1044 réponses à ce sujet

[moilami]

Sharn01 wrote...

moilami wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

My first bioware game was BG, released one month after I was discharged from the military which I picked up and played on my dads PC, having moved back in with my parents for almost a year while job hunting and house finding. I think their first game was Shattered Steel in 96? I didnt have acess to any PC at that time since I was in the middle east living in a tent. Do I qualify for old school?

My first Bioware was BG too. But my first cRPG, hmm, that is very tough call. Something in C64, but what? No idea.

I don't really think you qualify for Old school xD No pun intended. Just my opinion, and it doesn't make you a bit worse person. Unless of course you have played C64, Apple II, and Amiga/Atari RPGs too.

Heh, i dont even remember my first PC game, some kind of space invaders esque game for I think the apple IIe.
Most of my gaming back then was on atari, and when the 2600 came out, woo, talk about high tech.

S!

Welcome to the Old School

[maselphie]

On topic, Penny Arcade just did a 3-comic exploration of the supplier/customer relationship. It ended most aptly with this sentiment:



"I would never say that the customer is always right, but it's tautology that the customer is a customer, and unless the carpet of your store is slick and dark with petroleum leaking from some fissure in the earth, those mother****ers coming in the door are the reason you have a door in the first ****ing place." - Tycho

[Blastback]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Okay, been skimming a bit, and I caught a post that said that Isabela will be locked in as a duel wield rogue, that we can't have her do anything else. This confirmed? We can't alter our companions from their set roles?

Its confirmed, she wont even switch to a bow when there would be no other way possible for her to even make an attack.  This is one of the features I do not support for the game, but oh well.  When I first heard they where removing archery from warriors for instance I figured it was no big deal, they could use a bow when they had no other choice but would want to jump in melee whenever possible, to find they cant even equip a bow is disheartening.

Damnit.....

Seems like they are focusing solely on progression, rather than customasation. A "yeah, you can level up, along the pre assigned paths we created" instead of were you want to take the charaters approach. 

The problem for me, is that Bioware had always struck the perfect balance in the past between having charaters with set identies and letting players have a degree of customisation.  Same with the PC's identity.  And it seems like they are moving away from that with both.

Vote with your wallet friend.  Remember, even if the changes you don't like are only incremental, one day you will wake up and Bioware will be trying to sell you a FPS, you won't remember where you've been for the last 24 hours, you'll be lying in a tub full of ice water, and your bum will be sore and you'll be wondering how you got there.  Don't support incremental changes else you'll be in a world of hurt one day... trust me.  Just sayin'.

Eh, I plan to stick around at least a while longer.  In my mind, Bioware had the perfect balance with most of their past games, and I'm sad that they seem to be leaving that, but in alot of ways, they are still better than anyone else.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I've watched Sylvius argue for his preferred type of RPG for about seven years now.

Noob.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

It's not just voice though, it's the whole cRPGs as D&D ports versus cRPGs as interactive fiction thing. But it is just a theory of mine.

That might be a fair description.  I maintain that a CRPG should always be as faithful a representation as possible
of tabletop gaming, but without the need for other people.

In Exile wrote...

And yet I continue to dissent. I don't like D&D at all, so I won't judge the game re: gameplay. But in terms of story and characters, all I see in BGII are things Bioware did better in future games.

That's not really a fair comparison.  On balance I cant honestly say that I think BG2 is better than DAO.  BG2 is bigger than DAO, but the main quest isn't any less linear, it isn't any less obvious, and exploration isn't any less constrained.

Comparing DAO to BG, on the other hand, reveals a great many differences.

See? The above is a great example.

I happen to think how BG/BGII handled this was terrible, and a feature that deserved to be cut, since there were effectively no consequences for you doing so. Reputation hits, some guards chasing you... and plot critical NPCs
replaced.

And yet, you insist that some mental states require specific actions.  if those actions are violent, and the designers didn't foresee them, then post BG2 games break your characters.

My favourite example of attackable NPCs was Shandalar in the BG expansion.  He'd appear if you happened to kill some other character with which he was associated (you'd never met Shandalar before) and magically transport you to a sort of prison island from which you had to escape.  When you did escape, and returned to see him, I think wanting him dead (he's clearly a threat to you, and he's already acted aggressively) makes perfect sense, and I attacked him immediately.

