-
Posts
1131 -
Joined
-
Quote:The entire current Freedom Phalanx.
Not that I have anything against any of them personally, but for an arc called 'Who Will Die?', anything less than the full Blakes 7 ending just won't satisfy.
Heh, myself and one other person got that reference....might want to find something more contemporary, as great as that show was.
Though more to the point of the thread: I am wondering how many people responding that they'd kill whomever are playing Vigilantes and would be okay with whatever consequences came from doing so. Let's face it...Wade, regardless of what happens to him, isn't Mr. Popular right now for killing off the big guy. It's interesting how rather than reforming/imprisoning/restraining someone who's done evil that killing someone would be seen as the best alternative.
Reminds me of that old argument about if you had the chance to kill Hitler as a baby, would you....I know I couldn't, even regardless. Because crossing that line into murder (especially that of a child, regardless of what evil they will go on and do) brings you to their level because you've made that choice that it's justifiable.
S. -
Well, uh...bully for you?
Until I can see some sort of breakdown of stats that supports your argument, I think my statement (which purports no real argument other than I think the game is doing well, and presumably is doing something well enough to get those numbers) stands nicely on its own.
S. -
Put him in carbonite. That seems to preserve anyone until the sequel comes out.
S. -
Quote:To be fair, I'm not telling you anything. What I am talking about is the 1% of the game that is played by the majority of people who do play this game, or are faced with it as a consequence of having a level fifty. It's an entirely relevant situation. All the tools built for teaming now come as a consequence of them being designed for Trials. I'm not trying to be facetious about it or even trivialise your point, but the situation as it stands has our game being built around and even sold on a teaming mechanic that as designed, is meant to provide from level one through level fifty and into the Trials. And your point was about how effectively the other game was in forming and retaining teams.You're comparing the 1% of the game that involves trials to all of teaming in another game and telling me I can't be selective about what areas to compare teaming to?
That's not me being selective or cherry-picking my argument, because as much as their game has been built on a companion/small number system, ours has been rebuilt around the LFG/Supersidekicking/Trial model. To go beyond that is going to get not only me, but the rest of this thread modsmacked, which we're skating along the edge of anyways, I think.
Quote:*How* to prioritize these issues is a matter of opinion. *That* they are the foundational issues every MMO dev team has to consider isn't an opinion. Its a generally recognized fact.
But this gets into a bit of a side-track: comparing our precise teaming mechanics with another game's. That's not the point. I'm not explicitly trying to make the case that teaming sucks in that other game. That's not even remotely a unique idea to me. What might put me ahead of the curve is that I was calling this particular game a massively single player online roleplaying game long before I heard anyone else describe it that way (there are people on these forums that have PMs from me describing it that way long before it was released). Are all of the people now saying that teaming seems to suck in that game all wrong? Doesn't matter to me. What does matter to me is what people are saying would be the right way to fix it, of the people who do think its broken. And a sizeable chunk of those people are saying that the problem with teaming isn't that the barriers are too high, its that there aren't enough tasks which mandate crossing those barriers.
I conjecture that the dev team for this game itself probably feels not too dissimilarly, because this particular dev team hails from a company that isn't known for being ignorant on the impact of gameplay mechanical decisions. Especially because while so much of our casual friendly nature is demonstrably accidental in nature (like for example the original powers design team couldn't balance a checkbook in three tries) so much of why teaming barriers exist in that game appear to be the result of very specific design decisions that correctly generate other desirable game features. They do not appear to be accidents.
Why does it take so long to join other team mates? Because its supposed to take long to get anywhere, because its not supposed to be easy to bypass different physical regions of the game with different challenges. Because actually reaching a location is often part of the design of the content, and because a lot of the non-linear content is based on side-track missions and hidden contacts and discovered locations. You do not do all of that and then just accidentally forget to think about what impact that has on teaming. You *know* what impact that will have, and you either assume most people will get circumstantially lucky and not face those issues, or you believe that's a reasonable price to pay to team.
