Originally posted by bcbully Landmark is a pve sandbox with 100% consensual pvp.How come you guys aren't playing that? How come no one is...
Not speaking for others, but I am just not a "pay for early access" kind of guy
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by DocBrodywhy, why, because sandbox is about realism and immersion, [...]
MMO PvP is generally about as unrealistic as it is possible to get. Kill without consequence, die and respawn seconds later none the worse for wear.
There is nothing whatsoever realistic about "sandbox" PvP, to claim otherwise is laughable in the extreme.
EXACTLY! I also laugh at players who say, "PvP is more realistic." That is utter bullcrap.
I laugh at people who think standing in line next to your sworn enemy who has killed dozens of members of your in game family while you wait for your spot in the arena game where you play against each of them for prize tokens is immersive and rewarding gameplay.
Probably because human beings are the best content. They are unpredictable so newer Indie games who have fewer resources cannot make games without PvP because it will take care of a large portion of their content by providing meaning,conflict,competition,race to get ahead and also provide emotional experiences like anger, frustration, jubilance, fear, triumph and you do this just by introducing a simple mechanic. Why wouldn't most developers do this.
Originally posted by DocBrodywhy, why, because sandbox is about realism and immersion, [...]
MMO PvP is generally about as unrealistic as it is possible to get. Kill without consequence, die and respawn seconds later none the worse for wear.
There is nothing whatsoever realistic about "sandbox" PvP, to claim otherwise is laughable in the extreme.
EXACTLY! I also laugh at players who say, "PvP is more realistic." That is utter bullcrap.
And to all the buzzwords like "organic" and such used in this discussion.
PvP is more realistic. In the real world, you can physically attack anybody you want, but there are consequences. So a game that let's you do the same thing is more realistic than a game that puts a magical forcefield around you that stops you from being damaged by other players.
And do you have a problem with me using the word "organic" to describe solutions to problems that are interesting, dynamic, player-driven, etc?
I guess that's just how your side of the argument works. You don't want to use reason or logic to back up your opinion, so you just giggle to each other about the words we're using.
Because sandbox is all about freedom and being able to murder/teabag/steal their stuff is the ultimate freedom...
/endsarcasm
That's not sarcasm lol. Yes, being able to do whatever you want is freedom. However in the real world people are capable of forming governments, enacting laws, hiring police, etc. Since you can't do that in games, developers have to try and simulate those things. So a realistic game would let you do whatever you want (like in real life) but have consequences to your actions (like in real life).
Where did it come from that a sandbox needs to have PVP ganking ?
From the ever narrowing mindset of developers treating a genre filled with every kind of player the same because "formula" tells them that "formula" is correct despite constant failures showing otherwise by using the rationale that since "game" was a success, all other games will also be a success if "game" is made using "formula".
The gaming genre has ben infiltrated by non-gaming companies, and now they are trying to use their normal business ideas thinking they will work. Since WoW is a massive success, WoW must be copied to create another success. The only sandboxes that are relatively popular all have FFAPVP, thus that formula must be followed.
In fact, this is being seen in all sectors of the PC related field. Since mobile exists, the future must be mobile because the PC cannot exist in a mobile world. Its rationalizing using a black and white method where if one exists, the other cannot. Its almost maddening at times that this is happening in the industry responsible for the information age...
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Originally posted by Sojhin A sandbox without player conflict is a themepark or sandpark.
Completely not true. You may want to re-visit the actual meaning of what sandbox play is. Sandbox has nothing to do with whether you are fighting another player.
Originally posted by Sojhin A sandbox without player conflict is a themepark or sandpark.
Completely not true. You may want to re-visit the actual meaning of what sandbox play is. Sandbox has nothing to do with whether you are fighting another player.
Sandbox is about freedom, so it makes pvp a natural fit for sandbox games. Sandbox games need player-driven content, and pvp and conflict offer much of that.
Sandbox is about freedom, so it makes pvp a natural fit for sandbox games. Sandbox games need player-driven content, and pvp and conflict offer much of that.
FFAPVP is a form of developer driven content and thus anti-sandbox. All it takes is one look at any South Korean made sandbox game to see that and it even goes against the best sandbox game ever made, SWG. FFAPVP is not a requirement for a sandbox and actually serves to limit it in every way from playability to playerbase.
PvP should be a choice just like war in real life and before you reply with, anyone can kill anyone else in real life...real life has a police system in place that keeps the vast majority of people in line...some 99.999% of people (if you look at the worlds murder rate)...and even if you go back 1000 years before a police system, the vast majority of people did not go around murdering others. In a FFAPVP game its practically forced on you and the statistics are reversed where 99.999% of people kill each other.
