what are some good massively multiplayer games

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

please post some of the good multiplayer games
44 answers Last reply
More about what good massively multiplayer games
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    World of Warcraft and Everquest are the two most commercially and
    artistically succesful. Wow is much newer and easier.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    For somthing difrent try Lineage2
    Tried all the others but the only one I stick with is Lineage.
    Plus all expantions are free...we just had a major one last week ;)
    For more info.
    http://www.lineage2.com/

    "pancakeman55" <pancakeboy55@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1116635761.337736.268570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > please post some of the good multiplayer games
    >
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Thusly "Dondo" <tsandrich@aol.com> Spake Unto All:

    >World of Warcraft and Everquest are the two most commercially and
    >artistically succesful. Wow is much newer and easier.

    Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
    monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.

    --
    Fun Fact of the Day: In exit polls at the election 2004 the percentage of American
    voters citing moral and ethical values as their prime concern was 22 percent,
    continuing a trend of *decreasing* perceived importance of morals: In the 2000
    election 35 percent cited morals & ethical values as their prime concern, and in
    1996 a whopping 40%, almost twice as many as in 2004.
    (Bet you hadn't gotten that impression from the press, had you?)
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Sat, 21 May 2005 10:05:44 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
    <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    >Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
    >monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.

    Good as it is, GW isn't an MMORPG.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Thusly Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> Spake Unto All:

    >>Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
    >>monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.
    >
    >Good as it is, GW isn't an MMORPG.

    Well, it's certainly not a single-player rpg either.

    --
    "I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
    - Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
    by american guards at Bagram Prison. This particular prisoner was innocent; it
    was just his bad luck that he screamed funny when beaten.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Sat, 21 May 2005 12:32:51 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
    <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    >>Good as it is, GW isn't an MMORPG.
    >
    >Well, it's certainly not a single-player rpg either.

    No, but the OP specified "massively multiplayer".
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Thusly Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> Spake Unto All:

    >>>Good as it is, GW isn't an MMORPG.
    >>
    >>Well, it's certainly not a single-player rpg either.
    >
    >No, but the OP specified "massively multiplayer".

    Yeah, but what's the definition of that?

    --
    "I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
    - Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
    by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
    innocent; it was just his bad luck that he made funny noises when beaten.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:

    > Yeah, but what's the definition of that?

    Everyone on a server is in the same world. In GW, this only holds true
    for the hubs (cities and outposts - you know, the "clickies" on the
    map), as soon as you venture out, it's you and your party in a zone
    instance.

    That said, modern MMORPGs also use instancing, but only for parts of
    the content.

    So the distinction is perhaps that MMOs instance 10% of their content,
    while hub games like GW and PSO instance 90%.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Thusly Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> Spake
    Unto All:

    <MMORGP>
    >> Yeah, but what's the definition of that?
    >
    >Everyone on a server is in the same world. In GW, this only holds true
    >for the hubs (cities and outposts - you know, the "clickies" on the
    >map), as soon as you venture out, it's you and your party in a zone
    >instance.

    Which means that when you go on an instanced quest in, say, CoH, it
    ceases to be a MMORPG?

    >That said, modern MMORPGs also use instancing, but only for parts of
    >the content.

    In sharp contrast to GW...

    >So the distinction is perhaps that MMOs instance 10% of their content,
    >while hub games like GW and PSO instance 90%.

    Hmmmm...

    --
    "I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
    - Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
    by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
    innocent; it was just his bad luck that he made funny noises when beaten.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> wrote in message
    news:u3bsgnwti.fsf@broadpark.no...
    > Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:
    >
    >> Yeah, but what's the definition of that?
    >
    > Everyone on a server is in the same world. In GW, this only holds true
    > for the hubs (cities and outposts - you know, the "clickies" on the
    > map), as soon as you venture out, it's you and your party in a zone
    > instance.
    >
    > That said, modern MMORPGs also use instancing, but only for parts of
    > the content.
    >
    > So the distinction is perhaps that MMOs instance 10% of their content,
    > while hub games like GW and PSO instance 90%.


    But in WoW the server crashfest pos that is it...

    Once you are Level 60 90-100% of the content becomes a few of the same
    boring instances over and over and over..
    Just to dress up your charater in purple.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    > > ArenaNet calls it a CORPG, competitive online role playing game.

    > The thing is, IMO, that there are two distinct facets to the game,
    > which are almost like complete games in themselves - there's the
    > cooperative PvE campaign (which reminds me of Morrowind in its slow
    > pace, openness and extremely weak story), and there's the competitive

    > side with apparently complex team-based GvG + fairly weak random-team

    > PvP (Diablo meets Counterstrike, basically).

    It really is two games in one: PvP deathmatchs and PvE mmorpg-lite. I
    bought it for the later but decide to try the PvP side and really liked
    it. That is when you win, losing gets old fast.

    The PvE co-op missions are a break from the norm and what motivated me
    to buy it. They are good but it doesn't strike me as having much
    replay value. I've never been one to complete the game again with a
    different char. Ok, so I got three chars in EQ2 to lvl 20+ but
    there's so much content there their routes have been very different
    (and I haven't even been to Freeport yet!) That's not the case in
    GW. The missions and explore areas are always the same.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:

    > Thusly Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> Spake Unto All:
    >
    >>>Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
    >>>monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.
    >>
    >>Good as it is, GW isn't an MMORPG.
    >
    > Well, it's certainly not a single-player rpg either.

    It is the bastart love-child of a FPS, a MMORPG, and a single player
    RPG. ArenaNet calls it a CORPG, competitive online role playing game.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    City of Heroes is the best one out there
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Thusly Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> Spake Unto All:

    >It is the bastart love-child of a FPS, a MMORPG, and a single player
    >RPG.

    Yeah, I agree. Being exclusively PvE, I only yesterday realized that
    there is a whole additional "game" in there in the PvP (or more
    accurately GvG) section. Finally I understood the "it's a game for the
    fps crowd" comments. Heck, there's even capture-the-flag.
    Possibly (I really dont know as GvG doesn't interest me at all) GvG is
    even the real meat of the game, which if so is impressive since I've
    got better than 100 hours out of the "single-player" PvE, making it
    the longest single-player RPG I've played since Morrowind.

    >ArenaNet calls it a CORPG, competitive online role playing game.

    The thing is, IMO, that there are two distinct facets to the game,
    which are almost like complete games in themselves - there's the
    cooperative PvE campaign (which reminds me of Morrowind in its slow
    pace, openness and extremely weak story), and there's the competitive
    side with apparently complex team-based GvG + fairly weak random-team
    PvP (Diablo meets Counterstrike, basically).


    --
    "I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
    - Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
    by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
    innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    pancakeman55 wrote:
    > please post some of the good multiplayer games

    To me, Anarchy Online is still the best of all general MMORPGs flying
    in the air. It's not light-weighted though like WoW. EQ2 might be also
    a good choice. Or Lineage2. Any of these if you need deeper approach =)

    You should of course try WoW and when you lvl 40> you might consider
    changing game to above mentioned.

    And it depends if you prefer solo or hard grouping. As for me, I'm
    soloing.

    --
    Regards,
    gb
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:

    > Thusly Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk> Spake Unto All:
    >
    >>ArenaNet calls it a CORPG, competitive online role playing game.
    >
    > The thing is, IMO, that there are two distinct facets to the game,
    > which are almost like complete games in themselves - there's the
    > cooperative PvE campaign (which reminds me of Morrowind in its slow
    > pace, openness and extremely weak story), and there's the competitive
    > side with apparently complex team-based GvG + fairly weak random-team
    > PvP (Diablo meets Counterstrike, basically).

