942 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr Fixit]

hoorayforicecream wrote...


Does it matter? The industry definition of role-playing game basically means a game focused on leveling up and experience points. There are entire subgenres that have little or nothing to do with playing a role or character agency/control (MMORPGs, Tactical RPGs, Action RPGs). If you want Bioware to do it, you should probably start campaigning against the entirety of the gaming industry as well.

Well said. There will always be rules and definition lawyers around who will use some self-made definition to further their arguments. What if, for some irrelevant reason, these games came to be known by some other name? Are they suddenly, by virtue of their name alone, something else and therefore bound by different Laws of Game CreationTM?

And what's more, the genre itself, in its infancy, when it got its very name, was anything but what some today claim it must be.

[Corto81]

For me, it's fairly obvious what'll happen:

Either Bioware goes back to what made them great and goes out to make a deep, engaging, quality RPG - and no spins about it either, no defending useless stuff, bad concept, lazy design and shoving that annoying marketing guy down our throats (seriously, the "BUTTON AWESOME" guy was a disaster), etc.

Or... They go down the road of DA2, end up with another sub-par product and COMPLETELY lose their share of the market to CDPR, Studio 38, Bethesda etc.

And yes, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

Follow the formula that won you universal critical acclaim and sold massively?
Or go down the road which lost you fans, sold half as good and even that was down mostly to the franchise name and was the lowest rated Bioware game in the last decade?

And no, no amount of spin will convince that DA2 was a success, or that DLCs sold "great".
Otherwise, DLCs would still be made. And sold.

...

What I want? For DA3 to be a proper RPG and a massive success.
What I expect? For DA3 to be an improved DA2, but still fail miserably in the RPG elements, "succeeding BG" and stay away from what made the original game special.
I expect it to be the last game in the DA universe because the RPG audience will have moved by then completely to other companies and other games/franchises that still try to be deep RPGs.

Basically, I expect DA3 to fail.

And what's worse, I don't see (much like OP) who these people that made DA:O can't see that.

Do what other companies are trying to do and are pumping out products that are selling great and get great reviews and fans appreciate them.

THE WAY TO SELL MORE RPGS ISN'T TO WATER DOWN RPG ELEMENTS AND DUMB DOWN THE GAME CREATING A MISH-MASH OF ACTION ADVENTURE / INTERACTIVE MOVIE AND SOME RPG.

IT'S TO MAKE A BETTER RPG.

That's it. Simple.

Skyrim sold like mad (and to a bunch of people I know of who never played RPGs) because folks could get lost in the world, and a quality RPG is gonna get attention BECAUSE quality RPGs are rare these days.
And despite some small changes (some Bethesda faithful were annoyed by these), in the end they stayed true to themselves and their way of making games, and whether minority agrees or not, Skyrim - much like Origins - is a damn work of art and a great game.

Modifié par Corto81, 27 mars 2012 - 10:40 .

[Adanu]

Corto81 wrote...

For me, it's fairly obvious what'll happen:

Either Bioware goes back to what made them great and goes out to make a deep, engaging, quality RPG - and no spins about it either, no defending useless stuff, bad concept, lazy design and shoving that annoying marketing guy down our throats (seriously, the "BUTTON AWESOME" guy was a disaster), etc.

Or... They go down the road of DA2, end up with another sub-par product and COMPLETELY lose their share of the market to CDPR, Studio 38, Bethesda etc.

And yes, it seems like a no-brainer to me.

Follow the formula that won you universal critical acclaim and sold massively?
Or go down the road which lost you fans, sold half as good and even that was down mostly to the franchise name and was the lowest rated Bioware game in the last decade?

And no, no amount of spin will convince that DA2 was a success, or that DLCs sold "great".
Otherwise, DLCs would still be made. And sold.

...

What I want? For DA3 to be a proper RPG and a massive success.
What I expect? For DA3 to be an improved DA2, but still fail miserably in the RPG elements, "succeeding BG" and stay away from what made the original game special.
I expect it to be the last game in the DA universe because the RPG audience will have moved by then completely to other companies and other games/franchises that still try to be deep RPGs.

Basically, I expect DA3 to fail.

And what's worse, I don't see (much like OP) who these people that made DA:O can't see that.

All I'm seeing here is that your opinion is the only one that matters.

Take a hike.

[Corto81]

Adanu wrote...

All I'm seeing here is that your opinion is the only one that matters.

