I hope my character gets to be the best character in the game and the only one people can relate to and respec only to be executed by some asshoIe kid.
I hope my character gets to be the best character in the game and the only one people can relate to and respec only to be executed by some asshoIe kid.
ROFL, your dreams might just come true if you play an MMO version.
With cash shop influence and especially with bigpoint cash shop I cannot see any sandbox being good.
That just me though.
Personally I'm more worried about supporting sub-genre's I want to see more of rather than boycotting an inevitable downside of the F2P genre.
Sure. Your choice.
For me playing microtransaction based sandbox actually contraddicts why I like to play sandboxes in first place ,so I prefer to not play sandbox at all then to play with cash shop.
I am not denying this to noone else so I really seriously hope you'll have fun playing.
Unfortunatly it seems that once again that sandbox has to mean open world PvP. Now granted that they have not said this will be the case at this early stage, but this usually means that you are always PvP flagged. The reality is that not every player likes to PvP, and there are players who like PvP but not open world PvP.
It is funny how these open world pvp games keep coming and how they keep achieving mediocre success at best. The reason always seems to be "blah blah broken game system" or "blah blah game wasn't ready to launch". Can all of these gams just be that terrible? Or could it be that sandbox with forced open world PvP is not the recepie for success that a loud vocal minority would like everyone to believe?
+1 Sandboxers love to blame everything except the possibility that a sandbox game could ever be popular in the first place. The only formula that I could see possibly breaking the suckage barrier would be a sandpark game, but I'm sure the purists would whine about that as well.
Why would you even want a sandbox MMO where you can't attack other players? Not trying to be sarcastic, just understand. If your only interest in is PvE, don't theme park MMOs already do that so much better?
The idea of a sandbox has always been a world that's player-made, player-driven. I think that's why UO lost its appeal for so many when they split the world into Trammel/Feluccia. It didn't really become a sandbox so much as a kittypool, where you fight monsters that are so easy that you could pretty much faceroll the hardest things in the game.
I'll do my best to offer an explanation
I never played UO, so I cannot comment. The first MMO that I played was Star Wars Galaxies. Before the game changed, it was very much a sandbox game. PvP was something that you could opt into, so you had the choice of you wanted to be engaged in open world PvP or not. I found PLENTY to do in that game that did not involve attacking other players. I spent a lot of time gathering resoirces to help out our group's crafters, leveling, going to the numerous player made shops and shopping 9you had to go to a shop, there wasn't a global AH at that time!), I could decorate my house and I ended up as mayor of our player city and managed city design. I have not had a game since where I can log in and play for hours every day and still maintain my interest level. The sandbox elements made the game world feel alive and vibrant, and I felt like I was part of a "real" breathing world.
So as a player, I enjoyed those sandbox elements. Most PvE/themepark games do not have those elements. They are very achievement based. it is about checking off quests in a quest log, beating bosses, getting this piece of loot, etc. These games usually do not have the depth that sandbox games have. I most certainly have yet to find one with all of the elements that SWG had at the beginning.
Now by playstyle preference I don't care for PvP. I don't want to be someone's "content", nor do I want them to be mine. I am more interested in cooperation than conflict. And that is where things get noncongruent, I like sandbox elements but not PvP. I don't mind if PvP is in a game, I just want to be able to choose if I want to participate or not.
Sandbox does not mean open world pvp. Some sand box games do not have combat at all, some offer the choice to be flagged or not, some offer limited pvp in areas, and some are full open world pvp. Themeparks also have full pvp content so it just isnt a sandbox "feature" and i wish people would stop labeling sandbox with the full open world pvp misconception. Its not true for all sandboxes as it is true that not all themeparks are for the safe casual players with no pvp.
Sandbox is more about freedom, choice, openess, and the the option of making your own content instead of waiting for game companies to add it. Often having many social features, housing, crafting (good crafting), exploration, risk vs reward, have to use your braind, arent told where to go and when to go, and so many other important features that all mmorpg's should have.
I have played many sandbox games, to me they are the best thing, and not all had open world pvp. But all had more features than 90% of these limiting newer games they call epic mmo's that are released in todays age.
Browser based game - I lost all interest the moment I read that. I am not sure why MMORPG writes articles that cover how games like this will "shock you with epicness." It will be a very shallow browser game that capitalizes on name recognition to get you to part with your cash. I suppose MMORPG has to make money though so....
Personally I'm more worried about supporting sub-genre's I want to see more of rather than boycotting an inevitable downside of the F2P genre.
Sure. Your choice.
For me playing microtransaction based sandbox actually contraddicts why I like to play sandboxes in first place ,so I prefer to not play sandbox at all then to play with cash shop.
I am not denying this to noone else so I really seriously hope you'll have fun playing.
Fair enough, I can perfectly understand where you're coming from. Right now I'll just stick my fingers in my ears and pretend I didn't hear the words F2P and bigpoint. LIke I said I'll freely admit I'm a sandbox fanboi, in that I'll give any a chance that seems to be a little deeper than straight FFA PVP and only FFA pvp. With the political nature of the franchise there's a lot of room for interesting mechanics.
On top of all that it's low fantasy it seems, which is my preferred type.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Over 3 years ago i was always fascinated that a dev team would actually make an MMO from this series, and now i 'm so disappointed, because it's going to be a browser based game.
I'm currently playing 2 Bigpoint games; Nadirim and Drakensang Online. Couldn't say for certain but I don't think either of them were actually developed by Bigpoint.
Of the two, Nadirim is browers based and the other has a small download needed to play and frankly the brower based one has much better graphics. I don't use a mobile device either but play both on my home desktop rig.
Yes they both have cash shops, but so does AoC, DDO, WoW and LotRO and while neither of the games I'm playing are total PvP, I will say that you DON'T HAVE to use a cash shop if you don't want to.
As far as GoT goes; I saw part of a show and tried to read the 1st book and frankly couldn't get into it so this isn't a title I'll be playing.
I will say that from what I did get it should be PvP and anyone saying PvE might as well try to convince me that a Civil War game where you're a soldier on either the North or South side should be a PvE game.
I don't do PvP but even I know if you want to play PvE than you go to a PvE game.
Unfortunatly it seems that once again that sandbox has to mean open world PvP. Now granted that they have not said this will be the case at this early stage, but this usually means that you are always PvP flagged. The reality is that not every player likes to PvP, and there are players who like PvP but not open world PvP.
It is funny how these open world pvp games keep coming and how they keep achieving mediocre success at best. The reason always seems to be "blah blah broken game system" or "blah blah game wasn't ready to launch". Can all of these gams just be that terrible? Or could it be that sandbox with forced open world PvP is not the recepie for success that a loud vocal minority would like everyone to believe?
+1 Sandboxers love to blame everything except the possibility that a sandbox game could ever be popular in the first place. The only formula that I could see possibly breaking the suckage barrier would be a sandpark game, but I'm sure the purists would whine about that as well.
Why would you even want a sandbox MMO where you can't attack other players? Not trying to be sarcastic, just understand. If your only interest in is PvE, don't theme park MMOs already do that so much better?
The idea of a sandbox has always been a world that's player-made, player-driven. I think that's why UO lost its appeal for so many when they split the world into Trammel/Feluccia. It didn't really become a sandbox so much as a kittypool, where you fight monsters that are so easy that you could pretty much faceroll the hardest things in the game.
Nice little re-write of history there. Trammel was a result of the mass exodus that was PK'dom. The PKers were driving people away in droves. The game's population actually regrew after Trammel was put in place. PvP isn't bound to one type of play style, but human behavior trumps everything and when you don't have enforceable rules put in place to curtain bad behavior, then you get games that die fast.
Unfortunatly it seems that once again that sandbox has to mean open world PvP. Now granted that they have not said this will be the case at this early stage, but this usually means that you are always PvP flagged. The reality is that not every player likes to PvP, and there are players who like PvP but not open world PvP.
It is funny how these open world pvp games keep coming and how they keep achieving mediocre success at best. The reason always seems to be "blah blah broken game system" or "blah blah game wasn't ready to launch". Can all of these gams just be that terrible? Or could it be that sandbox with forced open world PvP is not the recepie for success that a loud vocal minority would like everyone to believe?