Its a poor system for a virtual world and points to my opening, FFAPVP is developer driven content because it creates a false environment that encourages a style of gameplay which is anti-sandbox. PvP being optional is sandbox because then players can CHOOSE to do it or not and choice = sandbox.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Sandbox is about freedom, so it makes pvp a natural fit for sandbox games. Sandbox games need player-driven content, and pvp and conflict offer much of that.
FFAPVP is a form of developer driven content and thus anti-sandbox. All it takes is one look at any South Korean made sandbox game to see that and it even goes against the best sandbox game ever made, SWG. FFAPVP is not a requirement for a sandbox and actually serves to limit it in every way from playability to playerbase.
PvP should be a choice just like war in real life and before you reply with, anyone can kill anyone else in real life...real life has a police system in place that keeps the vast majority of people in line...some 99.999% of people (if you look at the worlds murder rate)...and even if you go back 1000 years before a police system, the vast majority of people did not go around murdering others. In a FFAPVP game its practically forced on you and the statistics are reversed where 99.999% of people kill each other.
Its a poor system for a virtual world and points to my opening, FFAPVP is developer driven content because it creates a false environment that encourages a style of gameplay which is anti-sandbox. PvP being optional is sandbox because then players can CHOOSE to do it or not and choice = sandbox.
You're gonna have to define FFA pvp. I'm not saying pvp with 0 consequences is desirable or sandbox. I'm talking about open world pvp.
Your murder rate argument is just silly because how much of the population goes out and farms for their own resources or builds their own clothes and house? Obviously the point of the game is to have the exciting parts. You want to emulate the rules of the world to make the game feel like a virtual world that you're a part of. Sorry but putting a forcefield around somebody that makes them invulnerable to another player's weapon takes away from that.
Also you're wrong about the prevalence of people attacking each other. In games like UO and EVE it was not 99% of people attacking each other, not even close. Maybe in the dregs of low sec in eve, but not the majority of player interactions. And in UO, the norm of seeing somebody else in the wild was another blue person that didn't attack you.
And I disagree that SWG was the best sandbox ever. In fact, I'd say the one thing holding it back was the flagging system.
It must be the relatively low development cost of such a game. Developing pve content is more expensive than just creating a game where players just go after each other and that is the content.
Lower dev costs would mean the game has to earn less to recoup those costs and turn a profit, either through box or cash shop sales. These games always become "niche" so that's why I guess they are able to make their money back without having a lot of players for a long period of time.
Your much closer to the truth in this post.
Yeah its easier to make a pvp gankfest niche game then one with real content. If you don't like these types of games than just ignore them. They never really last long anyways. And if they do they have really small playerbases in them. Pvp gankers need to have their games too.
Originally posted by Sojhin A sandbox without player conflict is a themepark or sandpark.
Completely not true. You may want to re-visit the actual meaning of what sandbox play is. Sandbox has nothing to do with whether you are fighting another player.
Sandbox is about freedom, so it makes pvp a natural fit for sandbox games. Sandbox games need player-driven content, and pvp and conflict offer much of that.
Later i believe what people called sandboxes are just mean open-world .
Sandbox only mean the game allow player to build/change the game world's environment , no more , no less .
PvP not a part of sandbox , it add in order to make use of the contents and balance things out.
Freedom is open world , sandbox = build things with sands and play with it.
It's not just upcoming games, most real big sandboxy type mmo's seem to always include a giant pvp focus if not the main focus, full loot etc. See Darkfall, Mortal Online, etc. It's like developers just can't seem to grasp the fact that a lot of people would enjoy an open world sandbox without gank festing. Seriously there are practically none - it's pretty mind blowing really. Especially when you do any poll and see that the VAST majority of mmo players are pve focused.
Originally posted by DocBrodywhy, why, because sandbox is about realism and immersion, [...]
MMO PvP is generally about as unrealistic as it is possible to get. Kill without consequence, die and respawn seconds later none the worse for wear.
There is nothing whatsoever realistic about "sandbox" PvP, to claim otherwise is laughable in the extreme.
EXACTLY! I also laugh at players who say, "PvP is more realistic." That is utter bullcrap.
And to all the buzzwords like "organic" and such used in this discussion.
PvP is more realistic. In the real world, you can physically attack anybody you want, but there are consequences. So a game that let's you do the same thing is more realistic than a game that puts a magical forcefield around you that stops you from being damaged by other players.
And do you have a problem with me using the word "organic" to describe solutions to problems that are interesting, dynamic, player-driven, etc?
I guess that's just how your side of the argument works. You don't want to use reason or logic to back up your opinion, so you just giggle to each other about the words we're using.
