I seem to have confused some of you. I was talking in a broad, grand-scheme of things and not necessarily about pets feeding or MO in general. My fault for going off-topic...
It's mmorpg.com, there should be an achievement for staying on topic for three pages since OP
While what constitue "too much realism" varies from person to person, what I was trying to say is that realism can be taken to far and actually get in the way of "fun". I have been in forums were gamers have longed for having a game that makes characters have to use the bathroom, eat 3 meals a day and other such realistic activities. While such features would add realism to any game, can anyone truly say such features would add to the game's fun factor?
One of the worlds most successfull game series The Sims had this and more. So yeah, I guess its room for this and more in a MMO.
Two completly diffefrent types of games. The Sims lacked any sort of combat or any sort of rpg elements that are characteristic of an mmo. When the Sims tried to go the mmo route (sims online), the game failed and was closed. So yeah, I'd say the two types of gameplay are incompatible as they attract different type of players...
You wondered if realism in a game would add to the fun factor. I said that people apperantly liked going to the toilet taking a crap etc in Sims, so why wouldn´t such features be enjoyed by some peeps in a MMO. MO have some of these realism features AND combat. Now how about that for a MMO?
You wondered if realism in a game would add to the fun factor. I said that people apperantly liked going to the toilet taking a crap etc in Sims, so why wouldn´t such features be enjoyed by some peeps in a MMO. MO have some of these realism features AND combat. Now how about that for a MMO?
And he answered your point conclusively, they made Sims Online and it failed totally. People (even fans of the original Sims games) were not interested in playing that style of game in an MMO setting. Why did you completely ignore that very salient point?
MO needs it's basics fixed before they start adding fluff like "real" horsefood in some typically broken and bugged fashion. It is an exercise in idiocy for them to continue to to promote and attempt to code these features when the very basics of the game are broken. UO had plenty of fluff features that enhanced a working game, they didn't act as replacements for the "working game" part. Once you get the game functional beyond the pre-alpha mess MO is you can start on the fluff and add features to distinguish your product.
In short, no one will start playing this game because of "real" horsefood or birds crapping on your head. It is typical Henrk - ignore the real and pressing problems in the game in order to announce things they will most likely never deliver and wouldn't help the game in any meaningful way even if they worked properly (which they won't). The Mortal forums are full of fans doing armchair design, and that is spreading to here too, to rationalise such silly design decision Henrik makes -
"Oh but real horse food will lead to the economy being fixed!!111oneone!!"
Laughable, but to be expected when the reality of the game is so bad and SV is unable to fix it.
You wondered if realism in a game would add to the fun factor. I said that people apperantly liked going to the toilet taking a crap etc in Sims, so why wouldn´t such features be enjoyed by some peeps in a MMO. MO have some of these realism features AND combat. Now how about that for a MMO?
And he answered your point conclusively, they made Sims Online and it failed totally. People (even fans of the original Sims games) were not interested in playing that style of game in an MMO setting. Why did you completely ignore that very salient point?
MO needs it's basics fixed before they start adding fluff like "real" horsefood in some typically broken and bugged fashion. It is an exercise in idiocy for them to continue to to promote and attempt to code these features when the very basics of the game are broken. UO had plenty of fluff features that enhanced a working game, they didn't act as replacements for the "working game" part. Once you get the game functional beyond the pre-alpha mess MO is you can start on the fluff and add features to distinguish your product.
In short, no one will start playing this game because of "real" horsefood or birds crapping on your head. It is typical Henrk - ignore the real and pressing problems in the game in order to announce things they will most likely never deliver and wouldn't help the game in any meaningful way even if they worked properly (which they won't). The Mortal forums are full of fans doing armchair design, and that is spreading to here too, to rationalise such silly design decision Henrik makes -
"Oh but real horse food will lead to the economy being fixed!!111oneone!!"
Laughable, but to be expected when the reality of the game is so bad and SV is unable to fix it.
Because he said that The Sims lacked combat, and MO has combat that The Sims Online didn´t have, and also some of those features that made Sims a successfull series to begin with. Those "nasty" realism features that some here fear so much, while others apperantly like. To each his own. If you don´t like it. Go play something else. Easy really.
Because he said that The Sims lacked combat, and MO has combat that The Sims Online didn´t have, and also some of those features that made Sims a successfull series to begin with. Those "nasty" realism features that some here fear so much, while others apperantly like. To each his own. If you don´t like it. Go play something else. Easy really.
