A critique of Obsidian from KOTOR to NWN2

[Cantousent]

I don't really fixate on the length of the game. I prefer longer games most of the time, but I've played some excellent short games. I also think a completely open title always diminishes the impact of the story. I nearly said "almost always," but I can't think of a particular instance where it wouldn't be better. I like some open ended games, but TRUE sandbox games are good for things other than the story. As far as open ended vs guided or long vs short, I can find excellent examples of any combination, so none of them is a deal breaker for me personally.

 

Oh, and the influence system adds significance to player choices and should definitely remain.

[Blarghagh]

Hi guys,

 

I've been a long time fan of your work. From your days at Interplay right up to NWN2 which I bought without question hoping you would deliver on the quality RPGs I am used to.

 

What broke? Other than the heart of your customers. When you're doing interviews why don't you talk about the things that really concern us. I'll list a few and maybe you guys can respond to your customer base before it twindles into a mass that is only reachable by good marketing and no longer responsive to the quality you produced in the past:

 

(1) Your games are either over ambitious or under ambitious. The current trend to release short games isn't helping your quality much. It only goes to show you are biting off more than you can chew. You need much better project planning to increase the efficiency of your team. Less emails -- more open trouble tickets and a motto of ABC "Always Be Closing" when it comes to your trouble tickets.

 

(2) Drop the influence system. Drop it. Drop it. Drop it. There's nothing out there that screams RELOAD when you have a big negative number jump up on the screen. I'm sorry if that makes us (your customer) shallow.

 

(3) Don't go posting on the NWN forums about branches and code being merged with complicated work arounds for the customer. What are you guys thinking? We don't want to know how you manage your technology. We're buying your technology.

 

(4) Stop shoveling out bad technology. It took you a couple of years to get your NWN2 engine working properly. That's not acceptable. I would have been happy with KOTOR graphics. You need much better art direction. Take a look at the World of Warcraft. Runs smoothly on old boxes and looks good too!

 

I hope my feedback makes it somewhere in Obsidian and you go back to your roots of creating quality products (DROP THE INFLUENCE SYSTEM).

 

Point 1: They've released only two games and one expansion as Obsidian? Seriously, finding a balance is hard. You're also exaggerating a great amount, plus, the concensus on their latest, Mask of the Betrayer, is that it's one of the best CRPGs in history. I guess that means that they finally struck that balance. It's not like their products as interplay weren't inconsistant. In fact, I'd reckon they're doing a much better job here so far.

 

Point 2: Why would they drop the influence system? It's basically the most celebrated and unique feature from Obsidian's games so far. I've read very few Kotor 2 reviews that didn't mention it as a plus. While I think it's definately not being used to it's full potential, it sure brings new elements to the game. As for having a big negative number jump up on the screen, well, personally I don't care about numbers either way (bad roleplaying), but it's what people bitched about when it wasn't visible. It wasn't clear enough. Seriously, you may be part of "us (your customer)" as you say, but "they (way more of your customers)" beat you to the punch with the exact opposite demand. Sorry.

 

Point 3: I don't get this point? It means they're involved in the community, like to keep us up to date, and while you may not be interested in it, I know a lot of other people are. What your proposing is a terrible, heinous marketing move anyway; would you become more involved if it's a fun, warm company or a cold corporation? It makes me feel a lot better about this company that they like telling us about the things they're trying to improve.

 

Point 4: NWN 2 has been out for LESS than a year, and with the new patches and/or expansion out now it works fine. In fact, they brought in a load of programmers just to fix the engine. You make it sound like it's a business descision to make ****ty technology. The KOTOR engine was just as buggy when it came out; in fact, one early PC release version of that game made it impossible to use computer terminals in-game without crashing, making the game impossible to play. Your other example, World of WarCraft, is also flawed. World of WarCraft is a modified version of the WarCraft 3 engine (barely modified at that, it's possible to make WarCraft 3 play like World of WarCraft with the WarCraft Map Editor) which had already gone through years of extensive testing AND was built on older computers (which is why it runs good on them). Also, Blizzard didn't have a standard deadline, whereas Obsidian did. Thanks to Blizzards success with earlier games, they can afford to throw as much money at their games as they wish. NWN 2 being Obsidians SECOND GAME with a deadline and their first own engine didn't give them that luxury.

