I've looked over both offerings.  I know for a fact I enjoy the Battlefield series more than CoD.  Deeper, better experience overall...and thats on console.  To make matters worse, its nearly as though the IW team REFUSES to acknowledge any of he successes Treyarch makes.  Instead of making good strides forward FROM Black Ops, and what it added, we have a three steps back mentality in what, in effect, becomes a MW2 map pack that costs twice as much.

On the flip side, BF keeps adding more.  Hell, even if all they did was ensure all maps could utilize all game modes they'd have made more forward motion than CoD.  This ignores the fact they could add nothing at all and still possess more content and more balance than CoD games.  Killstreaks always bothered me.  If a player is capable of getting 11 kills without dying, he probably doesn't need attack dogs to win the game for his team...ALONE.  The BF series has strategic points you can take, and weapons or vehicles you can utilize, with any class, to help counter things which are being used to defeat you. 

Long story short, I like options.  BF has options.  You don't HAVE to be the best twitch gamer to play it.  You just have to use the options available to level the playing field.   CoD is all twitch gaming.  Thats good for some.  Not for me.  Gimme a tank any day.

  Between SWG and shoddy PS consoles, I've absolutely banned all Sony products from my home.  ALL SONY PRODUCTS.  That entire company is dirt and needs to go under or be bought out by someone more competent.

Originally posted by Geowash

Yeah ive always felt the game could be farther in developement if Notch wasnt the person running the show. I mean its a basic concept that many other games have just as good if not better. 

  The problem with that way of thinking is that, for him to develop faster he would need a larger team.   An increase in overhead would have to be regained in sales.  We can all spin about how much he has made, but he is also reinvesting that money in other games (as all studios do).  Most people that want minecraft have most likely paid already.  That means that the vast majority of his new material will be made with no new income to back it up.  If he intends to keep moving this forward he must always be thinking of how to draw more money in.

  I think its cute how the poster below you suggests more programmers as though you can buy those at a dime a dozen at the local 7-11.  Its not as simple as that.  Each game has its own code structure.  Any new additions must learn that structure before they can code a single drop of rain.  It would speed things up EVENTUALLY...but until then, it would actually slow things down as everyone got brought up to speed on the engine and the development direction.  Oh, and it would likely double the cost on our end, because programmers aren't cheap, (at least not at the caliber you would WANT for a game seeking any measure of success in a market filled with more expectations than common sense).

  Umm...the answer to why is pretty simple.  The largest percentage of players today are adults.  We have jobs, wives, and kids, and TIME is the resource we lack.  I MIGHT have time to invest in a single MMO, sometimes.  I cannot even remotely divide my time between two or more.  I've seen the charts, the majority are in the same boat I am.  That means what ever WE buy is likely to decide the continued success of that game, and company, on a fundamental level. 

  So, no, the pricing model doesn't change anything really in terms of why they should or should not be matched up.  Time is.  Perhaps if one could be played on an incredible uber-casual level and the other not...I'd see a little better.  But two full-fledged MMO's, (as we seem to agree they both will be), are not such an affair.  They will be games, both, which involve a minimum of an hour gameplay to even touch the surface in a play session.  That hour is probably all I got.  Sorry, can't swing em both.  Maybe they should make an angry birds MMO.

Originally posted by odinsrath

mmorpg games have a much bigger budget after a game releases than a single player game

mmorpg has to account for web-site / team staff for updates / support billing

single player is just a box sale..no support to fund no servers to fund no team to fund no site to keep up

the responsablity of mmorpg is much greater than a single player game

  Single players games have all of that stuff as well.  Nearly all top shelf titles have detailed websites complete with forums.  Every mainstream video game company has a support team, and, thanks to the rise of DLC, ALL VIDEO GAMES HAVE A STAFF FOR UPDATES.

