Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by Burntvet
Both are stupid, it is only worse for KS, as the numbers tend to be bigger and at least for pre-ordering (which I will not ever be doing), there is a game, i.e. it exists. Throwing down hundreds of dollars or more for an MMO that might not ever come to be, and no recourse to reclaim that money if it doesn't is not something I could ever see myself doing. Call me crazy, but I actually want to get what I pay for, and I'll pay when I get it. So, at this point: Pre-order MMO - dumb, Pre-order MMO-LTS - really dumb, KS "donation" at a high level for a theoretical MMO - "stop eating the lead paint chips" time.

It's astounding how many people don't even understand the basic idea of Kickstarter.

 

You can't get "scammed" out of money. The person using Kickstarter is legally obligated to produce a product and use the money they get exactly for what they said they would. Jesus christ people.

This.

All y'all talking about people getting "scammed" by Kickstarter have obviously never read Kickstarter's terms. They're very clear that the fund recipient is legally obligated to turn out progress reports and a final product. If he or she cannot meet deadlines, then he or she is legally obligated to explain why or make arragments to return those funds that were donated through Kickstarter.

Kickstarter is simply a means for indie developers whom studios won't take a chance on to generate the revenue to get the games we want to see get made, made. You piss and moan about the big studios and production houses not making good games or nerfing good features due to bean counters, then piss and moan because someone came up with an alternative.

Pick one. Either be happy the games have an alternative source of funding, or sit down, shut up and play the garbage that EA and Activision give you and quit complaining that you want something different.

Originally posted by Talinguard

Originally posted by birdycephon

Originally posted by Talinguard

Originally posted by birdycephon
Its a known fact that sequels usually do better than the original.

The first and most obvious question is:

Better in what sense?

 

My second question is:

What authority has established this fact?

 

Not that I agree or disagree....

Were the StarWars sequels better then the originals?  Anyone with a brain would probably say no, but they made more money, so I guess it depends on how you define success...

 

 

 

Of course money, its always about money. 

 That seems a silly way to look at it....

 

Here are the top 10 grossing films of all time, ajusted for inflation (I use film as MMORPG stats are hard to come by

1 Gone with the Wind  -$3,301,400,000 1939

2 Avatar  -$2,782,300,000 2009

3 Star Wars - $2,710,800,000 1977

4 Titanic - $2,413,800,000T 1997

5 The Sound of Music -$2,269,800,000 1965

6 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial - $2,216,800,000 1982

7 The Ten Commandments - $2,098,600,000 1956

8 Doctor Zhivago - $1,988,600,000 1965

9 Jaws - $1,945,100,000 1975

10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs - $1,746,100,000 1937

 

While these are some good, some even great film, are these your 10 favorite?  Do you think these represent the best films ever made?

 

Here is a list of the 10 ten highest rated movies on IMDB-

 

 

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

The Godfather (1972)

The Godfather: Part II (1974)

Pulp Fiction (1994)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

12 Angry Men (1957)

The Dark Knight (2008)

Schindler's List (1993)

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Fight Club (1999)

 

Strange....Not a single duplicate....

 

I'm not saying that finatial succes isn't important, after all, finatial failure means no game, but the best games are those that can balence great content with a great profit model.

 

Draw your on conclusions....

 

To be perfectly fair, of the films on the first list, Gone with the Wind was released in 1940 (and it is one of my favorite films, on my top ten list--which does not at all match the internet's top ten with the exception of Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy--which I coulnt as a single film), The Ten Commandments was released in 1956, Doctor Zhivago was released in 1965, and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was first shown in 1937/released in 1938 (Disney's first full-length feature release and the first full length cel animated film). All but two films on the second list were released in the past 40 years, most (exceptions being, of course, The Godfather films, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and 12 Angry Men) after the introduction of the internet.

Keep in mind, as well, that the 2003 version of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was not filmed as a sequel. All three films were filmed as one continuous, single film over something like 18 months' time, then cut into 3 films in the editing room (thank God--who could sit through 14 hours in a theater?!), so it is not a true sequel.

