Aristes

Oh, yeah, poseur? I got my WIFE hooked on WoW a while back! She's now so invested she won't switch to LotRO with me! The win AND loss of the year, I think. haha We're literally playing WoW right now. What does that mean? We're waiting for one of our party members to get back to the computer. Yep, WoW is waiting.

(Doll's Song) Offenbach -- as performed by Mady Mesple Don't be fooled. I'm a complete opera noob.

The Unforgiven -- Metallica

I'm probably just tired, but this made me laugh out loud. I was also impressed with Hell Kitty's post because it tends to reflect most of my views. on the other hand, and I'm not being a polllyanna here, I don't really think most folks are as far apart as it seems. To me, the real problem is the perfect score. For that reason, I think folks have raised their eyebrows. I mean, some folks see 10 as absolutely perfect. Other folks just see it as a must buy for the genre. There is a difference, because I have played games that don't call perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I would unquestionably recommend to others. Personally, I would not give them a 10 becaue I tend to see it, as others do, as the pinnacle of the scale. On the other hand, if a 10 merely means a game that you would recommend to any fan of the genre, then it makes sense to give it the top score. So, the perspectives are different, but not by that much. Both would concede that the game is not absolutely perfect but that fans of the genre will enjoy it. Of course, I don't know if that applies to this particular game. Calax and Hurlshot have both said it fell short of perfect, and the disconnect is where newc saw Calax' '9' and wondered how the hell such a critical review ended with a score one less than perfection. I have to admit, to be honest, that I was kind of caught off guard like newc. Still, the review was solid and did tell us somethin about the game. That's the important thing for me. Once I get a feel for Calax' numerical tilt, I can see his numbers and have an idea of where the game falls. Like HellKitty, though, I'm still going to read the review, because that's really going to tell me something.

I was really hyped about Hellgate: London, but the whole shaking me down for decent gear thing ruined it so I never bought the game. It's like Silk Road. The game was free, but you had to pay real world cash for items. Hell, I thought being frugal and hording my gold in WoW was bad! I think Hellgate's model didn't sit well, but I suppose the game might have sucked. I never played it because of the extortion.

I had to leave my level 14 hunter, but I've created a minstral on Windfola. Ariste was taken, so I named her Deirwen. That's "deer when" in case you care. I'll probably make a burglar since I like stealth folks so much. I'll also make a tank because it always seems everyone needs a tank.

Yep, even worse, some compensation for developers comes from sorting through the review numbers. I understand that I might be a minority, but I still prefer a review that doesn't rely on numbers. If numbers are included, then a thorough description of the ideas behind those numbrs in imperative. That's why some reviews quantified by a numerical system still excel.

People say the same thing about literature today. ...And folks have been saying it for a long, long time. Plato talked about the lost values of his youth. Rapture, and its founder, were both great. The cutscene with Ryan is one of the best I've seen in any computer game, and I don't mean the graphics. The premise for MotB is wonderful. The story, particularly the early part, of Indigo Prophecy was as good as any computer game from the good ol' days. What I'm saying is that there are good examples of great design and storytelling in computer games today just like there were when we were younger. There are splendid examples of terrible design and storytelling just as there were in the good ol' days. The best will likely endure, although fate is capricious. You never know. Basically, I agree with newc and you in regards to the inflated scores, but I don't see that gaming has been on a downward spiral. Remembering one of the games from my youth, pong, I can say that storytelling, characters, and design have traveled lightyears since then.

I'm playing an elf hunter on... Oh hell, I can't remember the name. I finally made it a priority to find the auction house. I'd been hording anything I figured I could auction in order to save some cash. I finally have some cash on hand. I guess, mores the point, what server do you use? I'll create a character there. I'm not really wed to my character on Nimrodel (I went and looked). I've been playing male characters of late, but I'll make a chic named "Ariste." That's usually not taken. ...And I'm comfortable tanking or healing if push comes to shove.