  Servers, and associated bandwidth, are not a concern.  As a matter of fact, someone here recently even posted a video which went through a budget report, something available to anyone in a publically traded company, to show Blizzard, (I think, and could be wrong) spent only 4.5K or so a month in upkeep costs related to the game being online.  People pay that in mortgage in some places. 

  The responsibility of a single player game is actually greater than that of an MMO.  They spend just as much upfront, (40 million for heavy hitters like Mass Effect and Modern Warfare last I looked) and must IMMEDIATELY reinvest again to quickly produce DLC for the game.  They don't rely on massive time sinks to extend the life of the initial purchase, and so must be quick to develop more content if they intend to draw continued profit from the game as an MMO does.

  The only REAL difference is in GM staff, and those people aren't making a very high wage anyway.  For a company drawing 160 million a month, I assure you, a few nearly minimum wage workers on the budget isn't even noticed.  Yes, MMO's are bigger games.  But the costs are not as astronomically different as you would suggest.  They are actually very similar, and the monthly price we pay is doing very little in regard to seperating them in terms of content.  What we PERCEIVE as content in an MMO is generally just the same caliber of content slowed down heavily to ensure to play that extra month.

  Granted, in the case of Guild Wars, in order to be successful for their employees they will need constant expansion material to offset the loss of easy money that others are making off of the ill-informed masses.  This doesn't just mean paying their salary, but also creating an environment of advancement to ensure they retain as many quality employees as they can.  Things such as better benefits and raises, new advanced employment opporotunities and such.  Running a business isn't as simple as making more than you spend.  Its also making enough to bring greater success each year to those that serve you.

  But that success does not require a monthly fee.  It requires a more dedicated team, and a better financial plan, not to mention an overall higher expectation for what you can achieve.  ANet has this, I believe.  They have shown it in the past, and continue to show it now.  They will not break the giants in this genre directly, but their success here WILL break down the foundation upon which we realize how our money is being used inside a company.  Its gonna change what we expect from MMO companies, and that expectation is going to grow.  This is a good thing.

Originally posted by Greenzor

 

 

I agree. WoW didn't ruined MMOs. We can't blame WoW for the lack of innovation of its competitors.

But with some outside-the-box big budget games on their way and with the success of a few indie studios like CCP and Aventurine, we're already seeing a shy evolution of the genre. In the meanwhile, some companies still don't understand that the mentality of their target-population has left behind the standards they're trying to copy.

  No, its exactly the opposite.  Look over what games maintain the highest population, they all have the same basic mechanics.  Those companies aren't evolving anything, they are attaching themselves to the niche market that has existed since the days of UO.  You can't evolve the genre until you can find a way to evolve the players in it.   Right now, those players have spoken and said, "MOAR THEMEPARKZ PLZ".

  Is what it is

Originally posted by precious328

3 reasons why it didn't ruin MMOs.

I have 300 reasons why it did.

  And I have one reason that invalidates yours.

  They were inherently bad already. 

  Seriously...ground up, designed to be time and money sinks.  If anything WoW pulled the reigns back on the time portion of that sink.  Sounds like it helped to me.  You can't really blame it for stagnating the market...the market was barely just born when it hit the field.  You could probably count on your hands the number of games in the genre around that time, certainly in the AAA department.  Even then, there was stagnation being fostered.  All of the mold breaking games that tried to come out during the birthing period of MMO gaming were nearly ignored when compared to the ones that began to follow the EQ model.

  MMO gamers ruined MMO's.  By flocking in droves to the same archetype over and over again.  What executive in his right mind is gonna fight a tide that strong? 

Originally posted by SaintViktor

I would like to see a 4 player co-op instead!

  Seconded

  TES as an MMO really doesn't interest me.  The depth of the game would be compromised as all of the lovely interactive items and decoration would be taken or lost in the first month of gameplay.  Someone would be like my friend on Morrowind and take all the bloody pillows and make a massive pillow fort.   Having NPC that can be killed means the game would have no NPC's quickly.  And the massive world changing quest lines would be over with before I even logged in.  Altering, or removing, any of those elements basically makes it no longer a TES game, frankly, and I have no interest in a game which is only true in name and not essence.

