597 réponses à ce sujet

[whywhywhywhy]

jeweledleah wrote...
incidentaly - lack of a decent Tutorial AND manual was one of Witchers issues...one they have corrected with ultimate edition.

Good to know.  I'm going to buy that game now. New.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Its only butthurt nerdragers who have no idea about Bioware's history that are threatening to cancel their pre-orders. So, yes, I would say so.

What pre-orders?

[Il Divo]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Incorrect.  Every game and genre has a learning curve some are steeper then others.  But once learned most players casual or other just need a bit of time to get better oriented.  I'll explain more as I go along.

I have never denied that some games' learning curves can be steeper than others. I am arguing that, if anything, the RPG or rather, the in-depth RPG, presents more difficulty on this front with respect to its rules system, since that is more time necessarily to explain the rules. And especially since most Bioware games don't allow respecs, it's critical that your player has access to the most critical information at the start of the adventure.  

Even just compare the difficult in learning the rule system for Mass Effect or Jade Empire vs. BG and you'll see my point.  

His point stands I really doubt the majority casuals who got a system to play madden and other sports titles are looking to play ME or shooters.  I doubt it some might but it's definately not the norm.

Every casual has preferences, this is true. But what's easier to jump into? Halo or Baldur's Gate? A casual may not enjoy Mass Effect for any number of reasons, but I highly doubt it would be due to the rules system. The game, quite literally, lays out the entire leveling system right in front of the player. In the case of BG, the game doesn't really lay out any of the most critical rules, outside of attributes. When do attributes max out? How many spells do I receive per level? What does THACO represent? From what I recall, most of these were questions not available in the game itself. Some of these questions are critical to the basis of the game and are even less intuitive than figuring out what button performs what function.

Il Divo wrote...
According to who ?  Who set that standard ?  The industry ditched manuals to cut cost and not for any other reason.

It all boils down to if the game is fun to that casual a learning curve won't discourage someone who's having fun or finds the game interesting.

The casual gamer. I'm not arguing why the industry did or did not ditch manuals, but consider BG as an example where some more than critical rules were contained only in the manual. Casuals have less time and (by extension) less effort with which to expend on learning the rule-base of any given game. As a hardcore gamer, I might sit down and tear through the manual. A casual has less of an opportunity to do so.

As your learning curve example admits, some games are more "jump in and play" than others. It is this distinction which more easily allows players to engage in some medium than others. If a game has a steeper learning curve, it's going to be less enjoyable if I don't have either the time/effort to put in and "figure it out".

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 octobre 2011 - 12:09 .

[Merci357]

Il Divo wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Incorrect.  Every game and genre has a learning curve some are steeper then others.  But once learned most players casual or other just need a bit of time to get better oriented.  I'll explain more as I go along.

I have never denied that some games' learning curves can be steeper than others. I am arguing that, if anything, the RPG or rather, the in-depth RPG, presents more difficulty on this front with respect to its rules system, since that is more time necessarily to explain the rules. And especially since most Bioware games don't allow respecs, it's critical that your player has access to the most critical information at the start of the adventure.

Even just compare the difficult in learning the rule system for Mass Effect or Jade Empire vs. BG and you'll see my point.  

 

Not that I'd disagree in principle, the rule set in those classic D&D RPGs was more complex compared to most recent RPGs, no doubt.
But I object against the bolded part. Right, most often there is no repecc option (in DA2 is a respecc potion, if I'm not mistaken, however), but do you honestly think you need a perfect character to beat the game, or to enjoy it? A good build is imperative when you play or hard/nightmare/insanity (whatever it's called in a specific game) mode, but I'd bet most casual players stay clear of those modes, and rather play on casual or maybe normal, the difficulty setting meant for them. And there you can do (almost) whatever pleases you.

[Il Divo]

Merci357 wrote...

Not that I'd disagree in principle, the rule set in those classic D&D RPGs was more complex compared to most recent RPGs, no doubt.
But I object against the bolded part. Right, most often there is no repecc option (in DA2 is a respecc potion, if I'm not mistaken, however), but do you honestly think you need a perfect character to beat the game, or to enjoy it? A good build is imperative when you play or hard/nightmare/insanity (whatever it's called in a specific game) mode, but I'd bet most casual players stay clear of those modes, and rather play on casual or maybe normal, the difficulty setting meant for them. And there you can do (almost) whatever pleases you.

