267 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

ReggarBlane wrote...

If the marketing doesn't match the game, they lose the audience they're trying to entice and scare off the former audience to boot.

Dragon Age: Origins proved otherwise.

ReggarBlane wrote...

You seem to suggest that they're going to lie to the other groups to get them to play a game that they'll expect to be something else.

I suggest no such thing.  I agree with what Fernando Melo actually said.  I do not think it is a lie to say that fans of other genres have a perception of what RPGs are about that is inaccurate and not as far from the things they currently enjoy as they imagine.   

He was talking about working to correct flawed assumptions people have about RPGs.  Not about changing RPGs to fit into those peoples' expectations.  These are fundamentally different things with categorically different implications.

ReggarBlane wrote...

Again if what was common between the games was not yet enough to entice the new crowd, a new marketing scheme won't work if the game itself doesn't match the marketing.

You're assuming said fans have perfect knowledge and don't possess their own biases.  Judging by how completely wrong the BSN typically is about games outside the RPG genre, there's no reason to assume the opposite isn't also true.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 octobre 2012 - 06:21 .

[Uccio]

Catering to Origins fans will bring profit. And prestige.

[marktcameron]

Ukki wrote...

Catering to Origins fans will bring profit. And prestige.

I agree

[ianvillan]

David Gaider wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
On a serious note, I think it's difficult to remain confident in Dragon Age 3 after watching the PAX panel. You guys addressed some of the key issues with DA2, but failed to say what people wanted to hear: less like DA2, more like Origins.

All the 'in defense of DA2' Mike Laidlaw interviews and articles out there certainly don't help. It's one thing to take pride in your work, but it's quite another to claim that it's great and that people just don't get it. When a game needs to be defended by one of it's lead designers, it's not a good game.

Mike said that we will end up somewhere between DAO and DA2. Why some people would interpret that as "oh, so you're going back to DAO style then?" I'm not really sure. Perhaps because they want it to? If you intend to interpret us believing DA2's direction was a good thing even if there were parts of it that need work or even a complete rethinking as "DA2 was awesome and everybody loved it"... that's not really going to help your argument. Nor is "every fany hated DA2", as that's also not true.

In the end, DA3 will have elements of both DAO and DA2. Yes, it may have elements of DA2 you think we should just abandon. It is definitely not going to go back to everything that DAO had. If that's a deal-breaker for you right there, then there you go. If you would prefer to wait until we show you what we have in mind, or come back once that's happened, that's great too. Undoubtedly not everyone will be happy with every single choice we're making for DA3, but that's rather inevitable at this point considering all the different opinions even here on the forums (as much as some people try to claim that there's a consensus).

And... is it frustrating to keep hearing that? I imagine so. Everyone wants to know RIGHT NOW. But you're likely going to be waiting a while for more info.

The devs seem fine to mention features of DA2 that are returning, but are quiet about any Origins features that might be coming back.

Before DA2 was released we heard how it would have all the best of Origins, now Bioware says how the next game will have elements of both games and will mention DA2 systems returning but no Origins systems, it makes me wonder what Origin features Bioware think were any good and if DA2 already had everything that was good about Origins already what is left to add.

[Fallstar]

ReggarBlane wrote...

I still find the CoD statement to be rather telling. Folks playing CoD aren't even thinking of DA. How are you supposed to get their attention with a product that hasn't held their interest previously?

I play COD, I've bought all of them since COD3 and I still play MW2 online multiplayer and BO zombies. I think they're great fun. I'm also a massive fan of DA, all the FOs, NWN, TES and a couple of MMOs. The two markets are not mutually exclusive. They aren't even two separate markets. If a COD players wants to play a game like COD, guess what they do. Play COD. The idea of streamlining your game to appeal to another audience is silly.

[upsettingshorts]

DuskWarden wrote...

 The idea of streamlining your game to appeal to another audience is silly.

Good thing that's not what was suggested or even happened.

Boy am I glad that's settled finally.

[Fallstar]

ianvillan wrote...
The devs seem fine to mention features of DA2 that are returning, but are quiet about any Origins features that might be coming back.

Before DA2 was released we heard how it would have all the best of Origins, now Bioware says how the next game will have elements of both games and will mention DA2 systems returning but no Origins systems, it makes me wonder what Origin features Bioware think were any good and if DA2 already had everything that was good about Origins already what is left to add.