You talk about realism like it has some intrinsic value to it. It does not. You forget that we are talking about games here. Realism isn't always the best solution. In fact, it is hardly eve the best solution. And even if it were, it is unobtainable. You put in harsh penalties for PvP. People will play something else.
You would think that, as a developer, you would like for people to enjoy your game. Punishment in a game is stupid. What makes it even more stupid is that while designing a working system of punishment is increasingly difficult when, prohibiting players to do something that is anti-social or detrimental to others' gameplay is much more elegant and simple solution to the problem.
And yes, I find it amusing that you have your own definition for the word "organic".
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by DocBrodywhy, why, because sandbox is about realism and immersion, [...]
MMO PvP is generally about as unrealistic as it is possible to get. Kill without consequence, die and respawn seconds later none the worse for wear.
There is nothing whatsoever realistic about "sandbox" PvP, to claim otherwise is laughable in the extreme.
EXACTLY! I also laugh at players who say, "PvP is more realistic." That is utter bullcrap.
And to all the buzzwords like "organic" and such used in this discussion.
PvP is more realistic. In the real world, you can physically attack anybody you want, but there are consequences. So a game that let's you do the same thing is more realistic than a game that puts a magical forcefield around you that stops you from being damaged by other players.
And do you have a problem with me using the word "organic" to describe solutions to problems that are interesting, dynamic, player-driven, etc?
I guess that's just how your side of the argument works. You don't want to use reason or logic to back up your opinion, so you just giggle to each other about the words we're using.
You talk about realism like it has some intrinsic value to it. It does not. You forget that we are talking about games here. Realism isn't always the best solution. In fact, it is hardly eve the best solution. And even if it were, it is unobtainable. You put in harsh penalties for PvP. People will play something else.
You would think that, as a developer, you would like for people to enjoy your game. Punishment in a game is stupid. What makes it even more stupid is that while designing a working system of punishment is increasingly difficult when, prohibiting players to do something that is anti-social or detrimental to others' gameplay is much more elegant and simple solution to the problem.
And yes, I find it amusing that you have your own definition for the word "organic".
Don't change the subject. This has nothing to do with how much value I attribute to "realism." It's about how realistic one game type is compared to the other. You agreed with the person who took issue with ow pvp being more realistic. You're wrong about that. Now you're trying to shift the conversation to realism not being better. Fine, I don't care. Sometimes realism is desirable, sometimes it isn't. If I want to be part of a virtual world, you need to have some elements of realism that allow your immersion. Maybe you don't want an immersive game, maybe you don't want a virtual world. I don't know or care, because this discussion isn't about what some random guy on the internet wants or places value in.
That goes double for your ramblings about "punishment." Fact is, some people want games with consequences or "punishments." You don't. Cool. Bye then.
EDIT: By the way, there's nothing wrong with me using the word organic. The point is they are systems that are malleable, fluid, dynamic. They create a *living* world. It's not the hard response of simply turning off all pvp in the game, which would be somewhat inorganic. But I guess when you have nothing of substance to say, you'll just try to pick on people's word usage
I find realism in games to be very bad for me personally. I always end up unhappy as others just ruin my game and I do not enjoy that. I like to enjoy the games I play therefore I want choice and if a game refuses to give me that well lots of other games out there that do and frankly with the way this genre is going I think these developers better just be happy with a niche these days.
And to all the buzzwords like "organic" and such used in this discussion.
PvP is more realistic. In the real world, you can physically attack anybody you want, but there are consequences. So a game that let's you do the same thing is more realistic than a game that puts a magical forcefield around you that stops you from being damaged by other players.
And do you have a problem with me using the word "organic" to describe solutions to problems that are interesting, dynamic, player-driven, etc?
I guess that's just how your side of the argument works. You don't want to use reason or logic to back up your opinion, so you just giggle to each other about the words we're using.
You talk about realism like it has some intrinsic value to it. It does not. You forget that we are talking about games here. Realism isn't always the best solution. In fact, it is hardly eve the best solution. And even if it were, it is unobtainable. You put in harsh penalties for PvP. People will play something else.
You would think that, as a developer, you would like for people to enjoy your game. Punishment in a game is stupid. It is very ignorant to think in such absolutes. I've seen "punishment" work just fine in various games when it's done right. One of these games has been around for a long long time and has a very healthy and stable population. So perhaps "stupid" was a poor and weak choice of words, yes? What makes it even more stupid is that while designing a working system of punishment is increasingly difficult when, prohibiting players to do something that is anti-social or detrimental to others' gameplay is much more elegant and simple solution to the problem.
And yes, I find it amusing that you have your own definition for the word "organic". Nope. Nothing wrong with how he used the word "organic". It functions well in this case to express what he is trying to get across. Not sure why that one ruffled your feathers to such a degree. Probably more important things to get all ruffled over, yes?
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Originally posted by DocBrody why, why, because sandbox is about realism and immersion, [...]
MMO PvP is generally about as unrealistic as it is possible to get. Kill without consequence, die and respawn seconds later none the worse for wear.There is nothing whatsoever realistic about "sandbox" PvP, to claim otherwise is laughable in the extreme.
EXACTLY! I also laugh at players who say, "PvP is more realistic." That is utter bullcrap.
I laugh at people who think standing in line next to your sworn enemy who has killed dozens of members of your in game family while you wait for your spot in the arena game where you play against each of them for prize tokens is immersive and rewarding gameplay.No nothing less realistic about that at all.
Never said that was "realistic", either. How's that "perma-life" working for ya?
Less realistic to me is never dieing. I mean, REALLY dieing. Head lopped off? Respawn, run back and try again. Yea, totally "realistic" in ANY PvP setting...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by cheyane Probably because human beings are the best content. They are unpredictable so newer Indie games who have fewer resources cannot make games without PvP because it will take care of a large portion of their content by providing meaning,conflict,competition,race to get ahead and also provide emotional experiences like anger, frustration, jubilance, fear, triumph and you do this just by introducing a simple mechanic. Why wouldn't most developers do this.
So, if PvP players enjoy "unpredictable", do they also enjoy Random Number Generation Combat, the ultimate in unpredictability? Do they enjoy not knowing what their opponent's gear or skills are before engaging them, aka fight only with a predictable edge?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Sojhin A sandbox without player conflict is a themepark or sandpark.
Completely not true. You may want to re-visit the actual meaning of what sandbox play is. Sandbox has nothing to do with whether you are fighting another player.
Sandbox is about freedom, so it makes pvp a natural fit for sandbox games. Sandbox games need player-driven content, and pvp and conflict offer much of that.
So *my* freedom of NOT fighting other players is not a sandbox, but *your* freedom to do so is? Am I missing something here?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by Sojhin A sandbox without player conflict is a themepark or sandpark.
Completely not true. You may want to re-visit the actual meaning of what sandbox play is. Sandbox has nothing to do with whether you are fighting another player.
Sandbox is about freedom, so it makes pvp a natural fit for sandbox games. Sandbox games need player-driven content, and pvp and conflict offer much of that.
So *my* freedom of NOT fighting other players is not a sandbox, but *your* freedom to do so is? Am I missing something here?
Freedom doesn't mean freedom from something. Otherwise it's just a meaningless, endless loop.
Comments
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
And to all the buzzwords like "organic" and such used in this discussion.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
I laugh at people who think standing in line next to your sworn enemy who has killed dozens of members of your in game family while you wait for your spot in the arena game where you play against each of them for prize tokens is immersive and rewarding gameplay.
No nothing less realistic about that at all.
Because sandbox is all about freedom and being able to murder/teabag/steal their stuff is the ultimate freedom...
/endsarcasm
You talking about open world pvp arena, not sandbox.
You know that everything need both good and negative .
FFA PvP without rule to balance will cause the game broken by the negative effect .
PvP in first place are full of negative , since someone win mean someone lost.
If you make it that murder/theft always win then soon or late your game will close because your game full of murder/theft and no normal player left .
PvP is more realistic. In the real world, you can physically attack anybody you want, but there are consequences. So a game that let's you do the same thing is more realistic than a game that puts a magical forcefield around you that stops you from being damaged by other players.
And do you have a problem with me using the word "organic" to describe solutions to problems that are interesting, dynamic, player-driven, etc?
I guess that's just how your side of the argument works. You don't want to use reason or logic to back up your opinion, so you just giggle to each other about the words we're using.
That's not sarcasm lol. Yes, being able to do whatever you want is freedom. However in the real world people are capable of forming governments, enacting laws, hiring police, etc. Since you can't do that in games, developers have to try and simulate those things. So a realistic game would let you do whatever you want (like in real life) but have consequences to your actions (like in real life).
From the ever narrowing mindset of developers treating a genre filled with every kind of player the same because "formula" tells them that "formula" is correct despite constant failures showing otherwise by using the rationale that since "game" was a success, all other games will also be a success if "game" is made using "formula".
The gaming genre has ben infiltrated by non-gaming companies, and now they are trying to use their normal business ideas thinking they will work. Since WoW is a massive success, WoW must be copied to create another success. The only sandboxes that are relatively popular all have FFAPVP, thus that formula must be followed.
