130 réponses à ce sujet

[blazin130791]

why dont you register your game

[Kevin Lynch]

I disagree that criticisms would be in vain. It's unfortunate that it isn't a balanced review and is entirely focused on the negative, which doesn't lend itself well to getting the points across. Despite my own high praise for DA:O (i.e. one of the best RPGs in years), I could compile a list of annoyances and write a review that would be as negative, albeit shorter, as this one. Too, the tone of it, from introduction to conclusion, is deliberately insulting the reader in an attempt to draw in arguments and flames from other forum members. Of course, it's self-fulfilling. If it had been written making only the clear points of why you dislike it, it would have been more effective and useful to the community.

Really, despite your assumption that every reader is dismissive of criticisms of their favorite game, there are a lot of people (including the developers) who appreciate them as insight into what may have gone wrong and what they can improve.

Modifié par Kevin Lynch, 17 décembre 2009 - 03:45 .

[OneBadAssMother]

I could compile a list of annoyances and write a review that would be as negative

Myself included, but I guess you folks shut me up by giving me a toolset (although I'm still learning how to use it) xD



Ne ways Kevin Lynch, you have answered the OP very well.

[Inzhuna]

Thanks for your post, you have a lot of good points, and I agree with a lot of them, but still, like Casadechrisso, I still love DAO. I love it for the story and characters - and that's the only reason I buy games for, so it's great for me.

[Hatem]

I agree with some of OP's points.

Dragon Age is a great game. I gave it 9/10 but still, I can't force myself to do a second playthrough.

[Beerfish]

Another useless thread title for a stupid rant. Please all future rants actually put something indicative of one of these I hate everything rants so I can by pass them. Concise, logical analytical posts about the goods and bads of games might cause me to take a post seriously but rants of this tone (I am going to teach the game company how to do it right.) are idiotic.

[casadechrisso]

The main point is, at least for me, that a game is still more than the sum of it's failures or pros. Being objective, most points in that review make a sense, but I could make a similar list for all my favourite games really, because none of them are perfect. I could totally rip apart the Witcher, and yet the game left a lasting impression on me, mainly due to it's world design, and just like that I can agree to most of the points in this review and yet the game managed to soak me in and touched me emotionally, mainly due to the way it was presented.

A better example would be Mass Effect. If I had to sum up the story and gameplay being totally objective, it would sound like a torrent of hatred. Over-clichée plot, silly companions, horrible sidequest, major flaws in the combat and AI. However, I loved Mass Effect, it was just too nice in it's presentation and soaked me in. In the end it's just a matter of taste again, either a game grabs you or not. It's just like music, you can tear a song apart and point out what a simple A/E/G-chord song it is and that Chopin was a much smarter musician, and still, either it touches you or not. Bioware always manages to touch me, even if I can find a thousand points other games did better.

[Paromlin]

Kevin Lynch wrote...
 Too, the tone of it, from introduction to conclusion, is deliberately insulting the reader  community.
 

I'm kinda sorry you felt being insulted while you were reading it. It must have been excruciating; it's a long read, after all.
Anyway, who said this is a "review"? I have merely pointed out the things I didn't like in this game. Is this such an alien concept for you?
Should every post that includes things we dislike about the game also include things we like about the game.. just so, to counter balance the negatives? So it's more "fair" to the sensibilities of the readers? What if the positives can't counter balance the negatives in any way - qualitatively or quantitatively, from a subjective point of view of course; do you allow such an option to exist?
I believe it's more fruitful to point out the negatives of a certain project; so that these negatives can be corrected.

[Raellon]

I won't argue with(or rather, against) the horrible rule of thumb in RPGs of today that is level scaling. Turning everything easy does not equal fun in my book, and I'll wager in many, many others'. That said, I honestly never noticed(I knew it did, but it never stood out) the game scaled, at least not in such a glaring fashion as in Oblivion. While I'd really rather they took a different approach, it accounted to no loss of game enjoyment on my part, but to each their own, as they say.

As for the combat system, I have to say that this would be my number one gripe with DA:O. I like the pace and the type, but the system itself is faulty and unfinished, especially if we look at the various different classes and their talent trees. Mages are powerful, as they should be, as they were in every Bioware game, and as they are in D&D, the difference to DA:O being in that here, they can sustain this power virtually endlessly, via lyrium poultices. So instead of a fixed number of very powerful spells and abilities(D&D style), here we have unlimited, cooldown-based number of spells and abilities that put Jon Irenicus to shame.