The game clearly didn't intend for you to kill him (he violates all manner of AD&D rules in the fight), but not being able to attack him would have been a dreadful character-breaking experience even for me.

In the end, he was also worth 16,000 XP, so that was nice.

In Exile wrote...

Ah, the joys of being a bored undergraduate...

One of these days I'll join the real world, and you'll miss all of my wonderful contributions to your life.

I've held a day job since before I started playing BioWare's games (I changed jobs once, but there was only a week off in-between).  I see no reason why your presence here would need to diminish unless you had to travel a lot.

Or you got a really time-consuming job.  But why do that?

In Exile wrote...

When my boss opens with "You were doing what on company time?" I'm showing him this post.

I got in trouble once (8 years ago) for hanging out in an IRC chatroom with some people I met on the EverQuest fora, but that was it.

The lesson there was: don't install software yourself, especially if it blows a big security hole in the firewall.  They really hate that.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I think Bioware's implicit position on this issue is that good criticism of DA2 will be impossible - or at least, not useful - without playing it.

I'm inclined to agree with that position.  I hope I don't stand on a soapbox and insist that the game will suck, or that some feature will makethe game bad.  I do claim that the existence of one feature will make another feature impossible, because I don't think that point gets mentioned enough.  The opportunity costs associated with the matching family appearance, for example.  But there I'm making true statements about game features, irrespective of how they work within the game.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 janvier 2011 - 05:10 .

[eyesofastorm]

Blastback wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Okay, been skimming a bit, and I caught a post that said that Isabela will be locked in as a duel wield rogue, that we can't have her do anything else. This confirmed? We can't alter our companions from their set roles?

Its confirmed, she wont even switch to a bow when there would be no other way possible for her to even make an attack.  This is one of the features I do not support for the game, but oh well.  When I first heard they where removing archery from warriors for instance I figured it was no big deal, they could use a bow when they had no other choice but would want to jump in melee whenever possible, to find they cant even equip a bow is disheartening.

Damnit.....

Seems like they are focusing solely on progression, rather than customasation. A "yeah, you can level up, along the pre assigned paths we created" instead of were you want to take the charaters approach. 

The problem for me, is that Bioware had always struck the perfect balance in the past between having charaters with set identies and letting players have a degree of customisation.  Same with the PC's identity.  And it seems like they are moving away from that with both.

Vote with your wallet friend.  Remember, even if the changes you don't like are only incremental, one day you will wake up and Bioware will be trying to sell you a FPS, you won't remember where you've been for the last 24 hours, you'll be lying in a tub full of ice water, and your bum will be sore and you'll be wondering how you got there.  Don't support incremental changes else you'll be in a world of hurt one day... trust me.  Just sayin'.

Eh, I plan to stick around at least a while longer.  In my mind, Bioware had the perfect balance with most of their past games, and I'm sad that they seem to be leaving that, but in alot of ways, they are still better than anyone else.

I see a LOT of people who have a problem with Bioware's new direction saying this and it kind of boggles my mind.  If you buy this game, you are essentially giving them your seal of approval.  There is no caveat, no asterisk next to the $60 you plop down.  And when they go to make DA3, they will only be encouraged to remove even more RPG mechanics and make the game even flashier and faster and more drool inducing... and I'm not talking about the drooling one does when they look at a fantastic specimen of the opposite sex, I'm talking about the drooling one does when their brain function drops to less than .009%.  This is what I'm talking about supporting incremental changes.  If you are going to do something, you gotta do it now before its too late.  Otherwise, it's only a matter of time until Bioware is putting out Medal of Efffect: Dragon Ops and we're all being fragged online by a bunch of foul-mouthed 13 year old who refuse to take their ritalin and mainline Mountain Dew. 

edit:  I'm getting out of here before Stan Woo tries to ghost me.  Fight the power people!  Don't let The Man keep you down.  PEACE!

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 18 janvier 2011 - 05:16 .

[moilami]

maselphie wrote...

