There's how many high fantasy games out?  The zombie game genre has barely been touched, and people keep going on about all the zombie games out there. 

DayZ isn't an MMO, and WarZ...well it exiists.  Where are all these zombie mmo's people are sick of?  I can think of like 5 single player zombie games, and left 4 dead accounts for 2 of them. 

I could spend the next day and a half listing all of the fantasy RPG's out there. 

It's like a bunch of grown men who are in love with my little pony have taken it upon themselves to wage a propoganda war, and convince everyone that no one likes zombies.  You guys are wrong, and giant frigging weirdos to boot. 

Originally posted by jedensuscg

Originally posted by Nyrrho

It's too bad that the decent companies that have been around for many years (Atari, THQ, etc.) have to suffer this fate. It's always amazing how one or two bad decisions can completely deface an entire company (*cough* Squaresoft). Too bad this won't be happening to EA anytime soon.

Yup, yet companies like SOE and EA and Blizzard/Activision can make 15 mistakes a year, and still stay around to make another 15 the mistakes the following year, etc etc.  It does help these companies have other sources of income outside game development, but its still annoying.  If EA had to worry about going under because of a few bad decisions, then the quality of their games would go up.

 

 I don't understand this.  They made a few good games, and dozens upon dozens of horrible games baesd off of teen brands that they purchased rights to.  Bratz, nickelodeon, WWE, scooby doo?  THQ is like the poster child for corporate consumerism, but they never really pissed people off so no one ever "noticed" them. 

THQ was never a "good" company, they were a corporation that never actually cared about making good games and managed to get ahold of some good studios.  The games people actually liked that came out of THQ had very little to ever do with THQ. 

They made dozens of games, but most people might only be able to name about a half dozen that they've released over the last 20 years or so. 

There entire method of operation, from just about the moment they formed, was to buy up rights to popular brands that they thought would sell to a mass market based solely on the name of the brand.  Basically everything around here everyone complains about in regards to MMO's and games made using a popular IP; THQ was the poster child for that sort of corporate behavior. 

THQ like to buy up the rights to popular "teen" brands, and then make lots of games based off those brands. 

Lots, and lots of really bad games. 

And I mean LOTS of bad games. 

"although several issues exist that make the game feel like a disjointed collection of parts rather than a coherent gestalt."

That is entirely my impression of AoW.  A bunche of pieces (minigames) that didn't seem to fit with every other piece. 

Originally posted by Scot

The other day when I told someone I was not on Twitter or Facebook but could still take part in an event they were running by email. They thought I might be a troll winding them up.

It seems these days that MMO marketing departments only want competitions that involve social media and if you are not part of that forget it.

 I have a friend who won't use facebook.

I asked him how many forums is he registered to? 

One other thing. 

Why do I see people pointing out all the same things that people complained about when DF released, and the same exact responces from people in the beta that was given for the first DF. 

The deja vu is really impressive. 

How in the world is darkfall a cult classic? 

They started developing UW like a year after they released DF.  The DF servers aren't even running, was it even live for 2 years?    In what world is that a "classic" and not a failed game? 

Are we not even being realistic anymore? 

Is Tabula Rasa a "cult classic"?  Auto assault?  The matrix online?  Ultima online is a cult classic. 

What the heck, Mr. Murphy? 

Originally posted by ShakyMo
I guess we differ on what you consider open world themepark.

To me that is like daoc or vanilla eq, no instancing huge open world.

As opposed to a linear on the rails themepark best described by swtor probably.

 Could have swore that Firor said that the only way to explore the land of another faction was to make a character for that faction.  That's not open world by any defenition. 

I'm pretty sure you can't enter another factions land.  Instances or not, that's not an open world. 

Originally posted by BillMurphy
As someone who has played it for several hours: themepark.

 kinda heartbreaking :(

The trinity was not removed from GW2, they just made everyone a tank, everyone a healer, and everyone a damage dealer.

At any time someone is fulfilling one of those roles.  That is not "removal". 

Not to mention, of the like 5 classes I played, each and everyone had skills that I could choose, both passive and nonpassive, that would make me either a better tank, healr, or damage dealer. 

Even arena net said that the classes were designed so that you COULD be a tank, healer, or DD, but were not locked into that role if you didn't want to always play that way. 

They did the exaxct same thing Trion did, but how you play doesn't drastically change depending on the role you take up like you do in Rift. 

I guess my copy of GW2 was broken, bunch of guys here seem to have played a completely different game than I did. 

Also, people will do the same thing in TESO they do in Rift.  If your class is best suited to heal, you'll be expected to heal, which is what everyone expected my cleric to do.  If you're best suited to tank, they'll expect you to tank, which everyone expected my warrior and in certian cases my rogue, to do.  If you're class is the best DD then you'll be expected to do that, which is what everryone expected my mage to do, even though he was the only class I LIKED healing with. 

