alanschu

I guess this isn't really a "Greenlight" but I had a chance to play this indie at PAX and actually really enjoyed it. Life Goes On

**** Citizen Kane and **** all those people that are using it as a goal who don't even know why Citizen Kane was relevant to film. Hint: "its not because its a good movie." Having never seen the film, why is it note worthy?

Rome 2

<aside> I just learned what Pabst Blue Ribbon is in a game of Cards Against Humanity that I had with some fans at PAX </aside>

If you are in the pause and play tactical camera mode all characters will autoattack and direct input will not be required aside from using activated abilities. This is the state right now. The abilities thing could change as party tactics and customization come online.

Although it's twisted in with an RPG and story, so in that sense it's still a bit unique. My ultimate sad panda moment is when I felt Alpha Protocol played a lot like Mass Effect, but got ripped to shreds because of it EDIT: Anyways, off to PAX! Have a good weekend guys

Well, then I am not at all impressed!

The real question is... how long does it take to reach those levels?

Thanks I think? I agree that Act 3 is the weakest part of the game by a good chunk.

Some did find the plot to be underwhelming because it was so localized and for some just not as interesting (especially compared to the large accomplishments that the Warden achieved). I think on some level people DO like being that big and awesome hero, while hipsters like us are a bit more welcoming of some variation. Though it can be hard to disassociate because a lot of people that disliked the main plot had issues with other elements. Hawke being passive or even just a constant failure was a reasonably common one. Though it was definitely not one of the primary complaints, IMO. Although I find when people are frustrated at some aspects, and in general have a bad taste in their mouth, they will look back on other things and be more critical of them than they perhaps otherwise would have. Similar to those that really like a product, and are willing to overlook similar slights. And yeah, the direct personal element kind of disappears after Act One. It's more a circumstance of Hawke being called upon based on his/her past actions leading to things, but it's definitely not really affecting Hawke's personal story so much, aside from being declared the Champion at the end of Act 2.

I'm not sure I can agree with this. But then again, I didn't make games before 2009 so I suppose I'm not perfectly qualified to say.

I remember creating one of those testing imports XD

The only people that are "stupid in their purchasing decisions" are the ones that don't like the model and still pay for it. Those that have no problems with the model are doing exactly what they should do as consumers. She seems to be saying that she pays what she feels is fair. Which is what all consumers should do. She often doesn't even buy DLC (neither do I). That many people do does not mean that it's stupid, nor unfettered approval of "corporate trickery." If you have reservations about the notion of "cut content to be sold as DLC" then absolutely, don't buy the DLC. Further, maybe don't even buy the game. On principle I encourage you to do that,

I wouldn't be surprised if "importing" simply doesn't exist (because there's no shortage of bugs). I suppose we could allow people to import their game states to the Keep (I haven't read the article yet), but the idea is to use this to set your "import state."

Am I the one being disingenuous? Or are you saying that we're under obligation to provide that additional content at no additional cost? I think you're splitting hairs. I used the term free as "New content was created, and people were able to pick it up without having to pay extra for it." If Throne of Bhaal was just created and available to everyone that owned BG2, I would consider it free content. On this point, we'll have to agree to disagree as it's mostly semantics at this point. This reminds me of people that used to tell me that "You shouldn't be able to be in the NBA unless you can hit 75% of your free throws." Your restriction is arbitrary. What it also means is that, even if fans want more content for a game, if we've reached the cost limit for DLC, we either can only do it for free, or move on to something else.

Yes. It's clear you still care!

Yup. I don't think it's fair to say that it wouldn't have been a big deal to do backwards compatibility.

DLCs are indeed done to provide additional revenue. What level of "innocence" is more dependent on whether or not someone feels that it's okay for us to try to make money and/or mitigate risk with the main game. EDIT: And whether or not the fanbase feels the decisions made during said creation/deployment are fair. Indeed, the people I was referring to definitely do not dislike the content. In fact, they give the impression that they really want the content. If we gave it away for free (which is what some feel we should do), they'd obviously be happier. I suspect if they didn't want the content, it'd be irrelevant if it was paid DLC or not.

If the comment doesn't apply to you, then the comment doesn't apply to you. There are people that literally have literally told me Mass Effect 3's DLC (all of it) should have been free because it was all "essential story content." Juxtaposed with people that say we should *only* make DLC like that, because they'd rather have more story content than simply some customization stuff. There are indeed some that would rather we release something like From Ashes as Day One DLC than simply some weapon/customization pack, simply because they like the story content and would rather get more story content. This may be echoed among the preorder/special edition fans since it's often included as an incentive there, as well. A lot of it is still "this stuff is relatively new" as well. Since some people are always going to be upset, the challenge comes in ascertaining how much frustration there is. Although people do send mixed signals when they talk about how much they loathe DLC yet still buy it. I always encourage people not to buy it if they aren't a fan of DLC, because saying "I really don't like DLC" while still buying it makes it more difficult to go "Do they really not like DLC, or are they hoping that if they are part of a group voice, they can get more content for less cost?" It's similar with price increases, and when some people started to get upset at new PC games being $60 instead of $50 in the past few years. Saying "This is too expensive" and still buying it complicates the issue. As for the idea of stuff being cut content, from what I understand most stuff ( "expansion" or "DLC" ) often is. Pretty much all of Tales of the Sword Coast, for example, was content that was cut from Baldur's Gate. There's often close to as much game that ends up on the chopping block as content that actually ships with the game, with a variety of reasons motivating cuts (time being probably the most common).

You certainly aren't the only person, Monte, that prefers less voice. Especially when considering the player character. Though things like Kickstarter and smaller scale games are becoming more accessible and whatnot, that hopefully some of those unscratched itches some gamers have can now get some attention.

https://twitter.com/AvoidComments

Oh man. I have zero clue about that. Our building structure still appears to be intact... Unless it was a friendly social visit, given that he WAS the friendly Half-Orc.

I don't have any recollection of his appearance. I predict instant, preemptive banning likely occurred! I come and go on the BSN in spurts though (usually surrounding news and a short time after said news).

I'll keep that in mind the next time you have a critique about our games.

Why should I give a review that says that an extra consideration, compared to one that doesn't?