You said -
"One of the worlds most successfull game series The Sims had this and more. So yeah, I guess its room for this and more in a MMO."
Implying that those features would make for good content in an MMO. Well, they made that MMO and it failed badly. People did not want "realism" when it was enforced tedium, and neither do you unless you want to sleep for 1/3 of the time etc.
I then moved on to the wider point of fluff in games (and enforced tedium is not entertaining, see the Sims MMO) and pointed out that even if MO did add those features it would make no difference because the rest of the game does not work properly and neither will the new features. Henrik just pulls some new "feature" out of the air every few weeks and says they are working on it to keep people paying. Where is fishing part 2 for example?
As for your attempted dig at posters here by claiming we are "scared" of realism, just lol. No MMO is realistic, not a single one. Most games do however work, which allows the designers to implement layers of fluff over the core of the game. UO is a prime example of that and is far more "realistic" than MO will ever be. SV is incapable of fixing their core problems so instead try to beguile the gullible with promises of features that will never be in game - or will appear in a bugged, useless or outright broken manner.
Because he said that The Sims lacked combat, and MO has combat that The Sims Online didn´t have, and also some of those features that made Sims a successfull series to begin with. Those "nasty" realism features that some here fear so much, while others apperantly like. To each his own. If you don´t like it. Go play something else. Easy really.
You said -
"One of the worlds most successfull game series The Sims had this and more. So yeah, I guess its room for this and more in a MMO."
Implying that those features would make for good content in an MMO. Well, they made that MMO and it failed badly. People did not want "realism" when it was enforced tedium, and neither do you unless you want to sleep for 1/3 of the time etc.
I then moved on to the wider point of fluff in games (and enforced tedium is not entertaining, see the Sims MMO) and pointed out that even if MO did add those features it would make no difference because the rest of the game does not work properly and neither will the new features. Henrik just pulls some new "feature" out of the air every few weeks and says they are working on it to keep people paying. Where is fishing part 2 for example?
As for your attempted dig at posters here by claiming we are "scared" of realism, just lol. No MMO is realistic, not a single one. Most games do however work, which allows the designers to implement layers of fluff over the core of the game. UO is a prime example of that and is far more "realistic" than MO will ever be. SV is incapable of fixing their core problems so instead try to beguile the gullible with promises of features that will never be in game - or will appear in a bugged, useless or outright broken manner.
But The Sims didn't have combat etc, and is not set in a fantasy world like MO. But you don't get it. Don't matter how much I write it. It won't sink into you. That there IS room for "realism" in games, some people DO like to cook food, sleep and shit in games. If some people like these "fluff" features that you like to call em, who are you to say that those people can't enjoy them, even though it comes out all bugged down or whatever. So be it. [mod edit]
Because he said that The Sims lacked combat, and MO has combat that The Sims Online didn´t have, and also some of those features that made Sims a successfull series to begin with. Those "nasty" realism features that some here fear so much, while others apperantly like. To each his own. If you don´t like it. Go play something else. Easy really.
You said -
"One of the worlds most successfull game series The Sims had this and more. So yeah, I guess its room for this and more in a MMO."
Implying that those features would make for good content in an MMO. Well, they made that MMO and it failed badly. People did not want "realism" when it was enforced tedium, and neither do you unless you want to sleep for 1/3 of the time etc.
I then moved on to the wider point of fluff in games (and enforced tedium is not entertaining, see the Sims MMO) and pointed out that even if MO did add those features it would make no difference because the rest of the game does not work properly and neither will the new features. Henrik just pulls some new "feature" out of the air every few weeks and says they are working on it to keep people paying. Where is fishing part 2 for example?
As for your attempted dig at posters here by claiming we are "scared" of realism, just lol. No MMO is realistic, not a single one. Most games do however work, which allows the designers to implement layers of fluff over the core of the game. UO is a prime example of that and is far more "realistic" than MO will ever be. SV is incapable of fixing their core problems so instead try to beguile the gullible with promises of features that will never be in game - or will appear in a bugged, useless or outright broken manner.
But The Sims didn't have combat etc, and is not set in a fantasy world like MO. But you don't get it. Don't matter how much I write it. It won't sink into you. That there IS room for "realism" in games, some people DO like to cook food, sleep and shit in games. If some people like these "fluff" features that you like to call em, who are you to say that those people can't enjoy them, even though it comes out all bugged down or whatever. So be it. You need to get a new hobby outside hating MO.
