465 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightwriter]

We interrupt your trolling/anti-trolling activities for a quick question from Nightwriter...



Yes, OP - might I have an example of one way in which the true fans' gaming experience was compromised for the sake of catering to mainstream gamers? Just so I can understand what you mean? I think I might get what you're saying but I'm not sure.

[ZennExile]

Sleepicub09 wrote...

ZennExile wrote...

Sleepicub09 wrote...

ZennExile wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

The Mythical Magician wrote...

I believe why ME2 failed for a good portion of us is because of Bioware's focus on the mainstream crowd though business wise it is prefect for making quick money but overall you guys lost some of your die hard fans on this switch of focus. I'm a fan of you guys and I love your work but ME2 disappointed me and many others. I hope on your next project you guys focus on giving your die hard fans a great game than trying to please every crowd out there.

ME2 is a great game but its not as great as its predecessor for the fact that the focus was different.
<_<

Define "a good portion of us".

At least 2.3 million return customers.

I believe your  statistics are false 

Yeah it was actually more but the last time numbers were mentioned all the trolls jumped on the same source of sales numbers which put ME1 at 2.3 million and ME2 at 1.3 (funny).  So it's an inside joke and yer not cool enough to get it.  Feel smart now don't ya?

you do realize me1 been out for 2 year and me2 haven't even been out  for 3 months yet so if they can reach 1.3 mill that quick imagine how many sales they will have made in a year so dip****

That would be true if ME2 wasn't a market driven cash grab that owes every ounce of it's sales to return customers (who didn't know better) and over the top marketting from EA.  Without the marketing and the reviews they "purchased" ME2 wouldn't have even broke the 1 million mark.  Not after the game was leaked pre-launch and all the hardcore fanbois got a taste of the tragedy that is ME2...

[Xandurpein]

All in all, I think the Game Salesman on Citadel has all the good lines on this subject...

[SurfaceBeneath]

>Implying
>Implying
>Implying
>Implying
>Implying
>Implying
>Implying
>Implying
>Implying

Oh dear. I fear I've blown a fuse.

[wolfstanus]

Every game ever made uses a dice role mechanic in some way... to say a game does not have one in some way is ignorance.
To make an RPG it is to assume the Role of the main charecter. in ME you assume the role of shepard every single choice you make in the game is you assuming the tole of shepard. and guiding him through the game.

Modifié par wolfstanus, 25 février 2010 - 12:39 .

[Balerion84]

Xandurpein wrote...

All in all, I think the Game Salesman on Citadel has all the good lines on this subject...

You should post some of those here, I don't remember many of those but I remember that they were great and summed up a lot of this stuff nicely.

wolfstanus wrote...

Every game ever made uses a dice role mechanic in some way... to say a game does not have one in some way is ignorance.

You are wasting common sense in this thread unfortunately. :\\ As long as some people don't see an actual dice they can't comprehend this fact.

Modifié par Balerion84, 25 février 2010 - 12:39 .

[Sleepicub09]

ZennExile wrote...

Sleepicub09 wrote...

ZennExile wrote...

Sleepicub09 wrote...

ZennExile wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

The Mythical Magician wrote...

I believe why ME2 failed for a good portion of us is because of Bioware's focus on the mainstream crowd though business wise it is prefect for making quick money but overall you guys lost some of your die hard fans on this switch of focus. I'm a fan of you guys and I love your work but ME2 disappointed me and many others. I hope on your next project you guys focus on giving your die hard fans a great game than trying to please every crowd out there.

ME2 is a great game but its not as great as its predecessor for the fact that the focus was different.
<_<

Define "a good portion of us".

At least 2.3 million return customers.

I believe your  statistics are false 

Yeah it was actually more but the last time numbers were mentioned all the trolls jumped on the same source of sales numbers which put ME1 at 2.3 million and ME2 at 1.3 (funny).  So it's an inside joke and yer not cool enough to get it.  Feel smart now don't ya?

you do realize me1 been out for 2 year and me2 haven't even been out  for 3 months yet so if they can reach 1.3 mill that quick imagine how many sales they will have made in a year so dip****

That would be true if ME2 wasn't a market driven cash grab that owes every ounce of it's sales to return customers (who didn't know better) and over the top marketting from EA.  Without the marketing and the reviews they "purchased" ME2 wouldn't have even broke the 1 million mark.  Not after the game was leaked pre-launch and all the hardcore fanbois got a taste of the tragedy that is ME2...

your obssessed with mass effect 2 if not then why post in the mass effect 2 spoiler section if its such a tragedy than why are you and don't give me one of your dip**** answers unless you can't handle giving a logical answer without attacking someone's personal character

[Xandurpein]

Nightwriter wrote...

