373 réponses à ce sujet

[Eterna]

Lots of QQ in this thread.

[EccentricSage]

Haexpane wrote...

He also says the buzzphrase "Paradigm shift" which means everyone needs to do a shot of tequila.

Every meaningless consultant biz speak buzzphrase from a game dev = shot of hard liquor to ease the pain

That's actually a good idea.  Gonna go get my vodka and Irish Creme Liquor.

[Mantaal]

Eterna5 wrote...

Lots of QQ in this thread.

Jep. And the QQ has a good reason

[Eterna]

Mantaal wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Lots of QQ in this thread.

Jep. And the QQ has a good reason

 Reused environments and no tactical camera? surely this game is the worst form of entertainment to ever be placed upon our earth.

Modifié par Eterna5, 26 mars 2011 - 04:28 .

[mordarwarlock]

Reused environments and no tactical camera? surely this game is the worst form of entertainment to ever be place upon our earth.

and yet, nobody said that

[truestatic]

moilami wrote...

"If I have someone nearby who can launch fire from their hands and
explode enemies, I don't feel that just because I'm wearing plate-mail I
should have to trudge forward to begin combat."

Wow just WOW, that is totally epic sig material not second to the "button and awesome are now connected. if you press a button something awesome happens. button -> awesome".

All just go on your knees and praise these new design philosphies.

Colour me slow, but I'm afraid I don't understand your criticism of either of these quotations.  I mean, you cite them, and then you just go "Wow, I can believe it."  Can't believe what exactly?  Guy's got a point.

[BiowarEA]

truestatic wrote...

moilami wrote...

"If I have someone nearby who can launch fire from their hands and
explode enemies, I don't feel that just because I'm wearing plate-mail I
should have to trudge forward to begin combat."

Wow just WOW, that is totally epic sig material not second to the "button and awesome are now connected. if you press a button something awesome happens. button -> awesome".

All just go on your knees and praise these new design philosphies.

Colour me slow, but I'm afraid I don't understand your criticism of either of these quotations.  I mean, you cite them, and then you just go "Wow, I can believe it."  Can't believe what exactly?  Guy's got a point.

And what point what that be exactly? In DA:O and other RPGs with spell casters I have almost "always" used my mage's long range spells to initiate combat from a distance. It's an utterly meaningless statement.

[EccentricSage]

If they really wanted to pull off maximum returns for the smallest possible investment, they could have simply tweaked What they had created for Origins and then built uppon it, creating a more direct sequel.

Then they could have put their time in optimizing it, and creating heavily detailed and diverse places and items. They still could have made it nearly as cinematic, with or without the voiced protagonist.

It was downright stupid to put all that time and money into sweeping gameplay changes and ignore the importance of creating something where the story, lore, and gameplay are cohesive, instead of having the gameplay punching holes in the plot, and creating a very small space with little variety or exploration.

[EccentricSage]

BiowarEA wrote...

truestatic wrote...

moilami wrote...

"If I have someone nearby who can launch fire from their hands and
explode enemies, I don't feel that just because I'm wearing plate-mail I
should have to trudge forward to begin combat."

Wow just WOW, that is totally epic sig material not second to the "button and awesome are now connected. if you press a button something awesome happens. button -> awesome".

All just go on your knees and praise these new design philosphies.

Colour me slow, but I'm afraid I don't understand your criticism of either of these quotations.  I mean, you cite them, and then you just go "Wow, I can believe it."  Can't believe what exactly?  Guy's got a point.

And what point what that be exactly? In DA:O and other RPGs with spell casters I have almost "always" used my mage's long range spells to initiate combat from a distance. It's an utterly meaningless statement.

I know.  It's an argument we keep hearing from people who say that the new combat is 100% better than DA:O.  They always bring up that you have to adapt, that you don't just hide behind a tank. 

