All Posts by Umbral

Originally posted by Rekindle

 

part 1 of your rant:

Not a rant, just a clear and honest opinion.

No, you're just impatient. If you had taken the time to read for 10 minutes before you invested so much time into making lvl 50 characters you would see that SOE basically had you on a paid - to -- play beta and even gave you free Eq2 time while they worked on putting in basic things like a scripting engine and oh, i dunno , omptimizing an 18 gig beta client. 

1-I dont need free EQ2 time, even with the fact I belive today EQ2 is a better game than Vanguard Content/Comunity/Performance/Development area.

2-Impatient? What impatience has to do with the fact it is well known Vanguard will probably never get an expansion?

What impatience has to do with the fact that for a total incomplete and unfinished release Vanguard didnt get enough updates if we compare with higher rated MMOs?

What impatience has to do with the fact they dont even have an artist(check new models) and an animator working with them?

The optimizing process has nothing to do with the fact Vanguard only has a ridiculous small group of devs that seems to be really untalented from decisions to the creative aspect.

They are good debuggers, nothing more... sometimes they can copy/paste and create things like the trial isle.

Go read whats in the works, read back 6 months what theyve done with this game.

Stop basing the game on your experience if its not current....we have a trial island now, the place is not empty. Its starting to fill up despite these attempts to derail the growth of this community.  People would be best served to all go give it a shot rather than base it on the game as it was 4 months ago. In Vanguard development terms it may have been a light year.

Im not sure exacly why you said "we have trial island now", are you behind Vanguard´s production?

Anyway, a trial island without a huge marketing is almost worthless, I cant see how a trial island add any value to the game.

You dont know about my experience, so you just can judge and ask me to stop expressing my point of view.

The second part of your rant, well its just a rant....I find plenty to do and I don't share in your experience.

Just a rant only because you disagree?

All these arguments are a rational, based on the reality of the game.

You find plenty to do? Ok, this doesnt change the fact that all MMOs that are not totally dead expand much more than Vanguard.

So, even if you play Vanguard for a long time, the fact you dont share my experience make what I said a rant?

This kind of attitude show how Vanguard defensive comunity sometimes can really hurt the game.

Originally posted by XApotheosisX

So I like many others laughed and scoffed at the Vanbois on this forum when the game went down in flames. However since I was bored with my current MMO and everything else that has released has sucked (AOC and WAR) I was in the market to change games.

I looked at a few games and wasn't impressed with many and i sure as hell wasn't going to play WoW ... a free trial was enough misery for me. So i diecided to look at vanguard and i was shocked to see the positive things being said about it. The more i read about the more it intrigued me, the term sandbox, in depth character advancement, the open world and intriguing classes really impressed me.

then I saw there was a free trial to the game and decide eh what the heck, its free, its a quick easy download ... whats the harm. well i must be honest i was hesitant at first some of the character races were very unsatisfying, but i wouldn't play those races anyway so it really didn't effect me. the races i would have chosen were very well done and very good looking. As i loaded into the Isle of Dawn for the first time I was very skeptical but then i was just blown away at what i saw. the graphics were amazing even this little island looked incredible and it was running fantastically on my medium/low end PC (2.1 ghz duo core 3 gigs of ram geforce 8600)

the more i played the game the more i enjoyed it, i actually felt something i haven't in a long time .... Immersion, and mind you I am not a big roleplayer ... but this game just drew me in. everything from the combat to the diplomacy was very well done and very indepth.

So i just bought the full game so i guess you can consider me a Vanboi now LOL. 

Now im not saying this is a game for everyone from what i understand while you can solo its much easier if you group. but if you are looking for a Sandboxish type game with a lot of indepth and immersive gaming .. I would say give it a try ... it may surprise you. hey its a free trial ... how could it hurt!

Apotheosis.

I understand you, and I confess, a long time ago I had the same impression you expressed here... But after months, leveling and waiting for updates, I may tell you, it is not exacly like that.

You will realize soon that Diplomacy is totally unfinished and start to loose sense and content pretty soon, you will realize adventure content is thin, the large World create an illusion of a large and full of content game, but it is just an illusion..

You probably will face a couple of new bad decisions from the Devs, the impression that the game will never expand will grow in you and you probably will get the feeling Vanguard is almost dead in the development area.

Are you ok to pay for a game that will never get really expanded like Lotro, Lineage 2, Everquest 2, Warhammer (Im sure it will be expanded), AoC (it has plans for an expansion) etc ? Im saying this because a MMO is not like a single player game, we usually play a MMO for a long time and as we pay every month we hope for a MMO to grow, improve and expand.

Are you ok with the fact that devs almost forgot about Diplomacy and there is not even an artist and a animatior in the small Vanguard´s development crew?

Are you ok with silly decisions as portals, new characters that are uglier and simple than the initial beta characters, bop(bop was a joke when one of the main features of Vanguard is Freedom) etc?

Are you ok with the fact that some dungeons and zones still incomplete after almost 2 years? And by incomplete I mean totally unfinished like in an alpha state MMO.

If you are ok with that you will probably be ok with Vanguard, but I would wait a couple of months before you start to call yourself a vanboi.

...

Originally posted by TheBrewer

and Warhammer is based on the works of tolkein, whats your point?
 

No, it is not.

The idea any High/Low Fantasty creation is based on Tolkien´s work is not accurate, Tolkien´s work is a very rich reference for High Fantasy ( not because it has elvfs and dwarfs, but because it is a rich fantasy universe where the definition of good and evil is clear, what is not the case in Warhammer)

Tolkien did not create Elfs, Orcs, Wizards or the Dwarven culture...

In some way it is more accurate to say Tolkien´s work is a softer/based version of Der ring des Nibelungen than Warhammer is based on Tolkien´s work.

There is a bit of inspiration? Maybe, but for sure both lores share a couple of the same influences, but the approach is so different that when you say Warhammer is BASED on Tolkien´s work you are just committing a mistake and judging both creations in a shallow way.

...

Originally posted by bodypass

Synthesis:

World of Warcraft has a VERY unique Lore in which the 2 factions are NOT good vs evil like in Warhammer.

 

You are wrong Bodypass, Warhammer lore isnt based on a clear definition of good versus evil.

This is pretty clear in the original lore and in the MMO, if you check the lore behind Empire and Chaos (in both games) you will realize, Empire is not exacly good and pure and Chaos vision goes far beyond the evil cliche, they dont see themselves as evil... Warhammer is in a couple of Low Fantasy lists (no clear moral definition of good and evil). This is clearly expressed on War questlines and dialogues.

In a game (lore) like Age of Conan (Robert E. Howard) it is pretty clear that there is no Good or Evil, I understand why you think there is such cliche and limited view in Warhammer, but you are just confused and wrong, if you check all the concept and lore behind Chao´s Gods and all the details about War´s armies you would realize that.

See, you see a "dark" elf, you see a "chaos" chosen and think "oooooh they are evil", you see a warrior priest carring a cross and say "aaaaaaah they are good"... the same mistake can be taken by someone that see an undead and just say "ooooh a zombie, he must be evil"...

...

Originally posted by Meridion

 

It's not that hard to get really. The girlfriend example is absolutely perfect btw. Because a girl-friend, in this particular, and only in this particular respect, is like a game avatar, you don't identify yourself with your girl-friend, you don't want to be your girl-friend or incorporate any attributes she might have, still you like to watch her.

No , it is not perfect, it is irrational and absurd, you dont use your girlfriend appearance to represent yourself.

There is no reason to be so defensive, no one said you want to be a female, you just use a female figure to represent yourself, a man, in a social, virtual, fantasy environment... as a virtual crossdresser.

Your arguments might be spot on if someone ROLEPLAYS his or her avatar, but choosing a female avatar in an online game is like choosing a cat as your AIM logo, or a heart, or a "dead kennedys" logo. It's after all just a symbol which, in most cases, is nothing you identify with.

A crossdresser is not a crossdresser because he acts like a woman, he wants to be a woman or he is gay (sure, he can be and he can act as a woman too). If you use a female character, yes, you, somehow indentify with this character, it can be because she is sexy, she is feminine, or just because she looks cool (as you said)... and most important, everyone that pass by you in this particular MMO will indentify you as a female character...

But you will say, "Oh, but everyone will know that is a male player behind this female character"... like a guy with typical female clothes, even if he/you in the game act in a very masculine way...well, it still is a crossdressing situation.

Sidenote: Dyou know how many people on regular, non MMO/gaming boards have hot chicks as avatars? - countless...

So?

You are acting as if someone thinks you are a weirdo because of this, but this is not the case, as I said, it is natural and very common in mmos, virtual social environments and real life.

M

 

Originally posted by BinaryDigit

 

Umbral:  I appreciate the even handed manner in which you've approached this discussion, and I hope that I can follow your example.  Honestly, its doubtful that I will, but I promise to try.

Stated simply, I disagree with your assertion...

"But people that play with you and do not know you in RL will always associate you with your character, so in some ways you are a virtual crossdresser."

Thats not to say that its not true for SOME, but it is certainly not true for ALL.  Anyone who is an MMO veteran knows that 90% of the female characters he sees are being played by males.

Yes, I agree most players knows that usually there is a man behing a female character, but as I said, a male playing as a female character.

With that said, its not the perceptions of others that determines the reality of the behavior.  Crossdressing is not about the observers.  Crossdressing is about the crossdresser.  If I put on my wife's baggy Red Sox hoodie and think nothing of it, am I crossdressing?  No.  I've seen a video online of fat rednecks in pink tutus playing mud football.  It was some charity event.  Are they crossdresssers?  No.  But a real crossdresser could take that same tutu home at the end of the day and have a good time.

See, Im not presuming anything beyond a male player using the virtual image/clothes of a female character, this in my eyes is a "virtual crossdressing", it is not related to sexuality, desire to be a woman or anything, just the fact of a simple virtual crossdressing, nothing more.

In my eyes these rednecks were crossdressing... see, when I talk about it, I only mean the cross between genders in clothes or costumes, even in a silly way, nothing more.

I guess what I'm trying to say is its the motivations and intent of the player that answers the question: are you crossdressing when you dye your pretty little elf's robe robin's egg blue? 

There are many reasons to play a female character as a male.  Whether you prefer to look at an attractive females ass wiggle as you run around the realms, or you think the male models are prissy, or you are a huge fan of Arwen or Lara Croft, or any other female icon.  It makes no difference.

Yes, I understand that, this is why I never said anything about the reasons behind this atitude.

You're not crossdressing unless you intend/appreciate/enjoy assuming the role of a female.

Just the fact you are using clothes/virtual avatar of a female you are crossdressing, Im not trying to say you are acting as a shemale, or you want to be a female or you are gay, but even if the player is only playing as a female character because it looks cooler, well, he is appreciating the role of looking cool... as a female character.

Well, I've made it this far, and I think I've done a hell of a job of being respectful.  Please accept this question as the honest curiosity it really is...

Why are you so passionate about the subject?  Were you burned by a male who masqueraded as a female player?

Im not exacly passionate about it, but I find this subject somehow interesting when we talk about social behavior and mmos. About the second question, not at all, I  play with my wife  and I have some frieds that are indeed crossdressers in RL (some of them are gays some are not), lesbians, shemales...so, I dont talk about it in a bitter way, I think it is pretty normal this kind of virtual crossdressing in games, I play as a male character, but I understand the reasons behind some people play as the opposite gender, sometimes it is related to sexuality (more than people talk about it to tell the truth) sometimes not.

I noticed a lot of gamers are defensive about that, but what Im calling (virtual) crossdressing here is just the simple fact of a man behind a female character in a social game, nothing more...

Originally posted by musicman2000

 

And just for the record Mozart is hardly a romantic composer --

 

 

There is a discussion about that to tell the truth, the same happens with Beethoven music (even more) as he is present in both eras, both composers even for their time are related to classic, but most of their approach went beyond in techinical aspects and expression, not closed to the classical patterns, of course, the confusion was my fault as I didnt expressed it well in my text, as sometimes I forget to use some words in english and should have used an accurated description why I mentioned him.(not my mother tongue, edited to avoid confusion).