This also. Meant to edit into my previous post but pressed submit by accident.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 04 octobre 2012 - 06:36 .

[EricHVela]

It always comes back to the one thing: If the DA franchise hasn't yet appealed to the other crowds, it must change to do so.

Suggesting that they'll only make more changes the marketing to make that happen is to suggest they're going to purposely mislead the consumers to get them to try New Coke. They'll try it and leave when it's not what they were expecting.

The game must change. It will change. Saying that it won't insults the people that know it will and why it will. They don't like it when someone tries to tell them they'll still have the same game when they know full well that they won't. It only makes them worry more.

Come clean and tell them that it will change. Flat-out saying there will be MP has shifted some of the focus from "NO MP!" to "What kind of mp?". Flat-out say that it will change.

Yet, the problem with that: It's not the right time to say what the changes are.

The devs are between a rock and a hard-place. Yet, suggesting that it must change in one statement and suggesting that it won't change in another only makes it worse.

I think what people should realize is that DA, while trying to get the other crowd to play, is also hoping to get the existing crowd to play a new style, too. I think that's a better angle than "we want the new crowd but we won't change what you love".

It's something new. It's not the DA we've known, but it's its own episode that deserves a chance for what it is despite following the previous DA games. That still scares a lot of people that expect DA to be what they've loved about DA so far.

[Nomen Mendax]

ianvillan wrote...

The devs seem fine to mention features of DA2 that are returning, but are quiet about any Origins features that might be coming back.

Before DA2 was released we heard how it would have all the best of Origins, now Bioware says how the next game will have elements of both games and will mention DA2 systems returning but no Origins systems, it makes me wonder what Origin features Bioware think were any good and if DA2 already had everything that was good about Origins already what is left to add.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the companion armour system proposed for DA3 was that companions would have an iconic look like DA2 but you would be able to give them armour you found which would change their appearance to one that was different but still personalized to the companion.

That's about the only concrete thing I've heard about DA3 and it sounds exactly lilke it will have elements of both games.

[hoorayforicecream]

DuskWarden wrote...

ianvillan wrote...
The devs seem fine to mention features of DA2 that are returning, but are quiet about any Origins features that might be coming back.

Before DA2 was released we heard how it would have all the best of Origins, now Bioware says how the next game will have elements of both games and will mention DA2 systems returning but no Origins systems, it makes me wonder what Origin features Bioware think were any good and if DA2 already had everything that was good about Origins already what is left to add.

This also. Meant to edit into my previous post but pressed submit by accident.

They've mentioned a few already. Random kissing, for example. Focusing on giving the player more agency. Bringing back more exploration elements. Fully equipping your party.

[upsettingshorts]

ReggarBlane wrote...

It always comes back to the one thing: If the DA franchise hasn't yet appealed to the other crowds, it must change to do so.

Suggesting that they'll only make more changes the marketing to make that happen is to suggest they're going to purposely mislead the consumers to get them to try New Coke. They'll try it and leave when it's not what they were expecting.

No it doesn't.  That's exactly the opposite of what Melo said.  You are literally making **** up.

Once again: He was talking about working to correct flawed assumptions people have about RPGs.  Not about changing RPGs to fit into those peoples' expectations.  These are fundamentally different things with categorically different implications. 

If you're going to pretend otherwise, there's no point in continuing.

ReggarBlane wrote...

The game must change. It will change. Saying that it won't insults the people that know it will and why it will. They don't like it when someone tries to tell them they'll still have the same game when they know full well that they won't. It only makes them worry more.

...and we're done here.  You aren't even making an effort to read, let alone understand.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 octobre 2012 - 06:45 .

[Vandicus]

ReggarBlane wrote...

It always comes back to the one thing: If the DA franchise hasn't yet appealed to the other crowds, it must change to do so.

Why? 

And to the other guys posting above about features from DA:O, what major features from DA:O were not brought into DA2 besides combat and artstyle? The Origins would be a valid point, but its not necessarily practical to make 12+ hours of gameplay in a 40 hourish game that most players will only play 2 hours of. 

[Stippling]

David Gaider wrote...
And... is it frustrating to keep hearing that? I imagine so. Everyone wants to know RIGHT NOW. But you're likely going to be waiting a while for more info.

