Looks decent but does it have what it takes?

Lastera

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Well said Nevenias. Sometimes I wonder what colored glasses people are looking through when they predict doom and gloom. I know they can't possibly be as informed as, at the risk of sounding elitist, myself and others. What I mean by that is there have been more than a few titles have not made retail or have done really poorly after launch. I'm not going to list them, but anyone who is a true MMO junkie knows about them or where to find info about them. LOTRO doesn't look or feel like any of those projects.
Some people may point out that AC2 was one of those games. True. But if you bring that up then you also need to look at the situation Turbine had with Microsoft, which contributed to AC2's closure, and their current relationships they have with LOTRO. You also can't discount the fact they they have an up close and personal view of what can cause a game to have to be shut down. They also know the things to do to have a game go, what is it now, 7 to 8 years?

The game looks a lot like DDO and I've played some MMORPGs.  Years means nothing if you do little to change the gameplay or keep up with the times.  I find it assuming people bring up old games that were successful, but ignore the companies track record for coming up with games that introduce new gameplay or put a spin on an old idea. Nintendo Co. is a great example of a company that keeps reinvent themselves through the games. You can always rely on Nintendo to come up with something new to entertain the fans and they always have a easy learning curve. WoW has done this. They re-invent the gameplay of previous MMORPGs and made it more user friendly. Guild Wars same thing. How games that haven't, have suffered and have become medicore games with an even smaller fanbase than expect.



Adding to this, even if the game does well, it's fanbase slowly starts to decline as newer games come out with more fun and easy gameplay or introduce new quests.



(I'll add more tomorrow.)

Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Lastera

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Well said Nevenias. Sometimes I wonder what colored glasses people are looking through when they predict doom and gloom. I know they can't possibly be as informed as, at the risk of sounding elitist, myself and others. What I mean by that is there have been more than a few titles have not made retail or have done really poorly after launch. I'm not going to list them, but anyone who is a true MMO junkie knows about them or where to find info about them. LOTRO doesn't look or feel like any of those projects.
Some people may point out that AC2 was one of those games. True. But if you bring that up then you also need to look at the situation Turbine had with Microsoft, which contributed to AC2's closure, and their current relationships they have with LOTRO. You also can't discount the fact they they have an up close and personal view of what can cause a game to have to be shut down. They also know the things to do to have a game go, what is it now, 7 to 8 years?

The game looks a lot like DDO and I've played some MMORPGs.  Years means nothing if you do little to change the gameplay or keep up with the times.  I find it assuming people bring up old games that were successful, but ignore the companies track record for coming up with games that introduce new gameplay or put a spin on an old idea. Nintendo Co. is a great example of a company that keeps reinvent themselves through the games. You can always rely on Nintendo to come up with something new to entertain the fans and they always have a easy learning curve. WoW has done this. They re-invent the gameplay of previous MMORPGs and made it more user friendly. Guild Wars same thing. How games that haven't, have suffered and have become medicore games with an even smaller fanbase than expect.



Adding to this, even if the game does well, it's fanbase slowly starts to decline as newer games come out with more fun and easy gameplay or introduce new quests.



(I'll add more tomorrow.)

I wouldn't say Nintendo is a great example. They don't have any of the good sports licenses, which usually are the money makers, and the Wii is their first new major platform since what, the Nintendo 64? The Gamecube was a joke and I don't consider handhelds gaming. Even with that the Wii lacks a hard drive, no DvD playback, is Wi-Fi only and the overall selection of games is very lacking compared to the 360 and PS3. The only thing they got right was the pricing.

Having played DDO for 7 months, I don't really agree that it looks like DDO due to the setting specific artwork from both IPs. Besides, the graphics "card" is over-played and meaningless except in the most extreme of conditions. EQ2, Vanguard, LOTRO, AoC; they all have good graphics. One style may be more pleasing to a person's eye than it is to a different person. As we all don't look through the same eyes, why even bother bringing it up. As for new gameplay, DDO had that. The twitchy combat. The ability to complete quests without having to kill everyhing in your path on many quests, not just a few. LOTRO is also trying new features as well. Of note is the Player vs. Monster Player combat and their trait system which the public will be learning more about soon.

We also differ on WoW. They didn't re-invent. They refined and simplfied. That may turn some people on, but it didn't work for me. I've got two friends playing Burning Crusade right now and I got the same feeling from them both: New areas, new race/class combos, same grind, boring.

All that said, some will just continue to ignore it and focus on the negative. *shrug* So be it. The fact remains LOTRO is doing a few things that haven't been done before that look promising. The fact remains that over 300K people have signed up to beta the game, and counting. The fact remains that those 300K are the diehards, and the majority of LOTR fans that are gamers probably don't hang out on fourms as we do, but they know it's there and will pick it up at launch.

As long as Turbine continues to listen to their customers as they have demonstrated so far (ignoring the rants that say otherwise, which are usually brought up by those who think the devs should take every single one of that persons "suggestions" and implement them right now into the game, despite that it would completly kill other systems), this game will be stable. It won't "beat" WoW, but for the millionth time that isn't their goal. To have a stable, profitable game (which 200K subscriptions will do) is the goal. 200K subs at $1/month for a year is 20,400,000. If they've invested $30 million as previously mentioned and the game mantains that sub for 5-6 years they have more than made their money, and looking at games taking around $20-30 million to create, enough to fund their next project. Considering we'll be paying $15/month a sub, money shouldn't be an issue and they can focus on giving us the content and interaction those of us came to enjoy in AC1.

Lastera

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Lastera

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Well said Nevenias. Sometimes I wonder what colored glasses people are looking through when they predict doom and gloom. I know they can't possibly be as informed as, at the risk of sounding elitist, myself and others. What I mean by that is there have been more than a few titles have not made retail or have done really poorly after launch. I'm not going to list them, but anyone who is a true MMO junkie knows about them or where to find info about them. LOTRO doesn't look or feel like any of those projects.
Some people may point out that AC2 was one of those games. True. But if you bring that up then you also need to look at the situation Turbine had with Microsoft, which contributed to AC2's closure, and their current relationships they have with LOTRO. You also can't discount the fact they they have an up close and personal view of what can cause a game to have to be shut down. They also know the things to do to have a game go, what is it now, 7 to 8 years?

The game looks a lot like DDO and I've played some MMORPGs.  Years means nothing if you do little to change the gameplay or keep up with the times.  I find it assuming people bring up old games that were successful, but ignore the companies track record for coming up with games that introduce new gameplay or put a spin on an old idea. Nintendo Co. is a great example of a company that keeps reinvent themselves through the games. You can always rely on Nintendo to come up with something new to entertain the fans and they always have a easy learning curve. WoW has done this. They re-invent the gameplay of previous MMORPGs and made it more user friendly. Guild Wars same thing. How games that haven't, have suffered and have become medicore games with an even smaller fanbase than expect.



Adding to this, even if the game does well, it's fanbase slowly starts to decline as newer games come out with more fun and easy gameplay or introduce new quests.



(I'll add more tomorrow.)

I wouldn't say Nintendo is a great example. They don't have any of the good sports licenses, which usually are the money makers, and the Wii is their first new major platform since what, the Nintendo 64? The Gamecube was a joke and I don't consider handhelds gaming. Even with that the Wii lacks a hard drive, no DvD playback, is Wi-Fi only and the overall selection of games is very lacking compared to the 360 and PS3. The only thing they got right was the pricing.

Nintendo gamecube may have been a joke in many people's eyes, but it's game did okay. Nintendo currently has a soccer game, a basketball game and baseball game that all featuring some of Nintendo's Mascots Mario and Donkey Kong, which are currently doing well. Wii has actually sold more units than PS3 as well as games. It doesn't have a lot of games now (all of the games are noted to be good), but the other games are currently in development. PS3 right now doesn't have any good games except Resistance: Fall of Man. 360 got a shot in the arm with Gears of War.

Having played DDO for 7 months, I don't really agree that it looks like DDO due to the setting specific artwork from both IPs. Besides, the graphics "card" is over-played and meaningless except in the most extreme of conditions. EQ2, Vanguard, LOTRO, AoC; they all have good graphics. One style may be more pleasing to a person's eye than it is to a different person. As we all don't look through the same eyes, why even bother bringing it up.

The animations of the weapon swing are horrible. The armor is assorted and not cultural. The dwarves look like they were hunching over when they run. They don't even look short. The armors of the characters are too unrealistically skinny to hold any massive weapon. The only thing that made the game appealing to the eye, at least for me, was the redendering of the game when you upped the resolutions on the game. However, ever game looks good when you redender the graphics.

Also, I remember falling off ledge and my characters fall animation was similar to the "base jumping" of AC. Same thing with the LotR preview. A lot of the animation, sound effects and graphics looked a lot like what I saw in DDO. When I looked at the character models they provided on their site, they had the same detail as I saw on DDO site. It's as if they are using the same artist for every game, but they having them polish their artwork with each game. (Which isn't a good thing)

As for new gameplay, DDO had that. The twitchy combat. The ability to complete quests without having to kill everyhing in your path on many quests, not just a few.

Oh lord. No, they didn't. Real time combat?  The ability to complete quests without having to kill everything?

1. Every game has real time combat.

2. WoW, GW and EQ2 has this feature as DDO in which you don't have to kill every monster on a quest.

3. DDO has PvP, which game now has. (And the worse PvP we have come by)

4. DDO added soloing, which they said, theyn't were going to add.

5. DDO features Golem bosses, Dragon bosses and Giant bosses that we've seen in other games.

The only thing DDO did different was allow you to repeat quests and choose difficult of each quests AFTER you beat them.

LOTRO is also trying new features as well. Of note is the Player vs. Monster Player combat and their trait system which the public will be learning more about soon.

Player vs. Monster has been in every game. It's called PvE. The trait system is explained on the site, and it does the same thing WoW's talent tree does, which is giving your move the ability to do more damage or give it better affects. Just because a system has a new name doesn't mean it's something new.

We also differ on WoW. They didn't re-invent. They refined and simplfied. That may turn some people on, but it didn't work for me. I've got two friends playing Burning Crusade right now and I got the same feeling from them both: New areas, new race/class combos, same grind, boring.

All game do this, but I rather play a game I can have fun in and gives me a lot of options to entertain myself with.

All that said, some will just continue to ignore it and focus on the negative. *shrug* So be it. The fact remains LOTRO is doing a few things that haven't been done before that look promising.

Play other games before you go mouthing off that LotR is doing something different. Not just WoW, but other MMORPGs.

The fact remains that over 300K people have signed up to beta the game, and counting. The fact remains that those 300K are the diehards, and the majority of LOTR fans that are gamers probably don't hang out on fourms as we do, but they know it's there and will pick it up at launch.

You can get off your high horse, now. Not everybody who signs up to beta stays on and the game has to live up to it's hype in order to keep those 300k players.

As long as Turbine continues to listen to their customers as they have demonstrated so far (ignoring the rants that say otherwise, which are usually brought up by those who think the devs should take every single one of that persons "suggestions" and implement them right now into the game, despite that it would completly kill other systems), this game will be stable.

The reason Turbine madr the decision to have PvP and solo was because of the backfire, they suffered with DDO. They didn't listen to their fans when they ask for soloing and PvP, but after the number of subs dropped so did their attitudes. If you haven't been keeping up with Turbine since the launch of DDO then you can't speak on how well Turbine will do now. I had to read several page of post on the DDO board to understand the mistakes Turbine did with it's game to realize what Turbine failed to do and still fails to do.

It won't "beat" WoW, but for the millionth time that isn't their goal. To have a stable, profitable game (which 200K subscriptions will do) is the goal. 200K subs at $1/month for a year is 20,400,000.

For the last time, WoW did not predict millions of people would play their game. They were only look at 500k. DDO didn't reach and still haven't reach 200k number with DDO. The players they have currently playing are around the ages 27 to 40 year old men and women, when they were aimming for a 20 to 25 year old crew. They could not predict their outcome no more than Blizzard could.

If they've invested $30 million as previously mentioned and the game mantains that sub for 5-6 years they have more than made their money, and looking at games taking around $20-30 million to create, enough to fund their next project. Considering we'll be paying $15/month a sub, money shouldn't be an issue and they can focus on giving us the content and interaction those of us came to enjoy in AC1.

AC is a matter of opinion and it's populate fanboys. EQ same thing. Times have changed and players are getting into the new stuff, thus, the reason I said decline of players. What was good back then isn't good now. EQ had million players once, but now it's probably a little over 200 to 100k now. Same thing with AC, but even less numbers.

You can keep mentioning AC, but does Turbine have a good track record of holding up games? Nope? AC2 is proof that. Are they good giving good products? Nope, DDO was a failure from the start and they lost a large number of subscribers. Now, with BC out,  I've run into players who've flocked from games like DDO to play WoW: BC. Does Turbine have record re-iventing games? Nope, the newest game they make always feels like the last game and they add nothing new to their games gamers haven't seen in other MMORPGs. Simply put, Turbine makes money off the left overs of players who couldn't compete in real games.

By the way, AC doesn't get 15 a month anymore nor are their more than 200k players in the game, I'm not sure where you getting your numbers from.

Here's a link to the most recent measurement of subscribers for last years. AC falls under 120,000 category alone with DDO. Turbine seems to have record now of not even getting 200k players or maintain 200k players for very long.

http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart3.html

-Achilles-

Originally posted by Lastera

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Lastera

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Well said Nevenias. Sometimes I wonder what colored glasses people are looking through when they predict doom and gloom. I know they can't possibly be as informed as, at the risk of sounding elitist, myself and others. What I mean by that is there have been more than a few titles have not made retail or have done really poorly after launch. I'm not going to list them, but anyone who is a true MMO junkie knows about them or where to find info about them. LOTRO doesn't look or feel like any of those projects.
Some people may point out that AC2 was one of those games. True. But if you bring that up then you also need to look at the situation Turbine had with Microsoft, which contributed to AC2's closure, and their current relationships they have with LOTRO. You also can't discount the fact they they have an up close and personal view of what can cause a game to have to be shut down. They also know the things to do to have a game go, what is it now, 7 to 8 years?

The game looks a lot like DDO and I've played some MMORPGs.  Years means nothing if you do little to change the gameplay or keep up with the times.  I find it assuming people bring up old games that were successful, but ignore the companies track record for coming up with games that introduce new gameplay or put a spin on an old idea. Nintendo Co. is a great example of a company that keeps reinvent themselves through the games. You can always rely on Nintendo to come up with something new to entertain the fans and they always have a easy learning curve. WoW has done this. They re-invent the gameplay of previous MMORPGs and made it more user friendly. Guild Wars same thing. How games that haven't, have suffered and have become medicore games with an even smaller fanbase than expect.



Adding to this, even if the game does well, it's fanbase slowly starts to decline as newer games come out with more fun and easy gameplay or introduce new quests.



(I'll add more tomorrow.)

I wouldn't say Nintendo is a great example. They don't have any of the good sports licenses, which usually are the money makers, and the Wii is their first new major platform since what, the Nintendo 64? The Gamecube was a joke and I don't consider handhelds gaming. Even with that the Wii lacks a hard drive, no DvD playback, is Wi-Fi only and the overall selection of games is very lacking compared to the 360 and PS3. The only thing they got right was the pricing.

