No sissy "shades of grey"

[Provisioner]

I've become quite concerned lately as to the direction of role-playing, PvP, and politics in Anarchy Online. Please excuse the title of this thread, but it is a direct quote from the story designer.

I would like to pick apart an article, written by Gaute, and see if it still hold true today. This is coming from a pre-release player, and a long-time fan (I couldn't wait for AO to come out so I could leave UO!).

/me warps back to 99/00

By Anarchy Online's story director, Gaute Godager

In Anarchy Online there is a setting, a story and a conflict. Here I will focus on the conflict. The two sides of the conflict are Omni-Tek and the Clans. You can find aspects of these sides in any epic struggle, in real life and in adventures. Usually they take the form of good vs. evil, or dark vs. light.

Usually great stories work like this, yes. Sounds good so far! When is this game released?

(Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, has it: The Free People of the West vs. Sauron and his Hordes. WWII has it: The World vs. Hitler etc.) But many times in real life, they also come as a struggle between various shades of gray, where no part can be defined as the "good" or "evil" one. (The sad conflict of Northern Ireland, for instance.)

Shades of gray? Nah, we have that in every other MMOG out there. Give me something to actually ROLE-PLAY! If I chose Omni, I'll be like the "evil galactic empire" in Star Wars! Pure evil! Woot! This game sounds awesome!

In Anarchy Online we have, after much discussion and much hesitation, decided to go with two clear-cut sides - one Light and one Dark. If you want to affect the game's main storyline, you will have to choose sides!

The choice not to choose is of course allowed too. But most likely, that will be a stand on the sidelines, rather than a stand in between.

So, there won't be a bunch of neutrals running around claiming to be "mercanaries" and attacking both sides? Awesome! So, if I chose to remain neutral (which it says I can), I'll have a tough but managable life? Okay, sounds like AO on the "hard setting"...This sounds awesome!


Anarchy Online will follow a 4-year storyline, with episodes and seasons (very much inspired by some well-known, long-running series on television). The shifting tides of player allegiances will direct the story, along with our story staff. Which side will win has not yet been decided. But, make no mistake about it, one side will win! We have a solid goal with our story, and a clear-cut conflict. (No sissy "shades of grey" with ensuing Player Killer / Not Player Killer conflict…)

Holy Shnikies! A solid goal? A clear-cut conflict? A Story??? I'm in heaven! Sign me up, please!!!

The conflict is, again, between the Clans and Omni-Tek. It is in one sense political, but is not real life! The dark side is the Dark side. The good characters must strive to be Good. It is designed to become a heroic tale of epic struggle. It must be grandiose, without the muddled "all sides have some merit" tactics of everyday struggles.

Yeah, I hate that "all sides have some merit" BS. I'm glad you're leaving this stuff out! You rock, FC!

This is a grand adventure in the Tolkien-Star Wars-Babylon 5 sense! (And what a legacy it is!) You know who you are! Right now, you might wonder who would want to side with the dark Omni-Tek® corporation, for instance. My guess is that, after reading our column on choosing sides, it might be YOU!


My God, UO sucks!

/me grabs some tissues, the latest issue of PC gamer with AO screenshots, and hits the privacy of the bathroom...

/me warps back to the future, to his release-day-born, level 172 neutral trader...

Without becoming long and winded, does anyone see any of the action, story, or conflict in the game as it was intended? I am appalled that this game has become the mockery of what it was intended to be (even up to release and beyond!).

While many recent game-play changes have truly improved just that (game-play), where is the EVIL and GOOD? Where are the neutrals on the "side-lines" (rather than knocking down omni/clan towers)? Where is the story? Where is the RP?

/me listens to the word on the street:

"But I play a GOOD Omni!"
"Yeah, I'm neutral, but I'm a MERCENARY, so I can attack both sides!"
"Down with Radiman!"

I understand the power of role-playing, but it is getting rediculous! Where are our "clear-cut" roles and story line?

Sorry for the rant!

Provisioner

[Ghiggles]

LOL...

very valid points ...and I agree with you 100%.
Though if the regulars on the rp forums follow your link and see this all it could get pretty hot in here...


hope ya got on yer flame resistant 'jammers...

