735 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

STEllUS-Swei wrote...

You dident have to my friend you could chose to be Revan Or Not Being him freedom of making you're own persona thats one of the "Feats" Of the memory loss you know to not force you to be "Darth Revan" He pretty mouch died on his ship during Malaks betrayal

And by that logic in DA2 you can make Hawke whoever you want him to be.

Plus you still haven't answered the point about Planescape Torment, or there's a more recent example The Witcher.

[Addai]

Morroian wrote...

And by that logic in DA2 you can make Hawke whoever you want him to be.

Plus you still haven't answered the point about Planescape Torment, or there's a more recent example The Witcher.

Why do people keep bringing those games up?  Even if they are good, they're not the same playing experience that we got used to in DAO and (some of us) were hoping for more of in DA2. 

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

Why do people keep bringing those games up?  Even if they are good, they're not the same playing experience that we got used to in DAO and (some of us) were hoping for more of in DA2. 

Because sometimes we liberals and radicals confuse the conservatives who like DAO with the reactionaries who like the Infinity engine games.  

...yeah I'm gonna keep pushing those labels on people because darnit, they're accurate and descriptive.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 octobre 2010 - 04:16 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Mr.Kusy wrote...

Oldschool RPGs are not playable anymore, fun as a reminder or nostalgia trips but come on - who plays Daggerfall now? [/quote]
I just recently acquired Daggerfall so I can give it a try.  I really enjoyed Arena, and I was disappointed by Morrowind, so I thought I'd give the intervening title a whirl.
[quote]In Exile wrote...

If we are speaking of the external world, if you only grant your internal experience as a valid standard of evidence, then you run into the problem of justifying your perception of the external world. Essentially, you have the brain-in-vat dilemma.[/quote]
Everyone has the brain-in-a-vat dilemma.  That's why it's such a famous problem.
[quote]Insofar as you want to meaningfully interact with the world, you have to grant as your standard of evidence the fixed and independent nature of the external world.[/quote]
I'm not even sure what you mean by "meaningfully interact with the world".  I can interact with my perception of the world, but the actual world is beyond that perception filter.  And I can't penetrate that.
[quote]Applied to a video-game, this essentially gives you the following problem: the game world (i.e. all things that are not internal states of the player) are either real or not. If they are real, you have granted an external standard of evidence.[/quote]
Only if I grant that that "realness" is knowable.
[quote]Once you grant an external standard of evidence, to preserve coherence, you cannot assume (for example) that characters misintepret you unless there is the possibility to react to misinterpretation (in the same way it would be inappropriate to assume that you are in a romance with a character unless the option exists to romance them).[/quote]
And even if I were to accept what you said earlier, I think this step is an unreasonable leap.  You're making some sort of assumption about the capacity of a person to act in a way that's noticable to the world around him, but I'm not sure what it is.
[quote]Certainly, but you can see how that is honestly and truly fan-fiction. [/quote]
Yes.  There's a cultural expectation that the readers doesn't get to do that with books.

I insist the opposite is true of RPGs.  In RPGs the player's input is paramount.  That's a difference in kind.  So what you said about books is true, but it fails to be relevant to RPGs.
[quote]Yes, in a sense. Essentially I think that when we are arguing about possibility, we are essentially arguing about what is alowed under the ultimate rule (ultimate in the sense that Wittgenstein would use the word to desribe a rule; I want to be very particular about this meaning) of the game. For example, we can envision a world (as a thought experiment) whereby the laws of physics are different than they are in our world. But the mere fact we can envision this, which is justified by a set of physical rules in our world (which are relative to the rules we are using in the thought experiment, meta-level rules), does not in itself mean that such laws are in fact possible.[/quote]
I understand, I just don't know why you think that.  Why do you think there is an ultimate rule of the game?

When I talk about possibility I'm using strict modality.
[quote]I understand your position, Let me try to explain my issue another way.

Would you agree that, as we are fallible, we mistake a set of propositions that jointly entail a contradiction as not doing so? I would assume yes. So you would agree that the mere fact that I believe a set of propositions to not be contradictory does not mean they in fact are not contradictory. [/quote]
Absolutely.  I would agree with all of that.