On topic, Penny Arcade just did a 3-comic exploration of the supplier/customer relationship. It ended most aptly with this sentiment:

"I would never say that the customer is always right, but it's tautology that the customer is a customer, and unless the carpet of your store is slick and dark with petroleum leaking from some fissure in the earth, those mother****ers coming in the door are the reason you have a door in the first ****ing place." - Tycho

I totally agree and have my sympathies on devs. Isn't it awful that customers actually want to have a word to say what they want! Outrageous! Dare even complain of some game breaking bugs and major inconsistensies on story. WTF! They should just know their place and be happy with whatever crap they can get on their hands.

[AlanC9]

moilami wrote...
Anyone wanting to buy Signature Edition of DA2?

There was a thread today from someone who missed the deadline.

[Blastback]

Okay, let me put it like this. Even if they are moving away from the type of game I want, I still find Bioware's products to be possibly the best on the market. Enough of the really important features that i love are still there that yeah, I'm still a fricken loyal customer. If Bioware moved far enough away from what I want in an RPG, and some other company did it better, yes, I would likely eventually switch over, but so far, that hasn't happened.

[RohanD]

Lord Aesir wrote...

RohanD wrote...

Ok I am cool with warriors not dual wielding, further defining classes etc, but wait - you give examples of rule sets for classes and then break these immediately. Isabella is a rogue, specializing as a dualist. Since dualist is a child of the parent class - rogue, it should intrinsically inherit the abilities of a rogue, not lose some. It makes no sense.

For the benefit of focusing on a more particular and more in depth set of skills, yes it does.

You see, the problem here is that Laidlaw talks about D&D rules, makes a good case for an analogy, and then goes back on it in the same paragraph. How can she be classed as a rogue, and not be able to use a bow? Why not? Does her character depend on her dual wielding ALL THE TIME? Does she always eat from two plates at once? It's just restrictive without any benefit. If I want her to be an archer, I should be able to make her one since she is a rogue. I was already disappointed about warriors not being able to long range, but I sort of excused it from the class distinction argument...but this....ugh

What they are doing with the companions is similar to what Final Fantasy has done, and they have done so much streamlining, that their weapons system in XIII was totally broken by it. Weapons have upgrades, but you also get new weapons...which are of course a lower level than the ones you've been upgrading all game...so why use them? We also got what, 1 (or 2 can't remember) relics to equip on top of that. So basically nothing. 

I think what FF has been going for, and what Bioware is going for now, is deeper characterization. But, sadly, in the case of FF, this has resulted in poorer gameplay mechanics which have been panned by their hardcore fans, which, let's be honest, are greater in number than Bioware fans. 

XIII was the last FF I will buy on name alone. It was so bad that it completely shattered my faith in the series (I loved XII unlike many others). 

I'm not saying Bioware is going to do that with DA2, but if they continue down this road, well...Squenix has already walked it and they simply don't have the quality of games they used to. 

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That might be a fair description.  I maintain that a CRPG should always be as faithful a representation as possible
of tabletop gaming, but without the need for other people.
.

So loot should be divided up via a big simulated argument between the PC and the companions?

More seriously, it seems kind of odd to be interested in companion customization if this is your starting-point.

[MorningBird]

maselphie wrote...

On topic, Penny Arcade just did a 3-comic exploration of the supplier/customer relationship. It ended most aptly with this sentiment:

"I would never say that the customer is always right, but it's tautology that the customer is a customer, and unless the carpet of your store is slick and dark with petroleum leaking from some fissure in the earth, those mother****ers coming in the door are the reason you have a door in the first ****ing place." - Tycho

Honestly, I kind of feel as though this quote is being taken out of context.  Tycho's message is directed at retail store owner's and staff, not video game developers, and there is a difference between the two.

If you work in retail, and you outright treat your customers like garbage through rudeness, failure to help them find/obtain what they're looking for, etc... this is poor business practice, because retailers rely on customer loyalty to keep their establishments going.  That's more the theme/moral of Penny Arcade's recent blog.

You're trying to apply the same line of thinking to the merchandise on the shelves.

BioWare knows they're not going to be able to please everyone, so they gear their game towards a target audience.  That hardly equates to giving the middle finger to everyone who does choose to buy their game.

