---

 
Because Shadowbane had serious problems: It's own community. A remake won't fix that. When one guild "owns" a server meant for thousands, there's a problem. This happened on many of the servers. Human nature sucks. It's hard to code around it.

---

 Those issues really just caused population to decline slowly as winners won and losers lost. The way to deal with this world conquest reality in a game as intense as SB was on folks is to simply recognize that servers have a useful life. Call the end of this useful life a set of "winning conditions," which would trigger a catastrophy - a server wipe - new cities - new aliances - new conflict. A new start. That's what Shadowbane really needed to deal with the issues you rightly identify.

Originally posted by CoolWaters

 

---

 
Because Shadowbane had serious problems: It's own community. A remake won't fix that. When one guild "owns" a server meant for thousands, there's a problem. This happened on many of the servers. Human nature sucks. It's hard to code around it.

---

 

 Those issues really just caused population to decline slowly as winners won and losers lost. The way to deal with this world conquest reality in a game as intense as SB was on folks is to simply recognize that servers have a useful life. Call the end of this useful life a set of "winning conditions," which would trigger a catastrophy - a server wipe - new cities - new aliances - new conflict. A new start. That's what Shadowbane really needed to deal with the issues you rightly identify.

That is a great idea. Have a race to win then restart with maybe new content that can only be used after specific goals are met.

Excellent post Dana. You have gained my respect.

Originally posted by Hidey

Originally posted by CoolWaters

 

---

 
Because Shadowbane had serious problems: It's own community. A remake won't fix that. When one guild "owns" a server meant for thousands, there's a problem. This happened on many of the servers. Human nature sucks. It's hard to code around it.

---

 

 Those issues really just caused population to decline slowly as winners won and losers lost. The way to deal with this world conquest reality in a game as intense as SB was on folks is to simply recognize that servers have a useful life. Call the end of this useful life a set of "winning conditions," which would trigger a catastrophy - a server wipe - new cities - new aliances - new conflict. A new start. That's what Shadowbane really needed to deal with the issues you rightly identify.

That is a great idea. Have a race to win then restart with maybe new content that can only be used after specific goals are met.

The focus group, and evernually most everyone else, went round and round on this, including what you are suggesting.  The best idea I heard was alternating rulesets on the new server - after winning conditions were met, with maybe a weekend break between.  It would have gone somethig like Lore ruleset>ARAC pre ROC ruleset>AQRAC post-ToO ruleset.  Could have been anything really.  Regular wipes would have been the only key.  It would even give guilds, nations, groups of friends and solo players an opportunity to sit out a cycle if they were burnt out or had RL issues without worrying about falling prey to the voracious appetite of SB seiging.
 

The loudest objectors to the idea were those players who loved their items, cities and pixels in general too much.  They didn't realize that in Shadowbane the journey really was the entire fun of the game.  Not the destination.

Originally posted by ray12k

Originally posted by Zoltronlaser

I disagree with a lot on your list because it is based on nostalgia, rather than practicality or even fun gameplay.

City of Heroes just got the remake you asked for, and even mentioned, in the article. It's called Champions Online. That is the closest thing you'll ever see to a City of Heroes remake. The secret identity idea sounds cool, if you're making a movie. But practically, in a game, secret identities would be very boring for players. "Hey look, I'm a regular Joe who has no powers right now!" Does that really require a game? Wouldn't it be easier to just turn off your computer and go to work? Ah, the game we fondly call Reality!

Asheron's Call and Anarchy Online MMOs could work with huge overhauls. So these first two on your list were the most practical targets for remakes. But these remakes couldn't compete in today's market if they were too true to form of the originals. It's not 2002 anymore. You have to make a game that can compete with WoW if you want a blockbuster, and even that's not a guarantee that your title will be popular or sustainable.

I know it's been years, but Dark Age of Camelot really doesn't need a remake yet. They need to let WAR burn off some more steam and crank through some more expansions before being truly capable of pushing out a worthy Dark Age of Camelot remake.

As for Ultima Online, a remake would simply require so many changes that it would fail to be an Ultima Online remake. You wouldn't be able to call it that. You would have to call it, "A game based on ideas from Ultima Online." If you really re-made Ultima Online like you're saying, it would fail faster than Tabula Rasa. This pick on your list was a pure nostalgia pick. There's a reason nobody has copied UO.

