Terror_K wrote...
I'm basing it off comments regarding many of the changes made to DA2. Almost all of them seemed more driven by profit and pandering than by actually trying to please the existing fanbase.
Which is still not reason enough to make the assumption that the team wasn't committed to the project.
I'll readily agree that Dragon Age 2 needed more development time to truly fulfill all of its inherent potential, but looking at what they achieved with the time and resources they had, I think it's impressive how their artistic integrity shines through so clearly still.
Had DA2 truly been nothing but pandering for profit, it wouldn't have resonated with people to the extent it has.
Naturally it was made for profit. All products are. But I don't think you can reduce it to that one factor.
I don't think they had an agenda to knowingly alienate a select group of people. I do think they had an agenda to deliberately appeal to a different select group of people, and by doing such alienated another, and that they knew this would be the case. As I said before, I believe they want to have their cake and eat it too, and either don't seem to acknowledge that they can't do this with full success, or are simply willing to let some chunks and crumbs fall to the wayside as long as they still get most of it in the end.
The developers never shied away from the fact that they were approaching the material differently. The new aesthetic and singular story was always apparent. If not everyone responded to these changes, I feel for them, but being one who felt the alterations actually added to the source rather than detracted from it, I cannot assume that same stance.
That's a matter of taste. Not objective truth. And neither of us has the faculty to declare ours to be more accurate.
Because most of the changes I see made to DA2 weren't complaints that came from fans: they were complaints made by critics or more casual gamers. I don't recall many people on the DAO forums complaining that DAO wasn't distinct enough and was "too Tolkien" or "too generic fantasy" etc.: that was all pretty much stuff from professional review sites. Pretty much all the "silent protagonist" issues were also relegated to critics who felt it was a dated mechanic in an age where most protagonists are voiced, while most fans on the forums realised that it's not dated but is merely a tool one and use or not, and for true depth of roleplaying whereby the player truly controls and defines their character only a silent protagnost can truly fit. I don't recall seeing fans on the DAO forums saying they didn't want to be able to properly equip their party members, they wanted squad banter reduced to select areas, they wanted a sequel half the length and they wanted to only be a human, etc.
You misunderstand, my concern wasn't the source of the previous critiques, it was your referring to these complaints as though they were unreasonable or misguided, while simultaneously presenting your own as though they were inarguable fact.
Perhaps that was not your intention, but it was how it translated to me.
On the issue of the silent protagonist and such, I defer to artistic freedom. The team wanted to apply a new approach, and they had the conviction to go through with it.
While I think DA2 is far from flawless, I respect the developers for favouring experimentation above complete and utter creative stagnation.
Modifié par LiquidGrape, 04 mai 2011 - 02:22 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Guest_DuckSoup_*
Retour en haut
. Sad for me I don't like to see games that could be so much better just because companies decided to gimp their developement.