Hmm, weird as this might sound, I both agree and disagree.

It's certainly true that in many RPGs,DA2 and even DA:O, a perfect character is not necessary to achieve completion. However, keep in mind that as the complexity of the rules increases, the greater the necessity of having easy access to those rules.

From what I remember, in DnD 2.0 the Intelligence benefit caps off at ~ 19. This is the kind of information that's necessary in character creation because I might (fruitlessly) continue throwing points into my Intelligence attribute. And in the case of BG, the game expects you to effectively take control of 6 different characters, in a game world where you don't know all the details of each class.

Partly, the issue is Bioware simply not explaining all the details, but I'm sure you'd agree that the more complex the rules, the more difficulty in explaining the system in an intuitive manner, for no other reason than there is more information which the player needs. That (imo) is where we run into the "barrier to entry".

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 octobre 2011 - 12:10 .

[shepskisaac]

JeffZero wrote...

Well about the ones you went out with last... Ubisoft is pretty dreadful as soon as you take away Assassin's Creed and Square Enix isn't even a shadow of what it used to be. But hey, it can re-release twenty-year-old games with high-definition graphics 'til the cows come home, because, you know, they're not coming home for a long time.

I mean, that's just my opinion of course. No need to go spreading it around.

But Squeenix still got cash Eidos uses very visely these days to produce one great game after another. Just Cause 2, Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, Deus Ex Human Revolution and now we have Thief 4 and amazingly looking Tomb Raider reboot to wait for. :happy:

[Terror_K]

BG being complex is nothing. Try Bullfrog's strategy classic Powermonger without a manual, where there's no tutorial and everything is controlled by unlabeled buttons with vague icons. If there was ever a reason for that game to deter piracy, it was how impossible it was to play without a manual. The two original Populous titles weren't that different, though the icons were more straightforward and the earlier levels at least eased you into things more.

Anyway, the point here is, while one can admittedly be overly complex to a potential player, one can also go the other way too far as well. ME2 is a classic example because as a longtime RPG player the whole thing felt like a constant tutorial where the gameplay was so dumbed down, oversimplified, automated and overexplained that it felt like BioWare was shoving me in a high chair and condescendingly putting food into my mouth while making airplane noises.

It was insultingly simple, and one of my major issues with the game was the way it was actually presented more than the actual simplification itself. It was like it was making sure a five-year-old couldn't get confused while making sure I couldn't possibly screw anything up at all, especially with things like its complete lack of any true customisation and an upgrade system that may as well been entirely automated for all the choice it gave.

Overall games these days are too accessible and too simple to get into. Nothing feels like a real effort and takes any real thought at all that I've played lately. As much as I liked Deus Ex: HR even that was pretty straightforward. I think Sins of a Solar Empire was the last game I played where I really felt I needed to pay attention to the tutorials and crack out the manual now and then, and that's a few years old now.

Mesina2 wrote...

Are you guys sure Dragon Age lost a lot of fans?

I mean, more then a half of people didn't finished DA:O.

It is possible that most people though that game is too boring/long/hard to finish and didn't bother with sequel.

And therein lies the problem. Personally, I'd say that people with that attitude aren't really epic, fantasy RPG fans at all then, and thus the game isn't made for them and thus these people aren't worth bothering with. That doesn't show a weakness in the design or style of DAO, it just illustrates the ADD nature of the modern gamer and how easily they're bored and want instant gratification, simple mechanics and an overall shorter, faster, more visceral experience. That's not what most RPG fans are after.

The problem is that BioWare made DA2 more with these gamers in mind than the original fans, and instead of following up an epic fantasy RPG with another for those who liked it, they kept worrying about those who didn't and how they could change the game to bring them in. So instead of getting a proper sequel that gives us another epic fantasy RPG, we get a watered down action console game with enough RPG to hope the old fans don't think they deviated as much as they had. They obviously didn't think much of their old fans if they didn't think they'd notice and also if they thought they'd accept changes to such a degree. It's down right insulting.