Um... were their tactics in Origins THAT unimaginative?   There were times I'd have two rogues in stealth single out the mage, or higher level enemy, positioned for backstab, and put on hold, and then I'd time it so that the Tank appears and draws agro right at my mage uses certain spells.  If done right, you assassinate the most dangerous foe and clean up the rest.

I liked how in origind Stealthy Rogues were trully useful, as you could investigate where enemies are and then take them by surprise. 

And a well built mage could really defend herself, even if only short term. 

I think using some 'waves' of back-up in certain cenareos in Origins WOULD have spiced it up a bit, particularly if they generate rather randomly so you can't predict it.  Redcliff village was a bit like that.  But the idea of all battles playing out as you getting ambushed by waves of mobs that apear out of ceilings, the sky, thin air... How do the devs and even some fans, defend that?  My brother is a much bigger gamer than me, and he was taken aback that a Bioware game would use such lazy level design.  He was absolutely dumbfounded. 

[Kovnic]

I dont think DA2 was *that* bad. Its no DA:O, but I think the QQing is making it out to be far worse a game than it really is. That said, alot of the complaints are justified, and that interview really didnt even acknowledge them.  Fair play, he is obligated to give the "marketing spin" and probably cant say what he would like, and Gamespot did ask some "pressing" questions, even if they didnt push it like we want. Cant say I blame them if they want to keep their advert revenue.

But even taking those things into account, he came off as very dismissive of fan feedback. It seems to be that for almost every problem the reply was " Yeah, we knew the decision would not make everyone happy, but...we were still right, if you just all forget we ever did DA:O you would see how awesome DA2 is..."

I get marketing speak, I do...but attempting to "dumb down" the success of DA:O only makes the fan base madder!

Yes, we all know DA:O had its faults, and yes fixing them is good. But DA2 was a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. You got rid of the things that made DA:O Great in an attempt to "fix" the bad things about it! 

Not all Change is for the better, not all movement is "forward". I dont care how much you like this new direction, it is the wrong direction for DA series. Your DA2 sales may make you think otherwise - but never forget that a large amount of those sales came off the back of DA:O.  When DA3 pre-orders launch (if ever) your going to see how much this title hurt the franchise.

[DungeonLord]

EccentricSage wrote...

If they really wanted to pull off maximum returns for the smallest possible investment, they could have simply tweaked What they had created for Origins and then built uppon it, creating a more direct sequel.

Then they could have put their time in optimizing it, and creating heavily detailed and diverse places and items. They still could have made it nearly as cinematic, with or without the voiced protagonist.

It was downright stupid to put all that time and money into sweeping gameplay changes and ignore the importance of creating something where the story, lore, and gameplay are cohesive, instead of having the gameplay punching holes in the plot, and creating a very small space with little variety or exploration.

This.

The original had some minor flaws that could have been fixed. Instead Bioware went ahead and reinvented the wheel, wasting apparently precious resources and time.

[AlanC9]

EccentricSage wrote...
Um... were their tactics in Origins THAT unimaginative?  

Quite possibly. DAO didn't actually reward thinking all that much.

Edit: sure, the stuff you talked about works great. But you can also get through the game just fine by spamming Cone of Cold a lot.

Modifié par AlanC9, 26 mars 2011 - 05:29 .

[Baelyn]

Just for reference, can someone post specific quotes from Laidlaw in this interview where he "hated" on DA:O and where he made "old school fans" out to be dumb? Because I didn't see that in anything he said in this article. Did he acknowledge that DA:O had issues they wanted to improve? Yes. Almost every time he made it clear after the statement that it wasn't "bad" how it was but it was something they felt they could improve. And I never read him saying anything like "You can think what you want but we are right." I think people want so badly to hate him that they read way too much into his statements and hear what they want to hear.

[Orion34]

Denial is not just a river in Egypt,Mike.

[Kovnic]

Baelyn wrote...

