[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]AtreiyaN7 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]RohanD wrote...
Careful, you may get banned for this[/quote]
THIS ^
[/quote]
If you seriously think people get banned over disliking the game or being critical, there wouldn't be threads like this, would there? If someone likes the game, then there's really nothing to "discuss." Since the game was enjoyable overall for me, I think he did a good job - even though I'm critical about a few things.
[/quote]
That wasnt my point , this is a personal attack plain and simple..[/quote]
Please read the thread topic. I have addressed this concern that some of you have.[/quote]
ok...
READ WHAT I POSTED AGAIN !
[/quote]
I can see that this thread has hit a personal nerve for you, and that's unfortunate. I'm not sure if you were referring to the other person or myself in your post regarding the personal attack, however the post you left is a little ambiguous, so if I misunderstood, I apologise.
I would however like to keep my edited topic as some people seem to be taking my thread as a personal attack on Mike Laidlaw.
PS you don't need to type in big capitals to get your point across. It just makes you look childish and stupid and doesn't help you at all.[/quote]
Perhaps you are right, I probably should've used a well thought out response to this thread's intentions as it were.. For the record though... The only one being childish and stupid here in this post between you and I is you . Just because the internet gives you a voice to speak your will, does not give you the right to personally attack another person based on your opinion ! If this Mike Laidlaw did you wrong personally I could see / understand a retort . This post however, is utter complete bullsquat to the 50th degree ! You are in fact most likely will get at the very least moderated for this possibly more. I very seldom get angry or upset over opinions and ideas. Your childish and stupid actions shame all of us in the Dragon Age community ! So .. was that professional enough for you to understand ?[/quote]
Wow, firstly you should probably walk away from the computer, take a walk or something, relax a little, you're getting way too worked up over it and you're coming across as overly sensitive and petulant. Remember, I don't affect your day to day life, so no reason to get too worked up about it. But anyway, if you can just for one second calm down a bit and listen, you may get something out of this.
So it appears you were saying that this thread is actually a personal attack on Mike Laidlaw. Well, it's not, because I never attacked Mike Laidlaw the person, in fact I never actually attacked Mike Laidlaw in his professional context either, merely asked for open discussion on him in that role. Perhaps you should read my edited first post again, then again, then again, until it registers to you exactly why I'm putting this thread up. I don't think I can make it any more clear, I don't have anything against Mike Laidlaw personally.
If someone from Bioware wants to moderate this thread, then so be it, it's a semi private forum and Bioware can do as they wish with it. It would however, be unfortunate if they were to remove/moderate things that they were uncomfortable with simply because they disagree with it. I do think we as consumers should have a right to discuss and speculate on the change of direction in an organisation that we have given our money to. We can also speculate and make suggestions on what the business should do differently at the internal level. We cannot control what they do at this level, but we can express whether we like it or not so long as we don't resort to personal attacks. Just because I have identified a person as responsible for the direction of the franchise, doesn't make the attack a personal one.
A personal attack would be something like referring to Mike Laidlaw's sexuality, political or religious convictions or something along those lines. I have done nothing of the sort, and refuse to stoop to that level.
Mike Laidlaw - The problem? Somebody else - The solution?
Débuté par
Ronin2006
, mars 25 2011 01:17
-
Ce sujet est fermé
- Show only BioWare posts
Retour en haut
#77
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 04:00
Ariella
-
- Members
- 3 693 messages
RohanD wrote...
Ariella wrote...
B3taMaxxx wrote...
RohanD wrote...
Obsidian are the devs to watch from now. They've had some rocky games, but I guarantee they are going to be hitting their full stride pretty soon.
In about a months time perhaps we'll see, but that's a hefty claim considering their recent endeavours.
Considering that Obsidian has yet to make an independant IP that was a marketplace success (I really enjoyed AP and find it sad that SEGA decided not to continue with the frachise as it was a great idea) making the claim they are the devs to watch seems a little hyperbolic to me. The next game they have coming out is Dungeon Siege 3 with Square Enix, and from the little I've seen it looks like DS3 has even LESS character definition ability than AP did.
I'd like Obsidian to do well, but I doubt in the next several months they're going to come out with anything truly innovative.
Dungeon Siege 3 is going to be a fantastic game. It is a reboot, but it is a very well considered, no holds barred reboot. If you look at the gameplay footage you'll see that they've put a LOT of time and money into the development of the game and its engine.
I've seen the game play footage, and to me it looks a lot like Guildwars 2, plus not making own character is a drawback in my opinion. From everything I've seen, if this is a reboot, it feels to me like it's going the Bryan Singer/Superman Returns route rather than the Chris Nolan/Batman Begins way.
The point is, it is not trying to be something that it isn't. They've said from the get go, this is dungeon crawler, co op hack and slash with rpg elements. They aren't trying to reinvent the wheel which almost always fails, they are sticking to their guns and just making a really great, solid experience. Approching things this way I believe gives their team more focus and more drive to complete the task properly.
Now if only that Aliens RPG didn't get canned....sigh
Considering, if you listen to Mike Laidlaw, and many of the other devs who have spoken about DA 2 since prior even to release, you'll hear the exact same thing. They took all the feedback they got from DAO/DAA and the DLCs, looked at what was most considered wrong by both reviews and fans alike and did their damnest to improve those areas. Nobody was trying to reinvent the wheel with DA2 they were trying to do what they did in DAO (AKA tell a good story) and do it better.
And my point about Obsidian pretty much stands, they need to stop picking up other people's leftovers and strike out on their own with a success if they really want to make a mark on gaming.
#78
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 04:07
Ronin2006
-
- Members
- 307 messages
B3taMaxxx wrote...
Ronin2006 wrote...
I understand it may not be just one person who made all these changes to the franchise, but there is always a single person at the top of the organisation who oversees everything and guides the direction of that organisation. That is the person I am trying to refer to. People keep saying it's EA, but EA is a producer. They are not actually involved in that process as heavily as some people like to believe. They may have put pressure on Bioware to do things that they wouldn't want, but ultimately Bioware still has their own creative license to use within their budget and time constraints that EA has set out for them.
But this is where we differ. I liked the direction they went with the franchise, but NOT at the fact it was pushed out the door. I like the new character models (female dwarves don't exist!), the combat in my opinion is better (although the lack of a tactical view is bad, but I blame this on the games engine) and the overall story was good, it just wasn't fully fleshed out.
As I've said, the problems assosiated with the game (for me) are the time constraints it was developed.
And while EA is just a producer, they purchased BioWare, therefor the ultimate decisions rest upon them. However, I do not fully lay the blame upon them, but perhaps the people that allowed them to think magic (developing a RPG in such a time frame) could happen.
Where does this leave us? Well, I can answer that question for myself, but not immediately. I will wait and hold my ultimate judgement until I hear about the future installment, and in what direction they'll take it, under what time constraints.
It's just to soon to understand the fallout, for me atleast.
