183 réponses à ce sujet

[SeanMurphy2]

You have to remember that Bioware is not a single mind. It is a group of people who probably spent a lot of time bitterly arguing about the direction of the game.

But once the decision is made, they have to accept the decision and get on with making the game. There is no point regretting that they are not allowed to make a Bethesda style of game.


And I have seen people on other forums criticise the Bioware devs. And say "you guys are talentless, why can't you make RPGs in the style of Bethesda, Cdproject, Troika, Obsidian or some obscure independent studio."

Bioware have to be comfortable with what they do. They make games a certain way, they do it well and brings people a lot of enjoyment. It would just make them unhappy if they are constantly wishing they were someone else.

Modifié par SeanMurphy2, 26 janvier 2010 - 08:29 .

[Sacrificial Bias]

Patch the damn console versions.

That's all I'm asking.

[Spuro]

Sacrificial Bias wrote...

Patch the damn console versions.
That's all I'm asking.

I agree with this!

And I love DA:O for the fact that it isn't like Oblivion or Morrowind.  Sand-box style RPGs that has flimsy storylines or limited character developments for supposed greater interaction and choice are not my thing (probably why I much prefer JRPGs too).  So I guess if you're like the opposite of my tastes and prefer the Bethesda style RPGs, than I guess DA:O might not be the best choice.

Modifié par Spuro, 26 janvier 2010 - 09:37 .

[Erakleitos]

lummoxybez wrote...

Howdy all ...

The graphics are beautiful and the cut scenes are incredibly immersing, but that's it. I don't feel like an interactive part of the DA world, more that I am a bystander in a story that is going on around me. Whereas in BG I could wander around wherever I wanted, I feel as though I'm being railroaded down the plotline with no opportunity to find my own way. This is exactly how NWN2 felt, where I ended up hanging out with a bunch of gimpy NPCs I had absolutely no interest in travelling with (especially when I'm trying to RP an insular loner.)

I see your point but DA:O it's a story driven RPG, how could it be different?

I started the game and made an elven mage character. The system seems to be elegant and I really like the background for the elven race (so different from other RPG standard elves).

About that i don't agree too much. Elves are "bipolar" characters, they either are perfect or corrupted in some ways. Somehow they lost their perfection and now... I mean it's all black or white, i still have to see some "gray" adaptation for elves. In a way or the other, you're always quoting Lord of the Rings on elves.... Probably the only one who succeded in shaping elves in an original way is D&D with the Wild Elves.

The magic system seems to be intuitive and simple, although I don't like the fact that I can only 'hot-key' 6 spells at a time. I did get the impression that there was a lot less to the magic system than say in BG or NWN, but that's cool and not a major failing. The start of the game was immersing right up to the point I decided that I couldn't make a decision that I wanted to. So much for 'every choice will have consequences' that the game is sold on. I'm still encountering conversation scripts that will allow me to say every choice on the list with no consequences too. I even reloaded at one point and had my character say something different, only to be given the same response by the NPC - that ain't right.

Sometimes happens to have the same response from an NPC, but it's not so common as you might think. It appears also you're playing on a console... probably that's why you're not having the same immersion as most PC players seems to have. Interaction is the most important thing on a game, which means, bad interaction = bad gaming experience. Not your fault obviously... (SPOILER WARNING) About that i didn't liked the Arl Eamon chat, where he asks about your opinion on his strategy and whatever you say it will end with you following his strategy... ;p

I can't help but make comparisons with Oblivion, even if that's comparitively old by gaming standards. At least in Oblivion I could wander about wherever I wanted and enjoy the beautifully rendered graphics of the game. When given a mission/quest I could approach it however I wanted and even delay it until I was a bit tougher if necessary. I could also pick up pretty much anything I came across, and even use a lot of it, rather than only being able to interact with the sparkling boxes etc... Even Morrowind provided me with more enjoyment, and I had to play that game on the lowest graphical settings on my old PC. My only complaint about Oblivion was that it had levelled encounters which seems to be the way games are going these days.

I own both Morrowind and Oblivion and i can only say that they completely suck. Probably there is a problem in understanding game mechanisms... reading RPG i was expecting a game ala Baldur's Gate or Eye of the Beholder, but i found some kind of sandbox where everything looks desert and unfinished. I really hated both games and if you ask me i can't even remember what the story was about on those games... About levelled encounters i'm not sure about what you mean. It's a RPG, how can't they be levelled?

