22 réponses à ce sujet

[TheButterflyEffect]

Why the hell did the bows in DAO or DA2 not have any goddamn bowstrings? That's just so incredibly lazy it's unreal. I do archery in real life, so to me that's a colossal, major screwup and immersian killer right there.

This should be extremely obvious, but a bow would not usable at all without a string. It would be a useless chunk of wood.

Epic, epic fail, Bioware. You suck.

Modifié par TheButterflyEffect, 14 novembre 2011 - 01:02 .

[Stanley Woo]

Indeed. Animated weapons have been requested since DAO as well. I believe the thinking is that weapon animation just wasn't worth the time and effort this time around, as it would have required a lot of work for merely cosmetic benefit (ie. animated weapons have no effect on weapon stats or combat mechanics whatsoever). Perhaps this will be addressed in a future Dragon Age product, perhaps not. It depends on the available zots, the amount of work involved, and the amount of benefit. It is not an easy decision to make since, as many have said, it can (and does, for some) affect the believability of the world and engagement in the game.

[Stanley Woo]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I am sorry, Mr Woo. That does not make sense at all in 2011. Maybe a decade ago that was rocket science, but in today's games stuffed with tech to make them more realistic missing bow strings just look silly.

Just because there are many more options available for developing games today, does not necessarily make any particular feature easier, more desirable, or appropriate to put into every game. Each game is a separate product with its own budgets, available zots, and code. it is not necessarily a simple matter of hitting a big red "add weapon animations to engine" button.

Game development is not magic. Actual work is involved at every stage in the process, and for every system and feature.

[Stanley Woo]

Relix28 wrote...

*sigh* Why do people tend to take my sarkazm seriously so?

Because tone is difficult to convey in a text-only communications medium?

[Stanley Woo]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I actually remember a similar discussion that Stanley Woo took part in where I brought up something and he talked about eating and sleeping and he said -- IIRC -- that it would give little gain for something that took a bit of effort.

True. I've played games with hunger and food mechanics, and it always ended with me spending more time and effort in finding food or a safe place to rest than following the story. And that was only at the beginning of the game. At mid-game, you usually had enough money or stats to make food-finding trivial, and by endgame, those mechanics just became annoying. YMMV, of course.

But I disagreed in a way. As I said in my first sentence, it could be used to strengthen storytelling. A simple dinner scene with Leandra and Hawke where they can talk -- though some may find it boring -- would help to establish that they're still a close family.

Then after dinner Hawke could choose to warn her about Quentin. A.K.A the White Lily Killer. A.K.A the Kirkwall Killer.

Oh, there's nothing wrong with that, but you're talking about a conversation or cinematic, not a separate game mechanic. Your suggestion uses an already existing system--the conversation system, the same one used for all of the game's conversations--and would require character animation and camera tweaking, but you're right, it actually advances story and character.

A separate hunger/food/rest system that the player buys, makes or buys food for, clicks to eat/rest, and having hit points/fatigue/hunger "heal" over time (or immediately following a fade-out/fade-in) does not, in my opinion, advance story or character.

[Stanley Woo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You really didn't like the Baldur's Gate rest system?  The risk of ambush was wonderful.  The need to retreat to a safe place to do so really added to the sense of risk and, frankly, epic-ness.

At the time, yes, it was great, but back then a CRPG version of a game I played in PnP was a phenomenal concept. These days, however, my tastes have changed and I no longer find that sort of thing particularly fun. Necessary, at times, but not fun.

[Stanley Woo]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
hmm... would it be possible for the player to make food, donate it to the poor of a city if he wants to, and have that have an effect on something in the story later on?

Well, sure, most anything is possible to put into a game, but you have to weigh the pros and cons. With your latest suggestion here, you could very easily " make food, donate it to the poor of a city... and have that have an effect on something in the story later on" without ever using a hunger/food mechanic. It can all be done via a conversation screen or the kind of simple crafting system we already have in game.

Again, no separate system is needed since you can simulate the entire thing in existing systems. And that's what we do when new ideas crop up. The first thing we ask is: will it make for a better game? If so, then we would ask if it's possible to realize this idea using existing systems? If so, then we try to do that.

