This is why MMO's are ruining PC gaming...

[Necronic]

My argument didn't have to do with killing them. Should have made that clear. I realize that is one item there simply isn't an easy way to avoid. My argument was that the design of the game makes little sense with regard to lore. Why is it that an elite orc grunt, of which there are 100s if not thousands, is stronger than a God?

 

[ScytheRexx]

Ah, you're right. I could have sworn Ragnaros and that Stone Mother thing (can't remember the name. Is in that lvl 40-ish dungeon.) C'thun is a god though, and apparently weaker than lvl 75 elites. I'm not sure I understand the second part of your statement. If the in game strength of your character isn't considered the strength of your character, that seems like the suspension of disbelief thing again. And also, my Tauren was definitely over 5000. hp.

Ragnaros is one of the Elemental Lords. He is the equivalent of a elemental version of the Dragon Aspects. The "Stone Mother" you are thinking of is Theradras, and she is not called the Stone Mother, as that is her own mother, Therazane, the Elemental Lord of Earth.

C'Thun is not a "God" in the traditional sense, like I mentioned before. He is one of the Old Gods, a former slain one that while powerful, was weak from his original "death". Also, WOTLK has revealed that while the Old Gods are powerful, they are less gods and more an extra-terrestrial parasite. They came after the Titan's first seeded Azeroth, and infested themselves into the core of the planet. When the Titan's returned and killed on of them (the one in Darkshore), they learned that the bond with the planet was now unbreakable, and killing the rest of them would cause Azeroth to be destroyed. Once again, the only real "God" in WarCraft is Elune, who is incorporeal and exists in a plane that no mortal creature can dwell.

As for the last statement, 5000 HP is just a number. The numbers are designed as a way to give one a goal and allow a sort of narrative flow, a sort of character history. You start out as this green guy with a few numbers, barely know what you are doing. You fight local threats, learning, before moving out into the world and fighting darker threats. At no point do we think that I have "powered-up!" like Goku in DBZ and can now defeat Cell without any effort. This is why RPers call levels "seasons", because they represent time and experience more then "raw power". Some games go the extra mile to represent this, like how Oblivion scales every monster in the game to your level, but that is not required to understand that levels are part of the flow of the game's story. In the end a lot of it is perception, but it is not the fault of the game you lose your suspension of belief, you just have a different perception.

 

[Allen who is Quiet]

My argument didn't have to do with killing them. Should have made that clear. I realize that is one item there simply isn't an easy way to avoid. My argument was that the design of the game makes little sense with regard to lore. Why is it that an elite orc grunt, of which there are 100s if not thousands, is stronger than a God?

The presence of hundreds of level 75 orc grunts who are stronger than a god is fridge logic.

It really doesn't make sense. It doesn't really have to though. A lot of games are going to have weird oddities like that. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad game. In an RPG, why is everything priced the same no matter where I go? In a side scrolling beat 'em up, why is somebody storing a sword in an oil drum?

If you're going to call a game on fridge logic in order to say that it isn't immersive, I think you're kind of picking at nits. Especially when you consider that these kinds of "immersion breaking" things are only noticed and thought about after you're done being immersed in the game.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Thanks, you posted TVTropes... and I was supposed to start doing work half an hour ago.

 

[@Li3n]

You said better then ...

... includes everything, so i can bring out whoever i want.

really? where? (also it's "than", yeah I'm a douchebag)

The Brittney Spears argument is actually quite ironic. Brittney Spears (the group), is technically exceptional, and most music critics don't argue against that. As far as the PoP/MJ/Madonna genre goes, that group is one of the most technically skilled out there. Here's where its ironic. Most people rail on Britney, not because of the actual quality of the music, but because they see her as a symbol of something they don't like. More often than not it is a different social group that they want to appear to be in rebellion against (generally just to get more status/comfort in their own social group).

Unless the definition of exceptional has changed, right there at the start.

My argument was about MMO's in general, you guys started talking about WoW all the time...

Fair enough, but WoW is the archetype for most major MMOs so its kind of transitive.

Which is why i said nothing until you accused me of not knowing it...

Since we aren't just talking about WoW here, let me bring up the biggest crackhead skinner box game ever made, which is not surprisingly the inspiration for WoW. Diablo. That game is designed around nothing other than clicking as much as you can until you get a reward. And I dunno, that's not boring to me.

hrm.

That's why i stopped playing Diablo regularly once my friends started doing it "for real" and it all became about getting items (patch 1.10 didn't help much).

Can yall think of others? I'm trying to analytically break down the reward structure in WoW to see why some people like myself and @lien react to it so much differently than others.

Actually i don't think we do, i'm pretty sure that if we spend enough time in the game we'd eventually sucumb, the only difference is probably how fast it happens.

[/COLOR]

The thing I don't get is how everybody is viewing this as a new concept. MMOs are far from the first type of games to use the skinner-box concept to sell games.

and it's always been boring... to me!!


Point: http://forums.gametrailers.com/thread/why-is-a-game-boring-without--/1046760

Fixed it for you
[/QUOTE]

Thanks, by saying that you don't find the skinner box boring you're furthering my point, as the experiment is as objective proof as well get that the right reward will make something that's boring seem fun.

My opinion is that we should require more, not that you should stop having fun... any vitriol is more the result of me having fun, the internet way.

And always remember:

 

[Necronic]

You said better then ...