Anyhoo, I don't want to start a flame-war or even annoy people here, most of whom are probably from the well-loved forums I have frequented for years. I just wanted to see what other people thought about the game. Every review I've read and every friend I spoke to all rave about this game, but I'm fed up of the railroad plot and lack of choices. Maybe I was spoiled with the 'go anywhere' games like BG and NWN but I was expecting a lot more from DA.

Personally i think Bioware is A+++ in storytelling/cutscene direction, and A- in gameplay. Storytelling is indeed important, but i'd rather buy a book or go to the cinema if i want a great story. In a game, the GAMING is quite important and with all this hollywood invasion on videogames i think we're gradually missing the point. I mean, Nightmare difficulty is not nightmare at all; dungeons are too linear; some spells and abilities are pointless; loot it's not that great (most stuff you get is good only to be sold).

Allow me to say that whoever came up with the setting, background and story is doing an amazing job. I love the world, but I'm struggling to be fully immersed in it like I was in the old 2D RPGs of 10 years ago. Perhaps this isn't the game for me and I should stick to replaying old RPGs again and again.

Hmm ... I ended up agreeing with you.

[Poleaxe]

Abriael_CG wrote...

Poleaxe wrote...
I own a lot of BW games so I guess the formula works on me. However, it's starting to get old and it breaks immersion.

Personally, my "immersion" is broken more by an "empire" so small that I can spit from Anvil and hit a guard in the eye in Cheydinhal.
Seriously, you can ride from one border to the opposite one in half an hour or less. What's that, the Empire of the Vatican? 

Of course, if you quick travel it's the same thing as DA (and the BG's, IWD's). The difference is that DA has tiny levels.

Don't get me wrong- I bought DA the first day and I've played it twice. But neither it or BW are perfect and I would love to see a little (little) Bethesda in my BW in the future.

[Wompoo]

You could accept godhood in BG2 as a Bhaal spawn (your birthright, it did not make you evil, your alignment could of been Lawful Good). The biggest issue with DAO is you don't feel like a hero (even the ending/s are rather bland) for me anyway. You have Duncan essentially forcing you to drink poison at the point of a dagger, your rights are striped away from you right there and then. The story does not make you feel heroic, it does not bind you to the game world in any meaningful way. The villains "the Archdemon" and "Lohgain"... neither felt evil, and feel well short of building up any hatred... yea Duncan dies yea happy as there. The story feels soft and a little lack luster. Companions feel more like accessory options and offered little character development (granted some of them had great one liners, but that does not cut it). I liked the game, still do, but it is not a great game, not by a long shot. For a dark dramatic erm "Heroic" fantasy it is not, not at all for me. The game world graphics also feel a little on the primitive side. Hopefully the expansion focuses more on my character development within the setting and has a truly dramatic story line. 7.5/10

Modifié par Wompoo, 26 janvier 2010 - 01:16 .

[Peeker2009]

Erakleitos wrote...

... About levelled encounters i'm not sure about what you mean. It's a RPG, how can't they be levelled?

I'm assuming that you aren't limiting "RPG" to story-driven games, but are also including more open enviornment games: Sandbox, if you like, though that term is beginning to annoy me as I get the feeling it was made up by people who don't like that style. Sandbox=meaningless.

Anyway, in a story driven game like DA:O, the character follows a more or less intended path through the game world. Therefore a certain amount of monster leveling is required or else it will sometimes become impossible to finish the game. If you fall in battle you can be pretty sure that if you play it right, you will be able to triumph, assuming you have decent gear and a grasp of battle tactics. DA:O has a limited levelng system, and players can bite off more than they can chew, by going to some areas too soon, but most of the time foes are within a few levels of the player character.

In a more open game environment like Gothic, you can come across monsters that will simply tear your head off if you are not powerful enough. You might try again but quickly realise that this brute is out of your league...for now. In this kind of game, you would reload and walk, or run, in the opposite direction. Or you can "die", and wake up somwhere else (respawn). Of course, npcs or signage in the game can give you some kind of warning first: "Don't go down there, there's Fire Giant who just mangled a whole party of veterans".

To many people, Oblivion was a let down because even though it wasn't story driven, it did have monster lvling. Therefore,  you could beat most if not all monsters no matter what level you were, and this removed much of the challenge. Personally, I think I enjoy game play a bit more when there's no monster leveling. Ah the sweet taste of revenge when you bring that giant down to size

But it's horses for courses of courses :happy:

Modifié par Peeker2009, 26 janvier 2010 - 01:31 .

