This game is looking trully insane. Im really hoping this dosnt turn into a vanguard overhype dibacle though.
Might very well happen very quickly.
New Combat system, new Spell System all fine and dandy, but balancing it will be a true horror.
And an unbalanced PvP Game? Na'ah, sorry, won't play it sir.
Also, it looks sooooo boring to me. I dunno why, but IMO the fights "Barbarians against... well other Barbarians" will get old soon.
I'll touch AoC only VERY carefully.
This can be a true revolutionary gem of the MMO world, but it can just as good be the worst failure due to over-innovation that ever saw the world.
I would like to see some creative ways of balance. It's silly to assume that all classes should be balanced with each other so that in 1on1 only player skill plays the part in victory and not the character skill. In all the storys and movies and such there is always some uber character, but that character always has some drawbacks for beeing uber, it's not all just a walk in the park...
If we're talking about a class system than playing that class should be harder, penaltys for dying should be much more severe than for a regular character, and playing that character should be somewhat illegal so that any regular player (or group of players) who kills the uber character get rewarded with reputation or some perks or....
I would also like to see some completly diferent playing methods from one class to the other, which reminds of the idea one poster had about what it would be like to play a zergling, you would control multible zergling unit, like granado espada has and each zerg unit would be extreemly inferior to any other larger unit, but the group as a whole that would consost of 2 to 4 zerglings would be an opponent to fear...
But back to conan, it seems that they will have to rely on class balance and I hope they can pull it off, but it would be kinda nice to actualy have to make a decision to run for your life here and there, and not just fight and see who's better later... I'm realy curious about the PVP in Conan and how well it will work, I don't know, I just don't know, it looks great, it feals great (looking at it) but I just can't shake the feeling that in can go either way...
I would like to see some creative ways of balance. It's silly to assume that all classes should be balanced with each other so that in 1on1 only player skill plays the part in victory and not the character skill. In all the storys and movies and such there is always some uber character, but that character always has some drawbacks for beeing uber, it's not all just a walk in the park...
err....are you serious about that?
THe whole sense of PvP is to let the Skill decide who wins...
Where's the fun in PvP if I see an enemy and think "OK, I'm dead, I just can't beat that class".
And the other way around: "Awwww, another [Insert Class here]... and *pop* you're dead... *yawn*"
A balance system that's all about Group vs. Group fights (i.e.: A Stone-Scissors-Paper-Type of balance) is good in RTS Games, where you can switch the Type of the Units you Produce any second. But it's no fun in a Game where you are stuck with one Type.
IMO, the only good balance is 1v1 balance. If the classes are balanced 1v1, they are group balanced as well, as long as the groups have approximately the same size.
The problem I see AoC having is finding it’s audience. It isn’t quite an RPG, which is where most MMO players feel most comfortable, neither is it a FPS or a RTS. I get the sense that the existing MMO player base will not really take to AoC and the people that would like it will either never hear of it or be put off by the fact it’s an MMO.
With going Mature, AoC Loses a pretty big playerbase.
I wouldn't bet on a success of it.
Success and commercial success are two different things. McDonalds is a 'commercial' success but I'm sure many people would say Nobu or Claridges are much more successful eateries!
Also, I think you're grossly over-estimating exactly where the buying power is when it comes to MMO's. The 10-19 year old bracket is not the majority bracket for MMO subscription bases, it's actually the third placed one. Most MMO players are in the 20-29 bracket and that is the lead demographic by a huge percentage followed by the 30-39 bracket then the 10-19 one.
WoW was one of the first games where the 10-19 bracket actually started becoming a major bracket in regards to MMO's as they were pretty much exclusive to the 20-25 year old male up until then and even today, the perception that MMO's are overrun by 14 year old "l33t kiddiez" is a myth. How many times have you actually pugged with players in that range? Probably not many, you just happen to remember them more when you pug with them or see them on general chat channels because of their sometimes childish behaviour. The fact you remember them so much more just leads you to mistakenly think they're greater in number than they actually are.
Also, the 10-19 bracket is much more fickle than the older age brackets. Keep a 20-29 year old happy and he'll probably stay for a long time. A 10-19 year old will only stay as long as he can't find something else to spend his pocket money on.
If AoC delivers half of what it's promised, it should be able to keep at least 200K subscribers which is more than enough to keep an MMO profitable and active(though I suspect upwards of 500K is more reasonable). The biggest problem with judging an MMO's potential for success these days is that people look at the 8.5 million subscribers of WoW and anything not comparable to that early on is judge a failure. WoW's subscriber numbers are an exception, not a benchmark for success.
I have high hopes for AoC, moreso than I've had for WoW, DDO, LOTRO or than I currently have for WAR. The combat system they're talking about seems to share more with the DDO one than WoW or LOTRO which is a good thing IMO. The more mature setting is welcomed after the power ranger tier armour sets in WoW and the Fantasia Disneyland that is the Blood Elf starting area.
the main problem I have with AoC is finding another MMO to hold my interest in the time before it's release!
Success and commercial success are two different things. McDonalds is a 'commercial' success but I'm sure many people would say Nobu or Claridges are much more successful eateries!
I have high hopes for AoC, moreso than I've had for WoW, DDO, LOTRO or than I currently have for WAR. The combat system they're talking about seems to share more with the DDO one than WoW or LOTRO which is a good thing IMO.
Exactly why I wouldn't bet on a success of it.
IMO, it will not become "just another MMO". It will either become an insanely funny, long-lasting, absolute success, or it becomes a very very niched game.
Simply because of it's "revolutionary"-Type of gameplay. While Innovation is good, it's also VERY risky, and VERY hard to pull off properly in the first try.
If they manage to pull it off balanced, not too complicated, easy to learn but hard to master and even fun in the long-term (no exploit-like move combos you can't defend against or somesuch), then Props to them, I'll play it until WAR comes.
I mean, commercial success is what the Company wants.
So sure, it looks great and all, but it also bears great risks.
Thus I can't just happily await the arrival of AoC, as I can with WAR.
Success and commercial success are two different things. McDonalds is a 'commercial' success but I'm sure many people would say Nobu or Claridges are much more successful eateries!
I have high hopes for AoC, moreso than I've had for WoW, DDO, LOTRO or than I currently have for WAR. The combat system they're talking about seems to share more with the DDO one than WoW or LOTRO which is a good thing IMO.
Exactly why I wouldn't bet on a success of it.
IMO, it will not become "just another MMO". It will either become an insanely funny, long-lasting, absolute success, or it becomes a very very niched game.
Simply because of it's "revolutionary"-Type of gameplay. While Innovation is good, it's also VERY risky, and VERY hard to pull off properly in the first try.
If they manage to pull it off balanced, not too complicated, easy to learn but hard to master and even fun in the long-term (no exploit-like move combos you can't defend against or somesuch), then Props to them, I'll play it until WAR comes.
I mean, commercial success is what the Company wants.
So sure, it looks great and all, but it also bears great risks.
Thus I can't just happily await the arrival of AoC, as I can with WAR.
Which is why gamers should be Funcom cheerleaders (to an extent). They are taking a HUGE risk creating an MMO that steps past the proven WOW formula. I hope it works right out of the box and if not I hope Funcom is very reactive to beta concerns. I'm just extremely pleased that these guys were not satisfied with being another "clone" MMO and have instead decided to advance the genre. I'm giving them as much support as I can in the hopes that they can prove being progressive does pay off and that other companies will follow suit.
========== SWG - 1st Gen MBH (Closed) EVE (Closed) WoW (61 Orc Hunter - Blackwing Lair) GuildWars (Boring...)
The problem I see AoC having is finding it’s audience. It isn’t quite an RPG, which is where most MMO players feel most comfortable, neither is it a FPS or a RTS. I get the sense that the existing MMO player base will not really take to AoC and the people that would like it will either never hear of it or be put off by the fact it’s an MMO.
Why isn't it a RPG?
You create a character the way you want it to be and can then choose to roleplay that character but I guess that that isn't quite roleplayish in your book.
I really hope that the PvP:ers won't run around screaming "uber pwnage" or some other lame crap.
The problem I see AoC having is finding it’s audience. It isn’t quite an RPG, which is where most MMO players feel most comfortable, neither is it a FPS or a RTS. I get the sense that the existing MMO player base will not really take to AoC and the people that would like it will either never hear of it or be put off by the fact it’s an MMO.
Why isn't it a RPG?
You create a character the way you want it to be and can then choose to roleplay that character but I guess that that isn't quite roleplayish in your book.
I really hope that the PvP:ers won't run around screaming "uber pwnage" or some other lame crap.
That would really make me die laughing.
Roleplaying games in paper and pencil table top terms are games in which you play a role. There are stats and rules, but a large part of the game is taking actions, and talking, in a manner that would be consistent with the character, not necessarily how you would react or talk in real life, similar to a play on a stage.
Roleplaying games in computer terms means games where a character progresses from relatively low power to relatively high power, either with skills or levels, usually accompanied by a storyline that runs throughout the game. Player skill is not the determing factor in the game, but instead the power of the character, in otherwords what skills the character has acquired, or what levels, or what gear.
Online roleplaying games use this same approach as the single player games.
When player skill is the overriding factor in the characters success, it's usually considered a FIrst Person Shooter, or a Real Time Strategy game, and not a computer roleplaying game. There's a grey area where you can mix the two, but IMO all you have to do is decide the overriding factor that determines combat, and that determines whether it's an RPG or FPS. If it's 51% or more player skill, then FPS, if it's 51% or more character skill, then RPG.
The problem I see AoC having is finding it’s audience. It isn’t quite an RPG, which is where most MMO players feel most comfortable, neither is it a FPS or a RTS. I get the sense that the existing MMO player base will not really take to AoC and the people that would like it will either never hear of it or be put off by the fact it’s an MMO.
Why isn't it a RPG?
You create a character the way you want it to be and can then choose to roleplay that character but I guess that that isn't quite roleplayish in your book.
I really hope that the PvP:ers won't run around screaming "uber pwnage" or some other lame crap.
That would really make me die laughing.
It is an RPG, it just doesn't follow the fomula most MMORPGs do. It manages to combine elements from an FPS and an RTS as well, which, while I haven't had the chance to experience it of course, should give the thing a very different feel as compared to its competitors on the market. The difference can kill games, just like what happened with Planetside and Auto Assault, both are damn good MMOs, particularly AA, but niether of them have remotely close to a decent playerbase, primarily because they play differently. EVE is in a similar position, but has garnered enough attention to be a success regardless.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
I would like to see some creative ways of balance. It's silly to assume that all classes should be balanced with each other so that in 1on1 only player skill plays the part in victory and not the character skill. In all the storys and movies and such there is always some uber character, but that character always has some drawbacks for beeing uber, it's not all just a walk in the park...
err....are you serious about that?
THe whole sense of PvP is to let the Skill decide who wins...
Where's the fun in PvP if I see an enemy and think "OK, I'm dead, I just can't beat that class".
And the other way around: "Awwww, another [Insert Class here]... and *pop* you're dead... *yawn*"
A balance system that's all about Group vs. Group fights (i.e.: A Stone-Scissors-Paper-Type of balance) is good in RTS Games, where you can switch the Type of the Units you Produce any second. But it's no fun in a Game where you are stuck with one Type.
IMO, the only good balance is 1v1 balance. If the classes are balanced 1v1, they are group balanced as well, as long as the groups have approximately the same size.
I know, I know, if you simplify my post like that and concentrate on that one part then yes, it doesen't make much sence. But that's the problem, isn't it, that kind of inwards thinking is what is keeping most MMOs on the same stage of development for so long, I don't mind your arguments, they are very valid and in essence correct, but what I am looking for is a way to make them uncorrect. To do that we need to start thinking outward and instead of pointing out the flaws we should start finding ways to make it possible.
I salute Funcom for beeing so ballsy to actualy try something new and different even if it still is a lvl grinder to a degree, but if it will be able to sustain itself, it's the step in the right direction.
