Results -9 to 0 of 47

Threaded View

  1. #31
    Player
    fusional's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,170
    Character
    Veto Bahamut
    World
    Fenrir
    Main Class
    Archer Lv 1
    Quote Originally Posted by Yucie View Post
    As usual, fusional doesn't contribute anything to a discussion, let alone one with a legitimate foundation.
    i'm sorry. who are you again? you seem upset.

    want to know why i didn't contribute anything to this discussion? let's talk about legitimate foundations, then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jynx View Post
    one of the largest issues that 2.0 faces is that most of the content will probably be pretty shallow if we go by the trends of content we are receiving today
    i mean we're clearly FAR TOO STUPID, ENTITLED, WHINY AND SELF-IMPORTANT AS A COMMUNITY to realize in between flailing "sky is falling" threads that a major reason we pretty much only got juuuuuust enough content in 1.0 to keep us somewhat busy is because, well... you know...

    that thing i said about them running a barebones dev crew to the brink of exhaustion (and beyond) to work on the 1.0 client while... wait for it...

    the rest of them are put them to work on the 2.0 client- in addition to bringing in more muscle to throw into the task of remaking the game into something they've said time and time again that they want to not only meet *but exceed* the "gold standard of MMOs". i mean that makes sense, right? to do all this specifically for 2.0 only to apparently completely shit the bed and have 2.0 effectively suffer many of the same problems that made 1.0 a failure. right?

    problems which include lack of content...

    ... which largely existed in 1.0 in the first place because they were preoccupied with 2.0...

    understand yet? or is the logic way too difficult to wrap your feeble heads around? just in case i'll repeat one last time, for the sake of clarification:

    basing an assumption about 2.0 on one of the problems with 1.0 which largely stemmed from the very fact that they were busy working on 2.0 to begin with is completely asinine. furthermore, basing an assumption about 2.0 on any of the problems with 1.0 when they've made it clear they plan to fix and/or improve upon every single element of the 1.0 client in order to make the 2.0 client successful is completely asinine as well.

    so, yeah, you're right. i didn't add anything to the discussion this time because the entire god damned premise of the thread was idiotic. and that's what i took issue with and pointed out. so, no. the foundation of the thread isn't legitimate when it's built upon a false premise.

    does that mean people shouldn't worry that there won't be enough content to keep every demographic busy? nope. that's a valid concern. does that mean people shouldn't talk about content that particular demographics might enjoy, or that might simply make the game better? nope. have at it.

    but the principle of the matter is what concerns me, and that principle is that the premise of the thread is based on shit logic. so i commented on the premise and nothing more. take away the faulty premise and make the thread ONLY about content suggestions, without any of the "blah blah but 1.0 oh my god sky is falling" rhetoric and there's no problem.

    dig?

    feel free to follow me to more threads and helplessly flail about at me, though- especially the ones i stopped reading after a couple lines of irrational sensationalist drivel. i don't particularly feel like i need to talk about content because i'm pretty sure yoshi and the devs are already hard at work on that, because they likely understand *better than you or anyone in this thread* what kind of mountain they'll need to overcome in order to ensure the 2.0 client is not only successful- but actually good and worth playing long-term.

    though in the end, why are you even worried about it? because, really, what's the point in harping over content in 2.0 when you never even experienced half of what little content was available in 1.0 to begin with?

    (1)
    Last edited by fusional; 11-20-2012 at 09:42 AM.