I have to be female (That's because of the story, with the black spirit...) I have to be human (Actually rangers are ALL elves) I have to use a bow and dagger (Yes, because you're a ranger..) I have to wait until max level to change how I look (no, you don't, you just refuse to read)
That's amazing customization because I can change my make-up and pick between a few nearly identical starting costumes right?
Sure.
So, the story is preventing me from playing my own gender? Great story
Ok, I have to be an Elf - which doesn't really change anything.
Rangers can't use swords? How about you explain that to Aragorn who more or less defined the class.
Yes, I more or less have to wait according to you.
Why do you insist on denying obvious problems with the game? It doesn't mean it's all bad.
But blindly defending it against all criticism just makes you look desperate.
I have to be female (That's because of the story, with the black spirit...) I have to be human (Actually rangers are ALL elves) I have to use a bow and dagger (Yes, because you're a ranger..) I have to wait until max level to change how I look (no, you don't, you just refuse to read)
That's amazing customization because I can change my make-up and pick between a few nearly identical starting costumes right?
Sure.
So, the story is preventing me from playing my own gender? Great story
Ok, I have to be an Elf - which doesn't really change anything.
Rangers can't use swords? How about you explain that to Aragorn who more or less defined the class.
Yes, I more or less have to wait according to you.
Why do you insist on denying obvious problems with the game? It doesn't mean it's all bad.
But blindly defending it against all criticism just makes you look desperate.
Well for one this isn't lord of the rings so no need to explain it to Aragorn.
One thing about eastern games that western players seem to have a problem with is that they are interested in creating iconic characters that embody certain traits. And that their traits, skills, weapons are representative of that character.
I think it's important when playing these games to understand and take them for what they are trying to be and not for what "we" want them to be.
It's sort of a paradigm shift as far as what/who your character is.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I need to change what I want from games and accept all the things I don't like.
THEN I'll wake up and see the brilliance of the design and accept that it's perfect. The flaws are only in my mind and so on.
I remember people telling me that over and over and over for Guild Wars 2. Strange how they've all stopped playing it now
Why exactly are you trying so hard to play something you don't like ? Myself I know within the first 15 minutes if I will like a game or not and decide then if I keep playing.
Stop the melodramatic crap and move along if you don't like it.
I understand where the OP is coming from. It's really annoying to find that for every great feature the game has, it's accompanied by a massive shortcut on the part of the developers. Great character creator, but it's hard to get away from certain looks. Great classes, except they're gender AND race locked. Great armors and clothing, but they're locked down against certain costumes and mixing and matching is limited, and the best are generally found in the cash shop. Good grief.
Gender locking is insane at this point in the MMO timeline. Race locking is almost just as bad. For some of us, our character appearance is a huge part of our game experience. If I don't like the way my character looks, or if every character looks the same, that is a huge negative for me. I know there are other people that feel the same way. More important, it's just lazy design. There's no reason to not provide diverse looks, and there's certainly no reason to have gender locked classes at all.
"God, please help us sinful children of Ivalice.."
I need to change what I want from games and accept all the things I don't like.
THEN I'll wake up and see the brilliance of the design and accept that it's perfect. The flaws are only in my mind and so on.
I remember people telling me that over and over and over for Guild Wars 2. Strange how they've all stopped playing it now
Why exactly are you trying so hard to play something you don't like ? Myself I know within the first 15 minutes if I will like a game or not and decide then if I keep playing.
Stop the melodramatic crap and move along if you don't like it.
Try not to take opposing opinions personally, as it'll only confuse the issue for you.
The reason I'm trying "hard" to like the game is that I think it has interesting features - and I'm looking for a game to play. It's not rocket science.
I'm happy that you know if you like a game or not within 15 minutes. Sometimes, it takes longer for me to decide - sometimes it doesn't.
Gender locking is insane at this point in the MMO timeline. Race locking is almost just as bad. For some of us, our character appearance is a huge part of our game experience. If I don't like the way my character looks, or if every character looks the same, that is a huge negative for me. I know there are other people that feel the same way. More important, it's just lazy design. There's no reason to not provide diverse looks, and there's certainly no reason to have gender locked classes at all.
Actually, there is a reason - which would be how they've chosen to animate the characters.
Clearly, they've chosen to lock genders and races so they can give each class a highly distinct look and feel - and they want to include gender and racial features in the animation style itself.
Given the highly detailed animations - it would take a lot of work to make them all for each gender and all races.
Personally, I don't think it's a good compromise. I could live with racial locks - but gender locking is a very high price to pay for better animations.
I don't agree with that choice - like I don't agree with a LOT of choices they've made for this game.
Vanguard was basically EQ +less stringent pulling mechanics +less stringent CC +slightly less player interdependency (still much higher than recent MMO) +missive quests +massive view distance +slightly more quest based +awesome card game (I miss that card game) +less death penalty +faster travel +bit easier
EQ and Vanguard are pretty much my favorite MMO.
Vanguard was a bit like EQ Light + some cool new features.
It's no wonder really, since both games were made by the same person.
I need to change what I want from games and accept all the things I don't like.
The problem is, if you don't make any concessions, you will NEVER find the perfect game. So while we are playing and having fun despite the parts we don't like, you are just sitting on the forum complaining. Your choice.
Actually, it sounds like you're sitting on the forum trying to tell people to be more like you.
Well, probably not, though I'm pretty sure you spend more time on MMORPG than I do
Nah, I'm just spending a few minutes here and there exchanging thoughts with other people.
Hoping to be inspired or to make up my mind about stuff.
As for concessions, I don't think I've ever played a perfect game in my life. Probably because they don't exist.
