Originally posted by puffmouse

[quote]In closing I'd like to note that many MMO gamers would gladly pay more to get more. If there is simply not enough money to pay sufficient staff the retail or subscription prices of MMOs should be adjusted. If part of what we are paying for is service, then many of us are perfectly happy to choose eating at a restaurant with waiters instead of going through the drive thru. We accept that it costs more, but we like the quality that we get. I'd like to see a company start to hire good staff in sufficient numbers from day one. That's something I'd pay for.[/quote]

 

 

I've shut down all my other games to move to this one and have no regrets so far.  There are certain features that I do sort of miss, like independent and guild city personal housing, and other personal structures for trade skill.  If there were certain extras like that made available for additional charges i know i would be willing to pay out higher subscription fees.  They should have a first class account thats gives more in the game at a higher price to help increase money for customer service maybe.

Yeah, id just like to say, that paying $15 a month is already very very expensive for gaming, there is no way in hell id pay more then that to play an online game.  id rather go to a free MMO like Shaiya or last Chaos.  You can make good quality games for cheaper monthly subscriptions, everquest used to charge 9.99 a month to play then it went up to 12.99 then 14.99  In the end, just to point out, EQ 1 was a great great game and it had a very low sub fee, you can easily say times change...which is true, however since no one is getting paid much more given the market fluctuating, then we shouldnt be paying more for subscriptions.

*edit* My point is basically, if a company can make a great game, and its free.  why the hell should the gamers be forking out 15 a month when the companies end up screwing up what they initially released?  Good example is how the WoW expansions have been going lately. 1-60 sounds good, 60-70 boom new grind new time to waste...yey everyone looks the same.  Now its 70-80 rinse repeat.  Sub fees should either stay at 14.99 or go to completely free to play, with purchases at a store for certain in game upgrades.

I think an important omission in the article is that the bank/mail system was locked for what, a week? If you can describe the launch as anything but rocky, missing a key feature due to exploits is certainly part of that description. What about the folks rerunning quests that hit level 80 in the first few days? I think some discussion of how broken certain systems were is reasonable.

Originally posted by Leucent

Theres alot of truth to the article though, this is why to someone who likes it will say this. Where were all you guys when the reviews were out after just the starter area. They were all good reviews, where were all you guys saying oh well it s not really a fair article it s not a full review. Instead all i saw was thats bang on this game is awesome, etc. I can understand it seems biased but theres no difference with this one as there are with the glaringly obvious paid by FC ones.

Yes - where were we ?

We tried and tried to get our points across on diffrent sites.  The closed beta testers tried to get out he word that +30 content was buggy and incomplete.  And it was very obvious that ALL fixing for the last 2-3 weeks was for lvl 20 and lower. 

Thats why Im so frustrated now.. Funcom kept ppl under NDA.  They kept all forums locked. They made no clear announchment of the state of the game at launch.  But they STILL knew that there would be huge problems.  They knew they would be unable to support the game in this state.  They knew and the testers knew.  And thats why many of the testers will never ever be able to trust Funcom ever again.  The fooled ppl infront of the noose of the testers and made sure we were not allowed to talk.

And then we come to the part of gaming sites like MMORPG.COM.  I tried my very best to inform ppl without breaking NDA.  I was banned tho - just to make sure I would not be around when the game launched.  I know of ppl who were banned for up to 14 days for offence that is talked about on these forums as one day offence. 

I saw MANY constructive posts stating the true and correct picture of the game beeing deleted on MMORPG.COM.  And when ppl asked why those posts were deleted they were slammed with a ban.  Even ppl that were just wondering why in hell MMORPG.COM was deleting those in the first place.

MMORPG.COM did not stay truthfull to the gamers on the relseas of AOC.  And for players that knew the state of the game and tried to bring up those point - those ppl can not do anything against websites that are independent and acutally have no obligations to the gamers.  And dont even follow their own forum  rules just to prevent players talking about other things than what the MODs liked to see at that stage.

There is a reason Im not very happy with MMORPG.COM during the launch of AOC.  They became the fanbois instead of beeing neutral and allowing diffrent opinions - many of them showing proofs of what was really going on. 

