Sarex

Yeah, it's tedious and boring. But I'm not very far in so I hope it picks up.

But they did, and personally I never had a problem with accuracy. The highlight of ME1 for me was when I could get off 3 Explosive bullets at a time near the end game, that was so op. XD

Started playing the PC version of Castlevania, and so far I am not impressed.

ME1 guns all had recoil, so be they future guns or not, they worked on the same principle. ME1 had a more complex gameplay design, which was fun to a lot of people including me, ME2/3 stream lined all that out and what you got was a generic shooter. It's basically the same thing people complained about in DA:O, that it was nowhere near as complex as BG.

Let me guess, Turkish nationality?

Translation, you don't know. Also read the post don't just skim them, prices may have gone up but so have sales and if your answers are going to be like that, fell free to not replay to my posts, I would appreciate it.

Please enlighten me.

But that is all capitalism, no one is going to tell a company that it's wrong for them to set their own prices to their product, be they medical or entertainment companies. There is no going, "it's ok for you(entertainment), but it's not ok for you(medical)". You either regulate all of them, or none of them. As for how it's wrong to charge for cut content, well let's be honest games are mostly targeted for young audiences. Do you expect kids to know better? Computing is much faster, software is much easier to use. Plus games sell on a much larger scale today.

Well neither of them is wrong, we are going by your logic. What it boils down to is that it's ok for companies to set their own prices.

It's not wrong at all, neither is it wrong that adobe charges an extra 1k for it's products in Australia, it's not wrong that companies demand obscene amounts for life saving drug, nor is it wrong that medical bills bankrupt families, that is just the good old capitalism in full swing. But making those game is also much easier now days.

But as we are moving in to digital space, publishers no longer have to pay dvd royalties, shipments, etc. But does that make them lower the cost of the game? No. So you can't really justify it with the old "the prices are rising" shtick.

Can you play the DLC without the main game? No, so it's not free even if it was given at no cost. So what you are saying to me is that it doesn't mater that all the DLCs for one game have less content and play through time, but cost equal or more then the main game. Yeah that seems peachy to me.

When you find the DLC on the original dvd of the game, that is how you know that it's cut content and that to me is deceptive, as for making up their own prices, Australia would like a word with you. Again you are being disingenuous, even if you where to give out DLC for free, as you say it, it would still not be free content, because people payed for the main game. I am not saying I agree with this (that it should be given at no cost), but the sum amount of the DLCs prices should not equal or exceed the original price of the game. Yeah, this has nothing to do with the prices rising, but it has everything to do with DLCs ending up costing the same as the original game, if sometimes not more. They could never have gotten away with something like that in an expansion.

I think you are being a little cheeky there. What most people say is that they don't like the idea of a DLC, not the content of it. If people liked the game they are going to like the DLC. Why? Because it's more of the same. That is why no is gonna make a DLC for a game that no one likes, they are just going to cut their loses and move on to the next game. Let's not kid anyone here, DLC are made to extract the maximum amount of money from a buyer. If that wasn't the case we would still be on the old system where half a year to a year later we get an expansion. Now I'm not making a bad guy out of the companies that make DLCs, but let's not make them out to be the innocent guy who just wants to give their fans more content.

Me too, which is why I don't get the hate.

What kind of fantasy are you people reading?

DLC only sadly. XD

Boooooooo!!!

That went completely over my head. I apologize for my comments.

If writers wrote for themselves no one would read them. Writers always bear in mind the audience/readers when writing a story. What is a point of a story which only you would understand. It's pretty simplistic to view it in that way. As for your last statement, I don't really know where you got that from, and I must say that is a pretty arrogant and snobbish statement to make.

Nope, but the main gripes people have with DA2 are directly caused by switching the priority platform, the major one of them being the camera angle and party control. To elaborate further, the first console version was partly hack and slash as it did not have auto attack. I also feel that it caused the dumbing down of companions gameplay wise. The inventory was also castrated, as it was pretty hard to navigate through it with a controller in DA:O. I had more gripes then these but to be honest I forgot them, I haven't played DA2 since it came out. He himself stated that he was venting because he quit smoking, so no you didn't misunderstand anything.

Idk, for me Gaider only came across as immature in those tweets. I understand venting, but doing that in a public place which directly influences your job seems stupid, to say the least. In the end, he only showed that he isn't willing to own up to his own/teams mistakes. The problem with DA:I is that since Awakening they where pumping the whole "your choices matter" thing and now that they went back on that, they are surprised that people are put off by it. I won't even go in to the whole mess of gameplay "problems" they made, by making the console their priority platform, but it's worth saying that if they continue down this path, they should stop advertising DA as an true rpg.

Yes, waaaaay better. BG2? How many people voted?

Walking Dead only tried to do the story, PS:T tried to do both, as for KOTOR the gameplay was infinitely better. If PS:T was ahead of it's time people would like it more then the BG series now days, which is not the case.

@aries101 I think you are mixing your numbers there a little bit. I stand by what I said, it was not a commercial success by any standard. Though those things may have happened, the fact remains that they made the game before the "IT crash" happened and they still barely went in to black (if they did even that). This doesn't make the game "bad", so I don't really get why everyone is getting their panties in a bunch, but the fact remains that they chose to concentrate on the story and not the gameplay thus making it a niche game.