WAR Isn't Fun

"I’ve already played Warhammer. It was called World of Warcraft." - Richard Bartle

Bartle was right, he did play WAR already, and it was WoW. Just like Bartle, many players will try to play WAR as they do WoW and then wonder why they aren’t playing WoW or state they are sick of playing WoW. That’s fine. No one can force them to change their mind on how to play MMOs.

Unfortunately, Bartle gave validation to many “WAR is just WoW” viewpoints. However, many seem to have missed the part where Dr. Bartle admitted that he played a lot of WoW and had fun doing so. So, if he already played WAR, and it was WoW, then WAR is probably going to be fun to some degree. Bartle was simply burned out.

This brings me to a post at Virgin Worlds where Brent asserts that WAR just isn’t fun. Sadly, Brent uses Dr. Bartle’s quote to defend his position. That doesn’t add up, as WAR has to be fun by Bartle's assertion. Brent's view shows the effect that Bartle’s ill-fated quote has had on those looking for evidence to indict WAR as a failure.

I don’t dislike Brent and I’m not going to start throwing hypocrisy around again. I want to look into why Brent views WAR as a foregone failure. It starts in the recent Virgin Worlds Podcast #127, where Brent spends a lot of time talking about the “next generation” of MMOs and how games coming out currently are “last generation, nothing new to see here, move along please”.

It is evident that Brent is not interested in the current generation of MMO games and it is unlikely he would view any of them as “fun”. I wish Brent would just come out and say that, instead of looking for validation to prop up his opinion in misguided quotes and propaganda.

Unfortunately, Brent makes the argument that Sony Online Entertainment has a slew of upcoming next generation games, while reporting from a SOE-sponsored fan-faire. That absolutely dumbfounds me, because SOE has absolutely no games on tap that we haven’t seen versions of before.

Free Realms is an online world filled with mini-games that runs on micro-transactions.

The Agency is an online, class-based and multi-player shooter with persistent world aspects.

DC Universe Online is a super hero MMO that focuses on action and offers a peak at physics based game play.

None of the listed games offers anything new other than the fact that SOE is putting huge development dollars into them. Puzzle Pirates, released in 2003, does the online game world filled with mini-games and customizable avatars already. Doom, released in 1993, not only invented the first person shooter genre, but took it online as well. Planetside, another SOE game that happens to be a persistent online shooter, has been around since 2003. City of Heroes, a super hero MMO, has been around since 2004. Physics-based games have been all-the-rage for the last few years.

It is absolutely SOE fanboy-ish to argue any of them are next generation. I’m sorry, but that invalidates Brent’s criticism of WAR. Brent likes SOE and despises WAR. He is entitled to that opinion, but he needs to stick to it as an opinion, not try and use it as evidence that WAR "is just another WoW" and therefore will fail.

The gaming industry has shown a complete lack of ability to innovate quickly. Change occurs slowly, over time, from release to release. There is never going to be a mainstream game that suddenly changes the playing field in terms of players and mechanics. Some games, such as WoW, will storm in and take over a genre, but not through innovation.

The next generation is going to come slowly over time and those waiting for it will never find it. Every time they look at a new game, they will see something from the last game and claim that they are going to “sit this one out” in anticipation of the next generation.

Yawn

Its Diablo III. I feel sorry for anyone that believed different. After the Starcraft 2 announcement in Korea, I gave up all faith that Blizzard was out to shock anyone with their future games. Blizzard will stick to their IPs and make really good games with them.

Diablo III is hack and slash. Really good looking hack and slash. The classes look fun and insanely overpowered, which goes a long way towards making hack and slash something players can enjoy for more than a couple hours.

I'm really on the fence with Diablo III. I know it will be a good game and fun, but is it worth my time? I've tried enough mediocre hack and slash games over the years, avoided Diablo II due to Diablo I burnout, and with little time to play, I don't know what to think of Diablo III.

The one thing that I am curious about is what everyone else thinks. How long can Blizzard live off of these franchises if all we're going to get is well done updates? The last big move, going from RTS to MMO with World of Warcraft, by Blizzard came at the hands of the old-school designers which have long ago left the company.

Don't get me wrong. Blizzard makes great games and I enjoy most of them, but I just wish they could take that great development process and put into something new and a bit more exciting than another Diablo.

Bartle Is Right

The Internet at large is going blah, blah, blah as of late due to a wonderful quote from a man that a lot of MMO veterans have long argued is our "intellectual elite". That man is none other than Dr. Bartle, and here is the bomb he tossed:

Massively: "Are you planning on playing games like Age of Conan and Warhammer when they come out?"
Bartle: "I’ve already played Warhammer. It was called World of Warcraft."

I've railed against the WoW vs WAR comparisons before and completely blistered idiots trying to compare the two based on visuals, but Bartle's comment is not comparing the two. I think Dr. Bartle is 100% correct in what he said. He HAS played WAR already and it WAS called World of Warcraft.

Now, why would I go and say this after arguing until blue in the face that WAR is not WoW? Because of something I've said a hundred times before: players looking for the WoW experience will find it in WAR. All that is WoW can be found in WAR. The defining difference is that there will be a hell of a lot more to WAR than there is currently or will ever be to WoW.

That is not a slight against WoW, it is a statement of fact that Blizzard is the kind of developer that sticks strictly to what they can do right. PvE and all this dabbling in e-sports is right up Blizzard's ally and that is what WoW will always be. The question for WoW has been whether e-sport and PvE can coexist in the same game.

So, Bartle is right. He has played WAR already, because he is an Achiever by his own test. He has three level 70 characters in WoW. I have no doubt he could do the same when WAR launches, but I do not see Bartle ever hitting Realm Rank 80 (the true "end" level in WAR). Just as I doubt Bartle would ever achieve a 2000+ personal Arena rating on his level 70 WoW characters.

Even if Bartle talks better with a backspace key, I doubt he would remove his quote. For him, the experience to be gained in WAR for HIM is the exact same experience he got out of WoW.

To me that is more evidence that WAR is going to be a great game. The complete WoW experience is there, and everyone looking for it will find it. Funny thing is, a lot of these same people will also find out that WAR is fleshed out, full-featured, and actually encourages players to socialize at every turn.

And Cuppy, Bartle's statement was foolish, because as the industry veteran he is, he knew damn well how it would be taken and I think to a certain degree he wanted it to be taken that way. Foolish, his statement was, but wrong it was not. He has already stated he would shut down WoW, so it is of no surprise that a game that will deliver the same quality experience of WoW would be on his hit list as well. Smart people do say stupid things.

