While i agree that this game removes one of the mmo's trademark(immersion) i cant agree that it deals a coup-de-grace to the genre.I think that the people who share op's opinion are afraid that the rest of the games that will come out, will be the same(having graphic engine that a few pc's can handle and making the game instanced).They are blinded and cant see the good outcome of all this. By having commercial mmo's like aoc or war introducing some new features or lets better say different from the usual ones(combat system,crafting,customization,better storylines and making things like building standard ) they upgrade the whole genre they dont kill it, instead they are making the market more competitive so things like the one's mentioned above will be taken in serious consideration before a game is even created.About instancing, lets be serious now i haven't seen any other mmo like aoc having such graphics so what the problem people?Do you think a lot of other companies will do the same thing?I think not.
I'm not going to toss salt at Age of Conan because I havent played retail yet but come on the alpha MMOs were way ahead of their time. Too far ahead. People weren't ready
Games like UO and AC1 were attempts at seamless worlds. AC1 had real time dodging SERVER SIDE, run-and-gun spell casting, dynamic classification, mobs that 'grew', server side collision, and the whole works
In UO you could own houses, dynamic classification (use based), impact in the world itself, light barriers between newb and veteran, etc
These newer MMOs are a regression of a sorts
Again, I'm not going to toss salt at AoC right now because this is something I only do after I reach high level in a game. But this is the general consensus amongst many old skool players that fully appreciated the direction of games back then
But if you're a fan of WoW and their ilk- perhaps you see EQ as a major progression which is probably the way most newcomers may see it too
Well Vajuras i agree with you about regression, we cant compare the seamless worlds of the mmo's you mentioned (i still cant forget the first time i saw my older brother playing AC,no words to describe the excitiment) on terms of freedom or unique ideas on gameplay but they are long gone now and we have what we have now,so my point is as mentioned above that(even if some of these things were done in the past) we will have some features that people like in this genre implemented (once again maybe) in future games and also new gameplay(the most important) and who knows the outcome might be something stunning(i am not reffering to already announced titles).
Uh, the main developer of Vanguard might have been possibly drug addicted - there is only one very obscure source who ever claimed that - but even if that was the case, that doesnt mean his project was a scam.
Other than that, I really dont understand people who complain about AoC. Wasnt all that already known a long time before release ? Why do you complain about it now ? Dont you inform yourself about a game before you play it ?
fair enough but I would add to your post that EVE Online has taken the AC1/UO model forward whereas everyone coexists on 1 server (40k+ concurrent players), realtime collision detection server side, no instancing ever (even in a mission a player can jump in via probing), player owned terriority, etc
EVE Online took that model forward. I see other MMOs as a regression of a sort. But I admit I did see WoW as a weid sort of progression in that it established that it is important to try to make a product accessible. However it has inadvertantly changed the face of MMOs today because its just a bit too strong. But hey, I always said Blizzard was blessed. They earned my respect way back when on consoles
Uh, the main developer of Vanguard might have been possibly drug addicted - there is only one very obscure source who ever claimed that - but even if that was the case, that doesnt mean his project was a scam. Other than that, I really dont understand people who complain about AoC. Wasnt all that already known a long time before release ? Why do you complain about it now ? Dont you inform yourself about a game before you play it ? And I dont think AoC will be the end of MMOs.
Brad is a awsome developer. He is, however, a weak manager over an entire project with the final say so. People knew Smedley would bear down on them, and that is why brad was able to be head of the EQ team for Verant. He second guessed himself, and allowed those beneath him to run his project.
He now knows a very important rule. If your hated for something make DAMN sure it was your way. Worst thing to be thought of as a failure in an aspect that you didnt have total control over, in his in case, excercise his control.
You fail to understand that AoC has some things that were more heavy than let known by the developers and PR since the NDA was never fully lifted. To be more candid; you have no reason to tell someone who respected the rules of NDA and neither pried or spoke what the game was all about. How heavily the instances are and how the crafting really is has bothered a good amount of people who thought by what the marketing put out was alittle different. All of us who have a game breaking deal with AoC are not uneducated customers who do not understand the meaning of compromise.
As Funcom should have learned with AO, you only get one chance to make a first impression. It doesnt matter how many boxes you can sell by over-hyping and lying about what features will be in the game, if most of those players leave again when they discover whats really inside.
We need the RPG as in MMORPG..not just MMO.I remember I got my first computer in 98 and then i found a little game called Meridian 59..Talk about a sense of wonder...Not only funcom but I don't see any developer at the present that makes anything but just generic kill this ....fetch that....go there..fetch that..Ad nauseum ......they are good for Diablo 2 fans..Sigh
And Diablo2 is 10000x more popular than Meridian 59.
Hack & slash is fun. The letters RPG are in MMORPG just because of history. Diablo 2 is called a RPG too. It is all semantics.
I'm just going to hilight those words from your post: "virtual simulation", because they strike me as odd, especially when applied to AO - a game that I played intensively for a couple years. So I'm going to take it as an example, but I don't think the other oldies you mentioned are much better about that particular point.
I fail to see what exactly it is that you think AO is a simulation of. Is there an ecosystem simulation in there that I somehow missed? Is there some kind of social interaction simulation where NPC do actual stuff, that a player can interfere with, or affect in some way?
Is there something making the world evolve and change over time?
Because what I remember are mobs wandering aimlessly, respawning when killed, and... That's pretty much all of it. Nothing complex, either. I don't really get where is that "complexity" in AO that you're raving about.
Take wow, remove the quests, and you have AO (random assemblages of rooms filled with random mobs and an object to click somewhere don't count as quests).
Please, please don't tell me that it's the character development system with its hundred of skills (most of which were pointless), and the implants that you miss? Because if you didn't know the cookie cutter templates for those things for your class, it was about as exciting as starting at an excel spreadsheet for hours. If you DID know the cookie cutter templates, all you had to do was applying them. WoW just streamline this process by avoiding to present the player with a seemingly large amount of possible choices where only a handful of them are actually useful.
WoW doesn't remove anything from such a game, it merely demonstrate a certain way to build an actual game on top of something like AO.
I do agree that there are probably some other, perhaps more open-ended and sandboxish direction that could be taken than WoW, but old games like AO weren't it. They weren't much of anything, compared to current games. The universe of AO is actually pretty nice and there is something enticing about it, but I never could pull myself to play AO again after WoW - there just isn't much gameplay in there beyond the random respawns, and AO's combat system merely looks like a rough, early draft of WoW's. There are actual, WoW like quests in AO indeed, but they don't suffice to advance your level, it's all way too diluted by the need of mind numbing grinding.
Now a sandbox game, that could be interesting in a universe actually running some kind of simulation that the player could interact with (and thus slowly reshape the universe). It could be an ecosystem simulation (instead of preset spawn points and creatures wandering aimlessly, you could imagine a world where you could displace them from their original habitat), or a built-in urban simulation of some sort that the players could interact with, or something like that.
But a game like AO doesn't provide anything that would be fun playing with as a sandbox game. You can kill things, and then they respawn. That's pretty much all that the game offers.
We need the RPG as in MMORPG..not just MMO.I remember I got my first computer in 98 and then i found a little game called Meridian 59..Talk about a sense of wonder...Not only funcom but I don't see any developer at the present that makes anything but just generic kill this ....fetch that....go there..fetch that..Ad nauseum ......they are good for Diablo 2 fans..Sigh
"And Diablo2 is 10000x more popular than Meridian 59.
Hack & slash is fun. The letters RPG are in MMORPG just because of history. Diablo 2 is called a RPG too. It is all semantics."
Not fun for everyone......10000X less roleplaying also.
Games like UO and AC1 were attempts at seamless worlds. AC1 had real time dodging SERVER SIDE, run-and-gun spell casting, dynamic classification, mobs that 'grew', server side collision, and the whole works In UO you could own houses, dynamic classification (use based), impact in the world itself, light barriers between newb and veteran, etc These newer MMOs are a regression of a sorts
I wish some of the newer MMOs would take a BIG step back in the graphics department an spend the extra time/resources on building upon the things that games like UO and AC started. Seamless worlds, a massive, complex skill system, features, features, features...
Hell, Id be willing to go all the way back to 2D (within reason) if it means that I could play a truely massive, complex MMO. People keep saying it, but if you make a ground based version of EVE (with some changes) youd really have something.
You know what's funny? In any open world MMO you play, it's highly unlikely to find more players in an area the size of one of AoCs zones than the AoC player limit. Open worlds are highly overrated. Once you're out of tortage you get to explore vast zones. Anyone remember EQ1-2?... yeah, they had zones, and still turned out to be good games, isn't that weird?
What was good about EQ2 I remem that was our first instanced MMO we ever saw. my buddy and I were talking to the same NPC but we were in different instances. We were like tripping out. Then we finally figured out what instances were and joined each other
Finally we get to the towns hoping to see hundreds of players all in one place and what do ya know we are split again. then we go outside to kill some wildlife and what do ya know they sharded that too
I left EQ2 over that it didnt feel like an MMO too me. I hate to say this but I left it for WoW which felt like 100x an MMO at the time. I did miss the nice sound track and well done characters in EQ2 thats bout it. didnt miss the crafting or lack of pvp at launch or team debt XP etc
Back before battlegrounds I remem WoW surged in a big way in world pvp somewhat. Well it got a little better. You saw hundreds of players at Tarren mill. but then blizz ruined it
Some people like instanced MMO but I dont and it makes the pvp suffer (edit- to clarify I am speaking of EQ2 here)
I think you still haven’t figured out what instances are. EQ2 is a zoned world and it does allow multiple copies of the same zone but it was nowhere close to the first game to do this. In MMO parlance an instance is when the game takes you and your group outside of the shared world and puts you in a private area all your own. EQ2 does some of this but less then most games on the market.
For programmers there is little distinction. Server side they are spawning a copy of the world for a selection of people. You are in an instance in EQ2 when they shard the entire region. Eq2 does it too much of this and the sad state of the game at launch was pretty inexcusable. I hear AoC gamers talking about running out of quests at Lvl 40+. We ran out of quests in EQ2 wayyyyyy sooner
If you want the get into correct programming terminology everything in every MMO is an instance. Every object must be “instantiated” before you can use it, so every geographical area is an “instance” every piece of gear you have is an “instance”, every mob is an “instance” every player avatar is an “instance”.
While correct this use of the word instance clearly isn’t useful for the discussion at hand. To a player, instances are exactly what I outlined above, a separate private zone that is not part of the shared world.
EQ2 does have instance, but it has just as many shared dungeons and of course overland areas are shared as well. On occasion it will spawn a second copy of a zone to help deal with overpopulation, and this is definitely a very good thing. It has no downside whatsoever, unless of course you don’t know what an instance is but have heard people complain about them.
BTW if you claim you “ran out of quests” in EQ2 you have gone from misinformed to flat out dishonesty. EQ2 is the only game on the market when people actually turn off their xp so they don’t out level quests. There are a few level ranges where the quests are mediocre but there are 5000+ quests in the game. Running out is almost impossible.
Games like UO and AC1 were attempts at seamless worlds. AC1 had real time dodging SERVER SIDE, run-and-gun spell casting, dynamic classification, mobs that 'grew', server side collision, and the whole works In UO you could own houses, dynamic classification (use based), impact in the world itself, light barriers between newb and veteran, etc These newer MMOs are a regression of a sorts
I wish some of the newer MMOs would take a BIG step back in the graphics department an spend the extra time/resources on building upon the things that games like UO and AC started. Seamless worlds, a massive, complex skill system, features, features, features...
Hell, Id be willing to go all the way back to 2D (within reason) if it means that I could play a truely massive, complex MMO. People keep saying it, but if you make a ground based version of EVE (with some changes) youd really have something.
I'd play a 2D fantasy version of EVE over any other MMORPG title out right now. No questions asked.
The other 3 cores in my cpu and extra 2gigs of ram can go search for aliens via seti@home for all I care.
It is the quality gameplay that I crave! Not the goddam polygons and the oh-so-exciting sfx!
It breaks my heart to see all this new fantastic processing power and bandwidth wasted on mere superficial fluff. With those assets we could have vast dynamic true virtual worlds instead of glorified home-based merry-go-rounds. Meh...
True. EVE is exactly what MMOs 2008 should be. And luckily for us all , it is successful.
If anything exists that will persuade developers that Massive Simulation Sandbox concept still works , and that people actually want to play it.
Its EVE ...
Wow EVE sucks. Talk about loading screens. You're traveling more in that game than doing anything else. The battle system sucks. There's nothing fun about it. You're in space, you target some freakin space pirate, press your button, and boom. pirates dead, and go loot. That's it.
EVE sucks and I have no clue how it's gotten so popular.
Oh yea, don't forget the DAYS AND WEEKS it takes to level reseach. Yea great game.
