Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

Yoshi-P comments on "Death Penalty" and "Item fix" issue.Follow

#52 Mar 28 2011 at 3:38 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
To all the people who don't believe in death penalty. The winning strat that was over-used for the CoP mission with Ultima and Omega are the perfect example of why a death penalty is needed. I knew so many people making a fortune and totally abusing the system by zombie nuking the weapons to win. 5 blms and a tourist would basically be use RR2 item, everyone nuke, wipe, reraise, reset RR2, and nuke, wipe, rinse and repeat until mob was dead. It was a sad and pathetic exploit to basically do what it takes to win, and seriously broke the whole purpose of the fight.


First of all, there are other ways to prevent unintended or abusive strategies.

Secondly, and more importantly, if a fight is challenging enough that people are resorting to strategies where they intentionally die, it is because the fight is challenging enough that they are going to die anyway-- so they may as well die to win. In this case, a death penalty doesn't deter dying, because people grow to expect it. e.g., people in FFXI have always expected that they would die during certain fights, because it was inevitable if not essential to victory. At that point, it no longer becomes an effective deterrent. Instead it simply becomes a price you pay for victory, and a source of frustration.

Let me give you a real life example of this principle-- I park illegally almost every day, even though I don't like getting tickets. However, if I pay the meter (which I have to walk across the lot to do), I'm still going out of my way to pay to park. I know that either way, I'm going to be paying, and that there will be enough days that I don't get ticketed that the cost is offset overall. In this case the deterrent penalty (a ticket) no longer serves to prevent my reckless parking habits (as with dying) because I know that in the end the cost to myself is not significantly greater, and it's actually quite a bit more convenient for me to pay tickets than to pay the meter every day, just like it's sometimes easier to pay a death penalty and use a winning strategy to get what you want (or park your car) than to do the fight "honestly" and hope you die as little as possible. Not a perfect analogy, but demonstrates the principle anyway.

This is actually a well-studied area of psychology which often finds that penalties do not deter the behavior they intend to. Instead, people consider the penalty merely a cost of doing business, they accept it, and work around it.

Quote:
If there were a consequence to "not winning," I would agree with you, but 99% of the time there isn't. And, of course, in a group activity, dying doesn't even necessarily mean that you don't win. If you're rotating two tanks, for example, then a tank dying can have literally no consequence. A DD dying is even less consequential than a tank: "Oh, Bill died. I guess we'll kill it slightly more slowly while he gets back up."


This brings up a good point though-- that people tend to resent being penalized individually when they are working for their group. In the first place, a fight where a party member's death only means "killing it more slowly," the fight is probably not challenging enough, but at least if everyone is killing more slowly, everyone is slowed down as a team. Losing, afterall, ALWAYS ultimately incarnates as a time sink. So yes, killing more slowly is as legitimate a penalty as forcing someone to go out and grind for more xp/money. It's just not as lame and makes a lot more sense.

Quote:
Having a (reasonable) death penalty in an MMO is like a horror game actually being scary. When the risk of death goes up, you'll start feeling nervous and if you die, you might even get mad, especially if you died because of a stupid, completely avoidable, mistake. I can relate to that and I don't like being annoyed, either, however, if you take the death penalty away, if you strip the horror from a horror game, you're left with nothing but a shell. If the horror game isn't scary, why are you playing it? Didn't you get into it because you wanted to be scared?


The point I think you're missing here is that plenty of successful horror games don't use harsh penalties to achieve this sense of anxiety. Death penalties are not (necessarily) the cause of this feeling-- rather there are many other factors at play here.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#53 Mar 28 2011 at 3:38 PM Rating: Good
In my opinion, hard fights should include death! Lots and lots of death!!! Because they're hard, and you barely win. So I don't think there should be penalties for people dying. Just, if you all die, you fail and get nothing. You can try again though, but it should still count fully as a win if you get the mob down and half your raid has died, even after you emergency ressed a few people.

