411 réponses à ce sujet

[android654]

Stanley Woo wrote...

Wow, this conversation went to weird places.

I think they owe *every* portion of the fanbase some sort of loyalty.

If that's the kind of loyalty you're talking about, eyesofastorm, then i believe the fact that we're still here making the kinds of games that many RPG players like, the fact that we're around to talk to you guys, and the fact that we have evolved character and story-based games to the level we have, all speak to us still being "loyal" to several portions of our fanbase.

Snnnnnnnap!

He's got a point though, quit complaining and play the game.

[LPPrince]

Yeah, Bioware's loyal enough as it is. To everyone, actually.

Its pretty good.

[Terror_K]

Graunt wrote...

I have no idea how old you are, or how many CRPGs you've actually played or if you're just a pure console gamer.  If you get all of your RPGs from the console, then I might be able to understand your rabid adoration for DA:O; otherwise, I can't really fathom it.  As another poster said, when he was at a friend's house watching him play that, he thought he was looking at a NWN mod or expansion.  DA:O brought absolutely NOTHING new to the table and was the same recycled game that had been made every year or every other year since 1998.  The only thing that changed was the slight technology boost that allowed for more polygons and a slightly better camera.  There was also barely anything original at all about the story.

29. Dozens, all the way back to the old Gold Box AD&D titles on the C64 and Amiga, and I'm pretty much purely a PC Gamer. Which you must find ironic. I personally find it ironic that you'd think I'm probably a younger, primarily console gamer for preferring DA:O to DA2, since DA:O was actually a proper RPG made with the PC Gamer and Baldur's Gate fan in mind, while DA2 was made primarily for the mainstream console gamer (Laidlaw and co outright said as much). I'll admit that DA:O wasn't wholly original, but it was a breath of fresh air in a time when games were being made more action-oriented, RPG were being simplified and proper PC games were few and far between.

So I hate to be the one to have to shatter your belief system, but DA2 didn't just "dumb down" everything--unless of course if by "dumb down" you mean trying something new for a change with the combat after a decade of recycling.  The great part is that the combat was actually fun, unlike that in DA:O.  And I really don't care what some random RPG elitist might claim to the contrary; but even in an RPG, combat is almost always the largest part of the game.

The combat in DA2 was horrid. There's nothing fun about turning it into a near hack'n'slash affair with no real tactics beyond kill wave after wave of magically spawning enemies repeatedly. It was too fast and over-the-top flashy, too hollow and repetitive and didn't even allow you to pull the camera out like the first game did. All in all, dumbed down for the mainstream gamer and to suit the consoles more than the PC. The original was a proper RPG, proper spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate and proper PC game. DA2 was none of these things: just another shallow action RPG. It might have worked had it not been Dragon Age, or even had it been more of a spin-off affair (ala Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance), but it was masquerading as a sequel.

I have pretty much no respect for the Dragon Age team at all now. The exceptions are Dun Tudge for leaving once DAO PC was done, and Brent Knowles for having the integrity to bow out after he saw the direction the sequel was taking.

Modifié par Terror_K, 25 janvier 2012 - 02:51 .

[Nohvarr]

You know, this whole LOYAL fan thing is starting to frighten me, and it’s not only a BSN thing. At its core, certain individuals appear to believe they are owed more than others by dent of seniority, or some other arbitrary form of distinction. This cropped up with the last ‘Star Trek’ movie, where some old school fans cried foul because it wasn’t exactly how they wanted the film. Now let me be clear, this wasn’t just people saying I didn’t enjoy the movie because of [insert reason]. This was people saying ‘we supported it, so we are the ones that should be pandered too and no one else’.

It didn’t stop there.

Deus Ex was initially derided on the forums by previous DE fans for daring to alter the sacred formula of the first game. I’ve seen ‘loyal’ fans come down on Betheseda for making Skyrim too ‘streamlined’, in an attempt to pander to non-loyal fans’ in their words. The Clone Wars cartoon, a show meant for children/families caught a lot of flak in some sectors because it didn’t provide adult fans with the mature stories they wanted. Infamous 2 decided to give Cole Mcgrath hair, and was nearly set on fire by ‘loyal’ fans. Poor Dante still hasn’t recovered from the savaging he got after showing off his new look in the reboot. Meanwhile, Hideo Kojima had to release a ten minute retrospective on Metal Gear Solid Rising to explain the games new direction to loyal fans of the original concept who are not happy with a different type of action game.

