Sanguinia

ooh, I just found out what they meant today! *smiles*

Hi, I don't mean to sound dumb, and I'm not trying to be.. obnoxious? [I guess that's what I mean.] I just mean, this isn't a joke post, I wanna know. Are our profiles being saved? I mean, do we have to sign up at these new forums or is it just that one day I'll come to this site and it'll be a completly different forum design/layout? I don't know how these things work. I remember when we came over from beta I had to sign up again. Just curious. Thanx for any answer!

I'm gonna say, Broadsword/Super-Reflexes. It's a guess. At first, I would think Katana, but an ex-freak would more likely handle the big steel.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But this is my point! Why does multiplayer = team only and not team optional? Why? How is that better? Is that definition unchallengeable?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because multiplayer all by yourself is oxymoronic. If there is nothing for multiple players is isn’t multiplayer by definition. Or perhaps you have some strange new definition for multiple.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 'multiple' part would still be there. If we solo a mission, or even a Task Force, there would still be other people playing in the same world. That's where the Multi-Player aspect comes in. We're all still playing in the same world. And those who want to team and socialize will do that no matter what content is soloable. However, those of us who mostly solo would get to do and see other aspects of the game. That's all. It wont trivialize anything, or anyone. Teams would still have people, because many soloers weren't teaming anyway. I just don't see the problem. The big hoo-ha with multi-player games is the social aspect anyway. Not the group combat. Besides, it's not like Hamidon would ever be soloable.