Yes, very true. While I appreciate and understand that you liked the direction, there is a significant part of the community who vehemently dislike it. Personally I liked some of the changes in direction but felt they were implemented very poorly. There were other changes I disliked, and thought were awful however, but this is beside the point.
Firstly, I wholeheartedly agree that the game was rushed and a lot of that is EA's fault. Unfortunately, as much as we'd all really like EA to just leave Bioware alone to make their own game, it's just not how business works. EA gave them the budget and deadline, and no matter how unrealistic their targets may have been, it is always going to fall on Bioware's shoulders. EA were the producer and not the game designers. It might be totally unfair to do to Bioware what EA did, and EA may be to blame, and it may even be true that EA should take responsibility for the shortcomings. But this isn't going to happen, and this isn't the way business works. If Mike Laidlaw doesn't fulfil what EA and the consumer base wants, they'll simply try and look for someone else that will, whether they find that person is a whole other story
If EA had their set of demands (sell lots of games, universal acclaim in 12-18 months) and Mike Laidlaw and his team don't reach those demands, EA will not likely blame themselves, they'll blame Mike Laidlaw (or whoever is actually responsible for it). Like I said before, the business world is sometimes harsh, unjust and definitely unfair, but there's really nothing you, I, or even Mike Laidlaw can do about it.
Modifié par Ronin2006, 25 mars 2011 - 04:27 .
#79
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 04:08
Jymm
-
- Members
- 128 messages
Knowing a bit about how games are made, this one shows signs of a pretty clear design vision. With an 18 month timetable they took the franchise in some decidedly different directions. And yet it comes out as a cohesive product. Each of us may or may not like specific things that were done and decisions that were made, but I at least respect Mike for being confident enough to articulate a vision and move the project to completion. I have become somewhat tired of his endless defensive maneuvers in press (like the Gamespot interview up now) but I understand the need for keeping up appearances while the game is still selling well.
Some things like painful environmental reuse are very likely a combination of the way that Bioware's art department operates, their world building toolset, and a very compressed timeframe. They seem to insist on building every location from scratch, pixel by pixel I swear. I get the impression that games with enormous environments and loads of interesting areas are usually constructed out of a large palate of interchangeable assets that designers can mix & match, retexture, and sculpt with easy-to-use tools. Bioware doesn't seem to have that part down. So if you compress the amount of time or staffing resources they have to produce a game you get ME1 or DA2 style overuse of these identical maps. They just don't have time to hand-craft dozens of sprawling levels.
In contrast, I personally think the use of framed narrative and the story of a single character's rise to prominence in a single location was a clever way to restrain scope while still telling a very compelling and interesting story. If it was in fact consciously chosen in response to resource constraints set up at the beginning of the project then it borders on sheer genius. If that's the case then Mike does in fact deserve a raise.
If you hate the faster combat. If you hate that its more accessible and easier on the default difficulty. If you hate that they stripped the tactical camera from the PC version. If you hate that character loadout and loot is simplified. Then these are all reasons to criticize the game and by extension Mr. Laidlaw who was its creative guidance. But if instead you are upset about limited maps, a very confined world, less freeform dialog (such as at camp in DAO), more bugs, and lower overall content hours then you should probably point your frustration at the bean counters who set the time & budget for the project.
Some things like painful environmental reuse are very likely a combination of the way that Bioware's art department operates, their world building toolset, and a very compressed timeframe. They seem to insist on building every location from scratch, pixel by pixel I swear. I get the impression that games with enormous environments and loads of interesting areas are usually constructed out of a large palate of interchangeable assets that designers can mix & match, retexture, and sculpt with easy-to-use tools. Bioware doesn't seem to have that part down. So if you compress the amount of time or staffing resources they have to produce a game you get ME1 or DA2 style overuse of these identical maps. They just don't have time to hand-craft dozens of sprawling levels.
In contrast, I personally think the use of framed narrative and the story of a single character's rise to prominence in a single location was a clever way to restrain scope while still telling a very compelling and interesting story. If it was in fact consciously chosen in response to resource constraints set up at the beginning of the project then it borders on sheer genius. If that's the case then Mike does in fact deserve a raise.
If you hate the faster combat. If you hate that its more accessible and easier on the default difficulty. If you hate that they stripped the tactical camera from the PC version. If you hate that character loadout and loot is simplified. Then these are all reasons to criticize the game and by extension Mr. Laidlaw who was its creative guidance. But if instead you are upset about limited maps, a very confined world, less freeform dialog (such as at camp in DAO), more bugs, and lower overall content hours then you should probably point your frustration at the bean counters who set the time & budget for the project.
#80
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 04:09
Chaos_1001
-
- Members
- 498 messages
[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]AtreiyaN7 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]RohanD wrote...
Careful, you may get banned for this[/quote]
THIS ^
[/quote]
If you seriously think people get banned over disliking the game or being critical, there wouldn't be threads like this, would there? If someone likes the game, then there's really nothing to "discuss." Since the game was enjoyable overall for me, I think he did a good job - even though I'm critical about a few things.
[/quote]
That wasnt my point , this is a personal attack plain and simple..[/quote]
Please read the thread topic. I have addressed this concern that some of you have.[/quote]
ok...
READ WHAT I POSTED AGAIN !
[/quote]
I can see that this thread has hit a personal nerve for you, and that's unfortunate. I'm not sure if you were referring to the other person or myself in your post regarding the personal attack, however the post you left is a little ambiguous, so if I misunderstood, I apologise.
I would however like to keep my edited topic as some people seem to be taking my thread as a personal attack on Mike Laidlaw.
PS you don't need to type in big capitals to get your point across. It just makes you look childish and stupid and doesn't help you at all.[/quote]
Perhaps you are right, I probably should've used a well thought out response to this thread's intentions as it were.. For the record though... The only one being childish and stupid here in this post between you and I is you . Just because the internet gives you a voice to speak your will, does not give you the right to personally attack another person based on your opinion ! If this Mike Laidlaw did you wrong personally I could see / understand a retort . This post however, is utter complete bullsquat to the 50th degree ! You are in fact most likely will get at the very least moderated for this possibly more. I very seldom get angry or upset over opinions and ideas. Your childish and stupid actions shame all of us in the Dragon Age community ! So .. was that professional enough for you to understand ?[/quote]
Wow, firstly you should probably walk away from the computer, take a walk or something, relax a little, you're getting way too worked up over it and you're coming across as overly sensitive and petulant. Remember, I don't affect your day to day life, so no reason to get too worked up about it. But anyway, if you can just for one second calm down a bit and listen, you may get something out of this.
So it appears you were saying that this thread is actually a personal attack on Mike Laidlaw. Well, it's not, because I never attacked Mike Laidlaw the person, in fact I never actually attacked Mike Laidlaw in his professional context either, merely asked for open discussion on him in that role. Perhaps you should read my edited first post again, then again, then again, until it registers to you exactly why I'm putting this thread up. I don't think I can make it any more clear, I don't have anything against Mike Laidlaw personally.
