[Chris Avellone: The Final Frontier]

 

 

 

This is what makes me question the legitimacy of the revelations and the poster. I don't recall Avellone ever being this nasty (**** in your mouth, really?) even while replying to the billionth question about the Fallout Bible and its status.

 

Also, do we have any actual evidence, or is it all word of mouth (or forum post)?

I think you guys need to put this in context. He posted this at about 4 or 5 am. He's been up all night answering questions. That guy he's responding to has been accusing him for several posts of trying to ruin Project Indiana and the devs on it by talking about Feargus. He's human, get over it.

 

I'll never understand why people expect people to act like politicians and be PC and diplomatic all the time and never show any emotion towards someone insulting you. It's ridiculous.

How selfless of him.

 

Nothing in my post suggested that. I only meant to put the post into context because people seemed to freak out over it when Infinitron posted it with no context.

 

I don't get it. If we're willing to excuse horrible behavior on the basis of being human, then I vote that the Obsidian management, who are apparently next kin to Satan, should be exempt too.

 

EDIT: Also, I think I really need to take a break from this thread. At this point, it's just clawing at sores.

I don't think his behavior was "horrible." I'm not sure how insulting someone who is insulting you repeatedly is comparable to the other unethical things we're hearing him talk about. Whenever someone's repeatedly insulted me over the internet, I've found they'll stop if you stand up to them. Otherwise, they'll just continue to insult you and it will be sort of like bullying. The first thing you should do with bullies is stand up to them to get it to stop. I just think it's weird how everyone is trying to find any excuse to dismiss what he's saying. No one wants to believe there is anything bad happening at Obsidian, but imo I don't think you should shy away from truth. Even if it's ugly and makes you feel bad, you should still do it. Also, MCA is only criticizing the owners and what they've done. He's only had nice things to say about everyone else working there. I think we should be open minded about the possibility that a lot of this stuff is true and others there could verify if asked about it, although, I don't see anyone saying anything about it.

 

Take a break, though, if you need one.

[Chris Avellone: The Final Frontier]

 

This is what makes me question the legitimacy of the revelations and the poster. I don't recall Avellone ever being this nasty (**** in your mouth, really?) even while replying to the billionth question about the Fallout Bible and its status.

 

Also, do we have any actual evidence, or is it all word of mouth (or forum post)?

 

I think you guys need to put this in context. He posted this at about 4 or 5 am. He's been up all night answering questions. That guy he's responding to has been accusing him for several posts of trying to ruin Project Indiana and the devs on it by talking about Feargus. He's human, get over it.

 

I'll never understand why people expect people to act like politicians and be PC and diplomatic all the time and never show any emotion towards someone insulting you. It's ridiculous.

[If Project Eternity was turn-based...?]

Professionals, by and large, don't make mistakes. If a professional chess player misreads the board it's because he had an off day, or, more likely, because he wasn't able to react fast enough (which is the point of the timer). Do you honestly think NBA players have sub 100% FT percentages because their aim sucks? Even I can hit basket after basket with relative ease when it's just me on the court. If there's no pressure the skill ceiling for an activity is relatively low; perhaps your problem is you simply can't hit it.

haha what a joke. Keep on making up crap. Professionals make mistakes all the time, just less than the average person. To pretend this doesn't exist or there aren't limitations to different people is some kind of joke.

 

You guys can use the it's just bad A.I. excuse, but that's just your opinion. You can't prove that it can actually be done because it hasn't been done. For all we know it's simply a technical limitation at this point and my points still stand regardless. In the IE games, if I remember right, mobs just attacked the closest party member usually. If you moved out of range of that mob then it would give up chase and just attack the closest party member. No going specifically after your vulnerable weak characters. No way to close the distance when you were out of melee range.

 

I assume you are also aware that Dragon Age is by many regarded as the spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate and ultimately the base mechanic are fairly similar (RTwP, healing kits etc are just specifics). Your claims are generic enough to cover BG also, being directed at RT combat.

Does that mean that the opinion of the people that like the IE games and prefer that style to TB are also not worth anything?

