518 réponses à ce sujet

[Ronin2006]

RaenImrahl wrote...

Ronin's little definintion-parsing masturbatory theater will continue until his ire is spent.

This is quite possibly one of the most amusing things I've read here.  I honestly did get a good laugh out of this.  Of course your post didn't actually add anything to the actual thread topic, but I don't mind at all.

[FedericoV]

Ronin2006 wrote...

Perhaps you need to have a look at the first post again.  There's a little part on the English language that I've added that demonstrates how this is not in any way, shape or form a "personal" attack.  If you cannot grasp this concept in the language you are typing in, then perhaps you should refrain from this forum until you have gained a greater command of that said language.

I grasp it. And I think that you can make all the excuses you want but it's still a VERY personal attack.

At least be honest.

Whether you like it or not, this clear divide in the community shows that a large percentage of the fanbase are unhappy with this game.  You may love it, and that's your right, just like it's everyone else's right to form their own opinion, and a lot of them are exercising this right and expressing dissatisfaction with the game.

No one is questioning that "right" (even if I would use that world only for important matters and it sounds ridiculous since we're talking of videogames). I respect the fact that you don't like the game and the vision of the dev team even if I do not agree with you. I'm not blind and I see that many forumites are disappointed whether they are right or wrong. But you have crossed the line between criticism and rudeness. And if you do not understand the difference I'm really sorry for you. I can't help you.

You "hope" that ... happens to me?  Well, I can say likewise or worse.  But it's not really relevant here.

Does it hurt? I was provoking you and I have the reaction I was hoping for. Just try to imagine yourself in Mike's shoes for a second reading a post like yours.

Yes, I am talking about the career and life of a person, but consider this.  If due to Mike Laidlaw's creative vision and management style, Bioware is unable to retain a healthy profit in the future, it won't just be Mike Laidlaw's job lost, it will be hundreds.  If I had to choose between having one person lose their job, and hundreds, I know which one I'd choose.

Only that it's not your call and no one asked for your opinion on *that* matter. It's great if you criticize the game and the ideas of the dev team. It's great if you care about the future of Bioware and the DA franchise. I do not agree with you but I respect your opinions on DA2. But you should not cross the line I was talking before.

Having said that: do you really think that Mike came one morning in the office and said: "I'm in charge, let's change everything because I know better!". With the Docs replying: "Yes, you're such a genius, here's EA's money". Really? That's not the way business works. I imagine that the changes in the formula were the result of a longer and "corporate" process that involved many person at different level of responsability. We're talking of real money here.

And even the so called fans were a source for those changes since many of them were asked very vocally by the majority of players. 

PS I haven't devoted my whole life to economics and while you consider that I have "voted" with my wallet by buying the game, consider this.  There will be many more opportunities to "vote" again in the future, and I will vote with keeping my money in my pocket, unless of course something drastic changes in Bioware and their design philosophy.

It's your life and your money and no one's questioning what' you are doing with your money. I can't care less.

Modifié par FedericoV, 25 mars 2011 - 04:45 .

[Edge2177]

Game designers are judged on two parts, their ability to complete a project and the sales. I'm pretty sure based on that, Laidlaw did a fine job.You may think he alienated a percentage of their fan base, but the project itself was a success in the vision they adapted it.

On the topic of future installments, content, expansions and sequels, Bioware has listened to what people have said in the past, a large part of what you might hate about DA2 was in fact due to player feedback, specifically the 'casual' gamer can enjoy DA2 and it was successful from that standpoint.

What doesn't make much sense is your attempt to discredit him, which while it is amusing to think that your opinion matters to Electronic Arts, it has nothing to do with the quality of his work. Everyone can hate on DA2 as much as they want, but people will still buy the game, and a majority despite one which might not be as vocal haters of it, will enjoy it.

Addendum: I forgot to mention, the former head knew what DA2 was before the project even started, which is why he left Bioware. Even wrote a letter about it, so as much as you'd like to blame Mike for it, the fact is he wasn't the one who engineered the direction of the project, though he had a capacity to have a hand in it, you can't place the fault on him alone.

Modifié par Edge2177, 25 mars 2011 - 04:48 .

