Flavio Kuperman said:
Your argument can be boiled down to this:
"I think everyone who doesn't share my specific taste of RPG's is an idiot"
->"Therefore"
"Everyone who likes the game I didn't like is an idiot."
Now think about the precedent you set, I could have started off by assuming that everyone who liked DA:O is some fat basement dweller who only likes pandering and clichéd shit. So then, I am going to start this off measured by saying this:
ONES PREFERENCE FOR GAMEPLAY SHOULD NOT BE HELD UP AS AN INDICATOR OF ONES PERSONAL INTELLIGENCE. PERIOD.
Now, the rest of your response is nothing but subjective preferences treated as facts, with all the necessary language to make out as if your tastes are somehow better (words like dumbed-down, complex, ect. Pointless semantics made out to paint you and other who share your opinion as superior).
Here's why the writing, story and characters of DA2 is a healthy step-up from it predecessor. [ul]
[li]Firstly, the characters no longer fit the standard bioware-mold. Instead of being just callbacks to previous bioware characters they are new personalities, the ultimate example being Aveline, one of the few female characters to perfectly embody feminism (not to mention, an actual female character who is not designed to pander or come off as a caricature) in an industry which sorely needs it.[/li]
[li]Secondly, The characters are more mature and well-rounded. In the first game, you had to pander to each and every character's ideology or risk them deserting you (despite the end of the motherfucking world) and they never evolved or changed unless you wished them too. For you see, the characters in DA:O were nothing but character prop, you were the only catalyst for them, they would just remain the same unless you forced them too.[/li]
[li]Thirdly, they gave us a story in which your character was given a personal and frankly refreshing motivation. No more "end of the world" bullshit which we've seen over and over again, no more the same old carrot-on-a-stick to get your character moving. Here, they gave us a story of poverty, xenophobia and pure grey choices. There was no obsessively racist caricature, only human frailty. No clear-cut bad-guy who you had to defeat, only desperate souls doing what they think is best (all of which is arguable) for the people they care about.[/li]
[/ul]
This, is a clear step-up from the predecessor, and marks a healthy evolution for Bioware when it comes to writing, story and characterization (which is their main points of emphasis). Sure, the reused dungeons were bad, but treating the different gameplay and different story and setting as pure evil will only deter them from experimenting and innovating. We should be grateful that they finally delivered us great characters, great story and writing, instead of resorting to the old formula. We shouldn't be crying our eyes out over a big game company deciding to do something different, as after all, isn't that what we want? Innovation?
You cannot say with a straight-face that you support developers who do something different, experiment with their games, advance and mature their story-telling, yet fume over Bioware doing something different (even if you don't personally like it).
If all this backlash ends up with Bioware going back to the same old immature story-telling of bland character-archetypes, cliché "end of the world" story-lines and characters who do not evolve beyond your participation, then its on your hands.
You will finally see what decrying experimentation means: companies going with safe bets, reusing the same old formula, same old characters and same old gameplay.
I hope to our non-existing god that they'll keep doing what they did with the characterization, writing and story. Or else we will end up with a carbon-copy of Baldurs Gate. Over and over again.
[/footnote], then I DEFINITELY want to support this type of game being made. Anyone who's willing to break the mold is a plus for me, and when big companies like this do it, it feels like gaming as a legitimate medium is progressing even more.