Take a hike.

Great arguments there.

I'm expressing what I think and how I feel and how I see it developing based on educated guesses from what I've heard Bioware people say.

You don't like it? Fine.
Argument against it with something.

"Take a hike" just makes you seem an immature, unmannered child and brings nothing to the topic at hand.

[Adanu]

Corto81 wrote...

Adanu wrote...

All I'm seeing here is that your opinion is the only one that matters.

Take a hike.

Great arguments there.

I'm expressing what I think and how I feel and how I see it developing based on educated guesses from what I've heard Bioware people say.

You don't like it? Fine.
Argument against it with something.

"Take a hike" just makes you seem an immature, unmannered child and brings nothing to the topic at hand.

You bring nothing to the topic at hand and you say in in a way that insults people who liked DA2.

You expect me to respect that? Not a chance.

[staindgrey]

Corto81 wrote...

Adanu wrote...

All I'm seeing here is that your opinion is the only one that matters.

Take a hike.

Great arguments there.

I'm expressing what I think and how I feel and how I see it developing based on educated guesses from what I've heard Bioware people say.

You don't like it? Fine.
Argument against it with something.

"Take a hike" just makes you seem an immature, unmannered child and brings nothing to the topic at hand.

While his response was unwarranted, he's probably trying to level the playing field with those of your opinion who post similar concise posts. Ignore him.

Anyway, regarding what you actually posted, I have to politely disagree, mainly due to the line between opinion and fact. It is a fact that DAII sales tanked, and their DLC plans never came to fruition because of a lack of interest. But the cause isn't necessarily what you proposed.

Remember that DAII was a rushed game. A very rushed game. It got less development time than Modern Warfare 3, for God's sake. Even if they had made a true DAO-2, it would have faltered with that amount of pressure and that high of expectations. So the changes they made aren't necessarily to blame for poorer sales. They could be, but that's a matter of opinion.

For instance, I'm one who prefers a lot of what DAII has to offer. I enjoy the focus on character (namely, Hawke's story) over the focus on the world (the Warden was a lens through which to see Ferelden). I enjoy having a voiced protagonist, and I enjoy the streamlined inventory (DAO honestly felt like a part time job when it came to micromanaging my stuff). I enjoyed the direction they took the plot, getting away from the too-often-used "you're the chosen hero, and here's the big evil thing and all his followers-- save the day!" concept and instead focusing on political themes and evolving conflicts.

Was DAII necessarily "better" or "worse"? That's entirely subjective. I'd be heavily disappointed if DAIII were basically DAO all over again, and likely wouldn't buy it. Just because you specifically would want that doesn't mean that everyone does. TES is an entirely different franchise. Just because it's an RPG and it sold very well doesn't mean DA should be the same. Super Meat Boy and Super Mario Bros. are both great platformers, but for different reasons and different goals. They don't need to mimic one another.

Inevitably, one of us is going to be upset or delighted by the direction that DA3 takes. But let's not treat our opinions as if they're facts, else we'll just start unneeded arguments over... nothing.

[Saphean71]

Personally i'd love more dlc for da2 and an extension pack. I thought the game was great (the fact that my character could go out with Anders and Justice in one person may have had something to do with that - 2 of my favs from awakening). If that really is the end for DA2 that's sad :-( . Sure it had some problems, but given the right dlc etc it could have been great (in my view anyway). Hawke was good as a character. Loved that you could give them a personality - in fact i've got lots of charatcters I use with full backgrounds written for them (I know....SAD). Anyway hope you keep the voiced main character with personalty, but bring back conversations ala DA-O and also DA-O style romance. It's an 18 after-all and those who don't like it can always skip.

[Midz]

Corto81 wrote...


IT'S TO MAKE A BETTER RPG.

That's it. Simple.

Skyrim sold like mad (and to a bunch of people I know of who never played RPGs) because folks could get lost in the world, and a quality RPG is gonna get attention BECAUSE quality RPGs are rare these days.
And despite some small changes (some Bethesda faithful were annoyed by these), in the end they stayed true to themselves and their way of making games, and whether minority agrees or not, Skyrim - much like Origins - is a damn work of art and a great game.

 Personally I would  not call Skyrim RPG its a  dolls dress  up sandbox with a fantasy setting .Bethseda sells  not because  of  the games  but the sandbox  and  the  mods .If  you look   at  the nexus  and  the popular  mods   the  appeal  of  Bethseda  games  is  clear ...and  its  not massively RP.

A  very pretty artistic  sandbox  i agree , but RP  where no one recognoizes  what  you  do ,were play is  basically  find another hole  in  the ground .

Not  a direction    to go in  I  think  the  toolset  though is  a plus  and one Bioware should pursue .

[Corto81]

staindgrey wrote...


Was DAII necessarily "better" or "worse"? That's entirely subjective. I'd be heavily disappointed if DAIII were basically DAO all over again, and likely wouldn't buy it. Just because you specifically would want that doesn't mean that everyone does. TES is an entirely different franchise. Just because it's an RPG and it sold very well doesn't mean DA should be the same. Super Meat Boy and Super Mario Bros. are both great platformers, but for different reasons and different goals. They don't need to mimic one another.

Inevitably, one of us is going to be upset or delighted by the direction that DA3 takes. But let's not treat our opinions as if they're facts, else we'll just start unneeded arguments over... nothing.

On the whole,in the RPG part of it (and it IS suppose to be an RPG game), I think the general view is that it's been stripped down compared to DA:O.

As for the concept, I don't necessarily disagree, I think RPGs have evolved, and anything new - action combat, voice over, etc. - is welcome, as long as it doesn't come at the cost of watering down the RPG elements.

Fact is, DA2 got worse reviews than any BW game in recent memory, and fact is, it sold bad for an AAA title.
IMHO, the reason why is stepping away from its RPG core, and basically turning the franchise into a fantasy Mass Effect.

As for which game is better, without going into details too much, the game felt lazy and the world felt fake, some of which is fact, some of which is opinion (re-cycled dungeons, lazy combat wave design, bland textures, tiny, condensed city, narrow pathways, no exploration, disconnected story, plot holes, nonsensical turn arounds, weak characters/villains, one-dimensional companions, lack of companion customization, etc.).

It had it's good points (despite all flaws, Act 2 was awesome), but overall, for an AAA title, and a Bioware RPG at that, for my tastes, it didn't deliver.

...

Anyway, yes, it's my opinion.
Which is to say, if BW decides to make a proper RPG, they'll sell massively and succeed.
If they make an improved DA2? It'll end up a flop.
(to be clear, there are some concepts in there that failed due to bad execution... but overall, I don't see the overall  concept of the game working in a fantasy RPG)

And yes, it's entirely your right to have a completely different view on the matter.
And we can disagree on certain points, but as long as any view if argumented and polite, I'll respect it.

[Corto81]

Midz wrote...

A  very pretty artistic  sandbox  i agree , but RP  where no one recognoizes  what  you  do ,were play is  basically  find another hole  in  the ground .

For a game that's about YOU and the open world for you to explore, Skyrim people react much more to your actions than anything anyone says about your Blood Mage in DA2.
People react to you unsheating weapons, there are bounties, you can end up in jail, they murmur about the recent events as you pass by, etc.
Really, for a game that's NOT about the story, Skyrim did a rather decent job there.

[staindgrey]

Agreed, on the polite aspect. Though I do feel the need to clarify one thing:

How should we label an "RPG"? Call me a casual fan if you will, but I very much dislike the older RPGs, or classic style. I dislike having it all be about numbers and grinding and item micromanagement like it's a part time job. I never liked them before. Then I was introduced to this generation's Bioware games, and fell in love with the concept of playing a role. I play Shepard/Warden/Hawke in the story-- and the story is what's important to me.

I fully understand the appeal of the classic elements, the grinding, the tactics, etc. of RPGs in the classic sense. But I also feel that "RPG" isn't the proper term for just that. RPG is more of a blanket term that encompasses the old and the new. In my mind, DAII is most definitely an RPG, because I'm playing the role of the refugee-turned-champion and making decisions about that person's personality, relationships, etc. throughout. How can that not be called an RPG?

But, regardless of the term used, it's very, very, very watered down from older styles (which is part of why I like it). I get that. You, and many others, want the old style back. I can fully sympathize. You wanna know when I last played a good survival horror game? They've gone extinct. Resident Evil is now a shooter. Silent Hill is a shell of what it once was. New IPs tend to get it all wrong, like Amy, or Alan Wake. While these games aren't necessarily bad games (excpet Amy... it was atrocious), they AREN'T survival horror. If I want horror, I need to go back and play games I beat ten years ago.