[gingerbill]

Savber100 wrote...
Also, Obsidian's bugs and incomplete games is usually due to rushed deadlines caused by a overly-greedy company like LucasArts (coughKOTOR2cough) or SEGA (an Obsisdian employee mentioned how a rushed deadline and creative restraints was why Alpha Protocol failed.)
.

so... bioware according too you rush a game , so we kick them to the dust and get in a company who are famous for rushing games , because its not there fault , hahaha , your logic is amazing.

strange bioware made KOTOR under lucasarts , which is one of the highest rated games in computing history , yet its lucasarts fault KOTOR 2 wasnt so great , again amazing logic .

i like obsidian but they are nowhere near as good as bioware .

[Scottish90000]

ZombiePowered wrote...

Scottish90000 wrote...

ZombiePowered wrote...

Scottish90000 wrote...

ZombiePowered wrote...

Scottish90000 wrote...

Therefore, I approve of the lynch mob.  The reason the lynch mob exists is because people REALLY care and they don't want to see the erosion of one of the few game companies that for many years has stood for quality, exceptional games.

Regardless of your reasoning, you just stated support for a LYNCH MOB. You know, those things that hang people for no real reason other than that their angry about something and want to take it out on a person by killing them. Lynch mobs are never contructive and never on target. Lynch mobs are just a bunch of angry pissed off people with no direction other than irrational violence. Lynch mobs never help anything. If people want Bioware to listen to their ideas then they should eloquenty write them and make good points and criticisms and suggest ways things can be improved. A lynch mob is not the way to do it. It isn't, in fact, the way to do anything. Even though I disagree with every hater out there on the quality of DA2, Bioware should still listen to their points. Who knows, if they stopped trolling and held in-depth discussion about their concerns, something constructive might happen.

I would urge you once again to consider what it is to actually approve of a lynch mob. After all, saying a lynch mob is just a bunch of people who really care about something is saying that the lynch mobs in the south that hanged African-Americans just REALLY cared about their way of bigotry and senseless discrimination, and didn't want to see it erode in favor of human rights and equality. Please, use your brain before posting. This is disgusting and insulting.

Lighten up, Francis.

I'm merely pointing out that your support for a lynch mob as a vessel of positive change in anything is completely moot, as is demonstrated by every instance involving a lynch mob in history.

If you are serious, you are way too hung up on the term.  If you actually read my post, you would know that the original use of the term in a previous post was highly exaggerated, and my use of the term was tongue-in-cheek.

Language has power, and that term is certainly imbued with a huge degree of meaning, none of it positive. If you want anything in this thread to be positive, I would suggest staying far clear of terms that bring up nothing but images of senseless violence, no matter how "exaggerated" they are. I would also suggest not posting in a thread about how Mike Laidlaw should be fired because a few people want blood since Bioware didn't make Dragon Age: Origins 2. I would suggest making a new thread where you debate the direction the series is taking. If you want Bioware to pay attention, constructive discussion is the way to go.

Its not the language thats the problem, its how its used.  You should be concerned about the intent of the language, not the language itself.  What good is getting rid of bad language if we continue to sin and merely cloak it in eloquent verbage?

In any case, I think you're again attempting to cloak yourself in righteousness when all you really wanted to do was steamroll someone who had an opinion that was different than your own.  I think this thread is valid, but people like you are keeping it from being constructive by attempting to marginalize people whose opinions differ, expressing crocodile tears over our gall to suggest that Mike Laidlaw might not be good for this franchise, or derail constructive criticisms by nitpicking over words without considering the usage and, ergo, meaning of them.

[Ronin2006]

FedericoV wrote...

Ronin2006 wrote...

Perhaps you need to have a look at the first post again.  There's a little part on the English language that I've added that demonstrates how this is not in any way, shape or form a "personal" attack.  If you cannot grasp this concept in the language you are typing in, then perhaps you should refrain from this forum until you have gained a greater command of that said language.

I grasp it. And I think that you can make all the excuses you want but it's still a VERY personal attack.

At least be honest.

Whether you like it or not, this clear divide in the community shows that a large percentage of the fanbase are unhappy with this game.  You may love it, and that's your right, just like it's everyone else's right to form their own opinion, and a lot of them are exercising this right and expressing dissatisfaction with the game.

No one is questioning that "right" (even if I would use that world only for important matters and it sounds ridiculous since we're talking of videogames). I respect the fact that you don't like the game and the vision of the dev team even if I do not agree with you. I'm not blind and I see that many forumites are disappointed whether they are right or wrong. But you have crossed the line between criticism and rudeness. And if you do not understand the difference I'm really sorry for you. I can't help you.

