Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by NorseGod

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by NorseGod
Not race, species. L2Biology

Dunno, take dark elves, wood elves and light elves.

Fits the definition quite nicely:

"In biology, races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences."

Flame on!

:)

Why would anyone need to flame that?

Your reply is contradicting in my favor. You disagree with me, but then posted in comparison, Elf (species) and Dark, Wood, and Light (races). And even included the definition that states just that.

Anyways, the point is, just tired of the use of incorrect terminology. Just like when I correct people that call cheaters "hackers". They are not hackers themselves, but applying scripts, and the industry term for those individuals are called "script kiddies".

It makes a better case when people use the correct terminologies.

I was just pitching that it is not that important or clear.

Games and their environment a are not real, they dont have to use state of the art terminology, it can even be counterproductive, "plasmaball" or "gesture controlled production and transfer of life energy".

Flame on!

:)

 

Please stop encouraging people to break this forum's rules.

You're right they are not real environments.  I find that accurate desciption of objects can help people understand what you are referring to more than saying "that thing over there".

Is there something wrong with having a species selection followed by a race choice as a subset of species?  Or is that too state of the art?

Of course first you would have to determine whether orcs, humans, elves... are in fact different species rather than races of the same species.

Shadowrun says they are not seperate species :)

Originally posted by kadepsyson

Is there something wrong with having a species selection followed by a race choice as a subset of species?  Or is that too state of the art?

Dunno, to me it would sound like "Mousse au Chocolat" on a McDonalds menu.

Its more fitting for a sci-fi, where it partially means "alien" :)

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by NorseGod

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by NorseGod
Not race, species. L2Biology

Dunno, take dark elves, wood elves and light elves.

Fits the definition quite nicely:

"In biology, races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences."

Flame on!

:)

Why would anyone need to flame that?

Your reply is contradicting in my favor. You disagree with me, but then posted in comparison, Elf (species) and Dark, Wood, and Light (races). And even included the definition that states just that.

Anyways, the point is, just tired of the use of incorrect terminology. Just like when I correct people that call cheaters "hackers". They are not hackers themselves, but applying scripts, and the industry term for those individuals are called "script kiddies".

It makes a better case when people use the correct terminologies.

I was just pitching that it is not that important or clear.

Games and their environment a are not real, they dont have to use state of the art terminology, it can even be counterproductive, "plasmaball" or "gesture controlled production and transfer of life energy".

Flame on!

:)

 

Race, species, hackers, script kiddies are state of the art terminologies? I disagree.

Using correct termonologies to get a point across makes sense if you want results or anyone to give what is being said any credibility. You find this unimportant. That's fine. But, others can take the same lazy approach in response (if they even bother responding).

You see, there are more than just bored gamers, trolls, and shills that come to this site. Some might actually be from the gaming industry to get the pulse of the gaming community.

If I was such an individual, do you think I would take in consideration from those who put effort and demonstrate that they know what they are talking about more seriously than, those who do not?

Basically, if I wanted to propose an idea that I would like to gain traction, I would at least make it sound intelligent.

But yeah, you made your point, it's just video games. A multi-billion dollar industry that needs people to continuously keep coming back to stay alive, which may include new ideas from what gamers want.

Originally posted by Ramonski7

Originally posted by Lovely_Laly

Seems it great fashion for latest game design to bring several races, more or less pretty or ugly.

To be honest, I would prefer to have better designed factions for PvP or correct class balance.

Even more classes will bring more fun then 5-6 races.

Not sure what you guys thinking about, but I don't even know how to get hypo about small shhhh like gnome, dwarf etc to be your avatar. =XD

May be we should have only 2 races: pretty and ugly? or even just one?

I don't talk about NPC, I don't care what race they are.

If you're going to throw out races, then you might as well throw out classes and factions. If devs focused more on gameplay rather than made up factions, races and classes wouldn't it be even better?

Originally posted by bcbully

Originally posted by Ramonski7

Originally posted by Lovely_Laly

Seems it great fashion for latest game design to bring several races, more or less pretty or ugly.

To be honest, I would prefer to have better designed factions for PvP or correct class balance.

Even more classes will bring more fun then 5-6 races.

Not sure what you guys thinking about, but I don't even know how to get hypo about small shhhh like gnome, dwarf etc to be your avatar. =XD

May be we should have only 2 races: pretty and ugly? or even just one?

