Sold out? Well, if you feel betrayed by Funcom because they are moving into consoles and attempting to grab a bigger slice of the pie which is online gaming then yeah, they sold out. I am pleased by this decision to move MMOs to the consoles. Evolution baby!! Its only a matter of time till MMOs are on the next gen consoles. AoC is the first test. If its a success then expect more to follow.
I swear some of these fanboys are paid employees of Funcom.
who in their right mind would want a buggy, incomplete MMO that was designed for low-end common-denominator hardware over a polished, innovative MMO specifically tailored to the target platform's strengths?
if AoC is only going to be 50% of a PC game cause of its bugs & incompleteness, shouldn't we only be paying 50% of the regular price of an MMO?
There are a lot of reasons why all MMOS are bugged at the beggining, and the bigger reason is not the console gaming, is the PC gaming itself.
When you express your opinion about AoC, wich references are you taking? I mean, are you comparing the so "horrid" AoC to the incredible and polished ...insert game here....
AoC is inovative, combat, atmosphere, no Walt Disney feeling... and FINALLY the only Low Fantasy MMO.
When a PC game is bugged, dont blame the consoles, blame the PC market.
...
it certainly doesn't look like a disneyland ride but it plays like a disneyland ride 100%.
EVE by example isn't a rollercoaster ride.
Age of conan is. Age of conan isn't a crappy game, it is a good game but i don't like it because it doesn't offer the challenge i am looking for. I do not look for hardcore mode, i look for a challenge and not for a E-Z/easy mode game. I am not interested in that since it is just doing tedious things and i do not like that.
That's why EVE is one of the best current mmo's in the market in my opinion.
aoc is a good game but it is more made for people who want instant gratification/no challenge and i am not lookin for that.
No mmo is a rollercoaster ride, you just need to look for a challenge in every mmo I played I found the easy part and the hard one, the problem is, most of players go for the easy way...
... about gratification, I really think a game isnt the right place to look for it.
See, most of mmos are easy in the first view, but you can make it harder and harder... it is the same with AoC, you can make your challenge and go for it, you can duo a full group dungeon, solo in a elite area etc.
But I agree EvE and AoC are both good games in a different way.
...
I don't think you really understood it.
Themepark/rollercoaster rides is tagges as linear.
Age of conan is extremely linear, you must follow that path and questing is omost the only reason to level up, if you level, your character improves LINAER. dungeons are linear , pvp = linear and pve is linear , it is all handled by the developers, even sieges. Players do not control lands or economy, Age of conan doesn't got open ended game play.
This is the rollercoaster ride . You have a park with some attractions, if it gets boring , the developers adds new attractions.
Aka: the linear formula.
EVE has the sandbox formula, a open ended game play experience, you can affect the galaxy , the economy, politics , pvp and much more.
AOC guids you.
EVE doesn't.
That's why i think in my opinion EVE is better since we already have the same old linear stuff ala WOW/eq2 and now AOC and we also have LOTRO but sandbox games only have EVE atm. But glad allot of sandbox/hybrid are being developer.
DAOC is a hybrid, both uses linear and sandbox game play, in my opinion, that is the best.
----------------------------------------------------------- the old days, the days of gold.
representer of euhporium, shade/amity , high member of the council.
played
UO,M59,EVE,L2,AC,GW,WOW,LOTRO,SWG pre cu/nge,COH/COV, VG,TR,L1, POTBS,Neocron 1 and 2, DAOC pre TOA and age of conan
playing: EVE ONLINE Waiting for Earthrise, FE, bioware mmo, guild wars 2, DFO , mortal online , the chronicles of spellborn
Have you played the game? The game is relatively instanced, but not 100% so. It's not like guildwars where there are like 40 instances. There are up to a maximum of 5 different instances during prime time and as low as 1 or 2 during slower times. Designed to be a console game? Hard to notice honestly. Like some of the buttons are hard to deal with in combination with the combos, but onl because of finger spacing. Honestly, get an N52 game pad or some type of special keyboard to play this game, but it still is a lot of fun even on PC. I can't imagine playing the game on console right now and I have a 360. I just have no idea how it would work, but hey i guess we'll see. The bugs are really not that bad as of level 30. I have barely encountered any...maybe 1 bug this entire time? AI is not dumbed down. If anything it is more complicated than most MMORPG's I have played and believe me when I say that I have played most of them in the past 6 years. The AI is actualy relatively difficultif you're working with 2-3 person groups. They are adaptive. You obviously haven't played. Don't be glad you canclled. Give it a try! I promise that if you liked games like Dungeon Siege or DIablo 2 with a little bit of a World of Warcraft PVP server feel, you'll do just fine. There is a lot going on here and i really suggest geting into a guild. It's a lot of fun! I highly recommend this game to people who like to have a more realtime oriented gameplay versus a constant click and pick type of MMORPG.
compared to the older mmorpg's and more complexer mmo's, it deffo looks like a bit of a console game.
compared to old school mmo's, complexer mmo's, AOC is a piece of cake and a simplistic mmorpg.
----------------------------------------------------------- the old days, the days of gold.
representer of euhporium, shade/amity , high member of the council.
played
UO,M59,EVE,L2,AC,GW,WOW,LOTRO,SWG pre cu/nge,COH/COV, VG,TR,L1, POTBS,Neocron 1 and 2, DAOC pre TOA and age of conan
playing: EVE ONLINE Waiting for Earthrise, FE, bioware mmo, guild wars 2, DFO , mortal online , the chronicles of spellborn
I can see how similar to a console game it is, but I haven't even looked back at WoW. This game has the addictive quality to it and I'm enjoying it. Console game or not it's good on the PC.
