Slaunyeh

[ QUOTE ]

I understand that you may personally not like it, but that doesn't invalidate the concept that PvP is immensely popular and well worth including (and even focusing on) in MMO's. That's not to say that every MMO has to include PvP, but its hard to imagine a publisher not including it at this point. The difference between FPS, RTS, and MMO players is not a large gap, in fact most people cross genre's at least occasionally so ignoring the popularity of PvP in the other genre's because they aren't MMO's isn't particularly wise IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not disputing that PvP is popular. Some people like it, and that's great. I'd also dare say that some like PvE as well. I'm not suggesting that a game shouldn't feature PvP. I'm protesting the OPs opinion that PvP shouldn't be optional if a game wants to be successful. I disagree strongly with the notion that PvE players are somehow more fickle than PvP players. Why is it so wrong to have both? Why alienate half the potential playerbase?

Edit:
As far as FPS/RTS games go, I don't even consider those multiplayer games. They are single player games that I can play end enjoy myself. That some people like to play them against eachother in a senseless repeat of a few different maps... well, that's their business. Doesn't make them multiplayer games to me. MMOs are strictly multiplayer games. You can ignore people in the game if you want, but that doesn't make them go away (unfortunately, in some cases ).

So. Anyway. That's why I don't think they are relevant to this discussion.

The only purpose for playing FPS/RTS games online is to play against other people (in general terms, I'm sure there are exceptions). That's not the case with MMOs. You can enjoy the PvP, you can enjoy the cooperative multiplayer aspect (which you wacky kids might refere to as 'teaming' ), or you might like to trudge along as solo as possible in a deeply immersive world. Individual MMOs have different focus, and that's cool. I just don't see one preference being more valid than another.

So, in short: I don't think the narrow focus of FPS/RTS games is relevant to the discussion, no.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But the fact that most games are being build with PvP in mind doesn't prove anything. How many of these games have no PvE content? How many successful MMOs can you name that have no PvE content at all? So... is it right to conclude that all these games (including WoW) owe their success to PvE? Well, apparently!


[/ QUOTE ]

Fury will have no PvE content and in WHO you can level and get gear completely via PvP. Now, both of these games are still in development/testing and so haven't yet demonstrated success. However, arguably the entire FPS/RTS online community is a pure PvP experience and still attracts more gamers than all of the MMO's combined.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what Fury is. As for WAR (or WHO, if you prefere), that's kinda my point. Optional. And that's one game heavily slated for PvP anyway. And still it will have plenty PvE content as well that you can do if you want.

When I think of a game without any PvE at all, I kinda think WoW, but with only the battlegrounds. Or CoH/V, but only the arena. They don't sound like huge games to me

As for FPS/RTSs, that's true! Except we're not talking about those. We're talking MMOs. There's a reason I don't play these games a lot anymore... it's the two genre worst hit by the "let's skip the single-player portion and just make it a glorified multiplayer game. Yay! Infinite content!" phenomenon. I used to be a huge RTS player. Back when those games had stories, plots and didn't just feel like a string of cheap one-shot random maps against the computer.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, a 'response' to no one in particular ... I see a few slams here and there against the fantasy genre. I feel like I should speak up for it a little, it is a great genre, very engaging, it sparks my imagination a lot. If there was a fantasy game that gave me incredible character customization, had a sidekicking system or something similar to allow me to actually play with my friends regardless of level, enabled a primarily soloing playstyle, and avoided all the boring behavior (such as endless hours of walking) that fantasy MMOs all seem to have, I would check it out with high hopes.

[/ QUOTE ]

My main issue with the fantasy genre is that it's so horrible over done by now.

Which is funny. I've always loved the fantasy genre. 10 (or so) years ago, it was a horribly neglected genre. There were perhaps a few games. And the only movie anyone could remember was Willow (or Dragonheart it you didn't mind risking getting beat up).

At some point, all that got turned on its head. And it was great, at first. But it's really getting old by now.

If you intend this for the PvP haters, I don't think the PvP forum is the best place to catch their atention

Anyway. I'm a PvP hater. Not in the sense that I don't think PvP should exist, but in the sense that I don't enjoy participating in it. And by "don't enjoy" I really mean hate. Hate hate hate.

As long as PvP is optional, I'm good with it though. The day PvP stop being optional, is the day I quit the game. So maybe PvP does pay the bills... but I won't be adding my 15$ to those bills.

Generally, this post is so full of wrong asumptions that I don't even know where to begin.

[ QUOTE ]

While approaching 9 million paying subscribers, which is more than the Nelson rating of most tv shows, WOW has servers that are labeled PVE and Roleplaying, which have pvp zones and have pvp hot options. Eve Online, MXO, Guildwars, COX, Vanguard, and every other game have the pvp components. Warhammer, Age of Conan, Gods & Heroes: Rome Rising, Star Trek Online, Marvel, DC, Firefly Online, and World of Darkness Online, are being pre built with PVP in mind and that's every major game being released from 2007-2009.


[/ QUOTE ]

This proves... what exactly? I think these games should cater to both PvE and PvP play. That's great! Some games lean more in one direction than the other, because *gasp* different players like different things. WAR is heavily slated towards PvP: Great if you like that. CoX isn't: Great if you don't.

But the fact that most games are being build with PvP in mind doesn't prove anything. How many of these games have no PvE content? How many successful MMOs can you name that have no PvE content at all? So... is it right to conclude that all these games (including WoW) owe their success to PvE? Well, apparently!

I'm sorry. I seem to have missed your point.

[ QUOTE ]

PVP pays the bills. PVE does not.

That's not me saying that. That's the entire video game industry saying that. They are saying that now. They are saying that through 2010 and quite possibly beyond.


[/ QUOTE ]

I havn't had a chat with the entire video game industry yet, so I can't really prove or disprove that.

Fact: Practically every game today is published with a multiplayer option. This, apparently, come at the expense of the single-player portion of the game. You can save on the game design and story content if you can just make people run around senselessly shooting eachother on identical maps. Yay! Infinite content!

Fact: The number of games I've bought since this trend have been minimal. I have never enjoyed PvP. I like the occasional cooperative multiplayer, sure. But not PvP. And I don't want multiplayer instead of a real game. I don't want to pay 50$ for a game that I can complete over the weekend.

Conclusion: I think you're right. Sadly. Well, maybe not the entire video game industry, but enough to more or less wreck the hobby for me. I think this is a really sorry turn of development though, and I'm looking forward to the end of this trend.

[ QUOTE ]

In fact, PVE does the opposite of pay the bills. PVE only develops a core of players that burn through 3 month of development in a weekend. Does that make them happy? Not at all, they go on to cry on whatever forum board that another 3 months of development can't be done instantly to stop their boredom.


[/ QUOTE ]

So... that's what PvE players are like huh? I'm sorry to say, but that's easily disproven. I'm a PvE player. I don't do the above. Statement: false.

I've played this game for nearly three years now. I have one character who recently hit 50. Am I bored? No. If I was, I'd leave. The fact is that there's so many things I have yet to try out, that I'm bound to be here for a good while longer.

Why do I play though, if I don't want PvP? This is an MMO, after all, I should go play a single player game! Right?

Truth be told? I might. If there were any single player games that had even remotely the same long-term appeal. I play MMOs because they are huge, not because there are other people in them. That's just an interesting quirk of the media.

"Modern" single player games have a scope that typically let you complete it in a week or two. Or even just over a weekend if it's really bad. MMOs? Not even close. So far it has taken me almost three years to "complete" the game. And I'm not even done yet.

I could play through Baldur's Gate (/2) several times. Why not CoH? That's six+ years of entertainment right there.

[ QUOTE ]

If the developers of this game ever get silly enough to listen to the screams of the anti pvp crowd, this game will have its life support plug pulled much sooner. Right now, without the balance issues being fixed, this game is expected to only edge out a suvivable profit by the time Marvel and DC come out. Paradoxically, NCSoft is developing Marvel and I'll bet real money it's being required to be absolutely balanced from the beginning.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. Not even unlikely. But I'm not very good at telling the future, and my precognitive powers don't default to "doom".

My mistake, I know.

But I don't think they should listen to the screams of the anti PvP crowd. Which, I guess, is me. Screaming without even noticing.

On the flip side. I don't think they should listen to the screams of the anti PvE crowd either. I think both would be bad for the game. As someone else said, as long as everything can exist at once, in peace, we're golden. I'm sorry that I don't see why it has to come down to PvP vs. PvE. I don't think I'm a bad person for liking PvE, and I don't think you're a jerk for liking PvP. Why exactly can't we have both?

[ QUOTE ]

PVP creates long time rivalries. PVP creates player driven content. PVP communities are the group that stay with a game for years in the highest numbers.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's theorycrafting.

I don't think long-term rivalries are a good thing. I don't know what you mean by "player driven content". PvP or no, MMOs are games. You'd think that content was directed for the players no matter what. And you can't tell me that running around in a forest, throwing fireballs at your buddies is content. It doesn't inspire anyone to develop anything new. On the contrary. As long as you're happy chugging fire, there's no reason at all to actually create anything new. PvP is it's own reward, right? So maybe it does pay the bills. But only in the sense that you can just build the game, charge 15$ a month and never touch it again. Yay! Infinite content!

As for PvP communities being the ones who stay around? I don't buy that for a second. People are people whether they PvP or not. And people are fickle. I don't see why a PvP community wouldn't unroot and go play the latest awsome PvP game any more than everyone else.

Especially since you seem to think that all future games will be heavily PvP slated. If the PvP communities are so loyal to their current game... all these new games will be more or less stillborn, won't they? The PvPers are happy where they are. The PvEs have itchy feet but no where to go.

[ QUOTE ]

You might believe in your heart pvp doesn't pay the bills. But all the industrial side market research for the past two years says that you are saying the world is flat.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then I guess the world is flat. PvP doesn't pay the bills. Subscribers pay the bills. I'm a subscriber. I don't PvP.

PvP certainly help pay the bills. Because, you know, some people like PvP and play because they enjoy it.

Again, I ask you to name all these great MMOs that have no PvE at all, that have let you to form a theory like this.

I've never heard of them.

[ QUOTE ]
<nitpick>
That's Diku MUD, not Deku.
</nitpick>


[/ QUOTE ]
Random bit of information: I studied at DIKU a couple of years ago!

Never been into mudding though. Alas!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
cool someone else plays that wonderful semi-mmo where your assasin/whatever, who hops around like a monkey on crack while fighting, cant jump up a simple set of rocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, look here's my objective, "Kill All." Funny, I thought I did that already. Well, I don't see anybody, but I better double check. Hmm, I've checked every room in the building twice...Oh wait there's a guy stuck in the wall that I can't seem to hit.

20 minutes later...

Time to go back to that semi-mmo where you're an assassin/whatever.

Just had to chime in because the topic was looking a little one sided. I agree on most of the things said here, but CoH is not without its faults, some of which are shared by these other games.


[/ QUOTE ]

First. One's an annoying (and probably rare? I havn't seen it more than once or twice over the last three years) bug. The other is one of the dumbest design desicions in the history of dumb design decisions Well, maybe not. But it's pretty silly and makes you feel like you're playing an arcade game from the 80s.

Bugs are ment to be fixed eventually. Design decisions you can agree or disagree with. I don't think the comparison is fair.

Second. This just happens to be the City of Heroes community forum. You're surprised that we're biased?

[ QUOTE ]

Goddamnit. Please don't be so damned smug about that fun thing, when you've missed the mark in so many ways yourself. When you wrote that word up on the board you should have written 'caution: may be subjective' next to it, and used it to remind yourself not to judge your players for pursuing behaviors that you arbitrarily deem not to be fun. You put kill X tasks in the game, and then act surprised when people camp spawners.

UGh. I find it so frustrating when he trots out this 'we're so great' mentality. This game could have been the first *real* game MMO, instead it's become more canned, and more treadmill-like as time goes by.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he, of all people, have a right to think the game is great.

It's a little more complex than this, but if I have to narrow it down to one word, it would be have to be: No.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True, but most MMOs aren't nearly as predictable as DDO.

[/ QUOTE ]

O.o

Most MMOs I've played are more predictable as DDO. People know the maps and the combat is so slow you know almost exactly how the fight is going to go. DDO is at least fast paced enough to eliminate much the latter. The memorization of maps in DDO is just all the more apparent because secret doors and traps are such an obvious addition over other MMOs.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "problem" with DDO is that it actually has some pretty interesting quests that require you to think and do stuff that doesn't require fighting. The first time.