I don't talk about NPC, I don't care what race they are.

If you're going to throw out races, then you might as well throw out classes and factions. If devs focused more on gameplay rather than made up factions, races and classes wouldn't it be even better?

 

No. I never understood why people got excited when a new race was listed as a feature..

It sounds like you are agreeing with him, but still said no.

Are you saying you prefer many factions over quality gameplay?

It's really hard to figure out what you meant.

Personally I agree with Ramonski7 that gameplay is better to focus on than races.

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by kadepsyson

Is there something wrong with having a species selection followed by a race choice as a subset of species?  Or is that too state of the art?

Dunno, to me it would sound like "Mousse au Chocolat" on a McDonalds menu.

Its more fitting for a sci-fi, where it partially means "alien" :)

Flame on!

:)

Why do you keep asking people to break the rules of the forum?

If you want to end every post with your encouragement to break the rules, you could edit your signature field in your profile.  Or is that too state of the art for you?

Also, people already understand there is a difference between a human and a dog.  To let you select first, man or dog, then if dog is chosen, select bloodhound or greyhound wouldn't be too hard for you to grasp would it?  I think most people would understand that a bloodhound is a type of dog, and not a human being, can you understand that too?

Flame on!

:)

Why do you keep asking people to break the rules of the forum?

If you want to end every post with your encouragement to break the rules, you could edit your signature field in your profile.  Or is that too state of the art for you?

 

Also, people already understand there is a difference between a human and a dog.  To let you select first, man or dog, then if dog is chosen, select bloodhound or greyhound wouldn't be too hard for you to grasp would it?  I think most people would understand that a bloodhound is a type of dog, and not a human being, can you understand that too?

Well, he might be trolling or it might be that he believes that everything he says is just that controversial. Either case, how "edgy".

He contradicts himself a few times. So, I hope he's just trolling.

Originally posted by Lovely_Laly

Seems it great fashion for latest game design to bring several races, more or less pretty or ugly.

To be honest, I would prefer to have better designed factions for PvP or correct class balance.

Even more classes will bring more fun then 5-6 races.

Not sure what you guys thinking about, but I don't even know how to get hypo about small shhhh like gnome, dwarf etc to be your avatar. =XD

May be we should have only 2 races: pretty and ugly? or even just one?

I don't talk about NPC, I don't care what race they are.

A lot of people just like to have variety and a way to make themselves more unique. The fewer races, the fewer ways to be unique or get a look that fits your style.

In the early days of Asheron's Call (ok actually for like the first 10-11 years of asheron's call) there were only humans. That never did seem to hold the game back as far as people wanting to play. At the same time people liked when they added more race options.

I don't have any problem with having lots of races, I just don't like when it is tied to something. For me, make all races 100% cosmetic, no special abilities per race.

Also when you say you'd rather have a better designed faction, class balance, PvP, you make it sound as if having more races means you can't have that. You can still have both and in fact races would be artist time and factions/balance/PvP would be developer/coder time so they don't even really share resources.

Originally posted by NorseGod

Race, species, hackers, script kiddies are state of the art terminologies? I disagree.

Using correct termonologies to get a point across makes sense if you want results or anyone to give what is being said any credibility. You find this unimportant. That's fine. But, others can take the same lazy approach in response (if they even bother responding).

You see, there are more than just bored gamers, trolls, and shills that come to this site. Some might actually be from the gaming industry to get the pulse of the gaming community.

If I was such an individual, do you think I would take in consideration from those who put effort and demonstrate that they know what they are talking about more seriously than, those who do not?

Basically, if I wanted to propose an idea that I would like to gain traction, I would at least make it sound intelligent.

But yeah, you made your point, it's just video games. A multi-billion dollar industry that needs people to continuously keep coming back to stay alive, which may include new ideas from what gamers want.

 

"Terminology is the study of terms and their use. Terms are words and compound words that in specific contexts are given specific meanings, meanings that may deviate from the meaning the same words have in other contexts and in everyday language."

I find the "gamers talking about fantasy games" social context most relevant in this case.

And chillax :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=P89BWzYsGIE#t=81s

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Banaghran

Originally posted by NorseGod

Race, species, hackers, script kiddies are state of the art terminologies? I disagree.

Using correct termonologies to get a point across makes sense if you want results or anyone to give what is being said any credibility. You find this unimportant. That's fine. But, others can take the same lazy approach in response (if they even bother responding).

You see, there are more than just bored gamers, trolls, and shills that come to this site. Some might actually be from the gaming industry to get the pulse of the gaming community.

If I was such an individual, do you think I would take in consideration from those who put effort and demonstrate that they know what they are talking about more seriously than, those who do not?

Basically, if I wanted to propose an idea that I would like to gain traction, I would at least make it sound intelligent.

But yeah, you made your point, it's just video games. A multi-billion dollar industry that needs people to continuously keep coming back to stay alive, which may include new ideas from what gamers want.

 

"Terminology is the study of terms and their use. Terms are words and compound words that in specific contexts are given specific meanings, meanings that may deviate from the meaning the same words have in other contexts and in everyday language."

I find the "gamers talking about fantasy games" social context most relevant in this case.

And chillax :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=P89BWzYsGIE#t=81s

Flame on!

:)

Are we not studying the terms by debating them? Therefore, the use of the term, "termonology" is used correctly?

Do these questions go beyond a simple cut and paste answer? I just want to know your thoughts, not others. If I wanted that, I'd just watch tv.

Why do you continue to debate me with answers that contradict yourself and reinforces my case? Or simply, "I think you're wrong, so here's proof that you are actually right."

I really hope you are just trolling. I really do, because the other explaination for your behavior saddens me.

I guess not,but what would daytona be without the indy 500?

Italy without F-1?

Mankind has always been obsessed with getting ahead of one another and races are important celebrations of that phenomenon..

just my 2..

I find races in most RPG settings are generally uninspired and lack the appropriate depth that a different culture should bring. 

For example, a dwarf is defined as a beer drinking rowdy miner that loves shiny things and loves his beard, nothing particularly wrong with these qualities but when the entire dwarf population I interact with cares for nothing else but these attributes then they begin to feel predictable and boring. Where as in contrast a human being can have many religions, many beliefs, many facial hair preferences.... And in general be far more unique an individual then any of the common "Elf" and "Dwarf" like characters. 

Characters in fantasy  like Bilbo from the latest Hobbit movie stand out as heros, but still well defined by his racial attributes over his personal individual likes and dislikes. 

Wheres the hobbit that likes to fight?

Wheres the hobbit that is a professional thief. 

No all hobbits are defined by never leaving there homes, and sitting around eating good food all day.

I guess at the end of the day most fantasy races are merely a snapshot of a particular type of person and the entire race is built around that single snapshot of qualities, but humanity is far to varied and complex for a single snapshot.

I have nothing against adding races, varied appearances are fine, but they need to vary the characters as individuals more.

Originally posted by NorseGod

Are we not studying the terms by debating them? Therefore, the use of the term, "termonology" is used correctly?

Do these questions go beyond a simple cut and paste answer? I just want to know your thoughts, not others. If I wanted that, I'd just watch tv.

Why do you continue to debate me with answers that contradict yourself and reinforces my case? Or simply, "I think you're wrong, so here's proof that you are actually right."

I really hope you are just trolling. I really do, because the other explaination for your behavior saddens me.

Well, in the beginning i wanted just make fun of you for bringing up biology here.

But reading wikipedia is fun and in this case was slighly enlightening.

So now i hold the belief that your insistence on using biology terminology is misplaced, we are not talking about things that posess DNA.

We are talking about race in the context of rpg games, and most people will understand it for what it really means here, a more fundamental characteristic of a character (playable or not) that most often manifests itself in the cosmetic or appearance area, but may also influence other aspects, like availability of classes, gear restrictions and bonuses/penalties of all kinds.

There i see the difference between "character race" and you mentioning the use of the word "hacker" to label cheaters to make news stories more sensational.

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Lovely_Laly

Seems it great fashion for latest game design to bring several races, more or less pretty or ugly.

To be honest, I would prefer to have better designed factions for PvP or correct class balance.

Even more classes will bring more fun then 5-6 races.

Not sure what you guys thinking about, but I don't even know how to get hypo about small shhhh like gnome, dwarf etc to be your avatar. =XD

May be we should have only 2 races: pretty and ugly? or even just one?

I don't talk about NPC, I don't care what race they are.

 seriously? is this a real question?

we have many races because the fantasy genre that MMORPGs derives from typically have fantasy worlds with a variety of races and creatures, many of which are taken from world folk-lore. 

I won't play a MMO if I can't have pointed ears, plain and simple. i love elves because they are typically magical with interesting lore. i don't roll humans because its boring to me to RP one and I don't really care much for them in real life to begin with.

Multiple races are not needed. One can have a MMO without multiple races. More races add flavor, background, lore, history, and many times conflict into a MMO, so I think multiple races are preferable.

---

Originally posted by Quirhid
There is no negative impact to PvP if the system is balanced, but usually it isn't. Infact, I can't remember a balanced PvP game with races...

I'm not a fan of races if they funnel you into specific classes. It is effectively the same as restricting specific class choices to specific races only it gives more ways to gimp yourself. If Orc Warrior is the only good warrior, then only orcs should be warriors. If goblins make poor warriors, goblins shouldn't have that as an option.

But I don't care about babysitting stupid players. Let them make their poor choices if they want to, however I do mind it when those same ignorant people claim this is "depth". More choices to gimp yourself is not depth no matter how you spin it.

---

Is every hero you read about or watch perfect? What do you base your character's perfection on? Does any of your characters have a flaw? One flaw that lends (OMG) depth to them?

I know... Your character is just a bunch of pixels with numbers attached to them. The bigger the numbers, the better the character. Kind of like FPS games, no? Who cares if they have pointy ears or a smushed up nose, or short or tall? I realize your gaming style is more popular, but races do add depth to a game.

Races add depth to character creation (new and non-human looks, inherent or special abilities, and possibly special affinities (like magic, smithing, bows).

Races add depth to lore, like which race was created first or last? Is there an immortal type race? What races were created by what Gods?

Races add depth to the world with racial cities, like tree towns, underground complexes, maybe even water villages.

I suppose one could argue that one race could cover all of this, but they would have very little imagination. Imagination which is the foundation of fantasy MMORPGs.

Also, no one asked you to "babysit" anybody. Kill them with your perfect cookie cutter character (exactly like every other perfect cookie cutter character you copied from a website) and laugh in their faces. I really see no depth what-so-ever in that. Everyone ends up playing the exact same thing.

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

Multiple races are not needed. One can have a MMO without multiple races. More races add flavor, background, lore, history, and many times conflict into a MMO, so I think multiple races are preferable.

 

---

Originally posted by Quirhid
There is no negative impact to PvP if the system is balanced, but usually it isn't. Infact, I can't remember a balanced PvP game with races...

 

I'm not a fan of races if they funnel you into specific classes. It is effectively the same as restricting specific class choices to specific races only it gives more ways to gimp yourself. If Orc Warrior is the only good warrior, then only orcs should be warriors. If goblins make poor warriors, goblins shouldn't have that as an option.

But I don't care about babysitting stupid players. Let them make their poor choices if they want to, however I do mind it when those same ignorant people claim this is "depth". More choices to gimp yourself is not depth no matter how you spin it.

 

---

Depth...
One path to take or many paths to take?

 

Is every hero you read about or watch perfect? What do you base your character's perfection on? Does any of your characters have a flaw? One flaw that lends (OMG) depth to them?

I know... Your character is just a bunch of pixels with numbers attached to them. The bigger the numbers, the better the character. Kind of like FPS games, no? Who cares if they have pointy ears or a smushed up nose, or short or tall? I realize your gaming style is more popular, but races do add depth to a game.

Races add depth to character creation (new and non-human looks, inherent or special abilities, and possibly special affinities (like magic, smithing, bows).

Races add depth to lore, like which race was created first or last? Is there an immortal type race? What races were created by what Gods?

Races add depth to the world with racial cities, like tree towns, underground complexes, maybe even water villages.

I suppose one could argue that one race could cover all of this, but they would have very little imagination. Imagination which is the foundation of fantasy MMORPGs.

Also, no one asked you to "babysit" anybody. Kill them with your perfect cookie cutter character (exactly like every other perfect cookie cutter character you copied from a website) and laugh in their faces. I really see no depth what-so-ever in that. Everyone ends up playing the exact same thing.

a much better answer than mine, but of course, i'm just trolling.