411 réponses à ce sujet

[Bryy_Miller]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And this is why we disagree.

You're playing a game.  I'm playing a character.

But it is literally impossible to become 100% immersed in a video game. It just is. At the end of the day, no matter how "deeply" you're RPing, you are still using a keyboard/controller. You're still keeping track of stats, you're still *giving* stats. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I keep track of stats in the real world, too.  Does that mean I'm not "immersed" in my life?

Not to mention that it's possible to compartmentalise your brain so you don't consider extra-game facts when dealing with in-game events.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 décembre 2010 - 11:08 .

[silentassassin264]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And this is why we disagree.

You're playing a game.  I'm playing a character.

But it is literally impossible to become 100% immersed in a video game. It just is. At the end of the day, no matter how "deeply" you're RPing, you are still using a keyboard/controller. You're still keeping track of stats, you're still *giving* stats. 

It is quite possible.  I do it all the time.

[In Exile]

tmp7704 wrote...
If you can explain to me in plain terms how the melee members of your party can instantly use their melee attacks on enemies who are outside of melee range, i'm all ears.

Once again, it has nothing to do with this. Using a combination of mages + warrior melee provides superior damage to using the same combination but ranged attacks, or using all warrior ranged attacks alone.

The claim is, simply put, that out of all possible party combinations, the best ones involving warriors always involve melee. I am not seeing the difficulty.

There is nothing false about looking at contribution of individual members of your party at any given point. And even if we look at it your way and consider the party on the whole, then mages + ranged warriors still deal more damage combined than the alternative of having just mages deal damage while warriors are doing nothing.

No, they don't. That's the point. Warriors have a short delay to close, then deal constant melee damage. Mages deal the same damage in both cases. Ranged warriors will deal superior damage at first (because they can attack at range) until enemies close. Then, they can deal melee damage, but they expose themselves to melee damage.

My counter, again, is that you can deal more damage while avoiding any melee damage simply by using knockbacks instead of range.

Misleading, as opposed to "being facetious"? The build in question was strength-oriented. I had to actually swap to some shoes with dexterity bonus to equip that bow.

What were the numbers, specifically?

I don't believe i have claimed anywhere in this discussion that archery provides higher damage output (in situation where both ways are possible to be used) I didn't see need to "be facetious" about facts though, when these facts can stand well enough on their own.

Your claim was, basically, that archery can deal more efficient damage because you don't have to take damage while doing it. My counter-claim is that you can avoid damage with a warrior just as easily, expect deal superior melee damage at the same time, making archery not at all beneficial for a warrior beyond the flavour elements it adds for the player.

In other words, I am arguing that in DA2 we are not losing a potential tactical strength, just a tactical variation that is useful only insfoar as useful = preference.

I think we could simply use "useful" the way it's generally used, which is "providing utility". In this sense archery is useful, period. Whether it's useful enough for your standards can be another matter, but that's not the statement i was arguing against and, for the reasons i have already stated, not one i intend to argue against.

If we are going to speak about utility, we should speak about opportunity cost. My claim is tha the opportunity cost of archery is the utility of knockback + melee, and that this opportunity cost is too high.

I'm not privy to your reasoning so i can only answer that with "huh". Given a situation i talk about involves standing in area in which traps deal significant damage to your characters, the claim that damage "is effectively zero" is rather curious, but utterly confusing.

The Zevran encounter only has the bear traps.

No, the trade-offs are the very point i'm basing this argument on. "more damage dealt but more taken vs less dealt but less taken" seems to match the idea of trade-off, to me.

But that isn't the trade off. You don't ever have to give up not taking damage, because you can avoid that damage through crowd control. This is my point.

i'm sorry, but are you intentionally being thick to just keep it going? I'm certainly not saying that "traps should factor into any situation". Instead, i'm specifically discussing these particular situations where the traps do, in fact, factor.

I'm saying these situations shouldn't factor in at all, because there are maybe 10 of them in the entire game. They are so rare as to be effectively meaningless.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Getting hit is never irrelevant.  I don't think anyone who's ever been hit could possibly hold that opinion.

Regardless of whether getting punched in the face has any lasting consequences, it's not something I want to do because I really wouldn't enjoy it.

If pain was some sort of meaningful entity in-game, that might matter. But it isn't.

And this is why we disagree.

You're playing a game.  I'm playing a character.

Why would you infer characters feel pain? The ruleset (which you take to be the reality of the gameworld) most certainly does not allow for this. In fact, we have very strong evidence characters never feel pain in combat.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That seems inconsistent with the rest
of your position.  It's something that clearly works really well, and
your character seeks maximum effectiveness.

It's a design oversight. Gameplay is gameplay, and story is story. For the purpose of gameplay, I as the player will not exploit AI. For the purpose of the story, I as the RPed character will attempt to prepare the most reasonably strong party possible. This translates into a particular orientation to gameplay, but thats it.

[Ryzaki]

O_o



So the fact that Alistair/Shale had a discussion on pain means the characters never feel pain in combat?

Those "I'm hurt!" dialogue said in injured breaths aren't pain?



The mind boggles.

[upsettingshorts]

I think he means that pain is irrelevant because health in DA:O is something of a binary system. You're either at Fully Active or Incapacitated.

Injuries as a mechanic are applied only after a character falls in combat, not during.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 14 décembre 2010 - 09:36 .

[Ryzaki]

Well yes but pain being irrevelant =/= people not feeling pain.



And injuries while applied after a character falls in combat affect a character's combat utility until the injury is healed (depending on injury).

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

How do you feel about exploits? Say, Force Field on your tank. I classify this as an exploit because the AI does not respond rationally to the situation.

I'm against them, precisely for the reasons you describe. I think catching a weak-spot in the AI is like playing the game on easy.

That seems inconsistent with the rest of your position.  It's something that clearly works really well, and your character seeks maximum effectiveness.

And hence why I said - "why not set the game to easy mode and use a cheat code for "god mode"
invulnerability, those both seem the "optimal" ways to win the game."

Either you are playing a character, and maybe your character prefers bows and/or is afraid of being in melee combat as he freezes up (story/character, not game mechanics) -
or you are trying to win the game the easiest way you can.

If the former, than any combination of stuff makes "sense" and can be "fun" - yeah, being inside of a one-way impenetrable forcefield while chucking hydrogen bombs at my enemies is the surest way to win, perhaps I'd enjoy the challenge of trying to face them on the open field, sword to sword, because it's fun and challenging.  And maybe I'm playing a character who doesn't like armor (it's too heavy and uncomfortable, or it's ugly, or only cowards need armor, or whatever) or some such.

If you are playing the latter, if you are just trying to find the easiest way to win every combat, then game exploits seem absolutely viable options.  Why not shoot a firestorm or blizzard around the wall into the room with the door closed so the enemy don't come at you - if the game allows it, why not?
Better yet, why not just use the "console" and max your stats, give your self the best equipment available in the game, and set yourself on god mode so you cannot be hurt?  And set it to easy while you are at it.  You are sure to win then - why "gimp" yourself, why put artificial restrictions on yourself like "that seems like an exploit of the game mechanics" or "I'm using player knowledge instead of character knowledge" or "the game isn't meant to be played using cheat codes" - if you can do it, and it makes it easier to win, why not?

There ARE people who do just that - cheat codes and all, full walkthrough in hand while invulnerable to harm... and they have a blast.  Just like there are people who read summaries of game stories (or tv shows, whatever) and watch specific scenes on YouTube instead of experience the whole game (or tv show or whatever) and that's how they enjoy the media.
More power to them.

But if your reasoning is "don't gimp yourself - find the most effective way to win the combat" then you are "gimping yourself" by not using easy mode and cheat codes and walkthroughs.  After all, those remove challenges, but you aren't about the challenges of self-imposed restrictions - like not playing on easy, which is a self-imposed restriction, you know?  Or not using force field on your tank - you are only stopped from doing it by your own self-imposed restriction.

---

If you cannot accept that people like challenging themselves and have fun with games outside of "here's the bestest, easiest way to win, RAHR!", then why do you expect others to accept your way of playing - especially since you seem to imply that your way is "the" way.

[In Exile]

Ryzaki wrote...

O_o

So the fact that Alistair/Shale had a discussion on pain means the characters never feel pain in combat?
Those "I'm hurt!" dialogue said in injured breaths aren't pain?

The mind boggles.

I'm picking on Sylvius a little. He tends to believe that the combat ruleset of the game dictates how the actual world works for the characters, so I'm pointing out that technically the ruleset is silent on pain, and the only way he can infer pain exists and works like it does in the real world is to make the kind of inference he says we should never make.

It's a total "you had to be there" comment.

That being said, DA:O doesn't actually handle pain at all, like Shorts mentioned.

I mean, in principle as far as the characters are concerned, they're supposed to feel pain because their world largely works like ours except when we have gameplay magic (kind of the opposite of JRPG cut-scene magic).

Ryzaki wrote...

Well yes but pain being irrevelant =/=
people not feeling pain.

Have you ever played a sport were pain is a component? Performing at even 50% capacity in pain is an outstanding achievement.

Taking several sword hits and acting as if everything was exactly the same as with no sword hits translates into making hits irrelevant.

And injuries while applied after a character falls in combat affect a
character's combat utility until the injury is healed (depending on
injury).

Not really. Even superstacked injures (I think they max out at all 9 or something) actually do little to compare to even one real source of pain, like a punch to the face.

[Ryzaki]

...I'm not even going into this because really my post wasn't overly complicated or word worthy.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote..

And hence why I said - "why not set the game to easy mode and use a cheat code for "god mode"
invulnerability, those both seem the "optimal" ways to win the game."

That's just being obtuse. Liking to min-max just has to do with a joy of playing with the numbers. It's a statistical exercise. It's not about winning the game in the fastest way; it's about taking advantage of the statistical system of the game in the most advantageous way. Whatever you're arguing against, it isn't my position.

Either you are playing a character, and maybe your character prefers bows and/or is afraid of being in melee combat as he freezes up (story/character, not game mechanics) -
or you are trying to win the game the easiest way you can.

That's a false dillema. You could (as I do) play a character that wants to win. That simple. Does the most effective thing, within the confines of reality, to win. This means stuff like using fireball over arcane bolt.

Better yet, why not just use the "console" and max your stats, give your self the best equipment available in the game, and set yourself on god mode so you cannot be hurt?  And set it to easy while you are at it.  You are sure to win then - why "gimp" yourself, why put artificial restrictions on yourself like "that seems like an exploit of the game mechanics" or "I'm using player knowledge instead of character knowledge" or "the game isn't meant to be played using cheat codes" - if you can do it, and it makes it easier to win, why not?

Are you even interested in having a serious discussion, or are you going to get increasingly more pejorative and detached?

But if your reasoning is "don't gimp yourself - find the most effective way to win the combat" then you are "gimping yourself" by not using easy mode and cheat codes and walkthroughs.  After all, those remove challenges, but you aren't about the challenges of self-imposed restrictions - like not playing on easy, which is a self-imposed restriction, you know?  Or not using force field on your tank - you are only stopped from doing it by your own self-imposed restriction.

Or, you could actually argue against the point I am making. Or not, I guess, because building strawmen is fun?

If you cannot accept that people like challenging themselves and have fun with games outside of "here's the bestest, easiest way to win, RAHR!", then why do you expect others to accept your way of playing - especially since you seem to imply that your way is "the" way.

Okay, what the hell are you talking about?

Here is what I said:

"I do admit I have a hard time understand [sic] why people would ever
choose anything other than the optimal path of doing something. "

Where do you see an implicationt his "the" way to play? Where do you see a suggestion people should play "my" way? Where do you see anything other than me expressing my feeling on the issue, which is that I have a hard time seeing why people find it more fun to do the statistical suboptimal thing?

What was the point of your rant? Who were you arguing against?

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Why would you infer characters feel pain?

They wince.  They talk about pain.

Why would you infer they don't?

The ruleset (which you take to be the reality of the gameworld) most certainly does not allow for this. In fact, we have very strong evidence characters never feel pain in combat.

No, the ruleset only requires that any pain the characters might suffer has no impact on their effectiveness.

We have strong evidence for that, but the conclusion you drew is a step too far.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It's a design oversight.

That's fair.  That's how I explain differences between the cutscenes and combat rules.  When the PC is felled by a handful of arrows in Ostagar, I dismiss that as being the game designers trying to spice up the story.  Not unlike the plainly absurd stunts we see in movies.

Gameplay is gameplay, and story is story. For the purpose of gameplay, I as the player will not exploit AI. For the purpose of the story, I as the RPed character will attempt to prepare the most reasonably strong party possible. This translates into a particular orientation to gameplay, but thats it.

How do you determine what's an exploit and what's just solid tactics?

[MerinTB]

[quote]In Exile wrote...
Okay, what the hell are you talking about?

Here is what I said:

"I do admit I have a hard time understand [sic] why people would ever
choose anything other than the optimal path of doing something. "
[/quote]

I explained several reasons why someone would want to play something other than the optimal path, as you put it, and your argument against each points circles back to "but that's not the easiest, quickest way to win the fight" (or how do you paraphrase "that just leads to drawn out combat" which is
[quote]I don't find it fun to beat self-imposed constraints, because all that
usually just amounts to aggravation (e.g. lenghty encounters). [/quote])

You continue to harp on "I want to be the best at combat" with
[quote]I mix-max exclusive from an RP standpoint. Why would my characters ever prepare themselves in some suboptimal way? That would be like modern soldiers refusing rifles or body armour. [/quote]
and "I don't want to play a character who isn't min-maxed to win the fight the quickest, most efficient way possible"
[quote]This is a numerical game. 20 dmg consistent over 4 seconds is not as much as 100 dmg at once after 4 seconds.
I
refuse to acknowledge the utility of the bow because taking into
account DPS and length of time, I think knockback + melee does more
damage.
[/quote]
and
[quote]If we are talking about the utility of something, I think we have to
talk about an optimal build. Even the most useless abilities can be fun
for a player, but that doesn't mean they aren't useless. We need some
standard that isn't the highly subjective 'it's fun for me!'.[/quote]

It has been said to you, by others, many ways why someone wouldn't play the way you do, and you've outright dismissed them -
[quote]I think we have to talk about an optimal build[/quote]
[quote]I
refuse to acknowledge the utility of the bow[/quote]
[quote]But if we use useful as 'I think it's good enough' then we're arguing
based on your idiosyncratic truism, which gets is nowehere.[/quote]

In Exile, it keeps boiling down to people giving reasons to you for why they do something, and you responding that those reasons are not compelling to you or not ones that you consider when you play the game or for whatever reason you give as you dismiss each counter-example.

They give reasons -
you say they are not viable reasons when considering (what you consider the most important metric) optimal builds-
people respond back that they find optimal builds boring and unchallenging -
and you say you don't understand them.

OK?

Got it?

I'm not NOT arguing against you-

you are DISMISSING everything ANYONE brings up that conflicts with your own views, because they are not your views.
People, other than you, place importance and value in things that you do not.

Let me repeat that -

People place importance and value in things that you do not.

That's your answer.  You don't understand - but you aren't trying to.  You are trying to take the views of others, with their own interests and values, and trying to make them match your own - and when they don't measure up, you find them incomprehensible.

Because. They. Are. Not. Your. Values.

I'm not setting up strawmen for you - I'm addressing your self-admitted inability to understand why some people don't play the way you do.
You don't understand because any reason given to you is one you don't agree with personally and therefore you deem irrelevant.

You see why you'll continue to never understand?


-----
-----

[quote]ErichHartmann wrote...
[quote]MerinTB wrote...
I
cannot understand how people have fun playing the game the "most
efficient way always" way myself.  That just seems boring... why not set
the game to easy mode and use a cheat code for "god mode"
invulnerability, those both seem the "optimal" ways to win the game. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]
[/quote]
Because
your definition of "fun" is not universal?  And figuring out the best
build is hardly cheating or god mode.  That's just silly. 
[/quote]

You do realize you are pulling that out of the context of me responding to -

[quote]In Exile wrote...
I do admit I have a hard time understand why people would ever choose anything other than the optimal path of doing something.
[/quote]

and yet you didn't call that, the mirror opposite of what I said (with what I said meant to be a parody of what he said, but I'm guessing you missed that somehow), as being "just silly" even though it's equally as unreasonable based on the whole - "it's not what I think is fun, so I don't get how people find it fun" kinda thing that is, more or less, my whole point...
the point you try making TO ME...
that one person's idea of "what is the right way to play a game" is not universal?

Mind sharing that wisdom with In Exile, as I agree with you.

Modifié par MerinTB, 14 décembre 2010 - 11:08 .

[Ziggeh]

MerinTB wrote...

and yet you didn't call that, the mirror opposite of what I said (with what I said meant to be a parody of what he said, but I'm guessing you missed that somehow), as being "just silly" even though it's equally as unreasonable

Not sure I agree that your statement was the opposite of what he said.

For example: I don't see gear decisions as choices, I see them as calculations*, and I'm not sure why I see them differently to those who see a choice.

That description of my behaviour could equally be described in In Exile's terms, albiet in a more dismissive manner.

*I might not always have enough or correct info to make an actual calculation, but generally speaking.

[MerinTB]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
and yet you didn't call that, the mirror opposite of what I said (with what I said meant to be a parody of what he said, but I'm guessing you missed that somehow), as being "just silly" even though it's equally as unreasonable

Not sure I agree that your statement was the opposite of what he said.

to be fair, he can correct me on the following interpretation
He said "I don't understand why people play the game without using the best possible options to win"
and I said "I don't understand why people have fun only chosing the best possible options to win"

That's my sentiment.  I believe, more or less, the previous was his.  They are polar opposites.  The game for him is making the most optimal build.  The game for me is having a character concept and playing that character, regardless if it is the "easiest" or "most optimal."

I guess you could say the opposite of picking the best would be picking the worst -
but I'm looking at motivation - his character concept is motivated by what makes the most effective combat build, my combat build is motivated by what best represents the character concept I come up with - those are pretty opposite gameplay theories.

[Ziggeh]

MerinTB wrote...

to be fair, he can correct me on the following interpretation
He said "I don't understand why people play the game without using the best possible options to win"
and I said "I don't understand why people have fun only chosing the best possible options to win"

That's my sentiment.  I believe, more or less, the previous was his.  They are polar opposites.  The game for him is making the most optimal build.  The game for me is having a character concept and playing that character, regardless if it is the "easiest" or "most optimal."

Fair enough, I definitely agree that's the opposing view, I was refering the god mode comment above.

[In Exile]

ETA:

I would just like to publically apologize for filling this thread with a one-sided conversation. This will be my last post in this thread.

MerinTB wrote...
I explained several reasons why someone would want to play something other than the optimal path, as you put it, and your argument against each points circles back to "but that's not the easiest, quickest way to win the fight" (or how do you paraphrase "that just leads to drawn out combat" which is

Why are you acting as if these are counterpoints? I was just expressing my feeling. I said I had a hard time wrapping my head around why people prefer to play this way. You offered to explain. You gave several explanations. Then, I expressed my view again, and I said this is why, idiosyncratically, these points are hard for me.

I was hoping, instead of this rather hostile response, to hopefully have you explain why it's fun. I thought we were having a reasonable conversation.

You continue to harp on "I want to be the best at combat" with

I mix-max exclusive from an RP standpoint. Why would my characters ever prepare themselves in some suboptimal way? That would be like modern soldiers refusing rifles or body armour.

and "I don't want to play a character who isn't min-maxed to win the fight the quickest, most efficient way possible"

No, I'm not. You said that I don't seem to understand RP. This was what you brought up:

"Ignoring the RP side of things, like WANTING a bow warrior despite what
min-max of game mechanics might say about sword DPS vs. bow DPS or
whatever..."

I just brought up that to me, min-maxing seems to be a part of RP, so I don't understand why you make the distinction that you do. I thought I was being clear on this point.

It has been said to you, by others, many ways why someone wouldn't play the way you do, and you've outright dismissed them -

That's being selective with quoting - not to mention in a different debate! As I said right here:

"But if we use useful as 'I think it's good enough' then we're
arguing based on your idiosyncratic truism, which gets is nowehere.
Obviously you think it's useful because you otherwise wouldn't do it."

I said we should use statistically optimal as a definition of useful, because it gives us an objective way of evaluating archery, which is what I thought we were doing. If what we're doing is having one guy say "I think archery is fun" and having another guy say "I think this other thing is more fun" then what's the point of talking in the first place?

You're trying to build a hostile response on my part that just isn't there.

In Exile, it keeps boiling down to people giving reasons to you for why they do something, and you responding that those reasons are not compelling to you or not ones that you consider when you play the game or for whatever reason you give as you dismiss each counter-example.

No, this is some personal interpretation you're trying to push on me. Look at the very thing I said next:

Obviously you think it's useful because you otherwise wouldn't do it.

How am I dismissing his reasons? I am explicitly granting that he has very good reasons to hold an opinion. I just pointed out that I think our debate needed an explicit standard.