 

Seriously, I realize that you have different opinions than mine, but you don't seem to be all that well informed about your complaints. Plus, some of these things Obsidian barely had a choice in.

 

I'm not sure why are you attacking my post mkreku.

 

Its stated openly that those are my own personal opinions, not one which is meant to challenge and start an argument. I hope you are able to respect the opinions of others instead of attacking. Those are my feelings on the approach of RPG games, never meant to challenge other people's post here who thinks otherwise.

 

No, honestly, you're trying to tell Obsidian how to make their games with arguements that he thinks are flawed, why isn't he allowed to say so? This is not an attack, this a critique. The same thing your first post is (and remarkably similar in tone, though yours tries to hide it).

Edited October 27, 2007 by TrueNeutral

[Zoma]

I have no intention to hide anything. I simply said how I felt in a survey form.

 

Even if he must critique, must it be in a form where it ends up in a trolling form? I am certain there are much more nicer ways to convey his polar thoughts against mine without doing in a tone where I have to lower my opinion on him.

[Blarghagh]

Not consciously, maybe, but you definately hid things. Sentences like "go back to your roots of creating quality products" hide the underlying statement of "your products now are simply bad". You're making it seem like you're providing constructive criticism while you're actually not. It works very well in spoken word to manipulate like this, but not so much written.

[nicethugbert]

(2) Drop the influence system. Drop it. Drop it. Drop it. There's nothing out there that screams RELOAD when you have a big negative number jump up on the screen. I'm sorry if that makes us (your customer) shallow.

 

I have no problem with the influence system and it's display. I think it makes consequences tangible. The more consequence, interaction, and feedback there is in a game, the more I enjoy it. The more immersive I find it. But, for the sake of those that don't like the numbers poping up, I say, offer the player an option to disable the influence feedback.

 

Incidentally, there is a difference between an influence system and the display of an influence rating or change in influence. If not for the display of influence and it's change, the player would have no idea that an influence system is in play.

 

(3) Don't go posting on the NWN forums about branches and code being merged with complicated work arounds for the customer. What are you guys thinking? We don't want to know how you manage your technology. We're buying your technology.

 

Open your bug tracking system to the public.

[Gambler]

If not for the display of influence and it's change, the player would have no idea that an influence system is in play.

Not being aware of game mechanics is a good thing. The problem with many RPGs is that there is so much number crunching that people stop seeing the game as a series of events.

 

Many people speak about "immersion" and "atmosphere" of a game, about the game feeling alive. But what does that mean? For the most part, it means nothing. Just a bunch of buzzwords game journalists keep using to avoid describing the actual features. However, if those terms would be used with meaning in mind, they would reference the process of decision making and available information.

 

A crude example would be NWN2 and it's use of doors. If there are 5 houses on the street, and only 1 has an "active" door, you can predict with great certainty that eventually you will go through that door. What's even more important, you instantly know that you can't go through other doors and you will never use them. This is a lot of knowledge gained from nothing. It instantly introduces a discrepancy between your character's awareness of the surrounding and your own. You character would treat all the doors equally. So, in a sense, game's world gets invaded by engine mechanics, which interferes with player's decision making.

 

Same things can be said about influence numbers. Being aware of the fact that there is influence factor, but not being able to see when and how it changes would make you treat all dialogs as consequential. You would actually pay more attention to content rather than numbers. So, unless the game would be poorly designed (content having nothing to do with numbers), it would be a good thing.

[Cantousent]

Ultimately, it's probably better to have some feedback for the player in regards to influence. For most players, I suspect that having the information up front and easily referenced is better than an opaque system where the player really doesn't know where the PC stands in relation to the NPCs.

 

Now, some of this could be handled with dialogue, I suppose. The response should give some hint to how the NPC feels about the PC's immediate statement and then general conversation could provide more subtle clues. It would be hard to convey all of the information that is largely intangible in real life dialogue, but the design team could probably handle much of it.

 

However, while some folks complain, I think the theoretical alternative is worse than the current mechanic. Keep the influence system and then let the player know where he stands. Unless they dramatically change dialogue in these games (an idea I don't really oppose, by the way) the current way is better. By the way, numbers or not, folks will either read the dialogue or not based on their personal tastes. Taking out numbers won't make much difference and I don't believe including them does either.

 

This is a game, not a conversation simulator, and the player must have feedback.

