MadFrenchie

About

Username
MadFrenchie
Location
Nashville, TN
Joined
Visits
4,115
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
2,209
Rank
Epic
Favorite Role
Tank
Posts
2,448
Badges
34
  • 'AAA Games at EA Are Dead for the Time-Being' & Microtransactions Are Why

    Kootur said:


    This dude is also racist as fuck. Either that or he just tries to be controversial. Regardless hes probably full of shit and anything he say should be taken with a grain of salt.
    As a white guy myself, I think he's a little bit of both.

    I was looking through google image search at some of the tweets folks put up as examples of his racism.  It's about half bigotry, half accurate social commentary that's presented in an overly abrasive manner.
    "social commentary" is that what spouting off far-left anti-white talking points is called today?
    Did you see my post, or just see that I didn't wholesale condemn the guy, immediately flash to red, and post?

    When he posts about Hollywood whitewashing or giving roles to white folks that are certainly not white roles, he's not making shit up.  Case in point: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1528100/

    Why the hell would Christian Bale be cast as Moses, and Joel Edgerton as Ramses.  Da fuq?
    PhryYashaX
  • New Ship - Introductory Price of $850

    Not sure why I even respond to Sean, he's the only troll on these boards that quite earnestly is so confused that he doesn't even have any idea he's actually trolling.
    rpmcmurphyZandogJamesGoblin
  • 'AAA Games at EA Are Dead for the Time-Being' & Microtransactions Are Why

    Torval said:
    It's sad the mainstream market has moved on. I guess it's more sad for the crowds that like big production games, but I'm not worried about an RPG drought. People who loved them before still do. Games will be made. RPG nerds were around before EA, we'll be around after.
    Divinity:OS2 is far superior than most AAA singleplayer RPGs anyhow, in my opinion.  

    Less focus on marketing and flashy graphics, more on RPG and depth serves me just fine.   B)
    SBFordKyleranTorvalSadfistNilden
  • Starting Cities

    Zuljan said:

    Lol I specifically did not call you a bigot man. I said "what I initially though was bigotry" is clearly just a misunderstanding and is an issue related to perspective, and the reason I said that is because you directly quoted Kyleran's quotes, backed them up, and further extrapolated on them; therefore making yourself a part of his thought process and reasoning in its entirety. Please, tell me where I ever attempted anything ad hominem. Not sure why I have to explain things like this, and if you don't understand how the class/race matrix specifically ties into lore and culture (even with devs directly stating themselves how it affects immersion) among the other examples I tried to explain, then I'm fresh out of ideas to make you more open to the starting city design (or maybe I'm just not cut out to explain immersion).

    You may also have the wrong idea about reaching friends, maybe seeing things a little too black and white (i.e. you can still get to your friends from level 1, unless it's like a distance of skargol trying to get across to wild's end). Granted it would be extremely difficult depending on the area, but I'm sure it could be done. If not, you're presumably looking at like a level 10-20 time frame, which is really not too demanding in my opinion. 

    If you thought the Witcher was that immersive then I think you'll find Pantheon even better (or maybe your idea of immersion is different). The Witcher shined in it's decision making and replay ability, but it was a lot of the same yellow brick road quests, gather 10 heads, and the cities themselves and the people were almost exclusively human, with almost all of the architecture and land looking very similar during travel. I'd like to hear specifically how you think the Witcher created cultural identities and immersion that are near comparable to what is being created here. The decision making allowed for you to save some, let others die, and ultimately create new endings or quest possibilities, but that is not the same kind of immersion they're going for here at all, and can only be accomplished in a single player rpg (generally speaking).
    Then I misunderstood your comment about bigotry.  I don't personally even have a reason to widen starting city options, as I don't play with real life friends.  But, in a game with group play as it's primary focus, if only follows logically that you'd need a large detriment to justify restricting the opportunity.