  But co-op would make me hotter than a mexican pancake baking on a rooftop in july.  I only wish it was feasible to make co-op in Fallout games as well...but the VATS system plays so heavily into those that it really can't be...at least not without removing that system and MASSIVELY improving the aim assists and controls to play like a COD game.  Even then, I dunno...I just dunno.

Originally posted by CujoSWAoA

I think this site has maintained a level of "stagnant" mediocrity.

The articles are predictable, every single one of them. I skip the first two paragraphs on every article on this website. The first two paragraphs are always worthless tripe leading into the actual body of the article.

Beyond that, the over-bearing advertisement for low quality Asian MMOs (if you can even call them that) is nearly choking the monitor with their poor art and lavish displays of cleavage.

This website has a real sense of "sleezyness" for that reason in particular.

I think what keeps me coming back here is these readily accessible forums alone.  If the forums were hidden away like on most other sites, I probably wouldn't come here.

  While I don't really agree with everything you've said...your point on the forums is spot on.  This site has, easily, the best forums in terms of accessability and interest, at least for me.  I also generally like most of the regular posters here.  Hell, the recent forum activity box mid screen is where I spend nearly all my time here.

   Bottom line:  This is a great community driven site and I love it for that reason alone. 

  This feature actually appeals to me in a very slight way.  I can certainly see the mild revulsion some of you feel, YOUR guild experiences have not been mine.  I have been in several situations where I had two or more gaming groups that would otherwise not play TOGETHER, but would certainly like me to play with them.  I'm a pretty mutable person, so I can get along with a larger variety of people than others can.  This feature means I will be able to access multiple friend groups at once, rather than through headache tells all the time. 

  No drama either, if anything having to pick one was MORE drama in my case, as I'd have to virtually alienate people on some level when a split occurs.  If they choose to alienate, that is fine...we can't all get along after all.  But I see no reason to punish myself on their behalf, and mostly, they don't feel I should either.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by sidhaethe

 

---

Originally posted by Happyguy83

---

Originally posted by Kuppa
It's not that, it's using Justing Bieber to try and "prove" a point in an mmorpg discussion about GW2 PVP is just sad 

---

Hating WoW on this site is like hating Justin Bieber, its the hip thing to do.

---

 

You know what, I don't hat WoW, any more than I hate Jersey Shore. I just don't like them and would rather watch/play something else.

What annoys me is when someone tries to make something I WOULD like to play/watch, and folks come by to tell me how it's destined to fail and/or can't be very good because it doesn't try hard enough to emulate Jersey Shore/WoW. Because if that was what I wanted to play, or watch, i'd already be doing it!

Also, your goalposts seem to be shifting a bit. You said the emphasis on story is why you liked SWOTR, but clearly it isn't merely that, but that it's not fantasy. If you were more clear in your responses and rationale, we wouldn't have to waste time telling you useless, non-applicable factoids.

 Dude and you don't think that ANet knows this too?

Just wait until they reveal that the final class is The Situation.

  Hell yeah, rollin one on a RP server.   Gonna run into walls and drink heavily.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Gishgeron

  The problem I have with your stance is that I can, as an uneducated member far removed from the inside of the industry, think of at least one solution without even trying to develop it in any way.  Offer a slightly larger skillset, but with greatly reduced challenge in early bosses.  Then provide a Hard Mode with increased rewards to these bosses to engage the higher tier player.

And as I said upthread, most games do indeed fail to some degree or other on their early content--but then most of us can't think like a confused, lost New Player any more.

I'm a fan of skippable tutorials (like CoX)--you can start the game at L6 if you're a vet and you want to skip the baby steps, and I have no issue at all with that.  WoW overhauled their entire first release of the game to include some new capabilities and more interesting quests, that works for me too.  Even the shortcut to a "veteran" character at mid-level (see: Death Knight) doesn't bother me much.

But you can't ever forget about the new players that don't have so much MMO experience that they can jump straight into a new game and figure out what they need to do without instructions.

  No, you certainly cannot.  I wouldn't think to argue against that.  But most of the gameplay is heavily based on trying to get you to stick around until the fun begins.  You have to realize that the console market has new players as well, and I cannot recall one in recent years that failed in early game as badly as most MMO's do.  Clearly there is separation there in design that we aren't seeing, and I'm placing all bets on the pricing model being at its rotten core.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Gishgeron

 Repeating that line isn't actually making an arguement.  If his point is to skip the dung-filled into of most MMO games...then an FPS is not the answer.  An MMO that requires less intro is the answer.  Or a more visually stimulating and rewarding intro.  City of Heroes is a pretty good example, at least on Villain side.  The intro of that involved busting out of a prison.  While slinging bullets, fireballs, and possibly jetpacking over gates and buildings.  Awesome game.  D&D felt pretty good too, but I'm bias on that so I won't swear by the honesty of this.

You are proposing that MMO companies make newb-unfriendly games (and many MMO vets make the same proposition).  For a company making a game, however, that basically amoumts to cutting your own throat.

CoV's intro did not involve bosses, and you had exactly two abilities on your bar at the end of it. 

That isn't what the OP asked for.  He asked for awesome bosses with the player having awesome abilities.

  The problem I have with your stance is that I can, as an uneducated member far removed from the inside of the industry, think of at least one solution without even trying to develop it in any way.  Offer a slightly larger skillset, but with greatly reduced challenge in early bosses.  Then provide a Hard Mode with increased rewards to these bosses to engage the higher tier player.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Gishgeron

  I digress, my point is...there is never an excuse for breaking the rule of fun and then falling on outdated and horribly illogical excuses to make it look better.  Bad design is bad design.  Might not be a bad ideal to really review MMO combat from the ground up anyway.

I agree with you.  But you'll note the OP (incorrectly) decided that all games everywhere do a crappy job on leveling content.

The basics of the game design remain the same, whether the companies execute them well, or not.

  Almost all games DO fail on leveling content.  Those that do NOT fail, merely succeed by comparison.  When you compare a single player game (console or otherwise) against MMO gaming, it becomes even more clear.  The single titles really try to push the bar on how awesome early game is.  Rental weighs into that, a bad early game equals massive sales lost.  The standards are much higher in that market.  The bar there has long been pushed.  MMO's are much younger, and had far less forward motion until the recent years.  The market is still being felt out, but its resisted from a design point.  Bear with me.

  In both markets, money is the driving force, (obviously).  For solo games, that means really pushing every ounce of fun into the game from the word go so that you are competitive.  The MMO market operates AGAINST that logic because if you can gate the fun, the player must pay longer.  Men in suits aren't dumb to this.  Its a fine line that must be walked, but its not a sign of good design in any way or form.  The very pricing model for MMO gaming is forcing it to be stagnant.

  In short, the genre is actually geared against fun.  Its not as obvious now as it once was...but the stigma will remain attached until we detach ourselves from it.  We must admit there is fault in the design core.  Early game should be amazing.  It should melt your mind with its dazzling array of goodness.  As should every inch of the design.  This is not the case.  Worse, it is advertised in complete disregard of that.  That is the point of this whole thing.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by slicknslim88

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by slicknslim88

What I was really saying is why can't the game have you using awsome abilities against big awsome monsters and have the game be fun right out the get go.

Again, you're asking "why can't I see the best content immediately".

Answer:  MMO is not FPS.

 My God you have an imagination, but let me get this straight...

So your saying that all MMO's have to start with boring skills and boring bosses...because that's an MMO, your not allowed to see good stuff till the end.  That's an FPS.

Is that what your getting at?

You keep asking why you can't have awesome abilities and fight the awesome bosses the day you start playing the game.

Yes?  We agree, first quote up there?  Is that not what you've said, several times?

And the answer is that progression-based games start out with fairly boring, simple, easy-to-learn tasks and a simple array of skills to learn.  The reason for this is New Players--really new, not MMO vet in a new game--and the game's learning curve.  Teach a total newb what all these abilities do, how to deal with banks and NPCs and a hundred minor mechanics, how to navigate, how to kill a boar without getting killed.

Following the baby-steps early content, you get the progression content.  Get bigger, get tougher, new abilities, learn those new abilities, get better equipment, become generally more capable.  This is the basic premise behind MMO (and single-player RPG) design.  A series of small short-term goals.  This is what MMOs are all about.

You want to skip the intro and progression content and go directly to the big boss and the awesome abilities.

You want a FPS game.  Really.

  Repeating that line isn't actually making an arguement.  If his point is to skip the dung-filled into of most MMO games...then an FPS is not the answer.  An MMO that requires less intro is the answer.  Or a more visually stimulating and rewarding intro.  City of Heroes is a pretty good example, at least on Villain side.  The intro of that involved busting out of a prison.  While slinging bullets, fireballs, and possibly jetpacking over gates and buildings.  Awesome game.  D&D felt pretty good too, but I'm bias on that so I won't swear by the honesty of this.

Originally posted by slicknslim88

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by slicknslim88

What I was really saying is why can't the game have you using awsome abilities against big awsome monsters and have the game be fun right out the get go.

Again, you're asking "why can't I see the best content immediately".

Answer:  MMO is not FPS.

 My God you have an imagination, but let me get this straight...

So your saying that all MMO's have to start with boring skills and boring bosses...because that's an MMO, your not allowed to see good stuff till the end.  That's an FPS.

Is that what your getting at?

  They have been institutionalized by the aging, and stagnant, industry.  Having been fortunate enough to play a few MMO's that actually try to go for the headshot right out of the gate...I can say this "ideal" is absolutely incorrect.  There is a place for that aspect of progression.  That place should not be, "every damn game" as it is now.  Even WoW began to add skill variety at lower levels to make more interesting early game.  Nevermind the fact WoW tried to have some pretty awesome stuff to do early game anyway.  Hell, level 10+ you could charge into a volcanic pit to bust a demon in the chops.  That pretty much owned every other game I've played to 10.  By 20 you could murder legions of dinosaurs and druids before taking down a massive, hulking incarnation of living nature. 

  I digress, my point is...there is never an excuse for breaking the rule of fun and then falling on outdated and horribly illogical excuses to make it look better.  Bad design is bad design.  Might not be a bad ideal to really review MMO combat from the ground up anyway.

Originally posted by MMOExposed

Originally posted by Praetalus

 

---

Originally posted by MMOExposed
You people say you like it because of the Rush you feel when doing anything. well why not self inflict your penalty? why force others to also have harsh Death Penalty?

do you need others to suffer for you to feel your rush?

I am confused. can some of you Pro-Harsh-Death-Penalty community members address this, and clear up some confusion please.

Why is it, you have a problem self inflicting your penalty so only you will have this Rush you so enjoy, and not making everybody playing the game to share in your Rush?
 

---

 

I've said this a million times, but since you're asking... I am pro harsh death penalty.. Not because I want one.. Because I want it to matter if you live or die. In a game with a penalty, people actually try to fight and stay alive, where in a game with no penalty... They just stand there and let you kill them. If you have nothing to loose.. What's the fun of fighting in the first place?

Once again, you seem to want HDP forced on others, for you to feel this "Rush" you seek.

  Come now...surely you understand that the rush isn't just from the HDP, but also in how it affects the way every encounter unfolds.   If a game is to be played with HDP...it absolutely has to have it on all fronts or else the meaning and effect of it is destroyed.  Forcing it on an individual basis brings nothing to the gameplay, save that to ensure everyone else be steeled against you at all times.  You, then, must play always conservative in a setting in which no one else will.  Worse, even should you obtain victory over them...they can then just return until the course changes and then they always have a character and you, now, do not. 

  From a neutral point of view...its like saying, "Just delete your characters now and quit because I don't want you here".  Honestly, thats not really presenting yourself in any better a light than him.  If anything, its nearly trolling because its beyond reason the think you cannot understand the point of view presented.  Self imposed rulesets don't work because it defies the purpose of the ruleset.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Gishgeron

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

 

For me, thinking about money inside the game, even 50 cents, ruins the game experience.

It's not about balance, but about thinking about money, versus playing the game and not thinking about money.

 

 

  I cannot share that sentiment.  I don't mean ill by this, but to me personally that way of thinking just seems like silliness in allowing your mind to overwhelm reason.  Sort of like lacking willpower.  Its not a reasonable way for my mind to be allowed to operate, so I don't.  I can certainly see why it IS that way for many.  But I've always had a deep need for things to line up...mmm...scientifically inside my head before I could feel okay about holding on to it.  Again, do NOT take that in a derogatory way.  Its really just the different way each person operates.  We each have different mental motivators, and these allow us each to apply our different strengths in positive ways.  Yours is a much more direct mindset, you lay a kind of path and then follow it through.  For you, the path your mind takes for gaming is a diversion and separation from work and stress.  In this scenario, what you feel is not only perfect understandable, but very positive for you.

  I'm more of a tinker, I like to kind of take an issue apart and put it back together and ALL of it has to make a perfect sense to me or I'm not happy.   Before you go thinking that some kind of self-absorbed pat on the back..realize that it means my need to do that ruins a lot of good relaxing options.  It also means I overthink things, and tend to be slow in addressing issues properly that you would otherwise rock me in.  As a result, however, it means that only the business side, (and by this I mean the upper eschelon of Blizzard management or Vinvedi management) is applicable to me to oppose this whole thing.

  Again, there is nothing at all wrong, as I see it, in how you feel.  It just doesn't add up for me, and is refused in my thick little head.

 

I don't think "willpower" is relevant. 

It's more like a preference for chocolate or vanilla.

Neither is dependent on "willpower".

You simply enjoy one more than the other.

I find shopping for items to be extremely annoying.

You enjoy shopping for items.

Vanilla versus chocolate.

Both are good, but you can prefer one over another.

No amount of "willpower" is going to make me enjoy vanilla if I prefer chocolate.

There is no amouth of "willpower" that can make me like shopping for items. I don't like that. Never have, never will.

After all, we're not talking about going on a diet.

We're talking about having fun.

Fun doesn't have anything to do with willpower.

Either it's fun, or it's not.

Generally "willpower" is required to do something that is not fun.

Why would you play a game if you don't enjoy it?

Makes no sense.

  Um...no its not like that at all.  See, I don't really wanna buy items either.  But the ability to DO so inside of the game does not affect me in the way you say it does you.  You suggested that it did not matter WHAT impact the RMT had, the presence of it was weighed on your mind.   The willpower issue is in being able to overcome idealism against logic when the two do not meet.  You suggested you cannot do this, that your idealism, or, rather, your perception of the game is intrinsically damaged because of it.  I implied that I can separate what I think from what I know and decide if the two are equal parts.  If they are not, I defer to which one is the greater part. 

  For example:

  I THINK this incarnation of RMT has absolutely no impact on the game at all, or at least none that holds any perpetual and real value.  I KNOW that, in business, men are hired specifically to ensure that the company is always in a period of economic growth.  Growth is nessecary for ensuring your power employees can always have benefits and advancement, (both nessecary for ensuring you can obtain and retain quality workers).  These men are going to always apply pressure so that the company always moves toward more profitable options.  RMT is a more profitable option, and the only way to grow that side of the game is by gating content in such a way as to encourage use and interest.  This affects the game design at its core.

