WorstUsernameEver

It goes without saying that the more stuff there is in a game, the less polished it can be, and Rockstar games are remarkably polished despite that obstacle. Add to that some very powerful escapism, accessibility, great production values and it's easy to see why they are so liked and why they're remarkable titles whether you like them or not (and I'm not a superfan of Rockstar games, honestly). Considering people on this forum are willing to excuse role-playing games for being unpolished and buggy as hell, I can understand why they can excuse Grand Theft Auto for not having perfect shooting/driving mechanics. I'm sure you can make some compelling argument about why Dragon Age II is good, but you can hardly use that reasoning since it's a game with a very focused, almost narrow scope in design and content. Then again, I never mentioned Dragon Age II in the first place, so I'm not the most indicated to reply on that point.

Photo 1, photo 2, MCA explains. Petition for this! Petition!

Well that's good ol' Nightshape alright.

...Wow I've traveled back in time! ...jokes aside (I'm sure you meant Skyrim and just got confused) I'm not sure. Bethesda has already said they are in the design stages (they never mentioned Fallout 4 but they mentioned 2 games and they have two franchises so it was fairly obvious) so I assume they'll start working on it with a full team as soon as the game is released, while keeping a small team for Skyrim's DLC? I'm not too familiar with how Bethesda Game Studios works with multiple projects.

Except that's kind of the draw of an open world/sandbox game: I do a little bit of this and a little bit of that and I just kind of do **** and have fun. No one is going to praise GTA IV for its tight mechanics, but the overall package can be extremely compelling, more than a simple cover shooter. Of course, I can see why from a designer point of view you'd look at it and go like "whaaa there's a lot of content but it's ****", but sometimes it's useful to just detach yourself and look at a game through the eyes of a gamer. And Rockstar games generally are fun. Also, I wouldn't say that Valve had a quality over quantity approach with, e.g. Half Life 2, which featured a lot of half-baked/broken sections. P.S.: I don't condone the way Rockstar puts games together by the way and I think their M.O. exemplifies the industry's problems in many many ways.

6 1/2 hours is quite a lot for a game that is as short as Dungeon Siege III. How about the gameplay? How does it compare to the main title? What influence do the addition have to the gameplay both in the DLC section and in the main campaign?

I think I'm far from the end. I know I have a temple and a vault to hit yet, and a few things to find. That may or may not be true, however. I thought I had a ton of game to go when I hit Stonebridge the first time I'll update with approximate playtime when I finish. K, thanks.

Three hours and you're still far from the end? Considering the size of the original game you could consider this a full expansion. Mmmh.. decisions, decisions..

There's still the chance he'll stay at Obsidian but yeah, it's better to consider that position just an interlude unless something happens and changes his (or the company he's talking to) mind.

Tim Cain's interview, presented to you by Will Ooi. Snippets on Obsidian:

Think I'll wait for some more feedback on this, not quite in the mood for beat'em-up fantasy actioning with dialogue trees right now.

I hate GameInformer's video player.

No more replying to my confused, directionless tech questions about Onyx.. no more.

Please, don't confuse random encounters with the humor in the main locations. Random encounters were handled the same way between the first and second title.

Note: those are for the unmodded game. Ramp them up a generation for a fully modded and optimized game.

Well, as Clay Davis likes to say: sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit, they know I'm an ass.

I'm not the biggest fan of Rockstar and their internal practices, but you can't help but appreciate the wealth of options in their game. They get open worlds. Better than anyone else period.

How did you manage to make the DLC run on your game if it's not out in Europe yet?

Woooh not online in Europe! Also: the marketing plan for this DLC sucks, to put it bluntly. Announce it then silence for a long time then release it? Who thought this was a good idea?

He was one of the few that talked on the forums.

Some day, some company is going to release some fantasy game with no dragons in it and it will be a major selling point for me That'd be Oblivion, if you don't count Akatosh That would be pretty much every other Elder Scrolls game, well, except Daggerfall and its dragonlings I think? And there was also one of the spin-offs that I think had a dragon. More of a stereotypical dragon with a lair and gold, though.

A flower made of goo? Truly beautiful and touching.

There are probably things such as NDAs and marketing plan he and the team at Obsidian have to abide to.

He's in front of The Tops.

Morrowind had a fairly different level scaling system from Oblivion.