Originally posted by Worstluck

No offense meant, but why does a game have to be about facts?  Video games are supposed to be fun.  If you enjoy great, if you don't no big deal, there are many to choose from.  There is no factual arguement about what is fun to a person.

This discussion is not about whether person X is having fun in MO or not. It's about what someone can expect from MO today. Some people say you can expect something similar to UO or EVE, which is simply false.

So yeah, facts are relevant when you compare different games and say they're similar. In this case, MO fans are trying to make MO look better by likening it to UO, which is easily proven to be b.s. by comparing the two games using facts instead of personal opinions. 

Of course people are free to enjoy whatever games they like, but that's not the same as making false claims.

Originally posted by Biskop

Originally posted by Worstluck

No offense meant, but why does a game have to be about facts?  Video games are supposed to be fun.  If you enjoy great, if you don't no big deal, there are many to choose from.  There is no factual arguement about what is fun to a person.

This discussion is not about whether person X is having fun in MO or not. It's about what someone can expect from MO today. Some people say you can expect something similar to UO or EVE, which is simply false.

So yeah, facts are relevant when you compare different games and say they're similar. In this case, MO fans are trying to make MO look better by likening it to UO, which is easily proven to be b.s. by comparing the two games using facts instead of personal opinions. 

Of course people are free to enjoy whatever games they like, but that's not the same as making false claims.

So wich other modern 3D fantasy sandboxx MMO would you say is more similar to UO than MO? Saying that MO ain´t that game is just you being plain ignorant. It´s no false claims or anything. MO IS trying to be a modern UO, and they ARE getting there no matter how hard you try to say otherwise. It´s not there yet, but the game is not even 2 years old yet. So pretty please, with sugar on top, what other fantasy sandbox MMO is more similar to UO then MO? Enlighten me...

Originally posted by Biskop

Originally posted by Norpan 

So stay here and pull your hate cards. In the meantime I go back and enjoy MO as it is.

Why is it hate as soon as someone uses factual arguments  to criticize the game (e.g. "MO has fewer features than UO"), while subjective opinions (e.g. "I like MO for what it is") are considered totally rational as long they are used to defend it? I mean, if someone kept saying "MO sux lol" and used no other arguments, the term hater would be understandable. But that's not the case here.

On the contrary, in fact. It seems to me some of MO's most dedicated defenders lack the ability to use factual arguments, instead resorting to name-calling and personal attacks when someone owns them in a discussion. To me, that's really "pulling the hate card"; as soon as you find yourself lacking any facts supporting your cause, you simply label your opponent "hater" or "troll" instead of replying to his actual arguments.

I understand you guys love MO and that you're able to live with its shortcomings, but those opinions of yours do not change the facts. MO is not a working sandbox game, it's a PvP game with some crafting and gathering tacked on. To even compare it to UO or EVE is insulting to those games.

I was answering Betel that wrote: "Not really, if someone wants broken or badly implemented systems in a dead PVP arena masquerading as a world, choose MO. If you want a working game world with all the features that were promised for MO and more, play UO or any other alternative."

Saying MO is a broken, dead, PVP arena is pure BS and only a feeble attempt at pulling the "hate"-card. That´s NOT a factual argument. Sorry to say that. It´s taken some bugs, and then trying to make it sound like it´s freaking unplayable, wich it isn´t. Far from it. There are alot of people enjoying the game even though some minor bugs. Talking BS like this, IS in my eyes at least, playing "hate"-cards.

Originally posted by Norpan

Originally posted by Biskop

Originally posted by Norpan  So if you wanna play something that is similar to UO, with modern graphics, ofc MO is a choice.

Except that UO has so many working features that MO doesn't have.

I agree that UO's graphics are severely outdated, but when it comes to actual gameplay it is superior to MO in every possible way. MO might claim to be the spiritual successor to UO but sadly it's not.

Well, it all depends on if you like to fight like this in UO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgEDd-5H25k or if you like fights like this like it is in MO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3LD9PUvKTk To me it´s pretty freaking obvious where I wanna spend my time. Even though UO has more sandbox feautres that work at this moment. But as I said, MO is closing the gap. UO ain´t the one increasing the gap on any front.

