I'd like to play shortstop for the NY Yankees. Unfortunately my ballplaying ability doesn't support that. So I stick to playing softball with friends on the weekends. It's no more a "right" of SV to make a sandbox MMO as their first product than it is for me to play for the Yankees simply because I'm a fan and would love to do so. People, and companies, need to function within their means. For SV that probably meant designing and publishing a game or two before trying to start on an ambitious project like MO.
There's quite a few holes in this analogy, first and foremost in the world of baseball you have no time to improve from fan to pro. In game development if you play your cards right anything is possible, the second being we're talking about a product.
As a indie game developer, SV has the opportunity to expand their talent by working in a live environment. They have over the last few years (or how ever long they have been) done just that. Whether this product is a failure or not, all involved in making it have learned a thing or two, as well as done a lot for a small group of gamers. Getting where they have was not easy, doing it mostly DIY shows determination. How many of us armchair developers can say we've done the same thing? You may see these guys go on to do great things in the future, you nor I can say otherwise.
Now where this being a product comes in, is in the consumer, you nor I like the product. We have had the opportunity to try it for free (I have anyway) allowing us to come to such a conclusion at no risk to our wallet. They have also won the attention of certain consumers, who have an interest in purchasing the product and are happy with it. That's all that need be said, anything else is personal preference or conjecture. They like what they like we like what we like, the world goes on.
Every good sandbox has had a rocky start, every single one. EVE being the rockiest of all. That's what you should expect from any indie developer out there, sometimes you're surprised (fallen earth-not sandbox but indie). But saying they have no right to create a game, is borderline asshatery IMO. There's no value in such a statement, the consumer decides what product lives, the creator decides what is created. That is how capitalism and free markets work, denying anyone that right is wrong. You have a right as a consumer so use it, decide which products live and which die. If it doesn't die, there weren't enough people who agree with you.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
There's quite a few holes in this analogy, first and foremost in the world of baseball you have no time to improve from fan to pro. Umm... sure you do. It's called practice. most people do this from the time they are 5 until they either have the talent to get drafted or move on to other things. In game development if you play your cards right anything is possible, the second being we're talking about a product. No.. I am talking about a company that wants to create a massively multiplayer sandbox game as it's first product.. not the product itself. As a indie game developer, SV has the opportunity to expand their talent by working in a live environment. They have over the last few years (or how ever long they have been) done just that. Whether this product is a failure or not, all involved in making it have learned a thing or two, as well as done a lot for a small group of gamers. Getting where they have was not easy, doing it mostly DIY shows determination. How many of us armchair developers can say we've done the same thing? You may see these guys go on to do great things in the future, you nor I can say otherwise. Again.. the baseball analogy. I can go practice 8 hours a day for 5 years and I won't be good enough to play shortstop for the Yankees, but I'd have a better chance than if I simply walked up to the stadium and announced that having never played professional ball... I will be trying out for Shortstop on the Yanks. That's the equivalent of what SV tried to do. Instead of cutting their teeth on smaller, more managable projects they decided that being fans was enough experience to make a massively multiplayer game as their first project. Having determination is only one component of success. Now where this being a product comes in, is in the consumer, you nor I like the product. We have had the opportunity to try it for free (I have anyway) allowing us to come to such a conclusion at no risk to our wallet. They have also won the attention of certain consumers, who have an interest in purchasing the product and are happy with it. That's all that need be said, anything else is personal preference or conjecture. They like what they like we like what we like, the world goes on. Every good sandbox has had a rocky start, every single one. EVE being the rockiest of all. That's what you should expect from any indie developer out there, sometimes you're surprised (fallen earth-not sandbox but indie). But saying they have no right to create a game, is borderline asshatery IMO. There's no value in such a statement, the consumer decides what product lives, the creator decides what is created. That is how capitalism and free markets work, denying anyone that right is wrong. You have a right as a consumer so use it, decide which products live and which die. If it doesn't die, there weren't enough people who agree with you. Eve: Do you know that half of the original people working on Eve had worked on a previous virtual world called OZ Virtual? Eve wasn't their first foray into the genre. MO has as much of a chance as being the next Eve as game XYZ has of being the next WoW... The rest: You took the quote out of context as it was a reply to messages saying that we need to cut SV slack because they are an indie company. My point was that an indie company (like anyone else) needs to work within their means and experience. If they are capable of making a MMORPG then do so... Don't use the companies size or lack of experience as an excuse as if they don't have the talent to do it right they should do something else first until they get that talent. It's also curious that you then explain capitalism, as capitalism really only cares about the final product and if it compares positively to it's peers it will survive. Indie companies needing suport to survive is not a capitalistic ideal.
...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Originally posted by HerculesSAS Let's just be clear here -- to support SV because you like sandbox MMOs does not make the market work to provide that to you.
You're a CONSUMER folks. If you are not a discerning consumer, then you will get crap products because people think they can make money off your ignorance. Independent game developers should not be immune to having a solid business plan and a solid product. It *has* to compete with the other mainstream things in the market because they are pricing accordingly. It doesn't mean you should give them a pass on a broken game, or a game that is only great "in theory", like Mortal Online.
A solid business plan, which SV obviously does not have -- is the ability to ensure that if you invest in this product/service, that it will last a long while and stand the test of time, letting your investment of time not go to waste. Customer retention gives a business the ability to grow and advance their product/service over time, to offer you more for your money.
Be discerning with your money, and don't give any "indy" developer any slack, because you'll only get a product that does not work and won't stand the test of time because there's no business plan. Your want for a sandbox MMO should not subsidize the losers and inept developers trying to make a buck. And if you want to invest into a game like MO feel free -- it's your money after all -- but don't be surprised when the game folds shortly after launch due to too many problems for an inept development team to handle, and all the hours you spent are gone to waste.
But next time around, at least remember what I'm saying now, and demand a good, polished, properly functioning piece of work before you lay your money down, because you'll only be set up for disappointment in the future. If you accept garbage, you can be sure that more garbage will be presented to you on a regular basis.
I could sign that with both my hands. Plus if executives will see that crap games can make money they will insist on further cost=quality cuts, so we will get worse gaming in general.
Please elaborate, provide some bullets about what you believe to be poor about the game. I'm sincerely interested. Allgames have their faults, but DF has weathered a tough storm over the past year and came through the fog looking pretty good; this from a guy that is from Pre-Trammel UO.
Maybe instead of giving you a long list of why, although the biggest critique can be summed up in: "Nothing There", it's more effective of giving you an example of a good sandbox.
Please elaborate, provide some bullets about what you believe to be poor about the game. I'm sincerely interested. Allgames have their faults, but DF has weathered a tough storm over the past year and came through the fog looking pretty good; this from a guy that is from Pre-Trammel UO.
Maybe instead of giving you a long list of why, although the biggest critique can be summed up in: "Nothing There", it's more effective of giving you an example of a good sandbox.
Hypothetical speculations on whether this game will somehow become good in the far future; well I for one, don't deal in those.
Heh, Can't really argue against the two best sandbox games out right now. DF has a very long way before it can reach the quality of those two games.
With that said it's still a hell of a lot better than it was at release and thats thanks to the dedicated fans. So i have no issue if people want to support MO the same way.
I know ill be right there when Earthrise releases because we all know that game is going to be rough around the edges since its going to release early.
This is NOT a debate over Themeparks vs Sandbox or PvP vs Carebear. It is over if you should spend money on a crappy game or not. I would love to play another pre trammel UO or Asherons Call DT but Darkfall was not it and, from what I have seen, neither will Mortal Online be. They are just plain poor games, sandbox or themepark is irrelevant because these two games just are not any good.
Please elaborate, provide some bullets about what you believe to be poor about the game. I'm sincerely interested. Allgames have their faults, but DF has weathered a tough storm over the past year and came through the fog looking pretty good; this from a guy that is from Pre-Trammel UO.
