All Posts by baff

Originally posted by jdun1

The west didn't help Israel nuclear program. They work and stole what they couldn't figure out.  

Er...no.
 

The French gave it tthem.

Nuclear proliferation is great if you are the country getting the nukes.

Really suckworthy if you are anybody else.

I find rank systems in guilds pretty horrible.

Military styled?

What could be worse?

You won't have military style discipline, and frankly if you did, you would have to pay the players to be in your guild or they would insta quit.

Sooner or later if you give someone a rank, they will take it seriously. And that is when your guild will get ballsed up.

I agree with the above.

Underground enterprises tend to have a lot of support and customer feedback.

A lot of real enduring classics are made this way.

Counterstrike is one example.

Also I have much lower expectations of stuff that is either free or cheap.

On the other hand, I like to see games with buff graphics and suitably bugless. I'm not by any means anti commercial although I am more wary of the commercial process as it's loyalties are split.

Second Life is a highly successful sandbox MMO.

Prozac rules.

Last week this bloke was all "STFU BLIZZARD FANBOY".

Originally posted by shultz

What??? What has kept the devs of TMO from producing player-drivable cars all this time??

What dev's?

I'd like to start in Medieval and level my way up to modern day through the timelines.

Originally posted by gnat76

Agree with you completely here.  To me all MMO PvP is just a diversion.  If I want a true blanced PvP game I'll play TF2.  

Every game that claims to have good PvP is either still in development or dying. (EVE is an exception to this but I'm not into Sci-fi MMO's). 

Oh man.
 

Eve's PvP is about the worst I have ever had the mispleasure to try. Don't start me off.

I do like Sci-fi. But that game is dismal for PvP. It's a new low.

Originally posted by MarL

For me i think blizzard is the entry point for alot of gamers.....(which is a good thing for everyone)

None of there games are innovative, ground breaking, or the most complex.

They are however very well made and easy to "learn".

 

Diablo spawned a genre. You don't really get more ground breaking than that.

World of Warcraft is brimming with innovations. 

I think you mistake the well made learning curve for lack of complexity.

World of Warcraft is an immensley complex game.  They just feed it to you in tiny understandable bite sized pieces and present it to you in an intuative fashion. 

Only a fool would think he has learnt all there is to know about the game, or even playing his own toon. The game is simply too large.

You want the email suport team at Blizzard Tigress.

The phone support won't discuss anything relating to you account closure, only generic PC tech support.

I hope you get a satisfactory resolution from them, but I wouldn't get your hopes up too high.People in your predicament don't usually.

What a load of pathetic hogwash.

How about your friends aren't online and you want something to do.

How about you only have 20 minutes of free time to play and you want to develop your character but don't have time to organise a team.

How about you've had a shit day at work and you don't feel like company tonight.

Why is it that you are totally unable to grasp that people want BOTH solo and grouping content. NOT solo content only?

You are the exact stereotype this thread is about. 

 It isn't a case of either, or. You can have both.

Equally I might ask,,,,,,,"Why play an MMO if you are unable to accomodate the wishes of massive amounts of people?"

Why not just play a normal multiplayer if all you want to do is group activities?

In order for a game to appeal to a mass amount of people it must have a wide spectrum of activities to suit all comers. All their moods, and all their lifestyles.

If you want exclusive, a specific style of gameplay only, and you feel that any divergence from this is destroying your game experience, then MMO's aren't for you.

You simply aren't cut out to deal with the social element.

Thank god I play shooters.

PvP in MMO's is the largest dullest suckfest around.

I don't suppose questing is the be all and end all of gaming I suppose either, but honestly. That's not for me.

Intresting ot see how little damage that rogue was doing mind you. I guess there is hope for my nubsly warrior after all.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Blizzard pisses me off, because WoW is nothing but a fluke.  But don't worry, because WAR is the next WoW killer in a long line of WoW killers that have come and gone throughout the years.

There, that should just about cover all the WoW threads that pop up on this forum day in and day out.

WAR won't kill WoW because it just offering more of the same.

When people are tired of WoW, they will be tired of WAR too. It's the same old format.

Guitar Hero Online mate. That will kill WoW.

Originally posted by Vendayn

It seems pretty common around here...a bunch of people wanting others to play the way they want to play.

