What about those of us who choose to not join an endgame guild, usually comprised of 50+ of the least nice folks around; kids with nothing better to do (or so they think) others who aren't socially comfortable or have just moved to a new location, retired, disabled, sure there are nice people in the "addicted" category, but it's been my experience that the nicer folks are the more casual "I have a life" players.
Okay... but I WANT to see the neato-geewhiz-bang-coolie-WOW!! stuff that the developers reserve for endgame content... reserve it for endgame content to keep the max level players interested and from moving on.
What about people like me, and there are many of us? We are foreclosed from accessing the fun stuff. There is no option for us to access that content that THAT isn't fair. This is the main gripe I have with WoW -- be a casual player? Be locked out of all the "coolest" content.
I won't be an addict, I won't spend my time on a minimum of 4-5 4+ hour raids a week. I won't. But that also means I don't get to see the cool stuff; and *that* isn't fair. The game is in effect telling me that if I want to really enjoy what it has to offer, I have to give up my life; and that is a choice that no game should EVER force a person to even consider -- nevermind make.
From my experiance in a university computer science department the vast majority of the women that are in the department (suprisingly there are actually in the double digits) are excellent at theory but absolutly have no idea how to write code. They usually pass classes that require coding by suducing one of the lonely male students into doing it for them.
In contrast there are three or four females that are excellent coders. It's probably safe to say that each person has a differant way of thinking about things which may allow him/her to work problems more/less sucessfully than others.
I'm not surprised you posted as "anonymous coward" -- fear often has to masquerade. Do we first express surprise and doubt that you've been anywhere near a university with your poor spelling and written communication, or do we run with an outdated stereotype that computer people can't spell or use language properly?
Nearly everything you said was an outdated stereotype created by men (term loosely used) to ward off women from an area that they felt was theirs. Interestingly enough, you also insulted the men.
Look at this: They usually pass classes that require coding by suducing one of the lonely male students into doing it for them.
The "vast majority" of women pass classes this way. You are acknowledging that there are a consider number (enough to merit vast, in any case) but then suggesting that women use their sexuality to obtain a decent grade -- and that the men are poor suckers who can't laid without some "hot" chick giving some in order to get her work done.
This post, while extraordinarily offensive, says so much more about you than it does about your purported experience in a university. A guy who can't even spell the word "seduce"; you've given away how badly you wish your stereotype would come true for you.
In point of fact? Most of the tech "lonely geek" guys that you talk about aren't either. It's not the 80s. Tech "Geeks" are generally hot guys, and as such aren't threatened by their female counterparts. The ones who are threatened? Guys who are insecure and therefore feel the need to belittle others in order to maintain their position on top of the heap.
Oh.. and if you are are as careful in writing code as you are in language, where code is far less forgiving of errors, you'll end up without even the comfort of a job to allow you to continue in a belief system more outdated than an 8088.
--
The women are coming to "suduce" and take away male jobs -- run away, ran away quickly!
The majority of computer-users I know aren't programmers or software specialists; they are intelligent people who use their computers a great deal - gaming, downloading items of interest (we won't go into legality or illegality - some of what they download is, some isn't) using IRC, running home-based businesses, applications relevant to scholastic use, and so forth.
All of them, including myself, consider their computer to be an indispensable part of their lives and find it upsetting, even traumatic -- I'm not exaggerating -- when the machine crashes or they get the BSOD, or any of the VERY numerous problems associated with PCs and Microsoft products.
These are the people who are moderate to heavy users, but *aren't* sufficiently skilled to fix whatever the problem du jour is. And this is where things get interesting with respect to the Mac.
A very close family member who IS a software engineer has said to me on more than one occasion after fixing the aforementioned problem of the day; "you should get a Mac next time" and "You really are a Mac user at heart, you want things to just work and that isn't going to happen with a PC running windows."
And so, after 15 years of owning PCs I am very seriously considering switching when this machine becomes obsolete or something gives out. I expect that to be within the next 12-18 months and yes, I'm saving money for a Mac. I've had concerns about software being available, but more and more, I see that the programs I run are also available for the Mac.
With that last hurdle taken away, why WOULDN'T I, and people like me, switch?
The answer is, we will.
You see, if you can give people a genuinely better alternative that *also* allows them to feel good about their purchase, they will go with that alternative. Most of us don't want to support a monopoly and are disgusted with Microsoft's business practices.
Until lately, however, switching to a Mac hasn't really been a viable option for those of us who have used PCs for many years. Now that this is changing, you'll find more and more PC users happy to switch over when upgrade time come around.
