Slowtrain

Is there any reason to re-enter it? If not then I would assume they just figured nobody would want to.

You're like this archive of visual funny.

Game difficulty should never really be an issue for any game as long as there is some sort of difficulty slider: Easy should be just that: easy. For n00bs amd for those who just want to play the game to experience the story without being overly inconvenienced. Normal should be somewhat challenging but not punishing. Hard should make you sweat. The problem is too often there isn't a huge difficulty between the difficulty settings. I was playing Fallout 3 for the longest time on what I thought was Normal but one day I happened to be looking for video options and not I hiced that the difficulty was on Hard and had been all the time. I played through the Witcher several times on Normal then tried it on hard and didn't even notice a difference. Really, I don't think that is acceptable. Hard should mean "hard" not "a bit more difficult than normal."

Those are more rpg cliches then Bioware cliches. Granted Bioware may not be the flagship of originality but they are no worse than anyone else. Besides, well done cliches can still work fine. That's why they are cliches. They work.

No, they do in fact scale in difficulty over time. It's true that they get more difficult the further south and east you go at any given time, but they also scale up as game progress increases. If you attack Drassen as the first objective enemies are weak. If you save Drassen to the end, the enemies will be much stronger. So its really a combo system, combining both area-based difficulty with progress scaling edit: I would also add that Jag2 TB combat, while decent enough, suffers from the same problems as any other combat game of this sort: Once you understand the game and how the AI "thinks" you can break the difficulty curve since the human player is infinitely more adaptable than computer game AI's.

Well, again specific to Broken Steel, no new content had to be added to allow continued play after the ending so there was no need to attach it to an additional content DLC. Nor was there any reason to attach the additional levels to such. Sure. As we mentioned, it's not provable either way, but I can understand why the appearance of such would bother some gamers. If you have no problems or concerns with the game , then it doesn't work against you at all. But if one does have issues, then the best way to express one's concern or displeasure is with one's wallet and not buy the game.

You must be the one who keeps carding me. Stop it.

I just want to clarify that I wasn't in any way meaning to demean your post and thread. rather it was just the opposite: to say that I enjoyed reading it. But I recognize that the clarity of my post was probably lacking. Thank you for posting your DA mini review. I hope more people post their own as well.

I don't really think of it as arguing though, in the sense that it's not really my goal to change your mind and make you hate it. WHich not only is not possible but something I wouldn't want to do in the first place. It's more just discussion. Is it really episode 7 already. That doesn't seem possible.

Well, I think the argument specifically against the Bethsda Broken Steel DLC was that allowing the game to continue after the ending was not so much a matter of adding content as it was not specifically limiting it. IE: It could have been in the original game without a problem. I agree with Krezzie that its not really a matter of gamers wanting to get something for nothing as much as a belief that they are getting an intentionally weakened product to make follow up sales of additional related product more likely. *shrugs* My only real criticism of gamers would be that if they really don't approve of a particular approach a developer takes then they shouldn't buy the games. It's the only way to make a difference, but most of the time they buy the game and then complain. Which seems pretty pointless. A gamer holds financial power as long as they don't buy the game; once they buy it, no one cares about their complaints. As I've said before, I don't think gamers are as a whole the most savy consumers on the planet. edit: Just to clarify that its not really accurate to say that once a gamer buys the game that nobody cares. A developer still wants to sell their next game and any other follow up product to that same gamer so they are not going to want to alienate that ganer to the point where the gamer won't purchase any more product. Gamers have a lot of financial power over the state of gaming, but their inability to not buy a game or in many cases even to wait a few months often works against them.

That is, of course, quite true, but not all complaints are created equal. To me, in this particular instance, its more about understanding WHY a gamer would complain, not trying to judge if the complaint is valid or not. Validity is often a matter of upon which side of the fence one sits.

I never get carded for alcohol but I still get carded for computer games. It's pretty weird. :/

As alanschu mentions, publishers could simply hold off on releasing completed DLC for a month or two, though you can be sure there will still be folks whining that they should get it for free. Sure that's probably true. And business is what business is: every developer is looking to make as much money as possible. We all know that. So is it any wonder that when Bethesda releases a DLC that raises the level cap by 10 levels and allows the game to continue after the ending, that some gamers view that with the suspicion that such an action might have premeditated and done only to make the DLC more attractive? It can't be proved either way and ultimately woiuldn't matter if it could since the developer can do what they want regardless, but its seems perfectly understandable why gamers (some of them) would find that annoying. I'm in agreement as well. But there are obviously some people who do care. I don't think there is any right or wrong here; just two opposite sides each trying to get the most for what they have.

Best Buy cards me all the time for games. I find it annoying and I avoid shopping for games there whenever possible.

Agreed. It's a situation where two sides are in directly conlict as far as their desires go. Publishers and developers want to get as much money as they can for the amount of content they create, while gamers want to get as much content as possible for the amount of money that they spend. Publishers and developers will lost likely push as hard as they dare to maximize the amount of money their content generates and gamers will view with suspicion any appearances that they have been given less than they should for the money they spent. ultimately, I think gamers have the power since it is their money that pays all the salaries, generally however gamers seem tochoose not to really exercise that power and not buy games when not buying the games might make a difference.

How people feel is precisely the problem here, with their feelings being irrational. A person buys game x and they enjoy it and feel it was worth the money they paid, but tell them for an additional cost they can purchase at extra set of armor and an extra dungeon, and suddenly the game that was worth it before is now a rip-off. Their purchase = the game. If they haven't purchased additional content, then they aren't entitled to it. Buying a ticket to see a movie in the cinema doesn't entitle you to the deleted scenes that appear onn the DVD. Whining about how that additional content should just be given to them for nothing is just greed. Which is amusing, considering the whiners typically accuse publishers of the same thing. I think your points are perfectly valid. Likewise I also understand why people would feel displeased by finding dlc already available for in game purchase on day 1. I don't think it is baffling at all.

Wait, so you're saying its not a snoozefest? Has anything of consequence happened yet? Are the characters developing in interesting ways? Is there a exciting story unfolding? AS of episode 3 the answer to all of the above was basically no.

*shrug* I think its perfectly understandable. People are spending a lot of money for the game; they want to feel like they are getting as much as they can for it. When someone spends money on something they have a right to feel somewhat entitled as regards their purchase.

Especially if you don't what to purchase each player that you want in your video hockey game from the publisher's on line store a few years from now.

eh, I don't really troll. I just don't feel any particular need to always be a positive voice in a thread. Anyway, if one has been an active presence in a thread, being a part of the pros and cons being discussed, it's generally not considered trolling. AS for this thread in particular, I started off reasonably positive. But the bad acting and bad writing eventually did me in.

I'm not. But then again I'm not cool either. I also don't have the game. I'm enjoying reading all the threads though.

Syfy hasn't cancelled this snoozefest yet?

Its good to see that there are some people on here (lots actually) who are skeptical of DLC and especially in-game purchasable DLC. Makes me think that the inevitable future of buying your way through a game piecemeal rather than playing your way through may not be so inevitable.

Bioware has already done that before with NWN Hordes of the Underdark. Lol. :bowdown:

I agree. But I won't be buying. Personal choice and so forth.