[Erakleitos]

Peeker2009 wrote...

Erakleitos wrote...

... About levelled encounters i'm not sure about what you mean. It's a RPG, how can't they be levelled?

I'm assuming that you aren't limiting "RPG" to story-driven games, but are also including more open enviornment games: Sandbox, if you like, though that term is beginning to annoy me as I get the feeling it was made up by people who don't like that style. Sandbox=meaningless.

Now that you ask, to me only RPG and point-and-click Adventures are, or can be, story driven games. I can't imagine a story driven RTS for instance, even if Westwood or Blizzard tried to do so (Who was really paying attention to the story while playing Warcraft III, Command & Conquer or Starcraft?). Not to mention FPS. Do you recall without going on the web the story behind Doom or Halo? Some kind of games are much more naturally inclined to become stories. But maybe this is my personal understanding, not that i'm saying it's universal.

To many people, Oblivion was a let down because even though it wasn't story driven, it did have monster lvling. Therefore,  you could beat most if not all monsters no matter what level you were, and this removed much of the challenge. Personally, I think I enjoy game play a bit more when there's no monster leveling. Ah the sweet taste of revenge when you bring that giant down to size.

Agree. After the initial 5 levels, everything seemed so easy...

[melkathi]

Erakleitos wrote...

(Who was really paying attention to the story while playing Warcraft III, Command & Conquer or Starcraft?)

Sadly, I was.
My friends had dropped by to see the game... the only comment they had on the game afterwards was "Nooo don't wake the druids! Anything but the druids!"

Though as RTS games go, Battle Realms did a very nice attempt at adding meaningful choices.

[Llane Lightbringer]

lummoxybez wrote...

I'm still in Ostagar, so I do have to formulate a proper opinion of the game by playing a lot more. I just made the assumption that the first couple of hours of game-play would be a fairly typical gaming experience for said game.
I'll report back in a few days with a revised opinion.

Alright.

Hope you will report back with your thoughts on the game once you've passed it. You should find it much more to your liking at that point, allthough it obviously doesn't come close to Oblivion in it's open world sandbox-ish style.

[Valmy]

Erakleitos wrote...
Personally i think Bioware is A+++ in storytelling/cutscene direction, and A- in gameplay. Storytelling is indeed important, but i'd rather buy a book or go to the cinema if i want a great story. In a game, the GAMING is quite important and with all this hollywood invasion on videogames i think we're gradually missing the point. I mean, Nightmare difficulty is not nightmare at all; dungeons are too linear; some spells and abilities are pointless; loot it's not that great (most stuff you get is good only to be sold).

Two things first I would much rather get a great story from a game than a book or cinema.  I mean it is not even close.  The more interactive the story is the more powerful it is.

Secondly I do agree that gameplay is more important but you know tons of people find Dragon Age way too hard even on normal mode.  It is hard to strike a balance to make everybody happy.  I do not think it is the hollywood thing that is causing these problems because they have ALWAYS existed in CRPGs.  Dungeons have always been pretty linear and in any case most gamers like me are going to explore the entire dungeon anyway.  I do think that Obsidian and Black Isle were better on the gameplay front but their games had their own problems (with the caveat I never played NWN2 which seems pretty unpopular).

[Erakleitos]

Valmy wrote...

Erakleitos wrote...
Personally i think Bioware is A+++ in storytelling/cutscene direction, and A- in gameplay. Storytelling is indeed important, but i'd rather buy a book or go to the cinema if i want a great story. In a game, the GAMING is quite important and with all this hollywood invasion on videogames i think we're gradually missing the point. I mean, Nightmare difficulty is not nightmare at all; dungeons are too linear; some spells and abilities are pointless; loot it's not that great (most stuff you get is good only to be sold).

Two things first I would much rather get a great story from a game than a book or cinema.  I mean it is not even close.  The more interactive the story is the more powerful it is.

