RE: CF: Long term experimental ideas

[dragonm <>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hicks
To: 
Sent: 9/15/99 1:09 PM
Subject: RE: CF: Long term experimental ideas

--- dragonm <> wrote:
> Hmm.  I was under the impression Mark's stated intent to move away
from
> hacknslash was generally accepted by the players.  I suppose since I
haven't
> seen a number of opinions commisserate with the number of downloads,
that's
> a mistaken assumption...  Should something be done about getting a
more
> comprehensive opinion poll, or are we moving in the RPG direction
regardless
> and if players don't like it they'll just have to look elsewhere?

I'm pro hack'n'slash.  If I want more realism/rping, I can play EverQuest.
But I'm also pro option and change.  If I want hack'n'slash and crossfire
is 90% rping in the future.. well, I have crossfire 0.95.4.
===
----------------
Ah, but EverQuest is pay to play and Crossfire is free.  Diablo is the king
of the multiplayer pay to play hack'n'slash Fantasy themed games.  Ultima
Online and EverQuest are battling it out to be king of the multiplayer pay
to play role playing Fantasy themed games.  I think it's fairly safe to say
that Crossfire is the king of multiplayer free to play hack'n'slash Fantasy
themed games.  Now Crossfire is going for the title of king of multiplayer
free to play role playing Fantasy themed game.

(That was tangled...  But anyway.)

Are the two necessarily mutually incompatible?  Just because the commercial
people can't manage it doesn't mean we're necessarily bound by their
failure.  Maybe it IS possible to build a fantasy game with hard core role
playing elements that the hack'n'slash crowd can still enjoy playing.  Or
maybe not.  Maybe there should be a schism, and parallel development.  There
is at least one precedent.  EMACS and XEMACS.  I dunno.  I'm not an oracle.

DM
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to ]