Now, just a few days ago I cruised over to the XCOM: Enemy Unknown forum and found ‘LOYAL’ fans complaining about the alien designs in the upcoming turn based game. I look at the original designs, and compare them to the new ones, and I think it’s only through the lens of nostalgia that a person would claim the old Mutons or Sectors are better looking/designed than the new ones.

I don’t know why, but the sense of entitlement, that a creative maker of games/movies/television somehow ‘owes’ people who’ve enjoyed their past work something, appears to be growing.

[LPPrince]

Its simple, really.

Someone puts down $60 on a game, they feel entitled for future installments to be catered to them as they are a part of the reason the game series is successful.

Hell, some people put down more than that. I know I've spent hundreds upon hundreds of dollars on Bioware/Bioware-based products(multiple games, multitudes of DLC's, several pieces of clothing, lithographs, etc etc).

Thing is, all that proves is that I really like Bioware and what they do. I'm loyal to THEM. To expect a big company like that to cater specifically to my desires because I'm a "loyal fan" is crazy.

Now then, if there's a large enough group of people just like me(and there are millions) then it makes sense. Bioware not catering to the one or the few, but catering to the many.

So as far as Bioware rewarding loyal fans, I think they've already done a fine job. They could always do better, and I hope they do better, but I'm content with what we've got for now.

[Volus Warlord]

 This is just a bad joke. Sorry.

[Terror_K]

Nohvarr wrote...

You know, this whole LOYAL fan thing is starting to frighten me, and it’s not only a BSN thing. At its core, certain individuals appear to believe they are owed more than others by dent of seniority, or some other arbitrary form of distinction. This cropped up with the last ‘Star Trek’ movie, where some old school fans cried foul because it wasn’t exactly how they wanted the film. Now let me be clear, this wasn’t just people saying I didn’t enjoy the movie because of [insert reason]. This was people saying ‘we supported it, so we are the ones that should be pandered too and no one else’.

It didn’t stop there.

Deus Ex was initially derided on the forums by previous DE fans for daring to alter the sacred formula of the first game. I’ve seen ‘loyal’ fans come down on Betheseda for making Skyrim too ‘streamlined’, in an attempt to pander to non-loyal fans’ in their words. The Clone Wars cartoon, a show meant for children/families caught a lot of flak in some sectors because it didn’t provide adult fans with the mature stories they wanted. Infamous 2 decided to give Cole Mcgrath hair, and was nearly set on fire by ‘loyal’ fans. Poor Dante still hasn’t recovered from the savaging he got after showing off his new look in the reboot. Meanwhile, Hideo Kojima had to release a ten minute retrospective on Metal Gear Solid Rising to explain the games new direction to loyal fans of the original concept who are not happy with a different type of action game.

Now, just a few days ago I cruised over to the XCOM: Enemy Unknown forum and found ‘LOYAL’ fans complaining about the alien designs in the upcoming turn based game. I look at the original designs, and compare them to the new ones, and I think it’s only through the lens of nostalgia that a person would claim the old Mutons or Sectors are better looking/designed than the new ones.

I don’t know why, but the sense of entitlement, that a creative maker of games/movies/television somehow ‘owes’ people who’ve enjoyed their past work something, appears to be growing.

Speaking personally, I believe that an IP should always remain consistent. I'm sick of seeing things being retooled, changed and practically ruined because the company that owns the rights wants to simply milk it by mainstreamlining it for a bigger audience. The reason a person becomes a fan of something is because of both what that thing is and also what it isn't. When things keep getting changed, rebooted, reimagined and retooled to the point where they become something else entirely, it's an insult to the original material and just ends up ruining it and contaminating it with stupidity. How about instead of constantly chaning existing things into new versions, people come up with something new and original.

