While I enjoy a good debate, you summed up your argument right here:
"This might come as a surprise, but most people are either unwilling to put in the time to get to level 50 to go on a raid, or simply don't have the time. Eh, it is all well and good for games to exist to for the crack addicts to mindlessly get their fill, but the rest of the world wouldn't mind a game either."
You're dead wrong about most people being unwilling to spend the time to level up. I played EQ for well over a year before I became level 60, when 60 was the cap. I could have don it a lot faster, but I played at my own pace and I had a hell of a lot of fun doing it. There were level 60 people in the game when I started the game and it didn't bother me one bit where you seem to bothered by that quite a bit.
And who's to say MMORPG's *should* be for everyone? Why does everything have to work for everyone all the time? The current genre of these games is loosely based on Dungeons and Dragons, and D&D was about levels too.
You keep saying that just because there are levels, it's "mindless" and there's nothing further from the truth in EQ. While some people prefer the power-level route where they sit in a corner an exp all day long, it's not something you have to do to advance in the game. Simply by exploring the world, adventuring deep into dungeons, etc - you will level up. This has been greatly enhanced in EQ2.
What you seem to want is a game where you don't have to work at it to play. You want everyone to be equal at any time no matter what. This might work in some smaller social environments (or in a game like There) but when you look at the huge range of players in a typical MMORPG it becomes increasingly more difficult. Seasoned players want to play with other seasoned players, not "screw up the encounter" newbies. An area for high level characters is great for high level characters because newbies can't wreck your fun. The list is endless with problems associated with "everyone can do 100% of the content 100% of the time."
Plus, where does the feeling of progression fit into your rules? People want to feel like they've progressed in the game, that their efforts and skills have allowed them access to content in the game that the mere newbie cannot. I don't see anything wrong with this.
"You mean, the game that exists when you are no longer grinding is the best part of the game? The part of the game where it is not levels, but strategy and tactics? Hell, you describe a system where you don't need levels that is fun, and this is based off a game that wasn't balanced to be level less to begin with! And the reason why not everyone can enjoy this?"
It is the best part of the game, IMO indeed. But that doesn't mean that the stuff below the top level is NOT fun. You harp on the leveling thing but there's a shit load of fun to be had at the lower levels. Just because you need to work at the game more before the "uber high end" encounters are available to you doesn't mean that there's not an extremely entertaining game to play in the meantime.
And no, it's not level-less. There's sub-skills that help a lot in Raid encounters. There's equipment and other magical items that also help a lot. Not to mention, your guild must work to progress further into the game by means of defeating various boss monsters. To you, these are obviously just more levels and you hate levels so much you probably don't celebrate your own birthday.
"The solution to this? Build a game where the content varies. When someone first starts in a game with no levels, they might very well go and stomp rats or what not to get the hang of things. A year later, with the same character and the only difference being actual player skills, they might go with a group of friends to stomp dragons."
I hightly doubt any player would actually PLAY a game like that for a year. But if they did, they would still be swarmed by newbies screwing up their encounters, lying abo
Your post has some random thoughts on how to make a game "without levels" - we can all dream of the impossible just like him.
The thing is, a lot of that stuff *IS* in these games. I consider leveling is a means to access game content. And you're right, it's not exactly fun, but I do see it as a necessary evil.
What does he suggest people do to "climb the social ladder" without some sort of level system? How does he propose that people prepare for battle and actually perform well without leveling or raising skill levels?
What's the difference between aquiring better armor or aquiring better spells through leveling? Both require you to kill monsters or do quests.
How do you become a master artisin without some sort of tracking system for your progress?
How are mages supposed to grow from apprentices to masters? Through using spells, right? How many spells do you need to cast, how many mob encounters do you need to defeat? Even if it were this amazing feat of logic and skill like you'd like to see? Wait, wouldn't that be like leveling?
You can hide it all you want, but there's NO way to have a D&D type RPG without leveling whether you call it that or not. You can't give every skill to every newbie and expect to have any sort of longevity. I know I'd get sick of it real quick.
Most of the people that bitch about leveling never made it to "the end." In EverQuest, the "end" was when you reached the last level and you joined a raiding guild. Raiding *IS* EverQuest, in my opinion. It takes a shit load of practice, skills, and strategy to defeat encounters in EQ. Every boss mob in Everquest is different (okay, almost every boss mob.) Luclin was a great expansion - you had to learn how to endure long battles when crazy spells were being shot at you, you had to learn how to control hordes of mobs, etc.
PoP introduced boss mobs that could hit you so hard it was unbelievable. But working as a team, coordinating the attack, every boss in PoP is defeatable.
If you put 72 newbies - even if they are nicely equipped ebays - in a raid in Everquest, no amount of practice would teach them to kill that mob. Through the level grinding of EQ, you've learned every in and out of your player class, your abilities, and your weaknesses. You've spent a long time with the character, and when it comes to a big raid, you know what you can offer. You know the game mechanics. That only comes with experience.
You can bash the leveling all you want, but there's a reason it's there, and it's not just to slow you down - it's to prepare you for what's ahead.