But I digress.

[moilami]

AlanC9 wrote...

moilami wrote...
Anyone wanting to buy Signature Edition of DA2?

There was a thread today from someone who missed the deadline.

Heh, it was a joke. But not without any grounds. I am not a fanboy. If I buy something it have to give some value proportional to the money I spend. I preordered DA2 but first, we have here in Finland laws which say I have absolute rights to cancel the order without any extra costs. Second, I can buy the game and take advantage of some fanboy by selling it to him. It will be business and win - win situation. Third, I can actually keep the game myself and play it, if it appears to be worth it.

Three good choises already.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Note the past tense. I liked the feature. Now, I don't; not when I know there is a feature that is so many times superior it is hard to quantify the difference.

Wait, what?  So you enjoyed something, but now you don't enjoy it because you're aware of something else you like more?

I can't even begin to wrap my head around how you define your preferences for this to be possible.

But I don't anymore. The error in your reasoning is to assume my preferences did not change.

Because I can't imagine how that could have happened.  By what criteria do you judge games if the games that once were good games are now bad games?  The games haven't changed.

That's a completely unfair characterization. First, it relies on the claim that we have not added feature. This begs the question, because it relies on your personal definition of what constitutes a feature.

Secondly, it presumes motive. One could simply not care whether one's taste impact others. This is different from being malicious.

It only presumes motive if it accepts that there's an added feature.  Without neither motive nor a feature, the most positive reasonable response would be indifference.

I'd love to know what feature you think is added by restricting each companion to a single weapon type.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I was specifically thinking about a "what is an RPG" discussion a while back when I was genuinely surprised someone who plays like you existed and you seemed to return the favor.  The discussion involved Schroedinger's cat.

Oh, right.  You think the cat exists.

Edit: Adding strikethrough to the part I would like to point out I disagree with, but don't feel like arguing about.

That's okay; it was an aside.  It wasn't material to the point I was making.

----9----- wrote...

I don't see a short term solution to claiming ownership of the game. However...

Besides buying BioWare games, make sure you buy EA stock–lots of it.

Once enough stock has been purchased, form a fan-based co-operative and elect a governing executive.

Don't think I haven't considered it.

Of course, I'd just dissolve the rest of EA and use their assets to fund BioWare.  They would then self-publish everything digitally.

eyesofastorm wrote...

I see a LOT of people who have a problem with Bioware's new direction saying this and it kind of boggles my mind.  If you buy this game, you are essentially giving them your seal of approval.

Except, the marginal impact of one customer's purchase is effectively zero.  BioWare literally does not care whether I buy the game.  On its own, it will have no effect at all on how they design DA3.

But, me not buying the game will have a significant negative impact on me, and possibly on future game development.  If I don't play the game, I don't get to see which features work and which don't (maybe the DA2 dialogue wheel is awesome - I don't know, I've never used it).  And then I won't be able to have an intelligent and well-informed discussion with them here about whether one feature worked in combination with another, or what perverse incentives it created, of anything.

Me not playing DA2 will have a strong negative effect on my ability to do exactly what it is I'm doing in this thread right now.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 janvier 2011 - 05:33 .

[eyesofastorm]

Blastback wrote...

Okay, let me put it like this. Even if they are moving away from the type of game I want, I still find Bioware's products to be possibly the best on the market. Enough of the really important features that i love are still there that yeah, I'm still a fricken loyal customer. If Bioware moved far enough away from what I want in an RPG, and some other company did it better, yes, I would likely eventually switch over, but so far, that hasn't happened.

[ninja post]

But you are missing the point.  By the time that they are making games that don't interest you, there will be 10,000 FPS gamers to replace every RPG gamer that currently loves Bioware games and they won't care that they are losing your business.  Seriously, have you seen the sales numbers for Call of Duty?  Those frikkin' games make more money than Hollywood's biggest blockbusters and Bioware wants in on that.  That's why they are heading in this new direction... they want that market, that crowd.  But to capture them, they will have to drop us like dirty rags.  There's probably nothing we can do to stop it, but I won't support a company that wants someone else's business far more than they want mine.  What everyone else does is, I guess, up to them.  IDK... maybe I love Bioware games too much.  I seem to be the only nutcase that cares this much.  