It is the pace of closing the gap that kills me. When they said that the UI would be updated "soon" (I know I know) or that the "townlife" video was "possible with the current AI", I figured they meant at least soonish. . the capital on release. . or just after. . or sometime?

I love that indie devs are making these games (Xsyon as well) but by the time they get to where they need to be they are going to be as outdated as UO looks.

Originally posted by Aethaeryn

Originally posted by Norpan

Originally posted by Biskop

Originally posted by Norpan  So if you wanna play something that is similar to UO, with modern graphics, ofc MO is a choice.

Except that UO has so many working features that MO doesn't have.

I agree that UO's graphics are severely outdated, but when it comes to actual gameplay it is superior to MO in every possible way. MO might claim to be the spiritual successor to UO but sadly it's not.

Well, it all depends on if you like to fight like this in UO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgEDd-5H25k or if you like fights like this like it is in MO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3LD9PUvKTk To me it´s pretty freaking obvious where I wanna spend my time. Even though UO has more sandbox feautres that work at this moment. But as I said, MO is closing the gap. UO ain´t the one increasing the gap on any front.

It is the pace of closing the gap that kills me. When they said that the UI would be updated "soon" (I know I know) or that the "townlife" video was "possible with the current AI", I figured they meant at least soonish. . the capital on release. . or just after. . or sometime?

I love that indie devs are making these games (Xsyon as well) but by the time they get to where they need to be they are going to be as outdated as UO looks.

All these things that you mention here is coming with Awakening in april, so it ain´t so far away, and the game ain´t even 2 years old yet... And yeah, they are a indie company. There are 5 devs working on the game. And for being so few, what they do with MO is quite amazing. I hope the numbers turn for them so they can hire more peeps and put things out even faster.

Originally posted by Norpan

Originally posted by Aethaeryn

Originally posted by Norpan

Originally posted by Biskop

Originally posted by Norpan  So if you wanna play something that is similar to UO, with modern graphics, ofc MO is a choice.

Except that UO has so many working features that MO doesn't have.

I agree that UO's graphics are severely outdated, but when it comes to actual gameplay it is superior to MO in every possible way. MO might claim to be the spiritual successor to UO but sadly it's not.

Well, it all depends on if you like to fight like this in UO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgEDd-5H25k or if you like fights like this like it is in MO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3LD9PUvKTk To me it´s pretty freaking obvious where I wanna spend my time. Even though UO has more sandbox feautres that work at this moment. But as I said, MO is closing the gap. UO ain´t the one increasing the gap on any front.

It is the pace of closing the gap that kills me. When they said that the UI would be updated "soon" (I know I know) or that the "townlife" video was "possible with the current AI", I figured they meant at least soonish. . the capital on release. . or just after. . or sometime?

I love that indie devs are making these games (Xsyon as well) but by the time they get to where they need to be they are going to be as outdated as UO looks.

All these things that you mention here is coming with Awakening in april, so it ain´t so far away, and the game ain´t even 2 years old yet... And yeah, they are a indie company. There are 5 devs working on the game. And for being so few, what they do with MO is quite amazing. I hope the numbers turn for them so they can hire more peeps and put things out even faster.

That sounds great. . but this time I am going to wait before getting excited.  I will give a trial a go after Awakening.

Edit:  Wait you mean the capital will be opened and they will have working guards using LOS etc?

Originally posted by Aethaeryn

Originally posted by Norpan

Originally posted by Aethaeryn

Originally posted by Norpan

Originally posted by Biskop

Originally posted by Norpan  So if you wanna play something that is similar to UO, with modern graphics, ofc MO is a choice.

Except that UO has so many working features that MO doesn't have.

I agree that UO's graphics are severely outdated, but when it comes to actual gameplay it is superior to MO in every possible way. MO might claim to be the spiritual successor to UO but sadly it's not.