Aside from a mage, when it comes to warriors, my prefered class, I honestly can't play anything other than a dual-wielder, due to the way sword&board and two-handed styles are implemented. I like to be involved, I like to feel I am doing something useful, and it doesn't even have to be anything major, a rogue dealing with traps that are otherwise sure to give my party trouble is enough for me. Anyhow, my own biases aside, it is a fact they gave certain playstyles a lot more thought than others, in fact, a lot more(or a lot less, depending on the perspective). Which is a shame, since they are on to something great with this hybrid turn-action system.

As for the clanky graphics, personally, I'd not give it a moment's thought. It just seems like nitpicking to me, but hey ho.

Now on to the real part...the story and the world. It's great, it's immersive and it has just enough new things to be inovative, and enough old ones to feel familiar. I like it a lot, especially the real-life references, which you seem to dislike. That is a matter of pure taste, and not in any way bad design.

But that the world could feel a bit more alive is painfully clear as you go along. We live in an age of free-roaming RPGs like Elder Scrolls and Gothic trilogy, where you are given absolute freedom and the emphasis is on exploration. That is all well and good, but I do like a story-driven RPG every once in a while, and DA:O was a god-send, really. Instanced gameplay, as Baldur's Gate saga proves in myriad of ways, can be the ultimate roleplaying experience. DA:O's Ferelden certainly has a great deal of depth, but seems to lack scope and breadth. Athkatla and Amn was not just a group of compiled Codex entries, but a living, breathing world, that one felt it has its own life, its own heart away from the main plot. Here, we see precious little of that Ferelden, even though we travel through it from south to east to west and north. Surely they had to put the main screen on the Blight, but it wouldn't hurt to give us some taste of what the culture and people are like from simple, day-to-day things, such as tavern-talk(and I don't mean those rumours you can hear from the Inkeeper in Lothering or Bodhan the Dwarf-merchant at the party camp), personal little squabbles and intrigues of common folk(generic NPCs called gossipers just don't cut it, it just reinforces the feeling it actually is all about me, as they don't even have a name). Being a hero is great, but I would first like to get to know the nation whose hero I shall become. A duel between two chasind over wounded honour in Ostagar, or a furiously upset mother running after her mischevious kid through the streets of Denerim, that sort of thing. People who are not a part to the story, or in any way quest-related, offering a scoop into the Ferelden outside the Blight, showing you what exactly it is you will be saving.

One place where they achieved this quite brilliantly is the origins themselves, and that redeems the game somewhat in this respect. Also, the Dwarf plotline and the city of Orzammar herself is really well-made, and one of the most enjoyable side-quests in the game for me was helping that dwarf-girl becoming a sage in the Circle Tower. To her, I wasn't a saviour to be admired or a villain to be avoided, I was just a surface stranger who had the means to her end.

As to the lack or want of dialogue options, well, I'd say that's a sign of good writing, if the story is intriguing enough to entice you to use your imagination, instead of simply following the dialogues without fore or after-thought. Personally, there wasn't one story-related NPC that I found lacking in personality or character. I mean, just look at the amount of threads about some of them, both of the "I hate" and "I like" kind. That is a testament to Bioware's writing ability. And the superb and complete voice-acting didn't hurt either.

In short, no, I don't agree with you that DA:O is not a good game. It is a great game that had and still has the potential to become amazing. In my considered opinion.

Modifié par Raellon, 17 décembre 2009 - 04:13 .

[Raellon]

*huff* Double post, apologies.

Modifié par Raellon, 17 décembre 2009 - 04:12 .

[Lohe]

The game is good. But I have to say, that a lot of xbox-user still waiting for support. It was announced, but nothing changed so far. Beside this and some bugs its one of the best games I ever played on my xbox, even if people saying rpgs dont have a "raison d`ètre" on consoles. I think thats just obsolete now.

[OneBadAssMother]

Not another essay, even if I read only the last sentence on ur post Raellon >.<



This game needs improvement definitely, I shouldn't have to pull out hairs while trying to fix up the 2handed death blow animations myself against ogres - a simple flaw but that flaw drives me nuts. It makes me go "oh no, not ogre", instead of "oh hell yeah, ogre! time to do a flashy killing move" everytime.