Just because some people will inevitably enjoy taking a poop in a game doesn't mean it's worthwhile to develop a pooping system. The Sims is a resource management game and the bladder is part of that. People aren't enjoying the actual pooping process, they are enjoying managing the character's resources.
No one wants "pooping" for it's own sake (I doubt anyone here actually wants pooping at all). But let's focus on sleeping, which is in game now. In my opinion it's a cool and realistic feature. Disclaimer: Now, when we say "realistic" we (or at least I) mean parts of life that are usually just skipped in most mmo's. I do not necessarily mean copying exactly how things work IRL. So back to sleeping: Of course I don't want to sleep for hours! But sleep can be implemented as a "managing" feature, that's quite cool. Now for those that don't know how sleeping works in MO: You have "reserves" for 3 main "variables" of your char- HP, MP and stamina. Those reserves represent the state of your chars body. If you allow them to drop below certain level they will start to influence your current maximum for the said variables. So if you let the reserve of HP drop too low, you won't be able to heal fully in a battle environment. The lower the reserve goes, the lesser your regenerating abilities will be. When you sleep you regain reserves to a certain point (exactly when they start influencing your current HP/MP/Stamina). If you have a camp-fire and lay down next to it, it goes faster, in a house it is even quicker. You can also regain reserves by eating proper food. But what if you forgot food and are currently in a middle of a dungeon? (happened to me once and a friend had a camp-fire) You become vulnerable for a certain time, but you can get the stars close to full becoming a viable part of the team again. And what if a newb can't get proper quality food (which is player made) to regain reserves? He can sleep first, and then eat. Also death causes a sudden drop in reserves, so it's another factor reducing the constant "get killed-respawn-go to battle like nothing happened" circle. For me that's a good way of implementing a realistic feature.
Same thing goes for (well...almost?) any other normally forgotten part of life in mmo's (for instance actual food for pets).
But The Sims didn't have combat etc, and is not set in a fantasy world like MO. But you don't get it. Don't matter how much I write it. It won't sink into you. That there IS room for "realism" in games, some people DO like to cook food, sleep and shit in games. If some people like these "fluff" features that you like to call em, who are you to say that those people can't enjoy them, even though it comes out all bugged down or whatever. So be it. You need to get a new hobby outside hating MO.
I would say you don't get it, but I think I already established that opinion.
People do not want realism in games, and I will give you a simple example - permadeath. People want fluff in their games, but only incidental to a working game and not to the point of tedium. SV, and it appears yourself, do not understand that.
If you really want realism in games, spend a 1/3 of your time asleep while playing and delete every character that dies and start afresh - and that would only be the start.
Of course this argument is moot, considering there are far more "realistic" MMO's than Mortal available (and I play them) and those games actually work, unlike MO.
You also misinterpret my posting here. I don't hate MO, it's just a failed game after all, but I do find the shortcomings and abject failures that make up MO to be endlessly amusing. It's car crash television of the highest order and knowing Henrik reads these boards and weeps that he can't shill without hindrance means I will continue to post here till MO closes. Will meet you here for the wrap party
Betel you think that debating MO on a 3rd party forum is entertaining while at the same time denigrating people who like more realism in their games (the actual game not some forum) because they find those things entertaining. Don't you see a little hypocrisy there?
Betel you think that debating MO on a 3rd party forum is entertaining while at the same time denigrating people who like more realism in their games (the actual game not some forum) because they find those things entertaining. Don't you see a little hypocrisy there?
Where am I denigrating people who want more realism in their games? Quote please. I even said I play games that are far, far more "realistic" than MO. UO for example, where you can grow the wheat to make the flour to make the bread. And then poison it
What I said was people didn't want tedium in their games, and especially in non-working games like MO where core features should be a priority.
I won´t feed you any more by replying to anything else that you wrote. It´s beyond boring to reply to you.
Are you implying I am lying when I say I don't hate MO? And then calling me a troll? I do hope you have some evidence of those charges before the mods get here.
There is a difference between thinking a product is terrible, and countering it's viral marketing for entertainment, and hating something. Hating requires you to have an active and passionate vitriol towards something and all I feel for MO is somewhere between pity and hilarity. The Henrik factor and the viral marketing do push it to hilarity more often than not though. I am not alone in thinking the SV soap opera is quality, it's not often you get to see a company fail so spectacularly while having delusions of grandeur, and look forward to the next installment.
