Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Give Everyone What They Want!

13»

Comments

  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by FromHell
    Can I just have Skyrim with a decent multiplayer option? thanks

    That is the cool part.  You can have a persistant character that can switch between the MMO and a private version of the MMO (in which you could own housing and invite guests). Houses and other perks could be tied into your official progress in the MMO.

    Everyone gets what they want;  The MMO players get an official MMO with a team dedicated to it's updates, and the TES w/multiplayer get a private RPG in which they could invite other players.  If another team of developers creates modifiers to add popular suggestions then they could give us the choice to play how we want to play.

  • jtcgsjtcgs New Port Richey, ILPosts: 1,777Member
    Originally posted by sapphen
    Originally posted by jtcgs

    And no...TESO is not a Themepark and a Sandbox, its themepark. lvled content, closed factions, race restrictions, non-opened world, vast storyline to quest through...and its faction zones are closed to only that faction. The only thing announced that could be confused with sandbox is the somewhat open class system.


    It can be a sandbox.  For $9.99 a month you can have your private instance and invite who ever you want with whatever rule-set as you prefer.  Imagine a First Person View server.  Fight in Cyrodiil 'locked' into first person view on your main... if it sucks switch back to a normal rule-set instance.

    It goes deeper than this.  If they give buyers a private game then they could add features like housing, material gathering, land/shop ownership (replacing AH), and many other things.  Subscribers can have up to 2000 people on their instance while b2p could only invite 4-5 for dungeons and small runs ~ but unless you're showing off your house it would probably be better to join an official instance.

    I'm trying to make sense but I feel like I'm rambling.

     What does private servers and rule-sets have to do with sandbox? A sandbox is a completely open world where the player creates the story and content...

    A themepark is a themepark even if its on your own private server. Anyway, there are way too many "ifs" in your post...it would be like me saying the game IS great, IF they make it more like TES. Ifs mean nothing, all that matters is what they have said is going to be in the game, so far...no sandbox, little TES other than names and monsther skins.

    “I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Fromhell
    I think bioware tried something similar.
  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by jtcgs

     What does private servers and rule-sets have to do with sandbox? A sandbox is a completely open world where the player creates the story and content...

    Well... it would be more like a single player sandbox in which you could invite friends.  Switch over to your personal instance and go to your house (instead of a bank)  to switch/store inventory.  You could have a mat garden (like in the Archmage's room from Skyrim), own a mine to stockpile materials or even a castle with rooms you could give to your friends.  It would be a more of a private sandbox than public one.

    Also we have to look at how we describe sandbox.  Having a world in which we could go anywhere would be sandboxy.  Meet up with fellow travelers who want to explore as well.  Go into their private sandboxes and check out their modifiers.

     

    Originally posted by jtcgs

    A themepark is a themepark even if its on your own private server. Anyway, there are way too many "ifs" in your post...it would be like me saying the game IS great, IF they make it more like TES. Ifs mean nothing, all that matters is what they have said is going to be in the game, so far...no sandbox, little TES other than names and monsther skins.

    The official game will be a themepark but they could start off with a private instance and then expand on that.

    I agree, there is WAY too many 'ifs' in my posts.  I'm not even sure where I'm going with this... I just want them to have choices rather than strickly focusing on RvR.  If enough players want to explore, wpvp or open factions then why not give it to them? 

    • Explore - Have a world in which faction NPCs are inactive.  Players can go anywhere, even Cyrodiil, in a non-combat PvE enviroment.  They are joined by other players who want to explore with a persistent character.
    • wPvP (non-Cyrodiil) -  Put the people who want to PvE/Quest with enemy players into an instance.  Que players who wish to invade other factioned areas and drop them in.  Try to balance out the levels, either by making brackets or stat bonuses.
    • Open Factions - This could be a toggle.  Let players change their appearence (although the storyline would be as if they were their original race) and then see other players who want Open Factions.  Players who do not want this option will see players as their original character.
  • jtcgsjtcgs New Port Richey, ILPosts: 1,777Member
    Originally posted by sapphen

    The official game will be a themepark but they could start off with a private instance and then expand on that.

    I agree, there is WAY too many 'ifs' in my posts.  I'm not even sure where I'm going with this...