The people who think RTwP is better than Turn Based are wrong. I've pointed out facts. This isn't about personal opinion or preference. This is about mechanics and which one objectively works better. Dream and your posts are hilarious. You're trying to make up a bunch of excuses or crap to justify your opinion and make your opinion seem right. I'm the only one debating rationally and objectively here. And yes some people's opinions are worth less than others. If someone thinks that Transformers Revenge of the Fallen is the best film ever, their opinion is worthless. That's just the way it is, but I'm not arguing that. I'm simply providing examples of why Turn Based works better than RTwP. You guys are the ones getting upset over nothing.

[If Project Eternity was turn-based...?]

Playing the realism argument makes no sense. RTwP is just as unrealistic as turn based. You realize you can move in real time but your attacks took 6 second turns/rounds in the IE games, right?

 

It's a game. It's not going to be realistic. This has nothing to do with the points I was making.

 

And yes my facts were facts.

 

The Go thing wasn't an analogy. Read Dream's posts in response to mine. He makes up a bunch of crap about turn based games like chess.

[Volunteer Labor?]

Also want to just add a resounding NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

If I wanted to read a bunch of crappy writing I'd just purchase Merin's book.

[If Project Eternity was turn-based...?]

Would have stopped this debate here, but you elevating your opinions of what makes a better game to the level of facts is fairly irritating and just plain wrong.

Fact: You can abuse movement in RTwP combat while in Turn based you can't. Attack, move, attack, move. Heal, move, heal, move. Or move while rest of party attacks at range.

 

Fact: There are typically more options in Turn based combat RPGs compared to RTwP. Meaning you have different attacks. Like AoOs or Trips or Disarms. There's typically less emphasis placed on these options in favor of simply autoattacking so combat goes by quicker and the player isn't forced to pause several times during one turn/round. I'm trying to remember if there were AoOs in RTwP games. If there were then moving to not trigger them would require a lot of pausing.

 

Fact: Controlling a party in real time is chaotic that's why there is a pause. This is an admission right here that real time combat is bad for this situation.

 

They insert a pause and party A.I. to automate things for the player so the player isn't overwhelmed with Real Time combat. Why not just keep it turn based? Because some people have ADHD and can't sit there a 1-3 minute encounters in turn based? It has to be over in less than 30 seconds or they get bored? Who cares what those people think? Let them play Dragon Age 2 and 3 where everything is crappy real time action combat.

 

Fact: Party A.I. doesn't always do what you order it to after you unpause. So they waste a turn or you have to pause again and reissue a command.

 

Fact: Enemy A.I. is better in Turn Based games. Not sure why, but I'm assuming it's just easier to program an A.I. in a turn based, grid system while in Real time it's just too difficult to get the A.I. to work well.

 

These are all facts and have been demonstrated in games. If you can't recognize these are facts and not opinions on how mechanics have worked in RPGs then I don't know what to tell you. This is what I've been saying all along. That turn based mechanics work better than RTwP and are less exploitable.

 

The only bad thing I've heard about Turn Based combat is the combat takes longer. But that's working as intended giving the player full control of his party.

 

While I do like RTS games because you have to make decisions quickly. That's what real time is there for. It doesn't mean there are more options like with Turn based combat. Just that you have to multitask several things at once and the pressure is due to time and keeping track of everything. Things are simpler because of this. Ex: WC3 and SC2. Blizzard uses a rock, paper, scissors system with armor types and damage types keeping things relatively simple for controlling mass units.

 

In turn based games (not just RPGs) you have time to think. Plan your strategy, read several moves ahead, adapt to your opponent's strategy. There's so much you can do. In real time this becomes chaotic and difficult to manage.

 

Also, Dream is wrong. Players don't always pick the best strategies with enough time. Mistakes are made even with unlimited time and you can't always know what your opponent is doing exactly and even if you do, you can still lose. My guess is he's never played any chess before and is just making up crap. Personally, I play Go which is quite a bit more complicated than Chess. Computer programs can't compete with average amateurs at that game. Even pros who play games make mistakes from time to time and misread the board, misread their opponent, etc. And they spend several hours on most of their games. Pretending this stuff doesn't exist is a joke and either incredibly ignorant or perhaps he's just trolling like I thought.

[Obsidian Order Steam Group]

How do i become an Obs Ord member exactly?

You can't. You had to donate an extra $8 on top of your kickstarter tier. But don't worry you'll soon realize it's no big loss when you see what kind of people make up most of the Order. I mean look at this steam group for only Order members. Why? It's just something to make them feel special and separate them from people who didn't give an extra $8. $8 for a custom forum tag and a false sense of superiority. Doesn't seem worth it to me.

[If Project Eternity was turn-based...?]

There is nothing inherently challenging about turn based combat (unless you're talking about being challenging to one's patience). If anything, the fact that a game is in real time forces you to account for more factors when making decisions and thus increases the challenge.

 

Dark Souls wouldn't be more challenging if it was turn based, just saying.

You're wrong. Real time has to actually limit options to account for all the multitasking going on. A player can only do so much in a moment. So they have to ultimately limit combat in RTS games and the like. Challenge only increases in the sense that you have to multitask. Of course RTwP gives you a pause so you get less options/depth but also don't have to multitask as much because you can pause anytime. Turn based has more options and depth to it because it's not happening in real time and the player has more time to pick and choose what he wants to do.

 

Also the player can't just move out of a mob's range and run around in circles while the other party members attack it. There's quite a few limitations to RTwP.

 

Here's an example I think you'll understand. Think of the difference between playing chess with a 5-10 second per move timer and without a timer where you have as much time to think of as possible. The level of play is going to be a lot lower for someone playing a blitz game than a game where they can actually fully think and plan their turns.

 

If the designers choose to limit options to account for multitasking that's their choice, not an inherent deficit of RT games. By your own admission RT games can have more challenge since if those options aren't limited then you have to account for everything you do in turn based games while also having to deal with the challenges of real time. If a player is skilled enough then they can still process all their options in real time and choose the best course of action, which is where the extra challenge comes from. Simply because you feel that being forced to think on your feet isn't a "real" challenge doesn't make it so. Additionally, again by your own admission, since RTwP games allow you to pause combat at anytime and remove the need to think on your feet then it makes no sense for the designers to limit options for lesser skilled players. As for your running in a circle example; that's an issue of poor AI, and one which can be present in any game type.

 

Finally, regarding your chess example, it supports my point more than yours. Professional chess is played with a time limit precisely because at that point the only way to distinguish yourself skill wise is by being able to react faster than your opponent. Pretty much all the top players are equal when it comes to what strategies and tactics they know. If the games had no time limits they would simply last until one player made a mistake due to exhaustion, which is no different then making a mistake due to not being able to think on your feet fast enough.

No I didn't say RT games are more challenging. I just said they challenge your ability to multitask and do many things at once. They still have limitations that turn based combat games don't usually have because the player doesn't have to do anything in RT.

 

I'm starting to guess by your posts you're trolling, because all you're doing is putting words in my mouth and twisting my words. All this by your own admission stuff is crap. I'm not admitting any of that. You're misinterpreting my posts.

 

Instead of taking the point I was trying to prove through the chess example. You took the example literally and twisted it to suit your purposes. The point I made was you play better when you have more time to think than when you're rushed to think on your feet. ex: 5-10 second turns. Who cares why chess players play with timers? It's irrelevant. If you can't grasp a simple point like that then what's the point of having a conversation with you?

 

 

I was simply giving you some arguments (many actually) of why TB might not be the best system possible and why RT (with or without a pause function) or some entirely different system might be better depending on what you find to be important. You may not agree with them, but that is your opinion just like it is your opinion, not an actual fact TB clearly is best or most challenging. You said I could not argue against that, so that is exactly what I did.

If I did not come across with that properly then I am sorry, but ultimately what is best/most challenging is a matter of opinions and taste, there is absolutely no hard fact there, only opinions.

No it's a fact TB is better due to the examples I've already listed. It has nothing to do with my opinion or preference. It's basically me pointing out facts about TB and RTwP and people saying they're opinions. No they're not. If you prefer RT just admit it, but don't pretend there are better mechanics, options and more challenge in those types of game. There aren''t.

[If Project Eternity was turn-based...?]

