All Posts by Saerain

Originally posted by Thunder_Head

Footage is from the lowest settings. How many times has this been said?

Plenty by fans, never once by a developer.

Mythic has said that the beta is locked into a graphical setting that is less than the highest planned, but they have not, to my knowledge, said that it is the lowest. It could be anything from the lowest to the second-highest. Just saying.

Originally posted by Retrad

Game play > graphics.

No shit.

That does not mean that graphics are without importance.

Originally posted by MiMoSeTH

Here, i present you a fair sandbox / linear comparison using the restaurant analogy, enjoy.

Linear restaurant: You go in, and there are 20 different dishes to order. You pick the ones you like the most. Fair and dandy.

Sandbox restaurant: You go in, and there you have all the ingredients that the other restaurant would have for their 20 dishes. You're free to pick the ingredients you want, how to combine them, and then free to use the cooking tools to make your own custom dishes.

See? pretty fair. And here's where the 'smarter or creative person' requirement kicks in. In a sandbox restaurant, you should have some skill to make anything palatable. I myself know only a handful of basic recipes, thus i'd personally go with the linear restaurant to enjoy my meal.

But what if you're a skilled cook? Wouldn't it be a better option to just have all the ingredients and the freedom to mix and match as you see fit? Wouldn't the results satisfy you more than any pre-made dish?

Same happens with the sandbox / linear design. If you have the brains and the tools, you can enjoy a better experience because you'll know what to do with them. Of course someone without enough brains won't have a clue about what he can make with the tools at his disposal, not enjoying the freedom of choice at all.

We see it everyday, in every situation, yet we still deny our own mental limitations. It's ok for some individuals to excel in physical activities and no one has problems aknowledging their skill, yet the same situation is totally denied when it comes to mental abilities, if not shunned at.

Expertly illustrated.

Originally posted by admriker4

I still recall the stinging comments when I reported that my brother-in-law scored an interview with Bioware and that he was told the MMO was star wars themed. "Oh they would never tell what the project was" type comments.

I missed the original thread, but as someone who has had job interviews for MMO studios, I can definitely say that it is a situation in which such information would be divulged, but I have always had to sign an NDA upon entering the building, and I imagine your brother-in-law had to do the same. I hope he realised that he was very possibly destroying his chances by talking to you.

I'm glad to hear this simply because it means that BioWare's MMO is not Potter-related.

I don't have anything against the idea, really, and I can see it being a success with its target audience, I just expect better of BioWare.

So anyway, yes, good to know.

I agree with the premise. However, I am quite convinced that it is less harmful than World of WarCraft, so I am hopeful that the genre is recovering and getting back on its evolutionary feet -- which do stumble.

I'm glad it's doing well. It isn't quite for me, but it is progressive in several ways and I do hope that it sets new precedents for the rest of the genre. 

Originally posted by jusomdude

Cool.

Doesn't matter what game it is though, the game could be heaven on the PC... forums will always be full of hate and negativity because it is the whiners/attention seekers who post the most.

Meh, I wouldn't demean the dissatisfied. It's simply that people have nothing to post about if they're satisfied.

Originally posted by Consensus

still anyone can make some screen of pretty enviroments. that does not mean it is a game.

Neither do videos. Nothing but a hands-on presentation 'proves' a game's existence if you want to be so existentialist about it.

I actually preferred Vanguard in Beta 2 over the final product, for a number of reasons, but I always find distaste for Vanguard's art and graphics interesting, because I have higher praise for it in that area than any other game save perhaps EVE, although EVE gets off easy by rendering far less than any terrestrial setting demands.

Out of curiosity, which MMO do you favour visually? I mean it sincerely, not suggestively.

1. Hârn Online - Sure, we're drowning in mediaeval fantasy, but there's a distinct lack of good mediaeval fantasy. Hârn can fix that in a snap.
2. Shadowbane 2 - I'd like to see its lore done justice this time.
3. Anarchy Online 2 - Definitely a setting I'd like to see expanded and advanced.
4. Dark Age of Camelot 2 - Ditto.
5. Sanctuary Online - I have to admit that I'm curious what Blizzard would do with it, although I'm worried that they would turn it into another cartoon.
6. The Forgotten Realms Online - Don't look at me like that. I sincerely believe that this could be done well, especially by the former Sigil team, as they had themselves been hinting at. Too bad.

My only other dreams are currently being handled: The World of Darkness and Warhammer 40,000.

Originally posted by Steve_London

So I'm kinda bored of wow after hitting 70 for the 4th time whoopdie frecking do and I'm feed up with the god damn kids ruining my gaming , this got me to thinking is it wow ? or is it just a different era ?

I remember playing eq1 for days on end and never had the problem of these "new age noobs" trying scam ya for this, rob ya for that, the farmers spaming trade channel, ppl taking your spawns etc etc the list really is endless.

I remeber waiting days just for the eboot mob to be free so I could camp him for 24hours, these days some mofo would just KS the mob and then /lol you.

Kinda like "kids with hoodies robbing old ladies" filming it and putting it up on utube imo

TBh think I just sell my account and take up trainspotting atleast I'll get some piece and quite

Anyone else feel the same ?

 

World of WarCraft certainly caused a Big Bang of new online gamers, and of course when you have more total people you have proportionately more fools of all kinds, but I agree that it seemed to tip the ratio. Though that may be like saying an iceberg tipped the Titanic.

I beta tested World of WarCraft, did not buy it when it released, and then gave it a try about a year after its release, for less than a month. It has nothing I want out of online roleplaying and everything I don't, so it didn't last long with me. So, I can't speak of its community from much in-game experience, but from what I have seen of its players on forums....

Well, I hope the franchise keeps them occupied.

I love Turbine, but I really don't think they could do the setting justice. Not because it is 'too good' for them or anything of that nature, I just don't consider Toril compatible with Turbine's style.

Depressing ratios, to be sure. I can only hope that it is a phase.

Originally posted by yugyug04

 okay thats it. scientist have found that on old churches that the bottom of the glass is thicker than the top. thats because its drooped. if you were in a time machine and you stared at glass and 1000 of years went by in seconds you would see the glass droop like syrup. and syrup is a liquid. no one f*cking believes me.  excuse my lanquage

They are thicker at the bottom because antique glass was made in a process much less efficient than manufacturing glass today. There was always a thicker end, and during the construction of the building they would choose to place the thicker end facing downwards for stability.

Sometimes they misjudged or overlooked the orientation of a piece, which is why some antique windows are actually thicker at the top, right, or left rather than the bottom.

By the way, if it did 'droop', then antique glass shelving, which is horizontal rather than vertical, should have drooped downwards, but it hasn't. It is thicker at one end just like windows.

The idea that non-molten glass is a liquid is old, it just unfortunately rears its head now and again. Scientists have debunked this whole thing many times. It is nearly as much a farce as the idea that hair loss is genetic. No, if you're balding, it's probably your fault.