Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by TdogSkal

Yes "PEOPLE" are responsible for their actions not video games, not movies, not music.  PEOPLE.

It is only a game and the Bible is only a book.  Those are facts.  People choose how to react to those things.   They cannot influence people unless they want to be influence by them.   A person is going to comit violence if that is what they want to do, they will blame (along with the media) whatever they want to blame.  People do not take responsiblity for their actions anymore.

The problem I have with people like yourself is that you believe that games, movies, books, ect can influence people to do bad things, that simply is not true, bad people do bad things. 

Can books inspire people to do good things?

Do you dispute the concept of role models?

Period.  No outside influence is needed.  

Violence has been around as long as humans.  Humans are violent by nature. That is just how it is, we as humans forget that we are nothing more then animals.  We want to believe we are more then just animals but we are not. 

We are more than animals. Animals don't have morals. Animals have no concept of the future. Animals aren't aware of their own mortality.

Yours is the philosophy of the sociopath.

No books cannot inspire people to do good things unless they are looking to be inspired.  Again a weak minded person will be easier influenced then a strong minded person.   Its not a hard concept.  Its along the same lines as peer presure. 

Yes I dispute the concept of role models.  Again unless the person is looking for someone to learn from or follow then a role model is nothing.

I had "hero's" growing up but they were not my role models, if anyone was my role model it was my father and that is because I do want to be like him.   My parents taugh me to think for myself and not to be a follower and to not bend to others peoples wills.  

My philosophy?  How do you know what my philosophy is?

Humans are animals.  It is pretty common knowledge that we are animals.  We maybe more aware of ourselfs then other animals but it does not change the fact that we are animals.  

Again we as humans try to pretend we are more then animals.  My dog has morals, she does not attack other dogs, she is friendly towards people that she knows.  She knows right from wrong.   My dog has a sense of the future, she knows when I am going to come home from work, she is always waiting at the door when I come home.   She would not be waiting at the door when I got home unless she had a concept of time.  (my roommate currently is out of work and says that my dog will come to the door about 5 to 10 minutes before I pull into the drive way.)

Originally posted by Wraithone

Originally posted by TdogSkal

Originally posted by Angelof2070

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf 

Originally posted by Angelof2070

This is sad...

Growing up with violent movies/games, I'm not one to say much about most things...

 

But the "it's just a game" mantra is getting a little ridiculous.

It's not just a game. It is well-known in social sciences that people who become desensitized to violence become more aggressive. While this won't spark something as ridiculous as what Modern Warfare shows (virtual Genocide) it is certainly not healthy for society and is quite barbaric.

It's one thing when the horde of enemies are murderous thugs or "evil goblins" or an honorable war. But to kill defenseless civilians who scream and cry out for mercy? It's just taking it too far.

 

What's next? A virtual torture game where you win the level once you get the information out of your victim?

Enough is enough. Corporate greed needs to back off and take their hands off their wallets for a second and consider something most of us like to call: Dignity.

Because the only reason they did this is because it sells.
I look down on Shameless Corporate Greed. If you're gonna be greedy... at least have a little respect for yourself and the society you pollute.

 

 

First of all, wrong. There were a few flawed studies that showed a connection between watching violence and being more violent as a child (no studies showed the correlation in adults, or bothered to restudy the children once they were adults). But many more studies showed that there was NOT a direct correlation between video game violence and real world aggression/violence. So nice try on that one.

 

We can't spend life sheltering people for how horrific parts of life are, that is what truly desensitizes people.

 

I am not wrong. I am a real Psychologist who follows scholarly journals based on real science. You on the other hand I guarantee get all your news of such studies from DATELINE episodes of "Do video games cause violence? The Columbine Massacre."

Epic fail. Saying "First of all, wrong!" doesn't make the facts go away. In fact, it just shows everyone else that you truly don't know what you're talking about.

 

Second, not allowing mass-murder and horrific violence in video games isn't sheltering people. It's in fact the exact opposite- purposefully feeding them aggression, violence, and what all people would be considered "evil". The middle ground would be to not purposefully shelter them from it, but not purposefully feed it to them either.