+1 Sandboxers love to blame everything except the possibility that a sandbox game could ever be popular in the first place. The only formula that I could see possibly breaking the suckage barrier would be a sandpark game, but I'm sure the purists would whine about that as well.
Why would you even want a sandbox MMO where you can't attack other players? Not trying to be sarcastic, just understand. If your only interest in is PvE, don't theme park MMOs already do that so much better?
The idea of a sandbox has always been a world that's player-made, player-driven. I think that's why UO lost its appeal for so many when they split the world into Trammel/Feluccia. It didn't really become a sandbox so much as a kittypool, where you fight monsters that are so easy that you could pretty much faceroll the hardest things in the game.
Nice little re-write of history there. Trammel was a result of the mass exodus that was PK'dom. The PKers were driving people away in droves. The game's population actually regrew after Trammel was put in place. PvP isn't bound to one type of play style, but human behavior trumps everything and when you don't have enforceable rules put in place to curtain bad behavior, then you get games that die fast.
Thie first sign that casual non-gamers would be taking over the industry. Dark days for us oldskool real gamers.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Nice little re-write of history there. Trammel was a result of the mass exodus that was PK'dom. The PKers were driving people away in droves. The game's population actually regrew after Trammel was put in place. PvP isn't bound to one type of play style, but human behavior trumps everything and when you don't have enforceable rules put in place to curtain bad behavior, then you get games that die fast.
According to Garriot UO was an experiment, they wanted to see what happens when you make a game like UO was, they never even exepcted it to sell at all, considering that it's no surprise that the game had certain oversights (if they were oversights and not part of the experiment).
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Martin need to get off his ass and get on the next book the winds of winter. He's not getting any younger and hes talking about 2 or 3 years till he starts the next book and talking about adding 1 more book.
He's 63 years old and at his pace the last 2 or 3 books wont be out for a good 10-15 years. dance with dragons was a OK book and a vary bad book for all the time it took him.
Amen. DWD had ben done for years and spent many years more in edits as I understand it.
This game might wind up being incredilbe, but would have done itself a huge favor by steering clear of this IP.
Fans of the books know that Game of Thrones is moreso a footnote or a setup for the landscape and players that the actual story takes place in and around. That being the state of their world in winter while a battle for light and dark ensues.
Lastly, no House Targaryen equals no Game of Thrones.
Indeed! No House Targaryen, no GOT!
No house targaryen equals no $50 fighting dragon mounts.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say the game will not be very good. In my opinion the game is likely being made for the sole purpose of pushing the Game of Thrones IP, meaning they will probably cobble together tried and true methods to create a game based on the Game of Thrones world without any real inovation. Much like SWoTR in which the only "inovation" was the voice acting for every quest in the game. Beyond that the game was kind of stale. In this I expect the only "inovation" will be the guild allegiance system and beyond that the game will be pretty stale.
This opinion is based on nothing more than the article written here with nothing else to back it up except years of following MMO's from announcement to release.
I tend to be a bit gun shy about browser based mmo-rpg concepts. I'll keep an eye on this one though since the faction stuff actually sounds quite appealing to me.
Unfortunatly it seems that once again that sandbox has to mean open world PvP. Now granted that they have not said this will be the case at this early stage, but this usually means that you are always PvP flagged. The reality is that not every player likes to PvP, and there are players who like PvP but not open world PvP.
It is funny how these open world pvp games keep coming and how they keep achieving mediocre success at best. The reason always seems to be "blah blah broken game system" or "blah blah game wasn't ready to launch". Can all of these gams just be that terrible? Or could it be that sandbox with forced open world PvP is not the recepie for success that a loud vocal minority would like everyone to believe?