Epic Fail 2: Second Age of Conan Siege

Openedge was kind enough to point out that a second siege occurred in Age of Conan. According to him it went "much better", but I'm not quite sure our idea of "better" are exactly the same. For example: to me filet mignon is a much better cut of beef than sirloin. To Openedge, cube steak is better than ground beef, because its not ground as much. See what I did there?

From all reports on the second siege, the only aspect to improve, was that it was semi-playable this time around with top-end gaming rigs reaching an astonishing 15 FPS. Everything else STILL did not work. Walls were still exploited, and when the legitimate way to get through a wall, by smashing it to bits occurred, the attackers could not get past the now demolished structure. Siege weapons sat idle.

Really, I could go on and on with the list of problems that AoC's siege warfare has currently, but it isn't worth the typing. The fact is: AoC's end-game siege warfare was not ready at launch. This is fine for the hardcore guilds currently battling each other. They expected as much, are used to such failures, and will battle on into the future.

Problem is, the hardcore guilds are going to quit, regardless of whether sieges get fixed or not. I've played with every single hardcore guild listed, both against and alongside them, and none of them has stuck in any MMO for any length of time. Sure, their name lives on, but rarely do the mainstay players and leaders of the guild last long. There is always a greener pasture to look forward to.

What happens when these early adopter guilds decline? Does Funcom have the system fixed by then or will the majority of AoC players walk into a disaster? I'm not going to sit around and say Funcom can't get it fixed, but I will chastise them for leaving it in-game in such disrepair. It definitely nailed the coffin shut in my mind. I will never play Age of Conan.

I spent a lot of energy arguing that AoC was a direct WoW knock-off and that the only defining features of AoC were not complete, would not work, and are exactly in the state that beta testers predicted them to be.

AoC has proven beyond a doubt that it is a WoW clone, a barely-capable WoW-clone at that. The PvE game is almost an exact copy, which is fine, but the features meant to define AoC as a non-WoW-clone, just are not ready. Will Funcom fix them and develop AoC into a long-standing MMO for their core audience? Probably, but don't expect any more massive interest in the title. Launch was as good as it will get for AoC.

Epic Fail: World First Age of Conan Siege

The news couldn't get worse for Age of Conan (AoC). World first siege, between PFB and LOTD, turns out to be unplayable.

"PFB did the server's first siege (world first?) this morning at 6am EST on LOTD, a few Sinister who were online decided to take the opportunity to see how "polished" siege warfare was. The naysayers were pretty much deadon. It took little time to break down the main gate (max of 4-5 mins), buildings in general go down really fast with the full raid on them. Siege weapons don't work yet, and the mercenary system isn't in (we had to drop our guild for the siege in order to not kill each other even in the same raid). Keeps still have vunerable areas where you can just run past the walls (on the LOTD keep it was on the right side of the outer wall). After breaching the outer wall we ran into the major problem (I guess?) of sieging. LAG. I run a quad core 2.4ghz 2 gig ram and a 8800GT, and I had a solid 2-3fps once we engaged (btw i spent 500 dollars upgrading my pc for this game). Trying to actually fire combos and kill anyone was virtually impossible unless they were rooted."

This wasn't even that many players and AoC is planning to somehow have 150 vs 150 battles? World of Warcraft (WoW) managed 40 vs 40. Most good FPS games max out around 32 vs 32. There was a lot of prior history for Funcom to learn from and set attainable goals. They seem to have disregarded all of it in favor of putting big numbers in their press releases.

I am sick of posting these followups to AoC, highlighting the same problems beta testers were talking about in beta. I'm sick of people telling me I was wrong about AoC. I am sick of people telling me how "fun" AoC is. Games that are not complete, are not fun.

The fact is: Funcom tested NONE of AoC's features outside of leveling, and tested leveling only to the point that it was possible to reach level 80, not whether it was fluid or consistent.

Guild cities? No testing.
PvP sieges? No testing.

I quote a beta tester that participated in the siege:

I'm pretty sick of beta testing the game honestly. I pushed for the last 2 months of beta to get level 80 pvp implemented. I asked for the final month of the beta to have a /80 command so that we could test their endgame/pvp content. Nothing...they didnt do ****. It was a smooth release, but they knew from beta that people would be at endgame content within the first couple of weeks due to their fast leveling curve....yet they continue to push level 30-50 content. ****ing stupid.

A few days of stress testing would have easily shown that neither worked! Something that doesn't work should not be launched for the public to suffer through. That is the old MMO market, not the post-WoW market.

I understand the need for games to launch early. I don't agree with it and I think there is a lot of evidence to show that delaying until finished is very financially viable. However, I must admit that is not how some development houses are run and the need to launch happens. It is just mind-boggling to me that developers don't at least hold major features back that just don't work. Stick with what works, make it really good, and worry about the other stuff later. Most importantly, don't list features on the box that will not make it into the final game or that are unlikely to actually work.

I will compare this situation directly to Pirates of Burning Seas (PotBS). PotBS took a huge delay to put in Avatar Combat. Avatar Combat failed miserably and painfully took away development time from polishing what did work: ship combat and the economy. PotBS could easily be enjoying life as a niche success, but instead the developers are patching in the polish that could of easily been added had Avatar Combat just been ignored until later.

PotBS had huge player numbers at launch, but a few server merges and months later, and it is evident no one stuck around. That is EXACTLY what will happen to AoC. Anyone that doesn't believe me, doesn't understand the power of history to teach the human race.

AoC players better prepare for a long wait, because the siege system is going to require an entire rewrite to become playable. Maybe the rest of the game will hold up and entertain those looking for sieges and epic guild conflict. Maybe, just maybe, Funcom will pull another "Miracle Patch" out of their ass. I doubt it, but I'm going to leave the possibility door open.

We sit here, again, with the long-standing MMO tradition of forcing the player base to test in-game systems after launch. The laundry list of mistakes that AoC has made, is making, and will continue to make is immense. I firmly stand by my position to not play AoC.

Update: 25 June 08 - More commentary here.

Age of Conan Troubles Continue to Surface

The Age of Conan (AoC) launch seemed to have gone off without a hitch, but the truth beneath the surface is starting to rear its ugly head. Which is fine with me, since it fulfills my interest in not eating crow.

AoC launched too early. The "Miracle Patch" that did fix some hardware and crashing issues, did not house any miracle fixes to the late-to-end-game content that many believed it did. Lack of quests, bugs, and malfunctioning game systems are plaguing players as they approach level 80 and begin to settle in for the long haul. That is, if they haven't quit already.

