Bryy

Ironically, what you just described would be what you said you don't want DLC to be.

So, just because you don't like the game's RPG mechanics means it's not an RPG. Yeah, okay.

In IWD, you create your entire party at the very start. What the what is going on here.

Yeah, innovation is just another word for 'we hate our audience'!

Oh, please, do explain.

That was a fantastic finale.

The idea that Oculus wouldn't need any more money past the initial KS funds and the $75m investor injection they just got is laughable. Imagine if Apple had only $77m to work with. Or Pixar. People are also asking for a slice of that $2b, saying it is only fair; that's gorramn greed. Plain and simple. ... what? He's working for the company that is making VR tech. I assume you're talking about Carmack. One of Valve's top guys just left for Oculus, too.

They have not announced anything yet.

Once people figure out how to monetize acheevs (and they are already starting to), then people's tunes are going to change right-quick.

Piracy is never justified. Because today it is so broad term, I must disagree with you, for example I would say that piracy is justified in case where you have bought a game which copy protection prevents you playing it, or if you have bought audio disc that don't work in your cars CD player because of copy protection and so on cases. And I even would go so far and say that people have right to make additional copies of products, that they have license to use, for their personal usage even if product has copy protection that is designed to prevent that, as in my opinion that fair use of product and license and companies should not even first place have right to try prevent such use. Also I see it justifiable that members of same family use same license on product even though license says that it gives only license owner right use the product. And there are cases where I could see it justifiable to share oeuvre to public without its owners permission if it's for greater good of society, which of course is difficult to determine and is very two edged definition, but for example I see that for example leaking documents that expose illegal actives of governments or companies is justifiable thing to do even though it's against several laws including several piracy laws. I knew that was going to get me, so let me clarify: piracy is never justifiable in cases of "I want it/it should be less money/I don't have the money with me, Greedo".

Once again, I never said that.

Piracy is never justified.

Oh, that's classic.

I never said this? What I said was that I don't understand why people think comparing real life to a fantasy world as justification is fine and dandy.

The point of what? You said you don't disagree with me, but that my arguments are poor. So we both agree on the subject, albeit in different ways. You then bring up that I clearly have a puritan attitude about sex, which is both not true and as lame a response as you are accusing me of giving. I'm sick to death of "puritan views" or "American views on sex" being used as a cop-out in discussion.

Yeah, that must be why I didn't like it. I must be a prude or religious. It can't possibly be due to my own tastes.

Heck by a mile.

Orzammar was ridiculous. The outcast class set up shop right outside the doors? But I do love Oghren's initial reaction to going outside for the first time.

The implication here being games must whitewash the ****tiness of feudal societies? And yet still more realistic then the sex scenes that are labelled "good" e.g. Mass Effect. 1) No, the point is that "but that's what happened" is not a very good argument if what you are talking about is something that doesn't exist. I don't care how similar it is to a real world era. 2) So? If you want to discuss sex in video games, that's fine. But if you transparently just want to pick a fight with someone that said something negative about a game you like, then I'm afraid that's not going to happen.

Going into a Kotaku article, you know the main points they will try to hammer home: The article's headline will be something sensational and the writer's personal opinion more than actual fact If it's about Kickstarter, it will be negative. Kickstarter is Kotaku's Obama. If it's about Double Fine, it will be positive. Double Fine is Kotaku's Sarah Palin. Are you sure you don't have Palin and Obama reversed? I am pretty sure I never see negative coverage of her (if she is mentioned at all) and at least one half of the news has good things to say about Obama. I'm saying that Kotaku is Fox News. Oh, and any article on Kotaku about piracy is going to be written with the implication that piracy is okay.

Going into a Kotaku article, you know the main points they will try to hammer home: The article's headline will be something sensational and the writer's personal opinion more than actual fact If it's about Kickstarter, it will be negative. Kickstarter is Kotaku's Obama. If it's about Double Fine, it will be positive. Double Fine is Kotaku's Sarah Palin. If it is about DLC, it will be extremely negative. If it is a quote article, it will only list partials of the quote. The section that fits the narrative. If there is something that makes fun of Kotaku, they will be overly aggressive about it. Making fun of Kotaku is John Stewart.

I guess I don't really see the difference besides a focus on combat.

1) Be more condescending, please. 2) Nobody here is making fun of anyone. People are free to do with their money what they wish, and others are free to call that stupid. People giving their opinions =/= mockery.

Borderlands also does expansions extremely well. Whenever I get stuck or fed up with the main campaign, I can just pop into one of the expack areas and screw around in that story.

It's refreshing because it's bad instead of pretentious?