And that's BioWare's problem these days: they care too much about mainstream and casual gamers and not enough about their old fans, right to the point where they're making games that should be designed for long-time fans more for the potential non-fans they might bring in instead through pandering and mainstreamlining, and they just don't seem to get or care that it's putting off and pissing off a good portion of their existing fanbase, and even when it does get through, they don't really learn from the mistake at all and just try to find another way of appealing to both audiences rather than accepting the fact that you can't make a game that's really going to satisfy both the AD&D set and the ADD set.

[Chewin]

IsaacShep wrote...
But Squeenix still got cash Eidos uses very visely these days to produce one great game after another. Just Cause 2, Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, Deus Ex Human Revolution and now we have Thief 4 and amazingly looking Tomb Raider reboot to wait for. :happy:

I still want my Kingdom Hearts 3...

[shepskisaac]

Chewin3 wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...
But Squeenix still got cash Eidos uses very visely these days to produce one great game after another. Just Cause 2, Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, Deus Ex Human Revolution and now we have Thief 4 and amazingly looking Tomb Raider reboot to wait for. :happy:

I still want my Kingdom Hearts 3...

That's Squeenix, not Eidos, which means you will probably wait another 15 years filled with CGI teasers while they release countless ports on 3DS, Vita and every other handheld device in the world xD

[Ravensword]

IsaacShep wrote...

Chewin3 wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...
But Squeenix still got cash Eidos uses very visely these days to produce one great game after another. Just Cause 2, Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, Deus Ex Human Revolution and now we have Thief 4 and amazingly looking Tomb Raider reboot to wait for. :happy:

I still want my Kingdom Hearts 3...

That's Squeenix, not Eidos, which means you will probably wait another 15 years filled with CGI teasers while they release countless ports on 3DS, Vita and every other handheld device in the world xD

I'm still waiting on that new Chrono trigger game they were gonna make.

[Il Divo]

Chewin3 wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...
But Squeenix still got cash Eidos uses very visely these days to produce one great game after another. Just Cause 2, Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, Deus Ex Human Revolution and now we have Thief 4 and amazingly looking Tomb Raider reboot to wait for. :happy:

I still want my Kingdom Hearts 3...

As do I. Though this would mean purchasing a PS3....

[Dragoonlordz]

Ravensword wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

Chewin3 wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...
But Squeenix still got cash Eidos uses very visely these days to produce one great game after another. Just Cause 2, Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, Deus Ex Human Revolution and now we have Thief 4 and amazingly looking Tomb Raider reboot to wait for. :happy:

I still want my Kingdom Hearts 3...

That's Squeenix, not Eidos, which means you will probably wait another 15 years filled with CGI teasers while they release countless ports on 3DS, Vita and every other handheld device in the world xD

I'm still waiting on that new Chrono trigger game they were gonna make.

Aren't they releasing a HD version on PSN soon or done so recently of the original?

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 octobre 2011 - 02:59 .

[shepskisaac]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Aren't they releasing a HD version on PSN soon or done so recently of the original?

Yeah they did. It's the only good thing about this company these day, apart from giving Eidos $$$, that they re-release their old classics.

[Dragoonlordz]

IsaacShep wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Aren't they releasing a HD version on PSN soon or done so recently of the original?

Yeah they did. It's the only good thing about this company these day, apart from giving Eidos $$$, that they re-release their old classics.

I actually more want them to release FF7 remake with above quality of the original tech demo which came out a few years back which showed what could of been like. They keep saying they haven't ruled it out and that it is something they want to do, which they claimed recently would like to do after FF14 but then nothing came of it instead ended up with FF13-2.

An enhanced remake for the PlayStation 3 has been rumored since 2005, though Square Enix has formally stated no such product is in development at the time; however, in March 2010, Square Enix CEO Yoichi Wada told the media the company would explore the possibility of a remake.

In a March 2010 interview, however, Final Fantasy XIII director Motomu Toriyama stated, "If we had the manpower and the time to work on a project, if we were to remake Final Fantasy VII with the quality of Final Fantasy XIII it would become a tremendous project. If we can get the number of people we need by all means that would be the one I would really want to remake."

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 octobre 2011 - 03:16 .

[shepskisaac]

Well, at least FF13-2 actually LOOKS like it will come out on time. Biotic God knows this is one video game dev that actually needs to shorten their dev cycles.