And, as a foot-note, all that social interacting stuff is great, but sometimes people just want to play the game, not engage in a government and deal with people on that level. We do that in our real lives all day long. And, most of the MMORPG's now a days include a lot of what you've mentioned already anyways.
I prepared a response, but decided to post it to the parent post instead. Read it there if you would like.
Re:I'm guessing that was a joke.NOT!!!!!
on
Halo 2 Reviews
·
· Score: 1
Multiplayer in Halo is okay. I've played many 16 player games - and I've been fortunate to sit at the 63" TV for a lot of it.
It's fun, for sure. But it's not more fun then UT. Bombing run is awesome.
It's a different kind of Multiplayer - you have two or more friends sitting next to each other or near each other (with multiple xboxes) and there's no computer problems, TCP/IP problems, lockups, etc..
In a "lan party" you have all these computers that take a long time to set up, there's always at least one dude with technical problems, etc.
Besides the inherent ease of setup, I still don't see how it's any better then any other game. It's a good game, there's no doubt about that, but that's all it is - good.
I'm so suck of Furor and his cronies making so much noise that people believe their propaghanda.
Just because some of the Fires of Heavon people are WoW fanboys, doesn't mean they represent the majority of EQ players. Being still fairly involved with many of the end game players of my EQ server, I think it's quite the contrary. Most players are going to give it a shot. Some people will like it, some won't, and some will be retards that say anything SoE does is junk.
Personally, I'm glad to not have a Furor around EQ2. FoH cares about one thing and they always have: FoH. Ohh, he goes on with some sob stories about some level 35 paladin that can't get a group or whatever BS he's spreading at the moment, but everything they've bitched about in the past and present has been about their own personal desires, not the needs of the majority of the EQ player base, or even the majority of the high-end EQ player base. Furor would like people to believe he's "for the players" but he's always been "for the players of my guild."
You give it 6 months after game release. He'll be bitching about WoW in the same way.
While there's the standard exp bar in EQ2, you don't get experience like you do in EQ.
In EQ, you basically sit in a corner, and wait for the tank to pull a mob, you kill it, repeat. Kill mobs over and over and over and over.
EQ2 on the other hand has two ways to get experience.
One, obviously, is killing monsters. But it's not the same. EQ2 mobs won't chase you forever, a tank can't pull everything to the group. If you run from a mob too long you also break the encounter, so no exp can be gained. What ends up happening is the group is forced to actually explore zones, move in, go deep. A lot of people aren't comfortable with it; they like the EQ style of very easy (but very long and boring) exp. I like dungeon crawls, and EQ2 really pushes you into doing them. Respawn is pretty quick and you gotta keep moving. It's actually pretty fun, and all the experience zones I've been to have a bunch of little side things, quests, NPC's, etc, spread througout the zone.
The second way to get exp is to finish quests. While there's physical rewards such as money and items, exp is a big part. Quests are also colored according to level - the more difficult the quest the more experience you get.
Even at level 25, which is half-way to the end, experience wasn't too slow. If you ONLY did quests, or ONLY did mob killing, it would be slower. But the game is designed to allow you to do both things at the same time, so it's really not the same grind you're used to in EQ.
Also, "con" levels are pretty restrictive. At level 22, a level 18 mob is a "no exp" mob. I'm sure the gap widens in the higher levels, but probably not too much. This promotes further exploration into the game, instead of hanging around to get the easy exp.
I won't say there's NO level grinding, but it's a lot smoother. And I'm not exactly sure what game could exist without some sort of leveling system. Obviously, everyone can't start out at "Master" levels so I really don't see an alternative. And, you want to accomplish something when you play, and that means enhancing your character in the game, while doing quests and having fun with some acquaintences.
There's a few other small things in EQ2 that tend to help out the casual players as well, but I'm not going to get into all of it right here.
Without "leveling" in some way or form, the game becomes a very pretty chat room.
About your comment about people being obsessive and compulsive, well, unfortunately I don't see any way around that besides limiting play time. There's always going to be the kids that play any game for 14 hours a day. That's a given. But they don't really affect me, I play at my own pace - they can do whatever they want and I don't obsess about THEM.
EQ2 is NOT perfect and there's a ton of stuff that annoys me. But there will be those elements in every game, so you just have to decide what's really important in a game for you.
But WoW isn't great - EQ2 is more fun
on
Everquest 2 Launches
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I was in EQ2 Beta, and I've been in WoW beta for.. forever it seems.
WoW is a much more polished game. Six months ago, WoW was more stable, playable, and finished then EQ2 was at the end of the beta this past Friday.
However, I just couldn't get into WoW. I tried. I've played for many long nights and I still find the game lacking. Some of it has to do with the graphics; the towns are too cookie-cutter, the NPC's are fairly generic, and the overall graphics engine just doesn't come close to EQ2. Of course, it doesn't crash as much as EQ2, and it runs much better - EQ2 looks great but the game engine is slow.
I roamed around. I found some quests and did them. I grouped with some people, explored around. Killed a few more mobs. Killed a few more.
With EQ2 you're immediately confronted with small quests, things to do, and places to see. The game puts you on the track from the beginning. In WoW, you'd dumped off in town and that's that. Both approaches have merit, but the EQ2 approach of pulling you into the game from the start seems more immersive.
EQ2 is very similar to EQ. Don't let anyone try to say otherwise. It's really almost exactly the same when it comes to a LOT of things. Group dynamics are identical, the classes are the same although there's this illusion that they are very different from EQ. But this doesn't signify a bad thing - EQ2 expands on EQ'2 successful grouping tactics and makes each class more valuable to the group then they were before with new special abilities, buffs, and offensive capabilities.
Unfortunately, I do believe they spent too much time trying to avoid all the problems in EQ. While I've always thought that Complete Heal was a mistake and I'm glad to see it gone, but they've really gone far and wide to stop twinking, muling, power leveling, and buffing non-grouped players. Fortunately though it doesn't get too much in the way of normal gameplay, but it is there.
Then there's the age group thing. WoW has and will attract a much younger crowd. If you like that, then it's perfect for you. But if you like an older crowd, you'll probably find it in EQ2. There's a ton of folks that have played EQ for years, and that generally means they've grown up a bit. The average EQ player is in the mid-20's or older. The biggest initial group of people to play EQ2 will be many of these same players. This isn't to say that there's not a fair share of 13 year old kiddies in EQ, but from what I've seen it's a lot less then WoW.
EQ2 isn't ready for release, but they will release it anyways. It's not like $50 is a huge investment, and neither is the monthly fee for a few months to decide whether you wish to continue to play it or not. It will be "ready" enough to play the game and do 95% of the things there is to do. I don't like it, but it's the way things go with computer games sometimes. You have a choice of whether you want to play now, or in four months when many of the bugs will be fixed.
We've all spent a lot more then that on completely stupid crap, so I don't see why one can't try both games and decide which they like more for themselves.
Re:Here is what all the hype was about.
on
Halo 2 Reviews
·
· Score: 1
Yea, I think you're right.
I mean, the first time I played UT online I couldn't believe it. It was amazingly fun. It was more then that, it was revolutionary.
It was so easy to join games, download new maps automatically, and play for hours on end. In the early times, there were no aimbots, no cheating. Pure online fun at it's greatest.
I'll always have a soft spot for Unreal. I enjoyed the original Unreal immensely, it was a really awesome game with amazing graphics for the time. UT was a perfect online game.
So I guess the same thing is happening with Halo, and since it's a console game it has hit a very large audience.
Don't get me wrong, it's a fun game. But I don't see anything masterful about it, except the fact that you don't need a $1500 computer to play it.
And I like to aim with a mouse dammit! =)
Re:Here is what all the hype was about.
on
Halo 2 Reviews
·
· Score: 1
I've been playing FPS's since Wolf3D. And I still just don't see the big hype.
However, I do see lots of value in Co-operative play that I keep hoping more and more to see in more FPS's. Games like Far Cry, Doom 3, and other new titles could have been a blast in co-op mode.
I am not a big fan of Deathmatch.
So if Co-op play is the big thing, well, I dunno, it's not enough to "blow my mind" like some of the kids are saying.
I'm guessing that was a joke.
on
Halo 2 Reviews
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
While Halo was mildly entertaining for a little while, I've found many FPS games to be really good and lots of fun since Halo.
I mean, the game was okay and everything, but I'm still not sure what all the hype is about. It doesn't seem any different from any other FPS, and I've played the whole game. Just your normal Progress Quest stuff, with some decent graphics. Unfortunately, putting the game on the Xbox first really limits you to the capabilities of that machine - new games out now are significantly more advanced then what the Xbox can do for you.
I know a lot of Halo geeks are probably angry at my post but maybe instead of just bitching at me, someone could tell me perhaps what I've missed that makes the game into the incredible fantastic "mind blowing" game that it's claimed to be.
You keep telling me that I don't believe in punishment, or I don't understand it.
Just because I don't fucking agree with you that nine years is perfectly acceptable doesn't mean I don't understand. God damned, I'm glad I don't work with you.
You are making this sound like putting this one guy in prison will stop all spam. It won't. And throughout all of recorded history, setting "examples" of people has never made any significant impact on the mentality of someone doing something ethically wrong in the first place. One year, nine years, for someone that doesn't think he's ever going to get caught, what's the difference? Has capital punishment put a stop to or even slowed down murder at all?
And don't even start to think that I don't deal with spam on a corporate level. I'm the messaging administrator for a large insurance company. We recieve over 10,000 messages an hour during prime time work hours (it tapers down slightly off USA hours but we are a global company) and 75 - 85% of it is spam for the most part. On a daily basis, I have been spending at least 4 hours a day trying to get the spam system working better, evaluating new spam solutions, and dealing with false-positives. I hate it. This is not what I want to be doing as a messaging engineer.