I don't even need to go farther than AoC's own developers to prove this point. They have fully admitted the game wasn't finished or tested enough in this Letter from the Game Director. They launched because the game was playable and could be patched into fruition, as evidenced in their aforelinked Letter and quoted below.

1. We will add content, specifically in mid-late thirties and mid-late fifties and make the leveling speed smoother in those areas, reducing the need to grind.
2. We will have an overhaul of the PvP system – adding consequence and a host of small things.
3. We are fixing bugs you reported through all channels we can get information from.
4. We will add a new large outdoor region in the 55-60 range this summer!
5. This is only a small taster! More information about the exciting summer and fall Roadmap will come the end of the next week!
6. We are staffing up Customer Service, Quality Assurance and Community departments!

Here we sit again, another MMORPG launch goes off technically smooth, but it does not take long for the lack of polish to set in. Most of us hate to use the word polish, but honestly it fits the problem perfectly. Blizzard polished World of Warcraft to a squeaky-clean shine. They didn't innovate; they simply executed the same ideas that have been around for years and polished, polished, polished.

I could go on, but I won't. Funcom simply did not heed the warning set down by Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Tabula Rasa, and Pirates of the Burning Seas. Don't launch until the game is ready. Finish the game first, polish while finishing the game, and then launch.

I know it is easy for me to say that. After all, I'm not putting millions of dollars on the line and could really care less about running out of money. I've always stated that MMO developers need to be a business first and a game developer second. Good business practices will assist greatly in ensuring extra time is available if needed.

No, I'm not a game developer. I'm their customer (loyal btw) and I try to stay out of commenting on the business practices of developers. However, it is painfully obvious, especially with MMOs taking off due to WoW's success, that some developers just do not get it.

AoC, like LotRO, may enjoy financial positivity for a time, but I can't help but point out that these two games could of easily wound up in the state of Vanguard. Fortunately, both AoC and LotRO were able to polish enough of their early game to ensure a bleak existence and give hope to the MMO community that they may just be able to get it done.

I am jaded. I understand a lot of people do not like my constant negativity, but I'm not going to lie to myself. I can't be positive for these unpolished games. The MMO industry is very depressing right now, but has grown to immense proportions. There are players looking for games and AoC picked a great time to launch. I just can't excuse an unfinished game simply on the grounds of launching during a sweet spot. I know, I would probably be a horrible failure as a CEO.

To me, it is summed up in the first comment to this post over at Massively.

So... answer this: Why is it that they can do all of this now, instead of delaying release for 30 days and provide the public with a much more playable product?

Updated Thoughts on Mythos

I recently journeyed back into Mythos to experience the recent "Overworld" patch. The Overworld is simply a shared world for all the players of Mythos, where as before the Overworld, cities were instanced ala Guild Wars and then players simply traveled, instantly via maps, to another instance that they (and their group) would share. Now there is just a single, big world instance for all players to run around in. Within that world are entrances to dungeons, which operate as instances for the player or their group.

I'm not really sure I like the Overworld approach. For starters it seems to have completely reset the development of the game. There is an Overworld now, but not much else. Most quests are gone, crafting is being rebuilt, the map system is gone in favor of a similar rune system, and I'm not quite sure if there is a Shadowlands version of the Overworld. Shadowlands being the PvP mirror of the PvE areas.

Starting out definitely felt different in the Overworld. At first, I completely missed the first quest giver as a player ran past my screen, an impossibility in the original Mythos. Secondly, I was sort of lost as there was dots on my mini-map, but little explanation what the point of them were. After getting acquainted with the new Overworld, and finding my first quest giver, I was on my way to adventure.

There are NPCs that spawn in the Overworld to fight, but they are easily bypassed. They also don't seem to spawn fast enough to provide a proper means to level and most did not drop loot. I saw almost no purpose in them, but then again as I mentioned not much is in the game aside from the Overworld.

Once in a dungeon, I found the Mythos I was familiar with. Click, kill, loot, and repeat. Standard hack and slash. The first few dungeons I entered felt much smaller than before, which makes me wonder if the Overworld is supposed to provide some sort of filler content, while dungeons serve as quick in and outs.

There is also a new race, the Cyclops. In reality, it is just another, larger character model option. I noticed no difference playing a Cyclops than any of the other races. There were no new classes this beta phase.

Other than that, I was hard pressed to find something enjoyable. Standard hack and slash works because it is fast and fun. While parts of Mythos are fast and fun, the Overworld is not part of it.

Honestly, the Overworld feels like a neutered version of any other Diku-inspired MMO out there, from WoW to Everquest 2. Part of it is the unfinished nature as a lot of what I remember from the original Mythos is missing.

I guess the most depressing part of the Overworld is that it in no way inspired me to work together with players I might encounter. There was still no noticeable effort to get me to interact with other players, and with the Overworld, there are far less meeting places for players. The first city was relatively empty and the random wanderer I encountered in the Overworld could of been an NPC for all I knew. In the end, the only interaction was via chat.

I have uninstalled Mythos, again. It has a long way to go with the shift in development. Prior to the Overworld, I felt Mythos was a few tweaks and content additions away from being a free and fun time waster. Now I'm not so sure. In an attempt to become more like an MMO, I think Mythos has lost a lot of reason to play it. When Mythos is just like that "other game", but not nearly as good, who cares if it is free? Oh and only free until Flagship Studios can not support it on micro-transactions alone.

The WoW-Clone Syndrome

NOTE: If you don't want to read a bunch of feature lists, skip to the conclusion at the bottom.

I'm going to hunt down and flog every single little twit that continually calls Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning (WAR) a WoW-clone, simply because they saw an early alpha screen shot of an Orc. These are the same people that believe Age of Conan to be the new "hotness".

First, WoW-clone needs to be defined. This is simple.

1. Level based advancement, primarily via solo PvE quests. Variation in quests is limited. Required group interaction minimal. Other activities do not contribute to leveling.
2. Classes based on archetypes: healer, tank, and DPS.
3. End game focuses on instanced PvE raiding and group-required content. Other end-game content a sideshow to main PvE aspects.
4. Gear centric approach to character advancement at max level, also known as meta-levels. Division of gear: one set for PvP, one set for PvE.

Other than that, everything else in WoW is really just good game design, applicable to all games in all genres. No need to list "responsive controls", etc. Those are items expected out of all games, but for some reason not seen in the MMO space until WoW.

Now that the WoW-clone is loosely defined, we can put the contenders up to the test to see which one is the true WoW-clone.

Age of Conan

PvE leveling via solo quests: yep.
Variation in quests limited: yep.
Required group interaction during leveling limited: yep.
Other activities do not significantly contribute to leveling: yep.

Classes based on archetypes: yep.

End-game focuses on PvE raiding and PvE group-required content: to a degree.
Other end-game activities: yes, cities, border kingdoms, but still to be determined level of importance.

Gear-centric advancement at max level: yep.
Differing sets of gear for differing aspects of game: unknown.

My WoW-clone'o'meter for Age of Conan: 90%

Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning

PvE leveling via solo quests: yep, but in the form of public quests which can involve interaction among many solo players.
Variation in quests limited: yep, but once again public quests break the stereotypical quest mold, offering a staged series of events to unfold for the players participating.
Required group interaction during leveling limited: unknown, but again shattered by public quests.
Other activities do not significantly contribute to leveling: false. WAR will offer three very distinct activities to contribute equally to leveling: PvE questing experience, Realm vs Realm experience, and Tome of Knowledge experience will all contribute in part or in whole to leveling. Most things a player does in WAR will contribute to leveling.

Classes based on archetypes: yep.

End-game focuses on PvE raiding and PvE group-required content: to a degree, but end game PvE raiding will be a result of the Realm vs Realm campaign.
Other end-game activities: yes, the campaign system, scenarios, sieging, and open-field RvR, all contribute equally as much as PvE raiding and PvE group play.

Gear-centric advancement at max level: yep.
Differing sets of gear for differing aspects of game: unknown, but unlikely.


My WoW-clone'o'meter for WAR: 50%

Conclusion

People are going to yell at me for comparing feature lists. Others will scream that AoC just launched and WAR is still in beta. Unfortunately for those yelling, the base of these "games like WoW" are not going to change. WoW hit the nail on the head in terms of online game play, and not just for MMOs, but for games in general.

That leads me to compare the features of each game, because honestly, there are not many features in WoW. WoW is a great base of a game, with a ton of potential being wasted. I hate to say it, but I was wrong for a very long time thinking that WoW could ever be anything more than a well done and simplistic PvE game.

Age of Conan is almost a direct WoW-clone, but saves face by adding some new end-game activities in the form of player-owned cities and border kingdom PvP. AoC's combat is pretty standard, with just a bit more clicking. AoC is taking the WoW base, copying it whole-sale, and fluffing the fringes to make it feel unique.

WAR is half a WoW-clone, which really isn't a clone at all. WAR will have a PvE end game, but the means of getting there will be drastically more dynamic than what is found in WoW. On top of this, WAR is shaping up to be a far deeper and more feature-rich game than WoW will ever be. WAR is taking the WoW base and piling on the goodness.

I fully embrace playing new games that "feel" a bit like WoW, because honestly, that is the way I want my games to play. I would kill for WoW's responsiveness and controls in a dozen other games I've played over the last few years. However, the time has come for a game to capitalize on WoW's success by adding a full feature set and in doing so, become the non-WoW Clone of the "next generation".

Failure To Understand DRM

Digital rights management (DRM) is an umbrella term that refers to access control technologies used by publishers and copyright holders to limit usage of digital media or devices.

A World of Warcraft account is NOT DRM. Tobold argues otherwise, but fails to use harsh language. An account to an online game is simply a means of accessing a service. When a player decides to play an MMO they do so fully understanding they are purchasing access to a service. If they don't, they should quickly learn.

An MMO, without DRM, can be pirated. Illegal servers can be brought up to provide the service portion "for free". Someone, who has stolen the game, could then easily log onto the illegal server and play. Requiring an account for the official service does not in any way stop piracy of an MMO and therefore the account CAN NOT be considered a form of DRM.

DRM, if it exists for an MMO, would be placed on top of the requirement to have an account to access the official service. For example: the game requires having the physical media in a drive while playing, or non-account-related authentication of the files installed on the computer. This is why I've commented before that online, subscription-based games somewhat defeat piracy in the first place by selling a SERVICE, not a "pile of code".

It is not a lack of understanding about DRM. It is an unwillingness to spend money, in essence voting, for a "pile of code" that is reliant upon a remote source for local authentication before it will run. It is complete bullshit and I will continue the harsh language and posture towards it until I see fit that it is not a detriment to LEGITIMATE purchasers.

In the case of Spore, where access to online content is a feature, the tried and true system of having an account to access the online service is the perfect solution. One purchase = one access key = money earned by EA/Maxis. I don't see how they would even think of using another system, especially with their plans to rank content and allow players to vote for their favorites. Mark my words: there will be some sort of control, outside of the DRM, to access online content. Therefore, the DRM is serving a POINTLESS role while accessing online content.

The accounts system is not perfect. Accounts can be shared, stolen, etc. etc. However, it ensures at some point that a copy was purchased and that players looking to play legitimately. Plus, with current technology, it is not difficult to sniff out and stomp out shared accounts. Sure, it takes effort, but so does maintaining an authentication server for years. Not to mention the ass whooping customer service will receive if that authentication server goes tits up on launch day.

This leaves only the initial installation DRM, which will be cracked within days of release. Personally, I have no problem with installation DRM that authenticates remotely or does some magic to ensure I have purchased a legitimate copy. Steam is a great example of properly implemented and friendly DRM, coupled with an account system to manage access to the digital distribution service.

DRM can exist peacefully, but it is obvious that is not the goal for EA. EA is trying very hard to present a show of force against the evil pirates. Unfortunately, it is resulting in further alienation of an already alienated PC gaming playerbase.

NOTES for Tobold: I do not play MMOs all the time. I play games all the time, MMOs some of that time. I just talk about MMOs more.

Spore can be installed three times total. Good luck having it installed on multiple machines for any length of time.

Fuck, Fuck, Fuck

I've talked up Spore around the Internet as possibly one of the most defining games of all time for the PC. My bravado for the game has taken a -50 DKP hit today with the following announcement:

All it’s taken is one little post and a landslide of others follow. At least that’s what’s happened when Bioware’s Derek French reveals that Mass Effect and Spore will be coming with a fairly hefty piece of DRM attached. It won’t just activate online when you first install the game - it’ll also have to check in to the server regularly to continue working. If ten days go by without a check-in working, the game stops working. In other words, major lengthy internet outage, no playage. Since RPS-comrade Rossignol is going to be having that kinda length of time offline shortly, this has to be frowned at.