We interrupt your trolling/anti-trolling activities for a quick question from Nightwriter...

Yes, OP - might I have an example of one way in which the true fans' gaming experience was compromised for the sake of catering to mainstream gamers? Just so I can understand what you mean? I think I might get what you're saying but I'm not sure.

Apparently all true fans want dice rolls. Teaches me to think that just because I've played ever Bioware game ever published I am a true fan...

[ZennExile]

Computron2000 wrote...

Sleepicub09 wrote...
I believe your  statistics are false 

Ignore it, it is a troll. It was asked to back up made up numbers and started fumbling and looking foolish. So best way is to ignore these attention seekers

Computroll everything you post reminds me of that fat kid from Billy Madison trying to read out loud.

Modifié par ZennExile, 25 février 2010 - 12:41 .

[sedrikhcain]

tsd16 wrote...


So ultimately the definition of a good rpg according to people with this idea ME2 isnt an rpg, is loot. 

This! The discussions here really opened my eyes to how important loot is to some people's definition of an RPG. How much you want to bet ME3 will be FULL of extraneous crap you can find? on dead bodies, in foot lockers, over behind shepard's fish tank; I'm telling you, it's going to be everywhere -- and most of it will be totally superfluous but it'll make some people ridiculously happy, regardless of what else is in the game.

[Computron2000]

Sleepicub09 wrote...
your obssessed with mass effect 2 if not then why post in the mass effect 2 spoiler section if its such a tragedy than why are you and don't give me one of your dip**** answers unless you can't handle giving a logical answer without attacking someone's personal character

No need to get mad over a troll. These sad things get their jollies from irking others, so ignore them and they blow up by themselves (and are remarkably amusing when they do so )

Modifié par Computron2000, 25 février 2010 - 12:41 .

[ZennExile]

Sleepicub09 wrote...
your obssessed with mass effect 2 if not then why post in the mass effect 2 spoiler section if its such a tragedy than why are you and don't give me one of your dip**** answers unless you can't handle giving a logical answer without attacking someone's personal character

You first? 

[Sleepicub09]

Xandurpein wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

We interrupt your trolling/anti-trolling activities for a quick question from Nightwriter...

Yes, OP - might I have an example of one way in which the true fans' gaming experience was compromised for the sake of catering to mainstream gamers? Just so I can understand what you mean? I think I might get what you're saying but I'm not sure.

Apparently all true fans want dice rolls. Teaches me to think that just because I've played ever Bioware game ever published I am a true fan...

personally you can't call yourself a "die hard fan" if you walked out because die hard means no matter what once you walk out on bioware then your no longer a die hard fan(not directed at you)

[The Mythical Magician]

Xandurpein wrote...

The Mythical Magician wrote..

Yes I know but the story took a backside to the combat in ME2, what I am trying to say about the series is that in ME1 I didn't cared about the darn shooting aspect of the game because it wasn't what the game is about it was about the story but ME2 did a 180 and made the shooting aspect the main draw to the game which is why I am blaming mainstream audience because gamers these day are more into shooters than games with great stories. ME2 Imo lack story for a better shooter

I will allow that ME2 was more about many stories, rather than one main plot

I think this is my problem actually, I did felt they put to many different stories (mainly the squad characters) and dump the main plot abit and damage my immersion into the game

Modifié par The Mythical Magician, 25 février 2010 - 12:45 .

[flem1]

sedrikhcain wrote...

How much you want to bet ME3 will be FULL of extraneous crap you can find? on dead bodies, in foot lockers, over behind shepard's fish tank; I'm telling you, it's going to be everywhere -- and most of it will be totally superfluous but it'll make some people ridiculously happy, regardless of what else is in the game.

I hope not -- the game DID get ridiculously high scores, not least because of the loot minigame removal (thank god).

The Diablo influence is really, really dumb for Bio's end of the genre.

[DaveTheJackal]

BobbyTheI wrote...

Fan of BioWare since BG1.  Loved ME2.

I wish the "true fans" would stop making these threads speaking for the rest of us. 

Same here. ME2 is the best game I've played in years.

Modifié par DaveTheJackal, 25 février 2010 - 12:43 .

[KPnuts123]

Ok I've just had a good laugh at this thread but anyway onto my point.



In my house there are two of us who have been gamers for years. Myself and my father, now my father absolutely hated ME1 and generally hates all RPG's as they're too slow. Now his complaint with ME1 was that the combat was too clunky and slow.



Now onto ME2. I was playing it 2 days after it came out here in the UK when he walked in and spent half an hour watching me play the game, after which he decided to have a go at the game. Now whenever he's on the Xbox I know he's playing ME2 even though he's got Bioshock 2 there to play.



Anyway I''ve been a fan of Bioware's since ME1 mainly down to the fact that I don't play games on PC. I consider myself to be a diehard Bioware fan now although I've only played ME 1+2 and Dragon Age. Bioware aimed at a more mainstream market and hit them with ME2. As has been said before they did replace a traditional style RPG around 4 months ago and this one is a hybrid RPG.



Bioware is a company and the first thoughts of a company is bringing in money. They have also gained a new set of fans and where is that a bad idea.



Also ZennExile if anyone here is a troll then you must be one as well.

[ZennExile]

sedrikhcain wrote...

 ME3 will be FULL of extraneous crap you can find?

That would be awesome.  One of the biggest disparities between an RPG and what ME2 trys to be is, there is nothing hidden in ME2.  It's all laid out for you on a silver platter like if it wasn't you'd be too stupid to find it on yer own.

Nobody wants useless lewts dropping out of the crap cannon of every damn thing we see but, dudes with guns should drop them on the ground and sometimes there should be something neat in those ****ing crates.  Just stuff to find would make ME2 1000 times more RPG.  Anything to find.  Even if it's completely useless.

RPGs thrive on Exploration and discovery.  Without those two things you can't really call any game an RPG.

[Sleepicub09]

ZennExile wrote...

Sleepicub09 wrote...
your obssessed with mass effect 2 if not then why post in the mass effect 2 spoiler section if its such a tragedy than why are you and don't give me one of your dip**** answers unless you can't handle giving a logical answer without attacking someone's personal character

You first? 

If you can't see that I'm here because I love the gameplay and storyline then I feel sorry for you. but you feel like the storyline is a tragedy so why post in the storyline board

[ZennExile]

Sleepicub09 wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

We interrupt your trolling/anti-trolling activities for a quick question from Nightwriter...

Yes, OP - might I have an example of one way in which the true fans' gaming experience was compromised for the sake of catering to mainstream gamers? Just so I can understand what you mean? I think I might get what you're saying but I'm not sure.

Apparently all true fans want dice rolls. Teaches me to think that just because I've played ever Bioware game ever published I am a true fan...

personally you can't call yourself a "die hard fan" if you walked out because die hard means no matter what once you walk out on bioware then your no longer a die hard fan(not directed at you)

No die hard means you don't die easy.  In context the meaning is "it takes more than most".  So shh yer wrong again. 

[wolfstanus]

The Definition of a Role-Playing Game!



Despite the seemingly harmless demeanor of the subject, the definition of an RPG has proved to be quite controversial in my experience. I've gotten into many a scuffle online (with good friends, no less) defending my views on the matter, and I find that with the recent submission about "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - Worst RPG of All Time?" that I simply must make it clear to those delusional gamers as to what an RPG really is.



First off, to wholly define an RPG I find it crucial to define the other categories of games that are often confused with RPGs. I will not include Sports, Shooter, Fighting, or Puzzle, since generally no one in their right mind thinks that Madden 98, Gradius, or Street Fighter II are in any way related to an RPG (unless of course they've suffered severe head injuries in the past), and although many RPGs have complex puzzles to solve, it is difficult to confuse a "Puzzle" game with an RPG that has puzzles in it. The categories I will discuss include Adventure, Strategy, and Action. I'm sure most hard-core RPGers are familiar with the categorical combination that some game magazines use, such as Adventure/RPG, Strategy/RPG and Action/RPG. There is no fuzzy logic to this. It's because many people find it hard to distinguish between the two, so to make it easier people have "fused" together certain categories with RPG. This, however, just makes my argument more difficult to defend. In response to this category fusion, gamers eventually developed the unnofficial category, True RPG, to further imply what an RPG truly is. Again, most hard-core RPGers will be familiar with this term. I find it silly. If one game is a True RPG and another game is just an RPG, then wouldn't the RPG, in essence, be a False RPG? Then, wouldn't a False RPG technically not be an RPG at all? To undo all this categorical confusion, I first have to describe each category.