You "hope" that ... happens to me?  Well, I can say likewise or worse.  But it's not really relevant here.

Does it hurt? I was provoking you and I have the reaction I was hoping for. Just try to imagine yourself in Mike's shoes for a second reading a post like yours.

Yes, I am talking about the career and life of a person, but consider this.  If due to Mike Laidlaw's creative vision and management style, Bioware is unable to retain a healthy profit in the future, it won't just be Mike Laidlaw's job lost, it will be hundreds.  If I had to choose between having one person lose their job, and hundreds, I know which one I'd choose.

Only that it's not your call and no one asked for your opinion on *that* matter. It's great if you criticize the game and the ideas of the dev team. It's great if you care about the future of Bioware and the DA franchise. I do not agree with you but I respect your opinions on DA2. But you should not cross the line I was talking before.

Having said that: do you really think that Mike came one morning in the office and said: "I'm in charge, let's change everything because I know better!". With the Docs replying: "Yes, you're such a genius, here's EA's money". Really? That's not the way business works. I imagine that the changes in the formula were the result of a longer and "corporate" process that involved many person at different level of responsability. We're talking of real money here.

And even the so called fans were a source for those changes since many of them were asked very vocally by the majority of players. 

PS I haven't devoted my whole life to economics and while you consider that I have "voted" with my wallet by buying the game, consider this.  There will be many more opportunities to "vote" again in the future, and I will vote with keeping my money in my pocket, unless of course something drastic changes in Bioware and their design philosophy.

It's your life and your money and no one's questioning what' you are doing with your money. I can't care less.

Hmm, another amusing retort.  I'm not going to segregate my post into little mini quote boxes, it's far too time consuming.

First, so you read the Oxford Dictionary section which by definition alludes to the fact that this thread has nothing personal about it, and yet you still insist that it is personal.  Well, that my friend is ignorance.  You can jump up and down and shout until you turn blue, but it won't change the fact that nothing about criticising Mike Laidlaw in his professional capacity is personal.  It seems that there's no convincing you.  If I can provide a retort that is as clear as day as to the definitinon of personal, and you still deny it, then there is no helping you, and there is no convincing you.

Second, you consider this thread rude, that's your opinion.  I consider that I have a right to question the internal workings of a company that has failed to deliver it's objectives and that I have invested considerable time and money in.  Nothing I say will convince you that this thread isn't rude, and nothing you say can convince me that this thread is rude.  This is a moot argument.

Third.  "Does it hurt?  No, it really doesn't.  Did you actually get any emotional reaction out of me?  No you didn't.  I could care less what you say about me on an internet forum.  You have no bearing on my life nor do you affect it in any way.  Likewise, you need not get too offended with anything I say.  You are being incredibly presumptious to think that your emotion-laden and childish response has produced anything other than a mild chuckle and a few minutes of typing from me.  You will notice that my response to this was quite brief, because really, I didn't even want to address, or care for something that was so completely irrelevant, off-topic and tainted by an emotional and irrational poster.

Fourth, of course there are many layers in the Bioware organisation, and many people involved in the design process.  The problem is that Mike Laidlaw sits close to the top of the hierarchy of the Bioware organisational structure.  This renders him the one responsible for the success/failures of the game, and because of this it is entirely appropriate to discuss his role if the game does not meet consumer expectations.

Modifié par Ronin2006, 25 mars 2011 - 05:29 .

[RaenImrahl]

"Lynch mob" is a very racially-charged and offensive term in some parts of the world. It has nothing to do with who is the subject of this thread, and it has nothing to do with some attempt to derail this so-called conversation. If something is bad, it should be pointed out, regardless of context. That's a bad choice of words.

Perhaps that choice was innocently made, as I suspect the somewhat insensitive use of the word "tsunami" was.

Now, please resume your regularly-scheduled caterwauling.

[Vajraja]

Fymth wrote...

Vajraja wrote...

aksoileau wrote...

Sorry, but the vocal minority shouldn't have the power of how games are made. For the 10,000 of you, there is 1,000,000 who enjoyed it. The majority doesn't see the game as a failure.

