Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Of course not, I never argued that absolute. I'm fully aware that there's other immersive things to fall back on.
Me not having magic to counter your "IlLuSiOn MaGiC" (if that's the excuse you want to use) does make it less immersive.
I'm gonna drop some fire right here just for you.
Life is give and take. You can give, and you can take at any moment in your life. Sometimes we take too much and sometimes we give too little. Find THE balance, not YOUR balance. Be reasonable.
What you want is not what I want. At the end of the day, we either want what Intrepid delivers or we will play something else. Either way, respect what is delivered as they are holding up to their end of the bargain so far.
I loves my preciousss immersion, but when it comes down to it, I'm more a live and let live type of person, when it comes to different tastes, even when I don't like it.
I also don't feel like a toggle to turn off all cosmetics is the way forward. I understand the pros of it, but I feel more strongly that players should share the same reality in the game, for better or worse.
Um, excuse me.....don't steal my name before I can use my name reservation please.
Stop putting arguments into my mouth. You do this all the time, it's why I have you on ignore and usually don't open your comments.
I'm not doing any of the things you said I am. Maybe go back and look critically at my words and read what I actually said instead of what you want to believe I said.
Edit: Also, criticism isn't always from negativity. Criticism can be born from passion and a desire to see something you like become better.
As such, I add my criticisms because I desire AoC to be the best game it can be.
You not having magic that can counter my magic has nothing to do with immersion at all.
It just means you don't have magic that can counter my magic. And you don't like that.
Just because you don't like something does not mean it objectively breaks immersion.
You said "..the gameplay is not immersive", implying there is no immersion at all.
Which is why I mentioned that no, there is other sources of immersion. Do I really need to split this hair?
You're right, I don't like that. I'd like to have the option to toggle off cosmetics.
Or by your logic, "HaVe An AnTi-IlLuSiOn-ViSiOn SpElL"
Both can be true. I can not like something and it can also break immersion.
I don't like the idea of Gandalf pulling a AK-47 out of his hat and shooting Saruman, and it would also be objectively anti-immersive.
Immersion is subjective, but there's also an objective core to it.
Gandalf pulling a gun out of his hat is objectively anti-immersive. Guns don't exist in Middle Earth.
Gandalf pulling a chicken out of his hat is subjectively anti-immersive. Gandalf may or may not be the kind of wizard to do that, and wizards being able to do that is up for interpretation.
It's like a bad piece of meat.
There is meat that is objectively bad and there is meat that is subjectively bad.
Doesn't matter whether an individual thinks the meat is subjectively good or bad - if it's objectively bad, the person who eats will likely become ill.
Just because a person subjectively feels something is immersion-breaking does not make it objectively so.
Illusions in a high fantasy/high magic fantasy setting are not objectively immersion-breaking, rather they are consistent with the genre and with the specific setting - if the specific setting includes illusions.
That illusions are subjectively immersion-breaking to some individuals doesn't change the objective fact.
I'm sorry if you feel I am putting arguments into your mouth. I am literally responding to your comments. You told me if I don't like something I should be arguing for it on the forums.
Your criticism and view for what AoC should be, is NOT what my vision of what AoC should be. Find the balance.
Right, but we as players cannot add our own stuff like guns to the game universe. Stufferton is real in Verra. It's part of the canon and lore. Whether or not people feel like Stufferton is immersion breaking in AOC is purely a subjective matter. As goes for all the other cosmetics in all the settings.
I don't think the meat analogy fits at all. We are talking about different ways to season the meat, from a predetermined menu, according to taste, not about something that can make you physically ill vs. something that won't, regardless of how it tastes.
It doesn't make it objectively so because there is zero objective component to it. I think you are conflating immersion with what is considered "appropriate" setting choices for high fantasy. They are not the same thing. Immersion is a feeling you can have. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't think they have defined cosmetics as illusions in Verra. I think that is just your personal interpretation. Correct me if I am wrong
Seasoning is about what someone likes. Immersion-breaking is not about what someone likes.
Verra is a high fantasy/high magic world that includes illusions. That is objective.
What Dreoh is saying is that he doesn't like illusions and wishes Verra did not include them. That is subjective.
That is not the same thing as illusions being objectively immersion-breaking to the setting.
Illusion: a false appearance or deceptive impression of reality.
Really hoping to see some decrepit cemeteries down below. I don't think it would make sense to see cemeteries up above after 1000 years right? Down below we should see how the gross Tulnar race handled their dead imo.
I mean ruins can been seen so why not tombs ^^
Under Verra though has some serious potential to see fresh graves. This would be so cool so have some undead bosses down there with fresh corpse ghoulies!
So tomb kings time.
EVEN BETTER!
I'm on board with these more balanced opinions.
I know I won't enjoy some of the more ridiculous and immersion-breaking cosmetics / freehold arrangements, however if the the gameplay and community are enjoyable - I will tolerate it, and who knows, might even dabble in the madness on occasion. It's all about pros and cons, and while it's not a straight up deal breaker to me - it is definitely a "con".
This is not true. I never said I don't like illusions. You're altering my argument, either maliciously or ignorantly.
In fact, my favourite class of all time is Mesmer in GW2. The Illusionist.
