Originally posted by corpusc

Originally posted by Uhwop

Originally posted by corpusc

Originally posted by Uhwop

Originally posted by Flex1

I would want more info on the sandbox part of the game and not news on how more awesome the pvp part of the game will be.

 

This game is advertized as a sandbox yet all the comments I see are that pve sucks majorly.

 Even better would be for the developers, two months prior to it's release, to talk about something other than graphics and UI. 

 

i'd agree on the graphics part.

 

but the UI was probably THE #1 dealbreaker for most people with Darkfall.  i had a number of personal friends that said the gameplay and world itself was great but they just refused to get used to the quirks and all the needless complications/clunkiness of the UI.  and i couldn't blame them, even tho i personally found it worth getting used to.

 

 I was in the minority.  I didn't think the UI was very good by any measure, but it never actually bothered me.  It did bother me that a lot of people were using stuff like autoHK to do things in the UI at inhuman speeds, like looting. 

Concerning your previous post.  I'm not really sure what you mean by DF being 3yrs ahead of every other game as far as PvE went.  It was literally the same kind of PvE that Lineage 2 had minus interesting dungeons and quests. 

The game is actually very much like L2, except that guilds have much less impact on the surrounding world when they owned a castle. 

Especially when you consider that they're changing dungeons and adding more quests and lore to the world, according to DF.  If the PvE was years ahead of every other game, they wouldn't be changing, and people wouldn't have been complaining that it's just griding on mobs to raise stats so you can PvP.  It's not like guilds were fighting each other to kill the dragon in the middle of the map on a regular basis, and a lot of people were complaining that many of the harder mobs in the game weren't worth killing at all. 

Not to mention the level of mob exploiting in the game that I'd never seen in any other MMO. 

The AI was actually pretty good, but the PvE as a whole was still just grinding the same mob in the same area for incredibly long periods of time to raise stats.  It's a little hard to be years ahead of other games when that's how old MMO's worked.  MMO's have been evolving away from that for a reason. 

 

how can you compare it to L2 combat?  they are in seperate worlds (cue comment about "yeah, L2's is so much better") with totally different paradigms.  

Darkfall is action combat.  thats where majority of MMOs seem to be headed now.

they aren't changing the core combat or PVE of DF.  they just have some tweaks.  where did you hear otherwise?

people were complaining because they were FORCED to skill up (a HUGE amount of skilling up) on PVE when all many of them wanted was to go straight to PVP.   but to compete in PVP (in the past) meant endless grinding in PVE.  nobody likes endless grinding of anything....especially when the game was billed a "PVP game".

i'm talking about the action combat being years ahead.  NOT THE ENTIRE GAME.   2012 saw a lot of DF influence creeping into even mainstream MMOs

 WTF?

When did I say a single frigging thing about combat?  You said DF PvE was 3yrs ahead of every other game. 

And pardon me, I played Wolfstein when it released, doom when it released, Descent when it released. 

I was playing FPS games 20 YEARS AGO. 

DF influence hasn't crept into any game.  There's a difference between action oriented and FPS, and several MMO's released with action oriented combat not FPS.  

Face of mankind released a long time before DF ever did.  World War 2 online has been out far longer then DF has. 

GW2, TSW, TERA, DCUO, ToR.  DF didn't influence a single one of those games. 

I'm really not understanding the fanboy service from someone that's only played DF for 4-5 months off and on over the course of 3 years.  If the game was that good, and you actually beleive what you're writing, why did you play it so little and inconsistantly over the course of the last 3 years?  I've put considerably more time into the game then that over the last 3 years and I'm not making things up about it. 

Originally posted by Robsolf

Originally posted by Eir_S
I'm not sure why people are rating it already, maybe they played the beta.. maybe not.  But some of these negative reviews are bashing the game because of network issues and load times.  I didn't agree with giving GW2 a lower score because of those things, and I don't agree with giving MoP a lower score because of those things.  Still, let's face it... Metacritic is even more useless in this case, pretty much anyone who was going to buy this is never going to read that site or make their decisions based on its reviews...

Agreed.  This is why user ratings are separated from (somewhat) professional reviews.  A user stakes absolutely nothing in how they score this or any game.

I'd dare say that a large majority of those user ratings are based on opinions that have 0 relevence to me, as are the ratings for most other games.

That's why this "sports team mentality" I see toward games drives me nuts.  I have to wade through a sea of absolute BS in order to get to information that might matter to me.

 "sports team mentality"

That has got to be the best, most accurate way I have seen people opinions towards games described.  It is so perfectly spot on. 

