This post reminds me of when someone loses their job and thinks an entire corporation will crumble to the ground without them. Just because some random forum guy says a game is a failure doesn't make it true. As for SGW, I have no interest in it... so it will fail.... yeeaaahhhh. Not everyone shares your opinion on what makes a good game.
AoC is not a failure, it's a failure to the OP. And obviously there's people who share his opinion. So it's more like just one person. Honestly, he might've worded the title a bit wrong, but respect what he wants. Who knows, maybe you'll find yourself wanting the same things in the future.
This is how I see it. My kin in LOTRO has about 40 members and only 1 picked up AOC to try it. Now these members are very good players, vets from other games and have alot of experience playing MMO's. I myself started with early UO.
Now if only 1 of us is trying AOC, doesnt that mean something? We have all researched the game, some beta testing it etc and yet only 1 out of 40 decided to try it over LOTRO.
To me, thats a failure. You can say they are different games and are targeted for different players, but for a game to survive and do well, its gotta be able to pull some people from other games.
Not only that, after the first month, i'm guessing most of the AOC players will return to their original game. I base this guess on what i've been reading and from talking to people who own the game.
Like I stated in a previous post, the PVP doesnt even match what Ultima Online had back in 1997-1999. A 10 yr old game! Sure the graphics werent the best but it did have loot corpsing. AOC doesnt even have a penalty for death, just lost time. A game slated for its PVP, and it can't even draw this UO vet to try it out. That means something. Especially since i've been looking for a MMO with a PVP setup that I'd enjoy.
Failure? I think so. Too early to pass judgement? I don't think so, I had the same thoughts after beta testing Vanguard and we know how that game turned out. When I beta tested LOTRO, it took me 1 week and I knew this game was gold. Very polished and ready for release. WOW was good in beta as well, I didnt like it myself , but I knew it was gonna be huge. AOC just doesnt have that something special to make it a winner. Anytime you release a game too early and have to play catch up, its usually not good.
The only thing going for AOC is that its the major MMO release of the summer, up against anything else and it would have really crashed and burned.
Honestly, I hope the game turns out ok for most people playing it, but I consider it a failure because even those targeted for the game are not enjoying it . And like i stated above, the PVP is not revolutionary.
This post reminds me of when someone loses their job and thinks an entire corporation will crumble to the ground without them. Just because some random forum guy says a game is a failure doesn't make it true. As for SGW, I have no interest in it... so it will fail.... yeeaaahhhh. Not everyone shares your opinion on what makes a good game.
AoC is not a failure, it's a failure to the OP. And obviously there's people who share his opinion. So it's more like just one person. Honestly, he might've worded the title a bit wrong, but respect what he wants. Who knows, maybe you'll find yourself wanting the same things in the future.
This is how I see it. My kin in LOTRO has about 40 members and only 1 picked up AOC to try it. Now these members are very good players, vets from other games and have alot of experience playing MMO's. I myself started with early UO.
Now if only 1 of us is trying AOC, doesnt that mean something? We have all researched the game, some beta testing it etc and yet only 1 out of 40 decided to try it over LOTRO.
To me, thats a failure. You can say they are different games and are targeted for different players, but for a game to survive and do well, its gotta be able to pull some people from other games.
Not only that, after the first month, i'm guessing most of the AOC players will return to their original game. I base this guess on what i've been reading and from talking to people who own the game.
Like I stated in a previous post, the PVP doesnt even match what Ultima Online had back in 1997-1999. A 10 yr old game! Sure the graphics werent the best but it did have loot corpsing. AOC doesnt even have a penalty for death, just lost time. A game slated for its PVP, and it can't even draw this UO vet to try it out. That means something. Especially since i've been looking for a MMO with a PVP setup that I'd enjoy.
Failure? I think so. Too early to pass judgement? I don't think so, I had the same thoughts after beta testing Vanguard and we know how that game turned out. When I beta tested LOTRO, it took me 1 week and I knew this game was gold. Very polished and ready for release. WOW was good in beta as well, I didnt like it myself , but I knew it was gonna be huge. AOC just doesnt have that something special to make it a winner. Anytime you release a game too early and have to play catch up, its usually not good.
