Originally posted by Drumwiz

Originally posted by Dis_Ordur

First off, Led Zep sucks, probably the most overrated band of all time.

Secondly, 99% of all really good jazz guitarists are technically better than anyone on that Rolling Stones list.  Rolling Stone magazine isn't worth the paper it is written on, what a worthless conduit into the music world.  Ontop of that, I hate Jazz, but I know talent when I hear/see it.  LOL, Ketih Richards made the list, what a joke.

Thirdly, most of the bands in the OP could be considered hard rock, but to use the word "metal" is astoundingly idiotic.  There are no metal bands on that list persay.  In fact, hard rock is stretching it, as most of those bands are simply rock bands.

Anyone ever seen Dream Theatre?  Personally, I cannot stand their music, but IMO their guitarist is one of the best of all time.  I have never seen anyone move the frets like that guy.

Also, certain death metal bands have far more talented guitarists as well.  Someone mentioned Slayer, I concur.  Going deeper into the fold we have such guitarists from Carcass, I Killed the Prom Queen (best metal guitar solos of all time), Nothingface (best rythm guitarist of all time), Kill Switch Engage (noteworthy guitar player) and etc.  All of these bands fall into the classification of "metal".

I really wish people would stop abusing the term "metal".

Actually not really, If you wake up tomorrow and the date is september 196x and your listening to Led Zeppelin-a lot of people will say your listening to hard rock and perhaps even metal. Jimmy Paige is a founding father to Metal Dont forget about time period, what metal is today is totally different than it was.

Absolutely! There's no abuse of the term "metal" here. Bands like Led Zep, Deep Purple and Sabbath are what the term was first used to decribe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_(music)

We can still talk about politics and religion, just so long at it doesn't get "out of hand".

Originally posted by Cabe2323

Greatest Guitarist as picked by rolling stones Magazine in 2003. 

1Jimi Hendrix
2 Duane Allman of the Allman Brothers Band
3 B.B. King
4 Eric Clapton
5 Robert Johnson
6 Chuck Berry
7 Stevie Ray Vaughan
8 Ry Cooder
9 Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin
10 Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones
11Kirk Hammett of Metallica
12 Kurt Cobain of Nirvana
13 Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead
14 Jeff Beck
15 Carlos Santana

It's kinda silly trying to compare guitarists and saying X is better than Y, at least after a certain standard of musicianship. Other than perhaps technical ability and knowledge of theory, (in which case the "best" would probably be some virtually unknown session player) it's entirely subjective and depends on what you consider to be worthy criterea to judge by.

The Rolling Stone list here would appear to be based on innovation and individual style. What the guitarists on this list have in common is that they were ground breaking and have a definitive, recognisable way of playing. For instance, you couldn't say that Chuck Berry would be technically better than Joe Satriani, but he was certainly more original and influential.

Wow! More like sellyourdaughter.com.

The Testimonials page is good for a giggle.

Originally posted by mbg1411

Mah **** was green? What's that mean?

Are you still breast feeding?

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

 

Originally posted by JK-Kanosi

Okay, I tried aardwolf and I under estimated how complicated MUDs could be. I was hoping for a little bit of GUI or some sort of interface that made the game easier.

Is there a MUD where you have one side of the screen dedicated to showing your stats, spells/actions available, and what you have equipped and in your inventory? This will help reduce the scrolling of text. I couldn't keep up with the text scrolling in aardwolf. Maybe MUDs just isn't for me.

Gotta admit, having graphics and being able to use your mouse for most things is a huge advantage. But MUDs allow for more immersion and aren't bound by the same limitations of graphical MMORPGs.

 

Sounds like you need a good customizable MUD client. ZMUD and TinTin++ are fairly popular. I was partial to GMUD until it stopped working on my computer.

Couple of quick tips: 1) Turn on ANSI color text. You'll be glad you did. 2) Your stats usually appear on the command prompt. Most MUDs let you configure your command prompt to display whatever information you might feel you need.

Hope that helps.

For most games, there are pre-made scripts for Z-Mud (or other clients) available for download, but you're going to need to customise them to fit your character's particular skills and equip[ment.

Essentially, MUD PvP can be highly complex and will often end up being a battle of client programming skills. From my experience it can also be the biggest and most challenging PvP buzz you'll ever find online.

Originally posted by Flyte27

I don't believe PvP and character progression was really meant to be combined together.  You either have a FPS type of game with little to no character progression that is great for PvP or you have lots of character progression and no PvP.  It's the character progression PvE that makes PvP unbalenced.  I'm not sure why they decided to combine the two together at some point.

There are ways round this, but in my opinion, few games have done it successfully.

The easiest solution is the "end game" PvP option, like the LOTRO monster play, where you have to have reached a certain level before you can take part. The down-side to this solution is that for those into PvP, this can turn the game into one big grind just to reach the "end game".

Another possibility would involve setting out the character progression in a different way, so that character skills progress, not their level, and hit points are separate from the skills. This gives an advantage to older characters in that they have more abilities and attack options, but means that with careful use of skills, a lower "level" character can still kill an experienced character. Combined with one sword being little better than any other, this is probably a more realistic and balanced approach for implementing PvP, without totally abandoning character progression.

Possibly combined with that option, another approach is to build in penalties for attacking lower level characters. This could be anything from having the "bully" highlighted as such as a target on their head for other players, to temporary skill loss, or having the character gradually turning into a chicken, vulnerable to the newest of newbies.

Try some of the "old school" British metal bands such as Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Uriah Heep.

Good work, Beau!

Originally posted by ntcrawler

I don't quite like you tunabun but boy is it entertaining watching you tear people apart so elegantly.

I thought the part about defending the weak was funny...in this case I guess he means Coldmeat and Sawtooth...

Yay! It's about time we had a "delete" thread!

Originally posted by Zerocool032

 

Originally posted by porgie

Originally posted by Zerocool032

One corrupt religious culture doesn't speak for them all.

Then name me one of the major religions that hasn't been involved in some form of mass corruption.

 

Corruption in which way?  I think every belief held may have inspired some form of corruption to happen.  Hitler was pagan, Karl marx was atheist.  Why don't you make a thread about how unbelievably corrupt those people are?  Why must religion always be attacked?

Go ahead.  Believe cosmic dice created us.  After all, it seems logical right?  It seems logical that if there is a creation then there must be a creator, and to look at the brilliance of life and say that was no creation is just denial.

The figure of God has greatly been twisted throughout the ages.  Even i admit that the bible is most likely mistranslated, but the major principals of God and Christ are still true.  I believe that people who aren't my religion, but anyone, can goto heaven.  How do i know this?  Extensive research on supernatural phenomena, near death experience reports, EVP, ect.

Science can seem to explain everything.  Then explain things like ESP, EVP, Ghost recordings, Thousands of NDE reports of nearly the same exact experience.  Blind people telling the doctors what they did while they were dead.  There have been handfuls of devout atheists that become devout PRIESTS after NDE's.  Let them talk to you. See what happens when you say science can explain that.

Theres no way all the evidence for supernatural phenomena can be a hoax.  Im sure some of it is, but does that make them all false?  Science contradicts itself all the time.  So i guess were supposed to drop a theory and adapt a new one as proof.  Try and see the hypocrisy in that.

There's something about forcing morallity on someone which to me seems to devalue the morality. I kind of feel that if God gave us free will, what business is it for the government to take that away unless our actions are affecting another's free will in a negative way?

I kind of agree with some of what you say about science and what we call the supernatural, but I don't think it's particularly relevant to either the original post or the poster's own views on this subject.

Originally posted by Finwe

Originally posted by EggFtegg

 

It's not really a matter of proving anything. What I'm suggesting is that this issue is not necessarily anywhere like as simple as taking a few scattered verses and applying our nearest translation to today's culture and understanding.

I'm sure I don't need to demonstrate just how easy it would be to put a scripturally based argument together which would lead us to a conclusion that God thinks that women should be subordinate and treated merely as property, wearing head coverings and never speaking in church. Yet, other than maybe in a few fundamentalist churches, most Christians look at such verses within the context and the culture in which they were written and use a broader view of what the Bible teaches to discern their relevance to today's culture.

You mean verses like these? Eph 5:23  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Eph 5:24  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Eph 5:25  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Considering the Jesus basically died for the sake of the Church, I would say any man who treated his wife as such, would not so much mind.

Yes, verses just like those. You think most Christian wives in today's society would have no objection to treating their husband essentially as God?

