›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

[Interview] Eldevin: A Chat with Hunted Cow

SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
in News & Features Discussion

If you have a knack for some old-school dungeon and sandbox MMO fun, you really should check out Eldevin. With a recent launch of Steam, the game is better than ever. It’s a mix between a sandbox, a linear questing game and interesting virtual world. The game features a top-down look that makes many comment about its similarity to the very popular RuneScape. In fact, people often refer to RuneScape when describing Eldevin, but I’m not so sure about the connection.

Read more of Beau Hindman's Eldevin: A Chat with Hunted Cow.

image


¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


Comments

  • exile01exile01 Member RarePosts: 1,089
    Dev team is very incompetent, full of junjors that ahve no clue how to code. It took them like 1 year to make a standalone client. The launch of steam didnt help them much either. There are around 300 players at peak.
  • MoonKnighttMoonKnightt Member UncommonPosts: 148

    Regardless what exile says Steam reviews have been good. Helpful reviews are universally good, look for yourself. They have a ton of hours played too. I'm going to try it out for myself as it looks at least mildly interesting. 

    Last update was December 18th.  If they were that incompetent wouldn't it show in the game itself? Which have gotten great gamer reviews?

     
  • exile01exile01 Member RarePosts: 1,089
    Originally posted by Troveaholic

    Regardless what exile says Steam reviews have been good. Helpful reviews are universally good, look for yourself. They have a ton of hours played too. I'm going to try it out for myself as it looks at least mildly interesting. 

    Last update was December 18th.  If they were that incompetent wouldn't it show in the game itself? Which have gotten great gamer reviews?

     

    Where did you read about a bad game? i never said that. I liked it too for the time i played.

  • grimgryphongrimgryphon Member CommonPosts: 682

    I like the game and I don't play it as much as I should. It's a lot of fun for a casual experience.

     

    Optional PvP = No PvP
  • Panther2103Panther2103 Member EpicPosts: 5,779
    I actually gave this game a shot for the first time today. It's quite nice for a browser game. Reminds me of Runescape with better graphics (not good compared to even MMO's from 2005 but for a browser game not bad at all), a level system and a hell of a lot better crafting and combat. I haven't played a game like this and felt the urge to keep playing like I did with Eldevin. Probably will continue to play it on and off over the next week to see if it's worth it for a long time sub or something.
  • KuviskiKuviski Member UncommonPosts: 215

    The game seemed promising in beta, but the P2W model drove me away personally. The sub fee doesn't buy you new content or bring out the full capacity of your character - it increases experience gains and gives you potions. That seems like just about the definition of Pay-to-Win (or Pay-for-Power) to me. What I would rather do is, limit progression past a certain point in skills and levels with the free portion, or just adopt the usual 14-day free trial model.

    The Weekly Wizardry blog

  • KuviskiKuviski Member UncommonPosts: 215
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by Kuviski

    The game seemed promising in beta, but the P2W model drove me away personally. The sub fee doesn't buy you new content or bring out the full capacity of your character - it increases experience gains and gives you potions. That seems like just about the definition of Pay-to-Win (or Pay-for-Power) to me. What I would rather do is, limit progression past a certain point in skills and levels with the free portion, or just adopt the usual 14-day free trial model.

    The sub grants buffs that increase xp and gold gains. It also provides some game cash every month. NONE of the content is locked behind a paywall so I'm not sure what weird stuff you're trying to pull there.

    Let's see, all the content and skills in the game are available without paying money, but you want to limit the game to 14 day trial and limit skills behind a paywall. So you want to turn the game from open to pay to win. Yeah, that makes sense. Good luck with that. Have you tried posting that suggestion on the community forum? I'm sure it would be real popular.

    Quite the opposite, I am saying the current monetization model is P2W. Or rather, paying-for-power. You pay money, you progress faster.

    What would be more fair in my opinion would be stating that the free portion really is just a trial of the game. A good example is RuneScape, in which you cannot level up all the skills and free-to-play servers are segregated from the subscription ones. Subbing buys content and more horizontal progression - in Eldevin it buys faster progression. Now granted, in RuneScape the sub-only content provide faster progression, but that isn't it's actual purpose - rather, it's a side-effect..

    The 14-day free trial model familiar from many sub games isn't a bad one either. Either way, the free portion of the game should be honestly stated to be what it is - a trial of the game. Personally I am not fine with paying a sub or even playing the game if what the sub offers me is increased experience gains compared to others.

    The Weekly Wizardry blog

Sign In or Register to comment.