Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Be ready to put up, or shut up.

BladinBladin Member UncommonPosts: 1,089

This topic is in regards to the fanbois on this forum.

We aren't new to online gaming, mmorpgs aren't new and unique.

We don't have to deal with your crappy release anymore.  Yet the excuse that people still use "It's release, give it time to polish.  The other games weren't polished at release either"  Simply doesn't fly, and it's been proven OVER AND OVER.  Yet the fans still use it.

If you release a mmo, you have to be ready to go.  You have to be able to stand against the current mmo titans.  If you release space game you have to compete vs EVE, if you release a leveling quester, you have to compete with WoW.  If you release a PvP centric game, you have to compete with the pvp aspect of current mmos.

Not to just be something different, but vastly inferior(AoC and WAR).  And then hope to be able to compete with the main games in a few years.  Because in a few years, those games you might be FINALLY catching up to, have already moved ahead into bigger and better territory.

Why would anyone settle for a poorly released game, when they have the option to play ones which have already established themselves?  They wouldn't.

And us as gamers need to realize this, and stop letting developers believe this.

Halfway through development, a developer should have a clear idea of how much they will truely be able to get done by release.  The problem is they still TRY to get too much in. And nothing is truely remarkable and nothing really makes it stand out.

 

Give it a few months?  Maybe for some bugs

Give it a few years? Maybe to get extra content to last me after i experience the content in game for those years

 

Sorry, but there is no excuse for mmos to not come out on day 1 swinging.  If it's a buggy unbalanced, contentless, empty mess, then there is no excuse, the game simply isn't very good.

And it will die.

AoC and WAR both suffered the same fate, high box sales, TERRIBLE retention.  Tabula Rasa is going down in flames, HGL is going down. AA died, AC2 died. Vanguard, and MxO both would have died without SOE's life support.

Then theres the few which are still clinging onto hope but never really amounted to anything, PotBS, ryzom, shadowbane, swg, ww2o.

image

«13

Comments

  • GruntiesGrunties Member Posts: 859

    WoW was all those things you described at release. Seems to be doing fine.

    Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence.
    Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.

  • BladinBladin Member UncommonPosts: 1,089

    When WoW came out, it was stil lduring the mmo dark ages, there wasn't a million other choices, there were no mainstream mmos.  There simply was a few very small(in comparison) games, which were already in their own niche.  What could you compare WoW to?  Everquest? DAoC?  It was much more polished then either of these games when it comes to pure gameplay(disregarding server lag, due to the underestimated population boom).  It wasn't as unfriendly as EQ, and it Didn't have DAoCs... "Old" feeling.

     

    Beyond the server lag issues, and the unbalancing here and there.  WoW was way ahead of its time in terms of design.(sandbox fans can attack me here)

    IT's been 4 years, theres been countless other mmorpgs coming out, free ones, AAA ones. And they still are really only valid when trying to compete with WoW... 4 years ago.

    Thats where the problem arises

    image

  • ZorvanZorvan Member CommonPosts: 8,912

    The crutch known as "patching" is what keeps game quality down at release.

    Look at console gaming. Until the PS3 and Xbox360 came about, developers HAD to get it right the first time. There were a few buggy games released across various consoles, and every one of them flopped from word of mouth quickly.

    Now, with the inclusion of internet and the hard drive, it is more and more common to see games rushed to consoles with "patching" available at release.

     

  • IcoGamesIcoGames Member Posts: 2,360
    Originally posted by Zorvan


    The crutch known as "patching" is what keeps game quality down at release. 

     

    QFT

    Studios need to adapt to releasing a well polished game.  I mean c'mon ... who didn't get the memo that the HMS Potential set sail with Brad McQuaid?  Whether it's fair to compare newly released titles to WoW is immaterial; players want to play a fully fleshed-out, stable game on day one.

    WAR didn't necessarily suffer from stability issues, it suffered from a poor decision to include those fooking community sucking scenarios and offering really nothing en liu of any other fantasy themepark.  Why EA didn't just create DAoC 2.0 is beyond me. 

    Ico
    Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.

  • PatchDayPatchDay Member Posts: 1,641
    Originally posted by Bladin


    ...
     
    Beyond the server lag issues, and the unbalancing here and there.  WoW was way ahead of its time in terms of design.(sandbox fans can attack me here)
    IT's been 4 years, theres been countless other mmorpgs coming out, free ones, AAA ones. And they still are really only valid when trying to compete with WoW... 4 years ago.
    Thats where the problem arises

     

    How was WoW ahead of its time? Let's compare-

    WoW vs Ultima Online

     

    UO Innovations:

    Realtime collision detection

    Indepth character development where you could be anything you wanted

    Seamless worlds

    Player Housing allows Players to impact the World DIRECTLY and Change it

    Sailing in a boat

    Dyes

    Gear that had minor stats to them. Compare this to shallow WoW with its epix

    Veteran and Newbie could team together and enjoy each others company

    Animals dropped logically what you'd expect them to

     

    WoW Innovations:

    Heavy handed Quest system that in further drives a wedge in the community. Helped bring about single player gaming

    Battlegrounds with its ridicilous Capture the Flag that should have stayed in FPS

    Even worse, Arena season grinds

     

     

    Did World of Warcraft even bring one thing to the table that was unique? One thing??? It was a polished game sure. Sure, it was more fun then EQ2 I'd give you that.

     

    But innovative, wash out your mouth please. Correction, you said "ahead of its time"

     

    What the----???? It's a regression. UO was way ahead of its time. Leaps and bounds ahead of its time.

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332

    Well you need to realize there is a real world outside of the gaming world.A lot of developers probably every single one of them will not meet there deadlines for there entire pre planned content.I would garner a bet that 100% of the games out there have removed some content in there initial releases.Another fact is that 100% of the games out there will have patches made up within the first two weeks,so they are also admitting there games need improvements.

    You have to also realize that these developers have time lines and budgets to follow,you think they are just going to eat millions of dollars?Nope they will find some way to hasten there launch.Heck look no further than EQ2  and WOW releases,they were both battling each other to see who could release first,both moved up there launch dates dramatically.You think they all of a sudden they were ready?NO WAY they released there games because of marketing and the Christmas time line and competition with each other .

    Like i already said,you can bet your ass that 100% of the games out are released unfinished or have removed content.This is why that one Blizzard rep stated they choose to tell there clients NOTHING,that avoids breaking promises,lies and people can't flame them for not releasing content they never knew existed.Then of course Blizzard as well as all the other developers will sneak there removed content into updates or even low ball us consumers by selling it to us in expansions.

    Honestly,i think Square Enix bulls all the developers over.I have seen VERY FEW patches ever released to fix there game,only a patch to make it Vista useable[expected] and of course update patches for holiday events.There game FFXI was completely ready and update free on launch,of course that is the USA launch ,i guess it is a fair assumption that they probably already fixed issues in there JPN release one year earlier.However just watch every single game that comes out and you wil lsee the patches rolling in almost instantly,at least give the developers credit for doing it ,rather than sit idle on there product.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • doobsterdoobster Member Posts: 736
    Originally posted by PatchDay

    Originally posted by Bladin


    ...
     
    Beyond the server lag issues, and the unbalancing here and there.  WoW was way ahead of its time in terms of design.(sandbox fans can attack me here)
    IT's been 4 years, theres been countless other mmorpgs coming out, free ones, AAA ones. And they still are really only valid when trying to compete with WoW... 4 years ago.
    Thats where the problem arises

     

    How was WoW ahead of its time? Let's compare-

    WoW vs Ultima Online

     

    UO Innovations:

    Realtime collision detection

    Indepth character development where you could be anything you wanted

    Seamless worlds

    Player Housing allows Players to impact the World DIRECTLY and Change it

    Sailing in a boat

    Dyes

    Gear that had minor stats to them. Compare this to shallow WoW with its epix

    Veteran and Newbie could team together and enjoy each others company

    Animals dropped logically what you'd expect them to

     

    WoW Innovations:

    Heavy handed Quest system that in further drives a wedge in the community. Helped bring about single player gaming

    Battlegrounds with its ridicilous Capture the Flag that should have stayed in FPS

    Even worse, Arena season grinds

     

     

    Did World of Warcraft even bring one thing to the table that was unique? One thing??? It was a polished game sure. Sure, it was more fun then EQ2 I'd give you that.

     

    But innovative, wash out your mouth please. Correction, you said "ahead of its time"

     

    What the----???? It's a regression. UO was way ahead of its time. Leaps and bounds ahead of its time.

    PatchDay,

     

    Every single post that i've read of yours is arguing with something completely irrelavent.  The topic is how developers need to release a more solid product.  Stop writing a book in reply to one little sentence of Bladin's post, especially when that sentance has NOTHING to do with his overall argument.

    You can bring up how WoW had no new innovations if it really helps YOUR argument (which is????), otherwise you're just nitpicking on something completely irrelavent to the topic at hand.

     

    To the OP:

    Well said, I'd have to agree.  Preach it brotha.  Hopefully some new games will come out that can prove to compete with the big dogs and be stable/bug-free at launch.

  • BladinBladin Member UncommonPosts: 1,089
    Originally posted by PatchDay

    Originally posted by Bladin


    ...
     
    Beyond the server lag issues, and the unbalancing here and there.  WoW was way ahead of its time in terms of design.(sandbox fans can attack me here)
    IT's been 4 years, theres been countless other mmorpgs coming out, free ones, AAA ones. And they still are really only valid when trying to compete with WoW... 4 years ago.
    Thats where the problem arises

     

    How was WoW ahead of its time? Let's compare-

    WoW vs Ultima Online

     

    UO Innovations:

    Realtime collision detection

    it's a 2d movement grid that you can't go into the same location as someone else.  Very basic for 2d games.  

    Indepth character development where you could be anything you wanted

    No, you really couldn't.  There were limits to how many skills you could get.  And every single character option had less flavor then a wow class.  I'm sorry that you are stuck in nostalgia, but even though you could choose the skills to raise, all the skills were VERY VERY GENERIC!

    Seamless worlds

    WoW was seemless with a few exceptions, the instances(which are better pve experiences then anything uo had/has).

    And the continents were seperate(seperate servers to alleviate lag and server burden)

    Player Housing allows Players to impact the World DIRECTLY and Change it

    Admittedly WoW doesn't have player housing.

    Sailing in a boat

    To travel to islands, wow doesn't have islands to travel to, hence no reason for boat travel.

    Dyes

    WoW uses a different gear system, they don't allow dyes, because that same model is used for one of the other 10000000000 other items and thats what makes them different.  The dye system could easily be added, they just choose not to.

    Gear that had minor stats to them. Compare this to shallow WoW with its epix

    How is this a good thing for UO?  It was for roleplayers, it wasn't a real game.

    Veteran and Newbie could team together and enjoy each others company

    The way wow works, a high level can go down and do low level content with a low level, and not recieve anything(but have fun, and this does happen.  A lot).  And if low levels went up and did high level content, they'd do that level ranges content before they got there.

    WoW simply wasn't designed for this.