Other verses could include Eve's punishment in Genesis 3:16, the tenth commandment listing a wife along side ox and ass in Exodus 20:17, giving birth to girl makes you unclean for twice as long as a boy in Leviticus 12, if you rape a virgin, you have to pay the father and marry her in Deuteronomy 22:28, women should cover their heads when they pray, but men don't, because "he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man" according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, if women have questions in church they should speak with their husbands when they get home, because it is improper for her to speak in church in 1 Corinthians 14, and women should wear plain clothes, no jewellery and  quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness in 1 Tim 2.

What conclusion should we come to in the light of such verses? That most women in today's society should be excluded from churches unless they repent and change their lifestyle to be in accordance with this Biblical teaching? Or maybe that such teaching was the result of the patriachal society in which they were written and that actually we're all equal in Christ?

If the story in the OP was about a church refusing to hold the funeral of a war veteran because he had either regularly worked on the Sabbath, often swore at his parents, had been divorced and remarried or wore his hair long, most of us would assume this to be a bizarre, extremist, fringe church, and yet the Biblical support for such things being considered as a sinful lifestyle choice is just as strong, if not more so, as for being in a same-sex relationship.

"The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath."

Absolutely! Just as I was saying earlier in the thread. In Deuteronomy, Moses orders a stoning for the guy who collected some wood on the Sabbath and yet Jesus has a teaching that differs from the laws of Moses. Perhaps this concept can be applied  to other capital offences in these laws too?

I don't think swearing at ones parents would be considered rebellion. Maybe calling them profanities and striking them though...

"If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death." Leviticus 20:9

Divorce is scriptural if the spouse has cheated.

That's true for unfaithfulness, according to Jesus in Matthew 9:19. Then again if we go with Deuteronomy 24:1-2, she only needs to be displeasing to him or with Malachi 2:15-16 where we have no exception because "God hates divorce". Anyway this was my example , so for the sake of argument, there was no unfaithfulness involved - at least until he remarried.

I'm not sure what to make of your silence on long hair (1 Cor 11:14) - I'll come back to this passage.

With the issue of homosexuality and the church, it's absolutely crucial that we get some real in-depth study behind what the Bible is actually saying and why, and how we should relate to it, because as it stands, many churches are excluding, alienating and sometimes persecuting many thousands of people whom we are told God loves just as much as anyone else. These verses are often used to justify some pretty disgusting and bigoted acts and we need to make sure that they are viewed not only in the context of other teachings in the Bible, but also in regards to understanding their implications in the culture they were written in.

God loves everyone equally. To use that as justification is really quite inane. The murderers, the rapists, those vile creatures that talk in the theatre...God loves them.

God would like for us to preach to them and turn them away from their lifestyles, but God does not want us to condone, and support a lifestyle that is in opposition to his will.

Frankly, the points I have made about the way sexuality was viewed differently in biblical times barely scratch the surface. There was no equivalent word for "homosexual" which encapsulates the meaning we associate with the term today. Gender roles were viewed differently, particularly in regards to sex. The passive partner was viewed as subordinate and submissive, hence why Roman law frowned upon two free men having anal sex, but allowed it with a eunuch or a slave.

Homosexuality was only outlawed in early rome. Later in it's day, it was quite common, or especially bisexuality.

It's not really relevant to the discussion, but Rome was generally more intolerant in latter years.

If the term eunuch included homosexuals as is suggested in many ancient texts, there are some pretty major ramifications. One being that Jesus tells us that such people are often born that way (as opposed to choosing their sexual orientation as many suggest).

That's a big if. Jesus also could have been speaking about sterile or asexual people.

Born eunuchs may well have included sterile or asexual people. There is enough evidence to suggest that this is not such a big "if", in fact it's probably the most likely explanation when put in context of the writings of the time.

Another being that like in Roman law, Leviticus law and Paul's writings are aimed towards heterosexual men and not to those who were considered to be of a "third gender". This would be consistant with the verse in Romans 1 where Paul talks about men abandoning their conventional relations with women, which of course those born gay would likely never have had. By the culture of the time, such acts were seen as humiliating another man and were considered unacceptable largely for that reason.

Firstly, speaking of eunuchs would have nothing to do with Levitical law, or Pauls writings. Because they don't even bother using words that could in anyway refer to eunuchs. Secondly, if this is all about, "humiliations" or "subordination" that makes it so unacceptable, then why were lesbians treated the way in Pauls eyes?

1 That's the point. The law in Leviticus only talks about men, not women or eunuchs.

2 There's little to say that Paul even mentions lesbians (see below).

The concept of a committed, loving homosexual relationship

It doesn't need to. Biblically speaking, sex outside of a man and a woman is an abomination. It's simple.

