Okay last round of this:
<blockquote><hr>
Playing a roleplaying game doesn't mean you have to strictly adhere to all the lore of the game. It's about having fun, not blindly following the lore like a robot.
[/ QUOTE ]
I already said no-one is being forced to role play or otherwise.
<blockquote><hr>
In most roleplaying games your characters can be said to play a role or to follow a pre-set template such as warrior or mage, but UO has never been about sticking to those strict pre-determined roles, and that's what made it unique. Having to stick to cookie-cutter templates can never really be fun.
You choose a skill you want to raise and you raise it - simple as that. You're not forced to be a "chivalrous paladin" or an "evil necromancer." Sure you can do that if you want, but really its kind of redundant because in the end they're just skills. Be yourself - it's more fun than acting as a "lawful good elf prince."
And if you did want to roleplay in such a way, where is the infrastructure supporting that? Lord British has long left the game and will never return. You can roleplay (in the traditional manner that you expound) all you like, but you may as well do it in a singleplayer game.
There was a dream called Ultima Online where you didn't have to be constrained by those set templates. It was a truly persistent world where if you wanted to you could roam the land as a wanderer, earn a living as a lumberjack, or roam around killing anyone you saw (but having to face the consequences).
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is what I bloody said. That is role playing. And I couldn't agree less with you. If you read my other posts, I never role play anything further than what my character represents in-game. If someone says, who are you, I'm not going to reply "I'm a uni student", I'll reply "I'm a paladin". That is role playing at it's most basic level.
I don't see why you brought this up, this wasn't in dispute.
<blockquote><hr>
I would call that true roleplaying (merely nothing more than carrying out a necessary role for the game world) rather than the Dungeons and Dragons stuff that you are so adamant in following. So cast aside that useless baggage and just enjoy the game!
[/ QUOTE ]
What? I don't even play, and never have played Dungeons and Dragons. I don't even know what you're getting at here. I play exactly how my paladin works with the game mechanically. I fight in melee and use chivalry. I do things I find fun. Just like you'll do things you find fun.
I also choose todo other things that I find fun. Destroying a city to collect rubble? Nah that's no fun for me. So I don't do it. Yet you continue to dispute this when all I said was:
"From an in-game context, I see it as the wrong thing todo, that results in a lack of fun for me personally. Others don't see the situation within context, or they enjoy being destructive".
<blockquote><hr>
And, back to the topic:
If people want to loot rubble to collect as "rares" then there's nothing wrong in that. It's an item based game now, right, so let them hoard their useless pixels.
[/ QUOTE ]
I never said it was an issue. I said for me, it's not fun. Destroying a city is not fun. Some people don't see the destruction (out of context) and some simpyl don't care either way. That's fine. If it wasn't fine, the game wouldn't allow it.
<blockquote><hr>
Personally I think it's a great idea destroying Magincia. It's not like the city had any use really, right? Heck, not many of the cities do anymore except for Luna - they're all deserted
[/ QUOTE ]
This is an example of "out of context". The city is still inhabited. It's got plenty of shop keeprs, it has shops. As far as the game is concerned, it's very much alive. It's not less alive than Britain.
However, from an out of game perspective, it's not alive at all. The cities are very static. NPCs stand there bumping off walls. They sell the same things other cities do. This is metagaming. An outside perspective is providing a basis for judgement.
!