I'm not looking back at WoW and I'm not playing anything, you don't need much to not look back at WoW
Sold out? Well, if you feel betrayed by Funcom because they are moving into consoles and attempting to grab a bigger slice of the pie which is online gaming then yeah, they sold out. I am pleased by this decision to move MMOs to the consoles. Evolution baby!! Its only a matter of time till MMOs are on the next gen consoles. AoC is the first test. If its a success then expect more to follow.
I swear some of these fanboys are paid employees of Funcom.
who in their right mind would want a buggy, incomplete MMO that was designed for low-end common-denominator hardware over a polished, innovative MMO specifically tailored to the target platform's strengths?
if AoC is only going to be 50% of a PC game cause of its bugs & incompleteness, shouldn't we only be paying 50% of the regular price of an MMO?
There are a lot of reasons why all MMOS are bugged at the beggining, and the bigger reason is not the console gaming, is the PC gaming itself.
When you express your opinion about AoC, wich references are you taking? I mean, are you comparing the so "horrid" AoC to the incredible and polished ...insert game here....
AoC is inovative, combat, atmosphere, no Walt Disney feeling... and FINALLY the only Low Fantasy MMO.
When a PC game is bugged, dont blame the consoles, blame the PC market.
...
it certainly doesn't look like a disneyland ride but it plays like a disneyland ride 100%.
EVE by example isn't a rollercoaster ride.
Age of conan is. Age of conan isn't a crappy game, it is a good game but i don't like it because it doesn't offer the challenge i am looking for. I do not look for hardcore mode, i look for a challenge and not for a E-Z/easy mode game. I am not interested in that since it is just doing tedious things and i do not like that.
That's why EVE is one of the best current mmo's in the market in my opinion.
aoc is a good game but it is more made for people who want instant gratification/no challenge and i am not lookin for that.
No mmo is a rollercoaster ride, you just need to look for a challenge in every mmo I played I found the easy part and the hard one, the problem is, most of players go for the easy way...
... about gratification, I really think a game isnt the right place to look for it.
See, most of mmos are easy in the first view, but you can make it harder and harder... it is the same with AoC, you can make your challenge and go for it, you can duo a full group dungeon, solo in a elite area etc.
But I agree EvE and AoC are both good games in a different way.
...
I don't think you really understood it.
Themepark/rollercoaster rides is tagges as linear.
Age of conan is extremely linear, you must follow that path and questing is omost the only reason to level up, if you level, your character improves LINAER. dungeons are linear , pvp = linear and pve is linear , it is all handled by the developers, even sieges. Players do not control lands or economy, Age of conan doesn't got open ended game play.
This is the rollercoaster ride . You have a park with some attractions, if it gets boring , the developers adds new attractions.
Aka: the linear formula.
EVE has the sandbox formula, a open ended game play experience, you can affect the galaxy , the economy, politics , pvp and much more.
AOC guids you.
EVE doesn't.
That's why i think in my opinion EVE is better since we already have the same old linear stuff ala WOW/eq2 and now AOC and we also have LOTRO but sandbox games only have EVE atm. But glad allot of sandbox/hybrid are being developer.
DAOC is a hybrid, both uses linear and sandbox game play, in my opinion, that is the best.
No, I understood what you said.
But I disagree.
The game is less linear than Everques2 (at the release) , you just dont need to to follow the linear initial path after level 20, you dont need to go for A to B, and the economy is cotrolled by the players, but it is too early to see it.
Yes the game guides you, but you dont need to follow the guid path, it is easier to sit down, just follow the guide and primary path and say this is the only way.
Vanguard is more open ended, but in a low/high fantasy the idea of a path and a story is part ot the scennary... as you can see, a lot of players failed to see the incredible Vanguard lore and failed to catch the story, just check some Vanguard old posts... so , it is easy to see why the "hero path" is so obvious in Age of Conan, but if you look at the right direction, you will have more than that, and as in every game , you will have even more after updates/expansions.
You feel more "free" in EvE because it is part of the galaxy feeling too, and I not sure most of EvE players are looking for an adventure/rpg like experience.
See, sandbox games and skill games have some false impressions... leveling a skill is just like leveling a character, and sandbox games sometimes can sound just like a "no content" game.
Both type of games can be fun, but I noticed that most of people that finds AoC more linear than another MMO is just following the guided path, you dont need to do it.
DAOC is not a hybrid in my opinion, EvE and Lineage 2 are real hybrids in my point of view and Second Life is the only real sandbox... but , well, it is my opinion, some people thinks WoW is a sandbox and I cant see why...
I respect your opinion, but if you look for it, you can find freedom in every mmo and every mmo can sound just like a theme park too.
Games where the "social" side is stronger also have some issues, e-peen, low level people hidded behind a computer ( just check the forum of the pseudo-upcomin game darkfall) and the main issue, boredom for little content, in some ways it is easier to create a huge landmass and just let players chat, or kill themselves, but is that fun?
If you think about it, even life has a serie of unpredictable facts and some paths to follow, without it life can be a little empty... like a sandbox game can just sound like a empty game with a social distortion aspect.
AI is not dumbed down. If anything it is more complicated than most MMORPG's I have played and believe me when I say that I have played most of them in the past 6 years.
AoC mobs are still static spawns waiting around to be killed by players, or have static paths.
Where is the NPB mob's culture? dynamic spawns? pre-emptive attacks? traps?
Once pulled, mobs swing until dead. they don't automatically target healers and squishies unless agroed. they barely ever do anything i would consider intelligent.
if there are players continually killing mobs in one place, why aren't the mobs smart enough to migrate somewhere else? why aren't mob encampments fighting each other? where are the NPC mobs' raiding parties?
sorry, but the AI is *ALL* MMOGs is incredibly bad, and AoC has done nothing to change that.
The combat is totally NOT real-time -- combos have a 'cast-time' - they don't execute right away. it's not auto-attack, but it's not real-time either.
