765 réponses à ce sujet

[SG60]

I think the point people are trying to get across is that people come here to talk about DAII, not TW2. You say you mention other games, but you mention TW2 far more than any of them, and frankly it's getting rather irritating, like television reruns. I'm not questioning the validity of your discussions, it's simply that it gets annoying hearing it over and over and over and over and over. Part of it is the fanboys and girls always showing up to defend DAII, but constantly posting about TW2 really doesn't help the situation either.

[Anathemic]

Darkeus wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

I give up.... Again, those screen shots don't prove anything. It is not the game in motion. TW2 is not out, so it could suck, it could not. Game in motion and in play is all that counts.

And I still don't think you know what Constructive Criticism is or even want to know.

I can link you to a gameplay video or a screenshot 'in-motion' if you want.

I just think you don't want to accept that people argue Witcher 2 aspects to DA2 to help better the possibility of DA3 (or DA2 if there's some fast godly devs)

And that is where you are wrong, and I have seen plenty of BUILD gamplay videos.

Game ain't gold yet.

And no, talking about TW2 in the Dragon Age 2 forums is trolling, not constructive criticism.....

And maybe those design choices you elevate may not work out in teh final gold game?  Why in the hell would I want it in my Dragon Age 3 if TW2 sucks?  And it may, as it is not out yet.

Got it yet?

Okay here I will pull up a definition

"criticism or advice that is useful and intended to help or improve something, often with an offer of possible solutions "
-dictionary.com

"often with an offer of possible solutions" what am I doing? I'm listing possible solutions to help DA improve. How? By listing other games in the RPG genre.

Do you get it now?

[Darkeus]

Anathemic wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

I give up.... Again, those screen shots don't prove anything. It is not the game in motion. TW2 is not out, so it could suck, it could not. Game in motion and in play is all that counts.

And I still don't think you know what Constructive Criticism is or even want to know.

I can link you to a gameplay video or a screenshot 'in-motion' if you want.

I just think you don't want to accept that people argue Witcher 2 aspects to DA2 to help better the possibility of DA3 (or DA2 if there's some fast godly devs)

And that is where you are wrong, and I have seen plenty of BUILD gamplay videos.

Game ain't gold yet.

And no, talking about TW2 in the Dragon Age 2 forums is trolling, not constructive criticism.....

And maybe those design choices you elevate may not work out in teh final gold game?  Why in the hell would I want it in my Dragon Age 3 if TW2 sucks?  And it may, as it is not out yet.

Got it yet?

Okay here I will pull up a definition

"criticism or advice that is useful and intended to help or improve something, often with an offer of possible solutions "
-dictionary.com

"often with an offer of possible solutions" what am I doing? I'm listing possible solutions to help DA improve. How? By listing other games in the RPG genre.

Do you get it now?

No, that is comparison.  You can give constructive criticism without mentioning other games.  What you are doing is mentioning another game on the wrong forums.  Or, trolling at any chance you can get to mention the game you like in detriment to the game who's forum this is, Dragon Age 2.  Talk tech, talk game design, but don't compare games with teh intent to make one look better and the other to suck, especially on Dragon Age 2's forum.


Oh boy, I don't think you will get that sadly.....  Later....

[Anathemic]

Darkeus wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Darkeus wrote...

I give up.... Again, those screen shots don't prove anything. It is not the game in motion. TW2 is not out, so it could suck, it could not. Game in motion and in play is all that counts.

And I still don't think you know what Constructive Criticism is or even want to know.

I can link you to a gameplay video or a screenshot 'in-motion' if you want.

I just think you don't want to accept that people argue Witcher 2 aspects to DA2 to help better the possibility of DA3 (or DA2 if there's some fast godly devs)

And that is where you are wrong, and I have seen plenty of BUILD gamplay videos.

Game ain't gold yet.

And no, talking about TW2 in the Dragon Age 2 forums is trolling, not constructive criticism.....

And maybe those design choices you elevate may not work out in teh final gold game?  Why in the hell would I want it in my Dragon Age 3 if TW2 sucks?  And it may, as it is not out yet.

Got it yet?

Okay here I will pull up a definition

"criticism or advice that is useful and intended to help or improve something, often with an offer of possible solutions "
-dictionary.com

"often with an offer of possible solutions" what am I doing? I'm listing possible solutions to help DA improve. How? By listing other games in the RPG genre.

Do you get it now?