Betel you think that debating MO on a 3rd party forum is entertaining while at the same time denigrating people who like more realism in their games (the actual game not some forum) because they find those things entertaining. Don't you see a little hypocrisy there?
Where am I denigrating people who want more realism in their games? Quote please. I even said I play games that are far, far more "realistic" than MO. UO for example, where you can grow the wheat to make the flour to make the bread. And then poison it
What I said was people didn't want tedium in their games, and especially in non-working games like MO where core features should be a priority.
"In short, no one will start playing this game because of "real" horsefood or birds crapping on your head. It is typical Henrk - ignore the real and pressing problems "
You minimize the things that some people might find important and entertaining while at the same time putting your own opinionated emphasis on other things to further your own so called entertainment on these forums.
Betel you think that debating MO on a 3rd party forum is entertaining while at the same time denigrating people who like more realism in their games (the actual game not some forum) because they find those things entertaining. Don't you see a little hypocrisy there?
Where am I denigrating people who want more realism in their games? Quote please. I even said I play games that are far, far more "realistic" than MO. UO for example, where you can grow the wheat to make the flour to make the bread. And then poison it
What I said was people didn't want tedium in their games, and especially in non-working games like MO where core features should be a priority.
"In short, no one will start playing this game because of "real" horsefood or birds crapping on your head. It is typical Henrk - ignore the real and pressing problems "
You minimize the things that some people might find important and entertaining while at the same time putting your own opinionated emphasis on other things to further your own so called entertainment on these forums.
Not everything is an opinion. To me the fact that none will play a broken game because of minor features such as birds crapping on your head is common sense. That there are always minor exceptions is another question.
Betel you think that debating MO on a 3rd party forum is entertaining while at the same time denigrating people who like more realism in their games (the actual game not some forum) because they find those things entertaining. Don't you see a little hypocrisy there?
Where am I denigrating people who want more realism in their games? Quote please. I even said I play games that are far, far more "realistic" than MO. UO for example, where you can grow the wheat to make the flour to make the bread. And then poison it
What I said was people didn't want tedium in their games, and especially in non-working games like MO where core features should be a priority.
"In short, no one will start playing this game because of "real" horsefood or birds crapping on your head. It is typical Henrk - ignore the real and pressing problems "
You minimize the things that some people might find important and entertaining while at the same time putting your own opinionated emphasis on other things to further your own so called entertainment on these forums.
Not everything is an opinion. To me the fact that none will play a broken game because of minor features such as birds crapping on your head is common sense. That there are always minor exceptions is another question.
Actually, everything is opinion. If you remember, this discussion was started by a complaint about pets not needing real food. That issue appears to have been significant, at least to some people.
These games are a sum of their parts. Real food for pets will create more of a market for gatherers and cooks, at least to some small degree. It might also help to make taming a more interesting profession, as well as making pet ownership more involved. These would be good things, in my opinion. Not earthshattering (lol), but some small steps forward for the whole.
Of course, this has all been speculation, because no one at SV has mentioned this as a planned change yet. They did mention tamers needing tools, which should also make taming more involved. Overall, I think it's a good direction.
"In short, no one will start playing this game because of "real" horsefood or birds crapping on your head. It is typical Henrk - ignore the real and pressing problems "
You minimize the things that some people might find important and entertaining while at the same time putting your own opinionated emphasis on other things to further your own so called entertainment on these forums.
In what parallel universe is my quote denigrating people wanting realism in games? I think you'd better explain your reasoning. Realism isn't even the point of that quote (it is that no amount of fluff or "realism" will get people to play a broken game) but if you want to take things out of context here is a quote from you in a post about MO -
These games are a sum of their parts. Real food for pets will create more of a market for gatherers and cooks, at least to some small degree. It might also help to make taming a more interesting profession, as well as making pet ownership more involved. These would be good things, in my opinion. Not earthshattering (lol), but some small steps forward for the whole.
All completely irrelavent when the core game does not work properly. Why should I play a poorly implemented version of, say, food for pets when other (functional) games have been doing it for years?
Of course, this has all been speculation, because no one at SV has mentioned this as a planned change yet. They did mention tamers needing tools, which should also make taming more involved. Overall, I think it's a good direction.
A prime example of what I mentioned earlier. Henrik or some other account mentoins something and MO's fans spend weeks armchair designing what the feature could mean. Well we are two years in or so and not one of those things has panned out, but they keep falling for the con.
