416 réponses à ce sujet

[HTTP 404]

theres much ado about nothing...I visited the site looks interesting but there isn enough to make up my mind if I would like it. Time will tell. haha owell.



I do disagree with one thing with the OP, we should allow some posters "vent" as long as they are appropriate and non-trollish. other than that, yes there is to much worry about something that wasnt on people's minds 3 weeks ago.

[Narreneth]

Addai67 wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

I am completely flaberghasted at how many people think "spiritual successor" means "exactly like." 

Since I've never played Baldur's Gate, I could hardly be saying that, could I?  I do know my husband bought DAO, at full retail and with the game guide on the day it came out, because he liked Baldur's Gate and heard that it was going to be in a similar vein.  That was enough to win his trust.

However, people are pointing at Bioware's history as proof that DA2 is going to be awesomesauce, using BG as a reference, but the Game Informer interview indicates that DA2 is being taken in a different direction.  It doesn't seem logical to me.

If you don't know what Baldur's Gate was like you also can't make the assertion that this IP is no longer the successor to that series.  You're contradicting yourself pretty heavily there. 

I am not using BioWare's history as evidence for why DA2 is going to be completely awesome.  My point is and has been that because of the fact that BioWare has such a strong history,  there's no reason to assume it's going to suck completely. 

The base arguments that have been made are very often unfounded.  The best example I can come up with is the personalization argument as it is the easiest one to refute in the shortest amount of time.  The major complaint here from the naysayers has been that "there is no customization, my character has been picked FOR me!  They even gave him a last name!  I don't get to pick my identity"  coupled with the fact that you have to be human.  In DAO you got to pick at generation your race, sex, appearance, and class.  Your race would be coupled with an accompanying background.  In DA2 you get to pick your sex, appearance, class, and (from what I've read) much of your background (such as reasons for leaving Lothering and how you became champion)    As far as the name argument goes, you had a surname chosen for you in DAO no matter what race you picked and people referred to you as "Warden."  The only difference here is instead of being called by your profession you will also have people calling you "Hawke."    You are still very much in control of WHO your character is.

This is just one of the MANY faulty arguments that people are running around these forums spewing. 

[ITSSEXYTIME]

Narreneth wrote...

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

YOU don't give your character life.  YOU don't even get to decide *what* your character says to people.  You choose from a list of pre-determined responses in *every* situation.  If *you* are adding life that isn't in those lines and scenes originally, you are misintepreting what is happening.  

Yes of course we choose from a limited list of options.

And when the option for my character doesn't exist, I have the option of pretending it does through THE IMAGINATIONZ.  


That is the worst logic I've ever heard.  If that's the case you can use IMAGINATIONZ as you so eloquently put it to "imagine" whatever life you want that the voice acting leaves out.  Are you really that stupid?

The whole purpose of using my imagination (which in this case refers to imaging the way my character is speaking a line) is to PREVENT those jarring situations where your character says something out of character.  If I'm playing as a violent dalish elf who hates humans but my only options when rescuing a human farmer in a random encounter are :

1. I'm glad to be of service.
2. GIMME ALL YOUR MONEY
3. NO REALLY GIMME ALL YOUR MONEY

None of those options really fit, but with a bit of imaginationz you can make the first option fit quite well (Assuming your character is still a Good Alignment, Neutral or Evil versions would have an easier time roleplaying this scene) if you read it in a tone similar to Morrigan's sarcastic'condescending tone she uses quite often early on in the game.

Truly, Bioware is mostly pretty good about including enough options that I can atleast find one that suits my needs, but they can't predict every possible character personality. (And accomodate it through dialog)  


I don't need my character to express the emotions visually because 1. The emotions that character experiences are dictated by who that character is ( which is in turn dictated by the player).  and  2. Bioware does a well enough job of conveying the emotions of a scene through NPC voice acting, lighting and what not that I don't need my character to adopt a "Sadface" to explain the intent of the scene to me. (Obviously the sadface is a very primitive example of this, but I think it's a rather good one seeing as it could look completely stupid on the majority of characters in DA:O )

The characters you interact with react the same to no matter what you imagine yourself to be saying or how you imagine yourself saying it.  That is a completely invalid point.  If the NPCs are doing the scene-setting for you and you fail to pick up on the fact that everything you're "imagining" doesn't fit with what is actually going on then you're fairly hopeless. 