Just for reference, can someone post specific quotes from Laidlaw in this interview where he "hated" on DA:O and where he made "old school fans" out to be dumb? Because I didn't see that in anything he said in this article. Did he acknowledge that DA:O had issues they wanted to improve? Yes. Almost every time he made it clear after the statement that it wasn't "bad" how it was but it was something they felt they could improve. And I never read him saying anything like "You can think what you want but we are right." I think people want so badly to hate him that they read way too much into his statements and hear what they want to hear.

Its not so much that he out right hates on DA:O, but he down plays its strengths to make DA2 seem better than it really is.  for example (As you asked ...)

"This is in stark contrast to the ending of Origins, where we saw things
resolved. Oh good, the Blight's over. That's great. We can all go back
to minor politicking, which as comfortable as that would be makes for a
far less compelling world to be in."  - Reads as DA:O had a bit of a "sappy" ending...

"The story arc around Aveline--to use one of our best examples--is more
involved than any character story arc we had in Origins. Not to say the
Origins characters don't have their involved arcs, and certainly
couldn't have them in the future, but it's something we consider a
byproduct of the way the game is structured. Later on, the characters
have as much or more personality than they did before." -  Reads as, DA:O characterization was good, DA2's is better...

"It's something that resolves one of the parts I really disliked about
Origins where I'd see people's screenshots with their badass team and
they would kind of all look the same. Near the end of the game, everyone
had the same set of suits of armor. It was kind of like, "Man, that's
not Morrigan if she's not in those robes."  - Reads as DA2 pre-set armour is better than DA:O's "make your own" system.

In all 3 of the above cases, in my opinion, DA:O did a better job than DA2. Not the other way around, as he would suggest.

There are far more, I could go on if need be, but what it comes down to is that it came across as downplaying just how good Origins was to make DA2 look better than it is. Thats fine from a Marketing-speak point of view, but in reality its just thrown fuel on the fire. I am happy to admit perhaps the more...shall we say, enthusiastic "haters" put more spin on his words than he intended. Thats the problem with written interviews. Maybe he should start asking the interviewers to add little icons next to his words so we all know what tone he is using 

Modifié par Kovnic, 26 mars 2011 - 06:23 .

[nicodeemus327]

DungeonLord wrote...

EccentricSage wrote...

If they really wanted to pull off maximum returns for the smallest possible investment, they could have simply tweaked What they had created for Origins and then built uppon it, creating a more direct sequel.

Then they could have put their time in optimizing it, and creating heavily detailed and diverse places and items. They still could have made it nearly as cinematic, with or without the voiced protagonist.

It was downright stupid to put all that time and money into sweeping gameplay changes and ignore the importance of creating something where the story, lore, and gameplay are cohesive, instead of having the gameplay punching holes in the plot, and creating a very small space with little variety or exploration.

This.

The original had some minor flaws that could have been fixed. Instead Bioware went ahead and reinvented the wheel, wasting apparently precious resources and time.

I would have never bought DA2 is it was just more origins. Also, DAO had more than a few minor flaws. There's were some pretty screwed up things about it. This includes combat (hello Arcane Warriors) and narrative wise (I could sleep with morigain and leliana before recruiting one army).

So many people hold DAO on a pedestal and it doesn't deserve it at all.

Modifié par nicodeemus327, 26 mars 2011 - 06:26 .

[Statulos]

Angry_Bitter wrote...

It's entirely a fool's errand to expect Mike Laidlaw or anyone at BioWare to just come out and say: "Hey guys, we know that game we just shipped is complete **** so shut up about it already". Even though it is, the fact BioWare is even being asked about the negative response has to lead them to ultimately come to a realization that DA 2 was not up to their usual standards.

These responses from Laidlaw are the same cookie cutter corporate PR speak you get from any corporation that has had a similar episode of embarrassment. We all got the same lawyer-ed up statements from British Petroleum about how "sorry" they were about the gulf oil spill and how "hard" they were working to clean it up and make the victims whole even though we all knew the truth- like any corporation they never gave a flying **** about the victims or the entire situation.

