I was fortunate enough to have been broke during AO's launch and had to wait a month before getting the game.
WOW though I had preordered and it arrived day one.
After trying for 2-3 days to get it installed and finally making it work by ripping it off a friend's hard drive I soon joined the World of Queuecraft.
Originally posted by Gorwe Believe me or not, neither of those two. Rather, it's WoW. It had almost unplayable launch coupled with bugs, glitches, lag, ... It's funny how nobody remembers this part of WoW.
I wasn't there for VG or WAR's launch, but what I read about I wouldn't say that either of them was spectacularly bad. One was not optimised(VG) while the other was rushed out(but it worked). No biggie.
Now, there are other, huge fails such as FF XIV, AoC, DnL, AO. Compared to those, the launch of both WAR and VG was as smooth as butter.
i remember the elevator in thousend needles seeing all those corpses who felt through the platform and dropped dead hehe.
Originally posted by Gorwe Believe me or not, neither of those two. Rather, it's WoW. It had almost unplayable launch coupled with bugs, glitches, lag, ... It's funny how nobody remembers this part of WoW.
I wasn't there for VG or WAR's launch, but what I read about I wouldn't say that either of them was spectacularly bad. One was not optimised(VG) while the other was rushed out(but it worked). No biggie.
Now, there are other, huge fails such as FF XIV, AoC, DnL, AO. Compared to those, the launch of both WAR and VG was as smooth as butter.
I sure do remember wows launch and I remember sitting in Que 45 minutes - 2 hours to play almost every night. Months after the initial launch.
STO was bad in the fact that they launched with almost no content.
I really think Warhammers issue wasn't so much its bad launch. Its launch in terms of bugs and stuff wasn't that bad for the first part of the game. Till you got to the terrible game killer of an "End Game" that was the city sieges. Taking what many considered to be the coolest sounding part of a pvp game and turning it into a pve encounter- Check. Make this said encounter so bugged that it was considered impossible to complete especially in its launch state- Check.
In fact I think it set the standard by which horrible launches are currently measured.
^This
I was there for this one. Beta was a train wreck. So many bugs and crashes. What made this one so bad was that the game really had a LOT of potential. Everyone wanted it to be a great game and it just...wasn't(at launch). It took them a year or two to get this game to a good state
The AO release was the concrete model of what can go wrong when a MMO isn't ready for release from a technical standpoint.
This article is quite amusing. The following quote is rather relevant to those here that want EQ Next to be exactly like EQ pre Kunark:
Anarchy Online borrows a theme from Everquest, requiring players to run around and kill things over and over and over until they go up a level, at which point they move to a new location and kill slightly different things over and over until they go up another level. This is done so players become more "powerful" and look "cooler" to the roving packs of "14-year olds" who play the game while "masturbating" to the "Home Depot catalogue" in "their" parents' "attic." FunCom, realizing that Everquest players became addicted to watching their various stats slowly rise over a period of nine decades, decided to put even more upgradable stats in their game, thereby making it logically better.
Well I played EQ1 at launch and it was near unplayable with constant server crashes for a while after launch, though I'll give it a pass because late 90s infrastructure was poor compared to today and they had no idea how successful it was going to end up being. I remember them talking about that their internet provider simply was not ready for anywhere near the amount of bandwidth they were consuming.
More modern games I'd probably have to go with Vanguard.
WoW had a somewhat rough launch also, but again, I think a lot of it was far more players trying to access the servers than they were anticipating.
For smooth launches, I'd have to say RIFT and SW:TOR both had pretty smooth launches.
Originally posted by kruler Mortal Online, launched what 2 years ago? And is still trying to launch, they have tried every trick in the book to launch, but now its down to either a priest or a necromancer to get that dead heap of game to fly again.
yes, this is the game - because not only was it's launch bad, it is still bad. They are trying to greenlight it on steam - not sure how that is working for them.
I will put World War II Online above Anarchy Online for bad launches. When WWII Online launched if you could make it onto the server it was nothing more than a slide show. Which for a MMOFPS made the game completely unplayable.
At least with Anarchy Online you could play the game for 15 minutes or so before memory leaks forced you to restart your computer.
As far as Warhammer having a bad launch, most of my guild played at launch and I do not remember myself or anyone else having any major problems that made the game unplayable.
In fact I think it set the standard by which horrible launches are currently measured.
^ Right there. SWG was pretty rocky too.
Kids these days have no idea what a "Bad launch" is. Waiting hours in line does not equal a bad launch. Waiting hours to get through the authentication server only to discover that the world server is down / crashing every 8 minutes is a bad launch.
i am a huge Vanguard fan, but the game was not just buggy it was unplayable, literally, people could not move due to the lag, quests were glitched, Diplomacy (an entire branch of the leveling system) was broken. the list goes on.
i did not find WAR at launch to be unplayable. uncomfortable at times, buggy, yes, but i could move around and do things in WAR.
"There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play." Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
I was not always present in every game since day 1 ... but worst releases (not meaning I was not still happy) were probably in this order: AOC, WAR, TSW, ....
For pure technical issues i'd say AO. Simply was a hot mess of nothing working.
But outside of technical issues i actually have to say Champions Online who did a massive game system change right at the same time they launched, the game launched with a pretty much untested system in place and it did not really work for them.
Now WaR (in europe) at least did not have that bad of a launch, but prolly have one of the bumpiest post launch period ever.
Also you can not avoid to mention Matrix:Online. Simply a broken game on every level.
Not sure if it is fair to bring up Darkfall... But i heard they had a pretty rocky start too.
Yeah I'd have to agree with this. AO was completely screwed from a functional standpoint but the dumbest RPG design/implementation things I have seen was with Champions Online's almost complete skill/power revamp 1 day before launch.
Comments
I was fortunate enough to have been broke during AO's launch and had to wait a month before getting the game.
WOW though I had preordered and it arrived day one.
After trying for 2-3 days to get it installed and finally making it work by ripping it off a friend's hard drive I soon joined the World of Queuecraft.
(caution: link has annoying sound accompaniment) http://www.leagueofpirates.com/sirvival/queuedance.html
The WOW launch annoyed me enough that I didn't play any game on launch week for a while.
I agree
EQ2 fan sites
i remember the elevator in thousend needles seeing all those corpses who felt through the platform and dropped dead hehe.
WoW had many bugs at launch many.
I sure do remember wows launch and I remember sitting in Que 45 minutes - 2 hours to play almost every night. Months after the initial launch.
STO was bad in the fact that they launched with almost no content.
I really think Warhammers issue wasn't so much its bad launch. Its launch in terms of bugs and stuff wasn't that bad for the first part of the game. Till you got to the terrible game killer of an "End Game" that was the city sieges. Taking what many considered to be the coolest sounding part of a pvp game and turning it into a pve encounter- Check. Make this said encounter so bugged that it was considered impossible to complete especially in its launch state- Check.
I played AO at launch and Vanguard at launch. Vanguard was worse and just a massive f**k up.
Second.
SWG gets honorable mentions for bad launch.
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
^This
I was there for this one. Beta was a train wreck. So many bugs and crashes. What made this one so bad was that the game really had a LOT of potential. Everyone wanted it to be a great game and it just...wasn't(at launch). It took them a year or two to get this game to a good state
The AO release was the concrete model of what can go wrong when a MMO isn't ready for release from a technical standpoint.
This article is quite amusing. The following quote is rather relevant to those here that want EQ Next to be exactly like EQ pre Kunark:
Anarchy Online borrows a theme from Everquest, requiring players to run around and kill things over and over and over until they go up a level, at which point they move to a new location and kill slightly different things over and over until they go up another level. This is done so players become more "powerful" and look "cooler" to the roving packs of "14-year olds" who play the game while "masturbating" to the "Home Depot catalogue" in "their" parents' "attic." FunCom, realizing that Everquest players became addicted to watching their various stats slowly rise over a period of nine decades, decided to put even more upgradable stats in their game, thereby making it logically better.
Well I played EQ1 at launch and it was near unplayable with constant server crashes for a while after launch, though I'll give it a pass because late 90s infrastructure was poor compared to today and they had no idea how successful it was going to end up being. I remember them talking about that their internet provider simply was not ready for anywhere near the amount of bandwidth they were consuming.
More modern games I'd probably have to go with Vanguard.
WoW had a somewhat rough launch also, but again, I think a lot of it was far more players trying to access the servers than they were anticipating.
For smooth launches, I'd have to say RIFT and SW:TOR both had pretty smooth launches.
yes, this is the game - because not only was it's launch bad, it is still bad. They are trying to greenlight it on steam - not sure how that is working for them.
Currently bored with MMO's.
QFT.
I will put World War II Online above Anarchy Online for bad launches. When WWII Online launched if you could make it onto the server it was nothing more than a slide show. Which for a MMOFPS made the game completely unplayable.
At least with Anarchy Online you could play the game for 15 minutes or so before memory leaks forced you to restart your computer.
As far as Warhammer having a bad launch, most of my guild played at launch and I do not remember myself or anyone else having any major problems that made the game unplayable.
^ Right there. SWG was pretty rocky too.
Kids these days have no idea what a "Bad launch" is. Waiting hours in line does not equal a bad launch. Waiting hours to get through the authentication server only to discover that the world server is down / crashing every 8 minutes is a bad launch.
i am a huge Vanguard fan, but the game was not just buggy it was unplayable, literally, people could not move due to the lag, quests were glitched, Diplomacy (an entire branch of the leveling system) was broken. the list goes on.
i did not find WAR at launch to be unplayable. uncomfortable at times, buggy, yes, but i could move around and do things in WAR.
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
Yeah I'd have to agree with this. AO was completely screwed from a functional standpoint but the dumbest RPG design/implementation things I have seen was with Champions Online's almost complete skill/power revamp 1 day before launch.