Something went wrong. Try again later

Patchinko

This user has not updated recently.

885 509 23 19
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Patchinko's forum posts

Avatar image for patchinko
Patchinko

885

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

#1  Edited By Patchinko
BiggerBomb said:
"

Ok, let me set the stage here. I've been clean from World of Warcraft for a long time, in fact it's been about a year and a half now. But now, I don't know. I'm feeling compelled to get back into the game, I hear a lot of people are too. Props to Blizzard, they know how to market and they know how to make games.

There are a few things I've remained hesitant about, though. One of them being the increased leveling speed. To some degree I have felt that this somehow cheapens the experience; however, now that I have much less time to play video games, I've warmed up to this idea and I'm glad of it.

On the otherhand, what I believe to be the meaning behind dualspecs is making me nervous. The impression I got, was an ability to swap talent trees on the fly. What's the point? I feel like this is a decision that SOE would make, akin to making jedi available for everyone. What exactly is the reason for this? Doesn't this make customization almost negligible? Perhaps I'm misinformed, but this is a major "no-no" for me in my decision process.

Could someone fill me in on how this works? Why make a feral Druid when you can just swap to restoration or balance on the fly?

Meh, hopefully I'm wrong here.

Anyway, help's always appreciated

-Big B

"
Dual speccing means you bring the player, not the class/spec. You can switch to your other spec the same way you switch armor (i.e. not mid-fight, but out of combat).

There are a lot of people whining about it, which I have trouble understanding. Now, instead of being restricted to a very defined role, you can fill whatever role you'd be best doing for the situation. And honestly, a lot of people were already "dual speccing" in the form of respeccing for raiding and PVP all the time. If anything, it would make me want to be a Druid because then I could be a damage dealer or tank when the group needs it and alternatively a healer when it's needed.

The other thing you might not know is that they've been redesigning stats on gear to accomodate dual specs. That's why there's no "healing power" anymore, for example. And why there will be druid weapons with spellpower and "feral attack power" on them (which they're probably going to change to something that makes more sense in the future, but you get the idea).

This would be tons of fun on my Priest, where I can have a Shadow spec and a Holy spec.

Slightly unrelated, but: You think restricting Jedi to .01% of the playerbase was a good idea? I certainly didn't think so, and as soon as I found out I pretty much couldn't become a Jedi in that game I didn't bother to play it.
Avatar image for patchinko
Patchinko

885

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

#2  Edited By Patchinko
FoxMulder said:
"well that is a big F-you to all of us who own a PS3 version of the game.  We payed for the same game the other consoles got, so why the hell do we get screwed over?"

Because Microsoft delivered a dump truck full of money to Bethesda to ensure it wouldn't be on PS3.
Avatar image for patchinko
Patchinko

885

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

#3  Edited By Patchinko

After Oblivion, there was no way I was playing this on anything but PC anyway.

DLC and community-driven content FTW! :)

Avatar image for patchinko
Patchinko

885

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

#4  Edited By Patchinko
jakob187 said:
"Well well well...WoW looks a lot more like Warhammer now!!!"
They improved the graphics in WoW?

Can't wait to log in and stare at my horrible 51-point talents.
Avatar image for patchinko
Patchinko

885

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

#5  Edited By Patchinko

The calculator is badass.

The 9/11 thing is unoriginal and unfunny.

Avatar image for patchinko
Patchinko

885

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

#6  Edited By Patchinko
You pinkos better hide!!!
You pinkos better hide!!!
Avatar image for patchinko
Patchinko

885

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

#7  Edited By Patchinko
MattBodega said:
"Giant Bomb is a third party website that commented on the story. Ryan Davis remarked that "Microsoft and Ensemble have yet to comment on the authenticity of the shots, and the sourcing is a little sketchy, but all of the shots are highly evocative of the Halo aesthetic even when they're not canonical, and the sheer volume of concept art and mock-ups suggests they're legit."
If the guys upstairs think the project was legit, then I imagine their + 32 years of gaming coverage means it legit.
So a rumor of an unannounced game may be legit. Should it be on the site?
I see MB's and Breton's point and, more specifically, their fear. Lord knows I don't want Giant Bomb turning into a rumor encyclopedia.  But I'd don't want to ignore important projects, projects that are vital in the documentation of the medium, to be lost because they were no't officially announced.
Also, no need to be so hostile MB. If I came across as rude in my earlier comment, I apologize, but there is no need to turn the heat up in the forum."
Well said,  and I can see their point also. I completely agree about COD6, for example.