The only thing going for AOC is that its the major MMO release of the summer, up against anything else and it would have really crashed and burned.
Honestly, I hope the game turns out ok for most people playing it, but I consider it a failure because even those targeted for the game are not enjoying it . And like i stated above, the PVP is not revolutionary.
So my guild on LOTRO is pretty larger (150+) and span other games. The majority are also now playing AOC. so many are immersed in it in fact that it is impacting our play on LOTRO.
I too have to say that AOC is NOT a failure. I am personally having a great experience with it. Are there things that need to do, yes. As with any MMO this is the case at launch. Why does everyone forget how much gets done and added in the first six to eight months of the game. It took WOW more than a year to really get to a point where PVP even worked and even longer for it to smooth out . I recall the massive queues for raids when they first started them, waiting hours just to get to the top of the queue, etc.
VG, is now, after how long, in a playable state.
LOTRO was great at launch but still had its flaws and over the last year the game has made leaping strides.
Why do you, or others think that won't happen here? If any game was flawed to the core it was VG and it is now a playable and fun game. AOC is in infinitely better shape that VG was at the same point in its infancy.
BTW, those of you interested in watching an AOC dev that's probably going to get fired soon posting here on this site in my thread, go no further than the following:
Well another MMO launched and once again I find myself disappointed. Age of Conan didnt even come close to what I had hoped for in an MMO. And frankly, it isnt a true MMO but rather an MO. Ive read the FAQ on SGW site, it doesnt really go into details so Im assuming it isnt know yet. So I'll direct this to the devs of SGW...
please make us a seamless game to play in. I understand making seperate zones for each world but dont overdo it. Dont seperate each zone into mirrored instances with a 50 player cap like Age of Conan did. Dont make us wait on load screens for every door we open or everytime I enter a town. This is an MMO after all, I want to see hundreds if not thousands of players around me.
please make the game more sandbox design than Linear. I dont need an amusement park ride MMO experience. Those games appeal to the lowest common denominator and never have long-term replay value. I like quests but it shouldnt be forced on me. I dont need 5,000 quests to be happy. Im fine with a gun, open terrain, and freedom to choose my own destiny. If I buy one more MMO and find I need to kill 10 boars over and over to level up Im going to toss my computer out the window.
I read that there will be non-combat options. Some mini-games is mentioned. Im excited by this and would recommend you expand upon that idea. I wouldnt mind playing a toon that never has to pick up a rifle. The nerdy archaelogist in the movie wasnt a fighter but was a hero nonetheless. I would love a class that just repairs weapons in the field or makes bullets or solves puzzles that helps out a group encounter. Or even better, helps build encampments.
Rethink the housing idea. Its important to vet MMO gamers. Expand on it and allow us to build small towns or encampments in the world we have access too. And please, no instanced towns. We want it in the gameworld and not some tucked away instance zone like LOTR does. There could be two types of towns...temporary encampment (think a small campfire with tents) to help heal wounds, rest, repair, etc. And then a permanent town with simple housing, a watering hole, etc. Both would be built by that non-combat class I mentioned before.
Im sick and tired of every MMO since Star Wars Galaxies ending up in my trash can. I dont enjoy WoW clones yet every developer thinks I do. SGW's audience is more mature and sophisticated, dont give us a design thats meant to appeal to the dumbed down masses. Give us a game meant for gamers
AOC a failure? 400k boxes sold is a pretty good commercial success. You can argue AOC may not have legs and that has yet to be seen. But saying that it is a failure is just pure self-serving lying.
Quests & instances are the future, whether you like it or not. The successful games all have them. WOW, Guild Wars, LOTR.
