Ginger_Warrior

When I worked as a casual worker, it felt slightly... better, in a weird way. If I decided to wake up one morning and not go into work, it would be stupid of course because my chances of being offered further shifts would drop dramatically. You had to keep up a reputation for being reliable. On the other hand though... I had that choice. And if my manager tried forcing me to do a shift when we were working out off-duties for the weeks ahead, I always knew I could just say "No" if I didn't want to work that day. I felt better and more positive on shift because I'd actively chosen to work. I know a couple of retired nurses who've stayed on as bank who describe feeling a similar way, even if their pay has dropped substantially. Job security would eventually have been a serious issue, though, had I carried on with it. I could've been sacked at any point for just about any reason (good or bad) and would only have been legally entitled to an hour's notice. In other news, my country bucked recent trends by deciding not to jump on a war-bound bandwagon.

We get it, we honestly do--Jagex could invent the chocolate teapot and you would find a way to defend it. That you honestly think the handheld gaming market and the smartphone gaming market avoid competing with each other, let alone that Jagex would be anything more than a bit-part player in either, is scarcely believable.

FIFA 14 for free is a puller in Europe, is more what I was referring to. Obviously not so much in the US. It consistently appears in the charts for sales, throughout the year, so to get it for free is a big deal here.

It's a better launch day line-up than the PS4, you have to concede that. I think ultimately, it's games what matter.

I was with you up until "the way RS was meant to be played". Surely, the hypocrisy is obvious when your rationale was that Hedgehog was attempting to enforce a certain playing style on Lioness? Who are you, or anyone else, to say how RS is meant to be played?

A sharp pain in your chest, you should be referring immediately. So he did wait 30 hours to play RuneScape before deciding to get treatment. He avoided quite normal, health-seeking behaviour because he was no-lifing. If you think I'm being "negative" and "prejudiced" about that, fine... I'll happily be prejudiced. Want to prove that's wrong of me? Well, get down to your local A&E tomorrow with a pop survey and see how many nurses and doctors there think that waiting 30 hours to refer yourself for sharp chest pain, so you can play RuneScape, is good idea. This is removing focus away from the original topic of the thread, which is the Divination skill, not a wider debate about no-lifing and its impact on personal health behaviour. If you want, split it off and we'll continue there.

I'm sorry Hedgehog, but what you and Fallstar are doing by misrepresenting the argument to defend "safe" nolifing is wrong. That's not the point being made. Any person who claims, without medical facts, that a lack of sleep caused the heart symptoms is wrong to do so. There's no evidence of that. However, I'm absolutely within my limit to criticize someone who suffers sharp chest pains, and waits over a day before deciding to get it referred, because they decided getting level 99 first was a higher priority. Sharp chest pain is a symptom of conditions far worse than a benign cardiac arrhythmia, anyone with common sense knows that. I'd level exactly the same criticism to a footballer playing on a fractured leg, or a type 2 diabetic going on the Atkins diet. They're brainless decisions, they're idiots, and it is irresponsible. Fine, I respect your right to make a choice, but at least let's all admit it's a bloody awful one from a health point of view, which is the only point of view that ultimately matters when all things are considered.

You started playing RuneScape as a 1 year old? I thought the Miniclip generation was bad... :P

He had to be forced to and even whinged at that.

[bleep]ing idiot. Why would he think anything comes before his own health in that situation? I just don't even know where to begin with how irresponsible that attitude is.

The word "boring" doesn't appear once in that conversation...

Well... that depends on how interesting your life is, I suppose. I find it interesting that you find that interesting, anyway. Uh. No. Not really. For you perhaps. And myself too; I'm not playing RuneScape right now, but my experience of the game is that I essentially don't care about skillcapes (either mine or anyone else's). It's a clash of personalities, though. Some people find exploring the process of obtaining max xp/hr towards goal X absolutely fascinating. I'd rather blow my brains out. But there's no shortage of players grinding for skillcapes, that's for sure.

TESO and Diablo 3 will be key moments. As things stand, you can count the number of half-successful console-based MMOs on one hand, and even they had problems. If they both do well, it might change impressions and provide lessons for future games. I doubt it would be Nintendo, in any case. MMOs don't fit in at all with the company's philosophy towards gaming innovation, really.

Although you're right in saying there's problems in MS's testing certification process (more specifically, how slow it is... ten working days per update), they aren't to blame for the lag in updates between the different versions of Minecraft. The world map size... spawn limits... the team are clearly challenged by the X360's technical limitations. Furthermore, regardless of issues around updates, you can't fail to admit that the conversion from PC to Xbox has still been nothing less than a resounding success for all involved. As said, my argument isn't about technical issues. Things like UIs would have to be explored if you converted an MMO into a console environment, of course, and you'd have to go back and explore those issues. But it certainly isn't unachievable. My argument is that Jagex's free-to-play model, which they absolutely adamantly will not change their stance on, isn't going to appeal to Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft. Is that due to their own ignorance around Free-to-Play? Partly. But it's still not going to happen. Not in a month of Sundays.