Other MMOs don't have that problem, simply because they are so predictable. There are rarely any puzzles to solve. The problem is that puzzles only challenge you the first time. After that (or even before, if you read a guide) it becomes quite dull. Which is a huge let down for someone like me, if you don't play with a group that know as much as you do. Being new, and playing with an experienced PuG stinks. Bigtime.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Editorial Comment: There are flatly not enough Tech Only NPC groups. And some of the ones listed as both make no sense to me:
<ul type="square">[*]Rikti: Isn't it a major plot point in the Rikti War that the Ritki have no magic?[/list]

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree on your other points but I recently did a mission where I had to fight Rikti Mages as the Rikti were learning magic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally spoilerish!


Yeah. The Rikti themselves have no affiliation with magic. This is why so many magic based heroes were sent to Rikti Earth to stop them. Because the Rikti was pretty defenseless to that.

In the mentioned story arc, Lost who are converted to Rikti, may actually have Mu ancestry. Which means that suddenly you get Rikti with magical potential.

Far as I recall, you shut down that experiment during the story arc, so Rikti with magical affinity should be extremely limited. So I'd agree that Rikti should be tech only. Or at least not 50-50.

HeroClix is a game? I guess you learn something new everyday.

[ QUOTE ]
1 - I can't believe my entry wasn't included.
2 - I'm not suprised every entry contains the word "caltrops."

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have been the only one who didn't mention caltrops

[ QUOTE ]
It's tobad our ultimate foe is a big blob of goo. I used to love fighting boses in nintendo games because they were always something really cool looking and often scary, like in Zelda. But I am still looking forward to I9

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... Hamidon as the 'ultimate foe' is a little... I don't know. Disapointing? Ultimate foes should also look the part. Giant blobs don't really do it for me.

Granted, never done a Hamidon fight (particular not villain side ) so maybe it's cool. Those clips kinda reminded me of the big evil thingy from 5th Element. I could get on board with something like that.

Still. I wanna know who makes Hamidon quiver like jello. And then beat them up!

[ QUOTE ]
Oh man...let me see...

I've played:

- Meridian59
- Ultima Online
- Asheron's Call
- EverQuest
- Dark Age of Camelot
- Star Wars Galaxies
- City of Heroes / Villains (!)
- EverQuest 2
- Earth and Beyond
- Anarchy Online
- Guild Wars
- Disney's Toontown Online
- World of Warcraft

So I've played a few, both beta and live.

WW

[/ QUOTE ]

Woha. So far War Witch is the only Dev who actually play CoH/V!

That explains so much...
(I kid! I kid! Don't hurt me again!)

[ QUOTE ]
What the "H - E - doubble-Hockystick were you doing to make you look behind the crates?

Honestly? Are you that board?


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for that other guy, but I can tell you what I was doing looking behind there when I accidentally stumbled upon that room.

It's a little embarassing.

Know that feeling when you're flying along and get stuck under an outcropping when you were supposed to zoom up past it? Flight is actually pretty fast, and before you know it you're trapped in a corner behind something weird.

Happens to me all the time.
Especially on Arachnos maps.

Very sorry to see you go. But I guess this is one more reason to try looking into getting my paws on a US version of Tabula Rasa once it releases.

Made my decision easier, I guess

No doubt it's already been mentioned, but just in case...


The top of the head pokes slightly through the stylished haircut, so you can just see a thin line of skin down through the middle. It's been bothering me since, like, issue 4

I got a 5th columnist!

[ QUOTE ]

I believe that skills, while a good thing, should be made into a system that is not exclusive. There is no more frustrating thing in a game than being told: "You just cannot do this thing. Period. Go away and never come back." This sucks, quite honestly, and has turned me off on more than one occasion.

IF there is ever a skills system, it needs to be capable of being overriden in some way. Can't unlock the door? Smash it, but raise an alarm. Can't reach that high terrace? Break the pillars and bring it down to you. Can't get past that spinning laser corridor of doom? Find the generator and shoot it until it smokes. Make having the skills make life easier, but not be the only course of action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more. As a DM in a tabletop game, it's important to keep in mind that the world is a "real" setting. There's no such thing as 'can't be done'. Players tend to be rather creative, and there's nothing more frustrating than just tell them that 'no, you can't get through this door without picking the lock'.

Picking the lock might be the easiest and most obvious way... but there should be realistic alternatives. Digging through hard oak with a dagger might take days. But it's *doable* if you're desperate enough!

This, of course, is and has always been a problem with interactive computer games. There's just no way for the game to take every clever player idea into account. But the closer a given system gets, the better.

More resent CRPGs have introduced puzzles with several different solutions, which I think is a great step in the right direction.