Sorry but there are books that changed my life (dostoevskij) and movies that changed my life (bergman). The only game that changed my life so far was World of Warcraft... meaning that i was a normal person before WoW (luckily it lasted only few months) ehehe

Secondly I do agree that gameplay is more important but you know tons of people find Dragon Age way too hard even on normal mode.  It is hard to strike a balance to make everybody happy.  I do not think it is the hollywood thing that is causing these problems because they have ALWAYS existed in CRPGs.  Dungeons have always been pretty linear and in any case most gamers like me are going to explore the entire dungeon anyway.  I do think that Obsidian and Black Isle were better on the gameplay front but their games had their own problems (with the caveat I never played NWN2 which seems pretty unpopular).

They can always go and play Wii Sports eheh

Personally i liked more NWN2 than NWN. Mostly because i wanted a party to play with. But i'm a weird gamer, i mean, i play games because i enjoy the mechanics and complexity, not because i want to dream about me in a shiny armor whacking at ogres.

Anyways what i meant with "hollywood invasion" is that games, most games not only Bioware ones, are paying too much attention to the story than the game itself. That's why a laughable hardware console with "childish" games like the Wii was a worldwide success, liked by both hardcore gamers than casual gamers and by my grandma aswell Because in Wii games you actually simply play a game, which is what you are supposed to do with a gaming console... you don't watch at some sort of interactive movie with some combat attached...

Anyways that's not the case of DA:O anyways, i said A+++ and A-, meaning that i like the game a lot even in this form, but it's far from perfection.

[TyroneTasty]

I don't understand how everyone looks at the origins and Ostagar as a throw away tutorial section, as if nothing important happens in those opening hours. Yeah, it's introducing you to game concepts slowly, just as any competently designed game does, but oh so much more is going on in those few hours.

The sex scenes are a joke but they did at least try, but failed .They should of went with rating 18+ and gone all the way or at least gave the option Its like at the start they had balls but lost them on the way. All the issues the game has is all thats really wrong with it , Well that and EA.. IMO

Couldn't agree more. How come Infinity Ward can have the option at the beginning of the game that is essentially, "Do you want to massacre civilians in an airport for fun?" while we can't have the option, "Do you want to see nipples? Are you a prude? How did you buy this game and yet you are uncomfortable seeing bare breasts? Forget this option, we're showing you breasts, it's time for games and gamers to grow up."

Any parent who is up in arms about their 18+ year old son buying a game with bare breasts in it have much bigger problems to worry about. Like getting their son to move out of the house.

Modifié par TyroneTasty, 26 janvier 2010 - 04:14 .

[Glorfindel7]

OB style gamers would love to have the dots of world in DA:O actually connected by, well, more world.



DA:O style gamers apparently want each of the hundreds of locations in OB to be as beautiful, detailed and scripted as in DA:O. So would we all; not going to happen. Add SI, the DLCs and FCOM and many of them do get significantly upgraded - but not to the quality of a DA:O area.



OB gamers want the freedom to do what they feel like and create their own story; DA:O gamers want to be immersed in the game plot/storyline. The character interaction in DA:O is really good and is an element that simply does not exist in the TES universe. If you love that, you won't like OB.



The two styles are largely incompatible and many gamers will love one style and hate the other. Being human, they will make the 'natural' assumption that the one they like is the much superior game. OB fans are never going to get the freedom they like in a BW style game which does not mean that we can't thoroughly enjoy a really well made game like DA:O.



As for 'size matters', anyone complaining about the size of the Imperial Province in defense of DA:O is delusional. It takes me 30 secs to get from Denerim to Orzammar. At 4 mph (very fast for someone wearing heavy armor in a land that has no horses), that is about 180 feet. Same to Brecillian. Talk about expansive realms! Wow! If you are going to throw stones at another game, try to make sure that you're not doing it from inside your own glass house. BTW, this criticism of OB is fine with me; I thought the land was too small as well but the criticism coming from the connect the small dots world of DA:O is laughable.

[Shallina]

OP I didn't enjoy this game as well. Felt the same thing as you. LOVED ME1 and some other recent games. So th eproblem lies with DAO for me

[Pious_Augustus]

Mentant98 wrote...

Try The Witcher.

Fantastic game which I'm playing right now. It's dark/adult in a manner that BW has never achieved. The writing is better (with all due respect), yet you don't feel like you're on rails to the extent that you do in DA. Also, as BW has gotten bigger their games have become more accomidating of the Lowest Common Denominator. The Witcher is oldschool in that it doesn't assume you're a moron.