To a certain extent, I think both assumptions are probably ones the developers adopted, but I would also bet money that both assumptions turned out to be far more likely to be false than the devs predicted.
What if you think teaming *isn't* broken in that game? Well, then you probably don't believe it needs to be fixed by being made more mandatory either. I'm commenting on the surprising percentage of people who believe it does
If that's the case, then why was one of the first updates to that game a team-based scenario? That'd seem to fly in the face of that logic, that even knowing that'd it be problematic and difficult, they'd institute a system that would just frustrate people. And as you said, this is coming from a company with not only a reputation but an apparent knowledge of what player expectation would be.
The number of teaming incidents in that game occur that involve a necessity of teaming would be two or three times in a zone, as far as I can anecdotally tell. At the same time, there's absolutely no barrier that I can see to teaming in regular missions for the same. There's no lockout for someone new coming into a group, because missions can be shared. Even personal class missions can be shared with a simple check in the options menu. As Pebblebrook said, there's nothing stopping you from trying the designated group content on your own, but everything in the mission notes to even the labelling says 'Group', so beyond the travel reason you cite above, I have trouble seeing where the low prioritisation occurs.
The majority of play I've had in that other game has been with groups. And here's the thing: outside of this game...I can't think of too many others that have the overabundance of 'quick' gathering tools that this one has. And that's fine, there's a lot of tools that enable that, but I think as the Trial experience has shown, people found their own way to group when the tool appeared to be broken, and embraced that policy enough to continue with it when the tool was fixed.
The point I'm making there is that people will only see teaming as an issue if they percieve they're having one in the first place. And more directly to your point, there'll be a perception that the other game is a single-person MMO if their experience is one that seems to validate that claim.
And I'll reiterate: for me, it is most categorically not a single-person MMO experience. Nearly everything I've done I've done in groups, I've never once felt that it was overly difficult or overly time consuming to be in one or form one, and most importantly, I never felt impressed by a notion to think that I should be playing the game more on my own than with other people.
Pebblebrook's again right when they say that if you wanted to, you could just as easily turn CoH into a single-player experience, and I've had people argue to me in person that there's no reason to be in a group at all in this game because of the difficulty sliders that seem to reward you for doing so.
But as I said before, this isn't presenting as a problem to me and if it is to others, then I see a developer team responding in a positive and efficient manner. So I'm having trouble even seeing what precisely it is we're arguing over other than semantics.
S. -
Quote:I think it is. If you're going to argue the relative merits of ease of teaming, you can't be selective in what areas those things occur. Ultimately both forms of teaming are about the act of socialisation and achieving a goal. The mechanics at their base are ultimately the same. As for whether this game was better at launch, I think that's an entirely subjective opinion. I certainly wasn't there for it, nor can I think of any articles that were particularly glowing in their reviews of it.I disagree. I think we were better at launch than most MMOs including the referenced one are now, we're just even better now.
I also don't think its fair to compare raid content in this game with teaming in general in that game.
Quote:Its that very reputation for quality that gives them less cover to say they are just learning the ropes and you can't expect them to get silly things like talking to other players right the first time. You can claim other dev teams might just be idiots, but you can't claim Bioware is clueless when it comes to gameplay. So either their experience is extremely brittle and they couldn't transfer it to the requirements of MMOs, or else they were fully aware of the issues, and just didn't think they were important enough.
Most of the "errors" our dev team makes isn't because they are too stupid to see the issue. Its because they didn't prioritize them high enough relative to the requirement to release the content or spend more time perfecting it, or they underestimated the consequences of the issue. The same is almost certainly true for Bioware, but in this case its on issues that to my way of thinking are foundational ideas of MMO game design. Those are not things you just change your mind about overnight, not even with a gun to your head and not even if your entire customer base demands that you do. Human beings do not work that way.
But you said yourself earlier; these are your ideas of what you consider foundational MMO design. This doesn't mean they're universal or even necessarily going to be the ones fundamental to their success. I mentioned the subscriber numbers before; if they were such hurdles for people, this game would've folded in the first two weeks, let alone the first two months. I personally haven't been hindered in my ability to group, let alone add friends or communicate with them...
