I've read that some top brass BioWare founders, AKA as "the Doctors", are scratching their venerable puzzled heads pulling out the few hairs they have left wondering on why the feedback has been split beteen the "I love it" and "I hate it" camps for DA2.
So in a brave attempt to ensure the survival of those few remaining hairs, I've tasked it upon myself to explain why we're getting these polarized reviews.
Just what the heck is going on?
Have gamers gone crazy? Are they just paid trolls by CD Project sowing negativity? Heh, you wish.
Nope, it's a direct consequence of BioWare's own making.
I believe BioWare chose to expand its existing fanbase and reach out for casual players (mainstream console). They decided that it was a worthwhile tradeoff to sacrifice a few old grumpy diehard hard-core RPG fans in exchange of appealing to a much broader, younger crowd and in the process make more money, BIG money. (EA approves this paragraph)
Now in principle this, from a corporate strategy point of view, seems a pretty smart move. Heck, even I would buy into it drooling at the expected sales figures and my future annual bonus.
The only small problem is that you are forgetting what you are actually selling.- an RPG.
Without sounding condescending, an RPG is actually a darn complex product that takes a long time to develop (4/5 year development cycles) and requires a significant financial investment. It caters to, let's call them politely, a discerning player class which are now, mostly, in their late thirties or even older. Yes, them type who actually did play Baldur's Gate in its heyday and owned Spectrum, Amigas and Commodore 64. This is the niche clientele BioWare has been tapping into since its foundation so long ago. Its what its known as its "hardcore" fanbase. These are -sadly- waning every year (i.e. marriage, divorce = broke, working, kids, dying of old age etc). This group tends to stick more to PC. Some call them derisively "PC elitists".
Then we have a second, much larger crowd (ergo more dollars), that are more of a casual-type of players who are into the COD and button-mashing wave. They are, mostly, by comparison, much younger and by far a larger population. It's the juicy and larger slice of the cake every developer craves to target; its the publisher's holy grail, their wet dream (yes I'm looking at you EA). This group, generally, favors more consoles (Xbox, PS).
So what BioWare did, in my opinion, was reach some sort of compromise whereby the got rid of veteran old-school in-house assets (Brent Knowles) and incorporated newer talents (Mike Laidlaw) for the lead-role in DA2. Laidlaw had more experience in the console port and would theoretically be more in line with "today's tastes" (the mainstram console crowd). Yes they'd lose in the way some grumpys but it would be over-compensated by the huge influx of newer casual players ("What? There's an in-game inventory? Dude, what's that for?") or so they figured.
So basically DA2 was streamlined or dumbed-down to accomodate it to mainstream console players who, apparently under the eyes of EA and BioWare, prefer simpler action games that require less thinking and more button-mashing. Now this imo was a huge mistake. Because you underestimated both the loyal hardcore fans (who will not take it) and the COD crowd (who are not stupid). I also love COD, but I don't want a "Dragon Calls to Duty". Gamers do not want vanilla substitutes or unpolished lacklustered hybrids, we want the real deal.
DA:O was a game designed out of sheer love for the first group catering to old-schoool RPG players, the so-called PC die-hards and became hugely successful. DA2 hearkened on BG2 days, it was its spiritual sucessor. It was console ported more or less successfully (worser graphics than the PC version, specially on the Xbox) where it also became an instant critical successs.
Post ME2 and its wild success, elicited by the roses and wine, all creative restraints were lifted (that is, Mr Laidlaw was allowed to do as he pleased reworking the franchise and designing what he thought DA:O should have been in the first place, behaving in the process like a spoilt brat). The aim was to appeal to the larger console crowd this time and make much more money, as in cash-in big time and here we come Forbe's list. Spurred by the success of ME2, developers purposely "massificated" DA2 despite them being completely different universes and games. I like both, but they have distinctly different flavors and so they should remain (although I like neat touches like the blood dragon armor cross-over, mind you).
As a result we have a half-baked game that is a half-hearted hybrid between an RPG and some dumb console button-masher action wannabe Street Fighter VII. Unfortunately, it does neither well.
So on the one hand, we are getting lousy reviews with the "we've been utterly betrayed, you have alienated your fanbase, get rid of Laidlaw! Lite the bonfire! Sharpen the stakes!! Storm Bioware's castle gate!!!" and on the other hand we are getting okish or even glowing reviews from the "I love ma rogue gangsta-ninja, it's GR8, best game evarr; Mike, dude, you rock ma world mann, u rulz. 10/10. Your fan number one, Avanost".
By now you've probably guessed in which camp I'm in. Well, you'd be wrong. I actually only play DA in consoles, never on a PC. However, I would group myself in the first group because I agree more with their point of view which is more in line with the spirit of the original DA:O and BG days.
It is my believe that BioWare released an incomplete game which does not cater wholly to either group, and this must be addressed if BioWare is to survive.
BioWare is therefore at a development crossroads in which it must decide, once and for all, which path to take the Dragon Age franchise, and by extent, all other franchises such as Mass Effect.
One path will be a return to its origins, pun intended, to its core bread-and-butter which set them on the map. The long-time standing hard-core fans who've always been there for it since KOTOR. This is a niche market that caters to intelligent carefully-crafted (let me add lovingly) RPG games for which Bioware has been worldwide renowned for longer than I care to think standing proudly along giants such as the Bethesda boys. You won't make it to the Forbe's list, this I guarantee, but you will still make a nice living; more than 99% of the population if that's good enough for you.
The second path is to wholly forget the grumpy disgruntled hard-core fans who are too old anyway and go overboard and cater exclusively to the console fans making the sort of games they cherish. In time you will make it to the Forbe's list. By then all the hard-core fans will have died out of old age anyway or locked away in geriatrics.
What BioWare can no longer afford is to sit on top of the fence trying to pull in both crowds because we're like water and oil, we just don't mix.
BioWare, get your act together, you have to make a clear stance.
So, the ball is now on your roof. Your move...
We'll be right here awaiting your decision for the upcoming DA3. Hopefully this time round, seasoned with more Knowles and less Laidlaw.
If it's the former you have my pre-order guaranteed as well as a hefty chunk of my gamer heart. <3
If it's the latter, it was nice while it lasted, albeit it's now high-time to explore the worlds of CD Project and company, you know, the lads who still cater to them old-age RPG lovers like myself.
My 2 cents.
Disclaimer: no one from EA was hurt, whether purposely or not, on writing this post. Mike, I have my eye on you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT (20/04/2011): As I have been misunderstood by some people (specifically by fellow console-players) who have taken offense on what I've written, I copy and paste one of my replies that's on page 29 of this thread to further clarify the above text:
"Please re-read carefully what I've written as well as other posts written by me on this thread as follow-up replies.
I'm a console player myself, not a PC elitist, I've made that clear from the get-go.
It's not that I myself see console-players as dumb and PC players as the pinnacle of Mankind. You've completely misundertstood my post then.
I wrote that's the apparent vision EA and BioWare seem to have of us mainstream console-players. They equate console-players to casual button-masher players. While it may be true of some, not all of us are like this.
I specifically wrote that COD players, such as myself, are not dumb. It's a mistake they (EA and Bioware) are making on misjudging their target audience, the larger slice of the cake, not to mention how they've misjudged (mistreated?) their loyal hardcore PC RPG gamers.
As an Xbox gamer I have no interest in my DA being "consolized" or casualized just because...I specifically wrote I'm not interested in a "Dragon Calls to Duty". I want the real deal, I want an RPG as good as PC players get. I want something similar to my DA:O experience again, not identical of course. Sequels require changes and improvements but not to the point that the game no longer feels and plays like the original DA:O as its meant to be a sequel, otherwise call it something else if its a spin-off.
In my post I was mostly being ironic putting myself in their shoes (EA's).I already made clear in a number of posts that there are bright people playing either on PC, console or both.
Precisely my argument hinges on the idea that we (= console players) are not dumb. We do not require all the luv (sic) & hand-holding offerig us a watered-down version of an RPG experience. We are perfectly capable of coping and grasping a complex game without resorting to a PC's 103 keys. Some things will logically be required to be adapted on porting the game over to the console, granted. But that does not imply a general dumbing-down a la DA2.
I do not want to play a game that has been streamlined to the point it's childish & dumbed-down. RPG players, like myself, like deeper gameplay, complex interwoven branching out choices and consequences. Hence my comment on water and oil. You cannot stick us all (console- players) in one bag with a label on it: "feed them only with douche casual games. Not a smart lot".
To each his own, let us RPG lovers (whether PC gamers or console-players) have our classic RPGs, and let the casual button-mashers have their action hack-n-slash games. An RPG lover can be 13 or 77 years-old, to put an example, male or female. You cannot cater to both crowds because we will not mix. The larger the audience you aim to pull in, the more concessions you'll have to be prepared to make along the way; it's an inverse relation. You will have to continually strip down RPG elements of the game to make it more and more appealing to a gradually wider audience to the point it is diluted and is no longer an RPG i.e. Dragon Age 2. By definition an RPG will only have a small fanbase of discerning players; you just cannot cater to a wider audience without losing the essence of an RPG, what gives it its soul. And as I write, a crowd of RPG lovers can be made of PC players or console-players, such as myself.
It is a gross -and costly- mistake to equate console-players = simple half-witted minds; PC hardcore old guard elite = pinnacle of Human Evolution.
Now please, go and re-read my post again. You are making us console-players look bad."
Modifié par Shadowbanner, 20 avril 2011 - 09:20 .
Retour en haut