  When pitting what I THINK with what I KNOW, I can see that the values do not match up...and that what I KNOW is heavily weighted against it.  So, I must ammend what I think  Now I think RMT is going to almost always deeply affect design core.  The only way it will not, or much lesser so, is in the hands of already vastly growing companies.  However, all business experience times of slowed growth, or stunted growth.  So, inevitably, its going to be addressed down the line.  Whether or not this timeframe will occur in D3's lifespan is not known to me, and thus not addressed.  It seems a reasonable guess to say it probably will affect later games more than this.

  The bottom line is that your motivations in this are what I found unreasonable to ME.  The idea of something is not enough to warrant a stance such as you have taken, at least not in the way I have to work to be happy.  My motivations, unfortunately for me, HAVE forced me to migrate toward your stance.  But its more important to me WHY i must feel a way, rather than THAT I feel a way.  Understanding the actual problem, and not just the outliers, is key in correcting them and moving forward from them.  You are not inclined to be a part of that, you just wanna play a game.  I get it..  So you don't NEED a better reason to be against it.  I do.  Thats all i was saying.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

 

For me, thinking about money inside the game, even 50 cents, ruins the game experience.

It's not about balance, but about thinking about money, versus playing the game and not thinking about money.

 

  I cannot share that sentiment.  I don't mean ill by this, but to me personally that way of thinking just seems like silliness in allowing your mind to overwhelm reason.  Sort of like lacking willpower.  Its not a reasonable way for my mind to be allowed to operate, so I don't.  I can certainly see why it IS that way for many.  But I've always had a deep need for things to line up...mmm...scientifically inside my head before I could feel okay about holding on to it.  Again, do NOT take that in a derogatory way.  Its really just the different way each person operates.  We each have different mental motivators, and these allow us each to apply our different strengths in positive ways.  Yours is a much more direct mindset, you lay a kind of path and then follow it through.  For you, the path your mind takes for gaming is a diversion and separation from work and stress.  In this scenario, what you feel is not only perfect understandable, but very positive for you.

  I'm more of a tinker, I like to kind of take an issue apart and put it back together and ALL of it has to make a perfect sense to me or I'm not happy.   Before you go thinking that some kind of self-absorbed pat on the back..realize that it means my need to do that ruins a lot of good relaxing options.  It also means I overthink things, and tend to be slow in addressing issues properly that you would otherwise rock me in.  As a result, however, it means that only the business side, (and by this I mean the upper eschelon of Blizzard management or Vinvedi management) is applicable to me to oppose this whole thing.

  Again, there is nothing at all wrong, as I see it, in how you feel.  It just doesn't add up for me, and is refused in my thick little head.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by MMOExposed

You people say you like it because of the Rush you feel when doing anything. well why not self inflict your penalty? why force others to also have harsh Death Penalty?

do you need others to suffer for you to feel your rush?

I am confused. can some of you Pro-Harsh-Death-Penalty community members address this, and clear up some confusion please.

Why is it, you have a problem self inflicting your penalty so only you will have this Rush you so enjoy, and not making everybody playing the game to share in your Rush?
 

 

The game is what the game is.

 

"Self inflicting" anything is not the game.

A harsh death penalty means you don't want to die, but you do.

If you "self inflict" it, then you must want it.

   I will never play a game with harsh death penalties.  That said, I was gonna say the same thing you did.  Its the fear of that penalty that changes the way you play, the way OTHERS play with you.  Making it a choice removes the fear, and the ways this fear affects your choices in the game.   Players that want this game type WANT it to force others to play the way they do, because anything less means the game is advantaged against them...and basically isn't like playing a game at all.  Its similar to saying you COULD drop out of a TDM match in Call of Duty when you died.  But if it isn't a forced penalty, no one else will..and you will ALWAYS LOSE.  Not much fun, that.