Cray

@SnarlingWolf

I've heard this argument before and to be honest I don't know how you can convince yourself that spending more time doing redundant activity is a sign of skill. Time does not equal better skilled players, nor does doing redundant activities in the name of progression a sign of challenge.

Game designers first started doing RPG like progression, they didn't have the tools nor the creativity to make challenging content. Designers today are so much smarter in that they know what they can pass off as fresh and challenging content...as opposed to more the same grind. Players has foolishly labeled this as "catering to casuals". I call it streamlining and making the game more intuitive to both newcomers and veteran players to the genre.

I guarantee you GW2 which will no doubt appeal to the casuals...will indeed be just as much as challenge for a hardcore player who puts in 40 hours of gaming in a week. Why do I think that?...because the game is built around skill, not time invested doing redundant things. Calling this "catering to casuals" is massive insult to you're own gaming intellect.

PvE is not supposed to be competitive, so I don't see the point of having a leaderboard. PvE is all about cooperative play, you're all on the same side. The point of explorable dungeons is just that...to explore more dungeons. I think unique armors is more than enough reward for the effort of doing them.

@Valius This is part the problem. Your definition is one the most misused descriptions and often utilized as jab or insult. Casuals are NOT bad players, There aren't the ones who struggle to achieve the basic challenges of a game. Although most casuals start that way...simply because they haven't put enough hours into the game to exceed the general learning/achievement curve to be a successful player.

There are a lot great players who don't have a lot time to devote to gaming, these are casual players.

I think problem here is labels in MMO community has ying/yang or us vs them definition, when really you can be an elitist snob and play as much as casual player does. There's far too many variables to pigeon-hole a gamer into one label or the other.

Some games I can really kick ass, other games I'm barely surviving, but I don't play more than an hour and half a night, sometimes every other night or just 3 hours on weekends. I'm okay with being described as a casual gamer, but don't dismiss the quality of my gameplay.

Game exclusives are the WORST thing EVER for game industry. It creates a massive divide in hardware/software compatibility. It favors short-term business survival over long-term, Which is obviously more profitable. However in the long term it cost the consumer quadruple amount of money to support such exclusivity. It's just plain wrong for the consumer to pick the tab for corporate greed and failure.

Is "Titan" a working title or is that what they are going to call it? I really don't want to be bothered with Blizzard if they have nothing to show. Talk is cheap.

Funcom has a LONG way to go before they release this game.

@Omali

You read my mind! Long live Tabula Rasa!

It should be noted that the "renown hearts" are in fact dynamic events. The only difference is that there are scouts telling you where to go.

If there was way to moderate player-written books, it could be a marvelous feature. I think the only way it could work if there were some pre-written sentences to choose from a massive selection. There would be certain sentences that could not be joined together to prevent abusive innuendo. Of course all the sentences would be based on the game's themes and lore.

It would be a massive developmental project, but it would be the only way it could work.

Would love to see a game like Supreme Commander or Starcraft turned into a MMORTS. Of course for this to work, everything from resource gathering to building units and structures would have to be drastically slowed so that there isn't a snowball effect that makes the world so one sided in terms of winning at losing.

One of the more clever ways of implementing a large scale PvP is how GW2's WvW is done. Having 3 different servers battle each other certainly balances things out. There's a lot RTS strategies in terms of resource gathering and building units (siege units). I would love to see a popular RTS franchise set up a 3 server battle. It would revolutionize MMORTS and RTS markets.