provided you know what MO is and what its all about i see no reason for people to feel they were cheated when buying the game. I enjoy it alot and after UO is the Second mmo i have played for aronud a year. Im not usually one of those players who stick with an mmo becasue they usually fill me with disapointmnet MO hasnt done that. frustrations yes but never disapointment.
Im also not a player who chooses his next game on how polished it is. I would sooner go for inovation with bugs over imitation with polish. If i wanted to play WOW i would i woulndt play one of its many imitiators. MO offers something different.
there are 2 types of mmo, imitators and innovaters.
Potential should never be a factor into a game's score in my opinion. Name the last game that actually ended up reaching its potential, it's like giving points for something that could exist but doesn't. When people buy the game they are faced with the reality of what exactly is in the product, not what could be.
I agree 100% and frankly am amazed such a flawed approach to rating a game was accepted by this site. Having played MO, I'd give it a 1.9 and any potential I see based upon the track record of SV reads of failure. If I factored my expectations of what the developer can deliver I'd give it a minus, remove it from my mind and give the money to unicef.
"Lately it occurs to me, what a long, strange trip it's been". -Hunter
I think the score is rightly deserved. Any who argue that it should've gotten a much lower score likely aren't scoring each aspect as it should be. The game's models look great, therefore it scores high. The game's world is vast and populated, therefore it scores well. The combat, albeit slow and not quite complete, is immersive and entertaining, warranting a decent score. The bugs are what drags the score down, the incomplete nature of the game, and so on and so forth.
I look at 6.9 and think it a fair score; the game isn't broken, but it isn't fully functional. However, what IS there is mostly entertaining, and in such a manner that very few games have--or do--provide. To give it a score such as 1.9 would be to deny the fact that it is indeed fun when it plays as it should. 1.9 says that it's a terrible game that has absolutely no good or redeeming qualities and that barely anyone actually likes the game. MO does still have a player-base and players who enjoy the game, so this cannot be true.
Anyhow, I think potential a good thing; any game without potential, regardless of how good, shows that it has hit its peak. The game likely cannot--and will not--improve any more, and this is not something an MMO should be, it is not something a game should be. Sure, potential shouldn't factor in to the score, but it certainly shouldn't go without mention; we watch trailers and videos of gameplay and think "This game has potential. I may potentially enjoy this game". Should not a review point out that the game in question has such a potential? Mind you, it is different to say that the game HAD potential, meaning all hope for improvement is gone, which is not the case of Mortal Online.
"Regardless of the bugs and slight unfinished feel, Mortal Online is supremely enjoyable. There are enough developed class-types to keep you occupied while more updates roll out and the game is more than stable enough to play."
MO is a really good game even thou the bugs. Looking forward to the coming PvE and Social patches the coming weeks.
I will be blunt. The author to me seems to be another old school veteran who jizzes in his pants as soon someone mentions UO 3D. I by no means want to insult the author, but I felt that would describe the vibes I get from the review best. So I toss it out: biased, least to say.
Almost half of the review is about potential, which I am sick to hear about at this point, it been tossed around since the very first beta. Professionals should not score the games based on their potential, psecially half a year after the release. Another half of the review is about games ideals an ideas, I found almost nothing on the actual gameplay and content. Why? Because there is no, and the great lack of PvE content alone should have heavily impacted the score.
Once again, potential doesn't cut it. SV are least to say amateurish in every decision they make, one would have though that by now they would have learnt how to ship their patches to avoid critical and obvious bugs, but no. A player found EIGHT bugs in the new patch, and that in just 5 minutes of normal gameplay. That is inexcusable, specially after Henrik stated they made a strict control over shipped patches after their GaulKor fail.
SV havn't even shipped the promised after launch DVDs to those who bought the boxes, and that is half a year after the games release. Bad design decisions and poorly implemented features can be seen everywhere in this game, and you give it 6.9? What a joke. The Author should have continued with his Survival Guy impression series, since he is beiased enough to not be able to professionally review the game.
To me, a 7 is a solid playable game, not this pay to play beta. MMORPG gave Darkfall a 6, a game which got more content and less bugs then MO, so I really do call bias here. That someone prefers skillcap and FPV is a personal preference and should not affect score. A right score would be something of 5.5-5.9, considering the "potential", and I am being generous here.
Originally posted by Lahuzer
The thing with content in this game is entirely up to you and what you wanna do.
And that is why they introduced "quests", eh? The sandbox tag is by no means an excuse for the lack of content. A good game will provide you with both. Not to mention that MO lacks any kind of sandbox tools. Could you mention to me three mechanics that don't have a clear use but can be adjusted to the situation and used in different means?
I will give you an example of a sandbox tool as I see it. Most basic one, to get the ideas across. A grappling hook. You can use it to climb walls, pull your enemy towards you, snare someone from running away, use it to reach new places, use it to transport something heavy up the walls. That is a sandbox tool, which can be used in many different ways, assisting players in creation of their own content.
Now, could you please name any tools like that in MO?
how is wanting a 3d version of uo a bad thing? uo was one of the great mmos and without it its doubtful mmos would have even become popular. UO EQ WOW EVE there the main ones right there.
Also those quests you speak for were planned from the start they are i beleive even mentioned in the powerpoint presentation. Still though they work very differently to quests you find in a typicl mmo mainly because you are told about them but have no actual quest to do. you can bring the items to that particular vendor or to any vendor. The tasks are for new players to find inofrmation ingame on how to make money that is all. Later they hope to bring tasks that are for veterans which involve alot more but of course we need to wiat and see.
Its a fair review dont listen to the haters simply visit the forums and read whats written on there it gives a better understanding of whats happening.
there are 2 types of mmo, imitators and innovaters.
