Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
This thread is locked

So is SE retarded?Follow

#52 Mar 26 2010 at 11:07 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
6,470 posts
Zackary wrote:
Bluefirefly wrote:
Zackary wrote:
I uprated it, because I happen to agree with some of the points made. Most of them, in fact.


Maybe some of the points would have been considered even slightly valid by some people on this board, but the fact the OP used a sock puppet to make their "argument" proves that they knew they were being a complete douche by posting it in the first place, therefore negating any credibility the argument could have had. Should it be taken seriously? No. Did I get a laugh out of this thread? Yes.
Being a snobbish prick doesn't make your points any more or less valid. I don't know why you think that because of the way he phrased them, the messages are somehow cheapened.

But if you say so, I guess.


Part of maintaining a respectful, helpful forum environment means asserting that those qualities are what we expect from posts. Calmness and rationality are also good qualities to bring. Fire & brimstone rants that are laced with expletives don't really fit the bill.

This isn't the asylum...if you want an "anything goes" style of communication, then that's the place for it. Otherwise, yes, posts do need to meet a standard for maturity. I'm not up in arms about this, but my suggestion is not to rate posts like this up unless you want them to be the norm, which I sure don't. Ever been by the GameFAQ's board for like, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2?

Edited, Mar 26th 2010 1:08pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#53 Mar 26 2010 at 12:43 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,457 posts
hmm.. first you said:
Quote:
The only complaints that have any ground are those based purely on opinion, and that's only because a personal opinion can't really be wrong.


Then you say:
Quote:
WoW is the most successful game around for a reason. Not because it's good, but because it caters to the casual player and it's pretty.


You too seem to mix factual statements with opinions.



____________________________
Hunter Avril
Rogue Ultra
Paladin Awhellnah
Mage Shantotto
Shaman Lakshmi
Faith (Valefor)

#54 Mar 26 2010 at 1:48 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
2,495 posts
Quote:
hmm.. first you said:
Quote:
The only complaints that have any ground are those based purely on opinion, and that's only because a personal opinion can't really be wrong.


Then you say:
Quote:
WoW is the most successful game around for a reason. Not because it's good, but because it caters to the casual player and it's pretty.


You too seem to mix factual statements with opinions.


Which part are you arguing? That fact that WoW is a successful game or the part that the play style and graphics is what made it successful?

Either way, neither of them are an opinion. Show me another MMO that put up the same numbers WoW has for as long as they have. The longevity of it's success is due to the fact that Blizzard is catering to the masses, the casual player.

Again, just because you don't like the game or the graphics doesn't mean that the game and graphics aren't liked by the masses. If they weren't, it would have crashed and burned a long time ago.

And where did I say mixing factual statements with personal opinion was wrong? I simply stated that the only agreeable points made by the OP were opinions and that was because an opinion can't really be wrong.
#55 Mar 26 2010 at 3:43 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,822 posts
OP made a few good points but mostly it was just whining and had a terribly delivery. If you want to make these points do it in a more intellectual manner. However...

OP wrote:
Bawwwwwwwwww we can't swim and jump like we can in THAT OTHER GAME


You lost me there OP.

We've already been over this on these boards many times before. Tactical swimming/jumping/climbing would be okay, where you do it only at a certain point that is relevant to a mission or quest. However freely "Bunny Hopping" around all over the place and feeling the need to jump over everything instead of actually walking and running naturally is completely stupid. I absolutely hate this mentality and I'm glad Square Enix isn't adding them. It takes a feel of realism out of the game.

Edited, Mar 26th 2010 2:45pm by EndlessJourney
____________________________
Long Live Vana Diel.
#56 Mar 26 2010 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
I can think of very few, if any, examples in FFXI where jumping/swimming would have made the game better. In most instances, it would only have served to bypass terrain obstacles that were intentionally placed in the game to make areas impassable or one way. There are a few exceptions, sure, but in most situations, this is the case.

Now I will say that I think swimming would be a nice addition to have, as it would make maps with lakes and rivers not feel like they might as well just be invisible mountains; Jugner Forest [S] comes to mind. But more often than not, the jumping feature of a game isn't used to actually jump over an obstacle (that could not have been bypassed in any other way), it's used to alleviate boredom.

Granted I have no statistical data, but I'd wager that somewhere betweeen 70-90% of spacebar presses in games like WoW/Allods/etc didn't accomplish anything that merely standing in place or walking forward normally could not have accomplished. The main use I used to really like jumping for was to jump over a small river on a mount so I didn't get forcably dismounted, and when they made it so that water doesn't boot you off a mount, that was pretty much gone.