Well another MMO launched and once again I find myself disappointed. Age of Conan didnt even come close to what I had hoped for in an MMO. And frankly, it isnt a true MMO but rather an MO. Ive read the FAQ on SGW site, it doesnt really go into details so Im assuming it isnt know yet. So I'll direct this to the devs of SGW...
please make us a seamless game to play in. I understand making seperate zones for each world but dont overdo it. Dont seperate each zone into mirrored instances with a 50 player cap like Age of Conan did. Dont make us wait on load screens for every door we open or everytime I enter a town. This is an MMO after all, I want to see hundreds if not thousands of players around me.
please make the game more sandbox design than Linear. I dont need an amusement park ride MMO experience. Those games appeal to the lowest common denominator and never have long-term replay value. I like quests but it shouldnt be forced on me. I dont need 5,000 quests to be happy. Im fine with a gun, open terrain, and freedom to choose my own destiny. If I buy one more MMO and find I need to kill 10 boars over and over to level up Im going to toss my computer out the window.
I read that there will be non-combat options. Some mini-games is mentioned. Im excited by this and would recommend you expand upon that idea. I wouldnt mind playing a toon that never has to pick up a rifle. The nerdy archaelogist in the movie wasnt a fighter but was a hero nonetheless. I would love a class that just repairs weapons in the field or makes bullets or solves puzzles that helps out a group encounter. Or even better, helps build encampments.
Rethink the housing idea. Its important to vet MMO gamers. Expand on it and allow us to build small towns or encampments in the world we have access too. And please, no instanced towns. We want it in the gameworld and not some tucked away instance zone like LOTR does. There could be two types of towns...temporary encampment (think a small campfire with tents) to help heal wounds, rest, repair, etc. And then a permanent town with simple housing, a watering hole, etc. Both would be built by that non-combat class I mentioned before.
Im sick and tired of every MMO since Star Wars Galaxies ending up in my trash can. I dont enjoy WoW clones yet every developer thinks I do. SGW's audience is more mature and sophisticated, dont give us a design thats meant to appeal to the dumbed down masses. Give us a game meant for gamers
Well another MMO launched and once again I find myself disappointed. Age of Conan didnt even come close to what I had hoped for in an MMO. And frankly, it isnt a true MMO but rather an MO. Ive read the FAQ on SGW site, it doesnt really go into details so Im assuming it isnt know yet. So I'll direct this to the devs of SGW...
please make us a seamless game to play in. I understand making seperate zones for each world but dont overdo it. Dont seperate each zone into mirrored instances with a 50 player cap like Age of Conan did. Dont make us wait on load screens for every door we open or everytime I enter a town. This is an MMO after all, I want to see hundreds if not thousands of players around me.
I haven't really seen to much information on this other than what you posted about each world having its own instance.
please make the game more sandbox design than Linear. I dont need an amusement park ride MMO experience. Those games appeal to the lowest common denominator and never have long-term replay value. I like quests but it shouldnt be forced on me. I dont need 5,000 quests to be happy. Im fine with a gun, open terrain, and freedom to choose my own destiny. If I buy one more MMO and find I need to kill 10 boars over and over to level up Im going to toss my computer out the window.
I think you will be dissappointed, from reading what the devs have said the game is VERY linear. There is a storyline that runs to Max lvl for each faction and the end game pvp is based on this story.
I read that there will be non-combat options. Some mini-games is mentioned. Im excited by this and would recommend you expand upon that idea. I wouldnt mind playing a toon that never has to pick up a rifle. The nerdy archaelogist in the movie wasnt a fighter but was a hero nonetheless. I would love a class that just repairs weapons in the field or makes bullets or solves puzzles that helps out a group encounter. Or even better, helps build encampments.
There will be mini games and I like the sound of it. From my understanding the archaelogist will have to participate in comabt though. Take the scenario where you have the archealogist fighting until they get to a cave where he has to do a mini game to repair some ancient technology while the rest of the gropu defends him.
Rethink the housing idea. Its important to vet MMO gamers. Expand on it and allow us to build small towns or encampments in the world we have access too. And please, no instanced towns. We want it in the gameworld and not some tucked away instance zone like LOTR does. There could be two types of towns...temporary encampment (think a small campfire with tents) to help heal wounds, rest, repair, etc. And then a permanent town with simple housing, a watering hole, etc. Both would be built by that non-combat class I mentioned before.
