771 réponses à ce sujet

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

What the hell is role playing, I want to be completely certain of what it implies

class options be it base stuff like fighter, mage, etc or specialist like Ranger, Healer etc.  Background choices like Elf or dwarf or Spider god or what have you. Strip all those elements out and what you're left with is esentially a glorified action game. Ho hum.

If you have the class options and specialists why would the Background choices matter?

In AD&D I guess you had "bonuses" but why not just have that integrated into a flat plane in regards to the classes?

Wheres the fun in that?

[AmstradHero]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Um its called role playing, kinda the point of the whole genre to begin with, obviously the genre as it was once known is dying since folks like you can't be bothered to have more than a couple class choices since aparently y'all get bored real easy. DA:O still had branching story points even with those extra options. Seems pretty silly to remove them just for the sake of removing them.

So what roleplaying do I get out a gold box games which has bucketloads of choices in terms of character creation?  I get to take my party of six characters, level them up, get phat lewt and kill the big bad in an adventure. Whoo! Hey, it was fun at the time, don't get me wrong. But haven't we moved beyond that?

Haven't we moved RPGs into a more interactive format? Haven't we made them have choices more like what we might get in an actual pen and paper RPG with a human DM? Haven't we stopped the player being railroaded down exactly the same events which turn out exactly the same no matter how many times we play the game with different characters?

Self professed "hardcore RPG" players bemoan that this "new" breed of RPG is simply "Gears of War with dialogue" or equally inaccurate statements. Gears of War has one, single, immutable narrative... exactly like the "old school" RPGs they claim to support and laud as having better plot and being truer to the "RPG genre".

Have you spotted some of the inconsistencies in the arguments of these "hardcore RPG players" yet? Because I have, and they are beginning to grate like an old skipping record.  For me, the only interpretation I can come up with from the collective arguments is that they want a game with a multitude of different options for creating a character (or party of characters and progress through a linear plot.

Funnily enough, a game like that was released in the past couple of years: Storm of Zehir, the second expansion for NWN2. It was brutalised by critics and apparently didn't do that well commercially either. You know what? I enjoyed it, but it wasn't a patch on the previous expansion (Mask of the Betrayer) which didn't have anywhere near that level of party customisation but instead focussed on narrative... and much better received.


PS Now you're saying DAO isn't "streamlined"? (as you put it before) Sorry, I'm just having a hard time following your argument here...

[AmstradHero]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

What the hell is role playing, I want to be completely certain of what it implies

class options be it base stuff like fighter, mage, etc or specialist like Ranger, Healer etc.  Background choices like Elf or dwarf or Spider god or what have you. Strip all those elements out and what you're left with is esentially a glorified action game. Ho hum.

Wow. Just... wow.

In that case... screw it. Count me in for a glorified action game.

(Seriously, go find some indie RPGs or grab the entire gold box back catalogue from somewhere like Abandonia. You'll be a lot happier)

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

AmstradHero wrote...

Being a Warrior or a Ranger or a Paladin made so much difference to me because... hrmm, I might get to use slightly different gear? Being a mage vs a specialist mage or a sorceror... these are the quibbles you're getting into?  And what difference did picking your race have in BG2 aside from a slightly different character model and maybe a handful of conversations that had minor changes?

How about the strongholds and the quests asociated with them? Theives get to control a branch of the Shadow theives, Bards get their own theatre, fighters take control of a keep ect. But stats, gear and skills aside what effect did your class actually have on Origins other than a few extra lines of dialogue?

AmstradHero wrote...

I'm not going to replay a game in full just so my main character can use a different set of armour and a different sword. However, I will replay a game if I get to pick between sparing an entire order of mages or destroying them and get numerous other weighty decisions. I'd say the "customisation" you're referring to and lauding as the pinnacle component of RPGs is cosmetic at best. Maybe that means RPG to you, but it doesn't to me. And as I said before, I'm sure you can find some indie RPGs that will fulfill that craving.

And how much weight exactly do these decisions have? I mean what effect did sideing with the elves have over siding with the werewolves other than different units at the final battle? You scream "BIG CHOICES" however you dont tell us what effect they actually have. Sure the choices Baldur's Gate 2 may not have had a big effect on the main storyline (however there was usually multiple paths to your destination instead of just the one in Origins) but a lot of choices in Baldur's Gate did result in a lot of content that you wouldnt have seen if you picked the other choice and to experience everything you would have to play the game multiple times where you could pretty much experience everything in Origins with little to no consequence.

I will admit that Baldur's Gate did have its flaws but in my opinion it was a much better and more immersive game than Origins ever was and there were a lot of areas where certain elements were far superior, however this thread isnt about Origins and the lack of choice but DA2 and the fact that it will probably have much less choice than Origins. Origins was a step in the right direction however DA2 is a leap in the wrong direction.

Modifié par Gandalf-the-Fabulous, 17 août 2010 - 03:57 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

AmstradHero wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Um its called role playing, kinda the point of the whole genre to begin with, obviously the genre as it was once known is dying since folks like you can't be bothered to have more than a couple class choices since aparently y'all get bored real easy. DA:O still had branching story points even with those extra options. Seems pretty silly to remove them just for the sake of removing them.

So what roleplaying do I get out a gold box games which has bucketloads of choices in terms of character creation?  I get to take my party of six characters, level them up, get phat lewt and kill the big bad in an adventure. Whoo! Hey, it was fun at the time, don't get me wrong. But haven't we moved beyond that?

Haven't we moved RPGs into a more interactive format? Haven't we made them have choices more like what we might get in an actual pen and paper RPG with a human DM? Haven't we stopped the player being railroaded down exactly the same events which turn out exactly the same no matter how many times we play the game with different characters?

Self professed "hardcore RPG" players bemoan that this "new" breed of RPG is simply "Gears of War with dialogue" or equally inaccurate statements. Gears of War has one, single, immutable narrative... exactly like the "old school" RPGs they claim to support and laud as having better plot and being truer to the "RPG genre".

Have you spotted some of the inconsistencies in the arguments of these "hardcore RPG players" yet? Because I have, and they are beginning to grate like an old skipping record.  For me, the only interpretation I can come up with from the collective arguments is that they want a game with a multitude of different options for creating a character (or party of characters and progress through a linear plot.

Funnily enough, a game like that was released in the past couple of years: Storm of Zehir, the second expansion for NWN2. It was brutalised by critics and apparently didn't do that well commercially either. You know what? I enjoyed it, but it wasn't a patch on the previous expansion (Mask of the Betrayer) which didn't have anywhere near that level of party customisation but instead focussed on narrative... and much better received.


PS Now you're saying DAO isn't "streamlined"? (as you put it before) Sorry, I'm just having a hard time following your argument here...

Did you forget this thread was about DA2? Considering its in the DA2 forum and mainly talking about Dragon Age 2 so far aparently shaping up to be more Mass Effect than DA1? All Bioware titles have a linear plot, they've always had a linear plot, its the choices along the way that fill in the RP elements being able to do various quests differently and have different outcomes that may or may not weight on the final outcome.

I asked earlier on in the thread why there's such this need to remove all the extra customization options to achieve the same end goal, and the only somewhat valid answer has been budget so far. The rest has been going round and round that customization is somehow this bad evil thing that is so utterly pointess and how dare people not get over it going away and suck it up.  At least thats the vibe I'm getting anyway.

[TimelordDC]

Maybe you haven't listened to the devs who posted that this was how they wanted to tell the next chapter in the DA franchise? Maybe the story would make sense only when played as a Human character.

As far as I recall, gender and class choices are still there.



Second, RPG isn't all about the customizations when you start the character - its how you play the game; what choices you make. That's where the 'playing' comes in RPG. You can have a great role-playing experience without having multiple races in the mix - go play Witcher and see for yourself if you haven't. It's all about how the story is presented for the player to make choices.

[AmstradHero]

[quote]Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
Being a Warrior or a Ranger or a Paladin made so much difference to me because... hrmm, I might get to use slightly different gear? Being a mage vs a specialist mage or a sorceror... these are the quibbles you're getting into?  And what difference did picking your race have in BG2 aside from a slightly different character model and maybe a handful of conversations that had minor changes?
[/quote]
How about the strongholds and the quests asociated with them? Theives get to control a branch of the Shadow theives, Bards get their own theatre, fighters take control of a keep ect. But stats, gear and skills aside what effect did your class actually have on Origins other than a few extra lines of dialogue?
[/quote]
Origin story vs Stronghold. Let's call it a draw, shall we?