DRM kills games for me. I have avoided weighty DRM, and promoted avoiding it, for a long time. I simply refuse to buy games tied down by DRM. What the fuck is EA thinking? DRM that checks in repeatedly, not just upon installation?

My stance on Spore, as a game, is taking a sudden back seat to this DRM issue. I will most likely NOT BUY the game if this DRM makes it through to the final release and there are no alternative ways, such as Steam, to purchase the game.

So, as my title states, fuck.

Making Assumptions Makes You an Ass

TG Daily has an article up detailing billions of dollars in lost revenue for Epic and Crytek due to the pirating of their games.

This statement confirms the attitude a lot of game developers discussed earlier this year at the 2008 Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, CA. We spoke with Mark Rein, VP of Epic Games, and learned that the Unreal Tournament 3 servers received over 40 million attempts at illegitimate access using pirate keys. That number is huge, and the real magnitude comes when you calculate the retail price of $49.99 (59.99 for Collector's Edition).

If those 40 million players actually paid the full price, it would have been nearly $2 billion more in Epic’s pocket book. That is more than the quarterly sales results from Nvidia or AMD. To add another perspective, the government lost out as well, because no sales tax is earned on pirated copies.

This is almost as fun as saying World of Warcraft has 10 million subscribers, so 10 million x $15 a month = $150,000,000 a month in revenue! It is just simply wrong, just like saying that 40 million attempts to join an Unreal Tournament III server with a pirated key is equal to $2 billion dollars in lost revenue. Yippee for broad assumptions!

The fact of the matter is, that it has NEVER and WILL NEVER be shown that people who steal a copy of a game (referred to as pirating in the article) are willing to pay for it in the first place.

Unfortunately, the truth for both Epic and Crytek, is that they built games far above the power curve. The paying consumer base voted with their wallets and told Epic and Crytek that no, we don't like paying $1,000 for PC upgrades just to play your games. Sadly, they then assumed everyone that stole a copy (not pirated) would of been glad to pony up $60 and now we're here.

What's truly sad is that both games, Crysis and UT3, actually did end up selling above average for each company after slow starts, but since they jumped on the OMGZ pirateZ train early, they can't simply jump off now without looking the part of an ass.

I can't wait for Epic and Crytek to become console exclusive and suddenly realize that when they make a shitty game, no one buys it and no one steals it, which means no one plays it, no one talks about it, and it becomes another $10 wonder in the bargain bin of GameStop.

Warhammer Concern

Looking over recent releases from the Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning (WAR) circle, both beta leaks and official information, I have a concern I want to voice. Yes, I said beta leaks, but they are merely confirmation of what is publicly speculated at large.

First, WAR seems to be treading a dangerous line towards the traditional problem most class-based MMO PvP games have: ranged standoff fights. In a ranged standoff, ranged classes spend the entire fight pea-shooting each other back and forth. Any attempt to gallantly charge the enemy down as a melee class is met with death at the hands of the ranged classes.

Now, since WAR is focusing on a lot of keep and castle sieging, the ranged DPS problem is actually OK in my book in certain situations. Ranged DPS should be king in keep fights, simply because melee are physically blocked by keep walls and should be focused around helping take the doors down.

However, what seems to be happening currently (and this is just beta), ranged DPS is king in every single fight. They do massive damage, have tons of crowd control, and for the most part can just walk away when approached by melee.

I think there are a couple contributing factors to the ranged stand off problem. First, the fact that ranged DPS is insanely high. Plus, the ranged classes have a ton of crowd control, as I mentioned. Secondly, and more importantly, the ability for healers to stand in the "back line" and heal the ranged DPS while they have fun. This means tanks/melee DPS don't get heals when they charge, because both the melee and healer are cut down from range. Players are smart and will maximize their progress potential and if that means healing the ranged DPS, who are getting all the kills, then that is what will happen.

That is not how WAR was advertised early on. Mythic was very strong about healing being minimalistic and requiring the healing classes to fight first while they "built up" healing power to heal later. It seems that is not the case any longer, with healing classes able to sit in the back row and heal away on the ranged DPS classes. I hope this is not how the game goes live, because I am sick of pigeon holed healers that just spam heals. Healers should be forced into combat and should be required to stay fairly close to their healing target.

This gives tanks renewed purpose as they have to go in with the healers to defend them with defensive skills such as bodyguard and the fact that through collision detection they can physically block opponents. This also allows melee DPS to get into the fight following the tank and healers in. Then ranged DPS can come into the fight. The battle then becomes a far more classic fantasy fight, with a grand melee in the middle of a bigger fight.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem the direction that WAR is going any longer. Which brings up problems of its own. Namely, the fact that Mythic has brought stealth back into the game for melee DPS classes. This is a direct result of ranged DPS cutting down melee classes. Now the melee DPS classes are "stealthed" and thus can't be targeted as they approach. Bad design decision in my book, regardless of how limited the stealth is.

This will not ruin the game, but it will definitely create problems as once again far too many ranged DPS classes get played compared to healers/tanks. Thus going right back to the problems of tank and healer shortages every diku-inspired MMORPG has had since Everquest.

Oh well, keep sieges are still looking kick ass.

Ganking, Deal WIth It

Blizzard has a solution for ganking: deal with it. In Blizzard's eye, players have a choice of where to play. Even if someone started on a PvP server, they are only a server transfer away from PvE friendliness.

I guess that little PvP indicator on the Server Select screen needs to be changed then and be replaced with a "You will be ganked." sign. I've played on a PvP server since launch and since about my third month I can't remember finding PvP anywhere on the server. Yes, battlegrounds and arenas are there, but those are within my battlegroup, not server.

Let me cut to the chase. I don't disagree with Blizzards point. If someone doesn't like getting ganked, don't play on a PvP server. If that isn't an option, then get some people and fight back. If that fails, just stay home and come out only when the area is clear two miles in each direction.

Sadly, none of these cover my situation, the "I'm playing on a PvP server, looking for PvP, but all I keep finding is ganking." None of Blizzard's little quips exactly helps. I reckon I am not the only one that rolled on a PvP server four years ago expecting to get a few years worth of PvP out of it.

Unfortunately, a "PvP server" tag is not indicative that PvP will take place on that server. Breaking it down, Battlegrounds and Arenas exist on all server types. PvP combat can take place in all zones on any server.

The only distinction for a PvP server is that PvP doesn't have to be switched on, its always on, and can not be switched off. That isn't even all that hardcore. Players know its coming and expect it to happen. They simply stop, die, and run back to their grave. Click "Accept" and its back to business as normal.