Nintendo gamecube may have been a joke in many people's eyes, but it's game did okay. Nintendo currently has a soccer game, a basketball game and baseball game that all featuring some of Nintendo's Mascots Mario and Donkey Kong, which are currently doing well. Wii has actually sold more units than PS3 as well as games. It doesn't have a lot of games now (all of the games are noted to be good), but the other games are currently in development. PS3 right now doesn't have any good games except Resistance: Fall of Man. 360 got a shot in the arm with Gears of War.

Having played DDO for 7 months, I don't really agree that it looks like DDO due to the setting specific artwork from both IPs. Besides, the graphics "card" is over-played and meaningless except in the most extreme of conditions. EQ2, Vanguard, LOTRO, AoC; they all have good graphics. One style may be more pleasing to a person's eye than it is to a different person. As we all don't look through the same eyes, why even bother bringing it up.

The animations of the weapon swing are horrible. The armor is assorted and not cultural. The dwarves look like they were hunching over when they run. They don't even look short. The armors of the characters are too unrealistically skinny to hold any massive weapon. The only thing that made the game appealing to the eye, at least for me, was the redendering of the game when you upped the resolutions on the game. However, ever game looks good when you redender the graphics.

Also, I remember falling off ledge and my characters fall animation was similar to the "base jumping" of AC. Same thing with the LotR preview. A lot of the animation, sound effects and graphics looked a lot like what I saw in DDO. When I looked at the character models they provided on their site, they had the same detail as I saw on DDO site. It's as if they are using the same artist for every game, but they having them polish their artwork with each game. (Which isn't a good thing)

As for new gameplay, DDO had that. The twitchy combat. The ability to complete quests without having to kill everyhing in your path on many quests, not just a few.

Oh lord. No, they didn't. Real time combat?  The ability to complete quests without having to kill everything?

1. Every game has real time combat.

2. WoW, GW and EQ2 has this feature as DDO in which you don't have to kill every monster on a quest.

3. DDO has PvP, which game now has. (And the worse PvP we have come by)

4. DDO added soloing, which they said, theyn't were going to add.

5. DDO features Golem bosses, Dragon bosses and Giant bosses that we've seen in other games.

The only thing DDO did different was allow you to repeat quests and choose difficult of each quests AFTER you beat them.

LOTRO is also trying new features as well. Of note is the Player vs. Monster Player combat and their trait system which the public will be learning more about soon.

Player vs. Monster has been in every game. It's called PvE. The trait system is explained on the site, and it does the same thing WoW's talent tree does, which is giving your move the ability to do more damage or give it better affects. Just because a system has a new name doesn't mean it's something new.

We also differ on WoW. They didn't re-invent. They refined and simplfied. That may turn some people on, but it didn't work for me. I've got two friends playing Burning Crusade right now and I got the same feeling from them both: New areas, new race/class combos, same grind, boring.

All game do this, but I rather play a game I can have fun in and gives me a lot of options to entertain myself with.

All that said, some will just continue to ignore it and focus on the negative. *shrug* So be it. The fact remains LOTRO is doing a few things that haven't been done before that look promising.

Play other games before you go mouthing off that LotR is doing something different. Not just WoW, but other MMORPGs.

The fact remains that over 300K people have signed up to beta the game, and counting. The fact remains that those 300K are the diehards, and the majority of LOTR fans that are gamers probably don't hang out on fourms as we do, but they know it's there and will pick it up at launch.

You can get off your high horse, now. Not everybody who signs up to beta stays on and the game has to live up to it's hype in order to keep those 300k players.

As long as Turbine continues to listen to their customers as they have demonstrated so far (ignoring the rants that say otherwise, which are usually brought up by those who think the devs should take every single one of that persons "suggestions" and implement them right now into the game, despite that it would completly kill other systems), this game will be stable.

The reason Turbine madr the decision to have PvP and solo was because of the backfire, they suffered with DDO. They didn't listen to their fans when they ask for soloing and PvP, but after the number of subs dropped so did their attitudes. If you haven't been keeping up with Turbine since the launch of DDO then you can't speak on how well Turbine will do now. I had to read several page of post on the DDO board to understand the mistakes Turbine did with it's game to realize what Turbine failed to do and still fails to do.

It won't "beat" WoW, but for the millionth time that isn't their goal. To have a stable, profitable game (which 200K subscriptions will do) is the goal. 200K subs at $1/month for a year is 20,400,000.

For the last time, WoW did not predict millions of people would play their game. They were only look at 500k. DDO didn't reach and still haven't reach 200k number with DDO. The players they have currently playing are around the ages 27 to 40 year old men and women, when they were aimming for a 20 to 25 year old crew. They could not predict their outcome no more than Blizzard could.

If they've invested $30 million as previously mentioned and the game mantains that sub for 5-6 years they have more than made their money, and looking at games taking around $20-30 million to create, enough to fund their next project. Considering we'll be paying $15/month a sub, money shouldn't be an issue and they can focus on giving us the content and interaction those of us came to enjoy in AC1.

AC is a matter of opinion and it's populate fanboys. EQ same thing. Times have changed and players are getting into the new stuff, thus, the reason I said decline of players. What was good back then isn't good now. EQ had million players once, but now it's probably a little over 200 to 100k now. Same thing with AC, but even less numbers.

You can keep mentioning AC, but does Turbine have a good track record of holding up games? Nope? AC2 is proof that. Are they good giving good products? Nope, DDO was a failure from the start and they lost a large number of subscribers. Now, with BC out,  I've run into players who've flocked from games like DDO to play WoW: BC. Does Turbine have record re-iventing games? Nope, the newest game they make always feels like the last game and they add nothing new to their games gamers haven't seen in other MMORPGs. Simply put, Turbine makes money off the left overs of players who couldn't compete in real games.

By the way, AC doesn't get 15 a month anymore nor are their more than 200k players in the game, I'm not sure where you getting your numbers from.

Here's a link to the most recent measurement of subscribers for last years. AC falls under 120,000 category alone with DDO. Turbine seems to have record now of not even getting 200k players or maintain 200k players for very long.

http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart3.html

 

You do realize MMOGCHART.com is inaccurate? Bruce's numbers are based mainly on what he interprets the populations  to be. Turbine doesn't release subscription numbers, therefore the number is inaccurate. Frelorn, Turbine's community rep. has stated that Bruce's charts are inaccurate in reference to Asheron's Call. I wouldn't doubt it either, considering most of the player base left owns a large number of accounts. Six of my guild members own 3-4 accounts. Average is around two accounts per person.

Lastera

Originally posted by -Achilles-

You do realize MMOGCHART.com is inaccurate? Bruce's numbers are based mainly on what he interprets the populations  to be. Turbine doesn't release subscription numbers, therefore the number is inaccurate. Frelorn, Turbine's community rep. has stated that Bruce's charts are inaccurate in reference to Asheron's Call. I wouldn't doubt it either, considering most of the player base left owns a large number of accounts. Six of my guild members own 3-4 accounts. Average is around two accounts per person.

I think Bruce's does mention on his site that his numbers aren't accurate considering EQ had over 1 million players before EQ2. However, it's the closest to accuracy we gets. Plus or minus could be apply to Bruce's subscription and moreover, no stasitics is ever right on the dot, but rather gives you a good idea what games are working with.



As for what you said about AC, that isn't a good thing when subscribers have several accounts. That's like the situation with WoW, 3 million Asian are playing WoW. However, most of them have multiple accounts so it's safe to say 50% of the players have one account so 1.5 players really playing WoW.

Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Lastera

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Lastera

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Well said Nevenias. Sometimes I wonder what colored glasses people are looking through when they predict doom and gloom. I know they can't possibly be as informed as, at the risk of sounding elitist, myself and others. What I mean by that is there have been more than a few titles have not made retail or have done really poorly after launch. I'm not going to list them, but anyone who is a true MMO junkie knows about them or where to find info about them. LOTRO doesn't look or feel like any of those projects.
Some people may point out that AC2 was one of those games. True. But if you bring that up then you also need to look at the situation Turbine had with Microsoft, which contributed to AC2's closure, and their current relationships they have with LOTRO. You also can't discount the fact they they have an up close and personal view of what can cause a game to have to be shut down. They also know the things to do to have a game go, what is it now, 7 to 8 years?

The game looks a lot like DDO and I've played some MMORPGs.  Years means nothing if you do little to change the gameplay or keep up with the times.  I find it assuming people bring up old games that were successful, but ignore the companies track record for coming up with games that introduce new gameplay or put a spin on an old idea. Nintendo Co. is a great example of a company that keeps reinvent themselves through the games. You can always rely on Nintendo to come up with something new to entertain the fans and they always have a easy learning curve. WoW has done this. They re-invent the gameplay of previous MMORPGs and made it more user friendly. Guild Wars same thing. How games that haven't, have suffered and have become medicore games with an even smaller fanbase than expect.



Adding to this, even if the game does well, it's fanbase slowly starts to decline as newer games come out with more fun and easy gameplay or introduce new quests.



(I'll add more tomorrow.)

I wouldn't say Nintendo is a great example. They don't have any of the good sports licenses, which usually are the money makers, and the Wii is their first new major platform since what, the Nintendo 64? The Gamecube was a joke and I don't consider handhelds gaming. Even with that the Wii lacks a hard drive, no DvD playback, is Wi-Fi only and the overall selection of games is very lacking compared to the 360 and PS3. The only thing they got right was the pricing.

Nintendo gamecube may have been a joke in many people's eyes, but it's game did okay. Nintendo currently has a soccer game, a basketball game and baseball game that all featuring some of Nintendo's Mascots Mario and Donkey Kong, which are currently doing well. Wii has actually sold more units than PS3 as well as games. It doesn't have a lot of games now (all of the games are noted to be good), but the other games are currently in development. PS3 right now doesn't have any good games except Resistance: Fall of Man. 360 got a shot in the arm with Gears of War.

Of course Wii has sold more units, it's more affordable. But I addressed that when I said they got the price right. Yeah, their sports game with Nintendo charcters from other game. Big deal. I mean real sport games, like Madden or MLB. Not cutsy games where Yoshi hits a home run. The only good review I've seen for a Wii game is for Twilight Princess, and they did a very good job with that game.

Having played DDO for 7 months, I don't really agree that it looks like DDO due to the setting specific artwork from both IPs. Besides, the graphics "card" is over-played and meaningless except in the most extreme of conditions. EQ2, Vanguard, LOTRO, AoC; they all have good graphics. One style may be more pleasing to a person's eye than it is to a different person. As we all don't look through the same eyes, why even bother bringing it up.

The animations of the weapon swing are horrible. The armor is assorted and not cultural. The dwarves look like they were hunching over when they run. They don't even look short. The armors of the characters are too unrealistically skinny to hold any massive weapon. The only thing that made the game appealing to the eye, at least for me, was the redendering of the game when you upped the resolutions on the game. However, ever game looks good when you redender the graphics.

Also, I remember falling off ledge and my characters fall animation was similar to the "base jumping" of AC. Same thing with the LotR preview. A lot of the animation, sound effects and graphics looked a lot like what I saw in DDO. When I looked at the character models they provided on their site, they had the same detail as I saw on DDO site. It's as if they are using the same artist for every game, but they having them polish their artwork with each game. (Which isn't a good thing)

And you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. Just don't confuse your opinion with universal fact, as there are plenty of people out there, myself included, who don't agree with you. What you need to focus on is the fact that neither side is right on this point. It's obvious visually we don't agree on the artistic. So? This point isn't worth debating as neither side can be right.

As for new gameplay, DDO had that. The twitchy combat. The ability to complete quests without having to kill everyhing in your path on many quests, not just a few.

Oh lord. No, they didn't. Real time combat?  The ability to complete quests without having to kill everything?

1. Every game has real time combat.

2. WoW, GW and EQ2 has this feature as DDO in which you don't have to kill every monster on a quest.

3. DDO has PvP, which game now has. (And the worse PvP we have come by)

4. DDO added soloing, which they said, theyn't were going to add.

5. DDO features Golem bosses, Dragon bosses and Giant bosses that we've seen in other games.

The only thing DDO did different was allow you to repeat quests and choose difficult of each quests AFTER you beat them.

No, they don't. DAoC is click to auto attack and push buttons for special. So is EQ2, EQ, Vanguard and the rest of the field. I don't know about GW as I was never impressed with it and never played. Having more than a few friends who played it and then went back to their previous games cements I made the right decision to not buy it. No, with the exception of GW maybe, they don't have a feature to complete as many quests without combat where you are surrounded by hostile creature that will attack you.  And their PvP is probably the worst YOU have ever come by, but certainly not WE. But considering the DnD license isn't built for the "balanced" PvP so many people want it's fine. I'm not going to debate that though as I spent more than enough time on the DDO official and Beta boards on it.

LOTRO is also trying new features as well. Of note is the Player vs. Monster Player combat and their trait system which the public will be learning more about soon.

Player vs. Monster has been in every game. It's called PvE. The trait system is explained on the site, and it does the same thing WoW's talent tree does, which is giving your move the ability to do more damage or give it better affects. Just because a system has a new name doesn't mean it's something new.

Can you read? I mean really. Oh, wait, you just must not know. Okay, that makes sense. Why don't you go research Player vs Monster Player combat and once you figure out that players are getting to take over monsters and fight other players, and that they keep the monster and can improve it over time, then we'll continue discussing PvMP.

We also differ on WoW. They didn't re-invent. They refined and simplfied. That may turn some people on, but it didn't work for me. I've got two friends playing Burning Crusade right now and I got the same feeling from them both: New areas, new race/class combos, same grind, boring.

All game do this, but I rather play a game I can have fun in and gives me a lot of options to entertain myself with.

Exactly, which is for the life of me I can't figure out why you spend your time ranting on a game that obviously is not going to provide you with any fun. I guess it's just to purposely try and ruin the fun of others. Makes sense now.

All that said, some will just continue to ignore it and focus on the negative. *shrug* So be it. The fact remains LOTRO is doing a few things that haven't been done before that look promising.

Play other games before you go mouthing off that LotR is doing something different. Not just WoW, but other MMORPGs.

I'm sorry, have we met? No, I didn't think so. Why don't you ask a question ad educate yourself before you go mouthing off. Of all the games I've played, i spent the least amount of time in WoW. I've played every major title except GW. You need to learn how to understand that even if a game is doing one thing different (like Player vs Monster Player combat, which you need to go read up on), then it is doing something different. The entire game doesn't have to be different. In fact, you won't see that anytime soon.

The fact remains that over 300K people have signed up to beta the game, and counting. The fact remains that those 300K are the diehards, and the majority of LOTR fans that are gamers probably don't hang out on fourms as we do, but they know it's there and will pick it up at launch.

You can get off your high horse, now. Not everybody who signs up to beta stays on and the game has to live up to it's hype in order to keep those 300k players.

