Dragon Age impressions

[Clockwork Knight]

^faggt

we play rpgees, we smart :evil:

Let's be serious here, the writers are not theologists. They're barely even qualified writers. This shit is going to be superficial by definition, I don't need to argue this, those guys haven't been reading Augustine in their sparse time. Well, it all depends on your standards I guess, but fuck it, it's teenage shit.

But if we take that as a given, then it seems to me that Dragon Age's writing does not need to exceed any high boundary in order to be called good. Good compared to other games suffices. That is, of course, if we are arguing in good faith, which we obviously aren't, so whatever. It's all, like, opinion anyway.

I never saw a game with "good writing", really. Only writing good enough for a game.

Also, gods in rpgs tend to be selfish assholes, so taking cheap stabs at ther religion is perfectly acceptable

 

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

Who wants to pay money to go back to Ostagar and scavenge armor off the King's Corpse?

http://kotaku.com/5408468/return-to-ost ... on-age-dlc


Wonder if I'll actually get to go into the main camp this time. Always bugged me.

 

[Drakron]

...Let's be serious here, the writers are not theologists. They're barely even qualified writers. This shit is going to be superficial by definition...

Then I am going to keep it simple.

Religion on RPGs always been pretty much the same, a usual diverse pantheon with the good gods and the evil gods.

The level of divine involvement also tends to go to the extreme, from actually acting or simply existing.

Now DA does one thing that is uncommon, the existence of the One God and even more uncommon the whole thing is drown into historical that may or not be true.

Granted, you can see the similarities with reality but few would be bold enough to actually do this, I find it refreshing because its not a angle usually explored, in fact its something the vast majority shy from.

Also you are missing the greatest point ... as background its well done as its not preaching and if you are reading a message on the Chantry ... well ...

 

[Alex]

Let's go step-by-step and see if you'd agree with my reasoning:

- criticism requires analysis (saying "x is shit" doesn't count)
- analysis requires familiarity and/or expertise - I know nothing about aerodynamics, so I can't criticize airplane designs
- familiarity/expertise can be easily demonstrated

I agree with pretty much everything above. I thought that the problem here was that Lesifoere was just saying that the writing is shit. Then I went back to reread to point it out and I realized I misread things.

No, really, what? It's functional writing. These lines are not imbued with deeeeeeeep philosophy and great wit. You can find lines like these in any Forgotten Realms novel. They don't do surprising things with language, do not suggest the writer is capable of anything more than workmanlike prose and dialogue. Exactly what do you hope to prove by demanding people comment further than that they're simply average? Is this your idea of literary gold, worthy of in-depth discussion?

Really, in that case, it is perfectly rational to ask for the person to give an example of better written phrase or to better explain how phrases could hold more meaning, as the idea of what is good and what is bad is being defined (instead of being left vague like in most discussions). I fucked up by not reading things throughly and I am sorry.

Lesifoere, could you give some better examples of what you would consider good writing? Possibly inside a game? I think that the key to useful discussion here is to better understand what factors contribute to good writing for everyone, understanding how well DA does in each of these factors and how other rpgs have done in the past.

By the way, I usually consider more how the various facts in the story relate to each other. The phrases which do surprising things with language, the ones that are full of meaning sometimes seeming outlandish, they frequently escape me. Of course I like them when I understand them, but I tend to focus more on plot than the phrases themselves. Anyway, I think we would all be better off if you took sometime to explain the idea better to us.

When people criticized Oblivion, they demonstrated their familiarity with RPG design by making knowledgeable, hard to dismiss posts (thus making a game wasn't required). When people criticize writing they should either explain the flaws or produce much better lines, thus proving that the original lines were indeed shit and no analysis is required.

To be fair, I have sometimes understood certain design principles in rpg exactly when trying to explain what I didn't like in a game.

 

[Lesifoere]

It always surprised me how many people in this place think so much of themselves, but Lesifoere shows a particular pleasure in displaying her knowledge base. However when asked to come with a simple answer to something that should really be easy and straightfoward to one with such an expertise in good writing she just flounders and saves herself from a fall with a few flourishes.

My knowledge base of what? A certain level of literacy? People can criticize shit without "doing better" or trying to prove something. That's why literary criticism isn't based around rewriting a paragraph from a novel you think is weak, but based around dissecting that paragraph. I refuse to answer VD because I think his approach is a load of retardo and ultimately trying to improve a single line without any surrounding context--and a line based on a flimsy attempt at theology--is a stupid exercise. Here's hoping he won't react to criticism of AoD by asking the critics if they can do better.

