Originally posted by Yamota

This post is not about bashing CO, I think it is a good game with alot of innovative features. However it lacks any kind of longetivity and Cryptic really hasnt got what Super Heroes are about.

Super Heroes are not like in your typical fantasy MMORPG where you do endless quests or grind mobs. Super Heroes is about fighting Super Villains and saving the world/city/whatever, that is why they are needed as regularly villains are handled by the regular authorities.

So as it says at the end of the interview of the DC comics creators truly show that they "get it". It goes something along like this:

Interviewer: Will there be epic battles between players playing Super Villains and Super Heroes?

Developer: Yes, definetely

Interviewer: Great, thats all people needed to know.

Cryptic needs to wise up and stop threating this game like just another MMORPG and realise that what fans of Super Heroes want is to battle their archnemesis the Super Villains and vice versa. Having an AI controlled Super Villain with inflated stats does not cut it.

This game NEEDS player controlled villains and it NEEDS to have a fun system where they duke it out over a city, world, whatever. That is what defines most Super Hero comics, not doing quests and killing mobs.

 

so essentially he is saying there is pvp in the game. the 'epic' part, well we have to wait and judge that for ourselves, but somehow i doubt the individual battle between xbattmanx and the jokester will habe any game-world changing consequence.

Originally posted by maskedweasel 

If you don't like this game because its SOE I can understand that, if you don't like it because its F2P I guess I can understand that too (although it may be more of a guild wars model, not sure)   but in any true gamers opinion those are really not the right reasons to dislike a game.   

I don't know enough about the game yet to not like it, but so far it isn't wowing me.  I don't hate it at all because soe is making it, but I also don't expect much from it either.  

From the little that has been shown only a few things have really caught my interest.  One thing that did catch my attention was the developer [name I just cant recall] who gave the DCU presentation at soe fan faire this year.  He was the only person that walked on the stage that seemed to be genuinely interested in the game he was working on. 

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Bree'ah

I very much miss the 'civil' identity in the hero games as well.

Almost all heroes and villains have an alternate ego that they switch to when 'off duty'. It's a very large part of the whole hero gimmick that all the games seem to miss out on.

I don't particularly want to grind out fifty levels as a paper pusher, but I do think that the choice to change into John Doe should be there. Half a comic book is about hiding who you really are from the villains so they can't get at you when you're licking your wounds, or celebrating Auntie May's birthday, or taking the kids to the circus, etc.

I completely agree with the 'What's the fun in wearing tights when everybody else are?' question. I know you have the option to just make a suit instead of a fancy costume, but I'd still rather have the option to switch between super-mode and ordinary mode. Would open up for a whole new range of objectives, too... Undercover work, spying, fetching milk in the local convenience store. Those are things that are really hard to do when you show up with a hammer the size of yourself, a winged helmet and cape.

Ehh... no.

1. All four members of the Fantastic Four do not have alter egos.
2. Captain America rarely reverted back to his real name.
3. Tony Stark revealed himself to be Iron Man to the Marvel comic world.
4. Spider Man also revealed to the Marvel comic world that he was Peter Parker.
5. And, with the Super Hero Registration Act in the Marvel world, all registered heroes had to register their true identities as well as their super hero identities.

Now, my examples are only from Marvel, which I enjoy a lot more than DC.  However, it still proves that not all super heroes have a secret, "civil" identity as you claim they do.

Oh... You're right...

I see now the error of my ways. You completely got the gist of my post and proved me so wrong. Here, I'll go back in shame and correct my fatal mistake, so that you may read beyond the first paragraph of my post and maybe understand what I meant with it.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

 

I knew that would strike a cord with a number of people when I wrote it, and god willing.  I'm very tired of this MMO crowd in particular thinking that  they are taking a "stand" against these companies that run their games the way they do.  I was hurt by the NGE too, and I've been somewhat weary of SOEs business practices since, but thats not to say they can't put out a quality product.   Listen, if you don't like the company, don't like the company... if you don't like the payment model don't like the payment model... but that has no bearing on the actual game itself.     In my opinion, a true gamer is someone that transcends a particular genre, system, or stereotype and is willing to play anything once without passing judgment on "the unknown".  I would much rather someone say they don't like the game based on the IP or genre then the company that makes it or the payment model. (eventhought I disagree with MT payment models its never actually stopped me from playing a game I was interested in)

 

So many on this site make rash generalizations about certain games or genres but rarely have the stones to try the game, and instead rationalize why they won't/  The only reason I talk about Champions the way I do is because I have played it.

 

I'll wind down the rant now, but yes, to me if you say "This game will suck because its SOE and its F2P" then to me, you aren't a real gamer.  Just about any other reason regarding the play style of the game I would understand.  SO yes, please, dis the company, not the game.

The problem is in the long term $OE. Say the game is good, what will happen to that game? Based on past performance of SOE, what you are enjoying won't exist down the road. Changes made over time that change what was the original concept to something else is a very likely possibility.

Therfore, while I might NOT be a "TRUE GAMER" in your opinon, I am a weary consumer who looks at what HAS happened.

Originally posted by maskedweasel 

I'll wind down the rant now, but yes, to me if you say "This game will suck because its SOE and its F2P" then to me, you aren't a real gamer.  Just about any other reason regarding the play style of the game I would understand.  SO yes, please, dis the company, not the game.

What you are saying does not make any sense. If a car company (or any company producing something) has a poor history in the production of their previous products then OFCOURSE you should take that into consideration, you would be an idiot if you did not.

The product, the game in this case, is developed/maintained by the same company that developed and maintained previous products that went sour for many customers. So, unless the management and developers are all different, then it makes perfect sense to estimate the quality of future products based on past products.

That you dont understand this simple reasoning, that holds true for just about any company, just boggles my mind.

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by maskedweasel 

I'll wind down the rant now, but yes, to me if you say "This game will suck because its SOE and its F2P" then to me, you aren't a real gamer.  Just about any other reason regarding the play style of the game I would understand.  SO yes, please, dis the company, not the game.

 

What you are saying does not make any sense. If a car company (or any company producing something) has a poor history in the production of their previous products then OFCOURSE you should take that into consideration, you would be an idiot if you did not.

The product, the game in this case, is developed/maintained by the same company that developed and maintained previous products that went sour for many customers. So, unless the management and developers are all different, then it makes perfect sense to estimate the quality of future products based on past products.

That you dont understand this simple reasoning, that holds true for just about any company, just boggles my mind.

I'm not going to disagree with you, but it's a lot more complex than this.

In addition to being a developer with internally owned studios, SOE is also publishing shop and thus partners with external studios. They have many such studios under their umbrella, but the studio-publisher relationship depends entirely on the situation, and differs from studio to studio. This is true for both their internal studios and their partners. In some cases, SOE will add an already successful and working studio to their portfolio and mostly leave it alone, and treat it completely like an external relationship. In other cases, SOE places their own people on site, who influence design, production and scheduling decisions to varying degrees, as part of the publishing contract. Note that I don't work for SOE in any capacity, or any of its partners, but this is just how things work in the industry with the large publishing companies.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by Yamota 

So no, Cryptic, inspite of having created CoX, does not seem to get it. The devs of DC online appear to since they focus their game as a Super Hero vs Super Villain matchup and that is the core of most Super Hero comics.

 

The arch enemy system in champions seems to do what you are complaining about, but you seem to be concerned that it is computer controlled?  The concept sounds pretty sweet. 

What exactly is DCU doing that is going to be different? 

 

From what I have seen about dcu, there will be heroes and villains who each have their own quest lines to follow.  There might be some open pvp if the two cross each others path (and are on the appropriate pvp type server).  I would guess there are going to be arenas and instanced pvp zones. 

Is there some super heroe vs super villian system that I have not seen from DCU yet?  Do hero players have to form up into teams to combat the actions of villain teams?  Contested areas or something?

 

Honestly, from what I have seen of DCU so far, it feels more like the players get to play sidekick to the more famous DC characters.  It always seems like the players get to sidekick with superman or some other major character as they finish some mission they are on.

 

 

I just don't know that much about DCUO  to really say much other then it will come down to 2 things really.  1) Combat and 2) Content.

 

Those are the 2 things that CO did, or didn't do right depending on who you talk to.  Personally I think COs combat is all too wrong, its faulty and boring over any extended period of time, and the hero on hero PvP content is another mistake on cryptics end.   The nemesis system is great, but theres too little of it, the content is too spread apart to be engrossing.

 

So far we have 2 Super Hero MMOs out there and both of them are by cryptic...... I'm looking forward to seeing what another company can bring to the table..... if nothing else it will expand the genre and bring in a different perspective.  

 

If you don't like this game because its SOE I can understand that, if you don't like it because its F2P I guess I can understand that too (although it may be more of a guild wars model, not sure)   but in any true gamers opinion those are really not the right reasons to dislike a game.   

Actually... that's an opinion.  Many gamers boycott any game made by $OE... and with good reason too.  Look at my previous post for their transgressions.  It's legitimate complaint to dislike a company for their past actions.  In fact, everyone should actually take a gander at any company's past transgressions before they decide to play it... especially when it comes to MMORPGS as they are both a time and further monetary investment.

However, to hate the game just because of the company making it is not a valid excuse to hate a game.  Hating the company is alright, but hating the game because of the company is not.  Yet, boycotting that game is valid, so long as the person boycotting it does not bash the game itself.  But, bashing the company is acceptable.

Anyways, how do you truthfully define "true gamers"?

 

I knew that would strike a cord with a number of people when I wrote it, and god willing.  I'm very tired of this MMO crowd in particular thinking that  they are taking a "stand" against these companies that run their games the way they do.  I was hurt by the NGE too, and I've been somewhat weary of SOEs business practices since, but thats not to say they can't put out a quality product.   Listen, if you don't like the company, don't like the company... if you don't like the payment model don't like the payment model... but that has no bearing on the actual game itself.     In my opinion, a true gamer is someone that transcends a particular genre, system, or stereotype and is willing to play anything once without passing judgment on "the unknown".  I would much rather someone say they don't like the game based on the IP or genre then the company that makes it or the payment model. (eventhought I disagree with MT payment models its never actually stopped me from playing a game I was interested in)

 

So many on this site make rash generalizations about certain games or genres but rarely have the stones to try the game, and instead rationalize why they won't/  The only reason I talk about Champions the way I do is because I have played it.

 

I'll wind down the rant now, but yes, to me if you say "This game will suck because its SOE and its F2P" then to me, you aren't a real gamer.  Just about any other reason regarding the play style of the game I would understand.  SO yes, please, dis the company, not the game.

Apparently you did not read what I had wrote, or you would have known that I was essentially agreeing with you on the point that people who hate the company should not hate and bash the game.  Reread and you will see.

Your definition of a "true gamer" is shortsighted and elitist.  Just because certain gamers will not go from one genre or system to another does not disqualify them from being a "true gamer" (whatever "true" actually means in this context is questionable as all people who play games are gamers).  Some gamers just enjoy MMORPG's... others enjoy single player RPG's.  Some enjoy PC's and don't own consoles as they do not like the limiting factor of them or cannot afford the price of a console.  Again, it's shortsighted and elitist to call anyone who does not ignore what they truly enjoy and/or will not ignore their budgetary restraints as "not true gamers". 