    The PvE can actually be seen as a large training section for team
    based PvP. The monsters work together in small mixed profession
    teams, they use the same skills as are available to players, and also
    use typical PvP tactics like all attacking the most vulnerable member
    of the opposite team (usually the monk). You can use the same tactic
    against the monsters, take out their healers and casters, while
    protecting you own healers and casters.

    BTW: There is a third option for PvP, tomb combat, which is somewhere
    between the random arenas and the guild vs. guild.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    go to www.maidmarian.com for some awsome multiplayer games
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    pancakeman55 wrote:
    > please post some of the good multiplayer games

    Most commerically available MMOs are so similiar to each other
    (especially the "high fantasy" titles), that it really doesn't make
    much difference. The real question is, IMO:

    How much time can I afford to spend playing?

    If the answer is "a lot", then you might try Dark Age of Camelot and
    Everquest. If the answer is "very little", you might take a look at
    GuildWars. If it's somewhere in between, you might take a look at
    Worlds of Warcraft or City of Heroes. I'm not sure where Everquest II
    fits into the spectrum, but I'd be inclined to place it closer to the
    DAoC/EQ end of the scale.

    Obviously, each one has their unique bells 'n' whistles, but at the
    fundamental level they're all very similiar, if not identical (kill
    stuff, level, amass "wealth").
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    "pancakeman55" <pancakeboy55@yahoo.com> once tried to test me with:

    > please post some of the good multiplayer games

    The only one you need to know about is Worl.. wait, you're that runequest
    spammer.

    The only one YOU need to know about is Everquest 2.

    --

    Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

    Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me
    with:

    > Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
    > monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.

    Not an MMORPG, but thanks for playing. It's an okay diversion, especially
    if you're into PVP, but the lack of any true "massively" part of the MMO
    makes it sort of a "lite" version. The diet coke of MMORPG, not MMORPG
    enough.

    --

    Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

    Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    > Well, personally I don't see the value of having other teams crowding
    > you on quests, or the value of having to wait for bosses to respawn so
    > you can kill them, or even the value of seeing other players mill
    > around or spamming the chat when out questing. To me those are
    > _drawbacks_ of MMORPGs and their absence in GW a selling point, I
    > really don't see why so many seem to consider things like that
    > desirable.

    Because without it it lacks atmosphere. Compared to EQ2 GW seems very
    dry. The fact you can bump into other people is a natural thing. Its
    also natural to hear other peoples converstaions. These things help to
    give a mmog atmosphere. Guild Wars cutting you off makes it a very
    insular game. Even the town areas are dry compared to other games.

    It's difficult to rationalise but in other mmorpgs it feels much more
    like you are chatting to someone standing there. GW seems very insular
    and isolated to me. The poor chat system doesn't help much.

    > But then I'm playing for the game, not for the socializing.

    Then you are missing out on a huge chunk of any mmog. Playing with
    other people can make a dull game great fun but if the game is fun to
    begin with, dear god it can send it through the roof!!
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> Spake Unto All:

    >Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me
    >with:
    >
    >> Artistically I'd say Guild Wars is better, plus it doesn't have
    >> monthly fees. It's not as commercially successful, though.
    >
    >Not an MMORPG, but thanks for playing. It's an okay diversion, especially
    >if you're into PVP, but the lack of any true "massively" part of the MMO
    >makes it sort of a "lite" version. The diet coke of MMORPG, not MMORPG
    >enough.

    Well, personally I don't see the value of having other teams crowding
    you on quests, or the value of having to wait for bosses to respawn so
    you can kill them, or even the value of seeing other players mill
    around or spamming the chat when out questing. To me those are
    _drawbacks_ of MMORPGs and their absence in GW a selling point, I
    really don't see why so many seem to consider things like that
    desirable.

    The towns in GW are certainly very persistent with hundreds of people
    in them, and it's easy to find pick-up groups there for the missions
    (slightly harder for the quests, but there's always the Henchmen).

    But then I'm playing for the game, not for the socializing.