Well you made some very general assessments about what RT and TB is. Including later that TB is better simply due to the mechanics, which I very much happens to disagree with and argued against.

And things like "what is wrong with you?", makes for a great argument!

 

Anyway I think we should stop this here and just agree to disagree.

I wasn't arguing with you I was sincerely asking. You turned a post talking about mechanics and challenge between TB and RTwP and what has more into a 'what is better' debate.

[If Project Eternity was turn-based...?]

There is nothing inherently challenging about turn based combat (unless you're talking about being challenging to one's patience). If anything, the fact that a game is in real time forces you to account for more factors when making decisions and thus increases the challenge.

 

Dark Souls wouldn't be more challenging if it was turn based, just saying.

You're wrong. Real time has to actually limit options to account for all the multitasking going on. A player can only do so much in a moment. So they have to ultimately limit combat in RTS games and the like. Challenge only increases in the sense that you have to multitask. Of course RTwP gives you a pause so you get less options/depth but also don't have to multitask as much because you can pause anytime. Turn based has more options and depth to it because it's not happening in real time and the player has more time to pick and choose what he wants to do.

 

Also the player can't just move out of a mob's range and run around in circles while the other party members attack it. There's quite a few limitations to RTwP.

 

Here's an example I think you'll understand. Think of the difference between playing chess with a 5-10 second per move timer and without a timer where you have as much time to think of as possible. The level of play is going to be a lot lower for someone playing a blitz game than a game where they can actually fully think and plan their turns.

[If Project Eternity was turn-based...?]

Geez Nerei. Are you seriously trying to change this into a semantics issue of what is better? What's wrong with you?

 

If you're wondering why I was saying what I was saying about RT read the original quote in that quote pyramid that I replied to.

[Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt. 3]

Okay fair enough; I understand you don't believe its technically possible. I'm not convinced it is/isn't (we seem to be okay with non-romance relationships but that may also be because some non-romance relationships are inherently shallow so depth is less of an issue?) but have always accepted that it might be. Or even that it might be technically possible but so resource intensive to "do right" that its not worth it.

 

So again I'm not for mandating romances, either, only including them if they "make sense".

I didn't say it wasn't technically impossible just unrealistically possible. When you set out not to do romances, you have more room for character depth because you can focus on giving your companions unique personalities and their own motivations without worrying whether it will clash with the player's character if they try to romance them.

 

 

Why do they need to appeal to a large amount of people? I don't understand the mentality that some content can't be created for a game that makes sense for the game but that the player may not ever see based on how they view/play their character.

Because that's how the PC culture is and because developers aren't going to make a ton of content that is only going to be accessible to 5% or less of the players playing the game. If they create a romance with a companion, they are going to make that companion appeal to a large part of their player base so that player base can enjoy the content. Hence the shallowness you get. Just look at Bioware's romances. If they could do what you're talking about they'd do it, but they don't even with their huge AAA budgets.

 

*shrug* Beyond technical limitations - which as someone who doesn't make games I've always accepted that there may be practical considerations that just make "doing it right" impossible - I'd think most of the rest of this debate is subjective rather than objective.

 

Anyhow, I'd class myself as being pro-romance in games (provided it makes sense for the plot and characters of the RPG), and I wouldn't be upset about a romance that could fail because of things outside my choice, because it was still ultimately my choice to pursue the relationship that can't work. Certainly this would alter replays (like knowing Yoshimo is going to betray you alters BG2 replays), but I'm not convinced that should be a consideration as to whether its "good" or "bad".

 

Then again I'm also for a game not having any romances if that's the way to make the best game, so...

I think I'm being pretty objective considering the pros and cons of implementing romances into a game of this scope with a limited budget. It's just not practical. And yes the best way to make the game is to not have romances so welcome to anti-romance side.

[Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt. 3]

I guess I was wrong - the BSN was already here.

haha keep in mind you're a regular poster on BSN and so are most of the people clamoring for romance. Yet the people who argue against you don't post on the BSN forums.

 

Someone quote this so Merin sees it.

[If Project Eternity was turn-based...?]

Fight 30 gibberlings with your 6 men party in turn-based combat. 2 Hours to clear the room. Yay.

