Volourn

"I'd say that he's 'wrong', lying requires that you know the truth and intentionally saying the opposite." Except he knows the truth as claims to believe I'ma fanboy and he says he knows this by reaidng my posts. if this is true, he has had to read at least one negative BIO post from me. They arne't that hard to find. " Of course, rating ONE game 75 % in a catalogue as comprehensive as theirs is, is hardly conclusive proof that he is, in fact, even 'wrong'. " Actually, it is. He claims I believe BIO is PERFECT. If I believed BIO was perfect, I would rate everything they do 100%? Right? Since anything less than 100% is, by defintion, not perfect. Therefore he is absolutely 100% wrong in his assessment that I believe BIO is perfect. GAME OVER.

360 isn't that loud. The PC, on the other hand, is annoyingly so. I haven't even tried the PS3 once so I can't compare.

You do sound like a lawyer. I like alwyers but don't be silly. You make it sound impossible for one to lie. That simply isn't true. In this case... he claims that I believe BIO is perfect. Yet, I have rated a previous game of theirs 75%. So... one of us is lying here. There is no inbetween.

I prefer: I N T E R N E T D R A M A But, L0L

If someone dislikes combat they probbaly shouldn't bother playing DA as it'll have lots of combat. Or at least play it on easy. ALL RPGs have lots of combat. Not one exception.

"Maybe it's just me, but the use of 'lying' and 'unfair' on a video game board tend to make me think that the author of that particular post is 12, if not younger. Could possibly be a professional bias most lawyers have against the two terms, we kind of dance around them, even if they are pretty central in our work. " Well.. when someone accuses another fo soemthing blatantly not true what else would you call it? "And that just killed the little of credibility your post had. I think everybody here knows who the troll is." You accuse me falsely of things blatantly untrue and I lack credibility? False accusations are often made to get negative reaction that is why youa re tolling. By claiming that am a BIO 'fanboy' who believes they are perfect you are obviously trolling for me to negatively reaction hence trolling. "If that is so, then sorry. " 'Apology' unaccepted as you didn't mean it as evidenced by your fruther insitigation. "I haven't seen a single one of those though." How convient. You notice all my pro BIO stuff but not my negative stuff? It's like you made up your mind what my stance is and only the 'evidence' that backs up your belief is what you retain. Come on, now. This is why I feel you are lying. There's no way that you cna read enough of someone's post to make a lie that they are a 'fanboy' yet never see even one post that counters that. Bottom line is I can post at least half a dozen things within seconds that i dslike about DA. And, i've posted them. I'm sure you read them, and ignored them. *shrug* BACK ON TOPIC: ME2 will be fun. 'Nough said.

"Because 2 giant fed-ex quests duct taped together makes such a gripping story/plot/game." It was way more than 'giant fed ex quest'. And, NWN2 was pretty much a giant fed ex quest. ie. Go find the sword shards. " Thats all nwn1 was and even bioware grew a pair a few years later and admitted the story fell quite short. " Nah. All they said is it could have been better like all their games. "You are the only one who liked nwn1 over the nwn2 story V." This is a lie. " Of course what do I expect from a bioware fanboy whose games can do no wrong." Another lie. keep up the lying... err.. good work... As for DA2.. cool...

"Yeah, well, it's pretty clear that if the game is from bioware, you go instantly blind to all flaws." You have aobviously missed quite a few of my posts both here and elsewhere if you think I think BIO is perfect. Unless 75% = 'perfect' by your dictionary. Stop trolling and lying. Tell the truth for once when you make false accusations.

The vats majority of this stuff has been in multiple previews, interviews, the official message board. It's not new or unique to this preview. This stuff has been 'hyped'. It's that people conviently 'forget' things when convienent. Like people were spazzing when the dissapointing (imo) Marilyn Manson vid came out and acting like it was the first piece of hype for the game when BIO (and EA0 have been pushing things like the combat system, origins (heck, they even changed the name to include origins in the title), character system (stats/talents/skills), etc. for YEARS while the violent/sex stuff is actually relatively new to the DA hype party. If there's any 'mistake' being made it is that EA BIO are pimping the game to everyone but hey, BIO has always been inclusive.. perhaps, too inclusive.

If he didn't fit the team perhaps they shouldn't have brought him in the first place. L A M E

Wow. My companions were better than yours.

"Compared to nwn1 the story was leaps and bounds better plus the eyes candy was x10 better as well. All in all a much better game and far from just 'playable'." No. (except it is 'playable).

Do different choices in the origins actually change things both in the origin and throughout the game?

Not even quite two seasons rmeoved from our SB, and the Giants continue their downward spiral of retardedness. Everyone knows the Giants' main weakness is recievers so we go ahead an cut Mr. Miracle Catch Man. LMAO Who the heck is Eli gonna throw to this season? An Obsidian poster? Stupid Giants. Thankfully we have a great D, solid running game, and a good QB or else we would be Detroit bad. Eli will be lucky to average a TD per game with the crap he gets to throw to. addenum: And, Garcia gets cut? that's crapola.