     I know where you are going...or should I stay where you are trying to STAY with this...you are what I was right before they started to actually release information about this game.

    In the land of TES fans.

    You are trying to cling to the chance the company will actually make the game like a TES game. Forget it, the people heading the design are from DaoC and have yet to prove they evolved at all which is why we have heard what we heard about the game so far. They are still in the box, to get what you...and I...were wasking for would require outside the box thinking.

    And you dont get people setting up forced faction choices, closed faction playing areas and PvP that is boxed in by someone thinking outside the box. In fact, they segment the game into smaller boxes because their limited programming skills require everything controlled via segregated playing. Worse yet, the man that brought DaoC the server options is not even with this company.

    “I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson

  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by jtcgs
    Originally posted by sapphen

    The official game will be a themepark but they could start off with a private instance and then expand on that.

    I agree, there is WAY too many 'ifs' in my posts.  I'm not even sure where I'm going with this...

     I know where you are going...or should I stay where you are trying to STAY with this...you are what I was right before they started to actually release information about this game.

    In the land of TES fans.

    You are trying to cling to the chance the company will actually make the game like a TES game. Forget it, the people heading the design are from DaoC and have yet to prove they evolved at all which is why we have heard what we heard about the game so far. They are still in the box, to get what you...and I...were wasking for would require outside the box thinking.

    And you dont get people setting up forced faction choices, closed faction playing areas and PvP that is boxed in by someone thinking outside the box. In fact, they segment the game into smaller boxes because their limited programming skills require everything controlled via segregated playing. Worse yet, the man that brought DaoC the server options is not even with this company.

    I dunno, I feel this has a strong chance to be in game.  People have to show interest in the idea of developer made mods, private servers and other rule-sets.  If enough people request something like this then it would have a chance to be added.

    I'm not sure how to get current ESO fans to think outside of the Zenibox.  There's been so many forum battles between us that both sides are kind of locked in place.  Most people are just sliently waiting but others are defending ESO with everything they have.

    I agree forced faction choices does seem illogical from our standpoint.  I could see it being important to other people.  I figured it could be a toggle.  You would create a character and afterwards you can choose to change his appearence.  If you select a race outside your faction, the computer and toggled off players would see you as your original race choice.

    We need options and a larger touch of TES.  If developers could make mods and then offer players a private sandbox version of ESO, they could add housing, farms, mines, cities and castles.  Encourage players to invite other people to visit their private instance.  This could help build communities and support subscription models.

  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Is RvR too narrow of a focus for ESO ~ Why can't they just let us to play how we want to play it?
  • CrazyhorsekCrazyhorsek LisboaPosts: 244Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sapphen
    Is RvR too narrow of a focus for ESO ~ Why can't they just let us to play how we want to play it?

    Because its not your game - its their game. You like it, play it, you don't like it, don't play it.

    Thats how games should be - always.

    Would you ask for any artist like a painter for instance, to do his art as you want it? No... art comes from inspiration, the artist's inspiration - if you like it, you buy it, if you don't like it, you dont buy it. Same as movies, books, music, etc...

    Game companies should stop trying to please "gamers" - if the game is good it will be a success, if its not, it wont - the quantity of people you try to pull to your game, doesnt assure the success of the game - just assures that the initial project lost its identity.

    The day you make a video game, its your game, and you can play it how you want to play it - this one however is a Zenimax and Bethesda game and they should do what they want to do - the rest time will tell.

    This sense of entitlement crap in video games is getting ridiculous.

    image
  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by Crazyhorsek
    Originally posted by sapphen
    Is RvR too narrow of a focus for ESO ~ Why can't they just let us to play how we want to play it?

    Because its not your game - its their game. You like it, play it, you don't like it, don't play it.

    It's not their game, it's our game.   Developers don't make games for themselves.

     

    Originally posted by Crazyhorsek

    Would you ask for any artist like a painter for instance, to do his art as you want it? No... art comes from inspiration, the artist's inspiration - if you like it, you buy it, if you don't like it, you dont buy it. Same as movies, books, music, etc...

    Game companies should stop trying to please "gamers" - if the game is good it will be a success, if its not, it wont - the quantity of people you try to pull to your game, doesnt assure the success of the game - just assures that the initial project lost its identity.

