Strange how two different people explained to you what I meant, using the same information you had... In addition to me explaining it to you... I am also somewhat at a loss as to this 'Trench'...After asking for people to join me in a world such as Tibia or HnH, neither of which bear anything but superficial resembalances to Runescape, you posted that I should play Runescape. I stated that I did not wish to play Runescape as I was I also highlighted that: I also said: Of which you noticed only one of those points, and then questioned my knowledge of Construction. I then pointed out that: To which you suggested that I could build the house from scratch. Mask then explained: Which is striking at the heart of the matter...That is that it doesn't pay off till level 70-80(When you install a dungeon), and requires a long training period before it pays off (Several Thousand Flatpack chairs), not to mention to 5-10 million in training (Which runs counter to the "New World" feel, especially if you don't have 5-10 million lying around). Mask and yourself continued a short debate, highlighting to point that there are multiple paths to level 70. I feel it is significantly justified to correct my earlier post. You, having been defeated on this point or because you had recieved satisfaction, or simply because you did not dane to respond to it, moved on to a different part of the statement, highlighting the semantic point that: I pointed out that this was a purely semantic point, somewhat annoyed that you were persisting in an entirely unproductive series of statements. However you took exception to this: On a very superficial level HnH and Runescape have a vaguely similar mechanism for building houses: 1) You use planks, which are acquired through the chopping down of trees. Thats pretty much it on similarities...unless RS has hatched roofing that you can build. (I did Construction when it came out and plowed a mil into getting to level 40 or so) The differences are myriad, however. From RS costing money per month to play, to Construction costing money to level up, to the role in which the houses play in the game, to the fact that a house might take an hour or so to build in HnH, and functions centrally to the game, whereas RS houses are supplementary to the game - an optional extra. There was also a fundermental misapprehension that I was talking about Construction as though it did not require any real effort, which I posted to correct later on. Before that both Mask and Retech explained to you the fact that there were differences between HnH and RS. Mask doing so in a somewhat elegant way, and Retech doing so in a more direct manner. However, you disagreed with one, or both, of these points: Seeming to dismiss Retech, or Mask, as being ignorant of how Construction works...Which of course does not lend itself to a constructive conversation...Dismissing two/three people's opinion on the basis that you doubt their credentials. In the other paragraph, which I assume was aimed at Mask, though it could be Retech, you highlight that you can customise things within the house to better suit your play style. This is a perfectly reasonable assertion to make, however the degree of customisation is, relatively to the ideal of a "New World Feel", exceedingly low. I then return to say: In the first statement I state that I think Grinding is Boring, and not lazy. Correcting the misapprehension that you had, as detailed above. I then reiterate what I had originally stated, that RS is a series of smaller games and not a true game in and of itself. I add that the abilities given through Construction are fairly mediocratic. Here I am mildly incorrect in objective terms as I state their are no benefits, whereas there are. However in the subjective terminology of the "New World Feel" there are no benefits or mildly interesting things related to construction. In the final two lines I highlight, again, that the world is largely disconnected from itself, with things being compartmentalised, and thus playing as a largely single player game within a multiplayer game. You then go on to detail the potential benefits of owning a house. Retech replies. I reply, stating my low opinion of the benefits you state, and reiterating the argument so far, in much simplified language. You then state: The first phrase highlights your ignorance of the content and context of the discussion, the second point, as above, I would agree that, objectively, you have a point, but subjectively you are simply showing your ignorance of the content and context...again. Retech made an unrelated post, and Nex chipped in with some 'I have grown up and things look smaller' comments. I reply, having got fed up with circular arguments with the emphasis correctly displayed, given that I am preaching to one obstinate person, and an audience that, through their posts, have already displayed that they understand the emphasis, and that I am trying to cook dinner and assist Dad, I take a shortcut to this rather long winded, argument winning, but ultimately unreadable, time consuming and largely inconsequential post. You respond, highlight that and ignoring the rest of the post, and responding to Nex's post with the tenacity of a schoolchild, awed by their favoured video game...or a fanboy, to condense that. I then respond, again, pressed for time and increasingly irrate that the shortcut hasn't worked at all (In truth I rarely think anything, even this, will actually work because talking works only over a long period of time, with the individual messages being processed by the mind over the course of days, and colouring the perceptions a person has, until they slowly begin to sympathise with that view...Alternatively they outright reject it, or hold the view in contempt...etc.), and that I am now being accused to attempting to bolster a failing argument by misquoting/lifting quotes out of context. Then you respond, claiming that it not your fault for a failure to comprehend my argument in the way which I envisaged. Now, had there been a general consensus that my argument did not make sense, or that you interpretation of my argument was the commonly held one, then I would conceed a measure of defeat. Further, if it had occured that during my analysis of the discussion it occurred that I had made a series of mistakes which could, feasibly, lead you to an incorrect hypthosis, then I should strive to rectify that. However, there are four things which lead me to believe that this is not the case and it is a case of you not reading the lines...let alone not reading between them. 1) General Consensus supports my interpretation of my argument. 2) Your posts typically tackle only one aspect of a multifaceted statement, however when such a statement is reiterated you tackle a different aspect of it. 3) You stated that I should ask for a "Frontier Game" when I had already asked for a "New World Feel". The Frontier typically means, either, the Americas (The New World) or the Frontier between Civilisation and Savagery, and the New World typically means "The Land which Civilisation has not yet touched", which is another phrase for "The Land where Savagery Reigns". The only other feasible explaination is that I am looking for a 'New Map' feel, which, through a leap of logic, could be extended to mean 'A wide open space', which could be taken as a simple reiteration of "Huge open space". However it would require far more effort to link one to the other. 4) On a very fundermental level I asked "Does anyone want to join me in a game?" and when you suggested something which I did not wish to play I stated so. Had you been following the trend of the discussion then that would have been your que to cease the discussion, not to engage in an argument to convince me that I do not know my own mind. As an aside I would highlight that the spoken and written language have a rather high degree of ambiguity contained within them, and it should follow that two statements should contain some 'contradictory' interpretations to provide exclusion criteria, and thus indentify the common meaning. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram For instance: "It was dark." Contains an ambiguity about the actual level of the light. Dark can mean anything that isn't light, which could easily include anything from the pitch black of being underground, to an hour or two before the sun goes down and it becomes slightly difficult to read. Compare with: "It was dark. It was night." Night implies that the darkness is not the Pitch Black of being underground, and nor is it evening dark of being tricky to see. However it still encompasses the broad spectrum between those two points, and if someone said that they could still read, even though it was dark, then does that mean it is evening dark? Conversely if someone said that they could not see their hand in front of their face then does that mean it is pitch black? Language has, of course, evolved to give us "It was a dark night." or "It was so dark, that night, that I could not see my hand in front of my face." rather than long strings of simple sentences which describe individual facets. However when we are dealing with things that have not been dealt with for the past several thousand years, such as what sort of computer game is desired, we are forced to resort to simpler sentences, allegory or metaphor, and tolerate a much higher degree of ambiguity. As such it requires a greater effort on behalf of the reader to take several somewhat dispassionate ideas, see the similarities, rather than the differences, and attempt a degree of understanding. For instance I used the words "Tibia", "HnH", "New World" and "Open spaces to set up houses". All of which contain a lot of ambiguity in and of themselves, but there are few words (the majority of them being scientific in nature) which lack high degrees of ambiguity. Tibia uses a system by which houses are rented from the server itself, but if you own a house then you can display your items and such within freely. HnH uses a system where by houses are erected at no fee, but you can build around outside of your houses, displaying your prosperity. New World implies an environment in which there is an element of risk, but also many hands pulling together to achieve something great. Open Spaces to set up houses implies a desire not to be constrained by petty restrictions, and a general desire to build the house/s. Clearly there are contradictions between them, and degrees of compromise will be tolerated because it is rare to find the perfect game. Runescape fall down on most of those requirements...the only one that it really could concievably pass on would be the 'New World' definition, since there could, conceivably, be a group working together in something that wasn't house building...Or through a narrow definition of petty restrictions. Minecraft passes the final requirement, and embodies elements of the third requirement, since there is an element of risk, and if I were to find a server/people to play a server with, who shared my desires then it would probably be a satisfactory game to play. Tibia only really passes on one point, though I find it rather enjoyable, while HnH passes three, but is crewed by people who destroy rather than create, not one of the requirements, but something that makes the game unenjoyable...for me anyway...Kinda like playing a game with an in built, and random, "You have crashed" screen. At anyrate, I ended up playing X3...not exactly what I was looking for, but is still better than any other alternative I could find.
