Entitlement vs. Criticism, Or How an MMO (specifically FFXI) is or isn't different from other games.

[Plow]

And what hoop is that?

[BRP]

And what hoop is that?

Read the thread? Haven't you been here the whole time?

Sufficient amount of probability space within the RPG spectrum. 3-5th time explaining this? And you were here from the start.

[Plow]

That ("sufficient") is entirely personal opinion then, and is particularly skewed for you personally by the amount of it you deny existing where it does.

[BRP]

That ("sufficient") is entirely personal opinion then, and is particularly skewed for you personally by the amount of it you deny existing where it does.

lol. And the amount currently considered enough(WRPGs) is not enough to make them distinct from every other game. It certainly isn't enough to change the focus of the game(100 hours of RTS, 3 minutes of RPG and shallow at that.)

Moreover, in the case of you and others that probability space is either ignored or said not to exist(Straight up strategy games being called RPGs, or Zelda, Kingdom Hearts... HALO.)

I have reasoning to back up that "opinion." To see this reasoning, reread the thread. Well Plow can't, he will never be able to understand any of this.

[Plow]

lol. And the amount currently considered enough(WRPGs) is not enough to make them distinct from every other game. It certainly isn't enough to change the focus of the game(100 hours of RTS, 3 minutes of RPG and shallow at that.)

Moreover, in the case of you and others that probability space is either ignored or said not to exist(Straight up strategy games being called RPGs, or Zelda, Kingdom Hearts... HALO.)

I have reasoning to back up that "opinion." To see this reasoning, reread the thread. Well Plow can't, he will never be able to understand any of this.

No, you don't.

You quite literally take what people say, and twist it into supposedly supporting your argument somehow.


For example:

Seriously, name an "RTS", and no, mmorpg do not count, that's truly massively multiplayer. Let alone one that has a persistent universe through which you, and many others progress. They don't exist.

EDIT: "Seriously, name an "RTS", and no, massively multiplayer RTS do not count, that's truly massively multiplayer."

Do you want to know the existence of a turn-based MMO? They exist for sure, Atlantica Online for one. Probably dozens of MUDs and others as well. Anyway, if that's not what you are asking then you are speaking nonsense.

What the fuck? How do you make this transition?

I ask you for an RTS other than FFXI, WoW, etc. type games, that's truly mmo. I didn't even make the requirement of a persistent game world for that.

You literally twist that into saying something else, and you *STILL* don't have an answer, so...

You come back with a response about turn based MMO?

What... the... fuck?


And then... to top it off, you say *I'm* the one speaking nonsense...


You have not made a valid statement on any of the reasonable questions presented to you on this issue, you've simply chewbaccad yourself into believing you've made some kind of point and declared the issue as settled.

[BRP]

I like how if I give you two or three potential answers for your question(to cover every possible interpretation) you only cling to the ones that don't answer your question and completely ignore the one that does.

I can't name a MMO RTS that is not a MMO RTS. I've said this already and in more detail than it is worth.

EDIT: Actually, so far anyone smart enough to understand their surroundings has taken this to PMs or has finished posting, leaving this thread now only with Plow alone to debate with. So I won't bother replying at all until some else posts.

Thanks Plow, you've proven to me beating retards to death with a stone isn't as fun as it looks. You've made the world a slightly more boring place.

[Plow]

If MMORPG are the same as RTS, why can't you name an RTS that's MMO that's not exactly in the mold of FFXI/WoW/etc.?


Why can't you come up with an MMO version of Age of Empires?


Also, grats on calling me a retard to try to hide the fact that you're admitting you don't have a *valid* answer.

Further sampling of your utter bullshit:

Any RTS and FFXI can be fairly compared because they are both RTS. Real Time Strategy. Strategy which isn't turn-based. Choices which are not dominated by reflexive skill.

What the fuck is curing if not "dominated by reflexive skill?" Let alone status healing. EVERY RTS is dominated by reflexive skill at the highest levels.

I haven't touched an AoE deathmatch in probably 5 years, and I guarantee you I could sit down and destroy you in under 10 minutes flat because you would have absolutely no hope against my speed of response. I would literally have a multitude of units overrunning your base before you began any significant production.

To even further the point, I could tell you the strategy I'm going to use, and tell you the exact strategy that counters it, even down to the raw quantities I'll have based on how I work my market etc. literally entirely eliminate the strategy advantage (actually put it completely in your favor), and still destroy you on action speed alone.

Now if you wish to challenge this, step up and use genre-deciding factors. Right now the most you have succeeded at is telling me the difference between two franchises. One that uses save-states, the other that resets the game after a battle is complete.

It's not a fucking save-state when the game continues on, and the world undergoes changes with multitudes of players while you're not playing.


By your definitions, every game is the same, unless you personally decide you want to separate them, which is just ridiculous.

[BRP]

Why can't you come up with an MMO version of Age of Empires?

For the same reason I can't bring up an example of a MMO version of Chess. No one wants to play a game like that so no one will make it. Though I am sure if we look hard enough or wait long enough someone will make one. How important this must be to someone who is ruled by examples and not concepts.

EDIT: I did a google search, and this was the first thing that came up... I am not sure if it will satisfy you, but what the hell:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Parad...39-34732.shtml

EVERY RTS is dominated by reflexive skill at the highest levels.

Reflexive skill only maximizes the strategy. In an action game strategy only maximizes the efficiency of the actions.

RTS is a hybrid subgenre so reflexive skill is going to matter much more than it would for a TBS.

By your definitions, every game is the same, unless you personally decide you want to separate them, which is just ridiculous.

Interesting, because everyone else in the world does the same exact thing! Not only for videogames, but everything they see in existence!

Here you are personally deciding that you should separate RTS genre. Here I am telling you are wrong.

This was a curtsey post, but really won't reply again. If you feel you must have the last word(assuming no one else posts), then go ahead.

[Plow]

For the same reason I can't bring up an example of a MMO version of Chess. No one wants to play a game like that so no one will make it. Though I am sure if we look hard enough or wait long enough someone will make one. How important this must be to someone who is ruled by examples and not concepts.

A *ton* of people would love a good game like that. Eve makes some attempts at it, but completely shifts the combat style. It's just a completely different beast.

Even simply moving from ground based combat to true 3-D, particularly fully air-based creates an almost entirely different genre.

EDIT: I did a google search, and this was the first thing that came up... I am not sure if it will satisfy you, but what the hell:

The MMO RTS 'Infinity Empire' Now Available - Thousands of islands and over millions of square kilometers to explore - Softpedia

And do you not see the dramatic differences here?

I mean, when you go from, say, having a unit with a gun in starcraft, to having a unit with a gun in halo, are you not jumping genres entirely there based simply on which aspect you're controlling?

How is that different from, even using your specific example here, going from controlling a guy that casts spells as part of your army in "Infinity Empire" to controlling a BLM in FFXI?


Why do these simple changes that create massive design shift separate "shooters" from having a shooter in part of an rts, but not when it shifts to a character in an rpg?

Reflexive skill only maximizes the strategy. In an action game strategy only maximizes the efficiency of the actions.

That absolutely, completely depends on the game you're playing. Let alone the possibility of 2 people using the same strategy against each other.

While in Warcraft, many of the higher end games are decided by essentially a dice roll of who picks which strategy and pulls off the counter; in Age of Empires you'd essentially know exactly what strategy your opponent was going to play, and they you, meaning the vast majority of high end games were pretty much entirely speed and reaction.

Of course, even in Warcraft, you can have the best strategy in the world, if you're slow you're fucked. And, obviously, in turn, if you're enough faster than the other, your strategy means dick.

Yes, if speeds are the same, and strategy quality varies, the better strategy wins. But it's *much* easier to overcome bad strategy with speed than bad speed with strategy.


It can be compared to Madden here as well. Age of Empires civilization picking is very similar to simply picking a team. Madden then has an *additional* strategy element of picking your formation and play. (Many rts have similar steps as well, so this is not particularly unique to Madden by any means) You could also simply consider each play a different map. Either way, Madden is focusing just as much, if not more so on the strategy of it than the action, when compared to games like Age of Empires. For every few seconds of action in Madden, there are many more devoted to strategy. Especially so when you get into the career/dynasty/etc. modes.

RTS is a hybrid subgenre so reflexive skill is going to matter much more than it would for a TBS.

So why can't Alawalabawaga games be a hybrid subgenre? I mean, the gameplay experience is massively different, no matter how much you want to argue the technicalities and semantics.

Also, have you played Atlantica lately? lol youtube some of the "Titan" finals, that's the best players in the game. You'll notice rather regularly that they run out of time and don't get to use all their players on a turn, because they've upped the pressure on the quick action.

Interesting, because everyone else in the world does the same exact thing! Not only for videogames, but everything they see in existence!

No, see, this is where you're just leaving reality. Most of us try to come to a collective agreement. If we all said "no, I want to call green black," while the guy next to us said "nope it's blurple," we'd never know what the fuck color anybody was talking about.

Here you are personally deciding that you should separate RTS genre. Here I am telling you are wrong.

Here the vast majority of the "gaming world" has come to a collective agreement to separate it, you are personally deciding everyone else is wrong and needs to conform to your interpretation.

This was a curtsey post, but really won't reply again. If you feel you must have the last word(assuming no one else posts), then go ahead.

Honestly I'd rather you don't respond, watching you fool yourself into believing you have valid points while you ramble like a 95 year old man on peyote is starting to hurt my head.

Especially with the way you skip over all the important points to reply to the shit you've convinced yourself you actually have an answer to.

[rezn0r]

I like how if I give you two or three potential answers for your question(to cover every possible interpretation) you only cling to the ones that don't answer your question and completely ignore the one that does.

what?

i've hated this topic ever since i saw the title of it pop up on the board, it's retarded and every argument in it is retarded. and i'll defend the "want of having fun while playing videogames", but some of this shit that goes on for weeks at a time is ridiculous. i assume you like posting on this board more than you like playing the games you are bitching about.

if you had to turn the quote above into a sexual action would i have to put my neck on the bathroom's tile floor while my ass in the air, leaning forward, and shitting into my mouth? - or would i have to carradine myself in my relative's closet while they were food shopping? does any of this make sense?

can you two horny lovers please sum up your argument in one paragraph?

hey there are skittles in there!

[BRP]

What would happen is they would ask a question or make a vague statement. Then I would answer is completely, then say "But if you meant..." then answer it again, just in case.

It is hard to sum up the argument because since the OP it has been four or five enitrely different subjects. The OP itself was addressing two subjects.

[rezn0r]

fair enough. i was being weird last night. what else is new.

[Sera]

oh god how did i get here


i am not good with computer

[BerenTebogo]

BUT WHO WAS PHONE

[Siniroth]

oh god how did i get here


i am not good with computer

If you have your internet browser somehow set up like my friend's, if you hit left/right mouse button on laptop it picks a random thread in all of BG, but holy fuck necro

[BRP]

oh god how did i get here


i am not good with computer

Going to take a wild guess...


EDIT: Why is this not in Gaming?

[Cleverness]

JESUS CHRIST, SOMEONE KILL THIS WITH FIRE

[Ksandra]

Sera's puter trying to turn her into a spam bot~ <3