Our friend above clearly demonstrated why there should be variety in the market and why bashing it is a folly. As long as there is a game for everyone, gamers get to be happy
Our friend above clearly demonstrated why there should be variety in the market and why bashing it is a folly. As long as there is a game for everyone, gamers get to be happy
The problem is that there is a gazzilion linear treadmills out there and just one sandbox... and that one is space sim where you can't walk around and shoot people in the face with your blaster gun...
What I see is that linear treadmills are getting dumber and more linear with each new iteration (lol, universal instancing is just the newest insult added to the injury) and a new open-world freeform MMORPG is nowhere to be seen.
My two remaining hopes are WAR which offers a very dynamic player-driven world wrapped in a standard "quest and level" disguise and Darkfall which... is Darkfall. Nuff said.
If both of those fail I'll take a vacation and... dunno, read books or something.
Originally posted by Xasapis Our friend above clearly demonstrated why there should be variety in the market and why bashing it is a folly. As long as there is a game for everyone, gamers get to be happy
Games like UO and AC1 were attempts at seamless worlds. AC1 had real time dodging SERVER SIDE, run-and-gun spell casting, dynamic classification, mobs that 'grew', server side collision, and the whole works In UO you could own houses, dynamic classification (use based), impact in the world itself, light barriers between newb and veteran, etc These newer MMOs are a regression of a sorts
I wish some of the newer MMOs would take a BIG step back in the graphics department an spend the extra time/resources on building upon the things that games like UO and AC started. Seamless worlds, a massive, complex skill system, features, features, features...
Hell, Id be willing to go all the way back to 2D (within reason) if it means that I could play a truely massive, complex MMO. People keep saying it, but if you make a ground based version of EVE (with some changes) youd really have something.
I'd play a 2D fantasy version of EVE over any other MMORPG title out right now. No questions asked.
The other 3 cores in my cpu and extra 2gigs of ram can go search for aliens via seti@home for all I care.
It is the quality gameplay that I crave! Not the goddam polygons and the oh-so-exciting sfx!
It breaks my heart to see all this new fantastic processing power and bandwidth wasted on mere superficial fluff. With those assets we could have vast dynamic true virtual worlds instead of glorified home-based merry-go-rounds. Meh...
You know its kinda funny. There are a lot of people that claim they would play a 2D version of "name game here" over "name game here". When it actually comes down to it how many people would actually forgo the graphics to play a 2d game again? I think most of it is hot air to try and prove a point. Graphics may not be everything but if that were the case we would all still be playing MUDs.
It's a Jeep thing. . . _______ |___| \_______/ = |||||| = |X| \*........*/ |X| |X|_________|X| You wouldn't understand
I'd play a 2D fantasy version of EVE over any other MMORPG title out right now. No questions asked. The other 3 cores in my cpu and extra 2gigs of ram can go search for aliens via seti@home for all I care. It is the quality gameplay that I crave! Not the goddam polygons and the oh-so-exciting sfx! It breaks my heart to see all this new fantastic processing power and bandwidth wasted on mere superficial fluff. With those assets we could have vast dynamic true virtual worlds instead of glorified home-based merry-go-rounds. Meh...
Originally posted by Locklain You know its kinda funny. There are a lot of people that claim they would play a 2D version of "name game here" over "name game here". When it actually comes down to it how many people would actually forgo the graphics to play a 2d game again? I think most of it is hot air to try and prove a point. Graphics may not be everything but if that were the case we would all still be playing MUDs.
Obviously, most (if not all) of us would prefer 3D over 2D. And, Im sure that more of us would also prefer to have "great" graphics rather than dated graphics. However, it gets to the point where graphics are not nearly as important as the rest of the game, for some of us at least. How far back are we willing to go on the graphical time line? That depends.
At the least, I know I could handle an MMO that has dated, yet stylish, 3D graphics. Of course, if you go too far back with 3D though, Id just prefer to have a clean 2D game.
Good graphics are nice and catchy at first, but they wont keep me playing a game. Not to mention, for all their effort and time/resources spent, MMOs still get crushed (in the graphics department) by single player games. So, I really dont see the point in even trying to keep up.
MMORPG genre is bleeding , dying on the ground.... And there goes Funcom with AOC - It is a FUN game. But everything that MMO stands for is removed....It is just a collection of small areas that can barely hold 50 players in same instance - connected with loading screens. Player interaction is brought to the bare minimum. Exploration is removed.Crafting is a funny minigame. Trading is pointless. It is still fun game. But it is not MMO. It is not Massive.... But FUNCOM succeds! It is a bestseller !
I don't think it has much to do with Conan, it has to do with the state of things as they are. If you are not a fan of WoW, what do you have left to hang your hat on? You can go play one of the "old school" MMO's, but are they really massive? Not any more than Conan really because there just aren't many people playing these games. Or you can try one of the newer ones, but EQ2 and LOTRO are pretty much the same as WoW and TR is but a shell of what it could have been/should have been. There's EvE for some of you, but not many of you have been lured by it either. So what's an MMO addict to do?
Well you can continue to wait for something to come along that really entertains you, or you can do like a lot of have apparently done and compromise with Conan. Sure it has some nice new features like the graphics and the combat possibilities, but what did they sacrifice to get there? They sacrificed choice. Many of the folks that enjoyed WoW but have grown tired of it won't even be able to boot up Conan because of the high system requirements. And those that can, have had to sacrifice a seamless world for one that's carved up into pieces and fed to you a little piece at a time.
But part of this is to blame on the gamers themselves. There's plenty who have screamed over and over that they wanted they graphics. The more detail the better and damn the requirements and damn the playability. Just give me the graphics! Well now they have gotten what they wanted. Vanguard attempted it but they couldn't pull it off. Conan went a different route to give the people what they want, graphics and more graphics without the problems that Vanguard had, but without a few other things as well. So we'll see for just how many the graphics are really the be all and end all. It's only been out a very short time and the graphics are all brand spanking new and shiny. Let's give it a couple months when the shine fades and see what's left. Let's see how many will still be playing. It's too early to make a prediction.
Lobo I've been reading your post for a long time now. I haven't really always agreed with you, but I've always respected your opinion and comments. On this though, this is probably the first time I've looked at a post of yours, and had to lower my head in shame. I'm sorry, but just like the other guy that said something similar in another thread. I just don't agree with your comments on the matter. I was going to go into a long explanation over it, but you've already made up your mind or it. So it's really not worth it to spend 30 - 40 minutes writing a post.
The only thing I will say though is this. I hear almost EVERYONE that agrees with threads like this. Saying something along the lines of "I wish <insert new game here> was more like <insert old game here>". The old games you think are so great are still around till this day (except for a few). There is nothing preventing you from going back to these games. Too many people dismiss new games without even giving them a chance. If those games were so special to you, by all means go back to that game if it's still running. Stop asking for new games to be like those old games.
In War - Victory. In Peace - Vigilance. In Death - Sacrifice.
EvE Online, Darkfall coming, WAR coming and may deliver, Jumpgate Evolution and a few others. Then with the continuation of broadband and rigs being improved companies can produce games like AoC but on a massive open world scale without loading screens. However the trap is they try and make a single player game in an open world. EVE and Darkfall are sandbox games therefore they will be around a lot longer as the content is almost fully player generated. There is a place and market for all types.
Comments
I'm not going to toss salt at Age of Conan because I havent played retail yet but come on the alpha MMOs were way ahead of their time. Too far ahead. People weren't ready
Games like UO and AC1 were attempts at seamless worlds. AC1 had real time dodging SERVER SIDE, run-and-gun spell casting, dynamic classification, mobs that 'grew', server side collision, and the whole works
In UO you could own houses, dynamic classification (use based), impact in the world itself, light barriers between newb and veteran, etc
These newer MMOs are a regression of a sorts
Again, I'm not going to toss salt at AoC right now because this is something I only do after I reach high level in a game. But this is the general consensus amongst many old skool players that fully appreciated the direction of games back then
But if you're a fan of WoW and their ilk- perhaps you see EQ as a major progression which is probably the way most newcomers may see it too
Well Vajuras i agree with you about regression, we cant compare the seamless worlds of the mmo's you mentioned (i still cant forget the first time i saw my older brother playing AC,no words to describe the excitiment) on terms of freedom or unique ideas on gameplay but they are long gone now and we have what we have now,so my point is as mentioned above that(even if some of these things were done in the past) we will have some features that people like in this genre implemented (once again maybe) in future games and also new gameplay(the most important) and who knows the outcome might be something stunning(i am not reffering to already announced titles).
Uh, the main developer of Vanguard might have been possibly drug addicted - there is only one very obscure source who ever claimed that - but even if that was the case, that doesnt mean his project was a scam.