More or less. To understand this properly, you need to accept a key principle first: That F2P RuneScape is a full, unrestricted game within its own right, and it isn't a 'demo' by conventional measures. In F2P you can quite happily get along playing so-called "F2P skills" as long as you want and you're not actually restricted from doing so. There's no level caps (apart from P2P skills, so you can ignore that exception), there's no time limits, there no restrictions on chatting or trading or interacting generally with other people. There's no wall to say "Time's up, stop freeloading". The only thing you're faced with is encouragement to purchase the P2P version of the game, in return for more content. Fundamentally however, this remains a choice: You can play the game paying for additional content, or you can choose not to pay and play on anyway (and many do, including a lot of people on this forum). When we talk about demos on the consoles, we're not talking about that. We're not talking open-ended versions of games where you're asked nicely to fork out money occasionally. There might be 15 'chapters', you get to play one or possibly two chapters, you can repeat the first two chapters ad nauseam, but that's the end of the line until you pay up. You're not getting a full game in its own right, you're getting a little bit of one to titillate you into buying the whole thing. The main difference is that the Big Three companies won't accept the former model. It isn't in their interests to do so; why would they want someone hanging on, incurring costs to them, and not giving anything back in return? So unless a demo fits into the second model, the conversation stops now. If RuneScape were to launch onto a console (ignoring technicalities like the UI etc. for a second), you'd effectively have to kiss goodbye to F2P RuneScape and instead adopt something more similar to WoW's demo: A bootleg, limited version of the game with heavy restrictions (level caps, gold caps, trade restrictions). In other words (just like, no doubt, Diablo 3 will have to be when it gets released onto consoles next month) you're have to go back and fundamentally change the game in order to make it work on a console. By that, like I said, I'm not even talking controls or UIs or graphics... I'm literally talking business. Companies making profit. When you factor that and everything else in to the equation, I stand by my original assertion: It's plain fantasy to believe that, as things stand, RuneScape could work on a console.

Oh please... it only took me two hours to force you into a U-turn. Not once have you even attempted to demonstrate that a free-to-play MMO model would actually work on the console. All you've done is meekly state that demos exist (in a different format to the MMO model) and that occasionally Microsoft like to give away the proverbial Bargain Bin in order to get punters signed up to XBL Gold. When I'm playing Call of Duty online for free over XBL with a lessened array of weapons to be unlocked only if I pay a month's subscription, come back and tell me I'm wrong. Until then, I'll fork out the £40 when it comes out, knowing full well the transaction bears no resemblance whatsoever to the MMORPG scene. It's not just a "bigger" game. It's a completely different model, a completely different mentality, and a completely different way of doing things. The two are incompatible.

You're treating us all like idiots if you think the unlimited "demo" of RuneScape F2P is anything near comparible to demos on the consoles, which typically have time limits or only offer a few levels before payment is required. RuneScape's F2P model is fundamentally different in that there is no limit, only restrictions on a minority of the total skills available. Aside from that you're free to do what you like, when you like, for however long you like, and without needing to pay for an accompanying subscription in order to gain access to the demo in the first place. There's loads of demos on XBL with play limits, literally hundreds. You and I both know that... please stop feigning ignorance. It adds nothing to your point. Bullshit. List of top-selling XBL Arcade games for w/ending 27th June 2013, according to The Market For Computer & Video Games publication, with MS Points cost in parenthesis, as according to the Xbox.com official website:[1] 1. State of Decay - Microsoft (1600) 2. Minecraft - Microsoft (1600) 3. Sonic The Hedgehog - Sega (400) 4. Sonic Adventure 2 - Sega (800) 5. Sonic Adventure - Sega (400) 6. Sonic The Hedgehog 2 - Sega (400) 7. The Cave - Sega (1200) 8. Sonic The Hedgehog 3 - Sega (400) 9. Guardian Heroes - Sega (400) 10. Sega Bass Fishing - Sega (400) Oh look, none of them are free. Surprise surprise. I think I've sufficiently demolished any impression that my argument is "fundamentally flawed" by exposing just how ignorant your perception of the F2P model truly is. I'll repeat the F-word... what you seem to believe about RuneScape and console gaming is pure fantasy, nothing more.

Demos which have time limits before either subscription-based or lump sum requests kick in, not an open-ended model as RuneScape F2P. Promotions which are dependent on you spending money elsewhere, XBL's Gold member subscription model, for example. Thank you for arguing my case.

The main problem with RuneScape on consoles has never been technical specifications, or game controls, or even what company would be best for it. The philosophy is just plain wrong. As far as console gaming is concerned, free-to-play doesn't exist. It just doesn't. The idea that you get a basic version of the game for free and then only commit to spending more when you feel like it is lunacy. Their model is more conventional. You go into a clothes store, you might look at the clothes, maybe try them on for a couple of minutes, but then you have to pay for it if you want to take it outside of the store. You go into a phone store, you might admire the style and its features, but then you have to pay for it if you want to take it outside of the store. You go into a games store, you might play an in-store demo, but then you have to pay for it if you want to take it outside of the store. The argument for F2P in RuneScape is that, even if players don't want to spend money on the paid version, they're still contributing something in collateral simply by playing the game. They're talking about it, they're making something in game, they go down on the record books as "new players"... it just looks good. That doesn't wash with any of Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo. All three would laugh you out of the office unless what you were offering was truly worthy of exception, and RuneScape ain't that offering. It's pure fantasy. Nothing more.

Aren't we all 'needy'? In the sense that we all have needs, and therefore expectations about what a relationship would give to us? Whether you want to be used as the lynchpin which someone else has based their whole life around is, of course, another matter. If you're interested, keep it flirty until you meet. Try and escalate it as time goes on, if it seems appropriate. You could explore what kind of activities you might do when you meet, just to keep her interested.

Thanks to muggi, I'm now thirsty. Also, it's wonderful that the most active thread in OT happens to be about alcohol! I tend to drink lagers, but if I'm drinking to go out, vodka and rum with a Cola or Sprite mixer. Lager tends to make me sleepy while the latter definitely makes me more energetic and less inhibited.

I doubt very many people didn't buy their armour off other players. Especially considering even Mithril required 68 Smithing to make, and a full set of just Steel still required 48. A good point, but it doesn't address the argument which was being made. My point wasn't necessarily how players obtain items. My point was that the process of learning the game's mechanics has changed to the point where it's more like hand-holding. In an MMORPG like RuneScape where you've got this massive world and it's ultimately up to you where you're heading, I think you really shouldn't be offered anything more than a gentle push in the right direction. Apart from anything else, if I were a new player in this massive new world, would I really want my hand holding? I'd hope that new players would be only too desperate to go out and try as many things as possible. Either way you look at it, the problem with RuneScape and player numbers isn't really on the retention side, it's actually getting new players through the door long enough to stick around. From that perspective, you're not really looking at the level of "How does this player obtain Mithril armour", you're looking at the players' very first experiences of the game.

My own experience when I re-joined was that I stuck to activities which I knew from my previous playthrough of the game. But it was very underwhelming knowing that, thanks to lodestones, the tutorial, and a general increase in transportation options, there was no longer a sense of adventure as a "new" character. OK, I was imposing my previous experience of my first few days on my first account onto my second account, that's a fair excuse. But if you use empathy and place yourself into the shoes of a person who has no previous experience of the game, I reckon the tutorial must be very frustrating. Forget working out how to interact with the game by yourself, here's a miniquest which mercilessly and unapologetically shoves all that knowledge down your throat and expects you to regurgitate it verbatim before it lets you leave. There isn't the thrill of locating your way to Varrock to learn how to mine and smith armour, and knowing that however many mistakes you made on the way, ultimately you've made that armour. Now it's just "Oh forget that malarkey, when you could just kill a few cows, collect the hides and buy the armour dirt cheap off the G.E."

I think it's far too easy to blame a player exodus. Every game gets updates, every game has to deal with players getting wound up / growing up / running out of money / finding a new favourite hobby. The problem by far is that RuneScape for quite some time now has failed to bring in new people, partly because of a general disinterest in the whole genre since the late 2000s, partly because frankly, there's not a lot in RuneScape to distinguish it between all the hundred other fantasy MMORPGs. Its main strength is its accessibility as a browser-based game (of which there are increasingly few). That's it. Under that philosophy, it's not really about what's in RuneScape (EoC, SoF and all)... it's about what isn't in RuneScape. It's nothing special, basically. Hasn't been for a good six or seven years now.

You know, on one exceptionally boring evening, I took the Steve skin and spent a good half hour picking out the exact shade of ginger too. Not even an exaggeration! Sometimes the aimless-ness of Minecraft does bother me. It's starting to bother me now on my new world and it's only a couple of days old. When all things are said and done, Minecraft is largely a sandbox-style game. The Adventure Mode offers no real challenge outside of a very few small obstacles (food meter, weakly-AI'd mobs). Usually if something doesn't have a challenge, it tends to lose my interest quite quickly.