Zewp

As far as MMOs go, this is one of my favorites and pretty much the only one I still make time for. It's a game that you can easily pick up for an hour, have a bit of fun, and then go do something else. It's probably the first MMO where I read all the quest text/listen to dialog, because it's just that good. The combat is also pretty fun and I love the skill system, because it encourages diversity and creativity. There are so many possible combinations of skills and weapons that you'd be hard-pressed to find an optimal build on your first character. You certainly can pull a build off the internet, but some of my best (and most fun) builds came from just experimenting in game. So, I dunno. I certainly don't feel the game deserves the bad rap it gets. I've found that most of the critique comes from people who were expecting Skyrim Online or were just never going to like an Elder Scrolls MMO to bgein with. It's BuyToPlay now, so if you're still unsure just grab it in a 50% off sale and give it a go. I can guarantee you'll at least get your money's worth out of playing one of the three campaigns and if in the end you don't like it, you can just drop it with no hard feelings and your wallet only $30 lighter.

I tried this quite some time back but had trouble figuring everything out. I'll try it again sometime when I have a large chunk of time to figure everything out properly.

As I said, if you wish to call those games RPGs that's entirely up to you. I don't consider hack 'n slash games with lite RPG elements RPGs, because character development alone does not an RPG make. There are RPG elements in countless games today, yet we don't call those games RPGs. There is no such thing as a 'pure RPG'. There are RPGs and there are non-RPGs. Dragon Age Origins is an RPG, Borderlands is not.

Thanks osmosys. I was looking for something like this. I wish there was some forum 'thank you' feature or something.

Fair enough, if you want to consider any game that has character development and RPG then that's your prerogative. I don't consider them RPGs, but consider them to be action games with RPG elements, at most. For me, an RPG is a game that not only has character development, but where player agency also plays a big role in the game. You should have an impact on the world and the world should react to your actions and decisions. Aside from the character existing, this is not the case in games like Borderlands where there is only one way to play through the game. The easiest recent example would be Dragon Age, where your actions have a direct, visible impact on the story and how it plays out. That's not to say I dislike games like Borderlands, just that I don't consider them RPGs simply for containing basic RPG elements.

We will never again get truly great RPGs as long as the RPG developers are developing games for the Skyrim/Borderlands crowds. Those games are not bad, but they are not truly RPGs. The closest they come to being RPGs is that they have a system of character development, which on its own does not make an RPG. Baldur's Gate, Fallout 1, 2 and (arguably) New Vegas, Dragon Age: Origins, Planescape: Torment - these are examples of RPGs. Skyrim and Borderlands scrape the bottom of the barrel of RPG-dom. Luckily we have projects like Underrail, Wasteland 2 and Torment: Tides of Numenera trying to return the RPG genre to its roots, but it remains to be seen if they can be successful in an environment where gamers are just out for instant gratification.

Well, they're amazing games even at the normal price. I highly suggest picking them up if you've never played them. Some of the finest CRPGs ever released.

What exactly where you expecting? The actual quest has multiple pathways and multiple endings depending on your choices throughout the quest. That's a lot more than FO3 offered, where pretty much all the quests were completely on rails.

I think you played a complete different game from what I did, because the NV I played had loads of quests that had vastly differing outcomes depending on your choices throughout the quest. Just a single example was the ghoul quest, Come Fly With Me. You could sabotage them so they crashed their rockets instead of reaching their destination. There were many other quests with alternate pathways and endings, whereas Fallout 3 had very little such quests. There were also instances where you could wipe out certain factions as an alternative to doing their quests.

This. Is the OP really complaining because he can't pirate a game to LAN on multiple PCs?

Shidentora, just what in oblivion's name are you on about?

I don't think we've ever had a mafia game here. I see someone else had a sign-up thread a few years back but that didn't seem to go anywhere. If you don't know what Mafia is, the Mafia Wiki is a very good place to start. The basic formula of mafia is that there are two groups of players. The informed party (mafia members) and the uninformed party (civilians). The mafia members know who each other are, but the civilians don't know anyone else's role. The aim is for either party to eradicate the other. During the day phase all players converse and eventually vote on a player to be lynched, which then reveals that player's allegiance and removes him from the game. During the night phase the mafia conspire to secretly lynch one player. At it's heart, mafia is a game of intrigue, plots, deception and betrayal. It works very well in a forum setting, provided nobody cheats. It's really amazing fun, so I highly suggest you sign up even if you've never played before. It's not very hard to get into. Do note that if you wish to play you're going to have to be available to post and vote at least once a day (and some of you will have to be available for nightly votes) between Monday and Friday. The game will only run on weekdays, because most of us are busy over weekends and that makes participation a bit difficult. The minimum participation is posting at least once a day in the thread, but the more often you can post and interact with fellow players, the better for you. So, if you're interested in playing please post it in this thread and I'll add you to the list of players. For the purposes of the format I'm going to be using, we'll need as many players as possible, but I would say 16 players are going to be the minimum. 20 players or more would be ideal, because it means I can flesh out the game a lot more with multiple factions and different roles. The theme for the game will be Elder Scrolls, but due to the nature of Mafia, do not expect it to be 100% lore friendly. Daedra sightings have been confirmed, however.

This. F2P or Buy2Play is a noble idea, but often the developers have to make compromises on the game to ensure they still make money off it if sales start slowing down and these compromises often cheapen and/or make the game a chore to play.

Why do you keep setting up strawmen? I never said I was fine with the game and I never said the people who died in service of Russia had anything to do with what's currently happening. I'm saying that there seems to be a double-standard here. The russian government stomps all over human rights and not a peep is made. A videogame developer stomps over Russian history, and suddenly everyone is up in arms and it's the apocalypse. Seeing as you seem to have trouble understanding, I'll illustrate it in pictures for you. Russian response to government stomping on human rights. http://i42.tinypic.com/2jev80m.jpg Russian response to Relic stomping on their history. http://i44.tinypic.com/2pyp3ih.jpg Now kindly stop misrepresenting my arguments and stop putting words in my mouth.

And yet peoples' human rights are being dumped on by their own government right this very moment, but the one issue that gets the biggest response is that a videogame company misrepresented some historical facts.

Then we're simply going to have to agree to disagree. Protesting hate speech is not impeding freedom of speech, whether it is done as an organized boycott or in another way. I'm not supporting the boycott myself, but I do support people's right to the boycott and the organization thereof. An organized boycott is merely a way for people to show disagreement with what someone said. The fact that Ender's Game has nothing to do with Card's homophobia is completely irrelevant. I actually find it rather ironic that when someone says 'hey, gays shouldn't have rights' he's practicing his freedom of speech, but when someone says 'hey, let's boycott this guy's movie for his radical opinions' they're somehow in the wrong and get likened to a lynch-mob from the 19th century. Because organized boycotts are totally similar to lynch mobs.

I actually think tolerance should be expected of people. We live in a multicultural society, so naturally there are going to be a lot of disagreements and not everyone is going to be accepting of everyone else, but everyone should definitely be tolerant of everyone else. Tale MajKraZam, as an example. I am not at all accepting of people like him, who appear to be homophobic redneck hicks, but I do tolerate them. It's his right to believe whatever he wants about homosexuals and as much as it frustrates me that people like him oppose equal rights for people who do them absolutely no harm, I'll just have to tolerate it. Look at the countries where tolerance isn't enforced. Up in Africa, being homosexual can get you killed. In many countries around the world, incidents of violence against homosexuals occur hourly. MajKraZam doesn't have to like that I'm homosexual, but he does have to learn to live with it. Free speech should not be used to harm. Seeing that MajKraZaam also holds gay rights activists in such low esteem, has he maybe considered that it's not necessarily because we want our 'dysgenic' lifestyles accepted, but because some of us would like to step out of our houses in the morning without feeling unsafe in the public. He might lead a very sheltered life, but most of us do not. I live in a very conservative community where homosexuality is frowned on and it is not uncommon to hear of hate crimes being committed against homosexual people in my community. The reason I fight for gay rights is so that I can step out my door in the morning and not be worried about whether I'm going to become the next headline in a homophobic hate-crime.