If someone from Bioware wants to moderate this thread, then so be it, it's a semi private forum and Bioware can do as they wish with it. It would however, be unfortunate if they were to remove/moderate things that they were uncomfortable with simply because they disagree with it. I do think we as consumers should have a right to discuss and speculate on the change of direction in an organisation that we have given our money to. We can also speculate and make suggestions on what the business should do differently at the internal level. We cannot control what they do at this level, but we can express whether we like it or not so long as we don't resort to personal attacks. Just because I have identified a person as responsible for the direction of the franchise, doesn't make the attack a personal one.
A personal attack would be something like referring to Mike Laidlaw's sexuality, political or religious convictions or something along those lines. I have done nothing of the sort, and refuse to stoop to that level.[/quote]
I see .. You in fact created a thread to discuss Mike Laidlaw's future involvment in the company that created a game you bought and disliked . You paid "x" dollars /. euros ect for this game then thought ( through a technicality) you could accuse Mike Laidlaw directly of what you thought of him personally . BUT you also realized that would be grounds at the very least moderation possibly litagation. SO you engineered the idea of your plan through a discussion of the suggestion of doing this.
I can tell you right now .. If I a fellow member of the community / fellow gamer can see through the bs of what you are in fact doing here, so can the mods, devs and even Mr. Laidlaw himself.
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]AtreiyaN7 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]RohanD wrote...
Careful, you may get banned for this[/quote]
THIS ^
[/quote]
If you seriously think people get banned over disliking the game or being critical, there wouldn't be threads like this, would there? If someone likes the game, then there's really nothing to "discuss." Since the game was enjoyable overall for me, I think he did a good job - even though I'm critical about a few things.
[/quote]
That wasnt my point , this is a personal attack plain and simple..[/quote]
Please read the thread topic. I have addressed this concern that some of you have.[/quote]
ok...
READ WHAT I POSTED AGAIN !
[/quote]
I can see that this thread has hit a personal nerve for you, and that's unfortunate. I'm not sure if you were referring to the other person or myself in your post regarding the personal attack, however the post you left is a little ambiguous, so if I misunderstood, I apologise.
I would however like to keep my edited topic as some people seem to be taking my thread as a personal attack on Mike Laidlaw.
PS you don't need to type in big capitals to get your point across. It just makes you look childish and stupid and doesn't help you at all.[/quote]
Perhaps you are right, I probably should've used a well thought out response to this thread's intentions as it were.. For the record though... The only one being childish and stupid here in this post between you and I is you . Just because the internet gives you a voice to speak your will, does not give you the right to personally attack another person based on your opinion ! If this Mike Laidlaw did you wrong personally I could see / understand a retort . This post however, is utter complete bullsquat to the 50th degree ! You are in fact most likely will get at the very least moderated for this possibly more. I very seldom get angry or upset over opinions and ideas. Your childish and stupid actions shame all of us in the Dragon Age community ! So .. was that professional enough for you to understand ?[/quote]
Wow, firstly you should probably walk away from the computer, take a walk or something, relax a little, you're getting way too worked up over it and you're coming across as overly sensitive and petulant. Remember, I don't affect your day to day life, so no reason to get too worked up about it. But anyway, if you can just for one second calm down a bit and listen, you may get something out of this.
So it appears you were saying that this thread is actually a personal attack on Mike Laidlaw. Well, it's not, because I never attacked Mike Laidlaw the person, in fact I never actually attacked Mike Laidlaw in his professional context either, merely asked for open discussion on him in that role. Perhaps you should read my edited first post again, then again, then again, until it registers to you exactly why I'm putting this thread up. I don't think I can make it any more clear, I don't have anything against Mike Laidlaw personally.
If someone from Bioware wants to moderate this thread, then so be it, it's a semi private forum and Bioware can do as they wish with it. It would however, be unfortunate if they were to remove/moderate things that they were uncomfortable with simply because they disagree with it. I do think we as consumers should have a right to discuss and speculate on the change of direction in an organisation that we have given our money to. We can also speculate and make suggestions on what the business should do differently at the internal level. We cannot control what they do at this level, but we can express whether we like it or not so long as we don't resort to personal attacks. Just because I have identified a person as responsible for the direction of the franchise, doesn't make the attack a personal one.
A personal attack would be something like referring to Mike Laidlaw's sexuality, political or religious convictions or something along those lines. I have done nothing of the sort, and refuse to stoop to that level.[/quote]
I see .. You in fact created a thread to discuss Mike Laidlaw's future involvment in the company that created a game you bought and disliked . You paid "x" dollars /. euros ect for this game then thought ( through a technicality) you could accuse Mike Laidlaw directly of what you thought of him personally . BUT you also realized that would be grounds at the very least moderation possibly litagation. SO you engineered the idea of your plan through a discussion of the suggestion of doing this.
I can tell you right now .. If I a fellow member of the community / fellow gamer can see through the bs of what you are in fact doing here, so can the mods, devs and even Mr. Laidlaw himself.
#82
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 04:25
Ronin2006
-
- Members
- 307 messages
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]AtreiyaN7 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]RohanD wrote...
Careful, you may get banned for this[/quote]
THIS ^
[/quote]
If you seriously think people get banned over disliking the game or being critical, there wouldn't be threads like this, would there? If someone likes the game, then there's really nothing to "discuss." Since the game was enjoyable overall for me, I think he did a good job - even though I'm critical about a few things.
[/quote]
That wasnt my point , this is a personal attack plain and simple..[/quote]
Please read the thread topic. I have addressed this concern that some of you have.[/quote]
ok...
READ WHAT I POSTED AGAIN !
[/quote]
I can see that this thread has hit a personal nerve for you, and that's unfortunate. I'm not sure if you were referring to the other person or myself in your post regarding the personal attack, however the post you left is a little ambiguous, so if I misunderstood, I apologise.
I would however like to keep my edited topic as some people seem to be taking my thread as a personal attack on Mike Laidlaw.
PS you don't need to type in big capitals to get your point across. It just makes you look childish and stupid and doesn't help you at all.[/quote]
Perhaps you are right, I probably should've used a well thought out response to this thread's intentions as it were.. For the record though... The only one being childish and stupid here in this post between you and I is you . Just because the internet gives you a voice to speak your will, does not give you the right to personally attack another person based on your opinion ! If this Mike Laidlaw did you wrong personally I could see / understand a retort . This post however, is utter complete bullsquat to the 50th degree ! You are in fact most likely will get at the very least moderated for this possibly more. I very seldom get angry or upset over opinions and ideas. Your childish and stupid actions shame all of us in the Dragon Age community ! So .. was that professional enough for you to understand ?[/quote]
Wow, firstly you should probably walk away from the computer, take a walk or something, relax a little, you're getting way too worked up over it and you're coming across as overly sensitive and petulant. Remember, I don't affect your day to day life, so no reason to get too worked up about it. But anyway, if you can just for one second calm down a bit and listen, you may get something out of this.
