Ling story short, if you didnt like Shadowbane, Ultima Online T2A, Darkfall or Star Wars Galaxies, you wont like this game and should probably just move on.
There is a very large group of gamers waiting for a game exactly like what Amazon is building here. There are plenty of other PvE/story based games for everyone else to choose from.
To this day I think that Shadowbane was my favorite MMORPG of all time. That said the main things all those games have in common is they're all fucking dead, or limping along with a tiny population. While I think I'll enjoy The New World, I doubt the majority of MMO gamers are going to want anything to do with it.
Their deaths were due to mismanagement or ineptitude more so than the games themselves. If shadowbane had been made by a competent studio by competent devs, it would still be around. Hopefully crowfall can be that but I guess we'll see. UO and SWG fell prey to WoW syndrome with their publishers trying to change them into theme parks to grab that sweet wow cash, which killed them off. Darkfall.. well... aventurine. Nothing else needs said there.
New World is the logical next step for MMORPGs. A mix of survival elements with traditional sandbox MMORPG elements in a persistent, large world. The game aspect is building an empire with your friends, or joining an empire and helping build it up. Rivalries, expansion and politics are what keep things exciting - in other words, community. Something that has been totally lost in today's chatroom dungeon queue mmorpg landscape.
It is difficult to satisfy a crowd that wants choices to have real meaning in the game world, but does not want to face any consequences from those choices.
( Note to self-Don't say anything bad about Drizzt.)
Hate to say this but they should seriously consider turning it into a battle royale game.
New World is a very promising mmo with an interesting premise. They are currently filling the game out which is why it feels so empty but even so the base skeleton of an amazing mmo is there. I hate to sound like such an asshole but the ridiculous negative and overall stupid nature of the criticisms of this game leave me to wonder how the hell MMOs can survive customers like you all.
Its a stupid survival game like 1000000 before it
Im just waiting for them to announce battle royal mode to be even more generic
If the community is there where I can focus on say combat or hunting and purchase new gear from other players I think I would have fun. But if it is like other games where you pretty much do it all yourself then I'll pass.
After playing the alpha myself, I found this article strange and confusing. I wasn't impressed. It felt like another... game without content, no missions, no story, no reason to do anything.
In all honesty, I find mmorpgers today very strange and confusing...
Asking for story from a mmorpg? I mean, I get lore, but coming to
mmorpgs for a forced storyline? I understood the console kids
complaining about FO76 not having story, they are what they are, but, I
would assume, seasoned mmorpgers not being able to deal with a sandbox
because it didn't give them a pre written story? That kind of amazes me.
Why
do you have to be given missions? Have you not the agency to set your
own missions? Have you never played a game like Rust and experienced how
story is what happens to you and missions are what you choose to do
back?
it's like people want a return to the !!! quest giver and
story that no one reads, and yet complains when it isn't there, for a
game to be 'good'. I suspect that it isn't story that they miss, but a
shopping list of busywork tasks for them to work through... For the game
to do their thinking for them.
I stopped reading at the land claim part of the article. As Atlas has shown, land claim system can be a plague and abused massively separating the player base. I hope they have some ways to counter land claiming especially with their infinite land claims they have, according to the article. Not good, no bueno.
I am all for wide open land claims as long as you can lose them. They each have to be defended, and maybe multiples at the same time. That's how it should work, in my opinion.
It is difficult to satisfy a crowd that wants choices to have real meaning in the game world, but does not want to face any consequences from those choices.
That is a very insightful comment in my opinion. Gaming options are rather binary right now though. It's either no consequences at all or completely brutal. We need systems that have multiple and varying degrees of consequence.
They should have just billed it as a Survival MMO like ARK only not janky. To me, if they can pull of 250+ concurrency per map and the world is persistent (even if there are lots of little servers), then it's an MMO. I think they have been trying to be coy about genre labels and that has worked against them. They just need to say what it is and then do a good job at making it that thing. Deliver on that game play loop.
Have they said this is going to be a mini server (250ish) mmo? Hard pass on any of those.
I stopped reading at the land claim part of the article. As Atlas has shown, land claim system can be a plague and abused massively separating the player base. I hope they have some ways to counter land claiming especially with their infinite land claims they have, according to the article. Not good, no bueno.
I am all for wide open land claims as long as you can lose them. They each have to be defended, and maybe multiples at the same time. That's how it should work, in my opinion.