Originally posted by corpusc

Originally posted by Uhwop

Originally posted by Flex1

I would want more info on the sandbox part of the game and not news on how more awesome the pvp part of the game will be.

 

This game is advertized as a sandbox yet all the comments I see are that pve sucks majorly.

 Even better would be for the developers, two months prior to it's release, to talk about something other than graphics and UI. 

 

i'd agree on the graphics part.

 

but the UI was probably THE #1 dealbreaker for most people with Darkfall.  i had a number of personal friends that said the gameplay and world itself was great but they just refused to get used to the quirks and all the needless complications/clunkiness of the UI.  and i couldn't blame them, even tho i personally found it worth getting used to.

 

 I was in the minority.  I didn't think the UI was very good by any measure, but it never actually bothered me.  It did bother me that a lot of people were using stuff like autoHK to do things in the UI at inhuman speeds, like looting. 

Concerning your previous post.  I'm not really sure what you mean by DF being 3yrs ahead of every other game as far as PvE went.  It was literally the same kind of PvE that Lineage 2 had minus interesting dungeons and quests. 

The game is actually very much like L2, except that guilds have much less impact on the surrounding world when they owned a castle. 

Especially when you consider that they're changing dungeons and adding more quests and lore to the world, according to DF.  If the PvE was years ahead of every other game, they wouldn't be changing, and people wouldn't have been complaining that it's just griding on mobs to raise stats so you can PvP.  It's not like guilds were fighting each other to kill the dragon in the middle of the map on a regular basis, and a lot of people were complaining that many of the harder mobs in the game weren't worth killing at all. 

Not to mention the level of mob exploiting in the game that I'd never seen in any other MMO. 

The AI was actually pretty good, but the PvE as a whole was still just grinding the same mob in the same area for incredibly long periods of time to raise stats.  It's a little hard to be years ahead of other games when that's how old MMO's worked.  MMO's have been evolving away from that for a reason. 

I have a feeling that Anet is going to find out why Blizzard changed the hunter pets to have the same stats and just different abilities. 

I tried all of the classes except the Warrior and Guardian, and found the Ranger was my favorite, but the pets die so god awfully fast in WvW that it got really annoying.  They do enough damage that ignoring them can get you killed, and they can die so fast that killing them is worthwhile.  Especially in WvW when a lot of times it's simply not feasible to "rez" them. 

I found a lot of times that if you kill a rangers pet it'll be the last you see of it until the ranger also dies, and the same would happen to me as a ranger.  However, I also noticed that a lot of rangers wouldn't call up a second pet if the first one died. 

Anyways, I haven't done any dungeons, but in general PvE I haven't really had any trouble with my pets.  They're actually pretty great in general PvE in my opinion because they're awesome tanks, especially if they have an ability that heals themselves.  Just don't expect that same ability to of any use to the pet in WvW, entirely to much AoE in WvW; something I've found that I really dislike. 

Originally posted by Flex1

Originally posted by TsaboHavoc

Originally posted by Flex1

I would want more info on the sandbox part of the game and not news on how more awesome the pvp part of the game will be.

 

This game is advertized as a sandbox yet all the comments I see are that pve sucks majorly.

my worries too, make me think if this game is a sandbox  or a excuse for a FPS PVP arena.

 

Exactly. Right now all I see is a Guild centered player vs player exclusive game. That is not sandbox, that is pure team pvp. A "sandbox" game needs both to be called that, player versus enviroment and player versus player. If a player wants to be an explorer and find secret places and fight mythical beasts then he should be able to do so, if another player wants to be a bandit trying to rob that explorer he should be able to do so too BUT the explorer doesn't exist here.

 I would agree.  I even made a thread when the original game launched about it not being a true sandbox because of pretty much this.

Tasos said that they made UW with people who were hesitant to try the original DF in mind, yet they have have to say if they even bothered to address the PK system they have in place currently.  The PK system that was easily exploitable, and nonconsequential. 

There was so much ganking in the game because the PK system didn't adiquetely discourage people from killing other players.  And having people constantly running in front of you while you're fighting a mob off in the hopes that you'll hit them twice and turn grey so they can kill you without penalty was beyond annoying. 

Originally posted by Flex1

I would want more info on the sandbox part of the game and not news on how more awesome the pvp part of the game will be.

 

This game is advertized as a sandbox yet all the comments I see are that pve sucks majorly.

 Even better would be for the developers, two months prior to it's release, to talk about something other than graphics and UI. 

Originally posted by NightBandit

Originally posted by Eir_S

Originally posted by Foomerang

Gw2 fanboys making alt accounts and bash wow. Then proclaim on their main account that they "never troll other game forums". Happened yesterday a couple times and at least once again today...