I understand and respect this, and I know that most companies keep their cards close until it's time to reveal. BUT (and perhaps I interpretted the message poorly) I was under the impression from the rhetoric presented  to us from Bioware was one of community interaction. I thought it was going to be more like, "here's what we're working on, how does it look so far?".

Now it seems we'll be waiting until something of major substance arises, which seems as though there will be little time to get feedback in any way that could shape the game itself.

If the intentions have changed or were never this way, that's cool. If you still intend to involve the community in a meaningful way, I would think that after two years of development you could show us something; more concept art, how you are designing levels, random innovations, etc. I am more than willing to wait, take all the time you need. But I wonder how long it will be before we see anything, and if it will be beyond the line in the sand where things could change or be modified. 

Modifié par Stippling, 04 octobre 2012 - 06:47 .

[EricHVela]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

...and we're done here.  You aren't even making an effort to understand.  

Back at ya.

You aren't trying to understand what the nay-sayers fear. Dismiss them if you must. You will be dismissed in kind.

I, on the other hand, have done what I can to understand what they feel. That's important to dealing with it. Dismissing them as many have done only makes it worse.

[ianvillan]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

The devs seem fine to mention features of DA2 that are returning, but are quiet about any Origins features that might be coming back.

Before DA2 was released we heard how it would have all the best of Origins, now Bioware says how the next game will have elements of both games and will mention DA2 systems returning but no Origins systems, it makes me wonder what Origin features Bioware think were any good and if DA2 already had everything that was good about Origins already what is left to add.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the companion armour system proposed for DA3 was that companions would have an iconic look like DA2 but you would be able to give them armour you found which would change their appearance to one that was different but still personalized to the companion.

That's about the only concrete thing I've heard about DA3 and it sounds exactly lilke it will have elements of both games.

They have mentioned voiced player character, dialogue wheel, paraphrasing and tone icons they have mentioned how they dont plan on bringing different playable races back, how the darkspawn will keep DA2 style.

Fans have asked if they plan on bringing the Isometric view back and there has been no answer, they will mention features of DA2 but not Origins why?.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

David Gaider wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
On a serious note, I think it's difficult to remain confident in Dragon Age 3 after watching the PAX panel. You guys addressed some of the key issues with DA2, but failed to say what people wanted to hear: less like DA2, more like Origins.

All the 'in defense of DA2' Mike Laidlaw interviews and articles out there certainly don't help. It's one thing to take pride in your work, but it's quite another to claim that it's great and that people just don't get it. When a game needs to be defended by one of it's lead designers, it's not a good game.

Mike said that we will end up somewhere between DAO and DA2. Why some people would interpret that as "oh, so you're going back to DAO style then?" I'm not really sure. Perhaps because they want it to? If you intend to interpret us believing DA2's direction was a good thing even if there were parts of it that need work or even a complete rethinking as "DA2 was awesome and everybody loved it"... that's not really going to help your argument. Nor is "every fany hated DA2", as that's also not true.

In the end, DA3 will have elements of both DAO and DA2. Yes, it may have elements of DA2 you think we should just abandon. It is definitely not going to go back to everything that DAO had. If that's a deal-breaker for you right there, then there you go. If you would prefer to wait until we show you what we have in mind, or come back once that's happened, that's great too. Undoubtedly not everyone will be happy with every single choice we're making for DA3, but that's rather inevitable at this point considering all the different opinions even here on the forums (as much as some people try to claim that there's a consensus).

And... is it frustrating to keep hearing that? I imagine so. Everyone wants to know RIGHT NOW. But you're likely going to be waiting a while for more info.

I was referring to the interviews where he was defending Dragon Age 2.

He said he was surprised by the 6/10 scores the game recieved, and then went on to say it was probably because players were emotionally invested in Origins or didn't like change. Seriously? It couldn't have been all the re-used levels or the fact that you were stuck in one place the entire game? I think those reasons for disliking the game as far more compelling.

The general consensus among gamers is that Origins is the better game, not that Dragon Age 2 was a terrible game. You can either accept that or you can't. Either way, I think it will have an impact on future BioWare games. I'm also someone who enjoyed both titles, though not equally.

[upsettingshorts]

ReggarBlane wrote...

You aren't trying to understand what the nay-sayers fear. Dismiss them if you must. You will be dismissed in kind.

They are making **** up.  They've been making the same **** up for over a year.  I've heard the same nonsense for months.  It is a meme that has been parroted and perpetuated by critics of Dragon Age 2 who, of course, have issues with DA2 that do make sense but still don't have a damn thing to do with COD and their mythical crowd..

