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!

why older games seem better...

11112141617

Comments

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    Actualy being pedantic for a moment, Opinions can't be wrong either. They can be ill-informed but not wrong. Since an opinion is merely a statement of what an individual thinks. Opinions are entirely subjective and unless the individual is lying then they are objectively accurate assertions of the individuals state of belief. Example "I think Franks Dinner is terrible".... That's an accurate assertion of the individuals belief. It's an objectively true statement whether I've been to Franks Dinner (informed opinion) or not (uninformed opinion). An assertion of fact, however, can be correct or incorrect as it is objectively measurable. Example - Franks Dinner is terrible because it doesn't serve seafood.

    Both informed opinions and informed preferences are more USEFULL then uninformed ones but they are never actualy wrong. For example, it wouldn't be terribly usefull in judging how well a film critics tastes matched up with yours if he said he disliked horror movies but had only ever seen one horror movie. However his preference is factualy accurate - he does dislike them - until some experience happens (e.g. seeing a good horror movie) to change or modify that preference.

    An opinion is a view. A view can be wrong. It could be your opinion that the earth is flat. But that opinion would be wrong.

    This is true.

    Opinions can absolutely be wrong.  What someone thinks is very often wrong.  I think the moon is made out of cheese.  This opinion is wrong.  Opinions regarding factual issues, that is subjects that can be objectively verified can be wrong.  Very often opinions are not subjective, they are statements regarding factual issues, and there data can be wrong.  If I had said the moon is made out of cheese that would be an incorrect factual statement, however I stated I think the moon is made out of cheese giving my opinion about a factual state, the fact is wrong, therefore the opinion is wrong.

    Now an opinion about a subjective state cannot be wrong.  I think GW2 is boring (don't get up in arms, it's just an example), this type of opinion is totally subjective, it can't be wrong.

    Again being pedantic but deconstruct the sentance. "I THINK the moon is made of green cheese".  You've just told me something that is factualy accurate ....unless you are lying about what you think. Your belief about the moon has no basis in reality....it's ignorant or ill-informed....but it IS your belief. "The moon is made of green cheese" - This on the other hand is NOT an opinion but an assertion of fact.....and because it is not a statement of thought or belief but an assertion of objective fact... "The moon IS..."  can be factualy wrong.

     

     

     

     

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    Actualy being pedantic for a moment, Opinions can't be wrong either. They can be ill-informed but not wrong. Since an opinion is merely a statement of what an individual thinks. Opinions are entirely subjective and unless the individual is lying then they are objectively accurate assertions of the individuals state of belief. Example "I think Franks Dinner is terrible".... That's an accurate assertion of the individuals belief. It's an objectively true statement whether I've been to Franks Dinner (informed opinion) or not (uninformed opinion). An assertion of fact, however, can be correct or incorrect as it is objectively measurable. Example - Franks Dinner is terrible because it doesn't serve seafood.

    Both informed opinions and informed preferences are more USEFULL then uninformed ones but they are never actualy wrong. For example, it wouldn't be terribly usefull in judging how well a film critics tastes matched up with yours if he said he disliked horror movies but had only ever seen one horror movie. However his preference is factualy accurate - he does dislike them - until some experience happens (e.g. seeing a good horror movie) to change or modify that preference.

    An opinion is a view. A view can be wrong. It could be your opinion that the earth is flat. But that opinion would be wrong.

    This is true.

    Opinions can absolutely be wrong.  What someone thinks is very often wrong.  I think the moon is made out of cheese.  This opinion is wrong.  Opinions regarding factual issues, that is subjects that can be objectively verified can be wrong.  Very often opinions are not subjective, they are statements regarding factual issues, and there data can be wrong.  If I had said the moon is made out of cheese that would be an incorrect factual statement, however I stated I think the moon is made out of cheese giving my opinion about a factual state, the fact is wrong, therefore the opinion is wrong.