Isn't that's just a misquote and misleading translation from a passage in Leviticus which Christians aren't even bound by? It's only simple if you're happy to assume an unbiased and accurate translation and slap it word for word straight into modern day culture and understanding and then conveniently ignore many of the other parts of Leviticus. Where does is say "outside of a man and a woman"? As for "abomination":

"The Hebrew word 'toevah,' here translated 'abomination,' does not usually signify  something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft (discussed elsewhere in Leviticus), but  something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in  intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same  chapters."   John Boswell, Professor of History, Yale University

Unclean? Like eating pork and sex during menstruation? What was it you were saying about laws for cleanliness and health reasons?

doesn't come up in the Bible and lesbians (other than a possible ambiguous reference in Romans) are not condemned anywhere.

Ambiguous? It was hardly ambiguous. It was in fact very clear.

Lesbians are condemned by people because one single verse in the Bible. Let's look and see just how clear this verse really is. Paul is talking about the effects of idolatry, one of which he says is that "even their women exchanged natural (physin) relations for unnatural (para physin) ones". So what is "against nature" as the KJV puts it? Lesbianism?

Actually "para physin" is not meaning "against nature" as we might understand that term, like violating the "laws of nature". "Physin" is more like "convention" or "what one is accustomed to". Paul uses the same expression in 1 Cor 11 when he talks about long hair on men being a disgrace.

So according to Paul, whatever the women were doing in this verse was against convention in the same kind way as men growing their hair long. It says nothing about being with another woman, and was something either they didn't normally do, or wasn't in line with the customs of the time. Anything beyond this is merely guesswork. How about we guess at lesbianism (not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible) and then use it to try to condemn those doing what actually does come naturally to them?

Even if we take a view that cultural understanding doesn't matter and that Biblical law should be applied literally in today's churches, homosexual relationships in themselves are not covered, and unless we plan to directly ask same-sex couples who come to church exactly what they get up to in the bedroom, we would have no business treating them any differently from anyone else.

Homosexual sex is a big no no. If you consider yourself a homosexual, would sex not be a given? Otherwise you would not identify with homosexuality.

It's hard to say. If I was a homosexual I'd probably want nothing to do with a church with members who seem compare my feelings to being a murderer or a rapist. I would imagine that if I did go to church and  took these verses literally or even out of respect of those who do, I may well abstain from actual anal sex with my partner.

For those who are interested and have the time, I would strongly recommend reading this essay by William Stacy Johnson which I found to be a great piece of objective writing covering seven different theological viewpoints towards homosexuality with a view towards promoting peace and understanding amongst Christians over these issues.

 

 

Originally posted by gnomexxx

 

I love reading your posts EggFtegg.  It's cool knowing that some people actually try to find out what scripture really says.

Thanks Gnome.

I think people could also look to Jonathan and David as an example of homosexual love.

Some people do. There are suggestions there, but I don't think enough to make that assumption. It's possible, although from his exploits with Bathsheba, we know David was keen on women.

Originally posted by Finwe

What does this prove exactly? Jesus was just saying that there are some that aren't mean to marry, and then went off listing the different type of eunuchs.

Even if he was talking about homosexuals, what does this prove?

It's not really a matter of proving anything. What I'm suggesting is that this issue is not necessarily anywhere like as simple as taking a few scattered verses and applying our nearest translation to today's culture and understanding.

I'm sure I don't need to demonstrate just how easy it would be to put a scripturally based argument together which would lead us to a conclusion that God thinks that women should be subordinate and treated merely as property, wearing head coverings and never speaking in church. Yet, other than maybe in a few fundamentalist churches, most Christians look at such verses within the context and the culture in which they were written and use a broader view of what the Bible teaches to discern their relevance to today's culture.

If the story in the OP was about a church refusing to hold the funeral of a war veteran because he had either regularly worked on the Sabbath, often swore at his parents, had been divorced and remarried or wore his hair long, most of us would assume this to be a bizarre, extremist, fringe church, and yet the Biblical support for such things being considered as a sinful lifestyle choice is just as strong, if not more so, as for being in a same-sex relationship.