Thankfully a new emploee is now all of a sudden in.  Thats a good way to push the MOD fanbois away for now.  And it also gives MMORPG.COM abit more credibility - but then ... that was really needed.

Im stil waiting for Mathew Reuther to hit high end lvl 40+ in the game and then see the other problems that are now for all to see that didnt give up before that stage.  You can still play through it and it doesn't mean its not enjoyable to a degree.  The question is - how little is needed to please ppl ? Very little is needed to please some.  While others get frustrated and annoyed playing through things that obviously are not like they should be.  

Its all a question of what we - the games want.  Should a gaming company like Funcom be forgiven for knowingly launching a game that was unfinished and knowing they would have zero chance of actually supporting all the issues that thousend of ppl would have ?   I dont think so.   And the sad thing is that its NOT good for Funcom in the longrun.  Launching new servers for overhyped PR game is coslty when ppl actually realise whats really going on.  Ask devs of Vanguard...  And take a look at what it meant for that game.   Limited support, limited fixes, limited staff, limited expanstions.    And now we are yet again told to belive Funcom and their PR talk.  Isn't it obvious now what is going on ?   Are ppl really gonna be fooled again by the same company?   How naive can we all be...

I suggest every single customer of AOC goes now and chancels his AOC account.  Thats the best way to tell the MMORPG gaming companies that this is NOT acceptable.  If it means that Funcom goes bankrupt and AOC will fail - then so be it.  Let that be a lesson to what happens to MMORPG games that are launched without showing the gamers the respect of an acutal working and playable end product.  

second part was indeed about his trials, but again, why not? this kind of thing needs to hit mainstream to include carbon copies sent to funcom regardless of the tone of the review, honesty and common sense rule the day, not sublime quiet coverups as funcom tried to do, and failed miserably.

as for the fun factor, i will wait and see, i for one am certainly glad i didnt go throught the shit thousands did and then were simply blown off.

funcom? no, fun-con.

Stable? that is pretty funny, maybe the author should read the AoC forums some more.

Originally posted by tinywulf

Stable? that is pretty funny, maybe the author should read the AoC forums some more.

The writer that wrote this article knows 100x more than you do on just about anything pertaining to this mmo. You should seriously consider actually reading both articles before thinking this guy is calling the game "stabe" or "unstable"

every single customer of AOC goes now and chancels his AOC account.  Thats the best way to tell the MMORPG gaming companies that this is NOT acceptable.  If it means that Funcom goes bankrupt and AOC will fail - then so be it.  Let that be a lesson to what happens to MMORPG games that are launched without showing the gamers the respect of an acutal working and playable end product.  

I will only chancel my acccount when every other subscriber has chancled there account. Whats is the point in making a speech if only 1 man will read it? What is the point in canceling a subscription if it makes no difference? What is the point in having a mass suicide if only 1 man kills himself?
See what im getting at? if a chain reaction cannot get everyone to do something, its pointless to do it yourself if you think it will get everyone else to follow those foolish footsteps to doom.

Ok ill start the chain, Cancelled my account wont be going back.  Ill wait on Stargate and a few others and see if they learn the lesson that Funcom did not.

Old adage: Dont tick off paying customers, keep em happy and they will go the mile or in this case $15 a month.

Originally posted by denshing

Originally posted by tinywulf

Stable? that is pretty funny, maybe the author should read the AoC forums some more.

The writer that wrote this article knows 100x more than you do on just about anything pertaining to this mmo. You should seriously consider actually reading both articles before thinking this guy is calling the game "stabe" or "unstable"

  you reread it mr troll, he called it stable, im not going to dig through the damn article to find it so you can go troll it up yourself.

After reading this I kind of chuckled to myself, you could replace the AoC with WoW, and in almost every complaint, it was the same thing seen during the WoW launch, in fact now that I think about it, Vanguard, SWG, and Asherons Call 2 too.

I dont remember hearing anything bad about the DaoC, or City f Hereos Launch.

I think the OP should change the name of his article, it has nothing to do with the anatomy of a launch, just rename it too "I didn't like AoC Launch, and here is why."