    --
    "I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
    - Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
    by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
    innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Thusly "BombayMix" <bombaymix@altavista.co.uk> Spake Unto All:

    >and isolated to me. The poor chat system doesn't help much.

    That is the truth. That there isn't any way to bind emotes or
    sentences to keys is also a problem, it'd be helpful to be able to say
    "go left", "wait here", "need backup" and "Oh gods, Alesia the healer
    thinks she's a tank again - everyone stop what you're doing and focus
    on keeping the silly biyatch alive!" at the press of a button.

    Actually, I've been wondering why MMOGs (that I know of) hasn't got
    in-built support for voicecomm. Typed real-time one-line communication
    is just awkward and slow, and while Teamspeak and similar works, it's
    hardly a transparent solution.

    >> But then I'm playing for the game, not for the socializing.
    >
    >Then you are missing out on a huge chunk of any mmog.

    Yeah, I know, but I don't like that aspect. I think much of the reason
    I like GW is precisely because socializing is optional; I can and do
    play it like a single-player game or group with RL friends.

    >Playing with
    >other people can make a dull game great fun but if the game is fun to
    >begin with, dear god it can send it through the roof!!

    Sure, but I'd rather gather my friends and some beer than group with
    some random guy I have no idea who it is.

    --
    "I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
    - Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
    by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
    innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Mean_Chlorine wrote:
    > Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> Spake Unto All:
    >>Not an MMORPG, but thanks for playing. It's an okay diversion, especially
    >>if you're into PVP, but the lack of any true "massively" part of the MMO
    >>makes it sort of a "lite" version. The diet coke of MMORPG, not MMORPG
    >>enough.
    >
    > Well, personally I don't see the value of having other teams crowding
    > you on quests, or the value of having to wait for bosses to respawn so
    > you can kill them, or even the value of seeing other players mill
    > around or spamming the chat when out questing. To me those are
    > _drawbacks_ of MMORPGs and their absence in GW a selling point, I
    > really don't see why so many seem to consider things like that
    > desirable.

    If you don't like playing with other people, MMORPGs probably aren't the
    genre for you.

    > But then I'm playing for the game, not for the socializing.

    Some people are also into the socializing, THAT'S why they consider
    things like that desirable.

    Cheers!
    David...
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    David Carson <david@eldergothSPAMTRAP.com> writes:

    > If you don't like playing with other people, MMORPGs probably aren't
    > the genre for you.

    There is a difference between enjoying a multiplayer persistent world
    and being subjected "forced interaction". Contested resources in a
    limited-goal game lead to boredom for those waiting in turn for the
    sharred content. Instancing solves this problem.

    (In RL there are about half a million people in the "persistent world"
    city I live in, but when I go to take a dump I don't want any of those
    other people in the bathroom "instance" with me. See my point?)
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On 21 May 2005 22:33:29 +0200, Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
    <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> wrote:

    >Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:
    >
    >> Yeah, but what's the definition of that?
    >
    >Everyone on a server is in the same world. In GW, this only holds true
    >for the hubs (cities and outposts - you know, the "clickies" on the
    >map), as soon as you venture out, it's you and your party in a zone
    >instance.
    >
    >That said, modern MMORPGs also use instancing, but only for parts of
    >the content.
    >
    >So the distinction is perhaps that MMOs instance 10% of their content,
    >while hub games like GW and PSO instance 90%.

    The "everyone on a server" argument seems silly to me. Whats the
    difference in "per server" or "per instance"? An instance could
    conceivably span multiple clustered servers, yet appear as a single
    server to the user. Likewise, a single (but probably powerful) box
    could host multiple virtual servers, and appear as a server farm to
    the user. The differentiation between a server and an instance can be
    made completely invisible to the player, such that the player would
    not know if he is in a MMORPG or not.