 

lol how can ac not compete? besides graphics, its beyond anything wow has...

To be honest everything in AC is what most players want.. you can solo or group.... u get better exp in a group... you get exp from being in a guild... they have a open pvp server... you get good drop items... you can get exp from crafting... its a vast open world with free content every month.... lol .. you can make your own class.....player housing...emotes lol

wow is the big boats of the 70's, the market will come back to its sences... all they need is a sweet show car...

You overestimate the popularity of open worlds vs. guided experiences. In your opinion, EVERYONE wants an open world MMO. Now that might be true for 90% of the people who frequent this site, but for the vast majority of people who actually play games (MMO or otherwise), it's not true at all.

WoW's subscription numbers are pretty good evidence that this is the case. Publishers aren't going to back your niche game. They want money. Your niche game isn't going to sell, though it may be your favorite game in the world. That's just how it is.

 If any MMO more than any other needed a remake, then it's PlanetSide, and as posted above, fortunately it's getting one!

Originally posted by meleemadness

Well, you put AC in there but there was AC2.....if you put them in might as well put in EQ as it has EQ2...and Vanguard to an extent.

 

Hmm, Champions Online is somewhat of a CoX part duece.....but under a different publisher but still the same original developers, Cryptic.

 

Personally, I want to see a new EQ so I can make a Beastlord!!!  I also want to see a SWG pre-CU.....that would be the bomb!

They could remake SWG and just update the graphics, fix the bugs and wham....new game ready for launch.

 

There is no game out now that has really captivated me.....if there was I wouldn't be posting nonstop on this forum.

I have two Aion accounts but just cant seem to log in.....I have CO as well but again, just cant seem to log in.  I am actually thinking of reopening EQ2.

 

I really hope SOE does another EQ type game but I am sure it will be for the console and for the WOW crowd, which means simple, easy and single scope in concept.

Lol i thought i wrote that myself, that exactly the same here, thinking bout EQ2 or EVE maybe cuz CO / AION don't cut it too much :(

How in the hell can Neocron and EQ1 be missing from this list? CoH??? WTF? yer kidding.

DB

No surprise that UO was at the top of the list but I would point out that there has been attempts at games like UO but they have never gotten the backing of a major developing house. The reason we haven't seen another UO is because of Everquest, Everquest was so much more successful that UO was forgotten by the giants. Then came WoW and cemented that belief without the theory that levels and classes are better having been properly tested.

It took 5-10 years but eventually the fans got tired of waiting for Ubisoft, Blizzard, EA, Sony or anyone to make a game like UO so small projects started popping up. The names that come to mind right away are of course Shadowbane, Dark & Light, Darkfall, SWG and my favorite Wurm Online.

Personally I don't want a remake of UO I just want a game like Darkfall or Mortal Online to truly live up to their potential. Maybe now after the massive failures of games like WAR, AoC and other WoW clones some big name company will be willing to put 50 million dollars on a game like Darkfall or Mortal Online.

I'd love to see UO redesigned and updated! I remember how excited I was when the game first came out and PvP'd for the first time! Talk about gankers back then! The orginal game was great but it ended up suffering from constant remakes and the housing problem of people being able to build a house anywhere, which, clogged up everywhere you tried to go.

Great game though-love to see it redone to todays technology!

Originally posted by Dana

Originally posted by cerebrix

 after reading your cry fest about not understanding the crat lass in ao im left with nothing but confusion.

 

as an editor on this site, im just dumbfounded about your bits on anarchy online.  you went normal wow laden mmo fanboy on us.  

 

boo hoo.  i dont like that they called one of the pet classes (and a damn good one at that) the same name as a politician.

 

wow dude, after reading your articles for years.  you lost all credibility with me on that one.

 

mental note, take everything dana writes from now on with a grain of salt.

 

seriously..... 

 

I didn't like Anarchy Online so I have no credibility? Seems a bit extreme.

I'll admit flat out that I played it a bit around Beta and launch, never got hooked, and never went back for any significant, non-professional amount of time. 

