Professor shintasama wrote:
That's the problem though. It's not hard to think up a two part name or an clever addition to an existing name, you're just completely unreceptive to it because you're soo fixated on your old name. If you didn't have that attachment it would be a complete non-issue.
Have you been reading my posts at all
? I literally just
addressed this in my last post. I'll restate it again, anyway: I'm not arguing that it's hard
to come up with another name. In fact, I said "it's not a big deal". What I am arguing, is that it's a less desirable situation than being able to simply name the character what I want, and let SE do whatever work needs to be done to make that happen. That situation is (arguably) even easier, because it involves absolutely no effort by the player base. So who's making a big deal out of something trivial, here?
You're acting like this is the end of the world
Boy, that's a **** of a gross exaggeration. If you honestly think that, then I give up, I won't be able to help you see otherwise.
I listed several already at the top of the page.
1) the two name convention is like requiring X number of letters in a name, it decreases chances of duplicates 2) it fits with the visual aesthetics of the rest of the game 3) it opens up new dialogue options with regards to formality (which is not just a .jp concept, Blue you bigot) 4) it makes joke/statement/object names more awkward encouraging people to choose names that are more immersive 5) because SE feels like it.
1) Do we have a pressing issue of duplicates that's been dying to be addressed?
2) Two-part names are a very, very minor aspect of the game's aesthetics. While sure, this could conceivably be a reason for SE opting to make it this way, is it more important than players being able to name their characters what they want? I would argue that no, it's not. Not by a long shot. And there have been enough people in this thread alone echoing my sentiments that I'm confident that I'm not alone in feeling this way.
3) Same here...is this marginal
benefit worth not being able to just name my character what I want? I don't think so.
4) Frankly, no it doesn't. See my response to Lianda illustrating that there's absolutely no difference in people's ability to make a joke name.
5) Not a good reason, obviously.
There. I've addressed your points. Ball's in your court.
The actual [q uoted] section isn't misquoted (ctrl+x, crtl+v), and the implied meaning within the "_" is the same (if you "don't care" then it's "not a big deal" and vice versa), so I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you feel I misunderstood you and twisted what you said in any appreciable way you'll have to be more specific.
There's a very clear difference between "I don't care" and "It's not a big deal". Don't see it? Fine. The first is a definite. The second is not. If I "do not care" about something, then it stands to reason that I can't argue it. If it's "not a big deal", I'm still free to discuss the "small deal" for debate purposes. It exists on some level, so it can be addressed.
You used this as an example of me being "contradictory". As I've now shown, it isn't.
I either missed something or doesn't mean what you think it means. The picture and everything else I can find I've written has been directed at flaws in your argument, not you personally. Blue is the only one that I can see that has resorted to Ad Hominem attacks.
First of all, "QQ MOAR", is ad hominem. Perhaps you meant it towards Blue, but you wrote it after a paragraph that was addressed to me, so obviously that's how I took it. And if you're curious, that's the one that really got my hackles up in the first place.
Ad hominem attacks do not have to be direct insults, or outwardly deragatory. They can also be implied condescension, or a trivialization of another's point of view via oversimplification or exaggeration. "The sky is falling" was a fable that chided mass hysteria over non-issues. This in-and-of-itself wouldn't be ad hominem, except for the fact that I haven't done anything in this thread other than lobby my case. Me arguing my point of view /= me being hysterical. Insinuating as much is ad hominem, because instead of addressing my points (which I keep asking you to do, and you keep ignoring), you just keep alluding to me freaking out or being hysterical. In fact, I'm actually being very level-headed...perhaps you're reading a tone from my text that isn't there. But I'm not having issues carrying on a mature debate with Lianda, so I'm more inclined to think that you're talking out your ***.
I've written ad nauseum about how I'm not saying that this is a huge issue. I think it's a quibble, honestly. But I think it's a quibble with a very clear solution, so I'm debating it. You having completely ignored that point, which I've made now at least 5 times, demonstrates that you're not attacking my argument, you're attacking my credibility as a person. In your eyes, I'm just overreacting hysterically. But you're wrong for all the above reasons.
I can see how it seems easy, but it's the type of problem that compounds extremely quickly and can cause all sorts of problems with clarity and consistency. Not to mention that they would have to write new dialogue for every instance and then translate all that additional dialogue into 5(?) languages. Minor difference to players, major impact on SE's bottom line. Players aren't going to not play over something like this and will quickly adjust to it after they start playing, so there is no point from SE's perspective in going to the effort.
But it's been done before in other MMO's.
I understand some may disagree, and they would rather be able to use the name they really want rather than another minor feature such as sitting on benches in town. It's just a matter of opinion and priorities, and those things vary wildly between each gamer (want their needs satisfied), designer (want to please everyone) and producer (want to please the majority).
See, when you argue this position, it places my issue against the infinite
amount of other design choices that SE can make. And if we extend the argument to other situations, then we can never suggest any design in the game...because why do one thing, when they could devote the resources to (infinite) other things.
I think you're getting to a tricky point here. When you say that you'd rather that SE devote the resources to other matters, we get into a difficult position. There may be a point sometime in the near future where you yourself want something in the game, and if your opinion is shared by many, I doubt you'll be satisfied by another, smaller population in the game saying "I'd rather they just work on something else, instead." In this manner, you argue that every single decision in the game is detrimental to any other pursuit, simply because it uses resources. You use the example of "allowing players to sit on benches"...say you made a post saying "wouldn't it be cool if we could sit on benches?"...now everyone can just come in and say, "I'd rather they work on something else". And we can go on and on, doing this for every single design choice. What gets accomplished by this cynical, counter-productive argument?
You've agreed with me that surnames being optional is of, at worst, marginal detriment to the game's integrity. As you can see from the responses in the thread, many people feel that making surnames optional would be of significant benefit to the game. If we take the generally positive response from people in this thread to be at least partially indicative of the game's full population, then wouldn't it stand to reason that we should weigh the For's vs. the Against, and just do it? (This being applicable because it's of no detriment to the player base if surnames are optional. I'm comfortable saying that because your arguments are largely based upon what's difficult for SE, not us).
It's just a matter of opinion and priorities, and those things vary wildly between each gamer (want their needs satisfied), designer (want to please everyone) and producer (want to please the majority).
To me, you seem to be in the minority on this issue, and your argument is hedging chiefly on hypotheticals. I think it's clear that there's a significant portion of the population that would rather the names be optional. Obviously, since I can't prove this, we're probably at an impass.
I say, let SE devote an extra week to coding it properly. Or let them pay another employee to get it done. Whatever. And if it takes out time that would otherwise be spent allowing us to sit on benches, then let 'em work on the benches once they fix this issue. Just shift everything back a week. Where's the harm in that? Edited, Apr 22nd 2010 6:33pm by Eske Edited, Apr 22nd 2010 6:36pm by Eske