I know the UO of today has epic quests, good dungeons to crawl in and so on. Did Pre-Trammel have that then? It also had an elaborate housing system. Darkfall had a lot of promise, but the community has shown that the only things they care about is FFA PvP. Sandbox players, especially those that like sandbox games because it lends better to roleplay and a believable world, want more out of a sandbox game than just PvP. We want a LOT more. Every feature that makes a sandbox game a sandbox game must be fully fleshed out, not just the PvP feature. In addition, the community must embrace all the features, not focus mostly on the PvP.
If I read plenty of reviews stating that Darkfall was finally a fully fleshed out sandbox game, like UO was and Pre-NGE SWG was, and that the community became more peaceful, then maybe I'd become more interested in the game. Since every review paints Darkfall as being a PvP game, I pinned all my hopes on MO. Now MO sounds like it isn't shaping up AND they aren't releasing USA servers.
I dislike these gleeful cynic pileups. This is a forum, of course, and it's perfectly acceptable that you discuss your urges to feel good about someone else's perceived misfortune. And proceed to reinforce the perception of misfortune if the real thing falls short of your daytime TV-trained sense of delight that lights up every time you see a man fall off his bike or get hit in the groin by a football. This one thing, though, I really wish to comment on.
I am not a consumer. I feel bad for people who identify with such a capitalist psychosis.
Sorry but I don't understand your stance here. If you paid for the machine you're connecting to the internet on, the ISP you use to connect, or the electricity to run it, then you're a consumer.
Like it or not, we're all consumers, in varying degrees sure, but we all have to do it to live. Not saying I don't agree with your view that consumer culture is inherently bad (a topic for another thread) but I don't see how any of us can say we're not consumers with a straight face.
I am waiting for another " sandbox " game like others are but I dont attach myself to anything and start dancing around a campfire naked.. ESPECIALLY when its clear that the game will be terrible with little to do other than gank or be ganked ( DF / MO ).
I feel the same way you do. Still waiting on a real polished sandbox game thats fun to play. I wont settle for these Free To Play quality games that we have been given. Looking forward to Earthrise and Xyson
I am waiting for another " sandbox " game like others are but I dont attach myself to anything and start dancing around a campfire naked.. ESPECIALLY when its clear that the game will be terrible with little to do other than gank or be ganked ( DF / MO ).
I feel the same way you do. Still waiting on a real polished sandbox game thats fun to play. I wont settle for these Free To Play quality games that we have been given. Looking forward to Earthrise and Xyson
While i like that your looking forward to those two games ( so am I) your going to be disappointed because both will release rough around the edges.
Never have I seen a sandbox release in good quality.
Other than that would you mind telling me what a "Real polished sandbox" is to you?
It's hard to take a definite stand on this one. Logic says you're right, but feelings say you're only mostly right. I keep saying the same thing, that if a company, indie or not, wants to make an MMO, they have to compete in the MMO market. There's no "junior playground" for indie games to test the waters; once they release, they're thrown in with the sharks. The only people who will play them are dedicated fans or people who don't mind a rough lump of coal because they can see the faint glint of a diamond hidden inside. I can't help but wonder what would happen if more people thought like you when EVE released. I doubt the game would've ever gotten off the ground, and then where would sandboxes be? Even worse off than they are now. EVE is the sandbox's champion right now, and for good reason - CCP is a good company and, even though the game was crap at release, enough people decided to pay for it. Maybe some of them wanted to support an indie company and decided to give the game some slack, but I think most people just saw a lot of potential. In MO's case, though, I think it's too broken. People can invest on what the game could be if they want to. Basically, at least until Earthrise comes out (if it's good), sandbox lovers are screwed. They don't want to support the evil themepark, but they also can't degrade themselves enough to play the crappy sandbox games that are around (or they think EVE is too boring or Darkfall is too focused on FFA PvP). Hell, even if Earthrise turns out to be the answer to everyone's prayers and is a super awesome sandbox, there will be excuses not to play it. Whatever happens, I have to agree that defending indie companies because they're indie is not smart. Cutting them a little slack with your own personal expectations? Sure, that's probably a good idea, since, realistically, they can't compete with the big boys. Like Hercules ultimately said, spend your money on whatever you want. I just want Hercules to remember EVE, though.
This deserved a reply on its own because it is a really well thought out post. Right to the point -- I have not forgotten EVE.
But to elaborate a bit -- EVE had a lot of things going for it that current MMOs do not. The rough release quality of EVE and problems as well didn't bite them as badly because well -- there weren't a lot of MMOs on the market at all at the time. You had a choice of only a handful. But let's ignore that fact, and say my mindset is the same now as it was then. Obviously it's not -- I've evolved in what I deem a quality release, and games like WOW have shown me that yes, it's possible to launch a game and have it work too, using a proper development cycle. Heck, even Darkfall had a shoddy release due to the way they set up the buying system -- but the game itself was very playable and every system basically worked. It wasn't much fun, of course -- but that's why I didn't buy it. Not due to bugs or crashes -- there were hardly any. Getting INTO the game was a chore, but once you were in.... it was fine.
But let's say EVE released now -- would I buy it? Possibly. CCP was smart in what they developed, as they kept it small and "in space". The amount of art was limited because space doesn't have any detail to it, it's just open space with some stars. But what EVE did do, is create a political/PvP system that was better than anything at the time. And currently, it's still pretty darn good. The problem with EVE now is that if they released with those graphics today, they'd be toast -- people demand eyecandy and it's a good reason why MO has gotten some interest because of their pre-rendered movies and pre-rendered screenshots. Of course, the actual game doesn't look like either but that's why it's a teaser
EVE today would have to compete with many other MMOs, and my guess is that it would be able to compete. It's obviously how you market it too, but EVE has got a "killer feature" in their PvP/political system. A "killer feature" that is missing from MO since it's an entire copy of other games in the hopes that it will be a core design. We know that this isn't the case, obviously, and it's why I think MO is going to go more along the lines of Dark and Light than EVE. MO has no redeeming features that make it great -- heck.. most of what it advertises as a great feature or whatever, is actually done better in other games like Darkfall. The PvP is mindless and has no depth, about the same level as Darkfall.
Comparing MO to EVE is a poor comparison not for any other reason than MO has nothing that makes it unique, or amazing, or even fun. EVE, while shoddy on the graphics and with other bugs, still had the redeeming quality of being fun and had that killer feature. In this day and age, if the game launched totally unfinished, and basically unplayable like MO, then I wouldn't buy it. But EVE didn't launch that way -- it had its share of problems sure, but the game was playable, but there wasn't a lot of content. That was a smart decision in design though, because they built what they knew they could make and support. SV is going the opposite direction, building a game they have no expertise to make, trying to make a world larger than they can support, and adding more features than they actually know how to implement properly. I knew somebody that worked for CCP, and they actually did use a software development life cycle system (SDLC), and it ensured a lot of the stuff that went into the game actually worked right.
In the end, I think in this day and age, EVE launched as it was would probably be OK because of its features -- MO on the other hand has no redeeming features that aren't better in other games, and it will suffer because of it.
I should add -- when EVE launched, they were light on content because of what they knew they could make.
But they made sure that the game had some direction by adding "Missions" which are basically the equivalent of quests in any other game. The nice thing is that you could go outside that world and do what you wanted, whereas in MO there's no direction at ALL. Basically get in, and use your imagination.