/me grabs some tissues, the latest issue of PC gamer with AO screenshots, and hits the privacy of the bathroom...

LMAO

[Blackpetal]

Well, I agree with you that the story points have been very subtle, probably too subtle. We have the occasional BIG SHAKEUP, like the Council abandoning Tir, but for the most part, a certain stasis seems to dominate the world, politically. Neither Omni nor Clan ever has a significant advantage in the struggle, and things seem destined to remain that way for the forseeable future.

That being said, I don't know how you would impose the sort of "clear-cut" conflict that you are suggesting, given that human beings are going to inhabit these roles in the world. Maybe Neutrals should have been denied the right to hold territory and mine Notum... that would certainly make sense, storywise. Maybe Clan and Omni should have had access to different nanoprograms and equipment (or even subtley different classes). Still, in the end, it's very hard to FORCE players to act a certain way.

Do you think, for example, that even in a conflict as clear-cut as the one laid out in the Star Wars universe (and, by extension, in the Star Wars Galaxies MMORPG), there won't be groups of players on one side or the other arguing for reconciliation? What are the developers to do about those people? They've paid their money the same as anyone else...

My point is that the conflict in AO is relatively clear. Within the mythology, Omni clearly abused its monopoly on the planet, virtually enslaved its workers and wrought havoc on Rubi-Ka's environment. The clans obviously were intended to be independent-minded rebels. Still, actual political/social/military rebellions are rarely that clean, and it's really no surprise that Rubi-Ka is no exception. Zealous brutal clans that silence dissent at gunpoint start looking as bad as Omni. Meanwhile, a vocal minority of doves in Omni start trying to soften the Company's position. And Neutrals start mining Notum. Pretty soon, all that remains are shades of gray...

This is role-playing. It's just role-playing that embodies the complexities and ambiguities of human nature. Which, in the end, is actually reassuring. After all, we ARE humans, not archetypes.

-Blackpetal

[Provisioner]

Originally posted by Blackpetal

Do you think, for example, that even in a conflict as clear-cut as the one laid out in the Star Wars universe (and, by extension, in the Star Wars Galaxies MMORPG), there won't be groups of players on one side or the other arguing for reconciliation? What are the developers to do about those people? They've paid their money the same as anyone else...

This is role-playing. It's just role-playing that embodies the complexities and ambiguities of human nature. Which, in the end, is actually reassuring. After all, we ARE humans, not archetypes.

-Blackpetal

Think about Star Wars, however. If players start to say "Well, I'm a storm trooper and I like the rebels", fine! If they start gunning down other storm troopers, they should become rebels. This example is a way to provide game mechanical role-playig tools.

...and, another thing regarding Star Wars (well, you brought it up!) is the fact that the fiction IS truly written in stone. Regardless of what the players do (yes, SWG will have the same stupid problems with players that other games do) the death star was blown up before the game began, and the rebellion will be pushed back to the Hoth system before the game ends. It doesn't matter what happens in between, as we already know from the fiction the end result. And that, of course, is my problem. We have an incredible back story, but there are no consequences in the game to back them up. None at all. Omnis may team with Clan. An Omni Soldier may kill an Omni Doctor without recourse. Neutrals may initiate combat (as if they were a "side" in the conflict) and mine notum.

Unless FC is completely imcompetent, game-play changes like these are not hard to implement.

Neither is the story (Beyond the first 5 episodes from last year, of course!).

What am I missing? Is the meaning of this game truly to get a new hat for you MA? A new black car?

I thought that there was a war between GOOD and EVIL out there!

Where is it?

Provisioner

[Jayde]

Umm...ok.

A story without "shades of gray" is simplistic, boring, and generally unoriginal. Even worse, RPing black/white roles usually leads to a repetition, uninspired, and unrealistic (and I mean that in terms of human interaction, not game world) situations.

Not much more else to say here, though... It's really that simple.

Good vs. Evil is great for 2 hours. Then you realize that the Good side isn't totally good, and the Evil did isn't totally evil. When that happens, your ideal Good vs. Evil story has fallen apart.

Since humans are unpredictable, and generally never follow the same mold, shades of "Gray" are inevitable. Not allowing for a proper amount of flexibility for this in an RP environment hinders RP in general. Micro-managing the elements of the story to that level is simply silly, as it removes the sense of individuality that all players should be able to have with their characters in the game world.

