From Hellgatewiki.com

The first (and only) email thread of doom was produced and posted by Ivan Sulic as a feature on FlagshipStudios.com in February 2006. Ivan's intention was to get everyone from the company chatting about an issue other than Hellgate: London so the fans could get some insight into what makes the guys tick. It apparently didn't go over real well with everyone at the company, and that's why there's never (yet) been a follow up.

Email Thread of Doom

Email Thread of Doom: Episode 1
Wednesday, 22 February 2006
Interesting soapbox article... [ LINK ]

All about how Street Fighter rocks and WoW sucks. That's an oversimplification, of course, but it's a halfway decent sentence-long summary.

Mr. Sirlin has some convincing arguments and some less so. I, for one, agree with his comments about MassMOGs requiring large groups to get anything good. One of the barriers to entry for me (and a good deal of the reason that I don't play these games) is the knowledge that I will be *required* at some point to join a large group of people in order to progress in these games. This concept of being "alone among people" is actually a good idea; joining a group of friends (or strangers) should be an option, and I should be able to go adventure on my own and feel as though I've been progressing and getting good loot, and not feel as though I'm missing out on the "Good Bits[tm]" because I haven't joined a ginormous raid party.

This is part of the reason that games like Diablo and Dungeon Siege are so appealing to me. I can play the entire game from start to finish (at all three difficulty levels) by myself if I want (and even make it MORE difficult with the /players command in Diablo 2), and get just as rewarding an experience as if I were playing with any number of my friends.

I am less impressed with Mr. Sirlin's complaints about skill vs. time. The purpose of rewarding time over skill is that not everybody is skillful.

Most people, when they've worked at something for a while and realized that they are not as skilled as they'd like to be (or as they need to be) to get what they want, quickly lose interest. It's natural - we tend to gravitate toward the activities we're good at; we enjoy them partially because we're good at them. Thus, there needs to be some hook, some reason for people who aren't as good, people who can't or won't or don't *get* good at the game, to have fun. These less-skilled people should not be alienated simply because they suck at the game - we still want them to have fun, and we still want them to want to play (and to pay the $15 a month fee!). One way to do this is to reward play time, to reward diligence and keep providing these people with new and exciting things to do and see and play with in the world. It's not the only way, but it is one good way.

So, there it is: my 2 cents.

PS - You ever noticed how the phrase is "a penny for your thoughts," and yet a thought is worth two cents?
-- Guy Somberg
Game / Sound Programmer

Sorry to bust into all the intellectual malarkey... BUT..

Does anyone have "War of the Worlds" or "Spiderman" on DvD in their office?

I just need it to borrow it for the weekend.
-- John Kubasco
3D Artist

My thoughts are worth 2 cents. Yours are only worth a penny. That's how I read it, at least.
-- Bill Roper
Chief Executive Officer

I know "A penny for your thoughts" comes for the 1500s. At least it was one of John Heywood's(sp?) documented proverbs.

I believe "That's my two cents" is an old 19th or early 20th century speech and writing trick used to warm up audiences. It's a self-deprecating statement and therefore an audience that hears it may be less inclined to believe you an arrogant fool when you begin pontificating. The better part of the trick was that, if you were a fool, you pretty much already warned them that you were only worth two cents to begin with.

Before I learned all that I had always thought the two cents were divided: one for the tell and one for the listen. But whatever.

/end super dork.
-- Ivan Sulic
Community Manager

"A penny for your thoughts" must carry the implication that you think it's a buyers' market.
-- Ron Barry
Senior Network Programmer

I think I'm going to have to post this thread on the site as a sort of conversational blog. Unless anyone objects, of course.
-- Ivan Sulic
Community Manager

I'm amused by the fact that more people had something to say about the pennies than the article. :)
-- Guy Somberg
Game / Sound Programmer

For me, at least, ignoring gaming articles is reflexive. Working games media for six years has made me incapable of ever reading anything games media writes, ever... For any reason. Ever. Even if I wrote it. Forever-ever.

Now my brain causes my body to seize up as burning pain shoots through my bones whenever I whip open a copy of X Gaming Mag or point myself toward X Gaming Site.com's fun-fun blog machine.
-- Ivan Sulic
Community Manager

Are you asking for your 2 cents back?
-- Chris Lambert
3D Programmer

No, store credit is fine.
-- Guy Somberg
Game / Sound Programmer

So basically, he's saying that he likes sports, but not role-playing games. You can't single out WoW as rewarding time over skill and ignore every other RPG in the world.