[Talos]

Once thing I'd like to add to this topic is that I feel it insulting that Bioware makes a great gaming franchise like KOTOR or NWNs, only to handball it to obsidian who even with good intentions never do the original game any justice. I partly blame Bioware for this, as they should keep their franchise inhouse and not insult fans by selling us short with a company who's notoriously bad with handling bugs and timelines. I can't comment on MOFTB, though I have heard good things, I just hope this is the beginning of them turning their company around.

[Gorth]

However, while some folks complain, I think the theoretical alternative is worse than the current mechanic. Keep the influence system and then let the player know where he stands. Unless they dramatically change dialogue in these games (an idea I don't really oppose, by the way) the current way is better. By the way, numbers or not, folks will either read the dialogue or not based on their personal tastes. Taking out numbers won't make much difference and I don't believe including them does either.

I can't really say that I like the numbers... but it is better than no feedback. Technology allowing, a nice thing for future game would be to add a visual feedback when appropriate. I.e. facial expressions (grimacing, scowling, smiling, winking etc.), body language (a slight swagger, shking fists at you, outride rude gestures, constantly looking at you, smiling etc.). Devious npcs might of course chose to "cloak" their attitude towards you and spring some nasty/pleasant surprises on you.

[Cantousent]

I like the idea of NPCs hiding their true intent, which is impossible with the number system. Subtle clues are fine, as long as they aren't REALLY subtle. Whether some responses are red herrings or not, the whole apperatus must be transparent.

[Gambler]

What do you mean by "transparent"? Feedback is essential, but raw numbers have too many negative consequences. They are too obvious, precise and instant. Reading about all those damage rolls, influence changes and other numbers feels less like a game and more like going through stack trace or core dump. Essentially, this broadens the barrier between the character's knowledge of the game world and the player's knowledge.

 

Animation and voice overs are solutions to the problem, but there is another option, which is universal and very simple technically. Text messages. They were extensively used in Torment, and it turned out pretty well. Actually, it's much bigger than just influence. Properly implemented, text messages can supplement virtually any aspect of the game.

 

Unfortunately, many people are quite... how do I put it politely... biased towards the existing design solutions, whatever those solutions are at the moment. Such people would say that "influence +6" is a more natural way of describing NPC's reaction, than a text description of the NPCs reaction. But "influence +6" is a text message! The only difference is that it describes some kind of variable that in turns models the reaction, instead of describing the reaction directly.

 

What would be better?

 

"Someus Dudeus: Influence -6"

or

"He silently stared at you for a moment, anger flickering in his eyes, but the emotion either quickly disappeared or was suppressed."

[Cantousent]

Maybe I am biased. As I've stated several times, I prefer PS:T to MotB. However, numbers, however much you might hate them, are easier for the player to grasp. A lot of players will bypass much of the dialogue, no matter how well it is written. Now, I'm all for using less intrusive ways of dealing with player feedback regarding the influence system. The problem as I see it, and you can discount it as folks jumping on board "just 'cause," is that the influence system has been generally well received. I suppose I could turn that around and accuse you of being biased because it's not the same as PS:T, but I won't. I agree that PS:T's floating and dialogue text handled the nuances better than popping out numerical values.

 

Nevertheless, the system must be transparent. By transparent, I mean the player must understand that how the system works and to what degree the game uses the mechanic. In that regard, the numerical feedback is much better than the text, even though the text variant is a felicitous approach. As regards the text feedback idea, I think we may both agree.

[Tale]

By transparent, I mean the player must understand that how the system works and to what degree the game uses the mechanic.

 

You speak as if the concept is foreign. When the idea of characters responding differently because of previous interactions, and their own moods as a result of these previous interactions, is quite natural. There's no reason people wouldn't understand the system except simply it not having been utilized significantly previously. In fact, quite a number of people constantly make jokes about a system such as has been described not existing.

 

It's like knowing that you can look up and down in an FPS. It's not something that was always around, but that doesn't mean it's hard to grasp when it is implemented.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Tale

[Cantousent]

The camera is not hard to grasp when implemented because the feedback is immediate and occurs every time the player moves the mouse to look up or down. Changing the camera angle in an FPS is not the same thing as the influence system in an RPG. ...And there are folks, like my wife, who have the devil's own time with the camera angle in these games even though it is a far more intuitive as a concept than communication between two people. Virtually all folks can go outside and look up at the sky. Not all folks excel at personal communication.

 

If there is a system for keeping track of something that results from dialogue but is not part of it, such as the influence system, then the player should know how that system works. The simplest way to convey that idea is by numbers. However, if the design team wanted to get away from numbers, then they could let the player know that the system exists and how it works. Kind of like FPSes have a key for the keyboard commands the player uses to interact with the game.

 

The big thing for me isn't that they keep the numbers. The big thing is that they keep the influence system. I just see numbers as being irritating to fewer people, and to a lesser degree, than zero feedback. The influence system and the feedback regarding it is better in MotB than NWN2. What I'd really like to see is something that Gorth and Gambler suggest, and probably a bunch of the rest of you, such as facial expression and body language. From a design standpoint, I just think there will always be a struggle between something like the facial expression system combined with floating text and direct number values. One is more elegant while the other is more concrete.

[Tale]

People are naturally incredibly adept at recognizing patterns and getting information from body language. And further, it's also an important part of game design to teach players. These two things actually work incredibly well in practice. Teaching how to recognize cues. Games teach their systems to the players all of the time. Natural systems are the easiest among them.

 

You seem resistant to the idea because you think some people just won't recognize it. But, you have little basis for this beyond speculation. There's no way to tell if people will recognize it, be able to learn it, or at least a particular implementation of it without testing. To simply throw an idea something aside because you don't know if it'll work and you just assume it won't is silly.

 

If anything, numbers are counterintuitive to players. They're worse feedback. A +6 is genuinely meaningless to someone who's not already familiar with it. They won't know there's meaning to it beyond "oh, I did something good!" The effects are completely unknown. A smile and a pat on the shoulder convey a lot more recognizable information to most people than +6. And if that smile exists in a later conversation, they understand permanence. If that smile changes, they'll recognize mutability.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Tale

[Cantousent]

Actually, you're taking far more for granted than I am, Tale.

 

The only evidence I have is the game itself. It works. It doesn't work universally well for all people in every way, but then what game does?

 

I also have the advantage of knowing that the feedback for the influence system did change. Not only from NWN2 to MotB, but at some points within the development of MotB.

 

Now, I'll concede that you may have the right of it. I'm usually willing to concede an alternate view. However, while people use non-verbal cues to communicate, those non-verbal cues often lead to confusion. If this is true in real life, during which we have quite a bit of experience in using our own bodies, wouldn't it be even more difficult in a game?

 

You know, I haven't thrown out the idea. I'm simply saying that we have a method that works, and the arguments against the number based feedback have not, as I've understood them, focused on the ambiguity of the feedback. If anything, I understand folks to dislike the system because it removes the nuance of human interaction.

 

If anyone is erring on the theoretical side, it's you. I don't mind accepting that your method might work. However, it is clear, whether folks want to admit or not, that the current system would require a significant overhaul to implement the sort of change you advocate.

 

While we're in the theory state, anyone can claim anyone's idea is silly. Since we have two games to use as examples for the different philosophies (MotB and PS:T), I don't think I'm being silly in comparing the two to draw conclusions. Perhaps I'm being cautious about the idea, but I'm going to remain unconvinced.

[Tale]

If anyone is erring on the theoretical side, it's you.

Except, I'm not. Applied to gaming, we have Bethesda's Oblivion with it's Speechcraft system which utilizes facial body language to indicate worst/bad/good/best choices and VALVe's Half-Life 2 series of games where character personalities are more than transparent through body language (especially Alyx). Most people seem to think Speechcraft too easy in Oblivion. And it lends tons of credit.

 

Then we have the studies. Ekman & Friesen (1972; 1984; 1994) have identified 6 emotions that are identifiable with facial expressions. These are transparent enough that they're recognizeable across cultures (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002). I wish I could remember the name of another guy who has done studies on body language. The eye roll is another universal symbol. It stands for contempt.

 

"It works" is no excuse for lack of examining alternate systems. Especially when there is a desire for change as shown in this thread. Games aren't all about function. If you look at the posts here, you see people interested in the form. Form which can be applied functionally. It adds to the characters, which is especially important for anyone who wants to consider "immersion." Do we need to get into a games as art debate, perhaps?

Edited November 2, 2007 by Tale

[Cantousent]

Aside from the thousands who join you in your crusade in this thread, I don't see a reason why I should think you have the right of it.

 

Oblivion, Tale? Oblivion? You're using Oblivion as an example to support your position? Good Lord, man, I was at least willing to concede a few points to you along the way, but you were better off leaving Oblivion out of the equation. ...Or is it more natural to suggest that we have a spinning wheel and timer than the influence system? EDIT: and didn't Oblivion also give a number?

 

Not only that, but you then cite Half-Life. I like the game. I like the puzzle solving, ammo charged crawl. I like Alyx's tight jeans. ...But where does Half-Life 2 use an influence system?

 

You cite studies of non-verbal communication? Of course we use non-verbal communication in real life. We use an abstracted version in gaming. BTW: Numbers are not nearly as intuitive as actual depictions of damage the character takes. Why do we use hit points? Armor? Spirit-Energy? weapon damage? Numbers are how we interact with the game.

 

Now, in as many posts, I'll say that I like the idea of floating text and non-verbals. I don't believe now, and you have not convinced me, that these will be as clear to the player as the simplified number system. Even in real life, if we could simply write a number over our heads, the number system would be simpler than non-verbal communication. However, I didn't think your aim was simpler. The aim was more nuanced, unless I'm getting it all wrong. That's the crux of my argument. The system based on numerical feedback is clearer than other systems. You have absolutely failed to show where that's wrong.

 

Instead of citing reports that tell me that people all over the world use non-verbal communication, which I already know, why don't you stick with what I thought was your better argument. You think the numbers are intrusive. At least that's what I got from your earlier statements. You would rather we risk something perhaps a little less clear, and only to a small number of people, in order to preserve immersion. You really have me half-convinced of that despite yourself. :Cant's wink and grin icon:

 

...And I'm not going to iron-man the topic. I think it's worthwhile to look at different systems, but not because they're clearer. Only because, at some point, it's better to confuse a few more people and have a more complex and robust way of providing feedback for the influence system, which I hope they keep. Ah hell, I'll leave you a rebbutal, raise you a hollar or two, and then let you get the last argument on the topic. Make it a good one, though. I'd like to find reason to agree with you when I next post. :Cant's ribbing Tale icon:

Edited November 2, 2007 by Cantousent

[Tale]

he system based on numerical feedback is clearer than other systems. You have absolutely failed to show where that's wrong.

And you never bothered to show where it's right. I explained my opinion that it's arbitrary and near meaningless. A +6 conveys nothing except "you did better than +5, but not as good as +7." Non-verbal is actually clearer on the difference between effects. Numbers have no meanings that we can relate to. Non-verbals include action and have meanings we can relate to. The way a woman looks at you can be more expressive of whether or not she'll sleep with you than a chart of 1-100, unless 100 is the only mark of any relational value.

 

We use the numbers we do for stats because they are inherited from dice rolls. And most people have no bloody clue what they mean. Stat points aren't clear. You can hear about this from many other players of NWN2 who aren't familiar with D&D. They have no idea what stats to pick. Because they can't relate to the values and have no idea what they mean except that one value is arbitrarily better than the value below it.

 

Instead of citing reports that tell me that people all over the world use non-verbal communication, which I already know,

They were intended to show you the universality of some manners of non-verbal. Which attests to their clarity.

 

You think the numbers are intrusive.

My original point was that I thought the numbers, in the current implementation of the system, give negative feedback which invalidates choices. What I'm arguing now is actually aside from that. That problem can still exist with what I'm pushing for now. If you give a player a choice and make one choice have solely negative results and another choice have solely positive results, it's probably advisable to not shout out "HEY PLAYER, I'M ****ING YOU!" In those cases, it might be better as a surprise. Otherwise, it's just reload time and the choice has no real meaning. For a choice to have meaning, he either needs to expect equal outcomes or he should be prevented from sidestepping adverse outcomes. You don't have to give him equal outcomes, depending what your design goals are. If you want to design something to teach, entertain, or test. If you want to teach, you make negative choices but give a chance to redo. If you want to entertain, you make all choices equally meaningful in different, but entertaining, ways. If you want to test, you make sure they're completely committed before you let them know if they were right or wrong.

 

A game should try to be relatively seamless. You don't want to make the player drop out of the game too overly. You can't avoid it in many ways, such as load screens, but many other ways you can avoid it. You don't want the player to identify that he can improve his experience with the game by saving-reloading. Which is what the OP's situation was demonstrating that people do in KOTOR and NWN2. He's come to identify saving before conversations then reloading when they don't go a verifiably good way with improving his experience. So, he's being taught to play the game in a manner than breaks those seams. You want the player to be satisfied with his choices so he doesn't engage in this behavior.