I can't remember but i believe I read there is no play housing. Im sick and tired of every MMO since Star Wars Galaxies ending up in my trash can. I dont enjoy WoW clones yet every developer thinks I do. SGW's audience is more mature and sophisticated, dont give us a design thats meant to appeal to the dumbed down masses. Give us a game meant for gamers
Although I dont like some aspects of what SGW is doing I will still try it out. I am a big fan of Star Gate so I will at least try one month.
Oh and AoC is not a failure, some peoples personal experiences of a 40 person guild doesnt speak for the rest of the entire population. It may end up losing a lot of subs, but I do know one thing I am really enjoying it and will continue to play it.
I would visit this post on the stargate forums. The lead director answers A LOT of questions in it. Just go page to page looking for replies by the bright orange name Ledaye.
AoC had a very successful launch, but it is all about the sustainability. We can't call AoC a failure till it actually fails, but it looks like it will from what I'm hearing. I was very happy when I first heard about AoC, but I lost interest once more info came out. I cannot stand extreme amounts of instancing in MMO's.
SGW has a potential to be great, but it is scary how little info we have. I can't wait to see what happens.
In all honesty I want almost every (pc based) MMO game to succeed because we need the PC game genre to make a comeback.
a nice crafting system can justify the open terrain and zero NPC errands.
It's only justified for the crafters though. Adventurers remain in a perpetual "now what?" state. Also don't forget there are some players who downright resent crafting (and economies) at all and would prefer all drops.
Ya They are called Asian farmers.
"The most important thing is to have the design support the players in setting their own goals in both cooperative and competitive interaction with one another." - Ironore -
Originally posted by Snooters age of conan isn't a failure, genius
Someone with the name Snooters, a slang term regarding Cocaine use (snorting it in particular, the line, is called a snooter) should NOT be talking shit about someone else's level of intelligence.
Age of Conan had a successful launch, probably the most successful launch after WoW launched. I don't think anyone can dispute that with a straight face (although some people wish it wasn't so so much, they convinced themselves it isn't so). Having said that, AoC will have a very hard time retaining their initial momentum, due to various issues. My impression is that they are aware of this and working towards that direction.
As far as Stargate is concerned, I sure hope they develop their own project as best as they can. It's been a while since I've played what I consider a good sci-fi MMO and I'm awaiting their final product.
To the OP: Age of Conan had a successful launch, probably the most successful launch after WoW launched. I don't think anyone can dispute that with a straight face (although some people wish it wasn't so so much, they convinced themselves it isn't so). Having said that, AoC will have a very hard time retaining their initial momentum, due to various issues. My impression is that they are aware of this and working towards that direction. As far as Stargate is concerned, I sure hope they develop their own project as best as they can. It's been a while since I've played what I consider a good sci-fi MMO and I'm awaiting their final product.
If by succesful you mean bugged, unfinished game with outcries of anger over said bugs and lack of gameplay and anger over hyped elements taken out without warning at launch, no real communication with players and deletion of their /petitions, then yes, I would say AoC was and is pretty succesful.
400k sold boxes might be good for them to rack in some money to pay for their debts. Good for them. But the retention after a month or two might drop to less than 100k with the lack of customer service and lack of real high level content...
Players aren't so forgiving any more... I think a lot of people are tired of shitty launches.
SGW could really learn and make a polished and complete game BEFORE launching!
My interest in AoC lasted only 2 weeks before I ran out of content (playing casually), got sick of the bugs and cancelled my sub. SGW would have to try really REALLY hard to beat that. You can't surpass that by accident, you actually have to work at it. So i'm not worried - every other mmo I've ever played has at a minimum entertained me for at least 2 months, so if SGW can stay on par with that, I'm happy.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence. Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
So why exactly are you quoting me when the bottom line is that you say the exact same thing?
