Disqus - Latest Comments for Shamutanti

Re: Hanging onto life.

Shamutanti — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 09:06:43 -0000

Get me in a guild and I will :P

Re: Heartlessgamer.com Giveaway: Allods Online Beta Keys

Shamutanti — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 22:03:47 -0000

"Turns out my key from heartless did work but I was using the wrong client.

I'm from the EU and was trying to access the EU CB with my beta key, but it was a US key. The beta key Keen will have is probably a US one so you need to download the US client.

Note: It's an absolute fucker to get working properly. Took me all night with multiple restarts, launcher redownloads, renames and repatches to get working."

Quoted myself from Keen's forum. Not used the second key so feel free to attach it to someone else. Allods does now work but am playing US side.

Re: Heartlessgamer.com Giveaway: Allods Online Beta Keys

Shamutanti — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:58:19 -0000

Didn't work matey. Says it's not valid. Disappointed :p

Re: Heartlessgamer.com Giveaway: Allods Online Beta Keys

Shamutanti — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:11:20 -0000

Not after a closed beta key myself - don't wanna burn myself out anymore on games before they're released but any idea when the open beta is likely to pop up? The game looks quite interesting from a free mmog point of view.

Re: feedback

Shamutanti — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:47:19 -0000

Rory here, I'll take a look through some themes when I get some free time and see what I can find that fits or is similar to your current theme.

Re: breakdown - Mintys Comedian Of The Month September 2007 -...

Shamutanti — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:16:35 -0000

Tester.

Re: Would you be interested in…..

Shamutanti — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:28:39 -0000

Considering I use tumblr already I couldn't see a problem with me popping some things into this, although I can't guarantee they'll be swear-word free =x

Re: Vanguard: the return.

Shamutanti — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:18:19 -0000

Test?

Re: Vanguard: the return.

Shamutanti — Sun, 31 May 2009 18:14:54 -0000

Well there really was a whole bunch of players on the isle, all of different classes and races, which was awesome to see and experience - I missed that the last two times I dipped into Vanguard and if there is a decent number of returning or starting a-new players I'll be chuffed and probably keep on playing through the month.

And c'mon Huddie, not all WoW players are bad. My first pay to play mmorpg was WoW and I'm as elite skilled at they come :>

Re: bosh bosh huddie

Shamutanti — Wed, 20 May 2009 11:49:22 -0000

Constantly recruiting and retaining new people though is why Games Workshop is still alive and expanding. Now I'm not saying that Blizzards mentality is shaft the older players because they know what they're doing but they're trying to accommodate towards those newer or 'less capable' within the game to keep their game's retention levels alive, and two expansions in it's working.

Re: Gender and Sexuality in Virtual Worlds

Shamutanti — Fri, 01 May 2009 19:45:38 -0000

The TOS is there to stop you insulting/harassing people, not to stop you hurting someone's feelings.

If someone can not get into a group, their feelings might be hurt because of this but the game doesn't care for it, the people in question didn't break any terms of service and the mechanics in place weren't broken because of it.

Re: Gender and Sexuality in Virtual Worlds

Shamutanti — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:56:06 -0000

See personally I log onto Second Life for reasons other than to game. It is about the social interaction because not only is that what drives it on forward but also because that is what it was designed/built for. You mention how you like to play 'within it', rather than play with it. That's an important line you need to decide upon.

World of Warcraft was designed and used by all as a game first. The majority of people would of bought World of Warcraft first to play and second to interact, socialize, etc. and that's what it comes down to. Even the generation of character, class, role, purpose within the world, etc. all focus around game concepts.

And the answer to your question is Yes, it does matter, because the divide between the two may appear fine but is actually quite wide because of the personal intentions of a person within the game when aligned with what something was designed for and what it actually allows within that space. A game does allow you to disregard feelings, emotions and personal thoughts whilst an online simulation, a platform for chat and interaction can not survive without it. In a basic example, Wizard101 survives without the need for interaction between other people, whilst Second Life would not.

In terms of avatars, they are what they are, which is partly the issue, because they can be anything and require/need nothing else from anyone else within a game, whilst they are required and are needed within a simulator.

They can and often do form a representation of ones self (although this is not always a true representation, like I stated before) within that setting even if that is not the intention or true purpose because of the situation, such as if you appear in Second Life as a female it says more to others around you than you appearing in World of Warcraft as an elf, but this is again because the avatar is the generation of resources to others within a simulator rather than the tool to access the resources available within a game and so an avatar's purpose and role forms a different meaning to the situation.

Now where as I agree there should be a larger umbrella of acceptable towards people within the world because they're of a. b. or c., you have to take into account that it's not required, nor needed, and thus that is why we have the current situations within and revolving around games and simulators.

I've had another few reads through your post and Tobolds though and the main problem in my eyes is that Tobold doesn't make his stance particularly clear. He seems to 'bounce' between his examples and his clarifications and I think that's why you've picked up on one thing, I another, etc. Truth be told, if you're going to discuss or talk about a subject like gender, identity or sexuality (and I'm not stating this in a lecturing way towards you Cuppy, this is if anything a telling off to Tobold), you need to be pretty clear with your thoughts, your intentions and your meanings, otherwise it becomes hard to transcribe into anothers mind and thus can lead to all sorts of derailments or misinterpretations.

Re: Gender and Sexuality in Virtual Worlds

Shamutanti — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:57:36 -0000

Well in my mind they are separate in what they are, one being a game with rules of play, fashioned lines of conduct and ways of engaging yourself within that game because of that which is imposed upon you and the other, a platform designed for socialization, development, creativity and self expression which breaks borders to expand itself. World of Warcraft doesn't truly allow you any of those things because it follows the lines of a game.

Games and Simulators, Worlds and Platforms. These are terms we put onto something to clarify what it is in a general sense, but unless that which we label can meet up to those labels it is not -that-. An MSN chatroom isn't game, no matter which way you make look at it because it embodies everything about it of a platform for socialization and a simulation of conversation and limted emoticon action.

In terms of the avatar though I am thinking first and foremost of myself, because I am engaging within a game to 'play'. Upon logging onto the world with a character, an avatar upon which I wish to use and interact with the world so I can development it further along the lines of status/storyline, I am deciding not that I wish it to represent me but that it will bring something along the lines of fun for myself as a person. We don't initially join games by ignoring that other wise we would not engage with MMORPGs but instead sit around Chatrooms, message boards or Sim worlds.

So again the avatar does not represent me or anyone else, because what they may portray might be false. In terms of acknowledgment, my choice to ignore someone is valid because their engagement is not required on a basic level within a game. Now we have rules in place to disallow anything 'bad' to occur to those of who might be easily offended but that does mean we engage with them, it simply means we can not abuse their play time or facilitate in the coordination of their playtime becoming 'corrupted'. We are directed, streamlined, controlled to some fashion to allow the generation of play to continue, where as again, within simulator based platforms that notion can (and has) be ignored.

MMO - Massive Multiplayer Online. We use that tag alot but we don't put another letter in front. On its own it means nothing. People log into MMOGs to play, because it is a game and that is its direct purpose. Anything else that comes of that is a secondary function and not a primary aim.

Re: Gender and Sexuality in Virtual Worlds

Shamutanti — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:29:42 -0000

An avatar is a representation of ones self because we choose it to be or because it simply 'is'? Personally, it's a choice we make, an initial decision to place ones self onto a label to be read. This label could be false or true, thus to state it's a representation of ones personal self is not 100% correct.