I *hate* the fact that AoC (and other current) MMOGs are sticking with the WOW formula of: (1) repetitive/unimaginative quests, (2) static NPC spawns with stupid AI (3) brain-dead simple combat.
In my eyes AoC is an abject failure, a new version of WOW with different and better graphics, but equally bad gameplay.
the fact that the devs have deliberately split their development resources to make it easier for them to port to consoles instead of ironing out the bugs or making the gameplay better just makes me hate the game more.
PvE design philosophy seems to be three years old. Raids are 24 mans and you get the über gear from there. Nice. Luckily there are games that trying to get out from this "raid or rot" -philosophy. It is good to give some e-peen factor to raiders, but it shouldn't be über powerful gear compared to non raiders as it will result problems in other aspects of the game.
World PvP players?
All zones are instanced with maximum of 48 players on each zone and no "sides" to chose except your guild. These two combined means that will not be spontaneous group PvP, only ganking. Even ganking is hard because the one being ganked can just change zone instance where he is and, *pof*, hes gone.
To add three years old PvE design philosophy results raiders having über gear compared to "normal" players which will make raiders dominating PvP through gear difference (face it, this game will turn from skill based to gear based once people start to raid).
Instanced PvP?
I think this is the main target for this game. Game has its own version of BG's. Time will tell how good those are. Sieges sound nice on paper, but it lacks guild diplomacy (like AFAIK Eve has). Guild under attack cannot "hire" other guild to defend their city, smaller guild cannot combine forces to fight against bigger one etc.
As a conclusion, I think this mainly for HC raiders and for those who like instanced PvP. There is no easily approachable end game PvE (meaning smaller groups than 24 man). There is no "spontaneous" group world pvp (or even ganking). The other group who get something out of this game must be those who like instanced PvP: like to do sieges and BG's. Or could I say just BG's as sieges are just one kind of BG.
While I agree with you that AoC did not seem to add anything distinctivly better as far as NPC AI is concerned, please allow me to disagree with two of your other points.
The first one is about the quests. The quests have been improving with each MMO released these days. AoC is no different in this regard. Both the quests and the way they are delivered is a notch higher than anything else. A slight improvement yets, but an improvement nevertheless. I would still ike to see the quest dialogue not covering the chat boxes and an indicator that I'm attacked during dialogue mode.
Brain dead simple combat is not either. Again it's nothing far out, but it's a definite improvement from what it's out there. Melee is more interesting for sure than any other game I played. Casting is more of a standard deal. Healing is different in the sense that the priorities are elsewhere.
Of course all these is what I think about the game. Others can disagree, in the same manner I disagreed with your assessment.
The zone limit is currently unknown. It's definitely higher than 50 but unknown if it's more than 100. I would expect each zone to have a different player limit, in any case.
The 48 people refers to one side of a castle siege. Which means that in the zone there will be at least double that many people. So the assessment that each zone holds only 48 people is in fact incorrect.
Regarding raid gear, I would suggest we wait and see the difference between the best raid and best crafting gear before we make hasty assessments. For now, gear does not play a significant role in a player's power, less so than other more gear oriented games.
I'll let you know my impressions when I have experienced my first siege. If it's anywhere near as good as it was in Lineage 2, I'll be having a blast.
To Battlekruse: The zone limit is currently unknown. It's definitely higher than 50 but unknown if it's more than 100. I would expect each zone to have a different player limit, in any case. The 48 people refers to one side of a castle siege. Which means that in the zone there will be at least double that many people. So the assessment that each zone holds only 48 people is in fact incorrect. Regarding raid gear, I would suggest we wait and see the difference between the best raid and best crafting gear before we make hasty assessments. For now, gear does not play a significant role in a player's power, less so than other more gear oriented games. I'll let you know my impressions when I have experienced my first siege. If it's anywhere near as good as it was in Lineage 2, I'll be having a blast.
Maybe AoC PvP will keep the mid sized guilds, but as people bring more and more people to compensate for sucking the first will start those alliances and everything outdoor or seige wise becomes a zerg.
Originally posted by Xasapis The first one is about the quests. The quests have been improving with each MMO released these days. AoC is no different in this regard. Both the quests and the way they are delivered is a notch higher than anything else. A slight improvement yets, but an improvement nevertheless. I would still ike to see the quest dialogue not covering the chat boxes and an indicator that I'm attacked during dialogue mode.
in some ways, yes. i would still say that AoC's static quests suck: quests are no longer 'quests' it's a case of 'follow the arrow'. static quest mobs and instancing makes it feel like 'connect the dots', not an immersive, dynamic game.
Brain dead simple combat is not either. Again it's nothing far out, but it's a definite improvement from what it's out there. Melee is more interesting for sure than any other game I played. Casting is more of a standard deal. Healing is different in the sense that the priorities are elsewhere.
personally i think DAOC's positional styles were better and just as challenging, and that game is like 7 years old.
AI is not dumbed down. If anything it is more complicated than most MMORPG's I have played and believe me when I say that I have played most of them in the past 6 years.
AoC mobs are still static spawns waiting around to be killed by players, or have static paths.
Where is the NPB mob's culture? dynamic spawns? pre-emptive attacks? traps?
Once pulled, mobs swing until dead. they don't automatically target healers and squishies unless agroed. they barely ever do anything i would consider intelligent.
if there are players continually killing mobs in one place, why aren't the mobs smart enough to migrate somewhere else? why aren't mob encampments fighting each other? where are the NPC mobs' raiding parties?
sorry, but the AI is *ALL* MMOGs is incredibly bad, and AoC has done nothing to change that.
The combat is totally NOT real-time -- combos have a 'cast-time' - they don't execute right away. it's not auto-attack, but it's not real-time either.