So it appears you were saying that this thread is actually a personal attack on Mike Laidlaw. Well, it's not, because I never attacked Mike Laidlaw the person, in fact I never actually attacked Mike Laidlaw in his professional context either, merely asked for open discussion on him in that role. Perhaps you should read my edited first post again, then again, then again, until it registers to you exactly why I'm putting this thread up. I don't think I can make it any more clear, I don't have anything against Mike Laidlaw personally.
If someone from Bioware wants to moderate this thread, then so be it, it's a semi private forum and Bioware can do as they wish with it. It would however, be unfortunate if they were to remove/moderate things that they were uncomfortable with simply because they disagree with it. I do think we as consumers should have a right to discuss and speculate on the change of direction in an organisation that we have given our money to. We can also speculate and make suggestions on what the business should do differently at the internal level. We cannot control what they do at this level, but we can express whether we like it or not so long as we don't resort to personal attacks. Just because I have identified a person as responsible for the direction of the franchise, doesn't make the attack a personal one.
A personal attack would be something like referring to Mike Laidlaw's sexuality, political or religious convictions or something along those lines. I have done nothing of the sort, and refuse to stoop to that level.[/quote]
I see .. You in fact created a thread to discuss Mike Laidlaw's future involvment in the company that created a game you bought and disliked . You paid "x" dollars /. euros ect for this game then thought ( through a technicality) you could accuse Mike Laidlaw directly of what you thought of him personally . BUT you also realized that would be grounds at the very least moderation possibly litagation. SO you engineered the idea of your plan through a discussion of the suggestion of doing this.
I can tell you right now .. If I a fellow member of the community / fellow gamer can see through the bs of what you are in fact doing here, so can the mods, devs and even Mr. Laidlaw himself.
[/quote]
This is quite amusing to me, I hope you realise this. If you find the point at which I attack Mr Laidlaw personally, I'd like to read it. I didn't accuse him of anything other than being responsible for some of the changes to the game that were made which has obviously divided the community and Bioware's fanbase. If people take this thread to attack Mr Laidlaw personally, that is their choice, and I won't have any part of it. I will however engage in constructive discourse on whether Mike Laidlaw is the best person for the job of lead designer of the Dragon Age franchise.
People have a right to speculate on his future, and whether he should remain in his present role, and whether he will in fact remain in that role considering the decidedly mixed reception that Dragon Age 2 has received. So long as there isn't slander or anything of that nature there is no grounds for litigation. (moderation is a different matter, because effectively as a private forum anything can be moderated) As for this being an engineered idea or plan to instigate a personal attack on Mike Laidlaw, that is your opinion. You can interpret the point of this thread however you want, and I can never alone disprove your theory, nor can you disprove what I am about to say and that is that all I want is an open discussion on whether Mike Laidlaw should continue as lead designer in the Dragon Age franchise, or whether somebody else would be a better suited candidate. Take that how you will.
Also, don't speak on behalf of Mr Laidlaw. Unless that is in fact your true identity, you are not in a position to speak on his behalf.
[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]Ronin2006 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]AtreiyaN7 wrote...
[quote]Chaos_1001 wrote...
[quote]RohanD wrote...
Careful, you may get banned for this[/quote]
THIS ^
[/quote]
If you seriously think people get banned over disliking the game or being critical, there wouldn't be threads like this, would there? If someone likes the game, then there's really nothing to "discuss." Since the game was enjoyable overall for me, I think he did a good job - even though I'm critical about a few things.
[/quote]
That wasnt my point , this is a personal attack plain and simple..[/quote]
Please read the thread topic. I have addressed this concern that some of you have.[/quote]
ok...
READ WHAT I POSTED AGAIN !
[/quote]
I can see that this thread has hit a personal nerve for you, and that's unfortunate. I'm not sure if you were referring to the other person or myself in your post regarding the personal attack, however the post you left is a little ambiguous, so if I misunderstood, I apologise.
I would however like to keep my edited topic as some people seem to be taking my thread as a personal attack on Mike Laidlaw.
PS you don't need to type in big capitals to get your point across. It just makes you look childish and stupid and doesn't help you at all.[/quote]
Perhaps you are right, I probably should've used a well thought out response to this thread's intentions as it were.. For the record though... The only one being childish and stupid here in this post between you and I is you . Just because the internet gives you a voice to speak your will, does not give you the right to personally attack another person based on your opinion ! If this Mike Laidlaw did you wrong personally I could see / understand a retort . This post however, is utter complete bullsquat to the 50th degree ! You are in fact most likely will get at the very least moderated for this possibly more. I very seldom get angry or upset over opinions and ideas. Your childish and stupid actions shame all of us in the Dragon Age community ! So .. was that professional enough for you to understand ?[/quote]
Wow, firstly you should probably walk away from the computer, take a walk or something, relax a little, you're getting way too worked up over it and you're coming across as overly sensitive and petulant. Remember, I don't affect your day to day life, so no reason to get too worked up about it. But anyway, if you can just for one second calm down a bit and listen, you may get something out of this.
So it appears you were saying that this thread is actually a personal attack on Mike Laidlaw. Well, it's not, because I never attacked Mike Laidlaw the person, in fact I never actually attacked Mike Laidlaw in his professional context either, merely asked for open discussion on him in that role. Perhaps you should read my edited first post again, then again, then again, until it registers to you exactly why I'm putting this thread up. I don't think I can make it any more clear, I don't have anything against Mike Laidlaw personally.
If someone from Bioware wants to moderate this thread, then so be it, it's a semi private forum and Bioware can do as they wish with it. It would however, be unfortunate if they were to remove/moderate things that they were uncomfortable with simply because they disagree with it. I do think we as consumers should have a right to discuss and speculate on the change of direction in an organisation that we have given our money to. We can also speculate and make suggestions on what the business should do differently at the internal level. We cannot control what they do at this level, but we can express whether we like it or not so long as we don't resort to personal attacks. Just because I have identified a person as responsible for the direction of the franchise, doesn't make the attack a personal one.
A personal attack would be something like referring to Mike Laidlaw's sexuality, political or religious convictions or something along those lines. I have done nothing of the sort, and refuse to stoop to that level.[/quote]
I see .. You in fact created a thread to discuss Mike Laidlaw's future involvment in the company that created a game you bought and disliked . You paid "x" dollars /. euros ect for this game then thought ( through a technicality) you could accuse Mike Laidlaw directly of what you thought of him personally . BUT you also realized that would be grounds at the very least moderation possibly litagation. SO you engineered the idea of your plan through a discussion of the suggestion of doing this.
I can tell you right now .. If I a fellow member of the community / fellow gamer can see through the bs of what you are in fact doing here, so can the mods, devs and even Mr. Laidlaw himself.