The reason people like WoW so much, is that it represents a Utopia of fairness. Everyone is born equal, there is no fear that this one character I role just might be too stupid to be a Mage, or maybe he just wont understand the intricacies of herb-gathering. Everyone character has the same chance, nay destiny, to become great.

It's an idealized form of the Puritan work ethic, and here especially so, we find that "hard work is its own reward". Of course if you're clever about your work, you will succeed faster and more completely than if you are stupid. There are level 60's with crap loot, and level 60's with good loot, and effective builds. There is skill, but the appeal is defiantly that the world is going to be fair to your character.

Contrast this with the "sport" of Counter Strike or Street Fighter. There, the appeal is that the better *you* are as a competitor, the better you will do in the game. There is no free ride. I think that's why these games have a much narrower appeal. Not everyone wants to be an alpha competitor, but they'd love to explore and play in a world where they can be assured the reward of success for their trouble.

In the end, it's different strokes for different folks. His is a pretty Libertarian view though.
-- Phil Shenk
Art Director

I always thought it was a penny for your thoughts, 25$ to act them out?

Might just be me...
-- Brent Shinn
IT Administrator

Take me off this thread.
-- Chris Arretche
Senior Producer

Me too. Or at least have interesting things to say when you send an email out to 30+ people. (Yours is fine, Guy, but I just waded through a bunch of inane emails about pennies.)
-- Max Schaefer
Chief Operating Officer

Agreed...
-- John Kubasco
3D Artist

It seems we've lost people who aren't big on deleting emails they disapprove of. In any event, here's a genuine take on Sirlin's article:

I agree with Phil.

That's pretty much my long and short of it. Well, that was the short of it, anyway. As for the long...

Sirlin's winded body of text features a few poorly developed examples that basically illustrate his dislike of WoW and games of the type. Those examples are based on unsupported reasoning, and most come backed by vagaries and obvious misconceptions. Further, his basic point is, "I like to win by myself and based solely off my skill (read: reflex)." Well good for you, David! Why the long talk about how those that do not are being 'taught fun' improperly by certain videogames?

Moving on, I find choice comments of Sirlin's to be so vague and such blatant generalizations that they invalidate his argument. For instance, labeling subject matter as the "trivial surface" of videogaming and implying that those folks who see GTA as little more than a game about gangsters are incapable of appreciating how meaningful it truly is to explore is...UTTER BULLS***.

For one, I might be inclined to see GTA and other like titles as something more if I weren't reminded with every shooting of exactly how gangster I was currently being. And, the public's perception of a game is directly tied to how a game is delivered, mind you. Failing to recognize that simple truth is not an excuse for pigeonholing GTA's opponents into the category of people who "don't get it, dude."

At the same time, Sirlin dismisses the very types of games Guy's interested in as an alternative to persistent online worlds with community heavy aspects. Sirlin's focus on skill as a quality makes time intensive games with little redeeming reflex value (Diablo, Dungeon Siege) the equivalent of work, yet he admits that a prerequisite of skill-based games is always a great investment of time. He even goes on to admit that the necessary infrastructure to support the development of skill in these games must be in place for such a title to be good and lasting.

Whoops! I need time and community to fully enjoy a skill-based game, yet those components are poorly realized in titles that don't involve sweating furiously because you say so? Guh?

His bulleted points are especially irksome. I read the first one as simply stating, "games don't need material rewards associated with time investments." Personally, I couldn't disagree more. I believe satisfaction beyond the mere thrill of victory should be in place to support less competitive gamers. But, at certain points his numbered summation of WoW was even more infuriating to me because he finds the benefits of cooperative gaming in a guild to be paltry compared to the glory of fame earned through competition and all the haughty flag-waving that comes along with it. And who is he to say so, exactly?

Yes, I am one of those that believes the investment of time is sometimes more important than tapping a reservoir of skill. I wasn't born with an education but I received one by way of grueling schoolwork. More directly related to competitive gaming, I sucked like no other at Quake III but I became good after playing Xaero on nightmare one hundred million times. Thus, I reaped the rewards of satisfaction that come with spent time, be it related to skill-based practice or the tedious memorization of routines and map layouts (which I credit far more than my speedy mousing hand).

His "us vs. them" bit is also lame and screams of hypocrisy. Devout Street Fighter that he is, I wonder what he'd say if I plainly asked him to sum up Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance fans?

Because of all this, I just can't find myself backing his arguments or agreeing with his article. But I can at least see how a person more inclined to enjoy solitary adventuring, who is also keener on play mechanics that do not reward the equivalent of work, could agree with David. But that pretty much says what Phil says... There are strokes for all kinds of folks. Now why didn't Sirlin just repeat that 4,000 times?
-- Ivan Sulic
Community Manager