And like I said, I can't really think of any examples in FFXI where the ability to jump would have made something significantly better, unless you count using said jump to override an intentional one-way drop or artificial barrier (e.g. Yuhtunga Jungle/Ifrit's Cauldron, Cape Terrigan/Gustav Tunnel, etc).
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#57 Mar 27 2010 at 11:19 AM Rating: Good
**
863 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
I can think of very few, if any, examples in FFXI where jumping/swimming would have made the game better. In most instances, it would only have served to bypass terrain obstacles that were intentionally placed in the game to make areas impassable or one way. There are a few exceptions, sure, but in most situations, this is the case.

Now I will say that I think swimming would be a nice addition to have, as it would make maps with lakes and rivers not feel like they might as well just be invisible mountains; Jugner Forest [S] comes to mind. But more often than not, the jumping feature of a game isn't used to actually jump over an obstacle (that could not have been bypassed in any other way), it's used to alleviate boredom.

Granted I have no statistical data, but I'd wager that somewhere betweeen 70-90% of spacebar presses in games like WoW/Allods/etc didn't accomplish anything that merely standing in place or walking forward normally could not have accomplished. The main use I used to really like jumping for was to jump over a small river on a mount so I didn't get forcably dismounted, and when they made it so that water doesn't boot you off a mount, that was pretty much gone.

And like I said, I can't really think of any examples in FFXI where the ability to jump would have made something significantly better, unless you count using said jump to override an intentional one-way drop or artificial barrier (e.g. Yuhtunga Jungle/Ifrit's Cauldron, Cape Terrigan/Gustav Tunnel, etc).


I feel like the ability to jump was essential in WoW, at least for some classes. I primarily played a mage in WoW and when it came to PvP I needed to be able to jump to kite effectively. It felt like jumping had a purpose mechanically as well as in a lot of other cases. With all the lush environment and small obstacles, not having jump would have been a hassle considering how big the world was and how much one actually ran around when questing etc.

It doesn't feel like FFXI was built for jumping really, not mechanically and aside from jumping past the odd stairs that now force you to run around them or w/e it doesn't feel like it would add much of anything to the feel of the game. Swimming would have been nice though. One of the problems I have with FFXI is that it feels a bit too restricted sometimes, WoW for example feels bigger even though it takes more time to travel in FFXI. Like I could go exploring in WoW, it felt kind of natural, in FFXI there is no way I would explore outside of the first few days when I was learning how things worked.

When it comes to the OP, well I think everything has been said already really. There are some decent points hidden in there, but they are obscured by so much **** that it all starts to smell like crap, good and bad alike. There are good ways and bad ways of showing/discussing discontent and this was a prime example of the latter. Obviously the OP knew that too since he is using this "sockpuppet"(haha, never heard that before).

Also, I know I am going to be a bit hypocritical now because I rate people up and down depending on opinion myself sometimes, but I don't think OP deserves a rate-up from anyone. It is irrelevant in this case if you agree or not, the way it was presented alone stripped OP of all legitimacy he/she started out with.
#58 Mar 27 2010 at 6:40 PM Rating: Default
Prettier Than You
*****
12,966 posts
Eske wrote:
Zackary wrote:
Bluefirefly wrote:
Zackary wrote:
I uprated it, because I happen to agree with some of the points made. Most of them, in fact.


Maybe some of the points would have been considered even slightly valid by some people on this board, but the fact the OP used a sock puppet to make their "argument" proves that they knew they were being a complete douche by posting it in the first place, therefore negating any credibility the argument could have had. Should it be taken seriously? No. Did I get a laugh out of this thread? Yes.
Being a snobbish prick doesn't make your points any more or less valid. I don't know why you think that because of the way he phrased them, the messages are somehow cheapened.

But if you say so, I guess.


Part of maintaining a respectful, helpful forum environment means asserting that those qualities are what we expect from posts. Calmness and rationality are also good qualities to bring. Fire & brimstone rants that are laced with expletives don't really fit the bill.

This isn't the asylum...if you want an "anything goes" style of communication, then that's the place for it. Otherwise, yes, posts do need to meet a standard for maturity. I'm not up in arms about this, but my suggestion is not to rate posts like this up unless you want them to be the norm, which I sure don't. Ever been by the GameFAQ's board for like, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2?