It was nonsense when people started talking about it, and it is still nonsense now.

Here's an old post from a thread discussing another article bringing up the same easily discredited position from last year.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

So when they talk about games from other genres sharing specific features and the idea that audiences of those games may be receptive to those features in RPGs, that means... well, apparently whatever critics want it to mean.

Using a game [the article cites] as existing in its own genre and nothing else, Hearts of Iron III you can see where this logic falls apart under scrutiny. HOI3 is real time with pause, and has another feature common in a game that is almost nothing like it: Resource management. Yes kids, HOI3, the game described as something that exists solely within its own pure genre, has a game mechanic that is almost exactly like Starcraft.   A game in a genre the author claims HOI3 has not a thing to do with.

So if a developer from Paradox Interactive wanted to point out that Starcraft sells a ton of copies, and they wanted to branch out into that audience, they could point to similarities between the games that already exist - such as, you guessed it, resource management. Just as Bioware points at levelling up, or gear progression, as common ground with shooters and even Facebook games. 

That's quite literally all there is to it. But I have no doubt it will continue to be used to justify whatever popular conspiracy theories people want it to.

Looks like I was sadly right then about it still being used to justify conspiracy theories.

ReggarBlane wrote...

I, on the other hand, have done what I can to understand what they feel. That's important to dealing with it. Dismissing them as many have done only makes it worse.

In the same way ignoring the aliens means there will be more abductions, sure.

ianvillan wrote...

They have mentioned voiced player character, dialogue wheel, paraphrasing and tone icons they have mentioned how they dont plan on bringing different playable races back, how the darkspawn will keep DA2 style.

Fans have asked if they plan on bringing the Isometric view back and there has been no answer, they will mention features of DA2 but not Origins why?.

Small sample size.

Also, source for the bolded statement please.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 octobre 2012 - 06:55 .

[Vandicus]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
On a serious note, I think it's difficult to remain confident in Dragon Age 3 after watching the PAX panel. You guys addressed some of the key issues with DA2, but failed to say what people wanted to hear: less like DA2, more like Origins.

All the 'in defense of DA2' Mike Laidlaw interviews and articles out there certainly don't help. It's one thing to take pride in your work, but it's quite another to claim that it's great and that people just don't get it. When a game needs to be defended by one of it's lead designers, it's not a good game.

Mike said that we will end up somewhere between DAO and DA2. Why some people would interpret that as "oh, so you're going back to DAO style then?" I'm not really sure. Perhaps because they want it to? If you intend to interpret us believing DA2's direction was a good thing even if there were parts of it that need work or even a complete rethinking as "DA2 was awesome and everybody loved it"... that's not really going to help your argument. Nor is "every fany hated DA2", as that's also not true.

In the end, DA3 will have elements of both DAO and DA2. Yes, it may have elements of DA2 you think we should just abandon. It is definitely not going to go back to everything that DAO had. If that's a deal-breaker for you right there, then there you go. If you would prefer to wait until we show you what we have in mind, or come back once that's happened, that's great too. Undoubtedly not everyone will be happy with every single choice we're making for DA3, but that's rather inevitable at this point considering all the different opinions even here on the forums (as much as some people try to claim that there's a consensus).

And... is it frustrating to keep hearing that? I imagine so. Everyone wants to know RIGHT NOW. But you're likely going to be waiting a while for more info.

I was referring to the interviews where he was defending Dragon Age 2.

He said he was surprised by the 6/10 scores the game recieved, and then went on to say it was probably because players were emotionally invested in Origins or didn't like change. Seriously? It couldn't have been all the re-used levels or the fact that you were stuck in one place the entire game? I think those reasons for disliking the game as far more compelling.

The general consensus among gamers is that Origins is the better game, not that Dragon Age 2 was a terrible game. You can either accept that or you can't. Either way, I think it will have an impact on future BioWare games. I'm also someone who enjoyed both titles, though not equally.

Did you think re-used levels were a fundamental "feature" of DA2 or something that was due to time constraints? Do you think the Kirkwall centric nature of the game was due to writing and time constraints or a fundamental part of their design philosophy?

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Vandicus wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
On a serious note, I think it's difficult to remain confident in Dragon Age 3 after watching the PAX panel. You guys addressed some of the key issues with DA2, but failed to say what people wanted to hear: less like DA2, more like Origins.

All the 'in defense of DA2' Mike Laidlaw interviews and articles out there certainly don't help. It's one thing to take pride in your work, but it's quite another to claim that it's great and that people just don't get it. When a game needs to be defended by one of it's lead designers, it's not a good game.

Mike said that we will end up somewhere between DAO and DA2. Why some people would interpret that as "oh, so you're going back to DAO style then?" I'm not really sure. Perhaps because they want it to? If you intend to interpret us believing DA2's direction was a good thing even if there were parts of it that need work or even a complete rethinking as "DA2 was awesome and everybody loved it"... that's not really going to help your argument. Nor is "every fany hated DA2", as that's also not true.

In the end, DA3 will have elements of both DAO and DA2. Yes, it may have elements of DA2 you think we should just abandon. It is definitely not going to go back to everything that DAO had. If that's a deal-breaker for you right there, then there you go. If you would prefer to wait until we show you what we have in mind, or come back once that's happened, that's great too. Undoubtedly not everyone will be happy with every single choice we're making for DA3, but that's rather inevitable at this point considering all the different opinions even here on the forums (as much as some people try to claim that there's a consensus).

And... is it frustrating to keep hearing that? I imagine so. Everyone wants to know RIGHT NOW. But you're likely going to be waiting a while for more info.

I was referring to the interviews where he was defending Dragon Age 2.

He said he was surprised by the 6/10 scores the game recieved, and then went on to say it was probably because players were emotionally invested in Origins or didn't like change. Seriously? It couldn't have been all the re-used levels or the fact that you were stuck in one place the entire game? I think those reasons for disliking the game as far more compelling.

The general consensus among gamers is that Origins is the better game, not that Dragon Age 2 was a terrible game. You can either accept that or you can't. Either way, I think it will have an impact on future BioWare games. I'm also someone who enjoyed both titles, though not equally.

Did you think re-used levels were a fundamental "feature" of DA2 or something that was due to time constraints? Do you think the Kirkwall centric nature of the game was due to writing and time constraints or a fundamental part of their design philosophy?

In short, I don't know. I heard the game started out as a side story and they decided to turn it into Dragon Age 2 at some point. But I've never seen that confirmed. Time constraints could be why they re-used the levels, and could explain why the game looked so unfinished.

[upsettingshorts]

Vandicus wrote...

Did you think re-used levels were a fundamental "feature" of DA2 or something that was due to time constraints? Do you think the Kirkwall centric nature of the game was due to writing and time constraints or a fundamental part of their design philosophy?

Both of these things were clearly added to draw in the Call of Duty crowd.  They also stole the over-the-top acrobatic animations and the "cartoony anime style" directly from CoD.  They also got rid of the free camera in combat for the same reason.  It's obvious don't you see?!

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 octobre 2012 - 07:03 .

[Fallstar]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
They've mentioned a few already. Random kissing, for example. Focusing on giving the player more agency. Bringing back more exploration elements. Fully equipping your party.

The random kissing and control over party gear are both nice changes, the other two need specifics. How are we getting more player agency, and how is there more of a focus on exploration. I know they are going to eventually show more things, I'm just impatient .

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Good thing that's not what was suggested or even happened.

Boy am I glad that's settled finally.

So what was the point of all the changes, if not to appeal to another audience? I'm not talking about small improvements you see in successive iterations of most any series, I'm talking about the significant changes of direction in dialogue, combat, character creation, artstyle and companion interaction, to name a few.

If they were changing direction for the sake of it, the logical thing to do would be to make a new series surely. Since they continued with DA instead, they must have wanted a different (or additional) audience to play DA2 than played DAO.

[Vandicus]

DuskWarden wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
They've mentioned a few already. Random kissing, for example. Focusing on giving the player more agency. Bringing back more exploration elements. Fully equipping your party.

The random kissing and control over party gear are both nice changes, the other two need specifics. How are we getting more player agency, and how is there more of a focus on exploration. I know they are going to eventually show more things, I'm just impatient .

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Good thing that's not what was suggested or even happened.

Boy am I glad that's settled finally.

So what was the point of all the changes, if not to appeal to another audience? I'm not talking about small improvements you see in successive iterations of most any series, I'm talking about the significant changes of direction in dialogue, combat, character creation, artstyle and companion interaction, to name a few.

