Originally posted by hidden1

Tsk tsk, skepticism is a healthy thing, and skeptics should not be "blanket-labeled" as "haters."  (of coures unelss you only made this thread to generate flames... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now).

 

Besides, don't you think we skeptics want a new home too, hmmm?

I believe being skeptical is a good trait in a person. It shows that they do think and try to evaluate every possible fact they come accross to reach a sound conclusion.

I just dislike those who're completely convinced the game will fail when there is no such evidence. There are signs that some things could go wrong, but it doesn't mean they will. You'll just have to wait and see, and chill out until it comes out.

Originally posted by Valhama

Originally posted by hidden1

Tsk tsk, skepticism is a healthy thing, and skeptics should not be "blanket-labeled" as "haters."  (of coures unelss you only made this thread to generate flames... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now).

 

Besides, don't you think we skeptics want a new home too, hmmm?

 

I believe being skeptical is a good trait in a person. It shows that they do think and try to evaluate every possible fact they come accross to reach a sound conclusion.

I just dislike those who're completely convinced the game will fail when there is no such evidence. There are signs that some things could go wrong, but it doesn't mean they will. You'll just have to wait and see, and chill out until it comes out.

I agree with what you're saying especially as disliking those that are convinced this game is a complete fail.  There is no proof either way.  The best bet as I've often said in certain past posts is to take the roll of the fence-sitting skeptic and wait and see.  Judge the game on it's merrits/detractors only after playing it.
 

Originally posted by hidden1

Originally posted by Valhama

Originally posted by hidden1

Tsk tsk, skepticism is a healthy thing, and skeptics should not be "blanket-labeled" as "haters."  (of coures unelss you only made this thread to generate flames... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now).

 

Besides, don't you think we skeptics want a new home too, hmmm?

 

I believe being skeptical is a good trait in a person. It shows that they do think and try to evaluate every possible fact they come accross to reach a sound conclusion.

I just dislike those who're completely convinced the game will fail when there is no such evidence. There are signs that some things could go wrong, but it doesn't mean they will. You'll just have to wait and see, and chill out until it comes out.

I agree with what you're saying especially as disliking those that are convinced this game is a complete fail.  There is no proof either way.  The best bet as I've often said in certain past posts is to take the roll of the fence-sitting skeptic and wait and see.  Judge the game on it's merrits/detractors only after playing it.
 

Originally posted by Wycliffe

Thats the problem, people are so desperate for a sandbox game they're hyping up Darkfall like its the second coming. Unless you're in beta and have firsthand experience of the game, you *don't* know if Aventurine is delivering the game as promised. If Darkfall comes out and is everything Tasos has built it up to be, that'll be fantastic and the wait will be over. If it turns out to be a steaming pile of excrement, then it'll be a shame but its NOT the only sandbox, FFA PvP, full item-loot MMO coming out in the near future so stop acting like it is. It has legitmate competition in that niche genre as of '09 so it'll have to prove itself through its own merits after release before i'll consider a purchase. Call me a hater, troll and skeptic all you want.

What are the other games? (I'm genuinely asking)

So far, Darkfall is the only game that contains the featuresI want to see from a game. It's just too bad they're an indie group and not a wealthy company like Blizzard.

Does anyone honestly see a company like Blizzard making a game with the same features as Darkfall? It'd probably be bigger than WoW, but their lack of risk-taking ventures means they would probably never allow such a thing.

In regards to features, What you want and what you get are two different things. Also If the game play is crap then all the features in the world don't mean crap as well.

Best to set your expectations a little lower or you may come away disgusted when its all said and done.

Originally posted by stayontarget

In regards to features, What you want and what you get are two different things. Also If the game play is crap then all the features in the world don't mean crap as well.

Best to set your expectations a little lower or you may come away disgusted when its all said and done.

Originally posted by stayontarget

In regards to features, What you want and what you get are two different things. Also If the game play is crap then all the features in the world don't mean crap as well.

Best to set your expectations a little lower or you may come away disgusted when its all said and done.

I've already set my expectations pretty low... I never even thought the thing would be coming out.

I'm pretty sure if I end up playing darkfall,  I will be "settling" for the game and hoping it improves, but that's still better than I'm able to do with any MMOs that have currently been released - to me, they are all nauseatingly boring.

Originally posted by hidden1

Originally posted by svann

Originally posted by hidden1

Tsk tsk, skepticism is a healthy thing, and skeptics should not be "blanket-labeled" as "haters."  (of coures unelss you only made this thread to generate flames... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now).

 

Besides, don't you think we skeptics want a new home too, hmmm?

 

He never said skeptics were haters or trolls, he was just talking about haters and trolls and you assumed it meant you.

