Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by bryan1980

I think Blizzard just said a few weeks ago that they would never port one of their games to a console because you have to sacrifice too much gameplay to do it.  They are working with Microsoft for the next generation of xbox so it has more input features though and could support a deep game.   MMORPGs are not FPS, there is too much 'meat' to the game to have it accessible on a console. 

That's not correct and sounds like Blizzard's doing a bit of spinning.

FFXI is an extremely deep MMO with tons of content, and it runs on PS2, 360 and PC. It's still going strong after 7 years and showing no signs of slowing. Entirely new content is still being added to it. SE's next MMO will be targeting Vista PCs, 360, PS3 and possibly Mac.

So, that's at least one existing MMO/Game, and another in development that aren't suffering from this limitation Blizzard speaks of.

Because Blizzard can't conceive of it being done, doesn't mean it can't be, or hasn't been.

Being an MMO has nothing to do with how the game is played.

Massively multiplayer and online. 
Role playing game.

Oblivion is an RPG and it utilizes FPS combat.
It's not played online and is therefore not an MMORPG.

You can have first person shooter, you can even have 3rd person shooters like Gears of War or Resident Evil.
Then you can have just first person perspective, like Darkfall, or a lot of the oldschool rpg's from the 90's.

Todays consoles are more like PC's then ever, they even utilize the same parts that are in your PC; oddly enough the PS3 more so the the 360.  The same CPU's and GPU's that power your desktop also power  todays consoles. 

The PS3 uses an actual web browser, and both consoles have keyboards; I believe that both may even have a mouse you can get for them.  Hell the PS3 uses the same USB ports that are on my PC, and I have 360 controllers that are also compatible with my PC.  I can sync both to my PC and I even played my 360 on my widescreen PC monitor.

The bug up thier butts PC eliteists need to get a grip and come back to reality.  There isn't anything that todays, and tomorrows consoles can't do, as far as video games go, that a PC can.  It's all developer willingness and market awareness.  A lot of console gamers just woudln't think to use a keyboard; just like a lot of PC gamers are aposed to using controllers.  It only takes one game to change the perception of gamers, much like wow did with MMO's it's possible that a game could come along on consoles that will have gamers rushing to the store to buy a keyboard and mouse to play it.

Consoles and console games outsell PC's and PC games by a HUGE margin.
I played the hell out of starcraft on the nintendo 64.  An RTS game; how much more PC can you get.

Originally posted by Fariic

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by bryan1980

I think Blizzard just said a few weeks ago that they would never port one of their games to a console because you have to sacrifice too much gameplay to do it.  They are working with Microsoft for the next generation of xbox so it has more input features though and could support a deep game.   MMORPGs are not FPS, there is too much 'meat' to the game to have it accessible on a console. 

That's not correct and sounds like Blizzard's doing a bit of spinning.

FFXI is an extremely deep MMO with tons of content, and it runs on PS2, 360 and PC. It's still going strong after 7 years and showing no signs of slowing. Entirely new content is still being added to it. SE's next MMO will be targeting Vista PCs, 360, PS3 and possibly Mac.

So, that's at least one existing MMO/Game, and another in development that aren't suffering from this limitation Blizzard speaks of.

Because Blizzard can't conceive of it being done, doesn't mean it can't be, or hasn't been.

 

Being an MMO has nothing to do with how the game is played.

Massively multiplayer and online. 
Role playing game.

Oblivion is an RPG and it utilizes FPS combat.
It's not played online and is therefore not an MMORPG.

You can have first person shooter, you can even have 3rd person shooters like Gears of War or Resident Evil.
Then you can have just first person perspective, like Darkfall, or a lot of the oldschool rpg's from the 90's.

Todays consoles are more like PC's then ever, they even utilize the same parts that are in your PC; oddly enough the PS3 more so the the 360.  The same CPU's and GPU's that power your desktop also power  todays consoles. 

