I'm not the biggest PvP fan in the world, but this game looks good, if you're not for PvP don't play it, but there are plenty of old school gamers and new gamers alike that are happy to see a rare gem in the millions of fluffy white cloud games that cater to non-PvP, this one actually has hope, with it's budget and team it won't be poorly made, extremely high quality all around, I'm looking forward to this game. PvP isn't a scary concept for those who played Ultima Online in 1997-1999. This game brings back some of that. Back in old school UO nobody willy nilly killed others just because they could, there was trust built between players, guilds, and when an attack happened there was always someone to counter it, it's a war game and designed to be fun for those that like the risk factor. Without the risk factor the reward isn't nearly as good. This game hands down has the best potential to be great over all the many trying to do the same, and unlike the others this game won't be in a permanent unfinished alpha state. It could be the next pre-trammel UO, time will tell.
Glad a company with some funding decided to make a pvp oriented game with some vision behind it. Darkfall was the last one to come out and thanks to the shady greek devs, it was a train wreck.
I must be missing the vision part. It sounds like a standard survival game. More copy/paste then vision.
Considering you are missing the fact that it is not a survival game, it is easy to see how you are missing the vision part.
OK, please tell me about the vision part.
I could care less if you see the developers vision or not. My point was more that you and many others keep calling it a survival game when it is not a survival game. Why don't you explain to me why you think it is a survival game?
Yeah, it is sad that even a pcgamer reporter doesn't know the difference between survival elements and sandbox elements...
The head of the studio was the one discussing the survival stuff and not the reporter.
Incorrect, it is the reporter that makes the direct comparison to a survival game, not the developer. The quote is as follows:
"It feels like part MMO, part survival game. You build forts with other players, you can cut down every tree, mine pretty much every stone, and if there's a resource you need but don't have, you might need to venture to another part of the world to get it. What they're aiming for sounds like a simulated society. You'll apparently be able to set quests for other players, paying them gold if there's a certain resource you need tracking down."
He says that it feels like an MMO and survival game but then goes on to describe sandbox and MMO elements. None of the reasons he mentions are survival based.
The part that the developer talks about is as follows:
"We looked at a lot of survival games, and it's like the zombie apocalypse, the disintegration of society, right? Small raiding parties roaming around," says studio head Patrick Gilmore. "And we thought, this technology gives us the ability to look at how big a society can grow, and what happens when civilisation's working. We're looking forward to seeing how players organise themselves in that context."
He is simply stating that when they looked at survival games they liked how people would work together to grow, and he is stating that they want to expand on the idea of people working together to grow into civilizations through their technology. This is not a survival aspect he just used survival games as an example. People working together to form a civilization is actually an MMO aspect.
Even if he did say that it was a survival game, which he did not, that still doesn't make it a survival game. Sometimes developers label a game incorrectly in order to get more people interested, or they are just flat out wrong. Remember a little game called No Mans Sky? That was labeled by the developers as an MMO. When it was released there was a huge backlash by the community because it turned out to not be an MMO.
I have been playing the alpha since September and I can say based on my experience in game that it is not a survival based game. Also, I have been playing MMOs since 1997 with Ultima Online. I know how to distinguish between an sandbox and a survival, which I think most people get confused.
Glad a company with some funding decided to make a pvp oriented game with some vision behind it. Darkfall was the last one to come out and thanks to the shady greek devs, it was a train wreck.
I must be missing the vision part. It sounds like a standard survival game. More copy/paste then vision.
Considering you are missing the fact that it is not a survival game, it is easy to see how you are missing the vision part.
OK, please tell me about the vision part.
I could care less if you see the developers vision or not. My point was more that you and many others keep calling it a survival game when it is not a survival game. Why don't you explain to me why you think it is a survival game?
How about because every single mechanic is a survival game mechanic and the combat is total crap like all other survival games with no mechanics or anything of any interest?
I have been playing the alpha since September. Please explain which mechanics are survival and why that makes this a survival based game as opposed to a guild focused, territorial conquest through pvp, sandbox, MMO. I assume you are playing the alpha as well and have experience with "every singe mechanic" that makes it a survival game, as you say.
There are a few survival aspects of the game, but as I mentioned before, they are minor elements compared to the sandbox, MMO, and territorial conquest aspects of the game.
I still have no clue what this game is actually trying to be.
They call it an MMORPG, but I've not heard any evidence that it'll actually be an MMO (and the RPG elements seem to be limited). What's the player cap? The limited info I've seen suggests it'll just be one big map with a very low (for an mmo) player cap or high (for a survival game) player cap.
As I'm only interested in playing an actual MMO, this is a big deal. I'm pleasantly surprised to read that they've put in effort to achieve large scale battles, but I reckon they probably just mean 50 people, and not 500+.
