ipgd wrote...
bEVEsthda wrote...
In this case, where there clearly is a major market reception failure, with "what the developers personally value", and where discussion at least superficially try to help developers for the next round, you have no point.
If you had phrased it differently, you might have had. But we already know that you like DA2, so your opinion would not really be part of DA2's problem. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of the solution though. Maybe it's time leave people like Sylvius and me behind?
I don't think we have the necessary data to divine what exact aspects were responsible for DA2's relative negative reception. Judging by the success of ME2, which also moved away from a equipable armor system to unique follower models, I think we can rule this particular issue as unlikely to be a colossal factor.
And, yes, what the developers personally value is important -- I'd say much more than what we value, even. The developers do not exist to cater to our every whim; they are, ultimately, making the games they want to make, because they want to make them. While money is a factor and they have to make some concessions in order to ensure a consumer base, they are entitled to their own vision and artistic intent; judging by the direction they took both ME2 and DA2, one could assume enhanced visual characterization is part of that intent. And if you don't like that direction, you are entitled to complain about it, but just because you do not like it -- hell, even if everyone did not like it -- they are not obligated to change anything to please you or anyone.
Maybe they will change it, maybe they won't -- but they're going to do what they want to do, and that's the way it should be. Entertainment and art in general would be in a pretty sorry state if pandering to the consumer was truly the only consideration in the creation of a product.
If I had said "yes", I'd still have to add: but you still have no point. It is YOU who use words like "entitled" and "not
obliged" (with obliged in italics even
).
But I'm not going to say "yes". I'm going to say this instead:
Artists can do whatever they want if they play with only their own money. In this case they don't.
Do you really think we would have got DA2 if the developers had been left to their own visions?
No, you just have to look at what EA have invested in Bioware and realise what sort of return they must expect, to understand that there was a strong motive to do something about DA:O's business model.
So they obviously sat down and came up with a lot of ideas of how to move DA. I can recognize many of them and I can sort of reluctantly agree with a lot. What I don't agree with is the change in style to appeal to (supposedly) a different demographic group. This is where I believe they stepped very wrong.
(Recycled areas was just an accident. It was never intended. M.L. decided to make the game longer by adding cheap content, and I previously held that decision for correct. However, I have changed my mind on that, it simply risks becoming a precedent too much. And it draws too much flak ofc.)
The bigger the audience, the more resources can be spent on the franchise, eventually maybe reaching CoD's production values. This is clearly what M.L. want and it's a worthwhile goal. But I suspect the task he got was: "DA gets one more chance. You get 18 months and this much money. See what you can do".
And as much as I dislike DA2, I'm quite impressed by how much he accomplished. Pity they launched it as "DA2".
But I do believe DA:O's more serious flavor ultimately has a much larger potential audience than DA2's, including the one they specifically set out to target.
Of course the developers have their jobs because of their judgement, creativity and taste. Those are the tools they have to work with. So it is somewhat important that they somewhat get to do what they want, and trust their own judgement. But why do you think Bioware always stress "learning from mistakes" and "listening" so much? Creating a game is a very calculated procedure. And inside Bioware and EA, it very much considers market research. This is very obvious from what information has leaked through. Problem with market research is that you have to read it right. It's an art in itself (and an art EA doesn't have). So how 'polluted' are the designers opinions? From false data? This is where an experience like DA2 comes in as a sort of reality check.
Modifié par bEVEsthda, 16 août 2011 - 11:10 .
Retour en haut
) I think it's entirely possible to love a game, even if you're concurrently missing more traditional RPG features. (For me it's all about stats etc, not appearance.)