 

I think you were the one to type somewhere that some feedback is better than no feedback. I can't agree. No feedback is often preferable to feedback that is exclusively negative. Unless you're trying to teach people something. Which in this case would either be teaching them "don't play the game" or "save-reload around conversations."

 

You would rather we risk something perhaps a little less clear,

It will be more clear. And it will have more understandable meaning other than "something bad" or "something good." If it seems arbitrary, it's not clear. Edited November 2, 2007 by Tale

[SilentScope001]

From a game development standpoint, numbers WILL be used. Even in Crawford's Storytron project that is supposed to have players do whatever they want and interact with people, there will be numbers that will tell the computer how much "Person A" likes "Person B". You can't get rid of stats. You need them. The only time when you can throw stats away is in a tabletop game, where the GM gets to rule on the important desicions.

 

But should the actual numbers and stats be shown to the actual player, or should they be conveyed with facial impressions? I think the latter is far more reasonable, but still too risky...and for a player who wants to win games, the former is something I would rather stick with. For an example of how such communication can be done, take a look at Trust and Betrayal: The Legacy of Sibboth, with a very fine system by which you can talk to NPCs and understand how they feel about it by their facial impressions.

 

But, even in that game, there were still a chart that allowed you to see if you are succesful in gaining trust or not. But I haven't played the higher difficulites, so maybe that chart may be more and more useless, and you're likely going to have to rely on often subtle facial cues from NPCs with long memories. And I think Storytron WON'T display such numbers to the players at all.

 

Oh, and fun part, I think there is no save feature in that game. Meaning if you make a mistake in interaction and you make everyone hates you, oops.

Edited November 2, 2007 by SilentScope001

[Cantousent]

As promised, you get the last argument. Alas, I must leave it at that. My other hopes were dashed. We don't always get what we want.

[Blarghagh]

Once thing I'd like to add to this topic is that I feel it insulting that Bioware makes a great gaming franchise like KOTOR or NWNs, only to handball it to obsidian who even with good intentions never do the original game any justice. I partly blame Bioware for this, as they should keep their franchise inhouse and not insult fans by selling us short with a company who's notoriously bad with handling bugs and timelines. I can't comment on MOFTB, though I have heard good things, I just hope this is the beginning of them turning their company around.

 

Bioware didn't make the KOTOR game franchise, or the NWN game franchise. They made 1 KOTOR GAME, and a game does not constitute as a franchise. As for the NWN franchise, that franchise started at least ten years before Bioware made their game, and honestly, are you really saying NWN was better than NWN 2? NWN is the only Bioware game I've played that I've never finished because it was just so bland and uninteresting.

 

And while I guess that's just my opinion, you're still not being fair anyway. After all, Bioware is an established company, whereas Obsidian has released two games and an expansion. One that was inherently buggy exactly because a Bioware engine was used. The second was the company's first own engine, which has since been fixed and spawned an expansion that has been getting better reviews than any Bioware game ever did. Besides, Bioware had apparently chosen not to use other people's intellectual property anymore (like Star Wars or the Forgotten Realms), and the ONLY other company really qualified to continue these franchises is Obsidian. You should be thankful rather than scornful.

 

And finally, I would like to say that "I feel it insulting that Bioware makes a great gaming franchise like KOTOR or NWNs, only to handball it to obsidian who even with good intentions never do the original game any justice" is just about the most misleading comment I've ever read, which I feel insulting. You write this in a way where the ONLY instances of this are used as examples of something that has happened dozens of times. And even more, you give your own opinion as fact. Obsidian definately did justice to KOTOR as far as time-constraints and the engine allowed, and none of these matters are Obsidian's fault.

Edited November 2, 2007 by TrueNeutral

[Musopticon?]

Mask of the Betrayer > Everything Bioware has done since 2001.

 

So, not an especially well constructed argument, but facts are usually too heavy to try to build a flimsy strawman out of them.

[Xard]

Ach, another believer Mus?

 

edit: That said, I agree 100 %

Edited November 3, 2007 by Xard

[Musopticon?]

Well, it's not like I get to play a lot, without a comp with me in university, but what I've seen so far has been splendid, unlike certain Jade Empires and KOTORs lately.