It's hard to take a definite stand on this one. Logic says you're right, but feelings say you're only mostly right. I keep saying the same thing, that if a company, indie or not, wants to make an MMO, they have to compete in the MMO market. There's no "junior playground" for indie games to test the waters; once they release, they're thrown in with the sharks. The only people who will play them are dedicated fans or people who don't mind a rough lump of coal because they can see the faint glint of a diamond hidden inside. I can't help but wonder what would happen if more people thought like you when EVE released. I doubt the game would've ever gotten off the ground, and then where would sandboxes be? Even worse off than they are now. EVE is the sandbox's champion right now, and for good reason - CCP is a good company and, even though the game was crap at release, enough people decided to pay for it. Maybe some of them wanted to support an indie company and decided to give the game some slack, but I think most people just saw a lot of potential. In MO's case, though, I think it's too broken. People can invest on what the game could be if they want to. Basically, at least until Earthrise comes out (if it's good), sandbox lovers are screwed. They don't want to support the evil themepark, but they also can't degrade themselves enough to play the crappy sandbox games that are around (or they think EVE is too boring or Darkfall is too focused on FFA PvP). Hell, even if Earthrise turns out to be the answer to everyone's prayers and is a super awesome sandbox, there will be excuses not to play it. Whatever happens, I have to agree that defending indie companies because they're indie is not smart. Cutting them a little slack with your own personal expectations? Sure, that's probably a good idea, since, realistically, they can't compete with the big boys. Like Hercules ultimately said, spend your money on whatever you want. I just want Hercules to remember EVE, though.
This deserved a reply on its own because it is a really well thought out post. Right to the point -- I have not forgotten EVE.
But to elaborate a bit -- EVE had a lot of things going for it that current MMOs do not. The rough release quality of EVE and problems as well didn't bite them as badly because well -- there weren't a lot of MMOs on the market at all at the time. You had a choice of only a handful. But let's ignore that fact, and say my mindset is the same now as it was then. Obviously it's not -- I've evolved in what I deem a quality release, and games like WOW have shown me that yes, it's possible to launch a game and have it work too, using a proper development cycle. Heck, even Darkfall had a shoddy release due to the way they set up the buying system -- but the game itself was very playable and every system basically worked. It wasn't much fun, of course -- but that's why I didn't buy it. Not due to bugs or crashes -- there were hardly any. Getting INTO the game was a chore, but once you were in.... it was fine.
But let's say EVE released now -- would I buy it? Possibly. CCP was smart in what they developed, as they kept it small and "in space". The amount of art was limited because space doesn't have any detail to it, it's just open space with some stars. But what EVE did do, is create a political/PvP system that was better than anything at the time. And currently, it's still pretty darn good. The problem with EVE now is that if they released with those graphics today, they'd be toast -- people demand eyecandy and it's a good reason why MO has gotten some interest because of their pre-rendered movies and pre-rendered screenshots. Of course, the actual game doesn't look like either but that's why it's a teaser
EVE today would have to compete with many other MMOs, and my guess is that it would be able to compete. It's obviously how you market it too, but EVE has got a "killer feature" in their PvP/political system. A "killer feature" that is missing from MO since it's an entire copy of other games in the hopes that it will be a core design. We know that this isn't the case, obviously, and it's why I think MO is going to go more along the lines of Dark and Light than EVE. MO has no redeeming features that make it great -- heck.. most of what it advertises as a great feature or whatever, is actually done better in other games like Darkfall. The PvP is mindless and has no depth, about the same level as Darkfall.
Comparing MO to EVE is a poor comparison not for any other reason than MO has nothing that makes it unique, or amazing, or even fun. EVE, while shoddy on the graphics and with other bugs, still had the redeeming quality of being fun and had that killer feature. In this day and age, if the game launched totally unfinished, and basically unplayable like MO, then I wouldn't buy it. But EVE didn't launch that way -- it had its share of problems sure, but the game was playable, but there wasn't a lot of content. That was a smart decision in design though, because they built what they knew they could make and support. SV is going the opposite direction, building a game they have no expertise to make, trying to make a world larger than they can support, and adding more features than they actually know how to implement properly. I knew somebody that worked for CCP, and they actually did use a software development life cycle system (SDLC), and it ensured a lot of the stuff that went into the game actually worked right.
In the end, I think in this day and age, EVE launched as it was would probably be OK because of its features -- MO on the other hand has no redeeming features that aren't better in other games, and it will suffer because of it.
Hmm really you do realize that the launch of EVE was FULL of bugs exploits and mechanics that was plain broken. Even to this day EVE has broken mechanics every patch that needs fixed. The difference between the 2 development wise are not much. EVE had 2 things going for it that SV does not. EVE was launched back when MMOs was still pretty new and sandbox wasn't common, and that they game they focused on was based on a sci-fi space ship simulator.
Note how horrible the game looks at this level. Oh whats that in the corner... the client window? Didn't I hear people complain that SV was so bad at programming that windowed mode had the name UNREAL ENGINE in the corner? Oh my.
Comparing the 2 games are like comparing apples to oranges. The developments are very similar and that is something worth noting. The political thing you keep mentioning wasn't any staple in EVE. At launch there was 4 races to choose from and 2 pirate factions. ALL politics was player created. You can do the exact same thing in MO.
I think this review has been posted already but what the hell. If you noticed this review it seems somewhat familiar. In those reviews no where do you see anything about this important POLITICAL staple you speak of. EVE enticed people with the unknown, a single server and boasted a great economy. The PVP system was and is similar to most. Lawless space where you can do whatever you want vs. concord space where attacking people will cause you to be concorded. MO has this with red towns and blue towns.
Honestly im just rambling but w/e. The whole point is the only thing comparable with EVE and SV is the development. And if SV can follow the same lines of CCP then it will do just fine.
I enjoy MO right now with what it has to offer. It has issues some very irritable but overall I can see the "Vision". Overall if SV does want to bring others into the game they have to bring something worthy to the table that makes people want to log in.
It's hard to take a definite stand on this one. Logic says you're right, but feelings say you're only mostly right. I keep saying the same thing, that if a company, indie or not, wants to make an MMO, they have to compete in the MMO market. There's no "junior playground" for indie games to test the waters; once they release, they're thrown in with the sharks. The only people who will play them are dedicated fans or people who don't mind a rough lump of coal because they can see the faint glint of a diamond hidden inside. I can't help but wonder what would happen if more people thought like you when EVE released. I doubt the game would've ever gotten off the ground, and then where would sandboxes be? Even worse off than they are now. EVE is the sandbox's champion right now, and for good reason - CCP is a good company and, even though the game was crap at release, enough people decided to pay for it. Maybe some of them wanted to support an indie company and decided to give the game some slack, but I think most people just saw a lot of potential. In MO's case, though, I think it's too broken. People can invest on what the game could be if they want to. Basically, at least until Earthrise comes out (if it's good), sandbox lovers are screwed. They don't want to support the evil themepark, but they also can't degrade themselves enough to play the crappy sandbox games that are around (or they think EVE is too boring or Darkfall is too focused on FFA PvP). Hell, even if Earthrise turns out to be the answer to everyone's prayers and is a super awesome sandbox, there will be excuses not to play it. Whatever happens, I have to agree that defending indie companies because they're indie is not smart. Cutting them a little slack with your own personal expectations? Sure, that's probably a good idea, since, realistically, they can't compete with the big boys. Like Hercules ultimately said, spend your money on whatever you want. I just want Hercules to remember EVE, though.
This deserved a reply on its own because it is a really well thought out post. Right to the point -- I have not forgotten EVE.
But to elaborate a bit -- EVE had a lot of things going for it that current MMOs do not. The rough release quality of EVE and problems as well didn't bite them as badly because well -- there weren't a lot of MMOs on the market at all at the time. You had a choice of only a handful. But let's ignore that fact, and say my mindset is the same now as it was then. Obviously it's not -- I've evolved in what I deem a quality release, and games like WOW have shown me that yes, it's possible to launch a game and have it work too, using a proper development cycle. Heck, even Darkfall had a shoddy release due to the way they set up the buying system -- but the game itself was very playable and every system basically worked. It wasn't much fun, of course -- but that's why I didn't buy it. Not due to bugs or crashes -- there were hardly any. Getting INTO the game was a chore, but once you were in.... it was fine.