But in this case, this isn't just a "rumor". Those aren't "fan art". The team that was developing this game existed. The game existed, albeit in early infancy. If a new classification for pages needs to be made to make room for relevant information on the Wiki, by all means make it. But stifling the content of the site by being that rigid is only reducing the value of the site all together.

breton
said:
"Patchinko said:
"What is the resistance to making this a wiki of all things videogame?
Again. Write about the rumor in the franchise page. I'd rather GiantBomb being a credible source than a "shit anything onto this site" site.
"
Dude, if you can't take the time to even read the entire post you're responding to, what makes you think someone will want to have a discussion with you? Stop cherry-picking posts.
Avatar image for patchinko
Patchinko

885

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

#8  Edited By Patchinko
MB said:
"MattBodega said:
"The same Gamasutra article you mentioned earlier is titled Ensemble Canceled Project was Halo MMO. That sounds like a cancellation to me."

Are you being serious?  That's a third-party website which can hardly be taken as confirmation of a game's existence or cancellation."
And these concepts were all fan art?

What is the resistance to making this a wiki of all things videogame? Answer me that one, seriously. Even were this a rumor (which it wasn't), with the heaps of concept art and evidence, you don't feel that justifies it having a page? You want people to go to other sites for that information?
Avatar image for patchinko
Patchinko

885

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

#9  Edited By Patchinko
breton said:
"Patchinko said:
"I mean, Starcraft: Ghost's page existing and having a great deal of info in it isn't precedent enough for keeping this page for you? Or do you think Starcraft: Ghost's page should be deleted?
Starcraft: Ghost was officially announced, and officially canceled."
Patchinko said:
"(Correct answer on that, by the way, would probably be "They aren't comparable" because Starcraft: Ghost was even playable at E3 before it got canned. But the comparison is closer than the comparison between this and COD6.)"

Don't pull that same "convenient quoting" bullshit you were pulling in other threads yesterday, breton. I covered my ass there.

This game wasn't a "rumor". And if there were a scrapped project called "Barbie Horse Adventures MMO" with concept art linked from the developer of it and a great deal of evidence that it existed, why shouldn't it exist? The only reason I can fathom is because you don't want this to be a Wiki of all things videogame.
Avatar image for patchinko
Patchinko

885

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

#10  Edited By Patchinko
Lies said:
"MB said:
"Patchinko said:
"The usefulness of a Wiki is reduced when entries are removed needlessly.

That page should exist and should have more information in it, particularly about how it was a secret project that was in development until Ensemble was shut down, and how images of it were available on an online artist's portfolio page linked from Ensemble itself.

There isinformation about this out there. If this is truly a Wiki of all things videogame, this should have a page.

I'm not sure why you people think limiting the relevant information in this database is a good thing. If you think this site shouldn't be a place to look up things like the failed "Halo MMO" project for information about it, you're truly limiting the scope of this site and, as I said earlier, reducing its usefulness."
Do you think there should be a page for Infinity Ward's next Call of Duty game?"
That's not a valid comparison MB. There is no information period about COD6, except the assumption that it is probably coming. With the HALO MMO, we know it was under development at Ensemble before it shut down, we have concept art and UI mockups, and some small dev leaks. The comparison to COD6 just doesn't really hold."
Yeah, his argument is that he doesn't believe the screenshots or evidence for the project present in the article (and numerous others). Given the plethora of information and evidence about this, I can't agree with him on it.

A gallery of images/concept art for the game.

This is utterly different from the COD6 page.

And if you want to be a stickler about what Jeff says, just ask him if it should be deleted. Making the blanket, "This is a good example of a Wiki entry that shouldn't exist" statement when you don't know if it should or shouldn't exist is wrong of you, especially with that little "Moderator" tag under your name. Your OPINION is that it shouldn't exist. I don't see an official statement from the horse's mouth here.

Just as an example: Pages that shouldn't exist based on that precedent set by Jeff would include Final Fantasy XV, Metal Gear Solid 5, an NBA Jams remake. You must be able to see how these examples are completely different from a game project that we know for a fact existed, that there are screenshots and concept art from, no? I mean, Starcraft: Ghost's page existing and having a great deal of info in it isn't precedent enough for keeping this page for you? Or do you think Starcraft: Ghost's page should be deleted?

(Correct answer on that, by the way, would probably be "They aren't comparable" because Starcraft: Ghost was even playable at E3 before it got canned. But the comparison is closer than the comparison between this and COD6.)