In fact, this is being seen in all sectors of the PC related field. Since mobile exists, the future must be mobile because the PC cannot exist in a mobile world. Its rationalizing using a black and white method where if one exists, the other cannot. Its almost maddening at times that this is happening in the industry responsible for the information age...
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Completely not true. You may want to re-visit the actual meaning of what sandbox play is. Sandbox has nothing to do with whether you are fighting another player.
Sandbox is about freedom, so it makes pvp a natural fit for sandbox games. Sandbox games need player-driven content, and pvp and conflict offer much of that.
FFAPVP is a form of developer driven content and thus anti-sandbox. All it takes is one look at any South Korean made sandbox game to see that and it even goes against the best sandbox game ever made, SWG. FFAPVP is not a requirement for a sandbox and actually serves to limit it in every way from playability to playerbase.
PvP should be a choice just like war in real life and before you reply with, anyone can kill anyone else in real life...real life has a police system in place that keeps the vast majority of people in line...some 99.999% of people (if you look at the worlds murder rate)...and even if you go back 1000 years before a police system, the vast majority of people did not go around murdering others. In a FFAPVP game its practically forced on you and the statistics are reversed where 99.999% of people kill each other.
Its a poor system for a virtual world and points to my opening, FFAPVP is developer driven content because it creates a false environment that encourages a style of gameplay which is anti-sandbox. PvP being optional is sandbox because then players can CHOOSE to do it or not and choice = sandbox.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
You're gonna have to define FFA pvp. I'm not saying pvp with 0 consequences is desirable or sandbox. I'm talking about open world pvp.
Your murder rate argument is just silly because how much of the population goes out and farms for their own resources or builds their own clothes and house? Obviously the point of the game is to have the exciting parts. You want to emulate the rules of the world to make the game feel like a virtual world that you're a part of. Sorry but putting a forcefield around somebody that makes them invulnerable to another player's weapon takes away from that.
Also you're wrong about the prevalence of people attacking each other. In games like UO and EVE it was not 99% of people attacking each other, not even close. Maybe in the dregs of low sec in eve, but not the majority of player interactions. And in UO, the norm of seeing somebody else in the wild was another blue person that didn't attack you.
And I disagree that SWG was the best sandbox ever. In fact, I'd say the one thing holding it back was the flagging system.
Yeah its easier to make a pvp gankfest niche game then one with real content. If you don't like these types of games than just ignore them. They never really last long anyways. And if they do they have really small playerbases in them. Pvp gankers need to have their games too.
Later i believe what people called sandboxes are just mean open-world .
Sandbox only mean the game allow player to build/change the game world's environment , no more , no less .
PvP not a part of sandbox , it add in order to make use of the contents and balance things out.
Freedom is open world , sandbox = build things with sands and play with it.
You talk about realism like it has some intrinsic value to it. It does not. You forget that we are talking about games here. Realism isn't always the best solution. In fact, it is hardly eve the best solution. And even if it were, it is unobtainable. You put in harsh penalties for PvP. People will play something else.
You would think that, as a developer, you would like for people to enjoy your game. Punishment in a game is stupid. What makes it even more stupid is that while designing a working system of punishment is increasingly difficult when, prohibiting players to do something that is anti-social or detrimental to others' gameplay is much more elegant and simple solution to the problem.
And yes, I find it amusing that you have your own definition for the word "organic".
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Don't change the subject. This has nothing to do with how much value I attribute to "realism." It's about how realistic one game type is compared to the other. You agreed with the person who took issue with ow pvp being more realistic. You're wrong about that. Now you're trying to shift the conversation to realism not being better. Fine, I don't care. Sometimes realism is desirable, sometimes it isn't. If I want to be part of a virtual world, you need to have some elements of realism that allow your immersion. Maybe you don't want an immersive game, maybe you don't want a virtual world. I don't know or care, because this discussion isn't about what some random guy on the internet wants or places value in.
That goes double for your ramblings about "punishment." Fact is, some people want games with consequences or "punishments." You don't. Cool. Bye then.
EDIT: By the way, there's nothing wrong with me using the word organic. The point is they are systems that are malleable, fluid, dynamic. They create a *living* world. It's not the hard response of simply turning off all pvp in the game, which would be somewhat inorganic. But I guess when you have nothing of substance to say, you'll just try to pick on people's word usage
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Less realistic to me is never dieing. I mean, REALLY dieing. Head lopped off? Respawn, run back and try again. Yea, totally "realistic" in ANY PvP setting...
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Freedom doesn't mean freedom from something. Otherwise it's just a meaningless, endless loop.