Lyric Suite

I regret ever replying to Baley. Now i feel responsible for his apparent descent into madness.

Eh, I didn't mean to imply that these men are wont to enjoy manual labour - which I used used as catch-all-term for non-intellectual or artistic vocations, and perhaps I shouldn't have - only that it is traditionally expected of them. As is being able to provide a living for you and yours through sweat and steam - which as I've previously mentioned has (also) traditionally been the manly man's dominion - a surefire recipe for unhinged machismo. And that this is true for lower class African American males, which I believed was the background of most of the dog fight gamblers - um, in this case. Obviously, I think this is also true for most other, and pardon my bluntness, slightly or not so slightly backward cultures... i.e. where poverty, ignorance, religious fervor and, often, the uncertainty of making a living find themselves compounded to disheartening results. Regarding African American males, i think it has more to do with their aptitude towards illicit activities then their blatant cultural machismo. When i moved in the US i had to work in construction for a few years and i met a couple of guys involved in stuff like that. One was a dog trainer for clandestine fighting, the other one was involved in 'tough man' fighting, which sometimes included a knife (just for cutting though, which to me sounded idiotic but i wasn't going to rebuke the guy in his face, for obvious reasons). They were both white, and they were anything but poor, since they both made about three grands a week. I think it's just excessive testosterone, and in a completely emasculated society, where the masses have been brainwashed and zombiefied into placid submission, such individuals may appear both shocking and incomprehensible, like an odd relic of a distant, barbarous past, forgetting that it was only a few generations ago that we still had to carry side arms for self defense (and in some places we still do). As for your implication that unhinged machismo used to be the dominion of manly men, i don't see how that has changed. I also consider intellectual or artistic vocations to be the dominion of males, as well, and in the latter respect African Americans achieved a spectacular level of sophistication before their culture felt victim of the general dumping down of western civilization. And that was back in the dark ages of poverty, ignorance and racism.

And the root of all good, as well.

I think it has more to do with nature. I grew up in Italy (where the idea of manual labour is anathema to us, if we can help it) and people like this behave no different. Society isn't the root of all human evil, regardless of what the socialists like to believe.

Am i the only one who just doesn't give a sh*t about all this?

Yeah, fantasy universes, serious business man.

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/LIF/LIF145/PDB09020.jpg Yes?

Really.

You mean the adult world?

Funny. Judging by what they released so far, it looks like the gameplay it's going to be fun, but the cut scenes are going to suck.

Maybe. I mean, if they are so dump, but do i keep getting raped every time i log in Battle.net, no matter which of their games i try?

Guild Wars has cities, Diablo had a chat screen. As i said, is there any difference?

I see you are having problem understanding this. Are those people playing together? No, therefore, not massive. Guild Wars is exactly like Diablo, only difference being the first added fancy graphics to the Battle.net chat screen. ROOFLES!!

The art is good. The game won't be. So simple...

I don't think the comparison is still valid. A game like Diablo is extremely tricky to pull off, no matter how simple it is to play. Lot's of companies have tried to emulate the game, and most of them failed. Now, i never liked the series and it's always been my least favored among Blizzard's franchises (the game, the setting was actually pretty cool), but it's a bit naive to assume Blizzard sold million of copies by producing junk. If it was that easy everybody would be doing it.

SC would still run circles around most modern RTS. And graphics? Who gives a [flying kick at a donut]?

Yes, but this is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. The defining element of a Massive Multiplayer Online RPG is not the RPG nor the multiplayer part, rather, it's the 'massive' pre-fix, that is, the idea of a persistent world where every player within a given server can log in and actually interact in gaming terms with all other players active in the server, at all times. Technically, this persistent world is the reason why those games incur a monthly fee in the first place, or at least part of it. Guild Wars doesn't have a persistent world, thus, it cannot be considered a MMORPG. Phonetically (and conceptually) a Multiplayer Online RPG may sound like it's the same thing, but having a persistent server actually makes a pretty big difference, not the least the fact you actually have to pay for it. You are welcome. Good bye i guess?

Many people are ignorant twats. So what?

I heard that Guild Wars was good. Guild Wars wasn't a MMORPG.

You are forgetting that a game like WoW fosters competition, and people who enjoy competition generally couldn't care less about adult or compelling themes, and they sure don't care about any intellectual reward. This isn't a result of personal immaturity, most of them just couldn't care less (think about it. It's video games we are talking about). Where you and i strive to derive some form of artistic or mental gratification from our games, a lot of people just play them for the sport, in which case the shallower, the better. When Blizzard begun their PC venture they found themselves in the midst of the first multilayer revolution and they took full advantage of it, becoming one of the most lucrative companies in the business. Don't assume they are going to quit now.

WoW did it right to a degree (the game actually plays like a BG light and is fairly quest driven, and playing with small teams offer real class interaction and actual strategy, given your team mates are competent enough) they just didn't go far enough. There are a few moments of brilliance scattered here and there but despite all attempts at making a MMORPG that plays like a real game, the limitations of the medium are seemingly impossible to overcome with the resources available, even from a company as big as Blizzard, let alone everybody else...

The amusing part is that KOTOR isn't even a great story driven RPG to begin with.

If Guildwars and the upcoming Hellgate London are an indication of the kind of 'talent' they lost, then i'd say good riddance. Blizzard's downfall started with Diablo 2, when the company was still more or less intact. As for their new game, it's either Stacraft 2 or nothing, and they better get it right too.

Starcraft didn't have heroes. That's exactly what Starcraft is all about, which is why i consider one to the spiritual successor of the other. I think it's my turn to say: are you sure you played the game?

Says the guy who never 'bothered' with Starcraft. Of course i played Dawn of War. When people refer to it as the 'true heir' of Starcraft (except for the single player, which was **** and one of the reason i rank it lower then the older game), i think it's implied there's some similarity between the two games, at least in spirit. Not to say it isn't a fine RTS (one of the very best actually), but i'm having an hard time understanding how you can like one without liking the other when they are so similar in nature...