The important part is that if a person dies, there can be battle resses, on a long cooldown, but other than that, if they're dead they're out of the fight. No repeated ressing up and joining back in is the main thing to prevent. Not just people dying. I want fights to be hard. It should be kind of a big deal if you wain. You shouldn't expect to always win. And, because fights will be hard, it shouldn't hurt *too* badly if you die.
____________________________
Die! Die die die. die die die die, die die. - Scarlet Briar
#54 Mar 28 2011 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good
**
495 posts
Let this be understood (for my part). I don't believe in harsh penalties, I believe in conditional penalties that can be mitigated or worsened depending on possible risk vs reward as well as preparedness. The current system is too rigid. You die... you get weakened... you won't be full power for 3 minutes. You die again in this time and re-raise you will be weakened even more for another 3 minutes. The only variable is getting raised or 'returning' in which case its a matter of walking back to where you died and with all the aetherial gates and Aetheryte Binds... you usually can walk back to where you were fighting well before your raise sickness wears which makes raising completely pointless outside of possibly forgetting to bind yourself close.

I wouldn't mind this being an issue if it wasn't for the fact this games 'challenge' currently comes from party vs party battles and only one side respwns constantly after death. If instances would reset completely after a wipe for tough battles, then I would agree the current system is just fine. But right now their is a strategy where you basically zerg a couple mobs, die, then raise to kill the rest. The time penalty isn't enough in such a case. This is what I mean by mindless zombies strategy, its not about fighting while weakened, its about not worrying about death and just killing encounters little by little. This was a tactic used all the time in FFXI for BCNM's and I hated it but at least in FFXI you were forced to have someone that could raise or have an item that allowed you to reraise. You didn't have a little crystal right outside where you can reswpn and just keep killing where you left off. Now dungeons don't need to be like this in the future; but for things like leves and behest, that kind of penalty just doesn't cut it.
#55 Mar 28 2011 at 4:26 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
351 posts
croythegreat wrote:
If instances would reset completely after a wipe for tough battles, then I would agree the current system is just fine.


There are some instanced battles in the game already where dying just spits you out and you have to start all over. Perhaps they should consider this route for more serious battles in the future.
#56 Mar 28 2011 at 4:48 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
digitalcraft wrote:
KaneKitty wrote:
pixelpop wrote:
when my friends played endgame in WoW... basically, absolute perfect strategy was needed for them


Is this a joke? Were your friends, perhaps, wearing oven mitts to enhance the risk involved? Either way, this made me lol.



A lot of people don't see it, but if you're doing heroic mode raiding in WoW when it is level appropriate, it really does take a high level of coordination and strategy. It's just that WoW really kills that sense of achievement because of its hamster wheel progression. Wait a month and everyone will have done it with half the skill and half the strategy needed. You're either World First zomg!!! or you're the rabble. Not a great balance for giving a sense of achievement in my book.


That's not true either, less than 5% of their entire population does competitive raiding, and 3 out of the 5 top guilds, get paid to do so, it is not like you or i can log in a month from when the top guild cleared for example ICC 25 heroic, and beat the crap out of the istance.....
____________________________
MUTED
#57 Mar 28 2011 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
**
495 posts
Quote:

There are some instanced battles in the game already where dying just spits you out and you have to start all over. Perhaps they should consider this route for more serious battles in the future.


