alanschu

I find the Kill Bill style BLOOD EVERYWHERE thing annoying. I have nothing against people dying realistically with dismemberment and whatnot, but ever single enemy spilling bathtubs of blood is just gratuitous blood for blood's sake and distracts me from the game. I really hope they don't have the "blood splatter on the screen" thing, that is even worse. Hmmm, I have a feeling those are unique blows. I don't recall it being distracting during combat, but at the same time I was usually zoomed out quite a bit from the action.

At this point I doubt I'll buy the game unless it's quite cheap and I somehow come into some extra money randomly haha. The game just hasn't captured my interest.

I definitely agree. I certainly can't fault them because I bought the game hahaha. People would occasionally go onto the forums and complain about the high price, but would usually just get responses (from the fans) defending the price as being inelastic and not resulting in improved revenues if the price was dropped. I wouldn't be surprised if it is true. A cheap standard and more expensive collector's edition will probably work well.

Now yes, that would be pretty cool!

Hahaha catch a freeze frame and it looks pretty crazy. The game doesn't skimp on blood that's for sure. Though I'm a horrible monster that's been woefully desensitized so during gameplay I didn't actually notice it that much haha.

The issue is that if you're going to pay $50 for a game from AoD, or $50 from a game from Obsidian, one of these things is a much surer bet to get a game that you enjoy. ITS is certainly allowed to sell the game for whatever they wish. If they sell it for the same price as other, more mainstream games, then they'll have to understand that some people might not feel it's worth the money compared to other games. As the saying goes, nothing personal, just business. 2by3 Games is a small time developer that makes war games and sells them through Matrix Games. Their games are actually usually sold for HIGHER than mainstream games. Their most recent Admiral Edition of War in the Pacific is $100 IIRC. ($20 discount if you own War in the Pacific). I picked that game up, even though it cost a lot relative to other games, even though it's a hex based war game with mediocre graphics and "meh" production values. I bought it because I loved WitP and this was a huge improvement in it, and so far I've not been disappointed in my purchase. Like CrashGirl said, we buy our games because we expect some sort of enjoyment out of them, and in spite of the high price, I know that WitP will give me lots of enjoyment, for a long period of time to boot!

Perhaps not, if you enjoy wasting your time in a fruitless endeavour. That can be fun sometimes I must admit. Or is it just a chest thumping exercise of you taking your Shaw quote to heart? You plan on changing anybody's mind, or just doing your duty to help with world progress. Of course not. Because you failed to understand what I was demonstrating with it. Of course, CrashGirl acknowledging it, and other people commenting explicitly about their expectations, you know, that thing I've been talking about. Just because you failed to understand it, and then had the arrogance to state that the people that did correct interpret it are wrong in their interpretations, doesn't make it so. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but I'm hardly the only person in the conversation that has issues with clarity in their text. Even if we don't like to admit it because when we write it, it makes perfect sense to us. Anyways, moving on.... Expectations also play an important role from a different angle. People have the expectation that a game from BioWare won't deliver on the type of RPG like experience that they want. With no precedent outside of Iron Tower having roots with the Codex (who love a particular style of RPG), ITS has the "advantage" have garnering the support of those that feel they must look elsewhere to get the RPG that they are looking for. Because of the promises that ITS has stated for the type of game, people are going to overlook the faults of the game, in part due to the hope and expectation that ITS will deliver, in addition to the emotional investment in hoping the game is what they hope it will be. Challenge people and they'll get defensive, and make rationalizations. A fair number of people see AoD as giving them the experience that they want. Had it come from BioWare though, sure, they'll be skeptical based on the impressions they have about previous and current BioWare games. I wouldn't at all be surprised if someone that is claiming to not care about AoD's graphics had no qualms trashing a different game that they didn't care about for its graphics. Even if they were better than AoD's.

I have this funny feeling that this might extend beyond the scope of the game >.>

Clearly I did, because you still don't get it. Too busy focusing on the "charity" aspect and not the "expectation" aspect. I'll drop that example altogether as clearly it wasn't as clear to you as I thought it was. As has been stated (by even you): If BioWare were to make a game with production values of AoD, they'd be criticized for it. Iron Tower Studios does not, because it matches expectation of indie style game. If Iron Tower Studios were to make a game on par with a BioWare game, they'd be championed for it because it'd be so unexpected. Good for you Gromnir. You should do that. I plan on doing the same thing (in fact I doubt I'll buy Age of Decadence). But to be confused as to why OTHER people behave they way they do, when it's really not that surprising, even if it's irrational/illogical/whatever isn't really that surprising now, is it? After all, you were asking why other people do. You can hit them with all the reason and logic you want, but you're just ignoring the fact that they're human, and are going to exhibit the irrationalities human beings have. The problem Gromnir, is you're expecting people to behave like you, and then act confused when they don't.

tl;dr: You took a comment regarding charity and grossly misinterpreted it (while others on the board seem to have understood it just fine), and then didn't let it go. Later on I explain why your perspective is correct from a utilitarian perspective, but ignores human nature. I also make a comment about how people will make all sorts of excuses and rationalizations to protect themselves from cognitive dissonance. Like you just did. Cheers Gromnir.

I find the comment about clarity rather ironic. But anyways. You're the only one talking warm fuzzy feelings here Gromnir, no one else. You can stay on strawman argument regarding charitable organizations all you want, but we're just talking expectations, it could have been a charity, it could have a host of other things. Failure to have an open mind about it is entirely your failing. The analogy wasn't to charity, but expectations. Funny that Crash Girl understood it perfectly, but you somehow think that I'm equating AoD with a charity or something. But yeah, I'm not clear. Even though other people got it. Strange. I know that, and you're the only one bringing up this argument. I can understand that you expect a game from Iron Tower Studios (or any other studio) to be held up equivalently. I bet lots of people do. Heck, I do. However, when you ask why people would feel this way, simply because you don't agree nor understand the answer, doesn't mean it's incorrect. People DO cheer for the underdogs. They WILL cheer for their friends, and hope for the best. Even if it makes no sense to actually do so. At times you seem to understand this, yet by the same account, you either fail to understand it or are just arguing against the irrationalities that come with being humanity for your own ****s and giggles. I have no issues that you may not feel these ways, but to be confused and not understand why others might is quite frankly just being disconnected from humanity. It's really not that difficult of a concept. No, you're just failing to get it. And I understand why. You might not judge the billionaire any differently than the pauper if they both contribute the exact same amount of money, but that doesn't mean that other people won't. You're a smarter person than this Gromnir. Figuring out why really isn't that hard. Unless you're just being obtuse. No one made any case that you should give the crap doctor a chance when you're deathly ill, or any nonsense like that. What people are saying is that if you take BioWare, and suddenly have them release games of the production values of Iron Tower Studios, people will get pissy. If you take Iron Tower Studios and they release a game of typical indie quality, no one really notices. If you take Iron Tower Studios and they release a game of quality of the BioWare games (especially with their lower budget), then people will be surprised. You can swap the labels and say BioWare is making AoD, and people will act differently. For the same reasons they will act differently towards the millionaire that only contributes the same amount to a charity as some pauper. Does it make sense? No. Should it be that way? Probably not. But you're just looking at the end value, and removing the human aspect of it. It's going to be there and no amount of righteous chest thumping that you do to show people the error of their ways and that they should hold Iron Tower Studios to the same standards of AAA development houses is going to change that. And frankly, unless you're that disconnected from the rest of humanity, you already know why. Furthermore, people WILL rationalize their actions any way they can to prevent the cognitive dissonance that would come with it. They'll do so by saying "yeah but it's got this other stuff I'm really looking forward to" and other stuff like that. Just like they'll say "Oh well the billionaire could have given more to charity" or "the pauper gave a lot given how much he has to offer."

my Half-Life is actually owned under a different steam account IIRC

So what you're saying is that if the Billionaire didn't pony up the money, and say, matched what the paupers donated, you'd be disappointed in the billionaire because you were, say, expecting a lot more from him? Or how about, if the pauper contributed more than the billionaire, perhaps there'd be some appreciation for the pauper, in addition to some cynicism for the billionaire. It's not that AoD is "better." It's that people's expectations are lower so it won't be as hard to meet them. They think they are going to get a game that they enjoy and given the source of development, aren't as critical for other parts because as you say, it's an amateur work. You've been describing the very reasons why people are less critical in your very own posts, but somehow failed to actually comprehend it. Perhaps your posting style has obfuscated your points even to yourself. If BioWare [billionaire] makes a game on the level of AoD [made by the pauper], and essentially contributes just as much as the pauper, then yes, people will take notice, and as you have acknowledged already, criticize BioWare for it. If Iron Tower Studios were to make a game with the graphical fidelity of Mass Effect, from it's indie [pauper] roots, people would be absolutely floored with it. Heck, if Iron Tower Studios were to actually have made Mass Effect, instead of BioWare, I have no doubt that the game would be more universally heralded as a fantastic game. CrashGirl gets it. But as I said straight up in my original post...you don't seem to understand. Which is a bit mind boggling, because you seem to give the reasons for why people would treat Iron Tower differently, only to later ask why people treat Iron Tower differently.

I'm getting the feeling from what a lot of people criticize on these boards is that we're hoping for a journey/adventure that is a bit less...grandiose than the uber-epic "Saves zee world!" type stuff. No chosen ones, no end of the worlds, but something on a much smaller scale. Some things to consider. Do we want a more open ended type game where the PC is a blank slate? Or do we want to allow for a backstory (or a variety of backstories) in hopes of perhaps having a slightly richer character/story out of the deal?

Good for you. No wonder you don't understand. I doubt you will.

I won't dispute that if BioWare released a game with AOD's graphics there'd be an uproar. I just won't take part in it. And I think CrashGirl make's an astute point. Vinnie has no precedent set, plus there's the fact that people "know" him through the internet. So it's like a friend of yours working on something and you want it to do well. Expectation is an important thing too. People expect more from the large gaming studios, as they'll have more resources at their disposal. Come to think of it, it's kind of natural. You have two guys at a charity about to donate money. One is a billionaire, the other is unemployed. Who do you expect is going to be able to contribute more. Do you hold the unemployed man by the same standards as the billionaire?

Meh, I feel as though I can pretty honestly state the graphics don't bother me. Though appropriately, I'm also not looking forward to Age of Decadence.

I have a feeling that this one might be worse than the worst one, if only because we're trying :D

Matt Rorie is the PR Guru, with a specialization in PR naturally. I believe his history is Tech Specialist

I'm guessing torture won't really be featured in the game haha. Perhaps if you want to split hairs there could be some aggressive interrogation techniques, but out and out torture is probably pretty taboo.

Can we call the monastery Candlekeep!

Did you play it on the 360? EDIT: Kelverin, go play Deus Ex.

There's plenty of people that choose not to drink and drive. I have to agree with Morgoth that this is more an issue of enforcement, rather than actual behaviour.

I have no issues with Obsidian wanting to make KOTOR 3. The fact that I'm okay with Lucasarts going ahead with SWTOR instead of KOTOR does nothing to disprove that. I'm just not going to make a big deal out of it because Lucasarts decided to go in a different direction. Fortunately, Obsidian is a capable development studio, and as a result are about to release a game I'm very much interested in: Alpha Protocol. Stop. As a fan of Obsidian, and someone that has been a fan of much of their development staff since the Black Isle Studio days, as well as someone that has purchased and supported every game they have ever released except for Lionheart.... it is exceptionally important to understand that the "fault" for KOTOR 2's state is split in some way (not even 50-50 necessarily) between Obsidian and Lucasarts. We can only make assumptions as to why things turned out the way that they did. Anything else is just speculation. I knew you were going to say this. Here's what you've said though: You're upset and feel that BioWare/Lucasarts is betraying the consolers that made KOTOR the hit it was, by making an MMO. You've created all this talk about how the consolers are being left out, etc. But you've decided to simply insult me. How is playing LOTRO immature, yet playing Star Wars games, is not? I fail to see the hypocrisy of me enjoying other games as well. Though you've resorted to ad hominem attacks. I can read well actually. Unfortunately, you have been quite poor in being clear in your points. For a writer, this is unfortunate. If you were implying that you think that there will be some good competition because of WoW2 vs SWTOR, you did not do a very good job of it. You almost seemed eager that WoW would "crush" SWTOR...it's hard not to take that has being a rather spiteful comment. Strawman argument. I didn't claim that you spend your evening by the fire crying your eyes out. So before you go accusing me of putting words in people's mouths, take a look at what you write. I also never claimed that you hated BioWare, so there's no need for you to defend yourself in that regard. Sure you're entitled to be pissed off about it, just as I'm entitled to tell you to get over it. I have no doubt that Feargus would love to give a shot at KOTOR 3. Though I suspect they'll do it for a fair cost, rather than cheaply. He's still responsible for the employees that work for him and ensuring that they continue receive the remuneration that they certainly deserve. You keep just saying "Why not?" I'll come up with a quick list of possible reasons just off the top of my head: They don't think it will be worth the money They'd rather focus on SWTOR They'd rather not work with Obsidian Entertainment Seriously, it's not that hard to come up with reasons why they shouldn't do it. However, "why not" is not a reason they should do it. However, why should they do it? Clearly the most mature person I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. Tell you what, since you find it so distracting, I'll remove it (since I'm not playing it anymore anyways. I'm sure you noticed since you were so fixated on it that I hadn't leveled up in quite some time). Now that it's gone, surely you won't be so fixated on it anymore.

Not enough Geralt in it.