And Talinguard, yes, Empire Strikes Back is widely regarded as the best of the Star Wars films and it is, in fact, a sequel. ;)

Originally posted by maplestone
As someone who more-or-less fits the traditional stereotype, I feel like I'm being thrown under the bus.

 

Not at all! Wait, you don't have a monitor tan, do you? ;p

It takes people of all kinds, from every walk of life, to make a great gaming community. My guild has some people who live with their folks because of the economy, others who are military/veterans, some who have spouses & kids, a couple of LGBT players, and still others who are in college. Heck, we've even got a few preachers! Part of the point of the beginning of the article was to say that the stereotypes, while they may hold true for some, aren't necessarily valid across the board (but I've always been a geek and a nerd and I'm totally okay with that--proud, even).

Game worlds are like real worlds: they take all kinds to work well.

Originally posted by Czanrei
The article lost my interest when the author used poor grammar in the title. 

 

The author didn't write the title. ;)

Originally posted by Jayaris

I thought this was a global website, is there some reason you chose to not use the general term military, and instead listed all the branches you could of the United States?

Obviously you're from the US, but still -- I found it a little cringeworthy. 

"Cringeworthy" is a bit strong, don't you think? If I were from the U.K. or France or Germany or Canada (I've served alongside members of those nations' militaries and others--all were good experiences, particularly my times working with the Australians), I'd happily have included them.

But as I've personally only served in the United States Army, and my family and friends are all current and former members of the United States military, I'd be doing a real disservice to members of other countries, bordering on insulting them, if I were to attempt to write about their militaries and experiences since I have no experience with serving in those services myself and am completely ignorant as to what they go through other than the basic things all service members go through. It's not meant as a slight towards any other nation's military men and women--all of whom I respect as equals--in the slightest.

I'm sorry you found it offensive that I stuck with my own experiences, but I'd rather offend by omission rather than offend by being deliberately insulting through blatant ignorance.

Originally posted by Tsumoro

To the people defending SWTOR on this one, don't kid yourselves on it. Instancing might be a very very conveinant means for a developer to apply content, but excessive use of it breaks immersion. 

A planet, is pretty much a zone in terms of scale when compared to other MMO's. So, why in other games can I go between many many zones without any interruptions when compared to SWTOR moving planet to planet has has so many unneccesary interruptions. They don't even do anything from an RP persepective either, they do not add anything to the game its only to mask a very lazy approach to how they've linked it all together. 

So it would be reasonable to be insulted by the notion that because they know its frustrating to go through all that transition time that the solution is to capitalise on it. Pretty much the community is saying 'this isn't very fun and immersive' and they turn around and say 'we will fix that for you. But at a price'. 

They say in their videos that they listen to community feed back, but I honest to god feel like the only things they are looking out for is the stuff people say are problems then charging for fixes around them. I literally feel like they wish to treat me as a cow whose udders they aggressively milk. 

For me, I have a good PC so the load times aren't a great deal, more to do with a pain in the ass and boring to go through so much hassle to move about the place. However if you don't have a top range pc and you are playing on the lowest settings and the load times are taking you 5 mins each time then it can really feel like you are being pressured by the developers to buy into these tools in order to get any sort of consistant enjoyment.

 

I agree with your point Re: the (I feel) unnecessary loads between zones, however, I disagree that they're useless from an RP perspective.

RP-wise, if you're traveling from, say, Coruscant to Tatooine, that's not an instantaneous trip, even with hyperdrive and hyperspace lanes. You're going from the Core to the Outer Rime, and that takes some time. From an RP standpoint, use the load screens to demonstrate that, hey, I couldn't just instantly get there and maybe the comm doesn't always act right in certain parts of space. Plenty of lore-related demonstrations of leaving a comm message, so that argument doesn't hold water--and I say this as an RPer.