There are some stuff about the game that I didn't like but it got answered by the modding community thankfully. But I guess those without PC versions will have to go without.



But even without all this, I guess I bought it for a different reason compared to most gamers: Bioware's trademark of storytelling. That gives it a 9/10 for me despite its flaws.

[BeljoraDien]

It's strange; many of the things you say you don't like about the game are things I did like. Such as weapons and armor not making your character uber just 'cause you equip them... I mean, they're just weapons. Your character's stats should be the most important. Plus, there were many times where I just liked the look of an armor or helm better, so I was able to pick them for aesthetic reasons, without much penalty.

I played my second time through on NM and I found the scaling to be very well done. I was consistently challenged on every battle and there were times where I just had to 'back up' and try another area 'cause it was getting too thick with monsters in the lower levels.

I think they intended it to be 'fast paced', but that's personal preference too.



One thing I definitely must agree with is that DEX does seem to be overly powerful, especially now that daggers gain damage it... but it's difficult to find 'balanced' RPGs... atleast it's not an MMO. Which brings me to a point... this is just a single player game... it's not the end of the world if your character is screwed up stat-wise or wouldn't fair against some other player who also played the game. If you can beat it with a reasonable amount of challenge, then it did its job. The game is now over, you won, and the battle mechanics couldn't have been so terrible if you made it to that point.



I don't think much can be done about the dialogue choices. I mean, they are there to just give a general sense of what your character is saying. It's pointless to have many options all with the same meaning. In the Zevran example, you want to say "We're not friends" to mean "We're more than friends." when they give you that option anyway... so I mean, how many ways can you come up with to say that. "We're not friends." "I'm not your friend." "We are friends... not!" and you want them all to lead to the inevitable "We're more than friends". Just click the option and pretend you said something else.

[VanDraegon]

Personally, i am glad Bioware doesnt make their games anything like Blizzard.

[maikanix]

I agree with most of what you've said. I especially hate level scaling. It's insulting to the players, in my opinion. Part of the fun is knowing that certain areas are more difficult than others, and trying them at a lower level, etc. Level scaling is a horrible idea that only sounds good on paper. I really, really, don't know what they were thinking when the RPG makers decided to do that.



I agree that DA:O is not as good as BGII. But it is the best since. It's incomprehensible to me as to why they can't design a game as good as BGII. They have all the information. They have a formula. It's right in front of them, but they still have to make 'changes' that are never good. Change is fine, but if it's not good, it's just pointless change. Everyone praises BGII for a reason. But for some incomprehensible reason, the developers don't understand, or aren't able - or who knows what's stopping them, but I don't get it. If you can clear it up, Bioware, it would be nice



As for the lackluster dialog, well - what can you do? Since RPG's have decided to get into more voice acting, a writer can't just sit down and make five or six dialog choices like the did in BGII, and they can't have pages of lore and fascinating information like the did in Morrowind. Everything has to be voice acted, and they don't seem to want to fork out the cash/effort to actually bring it up to snuff with the plain text dialog. If it were me, I would be obsessive about that crap. But in the end it probably comes down to money. Frankly I'd prefer a text-dialog system to a voice acted one if they're not willing to give us the same level of quality.



And tot he AI. I agree as well. It's a little retarded. You also have to control every action that your followers would do - tactics are mostly a joke, or good for mode-changing/maintaining. Which is fine, it's what you do in BGII. Also, peaking of BGII, I remember messing pretty hard with the AI. Bugging it out, controlling it not because I was better, but because I knew what it would do in certain situations without fail. It's a general problem with most computer AI systems. They're all a little retarded, in whatever game you're playing. At least in RPGs.



To be honest, AI is what I'm working on in my Mod. I'm designing an encounter that, hopefully, has a much more intelligent AI. At least it's my goal, we'll see how it turns out. If it works, who knows. I might be able to apply it to the game itself and release it. AI is what I'm the most interested in as far as programming goes, if I make a career out of it.



Also I completely agree with what you said with regards to the D&D system. It worked great. The games made under the system were great. I haven't read about this guy who attacked it, but he's a moron if he really things it's bad. Maybe it's not the best, sure, but since it's worked you better be pretty confident you've got something better in mind when you change it.



I would also like a combat log, like in BGII, where I could scroll up and see what happened. I find myself guessing a lot when concrete information would be useful. I used that log in BG all the time to find out what happened, what an enemy did or what doing, etc. Maybe they didn't want us to see, but it's annoying. And a little...strange...since I'm so used to it in similar games.



