Originally posted by Furyus

AC2 EMU.  That's your only option and it's not great.

What?...

The fact that all the AC2 wanters miss is that the best way to make something like that happen is to join AC. If AC numbers started to climb significantly it would be more likely for them to put money into other options for AC. Sitting on the side lines and asking for it doesn't accomplish anything.

That and AC is fun to play so it is a win win.

The only innovative game mechanic AC2 brought to the table that AC didn't have was the ability for players to play musical instruments either solo or as a band and they did a very good job of implementing it. Unfortunately, LOTRO has it and so it's no longer new and exciting.

---

Originally posted by Rhoklaw

 

The only innovative game mechanic AC2 brought to the table that AC didn't have was the ability for players to play musical instruments either solo or as a band and they did a very good job of implementing it. Unfortunately, LOTRO has it and so it's no longer new and exciting.

---

Eh, I don't agree, but whatever.

And Turbine shut AC2 Emu down a while back for those that didn't see it.
 

---

Originally posted by AllNewMMOSuk

 

The fact that all the AC2 wanters miss is that the best way to make something like that happen is to join AC. If AC numbers started to climb significantly it would be more likely for them to put money into other options for AC. Sitting on the side lines and asking for it doesn't accomplish anything.

That and AC is fun to play so it is a win win.

---

Asheron's Call was a blast, the only MMO I never got bored of and quit for non-game related reasons. With that said, none of the people I playe with are there anymore, so to me, it's just a shell of what it once was. All the things I loved are there, they just aren't happening. I really miss the old school days of this game. 

Plus, since I moved I just can't manage to get onto the servers or I'd probably be subscribed now.

Originally posted by Rhoklaw

The only innovative game mechanic AC2 brought to the table that AC didn't have was the ability for players to play musical instruments either solo or as a band and they did a very good job of implementing it. Unfortunately, LOTRO has it and so it's no longer new and exciting.

So? Just because it won't be new doesn't mean it won't be appreciated or enjoyed by those who liked it then and now. Also, since it's still Turbine that polished it in Lotro, it won't be stealing by any means and no reason why it can't be used in another of their games. In case you haven't noticed, alot of the features in Lotro are copies of AC2 anyhow. For example the goblin meshes are the same as the drudges and alot of the building textures are the same as AC2 also.

I still have two unopened copies of the AC2 expansion because they announced the impending closure while they were being sent to me.

I was in the beta... they had a seperate forum for Microsoft employees to suggest AWFUL ideas. The game was released too early but the world had a ton of potential. It was gorgeous/original/fresh/new.  The post-apocalyptic setting mimiced the feeling of a new bunch of players entering a new MMO.

Their idea for towns slowly growing sounded good on paper but didn't work in reality.

I think they could maintain the game nowadays. Back then it was too expensive... I'm sure the costs went down since graphics engines have moved on.

 Nice to hear some love going AC2's way.  I thought I was one of the few.  I agree with a few poster it was way ahead of it's time.  At that time the graphics were untouchable, awesome content updates nearly every two months, and some wicked pvp faction battles.

Most of the AC2 EMUs got shut down due to legal action by Turbine, if there are any left running they can probably expect the same as soon as Turbine does catch wind of it.

I don't think AC2 is the way to go because now it would be just like all the other MMOs out there.  A graphic update/skill update and new skill additions would be the way to go.

AC2 was the biggest blunder that Turbine ever made. No, wait DDO was...? Hmm seems as though AC1 was the only thing Turbine ever did right.

Regardless, AC2 took AC and dumbed it down and oversimplified the interface and skill structure and essentially killed itself. IF Turbine had half a brian collectively they would have re-created AC1 in all its success and glory in the AC2 Engine. But instead they created arguably the worst 2nd gen MMO ever.

Honestly, how many of you out there that played AC1 from the beginning would have rather seen AC2 be a revamp of AC1 in a newer and more modern game engine? Hell, even EQ figured that out when they made EQ2. UO will allways be my first and most treasured MMO love, but AC was the game that made me an MMO fan and I played that game every single day until AC2 came out. At which point Turbine broke my heart and I moved on to DAoC and Shadowbane.

AC2 had some great design concepts. Some of the classes (feral intendend, the hive keeper and the wall/turret guy) were awesome. What sadly killed that game was lack of high level content. Also leveling XP was a bit fast that usual. Finally, changes to classes were too dramatic and too often. It felt mismanaged sadly and frustrated a lot fo people. But I had a blast playing it.

We Want AC2!!! or AC 1.5!!!! RAWR!! lets go!

Originally posted by whathappenus

AC2 had some great design concepts. Some of the classes (feral intendend, the hive keeper and the wall/turret guy) were awesome. What sadly killed that game was lack of high level content. Also leveling XP was a bit fast that usual. Finally, changes to classes were too dramatic and too often. It felt mismanaged sadly and frustrated a lot fo people. But I had a blast playing it.

Actually, what killed AC2....before it even released, was Microsoft's mismanagement of the game development. The chat server issues, where we couldn't even communicate in game for extended periods of time, was the final nail. However, the game drastically improved after Turbine took over outright.

Citan, the former lead designer of the AC2 live team, was very frank about many of the AC2 issues in his own blog.

http://www.eldergame.com/2009/02/16/whats-a-qa-team-without-a-spec/

There was also another entry about how they had to redesign all of the classes due to the fact that they had no idea what the original intention of each skill was. Basically Microsoft gave them about a month to get all of the class skills in game, I can't seem to find the entry though.

Aside from all of that, AC2 brought tremendous innovations to the mmorpg scene. Don't believe me?

AC2 was the first mmorpg, that I am aware of, that used quests to level a character without the need for grinding. Granted you could only obtain the first 20 or so levels via an extremely linear quest series, but it was there none the less. The Osteth quest line is what ushered in an era of using quests and not grinding as a means of leveling. AC2 also had quests there were repeatable at various intervals, mostly daily or weekly. After level 20 leveling was a mix of grinding and quests, which worked well given the state of the genre.

AC2 also allowed for respecing. Typically in other mmorpgs of the time, a mistake in your character's development meant rerolling or being gimp. Respecing wasn't the easiest thing in the game to do, but it was there and could be easy if you had a good core of friends to help.

AC2 used skill trees, which was a mmorpg first, although the system felt like it was ripped from Diablo 2 to an extent.

AC2 had revolutionary graphics at the time. The combat system was fast paced, blending in auto attack with special abilities that were on cooldowns. Something that was used in other mmorpgs, to an extent, but AC2 really had a nice and fluid approach to combat.

Even though AC2 wasn't anything near a success, the effects of the game are felt in current mmorpgs. I've always said that WoW felt like a spiritual successor to AC2, moving from AC2 to WoW was more or less a change of scenery for me, WoW played very much like AC2...but with a hell of a lot more polish. LotRO which has been successful for Turbine has obvious influences from AC2 as well.

If Microsoft had been interested in investing in the mmorpg market, AC2 could have been an extremely successful game. It literally needed about two more years of development though.

I miss AC2, and I'm angry that the game never even stood a chance to begin with. Mostly, I miss throwing lightning from a drum :(

Originally posted by nomadian

 

---

Haha, yeah talk about getting ripped. They gave the expansion only a few months before announcing it was canceled. Even while it was known the game was being shut down, the expansion was still on the shelves being sold! It's one of the reasons I didn't try D&D or LotRO aside from the fact that those games have their own problems as it is.

---

I read this because it had poor sales of the expansion only 3500 copies? or something.

 

I remember reading about that expansion at the time and I think they made a mistake with it. They aimed it all at the higher end, really they should have aimed a little more at enticing new players to the game or having some kind of impressive features(like the pvp towns...) That is in part, why I never bought the game.

Yep... The expansion was a sink or swim, last ditch effort by them to keep AC2 afloat. They were hoping it would revive and/or attract enough interest to get the subscriber base back above the critical amount to keep it going. Sadly, the numbers didn't show and they ended up having to shut it down.

Turbine explained this a long time ago. Sadly, some people refuse to accept that reason, and prefer to continue feeling like they've been "cheated", so they can keep complaining about it. 

/begin sarcasm
'cause, you know... Turbine wanted AC2 to fail... That was their ultimate goal when they decided to develop it - to watch it run into the ground. That's why they put all that time, money and resources into creating an expansion. Of course. That's a completely logical theory, and not at all paranoid.
/end sarcasm

If they ever revived AC2 it would be great *for those who enjoyed the game and/or would enjoy it*. Why the AC1 fans are so against that idea is beyond me. Heaven forbid others have a game they enjoy.

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by nomadian

 

---

Haha, yeah talk about getting ripped. They gave the expansion only a few months before announcing it was canceled. Even while it was known the game was being shut down, the expansion was still on the shelves being sold! It's one of the reasons I didn't try D&D or LotRO aside from the fact that those games have their own problems as it is.

---

I read this because it had poor sales of the expansion only 3500 copies? or something.

 

I remember reading about that expansion at the time and I think they made a mistake with it. They aimed it all at the higher end, really they should have aimed a little more at enticing new players to the game or having some kind of impressive features(like the pvp towns...) That is in part, why I never bought the game.

Yep... The expansion was a sink or swim, last ditch effort by them to keep AC2 afloat. They were hoping it would revive and/or attract enough interest to get the subscriber base back above the critical amount to keep it going. Sadly, the numbers didn't show and they ended up having to shut it down.

Turbine explained this a long time ago. Sadly, some people refuse to accept that reason, and prefer to continue feeling like they've been "cheated", so they can keep complaining about it. 

/begin sarcasm
'cause, you know... Turbine wanted AC2 to fail... That was their ultimate goal when they decided to develop it - to watch it run into the ground. That's why they put all that time, money and resources into creating an expansion. Of course. That's a completely logical theory, and not at all paranoid.
/end sarcasm

If they ever revived AC2 it would be great *for those who enjoyed the game and/or would enjoy it*. Why the AC1 fans are so against that idea is beyond me. Heaven forbid others have a game they enjoy.

The reason they're against it is simple, the design deviated far too much from what made AC1 great. Now you might think, so what some people like that type of game. Yes they do and there's a million of them out there, however if the company does a new AC and spends it's time and resources to make it more like AC2s design and less like AC1's design then what that indirectly means is there would never be an investment in another game with the style of AC1. That is why people are against it, because it means the end of the skill tree not class based type of game.

They want a new AC they just want it true to the original design, but luckily AC1 is still running and fun.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by nomadian

 

 

The reason they're against it is simple, the design deviated far too much from what made AC1 great. Now you might think, so what some people like that type of game. Yes they do and there's a million of them out there, however if the company does a new AC and spends it's time and resources to make it more like AC2s design and less like AC1's design then what that indirectly means is there would never be an investment in another game with the style of AC1. That is why people are against it, because it means the end of the skill tree not class based type of game.

A lot of conjecture in that paragraph.

There are still companies trying their hand at a sandbox MMOs; they're still designing skill-based, rather than class-based MMOs... They're experimenting with other different twists on it. Though it seems to be a popular belief, there's no reason to think that one MMO of any given type failing is going to prevent others from trying. Just do some searching around, you'll see several examples.

Example:
FPSs, a la Quake and Unreal Tournament, though purely action-based, are quite popular right? Few believed that there could ever be a FPS that successfully mixed action with story... because it hadn't been done yet. Even John Carmack, the "father" of the FPS, never considered story as necessary, or even appropriate, in that type of game. Then along comes a company named Valve, who makes a game called Half Life. Half Life had a strong story element and still turned out to be wildly successful. It changed a lot of minds about just how well a strong story element could work in a FPS setting... here's the key... *if done well*. 

Another Example:
Eve Online. How many sandbox MMOs have come along that never quite made it? I know of a few off the top of my head. Does that mean "sandbox" is a bad concept that won't work and should be avoided? Nope. Eve Online has proven that it can work - again... *if done well*. 

A great concept can still be poorly executed... that doesn't mean the concept is no good.

That same principle applies to any genre: "Never say never".

