Post by: ruby_onix on April 16, 2005, 01:13:51 PM
People on GameFAQs have recently been noticing that PSP Reader Reviews with any hint of negativity in them have been getting deleted, and people have been speculating on a CNET/Sony GameFAQs-takeover conspiricy.
A guy named Chris Buzan decided to test things, and wrote this deliberately "good but negative" review of the PSP.
Quote
Dubbed many things by the media, including a portable PS2 and the iPod of gaming, Sony set expectations very high. Did they deliver? Well that depends on how much you like Spider-Man 2 and Sony’s backlog of first part games I guess. No Ratchet and Clanks or God of War’s here, although a port of Gran Turismo 4 is on the way. No, instead they opted to go ahead with some of their older standbys such as Wipeout, Twisted Metal, and the 989 sports line (Which I‘ve never played personally, but I‘ve also never heard anything good about these games). While these games are still good, they hardly represent the best Sony has to offer in my eyes. If you’re already a diehard fan of these games though, then this is a definite must-have. Third parties once again make up the majority of noteworthy titles for a Sony system, with titles such as Ridge Racer and Metal Gear Acid, although I don’t have any interest in either. Personally, I bought my unit because of all the hype around Lumines, which I can attest to being a very good game, although lacking much “Meat”, as in value beyond trying to improve your high score and a small puzzle mode in which you build objects out of the blocks.
The screen is big and beautiful, but the system design is highly overrated and smudges at even the lightest touch. Unbelievably, I actually have a dead pixel on my screen. It’s in the upper-right corner and it doesn’t get in the way during gameplay, but when I was watching Spidey 2 it became pretty distracting. And correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this thing basically look like a GBA? Anyway, video playback is rock solid, as I’m sure you’ve been told numerous times already (But yeah, right now SM2 is the only movie available). MP3 playback is good too, but this thing will hardly compete with the iPod. The storage medium is Sony’s expensive memory sticks which range between 32MB to 4GB (The upcoming Memory Stick PRO). Compare that to the 20GB and 40GB versions of iPod and you’ll see my point. One can store a few songs while the other can store an entire collection. Sure, PSP can do other things, but aside from gaming there are simply better stand-alone devices out there. Yes, it does many things, but it’s a jack of all trades, and master of none. There was one pleasant surprise though, and that was the battery life, which so far hasn’t been an issue at all for me.
=====
Launch Lineup- 6/10- It has it’s rudimentary “killer-app” (Although it‘s no Halo as in being a true must-have in my opinion) and a few other noteworthy titles, although I wouldn’t recommend any of them myself.
Future Lineup- 3/10- Pretty slim pickings for the rest of the year. Sony made the launch very top heavy, leaving very few interesting games to be launched later in 2005. When Hot Shots Golf is the bright spot on a release calendar, you know you have problems. GTA might turn my opinion around, but currently nothing is known about it.
Battery Life- ?/10- As mentioned earlier, it hasn’t been an issue.
MP3 Playback- 5/10- It gets the job done, but the memory sticks are an unattractive medium for me, and it doesn’t curb my desire for an iPod any.
Movie Playback- 8/10- Good quality (Aside from distracting dead pixels which appear on some units), but the selection of movies right now is lacking if I do say so myself. If you’re playing your own stuff then you’ll be A-OK though.
Aesthetics- 4/10- I’ll probably be lynched for this, but I really don’t like the way this thing looks. The screen is big, but I’d say that it might.
Value- 4/10- $250 for a handheld (Even with extras) and $40-$50 for games seems ridiculous to me. If you’re looking into buying a PSP, I strongly recommend holding out for a non-Value Pack option unless you have a lot of disposable income.
Overall- 5/10- It has some decent media functions, but the outlook on games is less than stellar. Coupled with a crippling price point and load times, and you have a somewhat disappointing system on your hands.
Note that this is actually the second version of this review. There were two that were deleted. The first version contained some comments like "You'd basically be paying 300 dollars to play a puzzle game" which were rejected by GameFAQs as being false (since the PSP is $250, not $300, even though Chris was including the price of Lumines), so he rewrote/deleted some things to make it more favorable to them, and it was still deleted.
This Video Game Ombudsman site was contacted by someone claiming to have been the one who deleted the review, who offered a bunch of nonsensical reasons for it's deletion. "The review contains blatantly false information, and is on the verge of being a joke review, obviously making it at a minimum a troll review." "Now, while the PSP is an Mp3 player, it isn't comparable to the iPod. Just like comparing the Ps2 or Xbox to a Toshiba or Panasonic DVD player is taboo, applying the same to the PSP via the iPod is forbidden in the same degree." "As a small side note, the mention of slim pickings for movies available is laughable at best. Did people blame the Ps2 when DVDs were a new breed of entertainment? No, they blame the movie studios and DVD release corporations."
