I've been playing Beyond Protocol since beginning of this year when it came out. It's the only mmorts I know of. It's also the only game I purchased in the last couple years.
And above the same planet, corvettes, cruisers, battlecruisers, and a space station I designed. It's my capital planet of system, got to defend it well. I store lots of minerals there, and do research there.
Beyond Protocol fixes several problems a MMORTS can come up with.
One, you can set offline invulnerability which means everything you own goes invulnerable while your offline, doesn't shoot, can't get shot at. But you gain no income, and your factories produce no ships, and your mines stop mining.
Two, the game is totally FFA PVP, there are no safe zones, so if you attack someone you better be prepared for the reprocussions. A noob player IS a threat to an older player. I've been in 2 wars now where i've fought older players (same damn ones too). And if they're reading it was cause I was in the guild that was at war with the other guild, I don't have anything against them. Anyways I took out at least 3 of their colonies, and they took out about 10 of mine. But I wasn't prepared for war, my units weren't in position for a strike and my heart really wasn't into it. A player can also play hit and run on your colonies FOREVER if they so desired, and the galaxy is now big enough to hide in. From my experience I have crafted an overal defensive strategy which.................... The community is quite, let's say civil cause your forum name is the exact name you have in the game. Which is why I blotted mine out lol.
Three, you can chose one planet to have invulnerable while you are offline, without full invulnerability setting. This is a peacetime setting.
Four, things happen at a slower pace, it can take a week to travel halfway across the galaxy, or hours to travel via the wormhole thing.
Game could use some more work, but I don't want to identify myself as to what i'd like to see changed. And again it's the only game I purchased in over 2 years so they must be doing something right.
On first glance, Beyond Protocol lets you control persistent territory. And thus it seems vulnerable to the same pitfalls as most of the browser-based strategy games (Utopia, Travian, Freesky Online, Galaxy Online) where a bigger fish can basically swim by and eat up all your hard work on a whim. (Nerf's story of 'doing damage' to a larger player by taking 3 colonies and losing 10 colonies seems as lopsided as any of those other games.)
Shattered Galaxy was smart in that it bypassed that problem entirely. The big difference being that players don't control land - factions do. So you move around the world map grabbing up territories until someone on the other faction meets up with you. Then you descend into the real meat of the game, where you send out batches of units at a time to vie for control over 2-4 points of contention (POCs) across the map.
Units are controlled RTS style, and quite customizable. They level up, increasing the strength of the unit and gradually providing access to higher tiers of chassis or higher tech of equipment. Your character has several fairly well-balanced stats which control how many units you can field at once, and the power of those units; this creates an interesting balance between the player who fields 6 high-tech powerful units at once vs. the player who overcomes his enemies with 12 medium-tech units.
The counter system was strong enough that a skilled player with lower-level units would retreat units to strategically field the counter unit to what the enemy was using - because in a stand-up fight if your enemy's units significantly outleveled yours you wouldn't stand a chance. Thankfully there were many reasons to intentionally reset your units' and character's level back to 1. Because Character XP is only earned when Units level - and units reach max level far faster than your character does so you're forced to reset units to cap out your character. And you want to reset your character during the periodic reset events because it means permanently getting a few extra points each time you reset.
It's an older game at this point, so I don't exactly recommend it to people. But like Planetside it was an amazing game for its time and worthy of praise (and like PS I'd instantly snatch up any new release which copied the gameplay formula; particularly if it was well polished.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
On first glance, Beyond Protocol lets you control persistent territory. And thus it seems vulnerable to the same pitfalls as most of the browser-based strategy games (Utopia, Travian, Freesky Online, Galaxy Online) where a bigger fish can basically swim by and eat up all your hard work on a whim. (Nerf's story of 'doing damage' to a larger player by taking 3 colonies and losing 10 colonies seems as lopsided as any of those other games.) No, if your a level 40 player in a WOW clone and run into a level 45 player you have zero chance to win. And I said my heart wasn't into it, I could have destroyed 10 more of the enemies colonies if I wanted to, but I wanted to maintain good relations after the war. Shattered Galaxy was smart in that it bypassed that problem entirely. The big difference being that players don't control land - factions do. So you move around the world map grabbing up territories until someone on the other faction meets up with you. Then you descend into the real meat of the game, where you send out batches of units at a time to vie for control over 2-4 points of contention (POCs) across the map. Sounds like a bunch of controlled-regulated-communist instanced B.S. to me. I swear, these games were invented by communists. Units are controlled RTS style, and quite customizable. They level up, increasing the strength of the unit and gradually providing access to higher tiers of chassis or higher tech of equipment. Your character has several fairly well-balanced stats which control how many units you can field at once, and the power of those units; this creates an interesting balance between the player who fields 6 high-tech powerful units at once vs. the player who overcomes his enemies with 12 medium-tech units. The counter system was strong enough that a skilled player with lower-level units would retreat units to strategically field the counter unit to what the enemy was using - because in a stand-up fight if your enemy's units significantly outleveled yours you wouldn't stand a chance. Thankfully there were many reasons to intentionally reset your units' and character's level back to 1. Because Character XP is only earned when Units level - and units reach max level far faster than your character does so you're forced to reset units to cap out your character. And you want to reset your character during the periodic reset events because it means permanently getting a few extra points each time you reset. It's an older game at this point, so I don't exactly recommend it to people. But like Planetside it was an amazing game for its time and worthy of praise (and like PS I'd instantly snatch up any new release which copied the gameplay formula; particularly if it was well polished.) At least Planetside didn't instance the battles in some sort of lame communist-controlled-regulated way.
I like the idea of a mmorts because the idea you just logon and then in a persistant world choose to do some micromanaging or do some offence is a nice one. It's when you think about it in more detail and it maybe seems kind of inconceivable. I mean any base you have might be vanquished while you're offline, and when you're online you might not even have any rivarly. Would it therefore come down to 'instances' between those who are online at any moment- and then wouldn't that really be no different to games of say individual games of WC3 or any other RTS that goes on anyway?
Well you would have other players on your side that could defend the cities while you were offline. It could be the way Horizons was supposed to be with like 9 different factions. Some factions were inherently good while others were evil, and a whole slew of factions that are neutral or even mercenary. So you could even have other factions watching your back while you were offline.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Starcraft 2 would beat the living hell out of any MMORTS. Starcraft is the 880 lb gorilla for the RTS industry,
No.
Yes.
Meh one game that came out 11 years ago and sold 9.5 million copys isn't much when you put it up to the Empire series that has now top'd over 20 million sold....
not much of a contest.
(And I can't remember but last I looked the red alert series was up around 15 million...)
i gave Beyond Protocol a shot as well during beta...
but imo it's a good example of what a MMORTS should NOT look like:
lots of empire management, overly complicated, slow gameplay, offline combat, mass battles, etc.
it's a matter of taste of course, but it certainly isn't the taste of a broader audience. It's not my cup of tea, either. Huge persistant empires are nice on paper, but i have yet to see a game that does this in a way that is really fun.
As long as MMORTS follow this forumla instead of Blizzard's, they're imo doomed to be half-baked, low-budget games for a small niche of fans...
i gave Beyond Protocol a shot as well during beta...
but imo it's a good example of what a MMORTS should NOT look like: lots of empire management, overly complicated, slow gameplay, offline combat, mass battles, etc.
it's a matter of taste of course, but it certainly isn't the taste of a broader audience. It's not my cup of tea, either. Huge persistant empires are nice on paper, but i have yet to see a game that does this in a way that is really fun. As long as MMORTS follow this forumla instead of Blizzard's, they're imo doomed to be half-baked, low-budget games for a small niche of fans...
Blizzard doesn't have a "formula for MMORTS".
And allot of the minutia of empire management were streamlined since beta, B.P. has been out since January 2009.
The irony is: Imo Blizzard DOES have a good formula for a successfull MMORTS.