So, to that degree, I fully understand and sympathize with you on the direction DA has taken. But on the other hand... I prefer the new over the old. The problems with DAII, for me, didn't lie in concept, but rather in execution. The time allotted (seriously, 14 months?) didn't allow for anything. The dungeons were shamelessly reused because they had no choice, else the game would be incredibly short. The city couldn't expand or change because they didn't have time to make it. Hell, I remember seeing a stat pre-release that said that DAO had over 60,000 recorded lines of dialogue, while DAII had just over 40,000-- including the new voiced PC. That's not a sign of creative choice. That's a sign of rushing the game out the door.

EA didn't want to cannibalize sales by releasing DAII around the same time as SWTOR or ME3 or KoA:R, so they pushed it out before it was ready and basically sacrificed it for the sake of the other IPs. We couldn't see what DAII was meant to be, but instead, saw the potential it had. The framed narrative had so much potential-- wasted. The shift in focus from one event to an evolving city over multiple events, likewise, was wasted, because the city never changed aesthetically and so many corners were cut that we felt like we were in the same damn place over and over again.

Basically, all I'm trying to say is that the game failed partially due to a portion of fans not liking the direction. The other simply came from a lack of execution on new ideas. Like I said before, if a true DAO-2 had been released under the same conditions, it would have failed just as badly.

[Corto81]

staindgrey wrote...

Agreed, on the polite aspect. Though I do feel the need to clarify one thing:

How should we label an "RPG"? Call me a casual fan if you will, but I very much dislike the older RPGs, or classic style. I dislike having it all be about numbers and grinding and item micromanagement like it's a part time job. I never liked them before. Then I was introduced to this generation's Bioware games, and fell in love with the concept of playing a role. I play Shepard/Warden/Hawke in the story-- and the story is what's important to me.

I fully understand the appeal of the classic elements, the grinding, the tactics, etc. of RPGs in the classic sense. But I also feel that "RPG" isn't the proper term for just that. RPG is more of a blanket term that encompasses the old and the new. In my mind, DAII is most definitely an RPG, because I'm playing the role of the refugee-turned-champion and making decisions about that person's personality, relationships, etc. throughout. How can that not be called an RPG?

To me:
- Hawke felt like Bioware's character, not mine, and he was a tool more often than not
- my decision didn't matter
- my relationships didn't matter or took a turn the way writers wanted no matter what I did (Anders lol...)
- etc...

(And again we come back to individual views and feelings.... but anyway....)

And to me, an RPG doesn't have to have ALL the elements (Skyrim's open world, Origins' depth and characters, Witcher's story, etc.), but it has to have SOME of them and the rest of the game good enough not to dispel the illusion of you and the in-game world.

It doesn't have to be about numbers and grinding (it does have to be tactical and strategic... doesn't mean you can't have action-based combat, but button mashing shouldn't result in success as opposed to understanding spells, mechanics, etc.), combat can be action-based, protagonist can be voiced, etc.
As long as it doesn't take away from the RPG elements.

And while I'm glad ME and DA2 pulled you into the genre, the "old-school" audience is still the vast majority of the RPG market, and that's basically why DA:O was a success and DA2 was a flop.

Modifié par Corto81, 27 mars 2012 - 12:26 .

[staindgrey]

Still disagree on why DAII was a flop, but I can agree on the rest. I still say any RPG released under the same conditions as DAII would have flopped. It simply wasn't a finished game. At all. It doesn't matter what core elements were or weren't there; it would have still been an unfinished game. Nobody likes an unfinished game.

Basically, I think you're giving the "old school" audience a little too much credit in DAII's failure. While they certainly played a part in the word-of-mouth department, the game's obvious undercooked status was the bigger factor, and such a status would have ruined any game, including a "true" RPG.

[Adanu]

DA2 was not a flop. Its ridiculous to say it was when clearly they are still going forward.

[staindgrey]

Adanu wrote...

DA2 was not a flop. Its ridiculous to say it was when clearly they are still going forward.

Its sales tanked after the first week. It turned a very vocal amount of fans away from the brand entirely. It scored the lowest reviews of any Bioware game in recent memory.

I enjoyed it. It was a good game. But by Bioware's lofty standards, we can't deny that it flopped.

[cJohnOne]

staindgrey wrote...

Adanu wrote...

DA2 was not a flop. Its ridiculous to say it was when clearly they are still going forward.