This doesn't usually happen in TB games and if it does it's a bad encounter design. It's better to have 8-12 mobs that can actually hurt you and offer challenge, rather than fighting 30 trash mobs and rolling through them because they are weak just to stroke the player's ego.

 

RTwP is just there so developers can speed up combat and make it faster and easier to defeat encounters. The solution to this would be to simply remove trash mobs and make most encounters unique and challenging in some way in a turn based setting. Just for some reason developers have problems with this, so people think they need real time combat because they're bored or something. Maybe they can't handle the challenge and want something easier, because that's also what RTwP is.

 

Difficulty is not really tied to the type of mechanic unless it is so badly made that is a challenge in it's own right. If you claim that only TB games can be challenging is borderline silly, usually it just gives you more micromanagement options and generally runs slower than RT.

Not really sure why you assume challenge = fun. If people find faster running combat fun, then that is fun. If you find challenging TB encounters funny, then that is fun. Do not assume that other people cannot have fun with a system if you cannot.

However a funny question really is, what do you call RT with autopause? Is that RT or TB? I could argue that it is simultaneous executed TB. Yes, there are games that use that system.

I don't claim that only TB games can be challenging while RTwP can't, just that TB can be more challenging than RTwP. RTwP just doesn't work as well as turn based. Challenge is fun to me. But I don't think challenge = fun for everyone. You're twisting my words. I was simply commenting on TB being objectively and mechanically more challenging and therefore better than RTwP. You can't argue against that. You can just say you prefer one over the other, but that is just a preference and nothing more.

 

I simply prefer TB combat because I've found it more challenging in games and that's fun for me. To be challenged.

[If Project Eternity was turn-based...?]

Geez you guys don't get it. When I'm talking about unique and challenging. I'm talking about different tactical situations and enemy party combinations with different skills and abilities that challenge the player in different ways.

 

30 mobs that constantly miss you and you run through easily isn't good encounter design. RTwP games have this in spades because you can't make it as challenging as turn based combat. So they just throw a ton of mobs at you to make combat seem interesting and challenging.

 

edit: Another thing. When you use fighting 30+ mobs taking 2 hours to kill in a turn based game then they do become trash mobs. Because there is no reason not to create more difficult mobs with a smaller party that can challenge the player instead of just throwing a ton of weaker mobs at the player constantly.

[If Project Eternity was turn-based...?]

Fight 30 gibberlings with your 6 men party in turn-based combat. 2 Hours to clear the room. Yay.

This doesn't usually happen in TB games and if it does it's a bad encounter design. It's better to have 8-12 mobs that can actually hurt you and offer challenge, rather than fighting 30 trash mobs and rolling through them because they are weak just to stroke the player's ego.

 

RTwP is just there so developers can speed up combat and make it faster and easier to defeat encounters. The solution to this would be to simply remove trash mobs and make most encounters unique and challenging in some way in a turn based setting. Just for some reason developers have problems with this, so people think they need real time combat because they're bored or something. Maybe they can't handle the challenge and want something easier, because that's also what RTwP is.

[Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt. 3]

Why can't a deep character NPCs with different personalities and motivations not - under specific circumstances - be romanceable IF it fits the character (and PC), story, etc. I'm not sure I understand why NON ROMANCE = deep character with personality and ROMANCE = shallow character with no personality by necessity (not saying that games don't end up this way, but I'm not convinced this is at the feat of romance vs. creators not being able to realize a romance in an interesting way)?

Because the technology doesn't exist to realistically put the kind of romances into the game people are asking for without taking away the deep and unique characters. You're talking about branching in a way that can't be realistically done. Writing characters that have not only personalities but will also be attracted to the player no matter what. Giving different branching options for friendship and romance. Can't be done without making it a social/romance simulator that is completely focused on it.

 

The characters have to be open ended/shallow so they appeal to a large amount of people in the romance department. If you create a romance that's apart of the plot, drives the story, and is the only one possible (so it can be "deeper") then it becomes something the player is forced into against their will. Meaning it takes away from the freedom of the player to roleplay the way they want because they're forced into a relationship with a NPC they may not like and ruins the gaming experience for them. Think about the freedom to choose male or female characters. If there is a male player romancing female NPC apart of the story, how will that work with female players? Should they be forced to play males? Should they have to romance a female NPC in the game and be gay? Should they miss out on an important part of the story because it revolves around a male/female romance?

