Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) The Argumentative Git thread

I rarely have time to pop into this thread to give a decent argument or read all the posts...

But I'll say that I prefer SP over MP games unless the MP game is in a controled enviroment, like when I played goldeneye or bomberman on the SNES and N64 with my mates.

Only played Diablo 2 on SP because I wont suffer the stupidity of some of the people who play those games, cheat, kill other player characters, insult over chat...all that stuff. I'd rather just be able to predict other character behaviour or know that it has limits to its behaviour (so the char wont spontaneously decide to just rob from me or kill me).

You see, 95% of the time in an MP rpg your not dealing with someone who would 'role-play' their character, you're usually dealing with a idiots who will just do whatever enters their head at any given time! So the 'noble' paladin character you meet sees you have a good sword he wants so they just attack ya. Or they talk to over chat like "n00b yr8 prikk!! hahaha"

I dont see the attraction.

As for things like unreal tourn and quake etc....rubbish mindless crap IMO. And often the winner is the person with the better net connection.

Don't get too high thoughts of yourself... You simply wrote the shortest post, and you wrote it first. I didn't have the energy to read them all again, so I just picked you. Great four words though <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />.

Don't really have anything to say on the subject, sine the only game I've played online is Diablo II, and D2 isn't an RPG (according to me).

Übereil

I play most games SP. Diablo 2 is something of a step out of line for me. I'm replaying the new ladder season again and still enjoying it amazingly enough.

The noob idiots soon shut up when you show them you're perfectly capable of suviving in a situation where they die ten times. I used to hate them as much as you Plow but like most morons they're easily confused. Its a challenge. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

The cheaters and hackers are actually few and far between. When I see one I simply avoid them. They ususally end up quitting after 2 months anyway as all the challenge has been taken from the game for them.

Helping newbs is one of the most fulfilling things I've done. The gratitude is lacking sometimes but I reckon It must be like christmas for them sometimes. You don't get that feeling in a SP game.

Fighting another players is another fascinating thing for me. I feel my heart beating in my chest, sweat on the palms, that sort of thing. The adrenaline rush was very surprising when I first got it. Defeat is the most maddening thing imaginable but victory is soo much sweeter than killing dumb AI monsters.

Player enters game and hostiles everyone shouting "PK! PK! PK!"
I catch sight of him on the minimap, all drowsiness from another boring baalrun fades and my senses sharpen amazingly. A necromancer steps into view and starts launching bone spirits. The death toll of my unwitting companions mounts and the swearing commences. Thing is, I've got his teleport pattern down. (cheese enigma user) A simple right-click and an all-comsuming blizzard ends his little adventure. He went right into it... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ROFL.gif" alt="" />

This happened last ladder season, I made a few friends in that game that I traded and MF'd with for a long time.

This brings up another fascinating point of D2. Trading is an entirely different game. It adds another dimension to this little online world. I wish I'd found it sooner as there are so many people who will trade good stuff for a perfect gem. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

I guess its very specific for me. D2 has a fantastic online world that keeps me going back. (as with pokemon you gotta collect them all!)
NWN online-never saw the point, you can make any character you want offline and simply take it to the PW.
FPS games-I suck at them, hence I hate them. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

In short, D2 is one of the only games I've enjoyed online.
I will honestly take those experiences over any SP experience I've had but I will never pay for online gaming so in the end it will probably be just me and a few other losers until the blizzard server shuts down. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

The argument? I'm not too sure there is one here. I think software companies should always include SP and MP content in their games. If they want to make it big anyway because somewhere out there are other lunatics like me who have been cloistered up in the SP universe for too long and are dying to get out and 'pwn' the rest of the universe.

SP-like it, love it. Its still you and the computer though.
MP-When done well its phenominal, a whole new perspecive on the same game.

MP RPG's should still be made, although I think there is little doubt of this anyway...

{off-on}

Deplorable attitude that <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/suspicion.gif" alt="" />
(no offense to Barta's win, though! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />)
{off - off}

Don't worry GlanceALot. I am used to Ubereil's stupid jokes.
I already have an idea about the winner but i will give his/her name later.