Edited, Mar 26th 2010 1:08pm by Eske
Read forums for long enough and you tend to ignore the whining, ********* and complaining and instead filter out things to simply see the points. I guess it just doesn't phase me anymore.
____________________________
Did you lose faith?
Yes, I lost faith in the powers that be.
But in doing so I came across the will to disagree.
And I gave up. Yes, I gave up, and then I gave in.
But I take responsibility for every single sin. ♪ ♫


Thank god I stopped playing MMOs.
#59 Mar 27 2010 at 7:52 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
Belcrono wrote:
Also, I know I am going to be a bit hypocritical now because I rate people up and down depending on opinion myself sometimes, but I don't think OP deserves a rate-up from anyone. It is irrelevant in this case if you agree or not, the way it was presented alone stripped OP of all legitimacy he/she started out with.


1) People rate each other up or down for a number of reasons. Well thought out arguments can get rated up or down, poor arguments can get rated up or down, nonsensical gibberish can get rated up or down. Any ratings vary based on agree/disagree with poster's opinion, agree/disagree with wording, agree/disagree with shortness/length of post, agree/disagree with grammatical and literary content, or something as trivial as liking/disliking a person's avatar, sig comment, or poster name.

I've rated up people I disagreed with because they made valid points, I've rated down people I agreed with because they were being douchey about it. ****, I've made posts myself that I'd rate myself down for if I could. Usually I'm pretty **** sure I'll be rated down for saying such things but I say em anyway. Plenty of others are the same way.

2) The rating/karma system was originally introduced with the purpose of allowing user moderation. To an extent this does work because trolls and sock puppets usually get karma blasted, although once you get about 50 or so odd posts under your belt, you become nearly immune to being permanently sub-defaulted. The farther you go, the more immune to karmic changes you have. After about 5000 posts, you're probably Regular/Scholar/Sage/Guru for life and it's pretty rare to see that go up or down unless you mass blast the forums with a ******* of FAQs or a plethra of ******* and moaning.

The only difference between the ranks is that your name is a slightly different color, and so long as you're at least Scholar, you're free to rate people up and down willy nilly for any (or no) reason.

If history is any inclination, this post will likely get rated up because I'm posting a detailed description of the karma system, or it will get rated down because I mentioned karma in the first place. Or some people will rate it up and others will rate it down and it may or may not cancel out. Or no one will rate it anything. Who knows.

Long as you sat your display to "Never Filter", the rating isn't really relevant. And some Sub-default posts are some of the funniest, most ignorant **** you could ever conceive of and IME aren't worth filtering out ANYWAY.

Personally, I wish there was a filter option to show Negative and Unrated posts; there are some real gems out there that have gotten admin nuked.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#60 Mar 27 2010 at 8:21 PM Rating: Decent
Prettier Than You
*****
12,966 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
The karma system on this website is pretty much useless most of the time because user moderation is so sporadic and unreliable that admins end up having to intervene more often than not regardless.
Is more along the lines of what you should have said.

I mean, maybe the more game-specific forums are different, but for a lot of the general forums, posts that should be below-filter get rated up a lot simply because people want to continue to watch the flamewar go on, which results in an admin having to lock the thread anyway.

I imagine it was useful when this site was a lot smaller and there were very few administrators, but now it's basically worthless, which is fine because there are also plenty of admins to clean up the house anyway.


Here's a slight history lesson on the karma system for anyone who gives a sh*t though.

The original karma system on this site was a lot different than it is now. Originally, it actually displayed your "karma score" on a 5 point scale underneath your name. You started out with a 3.0 when you made your account, and people could rate you up or down accordingly. Anything that was 3.01+ made you a scholar (Although I believe a certain number of posts was required.) and 4.0 and 4.5+ were Sage and Guru. Anything below 2.0 was below the default filter. (This is all according to memory, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

It operated on an average system, basing your actual karma score vs. the number of posts you had. This general principle is still the same, however they removed the actual scores next to names due to the fact that people would whine and complain every time their score got down. I'm sure admins got tired of getting PMs about people crying because they thought they were getting ratecamped.

