7th December 2004, 11:29 AM
Quote:Nope, that statement only proves one thing. Well, two. First, that you don't actually read my posts as I specifically refuted that charge in the knowledge that you'd try to use it. I'd quote it, but almost the whole section you quoted was an attempt to show how that charge of yours is based not only on no evidence but that YOU are the one who made it a discussion about Morrowind in the first place...
Come back when you read what I said. Though given you that'll be never.
Your rebuttals are great! They consist of either "Nope you're wrong", "Uh-uh, that's false", "Sorry, but that's simply not true", or my personal favorite, "Sorry you're wrong, then again you don't have glasses so you can't see your face!!!11".
Quote:I am completely sure that if it was anyone else at TC who had said that idea first you'd have had no problem with it. You only complain because it's me and you've taken it on to argue with every single thing I say. That's the only possible reason.I admit, the fact that it's you who is the big hypocrite made me want to pwn you even more, but a stupid hypocrite is a stupid hypocrite!
Quote:The problem is, you'll repeat yourself again and I'll try to prove my point which will take a long time and a long post that I've done before that you'll ignore again because you don't actually care what I say (except to pull out a word or two here and there to yell at me about)... why would this be so hard to prove? That is because I have already proved it (with the WCII/III comparison) and you ignored it so I'd have to try to get into explaining what I mean by "gameplay style", which is harder...I've already proven you wrong, and sticking out your tongue while saying "nanny nanny boo boo" isn't reversing your wrongness.
Quote:Anyway, think about it. Does playing Zelda: OoT mean that I can comment on the gameplay style in MM? Well... in a few regards yes but any sensible person would inform me of how different gameplay is in many ways. TWW then? There it's better but again different in ways that would be explained... but more similar this time. TLOZ vs. LttP or LA? Same deal. Similar in many key ways. Yes, the differences should be elucidated when someone asks about one they haven't played, but would you say that if someone said "I hated LttP so I doubt I'd like LA either" that they have no justification at all for making that comment? Based on your arguement here you MUST say that, even though it is obviously stupid given how similar thoe games are. Yes, there are differences enough that some people may hate LttP but like LA, but it wouldn't be too common. The same goes for The Elder Scrolls: while there are very significant differences between the games, the base gameplay shines through just like it does throuhout the Zelda series. You cannot deny this basic fact. They did not dramatically change the gameplay as the series progressed. Now, did they make the games better? Yes, of course they did. But 'better' does not necessarially mean 'dramatically different'. In fact, I would argue that it would usually mean something more like 'refinement of the game into something that follows the essences of the series'. This is inarguably what they did when they went from Arena to Morrowind, and something that ALL accounts (I wouldn't say that if I saw anywhere that said elsewhere, but I know of none) agree is true for Morrowind as well.Man, this is simply amazing. It really is. You still haven't played Morrowind, so you're still talking about of your ass (like that's ever not the case), and your statement that Morrowind is basically unchanged from the previous games makes this all the more hilarious to those of us who've actually played them. You're like someone who's never tried chocolate before trying to convince someone who has that it "totally tastes like cinnamon". With each new word you add to this thread you make yourself look like more and more of a retard. You really do.
But please, don't let me stop you from contuining. This really is fun to watch.
Quote:Now, I am not judging most of the details of the gameplay. I cannot obviously. What I was doing then was talking about it on a more theoretical level -- "What kind of RPG is your favorite kind" was the question, and "traditional ones like BG or Fallout are mine" was my answer. And while Morrowind is certainly a better game than Arena and I'm sure I'd like the game a lot (make no mistake about it, if I had Morrowind I'm sure I'd like it), for the reasons I went into so much depth about a while back I prefer more traditionally styled games.
To look at how this arguement started (and figure out what actually we are arguing about). First, here's the thread that caused the problems. Look at my first post. I do not mention Morrowind once. Why? Because I was talking about what I had played and what those games were like, and then talked in general about how I think that kind of game compares to a traditional PC RPG.
<http://www.tcforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2344>
When did the problem start? When you said 'why should I care' and I said what I've been repeating ever since, that you can translate game styles over from game to game. Heh, I even use Warcraft as my first example... which I still think is a perfectly valid comparison. I am sure that somewhere inside you would too if you'd played Arena or Daggerfall.
Anyway, it spiralled from there, but from my perspective at least the problem is simple. As I said much later, I haven't played Morrowind and you and GR haven't played Daggerfall or Arena so we don't have someone with the common ground for me to prove that the series hasn't changed as much as you imply (yes, I KNOW it has changed a lot! I know! But in its essence I'm not really talking about details like exactly how you hit the enemies or if the towns are randomly generated (though that is one thing that Morrowind greatly improved on), but about the more general things... 'what were they thinking when they designed the series', for instance. We know that the overriding theme of the TES series has been open-endedness. No arguement there, right? They have been focused on letting the player go to a huge number of places and see all kinds of areas and do all kinds of things in a game that is theoretically never-ending. This is their core design philosophy, and it leads them to make many choices. In a similar manner a Final Fantasy game is designed to tell a linear story and have you follow it along and it is designed to maximize that kind of gameplay. Morrowind is no different from Arena and Daggerfall in regards to this core design philosophy. And while it is surely improved over them in terms of detail and variety, I am also sure (and have plenty of supporting evidence to corroborate the claim) that it has many of those same compromises that, in my eyes, raise up (the best of) classic RPGs and hurt this type (though only in comparison to the best... I'm sure Morrowind is still far better than most standard-type PC RPGs out there...).
Anyway, the arugement will not end because we, at the moment, have no way to resolve it... unless I get Morrowind or one of you play Arena or Daggerfall.
Since that thread I've played all of the previous Elder Scrolls games, and the differences are indeed great. You, however, are still a moron who knows nothing of this subject.