You also forgot to mention the utter lack of originality when it comes to classes. Woah - rogue/fighter/mage? Really? That's you're 'new system'? >.> There isn't even NEAR the variety of class combinations, and class specializations and choices that were in BGII - even given the prestige classes (I mean specializations) that you get mostly halfway through the game, and only if you choose certain paths or dialog choices. Lame.

[Nixyss]

I think its plain to see who reads codex's and who doesn't.

I also think the OP makes some good points as many have also said as much and I am also glad he didn't say this is bad but this is good to because it would have been even longer and no one probably would have bothered to read it. More to the point I think DA is a excellent game. True it has its flaws and could be improved but so could every other game out there. As far as RPGs go I think its a amazing game. Recently I feel the well has been running dry in the modern RPG community. I am glad this game kept true to a lot of the style and length of previous, great, RPG titles. Perhaps some of these issues will be patched. Or perhaps a sequle will adress some concerns but based on the cons outlined and my personal experince with the game I could not possibly give it a bad review.

Modifié par Nixyss, 17 décembre 2009 - 04:34 .

[Aesir Rising]

Next time plaster a advisory label on the game box that reads something like: "Attention: This game is used by the designers and developers as a platform to voice their personal political, religious, and social agenda at the expense of your sense of immersion and continuity with the game world milieu." For example, I probably could have done without Morrigan's diatribe on Intelligent Design and Zevran's ****gotry. I see this as an extended example of the OP's point number 4. But either way, I would have traded the resources/development that went into such attempts at social commentary and humor for a more engaging way to unlock the Ranger specialization. I had a sense that these characters were breaking the fourth wall, if you understand what I mean, and that's only effective if it's not over-done.



For the top post criticisms... I think the level scaling implementation strikes a good balance between the "Oblivion method" and game worlds that are segmented by level or challenge ranges. I like that the level scaling is exposed (readily) through the toolset, in (iirc) difficulty.xls- making it fairly trivial for a player to create a set of custom difficulty sets that tweak the challenge scaling according to taste. Bioware may have been able to do a better job on the defaults though, since the challenge gap between Easy and Normal is quite large as compared to when going from Normal to Hard or Nightmare. Maybe smooth that curve a bit and more people would be satisfied with default scaling.



Where I think the scaling implementation fails however is in making the game world less linear. I still feel the natural progression from one area to the next is more or less forced upon the player, even though 'technically' I can travel from Ostagar origin story arc to (almost) any other point on the map. But doing anything other than Ostagar -> That town before Redcliff ->Redcliff - Brazilian Forest - > etc. is a bit like swimming against the current. I have it stuck in my head that one of several design goals for the DA scaling implementation was to eliminate that form of linearity, but I may be misremembering facts.



My complaints about spells/talents revolves primarily around just a few issues:

1) I think the Archery talent tree would have been more fun if creating an Archery-focused character didn't seem like I was gimping myself as compared with melee-focused Rogue and Warrior builds. This isn't a simple issue. I could write a thousand words on this and still not have a complete alternative design/suggestion. For the sake of this topic, I'm just going to say that I'm dissatisfied with Archery as a primary build choice.

2) Would prefer not starting out with pre-defined talents at all. Skills..maybe. But not talents.

3) Mage spells don't progress in a way that I would consider logical. I often find myself hating to take a tier 2 spell because it's not as good as the tier 1 pre-requisite spell in the same line, and I really just want to get the tier 3 spell. I also see a few tier 3 spells that I think are 'better' than tier 4 spells in the same line. It's discombobulated. I don't have a good solution, since the issue is really spell-specific, so I think there's a lot of tweaking that could be done to a fair number of spells to try to smooth out the progression curve. Perhaps move some spells around to different tiers, ensure all spells are following some baseline mana vs damage ratio where a player can expect x amount of damage for y mana, and do a bit more work on tweaking cooldowns and effect durations. For the record, I'm completely ok with mages being 'overpowered' as many claim - I want them to remain fun, explosive, dynamic, versatile depending upon how you build them. Just like I'd want to see Warrior and Rogue become more fun, explosive, dynamic, versatile than they currently seem to be.

[specter7237]

You complain about level scaling and how it makes your characters never seem powerful, then go on to rant about how overpowered your stats and abilities are. I think Bioware did a great job of keeping the game challenging throughout, while giving you new, more effective talents to deal with the increasing challenge.