Originally posted by Ragemore

After reading this I kind of chuckled to myself, you could replace the AoC with WoW, and in almost every complaint, it was the same thing seen during the WoW launch, in fact now that I think about it, Vanguard, SWG, and Asherons Call 2 too.

I dont remember hearing anything bad about the DaoC, or City f Hereos Launch.

 

I think the OP should change the name of his article, it has nothing to do with the anatomy of a launch, just rename it too "I didn't like AoC Launch, and here is why."

 

 

Nah, the title is fitting because hes talking about the AoC launch and the game itself. Sure it would also fit an overall article on the genre, but it fits here as well.

Great... now if Matt had only been writing for MMORPG.com 6 years earlier, he would've killed almost every major MMO out there before they took off.

Seriously, can I say he's wrong in what he says?  No.  However, there are nicer ways to put things than to write 3000 words about how bad a game is.  With the number of people writing about how they disagree with these articles, I'm surprised that the managing editor hasn't written to say that they don't support nor deny the editorials and explain their purpose.  That's one way to reaffirm that it's an opinion section and not a rant.

Though I decided to research Matt a little.  Based off what I've researched about Matt so far is, he's a very nice person who lives near Funcom's home offices.  My theory is he was looked over for a job and this is how he's getting his revenge.

"In particular it is less female-friendly than other games on the market,"

Matt - you can take that comment, tear it into large sections and stuff bits of it into every hole you have that's almost big enough for a piece, you 20th century relic piece of chauvanistic jerk.

The fact of the matter is that a large number of the women that I know from my various WoW guilds (which have hovered for the last couple of years at being around 20% being 'chick-gamers') have purchased Age of Conan, and they're loving the **** out of it.

What the he** makes you think that AoC isn't "female friendly" - the (hopelessly, hopelessly outdated) thought that girls don't want to kick ass? What, you think that girls only want to play crap like Hello Kitty online?

News Flash, my wife (who is hardly an exception) is all over Fatalities. She's picking up Brutal Gear every chance she gets - nothing makes her night more than jumping a higher level player and ending the fight with a Fatality. (heck, even if she loses, if the other guy scores a fatality, she /salutes him via tell).

"less female-friendly..."

Pft.

Neanderthal.

Originally posted by BlueCadwal

Great... now if Matt had only been writing for MMORPG.com 6 years earlier, he would've killed almost every major MMO out there before they took off.

Seriously, can I say he's wrong in what he says?  No.  However, there are nicer ways to put things than to write 3000 words about how bad a game is.  With the number of people writing about how they disagree with these articles, I'm surprised that the managing editor hasn't written to say that they don't support nor deny the editorials and explain their purpose.  That's one way to reaffirm that it's an opinion section and not a rant.

Though I decided to research Matt a little.  Based off what I've researched about Matt so far is, he's a very nice person who lives near Funcom's home offices.  My theory is he was looked over for a job and this is how he's getting his revenge.

 Tin foil hats for everyone!

Originally posted by jonaylward

"In particular it is less female-friendly than other games on the market,"

Matt - you can take that comment, tear it into large sections and stuff bits of it into every hole you have that's almost big enough for a piece, you 20th century relic piece of chauvanistic jerk.

The fact of the matter is that a large number of the women that I know from my various WoW guilds (which have hovered for the last couple of years at being around 20% being 'chick-gamers') have purchased Age of Conan, and they're loving the **** out of it.

What the he** makes you think that AoC isn't "female friendly" - the (hopelessly, hopelessly outdated) thought that girls don't want to kick ass? What, you think that girls only want to play crap like Hello Kitty online?

News Flash, my wife (who is hardly an exception) is all over Fatalities. She's picking up Brutal Gear every chance she gets - nothing makes her night more than jumping a higher level player and ending the fight with a Fatality. (heck, even if she loses, if the other guy scores a fatality, she /salutes him via tell).

"less female-friendly..."

Pft.

Neanderthal.

