Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Twowolves" data-source="post: 3426815" data-attributes="member: 18093">Well, let's see, a PS2 was what, $250? A PS3 is around $600? Sounds like more than a brand new, better than average PC to me. Didn't say a word about multiple systems. I haven't had a "new" computer in almost 10 years. I have parts in my current system that I've had for at least that long. Upgrading last year to a top of the line (at the time) video card was less than $250. A 512 RAM chip is around $100. Hard drives are now less than $1/Gig if you shop around. It sounds like you don't know enough about computers to be able to inexpensively upgrade, which is fine. But it certainly doesn't hold true in general that keeping a PC able to run the current top of the line video games costs any more than keeping current with the consoles. I'll grant you, releasing games too early and letting the consumer be the "Beta-2" playtesters is killing the market. Sure you can download patches for free and fix about 90% of the bugs, but in the past few years, waaaaaay too many games are released with waaaaay too many bugs. It's a problem.Now, as for your particular machine, it sounds like if you can't run games on it that you once were able to, it's a problem with your particular machine. I can still run all of the games you mentioned and more on mine, I can assure you, and my main hard drive is about 12 years old. You could probably fix all your main complaints with $100 and a trip to best buy or comp USA. Again, your example won't hold true for everyone when comparing PCs vs consoles.The original UO was so messed up, I wouldn't trust the design team to make any new game worthwhile. Part of the reason EQI was so successful was it learned what NOT to do from EA. Vanguard is radically different from other MMORPGs I've seen (not that I've played it, but from talking to people), in that it's gameplay is not completely centered around combat and "rat hunting". I actually liked a lot of SW Galaxies, but they threw everything away to make "Diablo in space", so I wouldn't give SONY much credit for designing games anymore. EQ2 is supposed to be basically the same as EQ with lots of gameplay upgrades, but by then, WoW had come along and changed everything (no rat hunting!). Plus there are still a lot of people who still play EQ1, so they split their own market. So, what, specifically, is wrong with DDO, in your opinion? Frankly, I absolutely LOVED Temple of Elemental Evil, bugs and all. By the time I got the game (for $10, no less), not only had private individuals fixed most of the bugs, they had banded together to add content to the game, unraveled code, and added in more gameplay features (beyond bug fixes and new quests). Even though it was a prime example of how game companies are screwing over their own fans by releasing buggy as hell programs, the fixed game was a lot of fun! It's a shame they shot themselves in the foot with that one, because the system once hammered out could have been used for many, many sequels.So, what's wrong with DDO? What is it doing to drive away D&D fans, or not doing to lure them? How is it designed so poorly as to be deemed a failure?</blockquote>

Verification