You have all the answers.  Should I kneel??

 Lolz....I also bash wow, but do so in the open as that's how I feel and don't hide behind another account as I'm not bothered what anyone else thinks about me on here anyway. However I find that 3.3 is a little high, but then I never bought it so I'm not able to comment on the game play. IMO it will keep Wow afloat for a few more months that's for sure due to loyal players supporting the game. But alas I feel it's still a dead donkey waiting to be flogged.

Bandit

 You didn't buy it so you can't comment on the gameplay, but the 3.3 is high, even though you never bought it so you can't comment on the gameplay. 

WTF? 

Why didn't you just say that 3.3 is high because you don't like the game?  Obviosly your credibility sits somewhere between zero and none. 

You're probably the same type of person that will tell people a movie sucks that you've never seen, a book was bad that you've never read, or a restaruant isn't any good that you've never eaten at. 

Yeah, that's a lot of credibility you got there. 

PS:  This is exactly why user ratings, and player opinion is just about the worste way to decide if you should play something.  People as a rule are simply not fair or objective in there opinions.  This guy came right out and said he didn't play it and that the really low rating is still to high.  Why in the world would you ever trust Meta critic user ratings when you have people just like this going to meta critic to rate games they never played. 

The new talent system isn't the best ever, but in all honesty it's actually 1000x better then the old one.  

It actually provides a lot more diversity in the classes, the downside is that that diversity is only really evident to the person playing the class. 

They could have done a considerably better job by actually providing significantly more points and tiers. 

The original talent system was awful because each class had one viable build.  As they kept refining it it resulted in being best solo level, raid, and pvp build. 

At least this one gives you actual worthwhile options.  It's just really minimalistic.

You know user scores on meta critic are acurate because the only way you can rate it is if you purchased and played it.

Oh wait...

Originally posted by goflish

Originally posted by odinsrath
is the combat still gonna be like what i see on youtube from the old DF? people runing around randomly swinging in circles like an old "benny hill show" ..if so count me out..way out

they are swinging like that because they are not good melee players and don't know how to time their swings.

 Your statement is untrue.  Tasos himself even said that they hoped to have addressed this issue with melee mechanics with UW.  He said in the video that they had resolved the sprinting in circles and swinging wildly as the way melee combat is resolved.

There is absolutely no reason to continue defending this when the developers own actions and statements clearly indicate that it was poorly done and so addressed in the new game. 

I wish you would have asked how they would handle the launch distribution of the game, as in how will they be dealing with charging of it.

I'm aware that they said they wouldn't be charging existing owners of DF, but that was when they were just developing an expansion; not an entirely different game.

I'd really like to know if they plan to give UW to people who already purchased DF or if we'll be required to purchase this game as well.

What concerns me most is that the game is supposed to launch in two months, and the thing they keep concentrating most on is that it's a "new" game because of things like dynamic lighting.  Even when asked about how the gameplay changed between the two games they respond with dynamic lighting.  I'm really confused how visual upgrades have anything at all to do with gameplay. 

I'm having a bit of deja vu here.  They used to go on about 3d sound, and how sound will be a big part of the original DF, now with UW I'm seeing Tasos going about Dynamic lighting and how much they worked on sound in the game. 

You would think that two months before the launch they would be talkinga bout more then visual, sound, and UI upgrades; especially when this is supposed to be a new game. 

I have a feeling everyone will be required to pay for this new game, when they're really not doing anything that other MMO's will give you free as an xpac.  CCP comes to mind when I think of a sandbox MMO that releases xpacs that include a lot of graphical overhauls, as well as entirely new gameplay, and they've never pitched an expansion as a new game or charged anyone for an xpac. 

I'm also not fooled by your "a lot of people here know very little about DF" comment Bill.  I remember very clearly what you guys said for the reason why you had so much coverage on the original DF.  :) 

Controversy drives traffic. 

Originally posted by Purutzil

Originally posted by Uhwop

Originally posted by Purutzil

Preemptive thread for MoP reaching its peek on XFire since a service few use determines how I game is going and it couldn't just be naturally what happens when people finished giving it a try and not being interested in a game.

I'll be in the back getting some chips and munching on them while I await for brutal feedback on both sides once it happens about a service that I know absolutely no one who uses it being the defining factor of success for a game. 

 You contradicted yourself in your own thread trying trying to discredit Xfire numbers. 

Yes, I'm aware you're trying to say that Xfire numbers don't indicate that people dislike a game, but the yellow part doesn't actually support the orange part.  After all, you're talking about a game that depends on people contunually paying a subscription to play.  In that regard it doesn't matter why they stop playing, only that they do stop. 