[/quote]
This is quite amusing to me, I hope you realise this. If you find the point at which I attack Mr Laidlaw personally, I'd like to read it. I didn't accuse him of anything other than being responsible for some of the changes to the game that were made which has obviously divided the community and Bioware's fanbase. If people take this thread to attack Mr Laidlaw personally, that is their choice, and I won't have any part of it. I will however engage in constructive discourse on whether Mike Laidlaw is the best person for the job of lead designer of the Dragon Age franchise.
People have a right to speculate on his future, and whether he should remain in his present role, and whether he will in fact remain in that role considering the decidedly mixed reception that Dragon Age 2 has received. So long as there isn't slander or anything of that nature there is no grounds for litigation. (moderation is a different matter, because effectively as a private forum anything can be moderated) As for this being an engineered idea or plan to instigate a personal attack on Mike Laidlaw, that is your opinion. You can interpret the point of this thread however you want, and I can never alone disprove your theory, nor can you disprove what I am about to say and that is that all I want is an open discussion on whether Mike Laidlaw should continue as lead designer in the Dragon Age franchise, or whether somebody else would be a better suited candidate. Take that how you will.
Also, don't speak on behalf of Mr Laidlaw. Unless that is in fact your true identity, you are not in a position to speak on his behalf.
Modifié par Ronin2006, 25 mars 2011 - 04:43 .
#83
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 04:39
dakphillips
-
- Members
- 102 messages
I would hope for a change of direction, and leadership if that may be necessary for the change, for DA3. Someone pointed our earlier the improvements over DA:O, and they are indeed there and very valid. A streamlined inventory system, sensible skill trees and great use of an ME style fully voiced main were all very appreciated additions.
But the very aspects of solo-RPG's that has given Bioware such a highly regarded reputation is where I feel that DA2 failed. The companions operated more like they did in Awakening (which was fine for a large DLC), and less like in Origins. Not being able to simply have one-on-one dialogue to get to know the companions, as it was done so well in Origins, was a big step backwards that can't be chalked up to a 'new direction'....it's just lesser realized characters.
Also, the main story in DA:O (while obviously ending in the Archdemons demise) gave the player a large amount of freedom in decision making and resulting consequences on virtually everything leading up to the final battle. While I would be perfectly ok with DA2 ineveitably the way it does, Act 3 felt terribly rushed either way you go.
It's difficult to tell as fans ignorant to the inner workings of this games development, but it's hard not to say the lead designer OR EA dropped the ball and rushed this out the door. Ever since KOTOR I've purchased every Bioware game out there and DA2 took them off the highest of pedestals I had previously felt they were securely on for life. I hope they take more time and really consider the shortcoming of DA2 before the next game comes out, but only time will tell.
edited as I forgot I was in the No Spoilers section....getting late
But the very aspects of solo-RPG's that has given Bioware such a highly regarded reputation is where I feel that DA2 failed. The companions operated more like they did in Awakening (which was fine for a large DLC), and less like in Origins. Not being able to simply have one-on-one dialogue to get to know the companions, as it was done so well in Origins, was a big step backwards that can't be chalked up to a 'new direction'....it's just lesser realized characters.
Also, the main story in DA:O (while obviously ending in the Archdemons demise) gave the player a large amount of freedom in decision making and resulting consequences on virtually everything leading up to the final battle. While I would be perfectly ok with DA2 ineveitably the way it does, Act 3 felt terribly rushed either way you go.
It's difficult to tell as fans ignorant to the inner workings of this games development, but it's hard not to say the lead designer OR EA dropped the ball and rushed this out the door. Ever since KOTOR I've purchased every Bioware game out there and DA2 took them off the highest of pedestals I had previously felt they were securely on for life. I hope they take more time and really consider the shortcoming of DA2 before the next game comes out, but only time will tell.
edited as I forgot I was in the No Spoilers section....getting late
Modifié par dakphillips, 25 mars 2011 - 04:44 .
#84
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 05:21
errant_knight
-
- Members
- 8 256 messages
It's difficult to find commonality on what needs to change, when we can't even agree on what's wrong. Those 'improvements' are a big part of the problem for many.
One thing we can probably all agree on, this community is coming apart at the seams and will likely never agree about much of anything again. Too bad, that.
One thing we can probably all agree on, this community is coming apart at the seams and will likely never agree about much of anything again. Too bad, that.
Modifié par errant_knight, 25 mars 2011 - 05:24 .
#85
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 05:26
Merced652
-
- Members
- 1 661 messages
I hope the joke Laidlaw has made himself finds its way in to Knowles' Blog.
Modifié par Merced652, 25 mars 2011 - 05:26 .
#86
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 05:29
Maria Caliban
-
- Members
- 26 094 messages
Jymm wrote...
Some things like painful environmental reuse are very likely a combination of the way that Bioware's art department operates, their world building toolset, and a very compressed timeframe. They seem to insist on building every location from scratch, pixel by pixel I swear. I get the impression that games with enormous environments and loads of interesting areas are usually constructed out of a large palate of interchangeable assets that designers can mix & match, retexture, and sculpt with easy-to-use tools. Bioware doesn't seem to have that part down. So if you compress the amount of time or staffing resources they have to produce a game you get ME1 or DA2 style overuse of these identical maps. They just don't have time to hand-craft dozens of sprawling levels.
May I ask what games/companies you see as handling art assets the right way?
#87
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 05:36
errant_knight
-
- Members
- 8 256 messages
Mr. Knowles has handled himself with grace throughout this, so I doubt that very much. He's a classy fellow and isn't likely to kick someone when they're down.Merced652 wrote...
I hope the joke Laidlaw has made himself finds its way in to Knowles' Blog.
#88
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 05:38
UnstableMongoose
-
- Members
- 680 messages
There are several possibilities here, with not all of them being mutually exclusive. Some may be partially true, some may not be true at all. However, from my perusal of the forums, I believe the total realm of possibilities to be contained herein:
1. Mike Laidlaw dropped the ball in some areas, creating a sub-par game.
2. EA stuck their hand in the cookie jar.
3. People are blowing some of the game's flaws out of proportion simply because it doesn't quite meet their imaginary expectations.
4. People are justifiably angry that Mike Laidlaw was unable to meet their expectations with the phenomenal talent that Bioware has access to.
5. The game is, in fact, quite good, and while it could have been better, Mr. Laidlaw doesn't really need to be thrown publicly into the stockade.
6. It's just a matter of opinion (www.youtube.com/watch).
7. The tangible quality of the work transcends opinion either in the positive or negative direction.
8. Mr. Laidlaw is quite possibly Satan, although possibly only an evil demigod or lich of some sort.
9. Blame Activision somehow, I'm sure they deserve it.
10. Haters gonna hate, trolls gonna troll, and fanboys gonna....fanboy, I guess.
11. Forums have never been a reliable go-to for intelligent conversation and rational thought.
1. Mike Laidlaw dropped the ball in some areas, creating a sub-par game.
2. EA stuck their hand in the cookie jar.
3. People are blowing some of the game's flaws out of proportion simply because it doesn't quite meet their imaginary expectations.
4. People are justifiably angry that Mike Laidlaw was unable to meet their expectations with the phenomenal talent that Bioware has access to.
5. The game is, in fact, quite good, and while it could have been better, Mr. Laidlaw doesn't really need to be thrown publicly into the stockade.
6. It's just a matter of opinion (www.youtube.com/watch).
7. The tangible quality of the work transcends opinion either in the positive or negative direction.
8. Mr. Laidlaw is quite possibly Satan, although possibly only an evil demigod or lich of some sort.
9. Blame Activision somehow, I'm sure they deserve it.
10. Haters gonna hate, trolls gonna troll, and fanboys gonna....fanboy, I guess.
11. Forums have never been a reliable go-to for intelligent conversation and rational thought.
#89
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 05:39
VanDraegon
-
- Members
- 956 messages
Laidlaw isnt the problem. The problem is EA and making Bioware get the game out so fast and to a wider audience.
It wasnt a Bioware employee that said "push a button and something awesome happens."
The best thing that could happen is to keep Laidlaw and let them have 36 months to get the next one out. Well that and dial down the awesome and swing the game back towards DA:O in mechanics/style/etc.
It wasnt a Bioware employee that said "push a button and something awesome happens."
The best thing that could happen is to keep Laidlaw and let them have 36 months to get the next one out. Well that and dial down the awesome and swing the game back towards DA:O in mechanics/style/etc.
Modifié par VanDraegon, 25 mars 2011 - 06:09 .
#90
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 05:45
RaenImrahl
-
- Members
- 5 386 messages
The short answer... no.
It's a mistake to focus all attention on one person. Personal scrutiny of any one Bioware/EA employee only belies the point you're obviously trying to make.
It's a mistake to focus all attention on one person. Personal scrutiny of any one Bioware/EA employee only belies the point you're obviously trying to make.
#91
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 05:52
StingingVelvet
-
- Members
- 1 116 messages
Judging by his comments in interviews about his perceived future of RPGs and his thoughts on Origins I would have to say yes, he is a problem.
Since the game hit the 70s on Metacritic and hopefully is not selling as well as Origins maybe he will be replaced for DA3, which would be good. I mean that with no offense at all, just from a completely factual point of view about where he took the series and where it actually should have gone. EA is to blame for the rush, certainly, but many of the decisions were unrelated to that and poor. In fact if they were rushed sticking to the Origins formula would have been more ideal, not less.
Anyway... those are my thoughts.
Since the game hit the 70s on Metacritic and hopefully is not selling as well as Origins maybe he will be replaced for DA3, which would be good. I mean that with no offense at all, just from a completely factual point of view about where he took the series and where it actually should have gone. EA is to blame for the rush, certainly, but many of the decisions were unrelated to that and poor. In fact if they were rushed sticking to the Origins formula would have been more ideal, not less.
Anyway... those are my thoughts.
#92
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 06:11
Ronin2006
-
- Members
- 307 messages
StingingVelvet wrote...
Judging by his comments in interviews about his perceived future of RPGs and his thoughts on Origins I would have to say yes, he is a problem.
Since the game hit the 70s on Metacritic and hopefully is not selling as well as Origins maybe he will be replaced for DA3, which would be good. I mean that with no offense at all, just from a completely factual point of view about where he took the series and where it actually should have gone. EA is to blame for the rush, certainly, but many of the decisions were unrelated to that and poor. In fact if they were rushed sticking to the Origins formula would have been more ideal, not less.
Anyway... those are my thoughts.
Thanks for pointing out that you mean it as no offense. Sorry to divert your post a little, but people taking personal offense to this forum need to understand this. Personally, if Mike Laidlaw didn't work on the next game I would still wish him all the best and hope he succeeds in whatever else he does with his career. If he stays on, I hope he can make a game that is not as divisive to the Bioware fanbase as this one.
Anyway, back on topic a little, I also think that he had a lot to do with the direction of the series considering what he has stated and insinuated in interviews. It does appear as though he is responsible for a lot of the visionary aspects of the game, and hence there is quite a load of responsibility resting on his shoulders.
#93
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 06:18
Ronin2006
-
- Members
- 307 messages
RaenImrahl wrote...
The short answer... no.
It's a mistake to focus all attention on one person. Personal scrutiny of any one Bioware/EA employee only belies the point you're obviously trying to make.
While it may be more than just one person who is responsible for the change in direction, it does appear as though the overall visionary changes and overhaul of the series came from this man. (This is something I have noticed from interviews, and yes, I may be wrong and I am happy for people to try and point it out if this isn't the case.) It does appear that Bioware were nevertheless still working towards his vision, and thus he is responsible for how that vision turned out.
Also, EA will hardly blame the entire Bioware team for the success/failures of this game. That is not how business works. They won't fire everyone in Bioware if the game draws such public ire as it has. Instead they will lay the blame at the person/people responsible for it. If the game received universal acclaim and huge sales, not everyone would receive a promotion (some may get bonuses or something), instead Mike Laidlaw would be the one promoted, or heavily rewarded.
It's a two-edged sword. He will enjoy the praise for the game's success, but he must also receive the blame for it's shortcomings.
Modifié par Ronin2006, 25 mars 2011 - 06:22 .
#94
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 06:21
fallingseraph
-
- Members
- 583 messages
GS: Regarding the process by which you guys gather feedback and assess whether it's viable for the next game, is it the same process you used when Origins shipped, or have you learned more about the validity of fan feedback this time around?
ML: It's always valid. You have to take a read of what the fans are saying, what reviews are saying, and what the non-fans are saying. Are there people out there who are saying, "I could not play Origins, but love Dragon Age II" or "I couldn't play Origins and this is more of the same." You have to keep your ear to the ground. Look at forums. Take a look at what comments are coming up. What are the common concerns? What are the common perceptions? I think the big key is to not adjust 180 degrees again, because we've done this. I think, as a team, we're quite happy with what we've done with Dragon Age II, and this is establishing a solid foundation that keeps a lot, in fact almost everything I want to keep about Origins, but still has tons of room to grow and, frankly, a more viable future for the franchise. It's one that's more sustainable because we brought the world to a place that's inherently more interesting than "Yay, we beat the Blight. Good for us!"
Highly doubt they take the fans comments at their full value if at all.
#95
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 06:34
RaenImrahl
-
- Members
- 5 386 messages
Ronin2006 wrote...
While it may be more than just one person who is responsible for the change in direction, it does appear as though the overall visionary changes and overhaul of the series came from this man. (This is something I have noticed from interviews, and yes, I may be wrong and I am happy for people to try and point it out if this isn't the case.) It does appear that Bioware were nevertheless still working towards his vision, and thus he is responsible for how that vision turned out.