As for the rest of it, it seems like this game is just uninspired. Very basic twitch gameplay (I hate action combat!), some territory control and some building/crafting. Its like the most basic elements of a sandbox, potentially fun for a short amount of time but crap for longevity. The only interesting element (in my mind) is the alt history aspect, but given that this is a PvP game I just can't see how vampires, werewolves, ghosts etc are going to become important....unless you can play them yourselves and I've missed that bit of info!
They already have a server size of 500 (considered by many as an MMO, but disputable by others) and they have stated that they want to expand that in the future to 10k as technology allows.
Don't forget that the game is still in alpha. They have 1-2 years worth of development to add content to the game. But keep in mind that this is a sandbox game, which means that the players will be making a large part of the content. Much of the content will be through territorial disputes between guilds. People are also calling it a survival game. It is not a survival game.
To everyone saying a pvp centric game will fall short ect... have you seen the numbers fortnite is pumping out? Those numbers are not for the Pve... Its the Pvp portion that shot it to stardom.
Fortnite is not a virtual world MMO. It is a cute BR that you can jump in and out of without much time investment or work put into your character. COD is the same.
Apples and oranges comparison.
Games you could compare this to would be a game life Darkfall or Legends of Aria. I would say BDO but BDO you can stay in safe areas and never be forced to PVP.
BDO doesn't have safe zones other than towns, which is the same as LoA and New World. But I do agree that New World is comparable to LoA.
Yikes, another pvp centric like Darkfall. Doomed to the same fate of course. I'll give it 6 months to be nice. Pass since I'm primarily a PvE player in fantasy type games. I save my PvP for shooters.
Since Adventurine - 16 people was it who struggled to buy one server for 10k people - totally had the resources of Amazon?
I always love how people assume that their tastes are universal, and if it isn't what they expressly want, then it's doomed to "failure", which also is a fairly subjective word.
There have been several games that catered to a PvP niche group, with varying degrees of success. The idea of trying to please absolutely everyone has been an unmitigated disaster for many games since the release of WoW. (Which shockingly managed to provide fun for multiple demographics of players for a significant period of time.)
The game won't arrive on life support, and yes, some folks have said that they want more PvE, however I'll applaud Amazon for sticking to their vision. I hope though that their financial expectations are also tempered and their realize that their are building a game that is going to fill a niche, not be a "blockbuster" that appeals to everyone. Pick what you are doing, stick to it, and do it better than anyone else out there.....they do that, the game will have a following, and I'd rather see more developers take that approach, then trying to appeal to the masses, and end up satisfying nobody.
I just don't see Bezos and Co satisfied with a "niche" product.
If this was going to be Amazon's only game - yeah.
However its a bit like saying Amazon TV is doomed because The Marvellous Mrs Maisel isn't for everyone. Or they sell classical music - arguably a niche.
I would assume however that: they will make other games. And that their game studio goes on to publish other games, promotes Lumberyard - which attracts other developers, helps AWS, helps Twitch.
And there is the question of how it will be sold. Not via Steam! Either via Amazon - helping promote the sales of other games or maybe via Prime.
Softball questions. I'm disappointed no probing questions were asked about how Amazon will monitor the gank sessions, etc. that people have been breaking NDA to report.
As the old saying goes, your toughest question will be your last question. Some studios like Mark Jacobs/CSE are known for tanking all tough questions and welcome them which is something I've always respected about him. Others either wont answer and you lose your QnA entirely or wont give you another QnA if you get too tough. Its a more challenging position than it appears. It isn't like politics where they are expected to give access and answers.
As far as gank sessions...are we sure this isn't a sim about working for Amazon?
We asked a LOT of questions. These are the ones they returned. End of story.
Perfect -- that actually is a lot more telling. You guys should have said something like that in the article. Thanks for the reply!
I always love how people assume that their tastes are universal, and if it isn't what they expressly want, then it's doomed to "failure", which also is a fairly subjective word.
There have been several games that catered to a PvP niche group, with varying degrees of success. The idea of trying to please absolutely everyone has been an unmitigated disaster for many games since the release of WoW. (Which shockingly managed to provide fun for multiple demographics of players for a significant period of time.)
The game won't arrive on life support, and yes, some folks have said that they want more PvE, however I'll applaud Amazon for sticking to their vision. I hope though that their financial expectations are also tempered and their realize that their are building a game that is going to fill a niche, not be a "blockbuster" that appeals to everyone. Pick what you are doing, stick to it, and do it better than anyone else out there.....they do that, the game will have a following, and I'd rather see more developers take that approach, then trying to appeal to the masses, and end up satisfying nobody.
I just don't see Bezos and Co satisfied with a "niche" product.
If this was going to be Amazon's only game - yeah.
However its a bit like saying Amazon TV is doomed because The Marvellous Mrs Maisel isn't for everyone. Or they sell classical music - arguably a niche.
I would assume however that: they will make other games. And that their game studio goes on to publish other games, promotes Lumberyard - which attracts other developers, helps AWS, helps Twitch.
And there is the question of how it will be sold. Not via Steam! Either via Amazon - helping promote the sales of other games or maybe via Prime.
Time will tell.
Although listed as not available, it's already up on Amazon's site.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
70% игроков в ММО это PVE игроки,20% это PVP и 10% нубы.Разработчики угробят игру,делая ее под PVP контент.. будет очередная PVP игра с пустым сервером. Всех с Новым Годом!!!
Disappointed again that a MMO is going to be mostly PvP in nature. I have pretty much sworn off all PvP MMO's at this point. I don't care if they can mix PvP with PvE, when the ignore those that do not wish PvP they ignore a lot of people.
Developers make a mistake, in MMORPG 70% of the inhabitants are PVE players, making a game for PVP players, they will get an empty server with ten stupid as the developers themselves pvp players
I'm much more into the PvE side of MMORPGs than the PvP side, but there have been some very good MMORPGs that didn't have PvE servers and nevertheless managed to keep the game from descending into a gankfest--BDO, for example. The devil's in the details and we don't have many of those yet. I'm not terribly encouraged by what I've heard so far, but I'm not writing it off just yet.
And honestly, I'll tolerate a little bit of ganking if it means I get a setting that hasn't been done to death.
There are very few leaks for an Alpha that seems to have a decent amount of people. That should say something to everyone who is currently unsure of what to make of it. Wait and see when the NDA is lifted.
Curious. A game that will be living on (and primarily designed for) Twitch viewership chooses a 16th century setting? I'm already cringing with muzzle-loading guns firing at 300 rounds a minute. I hope they at least have colorful uniforms when they're marching in formation. To keep the Twitch viewers interested.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Comments
--- Razimus
"It feels like part MMO, part survival game. You build forts with other players, you can cut down every tree, mine pretty much every stone, and if there's a resource you need but don't have, you might need to venture to another part of the world to get it. What they're aiming for sounds like a simulated society. You'll apparently be able to set quests for other players, paying them gold if there's a certain resource you need tracking down."
He says that it feels like an MMO and survival game but then goes on to describe sandbox and MMO elements. None of the reasons he mentions are survival based.
The part that the developer talks about is as follows:
"We looked at a lot of survival games, and it's like the zombie apocalypse, the disintegration of society, right? Small raiding parties roaming around," says studio head Patrick Gilmore. "And we thought, this technology gives us the ability to look at how big a society can grow, and what happens when civilisation's working. We're looking forward to seeing how players organise themselves in that context."
He is simply stating that when they looked at survival games they liked how people would work together to grow, and he is stating that they want to expand on the idea of people working together to grow into civilizations through their technology. This is not a survival aspect he just used survival games as an example. People working together to form a civilization is actually an MMO aspect.
Even if he did say that it was a survival game, which he did not, that still doesn't make it a survival game. Sometimes developers label a game incorrectly in order to get more people interested, or they are just flat out wrong. Remember a little game called No Mans Sky? That was labeled by the developers as an MMO. When it was released there was a huge backlash by the community because it turned out to not be an MMO.
I have been playing the alpha since September and I can say based on my experience in game that it is not a survival based game. Also, I have been playing MMOs since 1997 with Ultima Online. I know how to distinguish between an sandbox and a survival, which I think most people get confused.
There are a few survival aspects of the game, but as I mentioned before, they are minor elements compared to the sandbox, MMO, and territorial conquest aspects of the game.
Don't forget that the game is still in alpha. They have 1-2 years worth of development to add content to the game. But keep in mind that this is a sandbox game, which means that the players will be making a large part of the content. Much of the content will be through territorial disputes between guilds. People are also calling it a survival game. It is not a survival game.
However its a bit like saying Amazon TV is doomed because The Marvellous Mrs Maisel isn't for everyone. Or they sell classical music - arguably a niche.
I would assume however that: they will make other games. And that their game studio goes on to publish other games, promotes Lumberyard - which attracts other developers, helps AWS, helps Twitch.
And there is the question of how it will be sold. Not via Steam! Either via Amazon - helping promote the sales of other games or maybe via Prime.
Time will tell.
Perfect -- that actually is a lot more telling. You guys should have said something like that in the article. Thanks for the reply!
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Let's party like it is 1863!
And honestly, I'll tolerate a little bit of ganking if it means I get a setting that hasn't been done to death.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.