Jump to content

  • Curse Sites


Member Since 19 Sep 2012
Offline Last Active Jun 03 2015 01:15 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: BBC: Hacker given in-game death sentence

03 June 2015 - 01:11 AM

View PostI post stuff, on 12 May 2015 - 10:57 PM, said:

You are reading too much into this.
I don't think so. That video was in extremely poor taste.

Also, they can and do ban people on a whim. It just doesn't get much attention.

In Topic: Where did Blizzard go wrong with D3 and what A.Net could learn from it.

27 January 2015 - 10:23 AM

View Postrukia, on 11 December 2014 - 02:14 AM, said:

Well they hired a bunch of randoms with no experience in D2, like ANet did with GW1 sequel.
Only after the D2 team left Blizzard North because Blizzard refused to let them make a Diablo MMO.

In Topic: Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

11 December 2014 - 05:31 AM

View PostHaggus, on 10 December 2014 - 12:01 AM, said:

When was WoW  "niche"?
Friends and family alpha.

In Topic: Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

09 December 2014 - 07:52 PM

View PostI post stuff, on 09 December 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

The difference between me and you is that I'm here for a thoughtful discussion, while you are here to argue until your hands bleed.

And here I thought the blind fanboyism had died out.

View PostI post stuff, on 09 December 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:

You also overestimate how big of a role GW played in the success of GW2. If you look back at the hype, it will become painfully obvious that very few people were familiar with the original. Yes, GW did play a role and there is no reason why it shouldn't have, because that's just how things work, but it certainly wasn't the main reason why GW2 has generated so much hype and critical acclaim.
The hype train never would have taken off if they didn't have GW there for name recognition. I personally never played GW, and until coming to GW2 never met anyone who acknowledged playing it, either. But it's not as though I hadn't heard the claims, that GW was a good game, etc.

In Topic: Is GW2 dead now or is it just the forums?

13 November 2014 - 03:28 PM

View Postraspberry jam, on 13 November 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

Well, you can, but there is no realistic way to make scripts large enough for players not to spot the scripting during the lifetime of an MMO - or actually, way before that. I mean, we're talking about the genre where devs release updates that are planned to last for 6 months, and then players complete the content in one week, it's completely explored and on three different wikis in two weeks, and everyone is tired of it in three weeks.
I sometimes (cough) complain about GW2, but I have to admit that making an MMO is no easy task. MMO players devour content at an amazing rate.
Most of the content locusts would be content with content that actually has some legs, like sPvP or high end raiding. They're only rushing so they can get that tiny edge while chasing the illusion that they're #1PvPer or world's first boss kill. Despite the stigma against it, they're at least trying to engage in some sort of community, even if it's not the text based one the game takes place in, and often times you'll find that they're perfectly sociable people (they're also usually using voice chat).

Also, wikis inside two weeks? You know Dulfy gets pre-release info for/access to content in multiple MMOs, and most of the rest just copy off her, right? And, worse, developers are happy to give it to her.

View Postraspberry jam, on 13 November 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

What I meant was that instead of scripting, ANet should have aimed at a more emergent style of world. It's been known for a long time that many simple scripts interacting with each other can create huge complexity and appear lifelike. Yet because of a single event that occurred a long time ago (the UO fiasco, search for "virtual ecosystem") no MMO dev team dare do it. But of course it would work given that the devs stay away from pointless things such as making random critters actually count in the ecosystem. Imagine actual evil armies or dragon bosses or what not travelling across Tyria, and us fighting them, instead of having a script that says "respawn X bad guys at this location every 20 minutes".
And that's moreso the scope I'm looking for them to approach it on; actually, your suggestion is somewhat grander, but along the same lines. Personally, I think a big part of the problem is QoL features such as quest trackers, which totally remove any thought involved in engaging in most content. That window where you're actually mentally engaging in the game in order to figure out where to go or whatever, is the best opportunity for a developer to also engage you with some well placed lore or easter egg or whatnot. Shallow or totally opaque dungeon encounters, something GW2 was extremely guilty of IMO, don't really help, but currently seem endemic to the genre.

I guess the conclusion I would draw here is that through our own desire to be lazy and have things handed to us, we've ensured that the current generation of MMOs are unable to even maintain our interest. People on both sides of the spectrum, players and developers alike, seem equally inclined to embrace and continue on with the status quo.

View PostFeathermoore, on 13 November 2014 - 02:28 PM, said:

GW2 just isn't a social game at the core. Just like how LoL or Starcraft aren't social games. The design doesn't require/push players together. This actually can increase any feeling that the game is losing players. Since you don't really interact with others, it already feels less alive than an MMO that actually encourages socializing.
Haven't you heard? There are no more MMOs which encourage socializing (that I know of).

I kid, but I'm sure we've all noticed the same trend, and you're spot on in your analysis. The issue is definitely multi-faceted. To elaborate on what I was saying above in my earlier post, the act of sitting at the computer and logging into and playing an MMO usually involves you sitting alone in a room. It's a hurdle developers should be aiming to overcome when designing MMOs, but they've fallen into the trap of believing that they'll generate more revenue by taking a two-step approach of designing much of the game for solo questing, while slapping on some group-only content here and there; perhaps that's just a logical outcome of the casual v. hardcore debate.

Think of some of the great titles in MMO history, and how many of them absolutely required group game play, often for some relatively mundane stuff. Add in the growth of 3rd party voice chat, social media, and the proliferation of solo-friendly mechanics (ie companions/minions), and top if off with developers who just don't seem cognizant that you need to literally force people to interact, and it's no surprise that gaming has grown to be such a lonely experience.

Here in GW2, there was one example I can think of immediately which demonstrates this; and it relates to downtime in group content, something that may just be on some developer's list of anti-fun mechanics. Sorrow's Embrace path 1 (IIRC) had a series of thirteen or so minion patrols which you would either need to wait for them all to pass and despawn, or try to fight and usually wipe often on. Waiting for the patrols to pass was the most social activity I encountered in this game, discounting any voice-chat based guild socializing I participated in. And then ANet went and changed it; how I don't remember, but even as lame as that design was, it was better than pushing us through the dungeon a few extra minutes faster.