Also, sheltering people from horror in NO WAY desensitizes people to it. In fact, sheltered people will find it SIGNIFICANTLY more "horrific" than someone who wasn't sheltered. Sheltering others will make them MORE sensitive to things (often considered overly-sensitive) which is the opposite of desensitizing them.

 

Couch Potato Psychology FTL.

Please leave it to the experts who actually study these fields with real scientific studies... not internet rumors, DATELINE commercials, and common ignorance.

I won't argue anymore than this post though. What are your credentials in psychology or sociology? None?
I actually have a degree in it, and real evidence not random assumptions. Seriously... since when does sheltering people DESENSITIZE them? LoL.../

How can video games cause violence?  Seriously it makes no sense.  Violence has been around since the dawn of man not the dawn of video games.

Let me ask you one question.  Since you seem to think you are smart or something.

If one million people play the same video game and one person goes out and shoots up a school.  Can you explain to me how it was the video game that cause this to happen?  Since only 1 out of 1 million did the shooting?

It makes no sense.  Video games, music, movies cannot cause people to be violent only violent people can cause violence.

 

Video games(books, etc) do not *cause* violence, in and of themselves. But they can influence peoples internal mental processes(for good or ill). What choices people make determine if their actions are good or evil. Saying something like "its only a game" is much akin to saying that the bible is "only a book". Both are true, after a fashion. But neither takes in to account the impact they can have on people.  Once again, I do NOT want such games banned. But people *are* responsible for their actions/in actions.

Yes "PEOPLE" are responsible for their actions not video games, not movies, not music.  PEOPLE.

It is only a game and the Bible is only a book.  Those are facts.  People choose how to react to those things.   They cannot influence people unless they want to be influence by them.   A person is going to comit violence if that is what they want to do, they will blame (along with the media) whatever they want to blame.  People do not take responsiblity for their actions anymore.

The problem I have with people like yourself is that you believe that games, movies, books, ect can influence people to do bad things, that simply is not true, bad people do bad things.  Period.  No outside influence is needed.  

Violence has been around as long as humans.  Humans are violent by nature. That is just how it is, we as humans forget that we are nothing more then animals.  We want to believe we are more then just animals but we are not. 

Originally posted by Angelof2070

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf 

Originally posted by Angelof2070

This is sad...

Growing up with violent movies/games, I'm not one to say much about most things...

 

But the "it's just a game" mantra is getting a little ridiculous.

It's not just a game. It is well-known in social sciences that people who become desensitized to violence become more aggressive. While this won't spark something as ridiculous as what Modern Warfare shows (virtual Genocide) it is certainly not healthy for society and is quite barbaric.

It's one thing when the horde of enemies are murderous thugs or "evil goblins" or an honorable war. But to kill defenseless civilians who scream and cry out for mercy? It's just taking it too far.

 

What's next? A virtual torture game where you win the level once you get the information out of your victim?

Enough is enough. Corporate greed needs to back off and take their hands off their wallets for a second and consider something most of us like to call: Dignity.

Because the only reason they did this is because it sells.
I look down on Shameless Corporate Greed. If you're gonna be greedy... at least have a little respect for yourself and the society you pollute.

 

 

First of all, wrong. There were a few flawed studies that showed a connection between watching violence and being more violent as a child (no studies showed the correlation in adults, or bothered to restudy the children once they were adults). But many more studies showed that there was NOT a direct correlation between video game violence and real world aggression/violence. So nice try on that one.

 

We can't spend life sheltering people for how horrific parts of life are, that is what truly desensitizes people.

 

I am not wrong. I am a real Psychologist who follows scholarly journals based on real science. You on the other hand I guarantee get all your news of such studies from DATELINE episodes of "Do video games cause violence? The Columbine Massacre."

Epic fail. Saying "First of all, wrong!" doesn't make the facts go away. In fact, it just shows everyone else that you truly don't know what you're talking about.

 

Second, not allowing mass-murder and horrific violence in video games isn't sheltering people. It's in fact the exact opposite- purposefully feeding them aggression, violence, and what all people would be considered "evil". The middle ground would be to not purposefully shelter them from it, but not purposefully feed it to them either.

Also, sheltering people from horror in NO WAY desensitizes people to it. In fact, sheltered people will find it SIGNIFICANTLY more "horrific" than someone who wasn't sheltered. Sheltering others will make them MORE sensitive to things (often considered overly-sensitive) which is the opposite of desensitizing them.

 

Couch Potato Psychology FTL.

Please leave it to the experts who actually study these fields with real scientific studies... not internet rumors, DATELINE commercials, and common ignorance.

I won't argue anymore than this post though. What are your credentials in psychology or sociology? None?
I actually have a degree in it, and real evidence not random assumptions. Seriously... since when does sheltering people DESENSITIZE them? LoL.../

How can video games cause violence?  Seriously it makes no sense.  Violence has been around since the dawn of man not the dawn of video games.

Let me ask you one question.  Since you seem to think you are smart or something.

If one million people play the same video game and one person goes out and shoots up a school.  Can you explain to me how it was the video game that cause this to happen?  Since only 1 out of 1 million did the shooting?

It makes no sense.  Video games, music, movies cannot cause people to be violent only violent people can cause violence.

Good Read.

I played though MW2 and that mission was not an issue.  Sure you killed a bunch of "people" but not really.  All I did really was kill a bunch of 0s and 1s.  They are not real people, they are not real guns, they are 1s and 0s.  PERIOD.

Its a video game, its not real.  Parents need to pay attention to what their kids are doing, their is too much of this blame everyone but myself shit going around.

I just cannot understand why people get so worked up over something that is not real.  It is not real at all, you cannot get shot a bunch of times and still live, it just does not work that way.

Originally posted by Torik

Originally posted by TdogSkal

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

And to the internet lawyer that heard from a guy who heard from a guy who made it up....

 

Yes EULA and CoC are legally binding, have a nice day and don't believe everything you ever hear from the guy who pulls crap out of his ass.

 

No they are not.

The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. —see, for instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91), Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (at harvard.edu) and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17). Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu), and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. may have some bearing as well. No Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

 

Funny, I was gonna quote the same thing to disprove you.

The fact that courts have ruled in favour of EULA/ToS means that they are considered binding contracts.  The disagreement is about which provisions and terms are enforceable or not.  If the EULA/ToS was not considered a legal contract at all by the courts those issues would be moot and would not be ruled on. 

 

 What don't you understand about "NO Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally"?

They have ruled in favour and againts EULA/ToS. So instead of going on the general EULA they go by the provisions and terms.
 

Until a court rules them legal they are not considered legal.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

And to the internet lawyer that heard from a guy who heard from a guy who made it up....

 

Yes EULA and CoC are legally binding, have a nice day and don't believe everything you ever hear from the guy who pulls crap out of his ass.

No they are not.

The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. —see, for instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91), Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (at harvard.edu) and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17). Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu), and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. may have some bearing as well. No Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

Originally posted by Torik

Originally posted by TdogSkal

Originally posted by Torik

Originally posted by ChrisMattern

 

---

Originally posted by Gyrus
It's sad.
Unfortunately, a couple of the issues he raised in his original lawsuit need to be addressed (Sony banning him from their entire network based on bad behaviour with one product and keeping prepaid funds).

---

 

Not even that, if you ask me. One, it was undoubtedly part of his user agreement that Sony has the right to do this. Two, he's an annoying moron, and was banned by Sony for being one. Anything that helps get annoying morons offline has my support; there's too many of them as it is.

 

While I have little doubt that the guy is a twit who broke the ToS of the game, this issue goes into the validity of EULA/ToS as a contract.  Under contract law if one party breeches the contract the other party generally cannot keep any payments it received if the work was not actually done.  That's what specific penalty clauses are for and they have to be reasonable or a court will throw them out.   MMORPG companies reserve the right to ban you for any reason they seem fit.  They generally will not ban anyone if they do not have a valid reason because if they are unreasonable about it (in the legal sense) a judge can deem them to be in the breech of contract instead and/or invalidate their ToS. 

So a MMORPG company in principle cannot ban you and keep the remainder of your subscription money unless they can show a breech of contract and that the monetary penalty is justified and reasonable.  However, the actual parameters and guildelines for this type of action have not been set by a court when it comes to MMORPGs so it is a troubling grey area. 

 

EULA/TOS are not legal contracts in the court of law due to you never signing anything.   By you clicking Accept or agree you are not legally signing anything.

Every been to an arcade and they have signs up saying "play at your own risk" .  These signs are not a legal agreement and you can sue and get your money back. 

Unless you physically sign something it is not a legally binding contract.  Some expections are verbal contracts but we can all agree that EULA/TOS are not verbal contracts.  

A good lawyer will be able to prove in court that a EULA/ToS are not binding contracts their for are more like guide lines then a contract. 

As for this kid, he is a moron that will be laughing all the way to the bank because its always cheaper to make these kind of people disappear.

 

EULA/ToS are most certainly legal contracts (under US law).  A signature is not required for a contract to be considered 'accepted' (eg verbal contracts).   EULA/ToS are simply held to a higher standard of what is reasonable to be included as a clause.  As such a EULA/ToS is more likely to be deemed unenforceable if it contains questionable clauses.  The courts have upheld the validity of EULA/ToS when they deemed their clauses to be reasonable in teh context of the transaction.

A lawyer might successfully argue that a particual EULA/ToS is not binding based on the wording of that particular document but would not be able to argue that every EULA/ToS is nonbinding unless the current precedents are overturned by a higher court.

Waivers of liability are a special case since their enforceablity varies based on the legislation in a particular state.  Some locations invalidate them on principle, others allow them and others only allow them if specific conditions are met.

 

They are not legal contracts in any sense of the term.   EULA/TOS are not contracts and yes contracts require signatures unless they are verbal contracts which teh EULA/ToS are not.

All EULA/ToS have loop holes and that is why I said that a smart lawyer would be able to get them throw out in a heartbest.

Just by clicking "Agree" does not mean I agree to the Terms of service or the EULA.  It means that I read and understand them not that I will follow them.   They are Guide lines that the company has put on their software.   At no point does it say that I must follow them, it says that I must read and understand them.   HUGE difference.

They are not legal contracts and they never will be until the companies start making us sign them and sent them back.

A smart lawyer will first ask the company to show that his/her client signed the EULA/ToS.  The company will say something along the lines of "They clicked agee to our EULA/ToS upon starting the game which means they accepted the EULA/ToS" Then will ask to show proof that his/her client clicked "agree".  There no way to proof that they hit accept unless they can prove that it is impossible to get the game to work without clicking that.  It is possible to get around the EULA/ToS screens. When the company cannot produce either of these things, the lawyer will move to have it removed from the trail.     It is that simple.

Originally posted by abyss610

Originally posted by TdogSkal

Originally posted by Cammy

Originally posted by TdogSkal

Thats great but 27k botters shows you how bad of a game design Aion is.

Botters do not work unless they get money, which requires buyers, buyers do not buy unless the game is designed poorly and allows "Hardcore" games a huge advanage which in turn makes buyers want/need to buy to keep up.   This being a PvPvE game, gamers will want to keep up with rivials and others which forces them to go to "botters" which shows that the game is designed poorly.

Also goes to show you that Aion's numbers are way off, 27k botters banned shows that Botters are being counted as active subs which throws their numbers out the window.

Also if 27k botters got banned then how many are left and how many of those 27k that were banned are already back in game?

 

 

Im not gonna get into this... but you realize EVERY MMO has botters and gold sellers...

 

Yes, even previous WoW.... at release, it was insane... I couldn't walk 20 feet without being spammed by "Buy my Gold" messages... Hell - even now... you can't go to the bank without the /say spam of "buy my gold" (and by "now" I mean within the last 6 months which is the last time I played)

 

Anyways this is another topic and I don't want to hi-jack THIS thread.... BTW - they had 400k pre-order sales and I believe were up to 700k last I checked.... 27k out of that is nothing (and to be fair there's probably another 100k accounts that are bots)... truthfully I could care less about this. If Aion has a million subs or 100k subs it makes very little difference to my game play... what DOES hurt my game play is Bots - everywhere... they are addressing it..... and rather quickly as of late. I don't see the issue (or your argument really)...

 

Yes all games have botters and gold sellers so more then others and that goes back to game design.
 

All I am saying is simply that banning 27k botters will not stop botting because they will just create another account.   My point about the numbers is that you cannot trust the numbers companies put out because they count these type of accounts.

 

if they make more accounts they'll get banned again and again and eventually they won't make money off it anymore because NC is also banning the gold buyers so less and less are buying the kinah. the last shop i saw selling kinah is was down to 2$ for a mil wich is nothing and takes a long time to make that million kinah. and as i said they're banning the gold BUYERS was well so idk too many people that would be dumb enough to risk their account and all their work for 2$.

Lower price for gold selling shows that the demand vs supply is bad.  Which is good.  It means the gold seller has too much gold on their hands and wants to unload it.   SO  maybe these bannings are going to help after all but only time will tell.

I do not play Aion but I am keeping an eye on it.  I am looking for an MMO atm but DragonAge is keeping me busy and its just so much fun.

Originally posted by Cammy

Originally posted by TdogSkal

Thats great but 27k botters shows you how bad of a game design Aion is.

Botters do not work unless they get money, which requires buyers, buyers do not buy unless the game is designed poorly and allows "Hardcore" games a huge advanage which in turn makes buyers want/need to buy to keep up.   This being a PvPvE game, gamers will want to keep up with rivials and others which forces them to go to "botters" which shows that the game is designed poorly.

Also goes to show you that Aion's numbers are way off, 27k botters banned shows that Botters are being counted as active subs which throws their numbers out the window.

Also if 27k botters got banned then how many are left and how many of those 27k that were banned are already back in game?

 

 

Im not gonna get into this... but you realize EVERY MMO has botters and gold sellers...

 

Yes, even previous WoW.... at release, it was insane... I couldn't walk 20 feet without being spammed by "Buy my Gold" messages... Hell - even now... you can't go to the bank without the /say spam of "buy my gold" (and by "now" I mean within the last 6 months which is the last time I played)

 

Anyways this is another topic and I don't want to hi-jack THIS thread.... BTW - they had 400k pre-order sales and I believe were up to 700k last I checked.... 27k out of that is nothing (and to be fair there's probably another 100k accounts that are bots)... truthfully I could care less about this. If Aion has a million subs or 100k subs it makes very little difference to my game play... what DOES hurt my game play is Bots - everywhere... they are addressing it..... and rather quickly as of late. I don't see the issue (or your argument really)...

 

Yes all games have botters and gold sellers so more then others and that goes back to game design.
 

All I am saying is simply that banning 27k botters will not stop botting because they will just create another account.   My point about the numbers is that you cannot trust the numbers companies put out because they count these type of accounts.

Originally posted by Torik

Originally posted by ChrisMattern

 

---

Originally posted by Gyrus
It's sad.
Unfortunately, a couple of the issues he raised in his original lawsuit need to be addressed (Sony banning him from their entire network based on bad behaviour with one product and keeping prepaid funds).

---

 

Not even that, if you ask me. One, it was undoubtedly part of his user agreement that Sony has the right to do this. Two, he's an annoying moron, and was banned by Sony for being one. Anything that helps get annoying morons offline has my support; there's too many of them as it is.

 

While I have little doubt that the guy is a twit who broke the ToS of the game, this issue goes into the validity of EULA/ToS as a contract.  Under contract law if one party breeches the contract the other party generally cannot keep any payments it received if the work was not actually done.  That's what specific penalty clauses are for and they have to be reasonable or a court will throw them out.   MMORPG companies reserve the right to ban you for any reason they seem fit.  They generally will not ban anyone if they do not have a valid reason because if they are unreasonable about it (in the legal sense) a judge can deem them to be in the breech of contract instead and/or invalidate their ToS. 

So a MMORPG company in principle cannot ban you and keep the remainder of your subscription money unless they can show a breech of contract and that the monetary penalty is justified and reasonable.  However, the actual parameters and guildelines for this type of action have not been set by a court when it comes to MMORPGs so it is a troubling grey area. 

EULA/TOS are not legal contracts in the court of law due to you never signing anything.   By you clicking Accept or agree you are not legally signing anything.

Every been to an arcade and they have signs up saying "play at your own risk" .  These signs are not a legal agreement and you can sue and get your money back. 

Unless you physically sign something it is not a legally binding contract.  Some expections are verbal contracts but we can all agree that EULA/TOS are not verbal contracts.  

A good lawyer will be able to prove in court that a EULA/ToS are not binding contracts their for are more like guide lines then a contract. 

As for this kid, he is a moron that will be laughing all the way to the bank because its always cheaper to make these kind of people disappear.

Thats great but 27k botters shows you how bad of a game design Aion is.

Botters do not work unless they get money, which requires buyers, buyers do not buy unless the game is designed poorly and allows "Hardcore" games a huge advanage which in turn makes buyers want/need to buy to keep up.   This being a PvPvE game, gamers will want to keep up with rivials and others which forces them to go to "botters" which shows that the game is designed poorly.

Also goes to show you that Aion's numbers are way off, 27k botters banned shows that Botters are being counted as active subs which throws their numbers out the window.

Also if 27k botters got banned then how many are left and how many of those 27k that were banned are already back in game?

Not to rain on your parade but Developer companies have people like you that come up with ideas on their payroll already.

You need to be able to do some of the work yourself to even get into the door, let alone get into a position to pitch a game idea.

I am not telling you this to stop you from your dream but to let you know that you will need to do more then just be an "idea" man when it comes to the game industry.

(I am an Intern with an MMO company, that is where I get my information)

Originally posted by talismen351

Originally posted by hades302

Originally posted by talismen351

I as many others was not too impressed to see that after bying the game...there was 'premium content' which would force me to couph up another 20-40 bucks. I can understand this content being added later for players to buy...as a mini-expansion. But to seriously have it available to buy on the first day of release is a pathetic money grab. Saying they essencially held back some content of the the game, while developing it to add this extra content. This tells the customer...$60 isn't enouph for the full game, $100 is more worth it.

 

I find it pathetic when posters flat out lie to try and justify their position. The total cost of  premium content is $7.00 US, and that is for the Warden's Keep. The Stone Prisoner and Blood Dragon Armor are included with every new retail purchase, no additional charge.

 

Also, the reason that 'The Stone Prisoner' and 'The Warden's Keep' are available at launch is because EA delayed the PC release to that of the consoles.If the PC version was released earlier this year as intended by Bioware, then everyone would be paying for $15 US for the 'The Stone Prisoner' instead of having it included in the retail price of the  game.

 

Downright lie?

The stone prisoner costs 1200 points

the Wardens Keep costs 560 points.

That is 1760 points = $7.00 for 560 points and $20.00 for 1600 points. So that equals $27.00. I bought retail purchase and did NOT get 'Stone prisoner'. But I did get a code for the dragon armor...which I used and never recieved the armor or quest on how to get the armor.

I am not lying to justify anything...no more than I feel you are lying to justify your position.

Also if you are gonna tell me they are charging  for extra content because it was delayed...that is total crap. There is no reason at all why PC users should be charged. If these two quests are included in the console versions, then they should be free to download f or the PC version.

First the quest are not required for the game.  Its like getting made because they added more content to a game.  Hello that is a good thing.   WoW charges 20+ per add on and I do not see you people bitching about that.

Second the quest are not free to Consoles.  

The stone prisoner comes with the CE box and I spend the 7 dollars to get the wardens keep armor because the game is fun and I will be playing it over again and again.

Third the "Dragon Armor" that you got the code for is in the game for you to buy or find.  It is not just handed to you.

I spend a total of $65 on the CE game box and 7 for the wardens keep armor and I would do it again.  This the best RPG i have ever played.  My roommate and I both started playing at the same time, I have a dwarf commoner warrior and he has an danish elf rogue and our stories though the game are totally different.   We are both at about the same point in the story.

Bye bye. Don't let the browser hit you on the way out.

The OP needs to learn to deal with dumb people.  They are becoming the norm.  Why run and hide like the OP.  The only way to combat this growing problem is to attack it head on not walk away in defeat.

Ron White said it best "Can't fix stupid but you can fix dumb"

Good luck to you in life OP, you will need it if you cannot handle stupid people on a forum I have no idea how you will in RL.

WoW is not a bad game but WoW has changed the genre.  For better or worst that is the truth.   Everyone has an opinion on WoW because it is the center of the MMO universe.  

PS I am willing to bet the OP created another account.

Originally posted by VoIgore

I just tried it for half an hour or so, made a rogue. While there is alot i like about the game, i guess i can't get used to the combat system which feels a bit awkward to me.

Pause, select target, select skill, pause, select party member, select skill, select target, pause..something like that. Guess i'm doing something wrong, but i don't remember that i've had these problems to coordinate combat in Kotor I+II.

I'm also a little overwhelmed by all the choices after each levelup, not shure what "talent tree" will provide what in the later game etc.

There is a little too much dialogue for my taste I'm constantly spamming F5 to quicksave to not having to go through all the dialogue scenes again after my party gets killed.

On the other hand, i don't want to give up o DAO yet, feeling that i could miss an epic adventure because of my inabilities to adjust to the game mechanics :)

The combat mechanics are a little werid but I only pause to setup my "Tactics" then I unpause and fight away.

Originally posted by ghettobooste

Originally posted by kishe

It's not crysis but the graphics are far from bad.

 

The storyline, gameplay and voice acting is enough to make anyone cream their pants.

 

I guess that depends what you are comparing the graphics to.  They are far from bad and mediocre if this game came out in 2003.. but for 2009? yeah they are really bad.  I was shocked at how bad they are with this game being made by one of the most highly regarded studios in the world. I hope to god SWTOR isn't using such horrible textures.

The Graphics are really good, I do not know what game you are playing but DragonAge has great graphics.

The sleeper (EQ1)

Rallos Zek PoP version (EQ1)

Hill, Sand, Frost, Forest Giants (EQ1)

those are the ones that come to mind when I think of the biggest monsters.

Originally posted by coffee

I normaly play games as the nice guy but for some reason Im playing this as a bad guy (elf), being rude to NPC's and I killed that injured solider at the start of the graywarden quest.  Muhahaha

I have had 2 Crashes to desktop though =( which makes me jumpy when playing I hate to have to keep saving my game every 10 mins incase of a crash.

I had 2 Crashes yesterday as well. not a huge deal, kind of expected for a new game but it is still super fun.

I started a Dwarf commoner, the first quest to become a graywarden was amazing.

Originally posted by SaintViktor

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

Originally posted by SaintViktor

I got my copy today and I must say it is pretty epic. Probably the best rpg I ever played since Neverwinter Nights and Baldur's Gate. The comabt is fun and the storytelling is fantastic.

 

I like the music too and have to agree with what you say so far.

Music is reminding me of a mix between Conan and Guild Wars. Sound track is awesome.

Can wait to wear the Blood Dragon Armor

 

Indeed I am only level 7. I been trying to pump up the strength so I can wear that armor. :) I even bought the additional dragon armor pieces from that dwarven merchant.

How did you get the dwarven merchant to talk to you?  He would not talk to me due to me being "Casteless".   Maybe you are talking about another merchant not the one in the starting dwarf city.
 

Anyway the game is great, sound is great, graphics are great.

The game is great.  Great story, great graphics, fun fighting and most importantly player choice though out the game and story line.

I am only lvl 6 and have made countless choices that directly effected the story so far.   I would of liked a more direct combat system instead of the point and click but I do love the tactics that are needed to win in most battles.

So far I would give it an 8 of 10, combat being the only thing I would have changed but like I said the tactics system does make up for it.