Unless they homaginzie all the classes down to one class with different names, effects and very suttle differences in play style, just like GW2.  Which aftrer playing 5 classes in that game it dawned on me, that every ranged class felt the same, and every melee class felt the same.  My magicy guy felt just like my archer guy, and my pet magic guy felt a lot like my pet archer guy.  Rogue felt pretty much the same as the warrior type class I tried. 

I feel like some developers have the same mentallity that's overrun youth sports.  No tryouts, everyone plays, evenyone gets an award, and no scores are kept. 

Gaming AI has yet to reach a point that they can get rid of the trinity.  Either they'll have it in, and try to cover it up as much as possible (GW2) or they'll make things arbitrarilly difficult to cover it up, ( a single person will be fighting packs of mobs as apposed to just one or two. )

The only reason they do this is because it makes it easier to find a group if you can change your role, and it's easier to balance if everyone does the same damge, healing, and mitiagion. 

I think they made a comment at some point along the lines that if you wanted to experience all of the content, and explore all of the map, you have to roll a character for each faction. 

Whether or not that means you need to play on other servers I don't know; which is what I would hope they'd do in a 3 faction pvp game. 

Originally posted by deakon

Dont think  "who wins" in over 1k years will make any difference to what faction anyone picks tbh

 

The fact that the Empire loses in star wars didnt stop that faction from being by far the most popular in swtor

 The empire lost?  I'm assuming that happend in a novel that took place after the events of the first trilogy? 

Or are you saying that based on the movies?

Being able to solo is fine, that's hardly the problem with the "main story". 

They said it's a SINGLE PLAYER story line, and the only context of SINGLE PLAYER I'm aware of is, you do it alone. 

Firor said in a video some time ago, that the "personal" story was a single player story line that you'll do alone. 

That's bad. 

Originally posted by deakon

Originally posted by Vonatar

It really is a stupid idea. I was reading the Ten Ton Hammer "Top 5 reasons to play Elder Scrolls Online" today (http://www.tentonhammer.com/teso/opinions/top-5-reasons-to-play-elder-scrolls-online) which cites the lore and setting as one of the reasons, saying:

 

"The explorable world should prove to be as gigantic as the lore behind it. The developers have promised us an enormous game world to explore, consisting of all the lands we saw in the previous three games (Morrowind, Cyrodiil and Skyrim) plus High Rock, Hammerfell, Summerset Isles, Valenwood, Elsweyr and the Black Marsh. Most of these regions haven't been featured as explorable areas in a game since Arena, the very first game in the series."

 

I have read similar comments a few times, which always forget that, while the world might be gigantic in its entireity, 67% of it will be inaccessible to your character at any given time because of the faction set up. I wish ZeniMax would realise this is not what any Elder Scrolls fan wants and just make the factions for PVP only.

As long as they make leveling fun (fingers crossed) and not pulling teeth like most mmo's, then the segregated factions will be a great thing. It will basically meen we get 3 completely different games connected by a massive PvP map, with NO repitition of content.

 

 

 I'd rather get an Elder Scrolls MMO. 

It's cool you want DAoC2, but that's not ES. 

Originally posted by NorseGod

 Dude, the same righ that lets me own a gun also lets me own a tank.  Yes indeed, an american citizen can own a working tank. 

ARMS does not mean GUNS.  Guns are ONE FORM OF arms.   Of course there are limits, I can't own an explosive warhead.  Accidentally discharging a bomb isn't quit the same as accidentally discharging my gun in the house. 

 

It's is not the right to bear guns, it's to bear arms. 

 

I'm on your side, but nobody is asking for personal nukes or tanks. At least, not any serious respectable groups and a total of zero on the national stage.

 That wasn't the point.

The right to bear arms is entirely based on our ability to arm ourselves against our government.  It's not about hunting or shotting criminals. 

That's why you can buy a tank. 

The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the bet security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. 

As originally written by Madison

A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear armns shall not be infringed. 

As written to law. 

Originally posted by mythran7

Originally posted by Uhwop

Originally posted by mythran7

Originally posted by Uhwop

Hunting is NOT the only acceptable reason to own a gun, YOU need to stop with that. 

A government that is not oppressing it's citizens has nothing to fear from an armed populace. 

The right to bear arms has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HUNTING or being able to shoot criminals.  The only reason we have it is because guns are needed in order to defend against the government. 

Our rights are based on those things that the British tried to keep from us when we were a colony. 

The right to free speach, to assemble, to bear arms, all these things the british tried to stop us from doing.  These are considered BASIC human rights that when not allowed to have indicate a state of oppression. 

They well all the rights that our forefathers were being denied.  That is why they write it into the constitution that our government can not take them. 

And the right to bear arms is the one that they identified as being the right that allows us to protect all of the others. 

 

others. 

 

 I was waiting for this argument. (you are right it is the real argument)

The second amendment was written when "guns' were muskets. You'd be lucky to kill a person at 20 yards with one. Your forefathers couldn’t not have seen this future. The government has warplanes, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, tanks, and biological weapons. Are you suggesting that citizens have the right to arm themselves with these kinds of weapons to protect themselves from the government? If this truly is the heart of the amendment then you must be in favor of this, because the government can wipe out any opposition with the flick of switch with modern technology. 