What is an Action game? An Action game is any game where the primary method of attack/defense/other movement of a character is through an action, directly transferred through a game controller in real-time. What does this confusing definition mean? Well, it means that when you press a button on the controller, an action is immediately carried out, without delay. That's pretty general, and you may think that describes 90% of all video games, but this is not so. Most other categories are merely extensions of the Action category. For instance, a Fighting game adds the element of two simultaneous opponents performing exactly what the definition of an Action game implies. Sometimes the term "Action" is fused with "Platform," which merely represents the free, real-time movement of an action game. Some hard-core examples of Action games include Super Mario Bros., Ninja Gaiden, and Strider.



What is an Adventure game? An Adventure game is any Action game that has multiple weapons/items that are found in various places of the game, and that allows you to return to any area of the game at any time. Again, this is an extension of an Action game. Hard-core examples include Landstalker, Popful Mail, and YES, Zelda.



What is a Strategy game? A Strategy game is a game through which commands are given to multiple characters in multiple locations on a grid-based (visible or not visible) map through which certain scenarios/campaigns are carried out. Grid-based is really a very basic term, since many strategy games don't have grids at all (Ogre Battle, Herzog Zwei). Also, most battles are 100% (or very near that) automated. This category, awkwardly, is not really an extension of an Action game, due to the menu-driven commands, which is one of the reasons it is confused with RPGs. Hard-core examples include Herzog Zwei, Langrisser, and Dragon Force.



There. Now that you have an idea of the categories surrounding Role Playing Games, it's time to define an RPG.



What is a Role Playing Game? Personally, I like to define a Role Playing Game as a game that MUST, ABSOLUTELY have three elements. One is a statistical setup for characters that describe certain skills/aspects of that character. Two, it must have some method of increasing and strengthening those statistics (usually but not necessarily by way of the experience/level system). Three, it must have a menu-driven combat system that utilizes the skills/aspects of the characters. Given there are other elements of RPGs that I'll leave out because of their obvious nature, these are the elements that are required for a game to be labeled RPG.



Now, many people will disagree with that definition, so here I defend my opinion. Let's take RPGs way back in the day when Dungeons and Dragons ultimately created the Role Playing Game genre. Point a) there was statistical information for each character in the game describing skills/aspects of the character. Point each of those statistics could grow, expand, and strengthen. Point c) one would choose a skill, use and roll a die or dice to determine the success of the skill, and would then carry out the skill. You don't often see D&D players physically stabbing each other in the chin with their new "Broadsword," which would make it an "Action" game. Now, let's compare the original definition with the modern-day video RPG experience. To do this, let's take a common, well-known RPG and use it as a benchmark. Shoot me for using Final Fantasy VII. Now, in Final Fantasy VII each character has their own statistical information describing skills/aspects of the character. Hmmmmmm, sounds very similar to point a. In Final Fantasy VII one could strengthen their characters' abilities. Wow, that sounds familiar. In Final Fantasy VII, one chooses a skill in combat, a random number generator (we'll call it "advanced dice") determines the success of the skill, and finally the skill is carried out. Therefore, Final Fantasy VII is an RPG. Furthermore, my definition stands.



Again, Final Fantasy VII has little to no controversy about whether or not it's an RPG. Now we get into the more difficult distinguishments. First of all, before I go on, never look on the box of a categorically controversial game to determine its true category. Most game companies (including Working Designs) don't have a clue as to how to label their games, or label it falsely due to marketing reasons. Believe me, Alundra is NOT an Action/RPG.



Now, on to dangerous ground. To the delusional Brendan McGrath who submitted the "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - Worst RPG of All Time?" editorial, Zelda 64 is NOT an RPG, no way no how. The Zelda series almost completely defines what an *Adventure* game is today. There are only trivial RPG elements in any of the Zelda games, and certainly not enough to confuse it with an RPG, which is why I am so surprised and distraught to hear that so many people think it is an RPG. It is NOT. The extent of the RPG elements in the series goes to the amount of heart containers you have in the beginning of the game, to the amount of heart containers you have at the end of the game, which fits into the first and second elements of an RPG. Well, that's one statistic. Most "True" RPGs have up to 20 or 30 per character. On another note, Zelda doesn't have a menu-driven combat system. That rules it out completely.