... includes everything, so i can bring out whoever i want.

really? where? (also it's "than", yeah I'm a douchebag)

The Brittney Spears argument is actually quite ironic. Brittney Spears (the group), is technically exceptional, and most music critics don't argue against that. As far as the PoP/MJ/Madonna genre goes, that group is one of the most technically skilled out there. Here's where its ironic. Most people rail on Britney, not because of the actual quality of the music, but because they see her as a symbol of something they don't like. More often than not it is a different social group that they want to appear to be in rebellion against (generally just to get more status/comfort in their own social group).

Unless the definition of exceptional has changed, right there at the start.
[/QUOTE]

1.forming an exception or rare instance; unusual; extraordinary: The warm weather was exceptional for January.
2.unusually excellent; superior: an exceptional violinist.
3.Education. (of a child)
a.being intellectually gifted.
b.being physically or esp. mentally handicapped to an extent that special schooling is required.

1. Being an exception; uncommon.
2. Well above average; extraordinary: an exceptional memory. See Usage Note at exceptionable.
3. Deviating widely from a norm, as of physical or mental ability: special educational provisions for exceptional children.

[/quote]

adj 1: far beyond what is usual in magnitude or degree; "a night
of exceeding darkness"; "an exceptional memory";
"olympian efforts to save the city from bankruptcy"; "the
young Mozart's prodigious talents" [syn: exceeding,
exceptional, olympian, prodigious, surpassing]
2: surpassing what is common or usual or expected; "he paid
especial attention to her"; "exceptional kindness"; "a matter
of particular and unusual importance"; "a special occasion";
"a special reason to confide in her"; "what's so special
about the year 2000?" [syn: especial(a), exceptional,
particular(a), special]
3: deviating widely from a norm of physical or mental ability;
used especially of children below normal in intelligence;
"special educational provisions for exceptional children"

I don't see anywhere in those definitions where it is a singular adjective. Who the fuck even uses exceptional like that? It does not mean "The Best", and it never has. It generally means "Uncommonly good". However, you did help me figure out how exceptional can be applied to you, so thanks for that.

 

[@Li3n]

1.forming an exception or rare instance; unusual; extraordinary: The warm weather was exceptional for January.
2.unusually excellent; superior: an exceptional violinist.
3.Education. (of a child)
a.being intellectually gifted.
b.being physically or esp. mentally handicapped to an extent that special schooling is required.

I don't see anywhere in those definitions where it is a singular adjective. Who the fuck even uses exceptional like that? It does not mean "The Best", and it never has. It generally means "Uncommonly good". However, you did help me figure out how exceptional can be applied to you, so thanks for that.

Care to check again?! (and you might want to check out the difference between better and best).


Sure, you could argue that using Johnny Cash was unfair, but fuck you buddy, that's how the world works... you give me an opening i hit you in the nuts.

 

[Necronic]

Not in the slightest. Lets recap the whole argument.

Me: "Brittney spears is technically exceptional"

you: "Are you actually implying that Britney Spears music is better than Johnny Cash"

Me: "I never said that"

You: "You said Exceptional! That means she is betterthan everyone else."

Me: "That's not what the definition of exceptional means."

You: "Yes it is! See, I bolded SUPERIOR in there, and we all know what that means"

--------

Let me recap another way.

You think that something being exceptional means that its better than every other comparable item? That is not the case. In this situation, music, there are hundreds if not thousands of artists who could be considered exceptional/superior. Why? Because there are millions if not billions of artists who are not.

Nowhere in that is there any implication that Johnny Cash is inferior to Brittney Spears.

 

[Dave]

Nowhere in that is there any implication that Johnny Cash is inferior to Brittney Spears.

Unless you are comparing tits.

 

[ElJuski]

oh god this thread amuses me ever so

 

[GasBandit]

Man... Warcraft plot canon has just gotten so utterly batshit insane. I liked it better when it was just "they're the enemy! KILL THEM!"

 

[Chibibar]

Not in the slightest. Lets recap the whole argument.

Me: "Brittney spears is technically exceptional"

you: "Are you actually implying that Britney Spears music is better than Johnny Cash"

Me: "I never said that"

You: "You said Exceptional! That means she is betterthan everyone else."

Me: "That's not what the definition of exceptional means."

You: "Yes it is! See, I bolded SUPERIOR in there, and we all know what that means"

--------

Let me recap another way.

You think that something being exceptional means that its better than every other comparable item? That is not the case. In this situation, music, there are hundreds if not thousands of artists who could be considered exceptional/superior. Why? Because there are millions if not billions of artists who are not.

Nowhere in that is there any implication that Johnny Cash is inferior to Brittney Spears.

heh. I think the confusion came when Britney Spears' music was posted and Li3n post about Johnny Cash (I'm too lazy to go back) but kinda spiral from that.

 

[@Li3n]

Not in the slightest. Lets recap the whole argument.

Me: "Brittney spears is technically exceptional"

you: "Are you actually implying that Britney Spears music is better than Johnny Cash"

Me: "I never said that"

You: "You said Exceptional! That means she is better than everyone else."

Me: "That's not what the definition of exceptional means."

You: "Yes it is! See, I bolded SUPERIOR in there, and we all know what that means"

--------

Let me recap another way.

You think that something being exceptional means that its better than every other comparable item? That is not the case. In this situation, music, there are hundreds if not thousands of artists who could be considered exceptional/superior. Why? Because there are millions if not billions of artists who are not.

Nowhere in that is there any implication that Johnny Cash is inferior to Brittney Spears.

You left who she's better then an open question... if you just meant the local drunk singing while crawling back home you should have made it clear. As you did not i feel fully justified in bringing out Johnny Cash to trash your argument...