Marietta, GA
Last Active
  • Starting Cities

    Kyleran said:
    Mendel said:
    Dullahan said:
    There are drawbacks to your suggestion too, you just don't agree with them. There are different classes and races and backstory for a reason. In a role playing game, one might argue they are rather important. You're suggestion is that they offer a way of minimizing that.
    Ultimately, what it comes down to is what writers call the 'Suspension of Disbelief'.  Here, classes, races and backstory are presented as a consistent lore.  But the mechanisms of starting (character creation and pregame decisions) present a different 'lore'.  Both sides ask the audience to believe along certain lines.  In this case, the in-game lore and the pregame mechanisms are slightly out of alignment.  Neither is right; neither is wrong.

    I don't think @Kyleran is asking for anything world-shattering, just a simple mechanism added to the pregame decisions -- where does my character start?  It really doesn't break the in-game lore at all.  If anything, it could produce a more rich and vast experience by showing a non-homogeneous society.  Yes, there may be orcs living among the humans.  That isn't asking any more than a human player playing an orc or troll character.

    I think there's a bigger reason why VR *might* actually allow variable starting locations.  "Separate but equal" didn't work well in life, why try to make it work in a game?  The in-game lore that presents segregation might turn out to be an antiquated idea that a sensitive section of the gaming population doesn't agree with.  I'm sure that VR doesn't want their game to be a political volleyball that fuels social unrest.  Bad for the business image.

    To clarify one thing, I'm not asking for this. I have no gaming friends or family I must play along side, so it doesn't matter to me.

    I have a circle of friends who are mostly couples, very insular, there's about 10 of them who regularly group together in every game they play, so the last thing they want is to be forced into one area or continent or be kept apart of 10 or more levels.

    While I'm the "disloyal" member of the group who frequently goes off to solo level, play other games, or even join different guilds in the same game they won't vary, if a game puts up a bunch of blockers to grouping together they won't play it.

    Heck, if preserving the lore is so vital, then add in another new starting location, away from the other's  and let these folks start there and then visit the rest of the world as they wish.

    Again, I don't really care, other than I would like to see my friends try this game, but if they can't group together easily and early they won't be interested. 

    I may be in the same boat, @Kyleran.  I'm an outsider, even in my circle of gaming friends.  Of course, we're all kind of individuals prone to going our own way.

    I like the idea of a 'neutral' starting zone, like a starter island.  If fact, it would be more interesting if the racial starting zones were made into higher level areas.  Capitals of great civilizations should be great cities where great deeds and events occur, not a place where newbs gather to whack a few rats.

    The arguments in favor of the 'sanctity of the lore' bothers me.  It's all lore, and much of it hasn't been written yet.
  • The Real Question ...

    When isn't a question to me.  Rather, it's a requirement.  When the game is out and when I have some hands-on experience, then I will decide.
  • New Brad McQuiad Interview "I want to make Worlds. Not games."

    DMKano said:
    goboygo said:

    How does this benefit the gamer if we keep getting crap games that still survive.  It doesn't.   If the game isn't good enough to warrant an upfront cost and a sub, it should fail and go away.  The next developer will then know they have to do better or don't bother.  I'd rather have one amazing MMO every 5 to 10 years than 20 pieces of shit every year.

    You are under the mistaken assumption that anyone is looking for gamer's benefit. That's not how business works.

    Who makes the product - that's who is benefiting - in the case - the question should be - "how does this benefit the game companies" - as that's the only question the game companies are asking, "the benefit for the gamer" - that's never brought up, because it's not their concern.

    The focus is - "how do we get the consumers to spend money on our product" - that's the bottom line of any business.

    Again - you are looking at this from the gamer's perspective - why? Because gamers are not the ones that run game companies - so your wants and needs of "wanting to have most games shut down and only few survive" - why would any business do this? 

    It would be like going to  movie companies and telling them to only make a few great movies and skip 100s of mediocre movies - should the movie industry listen to an outsider who has no investment, and no direct input in making any movies?

    Get real - your needs are completely irrelevant to the industry as whole.

    Movies just like games are made to make money - that's what drives the whole industry.

    Would it be nice to only have awesome quality product - yes it would be - is this in any way shape or form realistic - nope, so why even go there?

    How come you get away with using " your " instead of " you're " ? 

    Maybe because everything else I spell is wrong ?.... Only kidding, I don't care :) 
    Possibly because his 'your' was correctly used.
  • New Brad McQuiad Interview "I want to make Worlds. Not games."

    I wasn't impressed by anything Brad said in that interview.  That fluff crap about building a world instead of a game is such a load of BS.  If he were serious about that he would first have to do away with levels and move the focus away from character progression.  A game focused on character progression can never be designed to really feel like a "world".  That doesn't mean it will necessarily be bad but it does mean that any talk about it being "a living breathing world" is just pure marketing BS.

    He also, once again, talked about picking a target audience and trying to make the best game for that particular niche.  Ok, that makes some sense, but has he actually figured out yet what his target audience is?  They keep sending conflicting messages about this and hiding behind vagueness and generalizations. 

     Is it a game for people who enjoy small group play but don't want to treat the game like a job or is it a game for the no-life raiders?  It really can't be both because catering to either one of those demographics will make the other unhappy.  So I would ask Brad to come clean and tell us which of these is the actual target audience and give specific details about how he is targeting that audience. 

    I've been asking who is the audience for this game for a long time.  What characterizes them?  What are they doing now?  How is Pantheon planning to dislodge these customers from their current activities and draw them in?

    All we know is that they have been somehow under-served by the MMORPG genre.  Brad suggested once that they are playing games like Call of Duty.  What about Pantheon is going to cause a CoD player to stop playing that and come play it?

    If people were more interested in making living worlds rather than games, shouldn't they be thinking 'simulation' rather than 'game'?  That ties in with the point about levels and vertical progression.  Thinking about Pantheon from the game mechanics level only ensures that the game will be exactly as before, and the market is likely to suffer a mass case of deja vu in the future.  Before anyone suggests that deja vu is 'what we want', let me suggest that for every poster on these forums, there's an untold number of people for whom deja vu is going to be 'been there, done that'.

    I'm even more convinced than ever that Brad and company are only making a game they are comfortable with.

    @Neanderthal, you're spot on about the 'vagueness and generalizations'.
  • Hidden gems on steam

    Kyleran said:
    You know whats even better, after using Steam to discern what games you want, a quick Internet search frequently comes up with the same title for less money.....

    Which explains why despite my knowledge of Steam search tools I actually have yet to buy any games there.   ;)
    Better prices are always great, but Steam has a convenience factor that most other providers simply don't have.  All my games under a single roof, so to speak.  Many of the forums are useless (and toxic) but occasionally I find nuggets of useful information there.