Its sales tanked after the first week. It turned a very vocal amount of fans away from the brand entirely. It scored the lowest reviews of any Bioware game in recent memory.

I enjoyed it. It was a good game. But by Bioware's lofty standards, we can't deny that it flopped.

It was a flop because it was a Bioware game and it has loffy standards and not because of sales?

[staindgrey]

cJohnOne wrote...

staindgrey wrote...

Adanu wrote...

DA2 was not a flop. Its ridiculous to say it was when clearly they are still going forward.

Its sales tanked after the first week. It turned a very vocal amount of fans away from the brand entirely. It scored the lowest reviews of any Bioware game in recent memory.

I enjoyed it. It was a good game. But by Bioware's lofty standards, we can't deny that it flopped.

It was a flop because it was a Bioware game and it has loffy standards and not because of sales?

I don't understand the question.

[Corto81]

staindgrey wrote...

Still disagree on why DAII was a flop, but I can agree on the rest. I still say any RPG released under the same conditions as DAII would have flopped. It simply wasn't a finished game. At all. It doesn't matter what core elements were or weren't there; it would have still been an unfinished game. Nobody likes an unfinished game.

Basically, I think you're giving the "old school" audience a little too much credit in DAII's failure. While they certainly played a part in the word-of-mouth department, the game's obvious undercooked status was the bigger factor, and such a status would have ruined any game, including a "true" RPG.

I don't disagree that had the game been finished and more worked at, it would've been much better.

But overall, yeah, I think it's a concept thing, and in the end, there are several examples of quality RPGs coming out basically broken and unfinished, but selling great eventually because of patches and updates (pretty much every Bethesda game, and WItcher 1 may be the best example... game was buggy and incomplete at launch, FREE patches and updates hepled, and eventually it sold great for a long time - a 2007 game that sold an amazing 450,000 units in 2011).

DA2 is not one of those games.
It came out both flawed and incomplete IMO.

In the end though, people can only state their opinions and BW will or will not take them into consideration.
We can both agree there's no way to PROVE why DA2 was a flop.

But yeah, we can agree that the fact is, for an AAA title, it was a flop.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

staindgrey wrote...

In my mind, DAII is most definitely an RPG, because I'm playing the role of the refugee-turned-champion and making decisions about that person's personality, relationships, etc. throughout. How can that not be called an RPG?

You playing the role of the refugee-turned-champion and making decisions
about that person's personality, relationships, etc. throughout.? Really? If you play Hawke's role then you should know what happen to Hawke.

1. Where were you when Cassandra dragged Varric out for interragation?
2. Why are you not telling your own story?
3. What happen to your memory that you have no knowldge what happen in the past?
4.  What is exactly happen between you and the companions. Why is everyone gone?

Can you answer that? Or do you get mix up with playing the role and directing a character?
1. You are not Hawke. You do not assume anyone's role. You are passive audience listening to Varric's story and imagine what's Hawke's been up to in the course of 10 years. You dont live in the past. You re-live the past. It's all in the mind.

2. Because you are not Hawke, You can be gone just like the Warden. And while it makes sense for the warden since the warden's story is already over in DAO, it makes zero sense for Hawke. How can you play the role of someone who is gone entire time?

staindgrey wrote..
Basically, all I'm trying to say is that the game failed partially due to a portion of fans not liking the direction. The other simply came from a lack of execution on new ideas. Like I said before, if a true DAO-2 had been released under the same conditions, it would have failed just as badly.

I don't think so. All TES series was released under the same condition. First person camera view, First person combat, single player adventure, mutliple race selection, each story refer to each other like Royal Batllemage Jagar Tharn and Emperor Uriel Septim in the first TES series The Arena, blank origins, day and light cycle, worldwide special occasions.... I could go on and on but I think you get the idea already.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 27 mars 2012 - 01:00 .

[staindgrey]

Commercially, most definitely. Personally? No. Which is why I defend it. I actually like it more than DAO, if only just barely. I loved DAO's story and companion characters, but disliked the tedious combat, inventory system, voiceless protagonist, and overall length of some parts (seriously, Orzammar... I felt like I was there way too long).

While I freely admit that DAII was a very flawed product, I've beaten it four times compared to twice for DAO. Not all expectations hold true for all customers. You and I simply want different things from the DA franchise-- which is why Bioware has no idea what the **** to do with DA3. And honestly, I'm not sure how they're supposed to find a middle ground.