Wait a sec, isn't there a game where there is basicly no real balance between to characters, but still it works? I think it's name is EVE, ofcourse, you're not stuck with only one ship the whole time, but while you are in space, you might as well be and if you see a big ass destroyer that can vaporize your shuttle in seconds you still have to make yourself gone and if you play smart enough you never realy have to die...
Thats what I'm talking about, creative ways of balancing, if you are riding a donkey trough countryside and the terror of terrokar is coming on his demon stead which yon can never even dream to outrun, then ofcourse, I'm wrong, but with a litle diferent setting and creative usage of game mechanics it would make sense and would work
P.S. I think that EVE gameplay is perfect for someone buying the game engine and actualy making an interesting and fun game, rather than something accuntants do on their coffe brake
The problem I see AoC having is finding it’s audience. It isn’t quite an RPG, which is where most MMO players feel most comfortable, neither is it a FPS or a RTS. I get the sense that the existing MMO player base will not really take to AoC and the people that would like it will either never hear of it or be put off by the fact it’s an MMO.
Why isn't it a RPG?
You create a character the way you want it to be and can then choose to roleplay that character but I guess that that isn't quite roleplayish in your book.
I really hope that the PvP:ers won't run around screaming "uber pwnage" or some other lame crap.
That would really make me die laughing.
Roleplaying games in paper and pencil table top terms are games in which you play a role. There are stats and rules, but a large part of the game is taking actions, and talking, in a manner that would be consistent with the character, not necessarily how you would react or talk in real life, similar to a play on a stage.
Roleplaying games in computer terms means games where a character progresses from relatively low power to relatively high power, either with skills or levels, usually accompanied by a storyline that runs throughout the game. Player skill is not the determing factor in the game, but instead the power of the character, in otherwords what skills the character has acquired, or what levels, or what gear.
Online roleplaying games use this same approach as the single player games.
When player skill is the overriding factor in the characters success, it's usually considered a FIrst Person Shooter, or a Real Time Strategy game, and not a computer roleplaying game. There's a grey area where you can mix the two, but IMO all you have to do is decide the overriding factor that determines combat, and that determines whether it's an RPG or FPS. If it's 51% or more player skill, then FPS, if it's 51% or more character skill, then RPG.
Just because you need to have some skill in the game doesn't mean that it isn't a roleplaying game.
And a game without some amount of skill involved would be as enjoyable as those text only games from the 80:s (can't remember what the heck they were called)
Okay, you say that it's the character skill that determines that it's a RPG as in what equipment you have and what level you are.
You couldn't be more wrong if you cussed in church.
I hope it has a nice amount of players and it becomes a hit. I also like other MMORPG's like EQ2 so lets hope it does not trample them.
Be cool to people, and try and stay cool that way you never have to regret making someone feel bad. Don't take what ya got granted because some people never get to feel happy. We get to play these great MMOs and surf a good site. Be thankful for what ya got and next time ya feel down imagine a fat sea otter waddling with a pillow and a night cap. Bam! smiles!
Age of Conan will be the next big thing for many reasons, and it will have a huge playerbase
1. Its bringing so many things that are totally new to the mmorpg style. (ESPECIALLY REAL TIME COMBAT)
2. Age of Conan already has a huge following from the Conan books, movies etc. Cause hey, who doesn't love Arnold.
3. They're being entirely supportive of PvP, although they might not have announced FFA PvP I think its obvious it will be there.
4. The graphics are nothing short of amazing, that will bring people. And for people who say they can't play it because of hardware, my brother's laptop with integrated graphics and 1g of ram plays oblivion on low and thats the reported hardware requirement
Its gonna be a big playerbase, and thats exactly what I want. I want a game that will last me 4+ years, Asheron's Call was amazing but now its dead, I don't want that to happen
Age of Conan will be the next big thing for many reasons, and it will have a huge playerbase
1. Its bringing so many things that are totally new to the mmorpg style. (ESPECIALLY REAL TIME COMBAT)
2. Age of Conan already has a huge following from the Conan books, movies etc. Cause hey, who doesn't love Arnold.
3. They're being entirely supportive of PvP, although they might not have announced FFA PvP I think its obvious it will be there.
