General Discussion

Originally posted by zelpher

Most of these answers to these questions were straight up lies!!! They are trying to sell a game that runs like vanguard did at release......vanguard is finally running decent now ,but guess what it's too late and they pissed off to many people for most to even try it again. The answer about graphics is nobody cares about graphics ex. diablo 2 still high sales numbers and world of warcraft, lol i can't even imagine a big pvp battle with the crap job of programming this game has...Turn down the graphics make it a seamless world a load screen here and there no biggie...And guess what nobody is gonna say AWWWW man these graphics suck i am not gonna play this game.  Well enough ranting good luck funcom sorry your game is gonna fail and you wasted your funds. Well there is still Warhammer and Mythic will deliver hopefully.

to each their own, i completely disagree with you.

I don't know how vanguard went at launch, since i wasn't interested in EQ3, but i can tell you my rig is running AoC as smooth as butter with everything cranked up.

I DO care about graphics, I DO think WoW looks like shit, and I DID hate Diablo2 for the crappy graphics (last i touched it was the year it came out when they allowed max of 800x600, pixelated as hell on a 21" monitor).  However, i thought the original Diable was one of the most brilliant games i have ever played in my life.  Diablo2 didn't even get close to matching its predecessor in quality (as far as I'm concerned).

And I DEFINITELY DO say very frequently "AWWWWW man these graphics suck, i'm not going to play this game."

Exactly why I'll never touch WoW and Warhammer.

Don't confuse your lack of a good gaming rig with the sentiments of every other gamer out there.

Getting back on topic though, i've spent a total of about 4 hours in the AoC beta (in the last 2 days since i got in) and i can unequivocally say the game is fun as heck (for me), looks damn good (to me, on my rig) and i wouldn't change anything about it (other than making the mob fonts more readable for color blind nerds like me).  My CE is still on preorder, and i'll be having a blast next weekend.

If you prefer some other game, all the more power to you, stay there and enjoy it, nobody said every game has to be like every other game, that'd be pretty boring.

i've been gaming since late 80's, so i can't be called a graphics whore by any stretch of the imagination, i prefer story first and foremost, but it just so happens that AoC has both, graphics AND a story.  most other MMO's don't have both, or in some cases, have neither.

Originally posted by araczynski

 

to each their own, i completely disagree with you.

I don't know how vanguard went at launch, since i wasn't interested in EQ3, but i can tell you my rig is running AoC as smooth as butter with everything cranked up.

I DO care about graphics, I DO think WoW looks like shit, and I DID hate Diablo2 for the crappy graphics (last i touched it was the year it came out when they allowed max of 800x600, pixelated as hell on a 21" monitor).

And I DEFINITELY DO say very frequently "AWWWWW man these graphics suck, i'm not going to play this game."

Exactly why I'll never touch WoW and Warhammer.

Don't confuse your lack of a good gaming rig with the sentiments of every other gamer out there.

Getting back on topic though, i've spent a total of about 4 hours in the AoC beta (in the last 2 days since i got in) and i can unequivocally say the game is fun as heck (for me), looks damn good (to me, on my rig) and i wouldn't change anything about it (other than making the mob fonts more readable for color blind nerds like me).  My CE is still on preorder, and i'll be having a blast next weekend.

If you prefer some other game, all the more power to you, stay there and enjoy it, nobody said every game has to be like every other game, that'd be pretty boring.

Well exactly. To each their own. Some people prefer looks over actual gameplay and thats fair enough. Other people are all about gameplay and don't care much about looks.

I personaly would think i am in the middle. I'd rather not have the highest end graphic settings, but actually a fun and enjoyable game that captivates me with other things than stunning looking.

Originally posted by ZeGerman1942

 

Well exactly. To each their own. Some people prefer looks over actual gameplay and thats fair enough. Other people are all about gameplay and don't care much about looks. 

I personaly would think i am in the middle. I'd rather not have the highest end graphic settings, but actually a fun and enjoyable game that captivates me with other things than stunning looking.

i probably wasn't clear in my reply, i just thought it was funny that the post was all doom&gloom because he personally didn't like the game.

---

Originally posted by Miklos
 

---

Originally posted by araczynski

 

---

Originally posted by Miklos

I'm commenting on the poor code and choices of design in regards to having non-seamless zone traversal.
It's poor design - regardless if you like/dislike/love/hate the game, it's still poor design.