While I agree with you that sandbox doesn't have to mean pvp game world. In the case of a GoT mmo-rpg, you pretty much have to have open world pvp. At least in my opinion, anything less would be a fluffy lite game world experience. If you are going to play this game, learn to work the social aspect of alliances with other players in order to get anywhere. Why is it wrong for there be many variant mmo-rpgs?
it's truly sad that they keep handing off this wonderful IP to the worst possible game devs every time
even worse, obsidian expressed interest in developing an ice and fire game. they're the only game company I can imagine right now that would really do justice for the series (now with what's happened to EAbioware)
I gotta say as soon as I read " The game will focus heavily on PvP and faction warfare between the three great houses: Stark, Lannister, andBaratheon." it was pretty clear that they will be dumming down the game for their own devices. I would hardly say that those 3 houses would be considered the "Three Great Houses". What about Arryn, Frey, Tyrell (They are very powerful), Martell. Will they all just be alligned to one of those big three?
While it's great that they have 3 "factions", that REALLY oversimplifies Game of Thrones and I suspect they really aren't going to capture the political intrigue that makes the series great.
The game is set in the War of Five Kings, where only the Lannisters, Barratheons and Starks were in active conflict. The Tyrells are aligned to Renly Barratheon at this point and the Freys are aligned with the Starks (for now). The Martells are still biding their time in the desert and the Arryns are hiding away in the Eyrie.
Its the same old story, you speak of the graphics and go all excited over players being able to switch sides and capture castles and keeps as if it's something 'new' or special. You speak of George R.R. Martin being involved in the project as a good thing. Trust me, it's not. He knows nothing about MMORPGs or games for that matter, just look at the Game of Thrones RTS that was released, he admitted as much on his website. Will HBO know? Or Bigpoint for that matter? - I think not.
There is a huge potential in Martin's story to make something truly big and different in a massive multiplayer online roleplaying game, but it will have to involve the word that seems to have been forgotten and watered down across the genre for years now - ROLEPLAYING!
In the books it's not the fighting thats important, it's the talking, the interaction between characters. In other words it is the game OF thrones where the characters use ALL means. It will be sickening to see when they implement quests in a game like this: "Go into the forest and kill ten wolves, kill 10 bandits, gather 15 logs of wood.. ooh how it will capture the spirit of the book and the show! It will be the same stupid stuff you see in -every other MMORPG- out there.
And the politics system? If you already went down the path of traditional WoW like MMORPGs then it will only be a watered down no good system. Developers have tried it before and failed every single time.
If they really want to capture the spirits of the book they should go down another path, but it's a path nobody dares to go because its untested waters. And why should they try to make something good (*cough* with permadeath *cough*) if you can stick with the old WoW model and be sure that the horde of zombies who wander around thinking that a MMORPG is only variations of that theme. It's not a theme park, you'll say. It's a sandbox! It doesnt matter, if the focus is on PVP on the battleground, guilds taking keeps and castles and if all the intrigue of the books and a good environment for -real- roleplay is forgotten, then it will still be the same old story.
Where are the people with true ambitions these days?
Where are the reviewers who wont swoon whenever they hear the words 'PVP', 'sandbox' and 'good graphics'?
And in a browser? Oooh.. We should be soo excited that it's in a browser? Sorry, I'll have to shake my head at that one, sit down and cry, and pray for a better world.
Its the same old story, you speak of the graphics and go all excited over players being able to switch sides and capture castles and keeps as if it's something 'new' or special. You speak of George R.R. Martin being involved in the project as a good thing. Trust me, it's not. He knows nothing about MMORPGs or games for that matter, just look at the Game of Thrones RTS that was released, he admitted as much on his website. Will HBO know? Or Bigpoint for that matter? - I think not.
There is a huge potential in Martin's story to make something truly big and different in a massive multiplayer online roleplaying game, but it will have to involve the word that seems to have been forgotten and watered down across the genre for years now - ROLEPLAYING!
In the books it's not the fighting thats important, it's the talking, the interaction between characters. In other words it is the game OF thrones where the characters use ALL means. It will be sickening to see when they implement quests in a game like this: "Go into the forest and kill ten wolves, kill 10 bandits, gather 15 logs of wood.. ooh how it will capture the spirit of the book and the show! It will be the same stupid stuff you see in -every other MMORPG- out there.
And the politics system? If you already went down the path of traditional WoW like MMORPGs then it will only be a watered down no good system. Developers have tried it before and failed every single time.