4. The graphics are nothing short of amazing, that will bring people. And for people who say they can't play it because of hardware, my brother's laptop with integrated graphics and 1g of ram plays oblivion on low and thats the reported hardware requirement
Its gonna be a big playerbase, and thats exactly what I want. I want a game that will last me 4+ years, Asheron's Call was amazing but now its dead, I don't want that to happen
I prefer my list. things that revolutionise this MMO are...
1. Its the only MMO with dx10, easily has the best graphics. They are amazing.
2. It'll be cross platform, PC/360 (this isn't new but uncommon and not amaxingly succesful successful, FFXI does it but no1 cares). But makes the game more accesable and people can afford a machine to run it that makes use of the amazing grahpics. Also means larger player base.
3. Gameplay heavily uses real physical skill with your controlls, unlike prior MMOs which are static. More like FPS's and games like zelda. ie. you weave spells together to design what you cast, you swing your sword like in real life damaging any foes it touches, you load/aim your bow. plus mounted combat is best yet. Better watched than described.
4. has a RTS aspect of siegeing cities/battle keeps. Siege weapons player owned cities. no game has made a RTS element of this scale.
5. has a RPG part more simular to offline RPG's like KoToR, with NPC voices and lip sync.
6. first MMO with a mature rating, focus more on mature audience. so blood/gore and a more brutal world like the books it's based on. I'm gona include decapitation and the occasional chopping off of limbs in here also.
7. battle formations.
8. has new concepts such as blood money, soul corruption. And things like wierd posibble penalties for using magic, ie dieng and havign you fight your way out of hell to get back, going insane and attacking all nearby people. I think the lich's undead mode may be unique also. Theres quite alot of unique ideas/concepts if you look hard enough. There wont be any grinding of crafting just quests, and there will be PvP lvls aswell as normal ones. Picking players pockets might be another. theres lots trust me
Comments
New Combat system, new Spell System all fine and dandy, but balancing it will be a true horror.
And an unbalanced PvP Game? Na'ah, sorry, won't play it sir.
Also, it looks sooooo boring to me. I dunno why, but IMO the fights "Barbarians against... well other Barbarians" will get old soon.
I'll touch AoC only VERY carefully.
This can be a true revolutionary gem of the MMO world, but it can just as good be the worst failure due to over-innovation that ever saw the world.
I would like to see some creative ways of balance. It's silly to assume that all classes should be balanced with each other so that in 1on1 only player skill plays the part in victory and not the character skill. In all the storys and movies and such there is always some uber character, but that character always has some drawbacks for beeing uber, it's not all just a walk in the park...
If we're talking about a class system than playing that class should be harder, penaltys for dying should be much more severe than for a regular character, and playing that character should be somewhat illegal so that any regular player (or group of players) who kills the uber character get rewarded with reputation or some perks or....
I would also like to see some completly diferent playing methods from one class to the other, which reminds of the idea one poster had about what it would be like to play a zergling, you would control multible zergling unit, like granado espada has and each zerg unit would be extreemly inferior to any other larger unit, but the group as a whole that would consost of 2 to 4 zerglings would be an opponent to fear...
But back to conan, it seems that they will have to rely on class balance and I hope they can pull it off, but it would be kinda nice to actualy have to make a decision to run for your life here and there, and not just fight and see who's better later... I'm realy curious about the PVP in Conan and how well it will work, I don't know, I just don't know, it looks great, it feals great (looking at it) but I just can't shake the feeling that in can go either way...
THe whole sense of PvP is to let the Skill decide who wins...
Where's the fun in PvP if I see an enemy and think "OK, I'm dead, I just can't beat that class".
And the other way around: "Awwww, another [Insert Class here]... and *pop* you're dead... *yawn*"
A balance system that's all about Group vs. Group fights (i.e.: A Stone-Scissors-Paper-Type of balance) is good in RTS Games, where you can switch the Type of the Units you Produce any second. But it's no fun in a Game where you are stuck with one Type.
IMO, the only good balance is 1v1 balance. If the classes are balanced 1v1, they are group balanced as well, as long as the groups have approximately the same size.
Also, I think you're grossly over-estimating exactly where the buying power is when it comes to MMO's. The 10-19 year old bracket is not the majority bracket for MMO subscription bases, it's actually the third placed one. Most MMO players are in the 20-29 bracket and that is the lead demographic by a huge percentage followed by the 30-39 bracket then the 10-19 one.
WoW was one of the first games where the 10-19 bracket actually started becoming a major bracket in regards to MMO's as they were pretty much exclusive to the 20-25 year old male up until then and even today, the perception that MMO's are overrun by 14 year old "l33t kiddiez" is a myth. How many times have you actually pugged with players in that range? Probably not many, you just happen to remember them more when you pug with them or see them on general chat channels because of their sometimes childish behaviour. The fact you remember them so much more just leads you to mistakenly think they're greater in number than they actually are.
Also, the 10-19 bracket is much more fickle than the older age brackets. Keep a 20-29 year old happy and he'll probably stay for a long time. A 10-19 year old will only stay as long as he can't find something else to spend his pocket money on.
If AoC delivers half of what it's promised, it should be able to keep at least 200K subscribers which is more than enough to keep an MMO profitable and active(though I suspect upwards of 500K is more reasonable). The biggest problem with judging an MMO's potential for success these days is that people look at the 8.5 million subscribers of WoW and anything not comparable to that early on is judge a failure. WoW's subscriber numbers are an exception, not a benchmark for success.
I have high hopes for AoC, moreso than I've had for WoW, DDO, LOTRO or than I currently have for WAR. The combat system they're talking about seems to share more with the DDO one than WoW or LOTRO which is a good thing IMO. The more mature setting is welcomed after the power ranger tier armour sets in WoW and the Fantasia Disneyland that is the Blood Elf starting area.
the main problem I have with AoC is finding another MMO to hold my interest in the time before it's release!
CoH/CoV - D-Zol/Kinslayer
Auto Assault - Slayer
WoW, LOTRO, DDO - Kinsul
Matrix Online - Tempest
IMO, it will not become "just another MMO". It will either become an insanely funny, long-lasting, absolute success, or it becomes a very very niched game.
Simply because of it's "revolutionary"-Type of gameplay. While Innovation is good, it's also VERY risky, and VERY hard to pull off properly in the first try.
If they manage to pull it off balanced, not too complicated, easy to learn but hard to master and even fun in the long-term (no exploit-like move combos you can't defend against or somesuch), then Props to them, I'll play it until WAR comes.
I mean, commercial success is what the Company wants.
So sure, it looks great and all, but it also bears great risks.
Thus I can't just happily await the arrival of AoC, as I can with WAR.
IMO, it will not become "just another MMO". It will either become an insanely funny, long-lasting, absolute success, or it becomes a very very niched game.
Simply because of it's "revolutionary"-Type of gameplay. While Innovation is good, it's also VERY risky, and VERY hard to pull off properly in the first try.
If they manage to pull it off balanced, not too complicated, easy to learn but hard to master and even fun in the long-term (no exploit-like move combos you can't defend against or somesuch), then Props to them, I'll play it until WAR comes.
I mean, commercial success is what the Company wants.
So sure, it looks great and all, but it also bears great risks.
Thus I can't just happily await the arrival of AoC, as I can with WAR.
Which is why gamers should be Funcom cheerleaders (to an extent). They are taking a HUGE risk creating an MMO that steps past the proven WOW formula. I hope it works right out of the box and if not I hope Funcom is very reactive to beta concerns. I'm just extremely pleased that these guys were not satisfied with being another "clone" MMO and have instead decided to advance the genre. I'm giving them as much support as I can in the hopes that they can prove being progressive does pay off and that other companies will follow suit.
==========
SWG - 1st Gen MBH (Closed)
EVE (Closed)
WoW (61 Orc Hunter - Blackwing Lair)
GuildWars (Boring...)
Why isn't it a RPG?
You create a character the way you want it to be and can then choose to roleplay that character but I guess that that isn't quite roleplayish in your book.
I really hope that the PvP:ers won't run around screaming "uber pwnage" or some other lame crap.
That would really make me die laughing.
Why isn't it a RPG?