Your last point is the most boggeling.  Just because you choose to ignore what a game company has done in the past, does not mean that everyone else should.  Again, hating a company based on their past transgressions is necessary.  Especially when it comes to MMORPGs as they will be further developed (or dropped) by said company.  And, if said company has a torrid history (*cough* $OE *cough*) then the question of the MMORPG's sustainability and quality are in serious question.  Again, however, to bash a game solely on the hatred against a company is not valid nor should be tolerated.  Boycotting the game because of said hatred is acceptable.  But, bashing the game because of said hatred is not.

People who totally ignores a company's past transgressions, especially with $OE and EA, when weighing the decision on to buy said game or not, are exactly what companies like $OE and EA thrive upon.  Sheep.... mere sheep.

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by maskedweasel 

I'll wind down the rant now, but yes, to me if you say "This game will suck because its SOE and its F2P" then to me, you aren't a real gamer.  Just about any other reason regarding the play style of the game I would understand.  SO yes, please, dis the company, not the game.

 

What you are saying does not make any sense. If a car company (or any company producing something) has a poor history in the production of their previous products then OFCOURSE you should take that into consideration, you would be an idiot if you did not.

The product, the game in this case, is developed/maintained by the same company that developed and maintained previous products that went sour for many customers. So, unless the management and developers are all different, then it makes perfect sense to estimate the quality of future products based on past products.

That you dont understand this simple reasoning, that holds true for just about any company, just boggles my mind.

I'm actually glad you made the car company reference.  What you are saying is that if a car company is known for having a poor history of selling poorly made cars then the consumer should be wary.  But thats not the case here. SOE has put out a number of games, some have done very well, others did well and then tanked hard later when they made changes.  

Now take any various car company, such as Kia for example.  I would say they are one of the least desirable car companies,  many of their older cars may have been known to have issues, their styles aren't as popular as some of the others, and the company name doesn't really instill any confidence in the buyer.  Then again, with their newer models coming out cheaper and more aggressive with a lot more luxury features coming as standard, and a warranty that lasts 5 years bumper to bumper and 10 years powertrain (much longer then other car companies)  then ultimately for a consumer to not take them into consideration on their newer models could also be "idiotic".

So what would a longer warranty and more features for less be considered in the MMO world?  Perhaps a F2P payment model.  Afterall you get just as much if not more then other MMOs and you pay sparingly, and t game is yours to keep.  Its being competetive.  But aside from that... the only thing that matters to you.... to me.....  its that you like the car that you drive... that you get what you want.  If DCUO can give me what I want - a fun game to play -  then they'll earn my business regardless of past transgressions.... 

Again, you may not like the company,  but that doesn't mean they can't put out a quality product.   It would be like saying,  I hate this hamburger because chilis made it instead of  fridays  without even knowing enough about the burger or trying the burger to see if it actually was to your tastes.   

Originally posted by Daffid011

DCU will allow players to get "access" to more costume styles, looks and options as they level up.  Somehow that tells me they do not understand designing a superhero mmo.  It suggests to me they are letting the revenue model dictate the design of the game again. 

Perhaps the design process is wrong because of  what is basicly an "item mall".

However, the concept (without virtual sales) would make more sense... why?  Simply most costumes evolved over time... so it would actually make more sense if you actually did get more access as you "level up" (think of it as time passing).

I fully agree that I have no desire to have to buy things like this.  Then again I guess if I was spending the same or less (than a monthly fee) I would have to rethink it.

Just a point of view...

Originally posted by Yamota

This post is not about bashing CO, I think it is a good game with alot of innovative features. However it lacks any kind of longetivity and Cryptic really hasnt got what Super Heroes are about.

Super Heroes are not like in your typical fantasy MMORPG where you do endless quests or grind mobs. Super Heroes is about fighting Super Villains and saving the world/city/whatever, that is why they are needed as regularly villains are handled by the regular authorities.

So as it says at the end of the interview of the DC comics creators truly show that they "get it". It goes something along like this:

Interviewer: Will there be epic battles between players playing Super Villains and Super Heroes?

Developer: Yes, definetely

Interviewer: Great, thats all people needed to know.

Cryptic needs to wise up and stop threating this game like just another MMORPG and realise that what fans of Super Heroes want is to battle their archnemesis the Super Villains and vice versa. Having an AI controlled Super Villain with inflated stats does not cut it.

This game NEEDS player controlled villains and it NEEDS to have a fun system where they duke it out over a city, world, whatever. That is what defines most Super Hero comics, not doing quests and killing mobs.

 

2 points to refute in your statement.

1 - It DOES NOT NEED player controlled villians to be a viable game to the masses.

2 - Just because YOU like PvP do not try to enforce your idea of what the game SHOULD be.

PvP was added to the game due to the outcry of others and potentially to work through power balance and conflicts for when they DO ADD PLAYER CONTROLLED VILLIANS in any upcoming release or expansion. 

I am not an avid PvP fan and I do see the reasons why people like it.  If the game is not TOUTED AS A PVP FOCUSED game, any post on why it SHOULD BE  comes across as a whine.

It is in MMORPG not an MMOPVP.  RPG means Role Playing Game.  There are stats and points to allocate in advancing the character.  Yes there are a number of Heroes running amouck.  Just like in any Fantasy based MMO the number of sorcs and warriors and rogues outweigh the local population.  For some reason no one has an issue with THAT!!!

AION, WAR, EVE, and FE are games that have a PvP set up that is more of the focus of the game.  In those games if you complain that the PVP was horribly set up or wrong or had issues your point would be a valid one.  DCUO has stated they will have PVP in the game and they are supporting both HEROS and VILLIANS.  CO HAS NO PLAYER VILLIANS.

Let me say this again in case you missed the all caps.

CO HAS NO PLAYER CONTROLLED VILLIANS.