I *hate* the fact that AoC (and other current) MMOGs are sticking with the WOW formula of: (1) repetitive/unimaginative quests, (2) static NPC spawns with stupid AI (3) brain-dead simple combat.
In my eyes AoC is an abject failure, a new version of WOW with different and better graphics, but equally bad gameplay.
the fact that the devs have deliberately split their development resources to make it easier for them to port to consoles instead of ironing out the bugs or making the gameplay better just makes me hate the game more.
Not only in AoC, but in almost all MMOs, the mobs go to healers and go to mages first, as heals generate aggro... the thing is, you probably never played as a tank, well, the mobs arent atacking the healers only when the tank is holding their aggro... aggro control works even against another players in a different way.
The social aggro in AoC is deeper than most MMOs, not perfect, but deeper.
AoC is not based on WoW, every WoW player knows it.
You think the AI of AoC is bad because you belive DARKFALL AI simulates a real life player... you know, this is a lie? The word from Tasos has the same value your word has, and you already proved your word has no value changing the interview in your first post in this topic.
You think combat in AoC is bad because it is not like a real time FPS, because you think Darkfall has it and this is unique... well, I think you never played Rysk your Life, a game far beyond Darkfall...a game it is real.
You know, FPS combat is also simple, if you think it is complex, well, think again.
There are some real issues with AoC, but as you lied chaging the interview, I have no doubts you lied about your experience ingame.
Im sure AoC is not for everyone , but lie about it just to make your point, well, it is silly.
Sold out? Well, if you feel betrayed by Funcom because they are moving into consoles and attempting to grab a bigger slice of the pie which is online gaming then yeah, they sold out. I am pleased by this decision to move MMOs to the consoles. Evolution baby!! Its only a matter of time till MMOs are on the next gen consoles. AoC is the first test. If its a success then expect more to follow.
I swear some of these fanboys are paid employees of Funcom.
who in their right mind would want a buggy, incomplete MMO that was designed for low-end common-denominator hardware over a polished, innovative MMO specifically tailored to the target platform's strengths?
if AoC is only going to be 50% of a PC game cause of its bugs & incompleteness, shouldn't we only be paying 50% of the regular price of an MMO?
Dude, all i was advocating was the advancement of MMOs onto consoles. I said Funcom was smart for jumping into the console arena. That makes me a fanboy? Try reading some of my prior posts, you may understand and troll somewhere else...
Sold out? Well, if you feel betrayed by Funcom because they are moving into consoles and attempting to grab a bigger slice of the pie which is online gaming then yeah, they sold out. I am pleased by this decision to move MMOs to the consoles. Evolution baby!! Its only a matter of time till MMOs are on the next gen consoles. AoC is the first test. If its a success then expect more to follow.
I swear some of these fanboys are paid employees of Funcom.
who in their right mind would want a buggy, incomplete MMO that was designed for low-end common-denominator hardware over a polished, innovative MMO specifically tailored to the target platform's strengths?
if AoC is only going to be 50% of a PC game cause of its bugs & incompleteness, shouldn't we only be paying 50% of the regular price of an MMO?
Dude, all i was advocating was the advancement of MMOs onto consoles. I said Funcom was smart for jumping into the console arena. That makes me a fanboy? Try reading some of my prior posts, you may understand and troll somewhere else...
Consoles are never a great place to do MMOs, and FFXI showed us that. The hardware is static and limited, it restricts the possibilities in future expansions. For example, did you really think FFXI never added new races because the developers were lazy? Nope, it was because the PS2 couldn't handle it. Ever wondered why the controls in FFXI were kinda weird? Yep because of like, 5 different control schemes.
If Funcom would have focused on a polished PC version first, I'd have less problem with them wanting to expand. However, they tried to mix too many things and the game suffers for it. The interface is inconvenient at best. Having a third of the screen filled with text when you level is irritating. Having it happen when you're in the middle of a fight with multiple mobs while trying to juggle combos is a chance for disaster. Opening my inventory obscures more than 2/3 of my viewing area and I can't move the windows. The cutscenes after leaving Tortage are annoying and unnecessary. If you don't want to add voiceovers, fine. But being forced to sit through watching a mute NPC gesture wildly at you while you wait for the Quest text to scroll is stupid.
Lots of potential wasted because these developers think that there is some untapped market in consoles. Might I point out that Funcom, like Bioware and Bethesda before them, are banking on PC gamers to pay for development of a game for consoles? What do you really think they're going to do with the suscription fees in the minimum year they've estimated it will take to bring AoC to the X-Box?
No thanks. I'll give my money to a developer who is using it to create content for the PC game I'm playing. The market is saturated with console titles. I'm not paying for them to have even more.
"Soloists and those who prefer small groups should never have to feel like they''re the ones getting the proverbial table scraps, as it were." - Scott Hartsman, Senior Producer, Everquest II "People love groups. Its a fallacy that people want to play solo all the time." - Scott Hartsman, Executive Producer, Rift
Im not sure how it will be the 360´s Age of Conan. But today´s consoles are much more similar to PCs than they were in the last generation. Even games that came in consoles before and were ported to PC (Bioshock, Riddick etc) have much more a PC feeling than a console feeling.
...
From 360/PS3 to PC, you're porting from a less powerful platform to a more powerful one. There's things you could've done that you couldn't do on consoles. For example, I'm sure most people would agree the old FF remakes from the nintendo SNES days on the Nintendo DS and PS were better, the remakes were better. They are porting from a less powerful system to a more powerful one, they could add more.
Now on the contrary, if you are going to release a game for PS3, but also want to release the same game on PS2, you're restricting yourself to the PS2's capability. In essence you're playing a PS2 game. Not a PS3 game.