Then CJayC, the founder/admin of GameFAQs, wrote in to the Video Game Ombudsman, saying that he doesn't know who that other person was (perhaps one of the people who complained about it), but they have no authority and aren't the ones who pulled the Reader Review, as only CJayC and one other guy can do that.
He explained that the reason it seems that negative PSP reviews keep getting deleted is because GameFAQs doesn't read every review, they just respond to complaints. And the PSP fanboy crowd on GameFAQs has been whining the loudest.
He said nothing about what merited this review's deletion (aside from the presence of complaints), but he did say that he deletes reviews like this that "bash" the PSP all the time, and that people are making too big of a deal about it.
Post by: Bill Aurion on April 16, 2005, 01:28:27 PM
Post by: Deguello on April 16, 2005, 03:18:25 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on April 16, 2005, 03:34:44 PM
Post by: Robotor on April 16, 2005, 08:09:03 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on April 16, 2005, 08:23:12 PM
Fortunately I can still trust PGC's reviews.
Post by: Deguello on April 16, 2005, 10:29:34 PM
I could say it. Or rather I wish I could say it.
Post by: Urkel on April 16, 2005, 11:25:50 PM
Quote
It's going to be like the pre-internet days where you took a risk with every game you bought.
Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at right now. I lost all faith in reviewers with the Paper Mario 2 debacle. I rely more on what people say on forums, at this point. If it wasn't for all the raving DKJB got, I definitely would not have bought it. (7.0 from Gamespot. 7.0 THIS!... Er, I'm holding up my middle finger. I guess you can't see it... bah)
Quote
I could say a third party publisher never threatened me.
I could say it. Or rather I wish I could say it.
But you gave Fear Factor a 10.0 in Lastability! That's high praise indeed!
Post by: Zach on April 17, 2005, 05:39:18 PM
Post by: Pale on April 18, 2005, 04:42:50 AM
Post by: Deguello on April 18, 2005, 04:57:27 AM
Post by: KnowsNothing on April 18, 2005, 05:28:59 AM
Post by: nitsu niflheim on April 18, 2005, 06:25:17 AM
And now Gamespot and the like are scoring down a GC port of a PS2/Xbox game just because it doesn't have the online features. That is irresponsible as far as I am concerned, because it is giving a false impression of the game, online features can't give the PS2/Xbox that extra 1.5 to 2 points, it's bias for the most part, but don't complain or you will be called a whinning fanboy.
Post by: Ian Sane on April 18, 2005, 08:26:15 AM
I don't have a problem with that. There's a huge chunk of the PS2/Xbox version taken out. That's worth reflecting in the reviews. The Cube port is inferior and thus the review score should reflect that. If you owned all three console wouldn't you want to know that one version was missing content?
Post by: KDR_11k on April 18, 2005, 08:44:50 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on April 18, 2005, 11:00:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"And now Gamespot and the like are scoring down a GC port of a PS2/Xbox game just because it doesn't have the online features."
I don't have a problem with that. There's a huge chunk of the PS2/Xbox version taken out. That's worth reflecting in the reviews. The Cube port is inferior and thus the review score should reflect that. If you owned all three console wouldn't you want to know that one version was missing content?
I give online games less points than the non-online version for being crap and making me pay to play...
Post by: Pale on April 18, 2005, 11:38:30 AM
Every game is essentially a pay to play game. If you really want to break it down, do it on hours you actually played vs. how much you paid. Here is a good example. I am counting games that I feel were well worth playing to me, so don't argue quality of play time.
Eternal Darkness | 15 GREAT hours of play | 50 dollars | $3.33 / hour
Wind Waker | 20 GREAT hours of play | 50 dollars | $2.50 / hour
Pokemon Gold | 350 GREAT hours of play | 30 dollars | $0.09 / hour
Final Fantasy X | 55 GREAT hours of play | 50 dollars | $0.91 / hour
Final Fantasy XI | 600 GREAT hours of play | 40 dollars (game) + 30 dollars (expansion) + 13 dollars * 13months = 239 dollars | $0.39 / hour (and falling)
Complaining about pay to play games is stupid. The only time it's a bad deal is when you don't like the game.