Want to simulate going into the sewers? Have a clickable door that starts a conversation, then do an area transition. BAM! You've just simulated door animations and climbing animations. Want to bake a cake? Have generic items and call them "recipe items." Once you have enough of them, click the "Make this recipe" button. BAM! You've just eliminated the need for special baking, mixing, and ingredient using animations, as well as the need for specific ingredient models and descriptions (yes, you'll probably still need a cake). Sure, having those actions visually displayed as you're playing is great, but if you don't have the zots or don't feel it's worth the effort, simulating the action works just as well.

[Stanley Woo]

blothulfur wrote...

You see this is why rpg's are largely becoming unsatisfactory for me, there are so many immersive elements being thrown away that the worlds no longer feel vibrant and changing. These little things that are derided as tiresome and ultimately pointless are what to me brings the gameworld alive, they offer such opportunity for good solid roleplaying as well.

Food and drink offer the chance to face privation and hardship thus adding to the trials a character endures to reach his goals while firmly anchoring him in the reality of the fantasy world. Sleep and dreams can be haunted by the antagonist, disturbed by thieves or any one of a dozen scenarios that are easily planned. Sparsity of coin and wealth can enhance the treasures that the protagonist does stumble upon thus making it all the more meaningful.

It really does depend on what kind of RPG you're looking to play. It sounds like you're more a fan of the simulation type of RPG, where you want the world and your character to simulate real life as much as possible. Others prefer more gamey types that are more action-oriented and less simulation.

The hypothetical situations you describe seem to be wanted not for the systems themselves, but for how they make you feel when you are in danger of not meeting requirements. Or they are story points that, really, are system-agnostic. The lack of food and drink being obstacles for the protagonist can be (and has been) done any number of ways, not just through lack of food. Heck, you want the protagonist to suffer through hunger or dehydration while overcoming obstacles? In this level, Otto Protagonista is hungry, explained by the opening cutscene as a time of famine and need. Because Otto is hungry like all his friends, family and neighbours, Otto has decreased stats for this level. BAM! Simulated hunger without the need for a separate system.

Want Otto to be haunted by dreams and omens? Games like Resident Evil, Silent Hill, and Fatal Frame have eerie atmospheres and use sound and music to increase fear and tension. Even Batman: Arkham Asylum was able to show dream states using creative level design, atmospheric effects and game physics, and camera effects, all without requiring a sleep/rest/dream mechanic. Want Otto's sleep to be disturbed by thieves, a damsel in distress, or a potential follower? Have Otto begin a cutscene by sleeping, then have someone run into the area. BAM! Simulated sleep. Just as movies don't show every detail of what characters do or how they move, so too can game actions be simulated to a certain extent.

Want Otto to struggle with money? Super easy! Reduce the amount of available coin and treasure in that area or jack up the prices! It doesn't necessarily have to be an entire system dedicated to that one "immersive" feature in order to appear in a game. What I've described above are just one way the things you love about simulation RPGs can be simulated in games that aren't necessarily simulation-type RPGs.

Heck, even the obvious dice-rolling and displaying of attack rolls and saving throws can be simulated or even hidden entirely! Depends on what kind of game the studio wants to make. So instead of mourning the death of the kinds of games you know you enjoy, why not check out some games which might be able to simulate those very things? The Elder Scrolls games seem to have very much of what you're looking for.

[Stanley Woo]

blothulfur wrote...

I can understand what you're saying Stanley, creative methods of informing the player rather than brute mechanics, but as an aid to immersion show is always better than tell (i.e. Sten is a much better descriptor of the Qunari than the codex entry for them). Pull off those tricks too many times and the game becomes less believable and immersive, it's the little details and the obeyances of the in game reality that create the sense of place, for me at least

As for the simulation versus story, I want both. Action is just something to endure and hopefully enjoy if it's well made and i've focused on an action oriented character, but story and setting are the meat of the matter and my impact on the plot whether defeated or victorious.

I do like the name Otto Protagonista though.

I try to come up with interesting versions of generic names to make my points seem more creative than they actually are. Shhhh, don't reveal my seekrit.

Yes, I agree that details are important and can really help with player engagement, but detail work is also really expensive for that benefit. The current discussion on characters eating is a good example. Currently, we can simulate eating with carefully edited shots and rudimentary character animation. Do we want there to be food on the utensil that disappears after it's put into the character's mouth? That requires way more work, since now you have to show the utensil entering the mouth with the food and exiting without the food. now you have to worry about utensils or the morsel of food clipping into the face, whether different model rigs will work the same way, and how to make this interesting regardless of whether it's your first time eating or the 100th time. And all this work and consideration for... well, how often are you going to pay attention to your charcter eating: once? a few times near the start of the game? The first hour? Or every single time you do it?