This is why I'm fine with the changes to the death penalty they are thinking of doing. A good and prepared group will have re-raise and raise spells ready for wipes in the future, if you don't you lose all progress or perhaps the entire struggle you set out for. However there is currently abuse happening in EXP leves and Behest which makes the death penalty nearly meaningless and promotes an immortals strategy where you weaken the target by zerging a couple, raising and finishing the remainder, with only a small amount of time being your penalty. An additional penalty which makes this style of play a bit riskier would at minimum punish the abusers and at best make people have a different philosophy on how they would approach an instance as a group or solo. Is it worth it to actually finish the fight using zombie tactics? Maybe we as a group should focus more on keeping each other alive since we will have an additional penalty if we don't? Even if 80% of the population still ends up doing the zerg and die strategy, at least they will actually lose something for doing it and that's their choice to make. There is no risk and all reward right now for behest and leves.
#58 Mar 28 2011 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
3,226 posts
Kachi wrote:
Let me give you a real life example of this principle-- I park illegally almost every day, even though I don't like getting tickets. However, if I pay the meter (which I have to walk across the lot to do), I'm still going out of my way to pay to park. I know that either way, I'm going to be paying, and that there will be enough days that I don't get ticketed that the cost is offset overall. In this case the deterrent penalty (a ticket) no longer serves to prevent my reckless parking habits (as with dying) because I know that in the end the cost to myself is not significantly greater, and it's actually quite a bit more convenient for me to pay tickets than to pay the meter every day, just like it's sometimes easier to pay a death penalty and use a winning strategy to get what you want (or park your car) than to do the fight "honestly" and hope you die as little as possible. Not a perfect analogy, but demonstrates the principle anyway.

Highly imperfect. In fact, it doesn't even support your opposition to KO penalties (at least, I think you oppose it). The only reason you're not making an effort to proceed legally is because the punishment for proceeding illegally is poorly implemented. Suppose the penalty was higher--say, you got fined consistency rather than sporadically--would you then be more inclined to proceed legally rather than illegally?

To put it in FFXIV terms, the only reason you prefer to die rather than find a way to not die is because you're willing to suffer a non-intrusive punishment. If this is the case, the solution is to make the punishment harsher and harsher until death is no longer a preferable option. But that seems silly, doesn't it?

Frankly, I think this is wasted time. Nobody quits FFXI or WoW over the KO penalties. If we use these games as a baseline for FFXIV, any KO penalty would not be greater than FFXI or WoW. The current weakness already functions as an imminent penalty for the battle at hand, which is all it really ought to do. Anything more would incur a time sink that no player actually wants--FFXI and WoW players complain about it, though it doesn't stop them from playing.

My vote is for "do nothing."


____________________________
w(°o°)w
#59 Mar 28 2011 at 8:46 PM Rating: Excellent
*
182 posts
We need to start an official Devs Comments topic, so we can have all this info in one spot.
____________________________
?
#60 Mar 28 2011 at 11:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Highly imperfect. In fact, it doesn't even support your opposition to KO penalties (at least, I think you oppose it). The only reason you're not making an effort to proceed legally is because the punishment for proceeding illegally is poorly implemented. Suppose the penalty was higher--say, you got fined consistency rather than sporadically--would you then be more inclined to proceed legally rather than illegally?

To put it in FFXIV terms, the only reason you prefer to die rather than find a way to not die is because you're willing to suffer a non-intrusive punishment. If this is the case, the solution is to make the punishment harsher and harsher until death is no longer a preferable option. But that seems silly, doesn't it?


Actually, it supports my opposition by demonstrating the principle-- just not by being a great analogy. By drawing attention to the severity and consistency of the penalty, you're overlooking the inherent aspect of the internal equality in regards to death penalties. You have to look at the analogy as a situation where the penalties must be relatively equal-- e.g., if they raise the penalty and enforced more consistently, they would also have to raise the cost of parking somewhat proportionally (the analogy works with respect to what the situation is, not what it could be). This is because as I explained earlier, there is an inherent relationship between the willingness to die and the expectation of dying. We don't worry about people "abusing" death on fights that are otherwise so easy that they wouldn't normally die anyway. Simply put, people exhibit the behavior I described because there is no way for a game developer to create a death penalty in such a way that people won't abuse death simply by increasing the severity-- increasing the severity increases the expected "threshold" of the penalty, which in turn reinforces the acceptability of enduring that penalty to earn victory. OR it simply deters people from even trying if they aren't sure they won't die.

i.e., death will always be "on the table" because the death penalty will happen if you fail. Since you are already prepared to accept the death penalty simply by virtue of picking the fight (or parking in the lot), you are also prepared to take on the penalty intentionally if it will improve your odds of winning. The "penalty for failure" becomes the "price of victory" in these situations. Preventing this requires either entirely different mechanics or an extremely delicate balance which most developers, and clearly SE, are not capable of.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#61 Mar 28 2011 at 11:56 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,004 posts
Mistress Theonehio wrote:
Adding mechanics to prevent death is the infamous "easy button/mode" that people hate to see done to MMORPGs. What you do, is come up with a strategy that will minimize or negate death all together.

