Checking my email, I see a notification that some one replied to my Battle.net forum. I can't wait to read the intelligent, moving posts that will attempt to urge me away from my non-excited stance on Starcraft II. Instead, I am met with ten messages that could be summed up by combining the acronyms 'STFU,' and 'FUUU,': "STFUUUUUUUUU!!!" A response that shouldn't have been surprising in the least bit. It's the Internet after all: This is a common occurrence. Anonymity-available web forums are playgrounds for trolls.
Blizzard attempted to remedy this when they announced that real names would be displayed on the Battle.net forums; However, after an unexpected out-break of back-lash from Blizzard's online community, it was decided to keep the anonymity. An action that will ensure the continued hostile and non-user-friendly nature of this forum board.
A game's community is often times as important as the initial game. If that community is filled with trolls, hiding behind jpegs and user-names (especially when the game is multi-player) l am far from encouraged to play the actual game. Such annoying board members who post needless obscenities and start arguments for no reason would logically point to a game played only by greifers (gamers with the goal of ruining every body else's fun).
It's one thing to be in the middle of a Halo death-match and have your sexuality questioned and ridiculed but another thing entirely for the same thing to happen in a setting meant for intelligent discussion. The Penny Arcade "Internet Dickwad Theory" (Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Dickwad) is hardly limited to gaming, but gaming communities as well. Blizzard had planned to excise anonymity from that equation, and just like how the equation '2 + 2 = 4' does not feature the same result if '+ 2' is removed, a normal person with an audience is just that: A normal person with an audience.
Defendants of forum board anonymity claim that the inclusion of real names would break the fourth wall and take them out of the experience. Well, if I want to submit my serious opinion under the pseudonym of Doctor_Mind_BendR_38 so that I can more easily believe I do have a PHD in bending minds then I could, but my serious opinion wouldn't be taken seriously with such a name. Because readers can't take my writing seriously and because they can't be held accountable for their words while posting under names such as BieberFan1, comments on my post will be nothing but statements about my mother's weight.
Maybe one day I'll post my thoughts about Starcraft II under my birth name, Jazz English, on Battle.net. It will spur rich, intelligent discussion and responses that will better both the game's community and the game itself. Until then, I think I'll stay away from the anonymous parts of the Internet.
Resident Evil Village transitions to Switch 2 as a robust, content-complete package that expertly balances Gothic horror with RE4-style action.
"High on Life 2 feels like a sequel that understands what worked and tries to fix what didn’t - louder, bigger and mechanically stronger."
- Stuart Cullen, TechStomper
Qt3's Tom Chick: "Normally, at the end of a Resident Evil game, I immediately start a playthrough on a harder difficulty level, leveraging what I’ve learned to fling liberal ammo from my upgraded arsenal at those fuckers who had me running scared the first time around. Not so with Requiem. Instead, with a renewed appreciation for how much worse Resident Evil: Village could have been, I’m going back to Castle Dimitrescu, which doesn’t even have a secret lab underneath it."
Who preffered First person vs third person? i played through the entire game in third person as love to see the characters animations
You make a good point. But even if you take care of the trolls, you know have to deal with pedophiles, weirdo's, stalkers and more and they can all find out where you live.