Well, it all depends on if you like to fight like this in UO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgEDd-5H25k or if you like fights like this like it is in MO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3LD9PUvKTk To me it´s pretty freaking obvious where I wanna spend my time. Even though UO has more sandbox feautres that work at this moment. But as I said, MO is closing the gap. UO ain´t the one increasing the gap on any front.

It is the pace of closing the gap that kills me. When they said that the UI would be updated "soon" (I know I know) or that the "townlife" video was "possible with the current AI", I figured they meant at least soonish. . the capital on release. . or just after. . or sometime?

I love that indie devs are making these games (Xsyon as well) but by the time they get to where they need to be they are going to be as outdated as UO looks.

All these things that you mention here is coming with Awakening in april, so it ain´t so far away, and the game ain´t even 2 years old yet... And yeah, they are a indie company. There are 5 devs working on the game. And for being so few, what they do with MO is quite amazing. I hope the numbers turn for them so they can hire more peeps and put things out even faster.

That sounds great. . but this time I am going to wait before getting excited.  I will give a trial a go after Awakening.

That you should. But I would even wait a week or so after it´s release, cause it WILL be some roadbumps with it. I might love the game, but I also know patches can get bumby. But they have gotten alot better at throwing hotfixes up if something don´t work as planned.

Originally posted by Aethaeryn

That sounds great. . but this time I am going to wait before getting excited.  I will give a trial a go after Awakening.

 

Edit:  Wait you mean the capital will be opened and they will have working guards using LOS etc?

Yeah, Tindrem will open up it´s gates, and there will be roaming guards there etc. Dunno what LOS stand for so can´t answer that one.

Originally posted by Norpan

Originally posted by Betel

UO is a better sandbox and it's 15 years old. EVE is a better sandbox too.

 

BTW Norpan, where did I say 3D? I just said sandbox, but keep redefining the terms and you might hit gold who knows (once every other 3D MMO closes)     :)

I said if someone wants a 3D fantasy sandbox MMO, and most people want 3D games these days. Believe it or not. So, if you want a 3D fantasy sandbox MMO, MO is a good choice, even though it has bugs etc. It´s as simple as that.

The original quote which prompted this discussion (from realnaste) -

"the closest thing to a polished fantasy sandbox you'll get."

No one mentioned 3D or FPV or any other limiting factor. You are just going the same route as previous MO fans in redefining the argument till you get the result you want regardless of facts. The FACT is that there are far more polished fantasy sandboxes than MO out there, so this reason for playing MO is invalid. Play it if you want, but there are much more functional alternatives, and they are run by competant companies not an underwear model with zero coding experience.

Oh and take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmINRZ6zFz8   A video from 4 years ago showing a 3D UO client, done for free by people in their spare time instead of charging AAA prices for a broken game ala SV.

xDayx -

No one denies there are bugs in EVE, there are bugs in all large systems. The question we need to ask is, is the basic game functional (EVE yes, MO barely) and do the company move to fix most bugs asap, esp game breaking ones (EVE yes, MO no).

Originally posted by Norpan

I was answering Betel that wrote: "Not really, if someone wants broken or badly implemented systems in a dead PVP arena masquerading as a world, choose MO. If you want a working game world with all the features that were promised for MO and more, play UO or any other alternative."

Saying MO is a broken

How is that prediction working? It is impossible to fight in or near buildings too. These are basic core features and their failure means MO is currently broken at the fundamental level, and SV lacks the skill to fix it after years of trying.

 dead,

An MMO with a population as low as MO's (less than 200 by most accounts) is dead, there really is no argument about that.

Also the world is dead, it has none of the living, breathing world atmosphere of UO for eg.

PVP arena

Post after post on the official forums says there is nothing to do ingame but PvP. The AI is non-existant so no PVE, the crafting is a laborious joke as the dupes ran rampant and SV refused to ban peole due to needing the sub money (mind you the system was useless anyway, make what is OP that month and you are gtg), the world is tiny so no exploration, no tools for RP'ers (even basic village town features which make MO housing useless).

 

is pure BS and only a feeble attempt at pulling the "hate"-card.

Not at all, and I provide my argument above. Please answer those points or apologise for your abuse of another poster.

 

That´s NOT a factual argument.