When you can die with no repercussion, you don't bother coming up with a strategy.


theres 1 thing you forgot to take into account.

if the mob your fighting is strong or difficult enough that you need to make a strategy for it, then it probably drops something good. and if it drops something good, that's the incentive not to die. because why would a bunch of people fool around and not get what they came for and wasye their own time?

anyway, my personal take on a death penalty is that losing progress is archaic and shouldn't be used anymore.

what i think might solve 2 issues, is make the weakness similar to FFXI's where if you die, your weak for 5 minutes. possibly add in that you can't target mobs also for those 5 minutes, aiding players is fine though. also, add in gear damage when you die ONLY, and make it a random % for different pieces of gear.

this way, dieing limits your abilities while also giving gear damage and not ******* people off by partying and repairing gear every 10 seconds.
#62 Mar 29 2011 at 12:59 AM Rating: Decent
**
568 posts
Quote:
this way, dieing limits your abilities while also giving gear damage and not ******* people off by partying and repairing gear every 10 seconds.


What exactly is it about the goal of the death penalty that you do not understand. SE is trying to make people care about their character and battle strategy so they wouldn't die every 10 seconds to begin with!

Btw zombie tactics are still totally possible. I duo-zombied a behest by chipping away the boss mobs health bar. It took about 8 respawns to complete the behest and kill 3 enemies by suicide bombing them.
#63 Mar 29 2011 at 4:33 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
626 posts
digitalcraft wrote:
KaneKitty wrote:
pixelpop wrote:
when my friends played endgame in WoW... basically, absolute perfect strategy was needed for them


Is this a joke? Were your friends, perhaps, wearing oven mitts to enhance the risk involved? Either way, this made me lol.



A lot of people don't see it, but if you're doing heroic mode raiding in WoW when it is level appropriate, it really does take a high level of coordination and strategy. It's just that WoW really kills that sense of achievement because of its hamster wheel progression. Wait a month and everyone will have done it with half the skill and half the strategy needed. You're either World First zomg!!! or you're the rabble. Not a great balance for giving a sense of achievement in my book.

i have no idea, again i wasnt the one in the endgame, i played wow for like 3 months, it was pretty fun but wasnt my kinda game.
this btw was about two years ago, so maybe they were some of the first? peoples elitism is lame anyway, i just laugh at people in FFXI (which i played for 4 years) consider their endgame to be strategic, sea was boring, sky was boring, dynamis was mind numbing, never played salvage, nyzul was worse than any WoW dungeon that i did... i guess its up to taste.
____________________________

#64 Mar 29 2011 at 4:42 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,449 posts
I think the main difference between WoW and FFXI strategy whise is that in WoW, as long as you have the pertinant add-ons and know how to read English you can master the encounter in a couple tries, FFXI not so much.
____________________________


My FFXIV Blog



#65 Mar 29 2011 at 11:55 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,202 posts
Hugus wrote:
I think the main difference between WoW and FFXI strategy whise is that in WoW, as long as you have the pertinant add-ons and know how to read English you can master the encounter in a couple tries, FFXI not so much.


False, add-ons do not do anything that the default UI of wow does not do :)
____________________________
MUTED
#66 Mar 29 2011 at 2:56 PM Rating: Good
10 posts
Hugus wrote:
I think the main difference between WoW and FFXI strategy whise is that in WoW, as long as you have the pertinant add-ons and know how to read English you can master the encounter in a couple tries, FFXI not so much.