    So, defining MMORPG on that doesn't make much sense. The only logical
    definition would consist of some quantifyable number of users who are
    IN THE GAME WITH EACH OTHER at a given time. This means they can see
    each other. I think this might have been what you meant by "on a
    server", but I wanted to make clear the difference between physical
    and logical servers here.
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me
    with:

    > Well, personally I don't see the value of having other teams crowding
    > you on quests, or the value of having to wait for bosses to respawn so
    > you can kill them, or even the value of seeing other players mill
    > around or spamming the chat when out questing. To me those are
    > _drawbacks_ of MMORPGs and their absence in GW a selling point, I
    > really don't see why so many seem to consider things like that
    > desirable.
    >
    > The towns in GW are certainly very persistent with hundreds of people
    > in them, and it's easy to find pick-up groups there for the missions
    > (slightly harder for the quests, but there's always the Henchmen).
    >
    > But then I'm playing for the game, not for the socializing.

    That's the difference between players who like the "massive" and those who
    don't. Socializing. I like socializing. I like having to share the
    resources with other players. Sure, there's the occasional jerkwad, but the
    vast majority of the time you're able to work with people and that is part
    of the fun. Then of course there's trade, which is possible in GW too I
    think isn't it? Anyway, GW definitely has a taste of the MMORPG but it's
    just not *quite* there.


    --

    Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

    Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
  28. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Wed, 25 May 2005 14:05:20 +0200, Mean_Chlorine wrote:

    > Actually, I've been wondering why MMOGs (that I know of) hasn't got
    > in-built support for voicecomm. Typed real-time one-line communication
    > is just awkward and slow, and while Teamspeak and similar works, it's
    > hardly a transparent solution.

    It eats bandwidth, and it possibly destroys the "mimesis" of genuine RP
    enironments. Also, I think it's a bit related to the reason why phones with
    a video component aren't all that popular: people don't want to get too
    "personal" with other people. When I play a game, I usually don't want to
    talk, I just want to play. Then again, I also don't feel that typed
    communication is all that cumbersome. The way someone types already tells
    me a lot about what to expect. :)

    M.
    --
    ClamWin, an open source antivirus software for Windows:
    http://www.clamwin.com/
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Thusly Michael Vondung <mvondung@gmail.com> Spake Unto All:

    >> Actually, I've been wondering why MMOGs (that I know of) hasn't got
    >> in-built support for voicecomm.

    >It eats bandwidth

    I don't think that'd be too much of a problem. Using some voicecomm
    software such as teamspeak is pretty much standard in team-based
    on-line fps's now, and they're more bandwidth-critical than mmorpgs.

    >, and it possibly destroys the "mimesis" of genuine RP
    >enironments.

    That it does. There's going to be credibility issues when you play a
    female if you're a male, or a warrior if you're a 12-year old kid.
    With a speech impediment.

    Then again, it'd be optional. Inbuilt support doesn't mean you have to
    use it.

    > Also, I think it's a bit related to the reason why phones with
    >a video component aren't all that popular: people don't want to get too
    >"personal" with other people.

    IMO the reason video phones aren't that successful is that it's too
    weird seeing a slideshow of still photos of the other persons face,
    completely out of sync with the sound...

    >When I play a game, I usually don't want to
    >talk, I just want to play.

    When I play, I often feel I'd like to shout to the moron warrior to
    cover the priest. Or "get out of the area of effect of that meteor
    shower". Things like that. Stopping in the middle of a battle to do
    that isn't practical.

    > Then again, I also don't feel that typed
    >communication is all that cumbersome. The way someone types already tells
    >me a lot about what to expect. :)

    I'm a fast typist, and it annoys the heck out of me to have to wait a
    full minute for someone to type "don tknow" in answer to a question.
    I'm also completely uninterested in out-of-battle chatting, which is
    basically what typed communication can do. But in-battle
    communication, that interests me.