No, that is comparison.  You can give constructive criticism without mentioning other games.  What you are doing is mentioning another game on the wrong forums.  Or, trolling at any chance you can get to mention the game you like in detriment to the game who's forum this is, Dragon Age 2.  Talk tech, talk game design, but don't compare games with teh intent to make one look better and the other to suck, especially on Dragon Age 2's forum.


Oh boy, I don't think you will get that sadly.....  Later....

And also you can give constructive criticism with mentioning other games, both scecnarios fall under teh same category of constructive criticism

[yk_5]

Just to give some more info on the (Gamestar) review. This is what the main reviewer says in his conclusion:

Daniel Matschijewsky: "Gut Ding will Weile haben"
"Kein Zweifel, Dragon Age 2 ist ein hervorragendes Rollenspiel. Doch ich merke dem Programm durch und durch an, das es so viel besser hätte werden können, wenn sich Bioware mehr Zeit gelassen hätte. Ja, die Charaktere sind cool, aber nicht so cool wie im Vorgänger. Dasselbe gilt für die weniger epische Geschichte, die weniger abwechselungsreiche Spielwelt oder das weniger komfortable Kampfsystem. Gut, das ist Kritik auf hohem Niveau, denn Dragon Age 2 macht trotzdem enorm viel Spaß. Aber nach dem grandiosen Vorgänger hatte ich mir dann doch ein wenig mehr erhofft."

No doubt, Dragon Age 2 is an excellent RPG. But I can sense that it could have been so much better if Bioware had taken more time. Yes, the characters are cool but not as cool as in the predecessor. This also applies to the less epic story, the less diverse world, or the less comfortable combat system. Well, this is criticism on a high level, Dragon Age 2 still is a lot of fun. But after the exceptional predecessor I was hoping for a little more.

Modifié par yk_5, 22 février 2011 - 04:21 .

[AlexXIV]

yk_5 wrote...

Just to give some more info on the (Gamestar) review. This is what the main tester says in his conclusion:

Daniel Matschijewsky: "Gut Ding will Weile haben"
"Kein Zweifel, Dragon Age 2 ist ein hervorragendes Rollenspiel. Doch ich merke dem Programm durch und durch an, das es so viel besser hätte werden können, wenn sich Bioware mehr Zeit gelassen hätte. Ja, die Charaktere sind cool, aber nicht so cool wie im Vorgänger. Dasselbe gilt für die weniger epische Geschichte, die weniger abwechselungsreiche Spielwelt oder das weniger komfortable Kampfsystem. Gut, das ist Kritik auf hohem Niveau, denn Dragon Age 2 macht trotzdem enorm viel Spaß. Aber nach dem grandiosen Vorgänger hatte ich mir dann doch ein wenig mehr erhofft."

No doubt, Dragon Age 2 is an excellent RPG. But I can sense that it could have been so much better if Bioware had taken more time. Yes, the characters are cool but not as cool as in the predecessor. This also applies to the less epic story, the less diverse world, or the less comfortable combat system. Well, this is criticism on a high level, Dragon Age 2 still is a lot of fun. But after the exceptional predecessor I was hoping for a little more.

Well the devs said they have no reason to lie to us. I don't understand then how they can say that the short development time doesn't harm the quality of the game when it then does. Sorry but this is just bad because I am losing faith in the devs as such. I mean they don't have to lie, but they do. So one must wonder why. Doesn't anyone have the balls to say. 'If we'd had half a year more we could have done better.' ? I mean it's kinda obvious, but also obvious is that they would tell us the opposite.

Edit: Still a good game and all, but that's not the point. Point is I would have waited half a year longer for a better game. We are probably going to wait 2-3 years for DA3 anyway.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 février 2011 - 04:12 .

[Piecake]

AlexXIV wrote...

yk_5 wrote...

Just to give some more info on the (Gamestar) review. This is what the main tester says in his conclusion:

Daniel Matschijewsky: "Gut Ding will Weile haben"
"Kein Zweifel, Dragon Age 2 ist ein hervorragendes Rollenspiel. Doch ich merke dem Programm durch und durch an, das es so viel besser hätte werden können, wenn sich Bioware mehr Zeit gelassen hätte. Ja, die Charaktere sind cool, aber nicht so cool wie im Vorgänger. Dasselbe gilt für die weniger epische Geschichte, die weniger abwechselungsreiche Spielwelt oder das weniger komfortable Kampfsystem. Gut, das ist Kritik auf hohem Niveau, denn Dragon Age 2 macht trotzdem enorm viel Spaß. Aber nach dem grandiosen Vorgänger hatte ich mir dann doch ein wenig mehr erhofft."