It is questionable on whether they will manage to keep the 500.000+ boxes sold and activated in the first 3 weeks of the game. The fact that they sold that many boxes is a financial success (for them).
Lets just hope for Stargate's sake that people don't think that the world will be seamless (it's travel through portals after all).
To the OP: Age of Conan had a successful launch, probably the most successful launch after WoW launched. I don't think anyone can dispute that with a straight face (although some people wish it wasn't so so much, they convinced themselves it isn't so). Having said that, AoC will have a very hard time retaining their initial momentum, due to various issues. My impression is that they are aware of this and working towards that direction. As far as Stargate is concerned, I sure hope they develop their own project as best as they can. It's been a while since I've played what I consider a good sci-fi MMO and I'm awaiting their final product.
Your posts are always on top and to the point.
For once let's have it out and redo a new thread what you would change in Conan's concept.
I have 8 propositions to begin with for Conan
1. Get rid of those graphics requirements and try to put something like LOTRO graphics but with the dynamics of Wow movement. Present Conan graphics is for 2011 when everybody will have 16 GB central Ram and 2 GByte graphics cards.
2. Point 1 would mean you don't need the loading and instances anymore. OR at least allow 300 people in once copy of the game (why ? see point 3)
3. Give the players from the very beginning cities and fortresses to build (say level 20) and start the professions with level 15.
4. Make the PvP and the Siege systems the CORE of the game with a maximum 150 vs 150 people fighting in one instance scenario. Reset the world fights every 15 days (NOT the complete build ups of course).
5. Let the PvP scenarios have a meaningfull line within the world pvp build up.
6. Polish the PvP fights and add "stable" timers between attacks, so server client lag is not that important anymore. The button smashing becomes rather very dull post level 30.
7 Cap at 50, so you don't let the people burn in meaningless PVE play.
8. Add each 3 months a little dungeon IN RELATION to the Cities and Siege warfare.
These are fundamental changes, not talking of the "polishing" of the UI and graphics of the "bag" items.
---
I hope Warhammer learned a lot with this launch.
Well, from your list of suggestions it seems you are telling Funcom to basically make the game more along the lines of WAR's design. (and use the KISS principle in delivery)
Everyone can't make the same game. WAR is going to be what you really want to play, lets see who that works out for everyone.
I'm not quite sure why so many folks focus on this concept of big fights, 150 vs 150. We have that in EVE, its sucks, lots of lag, mass pandamonium, and most often, he who zergs (or lags out the server best) wins.
I recall the early days of DAOC and many players complained bitterly when the only form of fighting was zerg vs zerg. Many purists to this day consider the 8 vs 8 man fight the ulitimate combat form in DAOC and shun any form of zerging.
DAOC actually had mechanics that let a single 8 man group completely destroy three lesser skilled/equipped 8 man groups w/o losing a man. I'm really curious to see if WAR will maintain this sort of mechanic somehow. (for better or worse)
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
To the dude who says AoC requires a 2011 PC to play?? WTF are you on man? I have a 4yr old computer, I play on 2560x1600 resolution with Dells best 30" monitor, and I get between 30 and 40 fps at all times! So please go back to school and take some PC classes and get your head out of your 3rd point of contact!
To the dude who says AoC requires a 2011 PC to play?? WTF are you on man? I have a 4yr old computer, I play on 2560x1600 resolution with Dells best 30" monitor, and I get between 30 and 40 fps at all times! So please go back to school and take some PC classes and get your head out of your 3rd point of contact!
Yeah but at this point it's about the perception and not the reality. Funcom pushed the whole idea that their engine was super advance, and constantly pumped out photo-shopped images pre- release to make the graphics look more advanced than they really were (hence fostering the idea that you needed a super machine to play). At this point it doesn't really matter regarding how the game really is.
Comments
God... AOC crashed and burned way harder than I thought it was going to.
They'll be lucky to have 40% retention rates past the first month with all of the holes, bad policies and unfinished content in that game.
