I don't expect you to stop playing the game. I expect you to come up with a reasonable argument for why you think the game mechanics are good other than "they are well implemented". You know, without circular logic.Silellak said:Yes, your arguments make me cry and I hate Dragon Age now
I said level-scaling was bad because it encourages metagame thinking of the bad kind, because it completely destroys the sense and purpose of character progression, because it isn't natural and disencourages backtracking, and leads to lazy encounter design of the "just toss a bunch of dumbfucks with lots of hitpoints together and some traps" kind (which are boring, repetitive, artificially long/"difficult").
I said combat was bad because of obvious cookie-cutter, boring abilities (what happened to contingency spells? Where are my Chaos, my Charm, my Dimension Door, my Invisibility, and my skeleton summoning spells? Where is my large list of buffs?), instant damage spells, too much stunning crap, instant potion effects, enemies spawning behind you, and well, auto-regeneration and auto-resurrection (which I won't get into because it's been discussed to death).
Well, liking it is one thing, but saying it's good is another. I won't let you get away with saying that without a proper justification, particularly in this forum whose purpose is or rather was to expose both bad and good game design and not just hype and base opinion.Silellak said:It has nothing to do simply being entertained by your endless crusade against a game you don't even like. I'm pretty sure you've spent more hours of your life dedicated towards the game than I have, and I like the fucking thing.
Because he doesn't define what "well executed" or "fun factor" is. He said auto-regen works, but not why. He said level-scaling worked, because it was "well implemented", but not why.Monocause said:And why shouldn't he defend it if he likes it and feels the features you consistently criticise are either well executed or aren't a big enough problem to take out the fun factor from the game? Did you expect him to bash auto-regen, level scaling and other stuff on some sort of a principle? Did you expect other DA supporters to do so as well? Finally, which part of his reputation did he allegedly lose? If you wish to respond, do so in one of the DA threads, I'll find it.
He accuses people of not explaining their arguments, but I haven't heard a single one from him. In fact, he has only showed to be incapable of understanding the meaning of irony, and constantly pulled strawmen when presented with evidence about bad writing (even after citing literary critics).
He happens to like Dragon Age, yes, that much is obvious, but he doesn't explain soundly why he thinks it's good. He went on about it having good choices with meaningful consequences, presenting the Arl of Eamon questline as evidence, when in fact the outcome is the same whether you save Connor or not, or use her mother as sacrifice. What's worse is that you'll still forcibly get the Ashes of Andraste even if you're corrupting them with dragon blood (your character will take them even if your corrupt them first). Even after all this the Arl will still support you.
So no, I don't think he has principles at all since all those things he onced used to criticize and he has now made a 180-degree spin.