But until you have reached the ultimate conclusion that the set or propositions is contradictory (literally every possible state of mind except that one), then it would be wholly unreasonable of you to consider the non-contradictory state anything other than possible.

Everything is possibly true until you can prove otherwise, and that proof is largely unattainable.
[quote]In the real world, I am not restricted in my action.[/quote]
How is that related to your standard of evidence?
[quote]Let me put it like this. For a certain mental state, we can say that certain actions are neccesary, certain actions are possible, and certain actions are impossible. This is not an unreasonable claim, you would agree, yes?[/quote]
Allowing that for some mental states some of those groups might contain no actions, yes.
[quote]If I take some mental state in game, which entails some action, and there is some consequence, what can follow is a reaction from me to that consequence. If my mental state is such that it neccesarily entails some action, but that action in the game is impossible, suddenly there is a problem - a significant contradiction, which destroys the coherence of the game. It needs to be addressed. [/quote]
Yes, I would agree entirely.

If we disagree here it would be on how frequently there exists necessary actions.  Are there mental states that include necessary actions?  How common are they? 

It would be on the answers to those questions where we differ.
[quote]To apply it to specific case, it would go like this. I have some mental state in mind and pick some dialogue choice. I intend it to mean x. The NPC interprets it as y. This is incorrect. My reaction to this consequence is to attempt to correct it. But it is not possible for me to do so.

Since I cannot resolve the incohrence by assuming the NPC insane (because this still does not address why I do not have the option to take the neccesary action) I have to reject that the mental state. This is why I argue that writing dialogue in a cRPG has an associated mental state. Because it is logically incompatible with any mental state but that.

To describe it as an experience, I suppose the best way to put it is that the frustration you feel with VO, I feel with the inability to clarify a misunderstanding.[/quote]
I can accept that.

Though I again feel the need to point out that this problem would go away if you would allow for the mutability of implicit content.  If your companions misunderstand you, deal with that off-screen.

I've had discussions here where I've clearly interpreted a companion's line differently from how others did.  Clearly we can misunderstand them.  I've even played characters who interpreted specific lines from the companions differently from each other, even in the same context.  I even sent David fan-mail about it when it first happened within the Mage origin, because to me that was evidence of how well-written the game was. 
[quote]That does not make sense. Why could it not be the case that I am expected to choose a line but not given sufficient information to choose it?[/quote]
Because then you're unable to plauy your character.  You can't then know how he would behave in that moment.
[quote]This happens all the time in real life.[/quote]
No, this never ever happens in real life.  It can't.

You know your own opinions.  You know what you perceive around you.  You know how you think you should react to those conditions.  That's all the information we ever have to guide our actions, so either that's sufficient or reasoned action (including thought) is impossible.
[quote]In fact, having limited and insufficient information to reach an inference versus a conjecture is the fundamental epistemological problem we have.[/quote]
Regarding the world around you, yes.  Regarding your own mind, no.  Under no circumstances.
[quote]This is, as an aside, an argument for why non-verbal communication neccesarily exists (or rather, that there appear to be non-verbal aspects to communication, their accuracy or comprehensibility aside).[/quote]
This mirrors our disagreement quite nicely.  That people speak sarcastically is evidence that they're trying to impart non-verbal meaning.  It is not evidence that imparting non-verbal meaning is possible.

You would likely dispute that.
[quote]Indeed. But my argument is that we can, in fact, be certain about which options are impossible.[/quote]
I certainly haven't seen compelling eveidence of that.

There is your character, and there is his perception of the world in which he lives.  Those are the only aspects of the game over which you have any control at all, so if you're concerned with coherence (during gameplay) then your concern must extend no further than your character and what he perceives.  The world around him is outside your experience; its coherence can't be determined by you.
[quote]No, we come right back to the analysis of mental states I gave above.

There is no issue if the circumstances and NPCs are such that they (for example) refuse to be persuaded. These are things outside of my control. What is not outside of my control is my own behaviour. And as I argued above, if we suppose we have mental states and that these mental states cause our actions, we can quite plausibly have neccesary actions following from mental states. [/quote]
The game doesn't model all possible actions.  It only models all possible successful actions, plus some others.  That you aren't allowed to tell your character to sleep is not evidence that he can't.  And yet presumably he does need to some of the time.  It is necessary.