If they really want to capture the spirits of the book they should go down another path, but it's a path nobody dares to go because its untested waters. And why should they try to make something good (*cough* with permadeath *cough*) if you can stick with the old WoW model and be sure that the horde of zombies who wander around thinking that a MMORPG is only variations of that theme. It's not a theme park, you'll say. It's a sandbox! It doesnt matter, if the focus is on PVP on the battleground, guilds taking keeps and castles and if all the intrigue of the books and a good environment for -real- roleplay is forgotten, then it will still be the same old story.
Where are the people with true ambitions these days?
Where are the reviewers who wont swoon whenever they hear the words 'PVP', 'sandbox' and 'good graphics'?
And in a browser? Oooh.. We should be soo excited that it's in a browser? Sorry, I'll have to shake my head at that one, sit down and cry, and pray for a better world.
Anyone with true ambition and creativity had that beaten out of them in college.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
Comments
I lost it when I saw Bigpoint.
I hope my character gets to be the best character in the game and the only one people can relate to and respec only to be executed by some asshoIe kid.
ROFL, your dreams might just come true if you play an MMO version.Sure. Your choice.
For me playing microtransaction based sandbox actually contraddicts why I like to play sandboxes in first place ,so I prefer to not play sandbox at all then to play with cash shop.
I am not denying this to noone else so I really seriously hope you'll have fun playing.
Sandbox does not mean open world pvp. Some sand box games do not have combat at all, some offer the choice to be flagged or not, some offer limited pvp in areas, and some are full open world pvp. Themeparks also have full pvp content so it just isnt a sandbox "feature" and i wish people would stop labeling sandbox with the full open world pvp misconception. Its not true for all sandboxes as it is true that not all themeparks are for the safe casual players with no pvp.
Sandbox is more about freedom, choice, openess, and the the option of making your own content instead of waiting for game companies to add it. Often having many social features, housing, crafting (good crafting), exploration, risk vs reward, have to use your braind, arent told where to go and when to go, and so many other important features that all mmorpg's should have.
I have played many sandbox games, to me they are the best thing, and not all had open world pvp. But all had more features than 90% of these limiting newer games they call epic mmo's that are released in todays age.
ok
Browser based game - I lost all interest the moment I read that. I am not sure why MMORPG writes articles that cover how games like this will "shock you with epicness." It will be a very shallow browser game that capitalizes on name recognition to get you to part with your cash. I suppose MMORPG has to make money though so....
Fair enough, I can perfectly understand where you're coming from. Right now I'll just stick my fingers in my ears and pretend I didn't hear the words F2P and bigpoint. LIke I said I'll freely admit I'm a sandbox fanboi, in that I'll give any a chance that seems to be a little deeper than straight FFA PVP and only FFA pvp. With the political nature of the franchise there's a lot of room for interesting mechanics.
On top of all that it's low fantasy it seems, which is my preferred type.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If it's anything like the recent game of thrones SP game it will be the 2nd largest pile of crap this year; the SP game being the 1st.
I don't quite agree, but I LOL'd nonetheless.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Over 3 years ago i was always fascinated that a dev team would actually make an MMO from this series, and now i 'm so disappointed, because it's going to be a browser based game.
I'm currently playing 2 Bigpoint games; Nadirim and Drakensang Online. Couldn't say for certain but I don't think either of them were actually developed by Bigpoint.
Of the two, Nadirim is browers based and the other has a small download needed to play and frankly the brower based one has much better graphics. I don't use a mobile device either but play both on my home desktop rig.
Yes they both have cash shops, but so does AoC, DDO, WoW and LotRO and while neither of the games I'm playing are total PvP, I will say that you DON'T HAVE to use a cash shop if you don't want to.
As far as GoT goes; I saw part of a show and tried to read the 1st book and frankly couldn't get into it so this isn't a title I'll be playing.
I will say that from what I did get it should be PvP and anyone saying PvE might as well try to convince me that a Civil War game where you're a soldier on either the North or South side should be a PvE game.
I don't do PvP but even I know if you want to play PvE than you go to a PvE game.
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
Nice little re-write of history there. Trammel was a result of the mass exodus that was PK'dom. The PKers were driving people away in droves. The game's population actually regrew after Trammel was put in place. PvP isn't bound to one type of play style, but human behavior trumps everything and when you don't have enforceable rules put in place to curtain bad behavior, then you get games that die fast.