But with that said... it still irks me when a hallway is 'blocked' by a stack of crates. Sorry, end of map, you can't walk down this hallway. Damn superglued crates

[ QUOTE ]

Wow. PPPs work so well overall, thematically, that the best you can offer is 'maybe, just maybe' it'll all be fine and good in a general sense. What a ringing endorsement. No marketing job for you, boyo.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oookay then. First, I'm not looking for a marketing job, "boyo". I'm not trying to sell PPPs to you. Or even myself. If you think I'm trying to endorse PPPs, you havn't understood a single word I've been saying. Sorry I havn't been more clear. I'll try.

I'm saying that I'll reserve any possible dislike of the PPPs (thematic or otherwise) until I've had a chance to check them out myself.

If my personal preference is a 'general sense', then I guess I have a lot more sway with the community than I realized.

[ QUOTE ]

Quote: "Perhaps you will have a happier life if you wait with the hate 'till you have something better than press releases to base it on. Like, say, five minutes of experience. "
This is your response to a post that offered no hate in the first place. It politely offered examples of how someone could know that the PPPs won't work with their villain concept because you declared that everyone is ignorant of how well PPPs might mesh. It's a decree you issue - it's derision. It works better when the post you reply to inflammatory instead of just respectfully in disagreement.


[/ QUOTE ]

You keep harping on this one, so I guess I better respond to it. I never claimed fluency in English, so maybe the point didn't come across as well as I'd have liked.

I guess my general feelings towards games of this sort can be summed up with that trite old saying "don't worry, be happy."

The guy (sorry, I forget who) was complaining that there was no logical advancement for, say, a stone brute. And other examples. Expressing a "dissatisfaction" (refered to as 'hate' previously, sorry if that was offensive) with the patron pool options.

Well. That's true. There's no "logical" advancement for my rad/rad defender in CoH either. Maybe level 40 - 50 will suck for him. Maybe I can live with other (nonthematic) epic powers. Maybe instead I'll spend those new power slots on radiation powers I skipped on my way to 40. Maybe once (if) he hit 41 I'll come here and complain about it, two years too late

My point is that you simply cannot cater to everybody's desires all the time. There are plenty powersets I don't like. Someone is bound to not like the PPPs. That's fair enough. It happens. But I just don't understand not liking them before trying them. Maybe it sounds awful... well, worst that can happen is that you're proven right.

It might look like you won't like the PPPs, and once you have a chance to swing that mace, shoot that lightning or hit someone over the head with a large trout.. err.. shark, it's quite possible that your predictions come true.

But there's a chance you might like it, too.

I'm just saying it makes more sense to dislike the PPPs when you know you don't like them, instead of when you think you won't like them

Prior to the CoV beta, I was pretty hyped about Brutes. I really like the scrapper playstyle, and these guys seems to have an abundance of that.

But. Actually playing my first brute... I found it kinda dull. And I havn't felt motivated to play one past level 14 yet. All the information in the world about brutes didn't prepare me for the *feel* of actually playing one. And it was a feel that just didn't sit well with me for some reason.

So what does that little story teach us? Well. Probably nothing. It tells me that it works best for me to wait and see. Seeing pictures of powers and reading about the powers and what have you, just isn't enough to give me an indication whether I'll like it or not.

I see a lot of people jumping the gun here. So, I suggest waiting because it works for me. Maybe it doesn't work for anyone else... it's just my opinion. And these forums would be pretty barren if it was illegal to post personal opinions

Anyway. Others have expressed my point much better than I could ever hope to, so with no further ado... *crawls back in his hole*

[ QUOTE ]
At least we completely agree on something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright. This has got to stop. I've been posting more in this thread than I've posted for the past year. I'm a lurker. I'm way out of my natural habitat!

Anyway. Glad to hear that I'm not alone!

[ QUOTE ]

Exactly. We got chains and barbed wire and horns and spikes and hooves and lord knows what else. My first reaction was "Cool!" Except I've never used them. Of course, I'm not arrogant or selfish enough to decry them - that sort of thing is an integral part of villainy.

However, if I had nothing but leather and chains (shut up!) to make my villains out of, I'd be pissed. Very much so. But we don't. We got all the "I eat babies!" evil gear, but we also got all the stars-n-stripes, polyester and tights hero costumes. So, if I didn't want to make an "I R Evil" concept, I didn't have to. And I haven't.

This appears to be increasingly less the case, however, and it bugs me.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny actually. The other day I realized that none of my main villains have used as much as a single piece of villain-specific costume. That was odd... but I guess I like the subtle look too.

I'm not sure I see what you mean though. That option isn't going away, is it?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'll be so awed by Grandville that I won't notice the PPPs.

[/ QUOTE ]
*sigh*

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. I don't know what this means. But my post count has almost doubled today, so what the heck. I'll reply

Does it mean that it's wrong to entertain the posibility that eye candy distracts me from any flaws in the game system? Or what?

Is this what bizzaro world feels like?

[ QUOTE ]

Beyond that, you keep telling people who have thematic concerns that they should wait and test content of which we already know the thematic quality.

Huh? I'm fluent in English, yet I feel like I've stepped into a bizarro world of logic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fluency in English and bizare logic aren't mutually exclusive, you know. I could be the weirdest guy on the block, and still express myself perfectly.

Anyway. I'll explain. I won't suggest for anyone else to "Wait and See". That's their choice.

Welcome to bizzaro world:
I have a thematic concern for the Patron Power Pools. For me to even be able to play a character for an extended period of time (say, past level 10ish) the theme of the character has to click. The name, the bio (written down or otherwise), the powersets, the look. All these things have to mesh together *just* right. If they don't, I eventually lose interest.

That's why my main CoH character sits at level 33 after almost two years, while my main CoV character hit 40 in a month's time (which, for me, is really impressive).

Now, remember that I'm being extremly picky about how my character works out. Introducing Patron powers, I have a choice.

A) I can decide in advance that picking a patron makes no thematic sense for any of my characters. I'm happy the way they are now. They are loners. They don't kiss up to Arachnos. I'm disapointed in the lack of choice.

B) I can give it a try and see if it works out. If it doesn't work out at all - say, I hate the powers, I hate working for the patron, the storyline is all wrong, etc. - then I likely won't take any of those characters much past 40. It takes too much effort for a character I'm not happy with. But, there's the (albeit small) chance that they do actually work out. Maybe, just maybe everything clicks into place and I'll be happy.

If I'm happy with the final concept, then I'm not disapointed in the lack of choice, and I'll know what to expect the next time I bring a guy past level 40 (as if that'd ever happen ).

I opt for option B. Maybe you, in your infinite wisdom, can forsee how it will affect your concepts. I don't have that luxury, so I chose to err on the side of caution, and at least give it a try.

Frankly I've been a little burned out since my main hit 40. No new character I've tried have really clicked the right way. So I'm just shuffling around with a bunch of lowbie alts, biding my time.

Maybe I'll be revitalized by I7 for a bit. Maybe not. We'll have to see.

[ QUOTE ]

Once again, somebody is telling another poster who has been around the block many times with this game to take a "wait and see" attitude to everything when it's pretty easy for vets to piece together the basics without investing play-hours.


[/ QUOTE ]

"Telling" implies that I'm issuing a decree here. I'm really not.
I offer a simple suggestion from "one poster who's been around the block many times with this game", to another. 'Waiting and seeing' is something that works for me when I have the kind of concerns Samuel and others are expressing. I push the worries away and decide to save the worry for when it becomes an issue. If it becomes an issue.
Now, this works for me. This is how I deal with that kind of potential disapointment. So, I offer it as helpful advice. If you don't want to wait and see... that's fine. It doesn't work the same way for all of us, after all.

[ QUOTE ]

I7 is going to be pretty cool, all-in-all, when it's finally released, but much like I4 and I6, there's a fair amount of content that caters to specific tastes and circumstances. Some people are going to have honest mixed feelings about it and probably the best thing to do is acknowledge it and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.
Does that put you in my bizzaro world, or me in yours?

[ QUOTE ]
The answer to that question is exactly my point: We. Don't. Know.

Maybe nothing. Maybe pure awsomeness. Maybe something in between.

I'm real sorry, but if you think there's anything meaningful we haven't seen yet, you're in denial.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you correctly quoted, I don't think one way or the other on the issue. I'm simply pointing out that we won't know 'till we know.

I can make all sorts of more or less realistic asumptions, but no matter how sound, I won't actually know if they are true 'till I get a chance to see it for myself.

Maybe it suck as bad as it sounds. Maybe it doesn't.

Yeah. That sounds a lot like denial.