Edited, Mar 27th 2010 10:22pm by Zackary
____________________________
Did you lose faith?
Yes, I lost faith in the powers that be.
But in doing so I came across the will to disagree.
And I gave up. Yes, I gave up, and then I gave in.
But I take responsibility for every single sin. ♪ ♫


Thank god I stopped playing MMOs.
#61 Mar 27 2010 at 10:28 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,495 posts
Yes, the current karma system is broken, as a whole. However, it still performs it's originally intended purpose. Yes, people with 1000+ posts under their belt are pretty much immune to the effects of the rate button; although with 1000+ posts under your belt, you should know what's tolerated and what's not, by both the admins and the community. Said posters should also be aware of the fact that the community has it's own ways of dealing with posters who have seriously crossed the line, assuming an admin simply doesn't ban the offending account(s).

As far as the numbers, I am glad they are gone. The constant complaining over a 0.01 adjustment was insane.

With that being said, let's not turn this into the typical karma **********
#62 Mar 27 2010 at 10:34 PM Rating: Good
***
2,084 posts
Guys, guys!



Somebody rated me down.
____________________________
What would happen if I hired two private investigators to follow each other?
#64 Mar 28 2010 at 12:03 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,495 posts
Ready to give us that /facepalm smiley yet?
#65 Mar 28 2010 at 12:28 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Kirbster's sig wrote:
What would happen if I hired two private investigators to follow each other?


That's hilarious.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#67 Mar 28 2010 at 12:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
6,470 posts
Zackary wrote:
Eske wrote:
Zackary wrote:
Bluefirefly wrote:
Zackary wrote:
I uprated it, because I happen to agree with some of the points made. Most of them, in fact.


Maybe some of the points would have been considered even slightly valid by some people on this board, but the fact the OP used a sock puppet to make their "argument" proves that they knew they were being a complete douche by posting it in the first place, therefore negating any credibility the argument could have had. Should it be taken seriously? No. Did I get a laugh out of this thread? Yes.
Being a snobbish prick doesn't make your points any more or less valid. I don't know why you think that because of the way he phrased them, the messages are somehow cheapened.

But if you say so, I guess.


Part of maintaining a respectful, helpful forum environment means asserting that those qualities are what we expect from posts. Calmness and rationality are also good qualities to bring. Fire & brimstone rants that are laced with expletives don't really fit the bill.

This isn't the asylum...if you want an "anything goes" style of communication, then that's the place for it. Otherwise, yes, posts do need to meet a standard for maturity. I'm not up in arms about this, but my suggestion is not to rate posts like this up unless you want them to be the norm, which I sure don't. Ever been by the GameFAQ's board for like, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2?

Edited, Mar 26th 2010 1:08pm by Eske
Read forums for long enough and you tend to ignore the whining, ********* and complaining and instead filter out things to simply see the points. I guess it just doesn't phase me anymore.


I wouldn't be surprised. You can become jaded to these things pretty quick on forums (or in your case, after a few thousand posts, perhaps). But I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I still don't have that filter, and crass posts do irk me. I'd rather not have to sift through loads of BS to find the nugget of worthwhile post within.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#68 Mar 28 2010 at 1:13 AM Rating: Decent
Prettier Than You
*****
12,966 posts
[quote=Kirbster]Guys, guys!



Somebody rated me ********************** SOUND THE ALARM


**** I GOT RATED DOWN FOR SOUNDING THE ALARM! I DEMAND ADMIN INTERVENTION!





[sm]Oh nostalgia...
____________________________
Did you lose faith?
Yes, I lost faith in the powers that be.
But in doing so I came across the will to disagree.
And I gave up. Yes, I gave up, and then I gave in.
But I take responsibility for every single sin. ♪ ♫


Thank god I stopped playing MMOs.
#69 Mar 31 2010 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
*
163 posts
Aww if only I had got here sooner :(
#70 Apr 02 2010 at 11:44 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,457 posts
Quote:
Which part are you arguing? That fact that WoW is a successful game or the part that the play style and graphics is what made it successful?

Either way, neither of them are an opinion. Show me another MMO that put up the same numbers WoW has for as long as they have. The longevity of it's success is due to the fact that Blizzard is catering to the masses, the casual player.

Again, just because you don't like the game or the graphics doesn't mean that the game and graphics aren't liked by the masses. If they weren't, it would have crashed and burned a long time ago.

And where did I say mixing factual statements with personal opinion was wrong? I simply stated that the only agreeable points made by the OP were opinions and that was because an opinion can't really be wrong.


You completely misunderstood what I was saying I think.
I loved WoW. I liked FFXI better, but WoW is a great game. Your rant about it being good because it caters to the masses completely left out the fact that it had phenomenal gameplay and replay value. Finding a good guild, getting 25 people together, and running content for 2-4 hours is not really "casual". It requires time and planning, just as all other good MMOs do.