But again, we come back to crucifying a dev team for making errors. Does it matter whether you or I consider them fundamental? The point is that they're made. They decided that the features they pushed through to Live were important, and the subscriber base agreed in large numbers. Just because you personally take umbrage or issue with whether it's a fundamental design issue does not make it the single dominant factor in whether the game survives or falters.
I'm not going to get hung up on them, because it's done. The players (and presumably that includes both of us because we're both subscribing currently) are having faith in the developers these issues will be dealt with. I have no doubt they will be, and I'm unconcerned because in my personal experience, I'm not finding it game breaking nor so unpalatable it's coloring my viewpoint of the game generally. There is a lot a launching game can get wrong, and my view is they got a lot more right than they did wrong. And what they did get wrong is not so traumatic to me that I consider it bad decision making. Perhaps you do, and you're entitled to that viewpoint.
I'm simply just taking the longer view on this because I don't see the issues as insurmountable. And they have a track record I can take confidence in.
S. -
-
-
Quote:Of course, my experience is not going to be identical to everyone else's, but I do think I critique every MMO I play as its own thing. I'm not specifically looking to replicate the City of Heroes experience everywhere else. And there are rational reasons for the devs of the other MMO doing the things they are doing; the design decisions are not random. But in my own opinion the problem is design priority. If you decide its a priority to make sprawling explorational zones, you can't have people just teleporting around them and never seeing them. You have to create reasons to explore it, and you have to restrict movement to prevent skipping too much of it. If you also want to create an atmosphere of actual danger in some parts of it, you will have to place combat threats within it. All these things create a certain atmosphere that you can't replicate in a game that doesn't have those features.
But the question is whether those features override the desire to encourage casual teaming. Some people will think they do, but I believe most people will believe they do not, particularly a majority of the target audience for the game. And if you are actually correct that the devs are releasing patches to address most of my concerns (I'm not actually convinced that's true yet) then actually its likely the devs agree with me, that the collateral damage of those features is undesirable.
Its important to realize that you could produce an MMO with a random number generator and *someone* would love it. Everyone prefers different things, and everyone's circumstances are different. Someone who plays with a regular group will have an entirely different set of desires than someone who PUGs, or solos. Some people care about story more, some people like to explore and some don't.
What I can say objectively is that I do not believe it is remotely possible to claim that this other MMO allows for casual teaming remotely as well as this game, and the reasons for it are because many MMO dev teams don't even *want* to make a game that prioritizes casual teaming, because they have other priorities that deliberately or incidentally conflict with casual teaming. And that's what tends to make this game unique. Is it better because of that? Well that depends entirely on whether you think casual teaming is valuable in an MMO. To some degree that is a matter of opinion. But I believe that it better aligns with the majority of potential MMO players, which means in another sense there is an objective reason for making it a priority if you are a producer of MMOs.
In either case, this is just one aspect of the game I'm mentioning. There are lots of things I like about that other game, and I'm still a subscriber of it. However, I believe that optimizing the things they have, and not optimizing the things I believe they lack, is taking an enormous gamble that they do not appear to be winning.
Well, again I have to disagree with you there. Just numerically speaking, it's going to be far easier for me to gather two or three friends (let alone just one if we both have companion NPC's) to get together and do missions together than it will be to gather eight or sixteen or whatever sometimes the very mandatory requirements this game asks for. And when those numbers are reached, you can control mob size and difficulty, but you can never change what occurs in a raid setting. But this is precisely one of the things this other game is going to do, and that's for the sake of ensuring everyone gets to see the content on a casual to hardcore scale.
Our game does not do that. Our game approaches raids particularly now with a set requirement (and dare I say expectation) of 'gear readyness'. There's no option for me to say 'okay, I don't want to charge around with twenty four people who might decide that they want to speed run this thing' at all. I either do it or opt out of the system (which is what I have done, because I've never found raiding fun). But on this other game, I have. And why? It's small, it's easy to pick up...it's mobile (I even took a transport to another section of the instance! It was great and broke up the 'quick, run here!' aspect of raids I often can't stand) and I felt totally engaged and never overwhelmed. That is a huge stride forward for casual gamers in my book and something CoH could stand to learn from.