This is the same thing they did with COH.  It allows them to fine tune and focus the Heroes before they go back and try to incorporate some player controlled villainy.  When they DO ADD PLAYER CONTROLLED VILLAINS ( and they most definately will ) the balance in the power sets should be hashed out and the focus of adding them will be on how to make a PLAYER OWNED VILLIAN be a bad guy and not just a muckety muck hero with a bad attitude doing similar quests that a Hero would do, just adding soem crappy attitude.

IMO, when they do ADD PLAYER CONTROLLED VILLIANS, they should make them gain double XP for any mob death that a HERO gets,  no NPC Quests other than potentially working for a bigger villain to do some heists and such.  The other thing they get is XP for KILLING HEROES in PVP. 

So, be patient.  It is coming.  No need to put it out there like you are the only one who understands what the players want.  So you can come back in a year or so and say "OMFG this RAWKS I told ya it needed player controlled villians!" 

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by Yamota 

So no, Cryptic, inspite of having created CoX, does not seem to get it. The devs of DC online appear to since they focus their game as a Super Hero vs Super Villain matchup and that is the core of most Super Hero comics.

 

The arch enemy system in champions seems to do what you are complaining about, but you seem to be concerned that it is computer controlled?  The concept sounds pretty sweet. 

What exactly is DCU doing that is going to be different? 

 

From what I have seen about dcu, there will be heroes and villains who each have their own quest lines to follow.  There might be some open pvp if the two cross each others path (and are on the appropriate pvp type server).  I would guess there are going to be arenas and instanced pvp zones. 

Is there some super heroe vs super villian system that I have not seen from DCU yet?  Do hero players have to form up into teams to combat the actions of villain teams?  Contested areas or something?

 

Honestly, from what I have seen of DCU so far, it feels more like the players get to play sidekick to the more famous DC characters.  It always seems like the players get to sidekick with superman or some other major character as they finish some mission they are on.

 

 

I just don't know that much about DCUO  to really say much other then it will come down to 2 things really.  1) Combat and 2) Content.

 

Those are the 2 things that CO did, or didn't do right depending on who you talk to.  Personally I think COs combat is all too wrong, its faulty and boring over any extended period of time, and the hero on hero PvP content is another mistake on cryptics end.   The nemesis system is great, but theres too little of it, the content is too spread apart to be engrossing.

 

So far we have 2 Super Hero MMOs out there and both of them are by cryptic...... I'm looking forward to seeing what another company can bring to the table..... if nothing else it will expand the genre and bring in a different perspective.  

 

If you don't like this game because its SOE I can understand that, if you don't like it because its F2P I guess I can understand that too (although it may be more of a guild wars model, not sure)   but in any true gamers opinion those are really not the right reasons to dislike a game.   

Actually... that's an opinion.  Many gamers boycott any game made by $OE... and with good reason too.  Look at my previous post for their transgressions.  It's legitimate complaint to dislike a company for their past actions.  In fact, everyone should actually take a gander at any company's past transgressions before they decide to play it... especially when it comes to MMORPGS as they are both a time and further monetary investment.

However, to hate the game just because of the company making it is not a valid excuse to hate a game.  Hating the company is alright, but hating the game because of the company is not.  Yet, boycotting that game is valid, so long as the person boycotting it does not bash the game itself.  But, bashing the company is acceptable.

Anyways, how do you truthfully define "true gamers"?

 

I knew that would strike a cord with a number of people when I wrote it, and god willing.  I'm very tired of this MMO crowd in particular thinking that  they are taking a "stand" against these companies that run their games the way they do.  I was hurt by the NGE too, and I've been somewhat weary of SOEs business practices since, but thats not to say they can't put out a quality product.   Listen, if you don't like the company, don't like the company... if you don't like the payment model don't like the payment model... but that has no bearing on the actual game itself.     In my opinion, a true gamer is someone that transcends a particular genre, system, or stereotype and is willing to play anything once without passing judgment on "the unknown".  I would much rather someone say they don't like the game based on the IP or genre then the company that makes it or the payment model. (eventhought I disagree with MT payment models its never actually stopped me from playing a game I was interested in)

 

So many on this site make rash generalizations about certain games or genres but rarely have the stones to try the game, and instead rationalize why they won't/  The only reason I talk about Champions the way I do is because I have played it.

 

I'll wind down the rant now, but yes, to me if you say "This game will suck because its SOE and its F2P" then to me, you aren't a real gamer.  Just about any other reason regarding the play style of the game I would understand.  SO yes, please, dis the company, not the game.

Apparently you did not read what I had wrote, or you would have known that I was essentially agreeing with you on the point that people who hate the company should not hate and bash the game.  Reread and you will see.

Your definition of a "true gamer" is shortsighted and elitist.  Just because certain gamers will not go from one genre or system to another does not disqualify them from being a "true gamer" (whatever "true" actually means in this context is questionable as all people who play games are gamers).  Some gamers just enjoy MMORPG's... others enjoy single player RPG's.  Some enjoy PC's and don't own consoles as they do not like the limiting factor of them or cannot afford the price of a console.  Again, it's shortsighted and elitist to call anyone who does not ignore what they truly enjoy and/or will not ignore their budgetary restraints as "not true gamers". 

Your last point is the most boggeling.  Just because you choose to ignore what a game company has done in the past, does not mean that everyone else should.  Again, hating a company based on their past transgressions is necessary.  Especially when it comes to MMORPGs as they will be further developed (or dropped) by said company.  And, if said company has a torrid history (*cough* $OE *cough*) then the question of the MMORPG's sustainability and quality are in serious question.  Again, however, to bash a game solely on the hatred against a company is not valid nor should be tolerated.  Boycotting the game because of said hatred is acceptable.  But, bashing the game because of said hatred is not.

People who totally ignores a company's past transgressions, especially with $OE and EA, when weighing the decision on to buy said game or not, are exactly what companies like $OE and EA thrive upon.  Sheep.... mere sheep.

