Gromnir

does anybody take pre-release puffery serious? the current game being released by any developer is always including their bestest writing and gameplay to date. we would feel bad if the developers didn't actually believe that their current release were their bestest. regarding da2, Gromnir is not bothered in the least by such claims as there will be a playable demo for this game. am seeing how the foolish or naive might be willing to swallow developer promises o' a product sight unseen... but da2 has a playable demo. many o' the biowarian claims regarding gameplay and writing will be tested by legions o' fans (and haters) following the release o' the demo. lofty claims regarding da2 not bother Gromnir at all 'cause there will be a method to challenge those claims previous to purchase. honestly, which is gonna influence you more: 1) hands-on-gameplay o' the da2 prologue. 2) dozens of developer interviews published in print and on-line media *shrug* wait 'til demo. HA! Good Fun!

The problem is BIO puts a lot of emphasis on romance in their games. It's very hard to avoid. they ain't that hard to avoid. however, am gonna concede that the temptation to try bio romances can be strong. how much of the game content is tied up with the romances? given that we has enjoyed game X so far, can one simply throw away +10% of the game content? will this game finally get it right? etc. many such questions arise. nevertheless, for the past few games Gromnir has managed to ignore the romances, 'cause we hasn't seen any marked improvement. bio keeps trying to refine their current romance scheme, and so we do not see any chance o' meaningful improvement. the great irony is that the thing that keeps bio romances from being anything more than crude and rushed side-quests also makes 'em avoidable. the romances is optional and tangential. this is their unavoidable flaw. this is their one saving grace. btw, while we thinks that this move by bioware is a bit o' unexpected lasciviousness that we feel demeans all parties involved, we cannot help but feel that the debate surrounding this latest biowarian innovation (HA!) will create a great deal o' unnecessary noise. a few moments o' poorly animated oral sex? *groan* is a carnival sideshow kinda curiosity at best, and ultimately it will fail to achieve... anything. crpgs is indeed a kinda actualized wish fulfillment, but is idealized wish fulfillment. coarse and vulgar is our firstest impression, and am not seeing how bio could implement so as to achieve the kinda idealized wish fulfillment their fans is looking to achieve. HA! Good Fun!

am thinking that were the point o' the last few posters. you appeared to take personal offense o' a guy who reviews games. weird. HA! Good Fun!

desslock reviews is worth reading... usually. he has been reviewing games, with a particular focus on crpgs, for a long time; he gots perspective that some others lack. is frequent that we read inexplicable reviews and wonder if the author is motivated by fear rather than genuine concerns regarding games. we got no such fears regarding desslock. is not that we agree with desslock 100% (or even +80%,) but he is clearly honest in his opinions and criticisms. also, compared to the vast glut o' self-appointed experts who reviews games, desslock is articulate and intelligent. sadly, desslock does has some quirks that make his reviews somewhat suspect. am thinking he identifies too strong with some kinda archaic notion o' old skool, although we doubt he would admit it. am recalling his review o' iwd, and his complaints that black isle had the temerity to add new material (monsters, spells, and magic items) to the d&d rules included in interplay's dungeon crawl. adding custom stuff conflicted with desslock's notions o' proper d&d crpg development. ignore for a moment that virtual every Print d&d module released since the 1970's also added new monsters, spells, and magic items, the belief in a Proper method o' developing a d&d crpg so conflicts with Gromnir beliefs that we has difficulty placing much stock in desslock's reviews o' d&d crpgs... and any game for that matter. am a firm subscriber o' the belief that there is no Proper. the dogma o' Proper chills the potential for innovation. (aside: perhaps that is one reason that Gromnir and the codexians rare see eye-to-eye.) is any event, although desslock embraces a philosophy that is antithetical to Gromnir notions regarding game development, to call desslock a moron would be inaccurate and unfair. his reviews does contain insights and perspectives that is relative unique 'mongst the multitude o' hacks who call themselves game reviewers, and as he IS an old skool proponent, we suspect that his review would align nicely with the majority o' obsidian posters... an additional benefit, no? furthermore, while desslock is frequently wrong, he seems to be one o' the few reviewers who is willing to admit that he has been wrong. HA! Good Fun!