Again, I think it's unfair to characterise the other game as having its design priorities wrong: CoH hasn't existed in a vacuum where the very same criticisms until what...only two years or so ago now?...were addressed. For the longest time, we couldn't instantly join our teammates for a mission. In fact, we suffered bugs where just zoning to try and do so would shut off the majority if not all of our abilities. A lot of what we call a great success with transporting to missions 'easily' hasn't existed until recently. Group teleporting was priorly a veterans' feature, and teleporting to a contact is less than six months old.
Alright, so they didn't get things right such as friending, communication and so on. But there's never been in my personal experience a completely smooth launch of any MMO. Yes, there's the 'in 2012, you should have these basics' argument, and that's not unfounded, but at the same time half the battle for any new game these days is to have a unique selling point that distinguishes it from the other. And the two things the other game does better than this one are its story and its voiced dialogue. Like it or not, people are in this day and age less inclined to read text and instead listen to voice, and that's largely through the advancement of technology we have. We're verbal creatures and we respond to it viscerally. I'm frankly surprised more games haven't taken to it, even though it's obviously expensive. But it works, and we know it works from console game design.
The other obvious factor here is the number of people playing. Yes, CoH has an enviable record of maintaining its base of around 120,000 people (or thereabouts) for the majority of its lifespan, but the other game is currently reporting 1.7 million players in its first two months. I can't attribute that solely to the license it represents; clearly that game is doing something right. And noone's going to be able to convince me the CoH devs wouldn't love even half those numbers.
This is where again I disagree with you saying they're gambling with not optimising what they don't have. I can't think of a company in recent times that within three months of launch invites its players for feedback and also then declare they weren't going to rush out their first game update. The other game's production house has a reputation for quality and perfection I have seen nowhere else in the industry; even casual talk about their prior games speak of a standard I frankly wish more would aspire to. That to me speaks of a dedication to perfection and a willingness to admit when they're wrong. Every transcript or article I've read in the last few days has surprised me with the dev team's accurate and honest assessment of where they went wrong. And that's a big call, given how much was sunk into the development of that game.
City also has a good reputation with largely straight-shooting with their playerbase, and I think that's largely a big reason why retention rates for this game are so good. They listen, they admit their mistakes (albeit sometimes grudgingly) and do their best to work cooperatively with the community to provide an experience everyone enjoys. I see the same with this other company, and I think we as game players can suffer from a sense of entitlement that suggests we should have all the things (to borrow from a meme) now. These things will come, as it took City so long to do, and especially after the lean years post-2006, when I first joined and saw the most amount of complaint and criticism levelled at this game (when Inventions were introduced, I thought there was going to be serious fallout from it if the forums were anything to go by). And I don't think I need to mention the missteps with PvP here.
I see far more positive potential in the other game than I do negatives, because I percieve a long-term and 'let's get it right' approach than I do leaning on design priorities. Again, it's unfair to compare what CoH decided to do to this other game; and while to some people's eyes that's what makes City of Heroes a unique and fun game, it's what makes it an uninteresting and unchallenging game to others (and I've heard that directly from real life friends of mine who played briefly). As I said before, it's apples and oranges, and I see their positive steps being ones that a heck of a lot of dev teams would balk at in their first year.
The final point I'd make is that City isn't our special snowflake of a game; I really think it's only been since the game was bought by NCSoft and we got Paragon Studios that the game came into its own and achieved some of the potential it had strived for from the beginning. What this game got right, it did through trial and error and not without its share of detractors (yourself included). I am just not going to punish the other game for what it doesn't have yet when there's such an obvious showing that there's intent and design to fix that. I'd cite the debacle that was the launch of a game set in another supehero city made by this game's former developer team as the model of what not to do if we were going to discuss it.