[staindgrey]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

staindgrey wrote...

In my mind, DAII is most definitely an RPG, because I'm playing the role of the refugee-turned-champion and making decisions about that person's personality, relationships, etc. throughout. How can that not be called an RPG?

You playing the role of the refugee-turned-champion and making decisions
about that person's personality, relationships, etc. throughout.? Really? If you play Hawke's role then you should know what happen to Hawke.

1. Where were you when Cassandra dragged Varric out for interragation?
2. Why are you not telling your own story?
3. What happen to your memory that you have no knowldge what happen in the past?
4.  What is exactly happen between you and the companions. Why is everyone gone?

Can you answer that? Or do you get mix up with playing the role and directing a character?
1. You are not Hawke. You do not assume anyone's role. You are passive audience listening to Varric's story and imagine what's Hawke's been up to in course of 10 years. You dont live in the past. You re-live the past. It's all the mind.

2. Because you are not Hawke, You can be gone just like the Warden. And while it makes sense for the warden since the warden's story is already over, it makes zero sense for Hawke. How can you play the role of someone who is gone entire time?

staindgrey wrote..
Basically, all I'm trying to say is that the game failed partially due to a portion of fans not liking the direction. The other simply came from a lack of execution on new ideas. Like I said before, if a true DAO-2 had been released under the same conditions, it would have failed just as badly.

I don't think so. All TES series was released under the same condition. First person camera view, First person combat, single player adventure, mutliple race selection, each story refer to each other like Royal Batllemage Jagar Tharn and Emperor Uriel Septim in the first TES series The Arena, blank origins, day and light cycle, worldwide special occasions.... I could go on and on but I think you get the idea already.

I... think you misunderstand. Like, all of what I said.

I'm not sure how Varric telling the story matters. You're still directing Hawke, creating his legend. The plot moments are the same-- the Chantry blowing up, your mother dying, finding the treasure to make you rich, etc.-- but who Hawke is and the relationships he/she crafts are entirely unique. The fact that it's a framed narrative changes nothing about the game or the experience; it just provides an out for DA3, if needed, to alter Hawke's story. We're still experiencing the character's story all the same. You're being too literal.

As for "the same conditions", I was talking about the 14-month development cycle. No TES game had a 14-month development cycle. The Call of Duty games, which notoriously stay stangnant, get longer development times than did DAII. Skyrim got three years. If a true DAO successor were made in 14 months, it would have flopped too. That was my point.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

bleh, not really worth bringing up. ignore plz.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 27 mars 2012 - 02:28 .

[Dragoonlordz]

People need to stop with the anti-skyrim stance...

Skyrim and Witcher are very good places to look for inspiration. It is wrong to say do not take inspiration from other titles. Taking inspiration from a title does not equal carbon copies of it, does not mean anything more than something in the game is worthy of taking note on.

I personally believe the element they take away from those two titles I mentioned is the living world immersion element, NPCs that go about their lives, wildlife present or changing weather system which impacts those living in the world and a night and day system that has an effect; small things that add to the enjoyment of a title added on top of elements that already make a game good not subtracting from it.

Another thing worthy of note was Witcher branching between acts one and two and how much impact it has when done correctly. All these things adds to the quality of role playing titles. It is very short sighted and makes giant assumptions when the reality could be they took inspiration from as little as how pretty the flowers might be so will desire to make their flowers more pretty. It does not mean the next title will be a sandbox open world title though I have very little issue with such games when done well.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 27 mars 2012 - 02:24 .

[eyesofastorm]

Maria Caliban wrote...
There are underserved audiences in all mediums. If you create a specific, narrow definition of acceptable content, you'll be underserved.

Sure, but all I want is a tactical NON-action RPG.  I don't think that's too narrow.  

Maria Caliban wrote...
People have strong, personal feelings for a work and the creators because they're inclined to have those feelings. This is going to happen in any artistic medium that supports storytelling.

No doubt.  I'm saying it has the potential to be stronger in gaming than any other medium.  

[AkiKishi]

Adanu wrote...

DA2 was not a flop. Its ridiculous to say it was when clearly they are still going forward.

DA2 sold on two things.

1.Hype
2.The reputation of DA.

Once those two things were proved false sales fell off a cliff. You don't stop trying just because something was a flop. Until the Wii came along Nintendo had failed twice.