You create a character the way you want it to be and can then choose to roleplay that character but I guess that that isn't quite roleplayish in your book.
I really hope that the PvP:ers won't run around screaming "uber pwnage" or some other lame crap.
That would really make me die laughing.
Roleplaying games in paper and pencil table top terms are games in which you play a role. There are stats and rules, but a large part of the game is taking actions, and talking, in a manner that would be consistent with the character, not necessarily how you would react or talk in real life, similar to a play on a stage.
Roleplaying games in computer terms means games where a character progresses from relatively low power to relatively high power, either with skills or levels, usually accompanied by a storyline that runs throughout the game. Player skill is not the determing factor in the game, but instead the power of the character, in otherwords what skills the character has acquired, or what levels, or what gear.
Online roleplaying games use this same approach as the single player games.
When player skill is the overriding factor in the characters success, it's usually considered a FIrst Person Shooter, or a Real Time Strategy game, and not a computer roleplaying game. There's a grey area where you can mix the two, but IMO all you have to do is decide the overriding factor that determines combat, and that determines whether it's an RPG or FPS. If it's 51% or more player skill, then FPS, if it's 51% or more character skill, then RPG.
Absinthe Lovers
Why isn't it a RPG?
You create a character the way you want it to be and can then choose to roleplay that character but I guess that that isn't quite roleplayish in your book.
I really hope that the PvP:ers won't run around screaming "uber pwnage" or some other lame crap.
That would really make me die laughing.
It is an RPG, it just doesn't follow the fomula most MMORPGs do. It manages to combine elements from an FPS and an RTS as well, which, while I haven't had the chance to experience it of course, should give the thing a very different feel as compared to its competitors on the market. The difference can kill games, just like what happened with Planetside and Auto Assault, both are damn good MMOs, particularly AA, but niether of them have remotely close to a decent playerbase, primarily because they play differently. EVE is in a similar position, but has garnered enough attention to be a success regardless.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
THe whole sense of PvP is to let the Skill decide who wins...
Where's the fun in PvP if I see an enemy and think "OK, I'm dead, I just can't beat that class".
And the other way around: "Awwww, another [Insert Class here]... and *pop* you're dead... *yawn*"
A balance system that's all about Group vs. Group fights (i.e.: A Stone-Scissors-Paper-Type of balance) is good in RTS Games, where you can switch the Type of the Units you Produce any second. But it's no fun in a Game where you are stuck with one Type.
IMO, the only good balance is 1v1 balance. If the classes are balanced 1v1, they are group balanced as well, as long as the groups have approximately the same size.
I know, I know, if you simplify my post like that and concentrate on that one part then yes, it doesen't make much sence. But that's the problem, isn't it, that kind of inwards thinking is what is keeping most MMOs on the same stage of development for so long, I don't mind your arguments, they are very valid and in essence correct, but what I am looking for is a way to make them uncorrect. To do that we need to start thinking outward and instead of pointing out the flaws we should start finding ways to make it possible.
I salute Funcom for beeing so ballsy to actualy try something new and different even if it still is a lvl grinder to a degree, but if it will be able to sustain itself, it's the step in the right direction.
Wait a sec, isn't there a game where there is basicly no real balance between to characters, but still it works? I think it's name is EVE, ofcourse, you're not stuck with only one ship the whole time, but while you are in space, you might as well be and if you see a big ass destroyer that can vaporize your shuttle in seconds you still have to make yourself gone and if you play smart enough you never realy have to die...
Thats what I'm talking about, creative ways of balancing, if you are riding a donkey trough countryside and the terror of terrokar is coming on his demon stead which yon can never even dream to outrun, then ofcourse, I'm wrong, but with a litle diferent setting and creative usage of game mechanics it would make sense and would work
P.S. I think that EVE gameplay is perfect for someone buying the game engine and actualy making an interesting and fun game, rather than something accuntants do on their coffe brake
Why isn't it a RPG?
You create a character the way you want it to be and can then choose to roleplay that character but I guess that that isn't quite roleplayish in your book.
I really hope that the PvP:ers won't run around screaming "uber pwnage" or some other lame crap.