My argument is that I don't like theme-creep cosmetics and I think your excuse is cheap reasoning you're using just because you want it in the game. Or you're making an excuse that makes something you also hate more acceptable for yourself.
See the problem there is you're right, but you're also wrong. Greed and monetization always eventually taint the canon and lore of a world.
The real question is, if the cosmetic shop and the need for financial gain didn't exist, would Stufferton also exist in Verra?
Stufferton became canon, but so did Jedi force healing, and we all know how people feel about that.
If a musket weapon skin was announced in a world that supposedly has no gunpowder, would you consider muskets canon?
An illusion is a false appearance or deceptive impression of reality. Skins and cosmetics create a false, deceptive impression of gear, mounts, buildings, etc. in the reality of Verra.
You are stating you don't want that because it breaks YOUR immersion. Which means you don't like the illusions Ashes of Creation provides in its setting.
And all I'm saying is that, objectively, it is not immersion-breaking because these illusions match the high fantasy/high magic setting of Verra.
You are creating a lot of false dichotomies.
I don't know that they can add that into an age restricted game.
To call it a deal breaker though, that seems like an ultimatum and you're trying to hold the Dev's hostage to your opinions. That isn't healthy.
I think from the replies you can see your view point is pretty outnumbered by those that disagree with you, and those that don't care. So why should the devs change a thing?
Why can't they make gameplay decisions on it? Because you say they can't?
Nobody says those things can't exist, as they exist all the time in fantasy settings.
I'm fine with it as long as it makes sense, but if we eventually suffer theme creep, as cash shops always do, I personally don't want to see the stuffington version of a house next to a house that fits the setting.
That's when you enter the same visual ridiculousness as the "When your custom character is in a serious cutscene" meme
Number of opinions doesn't make an argument worth more or less.
Number of opinions does influence decisions sometimes though you're right.
I would also say those that don't care don't matter. They literally contribute nothing to the argument.
I'll even respond to this by saying Devs catering to the popular masses isn't always as productive as it sounds. Players will always optimize the fun out of a game given the chance, and they will always ask for shortcuts to difficult tasks, even when the fun of a game comes from those difficult tasks.
In that same vein players will cry for "cooler" cosmetics and such, endlessly pushing the bar of what's acceptable, until we suffer theme creep. It's inevitable, but doesn't have to be quick.
I think it's disingenuous to say because something is popular means devs have to cater to it or even that they shouldn't do what's unpopular for the long-term health of the game.
In the end, it is their decision. I'm just putting my arguments out there about how I feel about the game, as should you. But don't tell me my opinions don't matter because they're unpopular.
You say in one sentence, all these things people are saying are fine as long as they make sense (i guess to you) but in the next say if someone had a stufferton house it would bad. The skin and house have an in game and lore description, whether you like it or not. So really all you're saying is you have an aesthetic you prefer and you only want to see the aesthetic you prefer. Which is fine, you do you, it's just almost noone is going to back that move, either because they don't care, or they find your stance stupid.
Like the OP had in his post, It's a deal breaker for him, so bye i guess. Just one of those things you either accept or go find another way to enjoy your time. Unless of course you can alter your argument in some way to get a bigger market share of the community.
Cosmetic is the second source of revenue after monthly pay.
Disable cosmetic will never be an option. Ever.
Other players will have to accept it or leave. Money talks.
This is no bussiness shaming. We play videogame with our eyes and people have to pay rent.
Is either monthly pay+cosmetics.
Or monthly pay+pay2win.
Who says I'm trying to get a bigger market share of the community?
I personally know that I never said that I was.
You're telling me that because my opinions on this matter aren't popular, they're worthless.
And that they only have worth if I can make them popular.
Like I said in my last comment, and like I'll repeat again for you..
Popularity has no bearing on the validity of an argument.
You're right, but you're also terribly wrong.
Yes individual opinions don't really matter in the great scheme of things, the same as a single voter's vote doesn't.
But a communities opinion is made up of individual opinions. So yes, individual opinions do matter.
In addition, the pitting of contrary ideas helps form meaningful compromise and offers opportunities for new ideas to come to light.
You coming in to here telling people that their feedback and opinions don't matter and that if they don't have a popular opinion then they shouldn't even bother is counterproductive at best.
Do you see how my comment is made up of more than one sentence? It's because all those sentences make a whole comprehensive argument. You can cherry-pick sentences out of context all you want to fit any narrative.
I've already gone into great detail about my opinions on theme creep in other threads, and how games and other media who fall prey to monetary greed always eventually suffer it.
You say I have an aesthetic I prefer, but in actuality what I prefer is thematic consistency, regardless of aesthetic. It's a clear, definable difference.
Almost no-one is not no-one
People who don't care have no bearing on these decisions, and do not matter. I even find it ridiculous whenever someone boasts that they don't care, the act itself is an oxymoron.
I don't care if people find my stance stupid. I myself find many stances stupid. Popular stances can be stupid. At the risk of bringing up politics, popular stances got us 4 years of ridiculousness in the White House.
Yes, I do think Intrepid will do what they think is best for the game.
I also know they are always looking for and accepting feedback. Steven himself constantly reminds us that he wants the community to offer feedback and suggestions.
Your stance is directly contrary to this.