The facts are outlined above, please dispute them if you disagree.

Sorry to say that. It´s taken some bugs, and then trying to make it sound like it´s freaking unplayable, wich it isn´t. Far from it.

The core functions do not work properly and every single game system is bugged or useless (cooking).

 

There are alot of people enjoying the game even though some minor bugs. Talking BS like this, IS in my eyes at least, playing "hate"-cards.

There are not a lot of people playing this game. There are a tiny amount of people playing, which is why SV is going bankrupt. The proof is in their own financial reports, where is your counter evidence?

Originally posted by Norpan

So wich other modern 3D fantasy sandboxx MMO would you say is more similar to UO than MO? Saying that MO ain´t that game is just you being plain ignorant. It´s no false claims or anything. MO IS trying to be a modern UO, and they ARE getting there no matter how hard you try to say otherwise. It´s not there yet, but the game is not even 2 years old yet. So pretty please, with sugar on top, what other fantasy sandbox MMO is more similar to UO then MO? Enlighten me...

Sadly, there exist no game like UO on the market today. EVE is not simliar for a great number of reasons; it's probably the best sandbox game today as far as polish, depth, complexity, development rate and active players go, but it's a space game and the gameplay and game design is very different from UO.

But the fact that there is no true UO-successor does not mean that MO is similar to UO. Sure, SV says it is, and they've basically copied their whole concept from UO, but in reality it's not. Having a few broken placeholders that share a name with some of UO's features is not enough I'm afraid.

Before a game can be regarded as similar to something as epochal as UO, it needs to have a plethora of working sandbox systems in place, it needs to have a functional player economy, it needs to offer numerous playstyle options, it needs to be a playable game, and most of all: it needs an active playerbase - something it would easily gain and retain if it had all of the above.

If MO really was similar to UO, don't you think all the tens of thousands of UO players (and the hundreds of thousands of ex-UO players) would come running instantly? Oh wait... many of them did, and they turned around just as quickly and ran the other way. Ever wonder why?

Originally posted by Biskop

Originally posted by Norpan

So wich other modern 3D fantasy sandboxx MMO would you say is more similar to UO than MO? Saying that MO ain´t that game is just you being plain ignorant. It´s no false claims or anything. MO IS trying to be a modern UO, and they ARE getting there no matter how hard you try to say otherwise. It´s not there yet, but the game is not even 2 years old yet. So pretty please, with sugar on top, what other fantasy sandbox MMO is more similar to UO then MO? Enlighten me...

Sadly, there exist no game like UO on the market today. EVE is not simliar for a great number of reasons; it's probably the best sandbox game today as far as polish, depth, complexity, development rate and active players go, but it's a space game and the gameplay and game design is very different from UO.

But the fact that there is no true UO-successor does not mean that MO is similar to UO. Sure, SV says it is, and they've basically copied their whole concept from UO, but in reality it's not. Having a few broken placeholders that share a name with some of UO's features is not enough I'm afraid.

Before a game can be regarded as similar to something as epochal as UO, it needs to have a plethora of working sandbox systems in place, it needs to have a functional player economy, it needs to offer numerous playstyle options, it needs to be a playable game, and most of all: it needs an active playerbase - something it would easily gain and retain if it had all of the above.

If MO really was similar to UO, don't you think all the tens of thousands of UO players (and the hundreds of thousands of ex-UO players) would come running instantly? Oh wait... many of them did, and they turned around just as quickly and ran the other way. Ever wonder why?

I posted a 3D client on the last page. Regardless, MO's graphics are not that great either. Sure you can take a pretty picture of some scenery, but close up or in action the graphics and animations are very sub par.

Sup par to what? GW2?

Thats kool, go ahead and run some quasi-quests dood.

Saying MO has more modern graphics is a moot point - of course it has more modern graphics, it was made in 2009 while UO was made in 1997.

Still, UO has more players and is still considered one of the best - if not the best - sandbox games ever. Modern graphics does not make a good sandbox game.

Its not a moot point when your avatar is 1 centimeter high on the screen and your combat strikes consist of 1 click after targetting a mob.