No doubt, Dragon Age 2 is an excellent RPG. But I can sense that it could have been so much better if Bioware had taken more time. Yes, the characters are cool but not as cool as in the predecessor. This also applies to the less epic story, the less diverse world, or the less comfortable combat system. Well, this is criticism on a high level, Dragon Age 2 still is a lot of fun. But after the exceptional predecessor I was hoping for a little more.

Well the devs said they have no reason to lie to us. I don't understand then how they can say that the short development time doesn't harm the quality of the game when it then does. Sorry but this is just bad because I am losing faith in the devs as such. I mean they don't have to lie, but they do. So one must wonder why. Doesn't anyone have the balls to say. 'If we'd had half a year more we could have done better.' ? I mean it's kinda obvious, but also obvious is that they would tell us the opposite.

Edit: Still a good game and all, but that's not the point. Point is I would have waited half a year longer for a better game. We are probably going to wait 2-3 years for DA3 anyway.

You actually played it?  I have a feeling that he felt like it could have been better simply because he wanted to go to more different locations.  I think that is going to be a very subjective feeling since I like the idea of staying mostly in a city and seeing how that city changes over time.  If they do it well, that sounds quite fascinating to me

Personally, if the epic storyline is referring just to the whole 'save the world' aspect of DAO, then that is one thing i can do without.  I am so sick of those stories.  They just feel so derivative to me. 

[TheMadCat]

Piecake wrote...

You actually played it?  I have a feeling that he felt like it could have been better simply because he wanted to go to more different locations.  I think that is going to be a very subjective feeling since I like the idea of staying mostly in a city and seeing how that city changes over time.  If they do it well, that sounds quite fascinating to me

Personally, if the epic storyline is referring just to the whole 'save the world' aspect of DAO, then that is one thing i can do without.  I am so sick of those stories.  They just feel so derivative to me. 

Epic doesn't really equate to "save the world" though, not sure why people are bringing that up. Epic reefers to grand tales which is usually centered around an individual, can involve saving the world but there are so many more epics which aren't centered on that subject and usually focus more on the character and their specific feats (IE What DA2 is trying to accomplish). DA2 should have more of an epic feeling then Origins had seeing as the story of Origins revolved more around what was happening in the world rather and the actions of others rather then the centeral character and their feats.

Unless of course they are using epic in it's bastardized internet form, but even then that doesn't equate to "saving the world".

Modifié par TheMadCat, 22 février 2011 - 04:40 .

[AtreiyaN7]

AlexXIV wrote...

yk_5 wrote...

Just to give some more info on the (Gamestar) review. This is what the main tester says in his conclusion:

Daniel Matschijewsky: "Gut Ding will Weile haben"
"Kein Zweifel, Dragon Age 2 ist ein hervorragendes Rollenspiel. Doch ich merke dem Programm durch und durch an, das es so viel besser hätte werden können, wenn sich Bioware mehr Zeit gelassen hätte. Ja, die Charaktere sind cool, aber nicht so cool wie im Vorgänger. Dasselbe gilt für die weniger epische Geschichte, die weniger abwechselungsreiche Spielwelt oder das weniger komfortable Kampfsystem. Gut, das ist Kritik auf hohem Niveau, denn Dragon Age 2 macht trotzdem enorm viel Spaß. Aber nach dem grandiosen Vorgänger hatte ich mir dann doch ein wenig mehr erhofft."

No doubt, Dragon Age 2 is an excellent RPG. But I can sense that it could have been so much better if Bioware had taken more time. Yes, the characters are cool but not as cool as in the predecessor. This also applies to the less epic story, the less diverse world, or the less comfortable combat system. Well, this is criticism on a high level, Dragon Age 2 still is a lot of fun. But after the exceptional predecessor I was hoping for a little more.

Well the devs said they have no reason to lie to us. I don't understand then how they can say that the short development time doesn't harm the quality of the game when it then does. Sorry but this is just bad because I am losing faith in the devs as such. I mean they don't have to lie, but they do. So one must wonder why. Doesn't anyone have the balls to say. 'If we'd had half a year more we could have done better.' ? I mean it's kinda obvious, but also obvious is that they would tell us the opposite.

Edit: Still a good game and all, but that's not the point. Point is I would have waited half a year longer for a better game. We are probably going to wait 2-3 years for DA3 anyway.