Comments
Well you have to agree that it aint an easy task
You wondered if realism in a game would add to the fun factor. I said that people apperantly liked going to the toilet taking a crap etc in Sims, so why wouldn´t such features be enjoyed by some peeps in a MMO. MO have some of these realism features AND combat. Now how about that for a MMO?
And he answered your point conclusively, they made Sims Online and it failed totally. People (even fans of the original Sims games) were not interested in playing that style of game in an MMO setting. Why did you completely ignore that very salient point?
MO needs it's basics fixed before they start adding fluff like "real" horsefood in some typically broken and bugged fashion. It is an exercise in idiocy for them to continue to to promote and attempt to code these features when the very basics of the game are broken. UO had plenty of fluff features that enhanced a working game, they didn't act as replacements for the "working game" part. Once you get the game functional beyond the pre-alpha mess MO is you can start on the fluff and add features to distinguish your product.
In short, no one will start playing this game because of "real" horsefood or birds crapping on your head. It is typical Henrk - ignore the real and pressing problems in the game in order to announce things they will most likely never deliver and wouldn't help the game in any meaningful way even if they worked properly (which they won't). The Mortal forums are full of fans doing armchair design, and that is spreading to here too, to rationalise such silly design decision Henrik makes -
"Oh but real horse food will lead to the economy being fixed!!111oneone!!"
Laughable, but to be expected when the reality of the game is so bad and SV is unable to fix it.
Because he said that The Sims lacked combat, and MO has combat that The Sims Online didn´t have, and also some of those features that made Sims a successfull series to begin with. Those "nasty" realism features that some here fear so much, while others apperantly like. To each his own. If you don´t like it. Go play something else. Easy really.
You said -
"One of the worlds most successfull game series The Sims had this and more. So yeah, I guess its room for this and more in a MMO."
Implying that those features would make for good content in an MMO. Well, they made that MMO and it failed badly. People did not want "realism" when it was enforced tedium, and neither do you unless you want to sleep for 1/3 of the time etc.
I then moved on to the wider point of fluff in games (and enforced tedium is not entertaining, see the Sims MMO) and pointed out that even if MO did add those features it would make no difference because the rest of the game does not work properly and neither will the new features. Henrik just pulls some new "feature" out of the air every few weeks and says they are working on it to keep people paying. Where is fishing part 2 for example?
As for your attempted dig at posters here by claiming we are "scared" of realism, just lol. No MMO is realistic, not a single one. Most games do however work, which allows the designers to implement layers of fluff over the core of the game. UO is a prime example of that and is far more "realistic" than MO will ever be. SV is incapable of fixing their core problems so instead try to beguile the gullible with promises of features that will never be in game - or will appear in a bugged, useless or outright broken manner.
But The Sims didn't have combat etc, and is not set in a fantasy world like MO. But you don't get it. Don't matter how much I write it. It won't sink into you. That there IS room for "realism" in games, some people DO like to cook food, sleep and shit in games. If some people like these "fluff" features that you like to call em, who are you to say that those people can't enjoy them, even though it comes out all bugged down or whatever. So be it. [mod edit]
Just because some people will inevitably enjoy taking a poop in a game doesn't mean it's worthwhile to develop a pooping system. The Sims is a resource management game and the bladder is part of that. People aren't enjoying the actual pooping process, they are enjoying managing the character's resources.
No one wants "pooping" for it's own sake (I doubt anyone here actually wants pooping at all).
But let's focus on sleeping, which is in game now. In my opinion it's a cool and realistic feature.
Disclaimer: Now, when we say "realistic" we (or at least I) mean parts of life that are usually just skipped in most mmo's.
I do not necessarily mean copying exactly how things work IRL.
So back to sleeping:
Of course I don't want to sleep for hours! But sleep can be implemented as a "managing" feature, that's quite cool.
Now for those that don't know how sleeping works in MO:
You have "reserves" for 3 main "variables" of your char- HP, MP and stamina. Those reserves represent the state of your chars body. If you allow them to drop below certain level they will start to influence your current maximum for the said variables.
So if you let the reserve of HP drop too low, you won't be able to heal fully in a battle environment. The lower the reserve goes, the lesser your regenerating abilities will be.
When you sleep you regain reserves to a certain point (exactly when they start influencing your current HP/MP/Stamina). If you have a camp-fire and lay down next to it, it goes faster, in a house it is even quicker.
