Nate_is_my_fake_name's forum posts

#1 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -
@Shady1992 said:
@Nate_is_my_fake_name:  WoW has sold over 60 million copies since 2004  The vast majority of people who are willing to pay monthly for a game have already tried it; the MMO market isn't some kind of magical thing that defies the laws of other markets and the fact that they have limitations  People who quit WoW because they don't like it, will quit TOR because it is the same thing.  How many customers do you really have left?
Again, you are assuming that all people interested in an MMO still play WoW.  This is simply untrue.  Stop being a fanboy.
#2 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -
@Marokai said:
3. The Left in the US are often disgusting cowards with no backbone or willingness to fight for what they believe in. 
Coincidentally, most people who vote for the right wing and support wars are exactly the same way--they are cowards who are unwilling to back their rhetoric up.
#3 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -
@Slaker117 said:
Political discussion on the Internet always goes well.
I'm taking bets.  How many posts till Godwin?
#4 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -
@Shady1992 said:
@Matt:  Just because I think it will be a flop doesn't mean it has a 100% chance of being a flop.  I am, in fact, capable of making mistakes
You're like the Michael Pachter of video games!
#5 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -
@rebgav said:

I couldn't take the test, there weren't options which reflected my opinions on most of those issues. A bit limited.

This.
#6 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -
@Shady1992 said:
@Nate_is_my_fake_name said:
@Shady1992: What exactly is a "normal" MMO development cycle?  What about Guild Wars 2, which was announced four years ago last month?  At any rate, even if that supposed $300 million spent on the project is anywhere close to accurate, the game would need less than two million people to pay $15 a month for one year to recoup those costs.  Considering this is BioWare, Star Wars, and not Galaxies, I think this MMO has a good chance of, at the very least, breaking even.  As for the idea that it needs to "compete" with WoW to be successful, well, that is just silly.  Will it hit 12 million?  I honestly doubt it.  Will it still be a wild financial success?  I suspect it will.
A normal MMO development cycle is 4-5 years, and TOR can't be a "wild financial success" if all the potential customers stay subbed to WoW
You are assuming that TOR needs to poach its players from WoW--it doesn't.  I am a potential (almost guaranteed) TOR customer...and I have absolutely no interest in WoW.  That's like saying that there are only 12 million MMO players in the world--they all play WoW.  When a new MMO comes out, the players are drawn from this pool of customers.  No others exist.  Does it that sound absurd?  Because that is what your argument sounds like.
#7 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -
@Shady1992 said:
@aldo_q:  Announcement is irrelevant, WoW took about 5 years to make.  TOR has so far taken 6
Ah, okay.  So a "normal" MMO development cycle (from your OP) actually means "exactly how long it took for WoW to be made."  Got it.
#8 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -
@Shady1992: What exactly is a "normal" MMO development cycle?  What about Guild Wars 2, which was announced four years ago last month?
 
At any rate, even if that supposed $300 million spent on the project is anywhere close to accurate, the game would need less than two million people to pay $15 a month for one year to recoup those costs.  Considering this is BioWare, Star Wars, and not Galaxies, I think this MMO has a good chance of, at the very least, breaking even.  As for the idea that it needs to "compete" with WoW to be successful, well, that is just silly.  Will it hit 12 million?  I honestly doubt it.  Will it still be a wild financial success?  I suspect it will.
#9 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -

I sided with Roche.  While I don't like the racism that is so prevalent in the human communities in the game, I felt that it was the most logical choice:  Iorveth already attacked Geralt and was allied with the kingslayers.  Also, I was not convinced that his way was the right one--the Squirrels he led seemed just as keen on hurting innocent people as they were on fighting the establishment.  Aside from that, it seemed to make more sense to not side with the kingslayers' allies if my main goal was to clear my name...
 
Of course, I am going to play through again (loading a save right before that choice rather than going through the whole first chapter again) to see it differently.  And I will make the logical choice again:  Geralt will side with Iorveth, because he is sick and tired of being shit on for being a mutant--even a mutant that helps people.  Also, kings send people to war for their own selfish gains, so to hell with them.  I like to roleplay my characters in RPGs like this, thinking of justifications for their actions in terms of the game world rather than just "I want to replay it."

#10 Posted by Nate_is_my_fake_name (133 posts) -

I tried to get through the first game a couple times, but never finished it.  I ended up buying the Enhanced Edition Director's Cut on GoG when it was sale for $5 just to have in case I want to go back.
 
The combat in the two games is vastly different, but they are both still great games.  They both throw a lot of characters at you, I would frequently read stuff in the journal about characters I didn't remember meeting or learning that much about.  Knowing the characters in the first game should help a little, but I think TW2 does a good job of showing you what is going on, and then it becomes its own story.
 
So, should you?  Yeah, probably.  At least give it a shot.  Do you have to in order to really grasp everything?  No.  Either way, you're in for a treat in the form of some of the best RPGs of the decade.