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Because sometimes we liberals and radicals confuse the conservatives who like DAO with the reactionaries who like the Infinity engine games.  

...yeah I'm gonna keep pushing those labels on people because darnit, they're accurate and descriptive.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Reactionaries:  Want DA2 to be like traditional CRPGs.
Conservatives:  Want DA2 to be like DAO.
Liberals: Want DA2 to be like ME2.
Radicals: Want DA2 to go beyond ME2 in terms of changing the CRPG genre.

Well that's an interesting breakdown. I don't know that I'd say Liberals want DA2 to be like ME2, necessarily... perhaps it would be better to say that they don't see anything wrong with DA2 changing the formula. Or maybe you need a new label "Pragmatists" for people who are simply willing to keep an open mind, and who suggest they'll judge DA2 on its own merits. I don't know.

Certainly better than people trotting out the "fanboy" and "troll" accusations at every turn, anyhow. How dreary.

Not quite as dreary as pedantic, wall-of-text arguments over the minutiae of what qualifies as an acceptable RPG... but close.

Modifié par David Gaider, 09 octobre 2010 - 04:24 .

[DTKT]

David Gaider wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Because sometimes we liberals and radicals confuse the conservatives who like DAO with the reactionaries who like the Infinity engine games.  

...yeah I'm gonna keep pushing those labels on people because darnit, they're accurate and descriptive.

You should really get some sleep! It's 12:30AM in Montreal.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Reactionaries:  Want DA2 to be like traditional CRPGs.
Conservatives:  Want DA2 to be like DAO.
Liberals: Want DA2 to be like ME2.
Radicals: Want DA2 to go beyond ME2 in terms of changing the CRPG genre.

Well that's an interesting breakdown. I don't know that I'd say Liberals want DA2 to be like ME2, necessarily... perhaps it would be better to say that they don't see anything wrong with DA2 changing the formula. Or maybe you need a new label "Pragmatists" for people who are simply willing to keep an open mind, and who suggest they'll judge DA2 on its own merits. I don't know.

Certainly better than people trotting out the "fanboy" and "troll" accusations at every turn, anyhow. How dreary.

Not quite as dreary as pedantic, wall-of-text arguments over the minutiae of what qualifies as an acceptable RPG... but close.

You should really get some sleep Mr.Gaider! It's 12:30AM in Montreal.

Modifié par DTKT, 09 octobre 2010 - 04:25 .

[upsettingshorts]

David Gaider wrote...
Well that's an interesting breakdown. I don't know that I'd say Liberals want DA2 to be like ME2,
necessarily... perhaps it would be better to say that they don't see anything wrong with DA2 changing the formula. Or maybe you need a new label "Pragmatists" for people who are simply willing to keep an open mind, and who suggest they'll judge DA2 on its own merits. I don't know.

Certainly better than people trotting out the "fanboy" and "troll" accusations at every turn, anyhow. How dreary.

Not quite as dreary as pedantic, wall-of-text arguments over the minutiae of what qualifies as an acceptable RPG... but close.

I got the idea from the Paradox Interactive forums and their discussion of the development of Victoria 2, a game that takes place during the 19th century where political ideology was very important (and very relative) so I took the same concept of using broad terminology.  A forum poster there decided to try and apply the same idea of views to how their forum wanted Victoria 2 to be.  Some wanted it to be more like Europa Universalis III (a sandbox), others wanted different things - etc and so on.  His post also included factions like socialists, communists, and fascists which I left out as this forum isn't really prepared to be using those terms in a coldly objective, relative fashion.

The label of liberal doesn't necessarily imply that they want DA2 to be like ME2, that was just the simplest way I could come up with to describe it.  That being said, both liberals and radicals would be okay with the formula changing, just the distinction I tried to make was that the liberals were okay with it moving in a direction they were still familiar with - another existing game for example - and the radicals would be comfortable with something even newer and without precedent.

As far as pragmatists go... well, I think most people (just like in real life) ride the fence between liberal and conservative. They liked DA:O or else they probably wouldn't be here, but aren't going to buy or sell specific features of DA:2 before either reviews of the retail version start coming out or they play the game for themselves. Even then, the pragmatists are likely to identify with at least one of those groups.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 octobre 2010 - 04:31 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Not at all.  You simply cannot ever use that information.

