Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Can archeage still be regarded as the "saviour" of the mmo genre?
maccarthur2004
Member UncommonPosts: 511
In these long 4 years people (me included) were waiting for AA release, many people in social media and game foruns (a big part of them old veterans longing for a "revival" of the old days) talked about AA as if it were to be the "saviour" of the dwindling MMO genre, that was day after day, launch after launch, less and less innovative (wow clones), more and more casual, more and more "lobby games", more and more "single players", more and more "carebear", and so on.
So, AA were to be the FIRST mmo that wasn't lobby game, not focused in instances, with a rich and big amount of sandbox tools, with more freedom, with open pvp... and not be a bugfest indie production, but a well polished and well funded production. Because that, AA was considered by the mmo veterans a "saviour" of the genre.
Now, 4 years later, after full release and more than 1 week of live gameplay, can AA still be called or regarded as a "saviour" of the genre?
Comments
"Can archeage still be regarded as the "saviour" of the genre?
No.
I have a life, its just different from yours.....
I self identify as a monkey.
Just to question the philosophy. Army of Socrates.
Sic semper tyrannis "Democracy broke down, not when the Union
ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms."
Fixed that for you.
Just to question the philosophy. Army of Socrates.
It's hard to take any review of a game seriously when they say " dwindling mmo genre " It generally ends up with " I can't find a game I like "
So was this game ever the saviour ? maybe if you're someone that thought it needed saving in the first place.
Is this some kind of reverse trolling? to make a title like this and expect for the flame war to begin?
That's my take.
I don't recall it being labeled a savior.
I think AA does show that an AAA title can have non-instanced, sandbox features and still be fun for a broad range of people.
Nope, you fixed it for you.
Developers needed to see that people really do want games like this. Black Desert will continue this direction.
In a market of anywhere between 100 and 400 million players what game isn't a small portion of the player base. Even wow with it's 7 million subs is at best only 7% of that player base. That's a long ways from 8 years ago when it was thought 10+ million players was almost 30% of the mmo genre in one game.
I don't think there is a " majority" anymore unless you include the gamers that just play everything.
Definitely this, however still has faults to appeal to the masses and her is my list.
1. Remove levels from the game.
2. Let what 'PvE' players do in the game benefit the 'PvP' players and what the 'PvP' players do in the game benefit it's 'PvE' players. Having players benefit from one another makes a stronger community and a active social environment.
3. Don't restrict housing plots to just certain area's of the map. (I know what many of you will say about this). But <imo>, it just's makes the casual player less interested in AA and move on to another game.
4. AA to me is suppose to grow as a game for the many, if you want it to be a niche game for just the 'PvP' crafting players, keep the same route your going and be happy being another DF and EvE to its 'PvP' base.
Sorry pal, but a P2W title will never be the genre's saviour, not by a long shot. It's just a matter of time before the honey moon phase fades away and the P2W factor starts kicking in, which will back people off the game. FF14:ARR is more likely to be the genre's saviour, rather than ArcheAge. FF14 still hold a couple million of subs and are really putting their patches to improve the game in to high gear.
Which reminds me of ROSE online, I swear the first week the game released, every map was packed with people for miles away, you had 10 people for 1 mob. But a few weeks later, once the P2W factor started to kick in, that's where almost everyone left and is now a ghost town MMO.
But seriously, if you're really looking for the genre saviour, FF14:ARR is your best bet, I used to play it when it launched until December 2013, and I am seriously considering returning back since some of my Steam buds have resubed their accounts.
I always hated F2P because they always end up being P2W that always allow players to dish out large sums of money to screw up the games economy, why the hell would a Dev / Pub even want this happening to their games is beyond me and I see no reasonable explanation besides the fact that they just want your cash and don't give a damn about their games. And those actually playing those types of games, shame on you.
So to answer your question, the only true saviours for the genre, is ourselves. By supporting junk such as ArcheAge we encourage more of the same to be released. Yes ArcheAge looks great and all, but deep down it will drain your wallet with nothing to show in return. At least GW2 got it right, so did FF14, so once in a while we do get some good releases and let's just hope EQ:N follow in the same foot steps as GW2 and FF14.
I agree the crafting and gathering elements are a step in the right direction.
The rest of the game is nothing special - same zerging, same tab target combat, same grinding for overpowered gear to win in PvP.
AA is a game for pvpers and crafters , there is nothing for the PVE crowd.
and after the pop takes a nose dive , u will see the 1 group ganking the 2nd one....
Exactly!
I was referring to the game's touted direction (sandbox mmorpg). The direction it took appeals to a small portion of the mmorpg community, at least in the west. This isn't really an opinion, the numbers for themeparks in the west (WoW, SWTOR, FFXIV, and the long list goes on) speak for themselves.
Not just no, but hell no. not even close.
There needs to be an entirely new word for the degree of NO this question elicits.