    Animals dropped logically what you'd expect them to

     This has been laughed at about wow forever, and it is sorta funny to get plate items etc from their corpses, but it's hardly game defining.

    WoW Innovations:

    Heavy handed Quest system that in further drives a wedge in the community. Helped bring about single player gaming

    You obviously missed the memo, 90% of all players hated forced grouping, and enjoyed soloing with optional grouping.  IT's why wow succeeded. It's why FFXI's major complaint was finding groups, etc etc.

    This was a step forward in a big way.

    Battlegrounds with its ridicilous Capture the Flag that should have stayed in FPS

    I've always felt that it was kinda silly to have minigame style PvP.  But the fact is, they are fun, they are quick, and they brought about a decent competition between both sides.  Real world pvp slowly died away, but the system eventually changed to be more open rvr friendly.  Why didn't people resume?  Because people realized they didn't really want to do it since it's not that much fun.  It was simply their only option and they enjoyed it.

    Check out the new Bg and the new PvP zone, pretty good systems.

    Even worse, Arena season grinds

     I'm not a big fan of arena, but being higher rated in arena required way more skill then UO did in it's pvp, there's not even a comparison.  Try reaching 2200, go for it.  I dare you.  You can say "I don't want to grind"  People LOVE arena, they LOVE the competition, the fighting, and the work they put in.

     

    Did World of Warcraft even bring one thing to the table that was unique? One thing??? It was a polished game sure. Sure, it was more fun then EQ2 I'd give you that.

     Let's see

    Solo content, that was fun accessable, and required little-no preparation time.

    Group content, that was easy to get into, and offered rewards, and didn't require you to stop playing the game and wait to do.

    Smoother gameplay and combat.

    A lot of ease of life features.

    Just a overall good mmorpg

    But innovative, wash out your mouth please. Correction, you said "ahead of its time"

     IT was innovative, since it saved the mmo genre.  You can argue this all you want.  I'll bet you cash, right here, right now, that if WoW would not have come out.  The genre would not have seen many of the games that came out afterwards, we'd be living with EQ2 being the top dog mmo.  It pushed the idea of forced grouping, roleplay or boredom out of the window. 

    Darkfail might have actually been the most hyped, anticipated non-trolled mmo ever, since we wouldn't have anything to compare it to.

    What the----???? It's a regression. UO was way ahead of its time. Leaps and bounds ahead of its time.

    UO was very simplistic, it had a lot of elements which were very very basic, they just allowed freedom. 

    But it was also not regarded as being that perfect.  Do you fans honestly think that the game pre trammel was universely loved?  Heck no, they didn't change it just because THEY felt like it, they changed it because the PEOPLE were hating on it for what it was.

    It was great for being one of the first games to jump into the mmo genre.  But that's about it.

     

    image

  • buegurbuegur Member UncommonPosts: 457

    Never going to happen as no game designer can match or should we say better a game such as WoW that already has it right for that crowd, and has over 4 years worth of content to boot.  Using your criteria no game will ever match up and I guess you'll have to play whatever your playing now or just forget about any new MMO. 

  • BladinBladin Member UncommonPosts: 1,089
    Originally posted by Wizardry


    Well you need to realize there is a real world outside of the gaming world.A lot of developers probably every single one of them will not meet there deadlines for there entire pre planned content.I would garner a bet that 100% of the games out there have removed some content in there initial releases.Another fact is that 100% of the games out there will have patches made up within the first two weeks,so they are also admitting there games need improvements.
    Yes, this is true.
    You have to also realize that these developers have time lines and budgets to follow,you think they are just going to eat millions of dollars?Nope they will find some way to hasten there launch.Heck look no further than EQ2  and WOW releases,they were both battling each other to see who could release first,both moved up there launch dates dramatically.You think they all of a sudden they were ready?NO WAY they released there games because of marketing and the Christmas time line and competition with each other .
    Agreed
    Like i already said,you can bet your ass that 100% of the games out are released unfinished or have removed content.This is why that one Blizzard rep stated they choose to tell there clients NOTHING,that avoids breaking promises,lies and people can't flame them for not releasing content they never knew existed.Then of course Blizzard as well as all the other developers will sneak there removed content into updates or even low ball us consumers by selling it to us in expansions.
    If they remove the content because it wasn't done, then I don't see how you can call it lowballing and sneaking it in.  Blizz always wanted hero classes, and siege weapons, and they've been working on them since release, does that mean since they added one and them in wotlk that it's somehow less of a addition?


    But was wow hurting for lack of these @ release?  not really.
    Honestly,i think Square Enix bulls all the developers over.I have seen VERY FEW patches ever released to fix there game,only a patch to make it Vista useable[expected] and of course update patches for holiday events.There game FFXI was completely ready and update free on launch,of course that is the USA launch ,i guess it is a fair assumption that they probably already fixed issues in there JPN release one year earlier.However just watch every single game that comes out and you wil lsee the patches rolling in almost instantly,at least give the developers credit for doing it ,rather than sit idle on there product.

    Heres the thing.  Theres a big difference between having a few bugs, and being broken/empty.

    Let's look at wow.

    Servers were overcrowded, not a issue with the game

    The server system wasn't setup for that many people, a issue with the servers.

    A few bugged quests, to be expected

    A few bugged abilities, again to be expected.

     

    Then let's look at AoC

    Servers crashed a lot, but since they instanced zones each instance crashed seperately hence leaving a illusion of solidarity.  It's a release problem.

    Completely worthless classes, and almost every feat in the "talent trees" broken.  Not acceptable.

    BArren levels which required grinding to get through.

    COMPLETELY UNTESTED/BALANCED CRAFTING SYSTEM.

