Sarex

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.

Studio/publisher doesn't matter, my point was that stretched over 10 years those numbers are still low. Abysmal may have been an overstatement, but I doubt they did much more then break even.

Yes it was. Stretched over how long of a period? How much does it cost now? Those numbers are still low. You are overestimating how much the studios get from these sales.

Planscape Torment was not a commercial success. It had abysmally low sales numbers.

Perfect. XD

Shhhh, they are magical.

That was nothing compared to a buff that gave warriors attack speed. I think that the animation couldn't keep up, because it stacked with another buff. Yeah found them:http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Spirit_Warrior The blessing of the fade and beyond the veil stacked for some reason. I think it was later patched out.

This is what they told the fans, when asked. I just added the part about system complexity and my opinion on the warrior being better. That may be, but bioware felt that they weren't different enough.

They did it because they wanted to make a distinction between a warrior and rogue (in da:o a warrior did everything better then a rogue), but the system was not complex enough for that, so they did away with dual wield for warriors. @Malekith I think we just ended up on the matters of taste. It seems that the things you consider filler, I consider quality character development time. Edit for rogue

Let's get a little magic in to this thread. By popular demand a (almost) wizard hat.

-Well seeing as you don't like Rand, now I at least get why you don't like Wot. As for the random name generator, I would have to say that every named character had some impact on the story and wasn't there just for the sake of being there. -Ok first about the story. I read Wot about 4-5 times, and each time I figured out something new (an example would be phrases alluding to our time line (cold war) and the Mercedes emblem and lots of more important thing which I won't spoil). I don't think that I ever memorized all the characters, but there where some that did small things in the beginning that where huge later in the series, so yeah the characters mentioned in the book usually served a purpose. The plot was maybe slow paced at times, but only because there was character development happening. I will give you that Jordan was very descriptive, he was also very well know for that, but that is also something that some people like and others don't.(Thou it will help greatly when they make a tv series or a movie XD) -They where traveling through enemy territory with a clear purpose, so I don't get what you mean there. -See what Martin has to say about Jordan. -A important thing to mention there, is that the time lines aren't concurrent for all the characters. For an example one character will be doing something in one book, and then in the next book the other character would be covering the same timeline from his pov. -But those are all different genres, so there is no comparison that can be made, except in the quality of writing where most of the mentioned are on equal footing.

Had to google him, never read anything from him.