You want your character to chew realistically too? Okay, now we're getting into the details. Motion capture, maybe, which is expensive, then tweaking of the mocap to ensure everything looks non-freakish on any potential eater, then there's timing (how many chews, how big is the morsel of food, what does swallowing look like (oh wait, now we have to animate the neck too)), expression while eating, camera angles. And again, that's way more zots devoted to a very small, arguably necessary part of the game (assuming a DA2 type game) that most players will probably ignore after the first hour when they're already engaged/"immersed".

Not to say that details aren't important, but we will always have to weigh those benefits vs. zots.

[Stanley Woo]

TwistedComplex wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Indeed. Animated weapons have been requested since DAO as well. I believe the thinking is that weapon animation just wasn't worth the time and effort this time around.

Yeah, god forbid the art and animation team put effort into their games.

Just because they are not doing the thing YOU want them to, does not mean they are not working very hard and very creatively on what does appear in the game. We simply do not have time to implement every individual player's preferred visuals.

[Stanley Woo]

TwistedComplex wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

Just because they are not doing the thing YOU want them to

OH BOY HERE WE GO

"What YOU want, you entitled gamers"

Whoa. Stop. Let's take this back down to where you're not putting words in my mouth and getting your hackles up when your personal preferences are challenged. If you're going to get super defensive and put up your dukes every time someone disagrees with you, we're not goingt o be able to have this discussion.

All I'm saying is that it is unreasonable to believe that we don't care / are lazy / are incompetent / don't know anything just because we have chosen to put our resources somewhere different than what you would have chosen. We have millions of people representing our fanbase. Do you really believe that every single one of them likes the same things in games that you do? That each and every one of them thinks "hey, the artists didn't do visible bowstrings. They must have been slacking off"? If so, I would consider that unreasonable and don't see any way I could address that opinion.

If, however, you accept that different people will like different things about games, I think (hope, anyway) that you will see that some of these other people might have other features or details in games that they prefer. Possibly, some of these details actually appear in DA2, like some of the reactivity to DAO plots, returning characters, character models, even codex entries.

So, given those things, IF we have failed to include a detail you like but have included a detail someone else likes, our "caring" about the game or the "effort" we put into the game is still the same, but is viewed differently by you and this other person. This is what I mean by "you as an individual." Each person has their own opinion, but in a group of potentially millions of people, there are going to be many different preferences and game experiences (some people actually like the game. Bizarre, I know, them having different opinions than you!). We are going to meet some of those preferences, and we are going to fail to meet others. Neither means we don't care or don't put forth effort into our games. It just means that, this time around, we weren't able to include the thing or things that you were looking.

Just STOP. Quit trying to shift the blame onto the customer for Biowares lack of effort.

Not assigning blame, but we do tend to get at least a little defensive when accused of not caring or not putting forth any effort. We love games and we love what we do and the games we release. It doesn't mean they're perfect or that they'll please everyone, but we do work hard on them. All of us.

[Stanley Woo]

TwistedComplex wrote...

Than Bioware should have alloited more time to make the game. Bioware themselves said EA has very little to do with the game development of their games so im just going by what theyre saying

That's not always possible. While EA has very little to do with the actual development side of things, they are responsible for advertising and manufacturing, which involves cores of people in a dozen or so departments in a handful of studios all around the world. And all these people need to ramp up and take time to do their jobs. "Allotting more time" means dates slip, and that means people, departments, maybe even entire offices have to be rescheduled. In an organization as big as Electronic Arts, a department that sits idle or is double-booked can lose the company millions of dollars. And no one wants that.

In game development, decisions about release dates and "go/no go" decisions and such are among the most important decisions a company can make, and they are never made lightly. they can't be. Potentially millions of dollars are at stake.

[Stanley Woo]

AlexXIV wrote...

So by merging with EA Bioware has turned from artists to businessmen. If this isn't irony then I don't know what this word means.

No. BioWare have always been businessmen. In fact, in my time with the company, I have seen first-hand that one of the ways in which BioWare lasted so long as an independent company was due directly to the business savvy and forward thinking of the company's founders, Ray and Greg. They have always considered ways in which BioWare can survive as a company while still allowing its creators enough freedom to exercise their creativity, and made the decisions they did for the betterment (and survivability) of the company.