Those are some of my favorite games of all time (at least of the ones I can remember my play time on). Each one was a worthwhile purchase. Just look at the numbers.
(Please don't flame me for my game preferences....)
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on April 18, 2005, 11:46:57 AM
I really think online play is kinda overrated most of the times.
Post by: Pale on April 18, 2005, 11:58:57 AM
Say for the sake of this argument, Super Smash Bros. Melee was released across all three platforms. Only the Nintendo version had the trophy concept. When looking at the bulk of the gameplay, trophies make no difference. But who here would say that the non Nintendo versions deserved the same score?
Post by: Hostile Creation on April 18, 2005, 01:50:26 PM
And your pay/play idea is flawed, because you can in theory play for as long as you want to when you buy a game, so much so as to make the cost of the game per hour of gameplay negligible.
Post by: Arbok on April 18, 2005, 02:07:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaleZer0
Regrets that this will just turn into another Bill vs. the world thread.... but...
Every game is essentially a pay to play game. If you really want to break it down, do it on hours you actually played vs. how much you paid. Here is a good example. I am counting games that I feel were well worth playing to me, so don't argue quality of play time.
Eternal Darkness | 15 GREAT hours of play | 50 dollars | $3.33 / hour
Wind Waker | 20 GREAT hours of play | 50 dollars | $2.50 / hour
Pokemon Gold | 350 GREAT hours of play | 30 dollars | $0.09 / hour
Final Fantasy X | 55 GREAT hours of play | 50 dollars | $0.91 / hour
Final Fantasy XI | 600 GREAT hours of play | 40 dollars (game) + 30 dollars (expansion) + 13 dollars * 13months = 239 dollars | $0.39 / hour (and falling)
Complaining about pay to play games is stupid. The only time it's a bad deal is when you don't like the game.
Those are some of my favorite games of all time (at least of the ones I can remember my play time on). Each one was a worthwhile purchase. Just look at the numbers.
(Please don't flame me for my game preferences....)
What if I went into Best Buy and snagged a game, let's say Time Splitters 2 for $10 as that's what it's there right now, and log more than 60 hours into it (which I have). The difference here is that prices are dynamic, they aren't static, and, unlike online play, one doesn't feel pressured to try and play the game as quickly as possible to get the "most for their buck" instead of doing it at their liesure.
In other words, in my eyes, if you pay to play, it isn't worth it unless it's a one time fee (why I refuse to buy World of Warcraft, but love Diablo 2 to tears).
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 18, 2005, 04:34:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaleZer0
Eternal Darkness | 15 GREAT hours of play | 50 dollars | $3.33 / hour
MAY THE RATS EAT YOUR EYES!! This CAN'T be HAPPENING!!
Post by: Pale on April 18, 2005, 06:56:43 PM
As for your timesplitters example, yes, you would be getting a great deal. Compare it to my Pokemon example. I'm just saying that if you think a game like Eternal Darkness is worth the money (at launch) (WHICH IT WAS) then why isn't FF XI? I mean, you could play ED over and over again, but the hours of play wouldn't necessarily be considered great the nth time through.
Post by: Deguello on April 18, 2005, 11:41:56 PM
And you all forget that when a company kills online support for their games, that feature disappears, so dropping the score for the lack of a temporary feature that amounts to nothing more than multiplayer is a pointless endeavor.
Not ONLY do most Online games have some sort of playment plan, they also have an unknown expiration date. When a MMO or Xbox Live-based game's service is terminated (and it WILL be terminated) that online feature disappears as if it never existed. For MMOs and games sold on their online ability (like Mechassault, which is less than mediocre without it) this is truly devastating. OR should I say... for fans of those games it is devastating. The company got all it can out of it and then introduces the next game for you to buy and continually pay for, because you just have to have that invisibility cloak of regret +2. And the cycle continues. Fortunately for now online games remain of questionable profit compared to making regular old games that most of the population of the world can enjoy. So although there is a drive, there is no real logic to make an online-centric game. To make the sort of game that leaves no legacy behind it.
Post by: Olleuged on April 18, 2005, 11:56:54 PM
i also wonder y three is 2 reviews for it awn PGC
Post by: ruby_onix on April 18, 2005, 11:58:21 PM
BTW, I suggest that every disc-based videogame needs to get two points taken off of it automatically because of sucky loading times. Unless the game is an exception to that rule, in which case you should have to say so specifically.
Post by: Deguello on April 19, 2005, 12:01:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Olleuged
hey i heard it wsa activiison who had a porblem wtih your shrek 2 reivew an tired to blluly you
i also wonder y three is 2 reviews for it awn PGC
Unfortunately I cannot comment on internet rumors, regardless of their veracity or accuracy.
Post by: RABicle on April 19, 2005, 12:22:58 AM
Quote
And now Gamespot and the like are scoring down a GC port of a PS2/Xbox game just because it doesn't have the online features. That is irresponsible as far as I am concerned, because it is giving a false impression of the game, online features can't give the PS2/Xbox that extra 1.5 to 2 points, it's bias for the most part, but don't complain or you will be called a whinning fanboy.
Soemthing I'ld like to say. Every version of Ghost Recon 2 IS a different game. The missions and setting on the XBox are different to the missions and setting of the Gamecube, PS2 and (forthcoming) PC releases. Many reveiws have stated that the PS2 game is inferor to th Xbox version because the Xbox has more variety in it's missions. And the Gamcube versioin was slammed because, we're used to such a higher quality of game on our system. And our selection of missions was more like the PS2 version anyway.
Also we didn't get any system link Co-op.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on April 19, 2005, 02:10:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Olleuged
hey i heard it wsa activiison who had a porblem wtih your shrek 2 reivew an tired to blluly you
i also wonder y three is 2 reviews for it awn PGC
Doubt it, Activision's a big professional company with great innovative games like Tony Hawk is Underground Again (Remixing). They wouldn't be where they are today if they got mad and childish everytime someone expressed their opinion. I believe you're wrong sir! This Deguello person is just plain wrong for not enjoying a great innovative game like Shrek Two (2).
Post by: Pale on April 19, 2005, 04:26:31 AM
Though games like FF XI may have some flaws as far as how you pay for them, the monthly fee isn't one of them. If you understand what goes into making a game like that good, the monthly fee makes a whole lot of sense.
My entire argument is based off of the notion that games with monthly fees are worth it if you enjoy them. Just as worth it as a game that you paid 50 bucks for and never had to worry about a monthly fee.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 19, 2005, 09:12:44 AM
Personally I feel forced to play something when I pay for access, if I play other games for a week I've wasted one week of subscription fees. That adds stress and therefore unhappyness to the game.
If I was a reviewer I'd introduce a whole load of new penalties, some of which wouldn't please the big guys. Stuff like "Too damn dark" would hit not only Doom 3 but also ED, BG&E and many others. "Redundant game" and "Cumulative error" (issue was present in N previous games of the series) mostly destroying EA Sports games. "Insufficient error feedback" for pretty much any stealth or racing game. "No bots" for pretty much any multiplayer capable game. "Stupid controls" for most fighting game series. Extra penalties for making the player jump through hoops (online activation? Go fornicate yourself!), especially if the game doesn't run on my system (50% penalty for deliberate incompatibility. Daemon tools works, if your software doesn't that's YOUR problem). Though I guess I'd have to give many major games around 0% after I'm through with them.
To be fair, Gamespy gave the PC version of Chaos Legion 0% because the retail version was faulty to the point where the copy protection failed to work in 100% of all cases.
Post by: nitsu niflheim on April 19, 2005, 10:11:51 AM
Post by: Pale on April 19, 2005, 11:00:13 AM
How many games from 5 years ago do you play or ever think you'll play again?
Your right, if they do cancel it, technically I can't play again... But I'm also not paying for it anymore, and like my original system says, I will have gotten my money's worth.
Having the ability to continue playing a game rarely means you actually will, and that's my point. If you like RPGs a lot, you are an idiot for not at least trying an MMO. If its not your cup of tea, then I have no complaints with you.
As far as this concept of building in addictivness goes, isn't that what all games do? I mean come on...trying to differentiate between fun and addictivness when no chemicals are involved is kind of silly.
Post by: skyfire on April 19, 2005, 01:14:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
In this last generation I've learned one very important thing: don't trust anybody. With Paper Mario 2 getting a 6 from Game Informer, blatant bribing regarding Driv3r reviews, stories of companies threatening to pull free review copies if given a poor review, etc the amount of sites worth trusting is shrinking. It's going to be like the pre-internet days where you took a risk with every game you bought.
Fortunately I can still trust PGC's reviews.
I could never understand how people base their choices on any review.
Is it really that hard to judge a game based on pictures? Doesn't anyone know what they like? Long before the internet came along i would buy a game mag, look at the pics read what the game is about (not what the reviewer thought of the games) and based on that alone I could make a decision to buy or rent. Thats how it was done back then and it WORKED 99% of the time and still does today (i've never bought a game I didn't like).