[quote]Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
[quote]AmstradHero wrote...
I'm not going to replay a game in full just so my main character can use a different set of armour and a different sword. However, I will replay a game if I get to pick between sparing an entire order of mages or destroying them and get numerous other weighty decisions.
[/quote]
And how much weight exactly do these decisions have? I mean what effect did sideing with the elves have over siding with the werewolves other than different units at the final battle? You scream "BIG CHOICES" however you dont tell us what effect they actually have. ... you could pretty much experience everything in Origins with little to no consequence.[/quote]
With choices in BG2 I might experience a few different quests I might not otherwise get, but really, you can milk a really large percentage of BG2's content in a single playthrough.
[/quote]

You've proven in your previous posts that you don't care about game/world lore. I do. I get people referencing my actions in DAO a lot more than they do in BG2. But more importantly, I've had a massive effect on the game world at large. I can defile Andraste's ashes, I can bring back golem creation... and so on. For me, that is roleplaying, because I've played a huge role in shaping the future of one or more nations within the game world. I'd consider that immersive... but I guess I must care more about the narrative and the fictional reality that are presented as part of a game.

It's funny, I always thought roleplaying was about the story, the characters and the game world. According to some "hardcore RPG fans", I'm wrong. Go figure.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 17 août 2010 - 06:01 .

[Karimloo]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Wheres the fun in that?

[AmstradHero]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Did you forget this thread was about DA2? Considering its in the DA2 forum and mainly talking about Dragon Age 2 so far aparently shaping up to be more Mass Effect than DA1? All Bioware titles have a linear plot, they've always had a linear plot, its the choices along the way that fill in the RP elements being able to do various quests differently and have different outcomes that may or may not weight on the final outcome.

I asked earlier on in the thread why there's such this need to remove all the extra customization options to achieve the same end goal, and the only somewhat valid answer has been budget so far. The rest has been going round and round that customization is somehow this bad evil thing that is so utterly pointess and how dare people not get over it going away and suck it up.  At least thats the vibe I'm getting anyway.

So what customisation options are we losing exactly? The ability to pick our race? Yeah, okay, it's a loss, but as has been said, that was apparently done for plot reasons. I didn't realise we were losing other character customisation abilities... unless you're privy to information that no one else is.

[mr_nameless]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Um its called role playing, kinda the point of the whole genre to begin with, obviously the genre as it was once known is dying since folks like you can't be bothered to have more than a couple class choices since aparently y'all get bored real easy. DA:O still had branching story points even with those extra options. Seems pretty silly to remove them just for the sake of removing them.

So what roleplaying do I get out a gold box games which has bucketloads of choices in terms of character creation?  I get to take my party of six characters, level them up, get phat lewt and kill the big bad in an adventure. Whoo! Hey, it was fun at the time, don't get me wrong. But haven't we moved beyond that?

Haven't we moved RPGs into a more interactive format? Haven't we made them have choices more like what we might get in an actual pen and paper RPG with a human DM? Haven't we stopped the player being railroaded down exactly the same events which turn out exactly the same no matter how many times we play the game with different characters?

Self professed "hardcore RPG" players bemoan that this "new" breed of RPG is simply "Gears of War with dialogue" or equally inaccurate statements. Gears of War has one, single, immutable narrative... exactly like the "old school" RPGs they claim to support and laud as having better plot and being truer to the "RPG genre".

Have you spotted some of the inconsistencies in the arguments of these "hardcore RPG players" yet? Because I have, and they are beginning to grate like an old skipping record.  For me, the only interpretation I can come up with from the collective arguments is that they want a game with a multitude of different options for creating a character (or party of characters and progress through a linear plot.

Funnily enough, a game like that was released in the past couple of years: Storm of Zehir, the second expansion for NWN2. It was brutalised by critics and apparently didn't do that well commercially either. You know what? I enjoyed it, but it wasn't a patch on the previous expansion (Mask of the Betrayer) which didn't have anywhere near that level of party customisation but instead focussed on narrative... and much better received.