It would not surprise me if internally at least, Laidlaw, Gaider, Farrah and the rest of the DA franchise heads are having discussions about how to make DA 3 more like Origins. That is the optimist in me speaking though. The pessimist in me knows they are probably hard at work on DA 3 and ME 3 discussing how they can further dumb down, streamline and remove gameplay elements to cater to the ADD ****tards that own Xbox 360s and PS3s.

This works like the humanities in the academia: you go to a talk/presentation and then you start listening to a lot of arguments that fail to convince you. And the audience tells that the book/paper presented failed delivering the explanations the author intended.

A good author will basically adress those issues and forth next work will fix them or you get back home, revisit your work and think how could you create a second edition that puts the work in its right place.

Basically, I do not expect Lindah or any other developer to come here and tells us "yeah guys, I did it wrong", fundamentally because that will go in the first page of media and will smash sales. And let´s be honest, DA2 is not Dwarven Fortress in terms of budget.

What I do hope is that Bioware is seriosly discussing why DA2 has brought a huge sense of "this is not equally good or better than previous" reaction and how can they fix that. ME2 changed and the reactions from those who didn´t like it were not as passionate as with DA2.

Modifié par Statulos, 26 mars 2011 - 06:36 .

[nicodeemus327]

Statulos wrote...

What I do hope is that Bioware is seriosly discussing why DA2 has brought a huge sense of "this is not equally good or better than previous" reaction and how can they fix that. ME2 changed and the reactions from those who didn´t like it were not as passionate as with DA2.

Are you kidding me? Did you even read these forums when ME2 came out? It was a river of hate and bile. Where's my RPG elements? Whaa. Why is this character different? Whaaa. It was the same thing there and as it is here. Way too many people were too attached to the original ME1 and just wanted more of the same slop.

Modifié par nicodeemus327, 26 mars 2011 - 06:36 .

[Statulos]

nicodeemus327 wrote...

Statulos wrote...

What I do hope is that Bioware is seriosly discussing why DA2 has brought a huge sense of "this is not equally good or better than previous" reaction and how can they fix that. ME2 changed and the reactions from those who didn´t like it were not as passionate as with DA2.

Are you kidding me? Did you even read these forums when ME2 came out? It was a river of hate and bile. Where's my RPG elements? Whaa. Why is this character different? Whaaa. It was the same thing there and as it is here. Way too many people were too attached to the original ME1 and just wanted more of the same slop.

I did not feel it as brutal as DA2´s reactions.

[Baelyn]

Kovnic wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

Just for reference, can someone post specific quotes from Laidlaw in this interview where he "hated" on DA:O and where he made "old school fans" out to be dumb? Because I didn't see that in anything he said in this article. Did he acknowledge that DA:O had issues they wanted to improve? Yes. Almost every time he made it clear after the statement that it wasn't "bad" how it was but it was something they felt they could improve. And I never read him saying anything like "You can think what you want but we are right." I think people want so badly to hate him that they read way too much into his statements and hear what they want to hear.

Its not so much that he out right hates on DA:O, but he down plays its strengths to make DA2 seem better than it really is.  for example (As you asked ...)

"This is in stark contrast to the ending of Origins, where we saw things
resolved. Oh good, the Blight's over. That's great. We can all go back
to minor politicking, which as comfortable as that would be makes for a
far less compelling world to be in."  - Reads as DA:O had a bit of a "sappy" ending...

"The story arc around Aveline--to use one of our best examples--is more
involved than any character story arc we had in Origins. Not to say the
Origins characters don't have their involved arcs, and certainly
couldn't have them in the future, but it's something we consider a
byproduct of the way the game is structured. Later on, the characters
have as much or more personality than they did before." -  Reads as, DA:O characterization was good, DA2's is better...