Boy are you narrow-minded. I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself and think of the other reasons that makes this game lean towards catering to men. The reason you assumed isn't even a reason at all as you've already stated. The answer is so obvious that I cannot believe you assumed it was combat that "could" turn women away.

i didnt like the part about paying higher subscription fee
i think the 14$ mark/month is alreaddy to high

how come guildwars can do without any fee if they also have support staff and server costs ?

imho the support demand was self inflicted by releasing the game in a to early state.
when people get stuck in geometry or their client crashes because of the gemcutting bug should they pay an extra 2$ because the company needs gms to fix that ??

other then that: i loooooooooooooove conan

Originally posted by jonaylward

"In particular it is less female-friendly than other games on the market,"

Matt - you can take that comment, tear it into large sections and stuff bits of it into every hole you have that's almost big enough for a piece, you 20th century relic piece of chauvanistic jerk.

The fact of the matter is that a large number of the women that I know from my various WoW guilds (which have hovered for the last couple of years at being around 20% being 'chick-gamers') have purchased Age of Conan, and they're loving the **** out of it.

What the he** makes you think that AoC isn't "female friendly" - the (hopelessly, hopelessly outdated) thought that girls don't want to kick ass? What, you think that girls only want to play crap like Hello Kitty online?

News Flash, my wife (who is hardly an exception) is all over Fatalities. She's picking up Brutal Gear every chance she gets - nothing makes her night more than jumping a higher level player and ending the fight with a Fatality. (heck, even if she loses, if the other guy scores a fatality, she /salutes him via tell).

"less female-friendly..."

Pft.

Neanderthal.

I think he's more referring to the fact that the women are depicted in a chauvanistic way.  You know the whole, "watch how realistically the boobs jiggle" kind of thing.  I highly doubt he's referring to the combat or the fatalities. 

I mean if you watched any of Funcom's interviews they had two scantily clad women sitting on either side of the person being interviewed for no other reason besides eye candy. 

Your reason for attacking someone is an assumption.  You might find that your assumption isn't quite right.

EDIT: To Craynlon.  Guild Wars does it because they have a nearly entirely instanced game, which means that most of the weight is on the client and not the server, therefore they need less server maintenance and things of that nature.

Personally i would have to agree with other people saying this is a very bad article. When you review something you shouldn't only look at the bad things, through some stuff that you liked about the game in there also. Don't  just bash it straight into the ground and tell people its worth to buy, because you just destroyed all acredability of that game.  This is just my opinion though, which really wont matter.

PS: I do agree with most of the negative things in which he talked about.

---

Originally posted by fyerwall
Tin foil hats for everyone!

---

Originally posted by JK-Kanosi

Originally posted by jonaylward

"In particular it is less female-friendly than other games on the market,"

Matt - you can take that comment, tear it into large sections and stuff bits of it into every hole you have that's almost big enough for a piece, you 20th century relic piece of chauvanistic jerk.

The fact of the matter is that a large number of the women that I know from my various WoW guilds (which have hovered for the last couple of years at being around 20% being 'chick-gamers') have purchased Age of Conan, and they're loving the **** out of it.

What the he** makes you think that AoC isn't "female friendly" - the (hopelessly, hopelessly outdated) thought that girls don't want to kick ass? What, you think that girls only want to play crap like Hello Kitty online?

News Flash, my wife (who is hardly an exception) is all over Fatalities. She's picking up Brutal Gear every chance she gets - nothing makes her night more than jumping a higher level player and ending the fight with a Fatality. (heck, even if she loses, if the other guy scores a fatality, she /salutes him via tell).

"less female-friendly..."

Pft.

Neanderthal.

Boy are you narrow-minded. I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself and think of the other reasons that makes this game lean towards catering to men. The reason you assumed isn't even a reason at all as you've already stated. The answer is so obvious that I cannot believe you assumed it was combat that "could" turn women away.

Agreed, had nothing to do with combat or gore. Also the fact you got offended on behalf of the females of the world and took it upon yourself to fight for their honor is just as out-dated. Last I heard the ladies can speak for themselves.

He also he didn't write "isn't famale friendly" he wrote "less female friendly than other MMO's on the market" which considering the content is a fair call. In the world of Conan all women were refered to as wench. Call your wife that and see how long you would last