Wow, that was eloquent, thepixiesrock. Seriously, a very passionate defense. I think the rating system has become skewed but, unlike some of the other aged persons here, I didn't like the old scales either. We're intelligent people. How about we get away from numbers altogether? Why not have a reviewer write a review that doesn't boil down to a cheap and easy number? All that aside, there are games that become classics and those old games either revolutionized the industry or provided the framework for long standing franchises or even created a backstory that endures for a long time. Some of the new games will do the same and folks will talk about them when they're old games. More to your previous point. I think we should not act like jerks because someone likes a game we don't like. I mean, rail a little bit, but then let it slide. I was just lurking in this thread, as I have been, when I saw your funny comment about the five thou. So, two posts in a thread about a game I'm probably never going to own may be a bit excessive. Nevertheless, I don't need to play the game to agree with you about the underlying issue of respecting other folks' views.

LotRO. I just picked upgraded to the expansion, although it's not out yet. Getting the $10 monthly rate for buying something early is good.

The fact that everyone ends up looking exactly the same is one of my big beefs with WoW. As someone who said he played a lot of CoH, I'm sure Calax can attest to how cool it is to be able to obtain a signature look. Hell, by the time I stopped paying, the player had five costume slots. Look at WoW? Everyone ends up wearing the same gear. Especially folks trying to gear up on PvP. It's like a cookie cutter avatar factory over there. I'd like to have more options to customize the looks. Maybe we could get gear with the same stats but have more options in how it looks. Good Lord, please! PLEASE let us differentiate our appearance!

I decided not to get the Withcer Enhanced. Instead, I mentioned it to my wife and I think she'll get it for me for Christmas. That way, I will feel compelled to finish it. At the moment, still playing WoW/LotRO. I plan on buying Far Cry 2, tho. Probably tomorrow.

Fit Fallout and Herve in there somewhere, theslug, and you've got a best seller. hahaha

Deep breaths, kid. The world will not end at this news. Darkness will not fall and the sun will rise. Basically, they threw over KotOR 3 for the moment. You never know what will happen in the long run. It's not like they decided to make WoW with lightsabers. Or Oblivion with guns.

The Chauffer -- Duran Duran

This made me laugh out loud. hahaha I hope you don't sleep with women who rob you of 5 grand regularly!

Oh Lord, I'm laughing out loud. rofl hehe This really is what I was trying to say. Most folks see Star Wars as Jedi Knights fighting Evil and the like. While I can see why some folks want to preserve the rarity of their acheivment in becoming a Jedi, I think most players just want to whack someone with a lightsaber.

What I find kind of funny is that the developers and the news establishment hail every new MMORPG as the one that can beat WoW. Look, as much as I wanted Warhammer: Age of Reckoning to be a great game, it can't beat WoW if folks can't stay online. That's why I said that these people should focus less on beating WoW and more on beating the WoW experience. Star Wars does have the potential to beat Warcraft based on the back story and history with the public. ...But the best way to hype the game is to hype the gameplay and the story. It's not to hype itself into a head to head fight against WoW. I guess they're hoping to sucker some WoW players into looking to see if it's really true? I'd hear that Age of Conan and Warhammer: Age of Reckoning were going to be the ones to dethrone WoW. Hell, with Conan, I didn't even hear it as a question. Someone at Best Buy told me that when I was looking for other games. I've read about Conan and W:AR being the WoW topplers and it just hasn't happened. Now I'm hearing about SWSTUFF being the one to do it? Pretty soon, it's going to be like calling someone a nazi in an online political discussion. *yawn*

That's a good sign. I don't mind degrading weapons. I just don't want them to do it too fast.