The basic knee-jerk fanboy/fangirl reaction everywhere is screaming "can you do better?!" I could show you outraged Harry Potter fans. Or young writers whose piece has just been torn apart.

How disappointing. I expected something better than you going for a tiny opening and working it like your life depends on it.

If you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one who thinks your interpretation of "bad writing" is less than tenable. Bit more than tiny, old chap.

I'm 39 and very well versed in different religions and philosophy. Let's play.

Wow, you really took that bit of DA writing seriously then? That's... scary.

I asked you for a few lines, didn't I? But yeah, let's try to blow it out of proportion and pretend that I asked you to publish at least 3 novels in 5 different languages first.

No, you're--what did you call it--trying to prove something like your life depends on it. See, it's a single line. No context (though the context is understood by those who've played the game and seen that bit of dialogue). There's simply not much to work with even if I accepted that your argument is not asinine. In essence, you can't make something out of nothing. And there's nothing here, literarily, intellectually or otherwise. It's not just that the line is nothing special; it's that the context surrounding it (blah blah Christianity is iffy and dubious blah blah blah god may or may not be there zzzz) is derivative and shallow, which leads to the line itself being theologically banal. So if I wanted to produce a better line, I'd have to redo everything.

What with you clamoring for explanations, I'd have thought you would have explained some time ago why this isn't superficial, sophomoric hurr-i-r-deep babble. A teenager writing "GOD IS DEAD" in all-caps on his facebook isn't on par with Nietzsche writing the same in his time.

Lesifoere, could you give some better examples of what you would consider good writing? Possibly inside a game? I think that the key to useful discussion here is to better understand what factors contribute to good writing for everyone, understanding how well DA does in each of these factors and how other rpgs have done in the past.

Sure. Don't have time right now, will get back to you when I've got some. I suppose examples of good writing from actual book would be unfair, though those I'd be able to find much faster. =p

 

[Hamster]

The more i play, the more i am convinced that concept of the camp where inactive characters just sit and wait for you sucks. It feels very awkward that all those people i am not actually adventuring with act like we know each other for a long time. The old 6-character party actually travelling with you from IE games worked much better.

 

[Lesifoere]

It's extra lulzy when you throw them a few +6-10 gifts and they'll suddenly treat you like their bosom friend, the brother/sister/mother they never had and their very soulmate, even though you never take them out of camp.

 

[Freelance Henchman]

What's a "qualified" writer?

 

[1eyedking]

Now, let's go back to DA:

"Apparently everyone seems to agree that a Blight is the perfect time to start killing each other. Marvelous, really."

Well written (disagree? do your own version of this sentence), witty observation that comments on the situation and fits the golem's personality and overall indifference.

Well, except Morrigan says this. It's quaint to see your attempts at self-justifying.

But anyway, it's just a silly one-liner. You hear that kind of crappy comic-relief in almost every action movie so I wouldn't say that qualifies at witty.

"And how do you know they are right? Their faith would make you swallow a great deal for small comfort."

I really like this line. A lot is packed into the second sentence. It's always a challenge to say more with less (I loved the Snatch's dialogue lines), and this line does it almost brilliantly.

"Swallow a great deal" is a literary cliche of the "stretch your legs" variety. It's OK to use it once but it generally denotes laze of thought from the writer's part.

I would have written something along the lines of "Faith decrees that for what one sees, one should decree faith. In growing ever comfortably blind we know no difference in darkness, and light no longer casts shadows to trouble us."

There is wordplay, a metaphor, and even a bit of dramatic irony.

The player says something that can be summed up as "it goes against the Chantry's teaching". The best counter to that is "how do you know they are right?" It's perfect. It makes the player think. How DO you know? You've been told about the Chantry, you read some books, talked to a few chantry people. In most games things are exactly what you're told about them. This one simple line changes everything and makes you doubt. The mage doesn't explain why they are wrong, which is the right move. He simply asks "how do you know?". As a response, it's pretty fucking good.