The times of changes people, time to wake up.

 Our forefathers were not technically ignorant. 

The only thing that mattered to them was that SOLDIERS carry them.  It's entirely based the principle that the people need access to the same weapons that the GOVERNMENT uses. 

I'm sorry sir.  You are very, very wrong. 

 

Because they also made it clear that the bill of rights isn't interpretable.  You're not even allowed to amend it. 

It was written in blood for godsakes.  Our ancestors died enmasse so we could have them!

 

I would die tomorrow to keep them.  BELIEVE THAT! 

Riiight. You still havent answered my question. Your just not willing to see it.  Its your ideology, it's not based in reason.

The government uses tanks, warplanes, and chemical and biological weapons. You cant escape it that easy. Should citzens have accesss to these as you say the amendment intended?

 Dude, the same righ that lets me own a gun also lets me own a tank.  Yes indeed, an american citizen can own a working tank. 

ARMS does not mean GUNS.  Guns are ONE FORM OF arms.   Of course there are limits, I can't own an explosive warhead.  Accidentally discharging a bomb isn't quit the same as accidentally discharging my gun in the house. 

It's is not the right to bear guns, it's to bear arms. 

Originally posted by mythran7

Originally posted by Uhwop

Hunting is NOT the only acceptable reason to own a gun, YOU need to stop with that. 

A government that is not oppressing it's citizens has nothing to fear from an armed populace. 

The right to bear arms has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HUNTING or being able to shoot criminals.  The only reason we have it is because guns are needed in order to defend against the government. 

Our rights are based on those things that the British tried to keep from us when we were a colony. 

The right to free speach, to assemble, to bear arms, all these things the british tried to stop us from doing.  These are considered BASIC human rights that when not allowed to have indicate a state of oppression. 

They well all the rights that our forefathers were being denied.  That is why they write it into the constitution that our government can not take them. 

And the right to bear arms is the one that they identified as being the right that allows us to protect all of the others. 

 

others. 

 

 I was waiting for this argument. (you are right it is the real argument)

The second amendment was written when "guns' were muskets. You'd be lucky to kill a person at 20 yards with one. Your forefathers couldn’t not have seen this future. The government has warplanes, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, tanks, and biological weapons. Are you suggesting that citizens have the right to arm themselves with these kinds of weapons to protect themselves from the government? If this truly is the heart of the amendment then you must be in favor of this, because the government can wipe out any opposition with the flick of switch with modern technology. 

The times of changes people, time to wake up.

 Our forefathers were not technically ignorant. 

The only thing that mattered to them was that SOLDIERS carry them.  It's entirely based the principle that the people need access to the same weapons that the GOVERNMENT uses. 

I'm sorry sir.  You are very, very wrong. 

Because they also made it clear that the bill of rights isn't interpretable.  You're not even allowed to amend it. 

It was written in blood for godsakes.  Our ancestors died enmasse so we could have them!

I would die tomorrow to keep them.  BELIEVE THAT! 

Originally posted by Rayshe

The last thing this should ever get is a Government run Research. Shall we go back to Nixon who decided to do Research on Weed by strapping a tube to a monkeys mouth and pumping that tube full of Weed smoke. (not a stoner BTW) What the scientists did not do however is add in any oxygen to the tube. So when the monkey got brain damage from lack of Oxygen they blamed it on the weed.

 

When goverment Science walks up to a issue they say "how can we prove this to be true" not "how can we prove this false" or even better "How can we fairly judge this situation".

 Remember the old food pyramid? 

That was based on another government "study" that was later overturned.  At the time is even apposed, but the orignal doctors of the stufy were fired, and new ones were hired who run a new "study" that had different results. 

Even the stupid food pyramid was devise as a way to prop up friends of the government.  Unfortunately it was taught to every kid in school for decades to eat lots and lots of carbs and then go sit at a desk all day. 

And we wonder why we live in a country of fat people.   

To this day, no indipendant study has linked violent video game to crime.  In fact, they have found games to improve cognitive functions.  Things like problem sovling; even hand eye coordination.  Even those violent video games are found to have small benefits to higher brain function. 

Funny that. 

Hunting is NOT the only acceptable reason to own a gun, YOU need to stop with that. 

A government that is not oppressing it's citizens has nothing to fear from an armed populace. 

The right to bear arms has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HUNTING or being able to shoot criminals.  The only reason we have it is because guns are needed in order to defend against the government. 

Our rights are based on those things that the British tried to keep from us when we were a colony. 

The right to free speach, to assemble, to bear arms, all these things the british tried to stop us from doing.  These are considered BASIC human rights that when not allowed to have indicate a state of oppression. 

They were all the rights that our forefathers were being denied.  That is why they wrote it into the constitution that our government can not take them. 

And the right to bear arms is the one that they identified as being the right that allows us to protect all of the others.