I don't mind tough battles, and I don't hate respawns per se. I do hate tedium, however. If I have to travel the same areas and I'm constantly fighting the same battle or taking ten minutes to avoid it, then that's going to be a distraction. So it's more of a FPS/RPG sort of thing like Stalker? We've got stores and whatnot? I dunno. I could get this on D2D right now. Fry Cry was okay, but I thought Crysis sucked. Pretty graphics, I guess, but I pretty much agree with Gorgon otherwise. How is it for just shootem up fun? I mean, if I wanted to treat it like a run n gun, would it be okay? ...And does it have constantly degrading equipment and how intrusive if so?

Even if WoW does not decline, EA might grow the MMO category. As nuts as some of you think that is, I can see it happening. ...And I see the possibilities for a huge increase. The titles that have shipped that might have competed with WoW in terms of subs have either targetted the same audience, which put them in a suicidal head to head, or targetted a new audience but been plagued with bad design/technical flaws. Like the article said, EQ was on top for a long time. Did WoW steal EQs customers? Sure. But WoW surpasses EQ in a big way. They didn't just take EQs customers. They increased the MMO fanbase. Folks, at the time, might have thought, "well, only so many people play MMOs in the first place. They surely can't play EQ and this new upstart, 'World of Warcraft,' at the same time." If EA puts enough money and expertise into the product, and the design team concentrates on what the fans want, then they could surpass WoW without even making a huge dent in the WoW base. Everyone talks about beating WoW. How about just putting together a great title and ignoring WoW? I mean, sure, talk about the awesome WoW numbers and the like, but pretty much do your own thing. The point is, the saturation point for MMOs is a lot higher than most of you seem to think. The folks who buy into the SWTOR (or whatever it's called) might not have played WoW and may never have found WoW tempting in the first place. What's going to make or break this product isn't how well it fares against WoW in a head to head fight. WoW has all the advantages. Sure, SWwhatzits might win, but that's not the point. This product will be made if it taps into the huge SW fanbase without doing something stupid like trying to save the best stuff for sequels, lacking testing before and massive support after launch, and enough server capacity. Pulling off an MMO is a painful experience, it seems to me. It's not the endeavor for the weak of heart and it doesn't lend itself to halfassed measures. If EA and Bio can step up to the plate, they have a chance to break WoW's hold on the top slot. ...But even if they don't, who cares? Will it be terrible to have half of WoW's top numbers? How about five million subs? Is that enough? I started with City of Heroes. Great game. WoW dwarfs it in every way, but it seemed to do pretty well and, considering I still get emails trying to bring me back to the fold, it's still alive and kicking after all these years.

I might be violently agreeing with you. Oh, I reread my original post and see that I left out a word. I mean to say that "making it hard to be a jedi." Go figure. I'll take twenty lashes. Wet noodle or rubber hose. Your choice Ugh, second edit. What I mean is, they should have made it easy to be a jedi in the first place. Geez. Lack of sleep?

I disagree. I think the fact that they failed to implement the feature in the first place was a mistake. Sure, after they'd established the mistake, the old guard didn't like the change. That's all well and good. Why was it doing so poorly in the first place and why did they think adding the feature would help? I think they drove away their best chance of developing a loyal fanbase with their initial decision. It's all moot now, but I suggest that they would have fared better if they had appealed to the folks who just wanted to grab a lightsaber as soon as possible and hack on folks. That doesn't mean give it to them at level 1, necessarily, although it could mean that. It does mean making the path to Jedi goodness fairly quick. FWIW, I doubt if I play the game at all. I liked KotORs one and two, but it's not the setting for the MMORPG I want to play. I'd rather have KotOR three like most of the rest of these people. Now, if they could come up with a WH40K MMORPG and get it to work, I'd love that.

2008. It's a year when someone decided to act like a horse's backside and impose his myopic view of world history on someone pointing out that there was a time when his little corner of the earth stood up for freedom and human rights but was too small and isolated to win. The event was extremely important and I doubt that any of the "real educated" folks here haven't heard about this travesty already. Some day, we might look back on Tiananmen Square and maybe see the spirit of a few Hungarian freedom fighters there too.