It's just that nobody is picking it up, not even Blizzard themselves (at least not yet).
Blizzard's design philosophy isn't exactly a secret:
Easy to learn, hard to master. Eliminate "non-fun".
For RTS, this means:
Have a rather small amount of units in battle, each with some flashy abilities. Tone down resource and base management.
That sounds like it fits pretty well into a regular MMORPG scenario without causing the usual problems of MMORTSs. So, why fix it if it ain't broken?
If a bigger company failed at trying to copy WoW + Warcraft 3 instead of failing to copy WoW only - i'd reward them an E for Effort at least...
ps. I'm not saying BP is a bad game or anything - it's just that a game like BP won't reach an audience that isn't truly hardcore. Atlantica Online on the other hand was able to get noticed by a large audience. It doesn't mean one is better than the other, it's just about mainstream appeal.
Go play Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War II. It's like an RPG but you're controlling a core group of specialized units. And no, it's not made by Blizzard.
My problem with that game is they called it Dawn of War.
They should have called it something entirely new and different - it is nothing like the first game, which was fun and had the whole "mass battles" thing that I love about RTSs.
Anyway, it's good for what it is, it was just too slow and small for my tastes.
Shattered Galaxy was pretty great, except that no Faction ever won. There was never a time when a Faction just completely raped the other two - the player base is too small for that to ever happen, and the simple game mechanics stop it from happening anyway.
Also, after you get to level 22, if you're not paying per month, you get shipped off to another planet (server) Morgana Prime, and end up having to fight players who have been there for a billion years with a billion stats in everything.
Blaaaargh. Anyway, it's a pretty good game, and I would definitely play a shinier, newer, more polished version (that would get updated more than once every five years =P)
Edit: Oh, and that game Battleforge is alright, if a little wierd and arcade-feelish. I don't really like the deck system, but whatever makes them money in the F2P world, I suppose.
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
Go play Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War II. It's like an RPG but you're controlling a core group of specialized units. And no, it's not made by Blizzard.
Dawn of War II is also a good example. Only 5 units and no base management at all.
I was kinda interested in it because they promised a coop-campaign. That was until they revealed that "coop" means a friend of yours gets to control 2 units, while you get the remaining 3. That's friggin laughable imo. Companies create mostly more of the same with minor changes and improvements, no matter if it's the RTS or the MMO genre.
My 2 cents: I think a RTS aspect to a MMO is a fantastic idea. If I was a billionaire and I could create a MMO, my endgame would involve a RTS component to it.
Go play Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War II. It's like an RPG but you're controlling a core group of specialized units. And no, it's not made by Blizzard.
My problem with that game is they called it Dawn of War.
They should have called it something entirely new and different - it is nothing like the first game, which was fun and had the whole "mass battles" thing that I love about RTSs.
Anyway, it's good for what it is, it was just too slow and small for my tastes.
Shattered Galaxy was pretty great, except that no Faction ever won. There was never a time when a Faction just completely raped the other two - the player base is too small for that to ever happen, and the simple game mechanics stop it from happening anyway.
Also, after you get to level 22, if you're not paying per month, you get shipped off to another planet (server) Morgana Prime, and end up having to fight players who have been there for a billion years with a billion stats in everything.
Blaaaargh. Anyway, it's a pretty good game, and I would definitely play a shinier, newer, more polished version (that would get updated more than once every five years =P)
Edit: Oh, and that game Battleforge is alright, if a little wierd and arcade-feelish. I don't really like the deck system, but whatever makes them money in the F2P world, I suppose.
Yes, I do agree. I preferred some aspects of the first Dawn of War games, particularly the bigger battles, but I also like the RPG aspects of DoW2. All in all, if someone were to make an MMORTS, I think DoW2 would serve as a better platform.