    --
    "I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
    - Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
    by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
    innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Wed, 25 May 2005 14:05:20 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
    <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> dared speak in front of ME:

    >Thusly "BombayMix" <bombaymix@altavista.co.uk> Spake Unto All:
    >
    >>and isolated to me. The poor chat system doesn't help much.
    >
    >That is the truth. That there isn't any way to bind emotes or
    >sentences to keys is also a problem, it'd be helpful to be able to say
    >"go left", "wait here", "need backup" and "Oh gods, Alesia the healer
    >thinks she's a tank again - everyone stop what you're doing and focus
    >on keeping the silly biyatch alive!" at the press of a button.

    Eh. My big issue is the whole "IRC with avatars" feel of ingame chat.
    It's a necessity in primarily FPV games, but it still bothers the hell
    out of me. (Then again, I'm not overly fond of FPV to begin with so I
    may be biased...)

    >Actually, I've been wondering why MMOGs (that I know of) hasn't got
    >in-built support for voicecomm. Typed real-time one-line communication
    >is just awkward and slow,

    It's not the designer's fault that you don't know how to work a
    keyboard :p

    That aside: native voicecomm is a component long overdue, and one I'd
    relish far more than the ubiqutious tunnelvision cribbed from FPS
    games. The one disadvantage (IMO anyway) is that it ruins crossgender
    characters.

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Wed, 25 May 2005 19:04:04 +1000, David Carson
    <david@eldergothSPAMTRAP.com> dared speak in front of ME:

    >Mean_Chlorine wrote:
    >> Thusly Knight37 <knight37m@email.com> Spake Unto All:
    >>>Not an MMORPG, but thanks for playing. It's an okay diversion, especially
    >>>if you're into PVP, but the lack of any true "massively" part of the MMO
    >>>makes it sort of a "lite" version. The diet coke of MMORPG, not MMORPG
    >>>enough.
    >>
    >> Well, personally I don't see the value of having other teams crowding
    >> you on quests, or the value of having to wait for bosses to respawn so
    >> you can kill them, or even the value of seeing other players mill
    >> around or spamming the chat when out questing. To me those are
    >> _drawbacks_ of MMORPGs and their absence in GW a selling point, I
    >> really don't see why so many seem to consider things like that
    >> desirable.
    >
    >If you don't like playing with other people, MMORPGs probably aren't the
    >genre for you.

    Define "playing with other people" in such a way as to exclude
    cooperative games. Otherwise, you're indulging in non sequitur.

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On 25 May 2005 17:41:58 +0200, Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
    <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> dared speak in front of ME:

    >David Carson <david@eldergothSPAMTRAP.com> writes:
    >
    >> If you don't like playing with other people, MMORPGs probably aren't
    >> the genre for you.
    >
    >There is a difference between enjoying a multiplayer persistent world
    >and being subjected "forced interaction". Contested resources in a
    >limited-goal game lead to boredom for those waiting in turn for the
    >sharred content. Instancing solves this problem.

    Indeed. My impression of Guild Wars, however, is that it goes way
    overboard.

    Also, you do raise another question (and a correlating question):
    would it be different if the game was not of the limited-goal variety,
    and is such a beast even plausible?

    >(In RL there are about half a million people in the "persistent world"
    >city I live in, but when I go to take a dump I don't want any of those
    >other people in the bathroom "instance" with me. See my point?)

    You're a prude?

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:49:05 GMT, W DT <wang@droptrau.com> dared speak
    in front of ME:

    >On 21 May 2005 22:33:29 +0200, Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
    ><tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> wrote:
    >
    >>Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> writes:
    >>
    >>> Yeah, but what's the definition of that?
    >>
    >>Everyone on a server is in the same world. In GW, this only holds true
    >>for the hubs (cities and outposts - you know, the "clickies" on the
    >>map), as soon as you venture out, it's you and your party in a zone
    >>instance.
    >>
    >>That said, modern MMORPGs also use instancing, but only for parts of
    >>the content.
    >>
    >>So the distinction is perhaps that MMOs instance 10% of their content,
    >>while hub games like GW and PSO instance 90%.
    >
    >The "everyone on a server" argument seems silly to me. Whats the
    >difference in "per server" or "per instance"? An instance could
    >conceivably span multiple clustered servers, yet appear as a single
    >server to the user. Likewise, a single (but probably powerful) box
    >could host multiple virtual servers, and appear as a server farm to
    >the user. The differentiation between a server and an instance can be
    >made completely invisible to the player, such that the player would
    >not know if he is in a MMORPG or not.

