• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Ramaniscence

  1. This is not a convention with MMOs so much as it is a convention of RPGs. You start off weak and inexperienced, and through quests you gain experience and equipment that makes your character gradually feel stronger. You adventure, you team up and explore dungeons, and you split the spoils of the adventure. Since it would be (nearly) impossible to have that character evolve infinitely on a limited time scale it's generally accepted than an MMO needs some kind of "end game." A way for characters to become stronger without needing to level or gain more experience. Early MMOs such as Ultima Online did not have this, while some of the community was fine with traditional role playing and adventure, even these things had diminishing returns. Incremental gear levels passed the base max level is how most current MMOs achieve this. Whether it be maxing crafting and learning rare recipes, PvP, or raids. No matter what choice(s) an MMO chooses all of these need to have a certain expectation of challenge and/or RNG in order to make sure the player doesn't increase in power too quickly and run out of incentives to keep playing. RNG is the more annoy choice, but when it comes to things like crafting it's difficult to create an interesting, challenging endgame that does no require any kind of combat and doesn't have too much RNG but still has some sort of skill element that gets increasingly easier/more possible as the player increases their power. Not only are raids the easy answer, they're the logical answer from a genre (again RPG, not MMO) stand point. With that said: There are many things WoW does not do great. Server community and crafting are some of the biggest (world PvP is pretty big on that list right now too). I think any MMO that comes out will have to deal with these first and foremost, but also can't ignore an interesting end game. I also agree with the Guild Wars 2 argument and how it deals with much of this...perhaps a full-fledged Guild Wars MMO....
  2. Exactly. The automated systems in WoW have created a social disconnect, but imagine if the system wasn't in place at all: Some players would end up being more social, and talking to people, many others would end up unable to ever do anything. You can say "Well then maybe an MMO isn't for them, then", but then you run into the issue of turning away people who're generally interested in content and gameplay. At the same time, there's nothing stopping those people who only do LFR and LFG in WoW from joining a real guild and doing dungeons and raids with peers other then themselves. It's their own conscious choice. Whether it's based in social stigma or general laziness the option to be social IS there. Some (many) people just do not choose it. I don't believe it's as big of an issue with design so much as it is an issue with culture.
  3. This is where things get a little tricky... On Server A, a high population PvP server, players decide to alert the guards On Server B, a high population RP Server, players decide to alert the guards On Server C, a high population PvP server, decides to take it themselves On Server D, a high population RP Server, decides to take it themselves On Server E, a low population PvP server, decides to alert the guards. On Server F, a low population RP server, decides to alert the guards On Server G, a low population PvP server, players decide to take it themselves On Server H, a low population RP server, players decide to take it themselves On server A most of the population doesn't care about the storyline, but some do, with the help of the guards they're able to repel the attack. Minor damage, if any. On server B everyone really cares, and the threat, along with the help of the guards, is repelled easily without an issue. No damage. On server C, the population signed up to handle it, but didn't show up. The threat makes it to the guards and the people who care about lore stand up and fight alongside the guards. Moderate damage, but the threat is repelled. On server D, the majority of the population shows up. The threat never even makes it to the gates. Huge party. On server E, people sign up to help, but ultimately they just don't have enough people around, online, who actually care enough to participate. They're able to substantially cut down the opposing forces. Ultimately the threat makes it to Queynos but the guards, though caught off guard, are able to stop the threat eventually. Major damage, but we can rebuild. Server F they're able to repel most of the attack, but a small amount still falls on the unsuspecting guards. The guards defend the area, with the help of noble players are able to fully propel the attack. Moderate damage. Server G, nearly no one shows up. The small handful of players who're interest in the fate of the server fight hard, and fail. The guards, caught completely off-guard, are obliterated and the orcs sack everything they can get their hands on. Incredible damage. Server H, nearly everyone shows up. The moderate handful of players who're interested in the fate of the server fight hard, and do cut the threat down a quite a bit. They orcs eventually make it to the guards, who end up being able to repel the threat, but not without moderate damage. Servers A, B, and D continue life as usual. Servers F and H have to adjust to daily life; Some people take it with stride, others get fed up over participation and transfer to A, B, or D. As a result server F falls into a critically low server population. Server D, with a strong active community, becomes the dominate RP server; 3 other RP servers become ghostlands. Server E and G go to the forums and complain about how badly server population negatively effects their gameplay and how they can't be expected to pay to move to another server. With all good intentions, in the end if one server gets more of a benefit than another, players will be UP SET. Everyone who pays money for an MMO expects that they deserve the best experience absolutely possible by their own definition. So while leaving the fate of the world up to the population seems like a good idea IN THEORY...in practice it can be very very difficult, and I'm yet to see someone pull it off.
  4. Her Borderlands 2 assessment was so far off it's laughable, and not even because she uses the word "murder" to describe "assisted euthanasia."
  5. Reddit confirms I'm not alone in my Gandhi experience:
  6. I am not going to try to convince you of anything any further. You either have no ability to comprehend mature concepts, or you're argumentative for the sake of arguing. Either way you are no longer worth my time in this discussion.
  7. Right? I tried to do a cultural victory and avoid putting money into military at all costs, and fricken Ghandi of all people kept testing my borders. I never attacked except to defend myself, I regularly caved to requests and gave gifts to keep people happy with me, but by the end everyone hated me anyway.
  8. I'll agree that the miss use of mature things can reduce the overall quality, however you can't discount the adult themes in the storyline of these games. Games like Assassin's Creed, Max Payne, Red Dead Redemption couldn't exist at all without having an M rating. Games like Mass Effect and Catherine perhaps could, but the experience would be cheapened without it. I don't think we should arbitrarily kick up the blood and violence as an excuse to make games more mature, but I don't think we should avoid the opportunity to add blood, death, sex, etc, tastefully and respectfully to add a mature level of depth.