But let's say EVE released now -- would I buy it? Possibly. CCP was smart in what they developed, as they kept it small and "in space". The amount of art was limited because space doesn't have any detail to it, it's just open space with some stars. But what EVE did do, is create a political/PvP system that was better than anything at the time. And currently, it's still pretty darn good. The problem with EVE now is that if they released with those graphics today, they'd be toast -- people demand eyecandy and it's a good reason why MO has gotten some interest because of their pre-rendered movies and pre-rendered screenshots. Of course, the actual game doesn't look like either but that's why it's a teaser
EVE today would have to compete with many other MMOs, and my guess is that it would be able to compete. It's obviously how you market it too, but EVE has got a "killer feature" in their PvP/political system. A "killer feature" that is missing from MO since it's an entire copy of other games in the hopes that it will be a core design. We know that this isn't the case, obviously, and it's why I think MO is going to go more along the lines of Dark and Light than EVE. MO has no redeeming features that make it great -- heck.. most of what it advertises as a great feature or whatever, is actually done better in other games like Darkfall. The PvP is mindless and has no depth, about the same level as Darkfall.
Comparing MO to EVE is a poor comparison not for any other reason than MO has nothing that makes it unique, or amazing, or even fun. EVE, while shoddy on the graphics and with other bugs, still had the redeeming quality of being fun and had that killer feature. In this day and age, if the game launched totally unfinished, and basically unplayable like MO, then I wouldn't buy it. But EVE didn't launch that way -- it had its share of problems sure, but the game was playable, but there wasn't a lot of content. That was a smart decision in design though, because they built what they knew they could make and support. SV is going the opposite direction, building a game they have no expertise to make, trying to make a world larger than they can support, and adding more features than they actually know how to implement properly. I knew somebody that worked for CCP, and they actually did use a software development life cycle system (SDLC), and it ensured a lot of the stuff that went into the game actually worked right.
In the end, I think in this day and age, EVE launched as it was would probably be OK because of its features -- MO on the other hand has no redeeming features that aren't better in other games, and it will suffer because of it.
Hmm really you do realize that the launch of EVE was FULL of bugs exploits and mechanics that was plain broken. Even to this day EVE has broken mechanics every patch that needs fixed. The difference between the 2 development wise are not much. EVE had 2 things going for it that SV does not. EVE was launched back when MMOs was still pretty new and sandbox wasn't common, and that they game they focused on was based on a sci-fi space ship simulator.
Note how horrible the game looks at this level. Oh whats that in the corner... the client window? Didn't I hear people complain that SV was so bad at programming that windowed mode had the name UNREAL ENGINE in the corner? Oh my.
Comparing the 2 games are like comparing apples to oranges. The developments are very similar and that is something worth noting. The political thing you keep mentioning wasn't any staple in EVE. At launch there was 4 races to choose from and 2 pirate factions. ALL politics was player created. You can do the exact same thing in MO.
I think this review has been posted already but what the hell. If you noticed this review it seems somewhat familiar. In those reviews no where do you see anything about this important POLITICAL staple you speak of. EVE enticed people with the unknown, a single server and boasted a great economy. The PVP system was and is similar to most. Lawless space where you can do whatever you want vs. concord space where attacking people will cause you to be concorded. MO has this with red towns and blue towns.
Honestly im just rambling but w/e. The whole point is the only thing comparable with EVE and SV is the development. And if SV can follow the same lines of CCP then it will do just fine.
I enjoy MO right now with what it has to offer. It has issues some very irritable but overall I can see the "Vision". Overall if SV does want to bring others into the game they have to bring something worthy to the table that makes people want to log in.
Yes, but EVE launched in 2003 among a handful of MMOs.
MO is launching in 2010 with a LOT of MMOs. Maybe CCP got away with a lot because they were a pioneer. I don't know. Would it stand up today? Maybe. With those graphics, probably not though But people also don't buy games solely on graphics either nowadays... it's all about gameplay. And MO's gameplay is horrible. EVE's may have been horrible too but again... that was 7 years ago. What was acceptable to people back then is not necessarily going to be acceptable now.
And EVE by the way, had *real* programmers that actually worked on other projects before EVE. They also had an underlying design that was taken and built on another single player game (I forget which). MO has no programmers that have shipped a single product, and no experience (obviously) in a proper development cycle. I've spoken to Henrik enough times to know that much. And we see now with the tons of bugs and problems, it's what is killing the game. Oh, and the fact that the design isn't a design at all, but it's just a mish mosh of stolen features from other games, put together to try to make a new one. Find my car analogy on that one, it was pretty apt I think.
It's hard to take a definite stand on this one. Logic says you're right, but feelings say you're only mostly right. I keep saying the same thing, that if a company, indie or not, wants to make an MMO, they have to compete in the MMO market. There's no "junior playground" for indie games to test the waters; once they release, they're thrown in with the sharks. The only people who will play them are dedicated fans or people who don't mind a rough lump of coal because they can see the faint glint of a diamond hidden inside. I can't help but wonder what would happen if more people thought like you when EVE released. I doubt the game would've ever gotten off the ground, and then where would sandboxes be? Even worse off than they are now. EVE is the sandbox's champion right now, and for good reason - CCP is a good company and, even though the game was crap at release, enough people decided to pay for it. Maybe some of them wanted to support an indie company and decided to give the game some slack, but I think most people just saw a lot of potential. In MO's case, though, I think it's too broken. People can invest on what the game could be if they want to. Basically, at least until Earthrise comes out (if it's good), sandbox lovers are screwed. They don't want to support the evil themepark, but they also can't degrade themselves enough to play the crappy sandbox games that are around (or they think EVE is too boring or Darkfall is too focused on FFA PvP). Hell, even if Earthrise turns out to be the answer to everyone's prayers and is a super awesome sandbox, there will be excuses not to play it. Whatever happens, I have to agree that defending indie companies because they're indie is not smart. Cutting them a little slack with your own personal expectations? Sure, that's probably a good idea, since, realistically, they can't compete with the big boys. Like Hercules ultimately said, spend your money on whatever you want. I just want Hercules to remember EVE, though.
This deserved a reply on its own because it is a really well thought out post. Right to the point -- I have not forgotten EVE.
But to elaborate a bit -- EVE had a lot of things going for it that current MMOs do not. The rough release quality of EVE and problems as well didn't bite them as badly because well -- there weren't a lot of MMOs on the market at all at the time. You had a choice of only a handful. But let's ignore that fact, and say my mindset is the same now as it was then. Obviously it's not -- I've evolved in what I deem a quality release, and games like WOW have shown me that yes, it's possible to launch a game and have it work too, using a proper development cycle. Heck, even Darkfall had a shoddy release due to the way they set up the buying system -- but the game itself was very playable and every system basically worked. It wasn't much fun, of course -- but that's why I didn't buy it. Not due to bugs or crashes -- there were hardly any. Getting INTO the game was a chore, but once you were in.... it was fine.
But let's say EVE released now -- would I buy it? Possibly. CCP was smart in what they developed, as they kept it small and "in space". The amount of art was limited because space doesn't have any detail to it, it's just open space with some stars. But what EVE did do, is create a political/PvP system that was better than anything at the time. And currently, it's still pretty darn good. The problem with EVE now is that if they released with those graphics today, they'd be toast -- people demand eyecandy and it's a good reason why MO has gotten some interest because of their pre-rendered movies and pre-rendered screenshots. Of course, the actual game doesn't look like either but that's why it's a teaser
EVE today would have to compete with many other MMOs, and my guess is that it would be able to compete. It's obviously how you market it too, but EVE has got a "killer feature" in their PvP/political system. A "killer feature" that is missing from MO since it's an entire copy of other games in the hopes that it will be a core design. We know that this isn't the case, obviously, and it's why I think MO is going to go more along the lines of Dark and Light than EVE. MO has no redeeming features that make it great -- heck.. most of what it advertises as a great feature or whatever, is actually done better in other games like Darkfall. The PvP is mindless and has no depth, about the same level as Darkfall.
