General Discussion

Originally posted by Rasputin

 

Originally posted by nariusseldon

 

Originally posted by Bladeinhand

The reason they have small instances and 48v48 sieges Is obvious. Because its going to be on the Xbox360.

 

And 48 is quite enough. How often you see more than 20+ people on screen all at once anyway?

Do you even know what an MMO is?

 

By your logic you would be fine in BF2.

I started with UO beta so I played MMOs from the beginning.

BF2 is fine, if it is done in a fantasy setting. A game is a game. Why cling to the past? A dungeon is more fun with a group of 5 than 50 people camping the same boss so more people != better.

So if I only need to play with 5 people in a dungeon zone, why care about whether the instance can support more people?

Originally posted by nariusseldon

 

Originally posted by Rasputin

 

Originally posted by nariusseldon

 

Originally posted by Bladeinhand

The reason they have small instances and 48v48 sieges Is obvious. Because its going to be on the Xbox360.

 

And 48 is quite enough. How often you see more than 20+ people on screen all at once anyway?

Do you even know what an MMO is?

 

By your logic you would be fine in BF2.

 

I started with UO beta so I played MMOs from the beginning.

BF2 is fine, if it is done in a fantasy setting. A game is a game. Why cling to the past? A dungeon is more fun with a group of 5 than 50 people camping the same boss so more people != better.

So if I only need to play with 5 people in a dungeon zone, why care about whether the instance can support more people?

 

Christ...

Originally posted by nariusseldon

 

Originally posted by Bladeinhand

The reason they have small instances and 48v48 sieges Is obvious. Because its going to be on the Xbox360.

 

And 48 is quite enough. How often you see more than 20+ people on screen all at once anyway?

Erm, most MMO's thats why there massive? if I wanted a 48v48 match I'd play COD4 or BF2, ever played Planetside when it was new? That was massive.

People place way too much importance on a seemless world.  The fact of the matter is that AOC's implementation works well for what it is, and despite instances appears seemless regardless.  Sure, I'd *rather* have a seemless world, but it does not make or break the game for me.  People get way too upset about this.  It's such a non-factor.

Originally posted by Bladeinhand

Originally posted by nariusseldon

 

Originally posted by Bladeinhand

The reason they have small instances and 48v48 sieges Is obvious. Because its going to be on the Xbox360.

 

And 48 is quite enough. How often you see more than 20+ people on screen all at once anyway?

Erm, most MMO's thats why there massive? if I wanted a 48v48 match I'd play COD4 or BF2, ever played Planetside when it was new? That was massive.

There is really no need for "massive". I suppose you need massive for the AH, but other than that, the trend is to DECREASE the number of players needed (see WOW reduces the dungeon requirement to get more people into them).

It is just a legacy name from the early days of the industry. All industry evolves and if they want to take the word "massive" out of the title .. i have no problem with it. I also have no problem if they leave it in.

RPG does not mean the same thing as 20 years ago and we still use the term. So it is just semantics.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

 

Originally posted by Bladeinhand

Originally posted by nariusseldon

 

Originally posted by Bladeinhand

The reason they have small instances and 48v48 sieges Is obvious. Because its going to be on the Xbox360.

 

And 48 is quite enough. How often you see more than 20+ people on screen all at once anyway?

Erm, most MMO's thats why there massive? if I wanted a 48v48 match I'd play COD4 or BF2, ever played Planetside when it was new? That was massive.

 

There is really no need for "massive". I suppose you need massive for the AH, but other than that, the trend is to DECREASE the number of players needed (see WOW reduces the dungeon requirement to get more people into them).

It is just a legacy name from the early days of the industry. All industry evolves and if they want to take the word "massive" out of the title .. i have no problem with it. I also have no problem if they leave it in.

RPG does not mean the same thing as 20 years ago and we still use the term. So it is just semantics.

 

I think there is need for "massive" its not really semantics, it sets it apart from a normal online game. I want to interact with hundreds of people in a world. Not a few people in a small instance I can do that in Diablo 2 or something I play for free. If this is a trend MMO's will die, just because its massive doesnt mean it has to have 40 man raids either, I thought the whole reason they did that was because the guilds who raided were some damn hardcore and eliteist, the casual gamer saw no endgame nothing to do with population. Infact I would say it increased population because it gave most players more to do.

I didn't like the instancing or offline portion of AOC too....

WOW had a massive seemless world apart from the raids and that is sooo kool but I just wish'd that had been in a skill based mmorpg instead of class based.

The article is spot-on.

AOC isn't worth a frigging dime. I seriously would not even play it if the game were F2P. It's just not my taste for an "MMO". I'd rather go play a big game of COD4 or something.

The only reason AOC has any speed at all right now is because there are a lot of people that loved those old games in the genre (like those mentioned) and they are so desperate for something to play now that will give that feeling again that they just plopped down $50 bucks and are really praying and hoping that AOC will provide the same level of complexity and immersion that those old MMO's did before everything became simplified with these more recent MMO's.

And Warhammer really probably won't be any different. These MMO companies these days don't want to think outside the box and take any risk, because of the huge investment they have to make. They all want to play it safe and follow the Blizzard blueprint.

I won't be buying Warhammer. The only title I could say right now that I'd blindly buy would be a Diablo 3 or a new Star Wars MMO, merely because I'm a fan of those titles. I would be interested in a new sandbox / not holding your hand constantly MMO that actually felt like a living breathing world and not just a bunch of stupid instances.

AOC has more holes that swiss cheese.

Definitely

Seamless

Now that we can spell, let's move on to the discussion.

I'm not sure why everyone is surprised about AoC.  Just rewind four years ago.  Another game that was supposed to be next-gen, which failed with making a seamless world.  Everquest 2, that's what it was called.  Soon after, World of Warcraft made grouping, raiding, and pvp as instances, popular.  Then, a revolutionary concept came about with Guild Wars.  Private instancing for yourself and party as the whole game concept.

To me, a pure seamless world should have no zoning at all.  If anyone can name me an MMORPG with this definition, please list it.  Don't be too hard on me either, i started this genre with EQ2.

Speaking of sacrifice, instancing does just that.  The days of mob camping, kill stealing, raiding outdoor bosses, have been severely reduced or wiped out totally.  Would you really go back to those days just for immersion?  If there could be some sort of balance or solution to this, with real revolutionary ideas and concepts, then i would love if instancing would be extinct, but i'm not interested waiting 30 min or longer for a mob to spawn.  So, i prefer balance.

Now, fast forward since Guild Wars release.  Guild Wars 2 is being developed and abandoning that concept.  Why? I'm not sure, but the developers are taking it that way.  Maybe private instancing wasn't what the majority of players wanted.

I'm not sure where Hellgate: London fits in all this either, but apparently it's listed on this site as an MMORPG.