AoC is not a failure, it's a failure to the OP. And obviously there's people who share his opinion. So it's more like just one person. Honestly, he might've worded the title a bit wrong, but respect what he wants. Who knows, maybe you'll find yourself wanting the same things in the future.
This is how I see it. My kin in LOTRO has about 40 members and only 1 picked up AOC to try it. Now these members are very good players, vets from other games and have alot of experience playing MMO's. I myself started with early UO.
Now if only 1 of us is trying AOC, doesnt that mean something? We have all researched the game, some beta testing it etc and yet only 1 out of 40 decided to try it over LOTRO.
To me, thats a failure. You can say they are different games and are targeted for different players, but for a game to survive and do well, its gotta be able to pull some people from other games.
Not only that, after the first month, i'm guessing most of the AOC players will return to their original game. I base this guess on what i've been reading and from talking to people who own the game.
Like I stated in a previous post, the PVP doesnt even match what Ultima Online had back in 1997-1999. A 10 yr old game! Sure the graphics werent the best but it did have loot corpsing. AOC doesnt even have a penalty for death, just lost time. A game slated for its PVP, and it can't even draw this UO vet to try it out. That means something. Especially since i've been looking for a MMO with a PVP setup that I'd enjoy.
Failure? I think so. Too early to pass judgement? I don't think so, I had the same thoughts after beta testing Vanguard and we know how that game turned out. When I beta tested LOTRO, it took me 1 week and I knew this game was gold. Very polished and ready for release. WOW was good in beta as well, I didnt like it myself , but I knew it was gonna be huge. AOC just doesnt have that something special to make it a winner. Anytime you release a game too early and have to play catch up, its usually not good.
The only thing going for AOC is that its the major MMO release of the summer, up against anything else and it would have really crashed and burned.
Honestly, I hope the game turns out ok for most people playing it, but I consider it a failure because even those targeted for the game are not enjoying it . And like i stated above, the PVP is not revolutionary.
AoC is not a failure, it's a failure to the OP. And obviously there's people who share his opinion. So it's more like just one person. Honestly, he might've worded the title a bit wrong, but respect what he wants. Who knows, maybe you'll find yourself wanting the same things in the future.
This is how I see it. My kin in LOTRO has about 40 members and only 1 picked up AOC to try it. Now these members are very good players, vets from other games and have alot of experience playing MMO's. I myself started with early UO.
Now if only 1 of us is trying AOC, doesnt that mean something? We have all researched the game, some beta testing it etc and yet only 1 out of 40 decided to try it over LOTRO.
To me, thats a failure. You can say they are different games and are targeted for different players, but for a game to survive and do well, its gotta be able to pull some people from other games.
Not only that, after the first month, i'm guessing most of the AOC players will return to their original game. I base this guess on what i've been reading and from talking to people who own the game.
Like I stated in a previous post, the PVP doesnt even match what Ultima Online had back in 1997-1999. A 10 yr old game! Sure the graphics werent the best but it did have loot corpsing. AOC doesnt even have a penalty for death, just lost time. A game slated for its PVP, and it can't even draw this UO vet to try it out. That means something. Especially since i've been looking for a MMO with a PVP setup that I'd enjoy.
Failure? I think so. Too early to pass judgement? I don't think so, I had the same thoughts after beta testing Vanguard and we know how that game turned out. When I beta tested LOTRO, it took me 1 week and I knew this game was gold. Very polished and ready for release. WOW was good in beta as well, I didnt like it myself , but I knew it was gonna be huge. AOC just doesnt have that something special to make it a winner. Anytime you release a game too early and have to play catch up, its usually not good.
The only thing going for AOC is that its the major MMO release of the summer, up against anything else and it would have really crashed and burned.
Honestly, I hope the game turns out ok for most people playing it, but I consider it a failure because even those targeted for the game are not enjoying it . And like i stated above, the PVP is not revolutionary.