There's a difference between imagining a different tone for a phrase and changing the intent too.  Yes NPC's will respond in the same way no matter how you read it in your head but in most cases their response will fit how you chose to have a character say it.

Continuing with my farmer example, people in such situation probably won't care if you're being somewhat sarcastic as you just saved their life.  Them reacting in the same way they would if you were dead serious saying it isn't really notable because they're just glad to be alive.

For more complex scenarios, there's generally a way for most characters to adequately respond without breaking character.  Bioware did a good job in DA:O to provide plenty of options.

[Narreneth]

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...

YOU don't give your character life.  YOU don't even get to decide *what* your character says to people.  You choose from a list of pre-determined responses in *every* situation.  If *you* are adding life that isn't in those lines and scenes originally, you are misintepreting what is happening.  

Yes of course we choose from a limited list of options.

And when the option for my character doesn't exist, I have the option of pretending it does through THE IMAGINATIONZ.  


That is the worst logic I've ever heard.  If that's the case you can use IMAGINATIONZ as you so eloquently put it to "imagine" whatever life you want that the voice acting leaves out.  Are you really that stupid?

The whole purpose of using my imagination (which in this case refers to imaging the way my character is speaking a line) is to PREVENT those jarring situations where your character says something out of character.  If I'm playing as a violent dalish elf who hates humans but my only options when rescuing a human farmer in a random encounter are :

1. I'm glad to be of service.
2. GIMME ALL YOUR MONEY
3. NO REALLY GIMME ALL YOUR MONEY

None of those options really fit, but with a bit of imaginationz you can make the first option fit quite well (Assuming your character is still a Good Alignment, Neutral or Evil versions would have an easier time roleplaying this scene) if you read it in a tone similar to Morrigan's sarcastic'condescending tone she uses quite often early on in the game.

Truly, Bioware is mostly pretty good about including enough options that I can atleast find one that suits my needs, but they can't predict every possible character personality. (And accomodate it through dialog)  


I don't need my character to express the emotions visually because 1. The emotions that character experiences are dictated by who that character is ( which is in turn dictated by the player).  and  2. Bioware does a well enough job of conveying the emotions of a scene through NPC voice acting, lighting and what not that I don't need my character to adopt a "Sadface" to explain the intent of the scene to me. (Obviously the sadface is a very primitive example of this, but I think it's a rather good one seeing as it could look completely stupid on the majority of characters in DA:O )

The characters you interact with react the same to no matter what you imagine yourself to be saying or how you imagine yourself saying it.  That is a completely invalid point.  If the NPCs are doing the scene-setting for you and you fail to pick up on the fact that everything you're "imagining" doesn't fit with what is actually going on then you're fairly hopeless. 

There's a difference between imagining a different tone for a phrase and changing the intent too.  Yes NPC's will respond in the same way no matter how you read it in your head but in most cases their response will fit how you chose to have a character say it.

Continuing with my farmer example, people in such situation probably won't care if you're being somewhat sarcastic as you just saved their life.  Them reacting in the same way they would if you were dead serious saying it isn't really notable because they're just glad to be alive.

For more complex scenarios, there's generally a way for most characters to adequately respond without breaking character.  Bioware did a good job in DA:O to provide plenty of options.

You're assuming there aren't going to be a multitude of responses on the wheel dialogue system.  You have no idea how it's going to work out.  Of the three in your farmer example you've got "Kind" "Jerky" "Super Jerky" 

They could easily fit your "Sarcastic" in there too.  Or your "I hate you because I'm Dalish" as well.  BioWare always has tons of dialogue options.  Just because it isn't spelled out word for word for you doesn't mean you're not still going to have tons and tons of options.

[Addai]

Narreneth wrote...

If you don't know what Baldur's Gate was like you also can't make the assertion that this IP is no longer the successor to that series.  You're contradicting yourself pretty heavily there. 

LOL  The developers have said that it won't be (in the GI interview).  I'm just going by what they've said.  I gather that they do know a thing or two about Baldur's Gate?

You are still very much in control of WHO your character is.

This is just one of the MANY faulty arguments that people are running around these forums spewing. 

Look, you are saying that people don't have a right to complain about what they've heard so far, but you continually list out all the things we know so far about the game and how these will be great features.  You like what you've heard so far.  Some of us haven't.  So you're contradicting your own premise that we don't have enough information to form an initial impression.