However, there are things that I can live with - and there are things I can't live with. Just like everyone else in the world.
So, please, let's not pretend it's that easy to ignore your own preferences. If that was true, we'd all be playing PacMan still and never need another game.
As for Black Desert, I'm almost convinced the game is not for me - but that doesn't mean I can't talk about it.
That's one of the things I really dislike about KR MMO's is you have to buy outfits to look visually distinct. There is no sense of achievement when you just bought the most epic looking armor at level one...
But I still absolutely love this game, it's like a marriage gotta take the good with the bad. And BDO is a supermodel wife imo.
Vanguard was basically EQ +less stringent pulling mechanics +less stringent CC +slightly less player interdependency (still much higher than recent MMO) +missive quests +massive view distance +slightly more quest based +awesome card game (I miss that card game) +less death penalty +faster travel +bit easier
EQ and Vanguard are pretty much my favorite MMO.
Vanguard was a bit like EQ Light + some cool new features.
It's no wonder really, since both games were made by the same person.
I know what Vanguard was - as I played it.
It wasn't a themepark, that's for sure.
As for EQ, I never played it much. It was intensely grindy and not really my thing.
Vanguard was basically EQ +less stringent pulling mechanics +less stringent CC +slightly less player interdependency (still much higher than recent MMO) +missive quests +massive view distance +slightly more quest based +awesome card game (I miss that card game) +less death penalty +faster travel +bit easier
EQ and Vanguard are pretty much my favorite MMO.
Vanguard was a bit like EQ Light + some cool new features.
It's no wonder really, since both games were made by the same person.
I know what Vanguard was - as I played it.
It wasn't a themepark, that's for sure.
I agree. EQ and Vanguard aren't themeparks.
They really don't belong in the themepark category. They're too different from a game like WoW to be put in the same category.
They are ... open world PVE games.....with an emphasis on group oriented gameplay and mob grind.
And for Vanguard, it has a sprinkling of quest based progression, which EQ doesn't really have at all.
(EQ has epics and access quests, but it's not a quest based game, it's group oriented grind)
Comments
Ok, I have to be an Elf - which doesn't really change anything.
Rangers can't use swords? How about you explain that to Aragorn who more or less defined the class.
Yes, I more or less have to wait according to you.
Why do you insist on denying obvious problems with the game? It doesn't mean it's all bad.
But blindly defending it against all criticism just makes you look desperate.
It's not like it's part of being a person at all, is it?
One thing about eastern games that western players seem to have a problem with is that they are interested in creating iconic characters that embody certain traits. And that their traits, skills, weapons are representative of that character.
I think it's important when playing these games to understand and take them for what they are trying to be and not for what "we" want them to be.
It's sort of a paradigm shift as far as what/who your character is.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I need to change what I want from games and accept all the things I don't like.
THEN I'll wake up and see the brilliance of the design and accept that it's perfect. The flaws are only in my mind and so on.
I remember people telling me that over and over and over for Guild Wars 2. Strange how they've all stopped playing it now
Stop the melodramatic crap and move along if you don't like it.
"God, please help us sinful children of Ivalice.."
The reason I'm trying "hard" to like the game is that I think it has interesting features - and I'm looking for a game to play. It's not rocket science.
I'm happy that you know if you like a game or not within 15 minutes. Sometimes, it takes longer for me to decide - sometimes it doesn't.
Not that hard to understand if you try, really.
Actually, there is a reason - which would be how they've chosen to animate the characters.
Clearly, they've chosen to lock genders and races so they can give each class a highly distinct look and feel - and they want to include gender and racial features in the animation style itself.
Given the highly detailed animations - it would take a lot of work to make them all for each gender and all races.
Personally, I don't think it's a good compromise. I could live with racial locks - but gender locking is a very high price to pay for better animations.
I don't agree with that choice - like I don't agree with a LOT of choices they've made for this game.
+less stringent pulling mechanics
+less stringent CC
+slightly less player interdependency (still much higher than recent MMO)
+missive quests
+massive view distance
+slightly more quest based
+awesome card game (I miss that card game)
+less death penalty
+faster travel
+bit easier
EQ and Vanguard are pretty much my favorite MMO.
Vanguard was a bit like EQ Light + some cool new features.
It's no wonder really, since both games were made by the same person.
Actually, it sounds like you're sitting on the forum trying to tell people to be more like you.
Well, probably not, though I'm pretty sure you spend more time on MMORPG than I do
Nah, I'm just spending a few minutes here and there exchanging thoughts with other people.
Hoping to be inspired or to make up my mind about stuff.
As for concessions, I don't think I've ever played a perfect game in my life. Probably because they don't exist.
However, there are things that I can live with - and there are things I can't live with. Just like everyone else in the world.
So, please, let's not pretend it's that easy to ignore your own preferences. If that was true, we'd all be playing PacMan still and never need another game.
As for Black Desert, I'm almost convinced the game is not for me - but that doesn't mean I can't talk about it.
At least, I don't think that makes any sense.
That's one of the things I really dislike about KR MMO's is you have to buy outfits to look visually distinct. There is no sense of achievement when you just bought the most epic looking armor at level one...
But I still absolutely love this game, it's like a marriage gotta take the good with the bad. And BDO is a supermodel wife imo.
It wasn't a themepark, that's for sure.
As for EQ, I never played it much. It was intensely grindy and not really my thing.
They really don't belong in the themepark category. They're too different from a game like WoW to be put in the same category.
They are ... open world PVE games.....with an emphasis on group oriented gameplay and mob grind.
And for Vanguard, it has a sprinkling of quest based progression, which EQ doesn't really have at all.
(EQ has epics and access quests, but it's not a quest based game, it's group oriented grind)