Statistically you can't say that the people who are disappointed in the game are a failiure. Don't try and make up figures to support your cause. if the forums and everything we have seen is a representative sample it seems to be 50:50. So if we extrapolate it to a million in sales, 500k for 500k against. Needless to say we can't make those distinctions.

What is clear is that there are a LOT of people with serious misgivings about the game and EA/Bioware needs to be made aware of it.

The numbers he used was a way to express himself and not statistic. He said,like I did,  that the people who enjoyed the game do not come to these forums and if they do. My guess is they will not come back after the first time seeing its full of trolls, non-constructive complaints, etc. 

The people on this forum do not represents the majority

And I would like to know were YOU pulled these numbers. From all the complaint/troll thread I see it is obviously not 50/50

I also stated that we can't make these distinctions because of insufficient data. Hopefully Bioware/EA has a good market research/customer follow-up team that can put these into perspective. As I said the only thing that is apparent and I think it's a safe assumption is the game is seriously polarizing.

As for Mike Laidlaw, he may be a nice person. But if he doesn't meet the business targets for DA2, which may be a certain sales target and other requirements which may include certain ratings, and a certain level of happiness from end consumers (however they track it)  and if that is part of his performance eval, he can be analyzed on that.
That's how the business world works, and it's certainly not personal, it's just how publically traded firms work.

[DSGrant]

Let's get back on topic, folks.

To be fair and honest with ourselves, while Origins wasn't perfect itself, it was far and away better than DA2. I think that much is obvious from the overwhelming majority of comments/opinions expressed on these forums in the past week or two. Just because a company sells a million copies of a game doesn't mean the game is really that good. All it means is that the company met their sales quota to satisfy the risk on investment for the project. It will take much more than one mediocre game for Bioware to realize any financial consequences. This much is fact.

It's neither constructive nor fair to try and hold one person responsible for the shortcomings of a game for reasons I've stated earlier in this thread. While I agree with the opinion that this is the first game Bioware has made in close to a decade that has fallen short of their reputation, I do not agree with the notion that we (the fans) should storm Bioware's HQ with pitchforks and torches to burn Mr. Laidlaw at the stake. With as much vested interest as fans and gamers of the Dragon Age franchise as many of us have, we should instead be focusing on a more supportive message that Bioware might actually listen to so that we aren't as disappointed with DA3.

I'd much rather participate in a conversation about where Mr. Laidlaw's new vision for Dragon Age came from (I don't recall anyone asking for many of the changes that were made to DA2 when I was reading the Origins feedback forums), and how we might help guide that vision back to something most of us can be satisfied with. Where our focus, and this discussion, should be is with communicating our valid concerns to Bioware over dumbing down an iconic RPG so that it has more mass demographic appeal. Debating the merits of Mr. Laidlaw's qualifications for his job isn't going to contribute to DA3 being better or worse, so let's put both sides of that ad hominem argument to rest, shall we?

[RaenImrahl]

DSGrant wrote...

Let's get back on topic, folks.

To be fair and honest with ourselves, while Origins wasn't perfect itself, it was far and away better than DA2. I think that much is obvious from the overwhelming majority of comments/opinions expressed on these forums in the past week or two. Just because a company sells a million copies of a game doesn't mean the game is really that good. All it means is that the company met their sales quota to satisfy the risk on investment for the project. It will take much more than one mediocre game for Bioware to realize any financial consequences. This much is fact.

It's neither constructive nor fair to try and hold one person responsible for the shortcomings of a game for reasons I've stated earlier in this thread. While I agree with the opinion that this is the first game Bioware has made in close to a decade that has fallen short of their reputation, I do not agree with the notion that we (the fans) should storm Bioware's HQ with pitchforks and torches to burn Mr. Laidlaw at the stake. With as much vested interest as fans and gamers of the Dragon Age franchise as many of us have, we should instead be focusing on a more supportive message that Bioware might actually listen to so that we aren't as disappointed with DA3.

I'd much rather participate in a conversation about where Mr. Laidlaw's new vision for Dragon Age came from (I don't recall anyone asking for many of the changes that were made to DA2 when I was reading the Origins feedback forums), and how we might help guide that vision back to something most of us can be satisfied with. Where our focus, and this discussion, should be is with communicating our valid concerns to Bioware over dumbing down an iconic RPG so that it has more mass demographic appeal. Debating the merits of Mr. Laidlaw's qualifications for his job isn't going to contribute to DA3 being better or worse, so let's put both sides of that ad hominem argument to rest, shall we?

Well said.  Time to move on....

[Pwnsaur]

Rykoth wrote...

Pwnsaur wrote...

Chiramu wrote...

Rykoth wrote...

The problem isn't with Bioware.

The problem is with the ungrateful fans who always find something to whine about.

"We want this this and this."
- New game comes out with those requests -
"HOW DARE YOU"

Very true

Graciousness is warranted in the face of charity. In the circumstances of capitalism, being gracious for paying for a product that disappointed you is absurd. As an added note, I don't remember fans begging for a shorter game, less dialogue, less skills, recycled environments, no non-combat skills, more bugs, less NPC interaction and a higher price tag. Being completely intolerant of one side of an argument does not extinguish the validity of that argument.

This is the problem with you "disappointed people."

You state your disappointment as fact, not opinion. You think that because Bioware disappointed YOU that YOU have the right to demand something.

What about those of us who enjoyed the game. Forget for a moment that the game DOES have flaws (gasp... someone who loves the game can admit that) ....

You are not more entitled then anyone else. The OP is not more entitled then anyone else. The people demanding Mike Laidlaw step down are not more entitled then anyone else. The people who are "disappointed" with the game are acting as if they are the ones to listen to. Some are. Some aren't.

Just because the game disappointed -you- does not mean Bioware should bend over for -you-

You might not like the NPC interaction. There's plenty of people who did love it, and appreciated that its more quality over quantity (instead of the repetitive "I await your command" "Sooooo full of questions are we" you had to go through just to access a new conversation topic with DAO companions)  and thus wouldn't want to see that changed. What makes your opinion more valid then them? What makes the opinion of those who want a balance between both games less valid then yours?

This is the problem.

You don't have to bend over and kiss Bioware's game for being "disappointed" but you have no right acting like you are some self entitled brat just because the game was a disappointment for you.

(Note: "you" is not necessarily specific)

You speak of tolerance of the other side of the argument... well... THAT is why it is hard to be tolerant of "your side." Because with a few exceptions most of the people that are "disappointed" with the game act as if their opinion is the only one that matters.

Whereas there are plenty of us who do love the game and are willing to actually be I don't know... nice in our feedback of some of the short comings the game has?

First of all, my disappointment IS fact. It is also an opinion. I do not overstate or overvalue my opinion in any way. I do not claim to have a more valid point of view, nor do I claim to speak for the people who liked the game. I am speaking for myself, and of myself. I don't understand where you draw comparisons to a 'self entitled brat,' as I don't indicate that I am entitled to anything. I also don't remember 'demanding' anything, but some accountability for some of the inarguable shortfalls of the game would be welcomed.

I don't know whose post you read, but it certainly doesn't appear to be mine. Your rant is unwarranted and unfocused and doesn't seem to even acknowledge anything I posted. Please look at my posts 'Hard To Believe... Words from a broken hearted gamer..' and 'It's just all the little things' and 'Please address this...' if you would like to actually discuss anything I've actually posted. Ranting at a straw man doesn't do anyone any good.

[Scottish90000]

RaenImrahl wrote...

"Lynch mob" is a very racially-charged and offensive term in some parts of the world. It has nothing to do with who is the subject of this thread, and it has nothing to do with some attempt to derail this so-called conversation. If something is bad, it should be pointed out, regardless of context. That's a bad choice of words.

Perhaps that choice was innocently made, as I suspect the somewhat insensitive use of the word "tsunami" was.

Now, please resume your regularly-scheduled caterwauling.

Interesting how you didn't have a problem when a person who agreed with you, who I was quoting, first used the phrase.

And are you seriously trying to suggest that because there was a tsunami disaster recently that it is insensitive of me to use tsunami as a metaphor?

You and your ilk are hypocrits and trolls, and this is my last response to you.

[nijnij]

*sneaks into thread*
*takes a peek*
*runs the hell away*

[RaenImrahl]

Scottish90000 wrote...

RaenImrahl wrote...

"Lynch mob" is a very racially-charged and offensive term in some parts of the world. It has nothing to do with who is the subject of this thread, and it has nothing to do with some attempt to derail this so-called conversation. If something is bad, it should be pointed out, regardless of context. That's a bad choice of words.

Perhaps that choice was innocently made, as I suspect the somewhat insensitive use of the word "tsunami" was.

