166 réponses à ce sujet

[Ariella]

IanPolaris wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

I don't think DA2 was a cash grab, I think BW wanted to do a ggod game but EA was pushing, so they rushed it and had to cut corners, hence DA2.

Doesn't that make it a cash grab then (abeit on the part of EA not Bioware itself)?

-Polaris

Bing difference between a "cash grab" (connotation of done on the very cheap, with no care for the product) vs. the very real need for businesses to produce product.

If one either hasn't notice (or is trying to not notice) that the Developers do care about DA2, if they didn't we wouldn't have them passing through here at all hours making comments about feedback, talking to us about things in general, giving their opinions. They'd be "okay, got my pay check, what's next". However, the reality is that, Bioware does have to put out games to make a profit, so they can continue to make games. Could DA2 have stood more time working up, probably, but we have no idea what exiegencies existed to bring the game out when it did. All we have is assumptions.

[IanPolaris]

Ariella wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

I don't think DA2 was a cash grab, I think BW wanted to do a ggod game but EA was pushing, so they rushed it and had to cut corners, hence DA2.

Doesn't that make it a cash grab then (abeit on the part of EA not Bioware itself)?

-Polaris

Bing difference between a "cash grab" (connotation of done on the very cheap, with no care for the product) vs. the very real need for businesses to produce product.

If one either hasn't notice (or is trying to not notice) that the Developers do care about DA2, if they didn't we wouldn't have them passing through here at all hours making comments about feedback, talking to us about things in general, giving their opinions. They'd be "okay, got my pay check, what's next". However, the reality is that, Bioware does have to put out games to make a profit, so they can continue to make games. Could DA2 have stood more time working up, probably, but we have no idea what exiegencies existed to bring the game out when it did. All we have is assumptions.

Point.  Missing it.  If EA told Bioware, make a followup to DAO cheap and within two years so we can grab the audience while the product is hot (and that IS apparently according to some insiders what EA told Bioware), then that makes it a cash grab on EA's part.

I have other (and more serious) issues with Bioware including the (IMHO...silly is the kindest word I can think of) that you can overhaul a game like DA in 18 months and have even a halfway polished product along with the equally...silly...idea that you can ignore your audience....but that doesn't make it a 'cash grab' on BW's part.  However, since EA is the producer and thus controls the purse, it's the EA standard that matters at least for this topic.

-Polaris

[Ariella]

IanPolaris wrote...

Ariella wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Creid-X wrote...

I don't think DA2 was a cash grab, I think BW wanted to do a ggod game but EA was pushing, so they rushed it and had to cut corners, hence DA2.

Doesn't that make it a cash grab then (abeit on the part of EA not Bioware itself)?

-Polaris

Bing difference between a "cash grab" (connotation of done on the very cheap, with no care for the product) vs. the very real need for businesses to produce product.

If one either hasn't notice (or is trying to not notice) that the Developers do care about DA2, if they didn't we wouldn't have them passing through here at all hours making comments about feedback, talking to us about things in general, giving their opinions. They'd be "okay, got my pay check, what's next". However, the reality is that, Bioware does have to put out games to make a profit, so they can continue to make games. Could DA2 have stood more time working up, probably, but we have no idea what exiegencies existed to bring the game out when it did. All we have is assumptions.

Point.  Missing it.  If EA told Bioware, make a followup to DAO cheap and within two years so we can grab the audience while the product is hot (and that IS apparently according to some insiders what EA told Bioware), then that makes it a cash grab on EA's part.

I have other (and more serious) issues with Bioware including the (IMHO...silly is the kindest word I can think of) that you can overhaul a game like DA in 18 months and have even a halfway polished product along with the equally...silly...idea that you can ignore your audience....but that doesn't make it a 'cash grab' on BW's part.  However, since EA is the producer and thus controls the purse, it's the EA standard that matters at least for this topic.

-Polaris

Words aren't hammers, Ian, they're knives. connotation is every bit as important as denotation. "Cash grab" implies a great number of things, none of which we have proof for. Con jecture, yes, but proof, no.

It's possible that EA needed DA2 to come out in March (and I remind folks yet again, the date was pushed back from Feb 2 2011) for legitimate economic reasons that have nothing to do with wanting to make a quick buck. Since none of us works for EA or Bioware at the moment, nor were any of us in any position to be in the know about the reasons the game came out when it did, speculating on such a thing is pointless, and assuming it was done just to screw the fans is paranoid.

[IanPolaris]

Ariella wrote...

Words aren't hammers, Ian, they're knives. connotation is every bit as important as denotation. "Cash grab" implies a great number of things, none of which we have proof for. Con jecture, yes, but proof, no.

It's possible that EA needed DA2 to come out in March (and I remind folks yet again, the date was pushed back from Feb 2 2011) for legitimate economic reasons that have nothing to do with wanting to make a quick buck. Since none of us works for EA or Bioware at the moment, nor were any of us in any position to be in the know about the reasons the game came out when it did, speculating on such a thing is pointless, and assuming it was done just to screw the fans is paranoid.

I think there enough and strong enough circumstantial evidence in this case to fairly conclude that DA2 was in fact a cash grab at least on some level.

-Polaris

[seraphymon]

There is always never any definite proof of a cash grab nor will any Bioware person flat out say so. But theres assumptions for justifiable reasons. Not because of paranoi.

[AngryFrozenWater]

There are several ways to quicly cash in on DA:O's success. One of the obvious ones is to reduce development costs and development time. Here is what I wrote about that in one of the groups...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

While looking at the changes in DA2 I found some interesting ways by which BW managed to reduce cost. Here is one of them. Some of you may have already seen it. Perhaps it's new to some of you. I'll probably post another one later.

[...]

What it does is to try to explain how various design decisions work together to make the cost reduction the most effective.

Like mentioned by BW going back to fully customizable armor found in loot which can be used by both the PC and companions is a "mixed bag". I have given that some thought and it seems there is more to it than meets the eye.

There is a relation between the human only PC, companion armor, armor found in loot, and story and dialogue writing in DA2, and that's cost reduction. By using a human only PC the armor found in loot has to fit only a female or a male human. There is no need to make them fit for elves and dwarfs. The companion armor is a replacement for that. We saw only one outfit per companion to make it even more cost effective. Because there is a human only PC there is no need to develop the story line for non human origins. In fact there wasn't even a proper playable history of your family to begin with. There is also no need to write race specific dialogue when using a human only PC. It's likely that reaction dialogue is much more common, but that doesn't mean cutting race specific dialogue doesn't cut the cost. I take it that it is easier to make the cinematics when one has to deal with the height of just the human only PC. Again, maybe a small advantage, but it is likely to make the job easier and thus can be done faster. The actual impact of all that is hard to say, but the obvious advantages make it more than likely that the relation exists.

Chances are slim that DA3 will see multiple races for the PC just for the above mentioned reasons. There are great marking rationalizations for all that and we see that ended up as "the story didn't allow non-human races" and "the companions now look unique". Of course Hawke can be marketed as well.

Obviously it is possible to dream up the story and then decide to use multiple races for the PC or not. Chances are that it is unlikely we'll see multiple races for the PC, given the above advantages of cost reduction. About the uniqueness of the companion armor: Sure, there will be some people who are happy with how the the companions look. Perhaps some don't care at all and are in it for the combat only. Others, like me, don't think that filling 4 squares by buying or finding "upgrades" constitutes as meaningful customization. Of course BW knows this, and the 4 squares are just intended to ensure that "customization" exists.

I suspect that we will not return to the DA:O armor situation. The new method (pioneered by ME2) seems like it is here to stay. Maybe we will see a re-textured second armor. Perhaps even a DLC with companion armor. I guess that's the best we can hope for.

[Ariella]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There are several ways to quicly cash in on DA:O's success. One of the obvious ones is to reduce development costs and development time. Here is what I wrote about that in one of the groups...

*snip*

This is based on a lot of assumptions and circumstancial evidence at best. If they were going to reduce cost and dev time, why revamp the entire engine. That takes time to develop and train, learning curve might not be as steep but it's a major change.

As for race, what physical or vocal proof is there that this was done as a cost saving measure and not because it was dictated by the story?

One of the biggest complaints on DAO was the generic look of everything. They completely revamped the art, and redid all of the armor types. Also by giving the companions their own look, it helps give idenity.

It is quite possible ALL of these actions were taken for artistic and story reasons rather than just cost cutting.

The ONLY thing I see as a cost/time saving measure is the map resuse, but that's it.

