So since it's a "PvP" based game the quests are allowed to suck, along with everything else not related to PvP? Yes, I'm sure that was their intention when putting all of that "content" in the game. Might as well go play a FPS if you ask me (Darkfall doesn't count).
Actually, the pvp sucks too, for a pvp game or not. They didn't even get that right. I have more fun playing fetch with my cat, and he doesn't even bring the damn ball back I have to go and get it each time.
i played war because I liked DAOC, sure it wasn't perfect but it to me was very much fun. With that and a few buddies playing it i decided to give it a go ... and thus my opinion on it.
Even the PVP is dumbed down too ... you have more players than your enemy ... YOU WIN!!! is there any tactics to RVR in Warhammer besides Zerg and AOE as much as possible?
finally I knew RVR was the focus but i didn't think the game would basically be an RPG version of a FPS deathmatch. maybe Mythic needs to add Nut shots like this f*****G ad keeps spamming.
I call bullshit on both of you. Adrammelech is perfectly correct. Just because you don't like his analysis, doesn't make it any less true. You are old school, your thought processes are old school and your desire to implement game mechanics that punish rather than entertain is frighteningly sick. Thank God most people are not masochists and are not willing to put up with those old, outdated and primarily bullshit mechanics from the glory days of EQ. You are no longer the target audience, deal with it or get the hell out of the genre.
Oh, this is cute.
Really. It makes me just want to pinch your cheeks and say,"Gootchie-Gootchie-Goo!"
Ok, I'm willing to throw you a bone here and admit not everyone wants to play Chess or Backgammon. There is a target audience for Connect Four. Yes, even the new drop-out Connect Four, fair enough.
But, back in the olden days, if I joined a party as a Tank, I was the Tank. My job was to hold aggro while the rest of the party went to work. If we all worked together we won. If not, we failed. Usually with a significant penalty. That gave us incentive to work effectively as a team. That doesn't happen a lot today.
And don't sit there and tell me I'm not the "Target Audience". I'm the "Target Audience" that built this genre for you boy.
Originally posted by X-Porter Oh, no. No you didn't just say that.
I'll admit I often speak without thinking, and often have to eat my own words, but that, Sir, is bullshit.
"Games in general are increasing in complexity and player-demand exponentially with each generation and passing year."
Bullshit. Flat out bullshit and I will hold that position. Anyone who has been following MMO's for any length of time will back that up. At best you just said "Checkers is a more advanced game of Chess". Why? Because there are less pieces to keep track of? Because You might get Kinged instead of trading a hard-fought Pawn for a Queen?
Bullshit. Seriously. "Death penalties are a time sink". No They're there to remind you you effed-up. That the second "M" in MMO is for "Multiplayer". That you just let other people, other human beings trying to enjoy this game, down. Even if you don't care about Carmen in Philadelphia, you need to know you failed. It's a minor penalty for the most part. Don't come here and say it's some "Outmoded Time Sink."
This is just another example of the "Everyone's a Winner Nobody Can Fail Participant Ribbon" bullcrap that we're stuck with today. Anything worth having is worth earning. Games, Sports, or Careers, it's not worth it if it's just handed over.
Your analysis of "things were better the way they were before" is simply selective perception fueled by nostalgia. The fact of the matter is that games, along with ALL forms of entertainment, are becoming more complex at an exponential rate. A collection of information arguing this point can be found in the book I cited previously, "Everything Bad Is Good For You" by Stephen Johnson.
Specific examples don't work well with games, especially MMORPGs, because mass market games made for a huge audience are a relatively new phenomenon, emerging in the past decade or so. Obviously, it's unfair to compare "hardcore", niche games of yesterday with a mainstream, casual game of today.
Penalties on death and other similar mechanics are simple timesinks. There's no other form of game that turns to such a thing. The penalty is dying. What is the "death penalty" in chess? None. "Death", or losing a piece, is the penalty. A professional sports team suffers no arbitrary penalty when losing. The loss itself is the penalty. Players know when they died, and failed.
MMORPG "penalties" are extraneous things that add nothing to the core gameplay. In old designs, such penalties were applied to get money out of the player (in the form of real quarters or later, fictional gold) and artificially extend the time spent in the game exploring actual content through experience/item loss and corpse runs. Since actual dynamic content was so sparse in many older games, this was important.
Developers didn't institute such things because they subscribed to some "hardcore" code. It was a simple design tool that is becoming obsolete.
I'm not completely numb to your POV. In fact, I love punishingly difficult, oldschool games of all shapes and sizes. However, I realize that that sort of gamer mentality is one of many and a strong minority at that. The games catering to it will always be a minority as well.
"They possess power unparalleled... Ageless, remorseless. Without pity or conscience. Manipulators of evolution on countless worlds. Gods of the stars... the Celestial Host."
I'll admit I often speak without thinking, and often have to eat my own words, but that, Sir, is bullshit. "Games in general are increasing in complexity and player-demand exponentially with each generation and passing year." Bullshit. Flat out bullshit and I will hold that position. Anyone who has been following MMO's for any length of time will back that up. At best you just said "Checkers is a more advanced game of Chess". Why? Because there are less pieces to keep track of? Because You might get Kinged instead of trading a hard-fought Pawn for a Queen? Bullshit. Seriously. "Death penalties are a time sink". No They're there to remind you you effed-up. That the second "M" in MMO is for "Multiplayer". That you just let other people, other human beings trying to enjoy this game, down. Even if you don't care about Carmen in Philadelphia, you need to know you failed. It's a minor penalty for the most part. Don't come here and say it's some "Outmoded Time Sink." This is just another example of the "Everyone's a Winner Nobody Can Fail Participant Ribbon" bullcrap that we're stuck with today. Anything worth having is worth earning. Games, Sports, or Careers, it's not worth it if it's just handed over.
Your analysis of "things were better the way they were before" is simply selective perception fueled by nostalgia. The fact of the matter is that games, along with ALL forms of entertainment, are becoming more complex at an exponential rate. A collection of information arguing this point can be found in the book I cited previously, "Everything Bad Is Good For You" by Stephen Johnson.
Specific examples don't work well with games, especially MMORPGs, because mass market games made for a huge audience are a relatively new phenomenon, emerging in the past decade or so. Obviously, it's unfair to compare "hardcore", niche games of yesterday with a mainstream, casual game of today.
Penalties on death and other similar mechanics are simple timesinks. There's no other form of game that turns to such a thing. The penalty is dying. What is the "death penalty" in chess? None. "Death", or losing a piece, is the penalty. A professional sports team suffers no arbitrary penalty when losing. The loss itself is the penalty. Players know when they died, and failed.
MMORPG "penalties" are extraneous things that add nothing to the core gameplay. In old designs, such penalties were applied to get money out of the player (in the form of real quarters or later, fictional gold) and artificially extend the time spent in the game exploring actual content through experience/item loss and corpse runs. Since actual dynamic content was so sparse in many older games, this was important.
Developers didn't institute such things because they subscribed to some "hardcore" code. It was a simple design tool that is becoming obsolete.
I'm not completely numb to your POV. In fact, I love punishingly difficult, oldschool games of all shapes and sizes. However, I realize that that sort of gamer mentality is one of many and a strong minority at that. The games catering to it will always be a minority as well.
You FAIL as a game designer if you think the average game does not have death penalty
Exhibit A:
Final Fantasy and most popular RPG will have save points. What do you think happens when you die? You lose TIME. Sometimes there is long gap between save points. In Lost Odyssey there would be many boss fights inbetween saves. This is lost time
Exhibit B:
Some games, like Titan Quest, went so far as to take away XP for death. So did Neverwinter nights.
Exhibit C:
Gears of WAR has checkpoints. What you think happen when you die before hitting next checkpoint?
Exhibit
Games like Elder scrolls you can save anywhere most of the time. However if you forget, you will die and its game over. This is not much different from EVE's death whereas if you forget to buy new clone you lose TIME invested
I can go on and on here. Mass Effect, checkpoints. Star Ocean, save points. You just dont play any games period if you think they have no Death Penalty
Counterstrike - upon death you sit out the match
Defense of the ancients - played by millions. When you die you lose gold. Same with Warcraft 3 hero deaths
Originally posted by PatchDay You FAIL as a game designer if you think the average game does not have death penalty Exhibit A: Final Fantasy and most popular RPG will have save points. What do you think happens when you die? You lose TIME. <snip>
Of course returning to a save/spawn/checkpoint is a loss of time invested. However, this would generally be considered the traditional game "death" - going back to the start of an area upon failure. Hence my saying "get up and try again". When I die and go back to a checkpoint in Gears of War, I don't incur an additional "death penalty" that makes my guns unable to fire for ten minutes while I'm "rez sick". That's a timesink. Dying is the penalty.
The death system in WAR is the traditional type. You die, go back to spawn point and try again. The OP was complaining about this, wanting a system that actually punished the player with corpse runs or similar timesinks in addition to them dying. I was specifically referring to these sort of extraneous "penalties" or handicaps attached to death.
"They possess power unparalleled... Ageless, remorseless. Without pity or conscience. Manipulators of evolution on countless worlds. Gods of the stars... the Celestial Host."
Everquest required the following to be in a given casual non-raid leveling group, either outdoors or in a dungeon. A tank, a healer, DPS, and a crowd control person. The crowd control person was semi optional depending on the location and types of monsters being fought, but a group almost always HAD to have someone who could snare or root * very quickly * because of running mobs. Of course crowd control was less of an issue once camps were broken, but the element of " There is some genuine risk here if I am grouped with 1-2 stupid people " was present.
With World of Warcraft in the current iteration of Wrath of the Lich King, we need... how much crowd control exactly, for Heroic Dungeons? Er, how much of a risk is present with monsters running off at low health, or a simulated low morale with how a fight is going? Hm. None would be the answer there.
Moving onto Warhammer Online, I saw pretty much the same thing the original poster saw. A game with theoretical MAGNIFICENT potential due to the game license and setting, current game engine technology, and Mythic who has learned a HELL OF A LOT from their experience with DAoC.
But Mythic choked and made the game a WoW clone that wasn't even close to a polished finish due to EA leaning on them to release the game as early as possible, the game being finished or not be damned.
In terms of complexity, no one on the face of the planet can argue that the game is a STEP UP from World of Warcraft in terms of consequences for failure, party composition, PvP dynamics, or immersive gameplay through crafting / factions / in-game rankings and unlocking content.
Edit - I did buy a collector's box edition, and I did give the game a two month try out of a mixture of both hope and patience. I wasn't set within my mind with the expectation that Warhammer would be the "Perfect Game". I had an expectation of " Cool. This should easily be better than DAoC in scope and what it will offer to players, just because of time passage with the company's ability. " - I was in for a very cruel reality check and disappointment.
So Warhammer Online is a watered down WoW clone because the OP was stupid enough to play a PvP-based game thinking it's a PvE game? Crying about boring quests in WAR makes about as much sense as crying about there not being any Elves in Eve Online.
That would be a fine and dandy argument if WAR's PvP was good. It isn't.
That's another topic. You can call it bad, but you can't call it watered down simply because you don't enjoy it. I unsubscribed to the game because I found the constant AoE spells and CCing frustrating, but I know enough to realize that the only similarities between WoW and WAR and merely skin deep.
Also, Adrammalech is completely right. Death Penalties are an archaic form of punishment that only existed in the first place because of the genre's growing pains. It's as stupid as having continues in a video game. Continues only existed to eat up your quarters in the arcades, but dumb developers didn't figure that out and many 8 and 16 bit games continued to have continues. Death Penalties, at least severe ones, are really just as idiotic. You can punish people for losing in a game without sucking the fun out of it, and many modern games do it right. WAR, I think does it right by keeping the game fun by allowing you to not have to alt-tab for 15 minutes while your death penalty elapses but instead hurts your wallet.
I'm sure many of the so-called "hardcore kiddies" would cry when they played a game with a truly hardcore penalty: perma death.
So Warhammer Online is a watered down WoW clone because the OP was stupid enough to play a PvP-based game thinking it's a PvE game? Crying about boring quests in WAR makes about as much sense as crying about there not being any Elves in Eve Online.
That would be a fine and dandy argument if WAR's PvP was good. It isn't.
That's another topic. You can call it bad, but you can't call it watered down simply because you don't enjoy it. I unsubscribed to the game because I found the constant AoE spells and CCing frustrating, but I know enough to realize that the only similarities between WoW and WAR and merely skin deep.
Skin deep? I would say there is much, much more similarities between WoW and WAR than just skin.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike Loved: Star Wars Galaxies Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
So Warhammer Online is a watered down WoW clone because the OP was stupid enough to play a PvP-based game thinking it's a PvE game? Crying about boring quests in WAR makes about as much sense as crying about there not being any Elves in Eve Online.
That would be a fine and dandy argument if WAR's PvP was good. It isn't.
That's another topic. You can call it bad, but you can't call it watered down simply because you don't enjoy it. I unsubscribed to the game because I found the constant AoE spells and CCing frustrating, but I know enough to realize that the only similarities between WoW and WAR and merely skin deep.
Skin deep? I would say there is much, much more similarities between WoW and WAR than just skin.
is this really where we want this genre to head? the easy, mind numbing wack a mole games with no community no goals giant a giant circle jerk frag fest? could solo quests get anymore dumbed down ... and then on top of that theres no social mobs, so "hey i need that dwarf commander inside the building full of other dwards ... here let me attack him while all other watch. Grouping? do people even group up for anything in this game? heck i found it more of a deterent if i tried to group with someone. And of course Death, because we wouldn't want to bruise someones ego ... death will be a free trip back to your bind point nothing more.
you like WoW or WARs style, great good for you im glad you enjoy your game. but can someone create a game for those of us that want corpse runs, don't want our hands held with quests, want to have epic mob encounters and fight alongside other likeminded people while exploring dungeons. I want fear as i enter a new zone and i want to feel that accomplishment as i get to max level.
oh and before someone says it ... Darkfall sucks too.
Well you have not said why you dislike Darkfall, maybe you don't like PvP which would be the only legitimate reason I can think of, because Darkfall is the opposite of everything you describe of disliking.
Darkfall is designed to encourage grouping and therefore is more social with a lively community. Of course if you don't like PvP you will think being ganked is anti-social.
It is a virtual world designed around skilling up by hunting and adventuring in both PVE and PVP. Quests are not the focus.
Death is significant since you drop all your items on your corpse in both PVE and PVP so anyone can loot them.
Questgivers don't have stupid unrealisitc icons floating over their heads and the advancement is challenging. It is not one of the standard fare dummy down games that seem to be popular.
You are constantly fearful of being attacked and therefore mindful of your surroundings and health status which keeps the adrenaline pumping.
It is also a fantastic game for crafting. You can craft anything and everything and it is challenging to skill up all your harvesting and crafting skills and collect all the necessary ingredients. The market for crafted goods is very healthy.
If you like to explore, it's a huge world with many hidden gems.
I call bullshit on both of you. Adrammelech is perfectly correct. Just because you don't like his analysis, doesn't make it any less true. You are old school, your thought processes are old school and your desire to implement game mechanics that punish rather than entertain is frighteningly sick. Thank God most people are not masochists and are not willing to put up with those old, outdated and primarily bullshit mechanics from the glory days of EQ. You are no longer the target audience, deal with it or get the hell out of the genre.
Oh, this is cute.
Really. It makes me just want to pinch your cheeks and say,"Gootchie-Gootchie-Goo!"
Ok, I'm willing to throw you a bone here and admit not everyone wants to play Chess or Backgammon. There is a target audience for Connect Four. Yes, even the new drop-out Connect Four, fair enough.
But, back in the olden days, if I joined a party as a Tank, I was the Tank. My job was to hold aggro while the rest of the party went to work. If we all worked together we won. If not, we failed. Usually with a significant penalty. That gave us incentive to work effectively as a team. That doesn't happen a lot today.
And don't sit there and tell me I'm not the "Target Audience". I'm the "Target Audience" that built this genre for you boy.
Oh please. Don't give me that "I've been around the block" tripe. I've been around since Meridian 59 bub. Yet neither you nor me helped to do anything for this genre, not unless you claim to be a member of the MMO industry that makes game changing decisions. Get over yourself. I played EQ, UO, AO, DAoC, FFXI, SWG Pre and Post NGE, CoH / CoV LOTRO, EQII, Warhammer Online, so and and so forth. There, does that help with those credentials?
Doesn't matter if you been here since DIKU's were popular or just joined the genre. The industry makes it's decisions based on how much money they make. They DON'T make nearly as much money with old school MMO paradigms and that is a proven fact. Deal with it. I, for one, am quite happy with the changing times. I can't stand the whole "second job" feel of the old games, making it hard to even call them games in the first place.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Oh please. Don't give me that "I've been around the block" tripe. I've been around since Meridian 59 bub. Yet neither you nor me helped to do anything for this genre, not unless you claim to be a member of the MMO industry that makes game changing decisions. Get over yourself. I played EQ, UO, AO, DAoC, FFXI, SWG Pre and Post NGE, CoH / CoV LOTRO, EQII, Warhammer Online, so and and so forth. There, does that help with those credentials? Doesn't matter if you been here since DIKU's were popular or just joined the genre. The industry makes it's decisions based on how much money they make. They DON'T make nearly as much money with old school MMO paradigms and that is a proven fact. Deal with it. I, for one, am quite happy with the changing times. I can't stand the whole "second job" feel of the old games, making it hard to even call them games in the first place.
It's funny, but reading the various comments here there seems to be two camps of people: those who believe games should be fun, and those who believe games should validate their e-peen status.
So Warhammer Online is a watered down WoW clone because the OP was stupid enough to play a PvP-based game thinking it's a PvE game? Crying about boring quests in WAR makes about as much sense as crying about there not being any Elves in Eve Online.
That would be a fine and dandy argument if WAR's PvP was good. It isn't.
That's another topic. You can call it bad, but you can't call it watered down simply because you don't enjoy it. I unsubscribed to the game because I found the constant AoE spells and CCing frustrating, but I know enough to realize that the only similarities between WoW and WAR and merely skin deep.
Skin deep? I would say there is much, much more similarities between WoW and WAR than just skin.
Such as?
I dunno, combat, class system, little risk vs. high reward, limited social interaction, poor cartoony graphics, just to name a few. I'd be more curious on how you think WAR is different form WoW?
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike Loved: Star Wars Galaxies Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
Oh please. Don't give me that "I've been around the block" tripe. I've been around since Meridian 59 bub. Yet neither you nor me helped to do anything for this genre, not unless you claim to be a member of the MMO industry that makes game changing decisions. Get over yourself. I played EQ, UO, AO, DAoC, FFXI, SWG Pre and Post NGE, CoH / CoV LOTRO, EQII, Warhammer Online, so and and so forth. There, does that help with those credentials? Doesn't matter if you been here since DIKU's were popular or just joined the genre. The industry makes it's decisions based on how much money they make. They DON'T make nearly as much money with old school MMO paradigms and that is a proven fact. Deal with it. I, for one, am quite happy with the changing times. I can't stand the whole "second job" feel of the old games, making it hard to even call them games in the first place.
It's funny, but reading the various comments here there seems to be two camps of people: those who believe games should be fun, and those who believe games should validate their e-peen status.
Obviously both camps think their style of MMOG or game is fun. Your viewpoint isn't credible unless you admit this instead of trying to suggest the other type of design couldn't possible be fun for someone else and is only preferable to those with epeen issues.
Veteran and hardcore gamers traditionally like harder more challenging MMOGs and casual gamers prefer easier games that don't focus on accomplishments that require a lot of effort and time. It's nothing more.
Originally posted by Abrahmm I dunno, combat, class system, little risk vs. high reward, limited social interaction, poor cartoony graphics, just to name a few. I'd be more curious on how you think WAR is different form WoW?
Combat? How is the combat in WAR different than the combat in just about any other MMO? Get in front of enemy, press hotkey, rinse and repeat. It's the way it's done in DAoC, WoW, and about 99% of MMOs past and present.
Class system? Uh, what? Maybe you haven't played WoW, but that game has a very distinct talent tree system that made up the class system which allowed a class to play any of several roles. One second your Warrior can be a DPS machine, the next it's a purely defensive tank. In WAR, the classes are much more rigid and there is not as much room to veer from the norm. Nope, not similar at all. It's definitely more DAoC than WoW.
Little Risk vs. High Reward? Can you be more vague? Unless you're playing Ultima Online where getting killed equals losing everything you've equipped, even the clothes on your back, all MMOs follow this. What was the high risk in DAoC again?
Limited Social Interaction? This...is even more vague. Are you referring to grouping because WAR definitely enforces this much more than WoW and the pretty much negates having to spam "LFG" messages due to the innovative "open groups" feature.
Poor Cartoony Graphics? Uh, have you ever head of Warhammer before? Let me brush you up on it: it's been around for about 25 years and it's always been cartoony, but unlike WoW's goofy cartoony look, Warhammer is more darker and gritty of a cartoon. As far as graphical fidelity, I think the landscapes in WAR look butt ugly, but the character models have a lot of detail and are amazing.
The only similarity between WoW and Warhammer Online, or rather, the only things Mythic borrowed from Blizzard, was the control scheme, some UI elements, and quest structure. Other than that, this game is Dark Age of Camelot set in the Warhammer Universe with a slightly larger emphasis on PvE.
I mean, I really don't see any sort of PvP XP system in WoW. I don't see how you can level your character completely in PvP. I don't see you sieging enemy keeps and forts and capital cities. I don't see open grouping. I don't see public quests. I don't see players wearing trophies or dying their armor. I don't see capturing entire zones. I don't see guilds leveling up and having the abilitiy to claim keeps.
The fact is, Warhammer Online is more different from WoW than it is similar. Saying it's a watered down WoW just displays ignorance on the subject. You would have no issue if you think WAR is a bad game since all of WAR's unique features don't necessarily equal a fun experience, and in my mind many of them don't, but inferring that these two games are so similar is purely idiotic.
Originally posted by RedwoodSap Obviously both camps think their style of MMOG or game is fun.
So when a group of players complained that a boss in FFXI took dozens of hours and killed it anyway, that's them having fun? Ever heard of sadism? Some people will go through hell just as long as it makes them feel better than other people, and you're completely deluded to think people will not do very frustrating and mind-numbingly boring tasks in an MMO for some sort of reward. Even in LoTRO, one of the most casual MMOs on the market, has a grindtastic deed system that many players will willing admit to doing despite hating it just so they can have an extra 2 stat points. You're lying to yourself if you don't believe there's a group of players that place status over fun.
Also, calling certain players hardcore or veteran is such a biased use of terminology. Is there an agreed upon definition of "hardcore"? Also, "veteran" players have no preference on the type of MMO. If you've played games like Meridian or Asheron's Call or other MMOs of that era, it doesn't make you less likely to enjoy something like City of Heroes or LoTRO.
I could not stomach most of posts so I read first two pages then a little form the last and shall form my own statement.
There seems to be different “classification’s” of what a MMO should be these days. I think everyone has a right to their play style, but I see one thing in common with all posts, there is no game that will fully seduce every “Classification” of gamer.
What I feel needs to be done is bring back the “RP” in mmoRPG’s instead of making another glorified “Action “ multi player game. And for the qq out there no I’m not talking about “RP” as in what u find on WOW RP server’s, I am not talking about the care bear type neither. What I am talking about is bringing the players back to the game where what they do makes a difference in the game world whether it be PVP,PVE, Raids, Instance’s, Crafting, Faction farming. Make games where a player influences the NPC, where their countless hours of grinding will be remembered even after the player “re-Roll’s” or quits for a new game. Have a random quest engine where depending on what the player has done in their progression of the game determines what type of quest they will receive, what reward they are offered. And during the quest things change, so no quest will end exactly the same for that player. Have an expansive world, where it will take years to fully explorer each scenery. Player created content (i.e. quests, gear, vehicles, mount, ETC.)
The game industry is at a standoff with consumer’s it costs millions to complete a MMO and thousands to run it yearly. No company will take a chance and create something new in order to get the players involved in the game instead they give content proven to keep majority of the gamming community, and attract younger players with mummy and daddy’s wallet in a choke hold. Why take a risk of a 4 million dollar budget sinking. An auto assault is perfect example of a game that epically crashed. The game took a new spin on MMO and there was a community but not a big enough one to support the over head so without warning they shut down servers and put the dedicated budget towards other games.
I am a avid player of many mmo’s I am always on the beta watch for something that has potential.
I have tested over 100 games big tittles to no name Companies, I will say this each game I have tested has had something new in their game to try to attract avid gamers’. YET none have been able to establish themselves without taking something from someone else. It is the concept of “If it works, DON’T FIX IT."
Moving onto Warhammer Online, I saw pretty much the same thing the original poster saw. A game with theoretical MAGNIFICENT potential due to the game license and setting, current game engine technology, and Mythic who has learned a HELL OF A LOT from their experience with DAoC. But Mythic choked and made the game a WoW clone that wasn't even close to a polished finish due to EA leaning on them to release the game as early as possible, the game being finished or not be damned.
This always makes me laugh, because people always expect something when there is no real reason to be expecting much of anything. We usually have short memories and get even more selective with those. Mythic's 'games' (figured Wiki would be good enough):
List of Games:
Dragon's Gate (1985)
Tempest (1991)
Castles II Online (1996)
Rolemaster: Magestorm (1996)
Splatterball (1996)
Invasion Earth (1997)
Darkness Falls (1997)
Rolemaster: Bladelands (1997)
Aliens Online (1998)- FAIL.
Starship Troopers: Battlespace (1998) -FAIL.
Godzilla Online (1998) -FAIL.
Silent Death: Online (1999)
Darkness Falls: The Crusade (1999)
Darkstorm: The Well of Souls (1999)
Spellbinder: The Nexus Conflict (1999)
Independence Day Online (2000) -FAIL.
Dark Age of Camelot (2001) HIT.
Imperator Online (Canceled 2005) -MISCARRIAGE.
Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning (2008) -FAILing.
Now, if you look at that list and look at only the MMOS that were IPs and how "good" they were (when they were actually made, lol), if you are Games Workshop, why the hell would you let a company with this track record handle your baby? (I left out FAIL on the other non-IP MMOs, even though some of them tanked.)
Games Workshop had no reason to be optimistic, nor did anyone else, given this shoddy body of work. But because they finally got some unexpected success with DAoC, all of a sudden people believed they got it right. I never understood this thinking at all.
Even if half of those games made good, would you really want to trust your IP to these guys? Seriously?
I dont think everyone is understanding the design aspects of any type of mmo game. Because and Mmo deals with a massive amount of players at one time it IS SUPPOSE "to cater to many different players". In order to establish a successful community a variety of people/players is required. Guilds would never be successful if you had a game full of "leader" mentality players. Communities would never flourish if you have a mmo that only attracts solo pve players. Most of you almost understand mmo design, but i do not think most of you really get it.
To stay on topic WAR failed in nearly anyway. The only contribution it made to the mmo world of gaming was public quest. Nothing more. The developers stated that WAR was to be the football of MMO. You log on and just play to have fun. Not really though. Some posters claim that WAR's and Wows lack of consequences and easy mode is the evolution of game design. This is completely false. In order to create a successful MMO you must have balance. Wow was successful in its early days clearly because they found the balance. Hardcore / Casual could play which means you have a variety of players which equals a solid community. It takes the approach, "easy to play hard to master". Once an mmo contains extreme penalties or even extreme convenience the game starts isolating other players. Its impossible for a successful game to survive without a consequence. Just like kinetic energy cannot be destroyed you cannot expect to make a choice in game or Real life with out a consequence. "That tennis ball will bouce no matter what" That is a rule of existance. Pvp has no meaning if it does not penalize the loser. That is the pure point of pvp to cause grief and proove your talent. Pve must has no challenge without a consequence system. The phrase "time sink" is bull nearly because all things we do revolves around time. You cant do a quest without it taking time. You cant do hunt down a player pvp without taking time. You cant expect consequence to not take time. That would be insane. Games are played just so they take time we wouldn't want to spend anywhere else.
I do recall someone stating that old school gamers are no longer the target audience. You are clearly stupid as bricks. I will give you a accurate example. Lets look at the console gaming division. Nintendo as well as the wii cater to nothing but casual gamers and making games as easy(stupid proof) as possible. As all gamers know this has attracted more shovel than ever seen in gaming history to the nintendo. If you call this casual / easy way of a game design the future, then i'm sure you belong with the nintendo wii fanbase.
Now, after all that i can say "I agree with the OP, WAR is dumb and Wow is getting there". However, I do not have any solid knowledge/gameplayed experience with DF, so I won't comment on that.
Moving onto Warhammer Online, I saw pretty much the same thing the original poster saw. A game with theoretical MAGNIFICENT potential due to the game license and setting, current game engine technology, and Mythic who has learned a HELL OF A LOT from their experience with DAoC.
But Mythic choked and made the game a WoW clone that wasn't even close to a polished finish due to EA leaning on them to release the game as early as possible, the game being finished or not be damned.
This always makes me laugh, because people always expect something when there is no real reason to be expecting much of anything. We usually have short memories and get even more selective with those. Mythic's 'games' (figured Wiki would be good enough):
List of Games:
Dragon's Gate (1985)
Tempest (1991)
Castles II Online (1996)
Rolemaster: Magestorm (1996)
Splatterball (1996)
Invasion Earth (1997)
Darkness Falls (1997)
Rolemaster: Bladelands (1997)
Aliens Online (1998)- FAIL.
Starship Troopers: Battlespace (1998) -FAIL.
Godzilla Online (1998) -FAIL.
Silent Death: Online (1999)
Darkness Falls: The Crusade (1999)
Darkstorm: The Well of Souls (1999)
Spellbinder: The Nexus Conflict (1999)
Independence Day Online (2000) -FAIL.
Dark Age of Camelot (2001) HIT.
Imperator Online (Canceled 2005) -MISCARRIAGE.
Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning (2008) -FAILing.
Now, if you look at that list and look at only the MMOS that were IPs and how "good" they were (when they were actually made, lol), if you are Games Workshop, why the hell would you let a company with this track record handle your baby? (I left out FAIL on the other non-IP MMOs, even though some of them tanked.)
Games Workshop had no reason to be optimistic, nor did anyone else, given this shoddy body of work. But because they finally got some unexpected success with DAoC, all of a sudden people believed they got it right. I never understood this thinking at all.
Even if half of those games made good, would you really want to trust your IP to these guys? Seriously?
Ok, Now take these from Blizzard since they started with Mark Morhaime and Chris Metzen ....
Warcraft: Orcs & Humans (1994)
Justice League Task Force (1995)
The Lost Vikings II (1995)
Warcraft II: Tides Of Darkness (1995)
Warcraft II: Beyond The Dark Portal' (1995)
Diablo (1996)
StarCraft (1998)
StarCraft: Brood War (1998)
Diablo II (2000)
Diablo II: Lord of Destruction (2001)
Warcraft III: Reign Of Chaos (2002)
Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne (2003)
World of Warcraft (2004)
World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade (2007)
World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King (2008)
TBC ---> personal flying mounts in real 3D vertical worlds you can land anywhere.
WotLK ---> destructableKeeps/Towers with riding Siege engines and world phasing multiple times in its end game.
Anyone surprised why War couldn't touch the same quality ???
Ok, we will have to wait what the quality of SC2 and Diablo3 will be ..... ))))
You can't fly you mounts in the old world so you can't land anywhere you want.
WOTLK, yeah that only happens in one zone and WAR has the same thing all over.
I am not a fan of any of the above games but WOW is not much better than WAR,it is a bit better but not by much.
I think VG pawnzs both them games hands down but it only for a select few who like the old style EQ1 game-play but it still has more features than WOW and WAR.
"Phasing is the complete change of a world to a character once he does chain quests and it happens a lot both in the DK starting areas and in the higher zones of Northrend.
Phasing occurs without loading screens and makes for a complete new experience in mmorpg's."
Well tbh in the DK area the phasing just the simple moving of your character to different maps and the de/re spawning of art assets... SWG did this on a smaller scale before WotL was released. And should we talk flying... .. . CoH whips WoW on this so hard i'm sure a potential warcraft 4 will feel the sting.
And please... Don't compare a newborn with a soon to be first-grader... If any comparison should be made do it with the state of the game whne WOW was released. Or even better don't bother comparing at all, tuck your e-peens back and understand that different people want differant things and never will there be a game that pleases everyone.
Oh and if anyone need to know... i can mess you my gaming resume.
No serious raid guild in Wow wants even to raid without deadly boss and about a million other add-ons these days....
Is that an indication of a rise in WoW difficulty, or a rise in player laziness? Most people complain that WoW is too easy now, yet people use all of these add-ons to make it easier.
If you simply want to talk about raids, sure, games may be more complex today. I personally don't care for raiding much. You want to talk about nearly anything beyond raids, games are degressing violently. From crafting, to social tools, player interaction, character building, risk vs. reward, you name it, it has been dumbed down in recent years.
Just compare SWG crafting to WoWs, or compare Guild War's Skill system to any random generic "Talent points" system, or Eve's political and social interactions to any other game out there, things are getting simpler and simpler. Can't be denied.
"a million other add-ons" and "too easy"
That perfectly describes why I quit WoW and wont look back; the game gets easier with every patch. I seriously think Blizzard has confused "casual" with "stupid." Hell, they even built in a threat-meter in the game, one of several add-ons i swore to never touch.
Oh and this bonus-stupidity: why the heck was the aquatic form made a sea lion..?! Sea lions are mammals for crying out loud! THEY CANT BREATH UNDER WATER!
Comments
So since it's a "PvP" based game the quests are allowed to suck, along with everything else not related to PvP? Yes, I'm sure that was their intention when putting all of that "content" in the game. Might as well go play a FPS if you ask me (Darkfall doesn't count).
Actually, the pvp sucks too, for a pvp game or not. They didn't even get that right. I have more fun playing fetch with my cat, and he doesn't even bring the damn ball back I have to go and get it each time.
i played war because I liked DAOC, sure it wasn't perfect but it to me was very much fun. With that and a few buddies playing it i decided to give it a go ... and thus my opinion on it.
Even the PVP is dumbed down too ... you have more players than your enemy ... YOU WIN!!! is there any tactics to RVR in Warhammer besides Zerg and AOE as much as possible?
finally I knew RVR was the focus but i didn't think the game would basically be an RPG version of a FPS deathmatch. maybe Mythic needs to add Nut shots like this f*****G ad keeps spamming.
Oh, this is cute.
Really. It makes me just want to pinch your cheeks and say,"Gootchie-Gootchie-Goo!"
Ok, I'm willing to throw you a bone here and admit not everyone wants to play Chess or Backgammon. There is a target audience for Connect Four. Yes, even the new drop-out Connect Four, fair enough.
But, back in the olden days, if I joined a party as a Tank, I was the Tank. My job was to hold aggro while the rest of the party went to work. If we all worked together we won. If not, we failed. Usually with a significant penalty. That gave us incentive to work effectively as a team. That doesn't happen a lot today.
And don't sit there and tell me I'm not the "Target Audience". I'm the "Target Audience" that built this genre for you boy.
Your analysis of "things were better the way they were before" is simply selective perception fueled by nostalgia. The fact of the matter is that games, along with ALL forms of entertainment, are becoming more complex at an exponential rate. A collection of information arguing this point can be found in the book I cited previously, "Everything Bad Is Good For You" by Stephen Johnson.
Specific examples don't work well with games, especially MMORPGs, because mass market games made for a huge audience are a relatively new phenomenon, emerging in the past decade or so. Obviously, it's unfair to compare "hardcore", niche games of yesterday with a mainstream, casual game of today.
Penalties on death and other similar mechanics are simple timesinks. There's no other form of game that turns to such a thing. The penalty is dying. What is the "death penalty" in chess? None. "Death", or losing a piece, is the penalty. A professional sports team suffers no arbitrary penalty when losing. The loss itself is the penalty. Players know when they died, and failed.
MMORPG "penalties" are extraneous things that add nothing to the core gameplay. In old designs, such penalties were applied to get money out of the player (in the form of real quarters or later, fictional gold) and artificially extend the time spent in the game exploring actual content through experience/item loss and corpse runs. Since actual dynamic content was so sparse in many older games, this was important.
Developers didn't institute such things because they subscribed to some "hardcore" code. It was a simple design tool that is becoming obsolete.
I'm not completely numb to your POV. In fact, I love punishingly difficult, oldschool games of all shapes and sizes. However, I realize that that sort of gamer mentality is one of many and a strong minority at that. The games catering to it will always be a minority as well.
"They possess power unparalleled...
Ageless, remorseless. Without pity or conscience.
Manipulators of evolution on countless worlds.
Gods of the stars... the Celestial Host."
Your analysis of "things were better the way they were before" is simply selective perception fueled by nostalgia. The fact of the matter is that games, along with ALL forms of entertainment, are becoming more complex at an exponential rate. A collection of information arguing this point can be found in the book I cited previously, "Everything Bad Is Good For You" by Stephen Johnson.
Specific examples don't work well with games, especially MMORPGs, because mass market games made for a huge audience are a relatively new phenomenon, emerging in the past decade or so. Obviously, it's unfair to compare "hardcore", niche games of yesterday with a mainstream, casual game of today.
Penalties on death and other similar mechanics are simple timesinks. There's no other form of game that turns to such a thing. The penalty is dying. What is the "death penalty" in chess? None. "Death", or losing a piece, is the penalty. A professional sports team suffers no arbitrary penalty when losing. The loss itself is the penalty. Players know when they died, and failed.
MMORPG "penalties" are extraneous things that add nothing to the core gameplay. In old designs, such penalties were applied to get money out of the player (in the form of real quarters or later, fictional gold) and artificially extend the time spent in the game exploring actual content through experience/item loss and corpse runs. Since actual dynamic content was so sparse in many older games, this was important.
Developers didn't institute such things because they subscribed to some "hardcore" code. It was a simple design tool that is becoming obsolete.
I'm not completely numb to your POV. In fact, I love punishingly difficult, oldschool games of all shapes and sizes. However, I realize that that sort of gamer mentality is one of many and a strong minority at that. The games catering to it will always be a minority as well.
You FAIL as a game designer if you think the average game does not have death penalty
Exhibit A:
Final Fantasy and most popular RPG will have save points. What do you think happens when you die? You lose TIME. Sometimes there is long gap between save points. In Lost Odyssey there would be many boss fights inbetween saves. This is lost time
Exhibit B:
Some games, like Titan Quest, went so far as to take away XP for death. So did Neverwinter nights.
Exhibit C:
Gears of WAR has checkpoints. What you think happen when you die before hitting next checkpoint?
Exhibit
Games like Elder scrolls you can save anywhere most of the time. However if you forget, you will die and its game over. This is not much different from EVE's death whereas if you forget to buy new clone you lose TIME invested
I can go on and on here. Mass Effect, checkpoints. Star Ocean, save points. You just dont play any games period if you think they have no Death Penalty
Counterstrike - upon death you sit out the match
Defense of the ancients - played by millions. When you die you lose gold. Same with Warcraft 3 hero deaths
Of course returning to a save/spawn/checkpoint is a loss of time invested. However, this would generally be considered the traditional game "death" - going back to the start of an area upon failure. Hence my saying "get up and try again". When I die and go back to a checkpoint in Gears of War, I don't incur an additional "death penalty" that makes my guns unable to fire for ten minutes while I'm "rez sick". That's a timesink. Dying is the penalty.
The death system in WAR is the traditional type. You die, go back to spawn point and try again. The OP was complaining about this, wanting a system that actually punished the player with corpse runs or similar timesinks in addition to them dying. I was specifically referring to these sort of extraneous "penalties" or handicaps attached to death.
"They possess power unparalleled...
Ageless, remorseless. Without pity or conscience.
Manipulators of evolution on countless worlds.
Gods of the stars... the Celestial Host."
I'll have to back Abrahhm on this one too.
Everquest required the following to be in a given casual non-raid leveling group, either outdoors or in a dungeon. A tank, a healer, DPS, and a crowd control person. The crowd control person was semi optional depending on the location and types of monsters being fought, but a group almost always HAD to have someone who could snare or root * very quickly * because of running mobs. Of course crowd control was less of an issue once camps were broken, but the element of " There is some genuine risk here if I am grouped with 1-2 stupid people " was present.
With World of Warcraft in the current iteration of Wrath of the Lich King, we need... how much crowd control exactly, for Heroic Dungeons? Er, how much of a risk is present with monsters running off at low health, or a simulated low morale with how a fight is going? Hm. None would be the answer there.
Moving onto Warhammer Online, I saw pretty much the same thing the original poster saw. A game with theoretical MAGNIFICENT potential due to the game license and setting, current game engine technology, and Mythic who has learned a HELL OF A LOT from their experience with DAoC.
But Mythic choked and made the game a WoW clone that wasn't even close to a polished finish due to EA leaning on them to release the game as early as possible, the game being finished or not be damned.
In terms of complexity, no one on the face of the planet can argue that the game is a STEP UP from World of Warcraft in terms of consequences for failure, party composition, PvP dynamics, or immersive gameplay through crafting / factions / in-game rankings and unlocking content.
Edit - I did buy a collector's box edition, and I did give the game a two month try out of a mixture of both hope and patience. I wasn't set within my mind with the expectation that Warhammer would be the "Perfect Game". I had an expectation of " Cool. This should easily be better than DAoC in scope and what it will offer to players, just because of time passage with the company's ability. " - I was in for a very cruel reality check and disappointment.
That would be a fine and dandy argument if WAR's PvP was good. It isn't.
That's another topic. You can call it bad, but you can't call it watered down simply because you don't enjoy it. I unsubscribed to the game because I found the constant AoE spells and CCing frustrating, but I know enough to realize that the only similarities between WoW and WAR and merely skin deep.
Also, Adrammalech is completely right. Death Penalties are an archaic form of punishment that only existed in the first place because of the genre's growing pains. It's as stupid as having continues in a video game. Continues only existed to eat up your quarters in the arcades, but dumb developers didn't figure that out and many 8 and 16 bit games continued to have continues. Death Penalties, at least severe ones, are really just as idiotic. You can punish people for losing in a game without sucking the fun out of it, and many modern games do it right. WAR, I think does it right by keeping the game fun by allowing you to not have to alt-tab for 15 minutes while your death penalty elapses but instead hurts your wallet.
I'm sure many of the so-called "hardcore kiddies" would cry when they played a game with a truly hardcore penalty: perma death.
That would be a fine and dandy argument if WAR's PvP was good. It isn't.
That's another topic. You can call it bad, but you can't call it watered down simply because you don't enjoy it. I unsubscribed to the game because I found the constant AoE spells and CCing frustrating, but I know enough to realize that the only similarities between WoW and WAR and merely skin deep.
Skin deep? I would say there is much, much more similarities between WoW and WAR than just skin.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic
Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW
Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike
Loved: Star Wars Galaxies
Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
That would be a fine and dandy argument if WAR's PvP was good. It isn't.
That's another topic. You can call it bad, but you can't call it watered down simply because you don't enjoy it. I unsubscribed to the game because I found the constant AoE spells and CCing frustrating, but I know enough to realize that the only similarities between WoW and WAR and merely skin deep.
Skin deep? I would say there is much, much more similarities between WoW and WAR than just skin.
Such as?
Well you have not said why you dislike Darkfall, maybe you don't like PvP which would be the only legitimate reason I can think of, because Darkfall is the opposite of everything you describe of disliking.
Darkfall is designed to encourage grouping and therefore is more social with a lively community. Of course if you don't like PvP you will think being ganked is anti-social.
It is a virtual world designed around skilling up by hunting and adventuring in both PVE and PVP. Quests are not the focus.
Death is significant since you drop all your items on your corpse in both PVE and PVP so anyone can loot them.
Questgivers don't have stupid unrealisitc icons floating over their heads and the advancement is challenging. It is not one of the standard fare dummy down games that seem to be popular.
You are constantly fearful of being attacked and therefore mindful of your surroundings and health status which keeps the adrenaline pumping.
It is also a fantastic game for crafting. You can craft anything and everything and it is challenging to skill up all your harvesting and crafting skills and collect all the necessary ingredients. The market for crafted goods is very healthy.
If you like to explore, it's a huge world with many hidden gems.
Oh, this is cute.
Really. It makes me just want to pinch your cheeks and say,"Gootchie-Gootchie-Goo!"
Ok, I'm willing to throw you a bone here and admit not everyone wants to play Chess or Backgammon. There is a target audience for Connect Four. Yes, even the new drop-out Connect Four, fair enough.
But, back in the olden days, if I joined a party as a Tank, I was the Tank. My job was to hold aggro while the rest of the party went to work. If we all worked together we won. If not, we failed. Usually with a significant penalty. That gave us incentive to work effectively as a team. That doesn't happen a lot today.
And don't sit there and tell me I'm not the "Target Audience". I'm the "Target Audience" that built this genre for you boy.
Oh please. Don't give me that "I've been around the block" tripe. I've been around since Meridian 59 bub. Yet neither you nor me helped to do anything for this genre, not unless you claim to be a member of the MMO industry that makes game changing decisions. Get over yourself. I played EQ, UO, AO, DAoC, FFXI, SWG Pre and Post NGE, CoH / CoV LOTRO, EQII, Warhammer Online, so and and so forth. There, does that help with those credentials?
Doesn't matter if you been here since DIKU's were popular or just joined the genre. The industry makes it's decisions based on how much money they make. They DON'T make nearly as much money with old school MMO paradigms and that is a proven fact. Deal with it. I, for one, am quite happy with the changing times. I can't stand the whole "second job" feel of the old games, making it hard to even call them games in the first place.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
It's funny, but reading the various comments here there seems to be two camps of people: those who believe games should be fun, and those who believe games should validate their e-peen status.
That would be a fine and dandy argument if WAR's PvP was good. It isn't.
That's another topic. You can call it bad, but you can't call it watered down simply because you don't enjoy it. I unsubscribed to the game because I found the constant AoE spells and CCing frustrating, but I know enough to realize that the only similarities between WoW and WAR and merely skin deep.
Skin deep? I would say there is much, much more similarities between WoW and WAR than just skin.
Such as?
I dunno, combat, class system, little risk vs. high reward, limited social interaction, poor cartoony graphics, just to name a few. I'd be more curious on how you think WAR is different form WoW?
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic
Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW
Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike
Loved: Star Wars Galaxies
Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
This thread is hilarious.
It's funny, but reading the various comments here there seems to be two camps of people: those who believe games should be fun, and those who believe games should validate their e-peen status.
Obviously both camps think their style of MMOG or game is fun. Your viewpoint isn't credible unless you admit this instead of trying to suggest the other type of design couldn't possible be fun for someone else and is only preferable to those with epeen issues.
Veteran and hardcore gamers traditionally like harder more challenging MMOGs and casual gamers prefer easier games that don't focus on accomplishments that require a lot of effort and time. It's nothing more.
Combat? How is the combat in WAR different than the combat in just about any other MMO? Get in front of enemy, press hotkey, rinse and repeat. It's the way it's done in DAoC, WoW, and about 99% of MMOs past and present.
Class system? Uh, what? Maybe you haven't played WoW, but that game has a very distinct talent tree system that made up the class system which allowed a class to play any of several roles. One second your Warrior can be a DPS machine, the next it's a purely defensive tank. In WAR, the classes are much more rigid and there is not as much room to veer from the norm. Nope, not similar at all. It's definitely more DAoC than WoW.
Little Risk vs. High Reward? Can you be more vague? Unless you're playing Ultima Online where getting killed equals losing everything you've equipped, even the clothes on your back, all MMOs follow this. What was the high risk in DAoC again?
Limited Social Interaction? This...is even more vague. Are you referring to grouping because WAR definitely enforces this much more than WoW and the pretty much negates having to spam "LFG" messages due to the innovative "open groups" feature.
Poor Cartoony Graphics? Uh, have you ever head of Warhammer before? Let me brush you up on it: it's been around for about 25 years and it's always been cartoony, but unlike WoW's goofy cartoony look, Warhammer is more darker and gritty of a cartoon. As far as graphical fidelity, I think the landscapes in WAR look butt ugly, but the character models have a lot of detail and are amazing.
The only similarity between WoW and Warhammer Online, or rather, the only things Mythic borrowed from Blizzard, was the control scheme, some UI elements, and quest structure. Other than that, this game is Dark Age of Camelot set in the Warhammer Universe with a slightly larger emphasis on PvE.
I mean, I really don't see any sort of PvP XP system in WoW. I don't see how you can level your character completely in PvP. I don't see you sieging enemy keeps and forts and capital cities. I don't see open grouping. I don't see public quests. I don't see players wearing trophies or dying their armor. I don't see capturing entire zones. I don't see guilds leveling up and having the abilitiy to claim keeps.
The fact is, Warhammer Online is more different from WoW than it is similar. Saying it's a watered down WoW just displays ignorance on the subject. You would have no issue if you think WAR is a bad game since all of WAR's unique features don't necessarily equal a fun experience, and in my mind many of them don't, but inferring that these two games are so similar is purely idiotic.
So when a group of players complained that a boss in FFXI took dozens of hours and killed it anyway, that's them having fun? Ever heard of sadism? Some people will go through hell just as long as it makes them feel better than other people, and you're completely deluded to think people will not do very frustrating and mind-numbingly boring tasks in an MMO for some sort of reward. Even in LoTRO, one of the most casual MMOs on the market, has a grindtastic deed system that many players will willing admit to doing despite hating it just so they can have an extra 2 stat points. You're lying to yourself if you don't believe there's a group of players that place status over fun.
Also, calling certain players hardcore or veteran is such a biased use of terminology. Is there an agreed upon definition of "hardcore"? Also, "veteran" players have no preference on the type of MMO. If you've played games like Meridian or Asheron's Call or other MMOs of that era, it doesn't make you less likely to enjoy something like City of Heroes or LoTRO.
I could not stomach most of posts so I read first two pages then a little form the last and shall form my own statement.
There seems to be different “classification’s” of what a MMO should be these days. I think everyone has a right to their play style, but I see one thing in common with all posts, there is no game that will fully seduce every “Classification” of gamer.
What I feel needs to be done is bring back the “RP” in mmoRPG’s instead of making another glorified “Action “ multi player game. And for the qq out there no I’m not talking about “RP” as in what u find on WOW RP server’s, I am not talking about the care bear type neither. What I am talking about is bringing the players back to the game where what they do makes a difference in the game world whether it be PVP,PVE, Raids, Instance’s, Crafting, Faction farming. Make games where a player influences the NPC, where their countless hours of grinding will be remembered even after the player “re-Roll’s” or quits for a new game. Have a random quest engine where depending on what the player has done in their progression of the game determines what type of quest they will receive, what reward they are offered. And during the quest things change, so no quest will end exactly the same for that player. Have an expansive world, where it will take years to fully explorer each scenery. Player created content (i.e. quests, gear, vehicles, mount, ETC.)
The game industry is at a standoff with consumer’s it costs millions to complete a MMO and thousands to run it yearly. No company will take a chance and create something new in order to get the players involved in the game instead they give content proven to keep majority of the gamming community, and attract younger players with mummy and daddy’s wallet in a choke hold. Why take a risk of a 4 million dollar budget sinking. An auto assault is perfect example of a game that epically crashed. The game took a new spin on MMO and there was a community but not a big enough one to support the over head so without warning they shut down servers and put the dedicated budget towards other games.
I am a avid player of many mmo’s I am always on the beta watch for something that has potential.
I have tested over 100 games big tittles to no name Companies, I will say this each game I have tested has had something new in their game to try to attract avid gamers’. YET none have been able to establish themselves without taking something from someone else. It is the concept of “If it works, DON’T FIX IT."
This always makes me laugh, because people always expect something when there is no real reason to be expecting much of anything. We usually have short memories and get even more selective with those. Mythic's 'games' (figured Wiki would be good enough):
List of Games:
Now, if you look at that list and look at only the MMOS that were IPs and how "good" they were (when they were actually made, lol), if you are Games Workshop, why the hell would you let a company with this track record handle your baby? (I left out FAIL on the other non-IP MMOs, even though some of them tanked.)
Games Workshop had no reason to be optimistic, nor did anyone else, given this shoddy body of work. But because they finally got some unexpected success with DAoC, all of a sudden people believed they got it right. I never understood this thinking at all.
Even if half of those games made good, would you really want to trust your IP to these guys? Seriously?
"TO MICHAEL!"
I dont think everyone is understanding the design aspects of any type of mmo game. Because and Mmo deals with a massive amount of players at one time it IS SUPPOSE "to cater to many different players". In order to establish a successful community a variety of people/players is required. Guilds would never be successful if you had a game full of "leader" mentality players. Communities would never flourish if you have a mmo that only attracts solo pve players. Most of you almost understand mmo design, but i do not think most of you really get it.
To stay on topic WAR failed in nearly anyway. The only contribution it made to the mmo world of gaming was public quest. Nothing more. The developers stated that WAR was to be the football of MMO. You log on and just play to have fun. Not really though. Some posters claim that WAR's and Wows lack of consequences and easy mode is the evolution of game design. This is completely false. In order to create a successful MMO you must have balance. Wow was successful in its early days clearly because they found the balance. Hardcore / Casual could play which means you have a variety of players which equals a solid community. It takes the approach, "easy to play hard to master". Once an mmo contains extreme penalties or even extreme convenience the game starts isolating other players. Its impossible for a successful game to survive without a consequence. Just like kinetic energy cannot be destroyed you cannot expect to make a choice in game or Real life with out a consequence. "That tennis ball will bouce no matter what" That is a rule of existance. Pvp has no meaning if it does not penalize the loser. That is the pure point of pvp to cause grief and proove your talent. Pve must has no challenge without a consequence system. The phrase "time sink" is bull nearly because all things we do revolves around time. You cant do a quest without it taking time. You cant do hunt down a player pvp without taking time. You cant expect consequence to not take time. That would be insane. Games are played just so they take time we wouldn't want to spend anywhere else.
I do recall someone stating that old school gamers are no longer the target audience. You are clearly stupid as bricks. I will give you a accurate example. Lets look at the console gaming division. Nintendo as well as the wii cater to nothing but casual gamers and making games as easy(stupid proof) as possible. As all gamers know this has attracted more shovel than ever seen in gaming history to the nintendo. If you call this casual / easy way of a game design the future, then i'm sure you belong with the nintendo wii fanbase.
Now, after all that i can say "I agree with the OP, WAR is dumb and Wow is getting there". However, I do not have any solid knowledge/gameplayed experience with DF, so I won't comment on that.
Working on it
This always makes me laugh, because people always expect something when there is no real reason to be expecting much of anything. We usually have short memories and get even more selective with those. Mythic's 'games' (figured Wiki would be good enough):
List of Games:
Now, if you look at that list and look at only the MMOS that were IPs and how "good" they were (when they were actually made, lol), if you are Games Workshop, why the hell would you let a company with this track record handle your baby? (I left out FAIL on the other non-IP MMOs, even though some of them tanked.)
Games Workshop had no reason to be optimistic, nor did anyone else, given this shoddy body of work. But because they finally got some unexpected success with DAoC, all of a sudden people believed they got it right. I never understood this thinking at all.
Even if half of those games made good, would you really want to trust your IP to these guys? Seriously?
Ok, Now take these from Blizzard since they started with Mark Morhaime and Chris Metzen ....
Warcraft: Orcs & Humans (1994)
Justice League Task Force (1995)
The Lost Vikings II (1995)
Warcraft II: Tides Of Darkness (1995)
Warcraft II: Beyond The Dark Portal' (1995)
Diablo (1996)
StarCraft (1998)
StarCraft: Brood War (1998)
Diablo II (2000)
Diablo II: Lord of Destruction (2001)
Warcraft III: Reign Of Chaos (2002)
Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne (2003)
World of Warcraft (2004)
World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade (2007)
World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King (2008)
TBC ---> personal flying mounts in real 3D vertical worlds you can land anywhere.
WotLK ---> destructableKeeps/Towers with riding Siege engines and world phasing multiple times in its end game.
Anyone surprised why War couldn't touch the same quality ???
Ok, we will have to wait what the quality of SC2 and Diablo3 will be .....
))))
You can't fly you mounts in the old world so you can't land anywhere you want.
WOTLK, yeah that only happens in one zone and WAR has the same thing all over.
I am not a fan of any of the above games but WOW is not much better than WAR,it is a bit better but not by much.
I think VG pawnzs both them games hands down but it only for a select few who like the old style EQ1 game-play but it still has more features than WOW and WAR.
Jah Rasta For I.
The Wicked Shall Fall..
http://www.ethnic2020.com/images/Ebay/black-jesus.jpg
"Phasing is the complete change of a world to a character once he does chain quests and it happens a lot both in the DK starting areas and in the higher zones of Northrend.
Phasing occurs without loading screens and makes for a complete new experience in mmorpg's."
Well tbh in the DK area the phasing just the simple moving of your character to different maps and the de/re spawning of art assets... SWG did this on a smaller scale before WotL was released. And should we talk flying... .. . CoH whips WoW on this so hard i'm sure a potential warcraft 4 will feel the sting.
And please... Don't compare a newborn with a soon to be first-grader... If any comparison should be made do it with the state of the game whne WOW was released. Or even better don't bother comparing at all, tuck your e-peens back and understand that different people want differant things and never will there be a game that pleases everyone.
Oh and if anyone need to know... i can mess you my gaming resume.
This have been a good conversation
It's really all the developers fault. All the developers want anymore is money, and that clouds their will to be creative and try something new.
No serious raid guild in Wow wants even to raid without deadly boss and about a million other add-ons these days....
Is that an indication of a rise in WoW difficulty, or a rise in player laziness? Most people complain that WoW is too easy now, yet people use all of these add-ons to make it easier.
If you simply want to talk about raids, sure, games may be more complex today. I personally don't care for raiding much. You want to talk about nearly anything beyond raids, games are degressing violently. From crafting, to social tools, player interaction, character building, risk vs. reward, you name it, it has been dumbed down in recent years.
Just compare SWG crafting to WoWs, or compare Guild War's Skill system to any random generic "Talent points" system, or Eve's political and social interactions to any other game out there, things are getting simpler and simpler. Can't be denied.
"a million other add-ons" and "too easy"
That perfectly describes why I quit WoW and wont look back; the game gets easier with every patch. I seriously think Blizzard has confused "casual" with "stupid." Hell, they even built in a threat-meter in the game, one of several add-ons i swore to never touch.
Oh and this bonus-stupidity: why the heck was the aquatic form made a sea lion..?! Sea lions are mammals for crying out loud! THEY CANT BREATH UNDER WATER!
/rant off