  9. Nobody said anything about solely, but they definitely gravitate to it. Because picking flowers, and solving problems with your friends might speak to an adult on a basic level, dealing with love, loss, sex, mortally, etc are things that we relate to on an adult level. Another great list of examples is: Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Desperate Housewives, Sex in the City, It's Always Sunny, How I Met Your Mother, Community, Arrested Development... And that's not to say that things created to be acceptable for children don't also incorporate subtle mature/adult situations to make them desirable by general audiences (Spongebob, Adventure Time). How is it unreasonable to say that adults gravitate toward entertainment that they can relate to on an adult level?
  10. Saints Row is a bit satirical and ridiculous, I'll give you that, but GTA is a good example of a game with truly mature content like what you'd see in a rated R movie. Harsh dialogue, a lot of complex adult situations, there's a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor in there, and that's OK. Some other games with mature ratings: Halo series, BioShock series, Assassin's Creed Series, Crysis series, Max Payne series, The Last of Us, Spec Ops: The Line, the Metal Gear Series, The Elder Scrolls series, all the Guilty Gear games, most of the Shin Megami Tensei series, Borderlands, Gears of War, Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect series, Parasite Eve, Diablo series, Catherine, L.A. Niore, Dragon Age series, Prince of Persia series, Fallout series, Heavy Rain, Nier... These games have adult themes and yes, blood, gore, sex, and some adult humor. I enjoy these deeper themes where people die, you feel actual consequence, etc. Because I am an adult, and my gameplay experience goes beyond games with little or no dialogue, little to no plot, where things of not much circumstance happen, etc etc etc. Some titles can pull off mature stories without having an M rating, some can't, and some don't even try. That's ok. but... A) If you think that most rated M games are all for gratuitous blood and gore (with no actual substance), you're lying to yourself. If you don't think adults want games with adult themes...well...I don't know what to tell you.
  11. Excuse me? Most M rated games? Surely you're joking.
  12. Because I am an adult, and sometimes I want games that I can relate to on an adult level about mature things. That said, down with this: http://www.joystiq.com/2013/07/17/phoenix-wright-dual-destinies-rated-m-due-to-various-crimes-a/ (which is not an Nintendo title, I know)
  13. This thread suggests it's just not what it used to be. I also found which helped out a lot, but I'm still having some slowdown. I have had no problems with Brotherhood or Revelations.
  14. My 560 has been going strong for awhile, but I loaded up Assassin's Creed III last night and it was automatically set to lowest settings...this shit is unacceptable.
  15. Looks like I got... DmC: Devil May Cry (ROW) Sid Meier's Civilization V: Gold DLC Only Reus Castle Crashers 4-pack Dust: An Elysian Tail Kerbal Space Program Fallout New Vegas: Gun Runners' Arsenal Fallout New Vegas: Lonesome Road DLC Fallout New Vegas: Old World Blues DLC Fallout New Vegas: Courier's Stash Blood Bowl: Chaos Edition FTL: Faster Than Light Ys I and II Chronicles Bully: Scholarship Edition XCOM Enemy Unknown (ROW) Just Cause 2 Bit.Trip.Runner 2 + Soundtrack + Good Friends Character Pack Scribblenauts Unlimited Skyrim Hearthfire Skyrim - Dawnguard
  16. Well, I mean...metacritic exists: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dmc-devil-may-cry General consensus seems to be "Pretty good gameplay, but not what we wanted as a DMC title."
  17. For each level you have to get the same 10 cards. So once you get all the cards, make a badge, get a background, emote, another card, maybe other stuff depending on the level, and then you just keep going. If you get duplicates you can trade, or sell the cards. If you sell them you can usually just rebuy cards you actually need (exchange rate is like ~$0.20. Alternatively you can sell all the cards and that money you make goes toward other purchases.
  18. They do allow for a small amount of customization. It's not an incredible amount, but it's a nice touch. Like Kenogu said, there's a lot more cards than are available through the summer sale. Also: cards can be sold. It's obviously something they're monetizing (business and all) but really though I think, more than anything, cards are a way to get people who buy games on Steam to actually play them. The majority of cards have to be accessed through actual game play, and how many Steam games collect dust is kind of a plague on the community.
  19. Wikipedia says: That said, I bought a GameCube at launch and enjoyed it more than I enjoyed my Wii.
  20. Soo basically just like a DVD player that plays nearly exclusively Disney movies.
  21. Quite the contrary. I'm actually still playing it on-and-off and haven't yet beaten it because I find it very meh. But yes, I don't think Nintendo is any worse than EA, and I can agree to disagree.
  22. Yes. Absolutely I am. Because Nintendo has blurred the line enough to where I no longer feel that any of them offer a unique experience. 100%. And that's my personal opinion, I know, but clearly I'm not the only one either.
  23. Listen, I'm not going to sit here and try to convince anyone otherwise, because some people like it, and that's fine, but my main point is: How is Nintendo better? Everyone makes an exception for Nintendo. Why? There were 6 Halo titles for XBOX360 over the course of 10 years. Between the 3DS and the Wii U we're going to have 4. The first being Super Mario 3D Land that was released at the tail end of 2011, the most recent being Super Mario 3D World to be release before the end of this year. Surely we'll at least see a Super Paper Mario Wii U or 3D. So that's just my point: I don't think Nintendo is any worse than any other developer doing that, but I certainly don't hold them at a higher respect because they're Nintendo; Not anymore. I'm about as excited for Super Mario Bros 3D World as I am for the Fast and the Furious 6.