Macar said:
Maldeus said:
Rebecca Mayes, the point of your chorus was that video games are for losers who play out their fantasies instead of living them. I think maybe you're on the wrong website.
I think that's an odd interpretation. She says "why would you want to take over a world that's small boring and pointless". To me that says the world in the game is not fun, and that you, hence, don't want to conquer it.
How you got from that "video games are for losers who play out their fantasies instead of living them." is beyond me.
"Why would you want to take over a world when you've been given permission to be uncontrolled." Which is kind of the POINT. The game wants you to be evil, in the same sense as other games want you to be heroic, criminal, or, in the bizarre case of the Sims, perfectly ordinary. This is the game for everyone who's ever dreamed of leading their Legion of Evil to pillage, plunder, and rape the world but never had the chance. She contends that this is not a good reason to play a game, even though it is basically the same reason as a significant chunk of the gamer demographic plays any game EVER.
I liked the first Overlord game, both because the minion mechanic was new and, more importantly, because it made me feel like a malicious and evil Overlord who was hellbent on world domination and wasn't going to be thwarted by anyone or anything, a fantasy which I don't think is healthy for me to keep inside when I could act it out virtually and which I don't think would be healthy for anyone caught in the crossfire if I actually, physically went for it. I don't see any reason to believe the second game will fail to serve the same purpose.
As for her complaints about the saminess between the two games, the world being small and boring, etc. etc. Well, fair enough, but I never did mind saminess and the game world's still big enough to be fun. It's the bit quoted above, as well as the bit at the beginning, that irritate me, though.