as we noted from the beginning o' this debate, if you is simply fighting the dominant paradigm regardless o' how invasive this drm scheme is, then we got no complaint... as long as you is honest 'bout it. but really, trying to convince us that the da2 scheme is particularly odious, or even an advancement o' the current trend o' industry drm, then we will continue to cry foul. as an example, hurl, who complained o' his undependable internet connection, averages 1.92 posts per day on this board alone. anybody wanna check the post rates for some o' the other folks who does the chicken little routine? gotta be logged in to use this board, no? is a pretty tough sell that da2 drm is crippling with numbers that show such regular traffic by the most vocal opponents. *shrug* is ALL drm bad? perhaps. regardless o' the inherent evil o' drm, convincing us that da2 drm is particularly demanding will prove difficult. one log-in every week? get real. HA! Good Fun! ps and am not seeing this drm as driving some multitude o' genuine purchasers away... is not a genuine concern. yeah, some folks will complain, but still purchase... and others will genuine not buy, but am doubting a noteworthy number o' serious potential purchaser will be discouraged by da2 drm. in fact, if Gromnir were an ea exec and we found out that some overzealous vp had commissioned a study on the number o' potential purchasers o' da2 who owned computers capable of running da2, but did not have an internet connection that they could access at least once every week-or-so, we would fire the clown. waste o' resources. might as well try and discover how many such potential purchasers is without indoor plumbing. not have to do study to know that numbers will be ridiculous small. the number o' folks who b!@%$ & moan is not gonna be anywhere equal to numbers o' actual lost customers.

ok, so tig is going with the slippery slope argument to fight this drm-- is not that this drm is bad, but if you give ground here, then what drm scheme will be next, right? is terrible logic, but it is a reasonable argument. sometimes logic is not helpful, and if you honest believe that this move is an incremental,but purposeful, step towards hell, then we encourage you to fight. ... but be honest... how many o' those frequent internet outages in new zealand last more than a week. the only way this affects you at all is if those outages are prolonged. so, if you is enduring such regular outages in an industrialized nation, we suggest that you is a subscriber o' fly-by-night internet service. you is willing to endure such incompetence in your provider while at the same time complaining 'bout the inconvenience being caused by ea? ok, but we must suggest that you is a bit wacky and selective 'bout your consumer rage. HA! Good Fun!

hurl lost internet connection for two weeks last month, yes? an extreme example for somebody living in northern ca. happened how many times last year? at worst you woulda' been unable to play da for about a week? wow. am betting that such a possibility is enough to dissuade multitudes of potential purchasers from buying da2. and as for why ea believes such is necessary, am thinking the piracy numbers make the answer to that question kinda obvious. yes, the drm may ultimately prove ineffectual, as most drm schemes do. but try to tell stockholders that it ain't worth the effort to fight piracy even in the face o' potentially millions of dollars in lost revenue. people is being willful obtuse if they cannot see the "why." HA! Good Fun!

... possibly the worst analogy we has seen in a couple o' years. congrats. HA! Good Fun!

so, just so we is clear 'bout the drm being used for da2... 1) 'bout once every week we gotta log-in to ea servers to play da2 2) we can only play on five or fewer different pcs ... is that it? am seeing how such restrictions could be problematic for some (though we has no sympathy for folks who needs more than 5 pcs to play da2). am also recognizing that some folks will rail 'gainst any drm as a matter o' principal... and we is perfectly ok with such a stance. draw a line in the sand and declare, "No more!" good for you. however, there is some dishonesty from folks who is claiming that the reason they is offended is 'cause of how egregious and invasive this latest drm incarnation is. am honest feeling sympathy for folks who live on the slopes o' mount everest and cannot depend on a weekly internet connection. no doubt some o' you irate posters is of the Bambuti tribe somewheres in sub-saharan africa, and we do lament your sketchy internet connection that will make da2 functionally unplayable. but for the rest of you living in habitable portions o' the first and second world, am gonna have to cry foul o' those who suggest that this drm places an undue burden 'pon you and your gameplaying experience... 'less we is not understanding the demands o' the drm correct. again, if you rail simply as a matter o' principle, then so be it... and good for you. but 'least be honest. HA! Good Fun!

