Regardless on whether or not an MMO looks good I always hold off on buying it and never buy the pre order. MMO's can bomb very easily and many can be very buggy at launch. Usually wait a month or two until all the info about the game comes out and they iron out alot of the bad bugs.
What shocks me is how many people rabidly defend this game, as if they know that it's going to be good. Not all of us who question the missing features are "trolls", we just look at things objectively because we have been through many games that fail to deliver. I really hope AoC is a great game because I'm soooo bored with all the games out there that I've tried. But I have to say, if they make the release date I will be shocked and happy at the same time.
Much better explanation of the combos. Seems really skill-based, and probably very difficult to do well.
I like the yellow buttons much better than having to memorize the combos. REally wish there was a playable demo at this year's E3 though.
It's a shame that they didn't show any PvP content. It's really starting to make a lot of people question the aims of this game. So far we've seen the single player section and a 25-man raid.
Not exactly what you'd expect from a game that is slated to be a PvP game.
--------------------------------------------- I live to fight, and fight to live.
They have been letting people PVP in WAR at game conventions for months already. I find the lack of information from Funcom disturbing. Mythic has provided their fanbase with a crap load of info on a monthly basis. Based on the info that it out there i'd rather play WAR. Mythic has a few revolutionary things they have not released and for good reason, but that has not stopped them from giving info and showing video's. They even released horrible ALPHA footage 7 months ago or so.
I would be totally surprised if AOC is released on time. I'm pulling for AOC but i just don't see it.
A point to consider for those mentioning WAR showing pvp earlier: WAR is a game almost entirely based on pvp. Of course it's going to be shown sooner. AoC looks to be just as much a PvE game as pvp.
They both look like good games, for that matter, but they offer different things, have a different focus, and are handled differently, not surprisingly. Simply saying: "But WAR showed us pvp sooner!" is not a fair comparison.
-Gobbo Knight
"Tie two birds together...they have four wings, but cannot fly." -Blind man, Circle of Iron
A point to consider for those mentioning WAR showing pvp earlier: WAR is a game almost entirely based on pvp. Of course it's going to be shown sooner. AoC looks to be just as much a PvE game as pvp.
They both look like good games, for that matter, but they offer different things, have a different focus, and are handled differently, not surprisingly. Simply saying: "But WAR showed us pvp sooner!" is not a fair comparison.
Actually if you watch the WAR Podcasts, they've shown just as much PvE as PvP. And at every convention the people have been able to play low level PvE and higher level PvP.
They've let people play their Public Quests, which is their innovation on questing. They've let people go through their kill-counter quests, and check out the story-lines in some quests. And they've let people go into RvR and hack on eachother.
They've handed people the game and said "here, go play it."
Funcom has said that the focus of their game was PvP. They've raved about the blood money system, and talked about how awesome their PvP combat is going to be. They've also talked about how great their quests are, and how fun they're going to be, and how good the AI is.
But do you know anyone that's played through AoC's quests? or played their PvP? Heck it's been 3 years and we haven't even seen 2 Funcom Devs go at it in PvP.
The comparison isn't WAR showed us PvP "first." It's WAR showed us PvP "at all." Heck the comparison could even be "Fans have been playing WAR at conventions for a year, and fans have yet to play AoC."
--------------------------------------------- I live to fight, and fight to live.
It's great that Mythic has been so forthcoming, yes. I agree on that score, it's cool of them, and not every developer is going to come even close to that level of open-ness with the community. It's up to them.
I'm curious as to where and when Funcom said that AoC was a pvp-focused game, though? I know it has a strong pvp element, but I never got the sense that it was the [i]primary[/i] focus of the game. If it is, that's news to me. I'm more interested in AoC's pve game, whereas my interest in WAR is more about the pvp/rvr play.
-Gobbo Knight
"Tie two birds together...they have four wings, but cannot fly." -Blind man, Circle of Iron
I'm just glad that Funcom is finally releasing some gameplay reviews and more info about this game. They really were being tight-lipped about it for quite some time. Now we can finally see more of the game and more will be coming in the following months.
Originally posted by Baikal
For the vast majority of games, they did not have as much info available to the general public at this time, unless you were involved in the beta process. Are there going to be exceptions? Yeah, because I might be wrong about one or two, but like I said earlier, go visit sites with Q4 type releases, and honestly see if there is as much info out there as AoC. CoS, nope, TR, nope, Huxley, nope. Dont get me wrong, I want more info too, and I'm not saying that Funcom is sharing exceptional amounts of info, but if you look at the body of games out there, FC is probably right in the middle, or even a bit ahead of the curve.
It is a shame that development companies are so close-mouthed about their games, but given the lengthy development times one could imagine they're being paranoid about people stealing their ideas.
But we have seen more recent games where they do share more information with the community during their development. I hope that becomes more typical and that the standard practice of not sharing much information becomes a thing of the past.
"Funcom estimates that about 90% of Age of Conan players will eventually join a guild, so the studio is not only building additional non-combat activities into the game, it's also creating challenging group encounters that may involve new enemies spawning from the remains of old ones. "
That makes me a sad camper It's way too close of an echo to Blizzard's comments at the first Blizzcon where they were saying they expected everyone to join a large guild (when they were focusing on the now-defunct 40 man raid content).