PS Now you're saying DAO isn't "streamlined"? (as you put it before) Sorry, I'm just having a hard time following your argument here...

Did you forget this thread was about DA2? Considering its in the DA2 forum and mainly talking about Dragon Age 2 so far aparently shaping up to be more Mass Effect than DA1? All Bioware titles have a linear plot, they've always had a linear plot, its the choices along the way that fill in the RP elements being able to do various quests differently and have different outcomes that may or may not weight on the final outcome.

I asked earlier on in the thread why there's such this need to remove all the extra customization options to achieve the same end goal, and the only somewhat valid answer has been budget so far. The rest has been going round and round that customization is somehow this bad evil thing that is so utterly pointess and how dare people not get over it going away and suck it up.  At least thats the vibe I'm getting anyway.

I completely agree.

DO2 is a hacked up profit making sequel. Bioware doesn't make great RPG, they used to hire great concept artists/designers/producers/programmers but these change with the times.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

AmstradHero wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
I'm not going to replay a game in full just so my main character can use a different set of armour and a different sword. However, I will replay a game if I get to pick between sparing an entire order of mages or destroying them and get numerous other weighty decisions.

And how much weight exactly do these decisions have? I mean what effect did sideing with the elves have over siding with the werewolves other than different units at the final battle? You scream "BIG CHOICES" however you dont tell us what effect they actually have. ... you could pretty much experience everything in Origins with little to no consequence.

With choices in BG2 I might experience a few different quests I might not otherwise get, but really, you can milk a really large percentage of BG2's content in a single playthrough.

You've proven in your previous posts that you don't care about game/world lore. I do. I get people referencing my actions in DAO a lot more than they do in BG2. But more importantly, I've had a massive effect on the game world at large. I can defile Andraste's ashes, I can bring back golem creation... and so on. For me, that is roleplaying, because I've played a huge role in shaping the future of one or more nations within the game world. I'd consider that immersive... but I guess I must care more about the narrative and the fictional reality that are presented as part of a game.

It's funny, I always thought roleplaying was about the story, the characters and the game world. According to some "hardcore RPG fans", I'm wrong. Go figure.

Ok so where did I say that I dont care about the game/world lore? Hearing about your choice is all well and good and yes it is nice to see a little paragraph at the end of the game telling me how my actions had an effect, however rather than just read about it and hear random NPCs talk about it I would much rather experience the consequences of my actions and this is where Baldur's Gate 2 is superior.

Sure it is nice getting a letter in Mass Effect 2 from the folks that are doing research on the body Nirali Bhatia but wouldnt you rather get a new armour piece that protects against Geth attacks as well? If you let the Batarian go in the DLC "bring down the sky" wouldnt you rather get a side mission where you encounter him again instead of just hearing a news report where he is found and arrested by authorities? (that never actually happened but I cant remember where the Batarian was referenced or if he was even referenced at all, regardless it illustrates my point)

[Acero Azul]

" Ok first of all the writer of that article gives Bioware too much credit but secondly did anyone else read from that "shallow action adventure titles like Mass Effect are the future of RPGs"?"

I don't think that they will erase older style RPGs and they certainly haven't erased JRPGS. Its like first person shooters and third person shooters, there will always be a variety of different games  and styles to choose from.

[Mehow_pwn]

I agree with the guy who made to this somewhat not entirely...tho.



I woun't say bioware is dead.. they just dont listen to fans anymore.. they think that all the kids use console these days and play adventrue games.. even thought most kids play modern warfare..so I dont really understand the bioware logic in DA 2



Because most people who have DA use pc.. so why did they give no love for the pc I do not know..



Althought what they did to Mass effect 2 is logical.. even thought I'm not cool with that

[Onyx Jaguar]

I remember back in my day when Shooters and Adventure games were the hallmark on PCs



Such memory span is either very short or very selective

[Dave of Canada]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

I remember back in my day when Shooters and Adventure games were the hallmark on PCs

Such memory span is either very short or very selective

Both.

At the same time.

[AmstradHero]

Gandalf-the-fabulous: *sigh* I give up. Read through your posts again in this very thread. You've demonstrated a lack of care for the game lore multiple times.

Would it be nice to have more follow up missions based on the choice I made in previous missions I've done. Of course! I've never argued that and I think that would be awesome. However, BG2 doesn't provide that. It might provide follow on missions, but they very rarely are affected by previous decisions. (There are a few notable exceptions, nearly all of which have been listed already)

I should have followed David Gaider's lead earlier and given up on this thread. It's not that the naysayers are getting the "wrong" answers, it's that they're refusing to listen to the answers when they are given. Not to mention focusing on one tiny element of the discussion rather than the issue as a whole. There's no point having a debate when the majority of points within that debate are being ignored by one side.

[Aesthioseae]

AmstradHero wrote...

Gandalf-the-fabulous: *sigh* I give up. Read through your posts again in this very thread. You've demonstrated a lack of care for the game lore multiple times.

Would it be nice to have more follow up missions based on the choice I made in previous missions I've done. Of course! I've never argued that and I think that would be awesome. However, BG2 doesn't provide that. It might provide follow on missions, but they very rarely are affected by previous decisions. (There are a few notable exceptions, nearly all of which have been listed already)

I should have followed David Gaider's lead earlier and given up on this thread. It's not that the naysayers are getting the "wrong" answers, it's that they're refusing to listen to the answers when they are given. Not to mention focusing on one tiny element of the discussion rather than the issue as a whole. There's no point having a debate when the majority of points within that debate are being ignored by one side.

But it was super fun to argue with a raving lunatic, wasn't it? I'm not actually pointing at any one person here, ofcourse...

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

AmstradHero wrote...

Gandalf-the-fabulous: *sigh* I give up. Read through your posts again in this very thread. You've demonstrated a lack of care for the game lore multiple times.

I see where you are comming from and I would assume it was my comment about how the endings of Origins were roughly the same? Sure I dont care who becomes King or Queen or whether the Warden is alive or dead but I would say this is more of a failure on Origins part than my own. This is why Baldur's Gate is superior, it actually made me care about the characters, the world and the outcome where it is quite obvious that Origins diddnt.

AmstradHero wrote...

Would it be nice to have more follow up missions based on the choice I made in previous missions I've done. Of course! I've never argued that and I think that would be awesome. However, BG2 doesn't provide that. It might provide follow on missions, but they very rarely are affected by previous decisions. (There are a few notable exceptions, nearly all of which have been listed already)

I should have followed David Gaider's lead earlier and given up on this thread. It's not that the naysayers are getting the "wrong" answers, it's that they're refusing to listen to the answers when they are given. Not to mention focusing on one tiny element of the discussion rather than the issue as a whole. There's no point having a debate when the majority of points within that debate are being ignored by one side.

Just because I dont agree with your points doesnt mean I ignore them, perhaps it is you who refuses to listen to our points and see things from our perspective.

Modifié par Gandalf-the-Fabulous, 17 août 2010 - 04:53 .

[Merced256]

Adventure games were never the hallmark of PCs, err well i guess they were on a c64 and perhaps a very short time after that. Even the best adventure games were never massively popular. FPSes though, were king. Between Quake, Doom, and later the whole Unreal franchise i have no problem saying FPSes were more mainstream than PC RPGs back then. But back then you could really only play a RPG on a PC effectively so long as it wasn't something like zelda which was more akin to action adventure than anything. Hell i remember trying to play BG2 on a playstation, it wasn't that great as i recall. Was pure gold on a PC however.

None of that matters though and heres why. Fundamentally people really haven't changed all that much from 10, even 20 years ago. Roughly the same percentage of people who enjoyed RPGs back then would enjoy RPGs today. Its like MMOs, where were MMOs before WoW? There wasn't even a total of 5 million world wide MMO players pre-WoW. After blizzard brought the genre to a broader audience we see more people enjoy that type of game, not just the way blizzard did it.

Bioware isn't in a dissimilar position, they just chose the wrong path for DA2 in my opinion. The marketing, even the game, brought a lot of people who had never been exposed to CRPGs in to the fold as it were. But it apparently wasn't enough, despite what can only be described as a huge success for such an "archaic" style of game as other describe. Instead bioware appears to be trying to get a even larger audience. When is enough, enough?

Its like the saying from star wars. "The more the empire tightens its grip, the more systems slip through its fingers. " I personally enjoyed the sort of dichotomy that existed between the ME and DA:O games. One was technically a RPG that was more cinematic and action oriented, the other a CRPG throwback. At this point only the devs know how much like ME2 DA2 will be, but i pray the only thing they have in common is a dialog wheel and a set protagonist.

Modifié par Merced256, 17 août 2010 - 04:57 .

[AmstradHero]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Just because I dont agree with your points doesnt mean I ignore them, perhaps it is you who refuses to see things from our perspective.

I played old RPGs and I loved them. I just don't feel the need to cling to the past. If my points, which are backed by evidence are wrong, then perhaps people refute them with counter-evidence instead of ignoring them? Otherwise we're going on gut-feeling and opinion rather than a dedicated analysis of game design.

The latter is interesting to debate. The former is stupid to debate.

[Merced256]

double post

Modifié par Merced256, 17 août 2010 - 05:00 .

[Merced256]

AmstradHero wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Just because I dont agree with your points doesnt mean I ignore them, perhaps it is you who refuses to see things from our perspective.

I played old RPGs and I loved them. I just don't feel the need to cling to the past. If my points, which are backed by evidence are wrong, then perhaps people refute them with counter-evidence instead of ignoring them? Otherwise we're going on gut-feeling and opinion rather than a dedicated analysis of game design.

The latter is interesting to debate. The former is stupid to debate.

Theres always a sense of fear attatched to change, but you can't say theres no logical basis for assumption on where those changes lead. I'm not saying its right or wrong, but as wynne once said "only a fool is completely certain of himself."

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

AmstradHero wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Just because I dont agree with your points doesnt mean I ignore them, perhaps it is you who refuses to see things from our perspective.

I played old RPGs and I loved them. I just don't feel the need to cling to the past. If my points, which are backed by evidence are wrong, then perhaps people refute them with counter-evidence instead of ignoring them? Otherwise we're going on gut-feeling and opinion rather than a dedicated analysis of game design.

The latter is interesting to debate. The former is stupid to debate.

I would say that your points are more based on opinion rather than evidence and the same could probably be said about mine, you are saying that Origins is superior because it allows you to make big decisions that have little to no consequences or effects on the journey and have a minor effect on the story and I am saying that Baldur's Gate is superior because you get to make a lot more smaller choices that have more of an effect on the journey but not so much on the main story. I am also saying that Baldur's Gate is superior because it has better and more interesting characters, a much better and much deeper story and a far more interesting world but then I suppose you would disagree with that as well.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Merced256 wrote...

Bioware isn't in a dissimilar position, they just chose the wrong path for DA2 in my opinion. The marketing, even the game, brought a lot of people who had never been exposed to CRPGs in to the fold as it were. But it apparently wasn't enough, despite what can only be described as a huge success for such an "archaic" style of game as other describe. Instead bioware appears to be trying to get a even larger audience. When is enough, enough?

Its like the saying from star wars. "The more the empire tightens its grip, the more systems slip through its fingers. " I personally enjoyed the sort of dichotomy that existed between the ME and DA:O games. One was technically a RPG that was more cinematic and action oriented, the other a CRPG throwback. At this point only the devs know how much like ME2 DA2 will be, but i pray the only thing they have in common is a dialog wheel and a set protagonist.

Spot on, and its incredibly apparent as the influx of posters who have no quams at all about stripping out staples of the genre. It truly is a fear more than anything else at least at this point that us old timers can kiss the parts we valued in past Bioware titles can kiss it goodbye because we're no longer the base that is cared about. Now its all about action and less background story/customization.

Sad really, I still hope that DA2 turns out well enough, but its quite hard to shake the feeling that we're about to see a quick Dragon Effect cash in that should make all the kiddies squeal with delight, while us old timers are left expecting more. Though I'm sure they'll be more, for 5-10 dollars a pop in DLC.

[Onyx Jaguar]

I still am waiting for that mech game that they never made a sequel to



Even they they were gonna those bastards