I'm not happy about enemies not scaling to my party's levels. Part of what made Origins so great was that you could go anywhere at any time if you really wanted to. You weren't forced down a linear story progression. The artificial monster "walls" limit choice in almost every game, and I can't imagine it not do the same here. I also feel it really bespeaks the tragedy of DAII that this article spends time reintroducing and praising a feature that disappeared from Origins: The top-down view. It's great that it's back, but it never should have been gone in the first place.
I'm glad they've brought the pacing of battle back down from DAII, but in my opinion the pacing of DA:O was perfect for a truly tactical game, so I doubt I'll enjoy the combat of this game any more than Origins.
Side note: I'll really, earnestly consider buying this game when it gets a competent toolkit for modders. NOT when they announce they are thinking about it.
@Kamina85 @Braddick Am I the only one who thought she completely bought the lie Joel told her at the end? She asks him for the truth, indicating that she was suspicious, but when he confirms I thought she had decided to trust him.
@Busta @RetryAgain @BigT232 I advise you to read KimCheeWarriorX's comment below to see why this argument is not true.
Even if this were the reason though, them making a profit on this product poses no direct threat to Square, so they shouldn't be taking action against it.
@GameBeaten Hmmm. Interesting argument. It seems you believe that Square Enix has the moral right to stifle any product based on their IP's because if it was good, people would play that rather than an unlikely to exist, inferior, and no doubt completely different version created by the owners of the IP.
So am I to understand that it is more morally reprehensible to create a good product, at expense of only your own time and money, and supply it for free to the masses if it is based on someone else's idea than it is to create a poor product and charge money for it as long as most story aspects come from your company?
@chuckles471 I appreciate your response and I'm going to reply bluntly, but without malice. Someone else made the comment that they are just copying the dialogue line-by-line from the FF7 game. If that's true, then you are correct about them using Square's assets, and then Square's actions might be morally justified. That information is not in the article above though, so I'll assume for the sake of this argument that it being copy and pasted is not the case.
These people are not "using" Square's hard work. They are being inspired by their hard work, and are "using" Square's brain child. None of the video game assets are being used, for instance. The hard work that will get them noticed (if it's good) would be all the work they do themselves (casting, makeup, delivery, outfits, locations). I do not consider it morally wrong to use someone else's world and characters to tell a story that is notably different (still assuming this is the case) from the original story. And yes, I would consider the creative restriction of others' potential products for the sake of pride a selfish act.
@BigT232 @RetryAgain The creators of the Kickstarter project can not be held accountable for the possible ignorance of any viewer of their videos. The fact is, they are not Square Enix and they do not represent the work of Square Enix. Therefore, Square Enix does not have the moral right to deny them the ability to make their videos based on the possible misconceptions of their viewers.
Alternate example: Say I work for Subway. Can my boss fire me for going to Pizza Hut and getting a pizza while still in my Subway uniform? What if the people at the Pizza Hut assume I'm there because the Pizza Hut food is better than the Subway food?
Okay, that's an imperfect example because I can't think of a better one, I'll admit. But hopefully it demonstrates that purposeful decisions that definitely harm someone cannot be justified by saying that people's possible ignorance could harm someone.
I'll never get it. Man, I hate copyright. When you create a product, you should be able to profit off that single product directly. No one should be able to recreate that product and steal your profits, and that's fine. On the other hand, when people like your project and attempt to expand or create something based on it, especially in a different form of media, there should be no legal reason they can't. The reason I say that this decision is immoral, whether legal or not, is because they aren't stealing any profits from Square Enix as far as I can see.
If anyone has any counterarguments as to why attempting to make a fan-made, fan-funded project is immoral, I am eager to here it.
The "pick up plank, lay it here" moments of the game alone justify no higher than a 9, as it is just plain tedious, especially for new game +. Also, for me personally, the idea of leaving behind parts/materials/vitamins is the most tense part of the game, and having to explore literally every crevice or room to find some of them empty is also fairly tedious for me.
This game is too slow paced and emotional for its own good, sacrificing some fun in the process of telling its story. That said, I understand these aspects don't affect everyone else the same way, and respect the opinions of others who believe this is one of the best games ever. I'm just trying to articulate the opinion of the minority.
RetryAgain's comments