[Killjoy Cutter]

tez19 wrote...

tobynator89 wrote...

considering that SWTOR as of this moment has more than 600000 preorders registered (and thats just physical copies not digital distribution titles) JUST in the us, I say the amount of hardcore fans are increasing, not declining.

Dragon Age 2 done very well with pre-orders. It is not representative of the final product or how it will be recieved.

The anticipation for a Dragon Age sequel was enormous, and EA took advantage of that.  I dare say that without pre-orders, the sales numbers for DA2 might have been disasterous. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Its only butthurt nerdragers who have no idea about Bioware's history that are threatening to cancel their pre-orders. So, yes, I would say so.

That sort of statement just shows that you have no real cogent, conherent point.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Gatt9 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Your claim is all off the core gamers aren't against adding features that will attract the casual gamer.  Core gamers don't want the addition of casual attracting features at the expense of core game feature and feature improvements.

And that's exaclty what happens in the case of RPGs involving DnD. For a core gamer of an RPG, one of the key aspects is the rule set. However a game, above all else, needs to be accessible. The less accessible its rule set, the more difficult for a casual gamer to become involved. The more complex the rules, the more difficult it is to make that rule set accessible.

Most games literally rely on the convention X button reloads, Y jumps, etc. Games like Baldur's Gate are probably the least accessible available, since they assume that the player either is willing to read the manual or has an intimate understanding of the DnD rules. I pose (yet again) the hypothetical scenario of being required to read a book before watching a film. As a casual movie goer, you probably wouldn't be willing to undertake such an endeavor.

There's alot of problems with what you're trying to assert.

First,  you aren't referring to the Casual/Core distinction correctly.  You're assuming there's some giant number of Casual gamers who're genre neutral,  and Core gamers dedicated to each genre,  this is not correct.  The correct distinction would be that each genre has it's own Casual/Core group in isolation,  and members of both groups have understanding of the fundamental concepts.

Meaning,  there are Casual RPG players and Core RPG players,  and they both have good understanding of the fundamental rules and concepts.  The Casual-FPS-Only players do not count,  they don't know the rules,  and they simply do not care.  They're not going to buy an RPG.

Now some people exist in multiple groups,  but there's no giant collection of genre-neutral "Casuals".  You yourself illustrate this,  because you start discussion Action-Adventure Casuals and their familiarity with that genre's concepts.

There is a finite limit to each genres potential market,  the potential market for any given game is not the total of all gamers.  It is the total of all gamers who like that genre.

To put it another way,  and use your examples,  when Hollywood decides to budget and project Saw 12's potential market,  they do not look at how many tickets Pirates of the Caribbean sold.  They look at how many tickets all of the other recent Horror movies sold.  Because they know that just because a person went to see a movie,  doesn't make them a potential sale for every movie.  They realize people have genre preferences and familiarity.

It's quite honestly one of the biggest problems with the Game Industry today.  They keep thinking there's some secret formula to selling a copy of a game to every owner of a given platform,  instead of doing what Hollywood does and diversifies and budgets the genres to their historical market potential.

So in short,  the problem is not the "Casual" gamers in any genre.  The problem is incompetent executives who have not figured out yet that you cannot sell a copy of a game to every gamer,  a lesson you think everyone would've figured out 30 years ago when Atari went bankrupt making more ET cartridges than there were Atari 2600's.

Very well said, Gatt9. 

You simply can't make a game that everyone will buy -- trying to make a game that everyone will buy eventually creates a game that almost no one will bother buying.  

In other words, EA, stop trying to "capture" the CoD and HALO markets with your story-based RPG games. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Jorina Leto wrote...

Ecto-Plasmic Effect wrote...

To me, the ones that are leaving because of an optional feature aren't the true fans.

So anyone who is not a blind fanboi is not a fan?
Sure...

I'd say that a person who keeps buying or playing a series of games despite the games becoming something other than what that person really wants or enjoys, is the blind fan. 

People ask what bands I'm a fan of.  I'm not a fan of bands (with some very very rare exceptions), I like certain songs, and I don't like other songs.  I love Clocks... that does not mean that I'm a Coldplay fan.  I just like that one damn song, is all. 

