[MUD-Dev2] [OFF-TOPIC] A rant against Vanguard reviews and rants

[Richard A. Bartle]

On 15 March 2007, John Buehler wrote:
>I simply don't believe that the vast majority of graphical combat game
>players have any interest in emote systems.
	By "combat game" do you mean virtual worlds such as EQ, WoW, DAOC
and the like?
	If so, does this mean you think Blizzard really wasted their time
with that /dance command? The one that people always seem to want to know
how it works for any new player-controlled model (trees, snowmen, arakkoa)
and are disappointed when there isn't one?

>Any more than they have an interest in chatting.
	The issue is not whether they have an interest in chatting; the
issue is whether they have an interest in being unable to chat. Adding
chats and emotes may not affect their play, but they'll notice if it's
no longer available.

>These are players who are drawn to graphical depictions of realtime combat
>combined with advancement.  "Talking is for girls"
	Well, we do have actual girls playing these games.

>For emotes and chat to be pertinent in a game, the game itself must
>naturally incorporate emotes and chat.
	You mean from a gameplay perspective, so if you smile an an NPC
then you may get a better deal from them than if you scowl (unless you
scowl REALLY menacingly)? I've no objection to this, indeed it could be
quite fun.

>Combat games (as they exist today) are not strong on
>socialization.  Ergo, emoting and chatting are irrelevant, regardless of
how
>well the systems are done.
	For emotes and chat not to be present in a virtual world, you need to
explain why they're a bad thing, not why they're irrelevant.

>Chatting and emoting in Second Life? Definitely.  In World of Warcraft?
>Does it get me my tier 3 gear?
	It does if you do it to the right person.

		Richard