A girlfriend years ago was enthralled by fantasy fiction and I read a bit of her collection. I'm sure I've been exposed to Fantasy work on other occasions.
You know, you have a turn of phrase every so often that I know you know is intentional -- your use of "enthralled" has all the negative connotations associated with that word.
Your feelings about "Fantasy" in general can be summed up in how you expressed that sentence. I know that you know exactly what I mean. A disclaimer would be disingenuous. Having personal dislike -- or even contempt -- for a genre doesn't mean that one can fairly bash it at will; since we're here, the example I'll give is moderating or meta-moderating. You may not agree with something, but you can't condemn it on that basis.
Here's more: some kid's mom might not be able to tell the difference between Black Sabbath and Nirvana, while maybe the kid thinks they are polar opposites of each other - Kurt Cobain and Tony Iommi the same? That's crazy-talk mom! At the end of the day, both bands bash drums, smack a bass, turn up the fuzzy guitar and moan about their problems.
Nirvana and Black Sabbath aren't even the type of music -- yet because you (apparently) don't like them -- and I say that because of description -- they are "the same" because they both "bash drums", "smack" a bass, and "moan" about their problems.
Could you possibly use more pejorative and insulting terminology to describe the music? Any music using drums arguably has someone "bashing drums" -- using base can always be described, if one wants, as "smacking" a bass, and I challenge you to find a genre of music in which problems of some kind AREN'T sung about -- but you describe it as "moan" about their problems.
By your definition any music that doesn't use a classical symphony orchestra is indistinguishable one from the other. No accoustic guitar? Then it's the usual garbage.. but wait, even without "drum bashing" and "base smacking" the song may *still* be "moaning" about problems. Uh oh. I guess that means it's in the bin with the rest of the junk.
All music (with words) is about a writer's feelings; music IS about the human condition; the problems we face; whether it's love or money or sex or anything you think of -- no one would be MOVED to create music (or poetry or literature) without "problems" -- so in suppose that means ALL of that; poetry, literature, all art -- falls into the bin of "moaning about their problems." See, I can extrapolate also, and I do so more accurately since you have laid down your parameters. If it "moans" (your pejorative choice of descriptor) about "problems" -- then it is not distinguishable "at the end of the day" one from the other. You don't need to smash and bash drums and base, or is just musick that you don't feel, and as such dismiss?
It seems you enjoy sampling a bit of something, coming to a conclusion, and then using that to extrapolate out to EVERYTHING else even peripherally related.
All music using drums and base IS THE SAME -- (no matter how wildly different it really is, but hey, it's your view of things) and "at the end of the day" since it's "all the same" it can't be good. Your girlfriend was "enthralled" by something you viewed from a distance with distaste; and all games of a genre are the same because they have some similar imagery.
How the devil do you confuse "thatched roofs" with THE SAME PLOT? Yes, a magic user in a game will often have access to a hat with a point, although I can say that in WoW, for example, such hats are rarely seen and are more camp than anything else -- you might have looked a bit further. Did you perhaps check the "armor" sets for the different classes? Not a pointy hat in sight.
I'm not familiar with the "Warhammer".jpg you linked -- but saying that because in a game somewhere (your WoW links, for example) there are dwarves, and that the dwarves in question might have hammers -- to say what you did, and I ha
Beaverfever quoted:
"fantasy is very well defined in our minds"
And said the following:
Isn't this phrase a bit contradictory? Shouldn't this be setting of warning alarms in what is supposed to be a creative industry? Maybe the problem isn't sci-fi vs fantasy, maybe it's stuck-in-a-safe-rut vs being-creative-and-coming-up-with-new-ideas?
Maybe we need a new name for what are now popular yet highly generic fictional "fantasy" worlds, such as "Olde Tyme Wizard's Worlde" so that "fantasy" can go on being imaginative. The whole fantasy genre as it stands is terribly predictable, after all. Sci-fi isn't doing much better.
I disagree for several reasons; it isn't the safe vs. creative issue that is cited. For the large corporations creating the games, it comes down to market research and dollars. Don't think for a minute that they would hesitate to spend millions upon millions to craft new ideas if their research indicated that those ideas would be viable and make them money.
People raised on Tolkien and other venerable masters of Fantasy, go on to play fantasy based games, and to watch fantasy based anime, and read fantasy based Manga, comics and contemporary novels. This creates a *tremendous* well from which to draw.
Diablo isn't WoW isn't FFXI and so forth -- they aren't at all similar; your comment that fantasy constitutes nothing more than "Olde Tyme Wizard's Worlde" is incorrect at best, slightly flamish at worst.