Well... um... yeah... um... your face is a contradiction!

 I agree, and it's a pain in the ass.  I'll be 36 very shortly and I still look 25.  Pretty sick of being carded every time I buy a bear.

Originally posted by Purutzil

Preemptive thread for MoP reaching its peek on XFire since a service few use determines how I game is going and it couldn't just be naturally what happens when people finished giving it a try and not being interested in a game.

I'll be in the back getting some chips and munching on them while I await for brutal feedback on both sides once it happens about a service that I know absolutely no one who uses it being the defining factor of success for a game. 

 You contradicted yourself in your own thread trying trying to discredit Xfire numbers. 

Yes, I'm aware you're trying to say that Xfire numbers don't indicate that people dislike a game, but the yellow part doesn't actually support the orange part.  After all, you're talking about a game that depends on people contunually paying a subscription to play.  In that regard it doesn't matter why they stop playing, only that they do stop. 

Originally posted by Madimorga

Anarchy Online for sure.

I miss my Yalm, I miss my NT kiter, I miss getting ridiculously high level gear and weapons onto low level characters and then going out and killing mobs so much higher level than me that I couldn't even see their level.

 

I miss never having to talk to an NPC or do a single quest if I didn't want to.  I miss open world boss mobs, and I miss the sheer size of Rubika.  

 

I even miss those tiny, bare apartments and the silly loot you could decorate them with.

 

I don't miss the economy, the farmers, the killstealers, the outdated graphics, the UI, the inability to move by holding down both mouse buttons, or the bugs, though.

 

 AO never shut down. 

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by Uhwop

Originally posted by VikingGamer

Originally posted by grimal
Where were all these people when the game was bleeding subs?

When SOA shutdown SWG they shutdown 12 servers. The game might not have had WoW numbers or even Aion numbers but it was far from  dead. It was much more active than Vanguard. On a good day during prime time Vanguard might have a few hundred people online about a year ago. And that was on the more active server Telon. Based on subs, Vanguard should have go the axe long before SWG. Hell, the game was still being actively updated even after the sunset announcement. Vanguard went a couple of years without so much as bug fix.

SWG was not shutdown for lack of subs. It was shutdown because LucasArts pulled the plug on the IP. Why do you think the last day of SWG just happened to be the same first day of SWTOR headstart.

 That's as wrong as all the other assumptions in this thread for the reason it closed.  It wasn't because of subs or LA, it was because SoE decided it wasn't worthwhile to pay the lisencing fee again.  LA didn't pull the plug, SoE had the option to renew the lisence and decided that it wasn't worth it.

Maybe because SoE decided not to renew the lisence with LA; so it didn't really make sense for them to keep it running for any longer then that?  Looked a lot more like fan service than anything else to me.  Or you might say that they were bowing out gracefully. 

Sorry but this does not make sense. They had 12 servers running and was probably having higher numbers than EQ 2, WAR, DAoC, AO and lots of other MMORPGs so unless the licence fee from LA was huge I dont see them shutting it down for economical reasons.

Also it cannot be pure coincidence that it shut down just as SW:TOR was being released, no way, no how. 

 It shut down 2 months after ToR released, the license expired in 2012.  They closed the game on Dec. 15, that would indicate that they shut down just before the license expired. 

I doubt that a 3 year lisence -This is how long a typical lisence for something like this lasts- to run a SW MMO is cheap by any standard. 

They would have factored in the cost of the license and the impact that ToR would have on their playerbase to determine that they would have ultimately ended up losing money on the deal.  It would be naive to think that ToR would have no impact on SWG's subscription numbers, and I doubt that any developers were looking at ToR and thinking that the game wouldn't be a huge success. 

SoE would have looked at the situation and decided that the impact was going to be to great to make paying LA more money a worthwhile business decision. 

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Uhwop

Originally posted by VikingGamer

Originally posted by grimal
Where were all these people when the game was bleeding subs?

When SOA shutdown SWG they shutdown 12 servers. The game might not have had WoW numbers or even Aion numbers but it was far from  dead. It was much more active than Vanguard. On a good day during prime time Vanguard might have a few hundred people online about a year ago. And that was on the more active server Telon. Based on subs, Vanguard should have go the axe long before SWG. Hell, the game was still being actively updated even after the sunset announcement. Vanguard went a couple of years without so much as bug fix.

SWG was not shutdown for lack of subs. It was shutdown because LucasArts pulled the plug on the IP. Why do you think the last day of SWG just happened to be the same first day of SWTOR headstart.

 That's as wrong as all the other assumptions in this thread for the reason it closed.  It wasn't because of subs or LA, it was because SoE decided it wasn't worthwhile to pay the lisencing fee again.  LA didn't pull the plug, SoE had the option to renew the lisence and decided that it wasn't worth it.

Maybe because SoE decided not to renew the lisence with LA; so it didn't really make sense for them to keep it running for any longer then that?  Looked a lot more like fan service than anything else to me.  Or you might say that they were bowing out gracefully. 

We don't know that.  All we know is that both parties have stated that it was mutual decision, and that Smed stated "The decision to shut down SWG is first and foremost a business decision mutually agreed upon between SOE and LucasArts. LucasArts has a new game coming out, and the contract would be running out in 2012 anyway, so we feel like it's the right time for the game to end."

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/06/24/exclusive-smedley-on-the-sunsetting-of-star-wars-galaxies/

I don't even know if LA offered the license again.

 Two SW mmo isn't hurting LA, it would hurt SoE though.  Why pay to a license to keep a game running when another game is going to release that by all indication is very likely to drain off your player base to the point of subs becoming an issue. 

ToR released prior to SoE's lisence expiration, that means LA had no issue with having competing MMO's going at the same time.  SoE could have kept the game running up to the very last day that the agreement expires, instead they closed it while they still had license to run the MMO.  That situation wouldn't occur if LA wasn't going to allow SoE to renew the lisence.

A mutual decision doesn't mean that LA wasn't allowing them the option of a lisence renewal.  You can't have a mutual decision if one party isn't allowing the option.  If it was LA not allowing them them would have just told everyone that the license to run the game was expiring and with the release of ToR they would be unable keep SWG going, not we both decided it wasn't worth it. 

They couldn't work out a deal that made it worthwhile to pay LA money when another SW game is coming along that's just going to drain the SWG playerbase down to the point that it stops making any kind of money for SoE. 

Can't really have a decision without an option.  The fact there was a decision being made means that there had to be the possibility of an option.   

Originally posted by VikingGamer

Originally posted by grimal
Where were all these people when the game was bleeding subs?

When SOA shutdown SWG they shutdown 12 servers. The game might not have had WoW numbers or even Aion numbers but it was far from  dead. It was much more active than Vanguard. On a good day during prime time Vanguard might have a few hundred people online about a year ago. And that was on the more active server Telon. Based on subs, Vanguard should have go the axe long before SWG. Hell, the game was still being actively updated even after the sunset announcement. Vanguard went a couple of years without so much as bug fix.

SWG was not shutdown for lack of subs. It was shutdown because LucasArts pulled the plug on the IP. Why do you think the last day of SWG just happened to be the same first day of SWTOR headstart.

 That's as wrong as all the other assumptions in this thread for the reason it closed.  It wasn't because of subs or LA, it was because SoE decided it wasn't worthwhile to pay the lisencing fee again.  LA didn't pull the plug, SoE had the option to renew the lisence and decided that it wasn't worth it.

Maybe because SoE decided not to renew the lisence with LA; so it didn't really make sense for them to keep it running for any longer then that?  Looked a lot more like fan service than anything else to me.  Or you might say that they were bowing out gracefully. 

Originally posted by grimal
Where were all these people when the game was bleeding subs?

 My guess is playing starwars galaxies.  Being number one in the poll doesn't mean that the number of votes received is evidence that the game would viable today.

1693 votes?  You really think that that many people weren't playing the game at the time of its closing? 

Less than 1700 hardly warants any kind of "all these people" comment.  It's not even possible to extropolate just hown many people would atually play the game based on the poll.

I don't mean to bust anyones balls here, but your comment really is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to the poll results. 

Blizzard does the same thing if you want to remove the authenticator through the support page.  If you call them they only need the last CD key you used and what credit card you paid with.  I didn't even have the card number just what bank it was from, which was good enough for them.

Think about it.  That information they want is the only real way they have of determining that you are who you say you are if none of the other information you give them is matching up.  Otherwise I could just contact AV support and thell them that I've lost all my account information, and the only thing I have is YOUR email adress.  Your email address is about the most unsecure information on the net. 

I'd be a little pissed if I found out that you were able to get account information from them with only an email address, and no form of information that even indicates you actually are the preson that email address belonged to let alone the person that owned the game account. 

Edit:  I can't imagine that an expired drivers license would be a problem, if the federal government didn't have any problem with my expired drivers lisence being used as my ID for my disability filing I can't see why a game company would care, and you can black out the sensitive information that they don't need on a banking statement.  They don't need the routing number of banking number on the bank statement, just your address, name, and I would assume the name of the bank. 

However, I do agree they should just have a username retreival system in place like any other support site; it's not even a game thing.