To this day I think about the only thing I've followed seriously that hasn't been ruined is Firefly/Serenity and Babylon 5. Star Wars turned to crap in the mid-90's, Star Trek suffered similar problems about mid-Voyager and then Enterpise and J.J. Abrams abominations. Stargate got the horrible modern, gritty, edgy treatment with SGU (not that SG1 was particularly great in the last two seasons). Most Hollywood dreck these days is reboots, reimaninings, retools and adaptations of existing stuff, twisted beyond recognition.

It's happening with games too. The likes of Syndicate, X-Com/UFO: Enemy Unknown, Devil May Cry, Tomb Raider, etc. are all getting horrible reboots that aren't necessary. Dragon Age 2 was pretty much a retool and reboot.

I'm personally sick of seeing things I like getting ruined by people who want to redo it for a different audience. It's hard to enjoy anything when a year or two later you know it could be retooled for a different target demographic for the sake of $$$ and pandering to the lowest common denominator. Everything these days has to seem to appeal to the average American viewer/player/listener/reader, etc. and it's damn frustrating to find anything that appeals to me. Consistency defines an IP and universe, and when things keep getting retooled and rebooted and changed, they are no longer consistent and defining.

[HiddenKING]

Stanley Woo wrote...

...

EDIT: I should add that usually, if and when we offer something extra like a bonus DLC or something, we try to offer it to as many fans as possible, so "loyalty" has nothing to do with it.

How The Collectors Stole Christmas DLC

[PARAGON87]

The Blood Dragon armor was an example of fan loyalty, if you bought DA:O, you get the armor in ME2, and as well in DA2.

But, I agree, we should get something for being loyal over three games, but in reality we do, we get a personalized story that we ourselves made for playing all three games with our own characters and choices.

Still, exclusive stuff other than that would be welcome.

Modifié par PARAGON87, 25 janvier 2012 - 03:09 .

[android654]

Terror_K wrote...
It's happening with games too. The likes of Syndicate, X-Com/UFO: Enemy Unknown, Devil May Cry, Tomb Raider, etc. are all getting horrible reboots that aren't necessary. Dragon Age 2 was pretty much a retool and reboot.

I'm personally sick of seeing things I like getting ruined by people who want to redo it for a different audience. It's hard to enjoy anything when a year or two later you know it could be retooled for a different target demographic for the sake of $$$ and pandering to the lowest common denominator. Everything these days has to seem to appeal to the average American viewer/player/listener/reader, etc. and it's damn frustrating to find anything that appeals to me. Consistency defines an IP and universe, and when things keep getting retooled and rebooted and changed, they are no longer consistent and defining.

I'm sorry... But did you seriously say Tomb Raider's being ruined because of retooling? Taking a sex idol from pc games in the early 00's and making her a human character is going in the wrong direction? Shooting stone Tibetan statues is better than fighting for survival in a terrifying prequel to the character? Really?

Are you prepared to say this...


isn't catering to some horny demographic or is done more properly than this...


Really? Is this change pandering to the low brow or is it taking a turn for the better? You mean to say that there is no way they're taking an IP and taking a risk by making a game with a female lead that isn't a sex symbol and relying solely on its merrit in story and gameplay? Seriously?

Nothing is meant to be consistent. Times change, people realize their mistakes and make an effort to change things for the better. Change is a good thing, and those that dislike it fear that it will leave them behind.

Modifié par android654, 25 janvier 2012 - 03:17 .

[Hamziz Vakarian]

Wow, that's about the most honest thing Woo's ever said on these boards.  Granted, you have to run it through the Biospeak interpreter first...

Stanley Woo wrote...

"Loyal fans" are getting what they've always gotten: a great effort by BioWare to make an awesome game experience for you, regular, direct communication with developers in the BioWare Social Network, newsletters, social media updates, notice of contests, promos, and other events, and generally, the knowledge that you are part of an awesome online community that we love!

Translation: "We've already got you hooked!  We don't need to kiss your ass, you're already on our forums kissing ours, and you'll buy up anything we crank out!  Look over there - see those people? The ones playing Skyrim, COD, GOW, etc? That's who we're after; the ones who don't know who we are.  We want their money too. We want the audiences of those games, so we're going to make our games more like those games.  We want MASS APPEAL."  

