So come this June Paris will be hosting Blizzard Entertainment. The big question is will they show that could top StarCraft II, I have read rumors about a M.M.O. in the works like everyone else. Though I think it would be a big mistake for Blizzard to go for a Diablo style M.M.O.
With the Diablo world they would have to invent a reason for PVP. Since every charter fights for the same reason and with the same guide. It would make for a fun PVE game, though time and time again PVP helps boost sales and lines the pockets of companies. So the game would not even make sense from a financial position. Granted I am not saying you can not have a successful game without PVP, but you would be ostracizing a large group of players. Or they would have to spend a lot of time creating a faction that you could go toe to toe against.
Another reason why to pass on a Diablo M.M.O is that as much as I love the medieval setting at the present time we have to much saturation. With WOW, Everquest one and two, Vanguard, lord of the rings and in a little while Warhammer online. Just to rattle a few titles off the top of my head. But you might be saying to yourself, they already have space M.M.O's out as well. That's true but, there is yet one made with the user friendly and mass fan base as WOW. I think this is the shot in the arm that the sci-fi genre needs.
Plus with battle.net fans of the series can already go online and group up and the devil itself. Now I'm not saying a Diablo M.M.O. would not be fun I am just saying for the time being a StarCraft M.M.O. would be the better bet.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Rock band DLC
So far from what I have been reading I am pretty pleased with what is out. Now with full albums coming out like Who's next and Nevermind this is just continuing to show why Harmonix are the kings of their craft. The great thing is this gives the player a better chance in playing a song they like from the band. I don' know about you but the radio hit is not always my favorite track on the album. Yet, not only has Harmonix put in the time and effort to try to get the most diverse set they can, with MTV's large catalogue.
They have proven once again for a third time that the little things like the evolution of the fert board design and having the animations match in sync to the music that is playing are nice touches. Plus with promised music to be continually added, I see little reason in not picking this up.
Though on a side note I hope they will release rock versions of classical songs. Just think, head banging to Beethoven's 5th's or igniting the liters at the tail end of Pachelbel's canon.
They have proven once again for a third time that the little things like the evolution of the fert board design and having the animations match in sync to the music that is playing are nice touches. Plus with promised music to be continually added, I see little reason in not picking this up.
Though on a side note I hope they will release rock versions of classical songs. Just think, head banging to Beethoven's 5th's or igniting the liters at the tail end of Pachelbel's canon.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Bioshock getting the MMO treatment?
A lot of sites are talking about Bioshock maybe becoming a M.M.O. I'm not sure how I feel about this. The game overall I think works very well as a single player but I'm not sure if or how they would do a class system? Since everyone can be a mage and a tank and non magical ranged dps, how do you create and limit the current abilities available to the player already?
Unless of course you get rid of the traditional class system, this could be very interesting to see if people by nature will find ways to create their own class. My hope is that with a open class system people will not so pigeon holed like in other mmo's.
I think one of the biggest challenges will be is how to keep the game feeling like you are closed in but having a large area to explore. One thing I think that could be done to keep the area from being overrun with players is to have the game instanced, or another thing that could be done is to have pre-requirements to entering certain zones. This could be done with keys, trinkets or randomly generated codes that you would have to enter into locks.
Another task to tackle are the endgame items. Traditionally this is done with gear, rings or weapons. Yet I don't know if any of these items would be that interesting to the player. The first thought is unlocking more of the story to learn more about the world and have zones unlock with a phrase that you hear or read in a text log.
But knowing this is just a rant from a random guy online, I am confident that whatever they end up doing, will be worthy of fifteen bucks a month.
Unless of course you get rid of the traditional class system, this could be very interesting to see if people by nature will find ways to create their own class. My hope is that with a open class system people will not so pigeon holed like in other mmo's.
I think one of the biggest challenges will be is how to keep the game feeling like you are closed in but having a large area to explore. One thing I think that could be done to keep the area from being overrun with players is to have the game instanced, or another thing that could be done is to have pre-requirements to entering certain zones. This could be done with keys, trinkets or randomly generated codes that you would have to enter into locks.
Another task to tackle are the endgame items. Traditionally this is done with gear, rings or weapons. Yet I don't know if any of these items would be that interesting to the player. The first thought is unlocking more of the story to learn more about the world and have zones unlock with a phrase that you hear or read in a text log.
But knowing this is just a rant from a random guy online, I am confident that whatever they end up doing, will be worthy of fifteen bucks a month.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Should Government contol/deal with zealots?
It's no secret that religious zealots have, and will always have more power than any government. Their followers know no borders and are not concerned with public opinion. They are ruled by absolutes and unshakable faith. Though in recent years they have become interested in western politics. Either because of relaxed faith or marching orders, though I suppose in either case it doesn't matter why.
In times of peace they groups and their leaders are of little importance. A small percentage of a needed vote at best. Though in times of war I believe they can become very useful. They can either be used to pacify the masses, or enrage them to fight for you. With that said I think those in power should deal with them. Now how this is done could interesting.
One of the many things you should consider is whether you should deal with home grown zealots. In America this would be any of the Christian sects, or one of the middle east ones. Though you should keep in mind it's all the same deity, the difference is only interpretation.
Granted either way has it's advantages and disadvantages. So if your goal is to tighten the grasp of power at the main base then this would be a better choice. Yet if you choose do deal with your enemies dominant or most fanatical zealots you could get a two for one victory. I'll explain, the first advantage is very obvious; if you can buy the hearts and minds of the fanatics or at least their leaders you can control the message. This is the key to power, once you have them they can do your dirty work. This frees your hands from public out cry because as far as they know a unstable region has just taken the natural course of coming undone.
Also this will put the publics largest fear to rest, forced service. If you can keep the idea of forced service out of their collective minds, you will not have the Vietnam effect. In the united states this is a ever prevalent thought in the minds of those that appose war; or service to their country. Once the public no longer fears getting it's hands dirty or to sacrifice beyond lip service you can begin to close your grasp tighter around the necks of the average American.
Keep most things in the public. Allow "news" organizations to broadcast what is going on. Go a step farther and send them into harms way. Never hide major things, do not let your opponents to create a nineteen eighty-four romantic vision of big brother. If at all possible make the figure head someone most people like or at least think they are smarter than. This dispels tension and takes away any wind in the oppositions sail. Plus allowing "free press" to constantly show what is happening brings a sense of normalcy. Once this has set in you have won a major battle with your own people.
The last great advantage dealing with Zealots can have is that for a time you are in control of the bogyman. Yet you should never become relaxed, Zealots if nothing else are volitile and extremely dangerous. They will turn on you if they believe you are either not true to the cause or if they can get a better deal some where else. So remember that no matter how long your deal is with them, you will one day have to deal with them. Granted a smart leader will find ways to take their power away over time. This can be done by finding a new group or by slowly moving funds away from them. Once this is accomplished you can begin to wash your hands clean. Then you can move on to your next great desire.
So with all this said what should you think? Is the world back and white, or do sometimes the ends justify the means? This not something I can tell you. It is up to you to think for yourself.
In times of peace they groups and their leaders are of little importance. A small percentage of a needed vote at best. Though in times of war I believe they can become very useful. They can either be used to pacify the masses, or enrage them to fight for you. With that said I think those in power should deal with them. Now how this is done could interesting.
One of the many things you should consider is whether you should deal with home grown zealots. In America this would be any of the Christian sects, or one of the middle east ones. Though you should keep in mind it's all the same deity, the difference is only interpretation.
Granted either way has it's advantages and disadvantages. So if your goal is to tighten the grasp of power at the main base then this would be a better choice. Yet if you choose do deal with your enemies dominant or most fanatical zealots you could get a two for one victory. I'll explain, the first advantage is very obvious; if you can buy the hearts and minds of the fanatics or at least their leaders you can control the message. This is the key to power, once you have them they can do your dirty work. This frees your hands from public out cry because as far as they know a unstable region has just taken the natural course of coming undone.
Also this will put the publics largest fear to rest, forced service. If you can keep the idea of forced service out of their collective minds, you will not have the Vietnam effect. In the united states this is a ever prevalent thought in the minds of those that appose war; or service to their country. Once the public no longer fears getting it's hands dirty or to sacrifice beyond lip service you can begin to close your grasp tighter around the necks of the average American.
Keep most things in the public. Allow "news" organizations to broadcast what is going on. Go a step farther and send them into harms way. Never hide major things, do not let your opponents to create a nineteen eighty-four romantic vision of big brother. If at all possible make the figure head someone most people like or at least think they are smarter than. This dispels tension and takes away any wind in the oppositions sail. Plus allowing "free press" to constantly show what is happening brings a sense of normalcy. Once this has set in you have won a major battle with your own people.
The last great advantage dealing with Zealots can have is that for a time you are in control of the bogyman. Yet you should never become relaxed, Zealots if nothing else are volitile and extremely dangerous. They will turn on you if they believe you are either not true to the cause or if they can get a better deal some where else. So remember that no matter how long your deal is with them, you will one day have to deal with them. Granted a smart leader will find ways to take their power away over time. This can be done by finding a new group or by slowly moving funds away from them. Once this is accomplished you can begin to wash your hands clean. Then you can move on to your next great desire.
So with all this said what should you think? Is the world back and white, or do sometimes the ends justify the means? This not something I can tell you. It is up to you to think for yourself.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
They hate our freedoms!?
"They hate our freedoms," these are the words that president George W. Bush uttered to the public on a tragic day. Of course we later learned that it was not so much our freedoms they hated but a foolish foreign policy that goes back to former President Ronald Regan.
Though to be fair he did say we would not deal with terrorist....Anyway. I know the American public on the whole can tell when the wool has been pulled over their eyes. Though it may take a little while.