I can agree with a lot of other things you said. I found many of the skills useless and wanted more options there. Some of the disables are incredibly effective and last way too long. As far as Mana Clash goes, yes it is good but it's a fourth tier talent and it should be. Even as it is, the more elite casters will still live through it but I do believe it should be made single target.  I also agree there are certain talents/weapon styles that need buffing.

The combat is chaotic but we're not sitting down for tea and scones here, we're fighting! It's supposed to be that way. I know little behind the ruleset behind the combat mechanics but I typically found it fun and engaging. Personally I loved the Deep Roads, my fav. part of the game in fact. I will agree that the differences between armor types seemed minute.

Dialogue: yes I frequently had my own responses I would've liked to give but I think there are many more good things to say about the dialogue than bad. While you hated in some instances the lack of a neutral response, I loved the fact that the game forces you to take an emotional stance sometimes. The sarcasm is there for those who want it. Don't take it if it's not you.

The World: While there are little flaws here and there, things that could be tweaked, once again I say there is much more done right about it than flaws. A couple of minor technical errors aren't unexpected and aren't enough to discount the enormous level of detail the game already has.

You would be hard pressed to find any sort of fantasy story that didn't borrow any elements from the real world. It's impossible in fact. Most of my favorite fantasy worlds take many elements from actual history and add their own flavor to it. DA does this. I honestly didn't notice the floating trees but it's good you pointed them out.

Side Quests: Lastly I will concur that the side quests are inferior to the main story, but that's what makes them side quests of course. Yes there are a few which I felt were severely lacking in quality(Ghaxkang of however it's spelled), but I enjoyed how many of them were incorporated into the primary quests. There were indeed some which I really enjoyed(Something Wicked from Alienage).

In conclusion I believe you quickly mark down every last flaw you can find while forgetting everything that's great about this game. The detailed and well-written world/characters, the engaging plot, 6 different origins allowing for lots of replayability. I think if you just relaxed a bit and didn't try to dissect everything you would find alot of the things you hate about the game actually quite enjoyable. Is the game perfect? Of course not, no game is. Is it at least a good game? IMO yes, and better!

Modifié par specter7237, 17 décembre 2009 - 04:37 .

[DarthRomance]

Yes Dragon Age is really a good game. It does not need to be destroyed like this.

[blazin130791]

Paromlin wrote...

Anyway, who said this is a "review"?

Paromlin wrote...

I have finished DA about a month ago, but wasn't in the mood to
start writing a review right away because I had (have) too much to say
about it and needed a pause from this... DA experience.
Lets start with some facts to put things into perspective.

[Kyzzo]

I was in the middle of my 4th playthrough when I decided that I'd had enough of DA:O and needed something else. Except for the 1st playthough, I'd never finished the game as the Landsmeet sorta put me off for the reasons discussed in another thread. In addition to that, I, too, had some gripes with several aspects of the game. Anyway, I went to the store and rented Divinity II:Ego Draconis. I won't write a whole review of it here. Suffice it to say, however, that after spending several hours with Ego Draconis, I ran back to DA:O in a hurry and when I started playing it again, there were tears of joy in my eyes. I'd had similar, excruciating experiences with Star Ocean:Last Hope, Fable II and Sacred II. Long story short, in my opinion, despite the fact that there's a lot of room for improvement in DA:O, overall it's still very enjoyable and no other RPG/Semi-RPG out there that I've recently tried can hold a candle to it.

[Paromlin]

Something I forgot.. who misses houses you can actually enter? Houses not just for scenery..

Raellon wrote...

I won't argue with(or rather, against) the horrible rule of thumb in RPGs of today that is level scaling. Turning everything easy does not equal fun in my book, and I'll wager in many, many others'. That said, I honestly never noticed(I knew it did, but it never stood out) the game scaled, at least not in such a glaring fashion as in Oblivion. While I'd really rather they took a different approach, it accounted to no loss of game enjoyment on my part, but to each their own, as they say. 

Yes.
But I did notice it. Everything seemed similar in power. I'd expect to have easy and hard battles. Bah. You can also notice it if you have survival that everything's around your level (+/- 1).
The biggest impact of level scaling is when you replay the game and see this wolf you fought at level 5 being as difficult now when you're level 10. It just ruins the game for me, it feels so artificial.