I hope you realize that you just made a cyclical argument.

It is not role playing because we are not given the information by the game.
We are not given the information by the game because to use it would not be role playing.

Each is based on the other.

[MerinTB]

Mr.Kusy wrote...
RPG hurrr durrr...
If you want NWN - go play NWN, if you want to play Dn'D, find some time to move your ass from the machine and play it with your mates... yes, preferably instead of whining somewhere on the internet.

Run two games, play in two others currently (one that I was going to play in got abruptly cancelled.)  Three others if you count this "once a month" I play in that's had not game in a couple months...
And I, personally, don't like NWN.

Dunno who you were addressing other than those you disagree with in aggregate, but there you go.  My responses.

Seriously, if someone would take and combine all the time spent on writing complain and whine toppics since this forum was created and give that time a shape, we could create a new baby that would live untill it's late 90ts, even if it would start smoking at the age of 15.

And if I had a penny for every post complaining about posts complaining, my wife and I could retire.
Is there a point to this pointless kind of gripe post telling others to not post their gripes - you recognize the word hypocrisy, yes?

Oldschool RPGs are not playable anymore, fun as a reminder or nostalgia trips but come on - who plays Daggerfall now? Who can even launch it? Who can stand Fallout 1 and 2 combat without a groan? Who doesn't laugh at smiling enemies in Morrowind?

Daggerfall?  That's not old.  I've got Wasteland and Bard's Tale both still installed on my computer and still play them.
Unplayable?  Fallout 1 and 2 are playable enough that they are on sale in stores right now.
Diablo 2 is not significantly newer or older than Fallout 2 or BG2, and it's battlechest still sells for $40.

I don't know what "new" games you like, but I bet half of them would bore me much quicker than my dozenth time playing Wizard's Crown.

You do realize that your tastes, while they may well be matched by the tastes of many others, are not universal?  That some people *gasp* still enjoy playing Chess with a Chess board, or even Go?
Unplayable.  Blech.  I still have tons of fun with MVC2.  Hell, I still have tons of fun with Icewind Dale.  That's not nostalgia - nostalgia is looking at something (maybe booting a game up and playing it for 5 minutes to relive the past and then shutting it down.)  Nostalgia sure isn't taking your upteenth run through Knights of Legend.

Come on "Oldschoo RPG diehard fans"! We can finish the hard part now... die already!

Such nice manners. <_<

[MerinTB]

David Gaider wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Because sometimes we liberals and radicals confuse the conservatives who like DAO with the reactionaries who like the Infinity engine games.  

...yeah I'm gonna keep pushing those labels on people because darnit, they're accurate and descriptive.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Reactionaries:  Want DA2 to be like traditional CRPGs.
Conservatives:  Want DA2 to be like DAO.
Liberals: Want DA2 to be like ME2.
Radicals: Want DA2 to go beyond ME2 in terms of changing the CRPG genre.

Well that's an interesting breakdown. I don't know that I'd say Liberals want DA2 to be like ME2, necessarily... perhaps it would be better to say that they don't see anything wrong with DA2 changing the formula. Or maybe you need a new label "Pragmatists" for people who are simply willing to keep an open mind, and who suggest they'll judge DA2 on its own merits. I don't know.

Certainly better than people trotting out the "fanboy" and "troll" accusations at every turn, anyhow. How dreary.

Not quite as dreary as pedantic, wall-of-text arguments over the minutiae of what qualifies as an acceptable RPG... but close.

My sanity, the forums at large, and the space-time continuum seriously all demand that I not touch this with a ten foot pole.
As Admiral Ackbar would say, "It's a trap!"

[upsettingshorts]

I'm open to a PM if you'd like to discuss the idea of it without it becoming an thread-encompassing mess. /shrug

[Ortaya Alevli]

Add the Faithful to your list, too. You know, the people who just wish DA2 to be an enjoyable game and trust in BioWare on the basis of how good they've been at what they do so far.

[upsettingshorts]

Some would be liberals. Shows that Gaider was right that I shouldn't have necessarily described their opinions as being in favor of changes towards Mass Effect 2. I self-identify with that group, personally. I should have used a different description.