    Utterly trashy and shitty itemization system.

    Bugged instances

    Terrible respawn times on quest mobs.

    No PvP systems in place(acceptable with wow, since it had a decent pve system).  But AoCs PvE was terrible and broken also.

    Terrible world design.

    Huge Memory leaks.

     

    Can you honestly say that AoC was okay to release like that? Just because of patches.

    It's understandable to release with some bugs, perhaps server issues.  But the game itself should be whole and playable, with the majority in and working.(as wow was, again judging by the current mmorpg population, nobody expected wow to be as big of a hit as it was).

     

    I'll say it again.

    Us as gamers don't have to accept crappy releases, and poor games.  If developers can't cut the game on their budget.  It's not our fault, and they deserve to fail.

    We don't NEED to put up with it.  And look at WAR and AoCs floundering,  Vanguards failure, etc etc.  It's all proof of this.

    image

  • BladinBladin Member UncommonPosts: 1,089
    Originally posted by buegur


    Never going to happen as no game designer can match or should we say better a game such as WoW that already has it right for that crowd, and has over 4 years worth of content to boot.  Using your criteria no game will ever match up and I guess you'll have to play whatever your playing now or just forget about any new MMO. 

     

    No.

    It's not that complicated, it doesn't have to have more content than wow.

    It has to work, and have enough content for itself.

    If say, Sword of Truth online came out(random example). And it wasn't buggy, it had it's fair share of issues, and it was well designed and played well, and had enough content to last for a few months and proceeded on a good patching schedule it would work.

     

    What i'm saying is, we as gamers don't/won't/can't ACCEPT utter failures of releases. It's been proven over and over.

    Developers aren't realizing this.  And fans are still making excuses.  It's a double edged sword.

    Most developers know their game is going to flop hard after people have played it for awhile.  And guess what?  They still hype, since they want ot recoup their base costs.

    image

  • PatchDayPatchDay Member Posts: 1,641

    Our posts will get super long so I have to reply to sections:

    " Let's see

    Solo content, that was fun accessable, and required little-no preparation time.

    Group content, that was easy to get into, and offered rewards, and didn't require you to stop playing the game and wait to do.

    Smoother gameplay and combat.

    A lot of ease of life features.

    Just a overall good mmorpg"

     

    WoW didn't bring soloing to MMO genre. City of Heroes already had solo content. You can enter an instance and set the difficulty. you know this right you're a CoX player. And I believe it predates WoW.

    Group content was even easier in EQ2 at launch. You didnt have to stand around LFG in town. You went to the dungeon and just gradually added on party members. The entire dungeon was non-instanced except the bosses. I guess what you mean is WoW added the Warlock Teleports? Nope. City of Heroes already had "Teleport Friend"

    "The way wow works, a high level can go down and do low level content with a low level, and not recieve anything(but have fun, and this does happen. A lot). And if low levels went up and did high level content, they'd do that level ranges content before they got there."

    Seriously what lowbies welcome high levels? They totally destroy the mob XP. Sure you can just focus on quest XP. But this is horribly broken. City of Heroes at least had sidekicking and UO was even better

     

    " IT was innovative, since it saved the mmo genre. You can argue this all you want. I'll bet you cash, right here, right now, that if WoW would not have come out. The genre would not have seen many of the games that came out afterwards, we'd be living with EQ2 being the top dog mmo. It pushed the idea of forced grouping, roleplay or boredom out of the window."

     

    Let's see. SWG pre-CU would still be here. Many newer mmorpgs may actually have been original. MMORPGs would have been more complex, like UO/Meridian 59/AC1 were. More experimentation would have been tried. Many experts agree WoW changed everything and has been so successful publishers have no choice but to try to emulate it

     

     

     

     

  • MrListerSirMrListerSir Member Posts: 99
    Originally posted by Bladin


    Heres the thing.  Theres a big difference between having a few bugs, and being broken/empty.
    Let's look at wow.
    Servers were overcrowded, not a issue with the game
    The server system wasn't setup for that many people, a issue with the servers.
    A few bugged quests, to be expected
    A few bugged abilities, again to be expected.
     
    Then let's look at AoC
    Servers crashed a lot, but since they instanced zones each instance crashed seperately hence leaving a illusion of solidarity.  It's a release problem.
    Completely worthless classes, and almost every feat in the "talent trees" broken.  Not acceptable.
    BArren levels which required grinding to get through.
    COMPLETELY UNTESTED/BALANCED CRAFTING SYSTEM.
    Utterly trashy and shitty itemization system.
    Bugged instances
    Terrible respawn times on quest mobs.
    No PvP systems in place(acceptable with wow, since it had a decent pve system).  But AoCs PvE was terrible and broken also.
    Terrible world design.
    Huge Memory leaks.
     
    Can you honestly say that AoC was okay to release like that? Just because of patches.
    It's understandable to release with some bugs, perhaps server issues.  But the game itself should be whole and playable, with the majority in and working.(as wow was, again judging by the current mmorpg population, nobody expected wow to be as big of a hit as it was).
     
    I'll say it again.
    Us as gamers don't have to accept crappy releases, and poor games.  If developers can't cut the game on their budget.  It's not our fault, and they deserve to fail.
    We don't NEED to put up with it.  And look at WAR and AoCs floundering,  Vanguards failure, etc etc.  It's all proof of this.

     

    I agree with absolutely everything written, except the part about WAR "floundering", thats simply a fabrication of facts. It is far from "floundering" as you put it.

    If you wish to show me some numbers that prove otherwise, feel free. Until then, it remains a personal opinion with no facts to back up said opinion.

    The numbers they have released for current subs are solid, and are NOT formed based on people that no longer sub, but once did. So that argument goes right down the crapper.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I can see your epitaph now, on the day you expire. It will read "Wasted Potential".
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • PatchDayPatchDay Member Posts: 1,641
    Originally posted by Bladin



    Heres the thing.  Theres a big difference between having a few bugs, and being broken/empty.

    Let's look at wow.

    Servers were overcrowded, not a issue with the game

    The server system wasn't setup for that many people, a issue with the servers.

    A few bugged quests, to be expected

    A few bugged abilities, again to be expected.

     

    Then let's look at AoC

    Servers crashed a lot, but since they instanced zones each instance crashed seperately hence leaving a illusion of solidarity.  It's a release problem.

    Completely worthless classes, and almost every feat in the "talent trees" broken.  Not acceptable.

    BArren levels which required grinding to get through.

    COMPLETELY UNTESTED/BALANCED CRAFTING SYSTEM.

    Utterly trashy and shitty itemization system.

    Bugged instances

    Terrible respawn times on quest mobs.

    No PvP systems in place(acceptable with wow, since it had a decent pve system).  But AoCs PvE was terrible and broken also.

    Terrible world design.

    Huge Memory leaks.

     

    Can you honestly say that AoC was okay to release like that? Just because of patches.

    It's understandable to release with some bugs, perhaps server issues.  But the game itself should be whole and playable, with the majority in and working.(as wow was, again judging by the current mmorpg population, nobody expected wow to be as big of a hit as it was).

     

    I'll say it again.

    Us as gamers don't have to accept crappy releases, and poor games.  If developers can't cut the game on their budget.  It's not our fault, and they deserve to fail.

    We don't NEED to put up with it.  And look at WAR and AoCs floundering,  Vanguards failure, etc etc.  It's all proof of this.

     

    I agree with this post in it's context. Now, I'm not picking on Wizardry I liked his post too. But I like ths post.

     

    And I agree the games need to be at least stable right. At least WAR was stable at release along with LOTRO and some others.

     

    Not sure how WAR fits into your OP though

  • DeserttFoxxDeserttFoxx Member UncommonPosts: 2,402

    Despite how much sense the OP makes, there are still people trying to refute his point. Gamers need to stop settling for crappy games just because they have a big name behind them. Whether or not the game will be great in 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years is not the point, if it is not ready at launch, dont expect us to shell out 60 bucks and wait patiently for you patch the game up to an acceptable state.

     

    And the only reason they get away with it is, there are far too many people willing to accept this nonsense, by defending it , just read some of the replies to this thread, One person who isnt on the payroll defending this crap is far to many, but it seems we have even more then that actually vocally defending this nonsense.

    Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy

    Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman

    Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson

  • buegurbuegur Member UncommonPosts: 457

    "If say, Sword of Truth online came out(random example). And it wasn't buggy, it had it's fair share of issues, and it was well designed and played well, and had enough content to last for a few months and proceeded on a good patching schedule it would work.

     

    What i'm saying is, we as gamers don't/won't/can't ACCEPT utter failures of releases. It's been proven over and over.

     

     

    The problem with that is it's subjective, I say War is as good as it gets, while others say it's total trash.  I wanted a game where I can level doing RvR and not have to do quests while others just want to group and do high level raids.  We gamers all have our own ideas on what makes a game good and want the said game to be that game.  War is an example of a good release and maybe it does or doesn't meet your expectations but it is a good game for the RvR crowd.  It had no major flaws unlike AoC which released flawed, so lumping games like those two is just plain wrong in my opinion.  Many on this forum really should not play a game at release as they are always disappointed, wait a few months and than read what the game is about and decide if it's worth your money.

     

  • DeserttFoxxDeserttFoxx Member UncommonPosts: 2,402
    Originally posted by buegur


    "If say, Sword of Truth online came out(random example). And it wasn't buggy, it had it's fair share of issues, and it was well designed and played well, and had enough content to last for a few months and proceeded on a good patching schedule it would work.
     
    What i'm saying is, we as gamers don't/won't/can't ACCEPT utter failures of releases. It's been proven over and over.

     
     
    The problem with that is it's subjective, I say War is as good as it gets, while others say it's total trash.  I wanted a game where I can level doing RvR and not have to do quests while others just want to group and do high level raids.  We gamers all have our own ideas on what makes a game good and want the said game to be that game.  War is an example of a good release and maybe it does or doesn't meet your expectations but it is a good game for the RvR crowd.  It had no major flaws unlike AoC which released flawed, so lumping games like those two is just plain wrong in my opinion.  Many on this forum really should not play a game at release as they are always disappointed, wait a few months and than read what the game is about and decide if it's worth your money.
     

     

    Problem with war is, it is unfinished, the fact that it announced the classes it cut as new content prooves that fact.

    Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy

    Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman

    Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson

  • PatchDayPatchDay Member Posts: 1,641
    Originally posted by DeserttFoxx


    Despite how much sense the OP makes, there are still people trying to refute his point. Gamers need to stop settling for crappy games just because they have a big name behind them. Whether or not the game will be great in 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years is not the point, if it is not ready at launch, dont expect us to shell out 60 bucks and wait patiently for you patch the game up to an acceptable state.
     
    And the only reason they get away with it is, there are far too many people willing to accept this nonsense, by defending it , just read some of the replies to this thread, One person who isnt on the payroll defending this crap is far to many, but it seems we have even more then that actually vocally defending this nonsense.

     

    I think that's a bit naive though if you are suggesting fanbois are the reason why games are released early. Oh how I wish we had the much influence!

     

    No--- the bottom line rests with the investors. They know when they sign up a game how much they are willing to pour into it. At somepoint, once development costs sky rockets and delays occur way too much you either pull the plug or push it out. Period

    They know they're products ain't ready. They have in-house testers for peet's sake. They also test on a wide margin of computers. they have low specs and mid range and high specs

     

    Time and time again guys THINK/

     

    What happened to AoC? It got delayed again and again. Finally, FUNCOM pushed it out. Whole time testers said it wasn't ready. Has NDA been lifted for us closed testers to talk about that fiasco???

     

    Vanguard. Think. What happened?  It was canceled by Microsoft. Sony made them release.

     

    You think the testers were all saying "RELEASE!!! RELEASE!"

    Nooo. They ran out of money

     

    Wizardry was spot on. It's cold hard $$$. Sure as customers we all have a say. But bottom line they just broke. Blizzard, is filthy rich. Always has been. They always been known to cancel something no matter how far along if the feel is wrong. Starcraft Ghost anyone?

  • buegurbuegur Member UncommonPosts: 457

    "Problem with war is, it is unfinished, the fact that it announced the classes it cut as new content prooves that fact.

    "

     

    See thats an opinion not a fact, I say that makes no difference and to you it's a deal maker.   Using that logic WoW is unfinished as it just added a new class in this expansion.  Two more tank classes really aren't going to make much difference to Whether War is good or not.

  • Capn23Capn23 Member Posts: 1,529
    Originally posted by PatchDay

    Originally posted by DeserttFoxx


    Despite how much sense the OP makes, there are still people trying to refute his point. Gamers need to stop settling for crappy games just because they have a big name behind them. Whether or not the game will be great in 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years is not the point, if it is not ready at launch, dont expect us to shell out 60 bucks and wait patiently for you patch the game up to an acceptable state.
     
    And the only reason they get away with it is, there are far too many people willing to accept this nonsense, by defending it , just read some of the replies to this thread, One person who isnt on the payroll defending this crap is far to many, but it seems we have even more then that actually vocally defending this nonsense.

     

    I think that's a bit naive though if you are suggesting fanbois are the reason why games are released early. Oh how I wish we had the much influence!

     

    No--- the bottom line rests with the investors. They know when they sign up a game how much they are willing to pour into it. At somepoint, once development costs sky rockets and delays occur way too much you either pull the plug or push it out. Period

    They know they're products ain't ready. They have in-house testers for peet's sake. They also test on a wide margin of computers. they have low specs and mid range and high specs

     

    Time and time again guys THINK/

     

    What happened to AoC? It got delayed again and again. Finally, FUNCOM pushed it out. Whole time testers said it wasn't ready. Has NDA been lifted for us closed testers to talk about that fiasco???

     

    Vanguard. Think. What happened?  It was canceled by Microsoft. Sony made them release.

     

    You think the testers were all saying "RELEASE!!! RELEASE!"

    Nooo. They ran out of money

     

    Wizardry was spot on. It's cold hard $$$. Sure as customers we all have a say. But bottom line they just broke. Blizzard, is filthy rich. Always has been. They always been known to cancel something no matter how far along if the feel is wrong. Starcraft Ghost anyone?



     

    if you are correct...then 2009 could be a shining year for MMOs. Darkfall really could be the WoW killer =P

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Guys! I'm hopelessly lost in a mountain of mole hills! Them damn moles!

  • DeserttFoxxDeserttFoxx Member UncommonPosts: 2,402
    Originally posted by PatchDay

    Originally posted by DeserttFoxx


    Despite how much sense the OP makes, there are still people trying to refute his point. Gamers need to stop settling for crappy games just because they have a big name behind them. Whether or not the game will be great in 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years is not the point, if it is not ready at launch, dont expect us to shell out 60 bucks and wait patiently for you patch the game up to an acceptable state.
     
    And the only reason they get away with it is, there are far too many people willing to accept this nonsense, by defending it , just read some of the replies to this thread, One person who isnt on the payroll defending this crap is far to many, but it seems we have even more then that actually vocally defending this nonsense.

     

    I think that's a bit naive though if you are suggesting fanbois are the reason why games are released early. Oh how I wish we had the much influence!

     

     

    Where the hell did i say that?

     

    You need to re-read the exact words i used before you try to call me naive.

     

     

    Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy

    Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman

    Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson

  • BladinBladin Member UncommonPosts: 1,089
    Originally posted by PatchDay


    Our posts will get super long so I have to reply to sections:
    " Let's see
    Solo content, that was fun accessable, and required little-no preparation time.
    Group content, that was easy to get into, and offered rewards, and didn't require you to stop playing the game and wait to do.
    Smoother gameplay and combat.
    A lot of ease of life features.
    Just a overall good mmorpg"
     
    WoW didn't bring soloing to MMO genre. City of Heroes already had solo content. You can enter an instance and set the difficulty. you know this right you're a CoX player. And I believe it predates WoW.
    City of heroes is a strange creature, the instances scaled to your group size, it's a great feature, and killing random mobs on the street were soloable(some groups).  But the thing about CoH was that it's not the same type of mmorpg, rather than questing and doing dungeons, your going through random genericly spawned missions(i love coh don't get me wrong).  It's content is designed to scale, and frankly there is very little actual variety in the game, @ release, there was even fewer mission styles, you were getting the same mission themes/layouts over and over and over.
    Sure it offered a choice of grouping and soloing but, at what cost?
    Group content was even easier in EQ2 at launch. You didnt have to stand around LFG in town. You went to the dungeon and just gradually added on party members. The entire dungeon was non-instanced except the bosses. I guess what you mean is WoW added the Warlock Teleports? Nope. City of Heroes already had "Teleport Friend"
    This i'll disagree with.  EQ2 at release was VERY UN-solo friendly.  Sure the solo quests were doable, but there was a ton of dungeon attunements, heritage quests requiring groups.  And while you can say you could just jump into a dungeon and get more people.  This is frankly untrue.  Unless you were a tank/healer, and found a tank/healer, there was no way you were going in with any less then 3 people.  EQ2 had worldwide chat channels, which frankly destroyed any sort of immersion(imho).  


    EQ2 offered a large amount of interdependancy on release, even in crafting, you couldn't do much of anything alone.
    But i'll agree EQ2 was a solid game, but it was in development at the same time as wow, and released a couple weeks, early for the sake of releasing early, and guess what the audience chose to go with?
    "The way wow works, a high level can go down and do low level content with a low level, and not recieve anything(but have fun, and this does happen. A lot). And if low levels went up and did high level content, they'd do that level ranges content before they got there."
    Seriously what lowbies welcome high levels? They totally destroy the mob XP. Sure you can just focus on quest XP. But this is horribly broken. City of Heroes at least had sidekicking and UO was even better
     I've seen so many lowbies getting ran through instances(and still getting tons of exp mind you, it's reduced, but the killing is still incredibly fast).  You've obviously never leveled alts or played low level instances during wows lifespan.(or were just a loner?)


    CoHs sidekicking worked, because the content is generic, and it didn't require to use the other players content, the missions worked for the entire group.  In wow the quests are on a  individual basis, and offer rewards for that level.  They are level locked to stop players from getting the rewards early since they don't have level requirements.  The way wow designed quests was that when you go tthem, they were originally orange-red when you first got em, and very hard to do solo, but you could and then get the rewards.  The gear didn't have level requirements because as soon as you could get the quest, you could get the item.


    They could have added level requirements to the items and opened the quests to any level, but that would hurt the average player since the level requirement would be the items ilevel rather then you getting it 3-5 levels earlier then you normally would have.
    " IT was innovative, since it saved the mmo genre. You can argue this all you want. I'll bet you cash, right here, right now, that if WoW would not have come out. The genre would not have seen many of the games that came out afterwards, we'd be living with EQ2 being the top dog mmo. It pushed the idea of forced grouping, roleplay or boredom out of the window."
     
    Let's see. SWG pre-CU would still be here. Many newer mmorpgs may actually have been original. MMORPGs would have been more complex, like UO/Meridian 59/AC1 were. More experimentation would have been tried. Many experts agree WoW changed everything and has been so successful publishers have no choice but to try to emulate it
     no. pre cu swg, wasn't that great


    I'm sorry fanboys, but face the facts and the truth


    PRE CU/NGE SWG WAS NOT GLOBALLY LOVED, LIKED, RESPECTED.  The game was hated, mocked, bugged, and as crappy, as every single other mmorpg out there.


    They changed it to try to make it something better.  They failed horribly, they also didn't really think about the sandbox players(and it sucks for them). 


    More complex?  How with tiny budgets?  The mmo genre was dieing.  It wasn't lucrative, no big name company would put money into the market.  Here's the thing.


    90% of online gamers do not want a sandbox.  I'm sorry, but it's true. 


    Look at darkfall, dark and light, roma victor, ryzom, these would be the only games ever made.  Ie indie/low budget ones.
     
     
     

     

    image

  • BladinBladin Member UncommonPosts: 1,089
    Originally posted by buegur


    "Problem with war is, it is unfinished, the fact that it announced the classes it cut as new content prooves that fact.

    "
     
    See thats an opinion not a fact, I say that makes no difference and to you it's a deal maker.   Using that logic WoW is unfinished as it just added a new class in this expansion.  Two more tank classes really aren't going to make much difference to Whether War is good or not.

     

    Then you obviously haven't played war.

    Empire suffered from no tanks.

    I assume dark elves did as well.

     

    But beyond that, the game was not tested properly and the content was designed around their focus tests rather then real playing.

    image

  • BladinBladin Member UncommonPosts: 1,089
    Originally posted by PatchDay

    Originally posted by DeserttFoxx


    Despite how much sense the OP makes, there are still people trying to refute his point. Gamers need to stop settling for crappy games just because they have a big name behind them. Whether or not the game will be great in 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years is not the point, if it is not ready at launch, dont expect us to shell out 60 bucks and wait patiently for you patch the game up to an acceptable state.
     
    And the only reason they get away with it is, there are far too many people willing to accept this nonsense, by defending it , just read some of the replies to this thread, One person who isnt on the payroll defending this crap is far to many, but it seems we have even more then that actually vocally defending this nonsense.

     

    I think that's a bit naive though if you are suggesting fanbois are the reason why games are released early. Oh how I wish we had the much influence!

     

    No--- the bottom line rests with the investors. They know when they sign up a game how much they are willing to pour into it. At somepoint, once development costs sky rockets and delays occur way too much you either pull the plug or push it out. Period

    They know they're products ain't ready. They have in-house testers for peet's sake. They also test on a wide margin of computers. they have low specs and mid range and high specs

     

    Time and time again guys THINK/

     

    What happened to AoC? It got delayed again and again. Finally, FUNCOM pushed it out. Whole time testers said it wasn't ready. Has NDA been lifted for us closed testers to talk about that fiasco???

     

    Vanguard. Think. What happened?  It was canceled by Microsoft. Sony made them release.

     

    You think the testers were all saying "RELEASE!!! RELEASE!"

    Nooo. They ran out of money

     

    Wizardry was spot on. It's cold hard $$$. Sure as customers we all have a say. But bottom line they just broke. Blizzard, is filthy rich. Always has been. They always been known to cancel something no matter how far along if the feel is wrong. Starcraft Ghost anyone?

     

    It is the fans fault, because we buy the games.  If aoc and war were both released, and all the people who have canceled allready wouldn't have even BOUGHT the game. Would any game dare to release similar to them?

    It's our wallet thats encouraging this sort of gameplay.

    Just because they run of money and can't finish developing(which is their fault, not us consumers) doesn't mean we can just accept it.

    If a construction company was hired to build some houses, and the money given to them wasn't enough to actually finish building them.  Would people move into these unfinished houses, and then pay the construction company to finish building after already buying the house?

    No.  Why should we accept it for mmorpgs?

    image

  • PatchDayPatchDay Member Posts: 1,641
    Originally posted by Bladin

    Originally posted by PatchDay


    Our posts will get super long so I have to reply to sections:
    " Let's see
    Solo content, that was fun accessable, and required little-no preparation time.
    Group content, that was easy to get into, and offered rewards, and didn't require you to stop playing the game and wait to do.
    Smoother gameplay and combat.
    A lot of ease of life features.
    Just a overall good mmorpg"
     
    WoW didn't bring soloing to MMO genre. City of Heroes already had solo content. You can enter an instance and set the difficulty. you know this right you're a CoX player. And I believe it predates WoW.
    City of heroes is a strange creature, the instances scaled to your group size, it's a great feature, and killing random mobs on the street were soloable(some groups).  But the thing about CoH was that it's not the same type of mmorpg, rather than questing and doing dungeons, your going through random genericly spawned missions(i love coh don't get me wrong).  It's content is designed to scale, and frankly there is very little actual variety in the game, @ release, there was even fewer mission styles, you were getting the same mission themes/layouts over and over and over.
    Sure it offered a choice of grouping and soloing but, at what cost?
    Group content was even easier in EQ2 at launch. You didnt have to stand around LFG in town. You went to the dungeon and just gradually added on party members. The entire dungeon was non-instanced except the bosses. I guess what you mean is WoW added the Warlock Teleports? Nope. City of Heroes already had "Teleport Friend"
    This i'll disagree with.  EQ2 at release was VERY UN-solo friendly.  Sure the solo quests were doable, but there was a ton of dungeon attunements, heritage quests requiring groups.  And while you can say you could just jump into a dungeon and get more people.  This is frankly untrue.  Unless you were a tank/healer, and found a tank/healer, there was no way you were going in with any less then 3 people.  EQ2 had worldwide chat channels, which frankly destroyed any sort of immersion(imho).  


    EQ2 offered a large amount of interdependancy on release, even in crafting, you couldn't do much of anything alone.
    But i'll agree EQ2 was a solid game, but it was in development at the same time as wow, and released a couple weeks, early for the sake of releasing early, and guess what the audience chose to go with?
    "The way wow works, a high level can go down and do low level content with a low level, and not recieve anything(but have fun, and this does happen. A lot). And if low levels went up and did high level content, they'd do that level ranges content before they got there."
    Seriously what lowbies welcome high levels? They totally destroy the mob XP. Sure you can just focus on quest XP. But this is horribly broken. City of Heroes at least had sidekicking and UO was even better
     I've seen so many lowbies getting ran through instances(and still getting tons of exp mind you, it's reduced, but the killing is still incredibly fast).  You've obviously never leveled alts or played low level instances during wows lifespan.(or were just a loner?)


    CoHs sidekicking worked, because the content is generic, and it didn't require to use the other players content, the missions worked for the entire group.  In wow the quests are on a  individual basis, and offer rewards for that level.  They are level locked to stop players from getting the rewards early since they don't have level requirements.  The way wow designed quests was that when you go tthem, they were originally orange-red when you first got em, and very hard to do solo, but you could and then get the rewards.  The gear didn't have level requirements because as soon as you could get the quest, you could get the item.


    They could have added level requirements to the items and opened the quests to any level, but that would hurt the average player since the level requirement would be the items ilevel rather then you getting it 3-5 levels earlier then you normally would have.
    " IT was innovative, since it saved the mmo genre. You can argue this all you want. I'll bet you cash, right here, right now, that if WoW would not have come out. The genre would not have seen many of the games that came out afterwards, we'd be living with EQ2 being the top dog mmo. It pushed the idea of forced grouping, roleplay or boredom out of the window."
     
    Let's see. SWG pre-CU would still be here. Many newer mmorpgs may actually have been original. MMORPGs would have been more complex, like UO/Meridian 59/AC1 were. More experimentation would have been tried. Many experts agree WoW changed everything and has been so successful publishers have no choice but to try to emulate it
     no. pre cu swg, wasn't that great


    I'm sorry fanboys, but face the facts and the truth


    PRE CU/NGE SWG WAS NOT GLOBALLY LOVED, LIKED, RESPECTED.  The game was hated, mocked, bugged, and as crappy, as every single other mmorpg out there.


    They changed it to try to make it something better.  They failed horribly, they also didn't really think about the sandbox players(and it sucks for them). 


    More complex?  How with tiny budgets?  The mmo genre was dieing.  It wasn't lucrative, no big name company would put money into the market.  Here's the thing.


    90% of online gamers do not want a sandbox.  I'm sorry, but it's true. 


    Look at darkfall, dark and light, roma victor, ryzom, these would be the only games ever made.  Ie indie/low budget ones.
     
     
     

     

     

    There were MMOs that went into the millions pre-WoW you know. Lineage series for example. MMOs were not dying pre-WoW not by a longshot

     

Sign In or Register to comment.