Also, the strength and POINT of an MMORPG game world is to allow the players to expand upon and "live" in the world. This does not work when you force their hand. Guess what, there are a LOT of potential reasons for a "Neutral" to attack any given target. To simplify the world to being 100% about Omni vs. Clan is to sell the potential of Rubi-Ka amazingly short.

-Jayde

[Lilyflie]

I think there is a lot of stuff we have yet to see within the story, and from my perspective that kind of makes sense for 3 reasons.

1) Every good story I have been a part of in RP doesn't show it's colors right off the batt, being good or bad. We have to remember that in order to really RP our characters on Rubi-ka, we don't know a lot of the information we have been given. For example, It is known by reading the book that Omni hid the knowledge of notum from the galaxy, but it is not known to the people in that universe. When you look at all the information presented to us at this point, Omni-Tek has a legal lease on Rubi-ka. So I find it very possible that there are presently "good" Omni's. The clans were started from disgruntled Omni employees. At one time they were "good" omni as well. Now of course we have new generations of Clans, born free of employment from the great corporation. There are anti Omni clans, there are anti clan clans, there are anti CoT clans...I mean, it all stems from what knowledge we have as characters..not what knowledge we have as players. at least it should.

2) The Omega have yet to reveal themselves in game, even though many of us know they exist and are behind Omni Tek, they have yet to reveal themselves to the characters we play. Until they do that, it would be very hard to say, without a doubt, Omni-Tek is evil. I would expect that when that realisation comes out, The "good" Omni's will either change to clans, or thier characters will live in fear of Omega...but there will be a change. At least, if you were to stay in Character there would be.

3) Much like many epic stories, alot of wars start with politics, and that is alot of what we have seen so far. Not as exciting as players, but nessesary for story. Yes, we need more things in game regarding the storyline. Yes we need to see the main characters a little more often in the world, and not so static, but it is true, that much of what we see right now is news articles, because it is flowing withing politics. Again, I think that it is a matter of teh Omega making themselves known to heat things up the way we, as players, expected it to be.

On Atlantian I played Omni, and as far as my character knew, she was a good guy. She worked very hard for the corporation, didn't understand why the clans terrorized them all the time, and hoped for a bright future (she was a crat and guild leader, and was extreemly pro omni) If I still played her, I can see a confilct grow as the dark and light became clear, but as it stands right now..Omni-tek doesn't have the ristrictions everyone expects them to have. I can wear what I want, go where I want, drink in the bars...hell, there is no one stopping me from attacking my own guards even (which I really think needs to be changed somehow).

Now I am on Rimor and Playing a Neutral. Mainly because I know someday omni will be shown as evil, and presently, the clans are nothing more than terrorists, fighting something that happened years and years ago (not trying to put down clans, but a lot of them act extreme from what I thought a clan was. The clans are the closest we get to Anarchy IMO).

I agree with the concerns of the original poster, but I believe that what FC are trying to do is actually tell this story in the way novels or series are told. It starts somewhere unclear, builds, and in the end becomes black and white...and even then I hope it throws some twists. hehe. I don't think coming at someone RP'ing a "good" Omni, based on the information the character has (not the player) is fair. A really good RP'er (imo only) will be able to play "good" Omni, but also know that things are going to change, and be prepared for what the "good" omni's would do in that situation.

Anyway...long winded..sorry bout that. I can ramble sometimes when it comes to topics like this one.

[Provisioner]

Originally posted by Jayde
Umm...ok.

A story without "shades of gray" is simplistic, boring, and generally unoriginal. Even worse, RPing black/white roles usually leads to a repetition, uninspired, and unrealistic (and I mean that in terms of human interaction, not game world) situations.

Not much more else to say here, though... It's really that simple.

Good vs. Evil is great for 2 hours. Then you realize that the Good side isn't totally good, and the Evil did isn't totally evil. When that happens, your ideal Good vs. Evil story has fallen apart.

Since humans are unpredictable, and generally never follow the same mold, shades of "Gray" are inevitable. Not allowing for a proper amount of flexibility for this in an RP environment hinders RP in general. Micro-managing the elements of the story to that level is simply silly, as it removes the sense of individuality that all players should be able to have with their characters in the game world.

Also, the strength and POINT of an MMORPG game world is to allow the players to expand upon and "live" in the world. This does not work when you force their hand. Guess what, there are a LOT of potential reasons for a "Neutral" to attack any given target. To simplify the world to being 100% about Omni vs. Clan is to sell the potential of Rubi-Ka amazingly short.

-Jayde

Are you saying that every P&P RPG ever written is flawed, and boring after 2 hours?

Just an example, but it holds true for every single one:

I'm playing D&D, and I roll a Paladin. I'm walking through town, and I get an idea:

"I want go kill that peasant", says the player

The DM really has about 2 options (although there are tons of ways he could RP them):

1) "You can't do that! Thou art a holy paladin or Tyr!"
2) "You may do that, but you will lose lose much of what you have strived for!" <his alignment, paladin status, etc>

There is a third option, of course, which I feel DM Funcom is taking:

3) "Yeah, go ahead and kill it, Jim, I gotta take a leak and grab some doritos.".

Yes, role-playing is what this game is about, but no game is complete without some sort of mechanics to ensure that at least the players know the rules, much less follow them!

This article I posted is the basis of Anarchy Online.

This article was originally posted by Gaute Godager!

If I just wanted to RP without game mechanics, I'd hit a chat-room and "play pretend". Just like when you buy the DMG, in Anarchy Online you're paying for an environment!

Provisioner

[krystanova]

I agree with Jayde. What I remember reading about Anarchy Online in PC Gamer is that this game was supposed to be more wide-open, with the players dictating events in the world. It was SUPPOSED to be possible for people to become powerful leaders, masterful assassins, brilliant scientists, hardened criminals, wold-traveling explorers, rich tradesmen, and so on.

My understanding was that we were supposed to have been able to send people out on missions... "Assassinate my opponent", "Find this rare artifact", "Bring me this nano crystal", "Build me a base here", and so on. There weren't supposed to be major "characters" who run things, leaving most of us arguing over things that won't matter if FC changes course on the story and its characters.

Remember what happened with Aberic? THAT was the ONLY time I ever felt this game play out the way it should have. A player took matters into his own hands, and got the drop on FC. And what did they do? They cheapened it by saying it was only one of Radiman's "alternates."

The world was supposed to be rampant with shades of grey, with the wonderful spectrum of human behaviors. We'd have madmen, and saints. We'd have celebrities, and the everyman. That has AMAZING potential, and this was the Anarchy Online I had hoped for.

Again, to force our hand, to make my character evil SIMPLY because she's Omni, to even take it to the point of making our alternate realities a DEVIL OR AN ANGEL, is flat out wrong. It sells US short, it sells the world and its possibilities short, and it sells FC themselves short.

Not even the old grandmaster, Tolkien, constructed a totally black-and-white world. Sure, there are heroes and villains with clear paths and motives, but it is there not tremendous rumblings within almost every major character because of the power of the ring? Is there not cowardice, treachery, deceit, and failure?

You are of the opinion that a black-and-white world is great, but I say "Nay nay." That is your opinion, but, to be honest, I feel that a black-and-white world, like that starting to be forced into the game, is NOT the way I want to play.

[Provisioner]

Originally posted by Lilyflie
I agree with the concerns of the original poster, but I believe that what FC are trying to do is actually tell this story in the way novels or series are told. It starts somewhere unclear, builds, and in the end becomes black and white...and even then I hope it throws some twists. hehe. I don't think coming at someone RP'ing a "good" Omni, based on the information the character has (not the player) is fair. A really good RP'er (imo only) will be able to play "good" Omni, but also know that things are going to change, and be prepared for what the "good" omni's would do in that situation.

I used to have the exact same opinion that you do now. I'd say I lost it about a year ago when they cancelled the animated series.

Now, I believe you give Funcom too much credit. I believe they have little-to-no idea where the story is going, and are making things up as they go (poorly, I may add...).

If there's one skill I've learned in my years of teaching it's:

How to know when someone is "making stuff up as they go", or if that person really understands the basis for an argument.

Sorry, I just have a feeling that that if they can't get the story off the ground after this long, it's not going to happen (unless we pay for an expansion pack for the study, which is likely).

You may be right (honestly, I hope you are). But after 1.6 years of seeing "politics", I really don't see the light at the end of the tunnel. That's 1/3 of the story's life-span, and we have nothing but "minor" politics such as the overthrow of the CoT, and the idiocy from the ICC (trying to RP preventing people from guard killing...)

Provisioner

[Lilyflie]

"You may be right (honestly, I hope you are). But after 1.6 years of seeing "politics", I really don't see the light at the end of the tunnel. That's 1/3 of the story's life-span, and we have nothing but "minor" politics such as the overthrow of the CoT, and the idiocy from the ICC (trying to RP preventing people from guard killing...)"


Also remember that in that 1.6 years, funcom as a company have had a lot of setbacks, and I am pretty sure things are not going exactly as planned for them. It is things like the fall of the council, the ICC coming to Tir, The sentinels liberating Tir, the ICc lifting the ban on Motum mining that make me think that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, but I also acknowldge that for the past year FC's resources have been (and rightly so imo) spent on game mechanics (we all rememeber how things were at launch...shiver...). They still have a lot of work to do yes, but in the last half a year, the political aspect of the story (animated series or not) has become more heated, and more things are happening that I feel is only a matter of time before teh Omega reveal themselves and the truth of Omni-tek is in the open.

As a interesting thought, because the book potrays Phillip Ross as a "good" Omni for the most part (until of course he gets attacked by the folks in Omni-1) wouldn't it be interesting if he went clan at the point Omni is revealed for who they really are? hehe, not going to happen, but for some reason that just came to me from reading teh thread. anyway...I digress.

I can totally understand your fustration, and I don't expect there is anything, anyone can say in this thread to take it away..in the meantime, if you havn't seen this thread already it may help a bit (not much mind you but maybe) to see how they are approaching the story.

http://forums.anarchy-online.com/sho...threadid=80957

[Provisioner]

Originally posted by Krystanova
The world was supposed to be rampant with shades of grey, with the wonderful spectrum of human behaviors. We'd have madmen, and saints. We'd have celebrities, and the everyman. That has AMAZING potential, and this was the Anarchy Online I had hoped for.

The article I posted was from Gaute Godager - Designer.

How can you say this game was supposed to be rampant with shades of grey, when Gaute himself says that there will be:

"No sissy 'shades of grey'"

This is a direct quote. I'm confused at where you get the idea that this game was supposed to have them, when the designer clearly states it shouldn't...

Perhaps if you read this description of the game before buying it, you wouldn't have bought a game where the designer himself calls your philosophy "sissy"?

I bought this game SPECIFICALLY because the designer called your philosophy "sissy".

That's my point - not "but, but, good RP is...". That's a whole 'nother story. I'm just clearly re-iterating what the game's designer stated this game was about. If you didn't like this style of play, why did you buy it?

Provisioner

[Jayde]

Originally posted by Provisioner


Are you saying that every P&P RPG ever written is flawed, and boring after 2 hours?

Just an example, but it holds true for every single one:

I'm playing D&D, and I roll a Paladin. I'm walking through town, and I get an idea:

"I want go kill that peasant", says the player

The DM really has about 2 options (although there are tons of ways he could RP them):

1) "You can't do that! Thou art a holy paladin or Tyr!"
2) "You may do that, but you will lose lose much of what you have strived for!" <his alignment, paladin status, etc>

There is a third option, of course, which I feel DM Funcom is taking:

3) "Yeah, go ahead and kill it, Jim, I gotta take a leak and grab some doritos.".

That's not the work of a good GM, right there. Heh. That's the work of a poor GM with little vision for good RP.

Killing one peasant would not instantly remove you as a Paladin. Maybe you had a reason... Maybe you were feeling insane... Heck, who knows? IT'S RP!!

A rampant killing streak would re-define your character, but 1 small action does not always do this.

If I'm Omni, and kill an OT guard, that does not make me Clan! What it makes me is anti-Omni. And is NOT the same thing. Life is not that simple. Maybe it didn't even make me anti-Omni. Maybe that guard was a jerk-off. Maybe I had reason to believe he was a traitor. Maybe he shot one of my friends the day before.

No, killing an OT guard does not make me Clan. This is where shades of gray come into play.

Reality exists almost everywhere BUT black and white. Why? Because people have opinions... And reasons... And free-will. Falling into a simplistic mold almost never happens.

Too bad you didn't have a more creative GM.

-Jayde

[Blackpetal]

Originally posted by Provisioner

If I just wanted to RP without game mechanics, I'd hit a chat-room and "play pretend". Just like when you buy the DMG, in Anarchy Online you're paying for an environment!

You do make a valid point. If I regularly team with Clan people, for example, should Omni-Pol (NPCs) view me the same way they view someone who regularly hunts down Clan PCs in low gas zones? Probably not.

If I decide to switch from one faction to the other, should I enjoy the same level of respect and trust as a lifelong member of the faction? Probably not.

I suppose that ultimately, the question becomes, what sorts of things should the game keep track of, and what should the consequences be for "straying from the fold"? A human GM (in your example) can obviously mitigate rules on behalf of his players, or at least try to understand WHY they are acting in a certain way before deciding on the consequences. A computer game, by contrast, will have hard-and-fast rules, so making certain that they are not overly punitive is important.

In any case, this is somewhat academic. Whatever Funcom's original intentions, clearly the game has taken a different form since then. Since it is unlikely to change in any radical way, we must choose either to accept it as it is, or find another game that suits us better. As for me, I'm quite happy chatting with my friends (from all different factions), and roleplaying my character in a way that is true to her and internally consistent, with a strong basis in the history that Funcom has established.

-Blackpetal

[Provisioner]

Originally posted by Jayde


That's not the work of a good GM, right there. Heh. That's the work of a poor GM with little vision for good RP.

Killing one peasant would not instantly remove you as a Paladin. Maybe you had a reason... Maybe you were feeling insane... Heck, who knows? IT'S RP!!

A rampant killing streak would re-define your character, but 1 small action does not always do this.

If I'm Omni, and kill an OT guard, that does not make me Clan! What it makes me is anti-Omni. And is NOT the same thing. Life is not that simple. Maybe it didn't even make me anti-Omni. Maybe that guard was a jerk-off. Maybe I had reason to believe he was a traitor. Maybe he shot one of my friends the day before.

No, killing an OT guard does not make me Clan. This is where shades of gray come into play.

Reality exists almost everywhere BUT black and white. Why? Because people have opinions... And reasons... And free-will. Falling into a simplistic mold almost never happens.

Too bad you didn't have a more creative GM.

-Jayde

Well, if you want to bring real life into that. LIFE IS THAT SIMPLE:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/en...nts/index.html

Too bad you don't read the news.

...and yes, I believe I had incredibly interesting and thought-proviking DMs. However, I didn't have DMs that let me do something completely out of character without saying "Kevin, are you SURE you want to do that? Damn, wtf are you doing? I'm going to take a leak and grab some Doritos...Think about it"

I'd likely be known as "that idiot who likes to make paladins so he can kill people as he doesn't know how to role-play his character" by any of about 50 of my past GMs , including those at GenCon.

I'm missing your point...

Real life works like this. P&P works like this. Why do we feel that AO should be more like "The Sims Online" where we can change behavior at the drop of the hat and do whatever we want?

...and you still have not address this simple issue:

If this was the designers philosophy (I cut&pasted the 'No sissy "shades of grey"' comment - remember that), what makes you think I should adapt to your standards, when I clearly purchased a game that meets mine?

Provisioner

[Provisioner]

Originally posted by Blackpetal


You do make a valid point. If I regularly team with Clan people, for example, should Omni-Pol (NPCs) view me the same way they view someone who regularly hunts down Clan PCs in low gas zones? Probably not.

If I decide to switch from one faction to the other, should I enjoy the same level of respect and trust as a lifelong member of the faction? Probably not.

I suppose that ultimately, the question becomes, what sorts of things should the game keep track of, and what should the consequences be for "straying from the fold"? A human GM (in your example) can obviously mitigate rules on behalf of his players, or at least try to understand WHY they are acting in a certain way before deciding on the consequences. A computer game, by contrast, will have hard-and-fast rules, so making certain that they are not overly punitive is important.

