Not again those thread about fpv never work omg. MO is realistic, i know that a game cannot have the same fps that we have in real life, but in real life, we cannot see our own body too. While MO try to be the most realistic mmorpg, the decision was to go full fps and they will try to improve it everytime, there will nver be TPV. Thats it thats all. I like it better that way. There are bunch of fps games out there so why the hell an mmorpg could not be that huh? Please...
EDIT: You know whats funny to me, seing post with ppl saying that FPS melee combat is not realistic, but those who say that never fight in real life them self thats for sure. When you fight in melee and you get hit in the face, your view start to shake and all. You see in a whole other colour because of the andrelaline and all. Your whole body is shaking. I play football for 7 years so i know what im talking about. When i play football, i feel that im full 100 fps. Its more easy to see whats going on around me because of the sound, the feeling as a human and all. MO try to capture taht feeling, but it still a game. All it can do is doing his best to be the most immersive possible. Adding a third person view would be like (fuck it, lets give them third person view and lets forget about all our work on the immersion. )
I think people afraid of FPV just don't know how good a FPV only RPG can be. They should play some Dark Messiah/Oblivion. And if you did and really just dont like it, well, I guess MO is not for you but no worry. ALL others MMORPG are TPV... Pick one.
Like many others, I too 'quit in disgust' from 'carebear, hand-holding' games like WoW a few years ago, in search of a truly revolutionary approach to MMO gaming.
I wont go into a detailed description of how my view on sandbox, innovative gaming has changed, but suffice it to say that I don't believe any sandbox game can survive in the long-run without placing:
1)some limitations
2)some rules and
3)setting some goals.
A game is defined as such by the existence of an end goal and play-set rules. Depriving any of those two and branding that "sandbox", is like canceling the concept of gaming altogether.
MO won't have any different fate from Darkfail, if SV don't dramatically think of additional gameplay features to implement or re-design. What must be noted, however, is that the beta-testing process so far has been a lot more professional than DF's beta.
Like many others, I too 'quit in disgust' from 'carebear, hand-holding' games like WoW a few years ago, in search of a truly revolutionary approach to MMO gaming. I wont go into a detailed description of how my view on sandbox, innovative gaming has changed, but suffice it to say that I don't believe any sandbox game can survive in the long-run without placing: 1)some limitations 2)some rules and 3)setting some goals.
A game is defined as such by the existence of an end goal and play-set rules. Depriving any of those two and branding that "sandbox", is like canceling the concept of gaming altogether.
MO won't have any different fate from Darkfail, if SV don't dramatically think of additional gameplay features to implement or re-design. What must be noted, however, is that the beta-testing process so far has been a lot more professional than DF's beta.
Uhhh yeah Eve has proven that large-scale sandbox games can, in fact, survive and grow over the long-term. I mean people can keep claiming what you are, but they'll keep being wrong.
What's more is Eve has steadily, if very, very slowly grown even despite its shortcomings. Slow combat, 100% player-run economy (the cons of such a system - if you buy something that isn't at your station you have to go get it, if you want to move your operation it can take a very long time, etc.), heavy-loss on death (losing your ship and all it's fittings, being podded and losing your implants). So let's see here: Sandbox? check. Heavy death penalties? check. Open pvp? check. Steep learning curve? check. Steady growth over many years? check.
Right now Eve reports 300k or so subscribers. That's not a -massive- number when you compare it to something like WoW, but more than enough to make lots of money (as the company) and more than enough to have an enjoyable game experience (as a player). Of course it also helps that the entire community of 300k people are all on one server, with ~50k online at a given time. If MO can pull off a massive meta server setup too then that would be very awesome.
For Eve it's very tech heavy and I can imagine that the reason why it isn't attempted more is because it is actually VERY tech heavy. The game has to go down for maintenance every day (for one or two hours at hours when most living things are asleep.
If MO is anything like Eve, in that I find it quite fun and there is a more than healthy population of people, then I really don't care about subscription numbers or how anyone else feels about it.
First person view is a core feature. Its not as simple to add 3rd person to a game that was designed with first person combat in mind, damn all the emersion talk.
They would have to completely redesign the combat system in order to cater to the 3rd person view crowd. You can actually aim your strikes (melee/archery not magic) and hit one of the different hitboxes.
Personally I prefer 3rd person to 1st person, but after playing the game 1st person seems just right. If anything they just need to adjust the camera height and do something with the motion blur/fisheye effect.
Also this isnt a themepark mmo with cookie cutter instanced bossifghts where you need 3rd person to see wtf is going on.
Ofcourse the fact that it only has first person view will deter alot of people from buying or trying the game, but on the other hand it will also cater to alot of niche players.... the fact it is sandbox will aswell, and ofcourse pvp.
Personally i love the concept of having a first person only mmorpg, for me it is alot more immersive and generally a game of this style requires more skill, especially in pvp. You know alot of people loved Morrowind 1 and Oblivion, i think i can safely say that people spent most of their time in first person, atleast most people did.
First person does have its advantages, it depends how you look at it... an example will obviously be the advantage you can gain through tactical thinking, if you can ambush someone it should help you to win the fight, i think its a good thing that you can tell where people are looking.The fact it is first person too means there will be alot more skill involved than your usual mmorpg, personally i enjoy a game where skill is really needed by the individual especially in an mmo.
Heres a few fanatasy based first person games i can think of that did quite well....
Hexen 1 and 2
Heretic 1 (i think heretic 2 was 3rd person?)