    Now an opinion about a subjective state cannot be wrong.  I think GW2 is boring (don't get up in arms, it's just an example), this type of opinion is totally subjective, it can't be wrong.

    Again being pedantic but deconstruct the sentance. "I THINK the moon is made of green cheese".  You've just told me something that is factualy accurate ....unless you are lying about what you think. Your belief about the moon has no basis in reality....it's ignorant or ill-informed....but it IS your belief. "The moon is made of green cheese" - This on the other hand is NOT an opinion but an assertion of fact.....and because it is not a statement of thought or belief but an assertion of objective fact... "The moon IS..."  can be factualy wrong.

    You have just pedantic'd my ass off. You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.

     

    Let me change it to "The moon is made of cheese." That would've been an opinion.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by Holophonist
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    Actualy being pedantic for a moment, Opinions can't be wrong either. They can be ill-informed but not wrong. Since an opinion is merely a statement of what an individual thinks. Opinions are entirely subjective and unless the individual is lying then they are objectively accurate assertions of the individuals state of belief. Example "I think Franks Dinner is terrible".... That's an accurate assertion of the individuals belief. It's an objectively true statement whether I've been to Franks Dinner (informed opinion) or not (uninformed opinion). An assertion of fact, however, can be correct or incorrect as it is objectively measurable. Example - Franks Dinner is terrible because it doesn't serve seafood.

    Both informed opinions and informed preferences are more USEFULL then uninformed ones but they are never actualy wrong. For example, it wouldn't be terribly usefull in judging how well a film critics tastes matched up with yours if he said he disliked horror movies but had only ever seen one horror movie. However his preference is factualy accurate - he does dislike them - until some experience happens (e.g. seeing a good horror movie) to change or modify that preference.

    An opinion is a view. A view can be wrong. It could be your opinion that the earth is flat. But that opinion would be wrong.

    This is true.

    Opinions can absolutely be wrong.  What someone thinks is very often wrong.  I think the moon is made out of cheese.  This opinion is wrong.  Opinions regarding factual issues, that is subjects that can be objectively verified can be wrong.  Very often opinions are not subjective, they are statements regarding factual issues, and there data can be wrong.  If I had said the moon is made out of cheese that would be an incorrect factual statement, however I stated I think the moon is made out of cheese giving my opinion about a factual state, the fact is wrong, therefore the opinion is wrong.

    Now an opinion about a subjective state cannot be wrong.  I think GW2 is boring (don't get up in arms, it's just an example), this type of opinion is totally subjective, it can't be wrong.

    Again being pedantic but deconstruct the sentance. "I THINK the moon is made of green cheese".  You've just told me something that is factualy accurate ....unless you are lying about what you think. Your belief about the moon has no basis in reality....it's ignorant or ill-informed....but it IS your belief. "The moon is made of green cheese" - This on the other hand is NOT an opinion but an assertion of fact.....and because it is not a statement of thought or belief but an assertion of objective fact... "The moon IS..."  can be factualy wrong.

     

     

     

     Nm just isn't worth the effort anymore.

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • MibletMiblet BognerPosts: 333Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot

    Not that everything today is bad, we have innovative combat systems, voice talent and MMOs caught up with solo games graphic wise. But when you add it all up we have shallow easymode MMOs compared to what we once had.

     

    You have a weird definition of "shallow easymode".

    To me, single mob camp, a large amount of EQ gameplay, *is* shadow easymode.

    Why?

    shadow - you are killing the same mob with the same tactic every time. That is repetitive, and shallow with no variation and no thinking needed.

    easy - well .. you never fail. Usually the mob die within second of spawning. And if there are other groups, they will "help" and make it even more trivial.

    And the old MMOs have the added downside of downtime, and very boring because you spent most of the time chatting and not playing a game.

    Now my comments are directed at pve only.

    To be fair while there were easy single pull camps in the 'good old days' of EQ (and there are more of them now I'll grant you), they usually didn't reward the player much for being there.  The most rewarding areas were usually those with mob splitting or crowd control required (and whilst yes when things were going well it was repetitive, the real show began when things didn't go well - when a pull came with adds, roamers or a failed attempt at crowd control and the choices you made with your limited abilities shone through).  Higher risk for more reward.  Modern MMOs tend to make it pretty hard to die at all in PvE unless at the very highest tier of content (and very few play that, despite every one on every forum claiming they do).

    As for other groups helping...most groups gave each other some room, so a potential wipe wouldn't affect them and if both groups fight over content neither walks away happy.  There was more chance of a nearby group hindering than helping.  Then again could you imagine a game now that would have camps respected at all if everything wasn't instanced?

    The downtime in the old games was not as harsh as people like to make out.  If you adjusted and managed your rescources downtime for most classes was no worse than some modern MMOs...however I agree if you were awful at resource management the game wouldn't pat your head condescendingly while throwing more resources at you.  Besides, chatting was a part of the game that I enjoyed (and quite a few others too, though I admit many today seem to abhor social interactions whilst screaming about the loss of community).

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Miblet
    Then again could you imagine a game now that would have camps respected at all if everything wasn't instanced?

     

    That is the beauty of instanced gameplay. You don't have to wait, you don't have to count on respect of anyone, and you don't have to respect anyone.

    Hence, i won't play open dungeons games with any camping.

     

  • ArglebargleArglebargle Austin, TXPosts: 1,418Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Miblet
    Then again could you imagine a game now that would have camps respected at all if everything wasn't instanced?

     

    That is the beauty of instanced gameplay. You don't have to wait, you don't have to count on respect of anyone, and you don't have to respect anyone.

    Hence, i won't play open dungeons games with any camping.

     

    While some may not care for instances in games, it was a solution to these sorts of problems.   There  were numerous camping problems and I am sure that developers everywhere would love to hear of other, achieveable, solutions.

     

    It was one of the many issues with the 'old school' games that lead to me avoiding them.   The bad outweighed the good imo.

    If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.

  • NaughtyPNaughtyP Edmonton, ABPosts: 793Member
    Originally posted by Arglebargle
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Miblet
    Then again could you imagine a game now that would have camps respected at all if everything wasn't instanced?

     

    That is the beauty of instanced gameplay. You don't have to wait, you don't have to count on respect of anyone, and you don't have to respect anyone.

    Hence, i won't play open dungeons games with any camping.

     

    While some may not care for instances in games, it was a solution to these sorts of problems.   There  were numerous camping problems and I am sure that developers everywhere would love to hear of other, achieveable, solutions.

     

    It was one of the many issues with the 'old school' games that lead to me avoiding them.   The bad outweighed the good imo.

    The one thing that hasn't changed in 10-15 years is gamers' obsession with having exclusive or rare loot. That's one thing I would have hoped would have disappeared (or at least decreased) by now. You wouldn't need to worry about instancing, spawn camping or general asshattery if a game had more to offer than another +2 upgrade to dexterity in the latest dungeon that be released.

    Enter a whole new realm of challenge and adventure.

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Miblet
    Then again could you imagine a game now that would have camps respected at all if everything wasn't instanced?

     

    That is the beauty of instanced gameplay. You don't have to wait, you don't have to count on respect of anyone, and you don't have to respect anyone.

    Hence, i won't play open dungeons games with any camping.

     

    Totally! you don't have to socialize! You get everything you want exactly when you want it! It's perfect.

     

     

    /sarcasm

  • monochrome19monochrome19 Chicago, ILPosts: 454Member Uncommon
    Man... you guys really love forum pvp here.
  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,461Member Uncommon

    They are not really better,they just made a Much bigger leap from the previous games in technology.Now a days,i see no innovation or even worse are that devs are copying the most boring ideas from the same type games such as EQish type games Wow ect ect.

    Yes SOE did some good things,Blizzard very little,but devs/producers need to look elsewhere or think for themselves if to make a really good idea.