Thank you!

[krystanova]

Originally posted by Provisioner
Perhaps if you read this description of the game before buying it, you wouldn't have bought a game where the designer himself calls your philosophy "sissy"?

I bought this game SPECIFICALLY because the designer called your philosophy "sissy".

This was the description of the game given by FunCom to PC Gamer the very first time I heard of the game back in September of 1999, if I remember. Maybe 2000. I remember the Previews section describing the game. Had a picture of two female characters dancing as an example of the "social life". If I was actually home, I probably have the damn issue still.

You seem to have a fetish with this "sissy" term, and using it to directly address people. The real world is tons o' gray, and it ain't "sissy". Even Black & White recognized that it is NOT all Black & White... you needed to earn the role of being totally good or bad, and even then you sometimes still needed to be destructive or merciful.

If Gaute wants to call it sissy, that's his perogative. If he wanted black-and-white, thee should never have been any inkling otherwise. If he wanted black-and-white, the game should have been that way from the start. It's not, it won't be, because it doesn't work that way. People will always find a way to have their way, and if they don't, they'll leave.

Could there be more law-and-order, or justice, or logic? Sure. But that's a far cry from black-and-white. Black-and-white is no fun in a scripted story, because what you are left with for an ending is total destruction of one or the other.

Well, if you want to bring real life into that. LIFE IS THAT SIMPLE:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/08/e...ants/index.html

Too bad you don't read the news.

Sweet crap. Seeing this makes me realize that this debate is going to be a rather pointless endeavor....

[Jayde]

As I qualified above, "real life" socially, not in referral to the game world.

I'm talking about realistic human behavior and encounters.

-Jayde

[Provisioner]

Originally posted by Krystanova

Sweet crap. Seeing this makes me realize that this debate is going to be a rather pointless endeavor....

"Life is not that simple" and "I'm talking about realistic human behavior and encounters". Direct quotes from Jayde, the person whose view you are supporting. If there's anything that you should say "sweet crap" about, is that a game is a reflection of human behavior (as Jayde said). All that I have shown is that human behavior is messed up, but VERY black and white when it comes to war, politics, and law (isn't that what this game is about?).

When you wake up, do you want to pet your cat or take a shower? That's pretty grey to me, and I could care less either way. You want to plot against American citizens, that's pretty black and white.

When your character 'awakens' today, do you want to go take on a mission, or socialize at Reet's? That's pretty grey to me, and I could care less either way. You want to attack your own guards, that's pretty black and white.

Face it. Our laws are pretty damned black and white, and we have that wonderful "human" element in every game because we are, after all, human - regardless of what we RP.

Provisioner

<edited to add in Jayde's second quote>

[Provisioner]

Originally posted by Krystanova

You seem to have a fetish with this "sissy" term, and using it to directly address people.

Don't you even dare insinuate that! Saying someone's play-style is sissy is one thing (which I said - backing exactly what the designer said). In no way have I made a statement against you.

Please, let's report this post so we can get Gaute banned!

If he had said your play-style was "lame", I'd be repeating that over and over again, as well...

Using the words of a respectable source (it is Gaute's world, after all - I can't think of any more respectable source than that!) to gain position is normal, "human behavior" (as someone else on this thread would say)

Provisioner

[_______Nanitehandler]

Originally posted by Provisioner

(Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, has it: The Free People of the West vs. Sauron and his Hordes. WWII has it: The World vs. Hitler etc.) But many times in real life, they also come as a struggle between various shades of gray, where no part can be defined as the "good" or "evil" one. (The sad conflict of Northern Ireland, for instance.)

Shades of gray? Nah, we have that in every other MMOG out there. Give me something to actually ROLE-PLAY! If I chose Omni, I'll be like the "evil galactic empire" in Star Wars! Pure evil! Woot! This game sounds awesome!

[/B]

Its the other way around, we have good vs evil in most other mmorpg out there and in most other rpgs also. However, good vs evil sides should be availiable to those who want to rp them as well as "shade of grey" type sides. The players should be allowed to determine how big a role thier side plays in the story by their actions, not a pre-determined fate made by funcom.