HAve you tried Dreamlords yet? Edit: nvm My 2 cents: I think a RTS aspect to a MMO is a fantastic idea. If I was a billionaire and I could create a MMO, my endgame would involve a RTS component to it.
yes, that''s ingame graphics and it's a MMORTS - at least that's what the devs say.
every time i watch that trailer, i start drooling with fanboyism.
But i don't dare to get my hopes up - in the end, it will turn out another regular RTS/RPG with a tacked-on world map and an auction house as a excuse to call it "MMO" >_<
mmorpg.com just published a review of DreamLords and it scored a mediocre 6.5.
I agree - DreamLords isn't a great RTS and it isn't really a MMO either.
"one genre has proven to be elusive: the MMORTS. There have been only a small handful of games to try this and basically all of them have been smaller indie projects, and none of them have been successful."
Starcraft 2 would beat the living hell out of any MMORTS. Starcraft is the 880 lb gorilla for the RTS industry,
No.
Agreed.
SC 2 will likely be an excellent game, but a persistant world MMORTS would offer gameplay that SC 2 won't (apparently).
I can imagine alliances of generals working against each other to conquer planets, one zone at a time. Tech would start off more advanced than is typical for RTS games, but be advanced more slowly. A campaign could focus on a single planet, while a Galaxy-campaign could comprise many worlds.
Definitely some possibilities for fun and interesting gameplay. Solo players could 'duel' on instanced worlds for indiviual acclaim while waiting for campaign battles.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Developers don't think outside of the box anymore with this large of an investment. They go with what has already been successfull and try to rip it off and repackage it, but fail miserably resulting in a stale market.
This is how video games have been since they were created. There are very few who try to break outside of the mold, and when they do they get crucified by players and fans for not being on par with the billion dollar projects which are just cookie cutter crap. We are the problem in all honesty.
Well if you haven't tried the indy company Silverlode for its MMO RTS i say give it a try it has its glitches of course like all other MMO's , but it is fun and at onrpg.com you can get the free full version of it I believe it is the only MMO that really got me back into playing games on the computer. Hope to see you there .
Developers don't think outside of the box anymore with this large of an investment. They go with what has already been successfull and try to rip it off and repackage it, but fail miserably resulting in a stale market.
that's why I'm a bit disappointed with SC2.
Blizzard really is the company that would have had the best chances at creating a MMORTS. They got WoW as a money-making machine, and they also got lots of highly successfull RTS under their belt. Combing their experience with WoW and RTS to create something new sounds like it would make sense. Instead, they opted for an oldschool approach and are creating a game that feels like an engine patch for SC1. Sure, SC2 will be a good game - but it doesn't really get me hyped, either. Been there, done that.
Developers don't think outside of the box anymore with this large of an investment. They go with what has already been successfull and try to rip it off and repackage it, but fail miserably resulting in a stale market. This is how video games have been since they were created. There are very few who try to break outside of the mold, and when they do they get crucified by players and fans for not being on par with the billion dollar projects which are just cookie cutter crap. We are the problem in all honesty.
The media is the problem with what you are describing. No one is kept honest. Great for the Industry.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
you make a squad and that squad is your character basically for example imagine a WW2 focused RTS mmo where you create your own DIRTY DOZEN (one of the greatest movies ever) basically a squad of soldiers . this would allow for all the mmo elements without any of the RTS problems for example levelling, items, the world being big enough (since its squard based a single planet is enough) vehicles (if you make it modern or future you could easily include transport vehicles etc.
Comments
I've been playing Beyond Protocol since beginning of this year when it came out. It's the only mmorts I know of. It's also the only game I purchased in the last couple years.
Ok taking screenshots.
This is my colony on XXXXXXXXXXX, with standard corvettes floating above ready to kill any attackers. Ships designed by me, buildings designed by me.
Nice screens Nerf.
And above the same planet, corvettes, cruisers, battlecruisers, and a space station I designed. It's my capital planet of system, got to defend it well. I store lots of minerals there, and do research there.
Beyond Protocol fixes several problems a MMORTS can come up with.