Again, all any of us can do is assume, and depending on our natures we'll see the glass half full or empty, but none of it is fact. We don't know the facts, we don't know what happened at the budget meetings, nor do we know the reasons why EA scheduled DA2 the way it did.

[Gunderic]

Ariella wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There are several ways to quicly cash in on DA:O's success. One of the obvious ones is to reduce development costs and development time. Here is what I wrote about that in one of the groups...

*snip*

This is based on a lot of assumptions and circumstancial evidence at best. If they were going to reduce cost and dev time, why revamp the entire engine. That takes time to develop and train, learning curve might not be as steep but it's a major change.

As for race, what physical or vocal proof is there that this was done as a cost saving measure and not because it was dictated by the story?

"Not choosing race is a Very Bad Thing and has everything to do with cinematic limitations — characters with different heights and sizes are difficult to build cinematic conversation for — as well the choice impacts the amount of dialog that needs to be written. But aliens and fantasy races are cool. Humans are boring (except my kids and my wife and some of you… you know who you are).

As for the dialog itself, its what I expected. Some of it is visually beautiful but interactive movies have never been the kinds of games I wanted to play. So kudos to the team for the great work but, as always, I kind of wish the huge effort I know it takes to build those cinematic experiences could be spent on gameplay."

Modifié par Gunderic, 18 août 2011 - 04:37 .

[Ariella]

seraphymon wrote...

There is always never any definite proof of a cash grab nor will any Bioware person flat out say so. But theres assumptions for justifiable reasons. Not because of paranoi.

Disliking the direction of a game is justifiable?

[Ariella]

Gunderic wrote...

Ariella wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There are several ways to quicly cash in on DA:O's success. One of the obvious ones is to reduce development costs and development time. Here is what I wrote about that in one of the groups...

*snip*

This is based on a lot of assumptions and circumstancial evidence at best. If they were going to reduce cost and dev time, why revamp the entire engine. That takes time to develop and train, learning curve might not be as steep but it's a major change.

As for race, what physical or vocal proof is there that this was done as a cost saving measure and not because it was dictated by the story?

"Not choosing race is a Very Bad Thing and has everything to do with cinematic limitations — characters with different heights and sizes are difficult to build cinematic conversation for — as well the choice impacts the amount of dialog that needs to be written. But aliens and fantasy races are cool. Humans are boring (except my kids and my wife and some of you… you know who you are).

As for the dialog itself, its what I expected. Some of it is visually beautiful but interactive movies have never been the kinds of games I wanted to play. So kudos to the team for the great work but, as always, I kind of wish the huge effort I know it takes to build those cinematic experiences could be spent on gameplay."

You care to give the source of the quote. If it's Brent Knowles, that's his opinion as he was not part of the Dev team for DA2. I'm asking for facts, not opinions of people who aren't in the know.

[Gunderic]

Ariella wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

Ariella wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There are several ways to quicly cash in on DA:O's success. One of the obvious ones is to reduce development costs and development time. Here is what I wrote about that in one of the groups...

*snip*

This is based on a lot of assumptions and circumstancial evidence at best. If they were going to reduce cost and dev time, why revamp the entire engine. That takes time to develop and train, learning curve might not be as steep but it's a major change.

As for race, what physical or vocal proof is there that this was done as a cost saving measure and not because it was dictated by the story?

"Not choosing race is a Very Bad Thing and has everything to do with cinematic limitations — characters with different heights and sizes are difficult to build cinematic conversation for — as well the choice impacts the amount of dialog that needs to be written. But aliens and fantasy races are cool. Humans are boring (except my kids and my wife and some of you… you know who you are).

As for the dialog itself, its what I expected. Some of it is visually beautiful but interactive movies have never been the kinds of games I wanted to play. So kudos to the team for the great work but, as always, I kind of wish the huge effort I know it takes to build those cinematic experiences could be spent on gameplay."

You care to give the source of the quote. If it's Brent Knowles, that's his opinion as he was not part of the Dev team for DA2. I'm asking for facts, not opinions of people who aren't in the know.

It is Brent Knowles:

http://blog.brentkno...gon-age-2-demo/

He knew where the project was headed more or less, which is why he quit. I don't think you're going to get a more reliable source than someone who should've been the lead designer for both games and can speak freely without being constrained by obligations toward his former employer.

Modifié par Gunderic, 18 août 2011 - 05:07 .

[seraphymon]

Ariella wrote...

seraphymon wrote...

There is always never any definite proof of a cash grab nor will any Bioware person flat out say so. But theres assumptions for justifiable reasons. Not because of paranoi.

Disliking the direction of a game is justifiable?

No but alot of peoples reasons for disliking is. just as if people who do like  certain aspects or changes. Point is just because they arent good enough reasons for you, doesnt mean they arent for others invluding even the developers.

[Texhnolyze101]

This thread is going places i probably won't enjoy...*leaves*

[Morroian]

Gunderic wrote...

It is Brent Knowles:

http://blog.brentkno...gon-age-2-demo/

He knew where the project was headed more or less, which is why he quit. 

No it wasn't, thats a myth at this point. 

As for his opinion on race selection I've read that before and it struck me as largely just a personal opinion from someone who doesn't like playing a human in a fantasy world. After all race doesn't necessarily have a big effect on role playing (personality can be built and shaped regardless of race) its just a personal preference. Plus there is the fact that race had very little effect in DAO the game that he was lead designer on. 

Modifié par Morroian, 18 août 2011 - 06:30 .

[Realmzmaster]

Gunderic wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

Ariella wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There are several ways to quicly cash in on DA:O's success. One of the obvious ones is to reduce development costs and development time. Here is what I wrote about that in one of the groups...

*snip*

This is based on a lot of assumptions and circumstancial evidence at best. If they were going to reduce cost and dev time, why revamp the entire engine. That takes time to develop and train, learning curve might not be as steep but it's a major change.

As for race, what physical or vocal proof is there that this was done as a cost saving measure and not because it was dictated by the story?

"Not choosing race is a Very Bad Thing and has everything to do with cinematic limitations — characters with different heights and sizes are difficult to build cinematic conversation for — as well the choice impacts the amount of dialog that needs to be written. But aliens and fantasy races are cool. Humans are boring (except my kids and my wife and some of you… you know who you are).

As for the dialog itself, its what I expected. Some of it is visually beautiful but interactive movies have never been the kinds of games I wanted to play. So kudos to the team for the great work but, as always, I kind of wish the huge effort I know it takes to build those cinematic experiences could be spent on gameplay."

You care to give the source of the quote. If it's Brent Knowles, that's his opinion as he was not part of the Dev team for DA2. I'm asking for facts, not opinions of people who aren't in the know.

It is Brent Knowles:

http://blog.brentkno...gon-age-2-demo/

He knew where the project was headed more or less, which is why he quit. I don't think you're going to get a more reliable source than someone who should've been the lead designer for both games and can speak freely without being constrained by obligations toward his former employer.

If you are going to quote. Why not quote the final paragraph in the same blog.

Overall I was impressed, the team really put together a strong title in
such a short period of time. I don’t think some of the changes needed to
happen (especially if Dragon Age has sold as well as has been
indicated) but only the marketplace will tell us whether it was the
right or the wrong thing to do.

And in another blog he wrote:

I never thought Dragon Age 2 would be a terrible game. It was just that a highly cinematic, action-leaning RPG wasn’t what I wanted to work on. That is all.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 18 août 2011 - 06:38 .

[Dariuszp]

Zanallen wrote...

I have been seeing this spouted about here and there on the forums quite a bit lately. "Oh, Bioware made DA2 to just to make some quick money and cash in on Origins' success." Frankly, I don't even understand how someone could think that was true. It is asinine and really does Bioware a diservice.

Look, the fact of the matter is, if Bioware wanted to make a quick and easy sequel, they would have made Dragon Age: Origins 2. They already had the data from Origins so why change anything if they just wanted to throw out a game for some fast cash? Why alter the engine? Why change game mechanics? Why change the art style? All those things cost time and money that they wouldn't have needed to do if they just wanted to trick Origins fans into buying a crappy sequel.

If Bioware had wanted to make a quick and easy sequel, they would have done it much like Awakening. Keep the core mechanics intact, keep the engine and art style. Hell, keep the Warden (Orlesian or Fereldan) so you don't need to come up with a story for a new PC. Keep the majority of the companions and NPCs to cut back on new models. Keep the sound track. Keep the game set in Ferelden so you can reuse a good number of location assets. Then all Bioware would need to do would be to create a few new NPCs, maybe a new companion or two and a couple new locations. Then comes the story. Hell, the darkspawn make great enemies. Why not have Morrigan's ritual awaken two archdemons? If the warden refused, maybe she tried anyway and the failure caused the archdemons to awaken? Super Blight, baby!

And thus you have a quick and dirty sequel that requires very little work on Bioware's part.

Instead, Bioware decided to change things, to try and improve the game and make a more enjoyable experience. Did they succeed? Debateable. However, the point is that they tried. They didn't sit on their laurels and rehash the same crap over and over again. They were ambitious, overly so whjen you consider how little time they actually had to make the game. I can't fault them for that.

100% DISAGREE.
1. DA 2 take 50% of Origin dev time or even less. 50% faster == cheaper. Remember that staff you hire cost and faster you get more money == better for your wallet.
2. Why alter engine ? Because you can. It's not like there was a revolution. They just add some effects. There are programmers that only work with the engine so you can put them to work.
3. New models was cheaper. Lack of details, low quality textures, low polygons. There is a thread where they compare armors in DAO and DA 2. DA 2 lack of details show.
4. New coversation system was cheaper. You got less options. Almost no branching and it's much easier to add voice actor to them. It was made stupid so you don't need to have loot of voiced lines. Simple as that.
5. They alter game mechanics to apply for COD crows. People that dont play RPG. Fast and simple stupid. They even didn't bother with placing enemies. They drop them from the sky.
6. They change art style because it was chepaer. It's obvious that you must provide new locations. Look and DAO locations and DA 2. DAO have much more details. More details == more work. Less details == cheaper.
Look at stalls. Wooden table with 2 swords or shield on it. Almost sterile locations. And most of them - claustrophobic. And it's like 10 of them.
7. There is almost no branching in story. Less stuff to think about. Cheaper.

Every single detail tell me - it's cheap. And it was made fast. And it was sell as Dragon Age just to get money from fans. Fans that they are now alienate.

And they never improve the game. Inventory got unimportant trash. Why I carry trash ? You cannot change companion armors. Hawk have only like 3 armors. So it's probably around 10 models for entire game. Conversations are limited to 3 options. Your actions have no impact on main story. Only fights are faster. Some people like it.

Sorry but I 100% disagree. Every single details make me say - cheap, ugly and bad. And I'm sure it was just to make quick money. Good that it sell bad. After 8 weeks sales were 10x worst than Origin. And it was going down all the way.

Modifié par Dariuszp, 18 août 2011 - 06:43 .

[IanPolaris]

Realmzmaster wrote...

And in another blog he [Knowles] wrote:

I never thought Dragon Age 2 would be a terrible game. It was just that a highly cinematic, action-leaning RPG wasn’t what I wanted to work on. That is all.

It turned out it also wasn't what the audience wanted to buy either.  By failing to know their audience Bioware alienated it's core market while failing to attract a new one (at least in meaningful numbers).  The sales figures speak for themselves on this point.  The Markets have spoken.

-Polaris

[Realmzmaster]

IanPolaris wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

And in another blog he [Knowles] wrote:

I never thought Dragon Age 2 would be a terrible game. It was just that a highly cinematic, action-leaning RPG wasn’t what I wanted to work on. That is all.

It turned out it also wasn't what the audience wanted to buy either.  By failing to know their audience Bioware alienated it's core market while failing to attract a new one (at least in meaningful numbers).  The sales figures speak for themselves on this point.  The Markets have spoken.

-Polaris

Well I am part of that audience. I bought it and liked it.  I as an individual speak only for myself. But, I do beleive there are others like me on this forum.

The point was if you are going to cherry pick  Brent Knowles quotes I can cherry pick with the best of them. So we can play the game of dueling quotes.

[IanPolaris]

Realmzmaster wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

And in another blog he [Knowles] wrote:

I never thought Dragon Age 2 would be a terrible game. It was just that a highly cinematic, action-leaning RPG wasn’t what I wanted to work on. That is all.

It turned out it also wasn't what the audience wanted to buy either.  By failing to know their audience Bioware alienated it's core market while failing to attract a new one (at least in meaningful numbers).  The sales figures speak for themselves on this point.  The Markets have spoken.

-Polaris

Well I am part of that audience. I bought it and liked it.  I as an individual speak only for myself. But, I do beleive there are others like me on this forum.

The point was if you are going to cherry pick  Brent Knowles quotes I can cherry pick with the best of them. So we can play the game of dueling quotes.

