so am i, to an extent
sojourn, ill just include you in with zoolooman
zooloo: the only sections of your reply that i saw as being pertinent to what i was actually saying, rather than the way i said it and the threats and insults you percieved in it (you did percieve them, i freely admit i have an undiplomatic posting style, but it is just a style... or lack of, if you like) ill reply to, the rest... you can save and read to keep yourself warm on cold nights or something.
from my "real truth and real answers" quote onwards;
like sojourn, youre implying that tribes is somehow a game seperate from other games, that its judged and PLAYED on a different level. that when a tribes game is in the offing, a whole subset of players who love it and the fighting sport play will appear and play it. to a degree that will happen, like any other game, as former non-online players try it online and like it. but mostly AS FAR AS I KNOW and as far as is proven by the stats, which i have watched for years, the number of online gamesplayers grows quite slowly, and when games come out that prove successful online, rather than generating their own new audience, they suck it away from the other popular games. ie theres only so much to go around, by and large. and what i am saying, which has not missed ANYTHING anyone has said and is a bona fide comment on my part in full receipt of other peoples input here, is tribes competes with those popular games for online players. it will create many itself. but the bulk, going off my experience of this (and so, if you like, my opinion - ill just say, disprove it if you can) will come FROM THE OTHER GAMES. so whether it is different or not does not matter at all, it is judged on the same level as all the others. and i would even maintain that, with the evidence in front of you on configs' stats of what sort of games the popular games are - whatever you contest they are, fast , slow, it doesnt matter - you can see what it is the majority of online players like, and it aint much like tribes (given theyre all fps's and you run round shooting people and sometimes taking flags). thats a matter of opinion too, you just cant escape it. many people here agree with that though, since much of this thread, let alone the rest of the history of these boards, has been taken up with exemplifying tribes and denigrating those other games and, simply, differentiating the two. so i feel fairly secure saying it. if im wrong as you probably believe, then it comes down to the next bit;
you said,
"As I have shown above, the theme of the game isn't as important as the engagement it gives the player. Along these lines, the market is much more evenly divided then you would have us believe."
can you guess what that is? opinion. on which we differ. you havent shown anything, youve explained very clearly your opinion. which i understand but dont agree with. you think, along those lines, the market is evenly divided. i think the market is not evenly divided, and a) looking at the server stats now and b) considering the stats in the past, the preponderance of games very unlike tribes and very non-fighting sport in play, proves it for me. it doesnt prove it for you, because you dont agree with my assessment of those games, and judge them on your own scale.
here weve got to agree to disagree, because you wont convince me your way, and i wont convince you mine. thats not closed mindedness. i hear and understand what youre saying, but i think im more right, and theres no scientific facts out there to stop me or you in our tracks. but look; im not telling you you should believe me too. its only me. thats the good side of opinion. its not a dirty word, its just a lot of people misuse it.
finally, whilst i shouldnt care to hear stupid insults from stupid people, i measure you to be someone to pay more attention to. so i dont like being told who or what i am by anyone, let alone strangers on the intarweb. you said you wouldnt be belligerent, but that just means you insult me calmly, and id prefer a little feeling, in the long run.
i never said t:v would sell in any way good or bad, i never complained about the direction anyone is taking, i never said anyone had offended me, and i dont like armchair psychologists. i said i believed personally that if t:v didnt fit certain templates - i didnt say it was doing so, i said if - then the public would not like it as much as if it did, which since i have appraised you of my belief in what the public likes, you will understand me saying.
i LIKE fast tribes. i LIKE fighting sports. i will play t:v whatever it is like. i was talking about my perception of the public, not me. not at any point did i whinge. please do not confuse me with the rabid conservative players here, in other threads ive bashed them. in fact please dont confuse me with any strong personal feelings regarding tribes, see my member status and low postrate/count. i joined in anticipation of t:v, thats all. i have no agenda to pursue.
and double finally, if mainstream gaming media are hardcore players whose good opinion it does not do to lose by lack of competetive play, then why is it that every review in every gaming magazine anywhere of tribes games misses the points entirely and are regarded by tribes players as poorly representative of tribes? and that goes doubly for gaming websites like gamespy and ign and gamespot. do they ever get it at all right? maybe you think they do, i dont really mind but i hear a lot of stick about them, and apparently, those media folks whose opinions shape a games profile are anything but hardcore.
edit: this is my attempt to resolve our differences, since youre such a formal chap, and doesnt require a reply picking it apart. go ahead if you want, but unless theres something in it that isnt inflammatory or accusatory and also avoids flogging a dead horse, i wont make one back. i judge those attributes myself, they dont sell machines for it yet.