Morrowind series
Dark Messiah
Arx Fatalis
Wheel of Time
Thief series (how awesome were these games! I loved the Atmosphere)
Half life mods like Age of Chivalry, Pirates Vikings Knights
These games were great and should not be dismissed, people do infact like first person fantasy style games, the actual concept of Mortal online is a good one in my opinion.... if the Mortal Online team actually make the game good, as in fun gameplay (especially the combat), i think it should get a decent playerbase.
Started playing mmorpg's in 1996 and have been hooked ever since. It began with Kingdom of Drakkar, Ultima Online, Everquest, DAoC, WoW...
MO won't have any different fate from Darkfail, if SV don't dramatically think of additional gameplay features to implement or re-design. What must be noted, however, is that the beta-testing process so far has been a lot more professional than DF's beta.
How so? The way SV has been selling off beta accounts months and months before release also makes SV far more deceitful and shady than Aventurine has ever been. MO is missing more than half its features and release is supposed to happen this year, not to mention all of the features that are in the beta don't work properly or just plain suck, hence all the preorder cancellations and hence why SV is trying to sell *another* 10K beta spots...
I'll take Darkfall's leadup to beta 20 times over SV's.
MO won't have any different fate from Darkfail, if SV don't dramatically think of additional gameplay features to implement or re-design. What must be noted, however, is that the beta-testing process so far has been a lot more professional than DF's beta.
How so? The way SV has been selling off beta accounts months and months before release also makes SV far more deceitful and shady than Aventurine has ever been. MO is missing more than half its features and release is supposed to happen this year, not to mention all of the features that are in the beta don't work properly or just plain suck, hence all the preorder cancellations and hence why SV is trying to sell *another* 10K beta spots...
I'll take Darkfall's leadup to beta 20 times over SV's.
The changelogs are public info.
You can see exactly what's in the game, and according to the changelog more then 90% of the game is in.
If Darkfall was so good, why are you here trying to make MO look bad.
They're just games man, no need to get insecure over one.
First person, more "skill based" combat in a sandbox dark fantasy universe is a great concept. While it doesnt appeal to the majority, sometimes a hidden gem can be created, the gem is currently being polished and hopefully it will have a great reflection. I do think this style has the potential for a very immersive game which could make alot of people orgasm.
I really hope the combat is as realistic as they can make it within the fantasy setting, the feeling of weight on weapons, directional combat moves and some good blocking/dodging.... oh and gore, mwahaha. I love my fantasy first person combat games. :P
Started playing mmorpg's in 1996 and have been hooked ever since. It began with Kingdom of Drakkar, Ultima Online, Everquest, DAoC, WoW...
So don't play it? Not to be rude, but this view "just does not work... FOR YOU". Lot's of people like it, they understand the immersion that comes with it. And that's fine, let them like it. There are plenty of other games out there for you to play. Why spend your time worrying about this one?
...why, indeed. It's not even like the game is still in beta or anything. Oh, wait. It is. Anyhow, thank you for pointing out that an opinion may not be agreed with by others. I can't say if that had ever occurred to me before.
Now that we've all worried about each other's interests and we've heard what basically amounts to an argument against discussion itself, back to the topic at hand:
Yes, the fisheye view combined with motion blur could not be less immersive nor could the experience be much more limiting. Sometimes realism is a matter of simulation, and sometimes it should be a tradeoff. The view from MO does not make up for the loss of RL vision-- it is not nearly a close enough simulation-- and a tradeoff of seeing the back of one's own head and body would come nearer to doing so.
I thought I was going to like the MO view, and it turns out I don't. It comes with immersion that I could reach without it, anyhow (granted that my brain by gender is not as likely to be as dependent on visual stimulation for its imagination as that of the 'average' gamer, who is male), and at a cost of anything like a realistic acquisition of visual targets (and by targets, I mean anything you'd focus your eyes on, not necessarily a target for interaction).
Feeling like a flounder with blinders on while glancing around is more likely to yank me out of immersion than the sight of my own body from a little behind and above. Anyone who doesn't enjoy or work as easily with it is not alone. I would not mind if it was changed; I just doubt that it will be.
Casilda Tametomo, Priestess of Soldeus | AKA Lepida Aegis-Imperium.com
«Si oblitus fuero usque ad finem omnia opera eorum»
So don't play it? Not to be rude, but this view "just does not work... FOR YOU". Lot's of people like it, they understand the immersion that comes with it. And that's fine, let them like it. There are plenty of other games out there for you to play. Why spend your time worrying about this one?
...why, indeed. It's not even like the game is still in beta or anything. Oh, wait. It is. Anyhow, thank you for pointing out that an opinion may not be agreed with by others. I can't say if that had ever occurred to me before.
Now that we've all worried about each other's interests and we've heard what basically amounts to an argument against discussion itself, back to the topic at hand:
Yes, the fisheye view combined with motion blur could not be less immersive nor could the experience be much more limiting. Sometimes realism is a matter of simulation, and sometimes it should be a tradeoff. The view from MO does not make up for the loss of RL vision-- it is not nearly a close enough simulation-- and a tradeoff of seeing the back of one's own head and body would come nearer to doing so.
I thought I was going to like the MO view, and it turns out I don't. It comes with immersion that I could reach without it, anyhow (granted that my brain by gender is not as likely to be as dependent on visual stimulation for its imagination as that of the 'average' gamer, who is male), and at a cost of anything like a realistic acquisition of visual targets (and by targets, I mean anything you'd focus your eyes on, not necessarily a target for interaction).
Feeling like a flounder with blinders on while glancing around is more likely to yank me out of immersion than the sight of my own body from a little behind and above. Anyone who doesn't enjoy or work as easily with it is not alone. I would not mind if it was changed; I just doubt that it will be.