Hardcore would be a player playing on a PvE server with their PvP flag toggled on at all times. This ensures no moment of safety, as the player is truly vulnerable anywhere in the world. Plus the only way this type of player gets to jump someone is when they have set themselves for PvP as well, meaning they are fully willing and able to fight.

This type of player only gets to fight when someone else deems them worthy to fight. No easy kills for this type of player and my guess is they would just get mind-numbingly ganked by players that flag and unflag themselves, until they swapped over to a "true" PvP server. I personally gave this method a go for 47 levels on a Mage and it actually lead to a few well balanced fights, but mostly it was dirt nap city to gankers. PvP flag enabled on a PvE realm is asking to get ganked, because there is no repercussion.

So, wouldn't that make PvP servers better? The option for revenge is there, open for the taking. Well thats if the player that was ganked also happened to have their epic flying mount, Season 3 gear, and a ganker dumb enough to stick around. But the kind of player that has all that doesn't get ganked in WoW, because they aren't standing still long enough to get ganked. Getting camped? Get friends, and hope they have epic flying mounts and some magical way to ground one.

No, the players that get ganked are players that have no chance in hell to escape, let alone fight back and retaliate. Blizzard is fooling themselves if they think PvP servers are a cut above.

The fact is, most leveling areas up until the major parts of The Outlands are empty aside from the random level 70 causing heartache or farming items. Severe, progress-stopping ganking doesn't even come into play until The Outlands. And that just so happes to be where the gankers get the fun little toys to make a levelers life hell. Epic flying mount? Check. Vastly superior level 70 gear? Check.

Come on Blizzard, how the fuck can Drysc be allowed to spew the bullshit he just did? In the link above, Drysc states "It isn't always going to be fair", to which I say IT IS NEVER FAIR.

I would love for Blizzard to prove me wrong and roll up a new toon on a PvP server and come across any fair fights. It won't happen, because it can't. The majority of players are level 70 and the last thing they want to do when leveling an alt is waste time fighting a fair fight. That leaves the "PvP" up to the fucking gankers and gank squads.

Fuck them, and fuck Blizzard for even dreaming that their PvP servers offer and sort of redeeming PvP content.

Beta Leaks

There is a certain website that has sprung up recently dedicated to anything and everything that is beta leaking for MMOs. The site features NDA-breaking leaks for Age of Conan, Warhammer Online, and other titles. The main focus of the site is finding "beta leakers" and allowing them to post "beta leaks".

Being a MMO blogger, I appreciate "insider information", so I assumed this beta leaking website would be of value. I truly wanted some juicy information to confirm my worst fears or better, solid information to base my opinion on. Unfortunately, the site isn't about beta leaks and most of the "beta leakers" could be mistaken for misplaced third graders.

What I've found is a Special Ed class in "I don't have a fucking clue about MMOs, but I'm in a beta for one!". The forums for this website are littered with "OMGz this is overpowered", "the graphics suck", and worst of all, "its not like WoW!!!" postings. Someone would have to work really hard to discern any "leaked information" from these rants about games that are still in beta. It would be so easy to just reply a thousand times over "its still beta, how the FUCK can you make any determinations when you are only testing the first few levels of content?".

It really depresses me that these oxygen thieves were given beta slots in the first place. I do get a good laugh though, as about every other day, a "beta leaker" posts their "I got banned" post because they posted a screen shot or video displaying their character's name. At least we know someone is watching closely.

But even worse than the leakers, are the clowns that show up and post in response.
They confuse "beta leaking forum posts" as "this is how the game will be on launch day", and make all kinds of wild assumptions. Some even go so far as to start breaking down numbers, without even having a fraction-of-a-decimal-point of information to base their claims on.
Reading the posts, a casual reader could easily confuse the conversation about beta information, for information about a game that has been around for five years.

Yes, I do still check the website occasionally to see what has been posted, but I doubt I'll keep it up much longer. I don't feel like wasting any more time reading two page posts about some idiot who got into a beta last week, played for a few hours, and absolutely hates the game now. I can get that from normal forums.

Talk Is Cheap

Drysc, Blizzard poster, dumped a wall of blue on an "I quit!" post. I've captured the post for posterity below:

It happens, but I'll try to touch upon each of your points and maybe give some small amount of insight and reassurance that they're all points we're either aware of or actively working to resolve.

Regarding spec viability we would definitely like to see every spec at least partially viable, that doesn't mean however that each spec will be equal in a very cutthroat PvP environment like the arenas. A prot warrior or shadow priest or what have you should though be able to jump into a battleground or arena and be able to do something with some small amount of success. How much success that should be is really the question, but our general philosophy is that we're ok with some specs not being as viable as others, we sort of have to be.

There's a synergy within the classes for PvP, as well as PvE, that doesn't lend itself to a model where every spec is exactly the same, exactly as viable as the other, in every situation. At that point we start watering down classes, watering down abilities, copy and pasting, the focus of the game is lost, dogs and cats are living together... mass hysteria.

Moving on to battlegrounds I don't believe we've ever stated that we have fewer maps to keep queue times short, that's not an issue. The issue is the amount of time it takes to create a battleground, and balancing that work time with other areas of the game. Battlegrounds are very labor intensive, Warsong Gulch which is probably the smallest of the battleground maps still has some terrain issues here and there. Playtesting, balancing, making edits, all require a very large amount of resources to ensure a successful battleground.

Now, that's not to say we aren't willing to put in the time, only that we have an entire game to put resources into, and those resources have to be delegated appropriately. The entire team is now working full force on Wrath of the Lich King, and the new battleground it also includes. Hopefully there will be some time to get additional battleground maps into the mix even after it ships. Personally though I think I'm most excited about Lake Wintergrasp just to see how it turns out.

In any case I'm sure the people you've been playing with have appreciated your time with them in the game, and I think you'll be pretty excited with the stuff going on in Wrath once we get a bit closer and can start revealing more and more.
But I hope you had fun, and see you around maybe.

Talk is cheap and I'm just going to come out and call bullshit on this entire post.

First, the idea that Blizzard can't make all specs viable in PvP. I guess he wasn't around when Warlocks, Warriors, Druids, Hunters, and Rogues all were turned into PvP powerhouses. I think what he is meaning to say is "... not all specs will be viable in Arenas."

Secondly, the idea that battlegrounds are too tough to develop alongside expansion packs. I don't see any problems with them pumping out new PvE zones, instanced or not. I don't see any problems with them adding new Arena maps. I don't see any problems with them rebuilding Alterac Valley a dozen times over.