I did read your post vato and I know you agreed with me. I reiterated my point and expanded.  Again, being a true gamer to me doesn't mean that you have to play everything on all consoles all the time.  Its more of a mindset of understanding that games on a console, a PC or perhaps even a board game can be fun, and not to discredit them based on what you are used to.  For instance... theres nothing more elitist then the people here that say PC is the best and consoles are worthless (or a fad, or whatever).  I on the other hand would be willing to try anything on any system if it looks like something fun.     I'm not saying that you have to like everything to be a true gamer, or play everything....  but to be open to the idea of other games, and not be closed minded and disrespectful to others that like other kinds of play.  You see this alot when an MMORPG anounces they will also launch on a console.  The ones that automatically discredit that game.... those are not real gamers to me.

As for SOE, EA, and us sheep.  If you stop playing games from those companies thats fine with me.  EA is one of the biggest publishers, if not the biggest, of video games period.  EA owns and solely publishes BioWare games now.. some of the best RPGs we'll ever see.  SoE has put out the everquest series, which has done well for a very long time. SWG was great.. and yes, because of what they did it gave them a bad name... and I was one of those that got a refund on ToOW once the NGE hit.  To say I will never play a game from EA or SoE again because they made a mistake or two would be pretty stupid and limiting in my opinion. I base my opinions on the games they put out.   If you won't play a game that looks good to you because of the company that produces it, then you're getting what you deserve I guess. 

Originally posted by Nipashnaka

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by maskedweasel 

I'll wind down the rant now, but yes, to me if you say "This game will suck because its SOE and its F2P" then to me, you aren't a real gamer.  Just about any other reason regarding the play style of the game I would understand.  SO yes, please, dis the company, not the game.

 

What you are saying does not make any sense. If a car company (or any company producing something) has a poor history in the production of their previous products then OFCOURSE you should take that into consideration, you would be an idiot if you did not.

The product, the game in this case, is developed/maintained by the same company that developed and maintained previous products that went sour for many customers. So, unless the management and developers are all different, then it makes perfect sense to estimate the quality of future products based on past products.

That you dont understand this simple reasoning, that holds true for just about any company, just boggles my mind.

I'm not going to disagree with you, but it's a lot more complex than this.

In addition to being a developer with internally owned studios, SOE is also publishing shop and thus partners with external studios. They have many such studios under their umbrella, but the studio-publisher relationship depends entirely on the situation, and differs from studio to studio. This is true for both their internal studios and their partners. In some cases, SOE will add an already successful and working studio to their portfolio and mostly leave it alone, and treat it completely like an external relationship. In other cases, SOE places their own people on site, who influence design, production and scheduling decisions to varying degrees, as part of the publishing contract. Note that I don't work for SOE in any capacity, or any of its partners, but this is just how things work in the industry with the large publishing companies.

I know, you are correct, and that is the only reason why I am giving DC Online the benefit of doubt. If I knew that SOE had the same morons working with DC Online as they had with EQ 2 and Star Wars then I wouldnt take a second look at the game. I am hoping different people, who are more in touch with what a Super Hero comic is all about, are in control. And judging from the video interview that seems to be the case.

Originally posted by coldfreedom

 

seems that alot of people is bashing dc universe descriminately just cause its by SOE. and just cause SOE ruin their star wars mmo.... i dont know how but sadly i never played it since im not a star wars fan.

 

 well no duh... you only can go by some1's past.... and SOE did terrible many times over

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by Yamota 

So no, Cryptic, inspite of having created CoX, does not seem to get it. The devs of DC online appear to since they focus their game as a Super Hero vs Super Villain matchup and that is the core of most Super Hero comics.

 

The arch enemy system in champions seems to do what you are complaining about, but you seem to be concerned that it is computer controlled?  The concept sounds pretty sweet. 

What exactly is DCU doing that is going to be different? 

 

From what I have seen about dcu, there will be heroes and villains who each have their own quest lines to follow.  There might be some open pvp if the two cross each others path (and are on the appropriate pvp type server).  I would guess there are going to be arenas and instanced pvp zones. 

Is there some super heroe vs super villian system that I have not seen from DCU yet?  Do hero players have to form up into teams to combat the actions of villain teams?  Contested areas or something?

 

Honestly, from what I have seen of DCU so far, it feels more like the players get to play sidekick to the more famous DC characters.  It always seems like the players get to sidekick with superman or some other major character as they finish some mission they are on.

 

 

I just don't know that much about DCUO  to really say much other then it will come down to 2 things really.  1) Combat and 2) Content.

 

Those are the 2 things that CO did, or didn't do right depending on who you talk to.  Personally I think COs combat is all too wrong, its faulty and boring over any extended period of time, and the hero on hero PvP content is another mistake on cryptics end.   The nemesis system is great, but theres too little of it, the content is too spread apart to be engrossing.

 

So far we have 2 Super Hero MMOs out there and both of them are by cryptic...... I'm looking forward to seeing what another company can bring to the table..... if nothing else it will expand the genre and bring in a different perspective.  

 

If you don't like this game because its SOE I can understand that, if you don't like it because its F2P I guess I can understand that too (although it may be more of a guild wars model, not sure)   but in any true gamers opinion those are really not the right reasons to dislike a game.   

Actually... that's an opinion.  Many gamers boycott any game made by $OE... and with good reason too.  Look at my previous post for their transgressions.  It's legitimate complaint to dislike a company for their past actions.  In fact, everyone should actually take a gander at any company's past transgressions before they decide to play it... especially when it comes to MMORPGS as they are both a time and further monetary investment.

However, to hate the game just because of the company making it is not a valid excuse to hate a game.  Hating the company is alright, but hating the game because of the company is not.  Yet, boycotting that game is valid, so long as the person boycotting it does not bash the game itself.  But, bashing the company is acceptable.