The PS3 uses an actual web browser, and both consoles have keyboards; I believe that both may even have a mouse you can get for them.  Hell the PS3 uses the same USB ports that are on my PC, and I have 360 controllers that are also compatible with my PC.  I can sync both to my PC and I even played my 360 on my widescreen PC monitor.

The bug up thier butts PC eliteists need to get a grip and come back to reality.  There isn't anything that todays, and tomorrows consoles can't do, as far as video games go, that a PC can.  It's all developer willingness and market awareness.  A lot of console gamers just woudln't think to use a keyboard; just like a lot of PC gamers are aposed to using controllers.  It only takes one game to change the perception of gamers, much like wow did with MMO's it's possible that a game could come along on consoles that will have gamers rushing to the store to buy a keyboard and mouse to play it.

Consoles and console games outsell PC's and PC games by a HUGE margin.
I played the hell out of starcraft on the nintendo 64.  An RTS game; how much more PC can you get.

Yeah... The line between PC and Console has been blurred for a while now. Only real difference is that while a PC can be progressively upgraded with better hardware, ya kinda have to wait 'til a company releases a new model to get an "upgrade" for a console.

Other than that, the innards are more and more alike than they are different.

Haven't people even gotten Linux to run on a PS2? Possibly PS3?

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by WisebutCruel

Originally posted by kverik

 it has had its own stable player base for the past 8 years and is still holding stronger thats is mucher better than most soon to be 10 year old mmos can say   

 

I'm sorry, but that's some funny shit right there. Anarchy Onlines population has gone down steadily over those 8 years. You're lucky if there are more than 20k people playing the game today. And you call that "stable"?

Well, I guess being able to count on there being less players every year could be perversely referred to as "stabilty. As in, stable decline.

Well it all depends on how you choose to look at it.

Your definition of "failure" isn't necessarily someone else's.

You call AoC and AO both failures... and by your standards, I'm sure they are.

However... I don't think it's a fair judgement to say FC has failed with them.

Both games are still running. Both games have a player base. I know people in AO who've been playing since launch, still enjoy it and have no intention of leaving 'til they shut it down. They're not a "raving success", but they're not "failures" either.

Were you to say Auto Assault was a failure.. I'd give you that, as it was taken off line barely a year after its launch. Same with Tabula Rasa. Those games didn't make it.

Also, if you're discussing FC as a company, it's unfair to say 2 MMOs = 100% fail rate, as you did in your previous post, because that's not all they've released. They have put out 2 other games that have both been quite successful and highly acclaimed. So you're omitting half of their current releases.

Are they shaky with MMO launches? Yep. No argument there. But they've still managed to keep one of them going for 8 years now... and they couldn't do that without a player base who enjoy the game, no matter how you slice it. As for AoC, despite its issues and FC's horrid handling of it, it maintains a player base as well.

So, to come to the conclusion that they have a "100% fail rate" and base it only on 2 MMOs, omitting that they have 2 other games that were both successful... well, it seems a bit disingenous.

At the end of the day, no matter how strongly you feel otherwise, FC has a clean slate with TSW, and a chance to handle it better than they did with AoC.  No one can predict whether they will or won't. Only time will tell.

 

And yet, my post was in regards to the ridiculous comment of Anarchy Online having  a "stable" population for 8 years. So would you care to comment on that, perhaps show me this "stable" population?

As for the 100% fail rate mentoned in my previous post, it still stands. You're trying to use the two singleplayer games as success stories, yet you forget to mention one thing:

Ragnar Tournquist only made those games because Funcom was relegated to publishing and nothing else. Funcom had no say in the story or gameplay. So The Longest Journey and Dreamfall were Ragnars' successes, not Funcoms'.

Now you tell me how Funcom will stay out of everything with The Secret World. Even if they let Ragnar have total control gameplay/story wise, Funcom will run the servers ( we see how well they do that ), Funcom will handle customer service ( that's enough to kill a large section of population right there ), Funcom GMs will be "helping" ingame ( there's another good laugh ), and for all intents and purposes, Funcom will be running the game.