Other than that, I really dont understand people who complain about AoC. Wasnt all that already known a long time before release ? Why do you complain about it now ? Dont you inform yourself about a game before you play it ?
And I dont think AoC will be the end of MMOs.
fair enough but I would add to your post that EVE Online has taken the AC1/UO model forward whereas everyone coexists on 1 server (40k+ concurrent players), realtime collision detection server side, no instancing ever (even in a mission a player can jump in via probing), player owned terriority, etc
EVE Online took that model forward. I see other MMOs as a regression of a sort. But I admit I did see WoW as a weid sort of progression in that it established that it is important to try to make a product accessible. However it has inadvertantly changed the face of MMOs today because its just a bit too strong. But hey, I always said Blizzard was blessed. They earned my respect way back when on consoles
Brad is a awsome developer. He is, however, a weak manager over an entire project with the final say so. People knew Smedley would bear down on them, and that is why brad was able to be head of the EQ team for Verant. He second guessed himself, and allowed those beneath him to run his project.
He now knows a very important rule. If your hated for something make DAMN sure it was your way. Worst thing to be thought of as a failure in an aspect that you didnt have total control over, in his in case, excercise his control.
You fail to understand that AoC has some things that were more heavy than let known by the developers and PR since the NDA was never fully lifted. To be more candid; you have no reason to tell someone who respected the rules of NDA and neither pried or spoke what the game was all about. How heavily the instances are and how the crafting really is has bothered a good amount of people who thought by what the marketing put out was alittle different. All of us who have a game breaking deal with AoC are not uneducated customers who do not understand the meaning of compromise.
As Funcom should have learned with AO, you only get one chance to make a first impression. It doesnt matter how many boxes you can sell by over-hyping and lying about what features will be in the game, if most of those players leave again when they discover whats really inside.
And Diablo2 is 10000x more popular than Meridian 59.
Hack & slash is fun. The letters RPG are in MMORPG just because of history. Diablo 2 is called a RPG too. It is all semantics.
I'm just going to hilight those words from your post: "virtual simulation", because they strike me as odd, especially when applied to AO - a game that I played intensively for a couple years. So I'm going to take it as an example, but I don't think the other oldies you mentioned are much better about that particular point.
I fail to see what exactly it is that you think AO is a simulation of. Is there an ecosystem simulation in there that I somehow missed? Is there some kind of social interaction simulation where NPC do actual stuff, that a player can interfere with, or affect in some way?
Is there something making the world evolve and change over time?
Because what I remember are mobs wandering aimlessly, respawning when killed, and... That's pretty much all of it. Nothing complex, either. I don't really get where is that "complexity" in AO that you're raving about.
Take wow, remove the quests, and you have AO (random assemblages of rooms filled with random mobs and an object to click somewhere don't count as quests).
Please, please don't tell me that it's the character development system with its hundred of skills (most of which were pointless), and the implants that you miss? Because if you didn't know the cookie cutter templates for those things for your class, it was about as exciting as starting at an excel spreadsheet for hours. If you DID know the cookie cutter templates, all you had to do was applying them. WoW just streamline this process by avoiding to present the player with a seemingly large amount of possible choices where only a handful of them are actually useful.
WoW doesn't remove anything from such a game, it merely demonstrate a certain way to build an actual game on top of something like AO.
I do agree that there are probably some other, perhaps more open-ended and sandboxish direction that could be taken than WoW, but old games like AO weren't it. They weren't much of anything, compared to current games. The universe of AO is actually pretty nice and there is something enticing about it, but I never could pull myself to play AO again after WoW - there just isn't much gameplay in there beyond the random respawns, and AO's combat system merely looks like a rough, early draft of WoW's. There are actual, WoW like quests in AO indeed, but they don't suffice to advance your level, it's all way too diluted by the need of mind numbing grinding.
Now a sandbox game, that could be interesting in a universe actually running some kind of simulation that the player could interact with (and thus slowly reshape the universe). It could be an ecosystem simulation (instead of preset spawn points and creatures wandering aimlessly, you could imagine a world where you could displace them from their original habitat), or a built-in urban simulation of some sort that the players could interact with, or something like that.
But a game like AO doesn't provide anything that would be fun playing with as a sandbox game. You can kill things, and then they respawn. That's pretty much all that the game offers.
"And Diablo2 is 10000x more popular than Meridian 59.