Now, as a player who sometimes has to make a choice where my money goes, the idea of paying for basic functionality doesn't appeal to me. The idea of F2P hybrid doesn't say "buy basic functionality in our cash shop" and it's a real turn off to me even when I'm a subscriber, to be perfectly honest.

EA could have looked at what LoTRO did and made it possible to earn coins through gameplay--they did not. They could have gone the TSW route and made it B2P, where even non-subscribers have full access and functionality to all basic gameplay features (including support...seriously, who does that?!), with additional content, cosmetic features, and buffs available in the cash shop. Instead, to me as someone who subscribed for 13 months, had two accounts (one CE and one DDE) and recently canceled and refuses to resub even when I can do so, what EA has chosen to do, due to the management (not necessarily the devs, because I honestly do not think the developers have had much choice in this) and executives' piss-poor decisions, is made this look like a massive cash grab.

I actually enjoy many things in SWTOR. But the EA executives' mishandling and mismanagment, then doubling down on some of the worst decisions I have seen since Sony, has made me decide that no, SWTOR won't get another penny unless EA changes the way they're doing business and treating customers.

Originally posted by Purutzil

NDA = a way to keep bad reviews about the game from going public. While I don't see it being a major bomb, I have a feeling it has enough flaws that they don't want people blabbing about it and increasing the chance preorders will be taken back and less people will preorder the game.

 

More rubbish.

If you haven't played the game (and judging by this post, I'll just go on and assume you've not receive a beta invite... which, IAW the NDA, I can state that there is a beta program and I am a participant), you might want to reconsider posting blatantly ignorant statements such as the above.

Originally posted by chrisel

Originally posted by Akiye
This is one of those things I just dont get "Combat Speed". I enjoy the pace of combat and find it much better myself than just killing a mob in 2 seconds over and over. What i also dont get is speed on Burglar skills. I (funny enough) atm have a level 40 burglar i have been playing and dont see this forever arms in air you speak of. I can say Burg is not the fun till mid 30's least for me, but now i am enjoying the class a lot. ALong with my support heal spec captain which im sure you might just break something if you played it attempting to do a quest >_<. Some of the animations on the other hand could use some work. But i Found Burglars not to be the one the needs it. You might try a champion instead. Though the animations are not that great. Also burgs are not really a high dps class. They are more support (cc/debuffs)not a rogue.

I think you misunderstood me a bit; I do not have problems with the killing speed; I have problems with things being "initiated". The best Rogue class I have ever played is, tadaa; Rogue in World of Warcraft. If you have ever played it, you would know why the Burglar sucks so much. (personal preference yes yes)

Let me give you an example; I was doing one of them epic quests, a level 10 quest only when I was level 18. I was in this Brigand cave escorting this old woman Sarah Oakheart out. Well, when we once were attacked just near where she picks up the staff (I think) we were attacked by 2 npc's lieing on the floor close up to us. I "ambushed" one from stealth to get aggro then swithched over to the other to grab aggro from both so Sarah O would not die. I was quite shocked to see her loosing nearly 70% of total health before I was able to get the aggro from the other just due to slooooooooow animations and insane long casting times & bla bla bla. That was the time I "hit the wall" and I realized that this Burglar probably would not be worth it after level 20.

Well, I started a Minstrel, just to "get the feel" of it again (have one at level 35ish, but not "set up" after I returned). Of course there was "something" gay about the whole Minstrel class that I had forgotten as well; How lame it is to PLAY A LUTE up in the face of a bear! Jeez, have they smoked crack when they made this game..??

So, discarding the Minstrel as well. Are there any other class that could be "for me you think"? I leave the Rune-Keeper alone too; I am not too fan of waving 2 stones in my hands for "attacks"...

I can live with the gay animations, but I need a class that RESPONDS when I click the keybindings, and not initiates some lame animations BEFORE something happens. That is not what I call "being in control" of my character.

Could the Loremaster be something for me you think? I definately need a class that can "insta pull" mobs from range, like the Minstrel's are able to.