A player found EIGHT bugs in the new patch, and that in just 5 minutes of normal gameplay. That is inexcusable, specially after Henrik stated they made a strict control over shipped patches after their GaulKor fail.
I agree. If you can find those problems in 5 minutes of playing time, they shouldn't be released.
SV havn't even shipped the promised after launch DVDs to those who bought the boxes, and that is half a year after the games release.
What will you do with the patched game client DVD? The game is patched once a week, and by the time you get the DVD, there'll be at least 4 patches already out. Download the client if you are not connected to internet over telephone line.
Bad design decisions and poorly implemented features can be seen everywhere in this game, and you give it 6.9? What a joke.
And who is saying that the design decisions are bad? Who has declared you as an authority on game design and decisions? Decisions not suiting your expectations doesn't make them bad. You just don't play a game if you don't like it, you do not blame the studio behind the game for making bad decisions because you think your ideas are superior.
The Author should have continued with his Survival Guy impression series, since he is beiased enough to not be able to professionally review the game.
To me, a 7 is a solid playable game, not this pay to play beta. MMORPG gave Darkfall a 6, a game which got more content and less bugs then MO, so I really do call bias here.
Who's biased here, you or the author? It is obvious that you do not like the game and I respect that. Why aren't you respecting others ideas that may have liked the game in opposition to your superior ideas?
That someone prefers skillcap and FPV is a personal preference and should not affect score.
Is it not? You may think that 3rd person view is essential for a MMORPG, and I do not. So what? Why should I accept you as an authority there?
A right score would be something of 5.5-5.9, considering the "potential", and I am being generous here.
If you want to give rating to games, apply for a job in MMORPG and start doing your job. Again that's your idea only, stop assuming yourself as an authority.
And that is why they introduced "quests", eh? The sandbox tag is by no means an excuse for the lack of content.
Quest system is not a must for content. There are lots of things that can be added (and should be IMO) to MO for sure, but lacking quests are not an issue for a game like MO. It is for WoW kind of games.
A good game will provide you with both. Not to mention that MO lacks any kind of sandbox tools. Could you mention to me three mechanics that don't have a clear use but can be adjusted to the situation and used in different means?
I will give you an example of a sandbox tool as I see it. Most basic one, to get the ideas across. A grappling hook. You can use it to climb walls, pull your enemy towards you, snare someone from running away, use it to reach new places, use it to transport something heavy up the walls. That is a sandbox tool, which can be used in many different ways, assisting players in creation of their own content.
Now, could you please name any tools like that in MO?
I agree that MO lacks lots of tools that can improve sandbox features in MO. That's one of the reasons MO is not getting 10 probably?
how is wanting a 3d version of uo a bad thing? uo was one of the great mmos and without it its doubtful mmos would have even become popular. UO EQ WOW EVE there the main ones right there.
I did not say it is a bad thing, did I? I did however say that I believe his wish for a 3D UO heavily impacted his review, resulting in a bit biased outcome.
Originally posted by deathshroud
Also those quests you speak for were planned from the start they are i beleive even mentioned in the powerpoint presentation. Still though they work very differently to quests you find in a typicl mmo mainly because you are told about them but have no actual quest to do. you can bring the items to that particular vendor or to any vendor. The tasks are for new players to find inofrmation ingame on how to make money that is all. Later they hope to bring tasks that are for veterans which involve alot more but of course we need to wiat and see.
I see no difference. A quest is a quest, with or without an entry in your quest log to help you keeping track of the objective. The concept and the result remains the same, even if you twist the mechanic around a bit. Then again, I am not against quests, I am just pointing out that the "make your own fun" doesn't hold in longer terms, specially for new players.
Originally posted by deathshroud
Its a fair review dont listen to the haters simply visit the forums and read whats written on there it gives a better understanding of whats happening.
I think you know as well as I that MO forums are heavily moderated, resulting in majority of negative opinions about the game being deleted. There is no need to link me few posts which dodged the censor, I know what I am talking about.
Originally posted by oramio
Originally posted by Toferio
A player found EIGHT bugs in the new patch, and that in just 5 minutes of normal gameplay. That is inexcusable, specially after Henrik stated they made a strict control over shipped patches after their GaulKor fail.
I agree. If you can find those problems in 5 minutes of playing time, they shouldn't be released.
SV havn't even shipped the promised after launch DVDs to those who bought the boxes, and that is half a year after the games release.
What will you do with the patched game client DVD? The game is patched once a week, and by the time you get the DVD, there'll be at least 4 patches already out. Download the client if you are not connected to internet over telephone line.
It is not about "having use for", but about getting what I paid for, simple as that. And I do like having the game on DVD, so I dont need to re-download it if I need to re-install it, it's also a kind of collectors feeling since there is place for another DvD in the box.
Bad design decisions and poorly implemented features can be seen everywhere in this game, and you give it 6.9? What a joke.
And who is saying that the design decisions are bad? Who has declared you as an authority on game design and decisions? Decisions not suiting your expectations doesn't make them bad. You just don't play a game if you don't like it, you do not blame the studio behind the game for making bad decisions because you think your ideas are superior.
I simply judge it as a player. Introducing thievery the way it was back in beta was stupid, it lacked several needed protection mechanics, as it have in UO. Same goes for Ether world, back in beta they did not have any kind of lights showing priests locations, new players ran around for hour trying to find one. That is also bad design. Such stuff can be seen over and over, and then community have to come up with suggestions on how to patch up the design flaws. Newbie armor, newbie flag, and a lot of other stuff were developed and suggested by the community, that is why I think that SV takes a lot of bad design decisions.
Sure, it is just my "opinion" and I can't claim I am in absolute right.
The Author should have continued with his Survival Guy impression series, since he is beiased enough to not be able to professionally review the game.
To me, a 7 is a solid playable game, not this pay to play beta. MMORPG gave Darkfall a 6, a game which got more content and less bugs then MO, so I really do call bias here.
Who's biased here, you or the author? It is obvious that you do not like the game and I respect that. Why aren't you respecting others ideas that may have liked the game in opposition to your superior ideas?
I respect his opinion, but also state mine that I think his review should be done in a more neutral way. I see nothing wrong with expressing my disagreement with the author.
That someone prefers skillcap and FPV is a personal preference and should not affect score.
Is it not? You may thing that 3rd person view is essential for a MMORPG, and I do not. So what? Why should I accept you as an authority there?
A right score would be something of 5.5-5.9, considering the "potential", and I am being generous here.
If you want to give rating to games, apply for a job in MMORPG and start doing your job. Again that's your idea only, stop assuming yourself as an authority.
Welcome to the internet man, if you post something be ready for someone to disagree and voice his own opinion. I am not assuming anything, but just voice my own opinion. Are you trying to silent me simply because I disagree with the author? Are you trying to say that I either should agree with him or be quiet? I don't think that is how forums work..
And that is why they introduced "quests", eh? The sandbox tag is by no means an excuse for the lack of content.
Quest system is not a must for content. There are lots of things that can be added (and should be IMO) to MO for sure, but lacking quests are not an issue for a game like MO. It is for WoW kind of games.
While I do agree that quests are not a must for content, I do think that quests are a great tool to entertain the player who is bored of other features disregarding if a game is a sandbox or not.
A good game will provide you with both. Not to mention that MO lacks any kind of sandbox tools. Could you mention to me three mechanics that don't have a clear use but can be adjusted to the situation and used in different means?
I will give you an example of a sandbox tool as I see it. Most basic one, to get the ideas across. A grappling hook. You can use it to climb walls, pull your enemy towards you, snare someone from running away, use it to reach new places, use it to transport something heavy up the walls. That is a sandbox tool, which can be used in many different ways, assisting players in creation of their own content.
Now, could you please name any tools like that in MO?
I agree that MO lacks lots of tools that can improve sandbox features in MO. That's one of the reasons MO is not getting 10 probably?
I dont think there is a sandbox there to begin with, it is a PvP game. Same goes for DF if I am to be honest, even thou they do improve it lately. Lack of sandbox tools is probably not the reason for a lower score, since even a PvP game with no sandbox tools can be a good game.
I think on open world/sandbox like MO should have a few npcs...maybe hard to find..to make it challenging ..all of whom teach cartography. Then as a player uncovers more of the world ..he can use the cartography skill (with consumable inks papers..etc) to not only raise his skill...but make map copies of only areas he/she knows....then sell them on the auction house or hand them out for free if they desire. Eventually others could do this until all the globe is mapped out...either through one's own travels and cartographer skills (acquiring an entire map), by assembling together map pieces from many other travellers (purchased through trade) or waiting until some other patient slob starts selling entire maps . This could end up, initially, being a good means of revenue for the wandering entrepreneur.
At the least..I've always thought the map should not be whole at the beginning of a game. Have it dark or otherwise obscurred , only showing you the topography as you discover each new area. I believe many games already use this technique. Although I have used quest systems and game maps..I've always found it more immersive and fun to discover things on my own. In a game like MO...fully formed maps and quest helpers should not even come into the design...except in the manner I suggested
Any opinions ?
I aggree. If you seek immersion, this is a very good way to achieve it. Traveling blindly is not exciting to me, but traveling blindly knowing that you can mark your tracks and make your own map is cerainly appealing.
how is wanting a 3d version of uo a bad thing? uo was one of the great mmos and without it its doubtful mmos would have even become popular. UO EQ WOW EVE there the main ones right there.
I did not say it is a bad thing, did I? I did however say that I believe his wish for a 3D UO heavily impacted his review, resulting in a bit biased outcome.
Originally posted by deathshroud
Also those quests you speak for were planned from the start they are i beleive even mentioned in the powerpoint presentation. Still though they work very differently to quests you find in a typicl mmo mainly because you are told about them but have no actual quest to do. you can bring the items to that particular vendor or to any vendor. The tasks are for new players to find inofrmation ingame on how to make money that is all. Later they hope to bring tasks that are for veterans which involve alot more but of course we need to wiat and see.
I see no difference. A quest is a quest, with or without an entry in your quest log to help you keeping track of the objective. The concept and the result remains the same, even if you twist the mechanic around a bit. Then again, I am not against quests, I am just pointing out that the "make your own fun" doesn't hold in longer terms, specially for new players.
Originally posted by deathshroud
Its a fair review dont listen to the haters simply visit the forums and read whats written on there it gives a better understanding of whats happening.
I think you know as well as I that MO forums are heavily moderated, resulting in majority of negative opinions about the game being deleted. There is no need to link me few posts which dodged the censor, I know what I am talking about.
Originally posted by oramio
Originally posted by Toferio
A player found EIGHT bugs in the new patch, and that in just 5 minutes of normal gameplay. That is inexcusable, specially after Henrik stated they made a strict control over shipped patches after their GaulKor fail.
I agree. If you can find those problems in 5 minutes of playing time, they shouldn't be released.
SV havn't even shipped the promised after launch DVDs to those who bought the boxes, and that is half a year after the games release.
What will you do with the patched game client DVD? The game is patched once a week, and by the time you get the DVD, there'll be at least 4 patches already out. Download the client if you are not connected to internet over telephone line.
It is not about "having use for", but about getting what I paid for, simple as that. And I do like having the game on DVD, so I dont need to re-download it if I need to re-install it, it's also a kind of collectors feeling since there is place for another DvD in the box.