    The day you make a video game, its your game, and you can play it how you want to play it - this one however is a Zenimax and Bethesda game and they should do what they want to do - the rest time will tell.

    This sense of entitlement crap in video games is getting ridiculous.

    This isn't an art piece, it is entertainment.  Game companys should NEVER stop trying to please gamers, for the life of me I can't figure out why you think they shouldn't make games for gamers.  This isn't the art world, you can't put up a piece of art and hope people like it.

    Games are designed around a target audience.  The TES fans and the MMO players, why can't they make different rule-sets for each?

    Sense of entitlement crap is just that, crap.

  • MaelwyddMaelwydd CrawleyPosts: 1,123Member

    You have to target an audience with a game. You don't just make an idea and hope it sells. market studies are essential to ensure your product actually has a market. Perhaps there is a market for their design, we will see.

     

    But 'lalala' statements like crazy..that is a major problem with the market today.

  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by Maelwydd

    You have to target an audience with a game. You don't just make an idea and hope it sells. market studies are essential to ensure your product actually has a market. Perhaps there is a market for their design, we will see.

    But 'lalala' statements like crazy..that is a major problem with the market today.

    They might've had more of a market 5 years ago when they first started but things have changed since then.

    To me it seems like they are focusing on RvR too much and they are forgetting a majority of players.  That's why I keep suggesting that they have different rulesets, similar to old school PvP/Roleplaying servers, that will; open factions up, have wPvP, exploration and a personal sandbox (like TES single player games) you can own housing and invite other players to join you.

  • MaelwyddMaelwydd CrawleyPosts: 1,123Member
    Originally posted by sapphen

    They might've had more of a market 5 years ago when they first started but things have changed since then.

    To me it seems like they are focusing on RvR too much and they are forgetting a majority of players.  That's why I keep suggesting that they have different rulesets, similar to old school PvP/Roleplaying servers, that will; open factions up, have wPvP, exploration and a personal sandbox (like TES single player games) you can own housing and invite other players to join you.

    I don't disagree.

    However I think the problem we have is as well as people like crazy going 'lalala' I see a real possibility that the development is stuck without the possibility of change because of the exact same reason.

    A descision has been made, but rather then alter the descision when a problem is found (i.e. market changes) they may well have just tried to plough through and hope for the best.

    Game design changing mid development is quite rare it seems, and totally changing a games direction almost non existant but it can and has happened (EQNext anf I think one of the FF games for example) but it takes strong leadership and skill to go back to the drawingboard to change things (and probably more work to get investers to agree to a change in direction and more investment).

    I don't see any indications that things will change. That could be a huge mistake, who knows. I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck with the current design hoping it works out when looking at the current trends.

  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by Maelwydd

    I don't disagree.

    However I think the problem we have is as well as people like crazy going 'lalala' I see a real possibility that the development is stuck without the possibility of change because of the exact same reason.

    A descision has been made, but rather then alter the descision when a problem is found (i.e. market changes) they may well have just tried to plough through and hope for the best.

    Game design changing mid development is quite rare it seems, and totally changing a games direction almost non existant but it can and has happened (EQNext anf I think one of the FF games for example) but it takes strong leadership and skill to go back to the drawingboard to change things (and probably more work to get investers to agree to a change in direction and more investment).

    I don't see any indications that things will change. That could be a huge mistake, who knows. I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck with the current design hoping it works out when looking at the current trends.

    Personally I would've drastically changed the games direction from the beginning.  What I'm suggesting now isn't so much that they 'change' anything, they just have alternate versions to mimic server rule-sets.

    First I suggest that everyone who buys the game gets a private 'single player' version.  They can play ESO all by themselves and invite others to join them (it would be the same as the online game - for now).  When they finish certain story or quest related milestones then they would be rewarded with the option to buy a house in their personal sandbox.  As time goes on they could add more TES like perks.

    Then I would suggest a wPvP version.  This would be the same as PvE except players could que in as "invaders" and be teleported into secret camps in another faction's territory.  Instead of battlegrounds give us organized world PvP.  All you have to do is toss players in the same region and let them create their own organization.

    I would also suggest an Explorer version.  In this version all guard/faction NPCs would be non-active.  Players could explore the entire world with others who want the same thing.  There could be a manual Faction and FFA wPvP flag but the main focus for this mode is to get players together who like to explore.