Something similar happens when we talk about how romantism started, if from the Sturm und Drang or from the french perspective and the discussion about the start of dodecaphonia.

Again, about the characters and the gameplay, Lotro as a game is not for everyone,(like all mmos) but it is not bad for sure.

 Edit to add more...

About the romantism and Mozart   "however: in 1810 E.T.A. Hoffmann called Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven the three "Romantic Composers", and Ludwig Spohr used the term "good Romantic style" to apply to parts of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony"

The reason Im talking about is just because it is an interesting subject, off topic I know but just to be clear it is not with the purpose to just argue with you musicman... anyway, I think you find this kind of thing interesting too... but I agree this is not the place to discuss it.

...

Originally posted by WSIMike

 

Well, I can't help what/how others think.

Yes, you can, it is the way you represent yourself in a virtual universe using a character.

If someone's hung-up with people playing a character of the opposite sex, then that's their problem.

Perhaps *they* can't play a character without feeling they're somehow associated with it... I personally don't have that problem. When I'm talking to someone, I'm talking to the player, not their character. The character is merely a bunch of pixels on the screen.

And it is also the represetantion of your role in a roleplaying game.A crossdresser is not a woman ( in this case where we are talking about male players as female characters ) is a man representing his role as a woman, what is not exacly related to erotism or pure social man/woman role...like a man representing his role as a female heroin in a roleplaying game.

And I disagree with your assessment in another post of what cross-dressing is. Cross dressing is a male dressed as a female, or vice versa. In a game, you're playing a female character dressed as a female.. or a male dressed as a male.

But you are a male playing as a female, the crossdresser is not the character , but crossdressing is the atitude of you as a male using a virtual female caracter/clothers representing your role and image in a social environment, we are not talking about single player games here, but social rpgs.

Does that mean if the player is controlling, say... a canine character that they're into pretending they're an animal?

In a roleplaying game yes, but it is a bit different if we take the social role, in a mmo it will be obvious for everyone that there is a human behind the canine... but in a fantasy setting, yes, somehow you are pretending to be an animal...someone that plays with a greensking is somehow, even in a light way, pretending to be an orc, but the gender has more weight in the social indentification for obvious reasons.

Again, you're assuming some connection between the player and the character that the player doesn't necessarily have them self. Now.. I know some people *are* like that. But, the issue here seems to be on how you perceive them.. not how they're actually behaving.

Im not assuming anything, Im not assuming what are your feelings about that, why you do that etc.

Originally posted by WSIMike

 

Not everyone who plays a character is automatically role-playing them.

I personally don't associate myself with my characters, male, female or otherwise. Nor do I role play them.

I choose which ever character I find looks the coolest (in my opinion). It tends to be female characters at times because, in my experience, they tend to look and move better than the male characters (again, in my opinion).

So... you're creeping out over someone else playing a female character based on an assumption that may well not even be true.

But people that play with you and do not know you in RL will always associate you with your character, so in some ways you are a virtual crossdresser.

Keep in mind, this is not a moral issue for me, you should do what you think it is good for you.

...

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Meridion

 The highelves look like crossdressers,

A humorous comment from someone who appears to play a female avatar in EVE. But back on topic.

 

Playing a female avatar and being a crossdresser isn't really the same thing... And the high elves do look stupid, they based them of the worst models from the tabletop instead of the best looking from the RPG. It is clear that destruction/Chaos got more love from Mythic and that's why more play them.

But back to topic, yes Both Mythic and Funcom cheats a bit with the numbers for the servers, we should se the numbers of players online, not what the company is low, mid or high. Have the numbers be green on low, white on med and red on high too, then you really get the idea better how big the server is and ca chose the one you wants.

In the end it is the same thing.

You are playing, acting, fighting as someone of the other sex, this is a crossdressing situation.