That would really make me die laughing.
Roleplaying games in paper and pencil table top terms are games in which you play a role. There are stats and rules, but a large part of the game is taking actions, and talking, in a manner that would be consistent with the character, not necessarily how you would react or talk in real life, similar to a play on a stage.
Roleplaying games in computer terms means games where a character progresses from relatively low power to relatively high power, either with skills or levels, usually accompanied by a storyline that runs throughout the game. Player skill is not the determing factor in the game, but instead the power of the character, in otherwords what skills the character has acquired, or what levels, or what gear.
Online roleplaying games use this same approach as the single player games.
When player skill is the overriding factor in the characters success, it's usually considered a FIrst Person Shooter, or a Real Time Strategy game, and not a computer roleplaying game. There's a grey area where you can mix the two, but IMO all you have to do is decide the overriding factor that determines combat, and that determines whether it's an RPG or FPS. If it's 51% or more player skill, then FPS, if it's 51% or more character skill, then RPG.
Absinthe Lovers
Just because you need to have some skill in the game doesn't mean that it isn't a roleplaying game.
And a game without some amount of skill involved would be as enjoyable as those text only games from the 80:s (can't remember what the heck they were called)
Okay, you say that it's the character skill that determines that it's a RPG as in what equipment you have and what level you are.
You couldn't be more wrong if you cussed in church.
My blog:
Be cool to people, and try and stay cool that way you never have to regret making someone feel bad. Don't take what ya got granted because some people never get to feel happy. We get to play these great MMOs and surf a good site. Be thankful for what ya got and next time ya feel down imagine a fat sea otter waddling with a pillow and a night cap. Bam! smiles!
1. Its bringing so many things that are totally new to the mmorpg style. (ESPECIALLY REAL TIME COMBAT)
2. Age of Conan already has a huge following from the Conan books, movies etc. Cause hey, who doesn't love Arnold.
3. They're being entirely supportive of PvP, although they might not have announced FFA PvP I think its obvious it will be there.
4. The graphics are nothing short of amazing, that will bring people. And for people who say they can't play it because of hardware, my brother's laptop with integrated graphics and 1g of ram plays oblivion on low and thats the reported hardware requirement
Its gonna be a big playerbase, and thats exactly what I want. I want a game that will last me 4+ years, Asheron's Call was amazing but now its dead, I don't want that to happen
Waiting On:
Age of Conan
Retired:
AC - DT refugee - L173 UA
AC2 - L50 Lugian Elementalist
WoW - L60 gnome Warlock
V:SoH - 50 rakki Ranger
I prefer my list. things that revolutionise this MMO are...
1. Its the only MMO with dx10, easily has the best graphics. They are amazing.
2. It'll be cross platform, PC/360 (this isn't new but uncommon and not amaxingly succesful successful, FFXI does it but no1 cares). But makes the game more accesable and people can afford a machine to run it that makes use of the amazing grahpics. Also means larger player base.
3. Gameplay heavily uses real physical skill with your controlls, unlike prior MMOs which are static. More like FPS's and games like zelda. ie. you weave spells together to design what you cast, you swing your sword like in real life damaging any foes it touches, you load/aim your bow. plus mounted combat is best yet. Better watched than described.
4. has a RTS aspect of siegeing cities/battle keeps. Siege weapons player owned cities. no game has made a RTS element of this scale.
5. has a RPG part more simular to offline RPG's like KoToR, with NPC voices and lip sync.
6. first MMO with a mature rating, focus more on mature audience. so blood/gore and a more brutal world like the books it's based on. I'm gona include decapitation and the occasional chopping off of limbs in here also.
7. battle formations.
8. has new concepts such as blood money, soul corruption. And things like wierd posibble penalties for using magic, ie dieng and havign you fight your way out of hell to get back, going insane and attacking all nearby people. I think the lich's undead mode may be unique also. Theres quite alot of unique ideas/concepts if you look hard enough. There wont be any grinding of crafting just quests, and there will be PvP lvls aswell as normal ones. Picking players pockets might be another. theres lots trust me
9.heavy focus on PvP
My blog: