1) This game doesn't have what it takes to be a P2P.
2) RTW originally planned it to be F2P.
3) EA came into the loop...
Having a game that costs 50 millions £ be that shallow, with a broken MM and unbalanced weapons is a great job.
Don't forget that it's the 2nd most expensive game of all time fellows, not just something a couple peeps developed in their garage, it costs more than a Red Dead Redemption, than a WoW/EVE/EQ1/EQ2/Whatever MMO u want to insert here. And it turns out as a game with no content, and under par on every aspect (fighting, driving...) besides customization.
You're a Hardcore Survivor!
You not only survived the zombie apocalypse, but did it with style! Your mastery of zombie knowledge, survival tactics, and weaponry is nearly unmatched. Congratulations, for you are hardcore!
im sorry again. but i think if the sub was dropepd it would make it worth peoples time. you just dont get back in gameplay what you are paying. and really the only thing worth any money in this game is the customizeation system..... thats it nothing else is worthwhile!
You don't have to pay a sub if you buy enough RTW points ingame to trade for more game hours.
400 RTW = 30 days game time so if you can keep making that you play for free
im sorry again. but i think if the sub was dropepd it would make it worth peoples time. you just dont get back in gameplay what you are paying. and really the only thing worth any money in this game is the customizeation system..... thats it nothing else is worthwhile!
You don't have to pay a sub if you buy enough RTW points ingame to trade for more game hours.
400 RTW = 30 days game time so if you can keep making that you play for free
does not change my stance, i knew that but remember that you still have to be able to sucker people..... i mean sell that much.
I hear alot of comparisons to Hellgate: London as far as genre and payment go. That's....not really a good thing. If this game is your thing then more power to you. I've been waiting for a FPS/MMORPG hybrid, and I approve of testing the boundaries of genres, but I just don't think I'll be picking this up.
So its not a mmo? so its not massive multiplayer online? lol i hate when retards try and say games arnt mmos learn what mmo means before runnin off saying it isnt a mmo if anything its a MMORPG id say mmofps buts its not a fp game in third person eaither way still an mmo.
4. Its an mmorpg... just because the zones are instances doesn't mean anything, its every bit as much an mmo (maybe even more so) than a game like Guild Wars.
GW is not really a mmo. By that logic modern warfare is a mmo too. I mean there are thousand of peoples in the lobby waiting to enter an instanced deathmatch.
4. Its an mmorpg... just because the zones are instances doesn't mean anything, its every bit as much an mmo (maybe even more so) than a game like Guild Wars.
GW is not really a mmo. By that logic modern warfare is a mmo too. I mean there are thousand of peoples in the lobby waiting to enter an instanced deathmatch.
not this crap again.
towns and outposts in GW are persistent. all characters are stored on arenanets server. everything is over 1 shard. EVE is the only other game to have this MMO unification.
it's just that they smart technology to replicate the games persistent game world multiple times depending on the player usage. just because the technology is flexible it does not mean that it does not have MMO elements.
also you do not get to decide how much instancing determines what classifies as a MMO and what does not. Read up on the server and streaming technology before you speak such nonsense again.
1. The handbrake is your friend, if you don't use it you will fail at driving.
2. Anyone who thinks adding cover to this game would help it hasn't really played it. You can make your own cover just fine by hiding around a corner or crouching behind something and popping out to attack, adding shooting around corners without exposing yourself would bog down firefights so much it would be retarded.
3. Yes the missions are repetitive in content, but what MMO's aren't? The variety comes from how the mission plays out against different human opponents. Is it perfect? Not even close, but it is entertaining.
4. Its an mmorpg... just because the zones are instances doesn't mean anything, its every bit as much an mmo (maybe even more so) than a game like Guild Wars.
To expand on #2 a bit I would also add that the combat mechanics in this game emphasizes dynamic use of the environment and MOVEMENT more than your average MMO. There's no target lock here, move along please....or get shot to pieces if you don't get your ass out of the line of fire. Duck, dodge, weave around...but don't sit still. Even the campers continuously shift position within their area. Terrain makes a difference here, more so that what the average MMO player is used to.
And as for driving? It's no more a pain to learn than GTA. Now add to that the bustling traffic of a metropolitan area and a hundred other players running around in vehicles.....yeah it' a helluva ride you just aren't going to find in any other MMO.
"Heart grow stronger, Will becomes firm, the Mind more calm, as our Strength lessens..." Battle of Maldon 991 AD
I think this type of game should be called "persistent shooter" instead of MMORPG
Anyhow it's not bad as the review suggests but content is limited at the moment but there is potential there.
RTW has never called this a MMO, players did, and reviewers have incorrectly.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
You dont buy a Subscription. You buy time. When you login, the timer starts counting down. When you log out the time stop. I find this type of subscription to be far more profitable to players and devs.
You dont buy a Subscription. You buy time. When you login, the timer starts counting down. When you log out the time stop. I find this type of subscription to be far more profitable to players and devs.
Does not make any difference how they word it, they just won't find enough people to pay for this game that way.
Unless they change it to a f2p model or just make the purchase count like guild wars this game will be short lived.
And the game is NOT a MMO by any shape or form. Just another shooter.
Look I'll agree it's not an MMO the same as Global Agenda isn't but they hyped it as one and it's listed on this site and many others as an MMO. The executive producer even did that exclusive interview for ten ton hammer on the MMO aspects of APB.
It's listed as an MMO on the wiki, half the podcasts have MMO in thier titles and it sure was advertised as an MMO.
I'd like to add imho Planetside with it's three factions, vehicles ranging from four wheelers to tanks to air craft with bases, towers, outposts and a huge load out of cert choices was better than Global Agenda and APB put together. Until they screwed it over with BFRs.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
You dont buy a Subscription. You buy time. When you login, the timer starts counting down. When you log out the time stop. I find this type of subscription to be far more profitable to players and devs.
Does not make any difference how they word it, they just won't find enough people to pay for this game that way.
It doesn't matter how they word their payment model, and it doesn't matter whether they called it an MMO or not (although, I think they were quite happy with this description when justifying the 'subscription') the point is not enough people will pay monthly, or hourly, to play this game. I'll be amazed if a year from now APB is a thriving game with a healthy 'subscription' base. I wouldn't be at all amazed if it doesn't even exist,in any form, though.
Look I'll agree it's not an MMO the same as Global Agenda isn't but they hyped it as one and it's listed on this site and many others as an MMO. The executive producer even did that exclusive interview for ten ton hammer on the MMO aspects of APB.
It's listed as an MMO on the wiki, half the podcasts have MMO in thier titles and it sure was advertised as an MMO.
I'd like to add imho Planetside with it's three factions, vehicles ranging from four wheelers to tanks to air craft with bases, towers, outposts and a huge load out of cert choices was better than Global Agenda and APB put together. Until they screwed it over with BFRs.
Planetside, better as in more weapon and vehicle variety (using a sci-fi theme) huge land masses to do battle on and the overall much larger scale battles, yes. Still there are things both GA and APB do much better. Stuff like more complex battles, more tasks to carry out to make the battles have more variety, a better control on the balace in numbers of the sides fighting, much more possibilites of character builds, and more unique looking characters.
Hasn't the definition of MMO been watered down/changed to being something persistant with progression?
Would play this game if it had stayed F2P. What does this game do that GTA and RRD don't? Offers more customization? Not a big enough selling point for me personally. And the driving does suck in this game. It may take some skill, but nothing I'd brag about. Go play GTA IV or a racing game if you want to see what driving should feel like. And the combat systems are antiquated. No hitboxes? Really? How are you going to be a modern TPS without hitboxes, let alone without a cover mechanic? Find it hard to believe they spent five years on this game.
What makes a MMO? jsut becasue you shoot that makes it less of a MMO?
hell they could make the thing room based and it would still be possibly called a MMO
it means massivly multiplayer online game. not Massivly multiplayer everyone ****ing around on the same area game where you must have role playing elementsa and shooting makes it just a shooter game.
Whether or not this game plays like an MMO seems irrelevant to me. After all, like an MMO, it requires additional monetary investment to play. That fact has to be taken into account for reviewing purposes more than anything, particularly in the “value” category: does the experience justify both the cost of the game AND additional payments? Many reviewers have argued that it simply doesn’t. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the key to the city event, even if my enjoyment was rather shallow. But to me, the in-game shop and the game’s zonal structure cries out for an F2P model, or at least the Guildwars method.
The game surely has its flaws. But driving and lack of a cover system aren't one of those. The game(beta) ran terribly on my PC, so driving was often the only thing I could do.
Sure, sometimes the game hiccupped so much that I crashed into things. But you could just as well be bumped by another player. And I didn't feel slow driving one of the faster cars (though I guess speed is also faked by the lack of grip at what might seem low speeds)
I didn't really miss a cover system. The problem is that you compare a PvP game to a PvE game. Cover works great in the games you mentioned, because you have a large opposition yet you are supposed to be able to handle them.
If you'd have a cover system here, shootouts would take years, or a grenade toss fest. Or it would last until someone ran around the flanks making your whole cover system pretty much useless. And that already happens plenty with the spawn mechanism of the game.
I don't see myself paying to play this game, especially because on slightly over min-spec, the game performance is simply too unstable.
6.5 is about right for APB judged as an MMORPG. But it's not an MMORPG.
It's a game only runs on centralized company servers (Modern Warfare 2), with achievements and unlockable equipment (Bad Company 2, America's Army), and a side feature of extensive avatar customization (Brink, Battlefield Heroes).
APB is a shooter. The next generation of them, IMO. It's squarely in the place shooters have been moving towards over the last five years, and RTW has stolen a march on the competition.
As a shooter, I leave its merits to be judged by those who play those games. I don't. I just hope the tragic mis-marketing of APB to MMORPG players doesn't kill it in the crib. I may not care for it personally, but it's going in the right direction. It deserves to find its audience.
this is an awesome post. nice to see somebody being objective and having the ability to see value in things that aren't based on their own personal preferences.
the problem with it being panned by RPG players who shouldn't have expected to like it in the first place (and therefore, should not feel vindictively "letdown") is that there really IS NO existing MMOTPS market yet. real shooter fans GENERALLY ignore the MMO space since it has virtually nothing to offer them. the majority of those trying it were expecting way too many RPG elements and "progression" from it, because the only real MMO communities (at this time) are %99 RPG players. there are a lot of shooter fans out there that know nothing about it, yet a huge portion of MMORPG junkies knew about it, and too many of them got hopelessly (there was no hope for them to be satisfied) interested in it.
hopepfully the MMOShooter scene can finally now come into being and have its own news sites, communities, etc...... but that might not come about until a couple more games like this are released.
Comments
What's funny is :
1) This game doesn't have what it takes to be a P2P.
2) RTW originally planned it to be F2P.
3) EA came into the loop...
Having a game that costs 50 millions £ be that shallow, with a broken MM and unbalanced weapons is a great job.
Don't forget that it's the 2nd most expensive game of all time fellows, not just something a couple peeps developed in their garage, it costs more than a Red Dead Redemption, than a WoW/EVE/EQ1/EQ2/Whatever MMO u want to insert here. And it turns out as a game with no content, and under par on every aspect (fighting, driving...) besides customization.
You're a Hardcore Survivor!
You not only survived the zombie apocalypse, but did it with style! Your mastery of zombie knowledge, survival tactics, and weaponry is nearly unmatched. Congratulations, for you are hardcore!
You don't have to pay a sub if you buy enough RTW points ingame to trade for more game hours.
400 RTW = 30 days game time so if you can keep making that you play for free
does not change my stance, i knew that but remember that you still have to be able to sucker people..... i mean sell that much.
also its still not worth retail price
I hear alot of comparisons to Hellgate: London as far as genre and payment go. That's....not really a good thing. If this game is your thing then more power to you. I've been waiting for a FPS/MMORPG hybrid, and I approve of testing the boundaries of genres, but I just don't think I'll be picking this up.
So its not a mmo? so its not massive multiplayer online? lol i hate when retards try and say games arnt mmos learn what mmo means before runnin off saying it isnt a mmo if anything its a MMORPG id say mmofps buts its not a fp game in third person eaither way still an mmo.
GW is not really a mmo. By that logic modern warfare is a mmo too. I mean there are thousand of peoples in the lobby waiting to enter an instanced deathmatch.
its a MMO but its NOT a MMORPG...we'll call it a MMOTPS.
not this crap again.
towns and outposts in GW are persistent. all characters are stored on arenanets server. everything is over 1 shard. EVE is the only other game to have this MMO unification.
it's just that they smart technology to replicate the games persistent game world multiple times depending on the player usage. just because the technology is flexible it does not mean that it does not have MMO elements.
also you do not get to decide how much instancing determines what classifies as a MMO and what does not. Read up on the server and streaming technology before you speak such nonsense again.
I think this type of game should be called "persistent shooter" instead of MMORPG
Anyhow it's not bad as the review suggests but content is limited at the moment but there is potential there.
To expand on #2 a bit I would also add that the combat mechanics in this game emphasizes dynamic use of the environment and MOVEMENT more than your average MMO. There's no target lock here, move along please....or get shot to pieces if you don't get your ass out of the line of fire. Duck, dodge, weave around...but don't sit still. Even the campers continuously shift position within their area. Terrain makes a difference here, more so that what the average MMO player is used to.
And as for driving? It's no more a pain to learn than GTA. Now add to that the bustling traffic of a metropolitan area and a hundred other players running around in vehicles.....yeah it' a helluva ride you just aren't going to find in any other MMO.
"Heart grow stronger, Will becomes firm, the Mind more calm, as our Strength lessens..." Battle of Maldon 991 AD
RTW has never called this a MMO, players did, and reviewers have incorrectly.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
You dont buy a Subscription. You buy time. When you login, the timer starts counting down. When you log out the time stop. I find this type of subscription to be far more profitable to players and devs.
http://www.tentonhammer.com/apb/video/mmo-in-apb
So the executive producer doing an entire interview about the MMO aspects of APB doesn't count I guess?