First, I do group, and in fact I like to group...problem? I log out every 15-30 min to take a break. I also don't have a lot of time to group because I do other stuff besides sit on my chair 24/7 doing nothing but playing. I can sometimes plan to stay on longer if I decide to group for something, but usually I can't do that.  I usually just stick to PvP at endgame since I can solo in PvP and if I want to group, I can do that to.

 

Okay, so why do I need to play a single player RPG if I solo a lot in a MMO? I've played RPGs from morrowind, to oblivion to countless others...they last 2-3 days and then I am utterly bored of them. No economy, no chatting with people and it gets really boring. I even tried a few final fantasy games and they only last 1-2 days usually. I find single player RPGs very boring compared to MMOs. Just because I solo doesn't mean I should not play a MMO just because you think grouping is how it should be. My first MMO was Asheron's Call, wasn't forced to group once...BUT I grouped plenty of times, I loved having that choice to either solo or group...and I could even get awesome items solo too if I wanted to, I wasn't forced to group to get the "Uber tiems".

 

And the multiplayer part of the "MMORPG" doesn't mean I need to group with others, I've played plenty multiplayer games (for example battlefield 2 and battlefield 2142) and I played a sniper and never "grouped" with anyone, I was on my own a lot of the time.

So why should I go play a single player RPG (which I find they are boring) just because I solo a lot in a MMORPG? And its not just RPGs, I've played FPS/RTS/Strategy games as well, and MMOs last A LOT longer for me than games in other genres.
 

Kids are all extreme mate.

They lack emotional maturity.

There is no middle ground for young people. No tolerance.

You can't have a discussion with them that involves degrees of agreement, or levels of compromise.

Everything for them is either right or wrong. There is no "in between". There is no equally valid other way to play. They aren't capable of that level of empathy.

The biggest Sandbox MMO currently is Second Life.

The trouble with having an effect on the game world is, all the other people can have an affect on your game world too. And make it pants.

Originally posted by Arndur

Originally posted by Airspell

  Mongols had one of the largest, if not THE largest empires ever in history.

 However I must go for contribution to society and say Rome.

 

It was the largest ever. Not to mention Genghis is the only true undefeated leader.

It was not even remotely close to the largest ever. You could fit it inside Canada.

Sandbox means the developers leave the goals of the game for the players to decide.

They don't so much create a game as create a set of tools or an enviroment in which the players can make their own games. Perhaps proividing their own models as an example of what can be achieved.

Operation Flashpoint is a classic sandbox game. 

You can use the existing units, maps to make your own missions or even multip[layer games. You can create your own gametypes ranging from first person shooter, through simulator even to RTS. You may also create your own maps, units, graphics and sounds and add them into your game.

Your gameplay is limited by your toolset and your imagination only. A large part of the fun is derived from modelling and creating your own gameworld and activites.

Obviously on centralised servers, the ability for players to create their own gameworlds is very limited and highly impractical.

In terms of MMO's it is typically used to describe those games with lower levels of content than found in the current generation of games.

In these cases players don't so much create their own content, as find other things within the game world to do. Things that were never intended as activities by the games creators. A fancy dress competiton for example, or perhaps a guild war or organised lottery.

Sandbox used in an MMO's context, a game played on a controlled and regulated server that dictates the gamestate to all who log into, is used to describe a game with no or limited structured activites, hard coded into the game.

No quests just grind killing monsters for XP or loot? Sandbox.

No, themed wars or predefined factions in your PvP? Sandbox.

No, characters generated to team dynamics with mutually supportive roles? Sandbox.

Fans of these older games like to assert that the lack of content was deliberate and makes the game better than current market leaders, rather than recognise that market has evolved.

In the same way as football supporters will blindy declare their  favourite B league team in everyway superior to any A league team you care to mention, so it is with MMO's.

 Old defunct games are not old and defunct, as long as they are "sandbox".

My advice to you as a developer of an MMO is to avoid any connection with the word "sandbox" altogether. Massive multiplayer games run from a centrally controlled master control program.  It is not possible to provide a common denominator game that will attract large numbers to any one server if you are attempting to allow all the players as much individual input into the gameworld as they can imagine.

You need very tight rules and to have already imagined anything that the players may want to do and have programmed it into the game yourself. It's an enormous undertaking and I wish you every success with it.

2/3 of the world under one flag. No other empire has ever come close.

What are the chances Spore is a big concept and a little game. Everything else those people have ever made has had a great concept too.......

But uninspired gameplay.

In Guild Wars you would have $100,000.

And the creators of Quake 2 were  the creators of Quake 1.