    Many of these features would be like developer made mods.  They're not going to be complete from launch but could be added in over time and provide content to be purchased by b2p and f2p is they choose.  Some mods that would be great would be the need for food and water, first person view locked Cyrodiil campaigns, change character's appearence, etc.

    I'm not suggesting that they change the current game.  I'm suggesting that they add different ways to play their game.  I understand that many of these things are not on/off switches but they are also not implausable.

  • CrazyhorsekCrazyhorsek LisboaPosts: 244Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sapphen
    Originally posted by Crazyhorsek
    Originally posted by sapphen
    Is RvR too narrow of a focus for ESO ~ Why can't they just let us to play how we want to play it?

    Because its not your game - its their game. You like it, play it, you don't like it, don't play it.

    It's not their game, it's our game.   Developers don't make games for themselves.

     

    Originally posted by Crazyhorsek

    Would you ask for any artist like a painter for instance, to do his art as you want it? No... art comes from inspiration, the artist's inspiration - if you like it, you buy it, if you don't like it, you dont buy it. Same as movies, books, music, etc...

    Game companies should stop trying to please "gamers" - if the game is good it will be a success, if its not, it wont - the quantity of people you try to pull to your game, doesnt assure the success of the game - just assures that the initial project lost its identity.

    The day you make a video game, its your game, and you can play it how you want to play it - this one however is a Zenimax and Bethesda game and they should do what they want to do - the rest time will tell.

    This sense of entitlement crap in video games is getting ridiculous.

    This isn't an art piece, it is entertainment.  Game companys should NEVER stop trying to please gamers, for the life of me I can't figure out why you think they shouldn't make games for gamers.  This isn't the art world, you can't put up a piece of art and hope people like it.

    Games are designed around a target audience.  The TES fans and the MMO players, why can't they make different rule-sets for each?

    Sense of entitlement crap is just that, crap.

    I mentioned movies and music... thats entertainment, and art.

    Now where I'm trying to get at is... Ridley Scott doesnt really "phone home" to check if the fans are going to like the new alien movie... he made the movie according to his vision, and its because of his vision that you go see it. I don't come up with stuff like Alien so I'll go to the movies to enjoy the work of someone who has a far greater vision than I have and my adventure in that movie is to see, to participate, to be part of that vision that I couldnt come up by myself.

    Did he ask the fans about the new alien movie? No... it was his vision and it was made the way he wanted to make it - hell he didnt even call it Aliens, it called it "Prometheus" (just a side note to the ones who keep beating the dead cow of "this isnt a TES game qq - this guy made an Aliens movie and doesnt even have to call it "alien" - that thing aside) 

    Now... if you like his vision, you'll go see Prometheus, if you don't like his vision, if you feel hes betraying his alien legacy or anyother kind of self-entitlement just because you're an aliens fan, Scott couldnt care less - he made his vision of what he thought it should be the next Aliens movie. Its his work, his dream, and you'll go see it if its good, and dont see it if its bad, but he doesnt care - the vision is made like he wanted it - not the fans, not the supporters, not anyone else but him.

    Yes, its a risk, but... isnt it better when you look at a movie and you know nothing about it and it turns out to be awesome and it came as a surprise? Rather than you already knowing "I KNOW what this movie is about, I KNOW everything about it, because I TOLD HIM how to sculpt his vision according to my wishes"? And by the way... if it was the case, it was no longer Ridley Scott's Alien, it would be your alien.

    Again its a risk but thats how it goes... its a business. What is this crap of not wanting to take risks? This is why the industry has become stagnant. Because companies are not willing to really throw something out into the world thats completely the opposite of what people are used to.

    For me one of the biggest ... actually, for me THE example of that is the new X-COM. Firaxix had this HUGE PAIR of balls when they decided to release X-COM in an era where turn-bases strat was virtually dead - the ones that existed were old or extremely bad and every sign pointed to "Look man, I appreciate your idea and all, but this is just NOT the time to release a turn-based strategy game". If they read the signs, they would have never released X-COM: Enemy Unknown and we'd all miss a great game. Yes you can argue that "Oh but it wasnt like the original xcom or ufo where you had a million bases and yadda yadda", doesnt matter - the game is great, and it was a breath of fresh air on a stale industry flooded by Black Ops, Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and its clones

    Another example was Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat - I mean, releasing a 2D fighting game in 2009 or 20011? Really? The genre was DEAD yet although Capcom made an excelent work with Street Fighter, Netherealm came up with the absolute best Mortal Kombat to date - who could have forseen this? Specially with mortal kombat taking into account how BAD were all mortal kombat games since MK3. But they took the risk... 