"It's something that resolves one of the parts I really disliked about
Origins where I'd see people's screenshots with their badass team and
they would kind of all look the same. Near the end of the game, everyone
had the same set of suits of armor. It was kind of like, "Man, that's
not Morrigan if she's not in those robes."  - Reads as DA2 pre-set armour is better than DA:O's "make your own" system.

In all 3 of the above cases, in my opinion, DA:O did a better job than DA2. Not the other way around, as he would suggest.

There are far more, I could go on if need be, but what it comes down to is that it came across as downplaying just how good Origins was to make DA2 look better than it is. Thats fine from a Marketing-speak point of view, but in reality its just thrown fuel on the fire. I am happy to admit perhaps the more...shall we say, enthusiastic "haters" put more spin on his words than he intended. Thats the problem with written interviews. Maybe he should start asking the interviewers to add little icons next to his words so we all know what tone he is using 

Not gonna lie, I lol'd pretty hard at that last line you used.

Thank you for taking the time to do this.

I guess in our case (with the examples you provided) that I felt differently about Origins than you. And don't get me wrong I LOVED Origins...it is why I am even playing DA2 in the first place....but I think the things he addressed were things that could be improved upon. It (DA:O) was far from a perfect game either IMO.

Here are my responses in order of your points.

1. I didn't read it as Origins had a sappy ending and DA2's is better. I read it as the same thing he has said all along. They didn't want to just slap 2 archdemon's back to back and call it a sequel. They wanted to tell a different story and have a different ending to keep the series from going stale. Whether you thought this was the right move or not is irrelevant to what we are discussing which was his intent in the changes made and his defense of them.

2. I actually agreed. I think DA2's characterization is more developed than DA:O. What I did not like was the fact that the only REAL conversations you could have with your companions is when they had a specific quest for you in DA2. Minus this aspect I think it is better. And again I don't think there is anything wrong with him saying "Origins did it this way and that was good, but we thought we could improve it and did in DA2."

3. I can definitely see both sides of this argument and I think a combination of the two would have been better than what we ended up with in DA2 (Each companion has several "unique outfits" that you can find throughout the game and choose which look you want for each instead of...hey they are going to look the same the whole game no matter what.) What he is saying does a merit though, they wanted to make you feel like those characters were their own person and not just another paperdoll  where you ended up having everyone wearing the generic armors. Again I think it could have been done better but I don't think this quote is him "hating" on Origins. He even goes on later in the interview to say that after seeing the feedback they are most likely going to go back to letting people pick their companion's armor with some compromise of allowing that character to still stand out from the crowd. This I think is VERY good, but no one has commented on the fact that he said this. Only that he hates Origins and is in denial about his game. It was obvious to me from the interview that they are definitely rethinking some of the changes and by no means will every Dragon Age game follow all of the changes they made in this one.

[nicodeemus327]

Statulos wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...

Statulos wrote...

What I do hope is that Bioware is seriosly discussing why DA2 has brought a huge sense of "this is not equally good or better than previous" reaction and how can they fix that. ME2 changed and the reactions from those who didn´t like it were not as passionate as with DA2.

Are you kidding me? Did you even read these forums when ME2 came out? It was a river of hate and bile. Where's my RPG elements? Whaa. Why is this character different? Whaaa. It was the same thing there and as it is here. Way too many people were too attached to the original ME1 and just wanted more of the same slop.

I did not feel it as brutal as DA2´s reactions.

Then you didn't read enough. It's been like this for pretty much every major sequal I can think of.

It would really be crappy with DA2 turned out like Left 4 Dead 2 which really was just more of the same.

[Baelyn]

Just for reference here is his specific quote that I was referring to in my post.

Long term, do I think it hurt people's connection to them? I don't think so. I think if anything, the criticisms I've seen leveled at that are largely, "I don't like it, simply because I either want to control them or I don't." That's fair and something we'll end up evaluating over time. It's likely that we'll end up coming back to a way to equip your followers, but at the same time, I really do think that having their own visual signature is really important.