S. -
Well, I'm going to take a bit of a contrary stance here and describe my time and experience over in the Laser Swords Online game as overwhelmingly positive and take my time to detail why. I think the first huge mistake we're making here is comparing these two to begin with. What holds true and works for one game does not mean it holds true and works for another. I think saying because City Of...has x, y and z that makes it automatically the best option. But I digress.
As far as teaming is concerned, Laser Swords Online does a better job of the notion of teaming by making the team sizes small. To this day I have never understood why our Task Forces for instance need to be eight people, or Trials need to be up to twenty-four people. And make no mistake, the second half of the Incarnate tree will up those number requirements for no other reason than that the level shifts and power levels of Incarnates at that level will necessitate more difficult and more complex encounters to compensate for them. The instant you introduce any mechanic whereby there's a tiered system of progression, you also tier the difficulty involved, which often translates into group size as well.
I love sidekicking, but it's not the be all and end all of game design either. Yes, you fight at a comparable level, but if you're sidekicking down, you're often losing a lot of the benefits you've spent a lot of time working on. I think largely that's why we don't see this mechanic outside this game too often. And I also bear in mind we have a small and very 'cottage industry' population. All you have to do is see interviews with the developers and they're happy to have this unique IP and do their own thing without the pressures and expectations of brand name properties.
And that's fine, I don't begrudge them that because that gives them freedom of design. But all that makes this game is niche, really. There's a total of three superhero MMO's out there. That's it. Only one of them can be argued to be holding its own after a long period. As I said, what works here works here. It's not a given that it'll just work everywhere else.
As far as travel times are concerned, we are over-indulged with travel options to the point where travel powers themselves are becoming irrelevant. Sure, that's fine for getting to the game where that's what matters, but the other side of that argument is that you're missing out on seeing the vistas around you and becoming immersed in that world. And for me at least, I am immersed in Laser Swords Online. It's a double-edged sword; on one hand sure, I'd like to be able to zip quicker to where I'm going and do stuff, but on the other hand, would I just want to coast over the landscape without seeing any of it? I try and take my time in this game to see this game and take it in; I feel really sad that Praetoria City particularly is somewhat of a graveyard now, because it's stunningly gorgeous and deserves to be walked through, let alone run. Not everything is convenience and not everything is a hassle.
Let's take a step back and ask ourselves how much of Paragon City really pops with atmosphere for people here. I can say Atlas Park is great. ....that's about it. We have bus stops with no buses. We have no children. We have no schools, no churches. We can't sit here and say we have an embarassment of riches in that area.
And I want to say here I'm not trying to run down CoH, but just am attempting to put some perspective on the situation, as I bear in mind Laser Swords Online is barely two months old. I'm sure as heck not going to crucify a game on that criteria alone, because this game would've been buried on that basis with no flights, no capes, a level cap of 40...the list goes on. This other game is preparing a huge game update (ie an issue) that is hitting not only pretty much all of Arcanaville's concerns, but more.
As a roleplayer, I am giddy with some of the improvements they're adding, which include full customisation of clothing and an expanded 'family tree' system....which I suspect more than a few players would want here.
Which brings me to the social aspect of the game. I do think it's sound and there's tangible physical rewards for doing so. I'm 'fortunate' I suppose to have a small group of friends to regularly play with, but I progress, I have moral choices to make, I get to experience content with my friends. I did an hour-long instanced situation last night that flowed with story, action, tactics and story and never remained staticly in one location or map. There were breaks in the action that also changed scenery. And again as a roleplayer, I've found ample opportunity to flesh out my character and feel a part of that setting. I don't have to do their version of raiding, but over level 50 here, well....am I going to advance in any meaningful way without doing it? I think we all know that DA isn't a true viable alternative for doing Incarnate stuff (that's not hyperbole, just a statement of how far you can go doing just DA), and I still resent somewhat story and character advancement being gated behind a system that in many ways echoes the grind and tedium we associate with other games...
