So this is another "normal" MMORPG.
It might have a darker setting and more action-oriented combat, but it still looks much like WoW to me.
WoW has set some kind of standard for MORPGs, but i am not sure, this is good. WoW IS a fun game to play, but it is not really an RPG. There are no real "characters" but avatars with mainly combat-relevant stats. The world is somewhat non-continuous, with the instances, etc.. Every player character can resurrect immediately, but you are allways send on quests to kill enemies in order to "end that threat" but when you visit them again, they are reborn, just like the players. And as far as I know, most of these points are similar in Conan. And they are similiar in most other MMOs like LOTRO.
I think all that makes sense for WoW, but it is not what I expect from an RPG. I want a continuous, consistent world so i can empathize with my character and its adventures.
So, why is there no game for "traditional" RPG fans? A game where combat is just one apect of... well... roleplaying. A game where things like social interaction, fame, alliances, etc. matter more than how much dps your sword does.
Why does no developer try things like permanent death (of course it wouldnt make sense for WoW, but it could make sense for a real RPG, it works in pen and paper games, too)? Why do enemies have to be reborn instead of being replaced by new ones? Why are game masters only there for troubleshooting instead of creatively influencing the game world?
Why does no one try a new approach to online roleplaying? Everyone just publishes new WoW-clones to compete with the most succesful online game.
RMS is an idealist. With a beard. The "last true hacker". He has got visions and i agree with most of his ideas.
Torvalds is a somewhoat unappealing person. But he started things that actually work. He is an engineer.
We need both types, and I think its good that there is a discussion. Discussions are democratic and they show that the free software movement is alive. There is no need to pick a side. There is no overall truth. But somewhere between those two viewpoints, there are most probably some sensible positions.
I think it is quite interesting, how the discussion here differs from what I normally experience in Germany.
What you call "libertarian" would rather be a liberal here. What you call "liberal" sounds like our morerate left.
Is this really true?
does anyone have good statistical data about how many games where sold in which year? Because i honestly cant believe, that the pc games industry is so broken. I guess they still sell many game. Maybe the competition is harder now.
Dont you think they rather just target the console market, because more people can play (and buy) their games than?
Maybe id has economic problems because they didnt have a real hit title recently? I mean some of their older games where groundbreaking but you can not say that about doom3 or quake4.
Is this all just some anti-piracy scare?
I personally think that only the time of singleplayer games on the PC will be over soon. Consoles are just easier to use and cheaper. The PC will stay important for Multiplayer games (That sector has been growing fast recently see Battlefield and WoW), especially for shooters and RTS games (due to the mouse as the default input device) and everything that benefits from a community (MODS!).
Everyone has a political orientation (which may change according to new experiences or arguments of course)
The first thing you need to understand is that ALL political labels are lies. On all sides. Look at the actions, then make your decisions. You will be better for it.
If you "look at the actions" and make individual decisions based on the situation, you still decide according to your basic set of values which is also the basis of your political orientation. => Everyone follows ideals that can be interpreted as some political notion.
... well, sfjoe, I was not talking about THE conservative christian movement that plagues the USA... in my innocent and naive heart, I hope that there are still some of those good jesus fans left that indeed want to "feed the hungry" and all that stuff...
Left and right are what remains from cold war propaganda.
Today the political world is much more complicated.
(i don't know how it is in Britain but thats my impression when watching the world from germany)
First, there are 3 Basic dimensions: left, conservative, liberal. Second there are many ways to combine them.
If someone thinks people should help each other instead of just trying to make money, he might be a leftist as well as a conservative christian refering to the bible.
If a socialist dreams of the russian revolution and the fight of the working class, id say hes conservative.
Many groups, which are seen as "left" today, are only traditionally "leftists" regarding economics (they want rich people to be forced to share). But most are pretty liberal when personal freedom is concerned (privacy, etc.).
(I for example would consider myself an anticapitalist,so you might say im left, but i definetly do NOT follow the idea of a traditional communist STASI-state where there is no room for individuality, so you might as well say im liberal).
Free software does indeed fit well into the traditional left spectrum as it is built on colaboration instead of competition (as the "normal" free market is).
The free software movement is all about "freedom", so thats a reason for liberals to like it.
A conservative person might chose free software because he doesn like the big companies, as he might have the impression, they are not following traditional values.
What i want to say is: the world of political attitudes is far too complicated for your experiences having any statitical significance.
I think whether or not someone uses free software rather depends on a level of technical education. The more computer-geekerish someone is, the more likely he is using free software (normal users take whatever comes preinstalled on their box).
Now maybe there is some indirect dependency (like: left people are less likely to study an IT subject, because they want to do something that involves smoking joints, like philosophy => less leftists use free software) but you definetly need more elaborate studies of that field to draw a conclusion in that subject.