 

 

I'd disagree with this, but then I'm of the opinion that NPC design should dictate the appropriateness of a romance. I disagree with making NPCs for the sole reason to make sure there is equality in romances. I'm not entirely sold on the idea that there should BE equality in romance with NPCs (and I certainly don't think THERE MUST BE ROMANCES). Again to me the litmus test should be based on whether it makes sense for the NPC to have a romantic interest in the PC? Does it make sense with the story being told?

 

Shockingly I also think romances should be able to fail for reasons other than the PC decides to fail it. I'd disagree with a design that always allowed success of a romantic relationship (however you want to define success - I certainly wouldn't define it as "having sex in a cut scene") since part of what I think is fun in RPGs is the ability to not succeed on "plot crititcal" game elements and have the game still react to that.

You can disagree all you want, but I'm still right. It's not realistic to do what you're asking and if it's done it's going to be the way Bioware does them with a few conversations and then them being in love with you. I hate that kind of shallow ego stroking. And when you make romanceable companions they have to be shallow characters so they appeal to the shallow player's ego that's interested in romance. They are there for the player. If you make them fail-able through factors the player can't control, then romancers will be upset they can't romance who they want and "roleplay" the way they want.

[fan boys.]

Almost everyone in that community votes 0-1 or 9-10.

 

I have literally seen people post reviews in metacritic that are "I really think this is an excellent game but it totally falls apart at the end. 0/10"

So what? No excuse for the 10/10 scores either. Like I said ti comes out to basically a thumbs up thumbs down system in that community. Everyone either votes 0-1 or 9-10. If someone dislikes or hates a game they will vote a 0 or 1. If someone likes or loves a game they'll give it a 9 or 10 usually a 10 though.

 

If you want to avoid a bunch of people giving games 0s and 1s then make good games instead of bad games.

[If Project Eternity was turn-based...?]

Turn based combat is superior to RTwP. Some of the challenge in RTwP comes from moving your characters and getting them to do what you want in real time. Also pathfinding. I wouldn't call this good difficulty though. You can also have a character move out of range and effectively kite mobs if your character gets low on HP while the other characters attack it. In turn based combat you can't do this so it's much better.

 

Also, you guys should check out Knights of the Chalice if you want to play a good DnD turn based game. Great encounter design. You can turn off random battles in options so no trash mobs. Every fight you're working towards completing a quest of some sorts. No filler.

[Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt. 3]

It's a false analogy --- a game is not a novel, and might be no more than it's sum of parts.

That's the funny thing. Romance crowd uses novels as examples to support romances in the game when they aren't even close to being the same thing.

 

The fact is MCA is talking about making deep characters with different personalities and motivations and when you make characters romanceable you have to sacrifice that in favor of giving the character the option to romance or not romance that character. That character becomes shallow and serves only to stroke the player's obsession with roleplaying romances.

 

You also can't make the romance a strong part of the story because then it will offend the opposite sex or people who are gay because they can't be apart of a romance for them.

 

And that's why if you think about it for more than 5 seconds you realize it's a terrible idea to ask for or demand romances in a RPG while talking about how bad Bioware's are and how you don't want those. Bioware does them that way because that's the only way they can to appeal to everyone. The romance crowd is essentially asking for Bioware romances and they are in denial about it. And the side effect of that is shallow characters that all want to sleep with the main character to stroke the shallow RPG players' egos. It's quite an odd anomaly.

[fan boys.]

True that the remarks against Bioware were out of hand after the initial release, but after much the people who felt let down moved on, what's left nowadays consists about 80% of two groups:

1. The devotees. 'Biowares ending had no plot holes. It made sense. Shut up or you'll offend me!'

2. Conspiracy (Indoctination) Theorists. 'There's no way Bioware's writing could ever be bad like what we say in the ending. It MUST be an intentional ploy that I've heard about that picks and chooses evidence.'

 

I feel like I'm in agreement with what the rest of y'all have said. I don't think that kind of thinking will plague the Obsidian community, as there is a strong sense of support between ourselves and the company.