With the issue of homosexuality and the church, it's absolutely crucial that we get some real in-depth study behind what the Bible is actually saying and why, and how we should relate to it, because as it stands, many churches are excluding, alienating and sometimes persecuting many thousands of people whom we are told God loves just as much as anyone else. These verses are often used to justify some pretty disgusting and bigoted acts and we need to make sure that they are viewed not only in the context of other teachings in the Bible, but also in regards to understanding their implications in the culture they were written in.

Frankly, the points I have made about the way sexuality was viewed differently in biblical times barely scratch the surface. There was no equivalent word for "homosexual" which encapsulates the meaning we associate with the term today. Gender roles were viewed differently, particularly in regards to sex. The passive partner was viewed as subordinate and submissive, hence why Roman law frowned upon two free men having anal sex, but allowed it with a eunuch or a slave.

If the term eunuch included homosexuals as is suggested in many ancient texts, there are some pretty major ramifications. One being that Jesus tells us that such people are often born that way (as opposed to choosing their sexual orientation as many suggest). Another being that like in Roman law, Leviticus law and Paul's writings are aimed towards heterosexual men and not to those who were considered to be of a "third gender". This would be consistant with the verse in Romans 1 where Paul talks about men abandoning their conventional relations with women, which of course those born gay would likely never have had. By the culture of the time, such acts were seen as humiliating another man and were considered unacceptable largely for that reason.

The concept of a committed, loving homosexual relationship doesn't come up in the Bible and lesbians (other than a possible ambiguous reference in Romans) are not condemned anywhere. Even if we take a view that cultural understanding doesn't matter and that Biblical law should be applied literally in today's churches, homosexual relationships in themselves are not covered, and unless we plan to directly ask same-sex couples who come to church exactly what they get up to in the bedroom, we would have no business treating them any differently from anyone else.

For those who are interested and have the time, I would strongly recommend reading this essay by William Stacy Johnson which I found to be a great piece of objective writing covering seven different theological viewpoints towards homosexuality with a view towards promoting peace and understanding amongst Christians over these issues.

Did you try changing the compatability setting in the .exe file's properties?

Sounds a little like Savage, which is a multiplayer RTSFPS. Savage is in English and free...and you can download it here.

Originally posted by Finwe

 

Originally posted by gnomexxx

 

Why do you say that?  Because you don't want it to be true?  How do you know?  That's not the only person to study the scriptures, the context they were written in, and then come to that same conclusion.

 

And you prove the point I was trying to make exactly.  Given two interpretations which one do you choose?  It's almost like Jesus himself could come down today and tell some people that he doesn't mind homosexuals being in a committed relationship and you guys would still argue with him.

Like I said, maybe this is our test.  We sure as heck didn't pass the slavery test with flying colors, I know that much.  It took a civil war and hundreds or thousands of American's dying to settle that.  I watch video's of how blacks were treated and I feel like crying in disgust.  Yet, when presented with another social problem of our time, a chance to possibly redeem ourselves in the eyes of God, we again choose the hateful interpretations.  We again choose to judge and use scripture to say that God doesn't approve of another minority group of people. 

Firstly...Why do I say what? And which scripture? The eunuch scripture? Clarify.

 

Given two interpretations of what?

There are no two interpretations. All of this BS has been a repeated attempt at taking vague references that have no foundation to cause conflict with scriptures that say with no punches pulled what they meant.

I have not seen one good argument for supposed Biblical support of homosexuality; "Oh. That boy servant sure did mean alot to the centurion. Bet he was screwing him. Oh, eunuchs, yah...that actually means homosexuals. Even though the word they used had in no way a connection to homosexuality."

Would you please like to start giving solid arguments instead of opinion?

As far as eunuchs go, the word eunouchos literally means "bed keeper" in reference to certain slaves/servants who were trusted to work with and for the women of a house. Our usual understanding of the word is one who has been castrated, but looking at the historical evidence, that is not always the case.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, we have Jesus referring to "born eunuchs". To understand what might have been meant by this, we need to look at what other writers of that era said about eunuchs. In Lex Julia et Papia, Ulpian also talks about different types of eunuch: "Eunuch is a general designation: the term includes those who are eunuchs by nature, moreover the crushed and the pounded, as well as any other kind of eunuch". Looking further into Ulpian's writing, we find references that some eunuchs can procreate which leads us away from any assumption that "born eunuchs" are born physically incomplete. Even in Roman law we find these natural eunuchs described as having "corporale vitium non est" ie. "no bodily defect".

In fact, up until around the late 4th century AD, what is suggested from the written evidence is that the ancient world viewed natural eunuchs as members of a third gender (along with hermaphrodites and castrated eunuchs) based on mental attributes and not necessarily physical ones and often a distinction in the law reflected this.

Laws (both secular and religious) aimed specifically at males would not have included eunuchs, who were not considered male. Sex with eunuchs was often not prohibited when it was with another man, for example, Sextus Aurelius Victor in Epitome of the Caesars  noted that the emperor, Constantius II was sexually devoted to his eunuchs, courtiers, and wives; while, "content with these, he was never defiled by any transverse or unjust lust."

So, what should we conclude about who these "born eunuchs" are? Clement of Alexandria (early 3rd Century AD) defined the eunuch as one not unable, but unwilling to have sex, and quoted Basilides as saying that eunuchs "from their birth have a nature to turn away from women, and those who are naturally so constituted do well not to marry."

Considering how common born eunuchs were in the ancient world throughout Roman and Greek writings (the Egyptians even had a particular heiroglyph representing eunuchs as a thrid gender) it's hard to imagine that this group only included those born with no sex drive at all. Writings from, amongst others, Suetonius and Josephus link eunuchs with homosexual activities. The most likely explanation is that born eunuchs also included homosexuals.

That said, in the commentary which Gnome posted, it doesn't really matter if the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts is actually a homosexual or not, the same principle would apply here. What is pointed out is that he was excluded for sexual reasons. This would be consistant of the teaching in Deuteronomy 23 which excludes eunuchs from the assembly of the Lord. Had this man gone to Jerusalem, it is likely that he would have been turned away even from the outer court of the temple, because of his sexuality. This would also make sense of why he might be reading and trying to understand the passage of Isiah: "He was despised and rejected...". Yet we see Philip, led by the Holy Spirit, seek this this man out and baptise and welcome him into the body of Christ.

Originally posted by Daffid011
It is a catch 22 situation in my opinion.  PvP without risk is, still fun, but meaningless and doesn't give people a reason to fight.  Full corpse loot games don't appeal to the market anymore.

Instead of clinging to the outdated and rather abusable full loot system I think there should be other avenues.

All PvP needs is risk and reward, whatever that be it doesn't have to be full corpse looting.  Perhaps you could have special FFA areas with corpse looting for some real danger sense. 

For me it was never about gathering heaping piles of meaningless gear, it was about the actual fight.  No one was a harder fight than a PK in Ultima Online who was looking to clean your clock.  I miss those fights, but they were killing the games subscription rates so UO made changes.  I quit after that because I enjoyed PvP vs the PKs and without them doing there thing I realised I was just collecting the meaningless piles of gear and that was even more meaningless.

In my opinion corpse looting is an outdated idea from an era gone past.  It creates more problems that it is worth and there are plenty of other options open to make PvP meaningful.

Was that just a verbose way of saying that you miss being able to gank?

Actually, my ideal mmorpg would be one with a free-for-all PvP system, so long as there were ways to create relatively safe areas and protect your favourite items - and consequences for bullies. Not that I'm a big PvPer, I just think it gives more possibilities for storylines and politics and creates a greater need for community in a game.

I've heard people say before how developers aren't listening to the consumer, but I think we just have consumers saying different things (such as "someone just stole all my gear so I quit") and of course ultimately money talks and the success of safer, more linear games speaks for itself. That said, it's hard to know just how much success a more open game might have if it was done really well, because nobody's made such a game yet (although EVE and SWG give some indications).

Another point about listening to consumers, is that we may actually have too much of it. Probably more than half the time, the consumers have no idea what they would like, they just either like something or they don't. You can't expect market research to provide the same kind of vision for a game as you would get from a highly creative individual or team.

One other comment - You say how the developers are not of your generation. That may not be such a bad thing. Those who are in the 30-45 age group probably grew up on far more open, complex and visionary games than the younger generation. For example, one of the main developers of WAR used to play one of the most open ended, highly complex (and at times, brutal) MUDs. If some of that is incorporated into his vision for WAR, we could have a terrific mmorpg coming out.

Originally posted by Dekron

I'm as small as an ant, as big as a whale. I'll approach like a breeeze, but can come like a gale. By some I get hit, but all have shown fear. I'll dance to the music, though I can't hear. Of names I have many, of names I have one. I'm as slow as a snail, but from me you can't run. What am I?

Consciousness? Disease?  A shadow? Your dick?