That's a glorious thing though !
It shows people on this forum have strong personalities, shows them as individuals.

Breadth and diversity of opinion is a great thing. Its the lack of diversity we should take objection to.
Mainstream media and mainstream gaming forums are practically devoid of individualism.

Yes that too. The series is often championed as a 'mature' RPG...but I think some gamers confuse 'maturity' with 'adult content'. The games are certainly adult in content, thanks largely to the nudity. However the way they deal with nudity is quite juvenile, as you pointed out.
Ignoring the fact that 'nudity' does not automatically mean 'maturity'. I mean Playboy magazines offer plenty of nudity, making them adult in content, but it does not make them a magazine for 'mature people'...quite the contrary I would argue.

Well, story-wise it was kinda necessary. What with the reapers and all. (On that note, Sovereign was so intimidating in ME1, I still love that conversation. The reapers in 3 were almost silly.) But:

Because ... game, maybe. It's true. Shepard's all, "'sup, reapers are about to eat the galaxy, little help?" And everyone else, "Maybe later, solve my problems first."

It is you who refuse to stick to the argument.

I am saying Blizzard has the most to gain from RMAH but you refuse to acknowledge that, stating I cannot compare the gain of a single individual against the gain of a company.

As if comparing the gain of all the players trade to a company is fair. So I come out with the Government new tax analogy where once the people gain 100%, now they gain 85% which you dismiss as hot air.

Well, thats a problem with most rpgs I know. They simply don't do "urgency". Ever. The very concepts of grinding and/or sidequest can be fine gameplay elements, but they kill any form of pacing.

Dragon Age : "The king's army has been defeated, and a horde of abomination is about to attack the village! You have to flee while I go to the capital to warn the reserve army!" "Mmmkay, but before you go, there are 3 bandits who stole a goat, could you please eliminate them? We'll give you 3 silver!" "3 silver? Oh, okay, for that money I can do bounty hunting for a while, I'm sure the undead horde will wait for me!"

Any JRPG ever : "The dragon of the fiery mountain of doom that has razed 3 cities is near your village! I need the Ice Blade of Dragnslaying to vanquish it!" "OK, 3780 Gold! If you want, you can go into the forest and chase goblins for a few month to get the money" "Oh, okay then, I'm sure the dragon will wait!"

etc...

In ME3, it's even worse because :
- You're in the middle of a freakin' capital-A Apocalypse, but still have time to do tourism
- Nothing you do really feels like it matters (Yay, I just killed a reaper. Meaning this planet will be destroyed next week instead of right away. Yawn)
- The guys getting killed on Earth will wait for you no matter how long you linger
- You take half the game reinforcing the citadel, helping people out in it, solving problems there, and then learn it has been destroyed without a single mission (or even cinematic) about it.
- And then all you did all game long means nothing because the problem is solved by a freakin' litteral Deus Ex Machina, with equally shitty "options".

I won't say I hate this game, because some parts of it were fun, and there were some nice battles, but storywise and rythm-wise, it was a HUGE disappointment

The only games I don't like are the ones with specs higher than my PC can handle.

Part of the reason I wrote so much is that I really dislike that game. Another part of the reason for writing so much is that I actually enjoy discussing game design, and that includes discussing *why* I consider a given game to be flawed.

Well you pretty much stated almost every reason I hate it also, well that and it seemed all the plot points most people praise to all hell seem to be copy and pasted from phantasy star 1-4.

My argument: in a transaction where the player gets 85% and Blizzard gets 15% the player gets the most money out of it.

Your argument: In total transactions versus one individual person Blizzard gets more money.

Both of these are true, but the latter not only has nothing to do with my argument, the original argument, it is also an unfair comparison since you would have to compare total transactions to total transactions and not Blizzard vs individual.

And that's without including your additions of me being a fanatic / Blizz fanboy, somehow making up that I'm telling you that you can't criticise Blizzard, Blizz corrupting gameplay for money etc.

Yes, because it's an awful comparison. If they make 10000 transactions in which 85% goes to the player and 15% to the company then of course you compare the total transactions and not Company as a whole versus an individual. Especially when the argument has revolved around the transactions.

It's obvious that comparing an individual to company the company wins but again it's about the transactions and in each transaction the person gets more than the company does.