You are also getting the same promos and exclusives that all users old and new will get.

"You will buy what we offer you and be grateful."

We are offering such content to new users in the hopes that they will like it and become new "loyal fans," and we are offering it to old users who already know what we're all about. We hope that the old users will be great ambassadors for BioWare and the MAss Effect franchise here in the BioWare Social Network, by being examples of mature, fun, revered community members and forumites. We hope you will help us out by answering newbies' questions, helping to guide them to appropriate discussion threads, and making them feel welcome just as others made you feel welcome when you were a newbie.

"You're our bottom bittch.  Your job is to bring in more bittches and show them the ropes.  Now go make daddy some more money."

In short, longtime fans get our respect and thanks for sticking with us, and the expectation that they will stay with us for years to come.

"Who are you kidding? You're not going anywhere.  Nobody loves a skank like you like I do.  Who's your daddy?"

[Terror_K]

PARAGON87 wrote...

The Blood Dragon armor was an example of fan loyalty, if you bought DA:O, you get the armor in ME2, and as well in DA2.

But, I agree, we should get something for being loyal over three games, but in reality we do, we get a personalized story that we ourselves made for playing all three games with our own characters and choices.

Still, exclusive stuff other than that would be welcome.

Personally, I don't have any real expecations as far as basic "ME1 to ME2 to ME3" loyalty goes beyond a satisfying end to the trilogy and for the choices I've made before to have satisfying consequences.

The thing is though, I think BioWare shot themselves in the foot from the get-go for this to happen by not making the games a proper trilogy with all this "each game stands on its own" nonsense. Especially when they're going, "this is the best place to start" all the time and I recently read an article about how ME3 apparently hand-holds newcomers even more than ME2 did.

The fact is, due to them trying to hand-hold newbies and make sure they can jump in anywhere, the true potential of the series has been squandered and lost, IMO. ME2 felt far too removed from the original, trivialising stuff that should have been important or sweeping it under the rug, and largely just feeling isolated. Given comments about ME3 being the same, I find it hard to believe that things will be any different in this regard. Instead of having what could and should have been a really unique and diverse series where our choices mattered, we've got three seperate stories that are all essentially the same but with a slightly different flavouring here and there. The fact that the PS3 version(s) don't even really need the first game just seems to hit this home even more and make the first chapter come across as almost entirely superficial.

[Terror_K]

android654 wrote...

I'm sorry... But did you seriously say Tomb Raider's being ruined because of retooling? Taking a sex idol from pc games in the early 00's and making her a human character is going in the wrong direction? Shooting stone Tibetan statues is better than fighting for survival in a terrifying prequel to the character? Really?

Are you prepared to say this...


isn't catering to some horny demographic or is done more properly than this...


Really? Is this change pandering to the low brow or is it taking a turn for the better? You mean to say that there is no way they're taking an IP and taking a risk by making a game with a female lead that isn't a sex symbol and relying solely on its merrit in story and gameplay? Seriously?

Nothing is meant to be consistent. Times change, people realize their mistakes and make an effort to change things for the better. Change is a good thing, and those that dislike it fear that it will leave them behind.

It's not Tomb Raider though. The sexualisation of the main character aside, Tomb Raider was intended to be a fun, slightly silly and over-the-top action game series that didn't take itself too seriously, but just seriously enough to be interesting and work. Kind of like the high-action adventure films and serials of the 40's and 50's that Indiana Jones was also a homage to.

The new Tomb Raider is just becoming this overly dark, gritty and angsty BS that takes itself too seriously and is honestly done to death these days. They've sucked the fun out of it and made it too "real" and grim, and layered with dirt and faux-darkness, etc. Look at that screenshot you posted: it's even got that yellow-brown dirt wash in it's style that almost every other game has these days (y'know... because somehow everything being coloured browner than it should and slightly washed out with a thin layer of dirt is "more real"). It's the same issue the likes of Stargate suffered with SGU.

Change is not inherently a good thing. There's no real need to mess with the formula to the point where it becomes something completely different. If they really want to change things that much, they should just create their own IP and do something original instead of essentually plaigarising half of an existing thing and just warping it to their own "vision" of it. The only reason they don't is because they want to ride off the success of the existing brand name. This new Tomb Raider could be exactly the same game as it is going to be with a different title and different name for the heroine, but it wouldn't see anywhere the sales it will with the Tomb Raider and Lara Croft names attached to it. They're simply milking the name for profits and because they can do less work actually creating something fresh if they basically kill the existing IP and harvest half the organs from the corpse.

Modifié par Terror_K, 25 janvier 2012 - 03:34 .

[MELTOR13]

Terror_K wrote...

Personally, I don't have any real expecations as far as basic "ME1 to ME2 to ME3" loyalty goes beyond a satisfying end to the trilogy and for the choices I've made before to have satisfying consequences.

The thing is though, I think BioWare shot themselves in the foot from the get-go for this to happen by not making the games a proper trilogy with all this "each game stands on its own" nonsense. Especially when they're going, "this is the best place to start" all the time and I recently read an article about how ME3 apparently hand-holds newcomers even more than ME2 did.

The fact is, due to them trying to hand-hold newbies and make sure they can jump in anywhere, the true potential of the series has been squandered and lost, IMO. ME2 felt far too removed from the original, trivialising stuff that should have been important or sweeping it under the rug, and largely just feeling isolated. Given comments about ME3 being the same, I find it hard to believe that things will be any different in this regard. Instead of having what could and should have been a really unique and diverse series where our choices mattered, we've got three seperate stories that are all essentially the same but with a slightly different flavouring here and there. The fact that the PS3 version(s) don't even really need the first game just seems to hit this home even more and make the first chapter come across as almost entirely superficial.

Translation:

BioWare doesn't make games exactly to my specifications, so I feel upset and bitter because I think I am entitled to some type of exclusiveness simply because they made games that I have liked in the past. 



I think I got that pretty much.

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...

29. Dozens, all the way back to the old Gold Box AD&D titles on the C64 and Amiga, and I'm pretty much purely a PC Gamer. Which you must find ironic. I personally find it ironic that you'd think I'm probably a younger, primarily console gamer for preferring DA:O to DA2, since DA:O was actually a proper RPG made with the PC Gamer and Baldur's Gate fan in mind, while DA2 was made primarily for the mainstream console gamer (Laidlaw and co outright said as much). I'll admit that DA:O wasn't wholly original, but it was a breath of fresh air in a time when games were being made more action-oriented, RPG were being simplified and proper PC games were few and far between.

Hey, from where I sit you are a younger gamer.

But I'm going to just sit back from this one since for once I'm pretty much on your side. I don't have any problem with the theory behind DA2, but the execution was weak.

[MrFob]

LPPrince wrote...

Its simple, really.

Someone puts down $60 on a game, they feel entitled for future installments to be catered to them as they are a part of the reason the game series is successful.

Hell, some people put down more than that. I know I've spent hundreds upon hundreds of dollars on Bioware/Bioware-based products(multiple games, multitudes of DLC's, several pieces of clothing, lithographs, etc etc).

Thing is, all that proves is that I really like Bioware and what they do. I'm loyal to THEM. To expect a big company like that to cater specifically to my desires because I'm a "loyal fan" is crazy.

Now then, if there's a large enough group of people just like me(and there are millions) then it makes sense. Bioware not catering to the one or the few, but catering to the many.

So as far as Bioware rewarding loyal fans, I think they've already done a fine job. They could always do better, and I hope they do better, but I'm content with what we've got for now.

I have to say, this is a fun discussion to watch and I am quoting this post because I think LP nailed it perfectly.

Just want to give a couple of examples here:
In game catering for fans of ME1/2:
- Savegame import feature!!!!!! This is really big people, come on, I can count the number of games that allow you to do that on one hand and none of them has it to this extent. And even if it is only a small amount of content that you only get to see if you import, it still is extra content just made for the long time fans.
- Weapons (including dlc) carry over, which means if you bought dlc which you thought you just bought for ME2, you actually bought it for ME and ME3 (unless I got it wrong and you'll get the extra weapons in ME3 anyway)
- They make a story and a game where characters matter which means you get to enjoy and ongoing coherent relationship with them.
- They make a trilogy of games with an overall story-arc that keep you interested and excited for years

not in game:
- Promo things like the unlockable items through BSN announced activities or things like the Kingdoms of Amalur demo items. These are treats that people who do not invest time and care in looking up ME related stuff (or KoA related stuff as it happens in this case) don't even hear about and hence don't get. Therefore, it's first and foremost catering to fans and people who actively keep informed. This goes as far as the devs/CMs giving away copies of the game on the forums, I mean seriously, you are asking fr more than that?
- A well maintained info conduit with the opportunity for fans to get the latest info on time (if not exclusive) on the forums

I probably didn't even think of a lot of it but that much is already quite a bit. In fact, I can;t think of a game that caters more to people who played the previous titles than the ME series.

Now, I realize that I will be getting a whole lot of fack for sounding like a BW fanboy but really, all I put into my little list up there is the situation as it is. To me it looks like people just seem to actively ignore that.

Would I like more? Of course I'd like more, I'd like modding support, I'd like twice as much content than ME2 had, I'd like the MAKO planet exploration back, I'd like a fully explorable citadel!
I'd also like to win the lottery, fly into space, marry an intelligent charismatic, humorous and charming supermodel, win a nobel prize and become head of state without having to work on eekends.
I'll be excited if any of it happens but I am also sadly aware that it probably wont and there is not really a point in complaining about it in this manner.

[Nohvarr]

The problem with ‘consistence’ is that it can turn into stagnation. I personally loved the New JJ Abrams Star Trek, thought all the actors did a brilliant job with their roles, and that the plot reminded us that this was a crew of people coming together to face the unknown. Now don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed TNG and Deep Space 9, but the type of stories that work for a continuing series don’t always translate well to film. In fact ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture’ is a wonderful example of what NOT to do when translating a television property to film. Thankfully the more ‘Captain Horn-blower in space’ “Wrath of Khan” swooped in to save the day.

Games like Tomb Raider have been in a downward spiral for some time now and need something fresh to give them any hope of survival. XCOM and Syndicate had nearly disappeared into the mists of gaming history when they were rescued from the discard pile. Now XCOM is getting two games, one of which is a return to the traditional turned based gaming of the original. Yet it’s this game that get’s old school fans complaining about it’s art design. Meanwhile Syndicate is getting a story penned by Richard K Morgan (Altered Carbon) which is enough to get me (a person with no prior interest in/experience with Syndicate) to at least try out a demo.

I also feel that game series like Dragon Age, and Infamous were and are still trying to find their voice. DA: O took a number of knocks for it’s bland generic looks and slow gameplay. So instead of just plodding ahead and producing the exact same thing just with higher res bland graphics they tried to spice things up. Meanwhile the makers of Infamous realized that Cole had come off as much older and more grizzled than they’d meant him to be, thus the younger look and modified attitude seen in Infamous 2. In fact after playing I2 I honestly feel that their original design was a much better fit than the one the fans demanded they use.

Now here we are closing in on the release of ME 3, and the loyalty argument is being brought up once again. This time used to justify getting a bonus beyond what was promised, and as a thinly veiled snub to those who weren’t with ME before it became popular.

I always felt that the joy of being a fan was in sharing the world you’d discovered with others. When I convinced my family to read ‘The Dresden Files’ I did so without any expectations of getting a reward from the writer. The same goes for getting them to watch ‘Farscape’ and ‘Firefly’. I’m always willing to point people in the direction of certain authors (Neal Asher, Jim Butcher, Brandon Sandersons) and other creative individuals (Josh Whedon, JJ Abrams, Aaron McGruder) in the hopes that they’ll find enjoyment in seeing something new.

However, more and more I’m seeing LOYAL fans erect up walls, and lobby to ensure that no one else is allowed into their club house, and I find that depressing.

Modifié par Nohvarr, 25 janvier 2012 - 03:41 .

[sackyhack]

This is one of the worst threads I've ever seen in a long time. Bioware provided a product, and you compensated them for that product. Why do you need a pat on the head for a financial transaction. You didn't "make this possible" out of the goodness of your heart. It's not like a 3 year old drew a stick figures with crayons, called it Mass Effect and tried to sell it to you. You got a good game for your cash. The sense of entitlement here is disgusting.

Besides, when Bioware makes exclusive content for some arbitrary promotion, people complain. Now when they aren't for another arbitrary reason, you're still complaining.

[JG The Gamer]

jreezy wrote...

Doc Dee wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

The amount of entitlement in this thread is disgusting and pathetic.

This. 

I'm already sick of this place, and I only joined like two weeks ago.  I don't want to be associated with this kind of bratty attitude.

Yeah people on BSN can make you feel that way. There are some good folks here though.

That's why I prefer to lurk and keep my posting to a minimum. You gotta dig deep beneath the whining, complaining, and self-righteousness and you'll find some good dicussions, debates, new information, insight and even some input from BioWare employees.

What you need to do is tune out and ignore the negativity that tends to fester in these threads. There are good people here, trust me on that.

[Rudy Lis]

Doc Dee wrote...

Oh boy. 

BioWare doesn't get to decide on the trade regulations between countries.  Those countries get to decide on the trade regulations.

Oh, really? So it's governments from all Eastern Europe who are responsible for total disappearance of bethesda's stock in Steam and it was Polish government's fault for LotSB? Or it was New Zealand government responsible for situation, mentioned by Terror_K?
Dem bastards, those governments!

Graunt wrote...

As another poster said, when he was at a friend's house watching him play that, he thought he was looking at a NWN mod or expansion. DA:O brought absolutely NOTHING new to the table and was the same recycled game that had been made every year or every other year since 1998. The only thing that changed was the slight technology boost that allowed for more polygons and a slightly better camera. There was also barely anything original at all about the story.

That was me. And agree with you on this part of post.

Graunt wrote...

So I hate to be the one to have to shatter your belief system, but DA2 didn't just "dumb down" everything--unless of course if by "dumb down" you mean trying something new for a change with the combat after a decade of recycling. The great part is that the combat was actually fun, unlike that in DA:O. And I really don't care what some random RPG elitist might claim to the contrary; but even in an RPG, combat is almost always the largest part of the game.

But I disagree on that part. That combat style was fun back in 90s (for me, at least), in Mortal Kombat and similar fighting games. But now, seeing that combat style in DA2... I don't know, for me it is weird mixbreed between Witcher wannabe (yeah, I know, westerners don't get it), Mortal Kombat (and other games from this genre) and "orient martial arts movies from 80s" (young Jackie Chan and all that). IMHO DA2 combat system should be slowed down a bit (not sure, maybe 30%?) with reduced jumps height and distances, because in current condition, it looks too much unnatural (no gibes about "so dragons and elves doesn't feel that unnatural"). To be honest, I got same kind of feeling I had playing NWN1: when some dual-wielding halfling with daggers blocking and parrying great-axe from giant - that's look odd. You wonder why in martial arts sports sportsmen are divided into different weights.
So no, I don't get DA2 combat. Have some gripes for graphics - I thought we left those plastic dolls back in 2006.

Terror_K wrote...

Speaking personally, I believe that an IP should always remain consistent. I'm sick of seeing things being retooled, changed.

Sorry for cropping rest out.
I agree on this part. When I buy sequel (a.k.a. games with +1 number in title) I want to see practically same game it was before, with minimal changes.
If game passes through severe changes in gameplay, design - all I want is just different name, stating that game was "rebooted", "relaunched" or whatever that modern verbal diarrhea names it.
I don't care what game we talk about, if there are changes - reflect them in name. Different name. Fallout 3? Hell, no. Fallout DC - why not? Witcher: Assasin of kings - no problem (yes, I even poked Witcher), Witcher 2 - sorry, too much changes. Jagged Alliance: back in action? Yay, welcome! Space Rangers 1-2 - good, changes were minimal. Gothic 1-2-3 - fine, Arcania is crap, but it's Arcania, not Gothic 4, so no hard feelings. Half-life, Halo (though I dislike arsenal changes), NWN, Battlefield, Operation Flashpoint (from Bohemia), ArmA, ArmA2 - basically SoS, so no gripes here too.
I strongly support "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". But it's just me.
P.S. Don't colour me as Luddite. Changes have to be made from time to time (a.k.a. "bethesda, throw out that gamebryo crap"). But please, be consistent and reasonable with them and replace what's need to be replaced. And don't forget to reflect changes. 

[Nohvarr]

The new Tomb Raider is just becoming this overly dark, gritty and angsty BS that takes itself too seriously and is honestly done to death these days.

Are you talking about 'Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness?' cause that seems much darker than the fight for suvival story we appear to be getting with the new Tomb Raider.

[android654]

Terror_K wrote...

android654 wrote...

I'm sorry... But did you seriously say Tomb Raider's being ruined because of retooling? Taking a sex idol from pc games in the early 00's and making her a human character is going in the wrong direction? Shooting stone Tibetan statues is better than fighting for survival in a terrifying prequel to the character? Really?

Are you prepared to say this...


isn't catering to some horny demographic or is done more properly than this...


Really? Is this change pandering to the low brow or is it taking a turn for the better? You mean to say that there is no way they're taking an IP and taking a risk by making a game with a female lead that isn't a sex symbol and relying solely on its merrit in story and gameplay? Seriously?

Nothing is meant to be consistent. Times change, people realize their mistakes and make an effort to change things for the better. Change is a good thing, and those that dislike it fear that it will leave them behind.

It's not Tomb Raider though. The sexualisation of the main character aside, Tomb Raider was intended to be a fun, slightly silly and over-the-top action game series that didn't take itself too seriously, but just seriously enough to be interesting and work. Kind of like the high-action adventure films and serials of the 40's and 50's that Indiana Jones was also a homage to.

The new Tomb Raider is just becoming this overly dark, gritty and angsty BS that takes itself too seriously and is honestly done to death these days. They've sucked the fun out of it and made it too "real" and grim, and layered with dirt and faux-darkness, etc. Look at that screenshot you posted: it's even got that yellow-brown dirt wash in it's style that almost every other game has these days (y'know... because somehow everything being coloured browner than it should and slightly washed out with a thin layer of dirt is "more real"). It's the same issue the likes of Stargate suffered with SGU.

Change is not inherently a good thing. There's no real need to mess with the formula to the point where it becomes something completely different. If they really want to change things that much, they should just create their own IP and do something original instead of essentually plaigarising half of an existing thing and just warping it to their own "vision" of it. The only reason they don't is because they want to ride off the success of the existing brand name. This new Tomb Raider could be exactly the same game as it is going to be with a different title and different name for the heroine, but it wouldn't see anywhere the sales it will with the Tomb Raider and Lara Croft names attached to it. They're simply milking the name for profits and because they can do less work actually creating something fresh if they basically kill the existing IP and harvest half the organs from the corpse.

There's a reason why they no longer make serials of The Rocketeer. The period has passed. The time frame where danger is fun and funny is gone because its immature. They're taking a real chance by making this game with a female lead that isn't sexualized in any way, and that alone could affect its sales. While there were many goofy moment with a giant brested badly rendered character shooting dinosaurs and leopards it never worked. This is why they rebooted the series many times trying the same formula again and again. Now they're trying to tell a human story, something akin the Shakleton told from the perspective of Croft.

If they were to create a new IP with a young female protagonist who goes to exotic locations exploring catacombs and ancient temples, people like you would be the first to cry "foul! They're taking TR and totally copying it!" What would be the point of going that direction? Like I said before by having a female protagonist that isn't stereotypical in anyway, they're taking a risk of upsetting fans like you and working hard to gain fans that wouldn't like a female protagonist in the first place. They can't ride off of TR success since its last game did horribly and was recieved the same way. Releasing TR in 2012 is like releasing it all over again. Perhaps you're thinking of this with a mindset you help back in 98 when these games first came out, but having fun through a campy story doesn't make the story or the game any more enjoyable.

You may see it as a bad move, but enjoying campy things is passe. Not because everyone else is stupid, but because someone is trying something new for a change. This is the only game thats trying to tell a personal story, no one else is trying to take a chance like they are this time around.



You're angry is seriously misplaced.