Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
10-02-2009, 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flatfingers View Post
Sincere thanks for taking the time to comment, Kirby.

My impression is that you didn't really disagree with the bottom-line points I offered, but rather that you disliked the style in which they were presented, or felt I was bullying the ZAM author or Cryptic, and decided that someone ought to try to spank me for it. Most of your responses were mere quibbles.
My main disagreement was simply that the impression I had was that you had minor grievances and that those directed your final opinion, instead of the article as a whole. The internet doesn't convey tone very well. But I would not try to spank you for it, or anyone... unless that "anyone" is a nubile... ah, never mind. (Never understood the entertainment with that kind of spanking anyway.)

Quote:
Actually, I very clearly said: "This article presents absolutely nothing to back up the claim of 'epic exploration.'" I don't mind a previewer telling gamers that some feature will be part of a game if evidence is given to support that claim. But stating that something "epic" will be part of a game without showing readers some evidence for that statement is simply a journalistic mistake -- it would be better either to give some evidence of that epic feature or not make the claim.

Is there some part of that perspective you actually disagree with?
Vaguely, no; however, rereading his article, he did provide a taste of the exploration in the second to last paragraph. "Settings and characters from the series will definitely be making an appearance in the game, as our PAX demo confirmed. During the course of our preview we landed on a strange desert world that was home to an entity of considerable power and wisdom, yanked straight from one of my favorite episodes of the original series, 'The City on the Edge of Forever.' " It may seem a paucity of information to extrapolate from, but it was there (even if we weren't given a plethora of examples).

Quote:
They have, hence some of my admitted twitchiness on this subject. If you feel like searching, you'll find that I've commented several times when Craig has used the term "strategic" in various interviews to describe ship combat when "tactical" is the factually more correct descriptor.
Hmm. I'm relatively new to the forums (I knew there were here last year, but just signed up recently), but I'll keep an eye out for that.

Quote:
I would say you're making quite a few assumptions there yourself.
Now, now, I never assume. I may presume, since there's no maxim to go with that. But just general knowledge deductions allow me to speculate. :Looks at straws. Contemplates grasping.:

Quote:
They did appear to me to be saying that ships in STO have been designed to fill DPS and tank and support roles, and that's all I objected to.
Ah. Put that way, I will have to agree with you.

Quote:
Just one thumb?
Well, it's essentially the same good news we've been hearing about the same previews.

Quote:
At any rate, long back-and-forth exchanges are boring for everyone else on a public forum, so I hope this note suffices to answer your objections to my criticisms of the ZAM article. If not, please feel free to PM me; if I have time, I'll do my best to respond to any civil questions or comments.
No worries. This is good enough for me. Besides, if you don't respond here, I can feel like I've gotten the last word in and relish in my (sleepy) hollow victory.






Word.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
10-02-2009, 04:25 PM
Oh those are so cool!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
10-02-2009, 05:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flatfingers View Post
At any rate, long back-and-forth exchanges are boring for everyone else on a public forum, so I hope this note suffices to answer your objections to my criticisms of the ZAM article. If not, please feel free to PM me; if I have time, I'll do my best to respond to any civil questions or comments.

--Flatfingers
I actually enjoyed reading posts from both of you.

You are discussing, rather than flaming, like most do, and you're both giving me some things to think about.

Besides, this is a discussion forum, isn't it?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
10-02-2009, 10:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobalobabingbong View Post
I actually enjoyed reading posts from both of you.

You are discussing, rather than flaming, like most do, and you're both giving me some things to think about.

Besides, this is a discussion forum, isn't it?
Thanks for saying that, bobalobabingbong. It's appreciated.

And I agree -- discussing things is a lot more fun than hurling abuse.

If I may be permitted to wax self-indulgent (again), when I first went online back in <mumble-mumble> I thought every conversation was a debate I had to win. I would verbally grab by the lapels anyone who disagreed with some opinion of mine and make them acknowledge that I was Right. If facts and logic (as I understood them) didn't do it, then I'd just refuse to quit and would try to "win" through persistence.

Eventually I noticed that people didn't want to talk with me for some reason. When I looked around, I saw how the online folks who were respected the most did things: they listened. They had their opinions, but they didn't use those opinions as clubs to beat down others -- they offered their opinions as conversation-starters to encourage others to participate in the exchange of ideas.

Winning, it seemed, wasn't about ending the conversation. It was about nurturing a conversation so that anyone who had something useful to contribute had a chance to do so.

I can't say I've always followed that philosophy since then. (And I make no claims to being respected.) But I can say that I've had a lot more fun online since I cut back on the win-at-any-cost attitude and the supposedly clever one-line retorts and started doing more listening.

As for my response to the ZAM article... I debated a long time with myself over whether I should write that. I knew it would bother some people here, and I don't like doing that. I also don't like sounding negative. At the same time, I sincerely thought that article raised some serious issues of both form and content, and while Cryptic's PR folks might have liked it, it did not serve the gaming community well. Ultimately I figured I'd go ahead and say my piece, and then step back and give others the opportunity to agree, disagree, or ignore it.

When Kirby responded, I could have gotten mad. "Rrrrr, how dare someone challenge me, rrrrrrrr, must destroy!!" But why get mad? Like I said then, anyone who dishes out criticism has no business complaining when someone objects. Besides, Kirby's comments helped me realize that there were some things I hadn't said as clearly as I could have. When I thanked him for taking the time to comment, that wasn't mere politeness; that was sincere appreciation for giving me a bunch of chances to express myself more clearly.

I'm going on way too long here, but the point is that I definitely think there's room online -- including on game forums -- for people to disagree with each other without being jerks about it. Not everybody is ready for that, but those who are have, I think, a responsibility to lead by example, to demonstrate that the posters who have the most fun over the long haul are the ones who show up not to win debates but to exchange viewpoints and ideas.

In the meantime, there's always the player crews issue to argue about. :p

--Flatfingers
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35 Cool.
10-05-2009, 08:18 PM
Hey, did you know that there is another star trek movie coming out. A star trek 12. Isn't that awesome?!? there was already one that was in the theaters this year, but now there's another one. and I here it's coming out in theaters on November uhhhhhhhh... maybe I shouldn't... alright, November 3rd 2009. If you want to see a trailer, than just go to youtube.com, type in star trek enterprise horizon part 1, press enter, and then just click on the first option, and then just enjoy.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
10-06-2009, 10:23 PM
Ever since I joined, I feel like nobody notices me or notices what I have to say on here. So anyway, it seems to me that everybody thinks that what I put down on here means anything.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
10-07-2009, 09:10 AM
Haven't you noticed how the USS Starship Enterprise NCC 1701-D doesn't get destroyed in Star Trek TNG and the USS Starship Voyager NCC 74656 isn't destroyed in Star Trek Voyager? But yet they seem to end up being able to be destroyed in another show? Well it seems weird, the starship that the show is about never seems to be destroyed, but in another show, well THERE'S a difference.:p
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:23 PM.