I heartily agree.  After finishing DA:O (which I enjoyed, FWIW), I picked up a copy of the Witcher, and have to say that I'm enjoying it far more.  It feels darker, certainly more adult.  The protagonist feels much more real than the Hero in DA:O; he keeps his interests always close at heart, its the rare encounter or mission where there is no option to demand payment for completing your contract; the world itself feels much more real and alive; the alchemy crafting system is engaging.  One word of caution, the game was far too easy on normal, but I'm enjoying a second playthrough on Hard much more as you NEED to use alchemy to survive, which makes a great deal of sense.

Give DA:O a fair shake, but if it does not satisfy its worth giving the Witcher a shot.

The Witcher Adverised on it's box it was Games for Windows Live and it would support the 360 controller and of course this is one of the few games that use the GFWL and falsely claim it supports something it does not.

[Mentant98]

The Witcher Adverised on it's box it was Games for Windows Live and it would support the 360 controller and of course this is one of the few games that use the GFWL and falsely claim it supports something it does not.

Oh. Ok.  I don't have a 360 controller and Windows Live means nothing to me either.  I still enjoyed the game and would recommend it.

[Abriael_CG]

Poleaxe wrote...
Of course, if you quick travel it's the same thing as DA (and the BG's, IWD's). The difference is that DA has tiny levels.

Actually DA's dungeons are much bigger and more fleshed out than Oblivion's. Those are really tiny, have extremely generic encounters, and no detail to speak of.

Don't get me wrong- I bought DA the first day and I've played it twice. But neither it or BW are perfect and I would love to see a little (little) Bethesda in my BW in the future

Given how absolutely abysmal Bethesda's stories are, i'd rather see the opposite. A LOT of Bioware in Bethesda in the future. And I'd rather avoid bethesda influencing Bioware at all.


And to the ones ranting that Bioware should have gone with an Adult Only rating to put in full fledged sex scenes, don't be silly. You obviously have no idea what kind of distribution problems an AO rated game meets. It's simply NOT doable to release an AAA game as AO rated.
It will never happen, so give it a rest. If you dislike the sex scenes so much, you know you can skip them?

[bconk55]

Abriael_CG wrote...

Also as someone already told you thinking that "every choice will have a consequence" means "every choice is allowed" seem to show some serious understanding problems.

True, but it sounded like two seperate ideas about a similar issue to me. There are definitely situations that arise that lack very obvious and logical responses, which pulls you out of the story as you try to decide what the best choice is amongst the flawed choices provided. It doesn't happen in every encounter, but it happens often enough, especially compared to other Bioware games.

As for "every choice will have a consequence," it's a largely misleading statement, but I suppose that is the beauty of advertising. Most people read it think, "every choice will have a unique consequence," but, clearly, that is not what it literally means (though it is certainly the implication the statment is going for). Many choices have the exact same consequence, and many responses, even polar opposite ones, will lead to the exact same NPC responses. Does this violate the quote? Of course not. Techincally, every situation could have a few choices that all lead to one specific consequence, or even one choice (also known as no choice) that leads to a consequence, and neither violates "every choice will have a consequence". But, clearly, the strict literal meaning is not was is meant in this case, which leads us back to it being disappointing on occasion.

And since for some reason I need to put this disclaimer: I love the game. I've gotten more than my share of playtime out of it. I'm looking forward to the expansion...blah blah blah. That does not mean that there aren't things that could improve for the expansion, or any sequels.

[bconk55]

Double Post Monster

Modifié par bconk55, 26 janvier 2010 - 06:11 .

[Abriael_CG]

To expect every choice to be allowed is simply unrealistic. Until true artificial intelligence is invented, no game will ever allow every choice. What seems "very logical" to you, doesn't necessarily work with the economy of the game. You might find it very logical to refuse to enter the grey warden, but it's not going to happen, because the story is based on you being a grey warden.

[bconk55]

Wompoo wrote...