In many past posts/threads this has been the case.  The assumption was made with that in mind.  Also you are making an assumption as to the OP's intent as well.  For all we know he may have included in his/her mind "skeptics" along with haters.  Generally, we skeptics are usually lumped into that catergory... so hence my initial assumption.
 

No I made no such assumption.  I just read what was written.  Or if I assumed anything, it was that what was written was what was meant.  Sorry if thats not clear to you.

Originally posted by harmonica

Originally posted by Wycliffe

Thats the problem, people are so desperate for a sandbox game they're hyping up Darkfall like its the second coming. Unless you're in beta and have firsthand experience of the game, you *don't* know if Aventurine is delivering the game as promised. If Darkfall comes out and is everything Tasos has built it up to be, that'll be fantastic and the wait will be over. If it turns out to be a steaming pile of excrement, then it'll be a shame but its NOT the only sandbox, FFA PvP, full item-loot MMO coming out in the near future so stop acting like it is. It has legitmate competition in that niche genre as of '09 so it'll have to prove itself through its own merits after release before i'll consider a purchase. Call me a hater, troll and skeptic all you want.

 

What are the other games? (I'm genuinely asking)

So far, Darkfall is the only game that contains the featuresI want to see from a game. It's just too bad they're an indie group and not a wealthy company like Blizzard.

Does anyone honestly see a company like Blizzard making a game with the same features as Darkfall? It'd probably be bigger than WoW, but their lack of risk-taking ventures means they would probably never allow such a thing.

Check out Earthrise. There was a Q&A with the devs done like a week ago by this site. Key features of gameplay have been announced along with official screenshots, at the GDC in March they intend to unveil ingame videos.

Even if Darkfall and Earthrise both turn out to be flops, I doubt the amount of hype produced by the MMO community over a sandbox title will go unnoticed. Lets just hope one (or both) of these games deliver so we don't have to keep waiting.

Originally posted by Seeshin

Now I know most of you just utterly hate Darkfall

I disagree with this statement.  I would say 99% of the "haters" here love Darkfall, or its concept...They are just disgusted with Aventurine.  I can't blame them, but I am feeling better about its current state.

To agree with you however, I am VERY anxious about this game and I do need a new home.  Xbox Live only goes so far, you know. 

Originally posted by Seeshin

you know i think it would be alot better for the GENRE if blizzard was to help fund adventurine and to help release in NA, since there isnt a NA release yet and money always helps developers especially indy devs and since this is a pvp game blizzard wont lose too many subs.

Edit:  I said blizz cause they are arguably the best company out there.

Wow...that's like saying Toyota should help out with the US auto bailout. C'mon now, we live in a capitalist world, the whole idea being snuffing the other guy out of business. In a socialist/communist world, yes, it would be perfect for companies to hold each other's hands as they walk down the boulevard splitting profits 50/50.

 I think most people want a good new MMORPG to play. However signs are that DFis going to be really really awful.  Sorry but most people are very healthly skeptical of this game.

Maybe it will not be. Well there is always Mortal Online.

Originally posted by miagisan

Originally posted by ProfRed

Me too.  Honestly I bet 9 out of 10 haters and trolls need a new home also, and deep down hope for the same thing.

 

throwing around the insults again??

 

good luck op

Sorry wasn't meant as an insult.  Just saying people that seem to hate the game would play it and love it turned out to be something good.  Sorries.

Originally posted by svann

Originally posted by hidden1

Originally posted by svann

Originally posted by hidden1

Tsk tsk, skepticism is a healthy thing, and skeptics should not be "blanket-labeled" as "haters."  (of coures unelss you only made this thread to generate flames... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now).

 

Besides, don't you think we skeptics want a new home too, hmmm?

 

He never said skeptics were haters or trolls, he was just talking about haters and trolls and you assumed it meant you.

In many past posts/threads this has been the case.  The assumption was made with that in mind.  Also you are making an assumption as to the OP's intent as well.  For all we know he may have included in his/her mind "skeptics" along with haters.  Generally, we skeptics are usually lumped into that catergory... so hence my initial assumption.
 

 

No I made no such assumption.  I just read what was written.  Or if I assumed anything, it was that what was written was what was meant.  Sorry if thats not clear to you.

"Assuming" you are correct. 

Your words, "... he was just talking about haters and trolls and you assumed it meant you."  Umm, is that an assumption?  I mean really, neither of us know what he EXACTLY means by his definitions of  "haters' and "trolls."  So by that logic alone we must assume what those terms mean based on past emperical use of those terms... and that of course has tendencies to be broad ranged to specific, depending on the context and intent of those who have used those terms/labels (in this context, the terms Hater, Trolls). 

One thing that I can say about those terms/lebels is that they have rather negative connotations (generally speaking), and seem to come packaged with certain stigma's attached to them.  Yes it's true I made an assumption on them, and I have clearly stated this from the begining, but by arguing the opposite of my assumption, you automatically put your self in the possition  of an opposite assumption to that end.