Now, please resume your regularly-scheduled caterwauling.

Interesting how you didn't have a problem when a person who agreed with you, who I was quoting, first used the phrase. 

Sorry for the confusion... as you'll note, I did not quote you directly in my comments about lynch mobs. My sentiment is directed at any or all who use such a term.  There's another post in the forum where I address this, to others.

Now, in your particular case, I believe agreeing with or supporting something offensive is offensive in and of itself.  That's why I mentioned this post to the moderators.

Scottish90000 wrote...

And are you seriously trying to suggest that because there was a tsunami disaster recently that it is insensitive of me to use tsunami as a metaphor?

Yes, I am.  Bad taste is bad taste.  Doesn't mean you're evil or anything.  I just encourage more sensitivity in your diction.

Scottish90000 wrote...

You and your ilk are hypocrits and trolls, and this is my last response to you.

Curious who else constitutes my "ilk".  And "troll" is an oversued and often misused term.  I would invite you to search the forums and look at the history of my contributions here, espeically in the area of tech support.  You can go to Google and type in:

site:social.bioware.com raenimrahl

After doing that, if you still believe I am a "troll" in any sense, then I'll accept your opinion, if not agree with it.

EDIT:  and if you choose to respond to this, even if it's not to apologize, I won't brand you as a hypocrite.

Modifié par RaenImrahl, 25 mars 2011 - 07:47 .

[RaenImrahl]

nijnij wrote...

*sneaks into thread*
*takes a peek*
*runs the hell away*

Wisdom, this. 

[Cyberstrike nTo]

RaenImrahl wrote...

nijnij wrote...

*sneaks into thread*
*takes a peek*
*runs the hell away*

Wisdom, this. 

Very true.

[Scottish90000]

I will respond to this because I think there has been some miscommunication, and will admit my vitriol was misplaced on you somewhat.

RaenImrahl wrote...

Sorry for the confusion... as you'll note, I did not quote you directly in my comments about lynch mobs. My sentiment is directed at any or all who use such a term.  There's another post in the forum where I address this, to others.

I've since seen that, and I apologize for assuming you were directing that at me particularly.  I believe a previous poster was, and I lumped you in with him.  My bad.

RaenImrahl wrote...

Now, in your particular case, I believe agreeing or supporting something offensive is offensive in and of itself.  That's why I mentioned this post to the moderators.

What was I agreeing or supporting that was offensive?  I'm not sure what you mean.

RaenImrahl wrote...
Yes, I am.  Bad taste is bad taste.  Doesn't mean you're evil or anything.  I just encourage more sensitivity in your diction.

This is your opinion.  I personally believe that you are being oversensitive in this regard.  I think this need to be so guarded with our language choice for fear a "word" offends is immature.  I will refer to a previous post where I stated that INTENT and USAGE is more important than the word itself, yet in our modern world we don't think that way because, I guess, it would require actually taking time to read/listen and understand, and we don't seem to have patience for that anymore.  And frankly, I'm a little annoyed that my constructive post was flamed because of this sisyphean compulsion to not offend anyone ever with our choice of words.

RaenImrahl wrote...

Curious who else constitutes my "ilk".  And "troll" is an oversued and often misused term.  I would invite you to search the forums and look at the history of my contributions here, espeically in the area of tech support.  You can go to Google and type in:

site:social.bioware.com raenimrahl

After doing that, if you still believe I am a "troll" in any sense, then I'll accept your opinion, if not agree with it.

EDIT:  and if you choose to respond to this, even if it's not to apologize, I won't brand you as a hypocrite.

Again, my apologies, I was misdirecting some frustration at you.  I still find your desire to play the role of "Language Sensitivity Cop" to be misguided at best, but I'll let it slide if you do

I'll throw this in here just to kind of bring this post back to topic:

Mike Laidlaw offended many with his justifications for certain design factors in Dragon Age II, and people have a right to question whether he is good for the franchise or not. 

How much power does he have?  A lead designer typically has quite a lot, but not all the power. 

Will our calling for his head get him fired?  I doubt it, therefore I think a lot of you are overreacting to the topic of this thread.

Will our calling for his head make a difference in the decisions made on the next Dragon Age project, if there is one?  No one can honestly say.  We can, however, honestly say that us saying NOTHING will most certainly NOT make a difference on the next Dragon Age project.

Therefore, please let the caterwauling continue.

Oh and btw RaenImrahl, my sister died in a freak accident involving her trying to silence a dozen caterwauling cats.  Please be more sensitive in your choice of words next time.  Thank you.

[nightlordv]

Fact is Bioware didn't have to rush this game. They should have told EA that they wanted to take their time and make the best game possible. What is EA going to do can the entire Bioware team? I don't think so. Bioware is now the equivalent of what Blizzard is for Activision, and EA would never be that stupid especially with TOR still in development and how much they are still raking in from Mass Effect. Fact is the Bioware team that made Dragon Age 2 decided to rush it out so they could cash in on it after seeing how well Origins sold. Typical corporate thinking.

[Cutlasskiwi]

nightlordv wrote...

Fact is Bioware didn't have to rush this game. They should have told EA that they wanted to take their time and make the best game possible. What is EA going to do can the entire Bioware team? I don't think so. Bioware is now the equivalent of what Blizzard is for Activision, and EA would never be that stupid especially with TOR still in development and how much they are still raking in from Mass Effect. Fact is the Bioware team that made Dragon Age 2 decided to rush it out so they could cash in on it after seeing how well Origins sold. Typical corporate thinking.

I don't think we can speculate about that since we have no idea how things work between BioWare and EA. 

[MrTijger]

Yellow Words wrote...

nightlordv wrote...

Fact is Bioware didn't have to rush this game. They should have told EA that they wanted to take their time and make the best game possible. What is EA going to do can the entire Bioware team? I don't think so. Bioware is now the equivalent of what Blizzard is for Activision, and EA would never be that stupid especially with TOR still in development and how much they are still raking in from Mass Effect. Fact is the Bioware team that made Dragon Age 2 decided to rush it out so they could cash in on it after seeing how well Origins sold. Typical corporate thinking.

I don't think we can speculate about that since we have no idea how things work between BioWare and EA. 

Also, what we do know is the lineup of games coming out this year. In the next few months Bioware is going to release its own Star Wars MMO, they wouldnt square off DA 2 against that, then there's the Witcher 2 which competes for some (PC side) of the same market.
Move ahead by 6 months and you're up against Skyrim and ME 3, again not ideal timing, add to that the cost of any delay being that all expenses run through without revenue to offset those and I can see exactly why the timeframe was chosen.

Yes, it has netted them some deserved criticism and rightfully so but threads like these are ludicrous and near slanderous.

[Aireoth]

Honestly, I don't like the direction he, or bioware took the game, I think it broke it, and badly. I have my own reasons, all of them equal if not better then peoples reasons for liking the game. Its not that I hate the game, but what it did to Dragon Age, it should have been called something different.

That being said, ML built a game, the market, and various positive (feedback/critics/reviews) and negative (big business mentality, quantity over quality, timelines) will determine the fate of the game. If people buy it by the millions so be it, I will continue to look for games I like. ML has definatly been put on my questionable list, next time I see his name, I'll try the game before buying the game.

[kingjezza]

It's his attitude that bugs me rather than the game he created, his continual digs at Origins and the condescending way he has basically come out and said that people don't like DA2 because they are afraid of change or they don't get it.

"Wow, this is just too different and I cannot handle it."

Yeah that's the reason people are complaining.

I love the fact they have all done a huge dissapearing act as well since the release. In all honesty there isn't much they can say anyway, pretty much them coming out and saying "hey we got it totally wrong" is the only thing that will appease most and they wont do that so maybe silence is the best option.

[Morroian]

nightlordv wrote...

Fact is Bioware didn't have to rush this game. They should have told EA that they wanted to take their time and make the best game possible. What is EA going to do can the entire Bioware team? I don't think so.

 my god that is one of the most naive things I've ever seen written on these forums. 

[Morroian]

kingjezza wrote...

It's his attitude that bugs me rather than the game he created, his continual digs at Origins

You're being over sensitive if you think what he says about DAO is offensive.

kingjezza wrote...

 and the condescending way he has basically come out and said that people don't like DA2 because they are afraid of change or they don't get it.

"Wow, this is just too different and I cannot handle it."

Yeah that's the reason people are complaining.

Uh yeah it actually is at the base of most complaints.

[kingjezza]

It's not it being different people can't handle, it's the fact a lot of people just think it's utter ****.