It's a failure of the developers to make a successful game, not necessarily a failure of the ideas behind it. In the case of AC2, many things conspired to hurt that game from the start - the screwed up chat system, the horrible rubber-banding... a slew of other performance issues. The core design of the game itself - its game systems - were fine, even fun - to those who enjoyed that setup (that's the important part). In fact, by the time the expansion was released, many believed the game had finally reached where it should have been all along. But it was too late; Turbine had lost too much ground by then and couldn't recover it. 

Ultimately, AC2 was a collection of great ideas that were, at least initially, poorly executed.

As for not being "true to the original design"? Who are the players to determine what the "true design" is of a game? Especially one they're not playing anyway?

Last I checked, Turbine are the developers and creators of the series. Players may influence some decisions to a degree, sure. However, paying a monthly subscription fee doesn't earn you a seat at company design meetings, or a signature on the "sign-off" sheet. Players do not dictate where Turbine ultimately decide to take it, no matter how strongly they feel otherwise. 

In post after post after post, it was clear that many AC1 fans were bitter that AC2 wasn't AC1 with better graphics. So, they wanted it to fail. That was their entire rationale... and a pretty closed-minded one at that. 

As you said... the fans had AC1, and still do. So if they have the game they enjoy, then why refuse others a game they do as well?

It's the classic self-centered attitude displayed by so many gamers, especially when it comes to follow-ups to popular titles (see Asheron's Call, Everquest... I'm sure it'll be the same with FFXIV).  The motto seems to be: "If it's not exactly what I want, then I don't like it. If I don't like it no one else can, either".

If AC2 was ever re-launched, then it would be more for everyone. AC1 fans would still have their game. Those who enjoy(ed) AC2 would have theirs. Everyone's happy...

 

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by nomadian

 

 

The reason they're against it is simple, the design deviated far too much from what made AC1 great. Now you might think, so what some people like that type of game. Yes they do and there's a million of them out there, however if the company does a new AC and spends it's time and resources to make it more like AC2s design and less like AC1's design then what that indirectly means is there would never be an investment in another game with the style of AC1. That is why people are against it, because it means the end of the skill tree not class based type of game.

A lot of conjecture in that paragraph.

There are still companies trying their hand at a sandbox MMOs; they're still designing skill-based, rather than class-based MMOs... They're experimenting with other different twists on it. Though it seems to be a popular belief, there's no reason to think that one MMO of any given type failing is going to prevent others from trying. Just do some searching around, you'll see several examples.

Example:
FPSs, a la Quake and Unreal Tournament, though purely action-based, are quite popular right? Few believed that there could ever be a FPS that successfully mixed action with story... because it hadn't been done yet. Even John Carmack, the "father" of the FPS, never considered story as necessary, or even appropriate, in that type of game. Then along comes a company named Valve, who makes a game called Half Life. Half Life had a strong story element and still turned out to be wildly successful. It changed a lot of minds about just how well a strong story element could work in a FPS setting... here's the key... *if done well*. 

Another Example:
Eve Online. How many sandbox MMOs have come along that never quite made it? I know of a few off the top of my head. Does that mean "sandbox" is a bad concept that won't work and should be avoided? Nope. Eve Online has proven that it can work - again... *if done well*. 

A great concept can still be poorly executed... that doesn't mean the concept is no good.

That same principle applies to any genre: "Never say never".

It's a failure of the developers to make a successful game, not necessarily a failure of the ideas behind it. In the case of AC2, many things conspired to hurt that game from the start - the screwed up chat system, the horrible rubber-banding... a slew of other performance issues. The core design of the game itself - its game systems - were fine, even fun - to those who enjoyed that setup (that's the important part). In fact, by the time the expansion was released, many believed the game had finally reached where it should have been all along. But it was too late; Turbine had lost too much ground by then and couldn't recover it. 

Ultimately, AC2 was a collection of great ideas that were, at least initially, poorly executed.

As for not being "true to the original design"? Who are the players to determine what the "true design" is of a game? Especially one they're not playing anyway?