(Disclaimer: I have played LoTRO since closed beta and am a founder and lifetime sub holder, so I understand the mechanics of the game fairly well)

I have little to no problem pulling on any class. I switch target, pull aggro, and go. I find this is easier on my toons that have a high aggro ability/taunt or on my toons that have high DPS, but I am capable of doing it on any of my toons. Someone else has already pointed out this idea, but it bears repeating: there are excellent guides and hints/tips/tricks threads for each class posted on the LoTRO forums. Any new player to any class would do well to take a few minutes to review them. Hell, I've been playing since several months before launch and I still review them from time to time because the information they contain is extremely useful.

LoTRO is NOT WoW. Games have gone to a WoW-like turn-based FPS style where everything is instant since WoW launched some seven years ago for the most part. It was, in fact, largely WoW's launch that caused the overhaul known as the NGE in SWG (heard straight from the devs' mouths - specifically Julio Torres - by me in person in 2006). LoTRO is more a pure turn-based style (no FPS to it at all) where combat takes time: you take your turn, your opponent takes their turn... and has a timer that you can check in your options to show to tell you exactly what skill your character is casting, how long it will take, etc. The next skill you wish to cast, when you hit it, goes in queue and is highlighted on your UI so that you can see that the skill is up to be cast next. In addition, you can spec your character in such a manner through deeds and such in order to lower induction times. Gaining deeds is less "grindy" than in games such as WoW because you encounter many of the creatures needed for kill deeds on your way to and from quests and some deeds are accomplished simply by following the quest chains through to completion.

Because we now live in the era of instant gratification, including in our games, LoTRO is not for everyone (no game will appeal to everyone in all honesty). Some love it, some hate it. Some people love the Final Fantasy MMO; personally, I find it to be a grindy bore. Others love PvP-centric games; I would rather have a root canal without novocaine than play any one of those. It is all a matter of personal taste.

Burglar is a brilliant support class, by the way, but it is not a class that is typically going to be great on the DPS scales nor is it going to be the best for you if you find yourself soloing a lot - at least not in my experience. It can be done, yes, but generally, for those things, as already advised, you might want to look at the champion instead. I have yet to find much I cannot solo on my champion when necessary.

Despite character limits on quest text, Joe makes a great point: those who have read the books know who Deathwing is (Neltharion, the Earth Warder, a Dragon Aspect who went so crazy he made Malygos look sane), but the lore cannot be found in game except in passing.

Rhonin, Vereesa, Alexstraza, and Ysera in particular could and should have useful flavor text to offer in regards to Deathwing and to my knowledge from what I have seen thus far in Cataclysm, do not. Malfurion and Tyrande are ten thousand years old. They, too, should have flavor text regarding Deathwing's history and to the best of my knowledge (my Alliance alts are all still fairly low level), they do not address the lore except in a very surface manner - no NPC does at this time.

However, there are several books that can be purchased separately from the game that explain the lore in great detail... but it should not be necessary to purchase separate items in order to understand the lore of an MMO. It is ther responsibility of the dev team to make that information available in game, not the responsibility of the players to buy novels in order to find the information.

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by MMOExposed

another question. what makes the Skywalkers so powerful compared to other Jedi knights? I mean, why they so special?

Im surprised noone knows the answer to this. While it wasn't my favorite of the movies, this was explained in The Phantom Menace. The explaination is kind of weak, but it's basically this:

They have an insanely high metachlorian count. However, the 'first' three movies were pretty awful; so I'm not sure if this was ever woven into the full star wars universe, or if it stayed as something lucas just slapped into a film last minute in an attempt to explain the very question you asked.

Oh for the love of...

/begin Star Wars canon nerdiness

Yes, the Skywalkers have an insanely high midichlorian count, making them stronger/more powerful in the Force than the vast majority of Jedi. But the lore reason for this is that Anakin Skywalker's mother claimed that Anakin had no father - she could not explain how she conceived him (As stated in the quoted post, explained in the Phantom Menace). There were some jedi, Qui-Gon Jinn included, who believed that he was the fulfillment of a prophecy and the "chosen one," meant to "bring balance to the Force" and that he was, in fact, conceived by the Force itself. (He did bring balance to the Force, just not in the way they thought he would. He became Darth Vader. Two Sith - him and old Palps, two Jedi - Yoda and Obi Wan, remained until Luke was trained. Perfect balance.)