The fact is, AO is one of the rare games out there where I had an organic experience that is actually vaguely representative of what real people do. I wasn't covering it, I had no professional responsibilities in it. I think I worked at IGN at the time, but not on AO in any way and I was probably 16/17 years old ;)

So I picked it up out of my own interest and with minimal research based likely off banner ads or minimum amount of looking at fansites/official sites. If they don't like a game early or it disappoints them in some way (and yes, the Bureaucrat thing may be harsh, but it was what went through my brain at the time), they don't come back.

It's why there is limited value to improving a game over the years post launch, or even upgrading them entirely. You need a proper launch to get a lot of people to think about you a second time.

so why didnt you write that in your article?  it would have seemed more honest.  lets revisit what you published.

Let’s go back to the summer of 2001. Funcom, now better known for Age of Conan, launched the first real science fiction MMO. The initial slate of MMOs were fantasy themed, and say what you will about its launch, at least someone had the balls to try a new genre.
As far as terrestrial science-fiction MMOs go, there still isn’t all that much out there. Star Wars Galaxies has a well documented history, and Tabula Rasa is the Waterworld of MMOs.
Yet, along comes Funcom’s Anarchy Online. The quirky Norwegians have continued to develop and expand this game over its eight years of commercial operation. And while they have their hands full with Conan and the upcoming Secret World, maybe they should go back to the game that got it all started?

Why It Was Awesome
Anarchy Online took all the cool bits of the MMO genre and wrapped it in a snazzy, futuristic reality controlled by a shady corporation.
Players choose from a variety of really exciting classes: Adventurer, Agent, Bureaucrat, Doctor, Enforcer, Engineer, Keeper, Martial Artist, Meta-Physicist, Nano Technician, Shade, Soldier, and Trader. While most of these have some kind of fantasy MMO equivalent, their names alone were enough to get me drooling back in 2001.
This is also the game that invented instancing, love it or hate it. They have dynamic missions tailored to the characters involved, which are a popular part of the game.

Why The Old Game Isn’t Good Enough Anymore
The problem I always had with Anarchy Online is that while it promised so much, it never really delivered for me. I wanted the experience of being a Bureaucrat and when I read that, I thought I’d be embroiled in cut-throat sci-fi politics. Turns out I was actually some kind of weird combat class.

now specifically lets look at what you said about "Why The Old Game Isn’t Good Enough Anymore".  you very clearly stated it was all about how one of the pet classes had a name that didnt resonate with how YOU would have designed the game.  your argument you replied to me with doesnt even resemble what you posted.

you never mentioned the game's major strength.  a massive skill based system and and item equipment and tradeskill system unlike any other game, even today.  i dont play ao anymore, and havent in years but i stopped for very different reasons and i could give its pluses and minuses based on my experience.  

sorry dude, but your review doesnt come off to me as anything less than someone who played the game MAYBE for a month.  and even that is debatable.

Originally posted by cerebrix

Originally posted by Dana

Originally posted by cerebrix

 after reading your cry fest about not understanding the crat lass in ao im left with nothing but confusion.

 

as an editor on this site, im just dumbfounded about your bits on anarchy online.  you went normal wow laden mmo fanboy on us.  

 

boo hoo.  i dont like that they called one of the pet classes (and a damn good one at that) the same name as a politician.

 

wow dude, after reading your articles for years.  you lost all credibility with me on that one.

 

mental note, take everything dana writes from now on with a grain of salt.

 

seriously..... 

 

I didn't like Anarchy Online so I have no credibility? Seems a bit extreme.

I'll admit flat out that I played it a bit around Beta and launch, never got hooked, and never went back for any significant, non-professional amount of time. 

The fact is, AO is one of the rare games out there where I had an organic experience that is actually vaguely representative of what real people do. I wasn't covering it, I had no professional responsibilities in it. I think I worked at IGN at the time, but not on AO in any way and I was probably 16/17 years old ;)

So I picked it up out of my own interest and with minimal research based likely off banner ads or minimum amount of looking at fansites/official sites. If they don't like a game early or it disappoints them in some way (and yes, the Bureaucrat thing may be harsh, but it was what went through my brain at the time), they don't come back.

It's why there is limited value to improving a game over the years post launch, or even upgrading them entirely. You need a proper launch to get a lot of people to think about you a second time.