Slashdot Mirror
So this is another "normal" MMORPG. It might have a darker setting and more action-oriented combat, but it still looks much like WoW to me.
WoW has set some kind of standard for MORPGs, but i am not sure, this is good. WoW IS a fun game to play, but it is not really an RPG. There are no real "characters" but avatars with mainly combat-relevant stats. The world is somewhat non-continuous, with the instances, etc.. Every player character can resurrect immediately, but you are allways send on quests to kill enemies in order to "end that threat" but when you visit them again, they are reborn, just like the players. And as far as I know, most of these points are similar in Conan. And they are similiar in most other MMOs like LOTRO.
I think all that makes sense for WoW, but it is not what I expect from an RPG. I want a continuous, consistent world so i can empathize with my character and its adventures.
So, why is there no game for "traditional" RPG fans? A game where combat is just one apect of... well... roleplaying. A game where things like social interaction, fame, alliances, etc. matter more than how much dps your sword does. Why does no developer try things like permanent death (of course it wouldnt make sense for WoW, but it could make sense for a real RPG, it works in pen and paper games, too)? Why do enemies have to be reborn instead of being replaced by new ones? Why are game masters only there for troubleshooting instead of creatively influencing the game world? Why does no one try a new approach to online roleplaying? Everyone just publishes new WoW-clones to compete with the most succesful online game.
RMS is an idealist. With a beard. The "last true hacker". He has got visions and i agree with most of his ideas.
Torvalds is a somewhoat unappealing person. But he started things that actually work. He is an engineer.
We need both types, and I think its good that there is a discussion. Discussions are democratic and they show that the free software movement is alive. There is no need to pick a side. There is no overall truth. But somewhere between those two viewpoints, there are most probably some sensible positions.
I think it is quite interesting, how the discussion here differs from what I normally experience in Germany.
What you call "libertarian" would rather be a liberal here. What you call "liberal" sounds like our morerate left.
Is this really true? does anyone have good statistical data about how many games where sold in which year? Because i honestly cant believe, that the pc games industry is so broken. I guess they still sell many game. Maybe the competition is harder now.
Dont you think they rather just target the console market, because more people can play (and buy) their games than?
Maybe id has economic problems because they didnt have a real hit title recently? I mean some of their older games where groundbreaking but you can not say that about doom3 or quake4.
Is this all just some anti-piracy scare?
I personally think that only the time of singleplayer games on the PC will be over soon. Consoles are just easier to use and cheaper. The PC will stay important for Multiplayer games (That sector has been growing fast recently see Battlefield and WoW), especially for shooters and RTS games (due to the mouse as the default input device) and everything that benefits from a community (MODS!).
The first thing you need to understand is that ALL political labels are lies. On all sides. Look at the actions, then make your decisions. You will be better for it.
If you "look at the actions" and make individual decisions based on the situation, you still decide according to your basic set of values which is also the basis of your political orientation.
=> Everyone follows ideals that can be interpreted as some political notion.
... well, sfjoe, I was not talking about THE conservative christian movement that plagues the USA... in my innocent and naive heart, I hope that there are still some of those good jesus fans left that indeed want to "feed the hungry" and all that stuff...
Left and right are what remains from cold war propaganda. Today the political world is much more complicated. (i don't know how it is in Britain but thats my impression when watching the world from germany) First, there are 3 Basic dimensions: left, conservative, liberal. Second there are many ways to combine them. If someone thinks people should help each other instead of just trying to make money, he might be a leftist as well as a conservative christian refering to the bible. If a socialist dreams of the russian revolution and the fight of the working class, id say hes conservative. Many groups, which are seen as "left" today, are only traditionally "leftists" regarding economics (they want rich people to be forced to share). But most are pretty liberal when personal freedom is concerned (privacy, etc.). (I for example would consider myself an anticapitalist ,so you might say im left, but i definetly do NOT follow the idea of a traditional communist STASI-state where there is no room for individuality, so you might as well say im liberal).
Free software does indeed fit well into the traditional left spectrum as it is built on colaboration instead of competition (as the "normal" free market is).
The free software movement is all about "freedom", so thats a reason for liberals to like it.
A conservative person might chose free software because he doesn like the big companies, as he might have the impression, they are not following traditional values.
What i want to say is: the world of political attitudes is far too complicated for your experiences having any statitical significance.
I think whether or not someone uses free software rather depends on a level of technical education. The more computer-geekerish someone is, the more likely he is using free software (normal users take whatever comes preinstalled on their box).
Now maybe there is some indirect dependency (like: left people are less likely to study an IT subject, because they want to do something that involves smoking joints, like philosophy => less leftists use free software) but you definetly need more elaborate studies of that field to draw a conclusion in that subject.