I liked DAO.  To hear that DA2 is going to go in a significantly different direction from the original, and adopt features from a game I didn't like, is not encouraging.  Obviously we'll all get more information as and when.

Modifié par Addai67, 13 juillet 2010 - 04:53 .

[elven jedi]

to me, i think dragon age 2 has edged a bit towards the fable side i mean fable is good and all, but i prefer by far dragon age and i don't think that they should drastically change dragon age 2. And not getting to pick your own race sucks.

[Lord_Saulot]

Addai67 wrote...

LOL  The developers have said that it won't be (in the GI interview).  I'm just going by what they've said.  I gather that they do know a thing or two about Baldur's Gate?

Can you provide a quote?  Not all of us have seen that interview, and the summaries that some posters gave us of the interview did not include that.  But if that is the case, many of us would appreciate the reference.

Modifié par Lord_Saulot, 13 juillet 2010 - 04:57 .

[Narreneth]

Addai67 wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

If you don't know what Baldur's Gate was like you also can't make the assertion that this IP is no longer the successor to that series.  You're contradicting yourself pretty heavily there. 

LOL  The developers have said that it won't be (in the GI interview).  I'm just going by what they've said.  I gather that they do know a thing or two about Baldur's Gate?

You are still very much in control of WHO your character is.

This is just one of the MANY faulty arguments that people are running around these forums spewing. 

Look, you are saying that people don't have a right to complain about what they've heard so far, but you continually list out all the things we know so far about the game and how these will be great features.  You like what you've heard so far.  Some of us haven't.  So you're contradicting your own premise that we don't have enough information to form an initial impression.

I liked DAO.  To hear that DA2 is going to go in a significantly different direction from the original, and adopt features from a game I didn't like, is not encouraging.  Obviously we'll all get more information as and when.

Cut it with your "LOL I know more than you" attitude.  Baldur's Gate was a D&D game.  There are very few direct similarities between DA:O and BG beyond a few basic mechanics and the dark fantasy setting.  As a company BioWare would be limiting themselves trying to keep an original IP tied to something they did for an existing IP years ago.  Whether you want to believe it or not, Dragon Age is still the successor to that series on multiple levels.  They are not intentionally breaking away from it, they are just no longer keeping themselves tied down by it.

Also, I haven't been talking about how great the new systems are at all.  I've been defending the new things and telling people to withhold judgment.  Or I've been pointing out how their arguments are unfounded.  Don't put words in my mouth.

[stevej713]

ShadyKat wrote...

As the years pass, I have notice more and more whining and crying on the Internet. No matter what boards you go to, the overall ****ing is at an all time high. If anyone doesn't get exactly want they want, they have to rant and cry. It is really sad imho.

You're right.  It's unfortunate.  I need to take more walks and get away from this. 

[Heimdall]

I just say. Wait and see. At least wait until the trailer before you say it's awsomesauce or all is lost.

[Addai]

Narreneth wrote...

Cut it with your "LOL I know more than you" attitude. 

You obviously know more than the devs do.

They are not intentionally breaking away from it, they are just no longer keeping themselves tied down by it.

"We're going in a new direction" means what to you?  And how would they be doing this unintentionally??  And if DAO was never much like BG in the first place, how were they "tied down by it"?  I'm confused.

"Dragon Age II is more than just a sequel - it serves to establish a new identity for the Dragon Age universe. With success to call its own, Dragon Age is no longer bound by the concept of being a spiritual successor to another series. BioWare is making some major modifications to the formula, giving story and mechanics a more contemporary twist while retaining the essence of what fans loved about the original."

from the GI article, bold mine

Also, I haven't been talking about how great the new systems are at all.  I've been defending the new things and telling people to withhold judgment.  Or I've been pointing out how their arguments are unfounded.  Don't put words in my mouth.

Defending the announced changes differs from praising them how, exactly?  You would like us to "withhold judgment" by adopting your POV about them, apparently.

But we are going in circles now.

Modifié par Addai67, 13 juillet 2010 - 05:14 .

[Lord_Saulot]

Addai67 wrote...

"We're going in a new direction" means what to you?  And how would they be doing this unintentionally??  And if DAO was never much like BG in the first place, how were they "tied down by it"?  I'm confused.