paying is kinda the point though, no? either a up-front fee for some kinda bonus swag, or buy another game to gets your activation code... or whatever. ... am trying to imagine how to sell the pantaloons as a cross-promotion to potential customers. salesman: if you buy game W, you will be able to find some pantaloons in game X. customer: what do the pantaloons do? salesman: nothing. but if game X sells well enough and they make a sequel, then you will be able to find an additional pair of pantaloons in game Y. customer: so, the pantaloons in game Y, what do they do? salesman: nothing. however, if three to five years from now a game Z is made, and you have collected three pairs of pantaloons, you may find a special bonus magic item. customer: you're drunk. and as for a the pantaloons working as impetus to get a person to buy a sequel... *shrug* am thinking the point o' these kinda promotions is eluding folks. HA! Good Fun!

am confused by the reference. you cannot be referencing the bg pantaloons: a three-part easter egg that required a player to complete two previous bg games and then export their character into tob with a couple o' trigger items in their inventory? no doubt there is a different pantaloons you reference, but our limited gaming experience prevents us from making the connection... 'cause otherwise we cannot see how you would be expecting customers to PAY for the aforementioned easter egg. HA! Good Fun!

reality tv rates as our number 1 worst entertainment innovation o' the past generation... could make enterix happy by including a cross promotion dancing with stars easter egg in da2... bio includes an in-game dance contest with famous ea title personages as judges and/or dance partners. ... am thinking we would quit gaming. HA! Good Fun!

so, hidden humor that is incongruous with the setting is ok, but optional stuff (content that ain't present in your game 'less you take additional action to make it appear) that doesn't jibe with the setting is... bad? ... am not sure what is the significance of "hidden" (more o' that genuine but irrational we mentioned above) but the morte and annah downloads were clear not hidden. it were Optional & obvious. optional made it so that people who did not want morte to look like a painted easter egg instead o' a skull need not endure a vandalized morte... which is why we suspect that nobody genuine complained. don't like? don't download. simple. HA! Good Fun!

so it bothers you that something optional will be in games purchased by people other than yourself? the mere existence o' the possibility o' cyborg armour being in Bob or Phil or Stan's game somehow diminishes your appreciation and enjoyment o' the game? ... okie dokie. fine. have seen the boards long enough to know that people don't have to be rational to genuine "feel" something. however, seems obvious that it ain't the publisher/developer who is being stoopid. if the optional material successfully increases sales by some target number, then it were a financial success... and as much as oblarg and enterix claim that such optional material reveals developer/publisher stoopidity (HA!) am finding it highly unlikely that their ultimate decision to purchase dead rising 2 or dragon age 2 will hinge on this optional offering. no genuine potential customers lost. as long as the cost to ea of adding cyborg armour is less than the ultimate benefit, then is hard to claim developer/publisher stoopidity. HA! Good Fun! ps how many folks recall st. paddy annah and easter egg morte? both o' those Optional downloads from black isle/interplay were far more incongruous with the planescape setting than is the cyborg armour relative to the da setting. nevertheless, am not recalling any howls o' anguish. perhaps 'cause annah and morte were free? perhaps 'cause it were black isle and not bio/ea? regardless, annah dressed up in a kelly green top hat while wielding shamrocks instead o' punch daggers caused less dismay than does the cyborg armour. go figure.

Well, it's not stupid if you're a publisher, but it is stupid if you're a gamer who doesn't want the games you buy chopped up into little pieces and sold off as parts. "it's stupid" still doesn't work. how 'bout, "I'm stupid for buying a game that was chopped up into little pieces and sold off as parts." is like stolen luxury cars. no? sell an audi or bmw whole is worth less to the thief than it is to chop into pieces and sell separate. publishers/developers has only recently adopted the chop-shop approach to game sales, but is equal effective as with luxury cars. people won't pay $120 for dragon age, fallout: new vegas, or other similar titles. nevertheless, perhaps inexplicably, they will pay $120 if you sell in pieces. *shrug* is not that the publishers is stoopid. is that buyers feels like they has been cheated... the buyer feels stoopid for paying $120 for a game... or at least that is how Gromnir sees. HA! Good Fun!