In order to survive, artists MUST become businessmen. Without considering the commercial concerns of their art, how will they make enough money to survive long enough to make the one project that everyone considers a true work of art? Stephen King did not write Cujo or Carrie first. Baldur's Gate II was not BioWare's first project. The iPod was not Apple's first piece of hardware. Most Hollywood hopefuls in L.A. work as servers and baristas not because the jobs are inspiration or vehicles for their art, but to make enough money to let them survive until their next project. it is not irony to not starve to death, and there is no shame in an artist being able to pay their rent month after month.

[Stanley Woo]

TheRealJayDee wrote...
Well, I just don't think anybody would have complained about having bowstrings. A bow without a string is essentialy like a sword that only consists of the hilt - it's not at all fit to be used in the intended purpose.

That's the entire thrust of the argument from "my side": bowstring are "nice to have" features, even "neat detail" features, but in my opinion, they are not "make or break an entire game" features.

The absence of bowstrings didn't bother me that much in DA:O, but in DA2 there were just too many examples of resources being put into things I did not consider neccessary or an improvement, and thus the missing bowstrings seem to become much more prominent. 

That is an entirely fair point, and in some ways I agree with you completely.

I don't think you "don't care / are lazy / are incompetent / don't know anything", but I do think that there were some heavily flawed prioritiy decisions involved in the making of DA2. Just how I see it, and I'm not primarily talking about leaving out bowstrings here.

Again, a very fair point and not one where I wil disagree with you. Where we will disagree is on precisely which "priority decisions" were flawed, which is not on-topic here and can be discussed in other threads. Thank you for your comments.

[Stanley Woo]

devSin wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

As I understand it, that honour belongs to the Gastroenterology Patient Simulator.

It's funny because they were able to actually reuse a lot of its art assets for the original Baldur's Gate. In case you were wondering why some of those textures looked like ass... it's because they were really were ass!

OH NO HE DITTINT.

You are so fired, devSin!

[Stanley Woo]

FieryDove wrote...
Cutting an RPG's development time in half is bad. EA's doesn't know this since they don't really have anyone but you folk that do rpg's so they follow the sports/sims expansion model and push something out quick. It doesn't work as we saw.

That's not how the decision-making process went, on either company's part, but more that I can not say. none of it was done out of malice, incompetence, apathy, or negligence.

[Stanley Woo]

TwistedComplex wrote...

Stanley Woo wrote...

In order to survive, artists MUST become businessmen. 

Not to the extent that Bioware has become.

Bethesda didn't compromise when it came to Skyrim. DICE didn't compromise when it came to BF3.

Since when did Bioware start giving up the little details, the things that make games immersive, and say "Well we can't have bowstrings because that would mean we can't have hair physics!!!"

ALL game companies compromise on some thing or another. Just because you don't see them or know what they are does not mean it didn't happen. Game development is all about doing the best with the resources you have at hand. For Bethesda, one of the side effects of having such an open world in their games has always been that they cannot account for every little thing that players do, so it is possible for NPCs and plots to behave in ways they did not intend. That is the "compromise" Bethesda makes. it only becomes "TEH WORST THING EVAR" when you disagree with it on the internet.

I refuse to believe that both Bioware and EA believed that you could create a worthy sequal to DA:O with the time they were given.

Then we shall have to agree to disagree.

So the next time Bioware makes a game more for profit than passion, give us a heads up. Thanks

Digs like that are somewhat rude and completely unnecesary for this conversation. thank you for your comments, and good day.

[Stanley Woo]

TeenZombie wrote...

Carrie was indeed Stephen King's first published novel.  He had sold a few short stories before that, but nothing remarkable.

I stand corrected. For some reason, though I want a horror novel fan at the time, i read the bejeebers out of Cujo, but have never seen the movie. i have seen the movie Carrie, but have not read the book.

What I worry about these days is the idea that the entire genre of western RPGs is dying, because they don't sell as well as one or two breakout FPS games.

You are more than welcome to entertain those fears, but they're the same fears our community has been discussing since 2003, when we announced Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. the game was very different from what we did before with Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights, being a console game as well as a more action-oriented RPG, and people were worried that this was going to be the trend of BioWare's future games. they felt we'd stripped out all the RPG elements, were catering to the "low-attention-span" "console kiddie" crowd, and had "betrayed" our "core fanbase" to bow to the almighty dollar. Any of that sound familiar?

