10 réponses à ce sujet

[Beerfish]

The writers have done a fine job over the 1st two games establishing some themes.  They have been skillful enough to have some of the main issues of the game not be black and white and have a reasonable split of opinions on main content of the games.

A few examples are the main theme of mages vs chantry/templars and an ancilliary theme of the Qunari.  I get the impression there is a reasonable split of players on each side of the coin and some on the fence.  Some people are die hard supporters of mages, some are die hard supporters of templars/chantry.  Some like the Qunari and want to learn more about them.  Others hate the race and their teachings/actions.

Now comes DA3 and what seems like some full blown conflicts.  It's not going to be an easy job to cater to all players without one side or the other to feel railroaded or forced into certain actions.  They tried to walk the middle ground in DA2 and for the most part succeeded other than the game going over the top in some areas which was a bit of a mistake.

I'm not at all worried about individual quests or companions, as BioWare at least to me has pretty well always delivered in these areas  but I worry a bit about being lead down a path I don't want to go.

(For the record, I am pro chantry/templar and I dislike almost everything about the Qunari and Qun.)

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
I dispute that.  In fact if you look around even Bioware/EA is now admitting that DA2 simply wasn't very good.

So which is it, then? Do I think that DA2 was a great game (which you say I'm on record as believing), or do I think DA2 simply wasn't very good? Please, by all means, speak for both myself and BioWare in general. I'd like to hear it.

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
If Bioware thought DA2 was good, then the expansion wouldn't have been cancelled.  You aren't the only one in Bioware.  I have already expressed my concerns that if an author feels a game was a great game (when it wasn't), then that author would be less inclined to fix the mistakes from said game.  That is all.

I see. So canceling the expansion was just because we thought DA2 wasn't good. And I think it's awesome... why, I'm not sure. Maybe it's because I (or other DA2 devs) don't care to slag our own game for the interest of the fans? Or because we don't bow our heads and go, "Yep, yep, you're so right. Wow, did we screw up. Man, what a turd."

If you feel that way, great. If you expect us to feel that way, you're mistaken. Every project we've worked on has mistakes we regret and things we thought we did well-- I know it's an incredible blow for anyone who places DAO up on a pedestal, but it was no different. It's possible (for most people, anyhow) to like something a great deal despite its flaws... in fact, speaking personally, that would have to be true or I'd like no game at all.

DA2 did have flaws-- big ones. Some in its execution, some in its design. Some couldn't have been helped, some could have been. What this would tell you, I can't imagine. Possibly we disagree on what those flaws were (big surprise), but I suggest you wait until you know more about DA3 before you start leaping to conclusions about whether we've addressed them sufficiently... as well as trying to support those conclusions by explaining how we feel about our own projects.

Until that point, I suggest you stick to something you know well-- your own opinions-- rather than flailing around trying to make your opinions seem more impressive by alluding to knowledge you simply don't have.

Fair enough?

Modifié par David Gaider, 19 mars 2013 - 07:54 .

[David Gaider]

Renmiri1 wrote...
As for the OP, Beerfish is right: The mage x Templar conflict in Thedas seems quite a difficult nut to crack. I don't think we humans here on earth have done it yet and we don't even have our own "dangerous persons" throwing fireballs.

Will be interesting to see how the BW writers tackle that. Can't wait!

I hope it will be interesting. I'm not sure why anyone imagines that we would have the entire game revolve around the issue-- as in every second of every minute, like Act 3 of DA2 stretched out over an entire game-- but I guess if that's the only thing one has to work with and they really wanted to imagine the worst possible continuation they could certainly do that.

And I suppose some people do certainly try.

[John Epler]

While I'm sure it's endlessly productive to argue profitability using numbers that no one in this thread has any concrete knowledge of, it's veering completely off-topic. So let's pull it back to writing, shall we?

[Allan Schumacher]

If Bioware thought DA2 was good, then the expansion wouldn't have been cancelled.

It was really more that DA3 got people really excited. I was on the DA2XP and thought it had some cool stuff coming through that would be pretty sweet to do. But I was able to move on pretty quickly when the opportunity was presented to work with new tech, a new engine, and to push through many of the ideas that we wanted to put in for DA2XP, but on a much larger scale.

Whether or not you choose to believe me is your own prerogative. I would just like to surmise this in reminding people that simply because a conclusion can be logical (and logically, the idea that we canceled DA2XP because we thought DA2 was a bad game is perfectly sound), doesn't mean it's actually reality.

[John Epler]

Drop this sidebar. Now.

[David Gaider]

nightscrawl wrote...
So true. Big hugs to whoever wrote that tree.

I'll accept cookies in lieu.

[Mary Kirby]

axl99 wrote...

Every game's a challenge for the Bioware writers. Nothin new here.

Hey, now! We prefer to think of it as a personal dramatic arc.

[Allan Schumacher]

Nuts!

[Allan Schumacher]

Please do not derail the discussion with snarky remarks about the writing of other projects.