In what way do you find the aforementioned dissimiliar games "terribly predictable"? These games are very different one from the other, and hardly fit the "Ye Olde Wizarde" paradigm.
If you feel that you have an idea for a great scifi game that will *also* be attractive to tens of millions - or even several million - people, you'll get an eager reception by a gaming company; that is, if you can create the game and make it both workable and appealing.
Bear in mind also the audience for these games, and the changing nature thereof; more women, girls, teens of both genders, retired people, couples playing together of all ages, disabled people, people who have moved to a new area and don't anyone, and of course folks who are socially ill-at-ease who use the game as a means of social interaction/bolstering confidence -- the vast majority read fantasy, have a rich fantasy background, and immediately feel comfortable enough to try something very new to them.
First time MMO players with a fantasy background (through literature, manga, anime, contemporary novels, graphic novels, etc.) who would be hesitant to try something utterly alien, can jump into a fantasy based MMO and have enough things resonant with a degree of familiarity -- not predictability, the two are not the same -- such as to create enough confidence to give it a try.
Fantasy in all its forms permeates the society to a degree sci-fi doesn't. Increasing skill at flying in outer space (simplistic, conceded, but it was an example cited in a comment) isn't going to hold the interest of most MMO gamers. Fantasy games with all the rich interaction between people, guilds, races, groups -- in a storyline that is constantly changing is attractive to many. A sci-fi based game that could supply all of that would take a nice chunk of the market, given the number of sci-fi afficionados.
A final note with respect to myself - I had never played an MMO; I had mudded, but hadn't bothered with MMOs. The monthly charge was a turnoff, and they seemed to aimed at an audience that wasn't me. I did play the PS2.hack games though -- for those unfamiliar, they simulate an MMO.. it's kind of trippy; you are a single player playing a game that thinks it's an MMO. I enjoyed it a great deal, although opinions on the game vary from "fantastic" to "Ugh";)
But it was the fantasy based.hack series that made me consider trying an MMO. One lead to the other; and when
A few people have commented on the "but it has to be scientifically feasable" aspect; I won't go into that, but clearly that is one very large factor.
Going beyond that, there is a HUGE backlog of anime from which the fantasy MMO can draw. Anime and literature.
Look at WoW -- whether you like the game or not is irrelevant, we are solely looking at numbers and revenue -- it is the most popular MMO ever, even with some serious problems in the game that have been explored in other discussions.
Why then? Well, it has a great deal of Tolkien in it; and those of us who enjoy fantasy have typically been weened on the "bible" of all fantasy; Tolkien's LOTR trilogy. (As an aside, it was originally meant as one book, a bit of trivia for those who are interested).
Drawing on old school fantasy literature, particularly material as venerated as Tolkien's, will lend an appeal that may not be strictly warranted by the game itself.
Going beyond Tolkien are the legions of fantasy writers and anime and manga that provide rich sources of inspiration for the fantasy based MMO.
While there are undoubtedly many excellent sci-fi novels; a more than sizeable percentage of them tend to focus on the "battleship/laserbeams/heroic men in space" theme.
That sort of material isn't as easily translated to MMOs successfully, neither is it as readily useable as source material; you have to stretch further to come up with appealing concepts. Moreover, even if a concept is good, the sci-fi base isn't as appealing to as wide an audience as fantasy based MMOs.
Consider the large influx of women into WoW -- College women, teen girls, and homemakers often with small children who can log on and enjoy the light fantasy aspect where a more serious sci-fi atmosphere wouldn't be nearly as appealing.
Too often girls and women are forgotten as consumers of these games; more and more they are becoming the consumers. In addition there is a new group playing; retirees, often in couples. These people also seem to prefer fantasy-based games.
When you consider all of these factors and who the gaming population is, and is becoming, sci-fi MMOs would have to come up with something extraordinary *and* accessible if it is to attract the aforementioned groups -- in addition to the regular target audience (teen to lower 20's males) who have grown up on fantasy, anime, and fantasy based console games.
How do you define decent? I've played with Tanks wearing the "pretty decent" gear you speak of -- and they are not exactly the best, great skills notwithstanding.
Even in the regular instances, the non-endgame places -- You want to tank scholo? You need a decent weapon. A weapon you got from a quest won't do it.
Crafted? Okay. Try the Annihilator. The mats for most GOOD crafted items are INSANE. Check out the mats for the Annihilator... it's a rare, not even an epic, bear that in mind.
You said something about "pretty cheap crafted items" -- does that look cheap to you?
Similar mats for all decent high level crafted weapons and armor.