You could accept godhood in BG2 as a Bhaal spawn (your birthright, it did not make you evil, your alignment could of been Lawful Good). The biggest issue with DAO is you don't feel like a hero (even the ending/s are rather bland) for me anyway. You have Duncan essentially forcing you to drink poison at the point of a dagger, your rights are striped away from you right there and then. The story does not make you feel heroic, it does not bind you to the game world in any meaningful way. The villains "the Archdemon" and "Lohgain"... neither felt evil, and feel well short of building up any hatred... yea Duncan dies yea happy as there. The story feels soft and a little lack luster. Companions feel more like accessory options and offered little character development (granted some of them had great one liners, but that does not cut it). I liked the game, still do, but it is not a great game, not by a long shot. For a dark dramatic erm "Heroic" fantasy it is not, not at all for me. The game world graphics also feel a little on the primitive side. Hopefully the expansion focuses more on my character development within the setting and has a truly dramatic story line. 7.5/10

While I agree that the archdemon was a little...meh (it's tough to build up ire for a dragon that's just, well, being a dragon), I actually found myself really invested in hunting down Loghain in my first play through. I chose Human Noble first, and I'm glad I did, as it gave me a villian to despise early on with Arl Howe, and then wove a connection between him and Loghain. In fact, I probably didn't give Loghain his fair due my first playthrough simply because of his connection to Howe.

My second playthrough was a mage, and I have to say that I wasn't anywhere near as interested in Jowan. They just didn't take a long enough time to develop that relationship. He would have been better served as a companion (past the origin), and his blood magic should have come up as a personal quest shortly after Ostagar. That, or there needed to be more trials in the mage origin, and he needed to be a party member of it. There is just no connection to someone who says "Hi, I'm your friend, now help me break some rules".

[bconk55]

Abriael_CG wrote...

To expect every choice to be allowed is simply unrealistic. Until true artificial intelligence is invented, no game will ever allow every choice. What seems "very logical" to you, doesn't necessarily work with the economy of the game. You might find it very logical to refuse to enter the grey warden, but it's not going to happen, because the story is based on you being a grey warden.

I didn't say it needed every choice, just that, often enough to be noticed, they seemed lacking (not compared to a world with AI, but compared to past Bioware games). And you know as well as I do that a story can be pulled in any direction, regardless of player choices (i.e. much like how you can't not join the Wardens, even though some origins allow for extended protest).

[Centis]

OP - I'm an RPG vet as well spanning back to the old Hulk text-based game. It's my favorite genre. So called 'Western-style' RPG's in particular. As you'd expect I'm a big Bioware fan. Having said that, you're not alone, there are folks who also don't care for DA:O. Myself included.

I won't bore you with vague justifications for not enjoying DA:O. The game is well designed and it's obvious that much time and consideration was put into it. Even if there are some mechanical and technical issues (especially on the PS3 version) that if corrected could make the game better. What I will say however is that this story failed to capture my interest and as a result I didn't have much fun. One reviewer I read put it aptly when s/he described DA:O as lacking a "spark". I found that to be as elegant and insightful critique as any person can make when judging the product of a creative endeavor. Especially one that is as competently done as DA:O.

I would however, strongly recommend you get through the starting area before completely abandoning the game. Even get out there and start one of the overarching "missions" (trying to avoid spoilers here) and see what you think. Hopefully you'll connect with it in a way that I didn't.

Modifié par Centis, 26 janvier 2010 - 08:31 .

[purplesunset]

Dlokir wrote...


I could be wrong but I consider your OP quite flawed because of two points:

    * The problem with Oblivion fans is they use a poorly designed game as the comparison standard. Oblivion is a rather badly designed game, they certainly targeted a too big size and didn't polished gameplay enough. For me that makes Oblivion fans posts rather boring.

Is it a fact that Oblivion is a "badly designed" game? Is it a fact that the fans' posts are "rather  boring?" Or is that just opinion.


I personally **DO NOT**  like Oblivion, but that does not mean that I can't understand the appeal of an open-ended game world (I  prefer Gothic 1 and 2 over the newer Bethesda games for open ended gameplay). Yet I've seen many responses in this thread where people say something like "Oblivion sucks because open-endedness sucks." How is this argument any more valid than saying "DA sucks because being railroaded sucks" ?

It's one thing to say, "I despise first person shooters with the  passion of a thousand suns,"  (this is a perfectly valid opinion) but quite another thing  to say "first person shooters are flawed by design and are necessarily bad. and the people who enjoy them are boring" (this is flawed and is confusing fact with opinion)

The discussion will only stagnate if fact and opinion are confused.

--------------------
I really hope some of you in this thread get the distinction and re-examine some of your responses here. I should add also that I do appreciate the responses by posters like seanmurphy, peeker2009, and MOTpoetryTION.

It is a good point that the final product  represents the decisions that Biowareans made after many arguements and meetings. This is one reason why they would be less likely to take in further input from forum members.

Modifié par purplesunset, 26 janvier 2010 - 08:54 .