He said "excellent RPG" according to the translation. Based on the translated paragraph, it seems as if the reviewer liked the game but happens to hold BW to a higher standard and expects a lot out of them. His criticisms hardly seem to have anything to do with the development time or the devs lying, but hey, you go on believing whateeeeever you want.

Oh, when Duke Nuke Em finally comes out, you let me know how all the many, many, MANY years in development limbo have worked out with that game. I've seen some games get delayed (looking at you, Peter Molyneaux), and as far as I can tell, the extra time spent doesn't necessarily result in an increase in the quality of the game. The final game in the Ultima series kind of sucked. I don't really remember how much time was spent on the development but I think it took a while; it was rather disappointing when I finally played it.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 22 février 2011 - 06:14 .

[Gatt9]

AlexXIV wrote...

yk_5 wrote...

Just to give some more info on the (Gamestar) review. This is what the main tester says in his conclusion:

Daniel Matschijewsky: "Gut Ding will Weile haben"
"Kein Zweifel, Dragon Age 2 ist ein hervorragendes Rollenspiel. Doch ich merke dem Programm durch und durch an, das es so viel besser hätte werden können, wenn sich Bioware mehr Zeit gelassen hätte. Ja, die Charaktere sind cool, aber nicht so cool wie im Vorgänger. Dasselbe gilt für die weniger epische Geschichte, die weniger abwechselungsreiche Spielwelt oder das weniger komfortable Kampfsystem. Gut, das ist Kritik auf hohem Niveau, denn Dragon Age 2 macht trotzdem enorm viel Spaß. Aber nach dem grandiosen Vorgänger hatte ich mir dann doch ein wenig mehr erhofft."

No doubt, Dragon Age 2 is an excellent RPG. But I can sense that it could have been so much better if Bioware had taken more time. Yes, the characters are cool but not as cool as in the predecessor. This also applies to the less epic story, the less diverse world, or the less comfortable combat system. Well, this is criticism on a high level, Dragon Age 2 still is a lot of fun. But after the exceptional predecessor I was hoping for a little more.

Well the devs said they have no reason to lie to us. I don't understand then how they can say that the short development time doesn't harm the quality of the game when it then does. Sorry but this is just bad because I am losing faith in the devs as such. I mean they don't have to lie, but they do. So one must wonder why. Doesn't anyone have the balls to say. 'If we'd had half a year more we could have done better.' ? I mean it's kinda obvious, but also obvious is that they would tell us the opposite.

Edit: Still a good game and all, but that's not the point. Point is I would have waited half a year longer for a better game. We are probably going to wait 2-3 years for DA3 anyway.

I can explain it to you.

Several years ago,  EA realized it had an absolutely abyssmal reputation in the industry,  consumers and insiders both felt it was "EA of Borg",  they buy you,  they assimilate you,  you cease to exist.  Further,  EA was gaining the reputation of churning out a steady stream of rushed sequels,  similiar to how they run the Need for Speed and Sports divisions.

So they went all out going on about how they'd made mistakes,  and they were turning over a new leaf.  I'm guessing they even sold that to Bioware when they bought them.

Here we are,  several years later.  What's the end result?

ME2 is rushed through development and genre-shifted from an RPG to a Shooter for no apparent reason.
DA2 is announced just weeks after DAO is released,  with a release of about a year later.
ME3 is announced for about a year after ME2.

EA hasn't changed.  It's still the same tactics.  Buy a studio,  force them to release half-baked "Mainstream!" games,  and make them release a sequel every year.  Make certain that everything is as close to a Shooter or RTS as humanly possible,  because EA doesn't do anything but the "Mainstream!" genres.

It's really obvious what's happening.  Bioware maintained a 2-3 year release cycle up until EA took over,  now it's 12 months.

Bioware won't be here in 3 years,  Assimiliation's already well under way.

[AtreiyaN7]

Gatt9 wrote...


I can explain it to you.

Several years ago,  EA realized it had an absolutely abyssmal reputation in the industry,  consumers and insiders both felt it was "EA of Borg",  they buy you,  they assimilate you,  you cease to exist.  Further,  EA was gaining the reputation of churning out a steady stream of rushed sequels,  similiar to how they run the Need for Speed and Sports divisions.

So they went all out going on about how they'd made mistakes,  and they were turning over a new leaf.  I'm guessing they even sold that to Bioware when they bought them.

Here we are,  several years later.  What's the end result?