Rare plate of good quality -- 700g a piece. And if you want an epic crafted item? Titanic leggings perhaps? Lionheart Helm? You are in the THOUSANDS.
No, sorry, crafted items are not cheap. Not not not not... not at the higher levels, not for 60s, and a CASUAL level sixty player... how do you propose that they come up with the mats for the modest Annihilator? It's just a basic rare tank weapon. Insanely expensive..
Or do Casual Players not need anything above greens? I disagree, I think that you need to have at least good blues; sure if you're a sixty who tanks folks through Gnomer or the mines or similar instances, green to your hearts content (better to even have a swap out set of less expensive gear for when you aren't doing heavy duty stuff)... but most casual players WANT to do the instances.
And since WoW puts SO MUCH of their effort into the Endgame instances, missing out on those is missing out on the "amazing" stuff.. on the exciting, visually stunning gameplay. But YOU CAN'T GO if you don't have decent gear -- an endgame guild won't take you.
So, casual players should stay in green, not do instances, and never do endgame?
No, I think not.
Nor do I endorse in any way cheating.
But your point of view, while ranked insightful, is a touch simplistic, I'm afraid to say..
I dearly wish it weren't, though. I do. I wish we didn't have to spend hours mining and skinning and collecting herbs and so forth for a chance to get enough money to get that extra Fire Resist that would allow one to go to MC and BWL. And so forth.
Or even for a half way decent crafted weapon to tank regular instances.
What I've said here pertains to warrior class; Druids have it easier once they find a decent staff or get that Hammer of the Grand Crusader... all magical classes do. But dps and tanks rely on gear, and that is what there is, quest reward quality stuff just won't do unless you are talking about the rare quests that do give something good, such as the Tirion Fordring quest chain.
I wish that it was as easy as you suggest it is, I truly do.
But I don't WANT to spent hours and hours in the auction house. The point of the game is to PLAY.. to quest, to have fun, to be social with people whose company you enjoy, to kill things, to learn how best to use your character -- if you're a warrior, it's not a simply "duh, kill" thing, it's an art to learn how to tank well.
If you're a druid (my main - I have a warrior alt, as well as a hunter) then it IS an art to learn how to time heals such that you get the most from your mana and don't have to spend time farming herbs (or worse, buying them) to make mana potions to keep your party alive.
Learning which heals, timing them well, and doing it under pressure in a high level instance takes more than a few days or even weeks.
So, no, I DON'T want to be in the auction house for hours buying and trading -- and you know, it's made very easy by the addon "auctioneer" which can be found at auctioneeraddon.com -- see, there's another free one for you.
But I DON'T want to do that. I know people who spent have their gaming life IN IF (IronForge, where the Auction House is, it's unfortunate that people don't use the neutral AH in Gadget, there is so much potential there and it's all lost, used mostly for transferring gold across Horde/Alliance lines)
There are folks you always see in the AH and they always have the best gear. Yes, I'd LOVE to have a Glowing Brightwood Staff. It makes me a bit sad to know I'll never have one since I will never have 1200 gold (it varies, but that's the usual price on Azjol-Nerub, although you *can* get it for a mere 800 if you're lucky. Gee. 800 gold)
Sorry, but I never have more than 100 at any given time. Yes, I help newbies out. Yes, I help friends out. But more to the point, I don't want to "work" the system. I'm there to play, not to work. If I enjoyed that sort of thing my chosen profession would be the stock market.
It isn't.
Then there are those who do OUT of game work and get paid in game, one guy I ran into who really annoyed me -- he had received 1500 gold for work he'd done OUT of game -- i.e., he didn't work for it at all in the game, did nothing for it -- and his brother in law tossed him a Glowing Brightwood just for the fun of it because he was one of those extremely rare souls who found one (it's a random world drop, you get lucky and you get rich or you don't). This person gets to ride a epic mount, sport a Glowing Brightwood and whatever other epics aren't BoP -- since he doesn't do instances and can't get epics for himself, but he has the BEST gear money can buy on a level 49 character and that epic mount waiting for him at 60 -- but he's bored. OF COURSE HE'S BORED. He doesn't play the game.
Most of the people, no, almost ALL of the people sporting Glowing Brightwoods have paid for them. And where did they get 1200 gold? And their 800 gold epic mount? Gee -- I don't know. From the game? I don't think so. You could play six months, 12 hours a day - I mean playing, not skilling or farming) and never come near that sum. Does that make you a bad player?
No -- it doesn't. You probably have mostly nice blues (rare, not epics) and are a VERY skilled player. But you don't have epics or if you do, you might have one that you found or saved up for -- a Kang for example (hint: The EXECUTIONER'S CLEAVER is almost as good as a Kang but a fraction of the price and obtainable in the AH, even I could afford one -- throw and +7 damage on it and you're good to go)
While the reality that I won't have epics unless I play the game in a way I won't enjoy (or cheat and buy gold) kind of stinks, and I know I won't have epics unless someone gives me some or I get very lucky and play some endgame, it's okay because skill does compensate for slightly better gear.
There is also PvP gear -- and that gear is truly outstanding. And not that hard to get compared to similar gear that you have to work hard to get or buy.
As far as endgame? That's another issue entirely -- do you really
Slashdot Mirror
What about those of us who choose to not join an endgame guild, usually comprised of 50+ of the least nice folks around; kids with nothing better to do (or so they think) others who aren't socially comfortable or have just moved to a new location, retired, disabled, sure there are nice people in the "addicted" category, but it's been my experience that the nicer folks are the more casual "I have a life" players.
Okay... but I WANT to see the neato-geewhiz-bang-coolie-WOW!! stuff that the developers reserve for endgame content... reserve it for endgame content to keep the max level players interested and from moving on.
What about people like me, and there are many of us? We are foreclosed from accessing the fun stuff. There is no option for us to access that content that THAT isn't fair. This is the main gripe I have with WoW -- be a casual player? Be locked out of all the
"coolest" content.
I won't be an addict, I won't spend my time on a minimum of 4-5 4+ hour raids a week. I won't. But that also means I don't get to see the cool stuff; and *that* isn't fair. The game is in effect telling me that if I want to really enjoy what it has to offer, I have to give up my life; and that is a choice that no game should EVER force a person to even consider -- nevermind make.
I'm not surprised you posted as "anonymous coward" -- fear often has to masquerade. Do we first express surprise and doubt that you've been anywhere near a university with your poor spelling and written communication, or do we run with an outdated stereotype that computer people can't spell or use language properly?
Nearly everything you said was an outdated stereotype created by men (term loosely used) to ward off women from an area that they felt was theirs. Interestingly enough, you also insulted the men.
Look at this: They usually pass classes that require coding by suducing one of the lonely male students into doing it for them.
The "vast majority" of women pass classes this way. You are acknowledging that there are a consider number (enough to merit vast, in any case) but then suggesting that women use their sexuality to obtain a decent grade -- and that the men are poor suckers who can't laid without some "hot" chick giving some in order to get her work done.
This post, while extraordinarily offensive, says so much more about you than it does about your purported experience in a university. A guy who can't even spell the word "seduce"; you've given away how badly you wish your stereotype would come true for you.
In point of fact? Most of the tech "lonely geek" guys that you talk about aren't either. It's not the 80s. Tech "Geeks" are generally hot guys, and as such aren't threatened by their female counterparts. The ones who are threatened? Guys who are insecure and therefore feel the need to belittle others in order to maintain their position on top of the heap.
Oh.. and if you are are as careful in writing code as you are in language, where code is far less forgiving of errors, you'll end up without even the comfort of a job to allow you to continue in a belief system more outdated than an 8088.
-- The women are coming to "suduce" and take away male jobs -- run away, ran away quickly!
All of them, including myself, consider their computer to be an indispensable part of their lives and find it upsetting, even traumatic -- I'm not exaggerating -- when the machine crashes or they get the BSOD, or any of the VERY numerous problems associated with PCs and Microsoft products.
These are the people who are moderate to heavy users, but *aren't* sufficiently skilled to fix whatever the problem du jour is. And this is where things get interesting with respect to the Mac.
A very close family member who IS a software engineer has said to me on more than one occasion after fixing the aforementioned problem of the day; "you should get a Mac next time" and "You really are a Mac user at heart, you want things to just work and that isn't going to happen with a PC running windows."
And so, after 15 years of owning PCs I am very seriously considering switching when this machine becomes obsolete or something gives out. I expect that to be within the next 12-18 months and yes, I'm saving money for a Mac. I've had concerns about software being available, but more and more, I see that the programs I run are also available for the Mac.
With that last hurdle taken away, why WOULDN'T I, and people like me, switch?
The answer is, we will.
You see, if you can give people a genuinely better alternative that *also* allows them to feel good about their purchase, they will go with that alternative. Most of us don't want to support a monopoly and are disgusted with Microsoft's business practices.
Until lately, however, switching to a Mac hasn't really been a viable option for those of us who have used PCs for many years. Now that this is changing, you'll find more and more PC users happy to switch over when upgrade time come around.
You know, you have a turn of phrase every so often that I know you know is intentional -- your use of "enthralled" has all the negative connotations associated with that word.
