. There are also things about Origins we kept and loved, and some of the things we changed we might even return to in the future-- this is one project, not a Manifesto of RPG Intent for all the world to bow down before.

And why am I defending it, anyhow? I suppose it sounds like apologizing when you repeat yourself often enough. So I guess I'll just shrug and leave you to it. Please keep the shouting to a dull roar.

Modifié par David Gaider, 06 octobre 2010 - 10:22 .

[Stanley Woo]

If this becomes another "what is an RPG?" thread, it will be locked.