"I really hope someone at DA:O gets the hint and has some words with their marketing department. Untill now the game has been portrayed much too shallower and brainless than it seems to be." Their marketing department is fine. People picking and choose what they 'remember' is the problem. The vast majority of the stuff in this preview has been disucssed/previewed/interviewed about repeatedly for the past few years. Character system - not new info Combat system - not new info Role-playing - not new info AI auto paths - not new info Repeated over, and over again. The marketing department has covered ALL aspects of the game. But, some people like to focus on only the parts they 'dislike'.

"Sounds a bit like a Battlestar Galactica season ripoff Machines created for menial work rebels, wage war on their creators and oust them, creating a migrant fleet." BG is far from the first SF story to have the same basic premise.

"I meant free indie games. My point is that sometimes the criteria for success is dependent on the developer's goals." Um. If it's free than obviously the intent isn't to make money right? So, it would mean that it doens't need to make money since obviously the goal isn't to make money. If I made somehting and gave it to free I can't really be expecting to make a profit... "Same as if they'd climbed a mountain together and returned home alive and in good spirits (and with memories that they'd keep their whole lives)." This doens't even make sense and has nothing to do what we are discussing. I consider it a success when I win a hide and seek (when I was a kid); but it's completely irrelevant here. "yeah some authors dont write for money, they write for the pleasure of writing. but they are still glad if they get some $ at the end of the day." Irrelevant. Doens't matter how much you like somehting yo do, if you aren't succeeding at selling it you aren't a professional. Stephen King is an author. I presume he started writing because he enjoyed. He became successful. It doesn't mean he enjoys it less. However, if his books had bombed sale wise, he would be a failure even thoguh he would still be able to continue to enjoy writing. Just not professionally. I enjoy playing sports but I'm not a professional athlete hence my 'failure' professionally... doesn't mean I enjoy sports less.

"why is nwn their most successful game?" This is what BIO claims. I have no reason to think they'd lie about this. "what is the rubric of success you are applying here?" That games get back what they put in. ie. At minimum, break even. If a game costs $10,000 to develop it should make $10,000. If it cost $5mil, it should make $5mil. It doesn't matter how 'critically acclaimed' a game might be if it cna't make money since that would mean the company/people who mad eit are one step closer to not exisiting. It also means it's not popular enough to sustain an audience worthy of the price tag.

"Bio is weak at getting their message right to non-casual gamers - with NWN they got it wrong as far as I was concerned and they've done it again." O RLY? M,ust explain why NWN is BIO's most successful game and why all their games do well even JE which sold less than the others old reasonably well. BIO does a pretty good job with getting their message out. Advertising, and hype, and 'message' has never been their problem. L0L

"I disagree with that one. Any game designed from the get-go as a compromising "crowd pleaser" is usually mediocre [like FO3] or occasionally utter crap." You call them 'medicore' and 'utter crap' all you wnat, it doesn't make it true. Nor does what I wrote imply that all games have to be made to sell millions or catch the mainstream. You can have a non mainstream game that still breaks even be successful since the goal there isn't to sell a million copies. The point is if agame can't make back what was put into it at a minimum it is a failure. "It's same like saying Van Gogh's paintings or Mozart Tunes are failure, because they died as a poor men..." No. No, it isn't. You don't make any sense. ie. If BIO were to no longer exist tomorrow it wouldn't make BG2 any less of a success just because BIO went belly up. Plus, art is a lot different games since the cost of making art is more of a matter of time spent by the artist unlike games which actually cost real money to make. Your analogy, therefore, is weak. "If an indie developer is making a game to make a statement, the game could be a success just by people experiencing it." This is rtaher poor reasoning as, say, if only 5 people experience what a lacklustre statement to make. Even indie developers need an audience. Or they might as well just make games for free and not pretend being professionals ie. don't charge for their games at all. The moment you charge for the privlege to play your product is the moment you have to expect to at least go even or the product is auto fail as it tells you and everyone else that not enough people want to play it and you overestimate the number of people who want your game. "If a game design is brilliant, but the current crop of consumers cannot appreciate it," Brilliant to who? Personal opinion is irrelevant.

If a game can't cover its costs, it is a failure where it matters most even if it is 'critically acclaimed' or someone (including me) personally likes it. I'm very sure that the goal for every game released is to, at minimum, get even whether it's a blockbuster or some 3rd string wannabe release.

"the combat doesn't consist of attack & parry rolls? Does one always hit an enemy" Did you read the preview?

They should have kept Garcia. Morons.

NWN and any of NHL08/NH09/probably NHL10.

EXTREME reaction to a silly mistake in a FAQ. BIO would be so proud of you guys.