 

 

so why didnt you write that in your article?  it would have seemed more honest.  lets revisit what you published.

 

Let’s go back to the summer of 2001. Funcom, now better known for Age of Conan, launched the first real science fiction MMO. The initial slate of MMOs were fantasy themed, and say what you will about its launch, at least someone had the balls to try a new genre.
As far as terrestrial science-fiction MMOs go, there still isn’t all that much out there. Star Wars Galaxies has a well documented history, and Tabula Rasa is the Waterworld of MMOs.
Yet, along comes Funcom’s Anarchy Online. The quirky Norwegians have continued to develop and expand this game over its eight years of commercial operation. And while they have their hands full with Conan and the upcoming Secret World, maybe they should go back to the game that got it all started?

Why It Was Awesome
Anarchy Online took all the cool bits of the MMO genre and wrapped it in a snazzy, futuristic reality controlled by a shady corporation.
Players choose from a variety of really exciting classes: Adventurer, Agent, Bureaucrat, Doctor, Enforcer, Engineer, Keeper, Martial Artist, Meta-Physicist, Nano Technician, Shade, Soldier, and Trader. While most of these have some kind of fantasy MMO equivalent, their names alone were enough to get me drooling back in 2001.
This is also the game that invented instancing, love it or hate it. They have dynamic missions tailored to the characters involved, which are a popular part of the game.

Why The Old Game Isn’t Good Enough Anymore
The problem I always had with Anarchy Online is that while it promised so much, it never really delivered for me. I wanted the experience of being a Bureaucrat and when I read that, I thought I’d be embroiled in cut-throat sci-fi politics. Turns out I was actually some kind of weird combat class.

 

 

 

now specifically lets look at what you said about "Why The Old Game Isn’t Good Enough Anymore".  you very clearly stated it was all about how one of the pet classes had a name that didnt resonate with how YOU would have designed the game.  your argument you replied to me with doesnt even resemble what you posted.

you never mentioned the game's major strength.  a massive skill based system and and item equipment and tradeskill system unlike any other game, even today.  i dont play ao anymore, and havent in years but i stopped for very different reasons and i could give its pluses and minuses based on my experience.  

sorry dude, but your review doesnt come off to me as anything less than someone who played the game MAYBE for a month.  and even that is debatable.

 

I wrote "The problem I always had with Anarchy Online is that while it promised so much, it never really delivered for me." I thought that was pretty clear without adding 500 words to the article.  I am smart enough to know that sometimes I don't like something that other people do like.

Given my personal history, yes, AO was the least favorite entry on the list. I write these for a general audience and knew that would be a pretty big omission, so I worked it in.

This wasn't meant to be a review of AO any more than it was any of the other games. It was a list to raise discussion and you actually appear to agree with the point I was making. And I freely admit I didn't play AO more than a month and not in a very long time. There are 350+ games on our list, there is no way any single human here can have extensive experience in them all. If I'd written a review on AO, you'd have a valid argument. One entry on a list aimed generally at humor/entertainment, shouldn't require thousands of hours of gameplay logged.

So, if I missed why AO was good, the point of the comment thread is for you guys to debate these choices and say what about each one would make a good remake.

Dana, just for the record, I understood what you were saying about AO without having you write three more pages explaining it. I loved the game too, but not enough to beat someone up over it.

I initially enjoyed UO, AC, AO and DoAC.  I left them all for different reasons.

I left UO because of non consensual pvp and roving gangs of griefers.  That said, I could deal with it, until UO trashed my main means of escape, the portal rune system.   Also, Lord British gets pvp'd and bans the murderer?  How childish and so against the whole UO philosophy.  Finally, I suggested that building ownership key duplicates be degradable to discourage stealing of said duplicates and crashing someone's house.  My suggestion was removed from the forums in less than 12 hours.  That was the last straw.  Goodbye UO.

I left AC because of the pain in the ass overpop of aggro npcs.  It was nearly impossible to travel from place to place overland.

I left AO because the crafting system was too complicated for the dubious rewards of crafted items.

I left DoAC because the pve was too short lived and watered down.  However, I did like thier random drop system of special items. 

cerebrix states that he is an editor on this site, yet speaks of "crat lass" ( meaning crat class).  He can't even edit his own post!  LOL

Originally posted by Dana

Originally posted by Battlepoet

Why bother with remakes? I loved AC when it first came out. Played it for years. I don't want to play it again. I played it already. I played M59 already. I played all (well, most of) these games already.

Come up with some new goddamn ideas and make them for fun before profit. That's what made these good in their day and what makes some of them persist where garbage like Warhammer and Conan crash and burn before their year anniversary comes along. Remakes are for uncreative d-bags and people who can't let go of their teddy bears. 

That aside, it's not like bad launches aren't tolerated; hell, every game that comes out anymore has a trash launch and there is a legion of frothing supporters making excuses and justifications - where AC, one of the oldest games on this list right here, had a more or less flawless launch by comparison to damn near anything released in the last couple years.

 

 

Please see Anarchy Online's launch.

Any game that did what they did these days wouldn't have survived. They slowly turned it around, and it still hurt them for years, but AO went on to be a successful product despite one of the worst launches on record.

Yes, I know about AO. So what? Has absolutely nothing to do with the articles statement that crap launches are no longer tolerated.

edit:

Let me elaborate by saying their launch issues have nothing to do with that statement because it's both an entirely different landscape and that yes, that game would have survived. It would have survived for the same reasons COH survived. The devs busted their ass to fix the game and keep the players happy and interested.

SWG had horrible launch issues. It was and is a terrible game, from design and technical perspectives. It's still stumbling along like a zombie, somehow. I simply cannot see where you can validate that statement you made other than to admit you fabricated it from whole cloth to beef up an otherwise pointless and empty op-ed.

WHY ISN"T STAR WARS GALAXIES ON THERE

 Yes, DAOC 2 Please.

Kthnx

As a member of Ultima Online since 2001, there would be many reasons that they still didn't go toward a 3D graphics game. Mainly, many of the players are on free private servers, such as myself. Since it's free, we don't have to many anything for an old game is quite normal. The second point, you can make your own server if you want, as myself, I know how to make whole maps for UO and I could be a GM without any problems. Since it's in isometric 2D, it is more eazy to build and decorate too. Thus, im a heavy roleplayer and I play on french servers only; UO on the main servers might not intertest me like the privates ones. As long as the heavy RP ones need consistant coaching for the RP and animations to keep the world 'alive'. Also, having a new world, not only OSI, as their only maps does quite the job to keep and have an active server. But even with saying all this, I think UO does need a makeover toward a full 3D graphics. Since this sand box style on skills, is still the best one ever in MMO's.

Originally posted by ShaystaMang

WHY ISN"T STAR WARS GALAXIES ON THERE

Because they are going to try and tell us that SW:TOR is that sequel...I am not convinced.

I agree with you that SWG should have been in place of CoH.

Ok I've been going through the comments and only just got to around 100+ and if I missed someone's post I am quite sorry. BUT, UO did ever so briefly have a sequel and it was in closed beta for a bit but then they ditched that to focus on UO. I am sure there must still be some screen shots out there someplace for folks to see what UO2 would of been like.

And I found this link to a UO2 trailer from back in the day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EGWBSjHVGI

I don’t care what SOE tells me or how well they integrated Superman into the missions. He’s cooler than any hero I create and always will be.

For me I think the idea of playing with one of your favorite superheros (Green Lantern) is awsome.As long as they balance how heros/villains help/assist you in the game/quest, it should be fine. One of the better rumors I heard about dcuo was how they were going to deal with PvP Ganking/Grieving. Cant remember where I read it, but basicly: Say Said hero was getting ganked by a higher level villain, after to many times of the Villain killing the Low B a NAMED superhero (or villain if the role was reversed) would come in and kick his ares or chase him off. Honestly it would be humorous to boot..."You just got pimp slapped, by superman, AHhaha".

Originally posted by socialguy

Sign me up for Asheron's Call 3!!!!!!     

DITTO!!!

Now that companys have seen how big mmo's can get with a big enough player base; I would love to see an swg pre-cu remake with alot more money put into the project allowing them to make the world and enviroments look better and more movie accurate. If they were to do this but include a mandatory pvp standing when aligning with one of the factions this would be the best game of all time.