Comments on: Inevitable Normalization

By: Mania’s Arcania » Pet Normalization: The Middle Way (Part II)

Mania’s Arcania » Pet Normalization: The Middle Way (Part II) — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:03:51 +0000

[...] Yesterday I posted a long article about distintive design vs. normalization in pet family design, prompting by a recent post on The Mysic Hunter called Inevitable Normalization. [...]

By: Mania’s Arcania » Pet Normalization: The Middle Way (Part I)

Mania’s Arcania » Pet Normalization: The Middle Way (Part I) — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:21:40 +0000

[...] at the Mystic Hunter has written several very good posts about pet normalization. His latest, Inevitable Normalization, is another well-written and interesting read on the topic. But while I agree with much of what [...]

By: Fearstalker

Fearstalker — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:50:37 +0000

It’s really about making more families viable. Any serious raiding guilds out there that will let you take a bear in-raid?.. I think not.

By: Gretadelle

Gretadelle — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:54:43 +0000

when I first started reading about the “normalizing”- I wasn’t sure I agreed. Having different pets with different abilities is fun. But as I approach 70 and find myself keeping a cat that I’m not totally in love with but the only other choice is an ugly ravager… and I wish I could use my most favorite turtle but he doesn’t do much damage at all… and ooh look at those pretty flying guys, oh nevermind petopia says they have “caster” stats… yeah. I’m starting to agree with you. It would be fun to see all the hunters running around with DIFFERENT pets. (not to mention that I got what I thought would be a unique purple/white cat from winterspring but it turns out that every other hunter, including BRK, also has that same “unique” cat. I probably would have been more unique if I’d picked a common ugly one. *sigh*)

By: Bobo & SgtPork

Bobo & SgtPork — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:37:14 +0000

Although there is something ascetic about having a crab ;)

By: Znodis

Znodis — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:49:02 +0000

Indeed. Spell checker didn’t get me to the right one… I thought there was a ‘th’ in there somewhere.

By: kyle

kyle — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:16:39 +0000

it’s “aesthetic” not “ascetic”