    Both MK and SF tried the 3D crap to ride along with stupid games like Tekken, but... they made the decision and took the HUGE risk of going back to their roots - the 2D formula that made them a success in the past - and they pulled it off - Mortal Kombat exploded in every market and some are yet trying to play it - only this year the game is coming out in Australia for instance.

    The way I see with this MMO crap, I think the devs should look back. Way before WoW when MMOs were actually MMOs, not a casual "oh I only have half an hour, I'll do a random" game, but one that actually takes time and effort and dedication - where you absolutely cant thrive playing 1 or 2 hours a week. So MMOs should go back to their original formula and part of what Zenimax is doing, is going back - with the faction lock DAoC style for instance. Of course they should go even more hardcore and bring back the xp loss on death, etc, but they wont, still they should because this genre is not a fast-food genre, and either you have what it takes to play it or not. Today everyone plays an mmo... it shouldnt be like that. I even speak against myself since when I played DAoC sometimes I didnt have time to play it. Was I a good DAoC player? Yes... was I leveled on par with the real good DAoC players? NO WAY. But it was fine, and I accepted it "well I dont really have the time these guys have so I try my best".

    And all these changes to mmos came from the playerbase, not the companies. Companies are to blame when they please this fast-food player base (or "gamers") that are self-entitled and think everything should be done according to what they THINK is the best for said game - and thats how WoW turned to shit - I dont care how many players WoW has, its shit. Like Guild Wars 2, its shit. Difference is, WoW was a cool game actually... before Blizzard changed the mindset to "I'll give them what they want". Now it has a fuckin farmville!

    Seriously let the devs do their job and hope for the best - if it turns out to be shit, then you or me just wont play it. It would be sad, I agree, but in the end its just a game. But regardless of the outcome, I want their game, their vision, their original plan without any outside influence because all the past has proven is that outside influence or "gamer's suggestions" turn games to shit.

    Try to understand what I'm saying here - the risk is worth it.

    image
  • sapphensapphen Madison, NCPosts: 911Member Common
    Originally posted by Crazyhorsek

    Now where I'm trying to get at is... Ridley Scott doesnt really "phone home" to check if the fans are going to like the new alien movie... he made the movie according to his vision, and its because of his vision that you go see it. I don't come up with stuff like Alien so I'll go to the movies to enjoy the work of someone who has a far greater vision than I have and my adventure in that movie is to see, to participate, to be part of that vision that I couldnt come up by myself.

    Did he ask the fans about the new alien movie? No... it was his vision and it was made the way he wanted to make it - hell he didnt even call it Aliens, it called it "Prometheus" (just a side note to the ones who keep beating the dead cow of "this isnt a TES game qq - this guy made an Aliens movie and doesnt even have to call it "alien" - that thing aside) 

    Now... if you like his vision, you'll go see Prometheus, if you don't like his vision, if you feel hes betraying his alien legacy or anyother kind of self-entitlement just because you're an aliens fan, Scott couldnt care less - he made his vision of what he thought it should be the next Aliens movie. Its his work, his dream, and you'll go see it if its good, and dont see it if its bad, but he doesnt care - the vision is made like he wanted it - not the fans, not the supporters, not anyone else but him.

    Ridley Scott didn't create Alien, he was the director.  A director's vision is a little different - they take a story that they like and figure out the best way to present it to the viewers.  It really urks me when people think that these great IPs were from one person's mind.  Large projects are a collection of many creative individuals contributing and building off each other's suggestions.  When projects come directly from one mind you get crap like M Night's The Last Airbender.