While we're on the topic of Adventure games, I may as well go ahead and tell you why one of the most categorically controversial games in existence is indeed an Adventure game, and NOT an RPG. It's made by Squaresoft, for Super Nintendo, and features three playable characters. No, not Chrono Trigger. Still don't know what I'm talking about? That's right, I'm talking about Secret of Mana. Let's break it apart and take a look at it. Yes, it has character statistics and skills, and yes you can strengthen these skills, but does it have a menu driven combat system? Nope. It's an Adventure game. Probably the reason so many people confuse this with an RPG is because it's damn close to one, and probably the closest any adventure game will ever come to an RPG, which is why it's such a special game. People see HP and MP and assume it's an RPG. Well, then wouldn't Ninja Gaiden technically be an RPG? It has HP; it's just not displayed in numbers. The same holds true for Xardion, for Super NES, and that even allows for growth of HP and skills. Is that an RPG as well? I think not. Also, people see magic and assume that the game is an RPG. Well, then wouldn't Shinobi be an RPG? There's magic in that. The one thing that holds SoM so close to being an RPG is the fact that you can select magic and select which enemy to target, which is, I dare say, menu-driven. However, remember how weapons are used in the game: one button, one action, real-time, no delay. That's crucial to combat in the game, and that's not menu-driven. Secret of Mana is NOT an RPG.



Similarly, Popful Mail, Alundra, Zelda, Magic Knight Rayearth, Lagoon, and even Metroid are ALL Adventure games and NOT RPGs. Remember, though, that there are fusion categories. It's pretty safe to say that Secret of Mana is an Adventure/RPG, because it has many RPG elements. I would not place games like Alundra or Zelda in this category though. Games like Popful Mail and Lagoon can even be placed in the Action/RPG category because it contains elements from both Action games and RPGs (although this is basically the same thing as an Adventure game), but this is pushing it and is one of the reasons I don't like the fusion categories. Also, remember that a complex storyline is NOT a requirement of an RPG. While it may be a requirement of a GOOD RPG, it's not a requirement of an RPG. We take Dragon Warrior as an example. We take Alundra as a counter-example. Simply because it has such a complex storyline, doesn't make it an RPG.



I've pretty much covered the Action and Adventure controversies. Now on to Strategy. For this we take the game Ogre Battle to begin with. It has statistics and statistic growth, but how far can we go to say that it has menu driven combat? Sure, you select a character here and there and tell it where to go, but what happens when battle ensues? The game switches to another scene where the entire battle is automated. You don't choose "fight/magic/defend" for each individual character as is done in menu-driven combat systems. Instead you choose an overall strategy for the group in battle, hence the name "Strategy." Again the illusion of having HP and MP gives the player a false pretense that this game is an RPG. It is not. We could go as far as calling it a Strategy/RPG, but the game would never cross the line. Again, I highly dislike the fusion categories as they just complicate things. We could call Mutant League Hockey a Sports/Action game, but we don't! Why do it for games with RPG elements when it STILL does not meet the full standards of a True RPG?



There are always exceptions to the rule. The following games are games that are considered to be what they are due to elements from one category surpassing elements from another category.



Final Fantasy Tactics. Here's another extremely close call, and yip yip ho wow it's made by Square again. Stats and Stat growth? Yes. Menu-driven combat? Well.....yeah. You choose to attack, cast spells, use items, and just about every other requirement of a menu-driven combat system. Why is it STILL not an RPG? It's an exception to the rule. Because the game takes place on a grid, where placement and tactics are all vital to success in the battle system, it favors the Strategy category instead of the RPG category. Any game where placement is absolutely vital to the gameplay I immediately label a Strategy game. Now, why isn't the Lunar series Strategy then? Yes, there is character placement in the battle scenes, but three things lean the game heavily towards an RPG (hell, I wouldn't even think twice about labeling it otherwise). One, the battles are in separate scenes. Two, you can't directly position characters. Three, position really isn't all that vital to the overall gameplay. Now, what about the Shining Force series? Same as with FFT. Placement is directly accessed and is vital to successful battles.