The problem is, is that adding a harsher death penalty will not make a fight more strategic (which you implied, intentionally on not, based on the topic of discussion)

My second thought, is that with harsh death penalties most people will not even attempt a fight until they are certain that can win with no chance of death. To me that's when game play becomes boring and meaningless.
#67 Mar 29 2011 at 3:47 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
513 posts
exequtor100 wrote:

The problem is, is that adding a harsher death penalty will not make a fight more strategic (which you implied, intentionally on not, based on the topic of discussion)

My second thought, is that with harsh death penalties most people will not even attempt a fight until they are certain that can win with no chance of death. To me that's when game play becomes boring and meaningless.

I think an eventual death penalty will definitely have to be eased for especially high risk situations. BCNMs in FFXI have the exp loss portion of the death penalty removed for this reason.

A fresh raid boss in WoW could take even dozens of wipes before a success, so losing exp every time you die would be really annoying there.
____________________________
#68 Mar 29 2011 at 3:51 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,636 posts
exequtor100 wrote:
Hugus wrote:
I think the main difference between WoW and FFXI strategy whise is that in WoW, as long as you have the pertinant add-ons and know how to read English you can master the encounter in a couple tries, FFXI not so much.


The problem is, is that adding a harsher death penalty will not make a fight more strategic (which you implied, intentionally on not, based on the topic of discussion)

My second thought, is that with harsh death penalties most people will not even attempt a fight until they are certain that can win with no chance of death. To me that's when game play becomes boring and meaningless.


You hit the nail on the head there. I remember doing the shadowlord mission in FFXI with my linkshell. Because of the death penalties in that game, and how hard it was to get through the dungeon, we played it safe and didn't attempt it until level 60. our tank actually didn't zone in due to not having the quest fully ready, but we crushed him anyways, it was such a cakewalk at that level. If deaths didn't mean a huge loss of time, and the risk of deleveling, we likely would have tried it a lot earlier.

death penalties don't thrill most people. I get that some people do love it. Theres just as many people who hate it, and will refuse to fight certain mobs cause they are riskier, or will wait to outlevel content before they do it. I feel they actually have the opposite effect as intended, they cause players to turn the game onto "easy" by not doing anything risky, when it may have been more fun overall if they could play something challenging.
____________________________


#69 Mar 29 2011 at 4:54 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,569 posts
Hugus wrote:
As with any other MMO your performance will most likely not only depend on yourself but the people you play with, this is most noticable when you are in a party which although everyone wants to have a good time they will also try and use their time as best as possible, most SP/H or so.
A harsh penalty is a bad thing in the long run, because it makes people MUCH less open to try different strategies or using different group comps. Then you have people using only the "good" cookie cutter comps and LOLing at everything else. This is what happened in FFXI, and I don't want to see that repeat itself here.
Quote:
As it is at the moment I feel that people, including myself, don't care much whether they die or not as there isn't much of a draw back to it. By increasing the penalty for dieing the comunity will eventually "force" people to play at their best.
See my point above. There's other ways to make people bring their A-game without forcing them into potential cookie-cutter set ups. The higher the stakes, the more likely such a scenario will come to be.
Quote:
Everyone knows the story of Leroy Jenkins (I think) but I bet the people that actually saw it happening first hand actually saw it as a time waste.
Bad example. The Leeroy Jenkins video was actually created to make fun of those that were super serious about efficiency and max DPS in-game. The kind of crowd that is created by too-harsh penalties.
____________________________
Products of boredom: 1 2 3 4 5
Besieged
Hopes for FFXIV: Fencer | Red Mage
#70 Mar 29 2011 at 5:34 PM Rating: Good
***
3,530 posts
Keysofgaruda wrote:
what i think might solve 2 issues, is make the weakness similar to FFXI's where if you die, your weak for 5 minutes. possibly add in that you can't target mobs also for those 5 minutes, aiding players is fine though.


That gives healing/buffing characters a distinct advantage over tank/damage characters, though, which would be something to consider about such a penalty - we can't make it worse for some people than others.