WoW is only casualfun if you make it that way.

Edit* Not being hostile at all, just clearing up my point, if I even had one.

Edited, Apr 2nd 2010 11:03pm by GuardianFaith
____________________________
Hunter Avril
Rogue Ultra
Paladin Awhellnah
Mage Shantotto
Shaman Lakshmi
Faith (Valefor)

#71 Apr 03 2010 at 5:33 AM Rating: Good
In regards to the names, I don't care for the FFXIV naming scheme myself. While the OP's Tolkeinesque suggestions were fairly bland, I'm not a big fan of the R' A' Salvator'e names with a plethora of apostrophes.

FFXI names, and many in the FF family have been original without being too obnoxious to type.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#72 Apr 03 2010 at 5:59 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,495 posts
GuardianFaith wrote:
Raolan wrote:
Which part are you arguing? That fact that WoW is a successful game or the part that the play style and graphics is what made it successful?

Either way, neither of them are an opinion. Show me another MMO that put up the same numbers WoW has for as long as they have. The longevity of it's success is due to the fact that Blizzard is catering to the masses, the casual player.

Again, just because you don't like the game or the graphics doesn't mean that the game and graphics aren't liked by the masses. If they weren't, it would have crashed and burned a long time ago.

And where did I say mixing factual statements with personal opinion was wrong? I simply stated that the only agreeable points made by the OP were opinions and that was because an opinion can't really be wrong.


You completely misunderstood what I was saying I think.
I loved WoW. I liked FFXI better, but WoW is a great game. Your rant about it being good because it caters to the masses completely left out the fact that it had phenomenal gameplay and replay value. Finding a good guild, getting 25 people together, and running content for 2-4 hours is not really "casual". It requires time and planning, just as all other good MMOs do.

WoW is only casualfun if you make it that way.

Edit* Not being hostile at all, just clearing up my point, if I even had one.

Edited, Apr 2nd 2010 11:03pm by GuardianFaith


Gameplay and replay value are in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I think the replay value sucked, which is why I no longer play. The playability was good, but that took a lot of polishing to get right. It wasn't so good when the game was originally released.

Bringing 25 people together for a 2-4 hour raid is nothing compared to the options that were out at the time. Organizing and running 72 man raids back in EQ was a nightmare. I specifically remember spending the better part of a day in raids like PoS and still not completing them. Although raiding is not a truly casual activity so it's kind of a moot point for my original claim.

Wow offered players the ability to log in and get something done in a relatively short amount of time. It also gave players a very realistic opportunity to play solo if they chose to do so. When you go back and look at it's competitors, EQ, EQII, and FFXI, WoW was the only game that offered these options for the truly casual player. The casual friendly aspect of WoW, which is the only game that offered this at the time, is what brought the numbers to WoW that no other MMO has ever seen. The graphics could be arguable, but from what I have seen over the years, they have become a lot more important to the average player than they used to be.

If you really want to look at it another way, I'll give it a very basic rundown. WoW has significantly more members than any other MMO, meaning it brought in a lot of people that weren't gamers. What did WoW bring to the table that brought all these people in? What did WoW offer that other games didn't? The casual/solo aspect, and to a lesser extent, higher end graphics capable of running on lower end machines.
#73 Apr 03 2010 at 10:20 AM Rating: Good
10 posts
Quote:
2. Ul'Dah, Lomsa Lominsa, Lalafell. Where the **** do they think these names can pass? Why can't they name towns like Rivershire, or Portsland. Adding apostrophes to the names of in game objects isn't going to make me E-*** any harder. The last names system is also moronic, as it will just make character sound more idiotic then they already will when they are sporting their brand new disgusting subligars, because there is no other option.



I know man, like woah totally, guy.

Why can't they name it "London" or "Paris" or "New York", like for reals. ANd ELEZEN? Why not call them ELVES... and "Hyuran?" f'ing stoopid, guy. Why don't they call them "HYOOMANZ"

And Lalafell should OBVIOUSLY be called "HALFLINGS"

Dude, you have no imagination.
#74 Oct 07 2010 at 4:40 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
123 posts
Nostradamus.
#75 Oct 07 2010 at 4:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Mistress of Gardening
Avatar
*****
14,661 posts
Please do not necropost.
1 2 Next »
This thread is locked
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 23 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (23)