Just because there are people behind these avatars, with thoughts and feelings, does not mean we need to acknowledge them and this is for one simple reason: The definitive reason people play a sim is to interact whilst those that play a game, are there for the play. Second Life is a simulation of, whilst World of Warcraft is a game for. I wouldn't go as far to agree that Second Life users are ahead of MMORPGers, but instead have a diff retrospec on the situation because they interact, use and coordinate themselves within the worlds for far different reasons. Most MMO players will regard a game as a game and thus consider themselves first with gains, benefits and so forth because that is the nature of one engaging within 'play', yet that is not one's main objective within a simulator, which instead focuses upon the 'other' rather than ones 'self'.

You're reading into the article with the wrong light in my eyes - but then it appears you perceive online gaming worlds, note, gaming spaces, not virtual platforms, as something other than they are in their most basic forms.

Re: Flying Fast!

Shamutanti — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:10:11 -0000

The full nobles deck on my server sells for 14k. Just to let you know about it :)

You can probably make a small fortune if you get the right cards together.

Re: humour me.

Shamutanti — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:18:15 -0000

Well I've always tended to find that the JRPGs, for me at least, have alot more variety of game play and a bit more challenge in their mechanics of play, at least when it comes to getting the most out of your character. Unfortunately what that 'tends' to mean is the character customization is limited and the boss fights and important events are already... dictated I suppose, because the developers know what sort of characters you're bringing forward.

The western equivilent is a lot more, open, diverse. We get more customization typically. We get a bigger focus on creating generic or diverse party lists and deciding if we want character strengths/weaknesses. Which means I suppose there's more variety within the important star spangled scenes because of the choices the player can make.

But then there's always games that throw that thought into the mix. Disgaea comes to mind and its previous reincarnations, although admittedly that's more a, oh, what;'s the label for that. An SJRPG? I still think of it as an RPG of some form because of its story/character narratives, even if it doesn't 'play' like a normal RPG (suppose the same could be said for Fallout). There are obviously games that break the mould we assume, but it's those games we really should be pouncing on and telling people "Look! It's not what you think! go look, experiment, try!"

And instead they shake their heads and slate the games in question because they're of a particular motion. I mean think of Front Mission. How amazing a game was that. The original was blindingly good with some truly excellent game play (admittedly I've only played 1 and none of the others, I hate myself for not trying them but I can't seem to purchase them anywhere for a reasonable price) but because it was 1. in the age of SNES its disregarded because of its graphics and 2. it has anime/manga type themes to it. Big eyed characters, asian names. The sort that makes your white supremist gamer (and they exist in wholesale) gasp and begin to pull on their iron shod boot. Unfortunately the BSM community, bless their souls, has a fair few like that.

I agree with your comment about the reviews but surely the point of the reviewer is to detail everything and anything, at least to a degree. Some of the reviews I've read recently barely talk about mechanics or functions of a game in any form of exciting notion. Heck, they breeze over them altogether. In fact one of the better 'reviews' I've read lately was by Pete from Dragonchasers. It was long and sometimes a bit too informative but then he's not a professional reviewer. But things more based along those lines would be lovely. But admittedly I have been spoiled by the golden days of Netjak.

One thing I do find interesting and maybe you can enlighten me on this Sara. Western RPGs are primarily PC based. JRPGs are primarily console based. Any reasons do you think? Would you say a series of decently made JRPGs could appear on a PC market and survive (or visa versa)? I've seen more western RPGs on a console than the other way around but often they seem to fade into nothing. Eclipsed if you will by the, and I quote another of the BSM lot "watery eyed gay anime things"

Re: humour me.

Shamutanti — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:17:40 -0000

Re: cluck cluck!

Shamutanti — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 20:05:26 -0000

Hehe Edge. I suppose you're right really.

I mean I lack the technical understanding of what can/can't be done within the games, I can only throw out my thoughts, but I keep thinking surely there's more that can be done concerning boss mechanics - hell, even dungeon mechanics so we have 'action' outside of bosses. That on its own would be interesting to see and experience.

I could conjure up a hundred different boss fights with different things that can be done but ultimately I suppose it's down to what the game engine will allow. But when you consider that Naxx is rehashed anyway all we've actually gained, raid content wise, are 3 new bosses. Of which only 1 has a new form of concept (Malygos) whilst the other two are rehashed from previous fights with nothing new in between.

Well I suppose there is where we hit the nail on the head. They're not new to me. I suppose I'm the un-wanted consumer so to speak. I've appreciated the things i've seen and i've enjoyed the majority of my time in Northrend (my /played time at level 80 sits at 6 days if you fancied knowing) but it just feels... empty somewhere. The 'end-game' has become less important than the levelling which I suppose is what alot of people are after, but when the levelling experience is only 10 levels, not 40-50-60-70 then it makes you wonder how all the resources that went into the expansion only managed to cover those 10 levels. The resizing of Naxx couldn't of taken long and only Malygos I can imagine was a pain to code - the others are simply ripping the same mechanics from already established fights.

Two years has it been? For the making of WotLK. My mind boggles at how it's taken two years to only make what they have. But then like stated, I don't know the technical side of things. That and i'm a grumpy ol' git who consistantly expects the best from particular developers/brands.

Re: Letsnothaveabreakdown - Lily Allen - The Fear (Explicit Version): Official...

Shamutanti — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:29:20 -0000

I absolutely love this song - it's sheer fecking genius.

Re: Letsnothaveabreakdown - You have a week. At the end of this week, you need...

Shamutanti — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:58:10 -0000

That unfortunately wasn't me - I wish I could be that witty. I probably should of linked the guys name in here as well. The quote though I feel sums up the majority of troll/ranter vs. majority, even though I tend to fall into the troll/ranter department myself at times.

Re: Tumblr.

Shamutanti — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 22:15:49 -0000

I'm a big fan of Tumblr - it's the only blogging platform i've found that I really like and more so the only one that works with how I work. The only true thing I think I miss is a blogroll/reel.

Re: First night in WotLK

Shamutanti — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:31:25 -0000

Yeah I just made 80 today. Would of made it sooner but been under alot of work unfortunately >_<

So took me... 10 days since I got the box. Saying that I did manage to get my professions to both 430 each (and I don't have mining so it was even more of a struggle).

More so, I havn't even finished Zul'drak yet. I did Tundra, Fjord, Dragonblight and Grizzly Hills. Half way through ZD quests and ding, 80. So still got Icecrown and so forth to go - proves it's extremly easy to level, which is nice to know for my alts :)

Re: First night in WotLK

Shamutanti — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:31:12 -0000

Now onto my Shammie!

Re: Big, Fat, Bloggers.

Shamutanti — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:32:48 -0000

I have no problem with people putting their point/view across and engaging in discussion, but for me personally there has to be more backing. To say 'this is how I like it' and I question 'why?' and the only response is "because I do", frustrates me somewhat.

I get questioned alot in University about things I think. Consistant Why, Why, Why? And each time I have to give a precise answer. If not, it's another Why, ot another How, or another Explain. It's getting through all the fluff that we put in the way and put that simple straight forward explanation.

From there we can look at that explanation (minus the 'crap') and pick holes in it if we feel we need/want to. I will argue my point as a general rule because it's what I think - and I try and provide sufficient evidence and meaning behind what i'm saying. I try and keep bringing up points to prove my said view. If someone picks a hole in that and my view falters/changes then I have to conceed and rethink.

There's a tendancy to first off dismiss things if discussion gets heated or simply close down because one's point is proven unstable and instead of giving ground and accepting being wrong the original point comes up in response, e.g. I think system A simply is better than system B. It goes no where.

Arguing is good. We just need to argue properly and stop being so damn protective of our views and what we think. Especially if there's something significantly wrong being pointed out about our view.

Re: Letsnothaveabreakdown - There’s a hole in the world like a great black...

Shamutanti — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 14:54:30 -0000

Saw it two days back.

I love it. It's awesome. Well worth the small rental fee from itunes.