    That is why games NEED to constantly evolve,because each new game is just copying 90% of the most bland ideas.

    The old games literally went from pixels and bubbled talk to voice overs,beautiful 3d cut scenes/movies,great effects,great UI .higher resolution textures and most of all from single player to MMO ect ect.You can no longer remain stagnant and call that a good effort,there are hundreds of games all doing the same thing.

     


    Samoan Diamond

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,769Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Wizardry

    They are not really better,they just made a Much bigger leap from the previous games in technology.Now a days,i see no innovation or even worse are that devs are copying the most boring ideas from the same type games such as EQish type games Wow ect ect.

    Yes SOE did some good things,Blizzard very little,but devs/producers need to look elsewhere or think for themselves if to make a really good idea.

    That is why games NEED to constantly evolve,because each new game is just copying 90% of the most bland ideas.

    The old games literally went from pixels and bubbled talk to voice overs,beautiful 3d cut scenes/movies,great effects,great UI .higher resolution textures and most of all from single player to MMO ect ect.You can no longer remain stagnant and call that a good effort,there are hundreds of games all doing the same thing.

     

    This is the problem, MMO's went from evolving as games to chasing a market. First the solo player market, then console and now anyone on social media. Instead of evolving they have become tailored to fit the new market, first for gamers who did not want to play MMOs and now for people who are not gamers, but only occasionally dabble at games.

     

  • daltaniousdaltanious waPosts: 2,145Member Uncommon
    To OP: they do not seem and they are not. Some people just love to live in past. Yes, fractions of past is possible were better ... but not as a whole.
  • TjedTjed Baltimore, MDPosts: 162Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Miblet
    Then again could you imagine a game now that would have camps respected at all if everything wasn't instanced?

     

    That is the beauty of instanced gameplay. You don't have to wait, you don't have to count on respect of anyone, and you don't have to respect anyone.

    Hence, i won't play open dungeons games with any camping.

     

    what's the use of autonomy when a button does it all?

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Scot
     

    This is the problem, MMO's went from evolving as games to chasing a market. First the solo player market, then console and now anyone on social media. Instead of evolving they have become tailored to fit the new market, first for gamers who did not want to play MMOs and now for people who are not gamers, but only occasionally dabble at games.

     

    Chasing the market = give people what they wants, and entertain them.

    May be they are not chasing YOUR market, but inherently there is nothing wrong with chasing a market (or even creating one).

     

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot
     

    This is the problem, MMO's went from evolving as games to chasing a market. First the solo player market, then console and now anyone on social media. Instead of evolving they have become tailored to fit the new market, first for gamers who did not want to play MMOs and now for people who are not gamers, but only occasionally dabble at games.

     

    Chasing the market = give people what they wants, and entertain them.

    May be they are not chasing YOUR market, but inherently there is nothing wrong with chasing a market (or even creating one).

    Chasing the market as in chasing the market trends as in moving away from your base. So when you say chasing the market = giving people what they want, that's not totally honest. Somebody's always going to want some product. 

  • aspekxaspekx Brandon, FLPosts: 2,167Member
    Originally posted by daltanious
    Yes, fractions of past is possible were better ... but not as a whole.

    exactly. there were very good elements in many older games. everything was not perfect, that's simply not rational.

     

    i was simply offering one of several reasons that i believe this conundrum exists.

     

     

    "There are at least two kinds of games.
    One could be called finite, the other infinite.
    A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
    an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
    Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse

  • HolophonistHolophonist Pittsburgh, PAPosts: 2,086Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by aspekx
    Originally posted by daltanious
    Yes, fractions of past is possible were better ... but not as a whole.

    exactly. there were very good elements in many older games. everything was not perfect, that's simply not rational.

     

    i was simply offering one of several reasons that i believe this conundrum exists.

    I'm not sure what the conundrum is. The MMO industry has watered itself down in the search for a larger playerbase. You don't need to fabricate some explanation to it.