And even after dealing with nonsense every day, I still don't think we should lock someone up for almost a decade, especially when it's not going to do a damned thing to stop it.
You can say I don't understand the problem, or I don't understand punishment. Saying so doesn't make it so, and you'll never convince me that sending out spam messages should get you a decade in prison, minimum or not - and you don't know me well enough to pass judgement on whether or not I understand the situation or not.
But since we're passing judgement, I think you're a hardass prick that thinks your problems are greater then the rest of the world. You are inconvenienced at work for a few hours and you want someone to burn at the stake for it. I think there's more important things in the world to worry about putting people in jail for - putting this guy in jail will just cost us more money in the form of taxes to keep him there.
Surely that was contracted out to someone else to make, just like the EQ2 movie.
Neither of them represent the games they are trying to sell, either. Not even close.
Maybe one of these days they'll make a CG movie on the D&D type genre though - it could be good. The trailers for these games always leave you wanting to see more - but then I guess that's the point; "for more, play the game!!"
It's pretty obvious. The license doesn't do much, but it DOES say:
"Microsoft, at its option, may list You as a licensee on a website or in other public communications."
So in other words, they will put out a newsletter at some point that looks a something like this:
"Microsoft customers see value in Intellectual Property rights, unlike those Communist Linux Bastards. The Microsoft Protocol Bullshit License has been signed by JoeBobCompany because they know that being protected is important in these times of questionable patent and license issues that our legal department is causing."
"I do remember a lot of self-absorbed whining and groupthink, though."
And you're different?
While stupid people are a constant, I don't think that web logs are evil. And I've read some interesting thoughts on peoples' web logs.
Just because YOU and YOUR group whine about web logs all day, doesn't mean they are bad, and what would you rather happen? Everyone just stay silent all the time to make you happy?
I mean, since when has any sort of people tracking system turned out to be good for the people being tracked?
Middle managers and company pressure generally means that any such thing will be used for bad, not good. And it will probably mean that you'll not only have this ridiculous thing called "credit" but also "credibility" with stores when it comes to purchasing and it will be completely up to them to decide if you are a good person or not.
Look. The term "TCP/IP" is used to signify the TCP/IP suite as someone has already pointed out. This makes 95% of your post meaningless.
You're trying to say that all software, from the dawn of TCP/IP, is incorrect and they don't know what they're talking about even though they wrote the stuff?
I think *most* people that are using the term TCP/IP know what it means. I really don't see any value in the arguement against using it.
Then you say we shouldn't even us IP because there's other things in the world that use the same abbreviation. Give me a break! Just like anything else in ANY language, it's all about context. When you say "Are the computers communicating over IP?" I think it's pretty damned obvious you don't mean "Are the computers communicating over Intellectual Property?"
Some folks really like to harp on little insignificant things, especially language nuances. It's usually some geek trying to push their ideals about something - like telling everyone they are stupid if they don't say IPv4.
The C64 is a computer system with thousands and thousands of programs and games. CB64 itself has over 16,000 games in it's library.
With this in mind, yes, we really need an emulator that's perfect. There's a ton of C64 hackers out there, and if the emulator wasn't 100% perfect it just wouldn't be useful. Because there's so much software for it and it was developed for for so long people have used every trick in the book to get it to do things.
But, when it comes to game systems the story is often different. Most console emulators have this objective: To give you the ability to play the games. Since no game console has nearly as much software as the C64 nor the same type of user base, getting the games to run "almost perfectly" is certainly good enough.
So there's really different goals there. I'm sure most emulator developers would LIKE their software to be perfect, but if it's not necessary to get that last 4% of perfection out of the thing then nobody will bother - it plays the games.
Personally I think the SNES emulators are great. They let me play the games I used to like a lot, and they look fantastic. This is what I think console emulating is about - bringing you back to the games you used to love, not the system.
I like the Playstation controllers too. I've always liked them. They're nice and small, and the buttons are all easily accessable. The newer ones with the thumb-sticks are good too - they put them in a good spot and didn't destroy the feel of the thing.
Whenever I see someone posting as AC, I know they're full of shit. And all the lame ass counter strike kids throw around "newb" so much, why would you want to join the ranks of them?
Well, fortunately Tempest 2000 runs pretty well in Project Tempest - after all, it was made specifically to run that game. It's not perfect though, that's for certian.
Not to mention, the Jaguar controllers had all those buttons and stuff, so it's difficult to play any Jaguar games without learning all the keymaps first. Good thing Tempest doesn't use too many.
I never once played the 3DO. I'm not aware of any 3DO emulators, but I've never once looked for one either. Maybe you'll find one of them super deals on eBay with lots of games with the system or something some day.
Totally - I've played a handful of PSX games and they look great! I usually use Gravis Gamepad Pro's to play - the things are identical to the old PSX controller. It's great!
ePSX is a really good emulator.
Even older Nintendo, Genesis and SNES games can look better with the different filtering techniques that they can use.
No, you know what *I* think is funny? The fact that you've turned to personal insults to back up your weak ass arguement - the true sign of an internet newbie.