You're making the very understandible mistake of confusing what we see as the public, on the outside, with how any organization operates within. It may appear he is indeed the visionary in question, and no doubt he has a great deal of input as to where his people devote their creative resources. But no corporate project leader can impliment a plan of action without having those who supervise him or her on board. Nor, frankly, can they be successful without having the team largely in agreement.
Ronin2006 wrote...
Also, EA will hardly blame the entire Bioware team for the success/failures of this game. That is not how businesses work. They won't fire everyone in Bioware if the game draws such public ire as it has. Instead they will lay the blame at the person/people responsible for it. If the game received universal acclaim and huge sales, not everyone would receive a raise (some may get bonuses or something), instead Mike Laidlaw would be the one promoted, or heavily rewarded.
Why would anyone get fired? Based on pre-sales alone, DA2 has undoubtedly turned a tidy profit for EA games. And the Dragon Age franchise is diversified enough-- Facebook partnerships, merchandising, the reported animated movie-- that success or failure surely cannot rest on one endeavour alone.
Ronin2006 wrote...
It's a two-edged sword. He will enjoy the praise for the game's success, but he must also receive the blame for it's shortcomings.
Sword? You're overreaching here. I too am passionate about this game, but come on. He's not a Roman solider, and you're implying that he should be cut in some way-- and yes, I know you're being figurative. But please, perspective. What you're really saying is that you begrudge him any success based on what you think his role was in producing what you think is a flawed product.
As I said, focusing on one person is ineffective communication at best. I hate to see anyone waste their time like this, expecially one as well spoken as you. Do you REALLY think the "suits" at Electronic Arts are going to pay any attention... any at all... to the internet postings of someone who's chosen a screaming, bearded dwarf as his avatar? Of course you don't.
The best way to achieve your ends is to stick to the issues of the game and leave personnel out of it. Effective protest is based on rational fact, not personal angst. There are many valid issues to be raised about DA2. Threads like this, with all respect to your original intent, won't help you in the eyes of the developers. And they hold most of the cards in this game.
RI
Modifié par RaenImrahl, 25 mars 2011 - 06:51 .
#96
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 06:59
Ronin2006
-
- Members
- 307 messages
Firstly, I hope I get this quoting system done correctly, I'm not that familiar with it, so if I make a mistake with it, I apologise.
Yes of course, but it is ultimately the leader of the team that will be held responsible for the direction of that team/organisation. Think of someone like Steve Jobs. Even though I am not a big Apple fan, the fact is that when people talk about the relative success of the ipad/iphone/ipod they invariably praise Steve Jobs. If people don't like apple they deride Steve Jobs. It's not often that you hear people say that the person in charge of colour textures for the design of the latest operating system did a fantastic job. They instead view the product as a whole and praise the person overseeing the design and direction of that product.
Of course pre-sales is only one measure of the success of the game and are heavily affected by factors outside the game itself such as the success of the previous game, and the goodwill that the public has towards the franchise and the company. The long term sales pattern will ultimately determine the success/failures of the game in terms of sales and at this point it is purely speculation.
One thing we can all objectively determine whether you like the game or not, is that it has received very mixed responses from fans, and even critics, and this I am sure was not something they intended. It's not just a small minority of the fanbase disappointed, it's greater than that. Even the most ardent defenders of the game should acknowledge that the game has been received with rather mixed reactions
First, I think you misunderstand the use of the phrase "two edged sword." Where I'm from it's just a figure of speech that simply means that you must take the good with the bad. It can apply to even the most trivial of things, so I wouldn't read into it as being overly dramatic or overreaching. It's really not intended to be that way. You just haven't heard this expression before. All I'm saying is that being the lead designer, he will receive both the praise and the criticism for the direction of the game series.
Also, the dwarf thing is completely irrelevant, but nice try. I'm not trying to reach the "suits" of EA, just trying to have an online discussion with people who share similar interests, namely that of Bioware products and Dragon Age 2.
Once again, there is nothing against the man himself, just the direction he is taking the franchise and whether it is a good thing for it. I am discussing the game based on fact, and have nothing against Mike Laidlaw personally.
RaenImrahl wrote...
Ronin2006 wrote...
While it may be more than just one person who is responsible for the change in direction, it does appear as though the overall visionary changes and overhaul of the series came from this man. (This is something I have noticed from interviews, and yes, I may be wrong and I am happy for people to try and point it out if this isn't the case.) It does appear that Bioware were nevertheless still working towards his vision, and thus he is responsible for how that vision turned out.
You're making the very understandible mistake of confusing what we see as the public, on the outside, with how any organization operates within. It may appear he is indeed the visionary in question, and no doubt he has a great deal of input as to where his people devote their creative resources. But no corporate project leader can impliment a plan of action without having those who supervise him or her on board. Nor, frankly, can they be successful without having the team largely in agreement.
Yes of course, but it is ultimately the leader of the team that will be held responsible for the direction of that team/organisation. Think of someone like Steve Jobs. Even though I am not a big Apple fan, the fact is that when people talk about the relative success of the ipad/iphone/ipod they invariably praise Steve Jobs. If people don't like apple they deride Steve Jobs. It's not often that you hear people say that the person in charge of colour textures for the design of the latest operating system did a fantastic job. They instead view the product as a whole and praise the person overseeing the design and direction of that product.
RaenImrahl wrote...
Ronin2006 wrote...
Also, EA will hardly blame the entire Bioware team for the success/failures of this game. That is not how businesses work. They won't fire everyone in Bioware if the game draws such public ire as it has. Instead they will lay the blame at the person/people responsible for it. If the game received universal acclaim and huge sales, not everyone would receive a raise (some may get bonuses or something), instead Mike Laidlaw would be the one promoted, or heavily rewarded.
Why would anyone get fired? Based on pre-sales alone, DA2 has undoubtedly turned a tidy profit for EA games. And the Dragon Age franchise is diversified enough-- Facebook partnerships, merchandising, the reported animated movie-- that success or failure surely cannot rest on one endeavour alone.
Of course pre-sales is only one measure of the success of the game and are heavily affected by factors outside the game itself such as the success of the previous game, and the goodwill that the public has towards the franchise and the company. The long term sales pattern will ultimately determine the success/failures of the game in terms of sales and at this point it is purely speculation.
One thing we can all objectively determine whether you like the game or not, is that it has received very mixed responses from fans, and even critics, and this I am sure was not something they intended. It's not just a small minority of the fanbase disappointed, it's greater than that. Even the most ardent defenders of the game should acknowledge that the game has been received with rather mixed reactions
RaenImrahl wrote...
Ronin2006 wrote...
It's a two-edged sword. He will enjoy the praise for the game's success, but he must also receive the blame for it's shortcomings.
Sword? You're overreaching here. I too am passionate about this game, but common. He's not a Roman solider, and you're implying that he should be cut in some way-- and yes, I know you're being figurative. But please, perspective. What you're really saying is that you begrudge him any success based on what you think his role was in producing what you think is a flawed product.