  • LauraFrostLauraFrost New York, NYPosts: 95Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Miblet
    Then again could you imagine a game now that would have camps respected at all if everything wasn't instanced?

     

    That is the beauty of instanced gameplay. You don't have to wait, you don't have to count on respect of anyone, and you don't have to respect anyone.

    Hence, i won't play open dungeons games with any camping.

     

     

    That's the difference between the game YOU want to play and the game I want to play.

    You want to play a game where everything is convenient. You have no problems by the fact that there are infinite versions of Emperor Crush being spawned for every little Timmy out there who wants to "play". One press of a button and you get your own private McDungeon for you and your friends to play in. Joy!

     

    What I want to play, in the other hand, is to delve in a dangerous fantasy world. Where Emperor Crush is one and only one. Without this McDungeon bullshit or Lobby-Play. If I go to Castle Ravenloft I want to know there's only one Castle Ravenloft in this world... if there are 938938 Castle Ravenloft spawned for Jimmy and Timmy... then I'm playing a Lobby Game. Just a game... like Diablo 2.. a Pinneata of loot...

    Don't get me wrong... It's cool, you can play these games (the whole market is saturared with them btw) GOOD FOR YOU!! ENOJY! GOOD FOR YOU! I am really happy for you... But I, in the other hand, I'm still waiting for that game where I can delve in a real dangerous world without "instances"... unfortunately, people like you don't want me to have fun I guess?

    All what I want is one game... just one game. You can keep ALL your games with instances (there are PLENTY coming up by the way; so fear not)... Still, you really got the nerve to come here and argue against people who wants instance-free MMORPGs.

     

     

     

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,769Member Uncommon

    You do see a tendency in those that think modern easyMMOs are fine to believe we want all MMO's to change to our way. Whatever our way may be as it varies from more old school, to more sandbox. Truth is we would be quite have with a couple of decent AAA releases, I don't want the genre going our way, quite happy for you content locusts to head in one direction while we head in another.

  • JjixJjix Boston, MAPosts: 141Member

    A few points:

    1) The argument that everyone thinks the past was better as they get older is a very compelling one. But then I considered that virtually every other game genre, in my mind, has improved over the years. FPSers are far better than they used to be. Single player RPGs like Skyrim or Mass Effect are incredible games that blow the past away and are only making the genre stronger than it ever was. Single player strategy games like Europa Universalis IV or even Civ V, for me, are vast improvements over what we used to have. Look, the fact is that mmorpgs are the ONLY form of video game I find to be going in the wrong direction. If I, or anyone else, were merely just becoming an old fart, then there would certainly be evidence of this kind of conservative thinking across the board. One is hard pressed to explain why the conviction that mmorpgs are worst today is confined to only that one genre, whereas the same person thinks games in every other genre have greatly improved over the years.

     

    2) It cannot be said that any game or era of games was objectively superior to any other. It can also not be said that sex is objectively superior to eating tuna fish.

     

    3) "Grind" is a state of gameplay that is boring and monotonous, but is nevertheless undertaken for the sake of future rewards. Speeding up the rate at which you achieves those rewards does not remove grind, "grind" is not defined by how quickly you achieve those rewards. As long as you are playing mostly for the future, and not actually enjoying the gameplay of the present moment, you are involved in grind. Many modern games speed up the leveling process, offer you more rewards, make the gameplay easier, but paradoxically end up becoming more grind fests because all you are ever doing is chasing the carrot and never enjoying the game. When you get the latest level or item or achievement, you just start grinding for the next thing, always chasing the future, never enjoying the moment. The old games weren't like this, at least not for me. It took a long time to achieve anything, but I enjoyed the time immensely.