If they were changing direction for the sake of it, the logical thing to do would be to make a new series surely. Since they continued with DA instead, they must have wanted a different (or additional) audience to play DA2 than played DAO.

The changes from DA2 that can be seen as a change in design philosophy are,

A. Dialogue Wheel(which aside from paraphrasing is a better list capped at 10 options rather than 5, and also having tonal icons)
B.Combat(DA:O had clunky combat and was horribly, horribly, unbalanced)
C. Artstyle

Of these three, none are really an essential part of what makes a Bioware game. They're important to each game individually, but KoToR is not Jade Empire is not NWN is not BG is not etc. Each game had different ways of going about these things.

Many of the other "changes" can be attributed to writing constraints(the plot demands the game is located here, also the tragic nature of Hawke's story reducing the sense of player agency) and time constraints(11 month development cycle means a lot of the things that they wanted to include could not be included).

[upsettingshorts]

DuskWarden wrote...

So what was the point of all the changes, if not to appeal to another audience?

For anything resembling a useful answer, we'd have to go down a list of changes one by one.

Furthermore, those likely to assert the "CoD crowd" explanation are much the same people who are unwilling to accept that any RPG/BioWare fan could ever approve of any of the changes, so I'm not sure where such a discussion would go.  

Edit: You know what, I have an answer to that.  The devs have been explaining what the point of the changes have been for over a year.  People have decided not to take them at their word and blame the CoD crowd conspiracy instead.  I'm not sure what else you want.

DuskWarden wrote...

I'm not talking about small improvements you see in successive iterations of most any series, I'm talking about the significant changes of direction in dialogue, combat, character creation, artstyle and companion interaction, to name a few.

Case in point, I'm sure I'd disagree with you over your description of several of those changes and I'm not part of any new outside shooter-audience crowd.  

That said, even if we accept the idea that those changes might have been aimed at some new audience, in what way would the specific changes they actually ended up making have worked in doing that?  For example, in what way is companion interaction in DA2 meant to draw in CoD's audience?  There's no possible way.  That explanation makes no sense.  That's kind of key ot my whole point.

The actual evidence, I'd argue, simply points to one explanation:  BioWare wanted those changes.  The art style change - as well as the wheel, at least, were being planned before Origins was even released.  Animatics from that time period released during DA2's marketing are evidence of this.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 04 octobre 2012 - 07:27 .

[Seth_Holloway]

eroeru wrote...

Seth_Holloway wrote...

I get what you mean but I think it would be awesome if people focused their energy more into developing solutions, over focusing on problems. 

You need to highlight, explain and thus "find" and understand the problem in order to offer solutions. It starts off from purely "feeling" the problem though - couldn't be any other way.

Secondly, getting to the revisable solutions part takes much more effort and an understanding of critique. Usually criticizers don't even bother explaining what's wrong - I'd much rather many of the critics would stay to that for longer and more than it's currently usual.


edit:
An important thing to notice is that the premis of "something being wrong" or simply that something's "bad" is indisputable, it comes down to personal experience and is subjective in its personality (but not in its reasons - otherwise you'd have to dismiss the objectivity of the world, or the game's belonging to the world).

Yet the part where you offer solutions has more easily-found counter-arguments, as they often stem from precticality, a sphere where most can understand and agree upon (as opposed to the reasons "why" the bad parts in the game are bad - this being a more difficult thing to argue because it's either mixed up with the question of whether "something is good, something bad", i.e. "what is good", wrongly so; AND/OR that it's seldom that people suffer from some random factor that made their feeling of "bad" illusive to themselves).

I'm sorry, I didn't realise I had said that anything was good or bad, except for Angrybirds. lol

It would be rather arogant to presume that I alone, know the only effective method of communicating experience or opinions.



I just know that I personally would prefer constructive criticism. 



I'd just like to see more posts like -

"Lets have griffons!" 

Rather than -

"What a terrible game!"


If I were developing a game, and that was my only feedback, then I would think that the first post might be a little more helpful.



I have thoroughly enjoyed your posts, you've used some pretty emotive language, it shows how passionate you are about Dragon Age, I share your enthusiam, I can't wait to get my hands on DA:3. <3


To be honest, I'm really more interested in what made BG such a classic/sucsessful (I've never played it), is it something that can be brought forward into DA:3?