    You are confusing homonyms here. The physical structure of the
    underlying hardware - ie whether it's being run off one machine or a
    cluster - is irrelevant.

    What is relevant is what percentage of the game is shared regardless
    of grouping vs. the percentage that is 'instanced' on group basis.

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> once tried to test me
    with:

    >
    >>, and it possibly destroys the "mimesis" of genuine RP
    >>enironments.
    >
    > That it does. There's going to be credibility issues when you play a
    > female if you're a male, or a warrior if you're a 12-year old kid.
    > With a speech impediment.
    >
    > Then again, it'd be optional. Inbuilt support doesn't mean you have to
    > use it.

    That sounds like a cool technology waiting to be unleashed. It would mask
    your voice into one appropriate for the character you're playing. Would
    kick ass if done right.

    --

    Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

    Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.
  35. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Thusly Kaos <kaos@xplornet.com> Spake Unto All:

    >Read Penny Arcade more often.

    I'd rather not.

    --
    "I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
    - Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
    by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
    innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Sat, 28 May 2005 03:29:58 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
    <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    >Thusly Kaos <kaos@xplornet.com> Spake Unto All:
    >
    >>Read Penny Arcade more often.
    >
    >I'd rather not.

    Penny Arcade rock.

    --

    Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes !
    They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses !
    And what's with all the carrots ?
    What do they need such good eyesight for anyway ?
    Bunnies ! Bunnies ! It must be BUNNIES !
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Thusly Mark Morrison <drdpikeuk@aol.com> Spake Unto All:

    >>>Read Penny Arcade more often.
    >>
    >>I'd rather not.
    >
    >Penny Arcade rock.

    A very few do. Most are just meh. Possibly because I neither own,
    play, like, nor condone consoles.

    Personally I prefer sexy dinosaur comics for the thinking man or lady:
    http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=546
    Pick one.


    --
    "I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
    - Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
    by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
    innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Sat, 28 May 2005 15:40:11 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
    <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> dared speak in front of ME:

    >Thusly Mark Morrison <drdpikeuk@aol.com> Spake Unto All:
    >
    >>>>Read Penny Arcade more often.
    >>>
    >>>I'd rather not.
    >>
    >>Penny Arcade rock.
    >
    >A very few do. Most are just meh. Possibly because I neither own,
    >play, like, nor condone consoles.

    The first three are understandable, but the latter sounds like gamer
    bigotry.

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Kaos wrote:
    > On Wed, 25 May 2005 19:04:04 +1000, David Carson
    > <david@eldergothSPAMTRAP.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >>If you don't like playing with other people, MMORPGs probably aren't the
    >>genre for you.
    >
    > Define "playing with other people" in such a way as to exclude
    > cooperative games. Otherwise, you're indulging in non sequitur.

    I don't understand what you're trying to say here, Kaos.

    What I'm saying is, Mean Chlorine described even having other players
    milling around chatting as a drawback of an MMORPG, and I think if he
    likes the presence of other people that little, MMORPGs probably aren't
    the genre for him.

    Cheers,
    David...
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    <david@eldergothSPAMTRAP.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >If you don't like playing with other people, MMORPGs probably aren't the
    >genre for you.

    Kaos wrote:
    > Define "playing with other people" in such a way as to exclude
    > cooperative games. Otherwise, you're indulging in non sequitur.