Remember, crossdresser is not equal to gay, well, I dont belive sexual lables anyway.

I prefer Chaos and Dark Elfs for the lore, but some faces of High Elf males are even more dramatic, expressive, melancholic and darker than DE males characters if you forget the gothic/pop cliche.

It seems this "feminine" Elf male issue is stronger in US.

...

Originally posted by Sovrath

 

Yes that is certainly true "classical" like one would lump together Chopin with Dowland with Danielpour. However, even though I am actually a composer, I consider it completely acceptable for people to say "classical" to describe such music. otherwise I would be a snob.

I dont blame people that say "classical" to all erudite music, it is not their fault, it is how the music and expression is comercialized these days, Im pretty sure if someone who already enjoy Chopin, Prokofiev, Khachaturian etc had knowledge about the full art movement they are in, this person would enjoy it even more, this is not a snob posture.

 Pointing out to someone that Rachaminov is romantic when they refer to it as classical would be a bit prissy in my opinion as I understand exactly what they are trying to say. To say that someone is shallow because they like something based upon "I like it" is elitist. I hate elitists. I am quite educated and I would never consider someone for being "less than" or shallow because they see things given their current education or experience. Especially because it is insulting and doesn't allow that they might eventually dig deeper "just because".

I never said that someone that doesnt understand the difference is shallow, but I belive people that have this knowledge and dont express it is wrong, an elitist posture would be a posture of someone that doesnt want to share what he knows.

I have first hand knowledge of an older gentleman who did just that. I believe he was an electrician. Never once listened to "classical" music when I gave hime a renaissance piece to learn on the guitar. Had I been a priss I could have corrected him whenever he said "classcial" as opposed to rennaissance but I find that that really isn't the high road. Long story "longer" he ended up going to a music camp to learn more about music.

I live in Brazil, most people here is poor and does not has any sense of culture, and we can blame the government and how things are in Brazil for that not exacly the people, so I understand what you mean.

Sure, you should not corrected him, but it would be nice if you had talked with him about the difference and about music/art movements, I bet he would be pretty excited about it, this is by no means an elitist posture.

I don't feel that one has to consider all the myriad ways that one might appreciate art  when, if someone just "likes it" then that is good enough for me. I find that the deconstruction of art and music and theater in order to create a sort of caste system of "them" and "us" is probably part of the reason there is such a division among people and their feeling towards the arts. Like the individual who once said to me that nothing less than shakespeare ever touched his eyes. Oh please!

but my point remains. You might consider that avatars have only one purpose (isn't that shallow?) but I maintain that they are there to inspire those who desire a deeper connection to the game world. I think this is why one finds such a clamor to have more customization. Oh sure, one is not going to see all the details of an avatar, whether they have a tatoo or that the brows are furrowed "just so" but the player who cares knows it's there and that is enough in my opinion.

As I said, it nos not only one purpose, as I belive they are there to express the lore/ingame world, please the player, and immerse the player, still, even with more reasons there is no comparison between art movements, as most MMOs are not trying to express a chain of thoughts, concepts and philosofies with their characters, even if in the end we can find a couple of Romantic ascpets as the total immersion and escapism.

So too is the opinion that the LOTRO avatars don't quite get us there. At least for some. I know that I have spent a considerable amount of time just finding the right look for the outfit system with the right dye as I want somethign to be proud of as my avatar makes its way through middle earth.

So again, some might like one type of art (avatar) and some might like another. For me and many others, the avatars of LOTRO just don't do it.

What is sad about Lotro is, the landscapes are very good and expressive, it bothers me the fact that they did such a good job in the landscapes but were not able to express the same quality in the characters, the gap is so big that it is hard to understand their reasons.

 Edit.

Your comparison made sense Sovrath and I agree with some of your points, I just dont belive any art expression should be used only to express and compare personal taste, as they are much, much more than that, as someone that I belive also enjoy/work with art, you may disagree with me, but I think you understand my point of view and my reasons.

You only misunderstood my points when you saw them as an elitist posture, what is not accurate as I belive everyone should have acess to art and information about art.

...