It is well documented that other battlegrounds were in development at some point, but dropped for whatever reason. Fact is, Blizzard dropped the extra battlegrounds to develop Arenas. Blizzard does not care about battlegrounds. They are in it for Arenas and the e-Sport now.

Lastly, I just had to laugh at the Lake Wintergrasp comment. Lake Wintergrasp will be a world PvP objective that will feature siege warfare and procurable objectives. Looking at the history of world PvP objectives it will end one of two ways.

1. The rewards will be extremely popular and everyone will flood the zone. Non-Alterac Valley battlegrounds will pretty much end up at a stand still, until Arena Season 2 gear hits the honor vendors.

2. It will be forgotten after the initial rush of levelers have passed the zone by, just like nearly every single world PvP objective in The Burning Crusade.

I do not see Blizzard toning down the Arena rewards and therefore the majority of PvP rewards will center around Arenas. This eliminates almost any chance that Lake Wintergrasp can fit into the end-game reward structure. Lake Wintergraps will be another epic PvP fail for Blizzard.

Blizzard: Another Reason To Dump Arenas

Another reason has surfaced that convinces me that Arenas are having a horrible effect on World of Warcarft. It seems that every month a new exploit is unveiled regarding Arenas, the latest being queue dodging, which allows teams to pick and choose whether or not to fight a match and in turn wasting their opponent's time. I have no doubt Blizzard will remedy the situation, but it doesn't matter.

Arenas, and the rewards gained from them, are destroying the game.

It is simple to understand why the Arenas are booming in popularity. The rewards are awesome, gained from one single activity, and for the most part fairly easy to attain (if you are willing to put in the time). The top-end rewards are now being restricted, but Personal and Team Ratings (along with Arena points) are just a few thousand gold pieces away these days.

I've crusaded my entire WoW career for balanced rewards in PvE and PvP. Some would say that is where Arena rewards currently stand, but that does not justify how exploitive the system has become where people are more likely to abuse or buy their way to the top rather than earn it themselves.

The question that comes to my mind is whether these exploits would exist if there was no rewards, aside from bragging rights, to be gained in Arenas. I'm sure some of them would exist, as people still hate to lose, but the widespread exploitation that we currently see would not. There simply wouldn't be the drive to exploit the system for essentially no gain.

Without the gear rewards, arenas would also be far less popular and end up pushing out a lot of the lower skilled teams as there would be fewer equally ranked teams to match them with.

Personally, I think that may be the way to go, as Blizzard preps Arenas for a more professional e-sport presentation which naturally pushes out the lower skilled teams. Blizzard has proven that PvE is their strong point and as a die hard PvPer, I can live with that.

Move the PvP focus back to battlegrounds and world objectives. Vary the rewards across each battleground and world PvP objective, instead of bottling all the great rewards into a single system (ala Arenas currently). Spread the PvP population out instead of forcing everyone into queues to line up for their next Professor Plum.

As a side note, as I leveled up through the Outlands, I couldn't help but feel disgusted at what a waste the world PvP objectives have become. I ignored pretty much every single one, as there was rarely an enemy to fight or challenge and I knew that the real rewards (Season 1 Arena gear) were at 70 and easily gained through the honor grind. Honestly Blizzard, why waste the development time on the world PvP objectives if their rewards are going to be made obsolete?

Oh and did I mention I'm debating quitting WoW again? Guess I did now :P

Unmake That Game

The question, "What game would you unmake?", is floating around the gaming blogosphere currently, and in true form I'm here to chime in with my opinion. As I am fairly narrow minded at times, I'm going to look at the MMOG genre by default.

The game I would unmake? Everquest.

Everything I despise and loathe about MMOGs is epitomized in Everquest. Grinding? Check. Leveling? Check. Harsh death penalty? Check. l33tn3ss? Check. Housing? No. Role-playing? Limited. Player cities? No. Anything other than just playing whack-a-mole? Not really.

Don't get me wrong, Everquest is not the first game to use these mechanics or commit these sins, but it was truly the first large-scale commercial success of the graphical MMOGs. Which in turn spawned the Everquest-clone syndrome that has doomed a hundred projects since. Every developer thought Everquest had it all figured out and subsequently tried to cash in with a game just like Everquest.

Some people will try and argue that World of Warcraft copied Everquest and is now the king of the MMOG hill. Therefore Everquest obviously did something right. But I would argue that WoW took it's ideas from the Diku text-MUDs that inspired Everquest, not from Everquest directly.

In my jaded-gamer view, Everquest also copied the Diku style, but did it in an absolutely horrible way. Everquest was complete and utter trash in comparison to the original Diku style. It added inordinate tedium and frustration to a system that truly worked best in text form over an infant Internet.

Not until WoW launched was the Diku style actually realized properly in a graphical MMOG, and even then it is fairly limited to the leveling portion of the game. The one concession I will ever make for WoW as an EQ-clone, is in the end-game raiding which was heavily lifted whole-sale from EQ (Blizzard just executed it better) and has been fairly directed at the EQ-type of player. However, that is Blizzard's fault for not controlling the former EQers on the WoW development team.

Erase Everquest from the history books and the MMOG genre might actually be at an innovation flood instead of an innovation standstill. Ultima Online, The Realm, Meridian 59, all had better approaches to the online space. All have been ignored.

Don't like my opinion? Comment.

BREAKING NEWS: Blizzard Hates Shamans

BREAKING NEWS: Shaman's Flame Tongue Weapon buff and Warlock's Life Tap nerf have been reverted on World of Warcraft's public test realm. Show no signs of return. Blizzard cites Arena participation numbers as key determinant. Details at noon.

Ok, I'm not that surprised by the rollback. Blizzard is notorious for announcing big changes, only to baulk on implementation and pull them before patches go live. It is just a bit irritating to see Blizzard quoting "Arena participation numbers", of the top few percent of players, as their reason.

Just a cursory glance at the numbers they provided clearly shows some issues for certain classes. Not to mention, an easily noticed abundance of Warlocks in all brackets. However, I am not going to take the time to poke all the obvious holes in the data provided. I'll just hope Blizzard has someone with a brain looking at more than just what was posted.

I truly hope that Arenas are not the deciding factor in everything that is class balance in WoW.

If anything is true of Patch 2.4, it's been a hell of a roller coaster for Shamans! The patch notes started off quiet, but then Blizzard spilled the beans on their plans to "progressively patch the test realm". Instead of releasing a big list of changes, they decided to slowly roll out various changes to the test realm, announcing them as the test realm updated.

I have to admit, the "progressive" approach is turning out to be one hell of a soap opera. One second Warlocks are finally getting nerfed, the next, its another sad joke on the part of Enhancement Shamans everywhere!

Patch 2.4 isn't as bad as I'm squealing about right now for Shamans. Shamans still receive meaningful updates to Ghost Wolf, Totem cooldown, and the Toughness talent. Shamans only lost an anti-healing buff to Flame Tongue weapon, which would have forced Shamans to lose some burst damage in favor of some anti-heal. Sadly, there is no real change to make non-Restoration (healing) Shamans viable in Arenas.

Oh well, at least Blizzard built the Shamans up a bit this time, before crushing them. At least now, I don't have to get a new offhand weapon for my Shaman, and I can stick with the status quo: WINDFURY OR DIE!!!

WINDFURY OR DIE!!! World of Warcraft's PvE-PvP Break

A post over at WoWInsider details a bit of frustration coming from World of Warcraft players recently in regards to class changes made by Blizzard in an attempt to balance Arena matches.

Are we really ready to split the game into World of Warcraft and Warcraft Arena? There will no doubt be a lot of players who want to continue to play their characters in both PvE and PvP, balance be damned. But if Blizzard is as committed as they seem to be to balance Arena as precisely as it needs to be balanced to turn it into a real e-sport, they may have to eventually make the jump and separate the two games completely.

I couldn't agree more. Blizzard has reworked classes, rebuilt talent trees, and tweaked classes in the past. Minor changes were often held back and packaged with other changes to ensure a more comprehensive change for the intended class. Also, past changes had a much broader focus intended to fix problems in PvE and PvP. Most of all, they were never aimed at fixing one specific problem in one specific instance.

Unfortunately, this policy has changed as Blizzard begins a series of directed class and game changes with Patch 2.4 that are aimed squarely at fixing specific Arena problems with little regard to the game as a whole. Enhancement Shamans are getting a semi-overhaul aimed at making them competitive in 3vs3 arenas (quote from dev needed). Drinking is getting nerfed, but only while in an Arena. The Warlock ability life tap, is being significantly scaled back since it is a bit overpowering in Arena matches.

I want to focus on the Shaman changes, because I have played an Enhancement Shaman since late beta. The Shaman changes to the Ghost Wolf, Totem global cooldown, and Toughness help give a little more utility to skills that sparingly see use in PvP and normal play. The totem change will assist greatly in boosting PvE for all Shamans.

One of the main Enhancement Shaman changes, the addition of an anti-healing de-buff to the Flame-Tongue weapon skill, is pin-pointed at improving Enhancement Shamans in only a very specific instance: 3vs3 arenas. In my honest opinion, that is an asinine move on Blizzard's part.

Three out of the four weapon buffs available to Shamans have been all but useless since the game was released. Shamans have pleaded for changes to make them more equally balanced instead of the current standard of WINDFURY OR DIE!!! Instead of admitting that there might be an issue, Blizzard simply tacks on an unneeded addition to Flame Tongue to fix a very specific problem in a very specific instance for a very specific spec.

This just drives me mad. The Enhancement spec is completely pigeon-holed to start with, and now Blizzard makes changes to pigeon-hole them even further in a specific role. I'm not a game designer, but it makes sense to me that class design changes should be aimed at the overall experience of the class, not just a specific instanced problem. For whatever reason, Blizzard has abandoned this approach.

Which brings me to the whole point of this post. World of Warcraft needs to be divided into World of Warcraft: The Game Everyone Enjoys and World of Warcraft Arenas: Serious Business Only. This would allow Blizzard to take far more drastic measures to balance classes for e-Sport competitiveness. Also, it eliminates the gear inflation occurring with the current Arena system. Most of all, it allows those of us who actually enjoy the other aspects of WoW without the hindrance of class changes meant to fix Arenas only (which in turn screws the rest of the game over).

Maybe then, Blizzard could get around to fixing the other weapon buffs for Shamans.

Better Than I

Julie Whitefeather is my hero. Earnest Cavalli can now consider himself owned, not by some non-factor blogger like myself, but by a peer within his own field. It is painfully obvious that Mr. Cavalli wants nothing to do with my criticism of his work, but that is where Julie Whitefeather steps in. I will quote her response:

"... If a writer who gets paid to play and evaluate MMO games sees such striking similarities between a promotional video and a prior title, don't you think the average gamer might have trouble differentiating?" - Earnest Cavalli

I wasn't going to respond until I read the sentence above - so while Mr. Cavalli is busy tooting his own horn, perhaps I should give a small toot on my own. Back in undergraduate school - before BOTH master's degrees and before I GOT PAID FOR WRITING (albeit in another field) who would have pointed out the following.

The arts, of any sort, be they video games, a painting on a wall or a movie in a theater is not done for a professional reviewer. They ARE done for the "common man" (a figure of speach I use only to make a point for there is nothing common about each of us).

Having to resort to the phrase "..if a writer who gets paid..." is nothing short of the same response a politician gives when he or she says "I don't think you understand all the issues involved." I see this all the time in MY PROFESSIONAL field. Phrases of that sort are used for one reason and one reason only and that is a cheap last ditch defense that is tantamount to a journalist who, lacking any other sufficient arguement, stands in his own virtual back yard and yells...

"Nyah, nyah, nyah - and so's your mother..."

And while Mr. Cavelli is busy responding to Heartless with "Thank you Heartless for providing an excellent example of why deigning to respond to criticism is generally such a terrible idea" I will respond in kind...

Thank you Mr. Cavelli for such a trite and meaningless response and "deigning" to respond to us all here - you didn't hurt yourself when you climbed down off your pedestal did you? I might also thank you for a response that proves to US the lack of originality in the article you wrote - surely a journalist who deigns to responds to us poor downtrodden masses is worthy of more originality in his work.

I will end with a phrase my dear departed grandmother was wont to use...

Mr. Cavelli, if you can't take the heat - get out of the kitchen

And yes, I will see you on line...

again, and again and again.

p.s. the hours spent on the figurines were for the grandchild of a board member.

While he passes it off as an opinion piece, the truth is that Mr. Cavalli posted an article that has no journalistic integrity! His article shows obvious signs that he paid no attention to the disclaimers given within the video he criticized and more than once he directly contradicts what he is stating. That folks, is not journalism.

I'm glad that my angry rant can be so easily backed up by people that Mr. Cavalli might consider "worthwhile". Respect +1 for Julie Whitefeather.