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Does not make any difference how they word it, they just won't find enough people to pay for this game that way.
Unless they change it to a f2p model or just make the purchase count like guild wars this game will be short lived.
And the game is NOT a MMO by any shape or form. Just another shooter.
Look I'll agree it's not an MMO the same as Global Agenda isn't but they hyped it as one and it's listed on this site and many others as an MMO. The executive producer even did that exclusive interview for ten ton hammer on the MMO aspects of APB.
It's listed as an MMO on the wiki, half the podcasts have MMO in thier titles and it sure was advertised as an MMO.
I'd like to add imho Planetside with it's three factions, vehicles ranging from four wheelers to tanks to air craft with bases, towers, outposts and a huge load out of cert choices was better than Global Agenda and APB put together. Until they screwed it over with BFRs.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/It doesn't matter how they word their payment model, and it doesn't matter whether they called it an MMO or not (although, I think they were quite happy with this description when justifying the 'subscription') the point is not enough people will pay monthly, or hourly, to play this game. I'll be amazed if a year from now APB is a thriving game with a healthy 'subscription' base. I wouldn't be at all amazed if it doesn't even exist,in any form, though.
Planetside, better as in more weapon and vehicle variety (using a sci-fi theme) huge land masses to do battle on and the overall much larger scale battles, yes. Still there are things both GA and APB do much better. Stuff like more complex battles, more tasks to carry out to make the battles have more variety, a better control on the balace in numbers of the sides fighting, much more possibilites of character builds, and more unique looking characters.
Hasn't the definition of MMO been watered down/changed to being something persistant with progression?
And yet this MMO site not only reviewed it but has a section for it. Interesting.
Would play this game if it had stayed F2P. What does this game do that GTA and RRD don't? Offers more customization? Not a big enough selling point for me personally. And the driving does suck in this game. It may take some skill, but nothing I'd brag about. Go play GTA IV or a racing game if you want to see what driving should feel like. And the combat systems are antiquated. No hitboxes? Really? How are you going to be a modern TPS without hitboxes, let alone without a cover mechanic? Find it hard to believe they spent five years on this game.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Metallica8589/videos?view=0
What makes a MMO? jsut becasue you shoot that makes it less of a MMO?
hell they could make the thing room based and it would still be possibly called a MMO
it means massivly multiplayer online game. not Massivly multiplayer everyone ****ing around on the same area game where you must have role playing elementsa and shooting makes it just a shooter game.
Whether or not this game plays like an MMO seems irrelevant to me. After all, like an MMO, it requires additional monetary investment to play. That fact has to be taken into account for reviewing purposes more than anything, particularly in the “value” category: does the experience justify both the cost of the game AND additional payments? Many reviewers have argued that it simply doesn’t. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the key to the city event, even if my enjoyment was rather shallow. But to me, the in-game shop and the game’s zonal structure cries out for an F2P model, or at least the Guildwars method.
Took me longer to download this game than it did to figure out I got Jacked by another bad game.
The game surely has its flaws. But driving and lack of a cover system aren't one of those. The game(beta) ran terribly on my PC, so driving was often the only thing I could do.
Sure, sometimes the game hiccupped so much that I crashed into things. But you could just as well be bumped by another player. And I didn't feel slow driving one of the faster cars (though I guess speed is also faked by the lack of grip at what might seem low speeds)
I didn't really miss a cover system. The problem is that you compare a PvP game to a PvE game. Cover works great in the games you mentioned, because you have a large opposition yet you are supposed to be able to handle them.
If you'd have a cover system here, shootouts would take years, or a grenade toss fest. Or it would last until someone ran around the flanks making your whole cover system pretty much useless. And that already happens plenty with the spawn mechanism of the game.
I don't see myself paying to play this game, especially because on slightly over min-spec, the game performance is simply too unstable.
this is an awesome post. nice to see somebody being objective and having the ability to see value in things that aren't based on their own personal preferences.
the problem with it being panned by RPG players who shouldn't have expected to like it in the first place (and therefore, should not feel vindictively "letdown") is that there really IS NO existing MMOTPS market yet. real shooter fans GENERALLY ignore the MMO space since it has virtually nothing to offer them. the majority of those trying it were expecting way too many RPG elements and "progression" from it, because the only real MMO communities (at this time) are %99 RPG players. there are a lot of shooter fans out there that know nothing about it, yet a huge portion of MMORPG junkies knew about it, and too many of them got hopelessly (there was no hope for them to be satisfied) interested in it.
hopepfully the MMOShooter scene can finally now come into being and have its own news sites, communities, etc...... but that might not come about until a couple more games like this are released.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
This site gives Global Agenda an 8.0, yet APB a 6.5. The reviewer need to get a clue; their impressions suck just from that comparison alone.