All Posts by mrprogguy

Originally posted by Sepulcher

This is going to be my first month without an MMO to play.  I have played every P2P MMO released in the USA and I have come to realize I don't like MMORPGS.  I want an online world to have fun in.  I miss socializing with people and doing random things because they seem fun, not because I need to level or farm for money.

Putting this genre on hold until we get out of the MMORP"Game" mindset and developers start making MMORP"Worlds".

Second Life?  There?

They're revamping the game?  Huge changes to the game that I've been--wait...what?  They're just revamping PVP in CoH?

Man, you had me worried.  I thought they were changing something important. 

Originally posted by mccoyy

Not trying to troll here or anything just a sincere question.

I tried COH and I thought it sucked pretty bad. I was wondering if anyone felt the same and thought that for some reason STO might be different?

I have followed STO for a pretty long time with PE and truthfully havent kept up since  Cryptic took over.  When I heard they took over my first thought was OMG...their game was terrible how are they going to make a STO game that I would like?

Does anyone feel the same way I do? I would love to hear why Cryptic will do a good job with this game as compared to trash like COH?

Thanks

1.  What, precisely, are the qualifications for "suck?"   You state your conclusion with absolutely no qualifying or quantifying data.  Are you too busy--or do you assume it doesn't matter?

2. You really, really need to learn how to express an opinion as opposed to make absolute statements.  Trust me, if CoH happened to be trash, I wouldn't have been playing it for the last four years.  You can take that to the bank.   Placing the quality of your judgment above mine (or anybody's) is very dangerous intellectual territory--especially for someone who doesn't appear to have mastered the use of the common, garden-variety apostrophe.

3. Why would anyone here really care if you play STO or not?  What interest would we have in convincing you one way or the other?  I think we have better things to do.  You'd do well to stop overvaluing your own opinion, and maybe get that ego in check in other areas, too.

4. Even a sincere question can be trolling.  That you have to warn us that it's not trolling means you know it's trolling.  By the way--it's trolling.

The Massively Single-Player Online Roleplaying Game?

Yeah, I've been thinking about that for years.  I got sidetracked by working on Duke Nukem Online though.

Originally posted by obamaphony

That's why this game went down in flames and will never be good again.

 

They added magic and ruined the beautiful base thay established; a base of realistic ship combat was turned into WOW on the ocean.

Typical and the very reason this game is finished.

If I ran the company I'd fire these selfish developers and hire people who understand players and gaming.

 

I think you're blaming the wrong group.  It matters not whether or not the developers (the coders, the artists, the scripters) understand players or gaming.  It matters if the designers understand players and gaming.

It would be nice if players and gamers understood the difference.

Originally posted by DuraheLL

Originally posted by mrprogguy
******

 

SO much text... on spelling...
*head explodes*

It matters.  Sorry about your head.

Personally, I 'd take the OP a lot more seriously if the spelling and grammar errors weren't there.  Here's a lesson: if you can't get the little things right, what are the odds you can get the big things right?   Taking the time to write correctly-spelled and gramatically-correct content is first a sign of self-respect.  It says "I respect myself and the people around me enough to communicate clearly and correctly.  I'm ready to participate materially in the discourse of the adult world."

Yes, yes, yes--grammar Nazi, blah, blah, blah.   Think about it, though: how does one make someone like a software designer or developer take one's ideas seriously?  Answer: by stating those ideas clearly and concisely.  How does one do that?  For a start, one uses correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar.  This applies to spoken as well as written communication.  When I hear or read "him and me was..." instead of "he and I were..." I cringe, because it means that the individual involved doesn't understand how ignorant he or she appears.  (It doesn't even have the grace of dialect.  It's simply sloppy grammar.  When the writer of a novel wants to use a shortcut characterization trick to show that a minor character is un- or under-educated, the writer has that character's dialog start out "him and me was....")
 

I suppose next I'm to read that I'm being judgmental.  Yes, yes I am.  So are lots of people, including those who sign paychecks.  An objective standard exists for this sort of thing--you were taught the rules in school (or are currently learning/ignoring the rules in your English and Language Arts classes right now).  If you want to wear plaid pants with a polka dot shirt, that's your choice-no objective standard exists, and by all means, please yourself when you dress for the day.  Where language skills are concerned, however, the standard exists, and I'm more than willing to point out that it exists.

As a side note, I'd like to point out that one certainly couldn't get a decent, well-paying job with literacy skills like those.  With those skills, I'd forecast that the writer will still be participating in the largely unskilled labor pool at the age of 35 and cashing his or her paychecks at Amscot.   LIving beer-to-beer isn't much of a life.  That may come as a shocking revelation to some: how well you do in life may depend on your communications skills.  It's an undeniable truth.  (You can try to deny it.  Go ahead.  Find me an example of a truly successful person in any field of endeavor who starts sentences with phrases like "him and me was..." (other than the Grand Ol' Opry or country comedy, where it's sort of expected).

I'm former high-school teacher James Hawk III, and I approve this message.