We always knew the game would be very Guild-centric but now it seems Funcom is coming out and saying that they expect you to join a guild to play the game. At least they're being honest about how they expect players to play their game.
which had something that really stood out: "Funcom estimates that about 90% of Age of Conan players will eventually join a guild, so the studio is not only building additional non-combat activities into the game, it's also creating challenging group encounters that may involve new enemies spawning from the remains of old ones. " That makes me a sad camper It's way too close of an echo to Blizzard's comments at the first Blizzcon where they were saying they expected everyone to join a large guild (when they were focusing on the now-defunct 40 man raid content). We always knew the game would be very Guild-centric but now it seems Funcom is coming out and saying that they expect you to join a guild to play the game. At least they're being honest about how they expect players to play their game.
I don't find this suprising in the least. The very essence of a MMO is the community experience. If Funcom is planning to provide a strong community experience, it would make total sense that they would promote the guilds. Also, with major game content such as guild cities and sieges, there is an enormous reason for players to join a guild.
Comments
Regardless on whether or not an MMO looks good I always hold off on buying it and never buy the pre order. MMO's can bomb very easily and many can be very buggy at launch. Usually wait a month or two until all the info about the game comes out and they iron out alot of the bad bugs.
What shocks me is how many people rabidly defend this game, as if they know that it's going to be good. Not all of us who question the missing features are "trolls", we just look at things objectively because we have been through many games that fail to deliver. I really hope AoC is a great game because I'm soooo bored with all the games out there that I've tried. But I have to say, if they make the release date I will be shocked and happy at the same time.
Much better explanation of the combos. Seems really skill-based, and probably very difficult to do well.
I like the yellow buttons much better than having to memorize the combos. REally wish there was a playable demo at this year's E3 though.
It's a shame that they didn't show any PvP content. It's really starting to make a lot of people question the aims of this game. So far we've seen the single player section and a 25-man raid.
Not exactly what you'd expect from a game that is slated to be a PvP game.
---------------------------------------------
I live to fight, and fight to live.
They have been letting people PVP in WAR at game conventions for months already. I find the lack of information from Funcom disturbing. Mythic has provided their fanbase with a crap load of info on a monthly basis. Based on the info that it out there i'd rather play WAR. Mythic has a few revolutionary things they have not released and for good reason, but that has not stopped them from giving info and showing video's. They even released horrible ALPHA footage 7 months ago or so.
I would be totally surprised if AOC is released on time. I'm pulling for AOC but i just don't see it.
A point to consider for those mentioning WAR showing pvp earlier: WAR is a game almost entirely based on pvp. Of course it's going to be shown sooner. AoC looks to be just as much a PvE game as pvp.
They both look like good games, for that matter, but they offer different things, have a different focus, and are handled differently, not surprisingly. Simply saying: "But WAR showed us pvp sooner!" is not a fair comparison.
-Gobbo Knight
"Tie two birds together...they have four wings, but cannot fly." -Blind man, Circle of Iron
They've let people play their Public Quests, which is their innovation on questing. They've let people go through their kill-counter quests, and check out the story-lines in some quests. And they've let people go into RvR and hack on eachother.
They've handed people the game and said "here, go play it."
Funcom has said that the focus of their game was PvP. They've raved about the blood money system, and talked about how awesome their PvP combat is going to be. They've also talked about how great their quests are, and how fun they're going to be, and how good the AI is.
But do you know anyone that's played through AoC's quests? or played their PvP? Heck it's been 3 years and we haven't even seen 2 Funcom Devs go at it in PvP.
The comparison isn't WAR showed us PvP "first." It's WAR showed us PvP "at all." Heck the comparison could even be "Fans have been playing WAR at conventions for a year, and fans have yet to play AoC."
---------------------------------------------
I live to fight, and fight to live.
It's great that Mythic has been so forthcoming, yes. I agree on that score, it's cool of them, and not every developer is going to come even close to that level of open-ness with the community. It's up to them.
I'm curious as to where and when Funcom said that AoC was a pvp-focused game, though? I know it has a strong pvp element, but I never got the sense that it was the [i]primary[/i] focus of the game. If it is, that's news to me. I'm more interested in AoC's pve game, whereas my interest in WAR is more about the pvp/rvr play.
-Gobbo Knight
"Tie two birds together...they have four wings, but cannot fly." -Blind man, Circle of Iron
I'm just glad that Funcom is finally releasing some gameplay reviews and more info about this game. They really were being tight-lipped about it for quite some time. Now we can finally see more of the game and more will be coming in the following months.
It is a shame that development companies are so close-mouthed about their games, but given the lengthy development times one could imagine they're being paranoid about people stealing their ideas.
But we have seen more recent games where they do share more information with the community during their development. I hope that becomes more typical and that the standard practice of not sharing much information becomes a thing of the past.
There was another Gamespot review:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/ageofconanhyborianadventures/news.html?page=1&sid=6174754&par
which had something that really stood out:
"Funcom estimates that about 90% of Age of Conan players will eventually join a guild, so the studio is not only building additional non-combat activities into the game, it's also creating challenging group encounters that may involve new enemies spawning from the remains of old ones. "
That makes me a sad camper
It's way too close of an echo to Blizzard's comments at the first Blizzcon where they were saying they expected everyone to join a large guild (when they were focusing on the now-defunct 40 man raid content).
We always knew the game would be very Guild-centric but now it seems Funcom is coming out and saying that they expect you to join a guild to play the game. At least they're being honest about how they expect players to play their game.
I don't find this suprising in the least. The very essence of a MMO is the community experience. If Funcom is planning to provide a strong community experience, it would make total sense that they would promote the guilds. Also, with major game content such as guild cities and sieges, there is an enormous reason for players to join a guild.