Others believed his birth was an experiment in immortality by Palpatine's Sith Master, Plagueis.

Either way - Force conception or genetic mutation, the genetic line has a midichlorian count so high it cannot be registered.

Getting into the EU, there may be two Skywalker descendants who may turn out to be more powerful in the end than Luke: his son (whose mother was a pretty powerful Jedi in her own right) and Leia's granddaughter, who as a small child was doing stuff instinctively that some Jedi knights had to work hard at.

/end Star Wars canon nerdiness

Originally posted by Sulaa

Originally posted by Thekandy

Originally posted by Sulaa

 Especially when I do remember voice over from DA2 I get shivers , that was totally awful , kinda put me off from this game even before boredom of all filler combat and simplicity of it convinced me to totally drop it.

Oh come on, DA2 had many faults, but the voicework was generally well done.

I don't think you get it. I did not want that my character use voice. Not to mention all this dialogue cut scenes which kinda irritated me (i prefer longer and more comlex text conversations than short frequent simple voice overs)and that dialogues were oversimlified , and that might be because of voice over as it cost alot.

Here's a novel and unique idea: don't play the game if you don't want voiceover and cutscenes.

Another novel and unique idea: familiarize yourself with the various game companies and developers. See what they excel at. I'll give you a hint: BioWare's been known for more than a decade for story-driven games with copious amounts of voice acting and quite a lot of pre-rendered cutscenes.

If that sort of thing doesn't generally appeal to you as a gamer, then perhaps that sort of game really isn't for you.

Just a thought.

Also, I'm not a part of the so-called "ADD generation," I do not have ADD/ADHD, and I found that comment offensive, insulting, and generally asinine. Voiceover and cutscenes have jackall to do with having anything done for players or handed to them, in my personal opinion. In a story-driven RPG, they have to do with immersion and drawing players into the story. Ever played Xenosaga or a Final Fantasy game? They're heavy on cutscenes as well - many of the Japanese games I've played over the past 25 years or so have been (and I've found many of the stories in those games to be brilliant). So is just about every game BioWare has ever put out that I've ever played. It's not about whatever point you thought you might have been making, it's about the idiotic and deliberately offensive way you chose to make it.

Originally posted by teakbois

For everyone talking about blizzard 'bleeding subs'...

 

In Quarter 2 they were down less than 3% of subs.

 

Show me an MMO, besides AoC, that was not down 3% subs in Q2 2011.

 

Its just big news because its never happened to wow before.  Its not like WoW's servers are going low pop.  The only low pop servers are PvP ones, and there have ALWAYS been low pop PvP servers.

 

They released a bad expansion.  It happens.  The fact that a 7 year old game after a bad expansion has lost less than 10% of its subs in the first 6 months after with no significant content releases (4.2 happened after q1) isnt exactly signalling the doom of WoW.

You're right. "Bleeding" is a strong word that we are using rather lightly when we speak of World of Warcraft. But, to be perfectly fair, let's see if we can't put this in perspective:

Cataclysm launched in December of 2010. The last numbers I saw put out - by Blizzard - acknowledged a loss of approximately 900,000 to 1,000,000 subscriptions since the launch of the expansion. (The last numbers released said 12,000,000 active subs, the most recent say 11,000,000 active subs. Meanwhile, reports released by Blizzard in March stated that Cataclysm sold 4,300,000 copies. So, honestly, I'm not at all certain what the correct number is here, but let's be generous and go with those higher numbers for this discussion.)

That is approximately 100,000 subscriptions per month. Actually, a little more than that because those numbers were released prior to September, but let's be generous and say nine months.

100,000 subscriptions is $1.5 million dollars in revenue per month.

