However, making cryptic statements
The statements were not cryptic.
Are you seriously trying to imply that there are no fans with unreasonable expectations? Or with finite resources, all expectations can be met?
If you are not disputing the factual accuracy of the statement, what exactly is your problem with it?
that portray fans in a negative light
Saying we can not do everything that everyone has suggested in no way portrays fans in a negative light.
Larian, as part of our design philosophy, has always started off with unrestricted designs/ideas, and after consideration, prototyping and/or work has been started, some things get scaled back to something more reasonable (and sometimes extra things get added).
Having unreasonable suggestions or expectations is not inherently negative, and obviously someone not familiar with the current design would only have finite resources as a constraint to have a very rough idea of what was reasonable in this case.
and then refusing to be more forthcoming about their meaning is a very perplexing decision from an ethical viewpoint.
So all the other people posting in forums and asking questions without a lot of information currently being released is fine, but if the head of the company doesn't immediately react to your question in a forum he isn't actively participating in, that is somehow a personal affront and breach of ethics?
I've worked in businesses where calling the customer crazy for asking questions and withholding information from them out of spite is by far the worst offense that can be committed.
That is an extremely uncharitable interpretation of events, and a bizarre assumption of motive, to the point I'm questioning if you are just trolling.
telling the fans of the previous entries in that franchise that you don't care about them or their views about what made those previous entries so special to them.
This is also an extremely uncharitable interpretation of what was said, and completely ignores the rest of the quote, even after that was pointed out.
If Swen reads this topic, do you think he is likely to reply, or would any reasonable person conclude that with such apparently deliberate miss-characterisations of what he said, that no response would be sufficiency?
