It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
They are just making crap obsolete. Bad game design by first impression
English pronunciation isn't the issue. The issue is the orthography. Modern English is still - largely - using pre-Great Vowel Shift, Middle English orthography. The Vowel Shift changed the placement of most vowels in the English Language (Chain-Shift), so pronunciation stopped corresponding to their spellings. Additionally, English employs heavy vowel reduction, which is very "variable" in nature. So, when we speak, we shorten and reduce vowels in unstressed syllables. The language is stress-timed. This means that no orthography can truly correspond 1:1 with English pronunciation, due to this reduction and the variable nature of it in the spoken language.Cryomatrix said:"correct to way" === you mean === "correct way"postlarval said:It would be grammatically correct to way 'woman' not 'women'. This indicates to me English may not be your first language.Cryomatrix said:The women is the true raper of a man's wallet.viddiot said:Practice restraint, and avoid games that want to rape your wallet. That is key.
I ask you to use Google Translate before posting in the future, but I don't think they have a Cro-Magnon to English option yet.
Actually the issue isn't grammar, it is however a typo. When not thinking and you type women or woman, they sound the same, so it was likely akin to attempting to type 'there' and instead wrote 'their'.
English is silly in its rules of pronunciation.
These can all be said exactly the same and spelled completely different:
Fource/Phource (as in source)
Foarse/Phoarse (as in coarse)
Forse/phorse (as in norse)
Fourse/Phourse (as in course)
Woman and women sound the same but one denotes singular and the other plural. That is silly.
And English is my first language. I'm bilingual however.
p.s. I was joking with the "woman is the true raper of man's wallets"
They are just making crap obsolete. Bad game design by first impression
This is actually a great change. It means they can make other content more difficult and keep it more relevant longer, because the rewards can be kept relevant by other means. Right now, the set pieces are a prison... They can always adjust difficulty in patches if things become a bit too trivial, etc. This is really going to give players more choice and allow them to differentiate themselves from others besides simply transmogging the same pieces of gear. There will still be BiS - that is unavoidable - but this is a great change to bring us back to more "rewarding" feel when high level gear drops, because we won't be passing on them (or throwing them away/DEing them) for set pieces.
This is a great change. Raid sets were bad when they were introduced to EverQuest as well... "That's really nice, but I'm waiting on my class helm so I think I'll pass on it..." It was full of that, since Velious on up. EQ2 had the same issue, because the set pieces had such amazing focus effects, that it wasn't possible to pass on them for other high level gear - even though the other gear was really good aside from the lack of set bonus/focus effect.
Great change. Looking forward to this. Will make the game feel more fun and rewarding to play compared to now.
People like you just have to piss in others Cheerios, as if you have a clue about game design in the first place.
Lol, gamers can be so quick to snarkiness mate. Calm down a notch theres no reason we cannot have civil and polite discussions on this website. Thank you very much. As to why I have the early impression this devalues the raiding scene and make it somewhat obsolete is simply the effort versus reward aspect.
Every change as big as this is bound to have some flaws in the eyes of someone. A big concern of mine is how much the incentive to try and do raids in the endgame become whether it will replace hunt for epic rare loot to empower your char or just common currency and cosmetics. Getting the warglaive of azzinoth wasn't just amazing because it had a low drop rate alone it was also the challenge to get the opportunity that made it legendaryback in burning crusade
Dullahan said:The quest in EQ was your every adventure, not some npc sanctioned task.
cameltosis said:How has it changed these days? It was my understanding that multi-threading is still a real issue for a lot of game devs and they struggle to take advantage of multiple cores - something I can attest to from watching my hardware monitors.Jean-Luc_Picard said:Maybe that was true 10 years ago, but not nowadays.cameltosis said:I disagree.Mendel said:Very true, @sunandshadow. There is plenty of hardware on the client end to do much more elaborate things than games attempt. The problem, in my view, is that games aren't attempting to do anything more elaborate. Processing power is adequate for much more difficult applications, why haven't we seen game developers attempt anything that can't be reproduced with analog dice?sunandshadow said:Things besides graphics aren't dependant on hardware speed though, so I'm not sure why you think more would help. We've got enough hardware for good physics simulation, or for better AI if that existed. We've got more than enough hardware for interactive story, intricate game mechanics, voice chat, deeply developed NPCs, less predictable monsters...centkin said:What has mostly happened to the progression of MMORPGs is that computers stopped getting faster. There were a lot of good ideas, that were implausible back in the day and still implausible now.
We won't see much improvement until computers actually make a leap in something more meaningful than graphics.
I am a software developer. I have worked on everything from large defence contracts through to small websites. I have also worked for a good games company, admittedly in QA rather than dev, but I hung out with the devs a lot.
Hardware is still a very real limitation. You would probably be shocked at just how many calculations are going on every second when playing a game. It is staggering! Not only is the volume staggering, but it all has to be perfectly timed otherwise everything falls apart.
The real barrier to improvement is on the software end. Not in terms of designing interesting things, there are plenty of capable devs for that, but in terms of how we do the fundamentals. I'll give you an example.
Games are sequential - one thing follows another - so timing is extremely crucial to a game running properly. I cannot calculate whether I have shot you before I have calculated where I am aiming, then where you are moving, then whether there is a collision or not. It is thus vitally important that calculations happen in the right order.
What this means is that most games still only utilise a single core on your processor. This is the easiest way to ensure the correct order is followed. Multi-threading (calculations being done on different cores) is an extremely complicated thing to get correct - not due to the hardware, but due to writing the software properly. So, I have a quad-core processor, but most games only use one core. That one core typically sits at 90-95% load whilst the other 3 idle at 20-30%. The software is causing me to hit a hardware limitation.
This gives us the illusion that buying new processors means we're getting more performance, but for gaming that isn't true. We are still hitting hardware limitations on a per-core basis and will continue to do so until game engines improve. This is obviously a generalisation - some games do utilise multi-threading.
Adamantine said:I dunno, I always felt that when somebody complaints about a game that it has "bad animations" thats because they dont have anything else to say and just dont like the game. Likewise with "good animations", people just want to praise a game and cant think of anything else.
Nobody plays a game because it has good animations. Nobody avoids one because it has bad ones. Its just not relevant enough.