So what you're saying is?
Some people like it, some don't.
it's a matter of taste, and no one's taste is wrong?
Other then that I got a lot of, "this is how it is" out of what you wrote.
You started out so well too.
High.
Mighty.
For a second there I thought you might actually point out that the guy you quoted had a very valid point.
Just because you don't like it,
Doesn't mean it's wrong.
I liked the nice little jab about visual stimulation.
Nice one.
They call it womanizing when a man does it, what's it called when a woman does?
So don't play it? Not to be rude, but this view "just does not work... FOR YOU". Lot's of people like it, they understand the immersion that comes with it. And that's fine, let them like it. There are plenty of other games out there for you to play. Why spend your time worrying about this one?
...why, indeed. It's not even like the game is still in beta or anything. Oh, wait. It is. Anyhow, thank you for pointing out that an opinion may not be agreed with by others. I can't say if that had ever occurred to me before.
Now that we've all worried about each other's interests and we've heard what basically amounts to an argument against discussion itself, back to the topic at hand:
Yes, the fisheye view combined with motion blur could not be less immersive nor could the experience be much more limiting. Sometimes realism is a matter of simulation, and sometimes it should be a tradeoff. The view from MO does not make up for the loss of RL vision-- it is not nearly a close enough simulation-- and a tradeoff of seeing the back of one's own head and body would come nearer to doing so.
I thought I was going to like the MO view, and it turns out I don't. It comes with immersion that I could reach without it, anyhow (granted that my brain by gender is not as likely to be as dependent on visual stimulation for its imagination as that of the 'average' gamer, who is male), and at a cost of anything like a realistic acquisition of visual targets (and by targets, I mean anything you'd focus your eyes on, not necessarily a target for interaction).
Feeling like a flounder with blinders on while glancing around is more likely to yank me out of immersion than the sight of my own body from a little behind and above. Anyone who doesn't enjoy or work as easily with it is not alone. I would not mind if it was changed; I just doubt that it will be.
So what you're saying is?
Some people like it, some don't.
-- Yes, that's exactly right. Thus it's useful to talk about why. I'm holding that a more realistic ability for everyone to use visual cues from the game in order to play it is more important than a feeling of immersion that only proceeds for some from the first person view.
For a second there I thought you might actually point out that the guy you quoted had a very valid point.
-- A point in favour of the argument that if you don't like something, you should remain quiet and abandon goals because some other people like the status quo? On the contrary. I don't think I gave that argument enough of a drubbing. It's fatuous.
Just because you don't like it,
Doesn't mean it's wrong.
-- Absolutely not. However, just because I don't like a thing doesn't make it right, either. The reasons why I like or dislike it are what's important.
If anything, though, I'm more likely to give up my preference for what I like if I feel it is wrong than to think a thing is wrong only because I don't like it. But that should be considered both obvious and offtopic.
I liked the nice little jab about visual stimulation.
Nice one.
They call it womanizing when a man does it, what's it called when a woman does? -- I don't suppose that pointing out general sociobiological differences between typical examples of each gender in order to explain why his own point of view might vary from a majority's would get a man called anything but a careful thinker-- certainly not a womaniser. What would his pointing out of what might bias his perception do to create the impression that he was too eager to pursue his opposite sex? Your use of the word womaniser is very odd, to say the least. I cannot agree with its use in your example. It smacks of misandry. It is also far, far off-topic.
Originally posted by Realbigdeal
Not again those thread about fpv never work omg. MO is realistic, i know that a game cannot have the same fps that we have in real life, but in real life, we cannot see our own body too.
-- Yes, again.
So true (about not always seeing our bodies in real life), but I posit we are missing the real life senses of balance and proprioception (and as mentioned, peripheral vision) more than we are gaining in realism from the first person and narrow angle point of view. The tradeoff, for that's what it is, must take into account all that isn't there that would be in a real situation like the one simulated or the discussion of its fairness and aptness is moot. If we include the tendency to get tunnelvision from adrenaline as part of the fight response and something to be emulated, we must ask if the hyperresponsivity of the flight response is also taken into account, or we have failed to thoroughly examine the question.
In the end, one expects no game to be absolutely realistic or fair, but it's fair to realistically assess just how close a simulation will come to being so. For me and many others, Mortal Online will not come as close as it could, nor as close as it should.
Casilda Tametomo, Priestess of Soldeus | AKA Lepida Aegis-Imperium.com
«Si oblitus fuero usque ad finem omnia opera eorum»
So don't play it? Not to be rude, but this view "just does not work... FOR YOU". Lot's of people like it, they understand the immersion that comes with it. And that's fine, let them like it. There are plenty of other games out there for you to play. Why spend your time worrying about this one?
...why, indeed. It's not even like the game is still in beta or anything. Oh, wait. It is. Anyhow, thank you for pointing out that an opinion may not be agreed with by others. I can't say if that had ever occurred to me before.
Now that we've all worried about each other's interests and we've heard what basically amounts to an argument against discussion itself, back to the topic at hand:
Yes, the fisheye view combined with motion blur could not be less immersive nor could the experience be much more limiting. Sometimes realism is a matter of simulation, and sometimes it should be a tradeoff. The view from MO does not make up for the loss of RL vision-- it is not nearly a close enough simulation-- and a tradeoff of seeing the back of one's own head and body would come nearer to doing so.