Sounds pretty interesting. Is it equivalent (or at least conducive) to any sort of standard education? How good is one's professional outlook after completing that and getting a few years of experience under your belt? anecdotal evidence only: we got a friend that went through the navy nuke program nearly a decade ago. did his tour and then left the navy (mostly 'cause he got married and he didn't trust his new wife to be alone for 6 months at a time.) when he got out o' the navy, he were almost qualified to be a journeyman electrician... navy's nuke engineers didn't seems to translate into equivalent university engineering degrees... not by a long shot. our friend ended up working as a manager at a local music store for the next few years. HA! Good Fun!

Why? Maybe because release day DLC are made for such a thing otherwise you have to pay extra for a piece of crappy armor. If it's not altering my attitudes about either game what good is it; shouldn't DLC be the thing that helps me make up my undecided mind? so, again, why does you believe that the intent o' the developer is to sway you, an individual who currently has no desire to buy either game before the prices bottom out? you honest believe that the trivial stuff that typically gets included as pre-order bonuses is meant to convince those with marginal interest in the title to go out and pre-order? *snort* edit: look, as far as we can tell, this armour thing encourages folks who were already planning to get da2 to also get some other game... dead rising2? how much time/effort/money does it cost ea to develop and release the armour add-on? can't be much. so... how many additional copies o' dead rising 2 must be sold to makes the armour worth ea's efforts? HA! Good Fun!

"am curious to hear why they though that an armor would work." on what do you base your assumption? you believe the intent behind including the armour is to encourage you to buy the game "before they hit bottom prices"? why? am not thinking that such a trivial addition is meant to complete alter your attitudes 'bout either game. HA! Good Fun!

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I dunno, do fans of Dead Space and DA2 overlap much? I can't imagine buying Dead Space 2 full price to get some armor. ignoring for a moment that ea don't own minsc and boo, am curious to hear what peoples thinks would be the relative costs to add unlockable characters (with dedicated vo resources) versus adding some goofy armour. HA! Good Fun!

btw, just so is clear, Gromnir is not particular bothered by dlc... and as we noted above, there ain't nothing particularly immoral or unethical 'bout the dlc schemes being used by ea/bio. if you don't like biowarian opportunism then don't purchase. however, folks like thorton (and others) will focus on our criticism rather than looking at actual point... which is an endemic issue 'round these parts. by arguing with thorton over minutiae it looks like Gromnir loathes dlc concept? *shrug* dlc is an opportunistic money-grab by developers and publishers, but that doesn't make it immoral or evil. as long as the core game bio releases continues to be worthy standalone products, then Gromnir gots 0 problem with bio dlc... but we can see why other folks is concerned, and one cannot help but envision a day when games ain't legit playable or complete without the dlc. we liked da:o, and shale enhanced da:o. if we did not like da:o, then we doubt that the inclusion o' shale, wardens keep, and any o' the other dlc knickknacks woulda' changed our mind 'bout da:o... the game were playable and enjoyable on its own merits, and the addition o' dlc only enhanced (or diminished) the da play experience for those who thought well enough o' da:o in the first place. we had similar feelings 'bout mass effect 2 dlc. so far our two favorite dlc offerings from bio has been stone prisoner and shadow broker. we thought that both additions enhanced the respective games... but da:o don't fail w/o stone prisoner and me2 is viable w/o shadow broker. however, am admitting to feeling somewhat conflicted 'bout shale. is more o' a gut thing, but although all the shale material is tangential and unnecessary for the completion o' da:o, shale's character does Feel fully integrated and almost essential. we don't believe that shale dlc crosses the line, but we can see how others do see shale as an example o' developer and publisher gluttony and greed. so, in spite o' the manner in which alan tries to paint the issue, dlc is an opportunistic and mercenary method for squeezing more dollars, pounds and sheckles outta the Average Gamer. is nothing noble or grand 'bout dlc, and it is very easy to see how dlc could become something pernicious and vulgar. nevertheless, developers is in the Business o' game development to make money, so we cannot fault them for finding new ways to make money from their efforts. as long as the core games is viable and robust w/o the dlc, then we got no genuine complaints (save for the obvious disingenuous o' some), but it is not hard to imagine an incomplete game being released to the public that is only capable o' resurrection through dlc. will the developer/publisher charge for such dlc? we shall have to wait and see. HA! Good Fun!

Pissy indeed. There was no shortage of vitriol from people tossing out obscenities at the BioBoards about how EA/BioWare are just money grubbers and that Shale should have just been included for free. There's been some lightweight versions of it in this thread, over a year after the fact. My "pissy" comment isn't to be in defense of BioWare, but rather the many outspoken people with intense entitlement issues. You probably don't check out the BioWare boards, but loud people can be pretty loud, especially when hiding behind the internet. So yes, I defended BioWare (what your nonsensical parenthetical remark had to do with anything I don't know. If you're up for questioning my credibility, you've already demonstrated poor judgment with your inappropriate pedophila jokes). Indignation indeed. Did I defend BioWare? Sure. I tend to be outspoken against people I see as being rather indignant on the internet (i.e. the people expressing outrage at DLC like Warden's Keep and Shale). Must have struck a nerve I guess. Stop saying stupid stuff (and making indignant ad hominem attacks), and maybe people won't call you out on it any more. How you failed to comprehend my point is surprising, given you're clearly not actually a person of poor intelligence. Maybe you're just trying to rile people up? HA! Good fun! claim "pissy" to make a point AND bring unrelated bioboard posts into this? *chuckle* am thinking we should simply sit back and let you do our arguing for us... and where you get the notion that a nerve were struck is beyond Gromnir. no doubt you is confused as we noted that YOU claimed "pissy." oh well. "No. Like most things it comes down to supply and demand. What a silly goose." eh? supply and demand? am suspecting that you don't know as much about economics as you thinks you know. supply and demand don't work so well with dlc model. think 'bout it for a sec and you will see the problem of using simple supply v. demand. HA! Good Fun!

really? "What I am saying is that without a DLC team to work on it, Shale wouldn't have been accessible to people at all." aren't we all so very lucky that the dlc crew were able to prevent the stillbirth o' shale? LOL! That's a retort to people that get all pissy because Shale should have just been included with the main game and the conspiracy theory that Shale was removed specifically to become DLC to nickel and dime gamers. ... your point? of course it is a retort to the people who felt shale shoulda' been included in the original release o' the game. if not for dlc, all those "pissy" (don't be too obvious with your defense o' bioware, eh?) folks would be unable to play with shale. am glad you added the "pissy" part as it suggests indignation that we did not choose to add. HA! Good Fun!

really? "What I am saying is that without a DLC team to work on it, Shale wouldn't have been accessible to people at all." aren't we all so very lucky that the dlc crew were able to prevent the stillbirth o' shale? *snort* is not necessarily true. is only true if you accept numerous givens... such as publisher refusal to alter release date and implausibility o' ea/bio delivering gratis post release. is numerous methods both plausible and implausible that shale mighta' eventual made it to gamer hard drives w/o dlc effort and cost. HA! Good Fun!

... were gonna challenge your proposition... then we thought o' ponzi schemes, state lotteries, power-balance bracelets... and the diamond industry. so, we reject your proposition... halfheartedly. HA! Good Fun!

dlc is not meant to appeal to the patient consumer, but instead preys on the junkie mentality o' many gamers.... but we agree with your observation. Gromnir almost invariably waits 'til the initial (and inevitable) patch before making our game purchase. typically this means that Gromnir gets a more stable game at a somewhat reduced price. with the advent o' dlc we should consider the wait a few more months to get the Full game. HA! Good Fun!