It really isn't that hard everyone. I like watching a movie of a game as much as the next guy now-a-days but like i said, it's not hard to make a decision with just some pics and synopsis of what the game is about (or in some cases you should already know what to expect like sports games).
(note Ian I'am talking in general and not just aimed at you, I was just using your post as a reference point to start mine, thanks)
Post by: ib2kool4u912 on April 19, 2005, 02:39:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Olleuged
hey i heard it wsa activiison who had a porblem wtih your shrek 2 reivew an tired to blluly you
i also wonder y three is 2 reviews for it awn PGC
Ahh, backwards you sly fox. Would you elaborate on what exactly you heard Activision did?
Post by: KDR_11k on April 20, 2005, 02:48:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaleZer0
As far as this concept of building in addictivness goes, isn't that what all games do? I mean come on...trying to differentiate between fun and addictivness when no chemicals are involved is kind of silly.
Besides the fact that there ARE chemicals involved but they are produced inside your body in response to certain actions, MMOs aren't engineered for fun. If that was the case they wouldn't require hours of grinding between levels, they'd have more skill-based combat systems, all in all they'd have less grind and faster advancing. They WOULD bleed players like mad because it's too easy to see all the content and the average player isn't interested in PvP/Faction vs. Faction dynamics and stuff like that, they just want "phat loot" and max level. MMOs don't have more content than offline games, they just require hours of pointless levelling in between.
Also, Koster was VERY specific about that: They try to pace out rewards in such a fashion that it takes the longest possible time to attain them without the player ever feeling he cannot reach the next reward. This is a science all of its own. Sure, they don't try to remove the fun but they focus on addiction. This is also why WoW is the most popular MMO, it's actually FUN. Eq2, FFXI, etc are losing players to WoW like mad because of that. But WoW is also losing players, because they have reached the maximum level already and stop playing. So you can either have a fun game or a long-living game. Guess which one the suits prefer.
In your average SP Hack&Slay RPG you run into a dungeon, battle monsters for two hours max, beat the boss through strategy (as opposed to sheer numbers and high levels) and get the reward. Storylines are another thing: FFXI has one but the missions involved have level requirements too far apart. In Tales, for example, you'd be at the required level for the next dungeon when you finished the current one. Having to go up 10 levels before you can even attempt the next story mission is annoying. Another issue are stupid quests like "kill 50 goblins".
Skyfire: I use several reviews to learn what a game attempts to be and how well it succeeds. The most beautiful game with the best idea ever could be awfully boring because the level design sucks or something.
Post by: Pale on April 20, 2005, 05:01:06 AM
Saying that there is no strategy in an MMO (FFXI cause its the only I've truly gotten into) is also false. All of the most difficult boss battles have level caps that keep high levels from just slaughtering them. FFXI alone taught me what real strategy in an RPG is..so much so that it has improved my ability to play offline RPGs. I won't argue that occasionally there is a huge level jump, but a lot of times its because players go against the design of the game so I can't really complain. For example, I just achieved Rank 5 at only level 30. I know this may not make sense but bear with me. I basically cheated to get rank 5 that early and had a level 75 person escort me while i was invisible. The Rank 5 mission allowed that sort of cheating. Now, the rank 6 mission requires level 55 to even have a shot at winning. Thats 25 levels and seems outrageous... But its only because of the way i played so I can't really fault myself. The Rank 5 mission is designed for level 40-45.
I dunno, that's why designing MMOs intrigues me so much. All of that stuff needs to be taken into account and thats cool... I guess we should just agree to disagree.
Oh, and you _could_ say that there are chemicals involved inside your body that make Wind Waker fun....does that make it addictive? I still don't understand how you can differentiate between fun and addictivness... =P
Post by: Talon on April 20, 2005, 05:33:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Zach
To make this a true experiment, someone should make a similar negative review of the DS, and we will all get on gamefaqs and b!tch about it, better yet make one that is even more negative of the DS (one that actually has blatant lies in it, maybe say that the games cost $50) and see what happens.
Gamefaqs would probably pay you to write a negative review of the DS. Likewise if you made a positive review they would probably delete it
Post by: Deguello on April 20, 2005, 06:22:56 PM
Quote
How many games from 5 years ago do you play or ever think you'll play again?
Immaterial. The issue is that online games will not be there in 5 years. I still have the possibility of playing a 5 year old game should it not be dependent on an expiration date, as are most MMOs.
Post by: oohhboy on April 21, 2005, 07:05:32 AM
This is how I would classify MMORPGS. I found it adgervatingly balanced in terms of being forced to kill monsters one at a time or else no reward, the lack of soul in battling (use power 1,2,3 in order to kill). You simply knew whether you would win or not. The infinite number of kill XXX number of this quests. The sheer lack of randomness. Massive "travel" time. The sheer pointlessness of it all.
Give me KOTORs, Zeldas, Diablos, WC3 UMS anyday.
Post by: Hostile Creation on April 21, 2005, 07:06:13 AM
Quote
How many games from 5 years ago do you play or ever think you'll play again?
Based on last generation? Six at least. But I have more games this generation and I preferred the games released this generation. I still play Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Mischief Makers, Starfox 64, Mario 64 (albeit on DS now), and Mario Kart, among others, on a fairly regular basis. I'm playing games I never got to play on SNES, not having owned one. I still plug in my NES from time to time and play Jackal, River City Ransom, Mario, Kirby, etc.
So yes, I'll be playing quite a few of the games I own now five, ten, and even more years down the road.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 21, 2005, 07:14:21 AM
Pale: Not everything that can lead to an addiction is fun. Perhaps the term "obsessive compulsive behaviour" is more appropriate because among gamers the term "addiction" has positive conotations. You get an adrenaline rush whenever you archieve something in a game but these rushes are paced out and carefully planned in MMOs. They want to keep you busy as long as possible because they know nobody will start a new character when their first one hits max.
Another fault in the design of MMORPGs is that you need to be at least of some certain level to experience most of the game which takes tens of hours to archieve usually. One hour of warmup or something is okay but then it exceeds my tolerance for what a game can ask of me. Before you reach that certain level there's zero strategy because you have only one or two attacks anyway.
Some blog. Article with actual substance.
Post by: Pale on April 21, 2005, 07:52:23 AM
If you don't then I'm assuming you don't do them as they are just side quests. Well thats usually the case in an MMO too. If you don't want to bother killing the 500 monsters, or delivering the 500 parcels, there are usually other things you could be doing. There is a lot of freedom there.
As for oohhboy saying he likes KOTOR.... if you like that game and don't like MMOs i'm downright confused.....
Me asking the question about how many 5 year old games you are gonna play was kind of rhetorical (sp?). I mean, its easy to say that now...but I dunno... I haven't hooked up my N64 in a dog's age. The 5 year number was also kind of pulled out of nowhere too. Most popular MMOs outlast the 5 year point. I am quite confident that FFXI will go for quite a bit longer than that (assuming they take care of the current dDOSing bastards) unless they release a FFXI-2.
Post by: SgtShiversBen on April 21, 2005, 08:14:53 AM
You should have at least said 10 years rather than 5, would have made more sense.
Post by: Deguello on April 22, 2005, 03:10:01 PM
Quote
Do you guys like the collect all / trading sidequests in Zelda? If you do, I don't see what your complaints are with simliar stuff in an MMO.
That would be a good analogy except when I buy Zelda, that's it.
When I do that in Everquest, I'm paying $13 a month for doing "Zelda sidequests" as you say.
Post by: oohhboy on April 23, 2005, 06:39:39 AM
The conversatioins I got out of Kotor was far more enjoyable then real people online which mostly amounted to silence or "I got a big knife!11!".
Also Kotor is closer to a dungen crawl oppose to WoWs erand boy quests which gets you running around mugging the native spawns for some inane reason. In WoW your some Joe-nobody, in Kotor you have the death sentence in nine star systems.
WoW maybe vast, but does it really contain anything in it? A story? Some moral question? A real end to it all? The answer to the question of life? All I found was rinse and repeat.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 25, 2005, 08:41:45 AM
That's easy. 42.
What other things are there to do in an MMORPG except doing stupid fetch quests that devolve into killing monsters for hours? Oh, yeah, I could be killing monsters for hours in order to increase my stats! Or camping a boss for hours in order to get that rare item drop! To be fair, in some MMORPGs I could also be crafting for hours to level up my tradeskills. But that option is not available everywhere.
Post by: oohhboy on April 26, 2005, 04:55:58 AM
42 ha! Next thing your going to tell me is that I always need a towel.
Post by: odifiend on April 26, 2005, 06:17:25 AM
Does anyone know how much EA online stuff costs? I played some TS3 over at a friend's house it was pretty damn cool. I definitely like how you and your friends playing on the same console can go online together. It has its flaws like waiting for a match to fill up but there is limited communication which stops the proliferation of expletives but if you generally have something to say you can. It works well and is free for the player.