Your feelings about "Fantasy" in general can be summed up in how you expressed that sentence. I know that you know exactly what I mean. A disclaimer would be disingenuous. Having personal dislike -- or even contempt -- for a genre doesn't mean that one can fairly bash it at will; since we're here, the example I'll give is moderating or meta-moderating. You may not agree with something, but you can't condemn it on that basis.
Here's more: some kid's mom might not be able to tell the difference between Black Sabbath and Nirvana, while maybe the kid thinks they are polar opposites of each other - Kurt Cobain and Tony Iommi the same? That's crazy-talk mom! At the end of the day, both bands bash drums, smack a bass, turn up the fuzzy guitar and moan about their problems.
Nirvana and Black Sabbath aren't even the type of music -- yet because you (apparently) don't like them -- and I say that because of description -- they are "the same" because they both "bash drums", "smack" a bass, and "moan" about their problems.
Could you possibly use more pejorative and insulting terminology to describe the music? Any music using drums arguably has someone "bashing drums" -- using base can always be described, if one wants, as "smacking" a bass, and I challenge you to find a genre of music in which problems of some kind AREN'T sung about -- but you describe it as "moan" about their problems.
By your definition any music that doesn't use a classical symphony orchestra is indistinguishable one from the other. No accoustic guitar? Then it's the usual garbage.. but wait, even without "drum bashing" and "base smacking" the song may *still* be "moaning" about problems. Uh oh. I guess that means it's in the bin with the rest of the junk.
All music (with words) is about a writer's feelings; music IS about the human condition; the problems we face; whether it's love or money or sex or anything you think of -- no one would be MOVED to create music (or poetry or literature) without "problems" -- so in suppose that means ALL of that; poetry, literature, all art -- falls into the bin of "moaning about their problems." See, I can extrapolate also, and I do so more accurately since you have laid down your parameters. If it "moans" (your pejorative choice of descriptor) about "problems" -- then it is not distinguishable "at the end of the day" one from the other. You don't need to smash and bash drums and base, or is just musick that you don't feel, and as such dismiss?
It seems you enjoy sampling a bit of something, coming to a conclusion, and then using that to extrapolate out to EVERYTHING else even peripherally related.
All music using drums and base IS THE SAME -- (no matter how wildly different it really is, but hey, it's your view of things) and "at the end of the day" since it's "all the same" it can't be good. Your girlfriend was "enthralled" by something you viewed from a distance with distaste; and all games of a genre are the same because they have some similar imagery.
How the devil do you confuse "thatched roofs" with THE SAME PLOT? Yes, a magic user in a game will often have access to a hat with a point, although I can say that in WoW, for example, such hats are rarely seen and are more camp than anything else -- you might have looked a bit further. Did you perhaps check the "armor" sets for the different classes? Not a pointy hat in sight.
I'm not familiar with the "Warhammer" .jpg you linked -- but saying that because in a game somewhere (your WoW links, for example) there are dwarves, and that the dwarves in question might have hammers -- to say what you did, and I ha
And said the following:
I disagree for several reasons; it isn't the safe vs. creative issue that is cited. For the large corporations creating the games, it comes down to market research and dollars. Don't think for a minute that they would hesitate to spend millions upon millions to craft new ideas if their research indicated that those ideas would be viable and make them money.
People raised on Tolkien and other venerable masters of Fantasy, go on to play fantasy based games, and to watch fantasy based anime, and read fantasy based Manga, comics and contemporary novels. This creates a *tremendous* well from which to draw.
Diablo isn't WoW isn't FFXI and so forth -- they aren't at all similar; your comment that fantasy constitutes nothing more than "Olde Tyme Wizard's Worlde" is incorrect at best, slightly flamish at worst.
In what way do you find the aforementioned dissimiliar games "terribly predictable"? These games are very different one from the other, and hardly fit the "Ye Olde Wizarde" paradigm. If you feel that you have an idea for a great scifi game that will *also* be attractive to tens of millions - or even several million - people, you'll get an eager reception by a gaming company; that is, if you can create the game and make it both workable and appealing.
Bear in mind also the audience for these games, and the changing nature thereof; more women, girls, teens of both genders, retired people, couples playing together of all ages, disabled people, people who have moved to a new area and don't anyone, and of course folks who are socially ill-at-ease who use the game as a means of social interaction/bolstering confidence -- the vast majority read fantasy, have a rich fantasy background, and immediately feel comfortable enough to try something very new to them.