So once again: do not put words into my mouth.

you are DISMISSING everything ANYONE brings up that conflicts with your own views, because they are not your views.
People, other than you, place importance and value in things that you do not.

Let me repeat that -

People place importance and value in things that you do not.

Which is never something I've denied. You keep trying to push this view on me, but that has nothing to do with what I've actually said.

That's your answer.  You don't understand - but you aren't trying to.  You are trying to take the views of others, with their own interests and values, and trying to make them match your own - and when they don't measure up, you find them incomprehensible.

This attitude exists only in your head.

I'm not setting up strawmen for you - I'm addressing your self-admitted inability to understand why some people don't play the way you do.
You don't understand because any reason given to you is one you don't agree with personally and therefore you deem irrelevant.

This only happens in your head, since I've quite clearly never said any of these things.

MerinTB wrote...
to be
fair, he can correct me on the following interpretation
He said
"I don't understand why people play the game without using the best
possible options to win"
and I said "I don't understand why people
have fun only chosing the best possible options to win"

That's my
sentiment.  I believe, more or less, the previous was his.

And this is why you continue to be wrong. I never said this! I even clarified this comment here:

That's just being obtuse. Liking to min-max just has to do with a
joy of playing with the numbers. It's a statistical exercise. It's not
about winning the game in the fastest way; it's about taking advantage
of the statistical system of the game in the most advantageous way.
Whatever you're arguing against, it isn't my position.

What more explicit a rejection of whatever fantasy person you're arguing with do you want?

Modifié par In Exile, 15 décembre 2010 - 02:24 .

[MerinTB]

Fair enough, In Exile.



As you said, we've taken up too much space in the thread as is -



I still believe that what you think you are saying (which is what you intend to say, I'm positive) is not what is coming across to people.



Much of what you say, and how you say it, continues to imply to me (and apparently to some of the people debating with you, whom you keep debating back with as if they were wrong and you were trying to correct them) that what they say is not important and they should instead consider what you say.



If every attempt I've made at paraphrasing what you have said continues to be wrong, then we are at an impasse as your words are not meaning to you what they are meaning to me. We are having a communication breakdown.



And I'll leave it at that...



not saying you are wrong, not saying you aren't arguing against me... and just wishing you would extend me the same courtesy.

[Monica83]

Nothing really new and nothing so much interesting.. I miss the true roleplay games of the past.. Planecape.. Baldur's gate saga.. Icewind dale.. Fallout 1 and 2... Im not interested in combos and button mashing... Im not interested on cinematics.. If you strip roleplay features only to add cutscenes and if you are looking of this in a RP its better you watch a DvD.. Im total aganist the direction of bioware franchising takend... In past bioware was distinct for they wat they are making game... Now its seem they want to follow the fashonist way of rpg...((rpg only of name with schematic dialogues static class short and stripped from element and customization)) this is quite disappinting see that a professional rpg make company like bioware now have the intention to make mediocre games....

This is not the bioware i know...

This is the EA/Bioware and this make me feel sad and disappinted....



Also speaking like: "Press a button and something awesome happens" or "think like a general fight like a spartan" is very very sad.....



Why move away from the old school.. why don't improve it? Because its easy to make fast money creating hype from a sequel that don't have nothing more but much more less from the original game? Why streamlize something that turn the RPG the most beatyfull games for roleplayers...



Stripping roleplay factor

Streamlize class in order to make them more static oops distinct...

Streamlize also the dialougues and kick in face who like to customize a psichological aspect of rpg

Give to companions static outfit

Add Stylish jerk animation that broke the immersion in a ipotetical dark fantasy ambientation..

Make a rushed and shorter game to sell fast and have more money "And bioware don't tell you dont rush game awakening was rushed like hell!"



Ho yes but we have:

A voice character!!!!

Explosion and cinematic cutscene!!!!

Teleporting attacks!!!!



Thats very sad....

[ErichHartmann]

^I bet a million space bucks you'll buy other action based, voiced PC RPGs next year.

[Ziggeh]

Monica83 wrote...

Why move away from the old school.. why don't improve it?

Blarg.

[Atakuma]

ErichHartmann wrote...

^I bet a million space bucks you'll buy other action based, voiced PC RPGs next year.

Like TW2

Modifié par Atakuma, 15 décembre 2010 - 06:44 .