I can deal with a lack of bowstrings, but everything about the marketing and presentation of DA2 was alarming.  It really felt like Bioware was warning DA:O fans, even before the game came out.  At least, that was the impression I got, from following development.  When the game came out, I wanted to love it, and eventually it has grown on me, but I still feel like it had the potential to be much more than what it was.  From the recycled areas, to the shallow side quests and badly implemented endgame, I wish there was more to it every time I play.

And that is an entirely fair comment to have. We have admitted that we did not do enough to inform our community about just how different DA2 was going to be, and we are well aware of how some of our fans interpreted our marketing messages. This is why, in the aftermath of Dragon Age II's release, we had so many developers, including david Gaider and Mike Laidlaw, coming into the forums to talk to the community and gather information. this is why I engage in so many threads and discussions, and why John Epler jumps into so many threads, and why we have continued doing so long after the initial furor has died down.

This is the main reason that arguments like BioWare not caring about the community or about making good games fall flat. Constantly talking to you guys for months, encouraging feedback, and speaking to you as openly and honestly as we can, is not the sign of a studio that doesn't care. We can't and don't promise to always agree with you or do what you want us to, but we do promise always to listen and consider what you say.

[Stanley Woo]

devSin wrote...
*snip*

Sounds like you're more interested in assigning blame to assuage your disappointment rather than engaging in actual discussion, devSin. And that's cool and everything, but we've already talked about some of the ways where we went wrong and can improve on future projects and have engaged in several multi-page threads to that effect. We're not going to grovel on request.

[Stanley Woo]

devSin wrote...
That's totally unfair.

A little unfair, maybe, but totally? i disagree.

What I say is that you can't have an open and frank discussion if you can't be open and frank. I'd very absolutely positively 100% be interested in engaging in that discussion, but I realize that it's not a discussion anybody in the company can publicly have.

This is why I always qualify "as opnely and honestly" with "as we can." While we both appear to see this as a necessity, you are still asking for a discussion that we can't have.

If you can't discuss it, then don't. But don't accuse me of simply trying to take pot-shots or castigate the team for their mistakes when I point out that there's more to the story than simply failures in marketing or community outreach (and somehow, you're able to discuss those things without feeling like you're being asked to "grovel on request").

Not discussing it at all means we are then accused of not responding to fans' concerns, not listening to the "paying customers." I really don't know where the balance is, but i'd prefer to keep the lines of communication open, hence the sometimes repetitive and evasive nature of my posts.

And my only real disappointment, since you bring it up, is that you continue to flake out on patches, and I wanted my hi-res textures for Item Pack #1. I actually enjoyed the game (as I said), probably prefer the story and gameplay over Origins, have purchased every single DLC (and will purchase any future DLC), and say in every other post I make here how I want MOAR from the team (and you clearly don't know me if you think I'd ever blame David for anything, other than fabulousness, maybe). But as far as I'm aware, this doesn't disqualify me from acknowledging the actual faults of the game.

You can't blame David Gaider for fabulousness! i've been doing that for over a decade!

And no, I'm not trying to dismiss your comments on the game or sharing your opinion. perhaps our lines were just crossed, as I was responding to the seemingly accusatory tone of comments like "I'm sorry, but this just seems to be lip service." and "If you can't even own up to it, then you're not actually here to participate, you're simply here to try to placate." So i'm sorry if I've misinterpreted.

[Stanley Woo]

devSin wrote...

I've been visiting the forums pretty regularly. I think I know most of the things that were said. And I take issue with you suggesting that it is proof that "arguments like BioWare not caring about the community or about making good games fall flat".

We have always been involved in the community, so when all these accusations of BioWare not caring come up, I am always confused as to where those opinions originate.

I know I'm being a turd about it, but I simply don't think you get to claim the high road here. Since you can't express it with words, you're going to have to do it with action, and until then, you're going to have to accept that, yes, you kind of maybe deserve some of the skepticism and some of the negative impressions.

So basically, the arguments don't fall flat, because you don't actually have anything to counter them with (or if you do you have yet to put it forth). And I don't think it's a fair discussion, because you're accepting that you're making a point, but it's based on what you know to be true, not what you're able to argue.