---

 
it's poor design to those who don't like the zoning aspect of the game.  from what i've read, it was done to provide better visuals/graphics for the game, rather than having to 'dilute' the visuals so that things are generic enough that less loading of textures is necessary and seamless zoning is viable.
you prefer seamless to eye candy, i prefer extra eye candy to seamless, ANY DAY.

TO ME, the poor design would have been "yet another mmo with lackluster graphics".  
just because YOU as a programmer like one thing over another, DOESN'T mean 100% of your audience agrees with you.  Last i checked you're a person like everyone else, your likes are your own, not anyone else's.

---

 
Jeezez, why would zoning improve the visuals unless the cache/setup engine is poorly designed/coded? There is NO link between those two - you can have seamless transition while having lush graphics if you want, polygon count has nothing to do with that.
I will bet you that Blizzard any day of the week can ramp up polygons and won't have to break the seamless transition, they won't do it because too many people have sub-standard computers (especially the graphics part), but that is a whole other debate.
Again, facts doesn't change with your misunderstanding of the subject - it's bad coding/design, nothing else.

---

Sorry Buddy, you are wrong in this..Btw..Don't you think FUNCOM did research on this before they chose to go with zones ?

It's about details in the outdoors and indoors, not only polygons and detailed faces and armor, also more animations and voices on NPC's all these things matter if you have a zone or not, you WOULD NOT get fluid gameplay without cutting down greatly ...

Vanguard is seamless and a good example of this, It's not even close to the level of detail as AoC, buildings for instance is mostly EMPTY with maybe one chair and an NPC standing silent in a corner...

Another example:

Until just recently EQ2 had VERY detailed ZONES, but as soon as they started with HUGE seamless zones it was very noteworthy that something in the brand had changed greatly for worse in the latest expansion Kunark..

Even thou I would prefer seamless world with the same level of details as AoC or EQ2, I have to wait for that a weee bit more...

Age of Conan is GREAT..

/Junker

Originally posted by Kryogenic

 

Originally posted by Miklos

 

Originally posted by Mortemia

I'm glad we have such expert game designers and coders here that they can enlighten us with their knowledge, no doubt based purely on facts.

I'm glad to be of service.

 

Some of us do infact make a living coding you know!

Some are even former Funcom employees that decided to work a place where quality of design and code matters more than textures...

And some of you apparently like to make vague statements that can be misconstrued to mean that you actually worked on the project and decided to leave it for greener pastures.

 

The game runs fine for me and the people that have judged the game by the open beta code, which has been patched twice all ready since some of you uninstalled, have made a premature decision about the game.

I like AoC and it kind of reminds me of old school SWG. I really enjoy the combat and the stories in the quest lines.

So for those of you that haven't played the game, don't jump on the cool guy bandwagon and hate on a game you've never played.

 

seriously, how many, and what were they?  cuz none come to mind, at all.

i say this, because i'm sick and tired of reading about

how gods -n- heroes is a great game,

and how vanguard was having a so/so beta but would be great on release,

about how great potbs was going to be on release

and on and on and on,

and i think the only game that actually has had a GOOD release, was LOTRO.  did they have a hellacious OPEN beta?

everyone sitting here talking up games that haven't been released -- historical data shows you're wrong.  every post i'm reading here, i've already read a bazillion times while waiting for potbs, vanguard, hellgate:london and countless other games.  and they were all WRONG.

i could care less if someone is talking like they work for/worked for whatever gaming company.  let them be the queen of france online, for all i care.  as long as they give me good information on games.

i don't care one whit for what anyone "believes" a game will magically transform into from open beta (not closed beta, not alpha, but OPEN BETA) to retail-- it's not going to happen.  maybe there will be one exception that proves the rule; but so far, hasn't really happened.   by the time open beta hits, the only real work left before release is tweaking the server load and hoping it can handle all the people they anticipate on opening day.

a craptastic play experience during OPEN BETA normally (read -- every time) means craptastic for the first few months of retail as gullible players, essentially,  proceed to pay to play a beta game.

this post wasn't directed at anyone in particular (not even the quoted people); but, lose the fanboi glasses, lose the hater shades.  there's no "us vs. them" in the player community.  there's only players looking for a good game to play. 

if you're a fanboi that can't objectively deal with criticism -- go tell mommy, cuz no one else cares.  not even your dog.

if you're a blind hater (read - blind hater, not a hater that has actual facts backing up their complaints) - you're not doing anyone any good either. 

if you're someone that's just tired of hearing people complain, people who have LEGITIMATE complaints -- again, go whine to mommy, cuz there's no one else that wants to hear you complaining about people complaining.  no one. not ever. not even after you're dead.

if the game sucks in open beta, it'll suck on release, UNLESS it gets pushed back another 6 months, in which case, it wasn't REALLY an open beta, now was it? 

the answer is "no. it wasn't."

so give me a good game, give me information on a good game, or warn me away from bug-filled launches, because i'm done shelling out $50-$200 for new games that are as fun as wallowing in a septic tank.

Originally posted by damian7
not to jump on the cool guy bandwagon; but i'm curious about something -- how many games gave players a craptastic experience in the OPEN beta (which more often than not is ONLY a combination stress test + free demo, rather than playtesting for bugs) and then turned around and had a GREAT experience in the actual retail game?

 

seriously, how many, and what were they?  cuz none come to mind, at all.

 

i say this, because i'm sick and tired of reading about

how gods -n- heroes is a great game,

and how vanguard was having a so/so beta but would be great on release,

about how great potbs was going to be on release

and on and on and on,

and i think the only game that actually has had a GOOD release, was LOTRO.  did they have a hellacious OPEN beta?

 everyone sitting here talking up games that haven't been released -- historical data shows you're wrong.  every post i'm reading here, i've already read a bazillion times while waiting for potbs, vanguard, hellgate:london and countless other games.  and they were all WRONG.

 i could care less if someone is talking like they work for/worked for whatever gaming company.  let them be the queen of france online, for all i care.  as long as they give me good information on games.

i don't care one whit for what anyone "believes" a game will magically transform into from open beta (not closed beta, not alpha, but OPEN BETA) to retail-- it's not going to happen.  maybe there will be one exception that proves the rule; but so far, hasn't really happened.   by the time open beta hits, the only real work left before release is tweaking the server load and hoping it can handle all the people they anticipate on opening day.

 

a craptastic play experience during OPEN BETA normally (read -- every time) means craptastic for the first few months of retail as gullible players, essentially,  proceed to pay to play a beta game.

 

this post wasn't directed at anyone in particular (not even the quoted people); but, lose the fanboi glasses, lose the hater shades.  there's no "us vs. them" in the player community.  there's only players looking for a good game to play. 

 

if you're a fanboi that can't objectively deal with criticism -- go tell mommy, cuz no one else cares.  not even your dog.

if you're a blind hater (read - blind hater, not a hater that has actual facts backing up their complaints) - you're not doing anyone any good either. 

if you're someone that's just tired of hearing people complain, people who have LEGITIMATE complaints -- again, go whine to mommy, cuz there's no one else that wants to hear you complaining about people complaining.  no one. not ever. not even after you're dead.

 

if the game sucks in open beta, it'll suck on release, UNLESS it gets pushed back another 6 months, in which case, it wasn't REALLY an open beta, now was it? 

the answer is "no. it wasn't."

 so give me a good game, give me information on a good game, or warn me away from bug-filled launches, because i'm done shelling out $50-$200 for new games that are as fun as wallowing in a septic tank.

i'm not sure if i got the point of your post, other than that you need to take some calgon (sp?) ;)  as for the open beta experience in aoc, you seem to think that because the vocal minority is spewing doom&gloom then that speaks exclusively on the state of the client.  which is a joke, the ones that aren't having problem are buys enjoying the game and not dry humping the forums and bitching.

by your logic, if i had issues with my aoc client, then i should just assume that aoc sucks crap for me and everyone under the sun and will bomb as soon as it gets released?

then by the same logic, since my aoc client is running smooths as butter and i'm having a blast, then aoc will have a brilliant launch and is the second coming.

or maybe i'm just not getting what you're talking about at all.

 either way, there's no such thing as a bug free game release.  especially with mmo's.  some people will have issues, some people won't.

funny thing is that i've always been building my own computers, and i've NEVER had a single problem with any mmo i've ever played, and i've always played the clients from opening day, when there would be an abundance of issues.  but by the same token i'm sure there's people out there that have had nothing BUT problems on every client.  can't put all the blame on the software all the time, there's plenty of people that are either stupid and don't know what they're doing with their computers, or have overlooked something accientally and either don't want to look for it or don't know TO look for it and just assume it's not their problem.

You must have only played LoTRO and DAoC. Either that or are not very observant when it comes to problems. Trying to think what else....nope can't off hand

You know what actually had great promise for a seamless world. Big World severs with Mafate engine, if you looked beyond the instability and the lack of a game that was some interesting technology. (for those that dont know D&L)