| 75 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
8/25/08 3:20:12 AM#51
Originally posted by Camisado Not sure about destructible, but here you go.... universe.lego.com/en-us/Default.aspx |
|
|
Funny to be gained up on by the failcom brigade....nice logo btw.
|
|
|
8/25/08 3:21:21 AM#53
Originally posted by Camisado
excellent slam cam. very nice. oh btw if you didnt notice we ended your thread already. 
|
|
|
Thats actually my point... |
|
Originally posted by sigamon
excellent slam cam. very nice. oh btw if you didnt notice we ended your thread already.
What do you all want an overhaul of EQ?
|
|
|
8/25/08 3:24:20 AM#56
Originally posted by Camisado
What do you all want an overhaul of EQ?
im sure that we all dont. since im the only one on the "failcom squad" you talked about that plays eq still. and the only reason why i do is because my girlfiriends computer is such a POS that we cant play anything else. so overhauling it would make it unplayable for her and be moot
|
|
|
Arcken
 Apprentice Member
Joined: 8/14/04
Lets face it, MMOs today are turning into single player console games with a chat box included. |
8/25/08 3:26:55 AM#57
Originally posted by sigamon
What do you all want an overhaul of EQ?
im sure that we all dont. since im the only one on the "failcom squad" you talked about that plays eq still. and the only reason why i do is because my girlfiriends computer is such a POS that we cant play anything else. so overhauling it would make it unplayable for her and be moot Ya know, I thought playing an MMO with a significant other would be fun. Ive tried to play MMOs with my wife a couple times and it failed miserably. She learned fast, but Im way too impatient to stop and explain everything. As a card carrying member of the "failcom" club, I endorse couples gaming! |
|
8/25/08 3:28:39 AM#58
Pool is Closed? - Burying Threads Since 1979 - |
|
|
8/25/08 3:29:30 AM#59
yeah this isnt the first girl ive tried to bring into my mmo world with me. it never works out. they either just do it to try to please me and end up bored which makes me annoyed. or they suck ass and never learn a damn thing. or they need their hand held the entire time. freakin girl gamers suck
|
|
Originally posted by Arcken
im sure that we all dont. since im the only one on the "failcom squad" you talked about that plays eq still. and the only reason why i do is because my girlfiriends computer is such a POS that we cant play anything else. so overhauling it would make it unplayable for her and be moot Ya know, I thought playing an MMO with a significant other would be fun. Ive tried to play MMOs with my wife a couple times and it failed miserably. She learned fast, but Im way too impatient to stop and explain everything. As a card carrying member of the "failcom" club, I endorse couples gaming!
Well let me add this, Im going back to wow....Ill save the 50 bucks from war and flip it over to a nice premade lvl 60, and hope that wotlk is great and 2010 holds better. |
|
|
8/25/08 3:33:14 AM#61
Originally posted by Camisado
im sure that we all dont. since im the only one on the "failcom squad" you talked about that plays eq still. and the only reason why i do is because my girlfiriends computer is such a POS that we cant play anything else. so overhauling it would make it unplayable for her and be moot Ya know, I thought playing an MMO with a significant other would be fun. Ive tried to play MMOs with my wife a couple times and it failed miserably. She learned fast, but Im way too impatient to stop and explain everything. As a card carrying member of the "failcom" club, I endorse couples gaming!
Well let me add this, Im going back to wow....Ill save the 50 bucks from war and flip it over to a nice premade lvl 60, and hope that wotlk is great and 2010 holds better.
do the damn thing
|
|
|
8/25/08 3:38:49 AM#62
Originally posted by Camisado
im sure that we all dont. since im the only one on the "failcom squad" you talked about that plays eq still. and the only reason why i do is because my girlfiriends computer is such a POS that we cant play anything else. so overhauling it would make it unplayable for her and be moot Ya know, I thought playing an MMO with a significant other would be fun. Ive tried to play MMOs with my wife a couple times and it failed miserably. She learned fast, but Im way too impatient to stop and explain everything. As a card carrying member of the "failcom" club, I endorse couples gaming!
Well let me add this, Im going back to wow....Ill save the 50 bucks from war and flip it over to a nice premade lvl 60, and hope that wotlk is great and 2010 holds better.
Send me a Warhammer CE and I'll give you two WoW accounts :p |
|
|
8/25/08 3:44:57 AM#63
Originally posted by Camisado
Wow is a persistant world where you are free to rome, nothing in 2008 has that flavour.
Again what has this got to do with sandbox? Do you know what sandbox game is? WoW is themepark game. A big open world and free to roam (wow btw is not free to roam many areas and instance restricted to lvl), can be both in sandbox and themepark. |
|
|
8/25/08 3:45:00 AM#64
Blizzard have the potential to make really great sandbox game, they just have to be sure that will have enough profit from it to start the development. Maybe their last project that they say will be "something absolutely new" will be a sandbox?  Where themepark games try to hide that they are copying WOW, games like Mortal Online and Darkfall make no attempt to hide their inspiration ______\m/_____ LordOfDarkDesire |
|
|
8/25/08 3:47:49 AM#65
Originally posted by Camisado
Yes but does it cover the fact that all MMos of 2008 failed ...because of a nonpersistent world.
No it does not - I was just pointing out there was another thread with a similar topic. Thought it might have been educational for you to read since you've seemed to imply that WoW was a sandbox mmorpg, and I anticipated that if you continued to promote that argument, you'd be met with a similar amount of scorn and ridicule. But now you seem to be claiming that
The first three of these points are mentioned in the thread that I linked - as well as many more comparisons of "sandbox" criteria to WoW's design (whether hidden zoning really = open world, whether multiple servers versus single shard [EVE Online] has an effect on persistence, etc.). If you truly are interested in whether others feel that WoW is a sandbox game, I would think you would have been interested in the thread. But when you claim that:
It seems you are pushing some other kind of agenda. It's hard for me to imagine that you are really lamenting a lack of sandbox games in 2008 because you offer WoW as an exemplar of the type of game you'd liked to have seen (instead of something along the lines of EVE Online, Saga of Ryzom, etc). You also seem to be pushing the "persistence" button a lot, and the thread I linked to also contains a debate about whether WoW has any persistent sandbox elements (or whether everything is essentially reset at intervals other than a few minor highly scripted events) compared with a game like EVE (where players can build structures that are persistent until acted upon by other players). That being said, it seems part of your argument is that: A sandbox game in 2008 would have performed better than mmorpgs that were released in 2008 You've offered no rationale behind that at all. I like sandbox games (and am playing Ryzom right now since it has been resurrected) but I'm skeptical that they would be more commercially viable than a easy to learn and play, highly linear mmorpg (ala WoW) that would have broad appeal and perhaps leverage an existing IP(Conan, Warhammer) or come from respected developers (ex-Diablo, ex-Ultima). I attribute the failures of mmorpgs of 2008 to other factors (not enough development time / cash, early release) and I have no idea how Warhammer will fare at this point. |
|
|
8/25/08 3:52:30 AM#66
Originally posted by iZakaroN
If you are a company with billions sure anybody who make games for mass market in last 15years, can make a sandbox game. But blizzard wil never make such a game thats agains there whole believe that game must be for mass market. And why you all want that blizzard make also a sandbox game? You want blizzard rule on all fronts and eventually there is only one left blizzard? One thing that have show us and learned when one rules them all no freedom to choose and creativity is gone, it becomes a mindless boring empty shell, and we have then no choice anymore becouse there is only one left. Cant believe so many want this to happen bah:(.
|
|
|
8/25/08 4:02:22 AM#67
Originally posted by Mahni
No it does not - I was just pointing out there was another thread with a similar topic. Thought it might have been educational for you to read since you've seemed to imply that WoW was a sandbox mmorpg, and I anticipated that if you continued to promote that argument, you'd be met with a similar amount of scorn and ridicule. But now you seem to be claiming that
The first three of these points are mentioned in the thread that I linked - as well as many more comparisons of "sandbox" criteria to WoW's design (whether hidden zoning really = open world, whether multiple servers versus single shard [EVE Online] has an effect on persistence, etc.). If you truly are interested in whether others feel that WoW is a sandbox game, I would think you would have been interested in the thread. But when you claim that:
It seems you are pushing some other kind of agenda. It's hard for me to imagine that you are really lamenting a lack of sandbox games in 2008 because you offer WoW as an exemplar of the type of game you'd liked to have seen (instead of something along the lines of EVE Online, Saga of Ryzom, etc). You also seem to be pushing the "persistence" button a lot, and the thread I linked to also contains a debate about whether WoW has any persistent sandbox elements (or whether everything is essentially reset at intervals other than a few minor highly scripted events) compared with a game like EVE (where players can build structures that are persistent until acted upon by other players). That being said, it seems part of your argument is that: A sandbox game in 2008 would have performed better than mmorpgs that were released in 2008 You've offered no rationale behind that at all. I like sandbox games (and am playing Ryzom right now since it has been resurrected) but I'm skeptical that they would be more commercially viable than a easy to learn and play, highly linear mmorpg (ala WoW) that would have broad appeal and perhaps leverage an existing IP(Conan, Warhammer) or come from respected developers (ex-Diablo, ex-Ultima). I attribute the failures of mmorpgs of 2008 to other factors (not enough development time / cash, early release) and I have no idea how Warhammer will fare at this point. They have no clue what a sandbox game is:P And for ryzom its easy as hell its not difficult at, i play ryzom and i never ask anybody how things work and is not hard at all to learn. The problem is these days less and less are willing to put little effort to learn the game by themselfs they need to be taken by the hand and game lead you through it.
Take starter area in ryzom, peeps asking in chat where trainers are WTF, and say how can i find anything if there are no ! ? above npc's or markers on map OMG, thats how it is these days:(. It seems they can read anymore ryzom is even a very simple sandbox game its very casual friendly altho some claim its high learning curve i disagree is very easy, you just have to use your brain again thats all:P |
|
|
8/25/08 4:22:06 AM#68
Originally posted by Evasia
Totally agree that Ryzom is not difficult to learn. I hear you re: the starter area in Ryzom. I do think that there are expectations that have emerged about mmorpgs - expectations of ease of learning / play ( the ? and ! markers above quest givers), of ease of character advancement (no need for excessive grinding or repetitive play), of lack of permanent consequence for failure (no harsh death penalty or permanent death), of quick access to appropriate content (mostly linear design of the world, directing the player from lower level content to higher level content) - and I have no doubt in my mind that some of these expectations are due in large part to the commercial success of WoW. In Ryzom you'll often hear new players asking why you can't jump - even though there is no need to in the game (it serves no purpose in terms of game mechanics) - but it's obvious there is the expectation that one should be able to jump (and that expectation is so strong that players feel that the game is not "immersive" if they can't see their avatar and every other avatar bunny-hopping across the world). I'm not saying mmorpgs should meet these expectations to make a better game, or a game that is truly "easy to learn and play" - I think you could make a great game that violates these expectations and would be fun to play. But I do think that developers realize that meeting these expectations = more mass appeal. For better or worse. |
|
|
8/25/08 4:34:39 AM#69
Originally posted by Mahni
Totally agree that Ryzom is not difficult to learn. I hear you re: the starter area in Ryzom. I do think that there are expectations that have emerged about mmorpgs - expectations of ease of learning / play ( the ? and ! markers above quest givers), of ease of character advancement (no need for excessive grinding or repetitive play), of lack of permanent consequence for failure (no harsh death penalty or permanent death), of quick access to appropriate content (mostly linear design of the world, directing the player from lower level content to higher level content) - and I have no doubt in my mind that some of these expectations are due in large part to the commercial success of WoW. In Ryzom you'll often hear new players asking why you can't jump - even though there is no need to in the game (it serves no purpose in terms of game mechanics) - but it's obvious there is the expectation that one should be able to jump (and that expectation is so strong that players feel that the game is not "immersive" if they can't see their avatar and every other avatar bunny-hopping across the world). I'm not saying mmorpgs should meet these expectations to make a better game, or a game that is truly "easy to learn and play" - I think you could make a great game that violates these expectations and would be fun to play. But I do think that developers realize that meeting these expectations = more mass appeal. For better or worse.
Yes this jumping question lol, alot people can think out of the box anymore, if they experience a game like wow then all games must be like that or it suks lol. I never reply to such question's its pathetic thinking proscess to say wow have jump so this game must also have jump featers, or it suks for them lol. |
|
|
8/25/08 5:45:33 AM#70
I predicted it some weeks ago. New MMOs will make WOW look like sandbox and hardcore. It's happening. Same as new MMos made EQ look hardcore. When we played EQ it wasn't , it was just normal. That only shows how MMOs are going down fast. |
|
|
8/25/08 6:49:25 AM#71
Originally posted by altairzq
Completely agree. Well seen altairzq. Some think UO was the only sandbox, but they forget that by simply being the first... nothing structured was in it. Everyone was sooo excited of being able to walk in a 2D/3D "world" on the internet. Up until Wow came who polished it all, streamlined it all, commercialised it all and they kept on twinking so to keep that huge number of addicts glued to the screens. Now everyone wants to have the same money making machine Blizzard found. EA joins in of course. It's like a goldrush to the Mines of MMORPG's. The faster you get to a mine the better, before Blizzard delves up all the gold ...$ The result is: lesser MMORPG with each new launch. Less multi mass (remember Conan), lesser on line (games you can play alone like Hellfire), lesser Role Playing (lets just clanse some heads Warhammer). It won't be long before FPS like Team Fortress2 are being tuned up to character advacements and future MMORPG's are tuned down to COD4. Just look at the world creation itself: No more seamless open worlds at all. Not in AoC, not in WAR. Reason? development cuts: too long to develop .... before getting there to the gold in the Mines of MMORPG |
|
|
8/25/08 8:03:33 AM#72
Originally posted by sigamon
I'll second this. |
|
|
8/25/08 9:21:51 AM#73
You truely are confused what a sandbox game is. It is open gameplay where the characters are not restricted in how they develop, what they do and how they do it. You can't have classes in a sandbox game, it restricts the character development too much. Hence Wow will never be considered a sandbox. |
|
|
8/25/08 11:06:20 AM#74
Originally posted by Camisado
Thats the point its a better sand box and they will not do aswell, Wow may suck but its a big wide free rome world...and MMOS failed to see that that was important.
If big wide free rome world is the key to sandbox then Vanguard is king of sandbox!! |
|
|
8/25/08 12:03:02 PM#75
Sad knowing that Grand Theft Auto San Andreas is more a sandbox game than mmos. |
|