[/ninja post]

[eyesofastorm]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

I see a LOT of people who have a problem with Bioware's new direction saying this and it kind of boggles my mind.  If you buy this game, you are essentially giving them your seal of approval.

Except, the marginal impact of one customer's purchase is effectively zero.  BioWare literally does not care whether I buy the game.  On its own, it will have no effect at all on how they design DA3.

But, me not buying the game will have a significant negative impact on me, and possibly on future game development.  If I don't play the game, I don't get to see which features work and which don't (maybe the DA2 dialogue wheel is awesome - I don't know, I've never used it).  And then I won't be able to have an intelligent and well-informed discussion with them here about whether one feature worked in combination with another, or what perverse incentives it created, of anything.

Me not playing DA2 will have a strong negative effect on my ability to do exactly what it is I'm doing in this thread right now.

You don't vote in politics either I guess?  Your vote doesn't matter unless you and every like-minded person believes your vote does matter.  I have a hard time believing you don't get this concept StM.

edit:  Besides, there are multiple legal ways to play DA2 without purchasing it or at least without paying full retail release price.

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 18 janvier 2011 - 05:39 .

[Blastback]

Sylvius, it isn't a matter of the games changing, it is of a person's taste changing. I still have the same taste in games I had when I first inserted BG2. Exile does not. That simple.

eyesofastorm wrote...

Blastback wrote...

Okay,
let me put it like this. Even if they are moving away from the type of
game I want, I still find Bioware's products to be possibly the best on
the market. Enough of the really important features that i love are
still there that yeah, I'm still a fricken loyal customer. If Bioware
moved far enough away from what I want in an RPG, and some other company
did it better, yes, I would likely eventually switch over, but so far,
that hasn't happened.

[ninja post]

But you
are missing the point.  By the time that they are making games that
don't interest you, there will be 10,000 FPS gamers to replace every RPG
gamer that currently loves Bioware games and they won't care that they
are losing your business.  Seriously, have you seen the sales numbers
for Call of Duty?  Those frikkin' games make more money than Hollywood's
biggest blockbusters and Bioware wants in on that.  That's why they are
heading in this new direction... they want that market, that crowd.
 But to capture them, they will have to drop us like dirty rags.
 There's probably nothing we can do to stop it, but I won't support a
company that wants someone else's business far more than they want mine.
 What everyone else does is, I guess, up to them.  IDK... maybe I love
Bioware games too much.  I seem to be the only nutcase that cares this
much.  

[/ninja post]

Well, let me be honest, I do not see it going that far.  And again, the things that are most important to me are still there. 

Modifié par Blastback, 18 janvier 2011 - 05:40 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

So loot should be divided up via a big simulated argument between the PC and the companions?

Ideally they'd arrange it in advance.  My CRPG parties tend to operate as a sort of roving Marxist commune.

More seriously, it seems kind of odd to be interested in companion customization if this is your starting-point.

You're free to customise your characters in a tabletop game.  Though I've yet to see a sufficiently fully realised CRPG setting that allowed you to hire 12 beggars to exploit the overbearing rules.

The only characters you can't customise in a CRPG are characters played by other players (and there aren't any other players in a single-player game) and NPCs, over which you typically have no control.

So either the computer plays the part of the other players (which would be a terribly difficult design), or the computer acts as a DM and you act as all of the players.

This latter arrangment also offers you something tabletop games don't do well, which is a one-on-one game with your own game master.  Tabletop games don't do this well because the game master tends to find them boring, so they just don't happen often.

[Sharn01]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

I see a LOT of people who have a problem with Bioware's new direction saying this and it kind of boggles my mind.  If you buy this game, you are essentially giving them your seal of approval.

Except, the marginal impact of one customer's purchase is effectively zero.  BioWare literally does not care whether I buy the game.  On its own, it will have no effect at all on how they design DA3.

But, me not buying the game will have a significant negative impact on me, and possibly on future game development.  If I don't play the game, I don't get to see which features work and which don't (maybe the DA2 dialogue wheel is awesome - I don't know, I've never used it).  And then I won't be able to have an intelligent and well-informed discussion with them here about whether one feature worked in combination with another, or what perverse incentives it created, of anything.