 

As for the combat system, I have to say that this would be my number one gripe with DA:O. I like the pace and the type, but the system itself is faulty and unfinished, especially if we look at the various different classes and their talent trees. Mages are powerful, as they should be, as they were in every Bioware game, and as they are in D&D, the difference to DA:O being in that here, they can sustain this power virtually endlessly, via lyrium poultices. So instead of a fixed number of very powerful spells and abilities(D&D style), here we have unlimited, cooldown-based number of spells and abilities that put Jon Irenicus to shame. 

Oh, I indeed forgot many things about the combat system.. such as POTIONS (which you have a limitless suply after a certain point). The OP would have been way too long though.


 

As for the clanky graphics, personally, I'd not give it a moment's thought. It just seems like nitpicking to me, but hey ho.

It's not that I find graphics bad, which I don't. I know many find them very lacking, but I have pointed out the area design skills (flying vegetation), not the actual graphical quality.


 

But that the world could feel a bit more alive is painfully clear as you go along. 

Yes.
 
***

BeljoraDien, we don't need to go to the other extreme making weapons "uber", do we? There's a middle road as well. You know, people enjoy finding loot because it improves their character.

As for Zevran and his friendship, it's not that I'm so picky regarding dialog choices, it just seemed natural to me that he'd ask an explanation. I thought that the cheesy "We are more than friends!" was not the only possible option to his heart. I was wrong. Hah, "more than friends".. it's not "more", love is a completely different thing.
After all, it's ranked under 4... Zevran is way less important than the horrible level scaling.

***

blazin(number), you got me! I used the word review. Shall we now over-anal-yze it or will I say I was wrong? I will say I was wrong, this is not a review and I missused the word. Are you a little more happy now?

[Badesumofu]

There's a lot in that OP is that flat-out wrong. You can get high tier weapons and armor at low levels. Aodh particularly comes to mind. Then, some of the complaints are just bizare - not all attributes are equally good for all classes? Huh? When is that ever the case, and more importantly, why would you want it to be?



The combat is a bit ubalanced, but bare in mind this is a single-player game. It's balanced enough for what it is, although certain spells and talents do need work.



The level scaling is mostly pretty well implemented, I think. There are certain scenarios in the game that mean some scaling is needed. It's not always possible to decide that the area you're in is too hard and go somewhere. Often, it's either not possible, or not practical, or doing so would be massively immersion-breaking and nonsenical. You never see anything like level 20 rats, or pushover Dragons. There *is* a feeling of gaining power, as some monsters just never become that powerful, no matter how high level you get.



It's only the quality of random drops that scales with your level (except for a certain armor set, and it irritates me that that set scales). Nearly all named items are fixed in power. I got Alistair to 42 armor at level 8, and let me tell you armor is not a terrible stat. He barely takes any damage at all, and it's not because of his defence rating.



Your grasp of mathematics is not quite what it could be, either. A D100 is not any more or less random than a D20. It changes the scale. As I said before, there are balance issues in this game, but they aren't nearly as bad as you make out. If you played through the game with 2 rogues and one mage, then you can hardly expect great balance. Strength isn't as bad as you make out, either. As you pointed out, it contributes a lot to damage, and indirectly to armor (which is not useless).



Imporant point: armor is not useless!!



Enemies will rarely have more AP than you have armor, which means that each point of armor youhave will reduce the damage from each hit from between 0.5 and 1. Mitigation is always important for a tank, because burst damage is what gets a tank killed. Mitigation is a more even damage reduction than avoidance, and so is crucial to preventing death. People who say armor is useless don't really understand how things work.



There is no need for an action queue. This is a fully realtime combat system. There are no combat rounds. The tactics system is your action queue, and it works better than a simple action queue as there was in kotor.



You don't like that the in game cultures are based on real world cultures. Okay... so what, they are meant to invent accents that are not based on real ones? Right. This complaint makes no sense.



This game does have flaws, balance is probably the biggest issue for me. A lot of your complaints either don't make sense, or are factually incorrect, or just demonstrate that you just don't understand certain game mechanics.



The lack of a combat log is irritating though, I'll give you that.

[Badesumofu]

Another thing: If my girlfriend told me that she didn't think of me as a friend, I'd be pretty upset. Of course we're more than friends as well, but I also think of her as a friend.

[blazin130791]

Are you a little more happy now?

you made my day, i can sleep easy now