Comparing MO to EVE is a poor comparison not for any other reason than MO has nothing that makes it unique, or amazing, or even fun. EVE, while shoddy on the graphics and with other bugs, still had the redeeming quality of being fun and had that killer feature. In this day and age, if the game launched totally unfinished, and basically unplayable like MO, then I wouldn't buy it. But EVE didn't launch that way -- it had its share of problems sure, but the game was playable, but there wasn't a lot of content. That was a smart decision in design though, because they built what they knew they could make and support. SV is going the opposite direction, building a game they have no expertise to make, trying to make a world larger than they can support, and adding more features than they actually know how to implement properly. I knew somebody that worked for CCP, and they actually did use a software development life cycle system (SDLC), and it ensured a lot of the stuff that went into the game actually worked right.
In the end, I think in this day and age, EVE launched as it was would probably be OK because of its features -- MO on the other hand has no redeeming features that aren't better in other games, and it will suffer because of it.
Hmm really you do realize that the launch of EVE was FULL of bugs exploits and mechanics that was plain broken. Even to this day EVE has broken mechanics every patch that needs fixed. The difference between the 2 development wise are not much. EVE had 2 things going for it that SV does not. EVE was launched back when MMOs was still pretty new and sandbox wasn't common, and that they game they focused on was based on a sci-fi space ship simulator.
Note how horrible the game looks at this level. Oh whats that in the corner... the client window? Didn't I hear people complain that SV was so bad at programming that windowed mode had the name UNREAL ENGINE in the corner? Oh my.
Comparing the 2 games are like comparing apples to oranges. The developments are very similar and that is something worth noting. The political thing you keep mentioning wasn't any staple in EVE. At launch there was 4 races to choose from and 2 pirate factions. ALL politics was player created. You can do the exact same thing in MO.
I think this review has been posted already but what the hell. If you noticed this review it seems somewhat familiar. In those reviews no where do you see anything about this important POLITICAL staple you speak of. EVE enticed people with the unknown, a single server and boasted a great economy. The PVP system was and is similar to most. Lawless space where you can do whatever you want vs. concord space where attacking people will cause you to be concorded. MO has this with red towns and blue towns.
Honestly im just rambling but w/e. The whole point is the only thing comparable with EVE and SV is the development. And if SV can follow the same lines of CCP then it will do just fine.
I enjoy MO right now with what it has to offer. It has issues some very irritable but overall I can see the "Vision". Overall if SV does want to bring others into the game they have to bring something worthy to the table that makes people want to log in.
Yes, but EVE launched in 2003 among a handful of MMOs.
MO is launching in 2010 with a LOT of MMOs. Maybe CCP got away with a lot because they were a pioneer. I don't know. Would it stand up today? Maybe. With those graphics, probably not though But people also don't buy games solely on graphics either nowadays... it's all about gameplay. And MO's gameplay is horrible. EVE's may have been horrible too but again... that was 7 years ago. What was acceptable to people back then is not necessarily going to be acceptable now.
And EVE by the way, had *real* programmers that actually worked on other projects before EVE. They also had an underlying design that was taken and built on another single player game (I forget which). MO has no programmers that have shipped a single product, and no experience (obviously) in a proper development cycle. I've spoken to Henrik enough times to know that much. And we see now with the tons of bugs and problems, it's what is killing the game. Oh, and the fact that the design isn't a design at all, but it's just a mish mosh of stolen features from other games, put together to try to make a new one. Find my car analogy on that one, it was pretty apt I think.
EVE also had a genre pretty much all to itself.. Games like DF and MO have to compete with countless other games in the same genre. The sci fi genre is just barren of any competition. With competition you just cant expect people to wait and wait and wait and hope on things that most likely will never arrive.
Comments
Mortal online is just simply the worst game i've ever played.
I'd like to play shortstop for the NY Yankees. Unfortunately my ballplaying ability doesn't support that. So I stick to playing softball with friends on the weekends. It's no more a "right" of SV to make a sandbox MMO as their first product than it is for me to play for the Yankees simply because I'm a fan and would love to do so. People, and companies, need to function within their means. For SV that probably meant designing and publishing a game or two before trying to start on an ambitious project like MO.
There's quite a few holes in this analogy, first and foremost in the world of baseball you have no time to improve from fan to pro. In game development if you play your cards right anything is possible, the second being we're talking about a product.
As a indie game developer, SV has the opportunity to expand their talent by working in a live environment. They have over the last few years (or how ever long they have been) done just that. Whether this product is a failure or not, all involved in making it have learned a thing or two, as well as done a lot for a small group of gamers. Getting where they have was not easy, doing it mostly DIY shows determination. How many of us armchair developers can say we've done the same thing? You may see these guys go on to do great things in the future, you nor I can say otherwise.
Now where this being a product comes in, is in the consumer, you nor I like the product. We have had the opportunity to try it for free (I have anyway) allowing us to come to such a conclusion at no risk to our wallet. They have also won the attention of certain consumers, who have an interest in purchasing the product and are happy with it. That's all that need be said, anything else is personal preference or conjecture. They like what they like we like what we like, the world goes on.
Every good sandbox has had a rocky start, every single one. EVE being the rockiest of all. That's what you should expect from any indie developer out there, sometimes you're surprised (fallen earth-not sandbox but indie). But saying they have no right to create a game, is borderline asshatery IMO. There's no value in such a statement, the consumer decides what product lives, the creator decides what is created. That is how capitalism and free markets work, denying anyone that right is wrong. You have a right as a consumer so use it, decide which products live and which die. If it doesn't die, there weren't enough people who agree with you.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I could sign that with both my hands.
Plus if executives will see that crap games can make money they will insist on further cost=quality cuts, so we will get worse gaming in general.
http://www.teraonline.info.pl Polski Poradnik Gry Tera Online
Please elaborate, provide some bullets about what you believe to be poor about the game. I'm sincerely interested. Allgames have their faults, but DF has weathered a tough storm over the past year and came through the fog looking pretty good; this from a guy that is from Pre-Trammel UO.
Maybe instead of giving you a long list of why, although the biggest critique can be summed up in: "Nothing There", it's more effective of giving you an example of a good sandbox.
Ryzom
Eve Online
Hypothetical speculations on whether this game will somehow become good in the far future; well I for one, don't deal in those.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Please elaborate, provide some bullets about what you believe to be poor about the game. I'm sincerely interested. Allgames have their faults, but DF has weathered a tough storm over the past year and came through the fog looking pretty good; this from a guy that is from Pre-Trammel UO.
Maybe instead of giving you a long list of why, although the biggest critique can be summed up in: "Nothing There", it's more effective of giving you an example of a good sandbox.
Ryzom
Eve Online
Hypothetical speculations on whether this game will somehow become good in the far future; well I for one, don't deal in those.
Heh, Can't really argue against the two best sandbox games out right now. DF has a very long way before it can reach the quality of those two games.
With that said it's still a hell of a lot better than it was at release and thats thanks to the dedicated fans. So i have no issue if people want to support MO the same way.
I know ill be right there when Earthrise releases because we all know that game is going to be rough around the edges since its going to release early.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
Please elaborate, provide some bullets about what you believe to be poor about the game. I'm sincerely interested. Allgames have their faults, but DF has weathered a tough storm over the past year and came through the fog looking pretty good; this from a guy that is from Pre-Trammel UO.
I know the UO of today has epic quests, good dungeons to crawl in and so on. Did Pre-Trammel have that then? It also had an elaborate housing system. Darkfall had a lot of promise, but the community has shown that the only things they care about is FFA PvP. Sandbox players, especially those that like sandbox games because it lends better to roleplay and a believable world, want more out of a sandbox game than just PvP. We want a LOT more. Every feature that makes a sandbox game a sandbox game must be fully fleshed out, not just the PvP feature. In addition, the community must embrace all the features, not focus mostly on the PvP.
If I read plenty of reviews stating that Darkfall was finally a fully fleshed out sandbox game, like UO was and Pre-NGE SWG was, and that the community became more peaceful, then maybe I'd become more interested in the game. Since every review paints Darkfall as being a PvP game, I pinned all my hopes on MO. Now MO sounds like it isn't shaping up AND they aren't releasing USA servers.
I dislike these gleeful cynic pileups. This is a forum, of course, and it's perfectly acceptable that you discuss your urges to feel good about someone else's perceived misfortune. And proceed to reinforce the perception of misfortune if the real thing falls short of your daytime TV-trained sense of delight that lights up every time you see a man fall off his bike or get hit in the groin by a football. This one thing, though, I really wish to comment on.
I am not a consumer. I feel bad for people who identify with such a capitalist psychosis.
Sorry but I don't understand your stance here. If you paid for the machine you're connecting to the internet on, the ISP you use to connect, or the electricity to run it, then you're a consumer.
Like it or not, we're all consumers, in varying degrees sure, but we all have to do it to live. Not saying I don't agree with your view that consumer culture is inherently bad (a topic for another thread) but I don't see how any of us can say we're not consumers with a straight face.
I feel the same way you do. Still waiting on a real polished sandbox game thats fun to play. I wont settle for these Free To Play quality games that we have been given. Looking forward to Earthrise and Xyson
I feel the same way you do. Still waiting on a real polished sandbox game thats fun to play. I wont settle for these Free To Play quality games that we have been given. Looking forward to Earthrise and Xyson
While i like that your looking forward to those two games ( so am I) your going to be disappointed because both will release rough around the edges.
Never have I seen a sandbox release in good quality.
Other than that would you mind telling me what a "Real polished sandbox" is to you?
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
This deserved a reply on its own because it is a really well thought out post. Right to the point -- I have not forgotten EVE.
But to elaborate a bit -- EVE had a lot of things going for it that current MMOs do not. The rough release quality of EVE and problems as well didn't bite them as badly because well -- there weren't a lot of MMOs on the market at all at the time. You had a choice of only a handful. But let's ignore that fact, and say my mindset is the same now as it was then. Obviously it's not -- I've evolved in what I deem a quality release, and games like WOW have shown me that yes, it's possible to launch a game and have it work too, using a proper development cycle. Heck, even Darkfall had a shoddy release due to the way they set up the buying system -- but the game itself was very playable and every system basically worked. It wasn't much fun, of course -- but that's why I didn't buy it. Not due to bugs or crashes -- there were hardly any. Getting INTO the game was a chore, but once you were in.... it was fine.
But let's say EVE released now -- would I buy it? Possibly. CCP was smart in what they developed, as they kept it small and "in space". The amount of art was limited because space doesn't have any detail to it, it's just open space with some stars. But what EVE did do, is create a political/PvP system that was better than anything at the time. And currently, it's still pretty darn good. The problem with EVE now is that if they released with those graphics today, they'd be toast -- people demand eyecandy and it's a good reason why MO has gotten some interest because of their pre-rendered movies and pre-rendered screenshots. Of course, the actual game doesn't look like either but that's why it's a teaser
EVE today would have to compete with many other MMOs, and my guess is that it would be able to compete. It's obviously how you market it too, but EVE has got a "killer feature" in their PvP/political system. A "killer feature" that is missing from MO since it's an entire copy of other games in the hopes that it will be a core design. We know that this isn't the case, obviously, and it's why I think MO is going to go more along the lines of Dark and Light than EVE. MO has no redeeming features that make it great -- heck.. most of what it advertises as a great feature or whatever, is actually done better in other games like Darkfall. The PvP is mindless and has no depth, about the same level as Darkfall.
Comparing MO to EVE is a poor comparison not for any other reason than MO has nothing that makes it unique, or amazing, or even fun. EVE, while shoddy on the graphics and with other bugs, still had the redeeming quality of being fun and had that killer feature. In this day and age, if the game launched totally unfinished, and basically unplayable like MO, then I wouldn't buy it. But EVE didn't launch that way -- it had its share of problems sure, but the game was playable, but there wasn't a lot of content. That was a smart decision in design though, because they built what they knew they could make and support. SV is going the opposite direction, building a game they have no expertise to make, trying to make a world larger than they can support, and adding more features than they actually know how to implement properly. I knew somebody that worked for CCP, and they actually did use a software development life cycle system (SDLC), and it ensured a lot of the stuff that went into the game actually worked right.
In the end, I think in this day and age, EVE launched as it was would probably be OK because of its features -- MO on the other hand has no redeeming features that aren't better in other games, and it will suffer because of it.
I should add -- when EVE launched, they were light on content because of what they knew they could make.
But they made sure that the game had some direction by adding "Missions" which are basically the equivalent of quests in any other game. The nice thing is that you could go outside that world and do what you wanted, whereas in MO there's no direction at ALL. Basically get in, and use your imagination.
This deserved a reply on its own because it is a really well thought out post. Right to the point -- I have not forgotten EVE.
But to elaborate a bit -- EVE had a lot of things going for it that current MMOs do not. The rough release quality of EVE and problems as well didn't bite them as badly because well -- there weren't a lot of MMOs on the market at all at the time. You had a choice of only a handful. But let's ignore that fact, and say my mindset is the same now as it was then. Obviously it's not -- I've evolved in what I deem a quality release, and games like WOW have shown me that yes, it's possible to launch a game and have it work too, using a proper development cycle. Heck, even Darkfall had a shoddy release due to the way they set up the buying system -- but the game itself was very playable and every system basically worked. It wasn't much fun, of course -- but that's why I didn't buy it. Not due to bugs or crashes -- there were hardly any. Getting INTO the game was a chore, but once you were in.... it was fine.
But let's say EVE released now -- would I buy it? Possibly. CCP was smart in what they developed, as they kept it small and "in space". The amount of art was limited because space doesn't have any detail to it, it's just open space with some stars. But what EVE did do, is create a political/PvP system that was better than anything at the time. And currently, it's still pretty darn good. The problem with EVE now is that if they released with those graphics today, they'd be toast -- people demand eyecandy and it's a good reason why MO has gotten some interest because of their pre-rendered movies and pre-rendered screenshots. Of course, the actual game doesn't look like either but that's why it's a teaser
EVE today would have to compete with many other MMOs, and my guess is that it would be able to compete. It's obviously how you market it too, but EVE has got a "killer feature" in their PvP/political system. A "killer feature" that is missing from MO since it's an entire copy of other games in the hopes that it will be a core design. We know that this isn't the case, obviously, and it's why I think MO is going to go more along the lines of Dark and Light than EVE. MO has no redeeming features that make it great -- heck.. most of what it advertises as a great feature or whatever, is actually done better in other games like Darkfall. The PvP is mindless and has no depth, about the same level as Darkfall.
Comparing MO to EVE is a poor comparison not for any other reason than MO has nothing that makes it unique, or amazing, or even fun. EVE, while shoddy on the graphics and with other bugs, still had the redeeming quality of being fun and had that killer feature. In this day and age, if the game launched totally unfinished, and basically unplayable like MO, then I wouldn't buy it. But EVE didn't launch that way -- it had its share of problems sure, but the game was playable, but there wasn't a lot of content. That was a smart decision in design though, because they built what they knew they could make and support. SV is going the opposite direction, building a game they have no expertise to make, trying to make a world larger than they can support, and adding more features than they actually know how to implement properly. I knew somebody that worked for CCP, and they actually did use a software development life cycle system (SDLC), and it ensured a lot of the stuff that went into the game actually worked right.