Me not playing DA2 will have a strong negative effect on my ability to do exactly what it is I'm doing in this thread right now.

You don't vote in politics either I guess?  Your vote doesn't matter unless you and every like-minded person believes your vote does matter.  I have a hard time believing you don't get this concept StM.

edit:  Besides, there are multiple legal ways to play DA2 without purchasing it or at least without paying full retail release price.

Well, at least for the presidency, your vote really doesnt matter at all, at least mine doesnt.  I live in a state that uses the electoral college to allocate all the states votes to a single candidate, and they are not mandated to give those electoral votes to the candidate with the majority popular vote.

[David Gaider]

AlanC9 wrote...
More seriously, it seems kind of odd to be interested in companion customization if this is your starting-point.

Well, Sylvius approaches this from the point of view that he wants to play every party member as if they were his PC, including having them lead the party and take point in conversations. We haven't really done that since BG1, of course, but that's what he wants-- and each step we take away from that makes his pedantic little heart cringe.

I would argue his twisting of our words to suit his agenda, but there's no point. Most people doing that would be doing it out of narrow-minded jerkwad-ness, but Sylvius is very likely as earnest as ever, twisting himself up in his own logic until he can't see out of it. Which, in the end, means he just wants what he wants whether we're willing to make that game or not. So... more power to him, I guess.

As for the rest of the chest-beating going on in this thread, it's interesting. I don't think anyone should buy a game they're not interested in, and some people seem so certain that they'll dislike the changes that have been made I'm not sure they even would enjoy the game when they play it-- you'd need an open mind for that, whereas some of these folks will go in looking for reasons to back up their preconceptions and thus will surely find them.

Which is kinda sad, isn't it? As a reason to play a game, I mean. I hope I'm wrong on that point, and some of these folks will actually enjoy the game when they get it -- warts and all (for what game doesn't have a few?). C'est la vie!

Modifié par David Gaider, 18 janvier 2011 - 05:42 .

[Blastback]

Sharn01 wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

I see a LOT of people who have a problem with Bioware's new direction saying this and it kind of boggles my mind.  If you buy this game, you are essentially giving them your seal of approval.

Except, the marginal impact of one customer's purchase is effectively zero.  BioWare literally does not care whether I buy the game.  On its own, it will have no effect at all on how they design DA3.

But, me not buying the game will have a significant negative impact on me, and possibly on future game development.  If I don't play the game, I don't get to see which features work and which don't (maybe the DA2 dialogue wheel is awesome - I don't know, I've never used it).  And then I won't be able to have an intelligent and well-informed discussion with them here about whether one feature worked in combination with another, or what perverse incentives it created, of anything.

Me not playing DA2 will have a strong negative effect on my ability to do exactly what it is I'm doing in this thread right now.

You don't vote in politics either I guess?  Your vote doesn't matter unless you and every like-minded person believes your vote does matter.  I have a hard time believing you don't get this concept StM.

edit:  Besides, there are multiple legal ways to play DA2 without purchasing it or at least without paying full retail release price.

Well, at least for the presidency, your vote really doesnt matter at all, at least mine doesnt.  I live in a state that uses the electoral college to allocate all the states votes to a single candidate, and they are not mandated to give those electoral votes to the candidate with the majority popular vote.

Lemme guess, your state is one of those whose outcome is prettymuch predetermined?  Ditto.

[eyesofastorm]

Sharn01 wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

I see a LOT of people who have a problem with Bioware's new direction saying this and it kind of boggles my mind.  If you buy this game, you are essentially giving them your seal of approval.

Except, the marginal impact of one customer's purchase is effectively zero.  BioWare literally does not care whether I buy the game.  On its own, it will have no effect at all on how they design DA3.

But, me not buying the game will have a significant negative impact on me, and possibly on future game development.  If I don't play the game, I don't get to see which features work and which don't (maybe the DA2 dialogue wheel is awesome - I don't know, I've never used it).  And then I won't be able to have an intelligent and well-informed discussion with them here about whether one feature worked in combination with another, or what perverse incentives it created, of anything.

Me not playing DA2 will have a strong negative effect on my ability to do exactly what it is I'm doing in this thread right now.

You don't vote in politics either I guess?  Your vote doesn't matter unless you and every like-minded person believes your vote does matter.  I have a hard time believing you don't get this concept StM.

edit:  Besides, there are multiple legal ways to play DA2 without purchasing it or at least without paying full retail release price.

Well, at least for the presidency, your vote really doesnt matter at all, at least mine doesnt.  I live in a state that uses the electoral college to allocate all the states votes to a single candidate, and they are not mandated to give those electoral votes to the candidate with the majority popular vote.

I feel for you.  To my knowledge, the free market economy doesn't utilize the electoral college though.

[Alet]

JohnEpler wrote...

I mean, we'd prefer that you didn't, but if you really want to, that's cool. We'll just, you know, be over here. Crying.

So I tried to get my then-boyfriend to play DA:O awhile back, fairly convinced that he'd enjoy it because I'm thinking it's a quick jump from liking sci-fi CRPGs to fantasy CRPGs, right?  He obligingly fires up a Cousland to playthrough and immediately and before my eyes tab-skips the opening movie and all the dialogue between Bryce and Howe until the PC dialogue choices come up, where he picks randomly whichever line seems the most, I quote, "b*tchy".  Then he turns off the tutorial windows as soon as they pop up and then he whines about not knowing what to do/how to play.

I can't honestly say that I broke up with him because he played Dragon Age wrong, but . . .

Just saying, I see your tears and raise you indignant rage.

[Sylvius the Mad]

eyesofastorm wrote...

You don't vote in politics either I guess?

Not in an effort to affect who wins, no.  That would be irrational.

Your vote doesn't matter unless you and every like-minded person believes your vote does matter.  I have a hard time believing you don't get this concept StM.

One vote doesn't matter.  Thousands of votes matter, but I don't get to cast thousands of votes.

Using your phrasing: "Your vote doesn't matter unless you and every like-minded person believes your vote does matter."  Even if I accept that as true, I have no control over "like-minded persons", so it simply doesn't matter.

I do vote in elections where I'll get some enjoyment out of the process (usually federal elections), but it would be foolish of me to think my vote will make any material difference.

[Blastback]

David Gaider wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
More seriously, it seems kind of odd to be interested in companion customization if this is your starting-point.

Well, Sylvius approaches this from the point of view that he wants to play every party member as if they were his PC, including having them lead the party and take point in conversations. We haven't really done that since BG1, of course, but that's what he wants-- and each step we take away from that makes his pedantic little heart cringe.

I would argue his twisting of our words to suit his agenda, but there's no point. Most people doing that would be doing it out of narrow-minded jerkwad-ness, but Sylvius is very likely as earnest as ever, twisting himself up in his own logic until he can't see out of it. Which, in the end, means he just wants what he wants whether we're willing to make that game or not. So... more power to him, I guess.

As for the rest of the chest-beating going on in this thread, it's interesting. I don't think anyone should buy a game they're not interested in, and some people seem so certain that they'll dislike the changes that have been made I'm not sure they even would enjoy the game when they play it-- you'd need an open mind for that, whereas some of these folks will go in looking for reasons to back up their preconceptions and thus will surely find them.

Which is kinda sad, isn't it? As a reason to play a game, I mean. I hope I'm wrong on that point, and some of these folks will actually enjoy the game when they get it -- warts and all (for what game doesn't have a few?). C'est la vie!

Well, plenty of us are sure we will enjoy the game just fine, we're just worried that the changes will prevent us from enjoying it as much as we have past Bioware games.  That's my stance anyway.

[eyesofastorm]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Using your phrasing: "Your vote doesn't matter unless you and every like-minded person believes your vote does matter."  Even if I accept that as true, I have no control over "like-minded persons", so it simply doesn't matter.

You are right.  You cannot control anyone else, but to not use what little power you have and *hope* that your fellow man will do the same is far too defeatist for me... and irresponsible in my eyes.  That, to me, is perfectly rational.  Anyway, we are way off topic at this point and I have to work tomorrow.