Shamajotsi wrote...
It's the way the rest of the criticism has been voiced that concerns me. The battle system has been changed and DA2 has undergone a new art direction. Alright, maybe you don't like it, maybe I don't like it, maybe nobody likes it. Why should we word our criticism as a demand to Bioware of what they should do next, though? Isn't it up to them to decide whether they want to maintain artistic integrity or listen to the popular criticism? Why do they have to admit that they have messed up the game, if they themselves do not think this is the case? I am almost convinced that the writers would never state that they did anything wrong with DA2 by the many replies they have given that show they actually loved what they've done.
Yours is probably one of the more well thought-out posts on the matter, but there are a few issues which I'm not convinced are truly valid considering the situation.
The general gist above implies that Bioware should be given credit, and a lot of it, purely for trying something new. It's worth pointing out that there isn't any inherent value in trying something new, when it comes to game development - whatever they try, it's only a good thing if it makes sense and works, which can't really be said of many things in DA2. If it's a bad idea that was clearly not going to work from the outset - like creating a story that was virtually divorced from the players actions, or reusing levels for the entirety of the game, or setting a 60+ hour game in a location no larger than Denerim or Neverwinter, it's a little difficult to justify as being credit-worthy purely because it's new. If Bioware created an ability to leave turds all over Kirkwall, that would certainly be new, but I doubt it would be considered positive.
However, there are aspects of the game of ambiguous quality. I doubt that there are too many of the people working for Bioware, apart from Brent Knowles, who didn't like the new gameplay approach. I doubt that there is anyone in the writing team who doesn't like the idea of a framed narrative, who doesn't like the new characters, or who disagrees with the newest additions to the Thedas lore.
If I am right, well, the community has made certain points quite clear and the latest attempts to restate them in a more and more sarcastic manner are getting out of hand. It is up to Bioware to decide the path they will take with the DA franchise from now on - whether it will be what they have had in their minds since they began working on DA2, or it will be what the most vocal people on those forums demand from them. Both options seem fair in their own way.
I think it's pretty clear that Bioware consider themselves artists and the development of computer games an art form, no doubt about that - but I don't really see how this is relevant to the issue at hand. *They* may think they've done an amazing job and are willing to lecture anyone who says otherwise about how awesome they are, but unless the idea is that the game is marketed purely at the people who made it, and all sales are going to come from purchases made by the dev team, it stands to reason that the developers should at least take into account some of the viewpoints of their audience. There's plenty of ambiguity about the relative level of quality of DA2 but one thing that isn't ambiguous is the fact that, to paraphrase one reviewer, DA2 is probably Bioware's most critically-mixed major release.
Clearly, while the dev team may have had their reasons for all the new introductions, they've badly misjudged what the fans were after.... and obviously didn't think through some of their changes.
Who knows what the motivations for so much unwanted changes. At the end of the day, though, they're making these games to sell, and if they aren't up to scratch, they won't sell. We don't really have a clear idea whether DA2 has met it's targets or not, but judging from the mixed reviews and general word-of-mouth, many of the changes introduced in DA2 have damaged the validity of the Dragon Age franchise. Regardless of artistic merit, such damage isn't going to do anyone any good.
I think there is plenty of justifcation to say that dev team really need to have a long, hard think about what they add and what they change in future. Clearly, the approach of just modding and changing anything they want without regards to whether it works or is what the players want isn't really working.
Retour en haut
:P:P Or something else...
:D:D
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
) and ME. I don't quite agree that Bioware tried to fix stuff that wasn't broken in ME2--every change, as far as I can see, was aimed at improving an actual problem area. For instance, the inventory system wasn't simplified just for ****s and giggles; everyone complained about how clunky ME's was, and ME2 solved that in a radical way. Too radical for some, to be sure, but even detractors can see why it was done.