I think one of the major problems we are facing is the exact same one we faced in Vietnam, granted this now seems cliche to say. Yet one of the main differences is how long the struggle has been going on. In thew middle east Israel had gained statehood in the 40's; the problem was that the U.N. had handed over half of Palestine's land. So for most I believe that most of us likely know this.
But back to my original point. To say that they hate our freedoms is preposterous to say the least. It is also insulting to the American publics intelligence. No this is a issue that has been a thorn in the middle east's side now for over, fifty years. Tee major issue is that we even got in-tangled in this in the first place. Once again non-intervention would have saved a lot of Americans.
Though to be fair he did say we would not deal with terrorist....Anyway. I know the American public on the whole can tell when the wool has been pulled over their eyes. Though it may take a little while.
I think one of the major problems we are facing is the exact same one we faced in Vietnam, granted this now seems cliche to say. Yet one of the main differences is how long the struggle has been going on. In thew middle east Israel had gained statehood in the 40's; the problem was that the U.N. had handed over half of Palestine's land. So for most I believe that most of us likely know this.
But back to my original point. To say that they hate our freedoms is preposterous to say the least. It is also insulting to the American publics intelligence. No this is a issue that has been a thorn in the middle east's side now for over, fifty years. Tee major issue is that we even got in-tangled in this in the first place. Once again non-intervention would have saved a lot of Americans.
Thoughts on ending American debet
It is no secret that the U.S. is broke. I do not believe that there is a easy answer to united States money problem. A lot of things where promised to the public, one of which was that Iraqi would bank role the U.S. with cheap fuel. Another was that we would have the world behind us to take some of the burden of our shoulders. On the eve of over four thousand dead service members and to be honest I no longer know what the best guess is on the civilian count is, I can have come to only one conclusion.
I believe that we take the radical stance and have the armed forces only be used in instances of national defense. So yes that means taking troops out of Iraqi and Afghanistan, in the case of Afghanistan we should get Interpol, CIA and what other agencies will join the cause. It is common knowledge that no matter how well trained the army is, and they are. The Army is not meant for policing and nation building. Like I said earlier Interpol is the police and organizations like the peace corps are better trained for nation building.
Now, back to the military I have been hearing for a while now one of the most feared words in the English language, the word is draft. Will we or wont we, well with being spread as thin as they are and being forced to stay with stop loss orders something must give. I like you do not like the idea of forced service, not just because it bring s up visions of Vietnam but it dose not work. People forced to serve will not be affective to American security.
So what do we do to keep this from happening? Well I think the easy answer is we bring them home. This is far from a revolutionary idea I know. Though I believe we should only have minimal troops in places that we are contractually obligated to have. A example is South-east Asia more to the point Japan. This should in my opinion make both sides happy. We are no longer the police of the world and we still have a voluntary armed forces. I have heard arguments about a obligation to help the world because we are a prosperous nation. I think this is very noble and I think you are a very brave individual to go and fight on foreign soil. I wish you the best of luck and I hope your new nation will provide you with the best training you can receive.
Before I am written off I would just like to say; the United States is falling apart. Dams are failing, roads and bridges are crumbling and with all the money we have spent for two wars this nation could have had universal health care if it so chose. Or they could have sent a great deal of kids to college, or better yet funded stem cell research and brought the U.S. back to the for front of disease curing.
I believe that we take the radical stance and have the armed forces only be used in instances of national defense. So yes that means taking troops out of Iraqi and Afghanistan, in the case of Afghanistan we should get Interpol, CIA and what other agencies will join the cause. It is common knowledge that no matter how well trained the army is, and they are. The Army is not meant for policing and nation building. Like I said earlier Interpol is the police and organizations like the peace corps are better trained for nation building.
Now, back to the military I have been hearing for a while now one of the most feared words in the English language, the word is draft. Will we or wont we, well with being spread as thin as they are and being forced to stay with stop loss orders something must give. I like you do not like the idea of forced service, not just because it bring s up visions of Vietnam but it dose not work. People forced to serve will not be affective to American security.
So what do we do to keep this from happening? Well I think the easy answer is we bring them home. This is far from a revolutionary idea I know. Though I believe we should only have minimal troops in places that we are contractually obligated to have. A example is South-east Asia more to the point Japan. This should in my opinion make both sides happy. We are no longer the police of the world and we still have a voluntary armed forces. I have heard arguments about a obligation to help the world because we are a prosperous nation. I think this is very noble and I think you are a very brave individual to go and fight on foreign soil. I wish you the best of luck and I hope your new nation will provide you with the best training you can receive.
Before I am written off I would just like to say; the United States is falling apart. Dams are failing, roads and bridges are crumbling and with all the money we have spent for two wars this nation could have had universal health care if it so chose. Or they could have sent a great deal of kids to college, or better yet funded stem cell research and brought the U.S. back to the for front of disease curing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