As I said, focusing on one person is ineffective communication at best. I hate to see anyone waste their time like this, expecially one as well spoken as you. Do you REALLY think the "suits" at Electronic Arts are going to pay any attention... any at all... to the internet postings of someone who's chosen a screaming, bearded dwarf as his avatar? Of course you don't.
The best way to achieve your ends is to stick to the issues of the game and leave personnel out of it. Effective protest is based on rational fact, not personal angst. There are many valid issues to be raised about DA2. Threads like this, with all respect to your original intent, won't help you in the eyes of the developers. And they hold most of the cards in this game.
RI
First, I think you misunderstand the use of the phrase "two edged sword." Where I'm from it's just a figure of speech that simply means that you must take the good with the bad. It can apply to even the most trivial of things, so I wouldn't read into it as being overly dramatic or overreaching. It's really not intended to be that way. You just haven't heard this expression before. All I'm saying is that being the lead designer, he will receive both the praise and the criticism for the direction of the game series.
Also, the dwarf thing is completely irrelevant, but nice try. I'm not trying to reach the "suits" of EA, just trying to have an online discussion with people who share similar interests, namely that of Bioware products and Dragon Age 2.
Once again, there is nothing against the man himself, just the direction he is taking the franchise and whether it is a good thing for it. I am discussing the game based on fact, and have nothing against Mike Laidlaw personally.
Modifié par Ronin2006, 25 mars 2011 - 07:15 .
#97
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 07:05
Lumikki
-
- Members
- 4 239 messages
What is wrong with direction where it's going?
It's personal taste, some likes it and some not. End of line.
It's personal taste, some likes it and some not. End of line.
Modifié par Lumikki, 25 mars 2011 - 07:06 .
#98
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 07:13
RaenImrahl
-
- Members
- 5 386 messages
Ronin2006 wrote...
First, I think you misunderstand the use of the phrase "two edged sword." Where I'm from it's just a figure of speech that simply means that you must take the good with the bad. It can apply to even the most trivial of things, so I wouldn't read into it as being overly dramatic or overreaching. It's really not intended to be that way. You just haven't heard this expression before. All I'm saying is that being the lead designer, he will receive both the praise and the criticism for the direction of the game series.
Also, the dwarf thing is completely irrelevant, but nice try. I'm not trying to reach the "suits" of Bioware, just trying to have an online discussion with people who share similar interests, namely that of Bioware products and Dragon Age 2.
Once again, there is nothing against the man himself, just the direction he is taking the franchise and whether it is a good thing for it. I am discussing the game based on fact, and have nothing against Mike Laidlaw personally.
Of course I've heard of the phrase "two edge sword", although the proper idiom is "double-edged sword", for your future reference. If you're going to throw cliches around, please at least use them properly
It is not the intention of your argument, or discussion as you put it, that I find dubious. It is your method, as I've explained. And for those of us who have been questioning some of the choices made by the developers, I believe threads like these actually distract, rather than add to the overall goal of voicing concerns about the game.
(One final, off topic thought... some day when you have some free time, go into any forum on this site that you don't usually frequent and read a topic at random. Honestly evaluate the reaction you have to each conversation... and see if your assumptions about the poster are in any way, on a visceral level, influenced by their choice of picture. I bet it will be. It's human nature. You might find it an interesting experiment.)
Modifié par RaenImrahl, 25 mars 2011 - 07:14 .
#99
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 07:20
accessd
-
- Members
- 138 messages
If DA3 is coming out in 2012 then sadly I think DA:O is the only game in the series worth playing.
They just can't make a worthy follow up to a great game like DA:O in a year.
Best review of the game so far:
http://www.gamecriti...w#comment-38568
Now read his DA:O review:
http://www.gamecriti...-origins-review
He is spot on.
Mr. Mike Laidlaw should read these.
They just can't make a worthy follow up to a great game like DA:O in a year.
Best review of the game so far:
http://www.gamecriti...w#comment-38568
Now read his DA:O review:
http://www.gamecriti...-origins-review
He is spot on.
Mr. Mike Laidlaw should read these.
#100
Posté 25 mars 2011 - 07:27
Ronin2006
-
- Members
- 307 messages
RaenImrahl wrote...
Ronin2006 wrote...
First, I think you misunderstand the use of the phrase "two edged sword." Where I'm from it's just a figure of speech that simply means that you must take the good with the bad. It can apply to even the most trivial of things, so I wouldn't read into it as being overly dramatic or overreaching. It's really not intended to be that way. You just haven't heard this expression before. All I'm saying is that being the lead designer, he will receive both the praise and the criticism for the direction of the game series.
Also, the dwarf thing is completely irrelevant, but nice try. I'm not trying to reach the "suits" of Bioware, just trying to have an online discussion with people who share similar interests, namely that of Bioware products and Dragon Age 2.
Once again, there is nothing against the man himself, just the direction he is taking the franchise and whether it is a good thing for it. I am discussing the game based on fact, and have nothing against Mike Laidlaw personally.
Of course I've heard of the phrase "two edge sword", although the proper idiom is "double-edged sword", for your future reference. If you're going to throw cliches around, please at least use them properly
It is not the intention of your argument, or discussion as you put it, that I find dubious. It is your method, as I've explained. And for those of us who have been questioning some of the choices made by the developers, I believe threads like these actually distract, rather than add to the overall goal of voicing concerns about the game.
(One final, off topic thought... some day when you have some free time, go into any forum on this site that you don't usually frequent and read a topic at random. Honestly evaluate the reaction you have to each conversation... and see if your assumptions about the poster are in any way, on a visceral level, influenced by their choice of picture. I bet it will be. It's human nature. You might find it an interesting experiment.)
Actually both forms of the expression are valid, you just pointed to the more widely accepted form. In no way does it affect the argument in any way, as the point remains the same, and your overreaction to the expression just shows you were uncomfortable with it. That's fine, but it doesn't render the use of the expression wrong or inappropriate given it's context.
You dislike the method of me putting a thread on here and discussing the role of Mike Laidlaw? That's fine, and that is your perogative, and I will not deny you that right. However, we who have an opinion of his role should, as long as it's not personal, have a forum to discuss whether we think he is best for the series. Considering the large number of users with an interest in such a thing, and considering that I will ultimately be discussing this idea with other people who I know have actually purchased this game, I believe that the choice to post on this forum is an appropriate one. You may disagree, but unfortunately for you, many posters have shared similar concerns about this man and the series. I am not speaking for everyone, but to deny that there do exist a number of people who are unhappy with Mike Laidlaw would be incredibly naive. (As too it would be naive to think everyone hates him, hence why I opened the thread for discussion) Thus, we should have a forum to discuss this topic.
PS - the point about the avatar is once again irrelevant. You drew that connection with my avatar, and others may share that view. I however like to judge the poster by the content of their posts, not the picture accompanying them. Each to their own on this one.
Anyway, I must be off, it was fun.