I haven't had a single-player experience in this other game; I've had an MMO experience, which is what the game purports to be, and I really just wanted to say that in response to what I think is a lot of knee-jerk reactionism to a game that 'doesn't have what this one does'. That's really how a lot ot the criticisms sound to me, and I think that's not only unfair, but unrealistic. It's apples and oranges. I'm taking the game for what it is, just like I am this one. Taking a step back and seeing the positives and negatives in both is something we could all do a little more of.
S. -
Wow...
Pretty much this same thread cropped up in the Beta forums. What, you have so much time on your hands waiting to play you're going to criticise the login screen?
I mean....
The LOGIN screen?
Seriously?
Like anyone else, I can take umbrage if something is blatant or overdone, but I spend maybe a second at most logging in before I go to play. If I'm allowing myself to be distracted by an image that somehow offends me or I consider troubling because it's interpreted to be somehow sexual, then I'm dealing with issues that have nothing to do with the game.
It's a heroic pose. It's a dramatic pose. Do any of you complaining about this think for a moment that the intent of this picture by David Nakayama was to provoke sexual thoughts about the character in some negative way?
No. It's your interpretations of what you see in that picture that is the issue, not the picture itself.
Grow the frak up and play the game, people.
S. -
For me, I need that hook that makes me want to come back to them because I've made many a character before now that sounds cool on paper (like playing the leader of a division of Arbiters called Recluse's Fist, so named after the 501st Legion) that ultimately doesn't go anywhere.
The ones that become THE characters are the ones that are part homage or come out of a strong visual place. My first blueside character was a myth-based character coming out of Australian Aboriginal mythology, and I honestly had not and continue to not see that done anywhere by other people. I feel particularly happy about that.
I have a Praetorian that I'm levelling up who visually I think is unique and works in a real organic way with the morality choices you get playing in Praetoria; there's a built-in descent and redemption story that can carry him for thirty levels before I even get to Paragon City. And the concept flowed from the setting; there's a strong Roman overtone in Praetoria, and the character comes from there. I'll happily post pictures of him if people are interested, but I feel I just hit on that right combination of visual idea and story.
And I agree with Nova Knight; the character themselves if they're well-written are the unique part, more than anything else.
S. -
I have mixed feelings on this one....I'm sad because it was being filmed in my home state of Queensland in Australia, so it meant local actors were getting noticed and was generally good for business down here. Plus I think the locations were just gorgeous and are never seen enough on screen in any medium.
I'm glad because this was a directionless show. It had oodles of potential, with the time-travelling and the idea of controlling the future by manipulating the past...but instead, they focussed on the teenagers and made it episodic where absolutely no consequence came out of the prior week's episode. They ran an arc where the teenage son was deliberately betraying the colony, but when it was revealed, he suffered no real punishment! I was dumbstruck at that. At least the colonel's daughter had a half-decent excuse and the colonel had a backup plan.
It started showing its potential in the later stories, but they too had no lasting consequences. Whether they were reined in by the network and not allowed to tell decent stories, or the writers just had no idea of what to do, the execution was poor, at best.
Fingers crossed that the next production to be filmed down here (which'll be the most expensive children's television show made in Australia) will do better. Jane Badler is in it (she's an Australian resident now) and Australian kids' shows are wildly imaginative. A lot of our top producers work in the field and the shows are top quality viewing.
S. -
Nice gag from Black Pebble....
But...and it really rankles me to say it yet again as I've posted it before...but 'just because' is the sort of story rationale I expect from a child, not an adult writer of a supposedly adult story. It's insulting to my intelligence as a reader, to theirs for throwing down a story that not only gets criticised for its own internal logic but then contradicts itself with an event bringing back another dead, person.
It's really just putting blinkers on when you accept a story even when you know it doesn't work; I can't imagine that scenario being enjoyable, let alone tolerable. It's like my lifelong love of Star Wars and being exposed to The Phantom Menace. I've become okay with accepting, at least for me, that it's a bad film and that it's okay to say that. It doesn't invalidate my liking of the other films, or my disliking, in fact.
What it does mean is that I can put my fandom to one side and take something on its merits. And I'm doing that with the story here and not being an apologist for it. For me, it's a bad story and one that I don't agree with for reasons I've detailed elsewhere. I don't want company policy passed off as story to me and then have no internal rationale to back it up other than 'because'.
We wouldn't wear this in a movie, a book or even a cartoon. I think it's only fair that if we see bad writing, we call it out if that's what we believe it to be.
S. -
Samuraiko,
As far as the 'missing man' formation is concerned, you might have to do a live shot/demorecord cut and feature a small number of player attendees as demorecord characters...that'd be my best compromise while maintaining the integrity of the shot.
I confess though I'm totally stumped as to where you'd even hold a memorial service for him. Nowhere seems really appropriate with all the other giant statuary floating around. The only things that vaguely seem appropriate are the Shadow Shard for its sense of grandeur, or in Paragon City one of the smaller parks behind City Hall in Atlas.
Or, standing in for Atlas, one of the many beautiful and scenic views of Praetoria.
S. -
YMMV.
Too much cutscene, not enough of us doing stuff, for mine. And as others will doubtless say in here, apparently Idiot Ball is alive and well and has become a private competition amongst the Freedom Phalanx.
I don't care for the arc much at all, and that saddens me as a player and as a writer.
S. -
A true shame and his visions of Star Wars were truly unique. That picture that Demobot posted has great atmosphere, and made me want to know what it was all about.
S. -
Another great trailer!
Just watched it, thought it captured the mood quite well, and I do like that you've included the Who Will Die stuff in there as well...I know there'll be no official memorial service just yet, but maybe you'd consider doing one for us, the player's benefit? And by that, I mean asking us to attend and just setting it to appropriate music, etc.
S. -
Looks really good; at long long last Whedon gets a budget that he can throw down the madness with whilst doing the team ensemble thing that only really he can do. It's been a long road for him being the outsider in Hollywood, mainly being a script polisher and butting heads with studio execs.
Bet your bottom dollar if this makes big money, a few of his long-wanted-to-do projects will finally get up. And it's a great trailer, but I expected him to know how to create tension for the audience.
As for the Justice League....? Well, I think DC is putting Christopher Nolan in the back seat, if Man of Steel is anything to go by. But they are going the right route with directors so far, Zack Synder has the visual flare for a Superman film and the right sensibility, too. And he's not writing it, big plus.I'd expect any new Justice League to be built around Superman first, as the Dark Knight trilogy is considered seperate to that.
Oh, and did I mention Australia gets this in April....?
S. -
Congratulations, Melissa! Great move for you within the company. I think it's well-deserved and may it see more success for you in the future.
That being said...it's abundantly clear that Beyond Thunderdome: The MMO is in development, so I formally suggest that Australians get into the Closed Beta first so we can do QA on all the dialogue.
'It's my snake! I trained it, I'm gonna eat it!'
S. -
My deepest condolences. I lost both of my parents very quickly seven years ago now. I know there's no words or anything anyone can do.
Just know we're all thinking of you and we understand.
S. -
I think a PM to Noble Savage is justified, even if it's not necessarily answered, then. Escrima sticks aren't massively detailed, presumably wouldn't take a huge amount of work, and could be done pretty quickly. Even base model sticks to sticks with ridges and details I would presume would be quicker and easier to do than a sword such as Imperial Dynasty or a Titan Weapon.
Either way, I'm going to have a go at getting this noticed.
S. -
Hey, good to see you posting PC! (We're in the same SG, you see...) I'm glad to hear that Dual Blades would support that (so long as the sounds got a little altered). I think I might throw David Nakayama a PM expressing my desire to see this added.
Martial arts weapons, now that I think on it seem a little few and far between. Nunchuks, three-pole fighting sticks come to mind. Or are there? Maybe someone could illuminate me to the state of martial arts weapons in-game across powersets?
S. -
Oh noes! What should I do, then?
S. -
I can do worse than post it in Suggestions, I guess.
S.