    David Carson <david@eldergothSPAMTRAP.com> wrote:
    >I don't understand what you're trying to say here, Kaos.

    You concluded that Mean Chlorine didn't like playing with other people
    even though that doesn't logically follow from what he said.

    Ross Ridge

    --
    l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
    [oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
    -()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/u/rridge/
    db //
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Thusly David Carson <david@eldergothSPAMTRAP.com> Spake Unto All:

    >What I'm saying is, Mean Chlorine described even having other players
    >milling around chatting as a drawback of an MMORPG, and I think if he
    >likes the presence of other people that little, MMORPGs probably aren't
    >the genre for him.

    And I think the non sequitur is that there is no sharp line between
    liking having a few people you know around when you want them, and not
    liking having tons of people you don't know around when you don't want
    them...

    But you're absolutely right. As I'm not into socializing, MMORPGs,
    being fundamentally chatrooms with an excuse, aren't the genre for me.
    I definitely agree with that assessment.

    --
    "I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
    - Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
    by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
    innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    On Sat, 28 May 2005 20:26:04 +1000, David Carson
    <david@eldergothSPAMTRAP.com> dared speak in front of ME:

    >Kaos wrote:
    >> On Wed, 25 May 2005 19:04:04 +1000, David Carson
    >> <david@eldergothSPAMTRAP.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >>>If you don't like playing with other people, MMORPGs probably aren't the
    >>>genre for you.
    >>
    >> Define "playing with other people" in such a way as to exclude
    >> cooperative games. Otherwise, you're indulging in non sequitur.
    >
    >I don't understand what you're trying to say here, Kaos.

    >What I'm saying is, Mean Chlorine described even having other players
    >milling around chatting as a drawback of an MMORPG,

    Note that he added "when out questing." Given what he's said, it's
    not inconceivable that he likes having a large pool of people
    available to consider for team-mates, so long as the ones who 'don't
    make the cut' don't crowd the scene during the activity.

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  43. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Thusly Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> Spake Unto All:

    >>A very few do. Most are just meh. Possibly because I neither own,
    >>play, like, nor condone consoles.
    >
    >The first three are understandable, but the latter sounds like gamer
    >bigotry.

    Of course it is.

    --
    "I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus"
    - Maj. Elizabeth Rouse, coroner, about one of the prisoners beaten to death
    by american guards at Bagram Prison. Apparently this particular prisoner was
    innocent; it was just his bad luck that the guards found his screams hilarious.
  44. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

    Mean_Chlorine wrote:
    > Thusly David Carson <david@eldergothSPAMTRAP.com> Spake Unto All:
    >>What I'm saying is, Mean Chlorine described even having other players
    >>milling around chatting as a drawback of an MMORPG, and I think if he
    >>likes the presence of other people that little, MMORPGs probably aren't
    >>the genre for him.
    >
    > And I think the non sequitur is that there is no sharp line between
    > liking having a few people you know around when you want them, and not
    > liking having tons of people you don't know around when you don't want
    > them...

    Oh, I know, I know, I'm not trying to say there is. I just think that
    the "having tons of people you don't know around when you don't want
    them" end of the spectrum is a defining characteristic of MMORPGs.
    "Having a few people you know around when you want them" is more up the
    alley of persistent character online games like your Diablos and Guild
    Wars. No slight whatsoever against that genre, I played Diablo 2
    obsessively for well over a year and while I haven't checked out Guild
    Wars beyond one of the beta weekends (too busy with WoW!) I'm pretty
    sure I'd like that a lot, too.

    > But you're absolutely right. As I'm not into socializing, MMORPGs,
    > being fundamentally chatrooms with an excuse, aren't the genre for me.
    > I definitely agree with that assessment.

    I prefer to think of it as "like Diablo 2, but with the chatroom and the
    game combined!", but I'm glad to see that we pretty much agree with each
    other. :-)

    Cheers!
    David...
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Multiplayer Games IBM RPG Video Games