Barta

Nobody has addressed the fundamental concern underlying Barta's topic: i am afraid that the single-player part of this game could be less good than in DD or BD.
Larian Studios has experience with the SP game and I am sure they will take pains to get it right. We have a nice little fan community here, and if we have MP, I'm sure we will enjoy playing together.

Correct observation Cleg...

I for myself do not share this fear at the moment, as I simply expect Larian to live up to the (high) standards they set themselves in single player mode, therefore my concern would be more whether the multi-player mode will be able to match those standards.

Even though a lot of effort will be put into MP capability, I see no reason why SP should suffer therefrom

multiplayer could be great,
espacialy if you searching for new armor and items.
the ability to craft your own weopons or do it for you,
is a nice feature.
but the main reason online rpg's isn't my thing is that you have to manny players running around you.
i hate to see a town full of players. with name tags above their heads...

But if you play a private MP session with just a few of your friends only wouldn't that be great?! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

In a lot of MP games you don't have to play in a Huge PW.
You can play a private game with just you and your friends.


Fafnir <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

That's why there should always be the option to set the number of players you want in a game. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

no one can say that will be SP (or MP anyway) campaign in DD2...

hmm... for devs MP it is probably much more fun and interesting to developp... but larians has some XP in SP, indeed... so well
for DD2, we will see...

Thanks to Fafnir, Cleglaw, GlanceALot, janggut, Plowking, Ubereil, Womble, the bean and Master Guroth for their answers.

My favourite answers :










Multi-player could be great if you can play with nice friends but it seems completely awful if you want to play with strangers on the internet.

About Divinity 2, i am sure that the larians will do their best to create an excellent game.
But to develop the multi-player part of the game, it needs time and money and i am afraid that some features of the single-player part could be cancelled due to the lack of time.

In Divine Divinity they had to cancel a large part of the end of the game or in Beyond Divinity they cancelled the Indy easter egg.
In both cases it was due to the lack of time.

[color:"yellow"]And the winner is..................






Plowking [/color]

@ Plowking

I guess you did not see that you are the winner of this contest !
Your answer was my favourite. I liked your words.
If you do not want to be the winner anyone else can choose a new topic.

Barta

Ah, THIS thread <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/exclamation.gif" alt="" />

Übereil

Plowking, since you haven't responded, here I go.

I have seen some say that people whose computers get infested with viruses deserve it for not taking adequate precautions.
On the other hand if the internet is a tool for the whole world, that includes people who are not computer savvy. They may even use some of the basic defenses, but wind up getting whomped anyway.

So is it the computer user's own fault? What steps should be taken to make the internet a more "user friendly" place?

One certainly should take reasonable precautions against the general risks of (in?) life.

- you watch right and left (or left and right, depending on where you live) before crossing a street;

- you teach your children to swim, just in case;

- you wear a parachute, when jumping off a perfectly working airplane (OK, that maybe is a less general risk <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />).

Although the fact itself is deplorable, virusses are a general, universal risk and therefor not taking any precautions could with some validity be considered unreasonable and negligent.

This risk of life is a fact of life, and taking precautions is like buying insurance - you hope you never need it; you fear, that you will need it; and you crave the money you appear to have lost when nothing happened. And only if and when something happened do you actually know whether your decision to do something was economically efficient or not. For risks of life, nobody takes away your self-responsibility for individual risk-evaluation and risk-management.

That said - what could be done in general? Why do we feel so helpless, and why does one rarely hear of a virus programmer being prosecuted and held liable?

Among other, technical issues, which I fail to understand, a global deficieniy comes to my mind.

It is the global nature of the internet itself, which provides loopholes against prosecution. There is no way to permanently ban an individual from internet access, also because of the anonymous nature of the majority of the traffic.

If I consider the internet a public domain, then programming and releasing virusses is an attack on public safety, similar to an act of terror is an attack on humanity in general, and it is pre-meditated, willful, with intent and full knowledge of the damaging consequences. It should be treated as such. Those instances should be hunted down with the same energy as any capital offence by all of society's means, and prosecuted and condemned, as a protection of public safety, which is a sovereign's duty. No civil liability suits restricted to individuals in court systems which take eons to decide and cost a fortune to the individual.

