I find this whole post hilarious. They are constantly changing games because a focus group or a publishing board tells them to do so. They are NEVER making the games they want to make anymore. So if it comes down to players getting what they want or a couple bumfucks in a focus test or a board room getting what they want, I'll choose the players every goddamn time.mjc0961 said:
Would you spend money on something (or someone) you wouldn't enjoy if you knew what you going to get into beforehand? If no, then why should I? I made that mistake when I bought Fallout: New Vegas, and despite people warning me that it was incredibly buggy, I bought it, and didn't enjoy it... much. Like hell I'm repeating that mistake.Young Nasa said:
I answered that multiple times. Everyone is just as narrow thinking as I apparently am though and just focuses on the smallest bit of what I said.Doug said:
If I was certain I would derive no pleasure from it or at least certain that the pleasure I might wring from it was not worth the price (in time and money) of admission the the answer is no. That said, having only limited capacity to judge the unknown future I am forced to use available skills and resources. A key part of this is bias: if I liked the previous game and I like the studio then, the logic would say, there is a good chance I will like the new game in spite of what people say. It turns out that I hold my personal experience in higher regard than strangers on the internet.Kevlar Eater said:
Here you demonstrate this exact problem in action. You had information to the contrary and yet you chose to make the purchase in spite of it. Could it be then that you too hold your personal experience in higher regard than that of strangers on the internet?Kevlar Eater said:
You did look before you jumped into New Vegas and you chose to do so anyway. Presumably you did the same thing with DA2. Given that in both instances you ignored the findings revealed by looking, what good did the effort do?Kevlar Eater said:
Since the point at which creating all of the associated assets with "more" started to take enormous periods of time. An entire "map" in Baldur's Gate consisted of a single painting and, in total, the game only featured a few hundred sprite "actors". Since voice acting was not expected for each and every line of dialog only a few hundred lines were recorded out of countless thousands. And since it wasn't expected that every sword and armor suit look different, you only had a few dozen variations on the theme (a dagger, a bow, a small shield, a medium shield, etc).Continuity said:
Eclectic Dreck said:
)
The established fan base is the sole cause for there being a sequel in the first place.Elamdri said:
The engine is an engineering problem. You'll note that, whenever the credits roll in any AAA game you care to find that the number of engineers and programmers is rather small compared to the dozens of people working in various capacities as "artists". It is the content itself, not the software that makes said content do things, that lies at the heart of the matter. This is the very reason why games like Assassin's Creed 2 boasted a staff of nearly four hundred employees across a number of contents and studios.Continuity said:
I'm not saying that there was little content but rather that the content that was there was easy to create. Hell, in some cases, the amount of content was shockingly low. There was precisely one (and only one) graphic for any type of item a character might use and any variety that seemed to exist was a palette swap of a trivial sort. This does not, by any stretch, make the game bad in any way. The reality I am attempting to illustrate here is that the content was easy to produce and thus there was simply more of it.Continuity said:
