Originally posted by Kuinn

Originally posted by BadSpock

PC graphics -

 

Console graphics -

 

 

You can post pictures all day long with whatever settings you use on PC and it wont make console games look any better than the PC games on my screen. I'm not saying console games look bad, games just simply look better on my PC screen and I have the freedom to add or remove features through options which is never a bad thing.

 

Not to mention pad vs. kb + mouse, you can have your personal preference but it does not change the fact that mouse is a lot more accurate and imitates better a situation where you aim a gun since you do it with your hand seamlessly instead of thumb on a little stick. Also pad sucks major on RTS games for obvious reasons.

 

Right, that's why in real life gunfights, everybody shoots everybody in the head perfectly every time- because pointing a crosshair on a screen better imitates what it's like to aim a gun, as opposed to a stick that reacts to different amounts of tension...

People like keyboard + mouse for FPS because it's easymode, not because it's 'realistic'. 

  

 

[mod edit]

1.) As long as everybody has a PC in their homes, somebody is going to be designing games to play on them. 

2.) The amount of exclusive titles isn't going up, it's going down.  It wasn't all that long ago that practically every title on any platform all the time was exclusive. Now you get 2-3 that way and people lose their shit. 

3.) [mod edit]  The vast majority of people who play video games aren't interested in sinking 1500 dollars every few years into a gaming rig, and console specs are more than good enough to impress the typical gamer when the next gen comes out.[mod edit]

I did it with one friend. 

We were in blue gear. 

Unless you're level QL 5 or something, if you were standing around waiting for a full group, you were just shooting yourself in the foot. 

Originally posted by jayfeeler69

A halloween event that lasts only two weeks to possibly never be seen again is not new content sorry to break those rose tinted lenses.

       How in the hell can this possibly be considered true by any stretch of the imagination? Sounds to me like you're just out to bash the game whether you make sense or not.    Hell, you don't even count the release of a new Auxillary weapon in  update 2, you're so desperate to make the game look bad.   Depending on the extent of the Halloween event,  all three updates are about the same size, with the second one being just a bit smaller than the other two. 

Originally posted by Johnie-Marz

Originally posted by fallenlords

Originally posted by Uccisore

     Play with words all you want.  The fact, however phrased, is that the game's two most original features are the setting and the progression system.  Saying otherwise isn't fooling anybody who is familiar with the game, and serves only to mislead those who aren't.

 

Two most original features of the game are setting and the progression system.   Now you see why the game didn't sell. 

This is why we end up with the same, Fantasy, elves and dwarves setting.

Generic MMO after Generic MMO.

Because ultimately Fallenlords is right, more player are like him and don't want something new or original.

So game companies don't try anything new, don't try to be original, just  create the same old same old.

And people wonder why MMO's have gottens stagnant.

   But there's a huge margin between "Successful enough to turn a decent profit" and "The next WoW".   CCP knows this- Eve Online will never be as big as WoW and I'm sure they knew that from day one.  Funcom seems to know it as well.  There are plenty of developers making games they know won't be League of Legends.  But for some reason, you have a vocal caste of gamer like Fallenlords insisting that it's ever game developers moral obligation to compete for the largest slice of the pie.  Nevermind that it's not good business sense.  They think it is.

Originally posted by stratasaurus

Originally posted by SaintGraye

There is nothing sexist about gender-locked classes, save they remain so for strictly exploitive purposes.

To whit: assume a warrior class is solely male and a cleric female in order to appeal to the classic archetypes of the "fierce" man and "protective" woman. This is an acceptable, if somewhat stale trope. The example becomes sexist, passively so, only if the characteristics of each are explicity exagerrated. For instance, the cleric class is restricted to wearing very skimpy outfits that reveal ample cleavage whereas the male becomes ever more hidden behind layers of steel. You should note that this is both male- and female-oriented sexism, as it implies both a non-existent level of objectivity in respect to women and a prototypically oafish characteristic of men (in short, the "women are whores" and "men are all potential murderers" argument).

As to Continent of the Ninth, the relative "sexism" of their character-design is subjective. Sexism itself largely is, hence we have misogynistic/misandrist men and woman alike, the world over... but that's largely irrelevant to this thread. My point is this: there may be extenuating circumstances which prohibit the developers from adding non-gender-locked classes.

The most obvious, if we were to speculate, would be a mere lack of resources. True, perhaps the models are all "there in game" (as you put it) but integrating them seamlessly demands someone's time, for which they must be compensated. Perhaps select animations are missing or improperly keyed? Or certain weapons/armor don't morph properly when equipped? Perhaps adding the opposite gender would necessitate a complete revamp of certain mechanics (such as character creation, which must now be extended to accomodate such)? In any case, there's work to be done and it won't be free. Then again, perhaps there is some manner of engine limitation or their publisher merely refused to allow it (which in turn might be linked to their marketing of the product which, quite often, is blatantly sexist stuff).

Whatever the case, please, at least attempt to consider the possibilities before making such flagrant accusations. True, it makes for decent discourse, and you get eccentrics like me popping out of the woodwork to argue about it, but I hardly think that merits the hassle...

Sigh uhm yeah if you say women can't be fierce and men can't be protective that is called being sexist.

Um, a fighter isn't just a 'fierce' person.  A 4 year old child who didn't get an extra cookie can be 'fierce'.  I suppose the game doesn't let you play 4-year-old fighters either.  How ageist of them!

Originally posted by possiblewar

Originally posted by SaintGraye

The males ARE being more covered up. And the females are becoming less covered. And, because I have tits, I can't be a fighter or hunter?

 

Well, the REAL reason you can't be a fighter is that you have scrawny girl arms that would snap like brittle twigs if you tried to parry a strong blow with a shield (assuming you could lift said shield).  The tits aren't really the problem.

But USUALLY we're polite and don't bring that up.  Some fantasy worlds have dragons, some don't.  Some fantasy worlds have women that can fight as well as men, some don't.  Problem?

Originally posted by fallenlords

Originally posted by Uccisore

     Play with words all you want.  The fact, however phrased, is that the game's two most original features are the setting and the progression system.  Saying otherwise isn't fooling anybody who is familiar with the game, and serves only to mislead those who aren't.

 

Two most original features of the game are setting and the progression system.   Now you see why the game didn't sell.   If the setting has mass appeal then you are on to a winner, well no the setting does not have mass appeal.  If the progression system is that far advanced that it is termed revolutionary, a word Tornquist likes to use, then perhaps that would of been a draw.  But you scratch the surface on that and you can see levels and classes reworked - in fact opting to get away from traditional levels could be argued has been detrimental to the whole game.

 

       Well, where does that leave ME, though?  Sure, Funcom could have made yet another bullshit fantasy game with elves and orcs and crap, using the same leveling system as WoW and Star Wars and Everquest and a billion other games, but then I wouldn't play it because I'm tired of all that shit.   So what's your point? I should encourage developers to make WoW over and over again until the goddamned stars burn out?  I didn't like the original world of warcraft, why do I want anybody to make the 50,000th rip off of it?  I don't work for Funcom, my motivation here is not "I hope Funcom succeeds as a company even if they do it by making crap I would never play."

     As far as the progression system in the game being classes and levels once you 'scratch the surface', you're just incorrect. it's not much at all like a standard level/class progression system. You're just playing with words, like I talked about in previous posts.

I love The Secret World, I really really really do, I hope it lasts a thousand years. I have a great time playing it, the setting is like a dream come true for me, the leveling scheme is deep and engrossing, and now I'm hooked up with the best RP cabal EVER!

    That said, the problem with story-based MMOs is that constantly encountering random strangers from the internet doesn't contribute anything to a story.  In fact, a story-based MMO is constantly going to be spending resources on mitigating the DAMAGE that encounters with strangers naturally have on the story they are trying to tell.  Thus instancing, thus tiny shards, thus all PVP being shoved over into a corner and made as inconsequential as possible.

      No offense, but if I'm playing a game and really getting into the awesome story, the LAST thing I want is one of you guys showing up with your stupid name and your stupid clothes jumping around like a retard and killing the boss for me, so I can wait 15 seconds for him to re-appear, thus reminding me of ultimately inconsequential my actions truly are.

    The Secret World is the best-implemented example of what's probably a failed concept.  Story-based themeparks will not be better than this one.

Originally posted by Johnie-Marz

Originally posted by Uccisore

     The 'level based progression' argument is exact the same as the 'fantasy' argument.  People who want to say the game isn't original will streeeeeeeeeeeetch the technical definitions of 'level' or 'fantasy' until they can make the terminology fit, so they can in turn say "this is a fantasy game with level-based progression".

     Play with words all you want.  The fact, however phrased, is that the game's two most original features are the setting and the progression system.  Saying otherwise isn't fooling anybody who is familiar with the game, and serves only to mislead those who aren't.

 

Yeah, I agree. It is sort of like arguing with a chick (No offense) Instead of hearing what you said and meant, they will latch on to one single word, twist it out of contect in the worst possible way, then claim you meant the opposite of what you really said.

     Chicks, liberals, and strangers on the internet tend to argue that way because it's the easiest way to win without actually knowing what the hell you're talking about.  

     The 'level based progression' argument is exact the same as the 'fantasy' argument.  People who want to say the game isn't original will streeeeeeeeeeeetch the technical definitions of 'level' or 'fantasy' until they can make the terminology fit, so they can in turn say "this is a fantasy game with level-based progression".

     Play with words all you want.  The fact, however phrased, is that the game's two most original features are the setting and the progression system.  Saying otherwise isn't fooling anybody who is familiar with the game, and serves only to mislead those who aren't.

Originally posted by Johnie-Marz

Originally posted by Uccisore

    There's a guy on the TSW forums that will insist that the game is of the Super Hero genre if you ask him.  I mean, you get powers, you fight bad guys. You have a secret identity.  He wants funcom to release capes and masks and unitards so it will be even more like what it already is.