There are a lot of way to have claims work unfortunately NONE of them have been implemented by the plethora of games that have put them in their games.
I am all for 'taking' land but there has to be a reason. I dont like the random go and try and steal shit mechanic most games have. Even declaring 'war' or rivalry or whatever JUST to steal land from someone else to me should have some 'involvement'. Games track everything so there should be a threshhold of things to happen before you can even start a major conflict. Then ultimately a 'war' And then to keep it semi reasonable there should be a minimum number of people on from both sides when any timed (which I guess theyre going to try and do) battles take place. If not enough people show up from either side then its a push and some sort of 'peace' treaty is put into place where neither side can be aggressive to the other side for a certain amount of REAL WORLD time like a week , 10 days, 2 weeks a month. Whatever. If only one side has enough then the side without enough should suffer a penalty/loss (assuming there is some sort of mutual agreement for any preplanned battles) So if BOTH sides agree and one side doenst show up they lose something automatically. Some sort of claim system maybe so both sides know what the other side wants the most. I dont think any battle should result in a guild or clan or whatever losing everything they own. Sides make claims and BOTH sides have a chance to lose something. That way (in a 'balanced' situation) each side has to make a choice. Either defend or attack and run the risk of getting something as well as losing something.
Thats just a 'simplistic' outline of what they could do.
Other things I would look at would be limiting groups from owning too much land/property. That has what has killed every game with this sort of system even in a game like Atlas with not a lot of people and a pretty large map 12-15 groups owned 80% of the claimable land withing 3 days of servers being stable enough to claim anything and then within 3 more days they owned 90% or more of it.
I would also implement a tax system where groups would have to pay taxes (and maybe collect some) into the system. Good gold sink and it would make groups at least sort of budget even with a land cap.
Same with 'individual' plots/claims. You shouldnt be able to own everything or stuff you cant afford to own. Either monetarily or militarily. But I htink some hermit living way out in the middle of no where should be able to exist without griefers or try hards trying to force him off his land or claim it just because they can. I suppose if they wanted to they could put in a system where if a group really wanted to be dicks they could go through the whole process of being able to have a 'war' with this one guy but I dont think if a guy has a single plot he should lose it. Unless it is literally surrounded by a group he doesnt want to join or sell out to. Which is something else they should have selling/buying land (and some system to avoid exploiting that as well) THEN they could get it to fill in their borders. Or they could force him to be a vassel or something and then have some sort of taxation system. That way he might be more apt to sell.
These 'sand box' games all go on the assumption that PvP and killing and combat are the only direction they can go. But thats only because the lazy developers havent put in any other mechanics.
Put in a trade system, a monetary system, a banking system, a faction system and whatever other system that makes sense and have those open ended and a choice people could make and people wouldnt have to invent some wink and a nod system that never work.
Everyone THINKS they want 'sandbox' which they might but not in any of the ways every sandbox game thus far has offered. Even Eve. But it at least has some of the systems I mention in it to give people more than one choice. Which for every other game BUT eve is PvP/combat destruction.
This sounds like it hasn't progressed much at all from the October test. I found it barren and boring. Crafting consists of having the level to create an item made of ingredients of such ambiguous origin that tracking them down is infuriating. The whole thing was a meandering directionless survival slog. I was hoping that it was just the early nature but the article LITERALLY states the same experience minus "this was boring". I really hope Amazon kicks things up a few levels otherwise I see their whole gaming venture going bust in a year since it doesnt make ridiculous, immediate returns. I wanted this to be great but it was just blaaaaah.
This sounds like it hasn't progressed much at all from the October test. I found it barren and boring. Crafting consists of having the level to create an item made of ingredients of such ambiguous origin that tracking them down is infuriating. The whole thing was a meandering directionless survival slog. I was hoping that it was just the early nature but the article LITERALLY states the same experience minus "this was boring". I really hope Amazon kicks things up a few levels otherwise I see their whole gaming venture going bust in a year since it doesnt make ridiculous, immediate returns. I wanted this to be great but it was just blaaaaah.
A survival game without you owning and building your own house/base, makes the grind in a grindy genre all the more unbearable.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
I have to wonder if they had a few focus groups to gage target audience interest or just planned the game after a few internal meetings?
