Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 142
Glad to help reduce your forum reading load Edwardo_Cullen. I don't post for the sake of it and as I said, (not that you'll read it now) I accept and agree with the point on it not being a deserved award.
But what about the point of worsening the game's prospects of survival (a game you very much want to keep going) by not sacrificing your feelings this time around? If the game is offline, does that balance the equation of having not sacrificed on your feelings given its counter to what you want (the game's survival).
Its an extreme to suggest one person will have this impact, I know, but I'm talking about generalities and how much more prevalent negative perceptions will always be, even if they are not based on accurate information eg. launch vs STO today.
If 1000 people who want the game to go on, stand by and do nothing to help improve its image when its on its last stand for massive public awareness - are they spiting the game (and their desire to keep playing) by not sacrificing their feelings? Is it an ultimate benefit for them that the game they enjoy (or at least enjoy parts of) close?
Its very interesting to me to think so. I got thinking about all of this when I saw how little a response the official STO article posting got on this vote. It really seemed like people are prepared to standby and let the all the positive aspects of the game they enjoy slip (and after f2p we're talking offline here not just a declining game) just because they want to punish Cryptic for 10 months of neglect.
There are certainly times beyond gaming when we find ourselves in situations where we are presented an option of what is best for us, and what our feelings may say is contrary.
Perhaps I am sawing off the wrong limb afterall. I found it of particular interest.
|