First time MMO players with a fantasy background (through literature, manga, anime, contemporary novels, graphic novels, etc.) who would be hesitant to try something utterly alien, can jump into a fantasy based MMO and have enough things resonant with a degree of familiarity -- not predictability, the two are not the same -- such as to create enough confidence to give it a try.
Fantasy in all its forms permeates the society to a degree sci-fi doesn't. Increasing skill at flying in outer space (simplistic, conceded, but it was an example cited in a comment) isn't going to hold the interest of most MMO gamers. Fantasy games with all the rich interaction between people, guilds, races, groups -- in a storyline that is constantly changing is attractive to many. A sci-fi based game that could supply all of that would take a nice chunk of the market, given the number of sci-fi afficionados.
A final note with respect to myself - I had never played an MMO; I had mudded, but hadn't bothered with MMOs. The monthly charge was a turnoff, and they seemed to aimed at an audience that wasn't me. I did play the PS2 .hack games though -- for those unfamiliar, they simulate an MMO.. it's kind of trippy; you are a single player playing a game that thinks it's an MMO. I enjoyed it a great deal, although opinions on the game vary from "fantastic" to "Ugh" ;)
But it was the fantasy based .hack series that made me consider trying an MMO. One lead to the other; and when
A few people have commented on the "but it has to be scientifically feasable" aspect; I won't go into that, but clearly that is one very large factor.
Going beyond that, there is a HUGE backlog of anime from which the fantasy MMO can draw. Anime and literature.
Look at WoW -- whether you like the game or not is irrelevant, we are solely looking at numbers and revenue -- it is the most popular MMO ever, even with some serious problems in the game that have been explored in other discussions.
Why then? Well, it has a great deal of Tolkien in it; and those of us who enjoy fantasy have typically been weened on the "bible" of all fantasy; Tolkien's LOTR trilogy. (As an aside, it was originally meant as one book, a bit of trivia for those who are interested).
Drawing on old school fantasy literature, particularly material as venerated as Tolkien's, will lend an appeal that may not be strictly warranted by the game itself.
Going beyond Tolkien are the legions of fantasy writers and anime and manga that provide rich sources of inspiration for the fantasy based MMO.
While there are undoubtedly many excellent sci-fi novels; a more than sizeable percentage of them tend to focus on the "battleship/laserbeams/heroic men in space" theme.
That sort of material isn't as easily translated to MMOs successfully, neither is it as readily useable as source material; you have to stretch further to come up with appealing concepts. Moreover, even if a concept is good, the sci-fi base isn't as appealing to as wide an audience as fantasy based MMOs.
Consider the large influx of women into WoW -- College women, teen girls, and homemakers often with small children who can log on and enjoy the light fantasy aspect where a more serious sci-fi atmosphere wouldn't be nearly as appealing.
Too often girls and women are forgotten as consumers of these games; more and more they are becoming the consumers. In addition there is a new group playing; retirees, often in couples. These people also seem to prefer fantasy-based games.
When you consider all of these factors and who the gaming population is, and is becoming, sci-fi MMOs would have to come up with something extraordinary *and* accessible if it is to attract the aforementioned groups -- in addition to the regular target audience (teen to lower 20's males) who have grown up on fantasy, anime, and fantasy based console games.
Plenty of quests give decent equipment?
How do you define decent? I've played with Tanks wearing the "pretty decent" gear you speak of -- and they are not exactly the best, great skills notwithstanding.
Even in the regular instances, the non-endgame places -- You want to tank scholo? You need a decent weapon. A weapon you got from a quest won't do it.
Crafted? Okay. Try the Annihilator. The mats for most GOOD crafted items are INSANE. Check out the mats for the Annihilator... it's a rare, not even an epic, bear that in mind.
40 Thorium bars, 12 Arcanite Bars, 10 Essence of Undeath, 8 Huge Emeralds, 4 Enchanted Leather, and 2 Dense Grinding Stones.
You said something about "pretty cheap crafted items" -- does that look cheap to you?
Similar mats for all decent high level crafted weapons and armor.
Rare plate of good quality -- 700g a piece. And if you want an epic crafted item? Titanic leggings perhaps? Lionheart Helm? You are in the THOUSANDS.
No, sorry, crafted items are not cheap. Not not not not... not at the higher levels, not for 60s, and a CASUAL level sixty player... how do you propose that they come up with the mats for the modest Annihilator? It's just a basic rare tank weapon. Insanely expensive..
Or do Casual Players not need anything above greens? I disagree, I think that you need to have at least good blues; sure if you're a sixty who tanks folks through Gnomer or the mines or similar instances, green to your hearts content (better to even have a swap out set of less expensive gear for when you aren't doing heavy duty stuff)... but most casual players WANT to do the instances.