Now, if they come out and say Ragnar is making the game, running the servers, using third party customer support, and Funcom is only distributing, and show this to be true, I may change my opinion. Otherwise, it's just another Funcom flop.
 

Originally posted by WisebutCruel

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by WisebutCruel

 

And yet, my post was in regards to the ridiculous comment of Anarchy Online having  a "stable" population for 8 years. So would you care to comment on that, perhaps show me this "stable" population?

As for the 100% fail rate mentoned in my previous post, it still stands. You're trying to use the two singleplayer games as success stories, yet you forget to mention one thing:

Ragnar Tournquist only made those games because Funcom was relegated to publishing and nothing else. Funcom had no say in the story or gameplay. So The Longest Journey and Dreamfall were Ragnars' successes, not Funcoms'.

Now you tell me how Funcom will stay out of everything with The Secret World. Even if they let Ragnar have total control gameplay/story wise, Funcom will run the servers ( we see how well they do that ), Funcom will handle customer service ( that's enough to kill a large section of population right there ), Funcom GMs will be "helping" ingame ( there's another good laugh ), and for all intents and purposes, Funcom will be running the game.

Not even sure what you're getting at here. Funcom's the company... of course they're going to have a hand in its handling. What do you expect? But... I see where you're going with this in the next statement.

Now, if they come out and say Ragnar is making the game, running the servers, using third party customer support, and Funcom is only distributing, and show this to be true, I may change my opinion. Otherwise, it's just another Funcom flop.
 
Pure, 100% conjecture. Nothing more.

Unless you can tell me where you acquired such a flawless crystal ball as to be able to speak so difinitively about something still far into the future, that's only just been officially announced?

Sorry, but with that statement, your agenda is pretty clear. Like many others here, you don't like Funcom and so you like to harp on about how everything they do will be a "flop". 

Cling bitterly to your opinions and predictions about Funcom if it helps you sleep at night.

I prefer to stick with what I know... They could blow it again. Or they could finally get it right. We don't know either way how it'll turn out, so it's foolish to start calling it a "flop" or a "success" at this point.

That said...

I wasn't addressing the bit about "AO's stable population" in particular. They have a population that, yes, has decreased over time. However, for the MMO to still be up and running with a playerbase, whatever its size, after 8 years is a pretty darn impressive with how quickly some MMOs fade away into nothing. So.. again.. AO is not a "raving success", but it's not a "failure" either.

As for the whole Ragnar created DF and TLJ and Funcom merely published them thing...  It sounds to me like you're grossly over-generalizing here and don't have the facts quite right.

Some facts:
1. Ragnar Tornquist works for Funcom.
2. Dreamfall and The Longest Journey were developed by and for Funcom.
3. Dreamfall, in particular, was published by Aspyr and Empire Interactive, not Funcom.
4. The Longest Journey was co-designed by Ragnar Tornquist and Didrik Tollefsen; not only Ragnar.

So... no, they were not "all Ragnar Tornquist's success". Unless you believe there were no programmers, artists, composers, etc. etc. required to bring that story to life?

(Hint: There were... An entire team of them; and they were all working for Funcom)

What you seem to be saying would be like saying that Shigero Miyamoto was the main person behind The Legend of Zelda; Nintendo only developed and published it, that it's really Miyamoto's success. What's the difference? Miyamoto *works* for Nintendo. It's *still* a Nintendo game.

Whether they're single player or not, they still count towards FC's overall track record of releasing games. So, you can stand by your "100% fail rate" statement if that's how you personally see it. However, to me, it seems your statement is disingenuous as it dismisses 3 important things that do matter:

1. AO - whatever its population is currently, has been going for 8 years, and is still going. It has not "failed" in terms of being a viable, playable product. You can go to their site, order an account and begin playing.
2. AoC - despite FC's atrocious handling of it, is a live game with a population playing it. It has not "failed" in terms of being a viable, playable product. You can go to their site and order the game, or you can go to a store and purchase it off the shelf.
3. Longest Journey and Dreamfall, regardless of "who was at the helm" or whether they're single player or not, are still Funcom games and they were, by far, not failures.