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Comments
Their deaths were due to mismanagement or ineptitude more so than the games themselves. If shadowbane had been made by a competent studio by competent devs, it would still be around. Hopefully crowfall can be that but I guess we'll see. UO and SWG fell prey to WoW syndrome with their publishers trying to change them into theme parks to grab that sweet wow cash, which killed them off. Darkfall.. well... aventurine. Nothing else needs said there.
New World is the logical next step for MMORPGs. A mix of survival elements with traditional sandbox MMORPG elements in a persistent, large world. The game aspect is building an empire with your friends, or joining an empire and helping build it up. Rivalries, expansion and politics are what keep things exciting - in other words, community. Something that has been totally lost in today's chatroom dungeon queue mmorpg landscape.
( Note to self-Don't say anything bad about Drizzt.)
An acerbic sense of humor is NOT allowed here.
Its a stupid survival game like 1000000 before it
Im just waiting for them to announce battle royal mode to be even more generic
Why do you have to be given missions? Have you not the agency to set your own missions? Have you never played a game like Rust and experienced how story is what happens to you and missions are what you choose to do back?
it's like people want a return to the !!! quest giver and story that no one reads, and yet complains when it isn't there, for a game to be 'good'. I suspect that it isn't story that they miss, but a shopping list of busywork tasks for them to work through... For the game to do their thinking for them.
It's kind of depressing.
I am all for wide open land claims as long as you can lose them. They each have to be defended, and maybe multiples at the same time. That's how it should work, in my opinion.
Once upon a time....
I am all for 'taking' land but there has to be a reason. I dont like the random go and try and steal shit mechanic most games have. Even declaring 'war' or rivalry or whatever JUST to steal land from someone else to me should have some 'involvement'. Games track everything so there should be a threshhold of things to happen before you can even start a major conflict. Then ultimately a 'war' And then to keep it semi reasonable there should be a minimum number of people on from both sides when any timed (which I guess theyre going to try and do) battles take place. If not enough people show up from either side then its a push and some sort of 'peace' treaty is put into place where neither side can be aggressive to the other side for a certain amount of REAL WORLD time like a week , 10 days, 2 weeks a month. Whatever. If only one side has enough then the side without enough should suffer a penalty/loss (assuming there is some sort of mutual agreement for any preplanned battles) So if BOTH sides agree and one side doenst show up they lose something automatically. Some sort of claim system maybe so both sides know what the other side wants the most. I dont think any battle should result in a guild or clan or whatever losing everything they own. Sides make claims and BOTH sides have a chance to lose something. That way (in a 'balanced' situation) each side has to make a choice. Either defend or attack and run the risk of getting something as well as losing something.
Thats just a 'simplistic' outline of what they could do.
Other things I would look at would be limiting groups from owning too much land/property. That has what has killed every game with this sort of system even in a game like Atlas with not a lot of people and a pretty large map 12-15 groups owned 80% of the claimable land withing 3 days of servers being stable enough to claim anything and then within 3 more days they owned 90% or more of it.
I would also implement a tax system where groups would have to pay taxes (and maybe collect some) into the system. Good gold sink and it would make groups at least sort of budget even with a land cap.
Same with 'individual' plots/claims. You shouldnt be able to own everything or stuff you cant afford to own. Either monetarily or militarily. But I htink some hermit living way out in the middle of no where should be able to exist without griefers or try hards trying to force him off his land or claim it just because they can. I suppose if they wanted to they could put in a system where if a group really wanted to be dicks they could go through the whole process of being able to have a 'war' with this one guy but I dont think if a guy has a single plot he should lose it. Unless it is literally surrounded by a group he doesnt want to join or sell out to. Which is something else they should have selling/buying land (and some system to avoid exploiting that as well) THEN they could get it to fill in their borders. Or they could force him to be a vassel or something and then have some sort of taxation system. That way he might be more apt to sell.
These 'sand box' games all go on the assumption that PvP and killing and combat are the only direction they can go. But thats only because the lazy developers havent put in any other mechanics.
Put in a trade system, a monetary system, a banking system, a faction system and whatever other system that makes sense and have those open ended and a choice people could make and people wouldnt have to invent some wink and a nod system that never work.
Everyone THINKS they want 'sandbox' which they might but not in any of the ways every sandbox game thus far has offered. Even Eve. But it at least has some of the systems I mention in it to give people more than one choice. Which for every other game BUT eve is PvP/combat destruction.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey