This would be a great article if you didn't leave your arguments incomplete. The reason there's not anarchy in the world is not due to some "Code of Honour", but because of this fancy thing some societies call... a "Code of Law", where crimes and misdemeanors require a set amount of compensation. The reason the same results are not found within RuneScape's wilderness area, is because there are no consequences for your actions (excluding, of course, RuneScape-wide Rule breaking).

 

 

 

On a lighter note, it was a very well written article, and it was interesting to examine another viewpoint of this issue, but it easily did not persuade me to follow this "Code of Honour".

 

 

 

You're only young once, so laugh at fart jokes while you can.

This would be a great article if you didn't leave your arguments incomplete. The reason there's not anarchy in the world is not due to some "Code of Honour", but because of this fancy thing some societies call... a "Code of Law", where crimes and misdemeanors require a set amount of compensation. The reason the same results are not found within RuneScape's wilderness area, is because there are no consequences for your actions (excluding, of course, RuneScape-wide Rule breaking).

 

 

 

On a lighter note, it was a very well written article, and it was interesting to examine another viewpoint of this issue, but it easily did not persuade me to follow this "Code of Honour".

 

 

 

There are such things in the real world as Codes of Honor, and only some of them become laws. In fact, those that are and those that aren't very often conflict. The codes of honor regarding duelling with pistols persisted long after duelling itself was made illegal in many countries. You should wiki duelling and check it out, it's quite fascinating :) (Just one example of how my article was 3 times shorter than it could have been :P )

 

 

 

I wasn't trying to persuade you to follow any codes of honor in RS actually, I was just trying to persuade you that it's a good thing that they exist, among other things.

The whole world is like lvl infinity wild?! Sweet! *goes on killing spree*

 

*spends time in jail*

 

Apparently, this whole 'honor code' thing is a lot more effective on Terra. Darn.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, its fun just to read these arguments. It really is quite amusing to one who doesn't care as long as they don't get pk'd and lose all their stuff. :D

The whole world is like lvl infinity wild?! Sweet! *goes on killing spree*

 

*spends time in jail*

 

Apparently, this whole 'honor code' thing is a lot more effective on Terra. Darn.

 

 

 

Well see, people don't respawn on earth, so they're less inclined to kill other people because hose other people will perceive them as a threat and kill THEM. Ambiguous pronouns ftw!

this was an awful article he barley mentioned the argument it was mainly rambling about nothing and comparing rs to earth was the stupidest thing he could have done over all i give him -10/10

 

 

 

As far as I can tell, you rambled quite a bit more than he did just now :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

are you high? because i didn't ramble at all

 

 

 

No, I am not high. And I wasn't high when I wrote that either. I see no reason for you to suggest that I am/was high either, except that perhaps you could think of no better response? Also, you said about 3 sentences with 0 punctuation marks, which made it rather difficult to read, and was rambling in my opinion. Flammacor wasn't rambling about nothing, he had a point to make and he made it. I think what you perceived as rambling was probably actually the supporting evidence that made his point stronger.

 

 

 

I found whatever substance this article was supposed to contain buried beneath countless layers of unnecessarily florid language, needless rhetoric, irrelevant analogies and completely redundant throwaway comments. It's obvious Flammacor loves the sound of his own voice more than he cares about actually getting a message across, and this article reflects that. It's convoluted, rambling and basically just poorly written.

 

 

 

I thought he got his message across very well (though you obviously missed it), the analogies were far from irrelevant, rhetoric is virtually never needless, and while the language may have been a bit more complex than absolutely necessary, I wouldn't call any of it "excessively ornate", since using more advanced language allows him to make his point more specifically, even if it does lose a few people (who only care about flaming anyway) in the process.

 

 

 

"what RuneScape does better than any other MMO out there" (have you actually explored every feature of every other MMO in the world? Thought not...)

 

 

 

I haven't explored every other MMO out there, but I have played quite a few and have yet to find a counterexample. Would you care to offer one?

 

 

 

While it's true that there probably is another MMO out there somewhere with more freedom, that would be the exception, and I think "any other major MMO" or "most other MMOs" would have been acceptable.

 

 

 

I'll be back after some proper editing has taken place, because riddling an article with such pointlessly obscure terms as "intuiting" doesn't actually make the writer sound clever, it just completely loses the attention of those who don't have time to waste working out what the hell you're actually trying to say.

 

 

 

TL;DR out of 10. Come back when you can talk like a real person.

 

 

 

I spent precisely 0 minutes working out what the article was saying (aside from reading it through), and words such as "intuiting" aren't pointlessly obscure, especially when taken in context. Perhaps a word like "determining" would have been more accessible, but it wouldn't have had precisely the same meaning, and the wonderful thing about having a well-developed vocabulary is that you can express what you want to say more precisely with approximately the same number of words.

 

 

 

This was an ok Article. I think the author used his Microsoft Word Thesaurus a bit "too" often. Way too many extra words to even understand the article without thinking twice. Other than that, I agree 100%.

 

 

 

I don't think he used the Microsoft Word Thesaurus (all the words fit the context, as opposed to having a similar dictionary meaning but not fitting as well), though I agree that for such a broad audience it probably could have used a little less emphasis on the big words (though I thought they enhanced the article, personally).

Intresting article, never seen it from that perspective really. Only problem i seen was the earth to runescape comparison, as earth does have these rules, they just arent programmed in but rather enforced by other people.

 

 

 

I feel that pkers can have this honour amongst each other, but since i dont pk and dont want to be pked, im going to take telles and keep prayer handy, because im not part of the mini-society.

interesting article. the wilderness and PKing don't really interest me, but some of the points you raise are fascinating

i should stop reading these articles at 2:00 A.M -.-

 

i just dont get as much out of them as i do when im fully awake :shock:

 

 

 

but from what i could tell, it was good.

 

it wasn't "omg awsome why do we need an editor you could do the articles" good but it was good. *

 

 

 

 

 

*all things typed here were typed at 2:30 A.M so i have no clue what i said... in fact i prolly dont even remember typing this out anymore.*

To be honest i didnt quiet understand what the article was trying to get at.

 

I read the Tip.it articles because they often debate controversial topics and to me this one seemed to "tippy-toe" around the issue.

 

You have to be more desisive and not try and please everyone reading it because you never will.

 

 

 

On the "honour code" its not fair to people who dont know the code. Seriously if its "unwritten rules" you cant be expected to know them.

 

 

 

I would also like to remind you there is a DUEL ARENA where rules can be set and you can have your little "honour code" fights, but when you are ready for some real fights go up to lvl 55 where you dont have to ask politely if you can dismember someone.

This was an ok Article. I think the author used his Microsoft Word Thesaurus a bit "too" often. Way too many extra words to even understand the article without thinking twice. Other than that, I agree 100%.

 

 

 

maybe he just has a vast vocabulary and you don't?

Don't you think codes of honour came from players who could not win fights without having to temp them to let there guard down?

 

 

 

Kind of like telling the other team to pass the ball in football just to confuse them a bit.

 

 

 

I scimmed the artical, in my opinion it went on far to much about the last artical than it did say anything about it's own.

I have to agree with LBO. The writing sounded really pretentious and failed to define "emergent gameplay" which was used about 50 times compared to every other word in that report.

Many of the terms that you as saying are obscure and uneccesary, such as "intuiting", are really not very obscure. Unless you are an eight year old, "intuiting" should not be hard for you to understand. Anyone with a well developed vocabulary should be able to get the point of this article.

 

 

 

Good job flammecor :D :D

 

I think you'll find the only people who actually words like "intuiting" in lieu of plain language are posers are trying to make themselves sound intelligent, or poor writers trying to obscure a lack of content. It's a clumsy word, and in this context actually incorrect.

 

 

 

Well, you fell for it. =D>

Intuiting can be used AS plain language, not as purple prose. And coming from one who uses "in lieu" instead of plain language, that is a contradiction in terms. Oh, and the fact that you gave me a definition of intuiting makes no sense if you dont show where it is used in the article.

Intuiting can be used AS plain language, not as purple prose. And coming from one who uses "in lieu" instead of plain language, that is a contradiction in terms.

 

The important difference being that "in lieu", unlike "intuiting", is now widely used and accepted English. It was also actually appropriate in the context here, unlike "intuiting"... or "contradiction in terms". Until you can improve your own grasp of English, you're just going to make yourself look ridiculous.

 

 

 

Oh, and the fact that you gave me a definition of intuiting makes no sense if you dont show where it is used in the article.

 

I was expecting you to have actually read the article. My mistake.