900,000 subscriptions is $13.5 million dollars in revenue.

1 million subscriptions is $15 million dollars in revenue.

Does a revenue loss like that hurt a company as large as Activision-Blizzard? No, not really. Annually, if that decline continues at that rate, it's a loss of 18 million dollars in one year's time. To a company that size, that's a tax writeoff (and possibly the size of Kotick's expense account - who knows? :D).

To the vast majority of gaming companies, that's bankruptcy.

What people tend to forget is that even Blizzard has called WoW a freak success and said that no other company should be so unwise as to measure any other MMO's success or failure against WoW's numbers. In the real world, though, yes, 100k subs per month is not simply bleeding - it is a hemmorhage that would destroy any other MMO on the market.

Originally posted by Scripture1

Originally posted by Kyleran

This article was unclear and bounced around several subjects, not really focusing on one single topic.

Is the author telling us people use Hyperbole when describing WOW sometimes? (but not all of the time?)

Is he upset with the drops and or artwork in WOW?

Or, is he just trying to receive attention like many of us here on MMORPG.com? 

I'll go with the last one.

 

I was'nt going to say but I'm so glad you did, I did'nt even bother reading the entire thing...

Well, as was recently pointed out to me (rightfully so, I admit) by another columnist here (think it was Bill Murphy?) when I commented without having read the article, it's a little on the rude side to comment on an article's content and the intent of the article's writer without actually having read the article.

If you had read it, you might have had the answers to your questions. (Directed at Scripture1, since I presume Kyleran at least made a passing attempt to do so, unless his post is based off what others in the thread have said.)

His is the featured column, so in my opinion, it may be safe to say that "just trying to receive attention" is, at least in his case, not a viable option. The author - presumably a staff writer, which I am not and I don't think either of you are - has admitted that the article was a bit "schizophrenic" - something he's already apologized for and agreed to work on for next time.

There are authors on this site I don't especially care for, either. Rather than making an effort, they generally treat readers like something they stepped in. Those are the writers whose columns I generally avoid like the plague unless they say something so outrageous they deserve a digital slap. This writer has been incredibly gracious and polite, even to critics, on his first time out. Give the guy a chance because right now, he's done nothing to deserve you being arsehats to him.

If (and that's a big if) Secret World or any other game decides to require me to allow them access to a Facebook account - whether real or a false one created just for the game - I would not play that game.

No, it would not matter if the game was subscription based, B2P, or F2P.

Any company that decided it was a good idea after the way RealID blew up in Activision-Blizzard's face would not be the most business-savvy company on the planet, but stranger things have happened.

Realistically speaking, while games are moving into mainstream, they are not mainstream yet. I personally know several people who would literally lose their jobs (many states here in the US are still "at will employment," meaning your employer does not need a reason to terminate you) if their employers were to learn that, in their spare time, away from the office, they played online games. At least once a week, there is an article in the press about someone who has lost their job for just this reason.

So while I do not believe that it is at all realistic that any game company would even consider making this demand for a second (not if they wanted to actually stay in business), there is absolutely no way that I would ever consider supporting any company that considered making such a demand or requirement in order to play thier game, either.

Joseph,

I had a bit of trouble following the article, but what I think you're saying is that a) one person's opinion is not necessarily fact, b) forums are, as a rule, not so hyperbolic as we make them out to be, and c) WoW doesn't necessarily suck?

I agree on all counts.

Still, for me personally, I found many things in WoW to be... less than desirable once Cataclysm got into its full stride. Does that mean "Cata ruined WoW?" Not at all. It means that I got bored and moved on. One day I might go back. But hey - we all get bored from time to time. It's why multiple games are out there.

I enjoyed the humor in the article though.

Originally posted by cali59

In my mind, consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to with each other (behind closed doors anyway).  The message behind that is not only one of minding your own business, but one of tolerance.  It's 2011.  Aren't we all supposed to be equal and free from persecution and prejudice due to race, sex, creed, disability, sexual orientation or whatever?

If a game doesn't want to include any sexual activity because they don't want to expose it to children, then to me that's one thing.  Notice the phrase "consenting adults" in the first line of my post.  Some themes are more mature than others and that's why we have ratings systems and hopefully parents who monitor what entertainment their kids consume.

However, if you're including heterosexual sexual activity in your game and deliberately not allowing homosexuality, then either the developer/producer is saying that homosexuality is not ok or they're afraid of offending the bigoted.  Don't give me any of that "they wanted to save money" crap, this is EA we're talking about.  Whatever the reason, whether it's cowardice, eyeing the bottom line, or just plain bigotry, it's wrong.

People who believe in equality should really think about whether they want to support companies that don't.

 

You hit this right on the head, Cali. "Consenting adults" and "behind closed doors."

We've all been around the proverbial MMORPG block a time or two. First, how many MMORPGs are played by, or marketed to, "consenting adults" anymore? The average age requirement to belong to any game forum - including this one, I believe, is thirteen years old. Generally speaking, that is also the age required to own an account provided the player has parental permission (or some means of paying for that account such as their own checking account).

Now, do not misunderstand me and think that I am saying that 13 is too young to learn that a lot of people in the world (myself included) are perfectly okay with the idea that people should be able to love whomever they love, regardless of what gender they are. But a lot of people still think 13 may be too young for that, and that should be okay too, in my opinion - to each his/her own.

Second, because we have all been around the proverbial MMO block, I think we can safely say that we know that, unless moderation in TOR is far and above moderation in any other MMO ever since the dawn of MMOs, no relationship will ever be fully "behind closed doors." Whether by accident or deliberately, there will be cybering. Most of us will choose to ignore it, but it will exist. It may slip via mistell into group chat (seen that happen a time or twenty - it's amusing until you actually do have a thirteen year old kid in the group whose parents happen to walk in and see that and, as guild leader, you are explaining to the mother and father exactly what the situation was that caused that to happen), or it may turn out that a region on Nar Shaddaa turns out to be the equivalent of Moonguard's Goldshire.

If the gripe is indeed about equality, again, I recommend folks take it up with LucasArts. BioWare and EA have proven time and time again that they are very supportive of equal rights and same-sex relationships. David Gaider, of Bioware, on same-sex relationships in Dragon Age 2 (developed, published, and distributed under EA):

"The romances in the game are not for "the straight male gamer". They're for everyone. We have a lot of fans, many of whom are neither straight nor male, and they deserve no less attention. We have good numbers, after all, on the number of people who actually used similar sorts of content in DAO and thus don't need to resort to anecdotal evidence to support our idea that their numbers are not insignificant... and that's ignoring the idea that they don't have just as much right to play the kind of game they wish as anyone else. The "rights" of anyone with regards to a game are murky at best, but anyone who takes that stance must apply it equally to both the minority as well as the majority. The majority has no inherent "right" to get more options than anyone else.

...Romances are never one-size-fits-all, and even for those who don't mind the sexuality issue there's no guarantee they'll find a character they even want to romance. That's why romances are optional content. It's such a personal issue that we'll never be able to please everyone. The very best we can do is give everyone a little bit of choice, and that's what we tried here.

And the person who says that the only way to please them is to restrict options for others is, if you ask me, the one who deserves it least. And that's my opinion, expressed as politely as possible."

Source: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/304/index/6661775&lf=8

It could be EA/BioWare and the drama it caused in DA. IIRC, the Story lead had to defend his choice to include it in DA and he did so admirably.

It could also be LA. Though same-sex relationships have been included in the EU, they've never been a part of G canon (Lucas has never included them in anything he has written. The books are, in fact, canon, but a lower level of canon than G canon, which is the granddaddy of all Star Wars canon, as it was written by Lucas himself. Source: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon). Same sex relationships have been hinted at in games (Juhani) and directly included in books (Karen Traviss specifically stated that two of her Mandalorians were, in fact, in a long-term, loving, homosexual relationship), but Lucas himself has never directly included same-sex relationships in G canon level materials.