So my guild on LOTRO is pretty larger (150+) and span other games. The majority are also now playing AOC. so many are immersed in it in fact that it is impacting our play on LOTRO.I too have to say that AOC is NOT a failure. I am personally having a great experience with it. Are there things that need to do, yes. As with any MMO this is the case at launch. Why does everyone forget how much gets done and added in the first six to eight months of the game. It took WOW more than a year to really get to a point where PVP even worked and even longer for it to smooth out . I recall the massive queues for raids when they first started them, waiting hours just to get to the top of the queue, etc.
VG, is now, after how long, in a playable state.
LOTRO was great at launch but still had its flaws and over the last year the game has made leaping strides.
Why do you, or others think that won't happen here? If any game was flawed to the core it was VG and it is now a playable and fun game. AOC is in infinitely better shape that VG was at the same point in its infancy.
BTW, those of you interested in watching an AOC dev that's probably going to get fired soon posting here on this site in my thread, go no further than the following:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/183226/page/21
This game(AoC) sucks and ive played form beta.
The fanboi's will soon realize it, heavily instanced and similar to FFxi in that way, why is it not a proper mmo and made this way?..... - xbox 360
no need to say more.
AoC will soon start loosing players hand over fist and will be a niche market rpg.
Might get a few more players for the xbox due to FF XI being the only so called mmo on there.
P.s 100 player caps in instances which is every zone in the game don't make it a mmo!!!!!!
Playing: FFXIV
Future: wishing for SWG 2, World of Warcraft Classic
Played: Most current and extinct MMO's - 18 Years in....
Interesting Fact - I own 27 Tarantula's
i'll pull out my finest quill to sign this badboy
/signed.
==========================
LOL .. the OP is sticking his head in the sand.
AOC a failure? 400k boxes sold is a pretty good commercial success. You can argue AOC may not have legs and that has yet to be seen. But saying that it is a failure is just pure self-serving lying.
Quests & instances are the future, whether you like it or not. The successful games all have them. WOW, Guild Wars, LOTR.
age of conan isn't a failure, genius
Oh and AoC is not a failure, some peoples personal experiences of a 40 person guild doesnt speak for the rest of the entire population. It may end up losing a lot of subs, but I do know one thing I am really enjoying it and will continue to play it.
I would visit this post on the stargate forums. The lead director answers A LOT of questions in it. Just go page to page looking for replies by the bright orange name Ledaye.
http://forums.stargateworlds.com/showthread.php?t=11686
AoC had a very successful launch, but it is all about the sustainability. We can't call AoC a failure till it actually fails, but it looks like it will from what I'm hearing. I was very happy when I first heard about AoC, but I lost interest once more info came out. I cannot stand extreme amounts of instancing in MMO's.
SGW has a potential to be great, but it is scary how little info we have. I can't wait to see what happens.
In all honesty I want almost every (pc based) MMO game to succeed because we need the PC game genre to make a comeback.
And yes there is no player housing planned.
Cool, the AOC argument has officially gone plaid.
It's only justified for the crafters though. Adventurers remain in a perpetual "now what?" state. Also don't forget there are some players who downright resent crafting (and economies) at all and would prefer all drops.
Ya They are called Asian farmers.
"The most important thing is to have the design support the players in setting their own goals in both cooperative and competitive interaction with one another." - Ironore -
Someone with the name Snooters, a slang term regarding Cocaine use (snorting it in particular, the line, is called a snooter) should NOT be talking shit about someone else's level of intelligence.
Pot meet kettle, genius.
I do not know how can u say that it is a success.
It's only the hype of a new mmo, it will get over.
for me it is a failure, so i join the topic creator.
i tried aoc myself and did not like it a bit.
xfire
sgw-fansite
To the OP:
Age of Conan had a successful launch, probably the most successful launch after WoW launched. I don't think anyone can dispute that with a straight face (although some people wish it wasn't so so much, they convinced themselves it isn't so). Having said that, AoC will have a very hard time retaining their initial momentum, due to various issues. My impression is that they are aware of this and working towards that direction.
As far as Stargate is concerned, I sure hope they develop their own project as best as they can. It's been a while since I've played what I consider a good sci-fi MMO and I'm awaiting their final product.