    Speaking of tards, it's not a fantasy game, either.  Just because there's this thing called "Urban Fantasy" that shares an 'f' word with another genre, doesn't mean much.  Yeah, it's got magic and shit in it.  If you really want your genre categories to be so broad that "it's got magic and shit in it" makes something fantasy, then that's your problem. You end up with there being like, 4 possible genres.

      In the end, there's only one criteria that matters.  if somebody comes up to you and says  "What's the setting of The Secret World?"  and you answer "It's a fantasy game,"  then you're being a misleading nincompoop.  You can argue semantics and technicalities all you want. In the end, that's all that matters.

 

My point is, the OP is setting up paper tigers. Who is arguing that there are not fantasy elements in the game? It takes a little from everything, that is the point of the game.

Fantasy has a specific meaning when it comes to genre. It means Dwarves, Elves, Dragons and princesses. If a person says it isn't "Fantasy" that is what they mean.

Fantasy and Urban fantasy have to different meanings.

They OP is trying to say, because people say it isn't a "Fantasy" setting, they are some how saying there are "No fantasy elements to it" that is just wrong.

Who is saying there are no fantasy elements ? Who is the OP dissagreeing with? Where are all these posts making this claim?

    Yeah, I agree with you. There's fantasy elements just like there are superhero elements, just like there are horror elements, and so on and so forth.  Some mild cyberpunk elements too, now that I think of it. 

     I suspect the OP's motivations are something like this-  if he can defend the position that this is a 'fantasy game', then he can defend the position that the game 'isn't original'.  And that's the sense in which calling it a fantasy game is misleading.  There's a difference between what a word means, and what people think when they hear a word.  I suppose the OP is trying to insist upon one so he can exploit the other.

    There's a guy on the TSW forums that will insist that the game is of the Super Hero genre if you ask him.  I mean, you get powers, you fight bad guys. You have a secret identity.  He wants funcom to release capes and masks and unitards so it will be even more like what it already is.

    Speaking of tards, it's not a fantasy game, either.  Just because there's this thing called "Urban Fantasy" that shares an 'f' word with another genre, doesn't mean much.  Yeah, it's got magic and shit in it.  If you really want your genre categories to be so broad that "it's got magic and shit in it" makes something fantasy, then that's your problem. You end up with there being like, 4 possible genres.

      In the end, there's only one criteria that matters.  if somebody comes up to you and says  "What's the setting of The Secret World?"  and you answer "It's a fantasy game,"  then you're being a misleading nincompoop.  You can argue semantics and technicalities all you want. In the end, that's all that matters.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Uccisore

I guess I don't play enough PC games, because as a big Dark Souls fan, I have no idea how it could have possibly worked as a 'keyboard and mouse' game, and even less of an idea of why anybody would even want to play it that way if they could. 

I just assumed everybody so desiring of a PC release was prepared to play it with a controller. 

Then it's possible you don't play enough pc games.

Now that I've sorted out (to an acceptable if not perfect degree) the mouse issue I won't ever go back to the controller. The "control" I find with a mouse seems so much better. I noticed a significant jump in gaming success after I was able to go back to the mouse.

After that, everything that can be done on a controller can be done on a keyboard without really moving your hands.

In any case I really don't understand what you thought wouldn't work with a keyboard and mouse?

     Well, I play MMORPGs quite regularly, and I'm always using a keyboard and mouse- I don't own a controller for my PC.  And, playing say, Age of Conan or The Secret World or Eve Online or The Witcher or really anything I've played on the PC, my impression is that keyboard and mouse controls are for easymode games where you can afford to be sloppy and imprecise- first person shooters being the exception of course, because of how much easier pointing at things will be on a  mouse than with a analog stick. 

        But fighting knife-throwing monks while balancing on rafters above a fatal fall just sounds like hell using WASD.  

I guess I don't play enough PC games, because as a big Dark Souls fan, I have no idea how it could have possibly worked as a 'keyboard and mouse' game, and even less of an idea of why anybody would even want to play it that way if they could. 

I just assumed everybody so desiring of a PC release was prepared to play it with a controller. 

    You can't find a professional review of the game anywhere on the internet that doesn't use the words 'original' 'fresh' 'highly innovative' 'completely different' or 'taking bolds steps into uncharted territory' or things like that.

      Everybody who's job it is to explain to other people whether a game is good or bad or why seems to agree that The Secret World is highly original, innovative, and is doing a bunch of things that haven't been seen in an MMO before.   So do, apparently, the vast majority of people who have actually played it.

     There's no point in arguing with no-nothings that say "Der other games let you choose skills to hotbar derr'  or 'it reminds me of guild wards hurrrr'. 

Besides, the thread title says most innovative MMO  OF THE YEAR.   Who gives a crap what you think about Eve Online or the original Guild Wars.