Your words, "Or if I assumed anything, it was that what was written was what was meant."  And so, what was meant?  And what does that assume?  In reference to the terms "hater" and "trolls"?  Pray tell, "... what was meant."  Don't you think we both have to assume this wether my assumption assumes he meant to include skeptic, and yours assumes he didn't and are taking it on face value (and at face value isn't that a subjective assumption in-and-of-itself... as you have to assume what face value means to you, to me or anyone else who might have 2 cents about this.)

Your words, "No I made no such assumption."  The only thing that I can assume from that statement is that you don't understand that by arguing the opposite of my assumption (in this case whether he meant to include me ... your quote "... and you assumed it meant you."  And a correct assumption in my case as I did assume he meant to clump skeptic w/ hater/troll terms in that instance... but still by saying "... you assumed it meant you." is also and assumption which you contridict by also stating, "No I made no such assumption."

Originally posted by hidden1

Originally posted by svann

Originally posted by hidden1

Originally posted by svann

Originally posted by hidden1

Tsk tsk, skepticism is a healthy thing, and skeptics should not be "blanket-labeled" as "haters."  (of coures unelss you only made this thread to generate flames... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now).

 

Besides, don't you think we skeptics want a new home too, hmmm?

 

He never said skeptics were haters or trolls, he was just talking about haters and trolls and you assumed it meant you.

In many past posts/threads this has been the case.  The assumption was made with that in mind.  Also you are making an assumption as to the OP's intent as well.  For all we know he may have included in his/her mind "skeptics" along with haters.  Generally, we skeptics are usually lumped into that catergory... so hence my initial assumption.
 

 

No I made no such assumption.  I just read what was written.  Or if I assumed anything, it was that what was written was what was meant.  Sorry if thats not clear to you.

"Assuming" you are correct. 

Your words, "... he was just talking about haters and trolls and you assumed it meant you."  Umm, is that an assumption?  I mean really, neither of us know what he EXACTLY means by his definitions of  "haters' and "trolls."  So by that logic alone we must assume what those terms mean based on past emperical use of those terms... and that of course has tendencies to be broad ranged to specific, depending on the context and intent of those who have used those terms/labels (in this context, the terms Hater, Trolls). 

One thing that I can say about those terms/lebels is that they have rather negative connotations (generally speaking), and seem to come packaged with certain stigma's attached to them.  Yes it's true I made an assumption on them, and I have clearly stated this from the begining, but by arguing the opposite of my assumption, you automatically put your self in the possition  of an opposite assumption to that end.

Your words, "Or if I assumed anything, it was that what was written was what was meant."  And so, what was meant?  And what does that assume?  In reference to the terms "hater" and "trolls"?  Pray tell, "... what was meant."  Don't you think we both have to assume this wether my assumption assumes he meant to include skeptic, and yours assumes he didn't and are taking it on face value (and at face value isn't that a subjective assumption in-and-of-itself... as you have to assume what face value means to you, to me or anyone else who might have 2 cents about this.)

Your words, "No I made no such assumption."  The only thing that I can assume from that statement is that you don't understand that by arguing the opposite of my assumption (in this case whether he meant to include me ... your quote "... and you assumed it meant you."  And a correct assumption in my case as I did assume he meant to clump skeptic w/ hater/troll terms in that instance... but still by saying "... you assumed it meant you." is also and assumption which you contridict by also stating, "No I made no such assumption."

No, man, you're wrong. This thread is about people that need a new home, not attempts to salvage a weak arguement. He was right, you were wrong and your level of stubbornness is retarded. I could sit here and tell you why you're wrong but a) I don't want to post another wall of text and b) you would just ignore the truth anyway.

Shush.

Its going to be a great game, and will make a good new home.

To be honest I think a lot of people on these boards are looking for a new MMO home. I know I've been aimlessly roaming these boards for 6 months without an MMO. I need a fix. I'm really waiting for Aion, but if this game actually turns out to be good I would go to it if even for only a few months.

But alas the skeptic in me tells me theres a 6.74% chance this game will ever meet my expectations. I'll admit I have high standards.  I'm only on these forums to see whether the hype becomes the truth or whether all the fanbois end up leaving butthurt. The only thing that could attract me to this game is the freedom and concept.

I hope for everyones sakes this game just doesnt crash and burn. The MMO industry needs more open thinking developers, regardless of whether you hate DF or not. More creativity = more win.

 waiting, waiting, waiting..

www.youtube.com/watch

I also need a new home.

Especially if said "home"has enough to do for those of us who cannot use Vent/TS.

Aye, go che Mortal Online out!

That will probabely be my new home from Q4 this year...