"Dragon Age II is more than just a sequel - it serves to establish a new identity for the Dragon Age universe. With success to call its own, Dragon Age is no longer bound by the concept of being a spiritual successor to another series. BioWare is making some major modifications to the formula, giving story and mechanics a more contemporary twist while retaining the essence of what fans loved about the original."

from the GI article, bold mine

Thanks for posting the quote.  To me, "no longer bound by the concept of beign a spiritual successor to another series" doesn't mean that aspect is ditched.  It means that Dragon Age is now an established property that can stand independently instead of relying on BG to sell it.  A "new identity" means that it has to stand on its own two feet.  But the fact that also say "retaining the essence of what fans loved about the original" indicates that they are not intending to change the basic spirit or direction of the game.

Of course, we'll see what the game itself looks like in time, but in any case, thank you for posting that.

[Adanu]

David Gaider wrote...

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...
Well, I wasn't aware Bioware valued some money over others.

We don't.

My point is that some people apparently think we should-- that the "console kiddie" or the person with "no imagination" or the person who plays a game only once is somehow less worthwhile a person to develop a game for even though they spent exactly the same amount of money on the game as the PC gamer, the person with all the imagination in the world who likes to read their own dialogue or the person who re-plays the game a hundred times (or hangs out on these forums, even).

My point is that if you wish to use arguments with each other, or with us, as to why you should be listened to-- perhaps leaving elitism out of it would be the smart choice, that's all I'm saying.

Are you saying that the casual idiot who barely plays your game is more worth your time than the attentive ,contributing member of the community who has a dozen characters and offers contructive criticism?

I'm sorry, but that logic does not work for me. Some people are inherently going to be more worthy of your time than others. If you think otherwise, this explains a great deal about the details we've been told thus far about DA2.

Don't get me wrong, I am going to give the game a try... but I am under no illusion that Bioware is going to live up to its original promise after doing a 180 from the original ideas they proclaimed for the series.

[TSamee]

stevej713 wrote...

ShadyKat wrote...

As the years pass, I have notice more and more whining and crying on the Internet. No matter what boards you go to, the overall ****ing is at an all time high. If anyone doesn't get exactly want they want, they have to rant and cry. It is really sad imho.

You're right.  It's unfortunate.  I need to take more walks and get away from this. 

QFT guys

And yet we still post, and we still flame, and it's still good fun. There's been some backlash over Hawke now, in a year the whole forum'll be full of "Pleaaaaase make Hawke an LI in DA3!!!"

Modifié par TSamee, 13 juillet 2010 - 05:35 .

[Khavos]

Adanu wrote...
Are you saying that the casual idiot who barely plays your game is more worth your time than the attentive ,contributing member of the community who has a dozen characters and offers contructive criticism?

No, he's saying that you're not worth more time than the "casual idiot" who barely plays his game.  You're both worth an equal amount of time, because your cash is cash in either case.

Stanley Woo got into this and took a lot of flack several months ago when he stated that game development was a dictatorship, not a democracy.  The developers design the game; the community doesn't. 

[Addai]

Lord_Saulot wrote...
 A "new identity" means that it has to stand on its own two feet.  But the fact that also say "retaining the essence of what fans loved about the original" indicates that they are not intending to change the basic spirit or direction of the game.

Of course, we'll see what the game itself looks like in time, but in any case, thank you for posting that.

I could buy that DA2 is going to be the spiritual successor of nothing but DAO and be happy with that, if the article did not elaborate on how NEW DIFFERENT VAMPED it all is going to be.  Especially when the aspects the devs are identifying as needing major revamp are precisely those that I liked best about the original.

Now it's quite possible that NEW DIFFERENT VAMPED is just marketing-speak.  They do seem to be employing a strategy whereby the muckety mucks go out and tell the world "DA2 is going to be new and different, here's what will change," then the writers come (bravely) into the forums to assure the diehards that it's really all the same and the changes are just more and better of what we liked about Origins, etc. etc.

Anyway, until we hear more I guess the dead horse is looking pretty battered.

Modifié par Addai67, 13 juillet 2010 - 05:34 .

[Narreneth]

Addai67 wrote...

Narreneth wrote...

Cut it with your "LOL I know more than you" attitude. 

You obviously know more than the devs do.

They are not intentionally breaking away from it, they are just no longer keeping themselves tied down by it.

"We're going in a new direction" means what to you?  And how would they be doing this unintentionally??  And if DAO was never much like BG in the first place, how were they "tied down by it"?  I'm confused.

"Dragon Age II is more than just a sequel - it serves to establish a new identity for the Dragon Age universe. With success to call its own, Dragon Age is no longer bound by the concept of being a spiritual successor to another series. BioWare is making some major modifications to the formula, giving story and mechanics a more contemporary twist while retaining the essence of what fans loved about the original."

from the GI article, bold mine

Also, I haven't been talking about how great the new systems are at all.  I've been defending the new things and telling people to withhold judgment.  Or I've been pointing out how their arguments are unfounded.  Don't put words in my mouth.

Defending the announced changes differs from praising them how, exactly?  You would like us to "withhold judgment" by adopting your POV about them, apparently.

But we are going in circles now.

Did I ever assert that I knew more about the game than the developers?  You're putting words in my mouth again.  Save your ****iness for your husband.

Going in a different direction than being the spiritual successor to BG simply means that they are no longer making decisions based on whether or not it puts them in a realm of being enough like BG to call the game a successor to it. 

Secondly,  the development of a game can easily be tied down by trying to stick to a specific concept.  The major similarities between BG and DAO were there because BioWare was trying to make DAO a successor to BG.  If they were to continue actively trying to keep this IP like one that already existed it could hamper development when they try to expand the game world and find a niche that fits the game.  You're making the assumption that because they said they want to go in a different direction they are deliberately taking ANY similarity to Baldur's Gate and throwing it out the window.  You are assuming that because they are no longer deliberately trying to be similar to a game (that you never even ****ing played) they made in the past the new aspects of the game are going to suck or are going to ruin it.  You are drawing lines that quite frankly don't exist.  All I'm seeing from the quotes you just put up is that Dragon Age has taken a life of its own and keeping it leashed to a concept of being another game's successor would prevent it from being a great IP rather than just a one-time hit. 

Finally, how can I defend the changes without saying they're great?  Like this:  Quit complaining.  You don't even know what the system is like, much less if you're going to like it or not.  Give it a chance and wait for more information before you decide whether it's game breaking or not.

The thing is, you don't know what my POV is.  For all you know I may not like any of the things I've heard.  I haven't flat out said that.  All I've done is say that throwing a fit about a TINY bit of information is asinine.

[TSamee]

Adanu wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...
Well, I wasn't aware Bioware valued some money over others.

We don't.
My point is that some people apparently think we should-- that the "console kiddie" or the person with "no imagination" or the person who plays a game only once is somehow less worthwhile a person to develop a game for even though they spent exactly the same amount of money on the game as the PC gamer, the person with all the imagination in the world who likes to read their own dialogue or the person who re-plays the game a hundred times (or hangs out on these forums, even).
My point is that if you wish to use arguments with each other, or with us, as to why you should be listened to-- perhaps leaving elitism out of it would be the smart choice, that's all I'm saying.

Are you saying that the casual idiot who barely plays your game is more worth your time than the attentive, contributing member of the community who has a dozen characters and offers contructive criticism?

I'm sorry, but that logic does not work for me. Some people are inherently going to be more worthy of your time than others. If you think otherwise, this explains a great deal about the details we've been told thus far about DA2.

Don't get me wrong, I am going to give the game a try... but I am under no illusion that Bioware is going to live
up to its original promise after doing a 180 from the original ideas they proclaimed for the series.

?? Casual idiot? who exactly are you calling the "casual idiot"? Everyone who bothers posting on the forum has enough interest in the game to play it and give an opinion. And those who aren't a member of the BioWare forums will post elsewhere, on Destructoid, CVG, NeoGaf, etc. Are you targeting the so-called "casual gamer"? The people for whom gaming isn't a large part of life, but an occasional passtime? People aren't born fans of Dragon Age, they're made into them by trying the game out. A wide consumer base (one that includes the "casual idiots" of today) allows more people to try Dragon Age and enter the so-called "hardcore". I played Mass Effect because it mixed shooter combat with the traditional mechanics of an RPG really well. It was my first BioWare game (I played KOTOR afterwards, because of my experience with ME). I played DA:O because of my experience with Mass Effect, and I bought Mass Effect because it managed to appeal to me, at that time a "casual gamer" in terms of RPGs.

The key here is making the game attractive to those who aren't familiar with the RPG genre, but with enough depth so that RPG vets can enjoy it, as can the game's casual players on a second playthrough. In changing Dragon Age, that's what they're doing, and, so long as it's done well, this can only be a good thing.