I'm not a fan of Bioware.  I like some of their games.  If ME3 isn't what I want in a gaming experience, I'll walk away and not buy it.  After digging deep into ME1 and ME2, don't expect me to not be a little bitter that I don't get to experience the end of the story, but I'm not going to put myself through gaming hell and spend $60 or more on something I won't care for just for that.  And hell, if some of the players on these forums get their way, I'd hate the how the story ends anyway. 

[Thompson family]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

... butthurt nerdragers  ...

My thanks, Bogsnot1. I haven't heard that phrase before, but will use it.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Thompson family wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

... butthurt nerdragers  ...

My thanks, Bogsnot1. I haven't heard that phrase before, but will use it.

It's a good way to show you have no actual point to get across, so... you know... go ahead, I guess. 

[jamesp81]

tez19 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Well, excluding Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate 1, I've enjoyed everything that Bioware's ever done. As an original fan since KotOR came out, I haven't noticed any decrease in quality. Actually, quite the contrary, since ME2 is one of my favorite games.

Seriously mate? Dragon Age 2?

I don't know why everyone hates on it so much.  I can see why some think Origins was a better game, but I enjoyed both of them and still play both of them quite a bit.

For me, the jury's still out.  Some things about Origins were better, others about DA2 were better.  I think the combat system in DA2 was an enormous improvement.  The writing for the companions was genius in both.  Terrain and level design was better in Origins.

I liked the music from Origins better.  The background music in Orzammar is genius, for example.  It sounds all dwarfy and such.

[sarahN7]

tez19 wrote...

From a purely business perspective it makes sense for Bioware to try to reach a wider audience to gain more profit. However due to kinect intergration and now multiplayer introduced into Mass Effect3 (so this is related to this forum mods) are they gaining more fans than they are potentially losing? It is a well known fact that RPG players like what they like and enjoy a good thorough singleplayer experience, adding multiplayer and kinect could very easily upset them (Bioware's 'core' crowd) and they may boycott the studio and move on to companies who still make great singleplayer RPG's (CDPR, BETHESDA). However adding multiplayer to attract people who have not much interest in RPG's from the get-go might be a bit counter-productive as they have no interest in RPG genre and therefore will never pick the game up to play its multiplayer. With Bioware's recent direction (Dragon Age 2 and the wider appeal to casual gamers) are they doing the right thing? Are they gaining more fans then they risk losing? Or are they going to lose their 'core' crowd and not gain many new casual's?

Not reading 10 pages of responses. Here's my response to the original post (Prepare for wall of text):
Despite what you want to believe, Bioware is a business, and therefor a profit has to and will come first.

"It is a well known fact that RPG players like what they like and enjoy a
good thorough singleplayer experience, adding multiplayer and kinect
could very easily upset them (Bioware's 'core' crowd) and they may
boycott the studio and move on to companies who still make great
singleplayer RPG's (CDPR, BETHESDA)." I beg to differ on that first sentence. Bioware has said that they are not pulling any resources from the single player group for the multiplayer development, its the Montreal studio, not Edmonton. You can acheive the best scenario from single play and are no way required to play the multiplayer, its just another option for those who want. Although, I bet I sound like a broken record if you actually watched the interview with Casey Hudson.

As for a 'core crowd' vs casual gamer and the direction they are currently going:
All games have both crowds. End of story.
For DA2, it was a pleasant change for those who didn't like the old-school RPG style present in Origins. I prefer the updated style utilized in the ME universe and DA2. Its not worse, its just different, and a bunch of whiny fan-boys don't want to accept that. If you dislike it, fine. That doesn't make it a worse style, just a different one.

[The Interloper]

 

whywhywhywhy wrote...

Your claim is all off the core gamers aren't against adding features that will attract the casual gamer.  Core gamers don't want the addition of casual attracting features at the expense of core game feature and feature improvements.

Assuming this is even happening, and there are many signs it isn't. There is still alot left to speculation, yes, but that works both ways.

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
 you cannot sell a copy of a game to every gamer,  a lesson you think everyone would've figured out 30 years ago when Atari went bankrupt making more ET cartridges than there were Atari 2600's.

Very well said, Gatt9. 

You simply can't make a game that everyone will buy -- trying to make a game that everyone will buy eventually creates a game that almost no one will bother buying.  

In other words, EA, stop trying to "capture" the CoD and HALO markets with your story-based RPG games. 