     

    4) If older mmorpg gamers generally are agreed that the earlier games were better, it is possible that this view is just the fault of them being older. But if that isn't the case, then there must have been something concrete in those old games that is missing from the new. People throw out little nuggets here and there in an effort to explain what is different, but the bottom line is something is different, and that something needs to be defined. I would define it simply as so: that the older games gave a unique experience that newer games do not, and that is the experience of complete immersion in a fantasy world, so complete that that world becomes more real to you than real life. I would argue that even younger gamers do not experience this in newer games, that the capacity for such immersion is not a matter of youth and the brain, but rather that the newer games are designed in such a way as to prevent deeper immersion in younger and older gamers alike. Whether one thinks that such immersion is desirable or not is another matter, but that the older games did a better job at delivering it is probably true UNLESS one could show that younger gamers are experiencing this same level of immersion in modern games. 

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by LauraFrost

    All what I want is one game... just one game. You can keep ALL your games with instances (there are PLENTY coming up by the way; so fear not)... Still, you really got the nerve to come here and argue against people who wants instance-free MMORPGs.

     

     

     

    Of course i do. It is an internet forum. You think only YOUR opinion has the right to be posted? Not only i think that is silly, i am posting to show that it is something that is not going to happen. Who says your preference should be talked about more just because it is catered to less?

    So what if you just want one game? In fact, there is one. Vanguard. Now i bet you will rant on it, and want another. No one owes you a game that you like. You vote with your feet and your wallet just like everybody else, and the market decides.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Scot

    You do see a tendency in those that think modern easyMMOs are fine to believe we want all MMO's to change to our way. Whatever our way may be as it varies from more old school, to more sandbox. Truth is we would be quite have with a couple of decent AAA releases, I don't want the genre going our way, quite happy for you content locusts to head in one direction while we head in another.

    No i don't believe that at all.

    But i do believe you don't care about others' preferences, but your own. Why should you care about things that are not fun for you?

    Oh, don't worry, i doubt the "genre" will go your way. More like it will go the way of so much change (MOBA, destiny ...) that it won't be the same genre anymore. Now THAT would be interesting (to me, of course).

     

  • qombiqombi Unknown, LAPosts: 1,180Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot

    You do see a tendency in those that think modern easyMMOs are fine to believe we want all MMO's to change to our way. Whatever our way may be as it varies from more old school, to more sandbox. Truth is we would be quite have with a couple of decent AAA releases, I don't want the genre going our way, quite happy for you content locusts to head in one direction while we head in another.

    No i don't believe that at all.

    But i do believe you don't care about others' preferences, but your own. Why should you care about things that are not fun for you?

    Oh, don't worry, i doubt the "genre" will go your way. More like it will go the way of so much change (MOBA, destiny ...) that it won't be the same genre anymore. Now THAT would be interesting (to me, of course).

     

    Nariusseldon has always argued for easy convenient game play. What he types should not surprise anyone. And it's okay because that is what he likes. Everyone can like different things. Nar may be "casual" or prefer games without hardcore challenges but by his post count on here, he is a hard core forum goer! :)

    I think we all should just respect each other and know everyone cares for different things. I just hope eventually the developers will realize you can not please everyone with one game and the market is saturated. It is time to start making games to focus on a particular audience.

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,769Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Scot

    You do see a tendency in those that think modern easyMMOs are fine to believe we want all MMO's to change to our way. Whatever our way may be as it varies from more old school, to more sandbox. Truth is we would be quite have with a couple of decent AAA releases, I don't want the genre going our way, quite happy for you content locusts to head in one direction while we head in another.

    No i don't believe that at all.

    But i do believe you don't care about others' preferences, but your own. Why should you care about things that are not fun for you?

    Oh, don't worry, i doubt the "genre" will go your way. More like it will go the way of so much change (MOBA, destiny ...) that it won't be the same genre anymore. Now THAT would be interesting (to me, of course).

     

    I do think you can get wrapped up in your idea of what fun is sometimes Nari. It is a big MMO market out there, there is room for all tastes, so why should I not be happy we could all get what we want?

     

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    ...But i do believe you don't care about others' preferences, but your own. Why should you care about things that are not fun for you?

    I don't think there is one poster on this site who isn't already aware of your disposition.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

Sign In or Register to comment.