Are you taking it to personal level?
Ok, then I will repeat it again. "Woudln't be profitable" was common argument for many companies that certain genres wouldn't be profitable. Or that PC market isn't profitable. Than Steam came, Kickstarter came, indie came and showed everyone it could be profitable, it could be hella lot profitable. And now everyone is trying to emulate their success. So I don't take "It wouldn't be profitable" based on arguments that there were written, given the common "it wouldn't be profitable" complain seriously. They are pros, so their opinion have value, but given that everyone was repeating the same sentence and everyone was showed to be wrong, it doesn't have ANY value. So unless I am confronted with real data, I wouldn't take their opinion on profitability as valid.
What are you saying is if I don't agree with their opinion, that I am stupid and I decided that I don't want to hear the truth and that because they are pros, thay HAVE to be right. Which is not only intellectually lazy, that is very dangerous precedence in accepting different opinion without reevaluating evidence from which that opinion was made. In that case, you can found a church of "It can't be done, we are pros, you can trust us" and with the power of that, end any discussion in future.
It looks to me as though you had already formed your own opinion to begin with, and there isn't much that can sway you besides being the owner of Paradox yourself and independently arriving at the same decision given all the information; in other words, given that you did get an answer, you seem to be assuming they don't know what they're doing.
I did not get all the information. I did get mostly opinions. And again, you seems to think that I have already made on opinion and now I am trying to find some excuses. That is wrong too. And I will state my position:
I HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE
but I don't have enough information to make my own decision, however given certain events in past, I don't accept certain opinions as holy truth unless I am given enough evidence that this is really true. What I am rejecting is just certain type of answer that present opinion as argument. If the equal mindset was applied in eg. science, there would be nothing done and we would be already dead.
If we were arguing about whether Majesty 2 sucked then this comparison would be valid. We're not. I liked Majesty 2, apart from the lack of random maps. I'm saying that if your entire complaint about Bethesda's Fallout (they've only made one to my knowledge) is that they moved it to first-person and wasn't exactly like the first two games in presentation, perspective, and mechanics, then your grievance is a bit silly because those previous games weren't Bethesda's games. If your complaint is that you just didn't like it, then that's a completely separate thing. You're obviously free to dislike anything you want, but expecting a creative undertaking to slavishly follow someone else's vision just to keep you comfortable is often not going to work out for you. Chris Nolan's Batman movies are not like Tim Burton's Batman movies for the same reason: even given the same source material, two groups of artists will have different interpretations when adapting that material. If someone else had made Majesty 2, it wouldn't be much like the Majesty 2 we got. When you ask Paradox for a sequel, referring to the success of the original game is exactly like telling Christopher Nolan that his movies success will be based on the Tim Burton versions' success, which we can see was not the case. You can complain that Paradox hasn't remade the original! It could happen, and I'm not trying to tell you what to do. I just don't think that particular argument is entirely reasonable.
That is not good from you. You are trying to push discussion on personal space. I was not saying that Majesty sucked. I just replied that it is valid for criticizing Paradox or InCo for not making Majesty-honest sequel. As for the exactly same reason, black dragons from all over internet have pillaged the land of Bethesda for not giving true Fallout sequel and making Oblivion with somehow different textures. I was not mentioning the quality of new Fallout. I was not talking about that if somebody did liked it or not. I was just stated that what happened. And is just not honest from you to trying to avoid that and trying to steer discussion on whole different space that if some game could or couldn't be criticized if somebody liked it. And even then, this opinion of yours is no true.
For the second thing you are trying to point, yes, it is completely valid to demand from series that shares same name and even notation (1, 2...) without any information about "this is not sequel of..." to demand same gameplay. Thats like EU5 would be first person shooter. And we are again in the whole expectation thing.
(and your comparison to Batman, do you even know that Batman is not film-series? That Batman is comics character? That your comparison would be same like comparing two films with "Zombie" in name? And that the new Batmans were produced as restart of film Batman series, not continuation? And that the third new batman sucked in comparison to first two so it was criticized for that? Man, your comparison doesn't make ANY sense at all!)
My whole point is that we don't have this information, and someone who does has given us an answer.
EXACTLY, I don't have information. (so why did you repeated that I have that information?)
And someone who does has given us an answer. And because it sounds exactly like answers we all get for many things that were later proved that they are wrong... I wanna see more information and understand the problem.
Why would you assume that the guys with the information, having explicitly told you that it's something they'd like to do, haven't done cursory Google searches? You seem to have assumed an antagonistic stance when they have said that they're on your side. They said they would like to see one, too. Why do you then proceed from a position that assumes that they're either lying or stupid? Even if they are wrong, it doesn't mean that they are predictably wrong; their analysis could be entirely reasonable even if you're right, but you just assume that their analysis is flawed or doesn't exist. I think it's a little insulting.
1. everyone can be wrong
2.your reasoning can be right but based on wrong assumptions
3.you could lack certain point of view or information that would dramatically change the reasoning
I don't see anything insulting on it. Hey, but I don't have strong self esteem and I am GLAD when someone point me at giant mistake I am doing. Thus I am trying to gather ALL informations possible and look at problems from several different perspectives. And sometimes you can see way that no one else can see because you just have different mindset at certain time. (and sometimes you can't see obvious obstacle, thats why I am trying to gather information...and I am not happy with "it can't be done" type of answer).
