Don't say that!! *whine* The possibilities with the Stargate concept made me have so much hope!Originally Posted by 'puppychow',index.php?page=Thread&postID=179665#po st179665
But on topic, I don't think games should be designed around boxers, just like I don't think games should be designed around, say collecting stupid friggin pets and "points" for going through content at 80 that you should have done at 10. I think game companies need to stop sniffing around the butts of what they think worked and start getting innovative on their own. These game companies have no idea what makes games succeed anymore. For starters, a working game at release would be nice {Vanguard, I'm looking at you}. A game that feels like an MMO and not just a single-player RPG with a chatroom {I see you over there, AOC}.
Jumping on the multi-boxing bandwagon as a way to market games is about as brilliant an idea as saying "It's got elves and dragons and Asain chicks play it!!" and expecting that to sell you a couple million copies. While I am very unlikely to play a game that I can't multi-box, I still might if the game is good enough. On the other hand, I'm not gonna pay $50 x 3, 4, 5 or more to play a game that sucks just because they love boxers and give us free toys or something.
Whoever said that they should not waste thier time/resources on developing for multi-boxers was right. They should worry about developing a good game instead of sticking all the latest fads into one big messy box. Show me a good game first. If they're smart, they don't outright prevent boxing and all you smart people here can figure out how to make it work. If they're real smart, they work with us later by doing things like making auto-follow smoother or their macro system neater and saying "Hey, Multiboxing, but not botting, is cool with us, stop bugging them!" And no, I don't give enough credit for most people to know the difference between us and bots yet. I won't play a game that can't make the distintion.
Connect With Us