If Funcom would have focused on a polished PC version first, I'd have less problem with them wanting to expand. However, they tried to mix too many things and the game suffers for it. The interface is inconvenient at best. Having a third of the screen filled with text when you level is irritating. Having it happen when you're in the middle of a fight with multiple mobs while trying to juggle combos is a chance for disaster. Opening my inventory obscures more than 2/3 of my viewing area and I can't move the windows. The cutscenes after leaving Tortage are annoying and unnecessary. If you don't want to add voiceovers, fine. But being forced to sit through watching a mute NPC gesture wildly at you while you wait for the Quest text to scroll is stupid. Lots of potential wasted because these developers think that there is some untapped market in consoles. Might I point out that Funcom, like Bioware and Bethesda before them, are banking on PC gamers to pay for development of a game for consoles? What do you really think they're going to do with the suscription fees in the minimum year they've estimated it will take to bring AoC to the X-Box? No thanks. I'll give my money to a developer who is using it to create content for the PC game I'm playing. The market is saturated with console titles. I'm not paying for them to have even more.
Nevertheless,
mark these words, quote em whatever...... MMos will be on consoles in the future. The consoles are evolving to the PC level. in time, perhaps the next gen consoles.
Im not sure how it will be the 360´s Age of Conan. But today´s consoles are much more similar to PCs than they were in the last generation. Even games that came in consoles before and were ported to PC (Bioshock, Riddick etc) have much more a PC feeling than a console feeling.
...
From 360/PS3 to PC, you're porting from a less powerful platform to a more powerful one. There's things you could've done that you couldn't do on consoles. For example, I'm sure most people would agree the old FF remakes from the nintendo SNES days on the Nintendo DS and PS were better, the remakes were better. They are porting from a less powerful system to a more powerful one, they could add more.
Now on the contrary, if you are going to release a game for PS3, but also want to release the same game on PS2, you're restricting yourself to the PS2's capability. In essence you're playing a PS2 game. Not a PS3 game.
Not exacly the truth
The average PC that can run UnrealT3 , Bioshock and Lost Planet were less powerful than a 360 at the release of these games.
The gap between a PS2 and a PS3 is far bigger than the most high end gaming PC and a PS3
Today´s games are not aimed to the most powerful machine, and the requirements are much more closer to the consoles horsepower than a ultra high end PC.
But we can only compare AoC PCvsConsole with FFonline PCvsConsole after we see how the 360´s AoC really is.
Well, that was merely an example. My point is PCs have the capability to be upgraded, but consoles do not. FFXI will forever be limited to whatever the PS2 can handle until it dies. It's the limit and restriction that makes it not an ideal choice for an ongoing constantly updated virtual world.
Comments
I swear some of these fanboys are paid employees of Funcom.
who in their right mind would want a buggy, incomplete MMO that was designed for low-end common-denominator hardware over a polished, innovative MMO specifically tailored to the target platform's strengths?
if AoC is only going to be 50% of a PC game cause of its bugs & incompleteness, shouldn't we only be paying 50% of the regular price of an MMO?
There are a lot of reasons why all MMOS are bugged at the beggining, and the bigger reason is not the console gaming, is the PC gaming itself.
When you express your opinion about AoC, wich references are you taking? I mean, are you comparing the so "horrid" AoC to the incredible and polished ...insert game here....
AoC is inovative, combat, atmosphere, no Walt Disney feeling... and FINALLY the only Low Fantasy MMO.
When a PC game is bugged, dont blame the consoles, blame the PC market.
...
it certainly doesn't look like a disneyland ride but it plays like a disneyland ride 100%.EVE by example isn't a rollercoaster ride.
Age of conan is. Age of conan isn't a crappy game, it is a good game but i don't like it because it doesn't offer the challenge i am looking for. I do not look for hardcore mode, i look for a challenge and not for a E-Z/easy mode game. I am not interested in that since it is just doing tedious things and i do not like that.
That's why EVE is one of the best current mmo's in the market in my opinion.
aoc is a good game but it is more made for people who want instant gratification/no challenge and i am not lookin for that.
No mmo is a rollercoaster ride, you just need to look for a challenge in every mmo I played I found the easy part and the hard one, the problem is, most of players go for the easy way...
... about gratification, I really think a game isnt the right place to look for it.
See, most of mmos are easy in the first view, but you can make it harder and harder... it is the same with AoC, you can make your challenge and go for it, you can duo a full group dungeon, solo in a elite area etc.
But I agree EvE and AoC are both good games in a different way.
...
I don't think you really understood it.Themepark/rollercoaster rides is tagges as linear.
Age of conan is extremely linear, you must follow that path and questing is omost the only reason to level up, if you level, your character improves LINAER. dungeons are linear , pvp = linear and pve is linear , it is all handled by the developers, even sieges. Players do not control lands or economy, Age of conan doesn't got open ended game play.
This is the rollercoaster ride . You have a park with some attractions, if it gets boring , the developers adds new attractions.
Aka: the linear formula.
EVE has the sandbox formula, a open ended game play experience, you can affect the galaxy , the economy, politics , pvp and much more.
AOC guids you.
EVE doesn't.
That's why i think in my opinion EVE is better since we already have the same old linear stuff ala WOW/eq2 and now AOC and we also have LOTRO but sandbox games only have EVE atm. But glad allot of sandbox/hybrid are being developer.
DAOC is a hybrid, both uses linear and sandbox game play, in my opinion, that is the best.
-----------------------------------------------------------
the old days, the days of gold.
representer of euhporium, shade/amity , high member of the council.
played
UO,M59,EVE,L2,AC,GW,WOW,LOTRO,SWG pre cu/nge,COH/COV, VG,TR,L1, POTBS,Neocron 1 and 2, DAOC pre TOA and age of conan
playing: EVE ONLINE
Waiting for Earthrise, FE, bioware mmo, guild wars 2, DFO , mortal online , the chronicles of spellborn
compared to old school mmo's, complexer mmo's, AOC is a piece of cake and a simplistic mmorpg.