This is pathetic. A far more rewarding approach would have been to flag every Codex bit of info you get, and allow for more deeper discussion when you confront the First Enchanter, complete with stat checks (as was for example Myron's dialogue in Fallout 2 to find a cure for jet) and the possibility to seriously fuck up in between . Instead, we get to roleplay the usual retard hero who knows shit about what is going on and can't make a difference even when the cliche dramatic irony is so obvious.

Then he adds "Their faith would make you swallow a great deal for small comfort." That's just fucking brilliant and sums up pretty much every religion well. This line is actually deep and loaded with contempt and arrogance of one who considers himself above such foolishness. If you can describe religion better in a single sentence, I would surely like to see that.

Yes, brilliant as in "brilliantly appeals to the angsty atheist teenagers". I wonder with whom did you sit down to talk about religion when you can say that sentence describes religion well? Some of smartest people I know are ardent believers and are very well versed in logic and theology. They made me put a foot in my mouth on several occasions when they retorted with Thomistic backup or Lutheran claims, if to name a few of the usual suspects, and I have come to terms with them and grown to respect their beliefs and philosophers, and even become fascinated with some of them.

Religion goes a tiny bit further than the usual Blobertian prose of the "HAH LULZ BRO THOSE SHEEPLE ASSHOLES CAN"T THINK FOR THEMSELFS!!1!" type in these forums. It's a pity that Gaider took that route as well.

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

"Faith decrees that for what one sees, one should decree faith. In growing ever comfortably blind we know no difference in darkness, and light no longer casts shadows to trouble us."

Jesus Christ.

 

[1eyedking]

Well, it's a simple jab at the usual circular logic ("Pray to have faith") most candid Christians employ.

It's not high literature, and a blatant rip-off of Nietzsche's metaphor of the Old Man on reason and religion, but it serves its purpose.

 

[Silellak]

Well, it's a simple jab at the usual circular logic ("Pray to have faith") most candid Christians employ.

It's not high literature, and a blatant rip-off of Nietzsche's metaphor of the Old Man on reason and religion, but it serves its purpose.

Except that I can't think of anyone - fictional or real - who talks like that. In writing? Sure. Outloud, during a conversation with someone? No way.

 

[ghostdog]

I've started playing it. So far it seems good and very BG2-like. Nothing exceptional, but I like some of the battles and the skill system.

Some mods that I found useful :

HD Textures, to make the textures look less fugly.
Helm removal outside combat, so you don't have to look at the atrocious hats all the time. (By Dan Upright... isn't he the one that started the Bloodlines unofficial patch ?)

Yeah , I a graphix whore.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

"Swallow a great deal" is a literary cliche of the "stretch your legs" variety. It's OK to use it once but it generally denotes laze of thought from the writer's part.

I would have written something along the lines of "Faith decrees that for what one sees, one should decree faith. In growing ever comfortably blind we know no difference in darkness, and light no longer casts shadows to trouble us."

There is wordplay, a metaphor, and even a bit of dramatic irony.

No, that's just as terrible, Dicksmoker

 

[1eyedking]

Well, it's a simple jab at the usual circular logic ("Pray to have faith") most candid Christians employ.

It's not high literature, and a blatant rip-off of Nietzsche's metaphor of the Old Man on reason and religion, but it serves its purpose.

Except that I can't think of anyone - fictional or real - who talks like that. In writing? Sure. Outloud, during a conversation with someone? No way.

You have a point. It can be disputed since good literature focuses on literary devices rather than on movie script make-believe. But games don't necessarily have to be high literature; all I'm asking for is a well thought pun or simple metaphor here and there and if lacking those at least some humor.

The best of both worlds is to combine the two parts with subtlety: we're talking about the First Enchanter here. If there's one character who would be intelligent and have his head in the clouds it's him; it's the perfect chance to take full liberty in writing in a flamboyant style.

Instead he talks like average Joe.

No, that's just as terrible, Dicksmoker

Ah, Clockwork Knight. The output of the Brazilian education system.

You're a running gag, my friend.

 

[Vault Dweller]

"And how do you know they are right? Their faith would make you swallow a great deal for small comfort."

I really like this line. A lot is packed into the second sentence. It's always a challenge to say more with less (I loved the Snatch's dialogue lines), and this line does it almost brilliantly.

"Swallow a great deal" is a literary cliche of the "stretch your legs" variety. It's OK to use it once...

It's a phrase, not a cliche. Anyway, since you gave your permission to use it once, we can drop it and move on.

I would have written something along the lines of "Faith decrees that for what one sees, one should decree faith. In growing ever comfortably blind we know no difference in darkness, and light no longer casts shadows to trouble us."

a) it sounds horrible (no offense; I'm sure you can do a much better job in your native language)
b) it doesn't fit the character at all. The mage is an arrogant, bitter, and resentful scientist, not a patient teacher-philosopher. He isn't explaining the nature of things, he's snapping at the Chantry.

There is wordplay, a metaphor, and even a bit of dramatic irony.

So every line should include "wordplay, a metaphor, and even a bit of dramatic irony"?

The player says something that can be summed up as "it goes against the Chantry's teaching". The best counter to that is "how do you know they are right?" It's perfect. It makes the player think. How DO you know? You've been told about the Chantry, you read some books, talked to a few chantry people. In most games things are exactly what you're told about them. This one simple line changes everything and makes you doubt. The mage doesn't explain why they are wrong, which is the right move. He simply asks "how do you know?". As a response, it's pretty fucking good.

This is pathetic. A far more rewarding approach would have been to flag every Codex bit of info you get, and allow for more deeper discussion when you confront the First Enchanter, complete with stat checks (as was for example Myron's dialogue in Fallout 2 to find a cure for jet) and the possibility to seriously fuck up in between . Instead, we get to roleplay the usual retard hero who knows shit about what is going on and can't make a difference even when the cliche dramatic irony is so obvious.

Are we talking about philosophical discussions, game design, or quality of writing? One at a time, please.

You're free to choose whatever line you want. IF you pick the "it goes against the Chantry" line, THEN the mage replies with the line in question. In other words, your rebuttal is invalid and doesn't apply.

Then he adds "Their faith would make you swallow a great deal for small comfort." That's just fucking brilliant and sums up pretty much every religion well. This line is actually deep and loaded with contempt and arrogance of one who considers himself above such foolishness. If you can describe religion better in a single sentence, I would surely like to see that.

Yes, brilliant as in "brilliantly appeals to the angsty atheist teenagers". I wonder with whom did you sit down to talk about religion when you can say that sentence describes religion well? Some of smartest people I know are ardent believers and are very well versed in logic and theology. They made me put a foot in my mouth on several occasions when they retorted with Thomistic backup or Lutheran claims, if to name a few of the usual suspects, and I have come to terms with them and grown to respect their beliefs and philosophers, and even become fascinated with some of them.

Religion goes a tiny bit further than the usual Blobertian prose of the "HAH LULZ BRO THOSE SHEEPLE ASSHOLES CAN"T THINK FOR THEMSELFS!!1!" type in these forums. It's a pity that Gaider took that route as well.

Summary of the encounter:

VD: The line sums up most religions and shows the arrogance of the NPC.

One-Eye: First, it's angsty teenage crap. Second, I'll have you know that I talk to a lot of smart people and I'm fascinated with them. Third, religion is deeper than "people are sheep"!

It seems that you forgot to throw in a few arguments.

 

[circ]

They could very well talk like that, being royalty and this being assumably the middle-ish ages and earlier. Instead of Friends with some thee and aye thrown in.

 

[Vault Dweller]

The best of both worlds is to combine the two parts with subtlety: we're talking about the First Enchanter here. If there's one character who would be intelligent and have his head in the clouds it's him; it's the perfect chance to take full liberty in writing in a flamboyant style.

Talking about cliche, eh?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

The best of both worlds is to combine the two parts with subtlety: we're talking about the First Enchanter here. If there's one character who would be intelligent and have his head in the clouds it's him; it's the perfect chance to take full liberty in writing in a flamboyant style.

Intelligent people don't always talk like that (more like never, tbh)

I think I'll enrage EV a little and link this

specially these parts

In brief: "smart" characters using long words when short ones would be better. Characters afflicted with this trait often seem to go out of their way to over-complicate their speech, probably because writers think that this is the only way to show that someone is more intelligent than the average writer.

People with Asperger's Syndrome may do this in an attempt to be as precise as possible, ironically making their speech harder for some to understand.

 

[Vault Dweller]

My knowledge base of what? A certain level of literacy? People can criticize shit without "doing better" or trying to prove something. That's why literary criticism isn't based around rewriting a paragraph from a novel you think is weak, but based around dissecting that paragraph.

But did you dissect anything? Oops, you forgot. Yes, silly you.

I refuse to answer VD because...

Because you can't, sweetheart. If I was asked to rewrite a few lines of FO3 dialogues to back up my point, even if I disagreed with the approach, I would have done it anyway because it only takes a few minutes, especially if you see the flaws clearly. You have all the time to bitch about shit and write this lengthy and pointless post, but you can't be bothered to rewrite 2 lines? Riiight.

I think his approach is a load of retardo and ultimately trying to improve a single line without any surrounding context--and a line based on a flimsy attempt at theology--is a stupid exercise. Here's hoping he won't react to criticism of AoD by asking the critics if they can do better.

Cheap misdirection attempt.

The basic knee-jerk fanboy/fangirl reaction everywhere is screaming "can you do better?!" I could show you outraged Harry Potter fans. Or young writers whose piece has just been torn apart.

More pointless bullshit.

If you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one who thinks your interpretation of "bad writing" is less than tenable. Bit more than tiny, old chap.

"Look, other people agree with me, so I must be right, right?" Cute.

Wow, you really took that bit of DA writing seriously then? That's... scary.

A dashing, but pointless personal attack. You aren't doing very well in this debate, are you?

No, you're--what did you call it--trying to prove something like your life depends on it.

At this point I'm forcing myself to maintain the interest. I honestly thought that you'd be a more interesting and clever "opponent". Instead, I get the usual bullshit, misdirection, and attacks. Kinda boring, to be honest.

See, it's a single line. No context (though the context is understood by those who've played the game and seen that bit of dialogue).

First, it didn't stop you from criticizing the line. Second, the context was explained. Third, you could have asked for more info.

What with you clamoring for explanations...

...

Anyway, let's drop the subject and move on. Arguing further would serve no purpose.

 

[Silellak]

The best of both worlds is to combine the two parts with subtlety: we're talking about the First Enchanter here. If there's one character who would be intelligent and have his head in the clouds it's him; it's the perfect chance to take full liberty in writing in a flamboyant style.

Talking about cliche, eh?

Then there's the fact that the line at the center of this discussion isn't said by the First Enchanter. As you pointed out, it was in fact said by a very old, embittered mage/scientist who was part of the Wardens a long, long time ago.

 

[Lesifoere]

Er, I do understand the context, actually, having played the game, mage origin and all.

But did you dissect anything? Oops, you forgot. Yes, silly you.

Oh, sweetie.

It's not just that the line is nothing special; it's that the context surrounding it (blah blah Christianity is iffy and dubious blah blah blah god may or may not be there zzzz) is derivative and shallow, which leads to the line itself being theologically banal.

Even the phrasing itself hardly sparkles with linguistic creativity. "Swallowing [bullshit]" is a cliche; "small/cold comfort" is ditto. If you think saying a lot through common cliches is the way to go, well, at least nobody can say you have unrealistic standards.

I'll grant you, this isn't exactly ultra-intellectual literary criticism but I daresay it qualifies as dissection. Again I must ask: exactly what kind of "dissection" and "arguments" are you looking for? Apart from just wanting people to agree with you and say you're completely right, I mean.

"Look, other people agree with me, so I must be right, right?" Cute.

"My definition of bad writing is that you can do better" will strike just about anybody as idiotic. Sorry.

I honestly thought that you'd be a more interesting and clever "opponent". Instead, I get the usual bullshit, misdirection, and attacks. Kinda boring, to be honest.

Dear me, to have met VD in all his intellectual glory and be found wanting. I'm so hurt. Roundly defeated, even. I mean, "bullshit, more bullshit, you're just attacking me" are such blistering retorts. What with your own posts being shining examples of debate skills and you never resorting to insults and condescen--oh wait. Never mind. Is this where I ask you if you could do better than I did, or something?

 

[Monocause]

"Faith decrees that for what one sees, one should decree faith. In growing ever comfortably blind we know no difference in darkness, and light no longer casts shadows to trouble us."

You use too many words. That makes the sentence too complicated and incomprehensible. A golden rule of writing (and pretty much everything when it comes to creative processes) is 'keep it simple, stupid'.

Your line would fit a guy who tries to make himself seen as a smart one but talks gibberish all the time. Not a guy who actually is smart and has something to say. Or Hakunin from FO2.

Look at it this way: you've got classes with two professors. One of them explains a concept using simple, honest and direct language, resorting to field nomenclature only when there is no other option. His message is understandable immediately even for someone without any experience in the given field and keeps the communication process fluent.

Then there's the second professor. He explains the same concept using a lot of words derived from latin, constantly uses analogies and obscure metaphors; fits in scientific vocabulary whenever he has the option to do so. He plays a lot of word games and uses complex logical structuring. He makes digressions often, even when they don't add anything in particular to the subject. His listeners have to make a lot of effort to digest what he says and to follow his train of thought; most fail.

The original line from DA which was dissected fits the first professor character. It is easily understandable and has nothing that would unnecessarily complicate things. Your line fits the second professor perfectly.

 

[1eyedking]

It's a phrase, not a cliche. Anyway, since you gave your permission to use it once, we can drop it and move on.

Except it is a cliche. Vault Dweller fails at literature:

Her prose style, heavy on cliche, makes no demands upon her readers. In an arbitrarily chosen single page--page 4--of the first Harry Potter book, I count seven cliches, all of the "stretch his legs" variety.

Source

He even uses my example.




And it happens more than once.

a) it sounds horrible (no offense; I'm sure you can do a much better job in your native language)

Thank you for your opinion. From what I read in Age of Decadence so far, however, I'll take it with a grain of salt.

Make it half.

b) it doesn't fit the character at all. The mage is an arrogant, bitter, and resentful scientist, not a patient teacher-philosopher. He isn't explaining the nature of things, he's snapping at the Chantry.

Wait...what I said doesn't snap at religion?

Yes, aloof, derisive mages are tired but reading or listening to them is satisfying nonetheless. It fits because the First Enchanter is no exception since when you meet him he goes something along "Oh...where was I? Ah yes, grettings."

And why do you say he is an arrogant, bitter, and resentful scientist? He was Just Another Mage to me.

So every line should include "wordplay, a metaphor, and even a bit of dramatic irony"?

No, but at least one or the other on several occasions. I saw one or two in all of Dragon Age. Compare that to Planescape: Torment or Fallout.

Are we talking about philosophical discussions, game design, or quality of writing? One at a time, please.

They're related, since when one writes one describes and recreates events, characters and descriptions which are all part of game design.

Go tell the opposite to Tim Cain, Boyarsky, Avellone and whomever else wrote the dialogue at Black Isle.

You're free to choose whatever line you want. IF you pick the "it goes against the Chantry" line, THEN the mage replies with the line in question. In other words, your rebuttal is invalid and doesn't apply.

Quaint.

Summary of the encounter:

VD: The line sums up most religions and shows the arrogance of the NPC.

One-Eye: First, it's angsty teenage crap. Second, I'll have you know that I talk to a lot of smart people and I'm fascinated with them. Third, religion is deeper than "people are sheep"!

It seems that you forgot to throw in a few arguments.

Are you a child VD? You are a very tiresome person, you ask for every obvious detail to be explained.

It's childish because it's what you read in every emo blog out there. "My life sucks", "I'll kill myself", "Religion is oppressive and it's lies, lies, LIES", "God doesn't exist", etc. It's common knowledge ("LULZ THAT BE NOT KOMMON KNOWLEDGE QUOTE QUOTE QUOTE OR ITZ LIES").

Second, learn to read: I am fascinated with some Christian philosophers, not my friends and professors. And third, if you want to discuss religion we can do it elsewhere since it's quite a subject. For starters I'll say that some people don't swallow all of it, and some that do actually find immense comfort in believing, for example, that they may meet their loved ones who passed away in the afterlife, in knowing they have a leader who is genuinely interested in preserving their morals and traditions, or just content to find a community that embraces them and cares for them.

And before you revert back to your teens, yes, there may be some hypocrisy and self-righteousness in it (as there is in everything), but for the most part it works that way.

 

[chicago_bankroll]

Wow. What a wonderfully scintillating discussion.

It's like the Codex has officially become a giant parody of a Seinfeld episode: a bunch of self-absorbed asshats who frantically fap to gay pseudo-intellectual conversations about nothing.

I mean, Christ. The Codex trying to critically dissect and re-write David Gaider's Dragon Age: Origins and taking this seriously? And FAILING?

All of you who have participated in this crap-fest so far are useless and can just DIAF, as far as I'm concerned.