(It is entirely possible that somewhere in this posting I've made a typo.  No doubt someone will seize upon it with reckless glee, as if that somehow dilutes my message.  It will not.  Anyone can make a mistake, especially when working against a deadline [in this case, getting my son to school on time].  There is a huge difference between a typo here and there, and a repeated pattern of spelling, punctuation, and grammar mistakes.  Don't waste your time going there, because you'll be wrong--as if arguing me with would make you right in the first place.)

Originally posted by RedwoodSap

I don't like instancing. Count me out if there is instancing.

You're out.  Thank you for sharing.

Dang, there goes $29.98 a month in revenue now.  How will the game survive?

Originally posted by Samuraisword

I don't care if it's permanent instancing like dungeons in WoW, or instancing on demand to prevent lag like EQ2 or AoC, or scenario/mission/quest instancing like LoTRO.

If there is any instancing, any at all, I will not play this game. Are you listening Devs?

Self-important much?

I'm sure that if any of the Devs read this, they immediately screamed out "Holy crap, Samuraisword doesn't like instancing!  We better just trash the code base and start over!"

Calling out the Devs is juvenile, egotistical, and completely pointless.  The company will do  without your $14.99 a month, and we'll all be the better off for it.  There are 10 or more people who will want to take your place when you fall out of line, so don't embarrass yourself by trying to point out how all-fired important you are, because you're not.

And neither am I.  I just can't stand ego-driven prats who wouldnt' write a game if the fate of the world depended on it calling out the Devs over a measly 15 bucks a month. 

Your Gore, sir, is in Tennesee buying carbon offsets.

Originally posted by thorwood

I think the the Asian games that are grind fests are like that because they are similar to the early Western games that were also grind fests.

I have an idea: let's just go ahead and design "Grind Fest."  I'm sure I can find a programming team for it, and it's sure to find a publisher.

Then we can just sit back and watch that ol' money roll in.

Originally posted by Jimmydean

This is a terribly racist thread. That's like asking why black people like watermelon so much.

Here's a news flash: they also like fried chicken and barbecue a lot, with rare exception.  And the crazy, nutty why of it is that all those things taste good.  As it turns out, Jews also favor chicken soup.  Why?  Because it tastes good.  Norwegians like herring.  Why?  Because--believe it or not--herring taste good.  (I know this because I've had some Norwegian herring dishes.  Herring in tomato aspic is very good.)

It's hardly racist to suggest (or simply observe) that racial or ethnic groups prefer one thing (or group of things) over another thing (or group of things) .  This is simply the result of social evolution over history (or perhaps necessity--land-locked desert-dwelling cultures don't eat a lot of seafood, generally, for what I hope are obvious reasons; they would tend to prefer all sorts of foods over seafood, all other factors being equal).

Any racist aspect to the line of question comes out of two lines of thought.  The first is that, for example, watermelon was considered at one time to be trash food--food for the poor.  Having watermelon, or rice, or other inexpensive foods as dietary staples was considered an indication of low social and economic status.  That was then.  Today there's no special stigma attached to eating any particular sort of food--and choosing to eat lower-cost foods is actually laudable from a budgetary and dietary standpoint.  (One has to except scrapple from that.  That's not good for you no matter how little it costs.)

The second line of thought is that blacks, for example, eat nothing but watermelon, fried chicken, and barbecue.  That's stereotyping, which is generally useless.  (Although, as a good Southern boy, I could tolerate that diet for a long, long time with the small addition of grits, greens, and gravy.  Nothing wrong with it, although it's a little high in fat and cholesterol.)

So, had the OP asserted that Asians only play grinding games, and that the fact indicated that Asian gamers were somehow an inferior sub-population of the entire gaming population, I could see some validity to your comment.

But....

Wanting to know if ones impression of fact is true is valid.  Given statistical data showing that a particular trend exists and asking why that would be so is valid.

Denying that differnces exist between populations is naive, and also racist (it's called the "everyone thinks/acts like I do" fallacy).  That differences exist is not bad.  Noticing that differences exist is not bad, because exploring differences leads to new and valuable information for everyone involved.

So, asking why, in general, the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans currently appear to prefer one sort or style (or a small range of styles) of game over another is a valid question.  Certainly game publishers need this sort of information.  Game designers hoping to break into that market need that sort of information.  One can't sell what people don't want to buy.  Building games is an expensive proposition these days, and those putting up the money would like a decent ROI.

As such, at the end of the day, I don't see your assertion of racism as valid.  Sorry.

(It bothers me that I may have just spent 45 minutes replying to a troll.)

Originally posted by Sain34

The above poster is correct. Instant gratification is a western invention.

Yes, but it's a very good invention.    ;)

What would happen if WoW ended is simply this: innovation would come back into the market.  WoW is inhibiting innovation because every game that intends to survive even minimally has to copy WoW.

That's the nature of the commercial entertainment beast (3D-animated talking animal kiddie flicks--seen em?).  Once Wow dies a timely death (which it likely won't for years, mind you, because it's very, very strong), then something new will be allowed to happen.  That is to say, investors will be willing to part with cash because the risk of failure will be somewhat lower.

WoW, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, but it has palpable effects on the industry, and not all of them are good.