I thought I was going to like the MO view, and it turns out I don't. It comes with immersion that I could reach without it, anyhow (granted that my brain by gender is not as likely to be as dependent on visual stimulation for its imagination as that of the 'average' gamer, who is male), and at a cost of anything like a realistic acquisition of visual targets (and by targets, I mean anything you'd focus your eyes on, not necessarily a target for interaction).
Feeling like a flounder with blinders on while glancing around is more likely to yank me out of immersion than the sight of my own body from a little behind and above. Anyone who doesn't enjoy or work as easily with it is not alone. I would not mind if it was changed; I just doubt that it will be.
So what you're saying is?
Some people like it, some don't.
-- Yes, that's exactly right. Thus it's useful to talk about why. I'm holding that a more realistic ability for everyone to use visual cues from the game in order to play it is more important than a feeling of immersion that only proceeds for some from the first person view.
For a second there I thought you might actually point out that the guy you quoted had a very valid point.
-- A point in favour of the argument that if you don't like something, you should remain quiet and abandon goals because some other people like the status quo? On the contrary. I don't think I gave that argument enough of a drubbing. It's fatuous.
Just because you don't like it,
Doesn't mean it's wrong.
-- Absolutely not. However, just because I don't like a thing doesn't make it right, either. The reasons why I like or dislike it are what's important.
If anything, though, I'm more likely to give up my preference for what I like if I feel it is wrong than to think a thing is wrong only because I don't like it. But that should be considered both obvious and offtopic.
I liked the nice little jab about visual stimulation.
Nice one.
They call it womanizing when a man does it, what's it called when a woman does? -- I don't suppose that pointing out general sociobiological differences between typical examples of each gender in order to explain why his own point of view might vary from a majority's would get a man called anything but a careful thinker-- certainly not a womaniser. What would his pointing out of what might bias his perception do to create the impression that he was too eager to pursue his opposite sex? Your use of the word womaniser is very odd, to say the least. I cannot agree with its use in your example. It smacks of misandry. It is also far, far off-topic.
Originally posted by Realbigdeal
Not again those thread about fpv never work omg. MO is realistic, i know that a game cannot have the same fps that we have in real life, but in real life, we cannot see our own body too.
-- Yes, again.
So true (about not always seeing our bodies in real life), but I posit we are missing the real life senses of balance and proprioception (and as mentioned, peripheral vision) more than we are gaining in realism from the first person and narrow angle point of view. The tradeoff, for that's what it is, must take into account all that isn't there that would be in a real situation like the one simulated or the discussion of its fairness and aptness is moot. If we include the tendency to get tunnelvision from adrenaline as part of the fight response and something to be emulated, we must ask if the hyperresponsivity of the flight response is also taken into account, or we have failed to thoroughly examine the question.
In the end, one expects no game to be absolutely realistic or fair, but it's fair to realistically assess just how close a simulation will come to being so. For me and many others, Mortal Online will not come as close as it could, nor as close as it should.
Please explain how they could take the game further in terms of realism.
FPV, sure it doesn't have the ability to show peripheral vision. Even if they programmed the game to support it most of the people would not be able to afford the hardware to be able to see it, so it would actually unbalance the game.
Sound in games are usually very well done and if they do it right the sounds will cover the peripheral vision because if you wear headsets and are used to listening for foot steps you can tell when someone is coming from behind you.
Way I look at it if the huge corporations with endless supplies of money don't strive to make games even more realistic, how is a developer just starting out on their first game supossed to back that type of time into coding and what not.
Also having a toggle for 3rd person view makes FPV in PvP insane, 3rd person allows you to see people sneaking up behind you, FPV does not. They have already gone through an interview with mmorpg.com about the game and they have even said it out right that this game is being designed in their image as gamers, they want to make a game they want to play so not everyone is going to enjoy this game.
For the guy saying he was waiting for a new UO game but doesnt like FPV, EA is redesigning UO to newer graphics of course thats if you want to go back to a game that EA is redoing.
It's my favorite view and disliked ever since Everquest it has been abandon. There are no animations in 1st person view in WoW, Lotro .. etc. I am going to be waiting for a free trial of Mortal and may buy if I like it
Originally posted by Realbigdeal Not again those thread about fpv never work omg. MO is realistic, i know that a game cannot have the same fps that we have in real life, but in real life, we cannot see our own body too. -- Yes, again. So true (about not always seeing our bodies in real life), but I posit we are missing the real life senses of balance and proprioception (and as mentioned, peripheral vision) more than we are gaining in realism from the first person and narrow angle point of view. The tradeoff, for that's what it is, must take into account all that isn't there that would be in a real situation like the one simulated or the discussion of its fairness and aptness is moot. If we include the tendency to get tunnelvision from adrenaline as part of the fight response and something to be emulated, we must ask if the hyperresponsivity of the flight response is also taken into account, or we have failed to thoroughly examine the question. In the end, one expects no game to be absolutely realistic or fair, but it's fair to realistically assess just how close a simulation will come to being so. For me and many others, Mortal Online will not come as close as it could, nor as close as it should.
I understand your points, and agree that they should be considered.
However, examination of the "tradeoff" must also take into account all that is there that wouldn't be in a real situation.
Personal senses of balance, kinesthesia, and peripheral vision do not afford the ability to see one's own back, or the ability to see around corners without exposing one's own eyes - abilities commonly exploited in games featuring a third person view.
Inevitably, it will come down to opinions that Star Vault must evaluate and compare, hopefully selecting the one that holistically works best as a part of the entire construct.
Ultimately, a decision must be made. Neither you nor I get to make that decision - we get to decide whether or not to play the game. For me and many others, a first person view does come closer to reality than a third person view, so we are happy with SV's decision to stick with it (and that is the decision they have stated on many occasions that they are staying with).
As to fairness, everyone will be using the same view. It can't be any more fair than that.
Im sorry us in the MO community hate the idea of 3rd person.
And we could care less what you want from our game go play another game that may fit your 3rd person wants there plenty No games but FPS have all first person for those who want that.
So step off find a new game. Maybe Dawntide is the same as MO but its all 3rd person look it up leave MO the way it is.
And in my opinion, will be the downfall of this game, assuming that SV are able to sell enough new beta slots to fund the game development to the point of release. Leaving aside the well-known bad/dodgy aspects of the game -- the fact most of the touted features of the game are still not even in the game after months of beta, the generally very slow pace of development in the beta, and the fact that SV is having to sell off another 10K beta slots to continue the game's development -- I just don't think that FP-only view works very well at all for a MMORPG. The main reason why FP-only view doesn't work is that in real-life, we all have peripheral vision allowing us to perceive motion and limited detail out to almost 180 degree frontal arc. FP view necessarily retricts the viewing arc to closer to 90 degrees, or as in MO's case, extends a bit further, resulting in the (IMO, disturbing) "fish-eye" effect seen in MO videos. IMO, archery works quite well as FP, magic doesn't feel quite right as FP, and FP melee is downright terrible. FP magic loses a lot of immersion and wow factor due to magic animations being restricted to a "glowy hands" effect. FP melee is (IMO) particularly bad - the restricted viewing angle doesn't work well with the wide swinging arcs of medium to large hand-held weapons, leaving the FP melee feeling restricted, closed in, and claustrophobic - the precise opposite of what the experience should be like. Darkfall's approach of keeping archery and magic as FP but melee in 3rdPV in my opinion was the best possible compromise, though I would have preferred to have been able to manually flip between 1stPV and 3rdPV at all times. Feel free to share your thoughts.
If you are using "real life" as the basis of your argument, then third person wouldnt work either... you realize that right?
Second you say that magic wouldnt work in FP... there are tons of games that show that this is not the case. I suggest you play Arx Fatalis for an interesting first person magic mechanic. In fact, start with youtube videos. Oblivion also uses magic well in first person. You are aware that Mortal Online uses the Unreal engine right?
Third, Target audience. A little secret about video game development.... target audience. Not every mmorpg tries to be the next WoW. Blizzard intentionally designed their game for a broad market. Mortal Online is made for a niche market. Sometimes when your budget or team will not be able to compete with big titles such as WoW, you then have to provide a specialized product that appeals to a smaller but dedicated market.
That is what Mortal Online is doing. You say it wont work, then clearly you are not part of the target audience they are making the game for.
Comments
Not again those thread about fpv never work omg. MO is realistic, i know that a game cannot have the same fps that we have in real life, but in real life, we cannot see our own body too. While MO try to be the most realistic mmorpg, the decision was to go full fps and they will try to improve it everytime, there will nver be TPV. Thats it thats all. I like it better that way. There are bunch of fps games out there so why the hell an mmorpg could not be that huh? Please...
EDIT: You know whats funny to me, seing post with ppl saying that FPS melee combat is not realistic, but those who say that never fight in real life them self thats for sure. When you fight in melee and you get hit in the face, your view start to shake and all. You see in a whole other colour because of the andrelaline and all. Your whole body is shaking. I play football for 7 years so i know what im talking about. When i play football, i feel that im full 100 fps. Its more easy to see whats going on around me because of the sound, the feeling as a human and all. MO try to capture taht feeling, but it still a game. All it can do is doing his best to be the most immersive possible. Adding a third person view would be like (fuck it, lets give them third person view and lets forget about all our work on the immersion. )
MO is not for everyone so get off this board.
C:\Users\FF\Desktop\spin move.gif
I think people afraid of FPV just don't know how good a FPV only RPG can be. They should play some Dark Messiah/Oblivion. And if you did and really just dont like it, well, I guess MO is not for you but no worry. ALL others MMORPG are TPV... Pick one.
Like many others, I too 'quit in disgust' from 'carebear, hand-holding' games like WoW a few years ago, in search of a truly revolutionary approach to MMO gaming.
I wont go into a detailed description of how my view on sandbox, innovative gaming has changed, but suffice it to say that I don't believe any sandbox game can survive in the long-run without placing:
1)some limitations
2)some rules and
3)setting some goals.
A game is defined as such by the existence of an end goal and play-set rules. Depriving any of those two and branding that "sandbox", is like canceling the concept of gaming altogether.
MO won't have any different fate from Darkfail, if SV don't dramatically think of additional gameplay features to implement or re-design. What must be noted, however, is that the beta-testing process so far has been a lot more professional than DF's beta.
Uhhh yeah Eve has proven that large-scale sandbox games can, in fact, survive and grow over the long-term. I mean people can keep claiming what you are, but they'll keep being wrong.
What's more is Eve has steadily, if very, very slowly grown even despite its shortcomings. Slow combat, 100% player-run economy (the cons of such a system - if you buy something that isn't at your station you have to go get it, if you want to move your operation it can take a very long time, etc.), heavy-loss on death (losing your ship and all it's fittings, being podded and losing your implants). So let's see here: Sandbox? check. Heavy death penalties? check. Open pvp? check. Steep learning curve? check. Steady growth over many years? check.
Right now Eve reports 300k or so subscribers. That's not a -massive- number when you compare it to something like WoW, but more than enough to make lots of money (as the company) and more than enough to have an enjoyable game experience (as a player). Of course it also helps that the entire community of 300k people are all on one server, with ~50k online at a given time. If MO can pull off a massive meta server setup too then that would be very awesome.
For Eve it's very tech heavy and I can imagine that the reason why it isn't attempted more is because it is actually VERY tech heavy. The game has to go down for maintenance every day (for one or two hours at hours when most living things are asleep.
If MO is anything like Eve, in that I find it quite fun and there is a more than healthy population of people, then I really don't care about subscription numbers or how anyone else feels about it.
First person view is a core feature. Its not as simple to add 3rd person to a game that was designed with first person combat in mind, damn all the emersion talk.
They would have to completely redesign the combat system in order to cater to the 3rd person view crowd. You can actually aim your strikes (melee/archery not magic) and hit one of the different hitboxes.
Personally I prefer 3rd person to 1st person, but after playing the game 1st person seems just right. If anything they just need to adjust the camera height and do something with the motion blur/fisheye effect.
Also this isnt a themepark mmo with cookie cutter instanced bossifghts where you need 3rd person to see wtf is going on.
My sig is just as logical as your posts are
Apparently you've never played neocron.
the game mechanics worked quite well
even if it wasn't popular.
Ofcourse the fact that it only has first person view will deter alot of people from buying or trying the game, but on the other hand it will also cater to alot of niche players.... the fact it is sandbox will aswell, and ofcourse pvp.
Personally i love the concept of having a first person only mmorpg, for me it is alot more immersive and generally a game of this style requires more skill, especially in pvp. You know alot of people loved Morrowind 1 and Oblivion, i think i can safely say that people spent most of their time in first person, atleast most people did.
First person does have its advantages, it depends how you look at it... an example will obviously be the advantage you can gain through tactical thinking, if you can ambush someone it should help you to win the fight, i think its a good thing that you can tell where people are looking.The fact it is first person too means there will be alot more skill involved than your usual mmorpg, personally i enjoy a game where skill is really needed by the individual especially in an mmo.
Heres a few fanatasy based first person games i can think of that did quite well....
Hexen 1 and 2
Heretic 1 (i think heretic 2 was 3rd person?)
Morrowind series
Dark Messiah
Arx Fatalis
Wheel of Time
Thief series (how awesome were these games! I loved the Atmosphere)
Half life mods like Age of Chivalry, Pirates Vikings Knights
These games were great and should not be dismissed, people do infact like first person fantasy style games, the actual concept of Mortal online is a good one in my opinion.... if the Mortal Online team actually make the game good, as in fun gameplay (especially the combat), i think it should get a decent playerbase.
How so? The way SV has been selling off beta accounts months and months before release also makes SV far more deceitful and shady than Aventurine has ever been. MO is missing more than half its features and release is supposed to happen this year, not to mention all of the features that are in the beta don't work properly or just plain suck, hence all the preorder cancellations and hence why SV is trying to sell *another* 10K beta spots...
I'll take Darkfall's leadup to beta 20 times over SV's.
How so? The way SV has been selling off beta accounts months and months before release also makes SV far more deceitful and shady than Aventurine has ever been. MO is missing more than half its features and release is supposed to happen this year, not to mention all of the features that are in the beta don't work properly or just plain suck, hence all the preorder cancellations and hence why SV is trying to sell *another* 10K beta spots...
I'll take Darkfall's leadup to beta 20 times over SV's.
The changelogs are public info.
You can see exactly what's in the game, and according to the changelog more then 90% of the game is in.
If Darkfall was so good, why are you here trying to make MO look bad.
They're just games man, no need to get insecure over one.
First person, more "skill based" combat in a sandbox dark fantasy universe is a great concept. While it doesnt appeal to the majority, sometimes a hidden gem can be created, the gem is currently being polished and hopefully it will have a great reflection. I do think this style has the potential for a very immersive game which could make alot of people orgasm.
I really hope the combat is as realistic as they can make it within the fantasy setting, the feeling of weight on weapons, directional combat moves and some good blocking/dodging.... oh and gore, mwahaha. I love my fantasy first person combat games. :P
...why, indeed. It's not even like the game is still in beta or anything. Oh, wait. It is. Anyhow, thank you for pointing out that an opinion may not be agreed with by others. I can't say if that had ever occurred to me before.
Now that we've all worried about each other's interests and we've heard what basically amounts to an argument against discussion itself, back to the topic at hand:
Yes, the fisheye view combined with motion blur could not be less immersive nor could the experience be much more limiting. Sometimes realism is a matter of simulation, and sometimes it should be a tradeoff. The view from MO does not make up for the loss of RL vision-- it is not nearly a close enough simulation-- and a tradeoff of seeing the back of one's own head and body would come nearer to doing so.
I thought I was going to like the MO view, and it turns out I don't. It comes with immersion that I could reach without it, anyhow (granted that my brain by gender is not as likely to be as dependent on visual stimulation for its imagination as that of the 'average' gamer, who is male), and at a cost of anything like a realistic acquisition of visual targets (and by targets, I mean anything you'd focus your eyes on, not necessarily a target for interaction).
Feeling like a flounder with blinders on while glancing around is more likely to yank me out of immersion than the sight of my own body from a little behind and above. Anyone who doesn't enjoy or work as easily with it is not alone. I would not mind if it was changed; I just doubt that it will be.
«Si oblitus fuero usque ad finem omnia opera eorum»
...why, indeed. It's not even like the game is still in beta or anything. Oh, wait. It is. Anyhow, thank you for pointing out that an opinion may not be agreed with by others. I can't say if that had ever occurred to me before.
Now that we've all worried about each other's interests and we've heard what basically amounts to an argument against discussion itself, back to the topic at hand:
Yes, the fisheye view combined with motion blur could not be less immersive nor could the experience be much more limiting. Sometimes realism is a matter of simulation, and sometimes it should be a tradeoff. The view from MO does not make up for the loss of RL vision-- it is not nearly a close enough simulation-- and a tradeoff of seeing the back of one's own head and body would come nearer to doing so.
I thought I was going to like the MO view, and it turns out I don't. It comes with immersion that I could reach without it, anyhow (granted that my brain by gender is not as likely to be as dependent on visual stimulation for its imagination as that of the 'average' gamer, who is male), and at a cost of anything like a realistic acquisition of visual targets (and by targets, I mean anything you'd focus your eyes on, not necessarily a target for interaction).
Feeling like a flounder with blinders on while glancing around is more likely to yank me out of immersion than the sight of my own body from a little behind and above. Anyone who doesn't enjoy or work as easily with it is not alone. I would not mind if it was changed; I just doubt that it will be.
So what you're saying is?
Some people like it, some don't.
it's a matter of taste, and no one's taste is wrong?
Other then that I got a lot of, "this is how it is" out of what you wrote.
You started out so well too.
High.
Mighty.
For a second there I thought you might actually point out that the guy you quoted had a very valid point.
Just because you don't like it,
Doesn't mean it's wrong.
I liked the nice little jab about visual stimulation.
Nice one.
They call it womanizing when a man does it, what's it called when a woman does?
I play Darkfall and FV works perfectly.
I am sorry you feel like in this kind of game FV do not work.................but that's your opinion.
I will add that in heavily PVP focused game like MO and Darkfall, First View is a must, not an option.
If you cannot understand the reason why those games use FV, probably those aren't the kind of games you should play.
Would you play C.O.D. in third person view....................no, I thought so.
...why, indeed. It's not even like the game is still in beta or anything. Oh, wait. It is. Anyhow, thank you for pointing out that an opinion may not be agreed with by others. I can't say if that had ever occurred to me before.
Now that we've all worried about each other's interests and we've heard what basically amounts to an argument against discussion itself, back to the topic at hand:
Yes, the fisheye view combined with motion blur could not be less immersive nor could the experience be much more limiting. Sometimes realism is a matter of simulation, and sometimes it should be a tradeoff. The view from MO does not make up for the loss of RL vision-- it is not nearly a close enough simulation-- and a tradeoff of seeing the back of one's own head and body would come nearer to doing so.
I thought I was going to like the MO view, and it turns out I don't. It comes with immersion that I could reach without it, anyhow (granted that my brain by gender is not as likely to be as dependent on visual stimulation for its imagination as that of the 'average' gamer, who is male), and at a cost of anything like a realistic acquisition of visual targets (and by targets, I mean anything you'd focus your eyes on, not necessarily a target for interaction).
Feeling like a flounder with blinders on while glancing around is more likely to yank me out of immersion than the sight of my own body from a little behind and above. Anyone who doesn't enjoy or work as easily with it is not alone. I would not mind if it was changed; I just doubt that it will be.
So what you're saying is?
Some people like it, some don't.
-- Yes, that's exactly right. Thus it's useful to talk about why. I'm holding that a more realistic ability for everyone to use visual cues from the game in order to play it is more important than a feeling of immersion that only proceeds for some from the first person view.
For a second there I thought you might actually point out that the guy you quoted had a very valid point.
-- A point in favour of the argument that if you don't like something, you should remain quiet and abandon goals because some other people like the status quo? On the contrary. I don't think I gave that argument enough of a drubbing. It's fatuous.
Just because you don't like it,
Doesn't mean it's wrong.
-- Absolutely not. However, just because I don't like a thing doesn't make it right, either. The reasons why I like or dislike it are what's important.
If anything, though, I'm more likely to give up my preference for what I like if I feel it is wrong than to think a thing is wrong only because I don't like it. But that should be considered both obvious and offtopic.
Originally posted by Realbigdeal
Not again those thread about fpv never work omg. MO is realistic, i know that a game cannot have the same fps that we have in real life, but in real life, we cannot see our own body too.
-- Yes, again.
So true (about not always seeing our bodies in real life), but I posit we are missing the real life senses of balance and proprioception (and as mentioned, peripheral vision) more than we are gaining in realism from the first person and narrow angle point of view. The tradeoff, for that's what it is, must take into account all that isn't there that would be in a real situation like the one simulated or the discussion of its fairness and aptness is moot. If we include the tendency to get tunnelvision from adrenaline as part of the fight response and something to be emulated, we must ask if the hyperresponsivity of the flight response is also taken into account, or we have failed to thoroughly examine the question.
In the end, one expects no game to be absolutely realistic or fair, but it's fair to realistically assess just how close a simulation will come to being so. For me and many others, Mortal Online will not come as close as it could, nor as close as it should.
«Si oblitus fuero usque ad finem omnia opera eorum»
...why, indeed. It's not even like the game is still in beta or anything. Oh, wait. It is. Anyhow, thank you for pointing out that an opinion may not be agreed with by others. I can't say if that had ever occurred to me before.
Now that we've all worried about each other's interests and we've heard what basically amounts to an argument against discussion itself, back to the topic at hand:
Yes, the fisheye view combined with motion blur could not be less immersive nor could the experience be much more limiting. Sometimes realism is a matter of simulation, and sometimes it should be a tradeoff. The view from MO does not make up for the loss of RL vision-- it is not nearly a close enough simulation-- and a tradeoff of seeing the back of one's own head and body would come nearer to doing so.
I thought I was going to like the MO view, and it turns out I don't. It comes with immersion that I could reach without it, anyhow (granted that my brain by gender is not as likely to be as dependent on visual stimulation for its imagination as that of the 'average' gamer, who is male), and at a cost of anything like a realistic acquisition of visual targets (and by targets, I mean anything you'd focus your eyes on, not necessarily a target for interaction).
Feeling like a flounder with blinders on while glancing around is more likely to yank me out of immersion than the sight of my own body from a little behind and above. Anyone who doesn't enjoy or work as easily with it is not alone. I would not mind if it was changed; I just doubt that it will be.
So what you're saying is?
Some people like it, some don't.
-- Yes, that's exactly right. Thus it's useful to talk about why. I'm holding that a more realistic ability for everyone to use visual cues from the game in order to play it is more important than a feeling of immersion that only proceeds for some from the first person view.
For a second there I thought you might actually point out that the guy you quoted had a very valid point.
-- A point in favour of the argument that if you don't like something, you should remain quiet and abandon goals because some other people like the status quo? On the contrary. I don't think I gave that argument enough of a drubbing. It's fatuous.
Just because you don't like it,
Doesn't mean it's wrong.
-- Absolutely not. However, just because I don't like a thing doesn't make it right, either. The reasons why I like or dislike it are what's important.
If anything, though, I'm more likely to give up my preference for what I like if I feel it is wrong than to think a thing is wrong only because I don't like it. But that should be considered both obvious and offtopic.
Originally posted by Realbigdeal
Not again those thread about fpv never work omg. MO is realistic, i know that a game cannot have the same fps that we have in real life, but in real life, we cannot see our own body too.
-- Yes, again.
So true (about not always seeing our bodies in real life), but I posit we are missing the real life senses of balance and proprioception (and as mentioned, peripheral vision) more than we are gaining in realism from the first person and narrow angle point of view. The tradeoff, for that's what it is, must take into account all that isn't there that would be in a real situation like the one simulated or the discussion of its fairness and aptness is moot. If we include the tendency to get tunnelvision from adrenaline as part of the fight response and something to be emulated, we must ask if the hyperresponsivity of the flight response is also taken into account, or we have failed to thoroughly examine the question.
In the end, one expects no game to be absolutely realistic or fair, but it's fair to realistically assess just how close a simulation will come to being so. For me and many others, Mortal Online will not come as close as it could, nor as close as it should.
Please explain how they could take the game further in terms of realism.
FPV, sure it doesn't have the ability to show peripheral vision. Even if they programmed the game to support it most of the people would not be able to afford the hardware to be able to see it, so it would actually unbalance the game.
Sound in games are usually very well done and if they do it right the sounds will cover the peripheral vision because if you wear headsets and are used to listening for foot steps you can tell when someone is coming from behind you.
Way I look at it if the huge corporations with endless supplies of money don't strive to make games even more realistic, how is a developer just starting out on their first game supossed to back that type of time into coding and what not.
Also having a toggle for 3rd person view makes FPV in PvP insane, 3rd person allows you to see people sneaking up behind you, FPV does not. They have already gone through an interview with mmorpg.com about the game and they have even said it out right that this game is being designed in their image as gamers, they want to make a game they want to play so not everyone is going to enjoy this game.
For the guy saying he was waiting for a new UO game but doesnt like FPV, EA is redesigning UO to newer graphics of course thats if you want to go back to a game that EA is redoing.
It's my favorite view and disliked ever since Everquest it has been abandon. There are no animations in 1st person view in WoW, Lotro .. etc. I am going to be waiting for a free trial of Mortal and may buy if I like it
I understand your points, and agree that they should be considered.
However, examination of the "tradeoff" must also take into account all that is there that wouldn't be in a real situation.
Personal senses of balance, kinesthesia, and peripheral vision do not afford the ability to see one's own back, or the ability to see around corners without exposing one's own eyes - abilities commonly exploited in games featuring a third person view.
Inevitably, it will come down to opinions that Star Vault must evaluate and compare, hopefully selecting the one that holistically works best as a part of the entire construct.
Ultimately, a decision must be made. Neither you nor I get to make that decision - we get to decide whether or not to play the game. For me and many others, a first person view does come closer to reality than a third person view, so we are happy with SV's decision to stick with it (and that is the decision they have stated on many occasions that they are staying with).
As to fairness, everyone will be using the same view. It can't be any more fair than that.
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
Im sorry us in the MO community hate the idea of 3rd person.
And we could care less what you want from our game go play another game that may fit your 3rd person wants there plenty No games but FPS have all first person for those who want that.
So step off find a new game. Maybe Dawntide is the same as MO but its all 3rd person look it up leave MO the way it is.
We love it, and its the way it was ment to be.
Mortal Online/EarthRise/Project V13
TheVindicators.com
If you are using "real life" as the basis of your argument, then third person wouldnt work either... you realize that right?
Second you say that magic wouldnt work in FP... there are tons of games that show that this is not the case. I suggest you play Arx Fatalis for an interesting first person magic mechanic. In fact, start with youtube videos. Oblivion also uses magic well in first person. You are aware that Mortal Online uses the Unreal engine right?
Third, Target audience. A little secret about video game development.... target audience. Not every mmorpg tries to be the next WoW. Blizzard intentionally designed their game for a broad market. Mortal Online is made for a niche market. Sometimes when your budget or team will not be able to compete with big titles such as WoW, you then have to provide a specialized product that appeals to a smaller but dedicated market.
That is what Mortal Online is doing. You say it wont work, then clearly you are not part of the target audience they are making the game for.
Do you understand?