-----------------------------------------------------------
the old days, the days of gold.
representer of euhporium, shade/amity , high member of the council.
played
UO,M59,EVE,L2,AC,GW,WOW,LOTRO,SWG pre cu/nge,COH/COV, VG,TR,L1, POTBS,Neocron 1 and 2, DAOC pre TOA and age of conan
playing: EVE ONLINE
Waiting for Earthrise, FE, bioware mmo, guild wars 2, DFO , mortal online , the chronicles of spellborn
...
I can see how similar to a console game it is, but I haven't even looked back at WoW. This game has the addictive quality to it and I'm enjoying it.
Console game or not it's good on the PC.
WoW fanboi: "lolz 11.5 million customers, itz obviously da best"
McDonald's: over 1 billion burgers served
I'm not looking back at WoW and I'm not playing anything, you don't need much to not look back at WoW
I swear some of these fanboys are paid employees of Funcom.
who in their right mind would want a buggy, incomplete MMO that was designed for low-end common-denominator hardware over a polished, innovative MMO specifically tailored to the target platform's strengths?
if AoC is only going to be 50% of a PC game cause of its bugs & incompleteness, shouldn't we only be paying 50% of the regular price of an MMO?
There are a lot of reasons why all MMOS are bugged at the beggining, and the bigger reason is not the console gaming, is the PC gaming itself.
When you express your opinion about AoC, wich references are you taking? I mean, are you comparing the so "horrid" AoC to the incredible and polished ...insert game here....
AoC is inovative, combat, atmosphere, no Walt Disney feeling... and FINALLY the only Low Fantasy MMO.
When a PC game is bugged, dont blame the consoles, blame the PC market.
...
it certainly doesn't look like a disneyland ride but it plays like a disneyland ride 100%.EVE by example isn't a rollercoaster ride.
Age of conan is. Age of conan isn't a crappy game, it is a good game but i don't like it because it doesn't offer the challenge i am looking for. I do not look for hardcore mode, i look for a challenge and not for a E-Z/easy mode game. I am not interested in that since it is just doing tedious things and i do not like that.
That's why EVE is one of the best current mmo's in the market in my opinion.
aoc is a good game but it is more made for people who want instant gratification/no challenge and i am not lookin for that.
No mmo is a rollercoaster ride, you just need to look for a challenge in every mmo I played I found the easy part and the hard one, the problem is, most of players go for the easy way...
... about gratification, I really think a game isnt the right place to look for it.
See, most of mmos are easy in the first view, but you can make it harder and harder... it is the same with AoC, you can make your challenge and go for it, you can duo a full group dungeon, solo in a elite area etc.
But I agree EvE and AoC are both good games in a different way.
...
I don't think you really understood it.Themepark/rollercoaster rides is tagges as linear.
Age of conan is extremely linear, you must follow that path and questing is omost the only reason to level up, if you level, your character improves LINAER. dungeons are linear , pvp = linear and pve is linear , it is all handled by the developers, even sieges. Players do not control lands or economy, Age of conan doesn't got open ended game play.
This is the rollercoaster ride . You have a park with some attractions, if it gets boring , the developers adds new attractions.
Aka: the linear formula.
EVE has the sandbox formula, a open ended game play experience, you can affect the galaxy , the economy, politics , pvp and much more.
AOC guids you.
EVE doesn't.
That's why i think in my opinion EVE is better since we already have the same old linear stuff ala WOW/eq2 and now AOC and we also have LOTRO but sandbox games only have EVE atm. But glad allot of sandbox/hybrid are being developer.
DAOC is a hybrid, both uses linear and sandbox game play, in my opinion, that is the best.
No, I understood what you said.
But I disagree.
The game is less linear than Everques2 (at the release) , you just dont need to to follow the linear initial path after level 20, you dont need to go for A to B, and the economy is cotrolled by the players, but it is too early to see it.
Yes the game guides you, but you dont need to follow the guid path, it is easier to sit down, just follow the guide and primary path and say this is the only way.
Vanguard is more open ended, but in a low/high fantasy the idea of a path and a story is part ot the scennary... as you can see, a lot of players failed to see the incredible Vanguard lore and failed to catch the story, just check some Vanguard old posts... so , it is easy to see why the "hero path" is so obvious in Age of Conan, but if you look at the right direction, you will have more than that, and as in every game , you will have even more after updates/expansions.
You feel more "free" in EvE because it is part of the galaxy feeling too, and I not sure most of EvE players are looking for an adventure/rpg like experience.
See, sandbox games and skill games have some false impressions... leveling a skill is just like leveling a character, and sandbox games sometimes can sound just like a "no content" game.
Both type of games can be fun, but I noticed that most of people that finds AoC more linear than another MMO is just following the guided path, you dont need to do it.
DAOC is not a hybrid in my opinion, EvE and Lineage 2 are real hybrids in my point of view and Second Life is the only real sandbox... but , well, it is my opinion, some people thinks WoW is a sandbox and I cant see why...
I respect your opinion, but if you look for it, you can find freedom in every mmo and every mmo can sound just like a theme park too.
Games where the "social" side is stronger also have some issues, e-peen, low level people hidded behind a computer ( just check the forum of the pseudo-upcomin game darkfall) and the main issue, boredom for little content, in some ways it is easier to create a huge landmass and just let players chat, or kill themselves, but is that fun?
If you think about it, even life has a serie of unpredictable facts and some paths to follow, without it life can be a little empty... like a sandbox game can just sound like a empty game with a social distortion aspect.
....
Agree also.And companies make a HELL of a lot more money off of consoles that they do MMO;s... except Blizzard of course:)
AoC mobs are still static spawns waiting around to be killed by players, or have static paths.
Where is the NPB mob's culture? dynamic spawns? pre-emptive attacks? traps?
Once pulled, mobs swing until dead. they don't automatically target healers and squishies unless agroed. they barely ever do anything i would consider intelligent.
if there are players continually killing mobs in one place, why aren't the mobs smart enough to migrate somewhere else? why aren't mob encampments fighting each other? where are the NPC mobs' raiding parties?
sorry, but the AI is *ALL* MMOGs is incredibly bad, and AoC has done nothing to change that.
The combat is totally NOT real-time -- combos have a 'cast-time' - they don't execute right away. it's not auto-attack, but it's not real-time either.
I *hate* the fact that AoC (and other current) MMOGs are sticking with the WOW formula of: (1) repetitive/unimaginative quests, (2) static NPC spawns with stupid AI (3) brain-dead simple combat.
In my eyes AoC is an abject failure, a new version of WOW with different and better graphics, but equally bad gameplay.
the fact that the devs have deliberately split their development resources to make it easier for them to port to consoles instead of ironing out the bugs or making the gameplay better just makes me hate the game more.
I have to wonder who this game is aimed for?
PvE players?
PvE design philosophy seems to be three years old. Raids are 24 mans and you get the über gear from there. Nice. Luckily there are games that trying to get out from this "raid or rot" -philosophy. It is good to give some e-peen factor to raiders, but it shouldn't be über powerful gear compared to non raiders as it will result problems in other aspects of the game.
World PvP players?
All zones are instanced with maximum of 48 players on each zone and no "sides" to chose except your guild. These two combined means that will not be spontaneous group PvP, only ganking. Even ganking is hard because the one being ganked can just change zone instance where he is and, *pof*, hes gone.
To add three years old PvE design philosophy results raiders having über gear compared to "normal" players which will make raiders dominating PvP through gear difference (face it, this game will turn from skill based to gear based once people start to raid).
Instanced PvP?
I think this is the main target for this game. Game has its own version of BG's. Time will tell how good those are. Sieges sound nice on paper, but it lacks guild diplomacy (like AFAIK Eve has). Guild under attack cannot "hire" other guild to defend their city, smaller guild cannot combine forces to fight against bigger one etc.
As a conclusion, I think this mainly for HC raiders and for those who like instanced PvP. There is no easily approachable end game PvE (meaning smaller groups than 24 man). There is no "spontaneous" group world pvp (or even ganking). The other group who get something out of this game must be those who like instanced PvP: like to do sieges and BG's. Or could I say just BG's as sieges are just one kind of BG.
To dirtknap69:
While I agree with you that AoC did not seem to add anything distinctivly better as far as NPC AI is concerned, please allow me to disagree with two of your other points.
The first one is about the quests. The quests have been improving with each MMO released these days. AoC is no different in this regard. Both the quests and the way they are delivered is a notch higher than anything else. A slight improvement yets, but an improvement nevertheless. I would still ike to see the quest dialogue not covering the chat boxes and an indicator that I'm attacked during dialogue mode.
Brain dead simple combat is not either. Again it's nothing far out, but it's a definite improvement from what it's out there. Melee is more interesting for sure than any other game I played. Casting is more of a standard deal. Healing is different in the sense that the priorities are elsewhere.
Of course all these is what I think about the game. Others can disagree, in the same manner I disagreed with your assessment.
Ah, the standard idiot response to any form of criticism of the collections of bugs & missing features that is AoC.
guess what, i don't play WoW. only overweight, asocial losers who like mindless repetition play WoW.
When you say that the game sucks, thats not criticism, thats trolling. So yea if anyone's a loser here, that would be you.Please edit your title and then you can call other people losers and idiots.
To Battlekruse:
The zone limit is currently unknown. It's definitely higher than 50 but unknown if it's more than 100. I would expect each zone to have a different player limit, in any case.
The 48 people refers to one side of a castle siege. Which means that in the zone there will be at least double that many people. So the assessment that each zone holds only 48 people is in fact incorrect.
Regarding raid gear, I would suggest we wait and see the difference between the best raid and best crafting gear before we make hasty assessments. For now, gear does not play a significant role in a player's power, less so than other more gear oriented games.
I'll let you know my impressions when I have experienced my first siege. If it's anywhere near as good as it was in Lineage 2, I'll be having a blast.
Maybe AoC PvP will keep the mid sized guilds, but as people bring more and more people to compensate for sucking the first will start those alliances and everything outdoor or seige wise becomes a zerg.
And ... ?
Castle sieges are about choke points and keeping the attackers out. It's not like two armies will be fighting in an open field, if they can help it.
@ OP
even for a console game AoC would be very weak
in some ways, yes. i would still say that AoC's static quests suck: quests are no longer 'quests' it's a case of 'follow the arrow'. static quest mobs and instancing makes it feel like 'connect the dots', not an immersive, dynamic game.
personally i think DAOC's positional styles were better and just as challenging, and that game is like 7 years old.
thx for the considered reply.
AoC mobs are still static spawns waiting around to be killed by players, or have static paths.
Where is the NPB mob's culture? dynamic spawns? pre-emptive attacks? traps?
Once pulled, mobs swing until dead. they don't automatically target healers and squishies unless agroed. they barely ever do anything i would consider intelligent.
if there are players continually killing mobs in one place, why aren't the mobs smart enough to migrate somewhere else? why aren't mob encampments fighting each other? where are the NPC mobs' raiding parties?
sorry, but the AI is *ALL* MMOGs is incredibly bad, and AoC has done nothing to change that.
The combat is totally NOT real-time -- combos have a 'cast-time' - they don't execute right away. it's not auto-attack, but it's not real-time either.
I *hate* the fact that AoC (and other current) MMOGs are sticking with the WOW formula of: (1) repetitive/unimaginative quests, (2) static NPC spawns with stupid AI (3) brain-dead simple combat.
In my eyes AoC is an abject failure, a new version of WOW with different and better graphics, but equally bad gameplay.
the fact that the devs have deliberately split their development resources to make it easier for them to port to consoles instead of ironing out the bugs or making the gameplay better just makes me hate the game more.
Not only in AoC, but in almost all MMOs, the mobs go to healers and go to mages first, as heals generate aggro... the thing is, you probably never played as a tank, well, the mobs arent atacking the healers only when the tank is holding their aggro... aggro control works even against another players in a different way.
The social aggro in AoC is deeper than most MMOs, not perfect, but deeper.
AoC is not based on WoW, every WoW player knows it.
You think the AI of AoC is bad because you belive DARKFALL AI simulates a real life player... you know, this is a lie? The word from Tasos has the same value your word has, and you already proved your word has no value changing the interview in your first post in this topic.
You think combat in AoC is bad because it is not like a real time FPS, because you think Darkfall has it and this is unique... well, I think you never played Rysk your Life, a game far beyond Darkfall...a game it is real.
You know, FPS combat is also simple, if you think it is complex, well, think again.
There are some real issues with AoC, but as you lied chaging the interview, I have no doubts you lied about your experience ingame.
Im sure AoC is not for everyone , but lie about it just to make your point, well, it is silly.
...
I swear some of these fanboys are paid employees of Funcom.
who in their right mind would want a buggy, incomplete MMO that was designed for low-end common-denominator hardware over a polished, innovative MMO specifically tailored to the target platform's strengths?
if AoC is only going to be 50% of a PC game cause of its bugs & incompleteness, shouldn't we only be paying 50% of the regular price of an MMO?
Dude, all i was advocating was the advancement of MMOs onto consoles. I said Funcom was smart for jumping into the console arena. That makes me a fanboy? Try reading some of my prior posts, you may understand and troll somewhere else...
I swear some of these fanboys are paid employees of Funcom.
who in their right mind would want a buggy, incomplete MMO that was designed for low-end common-denominator hardware over a polished, innovative MMO specifically tailored to the target platform's strengths?
if AoC is only going to be 50% of a PC game cause of its bugs & incompleteness, shouldn't we only be paying 50% of the regular price of an MMO?
Dude, all i was advocating was the advancement of MMOs onto consoles. I said Funcom was smart for jumping into the console arena. That makes me a fanboy? Try reading some of my prior posts, you may understand and troll somewhere else...
Consoles are never a great place to do MMOs, and FFXI showed us that. The hardware is static and limited, it restricts the possibilities in future expansions. For example, did you really think FFXI never added new races because the developers were lazy? Nope, it was because the PS2 couldn't handle it. Ever wondered why the controls in FFXI were kinda weird? Yep because of like, 5 different control schemes.
Lots of potential wasted because these developers think that there is some untapped market in consoles. Might I point out that Funcom, like Bioware and Bethesda before them, are banking on PC gamers to pay for development of a game for consoles? What do you really think they're going to do with the suscription fees in the minimum year they've estimated it will take to bring AoC to the X-Box?
No thanks. I'll give my money to a developer who is using it to create content for the PC game I'm playing. The market is saturated with console titles. I'm not paying for them to have even more.
"Soloists and those who prefer small groups should never have to feel like they''re the ones getting the proverbial table scraps, as it were." - Scott Hartsman, Senior Producer, Everquest II
"People love groups. Its a fallacy that people want to play solo all the time." - Scott Hartsman, Executive Producer, Rift
Im not sure how it will be the 360´s Age of Conan.
But today´s consoles are much more similar to PCs than they were in the last generation.
Even games that came in consoles before and were ported to PC (Bioshock, Riddick etc) have much more a PC feeling than a console feeling.
...
From 360/PS3 to PC, you're porting from a less powerful platform to a more powerful one. There's things you could've done that you couldn't do on consoles. For example, I'm sure most people would agree the old FF remakes from the nintendo SNES days on the Nintendo DS and PS were better, the remakes were better. They are porting from a less powerful system to a more powerful one, they could add more.
Now on the contrary, if you are going to release a game for PS3, but also want to release the same game on PS2, you're restricting yourself to the PS2's capability. In essence you're playing a PS2 game. Not a PS3 game.
mark these words, quote em whatever...... MMos will be on consoles in the future. The consoles are evolving to the PC level. in time, perhaps the next gen consoles.
From 360/PS3 to PC, you're porting from a less powerful platform to a more powerful one. There's things you could've done that you couldn't do on consoles. For example, I'm sure most people would agree the old FF remakes from the nintendo SNES days on the Nintendo DS and PS were better, the remakes were better. They are porting from a less powerful system to a more powerful one, they could add more.
Now on the contrary, if you are going to release a game for PS3, but also want to release the same game on PS2, you're restricting yourself to the PS2's capability. In essence you're playing a PS2 game. Not a PS3 game.
Not exacly the truth
The average PC that can run UnrealT3 , Bioshock and Lost Planet were less powerful than a 360 at the release of these games.
The gap between a PS2 and a PS3 is far bigger than the most high end gaming PC and a PS3
Today´s games are not aimed to the most powerful machine, and the requirements are much more closer to the consoles horsepower than a ultra high end PC.
But we can only compare AoC PCvsConsole with FFonline PCvsConsole after we see how the 360´s AoC really is.
...
Well, that was merely an example. My point is PCs have the capability to be upgraded, but consoles do not. FFXI will forever be limited to whatever the PS2 can handle until it dies. It's the limit and restriction that makes it not an ideal choice for an ongoing constantly updated virtual world.