So, while you say they have a "100% fail rate", I say you're being blatantly and willfully dismissive of things that do lean in their favor in order to do so. And that, to me, seems pretty disingenuous. If you're going to judge a company, you must judge them on everything they've done - not only what suits your argument.

But hey.. you have your opinion that it's a "flop".

I have mine that "they have a clean slate, so we can't say whether it'll be a flop or a success yet"

I happen to think mine's a bit more reasonable at this point.

If it turns out that they handle it well this time, then good for them... they finally figured out how to launch a MMO.

If it turns out that they pull the same crap they did with AoC, believe me, I'll be right there criticizing them for it, just as I was with AoC.

All we can do is wait and see.

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by Fariic

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by bryan1980

I think Blizzard just said a few weeks ago that they would never port one of their games to a console because you have to sacrifice too much gameplay to do it.  They are working with Microsoft for the next generation of xbox so it has more input features though and could support a deep game.   MMORPGs are not FPS, there is too much 'meat' to the game to have it accessible on a console. 

That's not correct and sounds like Blizzard's doing a bit of spinning.

FFXI is an extremely deep MMO with tons of content, and it runs on PS2, 360 and PC. It's still going strong after 7 years and showing no signs of slowing. Entirely new content is still being added to it. SE's next MMO will be targeting Vista PCs, 360, PS3 and possibly Mac.

So, that's at least one existing MMO/Game, and another in development that aren't suffering from this limitation Blizzard speaks of.

Because Blizzard can't conceive of it being done, doesn't mean it can't be, or hasn't been.

 

Being an MMO has nothing to do with how the game is played.

Massively multiplayer and online. 
Role playing game.

Oblivion is an RPG and it utilizes FPS combat.
It's not played online and is therefore not an MMORPG.

You can have first person shooter, you can even have 3rd person shooters like Gears of War or Resident Evil.
Then you can have just first person perspective, like Darkfall, or a lot of the oldschool rpg's from the 90's.

Todays consoles are more like PC's then ever, they even utilize the same parts that are in your PC; oddly enough the PS3 more so the the 360.  The same CPU's and GPU's that power your desktop also power  todays consoles. 

The PS3 uses an actual web browser, and both consoles have keyboards; I believe that both may even have a mouse you can get for them.  Hell the PS3 uses the same USB ports that are on my PC, and I have 360 controllers that are also compatible with my PC.  I can sync both to my PC and I even played my 360 on my widescreen PC monitor.

The bug up thier butts PC eliteists need to get a grip and come back to reality.  There isn't anything that todays, and tomorrows consoles can't do, as far as video games go, that a PC can.  It's all developer willingness and market awareness.  A lot of console gamers just woudln't think to use a keyboard; just like a lot of PC gamers are aposed to using controllers.  It only takes one game to change the perception of gamers, much like wow did with MMO's it's possible that a game could come along on consoles that will have gamers rushing to the store to buy a keyboard and mouse to play it.

Consoles and console games outsell PC's and PC games by a HUGE margin.
I played the hell out of starcraft on the nintendo 64.  An RTS game; how much more PC can you get.

Yeah... The line between PC and Console has been blurred for a while now. Only real difference is that while a PC can be progressively upgraded with better hardware, ya kinda have to wait 'til a company releases a new model to get an "upgrade" for a console.

Other than that, the innards are more and more alike than they are different.

Haven't people even gotten Linux to run on a PS2? Possibly PS3?

 

I think it more has to do with the keyboard then the 'innards' of a computer/console.    Very few console games make use of a keyboard, which means very few people buy a keyboard for their console.   Blizzard games have been very keyboard heavy.  I think what they want from Microsoft is for a commitment to more keyboard use, or maybe even keyboard included with the console.

I'll give you an example of what happens when a good keyboard game gets ported....  Civilization.     Civ 2-4 were very deep on the PC and felt like an epic game.  I played it on the PS3, and it was just very very shallow because of the limitations of the input devices.  While the ps3 version was fun, it was very different than the pc version.

I think a game like Darkfall could very easily port to a console, but that is because it is a very shallow MMORPG.    My druid has probably 40 abilities/skills on his hotbars in WOW.  Blizzard would have to seriously dumb-down the options for it to work on a console and it would completely change the gameplay.

I can somewhat understand where the OP is coming from, except I'm not a general Funcom hater.  I know that the team making The Secret World is not the same team that made AoC. I signed up on the TSW forums in May of 2007, so I have been keeping an eye on this game for two years already. I have high hopes, but I also know that given the number of crappy games release in the last few years, the odds of this game working out are slim.  I applaud Ragnar's vision, and hope he can pull it off. However, based on what we know about the AoC engine, I do have concerns.

The main reason I have not returned to AoC after getting burned at launch, was the game world's fundamental design.  Because the game was so broken up by instanced zones, unreachable world areas, and invisible walls, I felt like I was on rails at all times.  I also felt that the game world was tiny, even though it is quite large.  The trouble is, it doesn't matter if the game world is large, if we are not free to explore it as we choose. TSW is using the same game engine as AoC, so it doesn't take much brain work before you start to compare the two games.

I could go into greater detail, but anyone who tried AoC knows what I am talking about, and they either love it or hate it.  As someone who expects large, somewhat seamless MMO worlds, I hated it.  It was clear that the playable zones were designed with the limitations of the Xbox 360 in mind. As the O.P. mentioned, this is always an instant turn off for me.  MMO companies are increasingly hoping to 'double dip' in the PC and Xbox markets using most of the same game code, and the reason is obvious with the growing popularity of the Xbox platform.  Because of this, the PC version of the game suffers, and in some cases, both versions are lackluster.

This is my biggest fear for TSW.  If Ragnar is forced to develop what should be one of the most interesting MMO's ever designed, while having the Xbox 360 as a target, we may end up with a complete joke of a game. At the very least it could have the exact same claustrophobic, restricted feeling that you get while playing AoC.  MMO's are supposed to immerse you in a fantastic new world, and if you are looking at loading screens or running into invisible walls all the time, it becomes difficult to suspend disbelief and truly enjoy the game.

As previously stated, it is you.

Originally posted by MindTrigger  

TSW is using the same game engine as AoC, so it doesn't take much brain work before you start to compare the two

I believe I have heard somewere that the Unreal Engine is used for medicalstudents.....

The engine doesnt say anything about the program running on top.... or atleast.... perhaps you like fraggin a hearth!

Played AoC for a 3 months or so, the turnback for me whas mainly the godsforsaken loadingscreens. On the other hand, I wont let my expirience with AoC blur my sight. You cant be objective if you would do that ;) I do like the idea behind the game. We will see when its done, people who judge a game thats probably not even in alpha state are just foolish

Originally posted by White_Dust

Originally posted by MindTrigger  

TSW is using the same game engine as AoC, so it doesn't take much brain work before you start to compare the two

 

I believe I have heard somewere that the Unreal Engine is used for medicalstudents.....

 

The engine doesnt say anything about the program running on top.... or atleast.... perhaps you like fraggin a hearth!

 

Played AoC for a 3 months or so, the turnback for me whas mainly the godsforsaken loadingscreens. On the other hand, I wont let my expirience with AoC blur my sight. You cant be objective if you would do that ;) I do like the idea behind the game. We will see when its done, people who judge a game thats probably not even in alpha state are just foolish

 

 

I'm personally not judging it, but my concerns are justified considering we have been told, so far, that the xbox is platform target for TSW as well as the PC, just like AoC was.  This means the game will likely have to have the same instanced zones and loading screens as AoC, which was one of the main reasons I have stayed away from it.

I've been following TSW for two years now; I signed up for the offcial forums in May of 2007 when the first clues were released.  I have very high hopes for this game, but any mention of being an Xbox release for an MMO game throws up some huge red flags.

Can understand that, MindTrigger. Have mixed feelings about it. The concept sounds realy great, no leveling grinds, just develop the skills you use in a world completely free of high fantasy. Hmm... Could we place the secret world in Cyberpunk Fantasy?

On the other hand, I do hope that they come true to there word obout a minimal of loading screens... The major turnback for me on AoC...

Ahwell, Ill expect nothing, cant turn out bad ;)
 

Originally posted by White_Dust

Can understand that, MindTrigger. Have mixed feelings about it. The concept sounds realy great, no leveling grinds, just develop the skills you use in a world completely free of high fantasy. Hmm... Could we place the secret world in Cyberpunk Fantasy?

On the other hand, I do hope that they come true to there word obout a minimal of loading screens... The major turnback for me on AoC...

 

Ahwell, Ill expect nothing, cant turn out bad ;)
 

That's all you can do these days.  Expect nothing, and maybe you will be pleasantly surprised.  I just hope Ragnar and his team are listening.  So far they are going the right direction and trying to do something totally different from the WoW clones.  Ragnar seems to be well aware of the boring treadmill WoW clones out there, and trying to avoid as much of it as possible.

You are right about the setting/theme of the game.  We need this.  We need a break from high fantasy.  The setting for this game could make for what I call 'unintentional role playing', which is something I saw in Star Wars Galaxies.  People were so immersed in the world of SWG, that they were easily able to let the game take them away, and it seemed that everyone was role playing to one degree or another. I believe this was a direct result of all the freedom we had in that game, combined with rich non-combat professions, skills, and also the social features.  When the NGE took most of those features away, the soul left the game and I could never get back into it.

When I say "role playing" I don't mean we were all pretending to emulate famous Star Wars characters as much as we had built ourselves a character, and role played whatever that meant to us. I'm not really a role player in the traditional sense, but I do let mind run free with my character if the game gives me the freedom to do so. I think one of the biggest community killers in o is the class system. No one feels like an individual, so they don't invest as much into building an in-game persona.

Originally posted by Daedrick

Blather blather rant rant 

It's just you

Originally posted by Guillermo197

The only info we have about the game is the factsheet.

99% of the stuff you write comes from deep within your rectum and are complete fantasm and false assumptions at this point.

LOL. I agree, at this point noone knows much about TSW but Funcom. Hopefully that will change soon

I'm not sure if Funcom will gain support for this game after the failure of Age of Conan. Although, they are making a bit of revenue from the game.

---

Originally posted by Cynthe
"Are they dumb or is it just me?"
It's you.

---

I would say both, funcom and he. :)

---

Originally posted by Syno23
I'm not sure if Funcom will gain support for this game after the failure of Age of Conan. Although, they are making a bit of revenue from the game.

---

AoC was not a failure...

AoC was just that - UNFINISHED GAME.

Now once they managed to actually get rid of dick whose name starts with G, the game has already improved a lot.

And its not "just a bit of revenue". Current financial reports state that income from AoC is growing, including the number of active subscriptions.

So anyway, the bottom point is:
- Funcom released Anarchy Online awkwardly. Then it latter on became into a total WIN and only got ruined after the team transferred to AoC. AO pioneered a lot of new ideas for MMO genre, almost all of them crafted by Ragnar Tornquist.
- Funcom released the best game ever created - The Longest Journey. Its author was Ragnar Tornquist.
- Funcom released second best game ever created - Dreamfall: The Longest Journey. Its author was Ragnar Tornquist.
- Funcom prematurely released Age of Connan, which was brilliant game till you actually run out of content or face the horrible bugs. Subscriptions fell down. Gaute got fired. Game began to improve a lot. Subscriptions are growing. R.Tornquist had no involvement with this game.
- Funcom is going to release The Secret World with Ragnar Tornquist at helm.

So far all the games involving R.Tornquist have been complete and utter WIN.. I don't really see on just why should TSW be different, nor why should people rate the company because of one incompetent team.

AOC was a failure because it didn't live up to expectations. Regardless if it improved and trust me they couldn't have gotten worse after launch.