In the end, I think in this day and age, EVE launched as it was would probably be OK because of its features -- MO on the other hand has no redeeming features that aren't better in other games, and it will suffer because of it.
Hmm really you do realize that the launch of EVE was FULL of bugs exploits and mechanics that was plain broken. Even to this day EVE has broken mechanics every patch that needs fixed. The difference between the 2 development wise are not much. EVE had 2 things going for it that SV does not. EVE was launched back when MMOs was still pretty new and sandbox wasn't common, and that they game they focused on was based on a sci-fi space ship simulator.
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.06_Orion.jpg
Note how horrible the game looks at this level. Oh whats that in the corner... the client window? Didn't I hear people complain that SV was so bad at programming that windowed mode had the name UNREAL ENGINE in the corner? Oh my.
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.10_Sputnik_createCharacter.jpg
Hmm very simplistic character creation that was scrapped and replaced time after time.
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.10_Sputnik_selectCharacter.jpg
I even enjoy the buttons in this picture, reminds me of visual basic, great stuff.
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.10_Sputnik_sputnikInFlightAttacking.jpg
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.10_Sputnik_stationKarditis.jpg
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.11_Laika_JonHallurCrowdedJumpgate.jpg
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2001.02_Crystal_JonHallur03.jpg
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2001.06_Phoenix_build5_joioggusti1.jpg
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2001.09_Mandala_JonHallurPirateKillah.jpg
Another one with the name in the corner... strange concept huh.
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2002.02_Emerald_JonHallurBattleShipMiners4.jpg
Comparing the 2 games are like comparing apples to oranges. The developments are very similar and that is something worth noting. The political thing you keep mentioning wasn't any staple in EVE. At launch there was 4 races to choose from and 2 pirate factions. ALL politics was player created. You can do the exact same thing in MO.
I think this review has been posted already but what the hell. If you noticed this review it seems somewhat familiar. In those reviews no where do you see anything about this important POLITICAL staple you speak of. EVE enticed people with the unknown, a single server and boasted a great economy. The PVP system was and is similar to most. Lawless space where you can do whatever you want vs. concord space where attacking people will cause you to be concorded. MO has this with red towns and blue towns.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/evethesecondgenesis/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review
http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/pc/previews/eve-online--the-second-genesis-27fadd.html
Honestly im just rambling but w/e. The whole point is the only thing comparable with EVE and SV is the development. And if SV can follow the same lines of CCP then it will do just fine.
I enjoy MO right now with what it has to offer. It has issues some very irritable but overall I can see the "Vision". Overall if SV does want to bring others into the game they have to bring something worthy to the table that makes people want to log in.
This deserved a reply on its own because it is a really well thought out post. Right to the point -- I have not forgotten EVE.
But to elaborate a bit -- EVE had a lot of things going for it that current MMOs do not. The rough release quality of EVE and problems as well didn't bite them as badly because well -- there weren't a lot of MMOs on the market at all at the time. You had a choice of only a handful. But let's ignore that fact, and say my mindset is the same now as it was then. Obviously it's not -- I've evolved in what I deem a quality release, and games like WOW have shown me that yes, it's possible to launch a game and have it work too, using a proper development cycle. Heck, even Darkfall had a shoddy release due to the way they set up the buying system -- but the game itself was very playable and every system basically worked. It wasn't much fun, of course -- but that's why I didn't buy it. Not due to bugs or crashes -- there were hardly any. Getting INTO the game was a chore, but once you were in.... it was fine.
But let's say EVE released now -- would I buy it? Possibly. CCP was smart in what they developed, as they kept it small and "in space". The amount of art was limited because space doesn't have any detail to it, it's just open space with some stars. But what EVE did do, is create a political/PvP system that was better than anything at the time. And currently, it's still pretty darn good. The problem with EVE now is that if they released with those graphics today, they'd be toast -- people demand eyecandy and it's a good reason why MO has gotten some interest because of their pre-rendered movies and pre-rendered screenshots. Of course, the actual game doesn't look like either but that's why it's a teaser
EVE today would have to compete with many other MMOs, and my guess is that it would be able to compete. It's obviously how you market it too, but EVE has got a "killer feature" in their PvP/political system. A "killer feature" that is missing from MO since it's an entire copy of other games in the hopes that it will be a core design. We know that this isn't the case, obviously, and it's why I think MO is going to go more along the lines of Dark and Light than EVE. MO has no redeeming features that make it great -- heck.. most of what it advertises as a great feature or whatever, is actually done better in other games like Darkfall. The PvP is mindless and has no depth, about the same level as Darkfall.
Comparing MO to EVE is a poor comparison not for any other reason than MO has nothing that makes it unique, or amazing, or even fun. EVE, while shoddy on the graphics and with other bugs, still had the redeeming quality of being fun and had that killer feature. In this day and age, if the game launched totally unfinished, and basically unplayable like MO, then I wouldn't buy it. But EVE didn't launch that way -- it had its share of problems sure, but the game was playable, but there wasn't a lot of content. That was a smart decision in design though, because they built what they knew they could make and support. SV is going the opposite direction, building a game they have no expertise to make, trying to make a world larger than they can support, and adding more features than they actually know how to implement properly. I knew somebody that worked for CCP, and they actually did use a software development life cycle system (SDLC), and it ensured a lot of the stuff that went into the game actually worked right.
In the end, I think in this day and age, EVE launched as it was would probably be OK because of its features -- MO on the other hand has no redeeming features that aren't better in other games, and it will suffer because of it.
Hmm really you do realize that the launch of EVE was FULL of bugs exploits and mechanics that was plain broken. Even to this day EVE has broken mechanics every patch that needs fixed. The difference between the 2 development wise are not much. EVE had 2 things going for it that SV does not. EVE was launched back when MMOs was still pretty new and sandbox wasn't common, and that they game they focused on was based on a sci-fi space ship simulator.
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.06_Orion.jpg
Note how horrible the game looks at this level. Oh whats that in the corner... the client window? Didn't I hear people complain that SV was so bad at programming that windowed mode had the name UNREAL ENGINE in the corner? Oh my.
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.10_Sputnik_createCharacter.jpg
Hmm very simplistic character creation that was scrapped and replaced time after time.
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.10_Sputnik_selectCharacter.jpg
I even enjoy the buttons in this picture, reminds me of visual basic, great stuff.
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.10_Sputnik_sputnikInFlightAttacking.jpg
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.10_Sputnik_stationKarditis.jpg
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.11_Laika_JonHallurCrowdedJumpgate.jpg
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2001.02_Crystal_JonHallur03.jpg
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2001.06_Phoenix_build5_joioggusti1.jpg
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2001.09_Mandala_JonHallurPirateKillah.jpg
Another one with the name in the corner... strange concept huh.
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2002.02_Emerald_JonHallurBattleShipMiners4.jpg
Comparing the 2 games are like comparing apples to oranges. The developments are very similar and that is something worth noting. The political thing you keep mentioning wasn't any staple in EVE. At launch there was 4 races to choose from and 2 pirate factions. ALL politics was player created. You can do the exact same thing in MO.
I think this review has been posted already but what the hell. If you noticed this review it seems somewhat familiar. In those reviews no where do you see anything about this important POLITICAL staple you speak of. EVE enticed people with the unknown, a single server and boasted a great economy. The PVP system was and is similar to most. Lawless space where you can do whatever you want vs. concord space where attacking people will cause you to be concorded. MO has this with red towns and blue towns.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/evethesecondgenesis/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review
http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/pc/previews/eve-online--the-second-genesis-27fadd.html
Honestly im just rambling but w/e. The whole point is the only thing comparable with EVE and SV is the development. And if SV can follow the same lines of CCP then it will do just fine.
I enjoy MO right now with what it has to offer. It has issues some very irritable but overall I can see the "Vision". Overall if SV does want to bring others into the game they have to bring something worthy to the table that makes people want to log in.
Yes, but EVE launched in 2003 among a handful of MMOs.
MO is launching in 2010 with a LOT of MMOs. Maybe CCP got away with a lot because they were a pioneer. I don't know. Would it stand up today? Maybe. With those graphics, probably not though
But people also don't buy games solely on graphics either nowadays... it's all about gameplay. And MO's gameplay is horrible. EVE's may have been horrible too but again... that was 7 years ago. What was acceptable to people back then is not necessarily going to be acceptable now.
And EVE by the way, had *real* programmers that actually worked on other projects before EVE. They also had an underlying design that was taken and built on another single player game (I forget which). MO has no programmers that have shipped a single product, and no experience (obviously) in a proper development cycle. I've spoken to Henrik enough times to know that much. And we see now with the tons of bugs and problems, it's what is killing the game. Oh, and the fact that the design isn't a design at all, but it's just a mish mosh of stolen features from other games, put together to try to make a new one. Find my car analogy on that one, it was pretty apt I think.
This deserved a reply on its own because it is a really well thought out post. Right to the point -- I have not forgotten EVE.
But to elaborate a bit -- EVE had a lot of things going for it that current MMOs do not. The rough release quality of EVE and problems as well didn't bite them as badly because well -- there weren't a lot of MMOs on the market at all at the time. You had a choice of only a handful. But let's ignore that fact, and say my mindset is the same now as it was then. Obviously it's not -- I've evolved in what I deem a quality release, and games like WOW have shown me that yes, it's possible to launch a game and have it work too, using a proper development cycle. Heck, even Darkfall had a shoddy release due to the way they set up the buying system -- but the game itself was very playable and every system basically worked. It wasn't much fun, of course -- but that's why I didn't buy it. Not due to bugs or crashes -- there were hardly any. Getting INTO the game was a chore, but once you were in.... it was fine.
But let's say EVE released now -- would I buy it? Possibly. CCP was smart in what they developed, as they kept it small and "in space". The amount of art was limited because space doesn't have any detail to it, it's just open space with some stars. But what EVE did do, is create a political/PvP system that was better than anything at the time. And currently, it's still pretty darn good. The problem with EVE now is that if they released with those graphics today, they'd be toast -- people demand eyecandy and it's a good reason why MO has gotten some interest because of their pre-rendered movies and pre-rendered screenshots. Of course, the actual game doesn't look like either but that's why it's a teaser
EVE today would have to compete with many other MMOs, and my guess is that it would be able to compete. It's obviously how you market it too, but EVE has got a "killer feature" in their PvP/political system. A "killer feature" that is missing from MO since it's an entire copy of other games in the hopes that it will be a core design. We know that this isn't the case, obviously, and it's why I think MO is going to go more along the lines of Dark and Light than EVE. MO has no redeeming features that make it great -- heck.. most of what it advertises as a great feature or whatever, is actually done better in other games like Darkfall. The PvP is mindless and has no depth, about the same level as Darkfall.
Comparing MO to EVE is a poor comparison not for any other reason than MO has nothing that makes it unique, or amazing, or even fun. EVE, while shoddy on the graphics and with other bugs, still had the redeeming quality of being fun and had that killer feature. In this day and age, if the game launched totally unfinished, and basically unplayable like MO, then I wouldn't buy it. But EVE didn't launch that way -- it had its share of problems sure, but the game was playable, but there wasn't a lot of content. That was a smart decision in design though, because they built what they knew they could make and support. SV is going the opposite direction, building a game they have no expertise to make, trying to make a world larger than they can support, and adding more features than they actually know how to implement properly. I knew somebody that worked for CCP, and they actually did use a software development life cycle system (SDLC), and it ensured a lot of the stuff that went into the game actually worked right.
In the end, I think in this day and age, EVE launched as it was would probably be OK because of its features -- MO on the other hand has no redeeming features that aren't better in other games, and it will suffer because of it.
Hmm really you do realize that the launch of EVE was FULL of bugs exploits and mechanics that was plain broken. Even to this day EVE has broken mechanics every patch that needs fixed. The difference between the 2 development wise are not much. EVE had 2 things going for it that SV does not. EVE was launched back when MMOs was still pretty new and sandbox wasn't common, and that they game they focused on was based on a sci-fi space ship simulator.
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.06_Orion.jpg
Note how horrible the game looks at this level. Oh whats that in the corner... the client window? Didn't I hear people complain that SV was so bad at programming that windowed mode had the name UNREAL ENGINE in the corner? Oh my.
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.10_Sputnik_createCharacter.jpg
Hmm very simplistic character creation that was scrapped and replaced time after time.
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.10_Sputnik_selectCharacter.jpg
I even enjoy the buttons in this picture, reminds me of visual basic, great stuff.
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.10_Sputnik_sputnikInFlightAttacking.jpg
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.10_Sputnik_stationKarditis.jpg
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2000.11_Laika_JonHallurCrowdedJumpgate.jpg
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2001.02_Crystal_JonHallur03.jpg
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2001.06_Phoenix_build5_joioggusti1.jpg
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2001.09_Mandala_JonHallurPirateKillah.jpg
Another one with the name in the corner... strange concept huh.
http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/EVEHistory/2002.02_Emerald_JonHallurBattleShipMiners4.jpg
Comparing the 2 games are like comparing apples to oranges. The developments are very similar and that is something worth noting. The political thing you keep mentioning wasn't any staple in EVE. At launch there was 4 races to choose from and 2 pirate factions. ALL politics was player created. You can do the exact same thing in MO.
I think this review has been posted already but what the hell. If you noticed this review it seems somewhat familiar. In those reviews no where do you see anything about this important POLITICAL staple you speak of. EVE enticed people with the unknown, a single server and boasted a great economy. The PVP system was and is similar to most. Lawless space where you can do whatever you want vs. concord space where attacking people will cause you to be concorded. MO has this with red towns and blue towns.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/evethesecondgenesis/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review
http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/pc/previews/eve-online--the-second-genesis-27fadd.html
Honestly im just rambling but w/e. The whole point is the only thing comparable with EVE and SV is the development. And if SV can follow the same lines of CCP then it will do just fine.
I enjoy MO right now with what it has to offer. It has issues some very irritable but overall I can see the "Vision". Overall if SV does want to bring others into the game they have to bring something worthy to the table that makes people want to log in.
Yes, but EVE launched in 2003 among a handful of MMOs.
MO is launching in 2010 with a LOT of MMOs. Maybe CCP got away with a lot because they were a pioneer. I don't know. Would it stand up today? Maybe. With those graphics, probably not though
But people also don't buy games solely on graphics either nowadays... it's all about gameplay. And MO's gameplay is horrible. EVE's may have been horrible too but again... that was 7 years ago. What was acceptable to people back then is not necessarily going to be acceptable now.
And EVE by the way, had *real* programmers that actually worked on other projects before EVE. They also had an underlying design that was taken and built on another single player game (I forget which). MO has no programmers that have shipped a single product, and no experience (obviously) in a proper development cycle. I've spoken to Henrik enough times to know that much. And we see now with the tons of bugs and problems, it's what is killing the game. Oh, and the fact that the design isn't a design at all, but it's just a mish mosh of stolen features from other games, put together to try to make a new one. Find my car analogy on that one, it was pretty apt I think.
EVE also had a genre pretty much all to itself.. Games like DF and MO have to compete with countless other games in the same genre. The sci fi genre is just barren of any competition. With competition you just cant expect people to wait and wait and wait and hope on things that most likely will never arrive.