Others would be conservatives. It would depend, ultimately, on how they feel once DA:2 is released. Some are going to like more changes than they dislike and vice versa.

In either case, you can be faithful or skeptical while still being any of those four groups, as they're only trying to describe preferences and not optimism or pessimism.  Many of us like all the Bioware games we've played and expect to like future ones, but I doubt there's anyone among us who doesn't have a favorite.

Edit: The ideologies are simply an expression of player preference in relation to the status quo, which I've chosen as Dragon: Age Origins.  That label could, conceivably, be placed on any game - thus altering the scale - but DA:O seemed the most sensible option on which to draw that line.  These terms are therefore relative.  The reason a supporter of features like Mass Effect 2's would be considered a liberal is that it contained a number of things that are/were new when compared to more traditional RPG elements such as the dialogue wheel which could easily have been described as radical before the release of Mass Effect 1.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 octobre 2010 - 06:11 .

[the_one_54321]

MerinTB wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Because sometimes we liberals and radicals confuse the conservatives who like DAO with the reactionaries who like the Infinity engine games.  

...yeah I'm gonna keep pushing those labels on people because darnit, they're accurate and descriptive.

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Reactionaries:  Want DA2 to be like traditional CRPGs.
Conservatives:  Want DA2 to be like DAO.
Liberals: Want DA2 to be like ME2.
Radicals: Want DA2 to go beyond ME2 in terms of changing the CRPG genre.

Well that's an interesting breakdown. I don't know that I'd say Liberals want DA2 to be like ME2, necessarily... perhaps it would be better to say that they don't see anything wrong with DA2 changing the formula. Or maybe you need a new label "Pragmatists" for people who are simply willing to keep an open mind, and who suggest they'll judge DA2 on its own merits. I don't know.

Certainly better than people trotting out the "fanboy" and "troll" accusations at every turn, anyhow. How dreary.

Not quite as dreary as pedantic, wall-of-text arguments over the minutiae of what qualifies as an acceptable RPG... but close.

My sanity, the forums at large, and the space-time continuum seriously all demand that I not touch this with a ten foot pole.
As Admiral Ackbar would say, "It's a trap!"

It's totally a trap. And frankly he's upsetting my shorts.

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...
It's totally a trap. And frankly he's upsetting my shorts.

Only Mystery Science Theater 3000 fans get what my username is referencing.  

[Lucy Glitter]

Addai67 wrote...

Why do people keep bringing those games up?  Even if they are good, they're not the same playing experience that we got used to in DAO and (some of us) were hoping for more of in DA2. 

Exactly.

I wanted a more upgraded version of Origins with a new, amazing story and new, amazing companions and so on. I didn't want a whole lot of it to be completely changed.

Also, I've been upset over the fact that developers are brushing actual fans concern over it being the same thing they had with Origins. IT IS NOT THE SAME. 

BioWare, you made a fanbase solely from Origins alone. Don't forget that fact.

Modifié par Lucy_Glitter, 09 octobre 2010 - 06:14 .

[upsettingshorts]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...
Exactly.

I wanted a more upgraded version of Origins with a new, amazing story and new, amazing companions and so on. I didn't want a whole lot of it to be completely changed.

A conservative!  All hail the status quo!  (See, I'm not crazy)

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

BioWare, you made a fanbase solely from Origins alone. Don't forget that fact.

And this means... what precisely?  Why do you feel so entitled? 

Just to continue hammering my argument home - that it's a simple matter of people having preferences and all these personal arguments or deeper implications are window dressing - I don't think any of the "groups" I label are or should be entitled to anything.  The fact you came around to Bioware through Dragon Age: Origins doesn't make your preferences any more valid than someone who started with Baldur's Gate (myself) or people who didn't even try an RPG until they could shoot a gun in it (Mass Effect).  

Try framing your arguments with a little more perspective.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 octobre 2010 - 06:20 .

[Lucy Glitter]

Wow. Could you be more of a jerk?

[Mike Laidlaw]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

Also, I've been upset over the fact that developers are brushing actual fans concern over it being the same thing they had with Origins. IT IS NOT THE SAME. 

Correct. It is not the same. It is similar in a lot of ways, and different in others. I personally feel that DA2 feels and plays a lot like DA:O at its core, but a lot faster and punchier on the surface. Which is pretty much exactly what I was hoping for.

It's not what everyone was hoping for. I'm well aware that some of the changes are hot-button items with folks. Combat that seems too actiony? Anger ensues. Dialog where the PC has a voice? Anger ensues.

But not from everyone. It's a preference thing. Some love the changes, some hate them. I'm keenly aware that both camps exist, and while I wish I could please everyone, I cannot, especially not before the game is released when conjecture rules the day, so I do not try.

All we can do is present the game as it is, changes and similarities out there for people to make informed judgements. The unforutnate side effect is that, since most of our changes are very visible (combat, player VO, etc) and most of our similarities are subtle (journal, inventory, tactics screen, etc), there tends to be a lot more talk about the changes than what's similar. Focus on change only, and it's easy to draw the conclusion that everything has changed, forever, and thus the conversations become...interesting! Heated, even!

So, there you go. Your concerns have been acknowledged. I can't completely assuage them for you, but I can nod and say, "Yep. I hear ya." And when more information about the game comes out, I expect your concern will abate. Perhaps never entirely, but some.

[upsettingshorts]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

Wow. Could you be more of a jerk?

Apparently calling you out on your presumption is enough for you to bestow upon me that title without my attempting to earn it, so I suppose my answer would be yes.

[Lucy Glitter]

Well, thanks, Mike. I am glad you hear us over all the rumblings sometimes

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Lucy_Glitter wrote...
Exactly.

I wanted a more upgraded version of Origins with a new, amazing story and new, amazing companions and so on. I didn't want a whole lot of it to be completely changed.

A conservative!  All hail the status quo!  (See, I'm not crazy)

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

BioWare, you made a fanbase solely from Origins alone. Don't forget that fact.

And this means... what precisely?  Why do you feel so entitled? 

Just to continue hammering my argument home - that it's a simple matter of people having preferences and all these personal arguments or deeper implications are window dressing - I don't think any of the "groups" I label are or should be entitled to anything.  The fact you came around to Bioware through Dragon Age: Origins doesn't make your preferences any more valid than someone who started with Baldur's Gate (myself) or people who didn't even try an RPG until they could shoot a gun in it (Mass Effect).  

Try framing your arguments with a little more perspective.

Considering the liberals are doing a great job of running the US into the ground, I suppose your analogy somewhat fits, since apply it the same way and they're simplifying the RPG genre to the point of pointlessness.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

Wow. Could you be more of a jerk?

Apparently calling you out on your presumption is enough for you to bestow upon me that title without my attempting to earn it, so I suppose my answer would be yes.

You've earned that title already, a couple times over now imo.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In either case, you can be faithful or skeptical while still being any of those four groups, as they're only trying to describe preferences and not optimism or pessimism.  Many of us like all the Bioware games we've played and expect to like future ones, but I doubt there's anyone among us who doesn't have a favorite.

That's right, I'm sure everyone has a favorite. Mine being BG2, for example. Just mentioned the fifth category because I don't really care or expect BioWare to make DA2 something like BG2 (or whatever other favorite game you have), as long as it entertains me and leaves its mark. They could make DA2 completely different than BG2 and it could still be their greatest game by far.

You did a good job at categorization in general. Just throwing my two coppers in there.

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Considering the liberals are doing a great job of running the US into the ground, I suppose your analogy somewhat fits, since apply it the same way and they're simplifying the RPG genre to the point of pointlessness.

Political ideology has nothing to do with the labels as I have described them, and comparisons to modern parties are the very definition of irrelevant and off-topic.

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
You've earned that title already, a couple times over now imo.

Yep, I recall making an issue of your casual condescension of opinions you disagree with.  Nothing seems to have changed.  I'm still a jerk, and you're still wrong.

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
You did a good job at categorization in general. Just throwing my two coppers in there.

It was a fair point, definitely.  One can be a reactionary pining for the days of imported character portraits and D&D-based systems and still wholeheartedly believe that Bioware will come through with DA:2.  They're not mutually exclusive, and I'm glad you reminded me to point it out.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 09 octobre 2010 - 06:37 .