Except I wasn't playing dueling quotes.  I was commenting on the part of the blog you quoted where Knowles said that the market would decide.

He was right.  It has individual preferences notwithstanding.

-Polaris

[Realmzmaster]

IanPolaris wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

And in another blog he [Knowles] wrote:

I never thought Dragon Age 2 would be a terrible game. It was just that a highly cinematic, action-leaning RPG wasn’t what I wanted to work on. That is all.

It turned out it also wasn't what the audience wanted to buy either.  By failing to know their audience Bioware alienated it's core market while failing to attract a new one (at least in meaningful numbers).  The sales figures speak for themselves on this point.  The Markets have spoken.

-Polaris

Well I am part of that audience. I bought it and liked it.  I as an individual speak only for myself. But, I do beleive there are others like me on this forum.

The point was if you are going to cherry pick  Brent Knowles quotes I can cherry pick with the best of them. So we can play the game of dueling quotes.

Except I wasn't playing dueling quotes.  I was commenting on the part of the blog you quoted where Knowles said that the market would decide.

He was right.  It has individual preferences notwithstanding.

-Polaris

The market always decides. But if enough copies are sold, Bioware still makes a profit. It does not have to sell in the quantities of DAO to be financial successful.

All you need is enough of the market to buy the product.

Excuse but the second part was to respond to Gunderic. I forgot to put  @Gunderic

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 18 août 2011 - 07:00 .

[Ariella]

Gunderic wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

Ariella wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

There are several ways to quicly cash in on DA:O's success. One of the obvious ones is to reduce development costs and development time. Here is what I wrote about that in one of the groups...

*snip*

This is based on a lot of assumptions and circumstancial evidence at best. If they were going to reduce cost and dev time, why revamp the entire engine. That takes time to develop and train, learning curve might not be as steep but it's a major change.

As for race, what physical or vocal proof is there that this was done as a cost saving measure and not because it was dictated by the story?

"Not choosing race is a Very Bad Thing and has everything to do with cinematic limitations — characters with different heights and sizes are difficult to build cinematic conversation for — as well the choice impacts the amount of dialog that needs to be written. But aliens and fantasy races are cool. Humans are boring (except my kids and my wife and some of you… you know who you are).

As for the dialog itself, its what I expected. Some of it is visually beautiful but interactive movies have never been the kinds of games I wanted to play. So kudos to the team for the great work but, as always, I kind of wish the huge effort I know it takes to build those cinematic experiences could be spent on gameplay."

You care to give the source of the quote. If it's Brent Knowles, that's his opinion as he was not part of the Dev team for DA2. I'm asking for facts, not opinions of people who aren't in the know.

It is Brent Knowles:

http://blog.brentkno...gon-age-2-demo/

He knew where the project was headed more or less, which is why he quit. I don't think you're going to get a more reliable source than someone who should've been the lead designer for both games and can speak freely without being constrained by obligations toward his former employer.

He didn't know since he left right after DAO when they were first beginning to throw ideas around. He had nothing to do with the actual development of the game, and thus isn't a good horse to pick in this race.

[Ariella]

seraphymon wrote...

Ariella wrote...

seraphymon wrote...

There is always never any definite proof of a cash grab nor will any Bioware person flat out say so. But theres assumptions for justifiable reasons. Not because of paranoi.

Disliking the direction of a game is justifiable?

No but alot of peoples reasons for disliking is. just as if people who do like  certain aspects or changes. Point is just because they arent good enough reasons for you, doesnt mean they arent for others invluding even the developers.

Ah but there's a difference between disliking a game and making accusations that the game was rushed just to make a huge profit. The latter requires proof, or have you ever heard of Libel?

[IanPolaris]

Ariella wrote...

Ah but there's a difference between disliking a game and making accusations that the game was rushed just to make a huge profit. The latter requires proof, or have you ever heard of Libel?

Please don't use words like "Libel" unless you really know what you are talking about.  Speculating (especially with the circumstantial evidence available) that EA/Bioware wanted to make a "Cash Grab" may be insulting, but it's not libel.  The Libel standard are tough and unforgiving for public figures and that includes publically traded corporations.  There is more than enough defense for the "it's not libel if it's true" defense (since you only have to show that you reasonably believe it to be true).

-Polaris

[Realmzmaster]

It is easy to make the accusation that DA2 was a cash grab, but where is the proof. An accusation with no proof is useless. The accusation proves nothing.