Modifié par TSamee, 13 juillet 2010 - 05:40 .

[Addai]

Narreneth wrote...

Did I ever assert that I knew more about the game than the developers?  You're putting words in my mouth again.  Save your ****iness for your husband.

Right, since you have nothing to say, neither do I.

[LPPrince]

Adanu wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...
Well, I wasn't aware Bioware valued some money over others.

We don't.

My point is that some people apparently think we should-- that the "console kiddie" or the person with "no imagination" or the person who plays a game only once is somehow less worthwhile a person to develop a game for even though they spent exactly the same amount of money on the game as the PC gamer, the person with all the imagination in the world who likes to read their own dialogue or the person who re-plays the game a hundred times (or hangs out on these forums, even).

My point is that if you wish to use arguments with each other, or with us, as to why you should be listened to-- perhaps leaving elitism out of it would be the smart choice, that's all I'm saying.

Are you saying that the casual idiot who barely plays your game is more worth your time than the attentive ,contributing member of the community who has a dozen characters and offers contructive criticism?

What he's saying is the "casual idiot", as you so eloquently put it, is not worth any more or any less than a "attentive contributing member of the community".

And that is true. Money is money. One person's $60 is no more or less than another person's $60.

Stan was right when he said game development is a dictatorship and not a democracy.

Sure, ideas are welcomed, but in the end, the developers make ALL the decisions, and we get what THEY give us.

We have no rights to get what we want or criticize them. We have the privileges to do so.

The elitism needs to stay out of the argument because no one is elite. PC gamers are equal to 360 gamers and PS3 gamers. No one is above anyone else.

Rather, its the developers that are truly the "elites". Gamers being, "the lower class/caste" in this case.

[TSamee]

the husband comment was a bit overboard.

[Lord_Saulot]

Addai67 wrote...

Lord_Saulot wrote...
 A "new identity" means that it has to stand on its own two feet.  But the fact that also say "retaining the essence of what fans loved about the original" indicates that they are not intending to change the basic spirit or direction of the game.

Of course, we'll see what the game itself looks like in time, but in any case, thank you for posting that.

I could buy that DA2 is going to be the spiritual successor of nothing but DAO and be happy with that, if the article did not elaborate on how NEW DIFFERENT VAMPED it all is going to be.  Especially when the aspects the devs are identifying as needing major revamp are precisely those that I liked best about the original.

Now it's quite possible that NEW DIFFERENT VAMPED is just marketing-speak.  They do seem to be employing a strategy whereby the muckety mucks go out and tell the world "DA2 is going to be new and different, here's what will change," then the writers come (bravely) into the forums to assure the diehards that it's really all the same and the changes are just more and better of what we liked about Origins, etc. etc.

Anyway, until we hear more I guess the dead horse is looking pretty battered.

Yeah, I understand what you are saying.  All the "new and different" type language does look like marketing speak to me, so I guess you understand my point of view as well. 

Anyway, I'm sure we are both eagerly awaiting new information, and we'll see what's going on in time 

[Narreneth]

TSamee wrote...

the husband comment was a bit overboard.

She's being ****y.  She mentioned has a husband.  I was suggesting if she's going to be ****y she should save it for him.

It's not as if I attacked him.  Or made some off-color comment about domestic violence or something of that nature.

[TSamee]

LPPrince wrote...

What he's saying is the "casual idiot", as you so eloquently put it, is not worth any more or any less than a "attentive contributing member of the community".

And that is true. Money is money. One person's $60 is no more or less than another person's $60.

Stan was right when he said game development is a dictatorship and not a democracy.

Sure, ideas are welcomed, but in the end, the developers make ALL the decisions, and we get what THEY give us.

We have no rights to get what we want or criticize them. We have the privileges to do so.

The elitism needs to stay out of the argument because no one is elite. PC gamers are equal to 360 gamers and PS3 gamers. No one is above anyone else.

Rather, its the developers that are truly the "elites". Gamers being, "the lower class/caste" in this case.

^this. Very well-put, you're 100% correct. QFT.

EDIT: @Narreneth, very, very sorry about that, I commented without really considering the situation.
Morrigan disapproves.

Modifié par TSamee, 13 juillet 2010 - 05:51 .

[filetemo]

If anything, european gamers worth more than americans, because we pay 60 euros while you pay 60 dollars.