Edited, Mar 29th 2011 7:35pm by KaneKitty
____________________________
"... he called to himself a wizard, named Gallery, hoping by this means to escape the paying of the fifteen hundred crowns..." (Machen 15)

"Thus opium is pleasing... on account of the agreeable delirium it produces." (Burke para.6)

"I could only read so much for this paper and the syphilis poem had to go."
#71 Mar 30 2011 at 1:56 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,449 posts
As with anything in a large population game/genre there will always be oposite points of view but I don't agree that having death penalties will make people not do the encounters, if that was so then there would be a very few people doing Dynamis, specially pullers. Same goes for new envounters be them in WoW or other games.

As with most things in a MMO you need to get a good balance, if the reward or chance of success is good enough people will always take the risk, be it end game bosses or skydiving.
____________________________


My FFXIV Blog



#72 Mar 30 2011 at 3:50 AM Rating: Good
**
568 posts
Hugus wrote:
As with anything in a large population game/genre there will always be oposite points of view but I don't agree that having death penalties will make people not do the encounters, if that was so then there would be a very few people doing Dynamis, specially pullers. Same goes for new envounters be them in WoW or other games.

As with most things in a MMO you need to get a good balance, if the reward or chance of success is good enough people will always take the risk, be it end game bosses or skydiving.


Good example skydiving: fun, exciting, memorable, rewarding experience. Possibility to be dismembered and mutilated by a bad fall resulting in a gruesome death.

Walking: meh
#73 Mar 30 2011 at 8:20 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,636 posts
seiferdincht wrote:
Hugus wrote:
As with anything in a large population game/genre there will always be oposite points of view but I don't agree that having death penalties will make people not do the encounters, if that was so then there would be a very few people doing Dynamis, specially pullers. Same goes for new envounters be them in WoW or other games.

As with most things in a MMO you need to get a good balance, if the reward or chance of success is good enough people will always take the risk, be it end game bosses or skydiving.


Good example skydiving: fun, exciting, memorable, rewarding experience. Possibility to be dismembered and mutilated by a bad fall resulting in a gruesome death.

Walking: meh


I think of death penalties with a different metaphor. Its like the manager punching a baseball player in the face after he strikes out. Sure its going to make him want to strike out less, but he already pretty much did not want to strike out. Also does nothing to help him not strike out in the future, and pretty much only ****** him off.
____________________________


#74 Mar 30 2011 at 9:55 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,214 posts
Curious how many people who are against a death penalty are kids vs how many people against it have kids...
#75 Mar 30 2011 at 11:01 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
747 posts
Death penalties suck...FFXI was the worst one by far. 10% xp loss when you died which could potentially lead to you de-leveling. 10% for a level 12 character can take 5-10 minutes to get back, 10% for a level 75+ character can take hours...

If this game had better defined classes, meaning the DD couldn't step in to start healing or tanking in a pinch, death would be a whole lot more meaningful because it would mean that if one person died, it would likely mean a wipe...unless it was the ****** DD who wasn't doing anything anyway except taking damage, so probably deserved to die.

The time lost from the death and the potential to lose the fight is/ would be penalty enough...extend the weakness period to 10 minutes, I don't really care...just don't make it more harsh than a weakened status and have me waste time in a game that takes a long time to do anything anyway.
____________________________
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
#76 Mar 30 2011 at 11:15 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
As with anything in a large population game/genre there will always be oposite points of view but I don't agree that having death penalties will make people not do the encounters, if that was so then there would be a very few people doing Dynamis, specially pullers. Same goes for new envounters be them in WoW or other games.

As with most things in a MMO you need to get a good balance, if the reward or chance of success is good enough people will always take the risk, be it end game bosses or skydiving.


Thing is, you're right-- it won't completely deter people from going, AS LONG AS they feel they still have good odds at success. As I explained earlier, this is because people get accustomed to the death penalty-- they expect it, and as a result, they don't take it into consideration as readily. You're probably going to die in Dynamis anyway, and odds are good it won't even be your fault. As a result, death becomes more of a frustration than a deterrent. However, something like Dynamis doesn't really require much skill to begin with, so encouraging players to play "better" with a death penalty is pretty much a non-issue.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
1 2 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 16 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (16)