You can also regain reserves by eating proper food.
But what if you forgot food and are currently in a middle of a dungeon? (happened to me once and a friend had a camp-fire)
You become vulnerable for a certain time, but you can get the stars close to full becoming a viable part of the team again.
And what if a newb can't get proper quality food (which is player made) to regain reserves? He can sleep first, and then eat.
Also death causes a sudden drop in reserves, so it's another factor reducing the constant "get killed-respawn-go to battle like nothing happened" circle.
For me that's a good way of implementing a realistic feature.
Same thing goes for (well...almost?) any other normally forgotten part of life in mmo's (for instance actual food for pets).
I would say you don't get it, but I think I already established that opinion.
People do not want realism in games, and I will give you a simple example - permadeath. People want fluff in their games, but only incidental to a working game and not to the point of tedium. SV, and it appears yourself, do not understand that.
If you really want realism in games, spend a 1/3 of your time asleep while playing and delete every character that dies and start afresh - and that would only be the start.
Of course this argument is moot, considering there are far more "realistic" MMO's than Mortal available (and I play them) and those games actually work, unlike MO.
You also misinterpret my posting here. I don't hate MO, it's just a failed game after all, but I do find the shortcomings and abject failures that make up MO to be endlessly amusing. It's car crash television of the highest order and knowing Henrik reads these boards and weeps that he can't shill without hindrance means I will continue to post here till MO closes. Will meet you here for the wrap party
You just have to take it to extremes
Anyway- I bring the booze, you bring the females ^^
Betel you think that debating MO on a 3rd party forum is entertaining while at the same time denigrating people who like more realism in their games (the actual game not some forum) because they find those things entertaining. Don't you see a little hypocrisy there?
Where am I denigrating people who want more realism in their games? Quote please. I even said I play games that are far, far more "realistic" than MO. UO for example, where you can grow the wheat to make the flour to make the bread. And then poison it
What I said was people didn't want tedium in their games, and especially in non-working games like MO where core features should be a priority.
Are you implying I am lying when I say I don't hate MO? And then calling me a troll? I do hope you have some evidence of those charges before the mods get here.
There is a difference between thinking a product is terrible, and countering it's viral marketing for entertainment, and hating something. Hating requires you to have an active and passionate vitriol towards something and all I feel for MO is somewhere between pity and hilarity. The Henrik factor and the viral marketing do push it to hilarity more often than not though. I am not alone in thinking the SV soap opera is quality, it's not often you get to see a company fail so spectacularly while having delusions of grandeur, and look forward to the next installment.
"In short, no one will start playing this game because of "real" horsefood or birds crapping on your head. It is typical Henrk - ignore the real and pressing problems "
You minimize the things that some people might find important and entertaining while at the same time putting your own opinionated emphasis on other things to further your own so called entertainment on these forums.
Not everything is an opinion. To me the fact that none will play a broken game because of minor features such as birds crapping on your head is common sense. That there are always minor exceptions is another question.
Actually, everything is opinion. If you remember, this discussion was started by a complaint about pets not needing real food. That issue appears to have been significant, at least to some people.
These games are a sum of their parts. Real food for pets will create more of a market for gatherers and cooks, at least to some small degree. It might also help to make taming a more interesting profession, as well as making pet ownership more involved. These would be good things, in my opinion. Not earthshattering (lol), but some small steps forward for the whole.
Of course, this has all been speculation, because no one at SV has mentioned this as a planned change yet. They did mention tamers needing tools, which should also make taming more involved. Overall, I think it's a good direction.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
In what parallel universe is my quote denigrating people wanting realism in games? I think you'd better explain your reasoning. Realism isn't even the point of that quote (it is that no amount of fluff or "realism" will get people to play a broken game) but if you want to take things out of context here is a quote from you in a post about MO -
Originally posted by ltank
"Yes it's such a fail game"
It appears we agree on some things at least.
I hope the new expansion doesn't introduce a new batch of gamebreaking bugs, but I think that's asking too much.
Wow people we are getting WAAAY Off-topic here. All this talk of bowel movements and farming and sleeping.
Lets not lose site of what game we are discussing. I have yet to see any talk of how much fail this update will be or the overall fail that is MO.
Let's keep our eye on the prize folks. More MO bashing please.
Bartoni's Law definition: As an Internet discussion grows volatile, the probability of a comparison involving Donald Trump approaches 1.