Hack & slash is fun. The letters RPG are in MMORPG just because of history. Diablo 2 is called a RPG too. It is all semantics."
Not fun for everyone......10000X less roleplaying also.
I wish some of the newer MMOs would take a BIG step back in the graphics department an spend the extra time/resources on building upon the things that games like UO and AC started. Seamless worlds, a massive, complex skill system, features, features, features...
Hell, Id be willing to go all the way back to 2D (within reason) if it means that I could play a truely massive, complex MMO. People keep saying it, but if you make a ground based version of EVE (with some changes) youd really have something.
What was good about EQ2 I remem that was our first instanced MMO we ever saw. my buddy and I were talking to the same NPC but we were in different instances. We were like tripping out. Then we finally figured out what instances were and joined each other
Finally we get to the towns hoping to see hundreds of players all in one place and what do ya know we are split again. then we go outside to kill some wildlife and what do ya know they sharded that too
I left EQ2 over that it didnt feel like an MMO too me. I hate to say this but I left it for WoW which felt like 100x an MMO at the time. I did miss the nice sound track and well done characters in EQ2 thats bout it. didnt miss the crafting or lack of pvp at launch or team debt XP etc
Back before battlegrounds I remem WoW surged in a big way in world pvp somewhat. Well it got a little better. You saw hundreds of players at Tarren mill. but then blizz ruined it
Some people like instanced MMO but I dont and it makes the pvp suffer (edit- to clarify I am speaking of EQ2 here)
I think you still haven’t figured out what instances are. EQ2 is a zoned world and it does allow multiple copies of the same zone but it was nowhere close to the first game to do this. In MMO parlance an instance is when the game takes you and your group outside of the shared world and puts you in a private area all your own. EQ2 does some of this but less then most games on the market.
For programmers there is little distinction. Server side they are spawning a copy of the world for a selection of people. You are in an instance in EQ2 when they shard the entire region. Eq2 does it too much of this and the sad state of the game at launch was pretty inexcusable. I hear AoC gamers talking about running out of quests at Lvl 40+. We ran out of quests in EQ2 wayyyyyy sooner
I wish some of the newer MMOs would take a BIG step back in the graphics department an spend the extra time/resources on building upon the things that games like UO and AC started. Seamless worlds, a massive, complex skill system, features, features, features...
Hell, Id be willing to go all the way back to 2D (within reason) if it means that I could play a truely massive, complex MMO. People keep saying it, but if you make a ground based version of EVE (with some changes) youd really have something.
I'd play a 2D fantasy version of EVE over any other MMORPG title out right now. No questions asked.
The other 3 cores in my cpu and extra 2gigs of ram can go search for aliens via seti@home for all I care.
It is the quality gameplay that I crave! Not the goddam polygons and the oh-so-exciting sfx!
It breaks my heart to see all this new fantastic processing power and bandwidth wasted on mere superficial fluff. With those assets we could have vast dynamic true virtual worlds instead of glorified home-based merry-go-rounds. Meh...
True. EVE is exactly what MMOs 2008 should be. And luckily for us all , it is successful.
If anything exists that will persuade developers that Massive Simulation Sandbox concept still works , and that people actually want to play it.
Its EVE ...
Wow EVE sucks. Talk about loading screens. You're traveling more in that game than doing anything else. The battle system sucks. There's nothing fun about it. You're in space, you target some freakin space pirate, press your button, and boom. pirates dead, and go loot. That's it.
EVE sucks and I have no clue how it's gotten so popular.
Oh yea, don't forget the DAYS AND WEEKS it takes to level reseach. Yea great game.
Our friend above clearly demonstrated why there should be variety in the market and why bashing it is a folly. As long as there is a game for everyone, gamers get to be happy
The problem is that there is a gazzilion linear treadmills out there and just one sandbox... and that one is space sim where you can't walk around and shoot people in the face with your blaster gun...
What I see is that linear treadmills are getting dumber and more linear with each new iteration (lol, universal instancing is just the newest insult added to the injury) and a new open-world freeform MMORPG is nowhere to be seen.
My two remaining hopes are WAR which offers a very dynamic player-driven world wrapped in a standard "quest and level" disguise and Darkfall which... is Darkfall. Nuff said.
If both of those fail I'll take a vacation and... dunno, read books or something.
QFT
I wish some of the newer MMOs would take a BIG step back in the graphics department an spend the extra time/resources on building upon the things that games like UO and AC started. Seamless worlds, a massive, complex skill system, features, features, features...
Hell, Id be willing to go all the way back to 2D (within reason) if it means that I could play a truely massive, complex MMO. People keep saying it, but if you make a ground based version of EVE (with some changes) youd really have something.
I'd play a 2D fantasy version of EVE over any other MMORPG title out right now. No questions asked.
The other 3 cores in my cpu and extra 2gigs of ram can go search for aliens via seti@home for all I care.
It is the quality gameplay that I crave! Not the goddam polygons and the oh-so-exciting sfx!
It breaks my heart to see all this new fantastic processing power and bandwidth wasted on mere superficial fluff. With those assets we could have vast dynamic true virtual worlds instead of glorified home-based merry-go-rounds. Meh...
You know its kinda funny. There are a lot of people that claim they would play a 2D version of "name game here" over "name game here". When it actually comes down to it how many people would actually forgo the graphics to play a 2d game again? I think most of it is hot air to try and prove a point. Graphics may not be everything but if that were the case we would all still be playing MUDs.
_______
|___
\_______/
=
|X| \*........*/ |X|
|X|_________|X|
You wouldn't understand
There is hope on the horizon, three games i'm looking forward to:
1. Mortal Online
2. Darkfall Online
3. straybulletgames.com (From the creators of Shadowbane)
At the least, I know I could handle an MMO that has dated, yet stylish, 3D graphics. Of course, if you go too far back with 3D though, Id just prefer to have a clean 2D game.
Good graphics are nice and catchy at first, but they wont keep me playing a game. Not to mention, for all their effort and time/resources spent, MMOs still get crushed (in the graphics department) by single player games. So, I really dont see the point in even trying to keep up.
Well you can continue to wait for something to come along that really entertains you, or you can do like a lot of have apparently done and compromise with Conan. Sure it has some nice new features like the graphics and the combat possibilities, but what did they sacrifice to get there? They sacrificed choice. Many of the folks that enjoyed WoW but have grown tired of it won't even be able to boot up Conan because of the high system requirements. And those that can, have had to sacrifice a seamless world for one that's carved up into pieces and fed to you a little piece at a time.
But part of this is to blame on the gamers themselves. There's plenty who have screamed over and over that they wanted they graphics. The more detail the better and damn the requirements and damn the playability. Just give me the graphics! Well now they have gotten what they wanted. Vanguard attempted it but they couldn't pull it off. Conan went a different route to give the people what they want, graphics and more graphics without the problems that Vanguard had, but without a few other things as well. So we'll see for just how many the graphics are really the be all and end all. It's only been out a very short time and the graphics are all brand spanking new and shiny. Let's give it a couple months when the shine fades and see what's left. Let's see how many will still be playing. It's too early to make a prediction.
Lobo I've been reading your post for a long time now. I haven't really always agreed with you, but I've always respected your opinion and comments. On this though, this is probably the first time I've looked at a post of yours, and had to lower my head in shame. I'm sorry, but just like the other guy that said something similar in another thread. I just don't agree with your comments on the matter. I was going to go into a long explanation over it, but you've already made up your mind or it. So it's really not worth it to spend 30 - 40 minutes writing a post.
The only thing I will say though is this. I hear almost EVERYONE that agrees with threads like this. Saying something along the lines of "I wish <insert new game here> was more like <insert old game here>". The old games you think are so great are still around till this day (except for a few). There is nothing preventing you from going back to these games. Too many people dismiss new games without even giving them a chance. If those games were so special to you, by all means go back to that game if it's still running. Stop asking for new games to be like those old games.
In War - Victory.
In Peace - Vigilance.
In Death - Sacrifice.
EvE Online, Darkfall coming, WAR coming and may deliver, Jumpgate Evolution and a few others. Then with the continuation of broadband and rigs being improved companies can produce games like AoC but on a massive open world scale without loading screens. However the trap is they try and make a single player game in an open world. EVE and Darkfall are sandbox games therefore they will be around a lot longer as the content is almost fully player generated. There is a place and market for all types.
quote the poet..
But this comes off as just another one of your rhetoric filled meatless rants.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Totally agreed to OP post.
mmorpg games should be massive,fun,interesting,big world.
Just playing AoC make me wonder why i need pay 15€ every month... its like SP game just with mini chat.
mmorpg genre dies if graphics are only imporant for devs.