ME2 is rushed through development and genre-shifted from an RPG to a Shooter for no apparent reason.
DA2 is announced just weeks after DAO is released,  with a release of about a year later.
ME3 is announced for about a year after ME2.

EA hasn't changed.  It's still the same tactics.  Buy a studio,  force them to release half-baked "Mainstream!" games,  and make them release a sequel every year.  Make certain that everything is as close to a Shooter or RTS as humanly possible,  because EA doesn't do anything but the "Mainstream!" genres.

It's really obvious what's happening.  Bioware maintained a 2-3 year release cycle up until EA took over,  now it's 12 months.

Bioware won't be here in 3 years,  Assimiliation's already well under way.

Yeah, thanks for repeating the same tired conspiracy theory for the ten millionth time - much appreciated.

[AllThatJazz]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...


I can explain it to you.

Several years ago,  EA realized it had an absolutely abyssmal reputation in the industry,  consumers and insiders both felt it was "EA of Borg",  they buy you,  they assimilate you,  you cease to exist.  Further,  EA was gaining the reputation of churning out a steady stream of rushed sequels,  similiar to how they run the Need for Speed and Sports divisions.

So they went all out going on about how they'd made mistakes,  and they were turning over a new leaf.  I'm guessing they even sold that to Bioware when they bought them.

Here we are,  several years later.  What's the end result?

ME2 is rushed through development and genre-shifted from an RPG to a Shooter for no apparent reason.
DA2 is announced just weeks after DAO is released,  with a release of about a year later.
ME3 is announced for about a year after ME2.

EA hasn't changed.  It's still the same tactics.  Buy a studio,  force them to release half-baked "Mainstream!" games,  and make them release a sequel every year.  Make certain that everything is as close to a Shooter or RTS as humanly possible,  because EA doesn't do anything but the "Mainstream!" genres.

It's really obvious what's happening.  Bioware maintained a 2-3 year release cycle up until EA took over,  now it's 12 months.

Bioware won't be here in 3 years,  Assimiliation's already well under way.

Yeah, thanks for repeating the same tired conspiracy theory for the ten millionth time - much appreciated.

I thought that ME2 was released in January 2010. ME3 is scheduled for release around Christmas 2011. That's almost 2 years, no? Not trying to insinuate anything positive about Evil Arts (Heaven forbid!), just sayin' that perhaps Bioware still makes some of its own decisions. Whether they're decisions you agree with is, of course, another matter.  

[Krytheos]

Gatt9 wrote...


I can explain it to you.

Several years ago,  EA realized it had an absolutely abyssmal reputation in the industry,  consumers and insiders both felt it was "EA of Borg",  they buy you,  they assimilate you,  you cease to exist.  Further,  EA was gaining the reputation of churning out a steady stream of rushed sequels,  similiar to how they run the Need for Speed and Sports divisions.

So they went all out going on about how they'd made mistakes,  and they were turning over a new leaf.  I'm guessing they even sold that to Bioware when they bought them.

Here we are,  several years later.  What's the end result?

ME2 is rushed through development and genre-shifted from an RPG to a Shooter for no apparent reason.
DA2 is announced just weeks after DAO is released,  with a release of about a year later.
ME3 is announced for about a year after ME2.

EA hasn't changed.  It's still the same tactics.  Buy a studio,  force them to release half-baked "Mainstream!" games,  and make them release a sequel every year.  Make certain that everything is as close to a Shooter or RTS as humanly possible,  because EA doesn't do anything but the "Mainstream!" genres.

It's really obvious what's happening.  Bioware maintained a 2-3 year release cycle up until EA took over,  now it's 12 months.

Bioware won't be here in 3 years,  Assimiliation's already well under way.

I know this is going to be a real shocker to you, a reeeallll shocker..but guess what? 

EA isn't so bad anymore! Gasp! Amazing! Look at that new spin on a conspiracy theory that didn't exist before! Look at how pointless this conspiracy theory is, and look at how utterly inevidencial -- doubt that's a word, but screw it I make up my own words -- such a theory holds up to! 

Seriously? It's really stopped being trendy to hate EA. You know why? Because they made mistakes in the past, no one is arguing this. However, they are no longer -as- evil as they once were. It's a little thing called 'reputation' and enough negative can get you quite a lot of less customers in a growing business that is thriving. So let us then make it to a certain pointed argument;  they haven't 'wished away' the negative reputation, but they have made -steps- to become a better company. Are these steps working? Yes. They are working towards a more posiitve reputation. 

Do you know the -real- big evil companies? Let's look at Activision, SOE. Let's look at companies that are actually not caring about their reputation and remaining as such. Let's look at companies that are always activiely -uncaring- at all about the IPs of many developers under their wing. 

SOE regularly prints out MMO's, no matter how terrible, then either try to greedily get their hands on everything, try to make more money, or what have you, out of the MMO's. They do -not- care at all. At least EA cares, even if it's just a little bit, they -do- in fact care a little more about the IPs of franchises. 

Oh yeah, and by the way. As I recall, Bioware devs have stated themselves much of what they are changing was -their- idea. Not EA's little 'grubby hands' trying to 'push them' in the right direction, but much of it was a direct result of them. 

Oh and one last thing. I'll just leave these links here. Make of them what you will. 

http://dictionary.re...owse/mainstream
http://www.answers.c...opic/mainstream
http://www.merriam-w...nary/mainstream

*inevidencial = meaning for 'without substantial evidence to support the cause with which you present your argument[s]. 

*substantial = coherent, content-intensive amounts of products or items that support your cause in such a way that makes it very likely to occur, have occured, or may occur in the future. 

*may = neutral tense, usage indicates may or may not as the form with which the term was utilized in a neutral manner, such as 'This event may or may not have occured, may or may not occur, and may or may not occur in the future.' 

[Zeppeli]

Dan_cw wrote...

You know what one of my biggest problems is with the whole thing though? Aside from the forums being a cesspit.

It's the fact that BioWare work hard to deliver the game to everyone and this is the thanks they get. And no, I'm not a BioWare fan etc. I just appreciate good games and I'd think the same for every game company out there (unless there is a reason I really shouldn't)

Basically, there's a line that needs to be drawn between constructive criticism and critiscism that serves no other purpose than to be destructive. You get what I mean anyway.

Edit: Honestly, if I were the mods, I'd feel like I'm moderating a bunch of children.

To be honest, i don't understand how an adult could write something like that.... We are speaking of a company that will sell the game for a lot of money, not a charity organization that  kindly give us games for free....

Working hard to deliver such a great game, a gift to our loyalty... A gift worth 50 bucks.... Oh my, they must be saints!:innocent:

Modifié par Zeppeli, 22 février 2011 - 10:42 .

[Dan_cw]

Zeppeli wrote...

Dan_cw wrote...

You know what one of my biggest problems is with the whole thing though? Aside from the forums being a cesspit.

It's
the fact that BioWare work hard to deliver the game to everyone and
this is the thanks they get. And no, I'm not a BioWare fan etc. I just
appreciate good games and I'd think the same for every game company out
there (unless there is a reason I really shouldn't)

Basically,
there's a line that needs to be drawn between constructive criticism and
critiscism that serves no other purpose than to be destructive. You get
what I mean anyway.

Edit: Honestly, if I were the mods, I'd feel like I'm moderating a bunch of children.

To
be honest, i don't understand how an adult could write something like
that.... We are speaking of a company that will sell the game for a lot
of money, not a charity organization that  kindly give us games for
free....

Working hard to deliver such a great game, a gift to our loyalty... A gift worth 50 bucks.... Oh my, they must be saints![smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angel.png[/smilie]

I'm 25, thankyou very much. And yeah, I'm really acting all un-adult like by saying what I did. Because other people really aren't acting childish at all and getting all worked over a game they haven't played and treating one review/opinion as gospel. Nevermind choosing one negative thing to zoom in on, when there are quite a few positives raised as well.

And don't take things I said out of context. I never said it was a gift or anything like that. What I am saying is people have so little respect for the work of others.

But hey, I was raised to have respect. I know that might be a foreign concept to a lot of people.

Edit: And yes, I do realise I could have reworded the 'work hard to deliver the game to everyone' better by changing it to 'working hard on the game to get it out on the store shelves', but I thought it would be obvious what I meant. And honestly, forgive me if I don't take the time to make everything perfect in a post on a game forum where the trolls are out in force.

If it helps make my post seem  more 'adult'ish' as well, think of it more as an opinion on the people here in general rather than something about BioWare etc.

Modifié par Dan_cw, 22 février 2011 - 11:12 .

[TonyTheBossDanza123]

Estel78 wrote...

Their conclusion: great RPG, slightly weaker than DAO

*COUGH* called it after the Gameinformer article *cough*