Sure, I have [i]way[/i more knowledge about what's going on than the community does, but I'm hardly going to hold it over people's heads to be a jerkface about it. there are things i won't say, and things that I can't say. The "proof" of BioWare's commitment to quality, its games, and its community has always been in what it does. But those who come in here to vent and rant and rave and talk to us are generally interested in the here and now. They don't want to have to wait until the next game to see how BioWare has addressed their concerns.

Look at the DLC for DA2. Both Legacy and Mark fo the Assassin addressed some of the community's concerns regarding story, level design and combat, but some people are refusing to acknowledge it because they're not going to buy those DLC. there's not really anything we can say to those folks except "we've already done it, and hope to continue to be able to." Others are going to look at the next project and still refuse to believe we've changed or addressed any concerns, so great is their antipathy towards us and reaction to DA2.

So I guess I'm not entirely certain just what it is you want from us, devSin, or whether you want anything at all. Please enlighten me, because I'm just not getting it.

[Stanley Woo]

devSin wrote...
Really? So if all I know of BioWare is DA2, you think that proof of BioWare's commitment to quality, its games, and its community is just as strong for me? Or do I have to be a lifelong customer (which I am, which is why I don't need proof) for your argument to work?

Nope. You are free to think of BioWare as "not excellent" if you wish.

You say that your commitment to excellence is what makes you excellent, but doesn't that just make it even more alarming when you fail to be excellent? Is that commitment now gone, now that you've done something less than excellent (if you're so committed to being excellent, how can you fail to be so? was it really that much of a commitment, then)?

Again, no. Just as "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy," no amount of tweaking will be able to predict just how players will accept your game. Sometimes, this discussion feels like the discussions i had with my parents when I was younger. "How could you get 98% on that test? where's the other 2%?" or "You got 100% on the last test, how come you only got 95% on this one?"

Why should it be alarming when one of our games doesn't appeal to you? Besides the obvious money spent on the game, what does it actually mean to you if one BioWare game fails to meet your expectations? Apparently, based on this latest post, devSin, it means doom and gloom and the potential... what? It means you won't buy BioWare games anymore? I have always couinseled people to do their research and make educted decisions on buying games. If BioWare games no longer meet your criteria for purchase, well then, tha'ts your decision to make, isn't it?

Is it really so hard to understand why people would be upset, and question whether you'll ever be able to come out on top again? Because if the commitment you say is there couldn't save DA2, who's to say that it should be trusted to save DA3?

That doesn't work either. You made DA2 after Origins, remember? You made the NWN OC after BG2. After BG2! Improvement today absolutely does not guarantee improvement tomorrow.

You have to be excellent. You can't just say you're excellent because you've been excellent in the past.

We can't claim to be excellent, despite a history of great games, but you can question this same "excellence" based on one game? Seems like a double standard to me.

I'm not wanting anything (well, since you asked, I do want another patch and those textures, but I'm thinking that's not exactly what you were talking about).

This entire thing was simply me not liking to see the notion that David and John participating in the forums should be all the proof we need that the community is taken seriously (I did not say I think the community isn't taken seriously or that I disagree that the criticism of BioWare not caring is dumb).

But that isn't "all the proof" you need. the very existence of the forums, our participation herein, our approachability at conventions, our "commitment to quality," and even this discussion we're having--which I would glady have with anyone face-to-face just as easily as through text--are all indications that BioWare cares more than zero about the community. I'm trying to disprove the notion that we don't care, since some folks seem to ignore all the ways with which we demonstrate that we do care.

Anyway, it's really, truly not important. You just gave me the "oh, you're one of those guys" brush off, which is how it turned into this. I am not one of those guys! I am not! I promise! :-)

I don't even know what you're referring to by "one of those guys," but I think that if we were to sit down and hash this out, we would find that we're butting heads over things on which we actually agree and that we're merely hitting each other's buttons the wrong way or inadequately articulating what we're really getting at. Aside from a few details (and maybe one giant issue), devSin, I'm not really seeing a huge disagreement between us.

[Stanley Woo]

devSin wrote...
Giant issue?

Yes, the giant issue of: if you don't hate us and still think we're cool, and will continue to do so until we prove otherwise in your estimation, what the heck are you arguing about/for? You will believe what you believe until you believe otherwise. We will continue to do what we do until we do otherwise.