Last I checked, Turbine are the developers and creators of the series. Players may influence some decisions to a degree, sure. However, paying a monthly subscription fee doesn't earn you a seat at company design meetings, or a signature on the "sign-off" sheet. Players do not dictate where Turbine ultimately decide to take it, no matter how strongly they feel otherwise. 

In post after post after post, it was clear that many AC1 fans were bitter that AC2 wasn't AC1 with better graphics. So, they wanted it to fail. That was their entire rationale... and a pretty closed-minded one at that. 

As you said... the fans had AC1, and still do. So if they have the game they enjoy, then why refuse others a game they do as well?

It's the classic self-centered attitude displayed by so many gamers, especially when it comes to follow-ups to popular titles (see Asheron's Call, Everquest... I'm sure it'll be the same with FFXIV).  The motto seems to be: "If it's not exactly what I want, then I don't like it. If I don't like it no one else can, either".

If AC2 was ever re-launched, then it would be more for everyone. AC1 fans would still have their game. Those who enjoy(ed) AC2 would have theirs. Everyone's happy...

 

 

 

It's not conjecture people want AC. They don't want some other game's take on the system within a whole different world. And the problem with just being happy with AC1 is that it is challenging to attract players to a game with older graphics because that is what most modern gamers (foolishly) care most about. So I am not interested in terrible attempts at this style game such as DF, I  want AC reborn with improved graphics, tweaked skills and a whole bunch of new skills to allow even more diversity.
 

So once again the reason people are against a remake of AC2 is that would almost certainly mean that there wouldn't be money going into an AC reborn or whatever you'd like to call a modern AC.

I think the main reason people were against AC2 once it was out was how many problems it had. Microsoft rushed it out the door and wouldn't let them get it designed properly so it was a mess. They had it fixed up fairly well by the end but it was just too late then. I know I personally always loved AC, and I had no wish for AC2 to fail. I just would greatly prefer them to do an AC Reborn as opposed to a rerelease of AC2.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by nomadian

 

 

The reason they're against it is simple, the design deviated far too much from what made AC1 great. Now you might think, so what some people like that type of game. Yes they do and there's a million of them out there, however if the company does a new AC and spends it's time and resources to make it more like AC2s design and less like AC1's design then what that indirectly means is there would never be an investment in another game with the style of AC1. That is why people are against it, because it means the end of the skill tree not class based type of game.


 

 

It's not conjecture people want AC. They don't want some other game's take on the system within a whole different world. And the problem with just being happy with AC1 is that it is challenging to attract players to a game with older graphics because that is what most modern gamers (foolishly) care most about. So I am not interested in terrible attempts at this style game such as DF, I  want AC reborn with improved graphics, tweaked skills and a whole bunch of new skills to allow even more diversity.
 
It's conjecture that if AC1 wasn't remade with better graphics as "AC2" that no one would ever make another skill-based MMO. There are companies working on such titles even now. Unless you specifically mean Turbine wouldn't do it.. In that case... well... still conjecture :). Who knows what they'd do.

 

So once again the reason people are against a remake of AC2 is that would almost certainly mean that there wouldn't be money going into an AC reborn or whatever you'd like to call a modern AC.

Thing is, even when AC2 was out, some of the AC1 crowd was crying "travesty!" from their personal mountain-tops,  wanting to see AC2 fail, because Turbine *dared* to not remake AC1 with better graphics. I don't think I've ever seen such a display of shameless, spoiled and self-centered behavior from a group of people as I did from some of those folks. As though Turbine was supposed to ask permission to do what they wanted with their IP.

I think the main reason people were against AC2 once it was out was how many problems it had. Microsoft rushed it out the door and wouldn't let them get it designed properly so it was a mess. They had it fixed up fairly well by the end but it was just too late then. I know I personally always loved AC, and I had no wish for AC2 to fail. I just would greatly prefer them to do an AC Reborn as opposed to a rerelease of AC2.

Bingo... As I stated in my post, had AC2 had a stronger launch with fewer problems and (ideally) Turbine gotten full control of the franchise back from MS sooner, it might have been a very different story. It would very likely still be running.

Originally posted by WSIMike

It's not conjecture people want AC. They don't want some other game's take on the system within a whole different world. And the problem with just being happy with AC1 is that it is challenging to attract players to a game with older graphics because that is what most modern gamers (foolishly) care most about. So I am not interested in terrible attempts at this style game such as DF, I  want AC reborn with improved graphics, tweaked skills and a whole bunch of new skills to allow even more diversity.
 
It's conjecture that if AC1 wasn't remade with better graphics as "AC2" that no one would ever make another skill-based MMO. There are companies working on such titles even now. Unless you specifically mean Turbine wouldn't do it.. In that case... well... still conjecture :). Who knows what they'd do.

 

It's not conjecture because it's not what the paragraph said. Yes other companies will occasionally make new skill based MMOs I even say that. What I am saying is no one who plays AC wants those games. I use DF as an example and I'm sure soon I can use MO as well (haven't followed to much about that one but I think it was said to be skill based), the fact is other attempts at this after UO and AC have been terrible. They've been terribly designed all around and the world they've been put in has been boring and completly uninteresting. So what I said was if Turbine put money and time into redoing AC2, Turbine would never do AC style again and that would be extremely unfortunate. That is the very reason why everyone is against and AC2 effort and wants the money and time put into an updated AC instead.

Players want AC's systems in AC's world. Not bad systems in bad worlds.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by WSIMike

It's not conjecture people want AC. They don't want some other game's take on the system within a whole different world. And the problem with just being happy with AC1 is that it is challenging to attract players to a game with older graphics because that is what most modern gamers (foolishly) care most about. So I am not interested in terrible attempts at this style game such as DF, I  want AC reborn with improved graphics, tweaked skills and a whole bunch of new skills to allow even more diversity.
 
It's conjecture that if AC1 wasn't remade with better graphics as "AC2" that no one would ever make another skill-based MMO. There are companies working on such titles even now. Unless you specifically mean Turbine wouldn't do it.. In that case... well... still conjecture :). Who knows what they'd do.

 

 

It's not conjecture because it's not what the paragraph said. Yes other companies will occasionally make new skill based MMOs I even say that. What I am saying is no one who plays AC wants those games. I use DF as an example and I'm sure soon I can use MO as well (haven't followed to much about that one but I think it was said to be skill based), the fact is other attempts at this after UO and AC have been terrible. They've been terribly designed all around and the world they've been put in has been boring and completly uninteresting. So what I said was if Turbine put money and time into redoing AC2, Turbine would never do AC style again and that would be extremely unfortunate. That is the very reason why everyone is against and AC2 effort and wants the money and time put into an updated AC instead.

 

Players want AC's systems in AC's world. Not bad systems in bad worlds.

Ah I see.

Thing is... to a significant amount of people, AC2 was a good game in a good world, with some really good ideas. It was, unfortunately, poorly executed and launched and never recovered. A substantial number of players, to this day, long to play it again. Are those people not allowed to have a game in that universe they enjoy as well? They *have* to like AC1, or nothing at all?

I really don't understand where this self-centered sense of entitlement comes from in many AC1 players. I've seen people get upset about EQ2 not being EQ1 Redone, but never to the degree that I see AC1 fans about AC2. You'd think Turbine snuck into their homes, tied them up, killed their dogs, robbed them blind then burned their houses down (okay, slight hyperbole there :-p) with how absolutely bitter they are that AC2 wasn't AC1 with better graphics.

That the mere mention of AC2 is enough to send some of them into an e-rage all this time later only underscores it.

Seriously... this overblown sense of entitlement that many AC1 fans have over the franchise is really unrealistic and absurd. 

Again, paying a subscription fee to a game doesn't give you ownership of the franchise, nor the right to dictate how it should be handled. If you like the game, great... Play it. If you don't... then don't play it. Very simple. 
 

Anyway.. there are efforts in motion to bring AC2 back in a capacity... hopefully the "disenfranchised" AC1 players won't be too horribly offended by it and can get through the day without punching babies or something.

Face it AC1 was skill based...people wanted AC1 with better graphics...they got eq with shit