How is this trying to infringe on the rights of others? Once again, nobody is trying to remove his freedom of speech. People are, however, protesting his opinions. He has the right to stick to his opinions just like anyone else has the right to not support his products because of his opinions. If I advocate for having black people stripped of human rights, I'm not going to b&@*$ and moan about my freedom of speech being impeded when people boycott my shop. Once again, this isn't about trying to silence anyone. Hell, Card can just continue spewing his homophobic bigotry all he wants, but that doesn't make him immune to people protesting against it. The Westboro Baptist Church is frequently protesting gay rights and nobody is trying to impede their right to doing so, despite people having counter-protests against them. Well, thanks for at least being honest about the fact that you are disgustingly homophobic. Whether you like it or not, though, homosexual people are human too and they do you absolutely no harm. We are entitled to basic human rights such as the right to marry, whether it sends you into you into a righteous fury or not. You don't have to accept homosexuality, but you are expected to tolerate just like racists are expected to tolerate other races. Ironically enough, 100 years ago people had the same mindset you had now, except back then they considered black people sub-humans and not deserving of basic human rights. Just like the racist attitudes back then, your homophobic attitude is part of a dying breed. I suspect 50 years from now people like you with your homophobic attitudes will likely be vilified the same way that racists are vilified today, and thank god for that.

So it's unfair to advocate boycotting a film because you don't like the author's opinion, but it's fair to advocate removing the rights of certain demographics because you don't like their lifestyle? Because that's what I'm taking from your post. That's misrepresenting the argument somewhat. This isn't just about someone saying something offensive, this is about protesting because someone is advocating having peoples' basic human rights removed. You have your complete freedom of speech, but your freedom of speech does not make you immune to having your opinions scrutinized or opposed. Opposing a radical opinion is nowhere near the same as opposing freedom of speech.

Not even close. There's no base-building or resource gather in the traditional sense. You've got expansion points on the map which you need to rush to get, and each expansion point allows you to build two unit construction buildings and one citadel, which gives you recruits, which is a resource used for constructing more units. Every RTS game is basically just you churning out units while capturing new expansion points and steadily destroying the enemy who is trying to do the same thing. It's not a bad game, but it's very shallow. At least that's my experience from the 2 hours I've played. There's some 4X elements in the forum of diplomacy and unit/dragon upgrades, but the gameplay is ultimately very shallow.

But what happens when your freedom of speech is used to advocate the removal of others' rights?

It's not a bad game, just incredibly shallow. The campaign map is like a basic version of Risk. You can buy structures for your provinces, then you can recruit units in your provinces and then send those units to enemy provinces which initiates the RTS segment of the game. In the RTS segment you build units, then rush to capture expansion points and try to clear the enemy off the map, which wins you the province. The dragon isn't all that great either. You fly around, basically commanding your units while you get to destroy a few enemy units. It feels a bit like a gimmick, to be honest. It's a very simplistic and, in my opinion, not worth the $40. It feels like it has a lot of potential, but is ultimately let down by a lack of depth.

Excuse me? What gay agenda? What gay coalition? Is simply expecting to receive equal rights because I'm homosexual now a bad thing? Is opposing someone who opposes equal rights for homosexuals now a bad thing? If you're human and you have a brain you should be standing up for equal rights for all not because you're being 'strong-armed' into some 'agenda,' but because it's the right thing to do. I don't support the gay boycott myself, but your post comes across as extremely bigoted and homophobic, which I sincerely hope was not your intention.

Annoyed, maybe. But don't you think their outrage is a bit over the top? Especially considering contemporary issues such as human rights being trampled by their own government does not seem to inspire the same amount of outrage in the russians?

I thought the Australian government got over their nanny-state business a while back? Anyway, I think they're more likely to ban it for violence, like they did with the original games, but back then Valve just made zombie corpses disappear immediately, so if they're bothered by the pills maybe Valve will just patch them out again?