OK for your expectation there. Will you be willing to receive a new DVD 3 months later when there'll be 3GB of new patches? I am not sure about the promises about an updated DVD, but let me point out what makes me uncomforable about your post. "...SV havn't even shipped the..." That statement is not a simple expectation statement, you are obviously not that unfamilier with the langueage there for sure.
Bad design decisions and poorly implemented features can be seen everywhere in this game, and you give it 6.9? What a joke.
And who is saying that the design decisions are bad? Who has declared you as an authority on game design and decisions? Decisions not suiting your expectations doesn't make them bad. You just don't play a game if you don't like it, you do not blame the studio behind the game for making bad decisions because you think your ideas are superior.
I simply judge it as a player, but I also have experince in game design. Introducing thievery the way it was back in beta was stupid, it lacked several needed protection mechanics, as it have in UO. Same goes for Ether world, back in beta they did not have any kind of lights showing priests locations, new players ran around for hour trying to find one. That is also bad design. Such stuff can be seen over and over, and then community have to come up with suggestions on how to patch up the design flaws. Newbie armor, newbie flag, and a lot of other stuff were developed and suggested by the community, that is why I think that SV takes a lot of bad design decisions.
Sure, it is just my "opinion" and I can't claim I am in absolute right.
There are lots of things that I can criticize about MO mechanics, thievery, magic system etc. Again the problem is the way you state the problems. Just read your sentence above, the game is not in a state you're claiming there. There are bads and goods about MO, if you want to talk about them, state the problems. Of course you can write whatever you like, but using strong words and adding "what a joke" kind of statements in the end just makes you appear like a hater, not an unbiased commenter or someone looking for informing people.
The Author should have continued with his Survival Guy impression series, since he is beiased enough to not be able to professionally review the game.
To me, a 7 is a solid playable game, not this pay to play beta. MMORPG gave Darkfall a 6, a game which got more content and less bugs then MO, so I really do call bias here.
Who's biased here, you or the author? It is obvious that you do not like the game and I respect that. Why aren't you respecting others ideas that may have liked the game in opposition to your superior ideas?
I respect his opinion, but also state mine that I think his review should be done in a more neutral way. I see nothing wrong with expressing my disagreement with the author.
I would be OK about that comment if you haven't said "The Author should have continued with his Survival Guy impression series, since he is beiased enough to not be able to professionally review the game.". Again these kind of statements makes you a hater, not an informer.
That someone prefers skillcap and FPV is a personal preference and should not affect score.
Is it not? You may thing that 3rd person view is essential for a MMORPG, and I do not. So what? Why should I accept you as an authority there?
A right score would be something of 5.5-5.9, considering the "potential", and I am being generous here.
If you want to give rating to games, apply for a job in MMORPG and start doing your job. Again that's your idea only, stop assuming yourself as an authority.
Welcome to the internet man, if you post something be ready for someone to disagree and voice his own opinion. I am not assuming anything, but just voice my own opinion. Are you trying to silent me simply because I disagree with the author? Are you trying to say that I either should agree with him or be quiet? I don't think that is how forums work..
Of course you can say whatever you want to say, you can disagree with me, with an author etc. The problem is the way you are personally attacking and trying to destroy everything comes on your way. Read your statement to find out the problem the way you write above. If you start saying that author should do this or that, than it is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with someone, it is about winning a discussion, by whatever means it requires.
And that is why they introduced "quests", eh? The sandbox tag is by no means an excuse for the lack of content.
Quest system is not a must for content. There are lots of things that can be added (and should be IMO) to MO for sure, but lacking quests are not an issue for a game like MO. It is for WoW kind of games.
While I do agree that quests are not a must for content, I do think that quests are a great tool to entertain the player who is bored of other features disregarding if a game is a sandbox or not.
OK to that, still the way you write things down, I find the attitude very interesting.
A good game will provide you with both. Not to mention that MO lacks any kind of sandbox tools. Could you mention to me three mechanics that don't have a clear use but can be adjusted to the situation and used in different means?
I will give you an example of a sandbox tool as I see it. Most basic one, to get the ideas across. A grappling hook. You can use it to climb walls, pull your enemy towards you, snare someone from running away, use it to reach new places, use it to transport something heavy up the walls. That is a sandbox tool, which can be used in many different ways, assisting players in creation of their own content.
Now, could you please name any tools like that in MO?
I agree that MO lacks lots of tools that can improve sandbox features in MO. That's one of the reasons MO is not getting 10 probably?
I dont think there is a sandbox there to begin with, it is a PvP game. Same goes for DF if I am to be honest, even thou they do improve it lately. Lack of sandbox tools is probably not the reason for a lower score, since even a PvP game with no sandbox tools can be a good game.
We can discuss what a sandbox is, what defines a sandbox experience etc. I also find lots of things missing about MO on that aspect also, and the way you explain thing on this part, no objection, I can object to this or that there, or add new ones even. No objection to how you write things down on that part of your post. I am just writing this so that you can get an idea what I am uncomfortable about posts like yours
Been around since beta, havent played at all since then and tried my 7 free days, and what a change! The visuals were truly great in comparison, and it all seems to work right now. Some glitches, but nothing that was bothering me at all!
"Now I must state that I do not like to judge an MMORPG on its launch and by how bug-ridden it is at any point. The very advantage of this beautiful genre is that the developer toils and slaves over their projects like none of their game studio peers; we pay a subscription fee and we, eventually, get a polished product – sometimes it just takes a little time."
I stopped reading after this little innane quip. It's this sort of enabling attitude that causes studios to deliver us craptastic games. Nobody gives a fly's ass how much work the devs put in, or how much they're 'slaving' over their projects. When you go to a movie, and it's gawd awful, do you give it a pass because the producer ran out of money in post-production, or that the directer couldn't get the actors he really wanted so had to settle for a bunch of commercial has-beens.
K let me make it clear to everyone about these dvds. Since some are trying to use that as a way to discredit the devs so here are the facts.
1. There were originally no boxed copies planned for mo or special edition. However to to the constant requests from the fan base at large who were wanting to pay extra to help support the devs and their game they decided to offer a boxed copy. Also 999 limited editions copies which were practically non profitable.
2. Part of the deal with these boxed copies was that future versions of the game would be sent out on discs throughout the life of MO. Probably after major expansions etc (which are free to all)
3.On release a large portion of the community were demanding there dvd discs. Esentially wanting them regardless of the fact the release was a mess and the disc would be outdated extrmeely quickly afterall patches were every 2 weeks and large in size. Discs were sent and recieved.
4.After first few weeks the game could no longer be installed from the discs becasue suprisingly the version wasnt the same and the whole patching process had changed.
5.A few weeks later the game can now be installed using the original discs. All this time those who owned the discs were still able to download the game through the site so they could still play fine. But now the discs work with the patches all is good.
6.New discs will likely be sent out when some major changes and conant have been added. wanting a new disc every few months isnt what the devs were planning. Think of it like this you buy eve. Then recieve a new disc for each major expansion like tyrannis and not for each patch.
So people please stop going on about these discs they work you can insdtall the game, it was shitty you couldnt use the discs for the first month but you could still paly by downloading it through the site.
Sorry but once again you have basic FACTS wrong.
1. True (Well.. except for the last part as I have no evidence to support or deny that the Loot Bags were "practically non-profitable")
2. Incorrect. The game advertised "all pre-launch updates freely shipped on DVD". All post launch updates and expansions as you describe were to be freely available in DIGITAL form. Here is the exact description from their website which proves this.
EUR 43.95
(incl. VAT EUR 0.00)
Embossed Metal Box
All pre-launch updates freely shipped on DVD
Digital Download
Free future digital updates and expansions
Includes one month's game time
Includes shipping fee
3. Not fully true. The discs were originally sent out in January. They did not work and were unable to be patched when received because SV changed their engine. SV's patcher will now recognize the disc and automatically do a full digital download (which defeats the purpose of a DVD). At the time.. customers were PROMISED by SV that they would receive updated DVDs AT LAUNCH. Here is the very announcement from the CM http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/45492-boxed-version-mo-rewards.html Which was later confirmed in a PM posted here http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/51203-opt-patch-dvd-any-updates.html#post1056127
4. Again incorrect.. the DVDs never installed, as described above. They were received in January (game didn't release until June!) and did not work the very day they were received. Since then they made it so that the old DVD would do a full and complete digital download of the game. To the best of my knowledge, at no time has anyone actually received a DVD that installed a client... which was promised by the CM to be delivered AT RELEASE... which was 6 months ago.
5. See above
6. Misleading statement. Noone wants new discs every 6 months. People simple wanted what they paid for and was advertised (and STILL is).. and that was "All pre-launch updates freely shipped on DVD". Which clearly did not happen.
So those are the FACTS.. all verifiable via their website and/or forum. This isn't a matter of why people want or need DVDs in this day and age when you can download a game. It's the idea that a company promised something, charged you extra for it, didn't deliver, and ignored requests for updates. Other than the PM linked.. as far as I know SV has not made a single public statement since launch about the DVDs that were promised to be sent at launch. It's now 6 months late... no DVD.. and no word form the company.
Anyhow.. this isn't a DVD thread it's a review thread. The DVD stuff was just tossed out there as one objection to the reviewer's statement that the developers had the community's best interests at heart.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I am an old-school MMORPG player but I dont see why I must feel obliged to support it. It is a bug ridden, unstable, amaterusticly created mess with complete lack of content (no, sandbox does not equal zero content). And now 6 months after release those issues are still there.
Also what has forced FPS style combat have anything to do with old school MMORPGs? UO did not have it, nor did EQ or Asherons Call. I for one hate it as it makes combat like a poorly made Quake mod.
So no, I am a fanatic supporter of old school MMORPGs but that does not mean that I will support whatever crap is thrown at us. It should not need to be said but we want well done, stable MMORPGs with content supported by a team that has the expertise to develop it. And after 6 months I dont feel Mortal Online and StarVault fits into that. So I dont recommend this game to anyone, old school or not.
However I do think Darkfall, as it is now, is an OK game if you like old school MMORPGs. Maybe Mortal Online will be at that stage some day, but today it is clearly not.
Shrug.. I can't really claim I am unbiased either to behonest, since I do dislike SV and the way they handle their community and the design of the game. With that being said, I don't really have anything MO as the game and believe my attitude to it is neutral enough to discuss it. It can be good fun and it's not that bad of a game if you are ready to ignore the bugs, bad patches, and slow paces content. But majority of the players are used to a kind of "standard" when it comes to MMOs, and MO is way below it. There is no need to call me out on what a standard is, since it is a rather vague term, but I believe we both know what I mean by it.
But I think that such bugs as players being teleported to a lake when their horse dies being detected by QA is a part of a sandard for a released game.
As for my attitude.. Well, sorry that the manner I post in makes you think of me as a hater, but that's the way I type. I don't want to put SV in positive light when I write about them (since as I stated above, I dislike the company), which probably reflects on me chosing to write a bit more negative rather then writing something positive I didn't intend to. We can argue a lot about my english, but I used "even" to put emphasis on that they didn't sort the most basic stuff such as working DVD.
Been around since beta, havent played at all since then and tried my 7 free days, and what a change! The visuals were truly great in comparison, and it all seems to work right now. Some glitches, but nothing that was bothering me at all!
Keep up the good work! You got me subbing again!
So you being ported to a lake when your horse dies is not a bother? I would then question your standards when it comes to games.. Some people seems to be able to take a lot of crap just to play a game with FPV and no target. I dont question that the game might be fun, but stating taht "all seems to be working right, nothing taht bothers me" is ridiculous.
I have never, in my life, contacted my credit card company to receive a refund for ANYTHING I've ever purchased. Until MO. I have never seen a company take the credit card information you used to purchase the game and automatically enroll you into a subscription one year later on that same credit card, without your permission.
I take it you didn't read the e-mail they sent out telling everyone that had purchased the game that it was about to go live, and how to cancel the subscription.
I think the score is rightly deserved. Any who argue that it should've gotten a much lower score likely aren't scoring each aspect as it should be. The game's models look great, therefore it scores high. The game's world is vast and populated, therefore it scores well. The combat, albeit slow and not quite complete, is immersive and entertaining, warranting a decent score. The bugs are what drags the score down, the incomplete nature of the game, and so on and so forth.
I look at 6.9 and think it a fair score; the game isn't broken, but it isn't fully functional. However, what IS there is mostly entertaining, and in such a manner that very few games have--or do--provide. To give it a score such as 1.9 would be to deny the fact that it is indeed fun when it plays as it should. 1.9 says that it's a terrible game that has absolutely no good or redeeming qualities and that barely anyone actually likes the game. MO does still have a player-base and players who enjoy the game, so this cannot be true.
Anyhow, I think potential a good thing; any game without potential, regardless of how good, shows that it has hit its peak. The game likely cannot--and will not--improve any more, and this is not something an MMO should be, it is not something a game should be. Sure, potential shouldn't factor in to the score, but it certainly shouldn't go without mention; we watch trailers and videos of gameplay and think "This game has potential. I may potentially enjoy this game". Should not a review point out that the game in question has such a potential? Mind you, it is different to say that the game HAD potential, meaning all hope for improvement is gone, which is not the case of Mortal Online.
Rightly deserved based on what? Aren't scoring each aspect of what? That's my point - mmorpg.com reviews don't follow any published standard for choosing their scores. There's nothing in the article that states each aspect was scored X resulting in the averaged overall score of 6.9. All we have to go by is written word, which is extremely harsh of the game--as it exists today--but glows with admiration for future potential (something that shouldn't factor into the overall rating, unless it's a specific metric published alongside X other scoring meters).
"I look at 6.9 and think it a fair score; the game isn't broken, but it isn't fully functional" - the problem with that statement is that it isn't what 6.9 means, according to mmorpg.com. A "mediocre" score of 6.9 means a game "has a few stand-out features with few, if any, glaring detractors". That's what it says when you mouse over the score. The problem is that the score and it's definition are contrary to the authors own review, in which he states the game is: "woefully unfinished", "Star Vault's creation is riddled with bugs, glitches, errors, misjudgements and everything in-between", "riddled to the core with bugs", "buggy as hell", "the game falls flat in many directions", and "this game is nearer to state of closed-beta than retail release". I would consider all of those to be glaring detractors to the game's quality. As such, the score doesn't match the review. Potential and bias towards the genre clearly skewed the score higher regardless of the harsh criticism. I'd be perfectly happy if it didn't have any score attached to it. The problem I have is with the score itself. It just doesn't match the review.
Look out. Giving Mortal Online anything less than an 8 will result in SV contacting you for "vandalizing" their game. You'll be recieving their bully attempts soon.
Comments
provided you know what MO is and what its all about i see no reason for people to feel they were cheated when buying the game. I enjoy it alot and after UO is the Second mmo i have played for aronud a year. Im not usually one of those players who stick with an mmo becasue they usually fill me with disapointmnet MO hasnt done that. frustrations yes but never disapointment.
Im also not a player who chooses his next game on how polished it is. I would sooner go for inovation with bugs over imitation with polish. If i wanted to play WOW i would i woulndt play one of its many imitiators. MO offers something different.
there are 2 types of mmo, imitators and innovaters.
Wow, a really well done review. I never expected this from mmorpg.com
I agree 100% and frankly am amazed such a flawed approach to rating a game was accepted by this site. Having played MO, I'd give it a 1.9 and any potential I see based upon the track record of SV reads of failure. If I factored my expectations of what the developer can deliver I'd give it a minus, remove it from my mind and give the money to unicef.
"Lately it occurs to me,
what a long, strange trip it's been". -Hunter
if all ppl who comment this will play MO the population will go up 25%
:D:D
BestSigEver :P
I think the score is rightly deserved. Any who argue that it should've gotten a much lower score likely aren't scoring each aspect as it should be. The game's models look great, therefore it scores high. The game's world is vast and populated, therefore it scores well. The combat, albeit slow and not quite complete, is immersive and entertaining, warranting a decent score. The bugs are what drags the score down, the incomplete nature of the game, and so on and so forth.
I look at 6.9 and think it a fair score; the game isn't broken, but it isn't fully functional. However, what IS there is mostly entertaining, and in such a manner that very few games have--or do--provide. To give it a score such as 1.9 would be to deny the fact that it is indeed fun when it plays as it should. 1.9 says that it's a terrible game that has absolutely no good or redeeming qualities and that barely anyone actually likes the game. MO does still have a player-base and players who enjoy the game, so this cannot be true.
Anyhow, I think potential a good thing; any game without potential, regardless of how good, shows that it has hit its peak. The game likely cannot--and will not--improve any more, and this is not something an MMO should be, it is not something a game should be. Sure, potential shouldn't factor in to the score, but it certainly shouldn't go without mention; we watch trailers and videos of gameplay and think "This game has potential. I may potentially enjoy this game". Should not a review point out that the game in question has such a potential? Mind you, it is different to say that the game HAD potential, meaning all hope for improvement is gone, which is not the case of Mortal Online.
Good review. I agree with this:
"Regardless of the bugs and slight unfinished feel, Mortal Online is supremely enjoyable. There are enough developed class-types to keep you occupied while more updates roll out and the game is more than stable enough to play."
MO is a really good game even thou the bugs. Looking forward to the coming PvE and Social patches the coming weeks.
I will be blunt. The author to me seems to be another old school veteran who jizzes in his pants as soon someone mentions UO 3D. I by no means want to insult the author, but I felt that would describe the vibes I get from the review best. So I toss it out: biased, least to say.
Almost half of the review is about potential, which I am sick to hear about at this point, it been tossed around since the very first beta. Professionals should not score the games based on their potential, psecially half a year after the release. Another half of the review is about games ideals an ideas, I found almost nothing on the actual gameplay and content. Why? Because there is no, and the great lack of PvE content alone should have heavily impacted the score.
Once again, potential doesn't cut it. SV are least to say amateurish in every decision they make, one would have though that by now they would have learnt how to ship their patches to avoid critical and obvious bugs, but no. A player found EIGHT bugs in the new patch, and that in just 5 minutes of normal gameplay. That is inexcusable, specially after Henrik stated they made a strict control over shipped patches after their GaulKor fail.
SV havn't even shipped the promised after launch DVDs to those who bought the boxes, and that is half a year after the games release. Bad design decisions and poorly implemented features can be seen everywhere in this game, and you give it 6.9? What a joke. The Author should have continued with his Survival Guy impression series, since he is beiased enough to not be able to professionally review the game.
To me, a 7 is a solid playable game, not this pay to play beta. MMORPG gave Darkfall a 6, a game which got more content and less bugs then MO, so I really do call bias here. That someone prefers skillcap and FPV is a personal preference and should not affect score. A right score would be something of 5.5-5.9, considering the "potential", and I am being generous here.
And that is why they introduced "quests", eh? The sandbox tag is by no means an excuse for the lack of content. A good game will provide you with both. Not to mention that MO lacks any kind of sandbox tools. Could you mention to me three mechanics that don't have a clear use but can be adjusted to the situation and used in different means?
I will give you an example of a sandbox tool as I see it. Most basic one, to get the ideas across. A grappling hook. You can use it to climb walls, pull your enemy towards you, snare someone from running away, use it to reach new places, use it to transport something heavy up the walls. That is a sandbox tool, which can be used in many different ways, assisting players in creation of their own content.
Now, could you please name any tools like that in MO?
Thankyou for the dose of sanity Toferio! Thankyou very much indeed!
how is wanting a 3d version of uo a bad thing? uo was one of the great mmos and without it its doubtful mmos would have even become popular. UO EQ WOW EVE there the main ones right there.
Also those quests you speak for were planned from the start they are i beleive even mentioned in the powerpoint presentation. Still though they work very differently to quests you find in a typicl mmo mainly because you are told about them but have no actual quest to do. you can bring the items to that particular vendor or to any vendor. The tasks are for new players to find inofrmation ingame on how to make money that is all. Later they hope to bring tasks that are for veterans which involve alot more but of course we need to wiat and see.
Its a fair review dont listen to the haters simply visit the forums and read whats written on there it gives a better understanding of whats happening.
there are 2 types of mmo, imitators and innovaters.
I did not say it is a bad thing, did I? I did however say that I believe his wish for a 3D UO heavily impacted his review, resulting in a bit biased outcome.
I see no difference. A quest is a quest, with or without an entry in your quest log to help you keeping track of the objective. The concept and the result remains the same, even if you twist the mechanic around a bit. Then again, I am not against quests, I am just pointing out that the "make your own fun" doesn't hold in longer terms, specially for new players.
I think you know as well as I that MO forums are heavily moderated, resulting in majority of negative opinions about the game being deleted. There is no need to link me few posts which dodged the censor, I know what I am talking about.
I aggree. If you seek immersion, this is a very good way to achieve it. Traveling blindly is not exciting to me, but traveling blindly knowing that you can mark your tracks and make your own map is cerainly appealing.
Work hard Play Harder
Great review, spot on imo!
Been around since beta, havent played at all since then and tried my 7 free days, and what a change! The visuals were truly great in comparison, and it all seems to work right now. Some glitches, but nothing that was bothering me at all!
Keep up the good work! You got me subbing again!
Yeah, wmada2k I guess YOU would say that.
"Now I must state that I do not like to judge an MMORPG on its launch and by how bug-ridden it is at any point. The very advantage of this beautiful genre is that the developer toils and slaves over their projects like none of their game studio peers; we pay a subscription fee and we, eventually, get a polished product – sometimes it just takes a little time."
I stopped reading after this little innane quip. It's this sort of enabling attitude that causes studios to deliver us craptastic games. Nobody gives a fly's ass how much work the devs put in, or how much they're 'slaving' over their projects. When you go to a movie, and it's gawd awful, do you give it a pass because the producer ran out of money in post-production, or that the directer couldn't get the actors he really wanted so had to settle for a bunch of commercial has-beens.
Yeah, I thought not...
Sorry but once again you have basic FACTS wrong.
1. True (Well.. except for the last part as I have no evidence to support or deny that the Loot Bags were "practically non-profitable")
2. Incorrect. The game advertised "all pre-launch updates freely shipped on DVD". All post launch updates and expansions as you describe were to be freely available in DIGITAL form. Here is the exact description from their website which proves this.
EUR 43.95
(incl. VAT EUR 0.00)
Embossed Metal Box
All pre-launch updates freely shipped on DVD
Digital Download
Free future digital updates and expansions
Includes one month's game time
Includes shipping fee
3. Not fully true. The discs were originally sent out in January. They did not work and were unable to be patched when received because SV changed their engine. SV's patcher will now recognize the disc and automatically do a full digital download (which defeats the purpose of a DVD). At the time.. customers were PROMISED by SV that they would receive updated DVDs AT LAUNCH. Here is the very announcement from the CM http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/45492-boxed-version-mo-rewards.html Which was later confirmed in a PM posted here http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/51203-opt-patch-dvd-any-updates.html#post1056127
4. Again incorrect.. the DVDs never installed, as described above. They were received in January (game didn't release until June!) and did not work the very day they were received. Since then they made it so that the old DVD would do a full and complete digital download of the game. To the best of my knowledge, at no time has anyone actually received a DVD that installed a client... which was promised by the CM to be delivered AT RELEASE... which was 6 months ago.
5. See above
6. Misleading statement. Noone wants new discs every 6 months. People simple wanted what they paid for and was advertised (and STILL is).. and that was "All pre-launch updates freely shipped on DVD". Which clearly did not happen.
So those are the FACTS.. all verifiable via their website and/or forum. This isn't a matter of why people want or need DVDs in this day and age when you can download a game. It's the idea that a company promised something, charged you extra for it, didn't deliver, and ignored requests for updates. Other than the PM linked.. as far as I know SV has not made a single public statement since launch about the DVDs that were promised to be sent at launch. It's now 6 months late... no DVD.. and no word form the company.
Anyhow.. this isn't a DVD thread it's a review thread. The DVD stuff was just tossed out there as one objection to the reviewer's statement that the developers had the community's best interests at heart.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I am an old-school MMORPG player but I dont see why I must feel obliged to support it. It is a bug ridden, unstable, amaterusticly created mess with complete lack of content (no, sandbox does not equal zero content). And now 6 months after release those issues are still there.
Also what has forced FPS style combat have anything to do with old school MMORPGs? UO did not have it, nor did EQ or Asherons Call. I for one hate it as it makes combat like a poorly made Quake mod.
So no, I am a fanatic supporter of old school MMORPGs but that does not mean that I will support whatever crap is thrown at us. It should not need to be said but we want well done, stable MMORPGs with content supported by a team that has the expertise to develop it. And after 6 months I dont feel Mortal Online and StarVault fits into that. So I dont recommend this game to anyone, old school or not.
However I do think Darkfall, as it is now, is an OK game if you like old school MMORPGs. Maybe Mortal Online will be at that stage some day, but today it is clearly not.
My gaming blog
Shrug.. I can't really claim I am unbiased either to behonest, since I do dislike SV and the way they handle their community and the design of the game. With that being said, I don't really have anything MO as the game and believe my attitude to it is neutral enough to discuss it. It can be good fun and it's not that bad of a game if you are ready to ignore the bugs, bad patches, and slow paces content. But majority of the players are used to a kind of "standard" when it comes to MMOs, and MO is way below it. There is no need to call me out on what a standard is, since it is a rather vague term, but I believe we both know what I mean by it.
But I think that such bugs as players being teleported to a lake when their horse dies being detected by QA is a part of a sandard for a released game.
As for my attitude.. Well, sorry that the manner I post in makes you think of me as a hater, but that's the way I type. I don't want to put SV in positive light when I write about them (since as I stated above, I dislike the company), which probably reflects on me chosing to write a bit more negative rather then writing something positive I didn't intend to. We can argue a lot about my english, but I used "even" to put emphasis on that they didn't sort the most basic stuff such as working DVD.
Yes, why wouldn't I?
So you being ported to a lake when your horse dies is not a bother? I would then question your standards when it comes to games.. Some people seems to be able to take a lot of crap just to play a game with FPV and no target. I dont question that the game might be fun, but stating taht "all seems to be working right, nothing taht bothers me" is ridiculous.
I guess this sums it up:
http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/55869-glad-see-reasons-i-left-got-fixed.html
I think we need another review (preferably from the same reviewer) in 6 months.
I take it you didn't read the e-mail they sent out telling everyone that had purchased the game that it was about to go live, and how to cancel the subscription.
Rightly deserved based on what? Aren't scoring each aspect of what? That's my point - mmorpg.com reviews don't follow any published standard for choosing their scores. There's nothing in the article that states each aspect was scored X resulting in the averaged overall score of 6.9. All we have to go by is written word, which is extremely harsh of the game--as it exists today--but glows with admiration for future potential (something that shouldn't factor into the overall rating, unless it's a specific metric published alongside X other scoring meters).
"I look at 6.9 and think it a fair score; the game isn't broken, but it isn't fully functional" - the problem with that statement is that it isn't what 6.9 means, according to mmorpg.com. A "mediocre" score of 6.9 means a game "has a few stand-out features with few, if any, glaring detractors". That's what it says when you mouse over the score. The problem is that the score and it's definition are contrary to the authors own review, in which he states the game is: "woefully unfinished", "Star Vault's creation is riddled with bugs, glitches, errors, misjudgements and everything in-between", "riddled to the core with bugs", "buggy as hell", "the game falls flat in many directions", and "this game is nearer to state of closed-beta than retail release". I would consider all of those to be glaring detractors to the game's quality. As such, the score doesn't match the review. Potential and bias towards the genre clearly skewed the score higher regardless of the harsh criticism. I'd be perfectly happy if it didn't have any score attached to it. The problem I have is with the score itself. It just doesn't match the review.
~Ripper
Incorrect, sir. There was no such commentary on the review by Seraohina over at massively http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/09/02/anti-aliased-i-can-finally-stop-playing-mortal-online-now/. From your use of the word "vandalizing" I take it you are commenting on the wiki article in which case I will point out that "vandalism" was in fact wrong, but the comments were taken out for being biased and unsourced as well as the account adding that being banned http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mortal_Online&action=history