Lucas tends to avoid controversy. Evangelicals would certainly crucify him and the Star Wars brand if he directly included same sex relationships in his brand. Is it right? No. But bigotry has never been about what is right or just, nor has predjudice ever been sensible.

Punishing Lucas, BioWare, or EA in this instance is illogical. It is just as illogical as it would be for evangelicals to punish them if they included same sex relationships.

Several solutions have been offered. One is to create a female character with attributes that are as masculine as you can possibly make them (or a male character with attributes as female as you can possibly make them). Alternately, if you are a roleplayer or if the tools exist in game, write your own story. Your character's development and relationship need not be solely within the environment the game gives you. If it did, there wouldn't be bookstores with shelves full of gaming related novels.

Originally posted by SBFord

As a reminder, we at MMORPG.com are working actively to ensure that a wide variety of games that have ties to traditional MMORPGs are covered here on the site if nowhere else than our Games List. Our scope is widening to cover MOBAs, MMORTS, MMOFPS, traditional RPGs, action-RPGs and more that have even what some would call 'cursory' connections to MMORPGs. Our plan is to make the Games List "sortable" by genre similar to those listed above.

As Boltonsquad stated:

Of course it should be added, maybe it's not an MMO as such but its an RPG and many player will be investing in it and it would be nice to have a discussion on it here.

 

I voted no. If that's the goal, then change the site name to onlinegaming.com or whatever domain name equivalent is still available.

So long as the site name still implies massively multiplayer online roleplaying games, Diablo doesn't belong (nor do some others, as has already been pointed out). You want to add online RTS and FPS, go full bore: add Halo, CoD - fill your boots. But don't call the site mmorpg.com - those games - which I enjoy myself from time to time - are not RPGs, never were, and never will be.

Originally posted by Palebane

Originally posted by Nifa

Fact is, the elitist jackasses that tend to have the point of view the terminology indicates find their way onto my ignore list very quickly anymore.

 So you are too elite for the elitist jackasses? Ironic.

What you call elite, I call being tired of putting up with people whose entire estimation of a player is based around what gear they're wearing. /shrug

Personally, I don't appreciate and won't tolerate players who openly insult anyone based on gear choices (particularly if the gear choices are proper for their class and spec and the player hasn't been able to get anything better and is able to do just fine with what they're wearing), but that's just me. To each their own.

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by Drew

The story of the week for the last seven days comes by way of the news coming out of Blizzard regarding the Real-World Money Auction House that's going to be making its way into Diablo 3 when the highly anticipated title hits the shelves. What repercussions will the MMO industry see from Blizzard's decision to go this route? That's what we take a look at this week in our Story of the Week

As we reported and pontificated on already, Blizzard announced this week that Diablo 3 will launch with a real-money auction house where players can hawk their goods for real world money. Let’s put aside the fact that the game will also force users to be connected to Battle.net to play (even solo), and instead focus on the very big story that Diablo 3 will allow item-farmers to sell their rares and valuables for cold hard cash. In the words of Ron Burgundy, it’s “kind of a big deal.”

Read more of The Story of the Week: Blizzard Grabs for Cash.

I'm curious to know if a more appropriate title wouldn't be "Activision Grabs for Cash."

Blizzard seems to be making a series of incredibly unwise business decisions over the past 9 months or so, resulting in a loss of approximately 900,000 total subscriptions since Cataclysm launched (if the numbers released over time are to be believed). Given that Cata only sold some 4.3 million copies (if the numbers I read back in March are to be believed), that doesn't paint the prettiest of pictures.

IMO, Activision's history of makingless-than-sound business decisions is far longer than Blizzard's. RealID, battle.net, Facebook integration, the mess that is Cataclysm (it took them over 6 months to correct a graphical issue that caused seizures...), RMT built into the game... all of these terrible decisions sound like Activision. Or like a company that believes itself "too big to fail" and needs a lesson in humility.