Slashdot Mirror
While I enjoy a good debate, you summed up your argument right here:
"This might come as a surprise, but most people are either unwilling to put in the time to get to level 50 to go on a raid, or simply don't have the time. Eh, it is all well and good for games to exist to for the crack addicts to mindlessly get their fill, but the rest of the world wouldn't mind a game either."
You're dead wrong about most people being unwilling to spend the time to level up. I played EQ for well over a year before I became level 60, when 60 was the cap. I could have don it a lot faster, but I played at my own pace and I had a hell of a lot of fun doing it. There were level 60 people in the game when I started the game and it didn't bother me one bit where you seem to bothered by that quite a bit.
And who's to say MMORPG's *should* be for everyone? Why does everything have to work for everyone all the time? The current genre of these games is loosely based on Dungeons and Dragons, and D&D was about levels too.
You keep saying that just because there are levels, it's "mindless" and there's nothing further from the truth in EQ. While some people prefer the power-level route where they sit in a corner an exp all day long, it's not something you have to do to advance in the game. Simply by exploring the world, adventuring deep into dungeons, etc - you will level up. This has been greatly enhanced in EQ2.
What you seem to want is a game where you don't have to work at it to play. You want everyone to be equal at any time no matter what. This might work in some smaller social environments (or in a game like There) but when you look at the huge range of players in a typical MMORPG it becomes increasingly more difficult. Seasoned players want to play with other seasoned players, not "screw up the encounter" newbies. An area for high level characters is great for high level characters because newbies can't wreck your fun. The list is endless with problems associated with "everyone can do 100% of the content 100% of the time."
Plus, where does the feeling of progression fit into your rules? People want to feel like they've progressed in the game, that their efforts and skills have allowed them access to content in the game that the mere newbie cannot. I don't see anything wrong with this.
"You mean, the game that exists when you are no longer grinding is the best part of the game? The part of the game where it is not levels, but strategy and tactics? Hell, you describe a system where you don't need levels that is fun, and this is based off a game that wasn't balanced to be level less to begin with! And the reason why not everyone can enjoy this?"
It is the best part of the game, IMO indeed. But that doesn't mean that the stuff below the top level is NOT fun. You harp on the leveling thing but there's a shit load of fun to be had at the lower levels. Just because you need to work at the game more before the "uber high end" encounters are available to you doesn't mean that there's not an extremely entertaining game to play in the meantime.
And no, it's not level-less. There's sub-skills that help a lot in Raid encounters. There's equipment and other magical items that also help a lot. Not to mention, your guild must work to progress further into the game by means of defeating various boss monsters. To you, these are obviously just more levels and you hate levels so much you probably don't celebrate your own birthday.
"The solution to this? Build a game where the content varies. When someone first starts in a game with no levels, they might very well go and stomp rats or what not to get the hang of things. A year later, with the same character and the only difference being actual player skills, they might go with a group of friends to stomp dragons."
I hightly doubt any player would actually PLAY a game like that for a year. But if they did, they would still be swarmed by newbies screwing up their encounters, lying abo
Your post has some random thoughts on how to make a game "without levels" - we can all dream of the impossible just like him.
The thing is, a lot of that stuff *IS* in these games. I consider leveling is a means to access game content. And you're right, it's not exactly fun, but I do see it as a necessary evil.
What does he suggest people do to "climb the social ladder" without some sort of level system? How does he propose that people prepare for battle and actually perform well without leveling or raising skill levels?
What's the difference between aquiring better armor or aquiring better spells through leveling? Both require you to kill monsters or do quests.
How do you become a master artisin without some sort of tracking system for your progress?
How are mages supposed to grow from apprentices to masters? Through using spells, right? How many spells do you need to cast, how many mob encounters do you need to defeat? Even if it were this amazing feat of logic and skill like you'd like to see? Wait, wouldn't that be like leveling?
You can hide it all you want, but there's NO way to have a D&D type RPG without leveling whether you call it that or not. You can't give every skill to every newbie and expect to have any sort of longevity. I know I'd get sick of it real quick.
Most of the people that bitch about leveling never made it to "the end." In EverQuest, the "end" was when you reached the last level and you joined a raiding guild. Raiding *IS* EverQuest, in my opinion. It takes a shit load of practice, skills, and strategy to defeat encounters in EQ. Every boss mob in Everquest is different (okay, almost every boss mob.) Luclin was a great expansion - you had to learn how to endure long battles when crazy spells were being shot at you, you had to learn how to control hordes of mobs, etc.
PoP introduced boss mobs that could hit you so hard it was unbelievable. But working as a team, coordinating the attack, every boss in PoP is defeatable.
If you put 72 newbies - even if they are nicely equipped ebays - in a raid in Everquest, no amount of practice would teach them to kill that mob. Through the level grinding of EQ, you've learned every in and out of your player class, your abilities, and your weaknesses. You've spent a long time with the character, and when it comes to a big raid, you know what you can offer. You know the game mechanics. That only comes with experience.