And since WoW puts SO MUCH of their effort into the Endgame instances, missing out on those is missing out on the "amazing" stuff.. on the exciting, visually stunning gameplay. But YOU CAN'T GO if you don't have decent gear -- an endgame guild won't take you.
So, casual players should stay in green, not do instances, and never do endgame?
No, I think not.
Nor do I endorse in any way cheating.
But your point of view, while ranked insightful, is a touch simplistic, I'm afraid to say..
I dearly wish it weren't, though. I do. I wish we didn't have to spend hours mining and skinning and collecting herbs and so forth for a chance to get enough money to get that extra Fire Resist that would allow one to go to MC and BWL. And so forth.
Or even for a half way decent crafted weapon to tank regular instances.
What I've said here pertains to warrior class; Druids have it easier once they find a decent staff or get that Hammer of the Grand Crusader... all magical classes do. But dps and tanks rely on gear, and that is what there is, quest reward quality stuff just won't do unless you are talking about the rare quests that do give something good, such as the Tirion Fordring quest chain.
I wish that it was as easy as you suggest it is, I truly do.
But I don't WANT to spent hours and hours in the auction house. The point of the game is to PLAY.. to quest, to have fun, to be social with people whose company you enjoy, to kill things, to learn how best to use your character -- if you're a warrior, it's not a simply "duh, kill" thing, it's an art to learn how to tank well.
If you're a druid (my main - I have a warrior alt, as well as a hunter) then it IS an art to learn how to time heals such that you get the most from your mana and don't have to spend time farming herbs (or worse, buying them) to make mana potions to keep your party alive.
Learning which heals, timing them well, and doing it under pressure in a high level instance takes more than a few days or even weeks.
So, no, I DON'T want to be in the auction house for hours buying and trading -- and you know, it's made very easy by the addon "auctioneer" which can be found at auctioneeraddon.com -- see, there's another free one for you.
But I DON'T want to do that. I know people who spent have their gaming life IN IF (IronForge, where the Auction House is, it's unfortunate that people don't use the neutral AH in Gadget, there is so much potential there and it's all lost, used mostly for transferring gold across Horde/Alliance lines)
There are folks you always see in the AH and they always have the best gear. Yes, I'd LOVE to have a Glowing Brightwood Staff. It makes me a bit sad to know I'll never have one since I will never have 1200 gold (it varies, but that's the usual price on Azjol-Nerub, although you *can* get it for a mere 800 if you're lucky. Gee. 800 gold)
Sorry, but I never have more than 100 at any given time. Yes, I help newbies out. Yes, I help friends out. But more to the point, I don't want to "work" the system. I'm there to play, not to work. If I enjoyed that sort of thing my chosen profession would be the stock market.
It isn't.
Then there are those who do OUT of game work and get paid in game, one guy I ran into who really annoyed me -- he had received 1500 gold for work he'd done OUT of game -- i.e., he didn't work for it at all in the game, did nothing for it -- and his brother in law tossed him a Glowing Brightwood just for the fun of it because he was one of those extremely rare souls who found one (it's a random world drop, you get lucky and you get rich or you don't). This person gets to ride a epic mount, sport a Glowing Brightwood and whatever other epics aren't BoP -- since he doesn't do instances and can't get epics for himself, but he has the BEST gear money can buy on a level 49 character and that epic mount waiting for him at 60 -- but he's bored. OF COURSE HE'S BORED. He doesn't play the game.
Most of the people, no, almost ALL of the people sporting Glowing Brightwoods have paid for them. And where did they get 1200 gold? And their 800 gold epic mount? Gee -- I don't know. From the game? I don't think so. You could play six months, 12 hours a day - I mean playing, not skilling or farming) and never come near that sum. Does that make you a bad player?
No -- it doesn't. You probably have mostly nice blues (rare, not epics) and are a VERY skilled player. But you don't have epics or if you do, you might have one that you found or saved up for -- a Kang for example (hint: The EXECUTIONER'S CLEAVER is almost as good as a Kang but a fraction of the price and obtainable in the AH, even I could afford one -- throw and +7 damage on it and you're good to go)
While the reality that I won't have epics unless I play the game in a way I won't enjoy (or cheat and buy gold) kind of stinks, and I know I won't have epics unless someone gives me some or I get very lucky and play some endgame, it's okay because skill does compensate for slightly better gear.
There is also PvP gear -- and that gear is truly outstanding. And not that hard to get compared to similar gear that you have to work hard to get or buy.
As far as endgame? That's another issue entirely -- do you really