You're right about this especially the conspiracy theorists. I saw people link to those hour and a half videos on youtube explaining why they thought there was an indoctrination theory. 5 seconds of rational, critical thinking would have debunked this theory, but these people were such big fans of Bioware they couldn't be rational and objective, so they had to create a more plausible explanation (at least in their minds) as to how the game could have ended with their belief in Bioware's greatness intact. This went on for months too. It runs pretty close to religious zealotry and is pretty scary that you see people going to such depths to protect labels/corporations. This doesn't bode well for the future.

[fan boys.]

Internet breeds fanboys.

 

But it also breed professional haters. People who are the other extreeme. They hate because they can.

As blidned as fanboys - often even moreso - their tastes and egos are the only things that matters.

Incapable of objectively rating a product, they will insist it's garbage if they don't like it.

 

This is the reason why DNF and DA2 got so many 0's and 1's.

Let's face it - they didn't live up to the expectations but they weren't THAT bad. Even with all the flaws they are rather average (as the vast majority of things really are).

Do these haters care? Nope.

 

In their eyes is someone, something angers or dissapoints it deserves only the worst.

They will eagerly call for the deaths of developers/writers, the ruination of companies (and by extent the people who work there and their families), all because of their fragile egos couldn't bear dissapoinment.

Almost everyone in that community votes 0-1 or 9-10. You can't just single out the people who vote 0 or 1. It's basically just a thumbs up, thumbs down system. And lets not forget the scoring system is screwed up anyways. A 5 should be average or mediocre. Instead 8 is, because people equate a 75-80% with average from school grades. If 5 were average DA2 was easily about a 3 well below average for numerous reasons. I didn't play DNF but heard people were disappointed by that.

 

And you can't trust game review sites/magazines because their revenue comes from ads from those publishers and they risk losing early copies of all the publisher's games if they don't give favorable reviews. They depend on each other in ways, so game review sites/magazines are just a part of publisher's PR machine. Does anyone really believe DA2 deserved perfect scores or close to it? And these were game review sites. "Journalists" paid to review games objectively.

[Unofficial P.E. Relationship/Romance Thread pt. 3]

Exactly what Chris Avellone said. Make relationships include all shades of human interactions and emotions.

Except romance. Because once you decide to do those, then you have to sacrifice other kinds of relationships MCA is talking about in favor of giving every sexuality a character or two to romance. It's a slippery slope.

[Oversexualization of females in video games]

I'd rather a white knight than a mysogynerd ****tard any day of the week.

 

But then I'm only a woman who has donated to this kickstarter I mean what does my opinion matter right? If the majority of the demographic is white that means racism is allowed since sexism is okay when the majority are men. /sarcasm

 

I don't want my female playable characters to look like strippers just as I'm sure you don't want your male playable characters to look like Edward from Twilight. I don't see why it's such an imposition. I mean you aren't going to die if a woman doesn't flash some boob at you every five minutes.

Any other women want to be immature and overreact?

 

Wow. So if a woman reacts badly to the representation of her own sex in a game and to the male gamers who want it like that, it's immature overreaction according to a male.

 

That's so facepalmingly stupid on so many levels....

 

You're right. Her swearing, insulting and exaggerating other people's opinions wasn't immature and an overreaction. Keep it up. I'm sure she needs other guys to jump in and defend her actions.

[Oversexualization of females in video games]

I'd rather a white knight than a mysogynerd ****tard any day of the week.

 

But then I'm only a woman who has donated to this kickstarter I mean what does my opinion matter right? If the majority of the demographic is white that means racism is allowed since sexism is okay when the majority are men. /sarcasm

 

I don't want my female playable characters to look like strippers just as I'm sure you don't want your male playable characters to look like Edward from Twilight. I don't see why it's such an imposition. I mean you aren't going to die if a woman doesn't flash some boob at you every five minutes.

Any other women want to be immature and overreact?

It is not immature of a woman to overreact its just womanly, the sooner you accept it and learn to just nod your head and say yes the more peace you will have in your life.

Luxury of the internet. I never have to see and deal with the woman. :D