So if a dev team finds something they can do well, they aren't allowed to do anything different or mix genres? Nope. Don't see any problem with that assertion at all. Epecially when the franchise from the start was a shooter-rpg and, regardless of the endless semantics arguments, has remained that way.
 
I also like how it's implied here that ME3 is now indistinguishable from Halo or Cod, a blatant exaggeration. Since you obviously don't know shooters can in fact be very dissimilar, and ME has tons of aspects that make it unique while still having standard shooter elements. 
 
Besides, SP oriented games have added MP before. Some failed, but some didn't. There's nothing inherantly wrong with the idea.

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

1.I'd say that a person who keeps buying or playing a series of games despite the games becoming something other than what that person really wants or enjoys, is the blind fan. 

2. I'm not a fan of Bioware.  I like some of their games.  If ME3 isn't what I want in a gaming experience, I'll walk away and not buy it.  After digging deep into ME1 and ME2, don't expect me to not be a little bitter that I don't get to experience the end of the story, but I'm not going to put myself through gaming hell and spend $60 or more on something I won't care for just for that.  And hell, if some of the players on these forums get their way, I'd hate the how the story ends anyway. 

1. Attributing your own motives to others, much? "I know everyone doesn't like this cause I do. Therefore anyone who says they want mp is just brainwashed by the brand."

2. Each to his own. But I think you're really jumping the gun here on speculation.

Modifié par The Interloper, 14 octobre 2011 - 04:41 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

The Interloper wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
 you cannot sell a copy of a game to every gamer,  a lesson you think everyone would've figured out 30 years ago when Atari went bankrupt making more ET cartridges than there were Atari 2600's.

Very well said, Gatt9. 

You simply can't make a game that everyone will buy -- trying to make a game that everyone will buy eventually creates a game that almost no one will bother buying.  

In other words, EA, stop trying to "capture" the CoD and HALO markets with your story-based RPG games. 

So if a dev team finds something they can do well, they aren't allowed to do anything different or mix genres? Nope. Don't see any problem with that assertion at all. Epecially when the franchise from the start was a shooter-rpg and, regardless of the endless semantics arguments, has remained that way.
 
I also like how it's implied here that ME3 is now indistinguishable from Halo or Cod, a blatant exaggeration. Since you obviously don't know shooters can in fact be very dissimilar, and ME has tons of aspects that make it unique while still having standard shooter elements. 
 
Besides, SP oriented games have added MP before. Some failed, but some didn't. There's nothing inherantly wrong with the idea.

I did not say that ME3 would be indistinguishable from HALO or CoD.   I did not say that all shooters are the same.
I did say that EA has made a blatant push to draw in the players of those sorts of games in with the trends in the Mass Effect and Dragon Age franchises since they "took over".  

You can disagree with what I said, but please disagree with what I actually said.

The Interloper wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

1.I'd say that a person who keeps buying or playing a series of games despite the games becoming something other than what that person really wants or enjoys, is the blind fan. 

2. I'm not a fan of Bioware.  I like some of their games.  If ME3 isn't what I want in a gaming experience, I'll walk away and not buy it.  After digging deep into ME1 and ME2, don't expect me to not be a little bitter that I don't get to experience the end of the story, but I'm not going to put myself through gaming hell and spend $60 or more on something I won't care for just for that.  And hell, if some of the players on these forums get their way, I'd hate the how the story ends anyway. 

1. Attributing your own motives to others, much? "I know everyone doesn't like this cause I do. Therefore anyone who says they want mp is just brainwashed by the brand."

2. Each to his own. But I think you're really jumping the gun here on speculation.

How on earth did you get "I know everyone doesn't like this cause I do"  out of what I said.  Please read again: 

1.I'd say that a person who keeps buying or playing a series of games despite the games becoming something other than what that person really wants or enjoys, is the blind fan. 

Nothing there states, implies, or hints that everyone dislikes everything I dislike.  Nothing there states, implies, or hints that they should.  My statement, read at face value with no baseless inferences, only states that people who stick with something even after it changes into something they don't actually like or enjoy, would be the blind fans -- stated in opposition to the silly claim made by someone else that leaving a franchise or series because it changes makes one a blind fan. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 14 octobre 2011 - 05:23 .