[petipas1414]

Statulos wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...

Statulos wrote...

What I do hope is that Bioware is seriosly discussing why DA2 has brought a huge sense of "this is not equally good or better than previous" reaction and how can they fix that. ME2 changed and the reactions from those who didn´t like it were not as passionate as with DA2.

Are you kidding me? Did you even read these forums when ME2 came out? It was a river of hate and bile. Where's my RPG elements? Whaa. Why is this character different? Whaaa. It was the same thing there and as it is here. Way too many people were too attached to the original ME1 and just wanted more of the same slop.

I did not feel it as brutal as DA2´s reactions.

Yea man the ME2 'backlash' was nothing compared to this. The big difference between ME2 and DA2 is that one was good and one sucked, sorry. ME2 won tons of awards and I highly doubt DA2 will win any.

[Kovnic]

Baelyn wrote...
Not gonna lie, I lol'd pretty hard at that last line you used.

Thank you for taking the time to do this.

I guess in our case (with the examples you provided) that I felt differently about Origins than you. And don't get me wrong I LOVED Origins...it is why I am even playing DA2 in the first place....but I think the things he addressed were things that could be improved upon. It (DA:O) was far from a perfect game either IMO.

Here are my responses in order of your points.

1. I didn't read it as Origins had a sappy ending and DA2's is better. I read it as the same thing he has said all along. They didn't want to just slap 2 archdemon's back to back and call it a sequel. They wanted to tell a different story and have a different ending to keep the series from going stale. Whether you thought this was the right move or not is irrelevant to what we are discussing which was his intent in the changes made and his defense of them.

2. I actually agreed. I think DA2's characterization is more developed than DA:O. What I did not like was the fact that the only REAL conversations you could have with your companions is when they had a specific quest for you in DA2. Minus this aspect I think it is better. And again I don't think there is anything wrong with him saying "Origins did it this way and that was good, but we thought we could improve it and did in DA2."

3. I can definitely see both sides of this argument and I think a combination of the two would have been better than what we ended up with in DA2 (Each companion has several "unique outfits" that you can find throughout the game and choose which look you want for each instead of...hey they are going to look the same the whole game no matter what.) What he is saying does a merit though, they wanted to make you feel like those characters were their own person and not just another paperdoll  where you ended up having everyone wearing the generic armors. Again I think it could have been done better but I don't think this quote is him "hating" on Origins. He even goes on later in the interview to say that after seeing the feedback they are most likely going to go back to letting people pick their companion's armor with some compromise of allowing that character to still stand out from the crowd. This I think is VERY good, but no one has commented on the fact that he said this. Only that he hates Origins and is in denial about his game. It was obvious to me from the interview that they are definitely rethinking some of the changes and by no means will every Dragon Age game follow all of the changes they made in this one.

I have no problem with him (or you) having an alternative view about DA:O or DA2 to mine.  Thats cool with me. I also wouldnt expect anything I said to change your opinion on it either. I think the reason he is getting flack over this is not so much "what he said" after all, we expect them to praise DA2, as its the new baby.  What I think is sticking with a lot of people is "How he said it" AND "What he didnt say".

Just for example, when talking about the DA:O ending, rather than use the words he did, why not just say. "We had a neat story, that worked well in DA:O, but we didnt just want to repeat it, so we took the idea of "how to tell a story" in a different dirction in DA2" - That way the originonal is not "talked down", but the focus is still drawn to DA2.  Its all about spin. In every case were he talked down DA:O, the problem is not so much that he has that veiw (Everyone is entitled to an opinion) but rather he kinda flamed DA:O in a bit of a backhanded way to get that opionion across, intended or not...or at least, thats how DA:O fans are reading it.  If they had just spun the answers a bit better, both games would have come out looking better. Instead all he has done is fan the flames of DA:O vs DA2.  If I didnt know better, I would say it was an elaborate Troll on his part as Revenge on the forum here. maybe he is having a good lolz at the nerd rage he has kicked off

I'll be honest, I dont think that was his intent at all, I think its just poorly worded marketing speak. I am not surprised by this though, as DA2 has been a bit of a marketing cluster-f*** from the get go lol

[nicodeemus327]

Kovnic wrote...

