Archived from groups: alt.games.diablo2 (
More info?)
Babe Bridou wrote:
> chainbreaker wrote:
>
>> Babe Bridou wrote:
>>> Same here.
>>>
>>> my previous MMORPG test lasted about 40 minutes. Lineage 2 beta
>>> test. The fact is, I hate MMORPGs, so I logically hate WoW as well. I
>>> hate
>>> the "click a monster and wait" routine.
>>>
>>> I more or less deserted Diablo2 for HL2 at the moment. One great
>>> piece of game. It will hopefully last for about another couple of
>>> weeks - I can't wait to see the full-version of the Source SDK
>
>> I simply can't get used to the "instanced grouping" something like
>> EQ2 forces you to do.
>
> <snip>
>
> So, basically you mean this is bad because you can't get the "all for
> one and one for all" spirit in a party in a MMORPG?
>
Partly--that's not to say it *can't* be done, because obviously plenty of
people do it. It's just that I have a hard time getting enthused about
grouping with a half dozen people for 5 minutes just to smack a whatzit.
And I have an equally hard time putting aside enough time on a regular basis
to make finding a meaningful group worthwhile. I realize that games provide
such as guilds, etc. to help the process along, but if I don't "know" the
people I'm playing with the experience doesn't mean much.
Something like D2 though--I've played with plenty of people on a regular
basis, but often not more than 15-30 minutes at a time. You can't do that
in a MMORPG.
> I would agree - it's a theoretical agreement, because I've never been
> able to get through the first ten levels in any MMORPG.
>
> For what I've seen, played or experience, there's no involvement in
> those games. Whatever the outcome, whoever your friends are, all the
> players are equally on their own, and that puts the accent on some
> kind of egoism.
> I think a game such as Everquest, Guild Wars or WoW should focus on
> inequalities between players and characters. There should be heroes,
> there should be followers, there should be knights, lords, legends
> and lowly scums. Characters made to shape the world, and characters
> designed to assists the shapers...
>
Only problem is, everybody wants to be a shaper. The Star Wars game tried
to do something along the lines of what you say, I think, but when everybody
found out they couldn't be a Jedi they threatened to take their monthly fee
and go home. So then they let just about anybody who wanted to be a Jedi
(which was probably 90% of the player base) and ended up with a game that's
basically a steaming pile, from what I hear.
> If any of you ever played the Pen & Paper RPG Ars Magica, each player
> would get to create a Mage (most powerful and important char), a
> Companion (some kind of secondary character) and up to ten Followers
> (each being assigned to serve other players in the Alliance).
>
> That would be the way to go, for partying to be interesting in a
> persistent MMORPG in my humble opinion. Characters that would be
> created with "serving character xyz" as a purpose. It would also be
> an excellent way to introduce newbies into the game.
>
Sounds like a pyramid scheme.
>> And FPSs--ugh. Even if it's something of HL2's apparent quality.
>
> Shhheeesh, even if it was a top-down perspective, third-person, fixed
> camera (read: "just like in Diablo2"), it would still be the game of
> the year.
>
Just not my cup--for several reasons.
>> My last best hope for a new computer game to occupy my time stands
>> to be the remade Pirates!
>
> Did you try Dungeon Master : Conflux II ?
Never heard of it--what is it?
--
chainbreaker
If you need to email, then chainbreaker (naturally) at comcast dot
net--that's "net" not "com"--should do it.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram