Originally Posted by Malorn
The word "Obama" has no place here; keep your politics to the politics forum.
Also, it's not thick-skulled to dislike something because it has no functional purpose. Quite the opposite, actually.
And yes, BFRs could have "worked", as in, we could have tolerated their existence. But that doesn't change the fact that their existence was meaningless. They served no purpose other than ruining the game.
Someone thought it would be cool to have mechs. And if you ask people "Hey, are mechs cool!?!?" Many people would say yes. Because mechs are, in fact, cool. Are they good for gameplay? No. Should we add them because they're cool? Hell no! Should we add a different implementation after we already got burned by it and ruined Planetside 1? Jesus fuck no!
|
Excuse me? Since when is referencing a name a discussion a politics?
Also, you're correct, it isn't thick-skulled when there is no functional purpose. But that statement right there seems thick-skulled in itself. Just because there was no functional purpose for BFRs in Planetside, doesn't mean there couldn't be in Planetside 2. You're just assuming that the game will be identical and there couldn't possibly be any other changes to accommodate that. And on another note, the BFR integration itself didn't kill Planetside; the support thereafter killed it. Once that type of game changing thing is implemented, there is usually a large amount of feedback, and action taken due to said feedback. In Planetside's case, there was no action taken to please the community. THAT killed Planetside.
Maybe the term "thick-skulled" was a bad word. How about... unreceptive?
The vast majority of Planetside players seem to be unreceptive to ideas if even a hint of past failure is lurking within.