One, you can set offline invulnerability which means everything you own goes invulnerable while your offline, doesn't shoot, can't get shot at. But you gain no income, and your factories produce no ships, and your mines stop mining.
Two, the game is totally FFA PVP, there are no safe zones, so if you attack someone you better be prepared for the reprocussions. A noob player IS a threat to an older player. I've been in 2 wars now where i've fought older players (same damn ones too). And if they're reading it was cause I was in the guild that was at war with the other guild, I don't have anything against them.
Anyways I took out at least 3 of their colonies, and they took out about 10 of mine. But I wasn't prepared for war, my units weren't in position for a strike and my heart really wasn't into it. A player can also play hit and run on your colonies FOREVER if they so desired, and the galaxy is now big enough to hide in. From my experience I have crafted an overal defensive strategy which.................... 
The community is quite, let's say civil cause your forum name is the exact name you have in the game. Which is why I blotted mine out lol.
Three, you can chose one planet to have invulnerable while you are offline, without full invulnerability setting. This is a peacetime setting.
Four, things happen at a slower pace, it can take a week to travel halfway across the galaxy, or hours to travel via the wormhole thing.
Game could use some more work, but I don't want to identify myself as to what i'd like to see changed. And again it's the only game I purchased in over 2 years so they must be doing something right.
On first glance, Beyond Protocol lets you control persistent territory. And thus it seems vulnerable to the same pitfalls as most of the browser-based strategy games (Utopia, Travian, Freesky Online, Galaxy Online) where a bigger fish can basically swim by and eat up all your hard work on a whim. (Nerf's story of 'doing damage' to a larger player by taking 3 colonies and losing 10 colonies seems as lopsided as any of those other games.)
Shattered Galaxy was smart in that it bypassed that problem entirely. The big difference being that players don't control land - factions do. So you move around the world map grabbing up territories until someone on the other faction meets up with you. Then you descend into the real meat of the game, where you send out batches of units at a time to vie for control over 2-4 points of contention (POCs) across the map.
Units are controlled RTS style, and quite customizable. They level up, increasing the strength of the unit and gradually providing access to higher tiers of chassis or higher tech of equipment. Your character has several fairly well-balanced stats which control how many units you can field at once, and the power of those units; this creates an interesting balance between the player who fields 6 high-tech powerful units at once vs. the player who overcomes his enemies with 12 medium-tech units.
The counter system was strong enough that a skilled player with lower-level units would retreat units to strategically field the counter unit to what the enemy was using - because in a stand-up fight if your enemy's units significantly outleveled yours you wouldn't stand a chance. Thankfully there were many reasons to intentionally reset your units' and character's level back to 1. Because Character XP is only earned when Units level - and units reach max level far faster than your character does so you're forced to reset units to cap out your character. And you want to reset your character during the periodic reset events because it means permanently getting a few extra points each time you reset.
It's an older game at this point, so I don't exactly recommend it to people. But like Planetside it was an amazing game for its time and worthy of praise (and like PS I'd instantly snatch up any new release which copied the gameplay formula; particularly if it was well polished.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well you would have other players on your side that could defend the cities while you were offline. It could be the way Horizons was supposed to be with like 9 different factions. Some factions were inherently good while others were evil, and a whole slew of factions that are neutral or even mercenary. So you could even have other factions watching your back while you were offline.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
No.
Yes.
Meh one game that came out 11 years ago and sold 9.5 million copys isn't much when you put it up to the Empire series that has now top'd over 20 million sold....
not much of a contest.
(And I can't remember but last I looked the red alert series was up around 15 million...)
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
i gave Beyond Protocol a shot as well during beta...
but imo it's a good example of what a MMORTS should NOT look like:
lots of empire management, overly complicated, slow gameplay, offline combat, mass battles, etc.
it's a matter of taste of course, but it certainly isn't the taste of a broader audience. It's not my cup of tea, either. Huge persistant empires are nice on paper, but i have yet to see a game that does this in a way that is really fun.
As long as MMORTS follow this forumla instead of Blizzard's, they're imo doomed to be half-baked, low-budget games for a small niche of fans...
Hype train -> Reality
Blizzard doesn't have a "formula for MMORTS".
And allot of the minutia of empire management were streamlined since beta, B.P. has been out since January 2009.
The irony is: Imo Blizzard DOES have a good formula for a successfull MMORTS.
It's just that nobody is picking it up, not even Blizzard themselves (at least not yet).
Blizzard's design philosophy isn't exactly a secret:
Easy to learn, hard to master. Eliminate "non-fun".
For RTS, this means:
Have a rather small amount of units in battle, each with some flashy abilities. Tone down resource and base management.
That sounds like it fits pretty well into a regular MMORPG scenario without causing the usual problems of MMORTSs. So, why fix it if it ain't broken?
If a bigger company failed at trying to copy WoW + Warcraft 3 instead of failing to copy WoW only - i'd reward them an E for Effort at least...
ps. I'm not saying BP is a bad game or anything - it's just that a game like BP won't reach an audience that isn't truly hardcore. Atlantica Online on the other hand was able to get noticed by a large audience. It doesn't mean one is better than the other, it's just about mainstream appeal.
Hype train -> Reality
The irony is: Imo Blizzard DOES have a good formula for a successfull MMORTS.
It's just that nobody is picking it up, not even Blizzard themselves (at least not yet).
Blizzard's design philosophy isn't exactly a secret:
Easy to learn, hard to master. Eliminate "non-fun".
For RTS, this means:
Have a rather small amount of units in battle, each with some flashy abilities. Tone down resource and base management.
That sounds like it fits pretty well into a regular MMORPG scenario without causing the usual problems of MMORTSs. So, why fix it if it ain't broken?
If a bigger company failed at trying to copy WoW + Warcraft 3 instead of failing to copy WoW only - i'd reward them an E for Effort at least...
Go play Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War II. It's like an RPG but you're controlling a core group of specialized units. And no, it's not made by Blizzard.
Go play Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War II. It's like an RPG but you're controlling a core group of specialized units. And no, it's not made by Blizzard.
My problem with that game is they called it Dawn of War.
They should have called it something entirely new and different - it is nothing like the first game, which was fun and had the whole "mass battles" thing that I love about RTSs.
Anyway, it's good for what it is, it was just too slow and small for my tastes.
Shattered Galaxy was pretty great, except that no Faction ever won. There was never a time when a Faction just completely raped the other two - the player base is too small for that to ever happen, and the simple game mechanics stop it from happening anyway.
Also, after you get to level 22, if you're not paying per month, you get shipped off to another planet (server) Morgana Prime, and end up having to fight players who have been there for a billion years with a billion stats in everything.
Blaaaargh. Anyway, it's a pretty good game, and I would definitely play a shinier, newer, more polished version (that would get updated more than once every five years =P)
Edit: Oh, and that game Battleforge is alright, if a little wierd and arcade-feelish. I don't really like the deck system, but whatever makes them money in the F2P world, I suppose.
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
You all need to learn to spell.
Dawn of War II is also a good example. Only 5 units and no base management at all.
I was kinda interested in it because they promised a coop-campaign. That was until they revealed that "coop" means a friend of yours gets to control 2 units, while you get the remaining 3. That's friggin laughable imo. Companies create mostly more of the same with minor changes and improvements, no matter if it's the RTS or the MMO genre.
Hype train -> Reality
HAve you tried Dreamlords yet?
Edit: nvm
My 2 cents: I think a RTS aspect to a MMO is a fantastic idea. If I was a billionaire and I could create a MMO, my endgame would involve a RTS component to it.
Go play Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War II. It's like an RPG but you're controlling a core group of specialized units. And no, it's not made by Blizzard.
My problem with that game is they called it Dawn of War.
They should have called it something entirely new and different - it is nothing like the first game, which was fun and had the whole "mass battles" thing that I love about RTSs.
Anyway, it's good for what it is, it was just too slow and small for my tastes.
Shattered Galaxy was pretty great, except that no Faction ever won. There was never a time when a Faction just completely raped the other two - the player base is too small for that to ever happen, and the simple game mechanics stop it from happening anyway.
Also, after you get to level 22, if you're not paying per month, you get shipped off to another planet (server) Morgana Prime, and end up having to fight players who have been there for a billion years with a billion stats in everything.
Blaaaargh. Anyway, it's a pretty good game, and I would definitely play a shinier, newer, more polished version (that would get updated more than once every five years =P)
Edit: Oh, and that game Battleforge is alright, if a little wierd and arcade-feelish. I don't really like the deck system, but whatever makes them money in the F2P world, I suppose.
Yes, I do agree. I preferred some aspects of the first Dawn of War games, particularly the bigger battles, but I also like the RPG aspects of DoW2. All in all, if someone were to make an MMORTS, I think DoW2 would serve as a better platform.
Your MMO would probably look like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eQNgsfSJQk&feature=fvsr
Kingdoms under Fire II
yes, that''s ingame graphics and it's a MMORTS - at least that's what the devs say.
every time i watch that trailer, i start drooling with fanboyism.
But i don't dare to get my hopes up - in the end, it will turn out another regular RTS/RPG with a tacked-on world map and an auction house as a excuse to call it "MMO" >_<
Hype train -> Reality
bump.
mmorpg.com just published a review of DreamLords and it scored a mediocre 6.5.
I agree - DreamLords isn't a great RTS and it isn't really a MMO either.
"one genre has proven to be elusive: the MMORTS. There have been only a small handful of games to try this and basically all of them have been smaller indie projects, and none of them have been successful."
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/259/view/reviews/load/93
which kinda leads to the old question again: Why does nobody bother to tap an untapped market?
is it because of technical reasons or something? i have no idea
Hype train -> Reality
No.
Agreed.
SC 2 will likely be an excellent game, but a persistant world MMORTS would offer gameplay that SC 2 won't (apparently).
I can imagine alliances of generals working against each other to conquer planets, one zone at a time. Tech would start off more advanced than is typical for RTS games, but be advanced more slowly. A campaign could focus on a single planet, while a Galaxy-campaign could comprise many worlds.
Definitely some possibilities for fun and interesting gameplay. Solo players could 'duel' on instanced worlds for indiviual acclaim while waiting for campaign battles.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Developers don't think outside of the box anymore with this large of an investment. They go with what has already been successfull and try to rip it off and repackage it, but fail miserably resulting in a stale market.
This is how video games have been since they were created. There are very few who try to break outside of the mold, and when they do they get crucified by players and fans for not being on par with the billion dollar projects which are just cookie cutter crap. We are the problem in all honesty.
Well if you haven't tried the indy company Silverlode for its MMO RTS i say give it a try it has its glitches of course like all other MMO's , but it is fun and at onrpg.com you can get the free full version of it I believe it is the only MMO that really got me back into playing games on the computer. Hope to see you there .
bluhoteyes
that's why I'm a bit disappointed with SC2.
Blizzard really is the company that would have had the best chances at creating a MMORTS. They got WoW as a money-making machine, and they also got lots of highly successfull RTS under their belt. Combing their experience with WoW and RTS to create something new sounds like it would make sense. Instead, they opted for an oldschool approach and are creating a game that feels like an engine patch for SC1. Sure, SC2 will be a good game - but it doesn't really get me hyped, either. Been there, done that.
Hype train -> Reality
The media is the problem with what you are describing. No one is kept honest. Great for the Industry.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
simple
SQUARD BASED RTS
you make a squad and that squad is your character basically for example imagine a WW2 focused RTS mmo where you create your own DIRTY DOZEN (one of the greatest movies ever) basically a squad of soldiers . this would allow for all the mmo elements without any of the RTS problems for example levelling, items, the world being big enough (since its squard based a single planet is enough) vehicles (if you make it modern or future you could easily include transport vehicles etc.