Anyways, how do you truthfully define "true gamers"?

 

I knew that would strike a cord with a number of people when I wrote it, and god willing.  I'm very tired of this MMO crowd in particular thinking that  they are taking a "stand" against these companies that run their games the way they do.  I was hurt by the NGE too, and I've been somewhat weary of SOEs business practices since, but thats not to say they can't put out a quality product.   Listen, if you don't like the company, don't like the company... if you don't like the payment model don't like the payment model... but that has no bearing on the actual game itself.     In my opinion, a true gamer is someone that transcends a particular genre, system, or stereotype and is willing to play anything once without passing judgment on "the unknown".  I would much rather someone say they don't like the game based on the IP or genre then the company that makes it or the payment model. (eventhought I disagree with MT payment models its never actually stopped me from playing a game I was interested in)

 

So many on this site make rash generalizations about certain games or genres but rarely have the stones to try the game, and instead rationalize why they won't/  The only reason I talk about Champions the way I do is because I have played it.

 

I'll wind down the rant now, but yes, to me if you say "This game will suck because its SOE and its F2P" then to me, you aren't a real gamer.  Just about any other reason regarding the play style of the game I would understand.  SO yes, please, dis the company, not the game.

Apparently you did not read what I had wrote, or you would have known that I was essentially agreeing with you on the point that people who hate the company should not hate and bash the game.  Reread and you will see.

Your definition of a "true gamer" is shortsighted and elitist.  Just because certain gamers will not go from one genre or system to another does not disqualify them from being a "true gamer" (whatever "true" actually means in this context is questionable as all people who play games are gamers).  Some gamers just enjoy MMORPG's... others enjoy single player RPG's.  Some enjoy PC's and don't own consoles as they do not like the limiting factor of them or cannot afford the price of a console.  Again, it's shortsighted and elitist to call anyone who does not ignore what they truly enjoy and/or will not ignore their budgetary restraints as "not true gamers". 

Your last point is the most boggeling.  Just because you choose to ignore what a game company has done in the past, does not mean that everyone else should.  Again, hating a company based on their past transgressions is necessary.  Especially when it comes to MMORPGs as they will be further developed (or dropped) by said company.  And, if said company has a torrid history (*cough* $OE *cough*) then the question of the MMORPG's sustainability and quality are in serious question.  Again, however, to bash a game solely on the hatred against a company is not valid nor should be tolerated.  Boycotting the game because of said hatred is acceptable.  But, bashing the game because of said hatred is not.

People who totally ignores a company's past transgressions, especially with $OE and EA, when weighing the decision on to buy said game or not, are exactly what companies like $OE and EA thrive upon.  Sheep.... mere sheep.

 

I did read your post vato and I know you agreed with me. I reiterated my point and expanded.  Again, being a true gamer to me doesn't mean that you have to play everything on all consoles all the time.  Its more of a mindset of understanding that games on a console, a PC or perhaps even a board game can be fun, and not to discredit them based on what you are used to.  For instance... theres nothing more elitist then the people here that say PC is the best and consoles are worthless (or a fad, or whatever).  I on the other hand would be willing to try anything on any system if it looks like something fun.     I'm not saying that you have to like everything to be a true gamer, or play everything....  but to be open to the idea of other games, and not be closed minded and disrespectful to others that like other kinds of play.  You see this alot when an MMORPG anounces they will also launch on a console.  The ones that automatically discredit that game.... those are not real gamers to me.

 

As for SOE, EA, and us sheep.  If you stop playing games from those companies thats fine with me.  EA is one of the biggest publishers, if not the biggest, of video games period.  EA owns and solely publishes BioWare games now.. some of the best RPGs we'll ever see.  SoE has put out the everquest series, which has done well for a very long time. SWG was great.. and yes, because of what they did it gave them a bad name... and I was one of those that got a refund on ToOW once the NGE hit.  To say I will never play a game from EA or SoE again because they made a mistake or two would be pretty stupid and limiting in my opinion. I base my opinions on the games they put out.   If you won't play a game that looks good to you because of the company that produces it, then you're getting what you deserve I guess. 

Ok... I can accept the first part of that. I don't think it should be called "true" gamer, but I see where you are coming from and respect it.

To say what $OE and EA has done were "mistakes" is beyond shortsighted.

It has been proven that $OE had been working on the NGE for at least 6 months before putting out ToOW.  There were too many changes in NGE for $OE to just put it out in a short time. Same with ToOW.  They were developing both during the same time, so they knew what they were doing.  They knew that they were committing bait-and-switch when they made promises with ToOW then killed those same promises with NGE.  I do not consider this whole entire scenario a "mistake" as there was so much premeditation that they knew exactly what they were doing.   Instead, this is premeditated fraudulent and money-grubbing antics. There is no two-ways about it.

Also, $OE knew what they were doing with putting LiveGamer (RMT) on all servers of Vanguard without asking the player base about it. They already knew the playerbase would be against it, as they did the same poll with EQ2 and RMT on all servers (ended in very negative results... so $OE put it on only a couple of new servers). Therefore, $OE decided to ignore whatever their Vanguard playerbase may have thought of RMT and went through with RMT on all servers anyways. Again, I do not consider this a "mistake" as $OE already knew what their EQ2 playerbase thought about RMT, and EQ2 and VG shares quite a bit of players (station pass and both games are fantasy RPG's), but decided to ignore this and screw the VG playerbase with RMT anyways. Now, the actual implementation of the RMT was a mistake, as when it first came out, it was broken. However, $OE knew exactly what they were doing when they put the RMT into effect.

Your last phrase (highlighted portion) brings to mind the old saying, "Don't judge a book by its cover."  I find that anyone who doesn't even weigh the reputation of the game's producer(s) into the equation when deciding on if to buy the game, are massive idiots and are, getting what they deserve I guess.  Especially with $OE and their history of changing a game's core rules on a whim.  The game may look "great" at start... but, especially with MMORPG's, the developer may fubar the whole game with patches and "enchancements" later on.  A company's history is key to predicting what they will do in the future.  To ignore that is stupid.

Originally posted by maskedweasel 

I did read your post vato and I know you agreed with me. I reiterated my point and expanded.  Again, being a true gamer to me doesn't mean that you have to play everything on all consoles all the time.  Its more of a mindset of understanding that games on a console, a PC or perhaps even a board game can be fun, and not to discredit them based on what you are used to.  For instance... theres nothing more elitist then the people here that say PC is the best and consoles are worthless (or a fad, or whatever).  I on the other hand would be willing to try anything on any system if it looks like something fun.     I'm not saying that you have to like everything to be a true gamer, or play everything....  but to be open to the idea of other games, and not be closed minded and disrespectful to others that like other kinds of play.  You see this alot when an MMORPG anounces they will also launch on a console.  The ones that automatically discredit that game.... those are not real gamers to me.

 

As for SOE, EA, and us sheep.  If you stop playing games from those companies thats fine with me.  EA is one of the biggest publishers, if not the biggest, of video games period.  EA owns and solely publishes BioWare games now.. some of the best RPGs we'll ever see.  SoE has put out the everquest series, which has done well for a very long time. SWG was great.. and yes, because of what they did it gave them a bad name... and I was one of those that got a refund on ToOW once the NGE hit.  To say I will never play a game from EA or SoE again because they made a mistake or two would be pretty stupid and limiting in my opinion. I base my opinions on the games they put out.   If you won't play a game that looks good to you because of the company that produces it, then you're getting what you deserve I guess. 

You don't have to lower your standard to be a "true gamer".  Nor do you have to boycott, hate or whatever other term you are associating with people and soe in their relationship. 

SOE bought out the division the created everquest and drove those developers away.  Since then they have created many games and each time through their own actions have driven away portions of their playerbase and/or made their games worse.  Their "success" is only a fraction of the one true success they bought.  There is a reason this once giant undisputed leader of the industry is now a fraction of its former size.

Lets face it, soe has a terrible history and anyone chosing to avoid playing their games is doing so with an educated viewpoint.  It isn't like soe has a history of putting out well crafted entertaining games that people would be crazy not to play due to some unjustified hatred. 

If something happens to change how soe creates games and views their customers then maybe it would be worth looking at their future games, but as it stands there is no reason to expect anything other than the same level of service and quality.  Personally I have better things to do with my time than give soe yet another chance to show they have learned form their past mistakes.  My time is the most valuable property I have and soe has a long history of undoing or downgrading my investment in their games (no this is not an nge thing).  

I don't like speaking on the behalf of masses of people, but I think soe has gotten to the point that they need to prove things have changed before many people will give them yet another chance. 

To be honest just looking at screenshots of DC makes my skin crawl. It looks like crap, and I think it will also play like crap.....

Champions is a fun game an it will get even better over time...

Dcuo understrand that a hero or villian isn't simply defined by the way they look, its talking up the aspects that matter in a comicbook - story and depth of character, interactions and alliances.

While Champions may expand but its very apparent that Cryptic have forgotten or just dont care about how the comicbook theme contributes to the variety of the avatar, adding more superficial gloss wont see CO improve, there needs to be a fundamental shift in the type of content added before the game can appeal to a wider audience, and a giant hurdle to overcome is the staid and generic engine the whole game has been constructed upon.

Originally posted by tyanya

Dcuo understrand that a hero or villian isn't simply defined by the way they look, its talking up the aspects that matter in a comicbook - story and depth of character, interactions and alliances.

While Champions may expand but its very apparent that Cryptic have forgotten or just dont care about how the comicbook theme contributes to the variety of the avatar, adding more superficial gloss wont see CO improve, there needs to be a fundamental shift in the type of content added before the game can appeal to a wider audience, and a giant hurdle to overcome is the staid and generic engine the whole game has been constructed upon.

Yeah you know what I am talking about. People say that CoX and CO are niche games because they are super hero MMORPGs. They really aren't, the only thing super hero about them is the skin, i.e. how your character looks. Everything else is similar to other MMORPGs.

Looking at Aion and CO there really isnt that much different between the two. They look different but they play pretty much the same. Do endless missions/quest that requires you to fetch this or kill that. Major difference is that where as Aion has en end game, CO has not.

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by tyanya

Dcuo understrand that a hero or villian isn't simply defined by the way they look, its talking up the aspects that matter in a comicbook - story and depth of character, interactions and alliances.

While Champions may expand but its very apparent that Cryptic have forgotten or just dont care about how the comicbook theme contributes to the variety of the avatar, adding more superficial gloss wont see CO improve, there needs to be a fundamental shift in the type of content added before the game can appeal to a wider audience, and a giant hurdle to overcome is the staid and generic engine the whole game has been constructed upon.

 

Yeah you know what I am talking about. People say that CoX and CO are niche games because they are super hero MMORPGs. They really aren't, the only thing super hero about them is the skin, i.e. how your character looks. Everything else is similar to other MMORPGs.

Looking at Aion and CO there really isnt that much different between the two. They look different but they play pretty much the same. Do endless missions/quest that requires you to fetch this or kill that. Major difference is that where as Aion has en end game, CO has not.

But in CoX villian side you rob a bank. Hero side your stoping it from being robed.If one reads the missions their is a difrent feel to both sides.

Intresting enuff some of the ideas in CO were pitched for CoX but turned down.only to show up in CoX .Plan on trying CO some time this month i hope.Not haveing a villan side does seem to hurt a bit.was kinda surprised cryptic didnt include it knowing how well cov soild an drew players to cox.

If Dc online does villians right an have a decent f2p system as rumored. they could do very well.

Sounds like  they are just saying it has pvp. One person is rping a bad superhero, and one is rping a good one. What makes that different than CO or COH?

The fact that it's f2p  is pretty much telling you  it will suck and be full of f2p losers who would shank you if you were standing in front of the quest item they needed.

Free is great but not when it brings in all the worst people from the mmo world.

I will happily change my opinion of it if I play it and am proved wrong. - I doubt it will happen though since pretty much all f2p games have the same community.

Originally posted by iamspamicus

Sounds like  they are just saying it has pvp. One person is rping a bad superhero, and one is rping a good one. What makes that different than CO or COH?

The fact that it's f2p  is pretty much telling you  it will suck and be full of f2p losers who would shank you if you were standing in front of the quest item they needed.

Free is great but not when it brings in all the worst people from the mmo world.

I will happily change my opinion of it if I play it and am proved wrong. - I doubt it will happen though since pretty much all f2p games have the same community.

You cant RP a supervillain. I cant rob any banks in CO. There is no epic struggle between good and evil.

I look forward to seeing a true superhero game that includes supervillains at launch. Perhaps it will have nice balance since they may give thought to that upfront rather than nerf the shit out of everyone post release (CoH/CO style)

It boils down to the attitude/approach of the design team to the game. DCUO are asking the question - what makes this mmo convey the world of DC and comics in general, how can the player become a part of that world and feel involved.

I don't know if SoE will deliver, but its encouraging and implies they place some genuine value on the comicbook theme, having played CO there is no evidence of Cryptic having even considered such aspects and many of the recent mmo releases have been nothing more than sterile anthologies of mmo staple features with no glue to make them tick..... I believe thats why we have seen some functional games die so early in their life - no matter how solid the gameplay there's just nothing to make you care about what you are doing or feel involved.

Ultimately CO may end up with all the customisation and looks, all the superficial details to its credit, but the lack of priority and conviction in the comicbook theme at its core will always undermine these achievements and leave it a souless generic experience as a whole......DCUO, because it values its source material, will actually see its theme make the game more than the sum of its parts....where that really leaves it is anyones guess at this stage (theres no way to assess how good those parts are) but it now stands as the only comicbok game with any chance of actually feeling different or progressive from the generic hoards of fantasy mmoland. (APB and SWToR are the only other games actually taking a theme-centirc approach to design it seems and these are the games I hope will drive some genuine evolution in the mmo)

Yeah CO universe doesnt feel like any comic book I ever read. All the books I grew up on took themselves seriously like X-Men, Spiderman, Sandman, comicgen titles, metabaron, and it goes on and on.

When I play superhero titles like Spiderman 2 and so forth I feel effort to immerse me into a world

But CO it does feel like a typical fantasy MMO sort of reskinned. Now, they spiced up the classless power system but sort of through balance out the window in the process. I want a classless system but one where it feels balanced.

Now- I give them credit. I love the character creator. I like choosing my powers. But once I step into the world I feel something missing.

Worse- their 'energy builder' system doesnt feel like anything from Comics. When was the last time you saw a superhero sit there and have to spam a weak power?

Sometimes I do feel super when I play. So its not a total fail. It's a decent title. But when I think bout Fantasy games they give me powers as well and also make me the hero.

I really dont feel immersed in a world when I play this though. It's just missing that tons. Like when my character dies no big deal. In EVE Online, my heart pumped hard when I was taking a mjor risk. I felt apart of a serious universe that took itself seriously

I do not feel CO takes itself seriously.

Originally posted by PatchDay

Yeah CO universe doesnt feel like any comic book I ever read. All the books I grew up on took themselves seriously like X-Men, Spiderman, Sandman, comicgen titles, metabaron, and it goes on and on.

Gotta agree, I've only played a bit of the game in beta (shortly before it released) and un-installed it. I'd take the statement of "CO doesn't take itself seriously" and apply it to Cryptic not taking its fanbase seriously.

Remember the "Sakura Park" incident? There was plenty of negativity surrounding that choice of originality, and a good 4/5ths of it got deleted/locked, with barely any response on the Devs or CM's part.

Remember the release-day untested, unknown patch that literally changed everything about the game? I'd call that a bait-and-switch.

I honestly played CoX more than I have played CO, because honestly, the former is better. CO's character creation system is clunky and ugly, and the freedom it provides isn't as much as they hyped, and the interface in-game is just as bad too. Melee in general is completely useless, and the limited range of powers for it have nothing special as well. The whole "energy builder" thing is essentially an auto-attack that punishes you for turning it off. The tutorial does little to really make you feel like a hero either. 

About the Nemesis thing, that was originally something you'd have to deal with throughout your WHOLE career, meaning right from the start. Now its limited to 25+, and best part? You have to wait til "Generic <Insert your villian's name> Henchmen A" attacks you and hope you get a piece of paper, then repeat several times to eventually go "Oh hey... I have a super villian I should probably deal with about now" so it isn't guaranteed right off the bat, its all luck.

And... on a slightly unrelated note:

"Superman, I'm a let you finish an everythin, but Batman is the best super hero of all time. Of all time!"

gota agree with the last two posts.co fails in some ways with its world. theirs not much to care about. it feels as plastic as the models look.faces so need work on human models specialy the females when they talk its down right scary .

in cox their is stories that can get pretty dark .least as much as most comics can get thses days.in co your character can fall on golf balls.co is casual buggy casual.they realy have to make this event coming up be worth it.to add to the feel of the world an draw a player in.as well as filling content gaps .

gota say its one of the few games i realy want to love but just barely like.doubting very much ill sub . it was worththe 30 i paid for it tho.just wish it was worth subing to.