     

    Originally posted by Crazyhorsek

    Yes, its a risk, but... isnt it better when you look at a movie and you know nothing about it and it turns out to be awesome and it came as a surprise? Rather than you already knowing "I KNOW what this movie is about, I KNOW everything about it, because I TOLD HIM how to sculpt his vision according to my wishes"? And by the way... if it was the case, it was no longer Ridley Scott's Alien, it would be your alien.

    Again its a risk but thats how it goes... its a business. What is this crap of not wanting to take risks? This is why the industry has become stagnant. Because companies are not willing to really throw something out into the world thats completely the opposite of what people are used to.

    A risk is what they should've took.  They was trying to play it safe by recreating DAoC instead of making a TES MMO.  It's funny now because the real DAoC2 is coming out and now ESO is even more of a cheap knock-off.

     

    Originally posted by Crazyhorsek

    For me one of the biggest ... actually, for me THE example of that is the new X-COM. Firaxix had this HUGE PAIR of balls when they decided to release X-COM in an era where turn-bases strat was virtually dead - the ones that existed were old or extremely bad and every sign pointed to "Look man, I appreciate your idea and all, but this is just NOT the time to release a turn-based strategy game". If they read the signs, they would have never released X-COM: Enemy Unknown and we'd all miss a great game. Yes you can argue that "Oh but it wasnt like the original xcom or ufo where you had a million bases and yadda yadda", doesnt matter - the game is great, and it was a breath of fresh air on a stale industry flooded by Black Ops, Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and its clones

    Another example was Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat - I mean, releasing a 2D fighting game in 2009 or 20011? Really? The genre was DEAD yet although Capcom made an excelent work with Street Fighter, Netherealm came up with the absolute best Mortal Kombat to date - who could have forseen this? Specially with mortal kombat taking into account how BAD were all mortal kombat games since MK3. But they took the risk... 

    Both MK and SF tried the 3D crap to ride along with stupid games like Tekken, but... they made the decision and took the HUGE risk of going back to their roots - the 2D formula that made them a success in the past - and they pulled it off - Mortal Kombat exploded in every market and some are yet trying to play it - only this year the game is coming out in Australia for instance.

    There is a difference in making a new X-COM and taking a game that has established systems, tossing them aside to copy another game completely.  X-COM, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat went back to their roots and that's why it worked.  Elder Scrolls has MANY systems that would've transfered into a MMO.  TES has a stronger following that DAoC, it didn't need another game to copy.

     

    Originally posted by Crazyhorsek

    The way I see with this MMO crap, I think the devs should look back. Way before WoW when MMOs were actually MMOs, not a casual "oh I only have half an hour, I'll do a random" game, but one that actually takes time and effort and dedication - where you absolutely cant thrive playing 1 or 2 hours a week. So MMOs should go back to their original formula and part of what Zenimax is doing, is going back - with the faction lock DAoC style for instance. Of course they should go even more hardcore and bring back the xp loss on death, etc, but they wont, still they should because this genre is not a fast-food genre, and either you have what it takes to play it or not. Today everyone plays an mmo... it shouldnt be like that. I even speak against myself since when I played DAoC sometimes I didnt have time to play it. Was I a good DAoC player? Yes... was I leveled on par with the real good DAoC players? NO WAY. But it was fine, and I accepted it "well I dont really have the time these guys have so I try my best".

    And all these changes to mmos came from the playerbase, not the companies. Companies are to blame when they please this fast-food player base (or "gamers") that are self-entitled and think everything should be done according to what they THINK is the best for said game - and thats how WoW turned to shit - I dont care how many players WoW has, its shit. Like Guild Wars 2, its shit. Difference is, WoW was a cool game actually... before Blizzard changed the mindset to "I'll give them what they want". Now it has a fuckin farmville!

    Seriously let the devs do their job and hope for the best - if it turns out to be shit, then you or me just wont play it. It would be sad, I agree, but in the end its just a game. But regardless of the outcome, I want their game, their vision, their original plan without any outside influence because all the past has proven is that outside influence or "gamer's suggestions" turn games to shit.

    Try to understand what I'm saying here - the risk is worth it.

    What risk?  They are not making a risky game, DAoC RvR is considered safe and many other games has tried to copy their PvP system.

    It is up to the players and developers to evolve past this mindset that MMOs must copy other MMOs to be successful.  They need to take a risk and make a truely innovative game.

13»
Sign In or Register to comment.