Is that realistic? Of course not.
Would that preclude future abuses? No, though it might reduce it - even though some of those programmers seem to regard it as a game of wits, and as such will always think to be more clever than the rest of the world.

A fatalistic feeling creeps up my spine. And it is this fatalism as a general attitude, which made the computer virus issue a risk of life, which has to be treated as - see above <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sad.gif" alt="" />

Thank's Barta, and sorry Cleglaw, I never seen it. I don't enter this thread very often because I'm often greeted with long sprawling posts that I don't have time to read, never mind reply to...

Never thought I'd win... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Regarding this topic about viruses - it's a lack of education in regards to a virus and the ways it can enter your system, the security settings you set on your browser, and the tactics used by spam virus emailers, that can cause those people to get infected.

If you're not aware that the zip file in the email from someone you don't know could possibly infect your computer, then it can't really be you deserved it. It's education, or lack of.


If you're never taught to look left and right crossing the road...did you deserve to be hit by that car? No.

If you have been taught to look out for viruses and don't bother using that knowledge, you only have yourself to blame, and have little right to complain about it. Not sure you deserved to get infected, but you had to expect it was going to happen...

I will open my case by saying that I know relatively little about computers. Yet I have never had a virus. Why? I exercise a little common sense. I don't share/network my hard drive directly. (If that makes any difference, I have no idea.) I don't open any third party programs or download dodgy stuff.

Most importantly, I don't look at a strange e-mail in my inbox from 'Slippery Susan' or whatever entitled 'I love you-click here for my phone number big boy' and think "Hmmmm, what a good idea! *click*"
I know very little about computers, I say again. I can spot this as a teesny-weensy bit suspicious however. Ya reckon?

Some people use computers efficiently and with good knowledge of the system. Yet they have still have no common sense and end up clicking on that attachment, opening that file or whatever.

I believe that opening up computer viruses has a lot to do with being able to spot when someone is trying to pull a fast one. Not how competent you are at operating the machine.
For example, you can be one of the best drivers in tha world but if you park your ferrari in a back street and forget to lock it I guarantee it'll be gone in 30 seconds.

Don't be a moron, don't open that e-mail, lock your car, don't get too drunk and fall asleep on the train home, missing your stop..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" />

The reason why none of the creators of virus programs are ever seen prosecuted is because their Government of origin, after tracking them down, hires them as Government employees.


Kyra_Ny <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" />

Even if you exercise common sense, the bad boys are setting traps. Here are some examples.

"How bad is this problem? How much junk can get installed on a user's PC by merely visiting a single site? I set out to see for myself -- by visiting a single web page taking advantage of a security hole (in an ordinary fresh copy of Windows XP), and by recording what programs that site caused to be installed on my PC. In the course of my testing, my test PC was brought to a virtual stand-still -- with at least 16 distinct programs installed. I was not shown licenses or other installation prompts for any of these programs, and I certainly didn't consent to their installation on my PC."
from
http://www.benedelman.org/news/111804-1.html

I never liked the look of AOL.
"America Online began offering games along with the latest version of its instant messenger, and now some customers are worried that the company is playing with them, too.
People who use AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) have started complaining on AOL message boards and publications such as BroadbandReports.com after software bundled with AIM 5.5 began showing up in "spyware" scans. The popular chat application includes games from WildTangent, which has a tool that reports back to the company every time someone uses its products."
from
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020375,39148016,00.htm

Who can you trust?
"Yahoo's new browser toolbar is advertised to clean out adware and spyware from the user's PC and from the sound of it is a good tool to rely on. Not so, says eWeek, whose Matt Hicks notices that Yahoo excludes by default two popular adware/spyware applications - Claria (ex-Gator) and WhenU.com - Claria has commercial bonding with Yahoo! Inc."
from
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?...p;tid=158&tid=111&tid=17