If by succesful you mean bugged, unfinished game with outcries of anger over said bugs and lack of gameplay and anger over hyped elements taken out without warning at launch, no real communication with players and deletion of their /petitions, then yes, I would say AoC was and is pretty succesful.
400k sold boxes might be good for them to rack in some money to pay for their debts. Good for them. But the retention after a month or two might drop to less than 100k with the lack of customer service and lack of real high level content...
Players aren't so forgiving any more... I think a lot of people are tired of shitty launches.
SGW could really learn and make a polished and complete game BEFORE launching!
____________________________
CASUAL CONFESSIONS - Draccan's blog
____________________________
My interest in AoC lasted only 2 weeks before I ran out of content (playing casually), got sick of the bugs and cancelled my sub. SGW would have to try really REALLY hard to beat that. You can't surpass that by accident, you actually have to work at it. So i'm not worried - every other mmo I've ever played has at a minimum entertained me for at least 2 months, so if SGW can stay on par with that, I'm happy.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence.
Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
To Draccan:
So why exactly are you quoting me when the bottom line is that you say the exact same thing?
It is questionable on whether they will manage to keep the 500.000+ boxes sold and activated in the first 3 weeks of the game. The fact that they sold that many boxes is a financial success (for them).
Lets just hope for Stargate's sake that people don't think that the world will be seamless (it's travel through portals after all).
I have variations of your proposals in mind, but this is not the AoC forum.
For once let's have it out and redo a new thread what you would change in Conan's concept.
I have 8 propositions to begin with for Conan
1. Get rid of those graphics requirements and try to put something like LOTRO graphics but with the dynamics of Wow movement. Present Conan graphics is for 2011 when everybody will have 16 GB central Ram and 2 GByte graphics cards.
2. Point 1 would mean you don't need the loading and instances anymore. OR at least allow 300 people in once copy of the game (why ? see point 3)
3. Give the players from the very beginning cities and fortresses to build (say level 20) and start the professions with level 15.
4. Make the PvP and the Siege systems the CORE of the game with a maximum 150 vs 150 people fighting in one instance scenario. Reset the world fights every 15 days (NOT the complete build ups of course).
5. Let the PvP scenarios have a meaningfull line within the world pvp build up.
6. Polish the PvP fights and add "stable" timers between attacks, so server client lag is not that important anymore. The button smashing becomes rather very dull post level 30.
7 Cap at 50, so you don't let the people burn in meaningless PVE play.
8. Add each 3 months a little dungeon IN RELATION to the Cities and Siege warfare.
These are fundamental changes, not talking of the "polishing" of the UI and graphics of the "bag" items.
---
I hope Warhammer learned a lot with this launch.
Well, from your list of suggestions it seems you are telling Funcom to basically make the game more along the lines of WAR's design. (and use the KISS principle in delivery)
Everyone can't make the same game. WAR is going to be what you really want to play, lets see who that works out for everyone.
I'm not quite sure why so many folks focus on this concept of big fights, 150 vs 150. We have that in EVE, its sucks, lots of lag, mass pandamonium, and most often, he who zergs (or lags out the server best) wins.
I recall the early days of DAOC and many players complained bitterly when the only form of fighting was zerg vs zerg. Many purists to this day consider the 8 vs 8 man fight the ulitimate combat form in DAOC and shun any form of zerging.
DAOC actually had mechanics that let a single 8 man group completely destroy three lesser skilled/equipped 8 man groups w/o losing a man. I'm really curious to see if WAR will maintain this sort of mechanic somehow. (for better or worse)
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Any MMOG with instancing is a failure to me. Offer a non instanced world and you have a winner.
I am so good, I backstabbed your face!
Yeah but at this point it's about the perception and not the reality. Funcom pushed the whole idea that their engine was super advance, and constantly pumped out photo-shopped images pre- release to make the graphics look more advanced than they really were (hence fostering the idea that you needed a super machine to play). At this point it doesn't really matter regarding how the game really is.
AOC has Vanguarded itself. It's time to move on.