alanschu

Then you were mistaken. I haven't been to Canada but aren't you guys part of the USA? I mean do you have your own cultural identity, from what I have seen you follow the USA in most things. There is nothing wrong with that. A fitting fantasy analogy would be a pixie and a giant, of course the pixie wants to be part of the giants world. Its a question of survival? Or am I missing something You have a smiley face, so I'm not sure if you're just trying to bust my chaps for fun or not, but yeah Canada and the US do share a lot of culture. Which isn't that surprising given our histories and the fact that our borders are pretty open and migration between the two is pretty straight forward. Though personally I am finding I identify myself less and less by my "culture."

Not much to go on. Harper works with the Americans, but so did the previous Liberal parties. Which is kind of a "duh" moment as they are our neighbours, greatest trading partner, greatest ally, etc. etc. etc. I'm a bit miffed at some of the controversy regarding science funding, but it's not like we had things like Health Care stripped out or anything, nor has he dissolved equalization payments (wealth redistribution between the provinces) and stuff like that. But then, I don't really know what it means when people postulate that Canada is the "51st state" aside from the idea that it's likely a pejorative. On the political spectrum I'd consider Harper's Conservatives to be somewhere between the Dems and the Reps, but closer to the Democrats.

Then you were mistaken.

Donald Trump's twitter makes me laugh: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump He belongs on the interent all right! :D

For myself, the Republican campaign was the one that annoyed me the most, and as such I wanted them to not win as a result. I'm pretty disenfranchised towards politics because I dislike the mudslinging and in many cases just outright hypocrisy and lies that go around.

I have one support as a medic and one as a smoke grenadier. Also, I am pretty sure droids cannot be stunned (they don't have the circle marking the range for the arc thrower). Same goes for Chyssalids.

Seems kind of like a statement of the obvious. I'm sure it will in some capacity have an effect.

If the loud people screaming for the game to be like the originals didn't make much of an impact during Fallout 3's development, it sure as heck isn't after the stupid amount of success both FO3 and FONV have had since.

"Betrayal" O.o

Was Kickstarter as prevalent as it is now prior to say Wasteland 2/Double Fine Adventure? Certainly seems to be quite saturated now.

Weapon fragments can be too

It's be design. They will actually reequip those items (if they haven't been put elsewhere) when they are healed up.

Fortunately March is the end of their FY, so early FY 2014 is April-May. Unless they see some advantage in deferring their earnings to the next fiscal year, however, I'm curious what sort of advantages you may think there will be by delaying it. Unless they just feel early March is a bad time for whatever reason.

Installed Medieval 2. Definitely not quite as polished as Shogun 2 hahaha. But I like the unit diversity and tech tree.

Continuing the chug along in Inquisitor.

Most places I go DA2 never comes up. It's pretty easy to avoid DA2 criticism given that I'm here (and on the BSN) voluntarily and can easily log off if I need a break.

My posts in this thread are not about defending DA2. I have a feeling that that point was missed, however.

Anubite, I just want to say that I encourage you to NOT do something you don't enjoy doing, simply under the guise of trying to convince people to change their minds. I don't think it will have the effect you hope it does. Cheers.

Because contrary to what people think, more isn't always better. Give people too many options and things can clearly become obfuscated. I hope I don't need to detail why an extreme example such as 37 different speech related skills would obfuscate many of the purposes of said skills, all the while also making the game more cumbersome to build.

Naturally. They make the money.

Well this went downhill pretty fast.... This is where you and I start to go down irreconcilable paths. To the point where I find myself starting to seethe. It's cool that you see yourself as some sort of connosieur of RPG. Though there are plenty of people that I interact with on a daily basis that don't like DA2, love games like the IE games, that explicitly contradict your list of ALL the things that are missing from DA2. While I obviously have a bias, I'll straight up disagree with the idea of great characters (in particular since characters like Varric, Aveline, and Isabela are some of my favourites in general), and there's a ton of DA2 critics that would also disagree with you. Of course, I suppose they just don't have your developed tastes for what an RPG should be. Though in spite of my bias, I'll still agree that DA2 lacked with exploration, tactical gameplay, and player consequence (the last one in particular I very, very highly consider in what makes a great RPG). What you've done, however, is make the same mistake that is always done. You've assumed consensus, and then assumed that the consensus is of all the things you are disappointed with. And anyone else that thinks otherwise, just doesn't have as developed a taste for RPGs that you do. The same things happened with ME3 (where people foolishly assumed there was consensus over why there was outrage over the endings). Hell, the same thing is happening on PE forums, where you see giant rifts between groups over what it means to be a game "in the spirit of the IE games." Then the insults come out and those that disagree with what someone really likes about a game are now no longer true RPG fans, or true IE fans. It's stupid but it happens all the time. About the only thing there is consensus on is that it should be isometric. Of course, it's easier for someone to go "Whoa, this person loves all the IE games, but still liked DA2!? There's obviously something different between he and I!" Obviously he's easily satisfied or has some other reason, because we are human and bias our preferences to our own perspective to prevent cognitive dissonance. This is just pedantic. Obviously if the game was released by someone else, it probably wouldn't be titled a sequel to another game. But if we're even reasonably attempting to look at something objectively, this type of nitpick is irrelevant. Evidently I made an error in judgment in this regard. Because if it's objectively bad, it could be called "Fart monsters of Land Lore" and the criticisms would all be the same. I'm not saying it is the player's fault for having those expectations. It makes sense for them to have those expectations, and it's entirely fair for a gamer to be upset at DA2 because they were expecting more. What I'm drilling down is, is the game "objectively bad" or are there aggravating circumstances that could cause someone to feel more letdown by the game. Especially given that you decide to talk down towards people for having a differing opinion than yourself, all while attempting to mask your bias and the subjectivity of your position by authoritatively declaring that it's "objective" because it's that thing that scientists try really hard to do to make sure that their perspectives are taken more seriously. That's fair. I expect people to have higher expectations of us than some indie group. What it means is going around saying that something is objectively bad in an attempt to undermine the positions of those that don't share the same viewpoint is not accurate, however.

I'm still tripping on the word "objectively" however. Would DA2 have been received just the same had it been released by a small indie group? If the faults are objective, then the creator is irrelevant. I ask because I'm of the opinion that part of the reception of DA2 is in large part due to it being a game from BioWare, and also a sequel to a game that was very popular (and quite different). I commonly see people state that they'd have had less issues with DA2 if it wasn't a sequel, but because it was it came with additional expectations. Though if the game is objectively horrible, then these people would be mistaken.

That would maybe take care of a game like Big Rigs (although how do we define "doesn't work"), but perhaps not Extreme Paintbrawl. That's fair. I was operating under the same assumption too, but to make sure it's clear lets define a game for this discussion as a product designed to provide some level of entertainment for someone to utilize as a pastime? It seems clear from your list that the weighting can be allocated in a somewhat "per game" manner. For example, I am pretty surprised that you rate Starcraft 2 and MW3 as low as you do, based on your criteria. Unless you are using the "reviewer bias" in that you don't find the game very fun (I don't find them fun either, even if technically I think they are pretty good), I'm surprised you rate these games as "bad" games. Which then leads me into, how much should "fun" be a factor? If someone has fun with a "horrible game" are you talking about "I like this in spite of the issues?" or more of a "Check out how I can exploit the crappiness of this game in order to laugh at the game" (think Skate 3 physics videos). I see a game like StarCraft 2 and MW3 as games that technically are very good, but ultimately are not games that I find fun. I can totally understand why a lot of people may enjoy this type of game, even though I may not.

Would them providing in game examples have really helped? What exactly is an average game? What exactly is a horrible game? Can you provide some context, perhaps with comparative examples, so I can understand the framework with which you are dealing with? When I think horrible game, I usually think "Big Rigs" or "Extreme Paintbrawl." Average games are along the lines of "average" in that they are playable, enjoyable on some level but ultimately nothing mind blowing nor particularly memorable. I am currently playing Inquisitor. It has a neat setting, decent writing, very shoddy combat which sadly underutilizes what could be an interesting character stat system. It seems like an average game (but worth the $15 I paid for it)

By the same token, I wouldn't be surprised if LucasArts properties aren't really developed on at all. Disney has had a real focus on social gaming with not much interest in pursuing high def markets.