Baelyn wrote...
Not gonna lie, I lol'd pretty hard at that last line you used.

Thank you for taking the time to do this.

I guess in our case (with the examples you provided) that I felt differently about Origins than you. And don't get me wrong I LOVED Origins...it is why I am even playing DA2 in the first place....but I think the things he addressed were things that could be improved upon. It (DA:O) was far from a perfect game either IMO.

Here are my responses in order of your points.

1. I didn't read it as Origins had a sappy ending and DA2's is better. I read it as the same thing he has said all along. They didn't want to just slap 2 archdemon's back to back and call it a sequel. They wanted to tell a different story and have a different ending to keep the series from going stale. Whether you thought this was the right move or not is irrelevant to what we are discussing which was his intent in the changes made and his defense of them.

2. I actually agreed. I think DA2's characterization is more developed than DA:O. What I did not like was the fact that the only REAL conversations you could have with your companions is when they had a specific quest for you in DA2. Minus this aspect I think it is better. And again I don't think there is anything wrong with him saying "Origins did it this way and that was good, but we thought we could improve it and did in DA2."

3. I can definitely see both sides of this argument and I think a combination of the two would have been better than what we ended up with in DA2 (Each companion has several "unique outfits" that you can find throughout the game and choose which look you want for each instead of...hey they are going to look the same the whole game no matter what.) What he is saying does a merit though, they wanted to make you feel like those characters were their own person and not just another paperdoll  where you ended up having everyone wearing the generic armors. Again I think it could have been done better but I don't think this quote is him "hating" on Origins. He even goes on later in the interview to say that after seeing the feedback they are most likely going to go back to letting people pick their companion's armor with some compromise of allowing that character to still stand out from the crowd. This I think is VERY good, but no one has commented on the fact that he said this. Only that he hates Origins and is in denial about his game. It was obvious to me from the interview that they are definitely rethinking some of the changes and by no means will every Dragon Age game follow all of the changes they made in this one.

I have no problem with him (or you) having an alternative view about DA:O or DA2 to mine.  Thats cool with me. I also wouldnt expect anything I said to change your opinion on it either. I think the reason he is getting flack over this is not so much "what he said" after all, we expect them to praise DA2, as its the new baby.  What I think is sticking with a lot of people is "How he said it" AND "What he didnt say".

Just for example, when talking about the DA:O ending, rather than use the words he did, why not just say. "We had a neat story, that worked well in DA:O, but we didnt just want to repeat it, so we took the idea of "how to tell a story" in a different dirction in DA2" - That way the originonal is not "talked down", but the focus is still drawn to DA2.  Its all about spin. In every case were he talked down DA:O, the problem is not so much that he has that veiw (Everyone is entitled to an opinion) but rather he kinda flamed DA:O in a bit of a backhanded way to get that opionion across, intended or not...or at least, thats how DA:O fans are reading it.  If they had just spun the answers a bit better, both games would have come out looking better. Instead all he has done is fan the flames of DA:O vs DA2.  If I didnt know better, I would say it was an elaborate Troll on his part as Revenge on the forum here. maybe he is having a good lolz at the nerd rage he has kicked off

I'll be honest, I dont think that was his intent at all, I think its just poorly worded marketing speak. I am not surprised by this though, as DA2 has been a bit of a marketing cluster-f*** from the get go lol

DAO wasn't without its problems. It had its fair share in many areas. It was still a great game but to place it on a pedestal as a model of how to do things is asinine. This is how final fantasies are developed.