"Improve my grasp of english" What was it you meant by that? I would stay and argue pointless opinions with you, but i have to go teach a class, so you are out of luck. You are a very hateful person, and all i was trying to do was put my opinion in. You are great fun to argue with though, even if you make points that have little to no basis in fact. Have fun in your deluded world.

i think this article had the potential to be very good, but the points were poorly made, with ostentatious language and very little evidentiary support.

 

 

 

if i may quote the article:

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åanything goesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

This was a very interesting article, however I feel the authors language is far too flowery and wishy-washy. I know it was a guest author, but perhaps he/she could have considered the likely audience that will read this.

 

Despite this minor fault I agree with almost everything you said.

First warning - I don't want to see any more posts beating a point to death. Have your say, then leave it alone. Yes, you can post again to defend your point of view, but all this pointless back and forth "he said" "she said" doesn't accomplish anything at all. So far, some of the comments that have been posted are right on the line between criticism and plain old flaming.

 

 

 

Provide criticism, yes, but please refrain from personal attacks or insults. I will lock this topic if it continues, then nobody will be able to say anything else - that'll be the end of it.

 

 

 

Kiara_Kat

while as always a good read, there were some things that don't really add up with his comparisons.

 

 

 

First- Since when does reality allign with RuneScape? If you die in RuneScape, you can pick up the peices, it isn't over when you die. Last time I checked, reality isn't like that.

 

 

 

Second- Why should there be unwritten rules for an area that JaGeX made to be lawless? Anarchy is the whole point of the Wilderness! In RS1 (RSC), there were so many changes to the wilderness and dynamics of fighting that nobody really cared about how you fought. As long as it wasn't against the rules, and you won, you were the best.

 

 

 

If I misinterpreted anything, I apologize, but alot of what you said just doesn't add up, or has severely flawed logic behind it.

It was ok, but the bush was beaten around so much at the beginning that the topic wasn't fully addressed. I did like the comparison of runescape to Earth, but it was a bit lengthy and it strayed far from the point.

 

 

 

7/10

Yada yada yada. A bunch of stuff I don't really have interest in. I'll come back when the editor writes something about the gameplay itself.

 

 

 

if ur not interested in it then y did u bother posting about it

I like the article. Too bad the discussion goes about grammatical errors (*Sigh*) and people start immediatly a flame war.

I'll start by saying I'm not a PK'er. I avoid the wilderness.

 

 

 

You are more than welcome to follow a code of conduct. You are more than welcome not to. I don't. If I have to go to the wilderness to do a quest or to get an item I can't get anywhere else, I'm going in one of two ways: buck naked or loaded for bear. If I'm naked, you'll get my bones and nothing else. I'll probably go refill my tea while you do it.

 

 

 

Otherwise, I'm going to use everything I can, honorable or not, to defend myself. I'll use my prayer pots. I'll eat a lobster when I'm 15 hp below max. I'll teleport if I'm at 50% hp. I'll run to stay alive.

 

 

 

If you have a problem with that, it's your problem. Telling me will just make my ignore list one name longer.

 

 

 

That's my 2 cents.

 

 

 

I agree with that statement.

 

 

 

I thought the article was interesting, didn't agree with some of the diction and organization though.

Personally, I didn't like it. While the author does manage to make a good point here or there, the whole thing seems to be derived from his desire to put down/show up authors of previous articles.

 

 

 

From the looks of it, Flammacor skimmed through the articles he referred to in his, saw something that caught his eye, allowed himself to take it out of context, got upset about it, rinsed and repeated until he had enough to start a rant. In fact, I'm willing to bet that this article would have turned out quite differently had he actually read those articles and fully understood them (regardless of whether or not he agreed with them).

 

 

 

Again, I think the article does have a valid point (about emergent game play being a good thing); however, I also think it was needlessly diluted by an apparent desire to attack previous articles which actually agree with this point, and that it failed to adequately defend this "wilderness code of honor". The whole defense seems to rely on the notion that this "code of honor" is emergent game play.

 

 

 

I don't agree with that. Emergent game play exists for the purpose of having fun with a game beyond how it was originally intended, and for finding ways to utilize the game environment to your advantage that the programmers hadn't foreseen. The "code of honor" that is referred to is the exact opposite. In fact, it's a way of impeding emergent game play, and to get the opposition to do what you want in order to make it easier to kill them and get their stuff.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, choosing not to attack a clue hunter or RCer because it's dishonorable is commendable in my book (though I also think they have every right to go the other route and attack anyways), but flaming somebody that actually takes measures to survive your attacks just because you want their whip/runes/whatever is downright childish.