You can bash the leveling all you want, but there's a reason it's there, and it's not just to slow you down - it's to prepare you for what's ahead.
And, as a foot-note, all that social interacting stuff is great, but sometimes people just want to play the game, not engage in a government and deal with people on that level. We do that in our real lives all day long. And, most of the MMORPG's now a days include a lot of what you've mentioned already anyways.
God damned, someone that actually makes sense.
I prepared a response, but decided to post it to the parent post instead. Read it there if you would like.
Multiplayer in Halo is okay. I've played many 16 player games - and I've been fortunate to sit at the 63" TV for a lot of it.
It's fun, for sure. But it's not more fun then UT. Bombing run is awesome.
It's a different kind of Multiplayer - you have two or more friends sitting next to each other or near each other (with multiple xboxes) and there's no computer problems, TCP/IP problems, lockups, etc..
In a "lan party" you have all these computers that take a long time to set up, there's always at least one dude with technical problems, etc.
Besides the inherent ease of setup, I still don't see how it's any better then any other game. It's a good game, there's no doubt about that, but that's all it is - good.
You only have to buy 1100 of them to get a discount.
I'm so suck of Furor and his cronies making so much noise that people believe their propaghanda.
Just because some of the Fires of Heavon people are WoW fanboys, doesn't mean they represent the majority of EQ players. Being still fairly involved with many of the end game players of my EQ server, I think it's quite the contrary. Most players are going to give it a shot. Some people will like it, some won't, and some will be retards that say anything SoE does is junk.
Personally, I'm glad to not have a Furor around EQ2. FoH cares about one thing and they always have: FoH. Ohh, he goes on with some sob stories about some level 35 paladin that can't get a group or whatever BS he's spreading at the moment, but everything they've bitched about in the past and present has been about their own personal desires, not the needs of the majority of the EQ player base, or even the majority of the high-end EQ player base. Furor would like people to believe he's "for the players" but he's always been "for the players of my guild."
You give it 6 months after game release. He'll be bitching about WoW in the same way.
Ohh, but it's not true.
While there's the standard exp bar in EQ2, you don't get experience like you do in EQ.
In EQ, you basically sit in a corner, and wait for the tank to pull a mob, you kill it, repeat. Kill mobs over and over and over and over.
EQ2 on the other hand has two ways to get experience.
One, obviously, is killing monsters. But it's not the same. EQ2 mobs won't chase you forever, a tank can't pull everything to the group. If you run from a mob too long you also break the encounter, so no exp can be gained. What ends up happening is the group is forced to actually explore zones, move in, go deep. A lot of people aren't comfortable with it; they like the EQ style of very easy (but very long and boring) exp. I like dungeon crawls, and EQ2 really pushes you into doing them. Respawn is pretty quick and you gotta keep moving. It's actually pretty fun, and all the experience zones I've been to have a bunch of little side things, quests, NPC's, etc, spread througout the zone.
The second way to get exp is to finish quests. While there's physical rewards such as money and items, exp is a big part. Quests are also colored according to level - the more difficult the quest the more experience you get.
Even at level 25, which is half-way to the end, experience wasn't too slow. If you ONLY did quests, or ONLY did mob killing, it would be slower. But the game is designed to allow you to do both things at the same time, so it's really not the same grind you're used to in EQ.
Also, "con" levels are pretty restrictive. At level 22, a level 18 mob is a "no exp" mob. I'm sure the gap widens in the higher levels, but probably not too much. This promotes further exploration into the game, instead of hanging around to get the easy exp.
I won't say there's NO level grinding, but it's a lot smoother. And I'm not exactly sure what game could exist without some sort of leveling system. Obviously, everyone can't start out at "Master" levels so I really don't see an alternative. And, you want to accomplish something when you play, and that means enhancing your character in the game, while doing quests and having fun with some acquaintences.
There's a few other small things in EQ2 that tend to help out the casual players as well, but I'm not going to get into all of it right here.
Without "leveling" in some way or form, the game becomes a very pretty chat room.
About your comment about people being obsessive and compulsive, well, unfortunately I don't see any way around that besides limiting play time. There's always going to be the kids that play any game for 14 hours a day. That's a given. But they don't really affect me, I play at my own pace - they can do whatever they want and I don't obsess about THEM.
EQ2 is NOT perfect and there's a ton of stuff that annoys me. But there will be those elements in every game, so you just have to decide what's really important in a game for you.
I was in EQ2 Beta, and I've been in WoW beta for.. forever it seems.
WoW is a much more polished game. Six months ago, WoW was more stable, playable, and finished then EQ2 was at the end of the beta this past Friday.
However, I just couldn't get into WoW. I tried. I've played for many long nights and I still find the game lacking. Some of it has to do with the graphics; the towns are too cookie-cutter, the NPC's are fairly generic, and the overall graphics engine just doesn't come close to EQ2. Of course, it doesn't crash as much as EQ2, and it runs much better - EQ2 looks great but the game engine is slow.
I roamed around. I found some quests and did them. I grouped with some people, explored around. Killed a few more mobs. Killed a few more.
With EQ2 you're immediately confronted with small quests, things to do, and places to see. The game puts you on the track from the beginning. In WoW, you'd dumped off in town and that's that. Both approaches have merit, but the EQ2 approach of pulling you into the game from the start seems more immersive.
EQ2 is very similar to EQ. Don't let anyone try to say otherwise. It's really almost exactly the same when it comes to a LOT of things. Group dynamics are identical, the classes are the same although there's this illusion that they are very different from EQ. But this doesn't signify a bad thing - EQ2 expands on EQ'2 successful grouping tactics and makes each class more valuable to the group then they were before with new special abilities, buffs, and offensive capabilities.
Unfortunately, I do believe they spent too much time trying to avoid all the problems in EQ. While I've always thought that Complete Heal was a mistake and I'm glad to see it gone, but they've really gone far and wide to stop twinking, muling, power leveling, and buffing non-grouped players. Fortunately though it doesn't get too much in the way of normal gameplay, but it is there.
Then there's the age group thing. WoW has and will attract a much younger crowd. If you like that, then it's perfect for you. But if you like an older crowd, you'll probably find it in EQ2. There's a ton of folks that have played EQ for years, and that generally means they've grown up a bit. The average EQ player is in the mid-20's or older. The biggest initial group of people to play EQ2 will be many of these same players. This isn't to say that there's not a fair share of 13 year old kiddies in EQ, but from what I've seen it's a lot less then WoW.
EQ2 isn't ready for release, but they will release it anyways. It's not like $50 is a huge investment, and neither is the monthly fee for a few months to decide whether you wish to continue to play it or not. It will be "ready" enough to play the game and do 95% of the things there is to do. I don't like it, but it's the way things go with computer games sometimes. You have a choice of whether you want to play now, or in four months when many of the bugs will be fixed.
We've all spent a lot more then that on completely stupid crap, so I don't see why one can't try both games and decide which they like more for themselves.
Yea, I think you're right.
I mean, the first time I played UT online I couldn't believe it. It was amazingly fun. It was more then that, it was revolutionary.
It was so easy to join games, download new maps automatically, and play for hours on end. In the early times, there were no aimbots, no cheating. Pure online fun at it's greatest.
I'll always have a soft spot for Unreal. I enjoyed the original Unreal immensely, it was a really awesome game with amazing graphics for the time. UT was a perfect online game.
So I guess the same thing is happening with Halo, and since it's a console game it has hit a very large audience.
Don't get me wrong, it's a fun game. But I don't see anything masterful about it, except the fact that you don't need a $1500 computer to play it.
And I like to aim with a mouse dammit! =)
I've been playing FPS's since Wolf3D. And I still just don't see the big hype.
However, I do see lots of value in Co-operative play that I keep hoping more and more to see in more FPS's. Games like Far Cry, Doom 3, and other new titles could have been a blast in co-op mode.
I am not a big fan of Deathmatch.
So if Co-op play is the big thing, well, I dunno, it's not enough to "blow my mind" like some of the kids are saying.
While Halo was mildly entertaining for a little while, I've found many FPS games to be really good and lots of fun since Halo.
I mean, the game was okay and everything, but I'm still not sure what all the hype is about. It doesn't seem any different from any other FPS, and I've played the whole game. Just your normal Progress Quest stuff, with some decent graphics. Unfortunately, putting the game on the Xbox first really limits you to the capabilities of that machine - new games out now are significantly more advanced then what the Xbox can do for you.
I know a lot of Halo geeks are probably angry at my post but maybe instead of just bitching at me, someone could tell me perhaps what I've missed that makes the game into the incredible fantastic "mind blowing" game that it's claimed to be.
You keep telling me that I don't believe in punishment, or I don't understand it.
Just because I don't fucking agree with you that nine years is perfectly acceptable doesn't mean I don't understand. God damned, I'm glad I don't work with you.
You are making this sound like putting this one guy in prison will stop all spam. It won't. And throughout all of recorded history, setting "examples" of people has never made any significant impact on the mentality of someone doing something ethically wrong in the first place. One year, nine years, for someone that doesn't think he's ever going to get caught, what's the difference? Has capital punishment put a stop to or even slowed down murder at all?
And don't even start to think that I don't deal with spam on a corporate level. I'm the messaging administrator for a large insurance company. We recieve over 10,000 messages an hour during prime time work hours (it tapers down slightly off USA hours but we are a global company) and 75 - 85% of it is spam for the most part. On a daily basis, I have been spending at least 4 hours a day trying to get the spam system working better, evaluating new spam solutions, and dealing with false-positives. I hate it. This is not what I want to be doing as a messaging engineer.
And even after dealing with nonsense every day, I still don't think we should lock someone up for almost a decade, especially when it's not going to do a damned thing to stop it.
You can say I don't understand the problem, or I don't understand punishment. Saying so doesn't make it so, and you'll never convince me that sending out spam messages should get you a decade in prison, minimum or not - and you don't know me well enough to pass judgement on whether or not I understand the situation or not.
But since we're passing judgement, I think you're a hardass prick that thinks your problems are greater then the rest of the world. You are inconvenienced at work for a few hours and you want someone to burn at the stake for it. I think there's more important things in the world to worry about putting people in jail for - putting this guy in jail will just cost us more money in the form of taxes to keep him there.
Surely that was contracted out to someone else to make, just like the EQ2 movie.
Neither of them represent the games they are trying to sell, either. Not even close.
Maybe one of these days they'll make a CG movie on the D&D type genre though - it could be good. The trailers for these games always leave you wanting to see more - but then I guess that's the point; "for more, play the game!!"
It's pretty obvious. The license doesn't do much, but it DOES say:
"Microsoft, at its option, may list You as a licensee on a website or in other public communications."
So in other words, they will put out a newsletter at some point that looks a something like this:
"Microsoft customers see value in Intellectual Property rights, unlike those Communist Linux Bastards. The Microsoft Protocol Bullshit License has been signed by JoeBobCompany because they know that being protected is important in these times of questionable patent and license issues that our legal department is causing."
"I do remember a lot of self-absorbed whining and groupthink, though."
And you're different?
While stupid people are a constant, I don't think that web logs are evil. And I've read some interesting thoughts on peoples' web logs.
Just because YOU and YOUR group whine about web logs all day, doesn't mean they are bad, and what would you rather happen? Everyone just stay silent all the time to make you happy?
I mean, since when has any sort of people tracking system turned out to be good for the people being tracked?
Middle managers and company pressure generally means that any such thing will be used for bad, not good. And it will probably mean that you'll not only have this ridiculous thing called "credit" but also "credibility" with stores when it comes to purchasing and it will be completely up to them to decide if you are a good person or not.
Look. The term "TCP/IP" is used to signify the TCP/IP suite as someone has already pointed out. This makes 95% of your post meaningless.
You're trying to say that all software, from the dawn of TCP/IP, is incorrect and they don't know what they're talking about even though they wrote the stuff?
I think *most* people that are using the term TCP/IP know what it means. I really don't see any value in the arguement against using it.
Then you say we shouldn't even us IP because there's other things in the world that use the same abbreviation. Give me a break! Just like anything else in ANY language, it's all about context. When you say "Are the computers communicating over IP?" I think it's pretty damned obvious you don't mean "Are the computers communicating over Intellectual Property?"
Some folks really like to harp on little insignificant things, especially language nuances. It's usually some geek trying to push their ideals about something - like telling everyone they are stupid if they don't say IPv4.
We have to look at why these emulators are made.
The C64 is a computer system with thousands and thousands of programs and games. CB64 itself has over 16,000 games in it's library.
With this in mind, yes, we really need an emulator that's perfect. There's a ton of C64 hackers out there, and if the emulator wasn't 100% perfect it just wouldn't be useful. Because there's so much software for it and it was developed for for so long people have used every trick in the book to get it to do things.
But, when it comes to game systems the story is often different. Most console emulators have this objective: To give you the ability to play the games. Since no game console has nearly as much software as the C64 nor the same type of user base, getting the games to run "almost perfectly" is certainly good enough.
So there's really different goals there. I'm sure most emulator developers would LIKE their software to be perfect, but if it's not necessary to get that last 4% of perfection out of the thing then nobody will bother - it plays the games.
Personally I think the SNES emulators are great. They let me play the games I used to like a lot, and they look fantastic. This is what I think console emulating is about - bringing you back to the games you used to love, not the system.
I like the Playstation controllers too. I've always liked them. They're nice and small, and the buttons are all easily accessable. The newer ones with the thumb-sticks are good too - they put them in a good spot and didn't destroy the feel of the thing.
Whenever I see someone posting as AC, I know they're full of shit. And all the lame ass counter strike kids throw around "newb" so much, why would you want to join the ranks of them?
Fuckin' noob.
Well, fortunately Tempest 2000 runs pretty well in Project Tempest - after all, it was made specifically to run that game. It's not perfect though, that's for certian.
Not to mention, the Jaguar controllers had all those buttons and stuff, so it's difficult to play any Jaguar games without learning all the keymaps first. Good thing Tempest doesn't use too many.
I never once played the 3DO. I'm not aware of any 3DO emulators, but I've never once looked for one either. Maybe you'll find one of them super deals on eBay with lots of games with the system or something some day.
I didn't say Slashdot newbie, I said Internet.
I think newbie is a state of mind.
Totally - I've played a handful of PSX games and they look great! I usually use Gravis Gamepad Pro's to play - the things are identical to the old PSX controller. It's great!
ePSX is a really good emulator.
Even older Nintendo, Genesis and SNES games can look better with the different filtering techniques that they can use.
That is a good point.
There will definately be convertors available for long a long time, though.
But like I said, given enough time, emulators will be the only way to really preserve these games.
No, you know what *I* think is funny? The fact that you've turned to personal insults to back up your weak ass arguement - the true sign of an internet newbie.
Good luck in your future endeavors.