Gee, you figure that out all by yourself? I assumed you would understand that, but my fault for not spelling it all out for you. It's very obvious that not all 300K will stay and play. Fact remains that a very large number of folks are interested in it. Period. I know that makes you sad, but it's true. Sorry.

As long as Turbine continues to listen to their customers as they have demonstrated so far (ignoring the rants that say otherwise, which are usually brought up by those who think the devs should take every single one of that persons "suggestions" and implement them right now into the game, despite that it would completly kill other systems), this game will be stable.

The reason Turbine madr the decision to have PvP and solo was because of the backfire, they suffered with DDO. They didn't listen to their fans when they ask for soloing and PvP, but after the number of subs dropped so did their attitudes. If you haven't been keeping up with Turbine since the launch of DDO then you can't speak on how well Turbine will do now. I had to read several page of post on the DDO board to understand the mistakes Turbine did with it's game to realize what Turbine failed to do and still fails to do.

Huh? How what you just said has any bearing on what i said is beyond me. I was making the point that most people you cry an naysay and break NDAs are of the whingin 12 year old mentality. Disclaimer: Not all 12 years are whiny. I've been keeping up with Turbine more than you know LOTRO wise. That and having played DDO and AC1, I have a pretty good history with Turbine and have seen first hand how they interact with customers. I've liked what I've seen. I understand that others might not, so then those folks need to go find another company they like. Makes sense to me.

It won't "beat" WoW, but for the millionth time that isn't their goal. To have a stable, profitable game (which 200K subscriptions will do) is the goal. 200K subs at $1/month for a year is 20,400,000.

For the last time, WoW did not predict millions of people would play their game. They were only look at 500k. DDO didn't reach and still haven't reach 200k number with DDO. The players they have currently playing are around the ages 27 to 40 year old men and women, when they were aimming for a 20 to 25 year old crew. They could not predict their outcome no more than Blizzard could.

Again, your reading comprehension is off. No where did I say Blizzard, which is the company that would have done the predicting as WoW is the game, made a prediction about their subscribers. As you brought up age, I disagree about the demographic you list as, well, frankly the older crowd typically has more money AND where more likely to have PLAYED pencil and paper Dungeons and Dragons. No, the older demographic shared just as much, if not more, of their interest. That said, yes, no company can accurately predict what a game will or won't do. Neither can anyone on this bord or anywhere else. If they can, then I need the winning lottery numbers.

If they've invested $30 million as previously mentioned and the game mantains that sub for 5-6 years they have more than made their money, and looking at games taking around $20-30 million to create, enough to fund their next project. Considering we'll be paying $15/month a sub, money shouldn't be an issue and they can focus on giving us the content and interaction those of us came to enjoy in AC1.

AC is a matter of opinion and it's populate fanboys. EQ same thing. Times have changed and players are getting into the new stuff, thus, the reason I said decline of players. What was good back then isn't good now. EQ had million players once, but now it's probably a little over 200 to 100k now. Same thing with AC, but even less numbers.

First you say it's a matter of opinion, then you say was was good back then isn't good now. Make up your mind. Let me help: It's ALL a matter of opinion. I like AC1, in it's current state, better than WoW. You may prefer WoW. Both OPINIONS are right. There's an article in the recent Massive Magazine that has the subscription numbers of those "old" games, if you want to know.

You can keep mentioning AC, but does Turbine have a good track record of holding up games? Nope? AC2 is proof that. Are they good giving good products? Nope, DDO was a failure from the start and they lost a large number of subscribers. Now, with BC out,  I've run into players who've flocked from games like DDO to play WoW: BC. Does Turbine have record re-iventing games? Nope, the newest game they make always feels like the last game and they add nothing new to their games gamers haven't seen in other MMORPGs. Simply put, Turbine makes money off the left overs of players who couldn't compete in real games.

Yeah, I'll keep mentioning AC1. It deserves it. What you need to do is a little more digging to see that it wasn't all Turbine that caused that game's closure. Sure, it's easy for the ill-informed to look at just the surface of things and make such an off the cuff comment. I know it may be hard to swallow, but just because you don't personally like DDO doesn't make it a failure. It's a good game to those people still playing it and if it failed finacially, Turbine would shut it down. As of right now not even a credible rumor exists of DDO shutting down.

By the way, AC doesn't get 15 a month anymore nor are their more than 200k players in the game, I'm not sure where you getting your numbers from.

Dude, really, you need to slow down when you read. I never said AC gets $15/month. The context of the paragragph I typed, and anyone else feel free to step in here, is that LOTRO will be $15/month and with 200K subs to LOTRO they will make a nice profit. Sheesh. You really need to have a serious talk with your English teacher and demand a refund in the reading comprehension area.

Here's a link to the most recent measurement of subscribers for last years. AC falls under 120,000 category alone with DDO. Turbine seems to have record now of not even getting 200k players or maintain 200k players for very long.

http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart3.html

Achilleys addressed this so there's no need for me to add to it. Thx Ach!

Lastera

Originally posted by Khalathwyr


Of course Wii has sold more units, it's more affordable. But I addressed that when I said they got the price right. Yeah, their sports game with Nintendo charcters from other game. Big deal. I mean real sport games, like Madden or MLB. Not cutsy games where Yoshi hits a home run. The only good review I've seen for a Wii game is for Twilight Princess, and they did a very good job with that game.


Prince has nothing to do with it. People stood in line for hours to get a PS3 so there goes that baseless theory. Wii sold more because it's titles are more recognized and it's game so far are superior to PS3. Genji wasn't much of a great game. Sports game don't make a lot money, First Person Shooter games generate more money than sports games. The only sports games that sell well are soccer games because it's universally liked by people all over the world. We're the only country that loves football. Rayman also had a review and their reviews were very good as well as Wii sports. Super Smash Dojo as also drawn attention to Wii with upcoming release, which feature Solid Snake as a playable character.


The animations of the weapon swing are horrible. The armor is assorted and not cultural. The dwarves look like they were hunching over when they run. They don't even look short. The armors of the characters are too unrealistically skinny to hold any massive weapon. The only thing that made the game appealing to the eye, at least for me, was the redendering of the game when you upped the resolutions on the game. However, ever game looks good when you redender the graphics.


Also, I remember falling off ledge and my characters fall animation was similar to the "base jumping" of AC. Same thing with the LotR preview. A lot of the animation, sound effects and graphics looked a lot like what I saw in DDO. When I looked at the character models they provided on their site, they had the same detail as I saw on DDO site. It's as if they are using the same artist for every game, but they having them polish their artwork with each game. (Which isn't a good thing)
And you are perfectly entitled to your opinion.


Khal, this is stuff I've SEEN and did my research on. You call what I've seen an opinion. You need to get your head of your ass and stomp trying to silence everyone disagree with by saying what they played and saw as opinion.


This isn't opinion. Play DDO right now and run with your Dwarf. THEY ARE HUNCHING OVER when they run. If I said the dwarves looked ugly then you would have point about me opinionated, but the fact of the matter is, the dwarves are hunching over when they run. If you ever played DDO, which apparently you haven't. The armor is assorted and not-culutural. This means the armor doesn't represent the region it was made in. If you were a warrior in ancient Japan, you would be wearing samurai armor. You can wear a samurai helmet with knights armor. That's tacky and it shows a lack of cultural. I use to make webpages and design clothing, I know what I'm talking about here.


The animation and sound affect I heard on the demo videoes were the exact sound effects from DDO. I've also seen video of Asheron's Call and compare to fall off the ledge in DDO. Khal, the next you state someone an opinion, you need to know the freaking difference


No, they don't. DAoC is click to auto attack and push buttons for special. So is EQ2, EQ, Vanguard and the rest of the field. I don't know about GW as I was never impressed with it and never played. Having more than a few friends who played it and then went back to their previous games cements I made the right decision to not buy it.