Or you could load up the FREE 3D client I linked.  And MO is sub par compared to what actual coders can get from the same engine for example.

However you are going off topic. Graphics mean nothing in terms of sandbox games, so why are you attempting to only defend that single point while ignoring the actual question - a polished sandbox experience.

But that's cool, go back to being killed by the same 20 people in an empty world that will soon go bankrupt ... dood. Each to their own after all, but only within the bounds of fact.

I play MO fine every single night. Im glad Im not in any large battles though because I would probably see bugs. (failed bug etc.)  So from my viewpoint the game runs pretty well. I get 60+ fps when Im out and about. Small pvp works fine, mining works fine. Killing animals leaves a little to be desired because they either just flee or attack  at this point. Weapons and armor get created. Mail goes through well.

(Shrug) I dont know what the heck your doing or the last time youve played.

Originally posted by xDayx

I play MO fine every single night. Im glad Im not in any large battles though because I would probably see bugs. (failed bug etc.)  So from my viewpoint the game runs pretty well. I get 60+ fps when Im out and about. Small pvp works fine, mining works fine. Killing animals leaves a little to be desired because they either just flee or attack  at this point. Weapons and armor get created. Mail goes through well.

(Shrug) I dont know what the heck your doing or the last time youve played.

So we're back to personal opinions again. It seems your only arguments are "MO has better graphics than a 1997 game" and "I like MO".

Makes sense though, since your only argument against EVE seems to be "I don't like playing a spaceship".

But if we're discussing game design and game quality, we need to look at something else than personal preference. For example, look at implemented, working features. Look at retention rate. Look at customer relations and qa. Look at professionalism when it comes to coding, design priorities, bugfixing etc. If you can honestly claim that MO is on par with UO and EVE in all this, please provide some factual proof.

On a side note: if you really can't see any bugs in MO I must question your judgment. You either limit youself to very few activities, or you wouldn't know a bug if it jumped up and bit you.

My experience when I last played (some months back, perhaps october) was that every mundande task was filled with annoying bugs; pet pathing and pet commands, riding, drawing/sheating weapons, stacking items, reloading using hotkeys, getting stuck on pebbles, glitching mobs, rocket pigs, etc. Not to mention more acute stuff like glitching into palisades, node lines issues, dupes, shield crash bug, weapon/armor bugs that made it possible to wear full steel without weight penalty and other similar things.

So no, bugs don't happen in large-scale PvP only. They are everywhere.

Originally posted by Biskop

Originally posted by xDayx

I play MO fine every single night. Im glad Im not in any large battles though because I would probably see bugs. (failed bug etc.)  So from my viewpoint the game runs pretty well. I get 60+ fps when Im out and about. Small pvp works fine, mining works fine. Killing animals leaves a little to be desired because they either just flee or attack  at this point. Weapons and armor get created. Mail goes through well.

(Shrug) I dont know what the heck your doing or the last time youve played.

So we're back to personal opinions again. It seems your only arguments are "MO has better graphics than a 1997 game" and "I like MO".

Makes sense though, since your only argument against EVE seems to be "I don't like playing a spaceship".

But if we're discussing game design and game quality, we need to look at something else than personal preference. For example, look at implemented, working features. Look at retention rate. Look at customer relations and qa. Look at professionalism when it comes to coding, design priorities, bugfixing etc. If you can honestly claim that MO is on par with UO and EVE in all this, please provide some factual proof.

On a side note: if you really can't see any bugs in MO I must question your judgment. You either limit youself to very few activities, or you wouldn't know a bug if it jumped up and bit you.

My experience when I last played (some months back, perhaps october) was that every mundande task was filled with annoying bugs; pet pathing and pet commands, riding, drawing/sheating weapons, stacking items, reloading using hotkeys, getting stuck on pebbles, glitching mobs, rocket pigs, etc. Not to mention more acute stuff like glitching into palisades, node lines issues, dupes, shield crash bug, weapon/armor bugs that made it possible to wear full steel without weight penalty and other similar things.

So no, bugs don't happen in large-scale PvP only. They are everywhere.