Tales of Destiny. Now I've never actually played this game so I'm basing my opinion solely on the battle scenes from Tales of Phantasia, its prequel. Character stats and growth? Yes. Menu-driven combat? Nope. Why, then, is this most definitely an RPG? Well, it's an exception to the rule. Due to the fact that the battle scenes appear separately from the movement scenes, and that there is limited control of the character due to limited skills (such as in most RPGs), the RPG elements severely outweigh the Action elements.



I'm sure there are many other games of controversy out there, but I've covered some of the more important ones. I hope I've given some of you a second thought about your opinions as to what a True RPG really is. Once you're clear as to what that is, then anything else would be a False RPG, and hence not an RPG at all. RPG elements can be found most everywhere these days, but that doesn't make anything a solid RPG, and just because you "Role Play" a character also doesn't make it an RPG. In order for an RPG to exist, it must contain ALL of the major 3 elements, and at least some of the lesser elements (story, characterization, magic, free-roaming worlds, etc. etc. etc.). None of this is inscribed in the Great Book of RPGs, or the Gamer's Guru, or anything like that. It's important that you realize that this is my opinion of how RPGs have been defined based on their history to date. This is my viewpoint based on my experiences with the genre. I've played a hell of a lot of games, RPGs and not, and I believe my opinion is a strong one, and I'll defend it till the end.

[ZennExile]

KPnuts123 wrote...

Ok I've just had a good laugh at this thread but anyway onto my point.

In my house there are two of us who have been gamers for years. Myself and my father, now my father absolutely hated ME1 and generally hates all RPG's as they're too slow. Now his complaint with ME1 was that the combat was too clunky and slow.

Now onto ME2. I was playing it 2 days after it came out here in the UK when he walked in and spent half an hour watching me play the game, after which he decided to have a go at the game. Now whenever he's on the Xbox I know he's playing ME2 even though he's got Bioshock 2 there to play.

Anyway I''ve been a fan of Bioware's since ME1 mainly down to the fact that I don't play games on PC. I consider myself to be a diehard Bioware fan now although I've only played ME 1+2 and Dragon Age. Bioware aimed at a more mainstream market and hit them with ME2. As has been said before they did replace a traditional style RPG around 4 months ago and this one is a hybrid RPG.

Bioware is a company and the first thoughts of a company is bringing in money. They have also gained a new set of fans and where is that a bad idea.

Also ZennExile if anyone here is a troll then you must be one as well.

That would also include you. 

[Sleepicub09]

ZennExile wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

 ME3 will be FULL of extraneous crap you can find?

That would be awesome.  One of the biggest disparities between an RPG and what ME2 trys to be is, there is nothing hidden in ME2.  It's all laid out for you on a silver platter like if it wasn't you'd be too stupid to find it on yer own.

Nobody wants useless lewts dropping out of the crap cannon of every damn thing we see but, dudes with guns should drop them on the ground and sometimes there should be something neat in those ****ing crates.  Just stuff to find would make ME2 1000 times more RPG.  Anything to find.  Even if it's completely useless.

RPGs thrive on Exploration and discovery.  Without those two things you can't really call any game an RPG.

I agree on finding things I do wish they were more hidden, but looting is only an element that most games uses it does not make an rpg any less of an rpg but it helps its replayability 

[ZennExile]

wolfstanus wrote...

The Definition of a Role-Playing Game!

Blah blah blah.  I'm not gonna make a point even if you do read this blah blah ****ity blah

That was un called for.

[Sleepicub09]

ZennExile wrote...

Sleepicub09 wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

We interrupt your trolling/anti-trolling activities for a quick question from Nightwriter...

Yes, OP - might I have an example of one way in which the true fans' gaming experience was compromised for the sake of catering to mainstream gamers? Just so I can understand what you mean? I think I might get what you're saying but I'm not sure.

Apparently all true fans want dice rolls. Teaches me to think that just because I've played ever Bioware game ever published I am a true fan...

personally you can't call yourself a "die hard fan" if you walked out because die hard means no matter what once you walk out on bioware then your no longer a die hard fan(not directed at you)

No die hard means you don't die easy.  In context the meaning is "it takes more than most".  So shh yer wrong again. 

not in the context of fans so your wrong "again"