Oh my god, if your friends said it must be true.


No, with the exception of GW maybe, they don't have a feature to complete as many quests without combat where you are surrounded by hostile creature that will attack you.


WoW, you don't have to fight every creature you comeby. You just fight certain until you reach a boss. They are also other boss, but they are optional to fight. GW has this same feature as does EQ2.


Can you read? I mean really. Oh, wait, you just must not know. Okay, that makes sense. Why don't you go research Player vs Monster Player combat and once you figure out that players are getting to take over monsters and fight other players, and that they keep the monster and can improve it over time, then we'll continue discussing PvMP.


PvMP = Monster Rancer. Yeah, I've played that game too. Technically, Rangers and Hunters in certain game have this feature too.




Exactly, which is for the life of me I can't figure out why you spend your time ranting on a game that obviously is not going to provide you with any fun. I guess it's just to purposely try and ruin the fun of others. Makes sense now.


Yes, we should leave the board alone and let all the fanboys and elitist have this board made exclusive to them. Please, get over yourself.
Of all the games I've played, i spent the least amount of time in WoW.


This explains your ignorance.
I've played every major title except GW. You need to learn how to understand that even if a game is doing one thing different (like Player vs Monster Player combat, which you need to go read up on), then it is doing something different.


Nope, one thing does make anything else new. It's not a trickle down effect. Get over yourself.


The entire game doesn't have to be different. In fact, you won't see that anytime soon.


Which is why games will do medicore to below average. The topic says, "Looks decent but does it have what it takes?" And because it brings nothing to the table, it's apparently doesn't. Not that it'll flop and be cancelled, but it'll flop and do poorly.
Dude, really, you need to slow down when you read. I never said AC gets $15/month.



No, I was point out the fact you were pulling information out of your ass. You act like child whenever someone points out your flaws.

Fact remains that a very large number of folks are interested in it.


And your point? Unless it can keep those 300k people then what you just said means crap.


Huh? How what you just said has any bearing on what i said is beyond me. I was making the point that most people you cry an naysay and break NDAs are of the whingin 12 year old mentality. Disclaimer: Not all 12 years are whiny. I've been keeping up with Turbine more than you know LOTRO wise. That and having played DDO and AC1, I have a pretty good history with Turbine and have seen first hand how they interact with customers. I've liked what I've seen. I understand that others might not, so then those folks need to go find another company they like. Makes sense to me.


I guess you also aware of the inability to make good games too as well as the number of people who loathe the company?



Again, your reading comprehension is off. No where did I say Blizzard, which is the company that would have done the predicting as WoW is the game, made a prediction about their subscribers. As you brought up age, I disagree about the demographic you list as, well, frankly the older crowd typically has more money AND where more likely to have PLAYED pencil and paper Dungeons and Dragons.


Nope, they are the only people who remember old school DnD. That's why they have huge 27 to 40 demographic because most people play the game around the 70s and 80s. Fanboys are what keeping DDO afloat, but not for long.


First you say it's a matter of opinion, then you say was was good back then isn't good now.


Exactly, end of the discussion. You read that right. AC1 being good is matter of opinion and it was good for it's time. But on today's standards it's doing piss poor.


Sure, it's easy for the ill-informed to look at just the surface of things and make such an off the cuff comment.


- Ken Trooper left Turbine after disagreement on how the game was suppose to go. (True)

- Added PvP and Solo were added as players began to leave. (True)

- DDO devs are now just adding content as they did with AC. (True)

- Turbine cancelled AC2 sometime after the expansion came out. (True)

- The number of players of DDO has decline since. (True)

- DDO price went from 49.95 to 39.95 in one month and was 9.95 on Amazon before 2006 was up. (True)




As one person said on General dicussion forum, Turbine is good making MMORPGs that get fanboys money, not quality. Next time do some research before you start tell people what they have to say is opinion. I have no beefs with DDO, just Turbine because they suck at making games.


http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/106414/page/1


Update: I apologize, PvMP isn't like Monster Rancer at all, but PvMP = Battlegrounds.

Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Lastera

Originally posted by Khalathwyr


Of course Wii has sold more units, it's more affordable. But I addressed that when I said they got the price right. Yeah, their sports game with Nintendo charcters from other game. Big deal. I mean real sport games, like Madden or MLB. Not cutsy games where Yoshi hits a home run. The only good review I've seen for a Wii game is for Twilight Princess, and they did a very good job with that game.


Prince has nothing to do with it. People stood in line for hours to get a PS3 so there goes that baseless theory. Wii sold more because it's titles are more recognized and it's game so far are superior to PS3. Genji wasn't much of a great game. Sports game don't make a lot money, First Person Shooter games generate more money than sports games. The only sports games that sell well are soccer games because it's universally liked by people all over the world. We're the only country that loves football. Rayman also had a review and their reviews were very good as well as Wii sports. Super Smash Dojo as also drawn attention to Wii with upcoming release, which feature Solid Snake as a playable character.
You're too funny. Price certainly has something to do with it. Just because people stand in line does not discredit a theory. You can believe Wii's titles are more recognized, I don't agree. Both opinions, you aren't going to change your mind and neither am I. No further point in talking about consoles.


The animations of the weapon swing are horrible. The armor is assorted and not cultural. The dwarves look like they were hunching over when they run. They don't even look short. The armors of the characters are too unrealistically skinny to hold any massive weapon. The only thing that made the game appealing to the eye, at least for me, was the redendering of the game when you upped the resolutions on the game. However, ever game looks good when you redender the graphics.


Also, I remember falling off ledge and my characters fall animation was similar to the "base jumping" of AC. Same thing with the LotR preview. A lot of the animation, sound effects and graphics looked a lot like what I saw in DDO. When I looked at the character models they provided on their site, they had the same detail as I saw on DDO site. It's as if they are using the same artist for every game, but they having them polish their artwork with each game. (Which isn't a good thing)
And you are perfectly entitled to your opinion.


Khal, this is stuff I've SEEN and did my research on. You call what I've seen an opinion. You need to get your head of your ass and stomp trying to silence everyone disagree with by saying what they played and saw as opinion.
First of all, if you want to discuss, do so. If all you gots is to rely on phrases like "get your head out of your ass", all that illustrates is that you have no idea of how to debate without taking it personal, which discredits anything and everything you have to say. Grow up. If you think I'm trying to silence you, well, that's just another case of where you are delusional.


This isn't opinion. Play DDO right now and run with your Dwarf. THEY ARE HUNCHING OVER when they run. If I said the dwarves looked ugly then you would have point about me opinionated, but the fact of the matter is, the dwarves are hunching over when they run. If you ever played DDO, which apparently you haven't. The armor is assorted and not-culutural. This means the armor doesn't represent the region it was made in. If you were a warrior in ancient Japan, you would be wearing samurai armor. You can wear a samurai helmet with knights armor. That's tacky and it shows a lack of cultural. I use to make webpages and design clothing, I know what I'm talking about here.
Apparently, you really can't read, would explain alot of this back and forth. Since you are stuck on dwarves, we'll address that. So what if they lean forward when they run. Big freakin deal. Not many people care. Additionally, if you want to play dress up doll and have your avatar's helmet match their shield, go right ahead. I don't see how that is a flaw in any way to have, oh my god, a wide variety of different types of armor. If you had spent anytime playing the game you would know that you can put together themed sets of armor. Obviously you have played for an extended period of time.


The animation and sound affect I heard on the demo videoes were the exact sound effects from DDO. I've also seen video of Asheron's Call and compare to fall off the ledge in DDO. Khal, the next you state someone an opinion, you need to know the freaking difference
I can't believe you are upset about a falling animation...no...wait...yes I can...


No, they don't. DAoC is click to auto attack and push buttons for special. So is EQ2, EQ, Vanguard and the rest of the field. I don't know about GW as I was never impressed with it and never played. Having more than a few friends who played it and then went back to their previous games cements I made the right decision to not buy it.


Oh my god, if your friends said it must be true.
Well, I'm certainly more inclined to believe them over you, that's for sure. You mean to tell me you never took the advice from your frien...nevermind.


No, with the exception of GW maybe, they don't have a feature to complete as many quests without combat where you are surrounded by hostile creature that will attack you.


WoW, you don't have to fight every creature you comeby. You just fight certain until you reach a boss. They are also other boss, but they are optional to fight. GW has this same feature as does EQ2.
Well, if GW does, good for it. Maybe I missed the article where it outlines that you can sneak past creatures like a rogue, bypassing traps, sneak in and steal an item and then sneak out.


Can you read? I mean really. Oh, wait, you just must not know. Okay, that makes sense. Why don't you go research Player vs Monster Player combat and once you figure out that players are getting to take over monsters and fight other players, and that they keep the monster and can improve it over time, then we'll continue discussing PvMP.


PvMP = Monster Rancer. Yeah, I've played that game too. Technically, Rangers and Hunters in certain game have this feature too.
ROFLMAO. Monster Rancher. Whew. No comment other than after this post I'm done responding to you. That explains soo much.




Exactly, which is for the life of me I can't figure out why you spend your time ranting on a game that obviously is not going to provide you with any fun. I guess it's just to purposely try and ruin the fun of others. Makes sense now.


Yes, we should leave the board alone and let all the fanboys and elitist have this board made exclusive to them. Please, get over yourself.
Get over your ownself. You mad e that ASSumption out of what I typed. I just asked why spend so much time kicking and screaming over something that you don't consider fun and are not going to play. I don't like GW, WoW or AoC. Am I over on those forum talking trash about the games? Nope. I spend time on the fourms that make me happy. Unless starting arguments and being negative makes you happy, which that seems to be the theme from the posts of yours that I've read on the LOTRO forums here.
Of all the games I've played, i spent the least amount of time in WoW.


This explains your ignorance.
Hahaha, and it explains yours, as I wouldn't be surprised if you started with WoW and went to SWG and then GW. Either way I'd bet you hadn't played more than 3 or 4 MMOs.
I've played every major title except GW. You need to learn how to understand that even if a game is doing one thing different (like Player vs Monster Player combat, which you need to go read up on), then it is doing something different.


Nope, one thing does make anything else new. It's not a trickle down effect. Get over yourself.
What are you talking about!? Geez, I can't even respond to that because that sentence you typed does not present a coherent thought in relation to what I typed. If a game introduces a feature that no other game has done, then that game IS doing something new. Every feature in a game doesn't have to be new for that game to be doing something new and good for the genre that is MMOs. In this case I refer to the "Monster Rancher" feature. ROFLMAO.


The entire game doesn't have to be different. In fact, you won't see that anytime soon.


Which is why games will do medicore to below average. The topic says, "Looks decent but does it have what it takes?" And because it brings nothing to the table, it's apparently doesn't. Not that it'll flop and be cancelled, but it'll flop and do poorly.
As familiar as I am with the game, I know you're wrong. You assume too much. Maybe the OP was asking "Looks decent but does it have what it takes to be a stable successful game".  From what I've seen, it won't flop and be canceled. It won't flop and do poorly. It'll be a stable game that should average 200K subscriptions. The amount of subs is my opinion, just like you thinking there will be less is your opinion. Before you even go there, everybody already knows that games lose subscribers over time. That is no revelation. We've seen that in every major game to date.
 
You know, you are an idiot. ROFLMAO. $15/month is the freaking standard rate AAA MMOs charge these days. You are turly clueless. It's amazing.


Fact remains that a very large number of folks are interested in it.


And your point? Unless it can keep those 300k people then what you just said means crap.
You are really lost. YOU seem to think I'm saying it will keep 300K subs. Any idiot would know that some people will leave, and other people will come later. Me pointing out that 300K people have shown interest is to point out that there IS a great deal of interest in the game. That's it. Period. It is not a prediction on how many subs will carry for any period of time. Try to think outside the box sometime. It's a marvellous place.  


Huh? How what you just said has any bearing on what i said is beyond me. I was making the point that most people you cry an naysay and break NDAs are of the whingin 12 year old mentality. Disclaimer: Not all 12 years are whiny. I've been keeping up with Turbine more than you know LOTRO wise. That and having played DDO and AC1, I have a pretty good history with Turbine and have seen first hand how they interact with customers. I've liked what I've seen. I understand that others might not, so then those folks need to go find another company they like. Makes sense to me.


I guess you also aware of the inability to make good games too as well as the number of people who loathe the company?
Here we go. This is your opinion. You think they don't make good games, I do. By your logic Blizzard doesn't make good games because a large amount of people loathe them, and neither do the makers of GW, DAoC, ad infinum.



Again, your reading comprehension is off. No where did I say Blizzard, which is the company that would have done the predicting as WoW is the game, made a prediction about their subscribers. As you brought up age, I disagree about the demographic you list as, well, frankly the older crowd typically has more money AND where more likely to have PLAYED pencil and paper Dungeons and Dragons.


Nope, they are the only people who remember old school DnD. That's why they have huge 27 to 40 demographic because most people play the game around the 70s and 80s. Fanboys are what keeping DDO afloat, but not for long.
So basically you are saying that if you are over 25 you shouldn't be playing MMOs? Wow, reverse ageism. Too funny. Mainly you hear the teenagers crying foul because of the "not mature" comments. Guys, we got a live one here.


First you say it's a matter of opinion, then you say was was good back then isn't good now.


Exactly, end of the discussion. You read that right. AC1 being good is matter of opinion and it was good for it's time. But on today's standards it's doing piss poor.
No, if it was doing piss poor, it would have been shut down. Trust me, Turbine isn't keeping it going if they aren't making money on it. So obviously it's doing well enough to keep around.


Sure, it's easy for the ill-informed to look at just the surface of things and make such an off the cuff comment.


- Ken Trooper left Turbine after disagreement on how the game was suppose to go. (True)

- Added PvP and Solo were added as players began to leave. (True)

- DDO devs are now just adding content as they did with AC. (True)

- Turbine cancelled AC2 sometime after the expansion came out. (True)

- The number of players of DDO has decline since. (True)

- DDO price went from 49.95 to 39.95 in one month and was 9.95 on Amazon before 2006 was up. (True)


Oh my god, you brought up Ken Troop. LOL. A Turbine employee had this to say about him: "Troop, btw, left to go to Wizards of the Coast. He can now fuck things up over there. Go go gadget ignorance!" You can find it on Jason Booth's blog (Jason worked for Turbine for a number of years http://jbooth.blogspot.com/2006/03/credits-not-withstanding.html#comments)
The rest of your points are not issues to me. As I said, there are more factors, such as Microsoft since I have to spell it out for you, that contributed to AC2's demise. Heck, why do you thin Sigil stepped away from Microsoft with Vanguard?

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/106414/page/1


Update: I apologize, PvMP isn't like Monster Rancer at all, but PvMP = Battlegrounds.
 



As one person said on General dicussion forum, Turbine is good making MMORPGs that get fanboys money, not quality. Next time do some research before you start tell people what they have to say is opinion. I have no beefs with DDO, just Turbine because they suck at making games.
Ahh, so that explains it. You're just on a tirade to bash Turbine anyway you can, anywhere you can. that also explains why you haven't been on the LOTRO offical forums actually learning about things like, oh, Player vs Monster Player combat (Which isn't Battlegrounds at all or Monster Rancher). ROFLMAO. Man, good day. Bad me, I took the troll bait. You can antagonize someone else for a while now.














Dude, really, you need to slow down when you read. I never said AC gets $15/month.



No, I was point out the fact you were pulling information out of your ass. You act like child whenever someone points out your flaws.

Sevenwind

You have no beef with DDO? Lastera why in gods name were you there everyday posting misinformation about the game and constantly telling how crappy it was. If you got no beef you would have posted your thoughts about the game and moved on. And yet we saw you day in and day out.

And btw someone actually posted a screenshot to proove you wrong about skeletons have more than a 100hps on elite.

www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/107346/page/2

DDO forums scare you off? You got a massive grudge against Turbine for some reason.

Lastera

Originally posted by Sevenwind


You have no beef with DDO?


Nope, like I said, DDO wasn't bad game, but it'll never be a good game. Unless you provide a post saying I hated the game, you're just trying to pick a fight.


Lastera why in gods name were you there everyday posting misinformation about the game and constantly telling how crappy it was.


Actually, that's what you guys were doing. You didn't even know a skeleton gets -5 damage reduction nor did you know a Fighter with a great axe and 23 strength does more damage than a Paladin with mace with 14 strength. How about you guys said the Paladin wasn't a good tank over the Fighter even though the Paladin gets high saves, AC and saves? How about none of you guys could come up with one good Barbarian build that did more damage a Fighter build even though you bragged that you have played this game more than I have. Or how about the fact I helped a guy become a better Wizard on the suggestions forum. Or how about one player gimping his drow Paladin build and provide a model for a better build.


If you got no beef you would have posted your thoughts about the game and moved on. And yet we saw you day in and day out.
Oh, the irony of this statement considering that's what you guys do everyday in the DDO.


DDO forums scare you off?


Nope, I wanted to prove you guys do nothing, but troll, bitch and moan on this forums. Unlike you Sevenwind, I can step away from DDO forums and step away from argument to do other things in other forums.


You got a massive grudge against Turbine for some reason.


You realize you just got reported for harassment right? I stop posting on the DDO forum for 2 days and you decide to pick the same fight on these forums. Nice job in getting yourself more trouble.  Stick to the DDO were you belong. If you're going to pick a fight make sure it relates to DDO.

Sevenwind

Nice dodging the post. You said a skeleton in there on elite does not have more than a 100hps. You got proven wrong, again.

I'm a paying subscriber to DDO so yeah I'm gonna rave about the game I find fun at the moment. Call me what you want.

Report me if you want. Ask me if I care. Really ask me....I simple responded to the post you made that you said you had no beef with DDO, and I disagreed. If that gets me a warning/ban, so be it.

And I'll post wherever I want thank you kindly. Khalathwy said it best..."Bad me, I took the troll bait. You can antagonize someone else for a while now." I'm done with replying to you in this thread.

To the OP, sorry if I hijacked your thread. I plan on trying LOTR anyways cause I usually try new games when they come out. I think Turbine makes good fun games with the best dungeons I've seen.

Lastera

Originally posted by Khalathwyr


You're too funny. Price certainly has something to do with it. Just because people stand in line does not discredit a theory. You can believe Wii's titles are more recognized, I don't agree. Both opinions, you aren't going to change your mind and neither am I. No further point in talking about consoles.


OMG, you're doing the same thing. Are you not buying LotR because Turbine is the one making it? That's the reason people are buying Nintendo Wii. They recognize Nintendo as a good gaming companies who makes good games. And to deny that is hypcrtiscy on your part.


However, Turbine, like Nintendo, is recognized for all the bad reason rather than good. Turbine is a one trick pony company. They came up with one good idea years ago and haven't made any original ideas since.


Apparently, you really can't read, would explain alot of this back and forth. Since you are stuck on dwarves, we'll address that. So what if they lean forward when they run. Big freakin deal. Not many people care.


I've asked opinion in game and people do care about designs of their characters.  I was several groups and asked if they like the armor designs and they didn't. Same with the classes.


Additionally, if you want to play dress up doll and have your avatar's helmet match their shield, go right ahead. I don't see how that is a flaw in any way to have, oh my god, a wide variety of different types of armor.


DDO doesn't have a variety of armor. Just a bunch of assorted armor designs. Look at the armor designs of certain armor sets in GW for example, at least that company goes to great length to ensure the armor is compatiable with the reason class or region. Turbine was so lazy, they just simply designed the armor in any kind of way.
I can't believe you are upset about a falling animation...no...wait...yes I can...


No, it's just more proof of Turbine's laziness to do anything new with a game.


Well, I'm certainly more inclined to believe them over you, that's for sure. You mean to tell me you never took the advice from your frien...nevermind.


I have friends, but I do my OWN research because I have my OWN piece mind.


Well, if GW does, good for it. Maybe I missed the article where it outlines that you can sneak past creatures like a rogue, bypassing traps, sneak in and steal an item and then sneak out.


OMG, WoW has the same option too. A lot games I'm pretty sure had this, but you were skilled enough to find those options.


ROFLMAO. Monster Rancher. Whew. No comment other than after this post I'm done responding to you. That explains soo much.


You have every reason to laugh considering I just found that PvMP = Battlegrounds. BTW, the boards members of LotR forum on the official are agreeing with this notion.


Hahaha, and it explains yours, as I wouldn't be surprised if you started with WoW and went to SWG and then GW. Either way I'd bet you hadn't played more than 3 or 4 MMOs.


NWN, EQ2, GW, WoW to name a few. Tried both DDO and Vanguard trial, which both sucked.
 If a game introduces a feature that no other game has done, then that game IS doing something new.


So I guess this makes splinter cell a knew kind of a stealth game, huh?


As familiar as I am with the game, I know you're wrong. You assume too much. Maybe the OP was asking "Looks decent but does it have what it takes to be a stable successful game".


Denial isn't a river in Egypt, ya know.


From what I've seen, it won't flop and be canceled. It won't flop and do poorly. It'll be a stable game that should average 200K subscriptions.


Where is your guarantee or proof this will happen? Do you personally know 200k people who are ready to sign up. I'm talking about the numbers, I'm talking the people. Before you throw the argument back up in my face, remember I'm not the one saying this game will completely fail or prosper, but rather you have to end results. The game does poor and you get a lot of I told you so. The game does good and the game gets more players than it bargain for. (Another WoW)


You know, you are an idiot. ROFLMAO. $15/month is the freaking standard rate AAA MMOs charge these days. You are turly clueless. It's amazing.


AC, EQ and UO only charges $13 a month.


Here we go. This is your opinion. You think they don't make good games, I do. By your logic Blizzard doesn't make good games because a large amount of people loathe them, and neither do the makers of GW, DAoC, ad infinum.
Seems you have bad reading comprehension considering I said a lot people recognize Turbine for being company that can't make original or good game who has a record for flopping games. Blizzard hasn't had a flop yet with their game.



So basically you are saying that if you are over 25 you shouldn't be playing MMOs?


You bad reading comprehension because I said nothing of the sort. You're throws in my mouth to debunk the argument.
No, if it was doing piss poor, it would have been shut down.


I got three letters for you D N L. Still around, still making money off of fanboys.

Lastera

Originally posted by Sevenwind


Nice dodging the post.

No, you've really been reported for Harassment, trolling and highjacking a topic. Nice, one and I really don't care for your reason for coming here. Keep up the good work. Moreover, keep representing the DDO community. You're showing off the community's maturity and how addictive the game is.