    I backed up Kyleran's post as an alternative that's more palatable to players than forcing one starting area.  I offered another alternative in the form of a single-time opportunity to complete a quest that would allow you to be travel in real-time (not a port or instant travel) to another starter area with the assistance of NPC caravans.  It allows for the developers to create an immersive and logical way for players to meet up with one another early on, and could be balanced on the idea that a player could choose to immediately undertake the endeavor alone or spend time laboring for an NPC entity in return for protection during the travel (again, all in real-time, not a loading screen or instant port).  It's an option that would fit within an immersive experience and wouldn't be a constant option available to the player (being a single opportunity quest), so the vastness of the world remains intact.

    Both would require timesinks, but the player could choose to immediately venture on their own and risk the consequences of repeatedly dying, or spend time completing a specialized quest to curry the favor of a caravan they could make the trip with more reliably.  None of that would preclude the idea that a new player could also simply ask a more powerful player for assistance from the get-go.  If they were able to such a benefactor, they would enjoy the convenience of having a guide/protection without having to spend time in a quest.  Player interaction would still be, by far, the best way to make the trip if players so wanted prior to becoming powerful enough to reliably make the trip on their own.

    I've already mentioned I look forward to Pantheon.  I disdain cross-realm grouping, auto-port queues and the devaluing of player interaction within the PvE content of an MMORPG.  Reputations should matter, and that's been lost along the way from the first-gen MMORPGs to the modern offerings. 

    However, I just don't see such a restrictive starting choice as a great way to go about encouraging such player interaction.  If it makes sense for the lore, more power to VR, but it would be the exception, not the rule, that races are so segregated as to disallow any adventurer to start their story anywhere but their own race's capital/starting city.  Player choice is a good thing, so long as it doesn't destroy the aforementioned values of reputation, interdependency, and player interaction.  I fail to see how allowing a player to start their lives in more than one area destroys those values.  I also fail to see how, if VR was to implement a logical and lore-appropriate quest as I mentioned, it would destroy immersion.  Obviously, I could see races that are hostile towards one another rejecting an adventurer wholesale if they are of the hostile race.  But races that are either neutral or fairly fond of one another?  It makes little sense that they would not accept the offered services of a mercenary/adventurer just because they weren't of the same exact race, unless every kingdom is composed solely of racists of the most egregious order. 

    To offer an example for clarity of point: if I were in need of herbs for medicine for my dying cousin, and an alien zapped down into my living room tonight and offered to go get them for me, I would be cautious, sure, but I wouldn't outright refuse to take them from the alien once he returned with exactly what I needed simply because he's not a Caucasian human being.
    Zuljan
  • New Ship - Introductory Price of $850

    Orinori said:
    You could certainly assert it won't intentionally be so based upon Chris and Co.'s statements, but it's a tough balancing act between ensuring the ships bought now don't enable those players to dictate the game world and making those same ships seem worth the price you're charging for them now.  Hell hath no fury like a backer scorned.
    I don't see the point in making predictions based on anything except the information we know so far. I am not exactly sure what it is people think can be dominated by paying for things. The economy is AI flooded with dev oversight, PvP will be optional and have a matchmaking system so PvP encounters are not hugely one sided. As I have stated before, after a while you won't know who has done what anyway.

    A large ship will always be useful for a large guild, there does not have to be any PvP involved for that to be correct. So what are people going to be mad about exactly?
    And yet, all of this has been hashed over in other games in development, too.  You're attempting to submit "yea, it's too early to tell, so my interpretation must be right." That's not sound logic.

    If you want to assert it's too early to tell, then stop trying to assert why it won't be in the next breath.  The information we know so far is simply the developer's intent.  I made note of that.  Unfortunately, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  And beyond that, most devs have nothing but good intent in designing gameplay systems that are fair.  Doesn't always go as planned, so unless you wanna continue arguing something you have no real gameplay evidence to support it with, how about you lose the last part of your post and simply say "it's too early to tell"?
    Octagon7711MrMelGibson