Thie first sign that casual non-gamers would be taking over the industry. Dark days for us oldskool real gamers.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"
According to Garriot UO was an experiment, they wanted to see what happens when you make a game like UO was, they never even exepcted it to sell at all, considering that it's no surprise that the game had certain oversights (if they were oversights and not part of the experiment).
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Don't give Bigpoint free ideas.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say the game will not be very good. In my opinion the game is likely being made for the sole purpose of pushing the Game of Thrones IP, meaning they will probably cobble together tried and true methods to create a game based on the Game of Thrones world without any real inovation. Much like SWoTR in which the only "inovation" was the voice acting for every quest in the game. Beyond that the game was kind of stale. In this I expect the only "inovation" will be the guild allegiance system and beyond that the game will be pretty stale.
This opinion is based on nothing more than the article written here with nothing else to back it up except years of following MMO's from announcement to release.
I tend to be a bit gun shy about browser based mmo-rpg concepts. I'll keep an eye on this one though since the faction stuff actually sounds quite appealing to me.
It's browser-based; enough said.
When I saw this post I was excited until I saw the word BROWSER.
:fail:
(\ /) ?
( . .)
c('')('')
While I agree with you that sandbox doesn't have to mean pvp game world. In the case of a GoT mmo-rpg, you pretty much have to have open world pvp. At least in my opinion, anything less would be a fluffy lite game world experience. If you are going to play this game, learn to work the social aspect of alliances with other players in order to get anywhere. Why is it wrong for there be many variant mmo-rpgs?
it's truly sad that they keep handing off this wonderful IP to the worst possible game devs every time
even worse, obsidian expressed interest in developing an ice and fire game. they're the only game company I can imagine right now that would really do justice for the series (now with what's happened to EAbioware)
The game is set in the War of Five Kings, where only the Lannisters, Barratheons and Starks were in active conflict. The Tyrells are aligned to Renly Barratheon at this point and the Freys are aligned with the Starks (for now). The Martells are still biding their time in the desert and the Arryns are hiding away in the Eyrie.
Its the same old story, you speak of the graphics and go all excited over players being able to switch sides and capture castles and keeps as if it's something 'new' or special. You speak of George R.R. Martin being involved in the project as a good thing. Trust me, it's not. He knows nothing about MMORPGs or games for that matter, just look at the Game of Thrones RTS that was released, he admitted as much on his website. Will HBO know? Or Bigpoint for that matter? - I think not.
There is a huge potential in Martin's story to make something truly big and different in a massive multiplayer online roleplaying game, but it will have to involve the word that seems to have been forgotten and watered down across the genre for years now - ROLEPLAYING!
In the books it's not the fighting thats important, it's the talking, the interaction between characters. In other words it is the game OF thrones where the characters use ALL means. It will be sickening to see when they implement quests in a game like this: "Go into the forest and kill ten wolves, kill 10 bandits, gather 15 logs of wood.. ooh how it will capture the spirit of the book and the show! It will be the same stupid stuff you see in -every other MMORPG- out there.
And the politics system? If you already went down the path of traditional WoW like MMORPGs then it will only be a watered down no good system. Developers have tried it before and failed every single time.
If they really want to capture the spirits of the book they should go down another path, but it's a path nobody dares to go because its untested waters. And why should they try to make something good (*cough* with permadeath *cough*) if you can stick with the old WoW model and be sure that the horde of zombies who wander around thinking that a MMORPG is only variations of that theme. It's not a theme park, you'll say. It's a sandbox! It doesnt matter, if the focus is on PVP on the battleground, guilds taking keeps and castles and if all the intrigue of the books and a good environment for -real- roleplay is forgotten, then it will still be the same old story.
Where are the people with true ambitions these days?
Where are the reviewers who wont swoon whenever they hear the words 'PVP', 'sandbox' and 'good graphics'?
And in a browser? Oooh.. We should be soo excited that it's in a browser? Sorry, I'll have to shake my head at that one, sit down and cry, and pray for a better world.
Anyone with true ambition and creativity had that beaten out of them in college.
"I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"