Originally posted by DrGreenbacks

the system protects you from breach of contract as well.

 But as stated before in bankruptcy all contract are void expect ones created by the bankruptcy proceedings.

A publisher is only liable in a few instances...

1) a  publisher is more liable for a defective advertised product if the publisher expressly guarantees or endorses the item in an official publisher review or written statement distributed with the item.

2) publisher was directly involved in manufacturing or creating the product or supplying the physical defective products to the public

So good luck getting your lawsuit against EA

Originally posted by DrGreenbacks

I think that our legal system would disagree.

 system protects you from fraud and harm...not disappointment.

Originally posted by DrGreenbacks

If they don't rectify the situation, I'm going to file a class action lawsuit. I have plenty of resources and don't like getting burned.

 You better hope that EA holds the liability and not the company that ran the game and is now bankrupt.

Why do people think they deserve something...if you bought the game more than 60 days before they closed you really deserve nothing.  They should just give you a sign that says...welcome to the real world, stuff does not always work out.  If you do not like it then stop buying from the company, but stop being whiners.  I must add...please please anyone whining in this thread about EA never buy stocks.

Sandboxes die because of lack of content..whether give by the game designer or by tools given to the player.  In the end all turn to being as rinse and repeat as a theme park game.

one thing I would add...if infamous player is what you are after then I would think that WoW's Leroy Jenkins is possibly the most famous player in the world and a "hero" by your standards.

Originally posted by Sroek

What a foolish statement. It's actually quite the opposite.

In a non-sandbox game, the "hero" concept is merely illusory, you're just another faceless avatar identical to every other faceless avatar in the game with no true ability to impact the game on any tangible level at all. You're just on a rollercoaster ride.

Whereas in a sandbox game, you are free to affect the environment around you, be it through socio-political influence or other means. Take EVE Online for example, there are infamous players who are leaders of alliances or elaborate heist experts because they've earned their notoriety.

 I would have to say both are foolish statements.  Theme parks give the illusion that you are the hero through a story like a single player RPG.  Creating the epic feel by styling the story toward you.  Sandboxes create the illusion that you are changing the game by your actions, but really the game does not change you just have the notion that you can. 

How can you compair "Hero" with infamous players that are basically assholes to others?  There is a hugh difference.

Originally posted by weslubow

The reason sandbox mmo's don't appeal is one thing. A sandbox takes effort to play. People are lazy.

What is the most popular? A theme park where you are held by the hand and leveling is easy.

Look at any complaint thread with a sandbox.(or almost any mmo) Most say, "I don't know what to do." "Nothing is telling me where to go." "I can't figure this out."

And my favorite complaint, "This takes too much effort. Can't the devs make this easier?" 

Any of this sound familiar?

 No...Usually the complaint I hear is that it is boring....which I typically agree with.  Most Sandboxes are about repetative action same as theme parks, but Theme parks just  try to use story and different appearances for the grind.

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

Originally posted by Horusra

well I am glad your singluar experience invalidates the experience of all the others that have posted and reposted about the social woes of the older games.  Carry on oh god of the rocks.

It's not a singular experience at all, the vast majority of us that played those games back in the day preferred the social experience back then which is highlighted by the posts on these very boards.

 

I disagree with Rockgod99 on the fact that he thinks newer dungeons are better, but he's nailed it on the head with the social part.

 Ok...then it should be simple for you to produce the study showing the "vast majority" that perferred it...I am sure that your statement could not be what you think people think and that you are speaking from polls of players in those games and that the sample was random.  Otherwise you are just talking about  select group of people that come to the same topics on the same forum boards to bitch about the same subjects...clearly a vast majority...

not for profit MMO....and who is going to front the millions for the development or allow their families to go hungry while they devote the required time to make a good game? 

well I am glad your singluar experience invalidates the experience of all the others that have posted and reposted about the social woes of the older games.  Carry on oh god of the rocks.

could be your comments on social interaction....which frankly me mine etc were rampant in the older games also.  If you were in the right guild in the older games you did not see it and in the older games you had to be in the right guilds to be in the right places, but the way that people in older games treated people outside of their circles was just the same as people treat each other today.  But todays games, until endgame in most cases, are less about the guild and more about personal achievement.

It is people with their rose colored glass looking back that seem to think the social environment was better then.   

sounds like you are the same in reverse.

what dungeons where you in...I remember spawn camping, mob training, people bitching and bugging you till you left because this was their guilds dungeon.  Love the rose covered glasses.  Nothing more adventurous than seeing 40 people running around killing everything in sight because they were grinding out a level.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Robsolf

Vid cards are definitely what get the extra mile from a gaming PC.  I was getting great frame rates from a 2003 built 3.0 gig hyperthread setup with an X1950 Radeon AGP vid card, well up to 2008.  Even played AoC with fairly high settings at 1680x1050.

Which is interesting when you consider that that card didn't release until late 2006.

-----

What the bottleneck is depends on what you're doing.  For frame rates in games, it's usually either the processor or video card, and more often the latter, though slow storage can cause hitching in some games.  For anything where you're sitting there waiting for the computer to respond, it's usually storage.

What is important is a matter of priorities.  Is it essential to be able to run a game at max graphical settings, as opposed to the game running very well only at lower graphical settings?  Or is that just a luxury?  Is it essential that a computer does what you tell it to do when you tell it, as opposed to often sometime later?  Or is that just a luxury?

Personally, I don't mind turning graphical settings down a ways, provided that I can get excellent frame rates if I do.  But for the computer to just work, and do what it's supposed to do when I want it to do it is critical.  Some people may see things the other way around, and that's fine.  It's a difference of opinion.

 I think he meant his computer was from 2003 and he upgraded it with a newer card and it did a lot. 

I know a lot of people with the last updates that left because they were pve'ers and felt like they got shit on...so this is probably an attempt to get them back.

resubbed a two months ago so I will still be in.

In the immortal words of Phineas Taylor Barnum, "There's a sucker born every minute."  Welcome to Capitalism...the ultimate game of chance where you can win and win big or lose and lose big.

Yeah GW series has nothing incommon with F2P games....

https://secure.ncsoft.com/cgi-bin/Store.pl?dnv=7727512916&action=toggleCategory&mode=open&category=4