All Posts by Naryysys

Man oh man, do I wish I could go  back to DAoC in its prime.  I'm down for trying this server most definitely, though resurrecting such an aged video game is a near impossible task.  Here's to hoping I can slaughter some Hibbies to my heart's content once again!

Originally posted by Narug

 

Originally posted by Naryysys

 

From a strictly roleplaying standpoint, withholding crafting until level 40 is an utterly stupid idea.  Crafters generally don't have extensive knowledge of combat..  They have extensive knowledge of how to make the waepons of combat, but not how to use them.  I feel being forced to go out and grind half the game in order to craft the weapons of war is ludicrous.  That being said, I don't really enjoy crafting, so this really wouldn't affect my gaming experience much.

I was commenting on crafting, (maybe not well enough) it's gameplay, and roleplay perspectives so I'll assume the rest is for others to debate.

 

Problem with starting out is you're on an island and must learn how to survie.  You don't have an option to start out at the smithy or what have you.  You don't start with all your skills and my conqueror only swung a piece of an oar at start.  I think people would at least know to swing a piece of wood under such circumstances.  Yes they wouldn't swing that well but since we only have that limitation to work with that's what one has to go on.

Since we know that the character has lost memory of skills we must assume they must re-learn crafting arts as well.  For me it seems to fit.  Maybe that's just me though.

That's very valid.  Having lost all memory, I could see withholding crafting the first twenty levels.  I don't see 40, but I'm not sure how long it would take you to get from 20 to 40, so I'll leave it there.  Y'know, people who have lost their memory will retain learned skills from before the event that caused the memory loss.  They won't know they have those skills, though, until they attempt to use them.  Wouldn't it be cool if, at 20, to start crafting, you did a quest where you realized you have an aptitude for smithing by way of doing a favor for the local smithy or what not?  I think it'd be a pretty neat quest.  Sometimes, I wish I could write some of these quests for MMOs. ;)

Originally posted by Narug

 

Originally posted by Ozmodan

 

Now of course you can't really do any real crafting until 40(what an utterly stupid idea to delay crafting until 40) so there might be some decent crafting items that come about. 

Have to say I disagree with this here.  You shouldn't craft till higher levels anyway.  It gives you time to learn the game when just starting from a gameplay perspective and allows you to learn the lay of the land/people from a roleplay standpoint.

 

Or does one think you should know how to craft suits of armour when just starting your way in the world?  If anything it would involve using sticks and plants to form together very basic things. 

You start with a character who can't remember their past as far as I know.  Least that's how it is for my Cimmerian conqueror.

From a strictly roleplaying standpoint, withholding crafting until level 40 is an utterly stupid idea.  Crafters generally don't have extensive knowledge of combat..  They have extensive knowledge of how to make the waepons of combat, but not how to use them.  I feel being forced to go out and grind half the game in order to craft the weapons of war is ludicrous.  That being said, I don't really enjoy crafting, so this really wouldn't affect my gaming experience much.

I also agree with others that heavy instancing is a bad move when encouraging PvP, for many reasons.  One reason, as another has stated, is that gankers can literally get off scot-free by changing instances.  If it's anything like CoH instances (you get to choose which instance when you zone), then gankers will simply wreak havoc until they feel support is on the way, then change instances and repeat.  I could see zone chases going on, people on their high level toons constantly switching instances trying to find that ganker that had been mauling their alt earlier.  Not immersive, not cool, not fun.

I do remember the AoC advertising machine saying such things as "epic" when describing their PvP.  A 96-player instanced PvP zone is simply not epic for anyone who's played DAoC.  From what I understand, this 96-player zone is created when players are attacking guild keeps?  In DAoC, there is one load screen-- the frontiers.  After that, there are literally dozens of guild owned keeps for the taking or defending, and literally hundreds (in the heyday, even thousands) of players running around taking or defending these keeps.  THAT'S epic.

Now again, I've not played the game, but have read most of this thread and from what I've gathered, the heavy instancing in AoC does not stop at PvE.  Until I'm shown evidence to refute this, I probably won't be picking up a copy.

By the way, who doesn't make their game available for online purchase and download nowadays?  I probably would've bought a copy earlier this week had I been able to buy a CD key from Funcom and downloaded the client.  After reading this thread, I'm glad it's not.  I can now make a more informed decision, but I feel Funcom has dropped the ball by not making online purchase and download available.  Maybe I'm just missing the page, but I searched pretty heavily.  Where's the online download?

EDIT- Been a while.  Typos, ho!

Originally posted by MLecl0001

See I dont view that as ganking, thats PvP.  Ganking imo and lots of others is  a max level player attacking a beginner.  That is ganking to me, just outnumbering the other side is not ganking, its when the other side has absolutely no chance in not only winning but even fighting back.

Ganking and zerging have in common one thing: utilizing an unfair* advantage (numbers or level) to score points/honor/cities/keeps/etc.  Beyond that, they're different.  Many games discourage ganking, but few discourage zerging, as that could possibly discourage getting more people to PvP and consequently play their game, which is bad for business.

*Some may think these are not unfair advantages.  I use the word for sake of providing a definition only.

There's been a couple games that have met my expectations over the years..  Mostly Action/FPSs.

Half-Life 2 - The bar was set really high for this one, and Valve blew it off the scales.  First game to succesfully use physics at that kind of level, in my opinion.  Gravity gun 4tw!

Bioshock - Talk about a story.  2K games delivered here in a big way.  I still load it up periodically just to dive back into the world of Rapture.

The Witcher - This game didn't get glowing reviews, so my expectations were only moderately high at best, but man was I pleasantly surprised.  Awesome story, an action-based combat system that still felt RPG with the timed click system, and pretty frikkin' cool graphics.  Not to mention the leveling system and the player choices that determine a lot of the story told.

World of Warcraft - Blizzard delivers the polished product they're known for.  While it may not have made any significant strides forward for the genre, it definitely showed developers what a well-polished, popular MMO looks like.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl - Proves atmosphere can make for a great game, even if the gameplay mechanics aren't new and innovative.  The ambience is very huanting.  It's the kind of ambience horror/survival games should shoot for.  Another pleasant surprise.

Resident Evil 4 - Never much liked the franchise, but this one got great reviews, so I expected it to be a step above the rest.  It was.  Cool story, even cooler assortment of baddies, and a great weapon upgrade system make this the best title in the series.

Dark Age of Camelot - Last, but certainly not least.  Many have already commented on this game, so I'll just say in its prime it was a great example of what a good MMO should be.

1.  What MMORPGs have you played and how long did you play them for?

Played many MMOs starting with (no joke) Meridian 59.  That's a classic.  Didn't play it very long, though.  Really the two MMOs I've sunk the most time in are Dark Age of Camelot and World of Warcraft.  Couple years of DAoC, and a little less for WoW.

2.  Which MMORPG was your favorite?

DAoC takes the cake here.  Back in its glory days I don't think it could be beat.  Hell, it's still a lot of fun now.

3.  What did you like most about that MMORPG?

Frontiers, the IP, the community.  Not much I didn't like about that game.

4.  What MMORPG are you looking forward to most?

Probably WAR, because I admire Mythic.  Other than that, any of the MMOFPSs ('cause mixing two genres I've always loved is a winner for me) or the White Wolf MMO.

Originally posted by Gameloading

 

You have games like Super Smash Brothers for casuals, but you also have games like Virtua Fighter 5, which, to use a quote a reviewer, has so much depth that it can take a lifetime to master.  

Before I get charbroiled, allow me to say it was a joke.  I just couldn't resist plugging that game somewhere.

Originally posted by oakae

 

The 8800gtx was actually $600 when it first came out. And there still isn't a graphics card that can truly run Crysis on it's highest settings.

 

Probably I should've worded that better.  DirectX10, my rig would not be able to run it on the the maximum, of course not.  Fortunately, I don't run that sham they call Vista and DirectX10, so I do enjoy seeing a smooth Crysis on the high-end settings.  Notice the use of high-end..  Not maximum.  I wasn't going to say maximum because I didn't mean maximum.  When I get back to my apartment in a couple days I'll list what I run it at for you.

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Let just assume that they come out with keyboard&mouse for console ?

Would PC lose the last advantage ?

I don't believe so.  The majority of people who buy consoles don't want a keyboard and mouse, they have that on their desktop computers.  People I know who buy consoles don't want to play with a keyboard and mouse.

I bought my rig about a year ago and I can tell you it plays Crysis with high-end graphic settings.  I don't see where that qualifies under 'Buying a rig that will need upgrading to play anything beyond what was released 2 months before.'

Many who feel they need to buy a new computer every year don't take care of it like they should.  It is more convenient to just shove a console in a hole under your television than keep your computer neat and clean.  I feel it's worth it for the pay off, though.

The Xbox was released in North America November 15, 2001 (as listed on Wikipedia).  The 360 was released in North America November 22, 2005.  That's four years.  If I keep my computer for around three years (as I generally do before thinking about doing major upgrading or buying a new one), I don't see a huge difference in the time I get from either platform.  And, as I said before, I can buy one piece of hardware as opposed to an entirely new console.

The argument made about consoles getting a keyboard and all these other neat things PCs have kind of makes me chuckle..  Well congratulations, you've placed a PC in a box.  The entire console vs. PC argument is a moot point, then.

Ultimately, though, it all comes down to personal opinion.

Originally posted by Elikal

I am always surprised of the degree of self-humiliation many players do before the companies. Why is it always OUR duty as customers to SEEK answers? When will WE the paying customers do what is the reasonable thing, letting those companies know its THEIR frigging duty to care for our requests, to come to US and inform us and not the other way around, we begging and seeking for answers?? Pft...

We have those..  We usually call them telemarketers.  Sorry for being cynical, but MMOs have always had gamers who scratch and claw for every fact they can find for the game before it's released, so they usually don't advertise as much as other games.  MMOs are mostly word of mouth, though that may change in the near future.  Just don't expect a game released almost a decade ago to do a ton of advertising.

Originally posted by Gameloading

 

The thing with Shadowrun is that it seems to be build for an audience new to FPS games, hence the tweaking. Gamers who play PC games are not more skilled then console gamers, that's ridiculous. Better equipment =/= better skill. Controllers simply take longer to get used at when playing FPS. I think a lot of PC gamers have the misconception of Auto Aim. They seem to think that Auto Aim drags your cursor all the way to your opponent. That's not the case. While Auto Aim is certainly noticable in games like Halo 3, it's barely noticable in Call of Duty 4 and Team Fortress 2. In fact, I'm not even sure if those games have any auto aim at all.

 

Once you get the hang of the controll stick, I see no reason why a console gamer can't compete with a PC gamer. Ultimately I think it's playerskill that determines who will win, and a mouse & Keyboard doesn't "Magically" make a player more skilled.

Agreed, mouse and keyboard doesn't magically make players better, but I will argue the fact that players on mouse and keyboard have a lot higher potential.  It's not that console FPSs aren't fun (if they weren't, people wouldn't be buying them in droves), but that console FPSs seem..  Sluggish to a person who is experienced in PC FPS.  There's not the same ability to truly implement a twitch system in a game where an analog stick is used for aiming.  Mouses have no technological limits to how fast they can move the cursor, analog sticks do.  Analog sticks also have a smaller range of turning speed, whereas a mouse will turn your player as quickly or as slowly as your hand moves.  This gives the PC players the potential that console gamers don't have.  It's nothing personal toward console gamers, it really isn't.  Unless they're one of those guys who likes to shout things like "n00bs" when they win a match.  But then again, the same would hold true, as far as I'm concerned, for a PC player who does likewise.  I can't stand people that feel the need to belittle someone because they've spent more time honing a rather useless skill, whether it's on the Xbox or the good ole' PC.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Actually people like you have already been disproven, look at shadowrun.

People like you need to learn that playing a FPS is not as difficult as you might think. It's DIFFERENT, and it takes time to get used to. Somethings which a lot of PC FPS players aren't willing to put time in.

Also, it's kind of funny you complain about 12 year old elitism. It makes you look like a huge hypocrite.

And wow, a counterstrike player complains about children on Xbox live, that's amazing.

"Ohh look! I got lots of skill because I use a mouse and keyboard!" well unfortunatly the way of controll you use has nothing to do with skill.

Shadowrun, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowrun_(2007_video_game)

I'll quote the part most relevant:

"Shadowrun is the flagship title for the Games for Windows - LIVE service that allows Windows Vista PC users to be fully integrated into Xbox Live. Due to this integration, FASA has decided to make several changes to try and create a more balanced competition between the Xbox 360 and PC versions. Because of the lack of 'pixel-accuracy' with the Xbox 360 analog thumbstick, the designers have included an aim-assisting technology, which basically interpolates the player's movement and causes the reticle to stay over an enemy player like a weak magnet. In addition, FASA has implemented a feature which causes the crosshair to expand during quick movements, thus lowering the player's accuracy, making it impossible to quickly turn and maintain accuracy, reducing the potential advantage of playing with a mouse.^] PC players, who have a more sensitive control scheme, are able to turn significantly faster than their controller brethren and would have gained an unfair advantage."

Yea, once you take away any advantage having a mouse and keyboard offers, they probably are equal.  You've taken away the twitch gameplay that makes PC FPSers the superior.  I'd hardly say that's grounds for proof that console FPSers are in any way of equal skill to PC FPSers.

Thing about PC FPS servers is this, I pick and choose what server I play on.  Therefore, I pick the servers where I'm exposed to the least amount of players who like to spam the mic even though they have not hit puberty.  Xbox Live, as a general rule, picks your matches for you.

The mouse and keyboard gives a huge advantage to players.  Thus, players have become a lot more accurate and therefore, more skillful than console gamers ever thought about being.  Give someone a month playing Halo on the PC with the sniper rifle, them throw him into a team sniper match with console gamers.  Bet you good money he comes out on top.

I will agree with the statement that "it's all relative," but once you cross the two platforms (barring extreme measures to eliminate any advantages playing on a PC would give you) you will notice a difference in absolute skill.

EDIT - It's also worth noting that Shadowrun got barely average reviews.  While that may come in some part due to the cross-platforming, many other reasons are cited by reviewers as to why it wasn't a top-notch FPS.

I've said it before and I'll say it again..  Merge console and PC FPS servers..  See how long it takes those playing the console to realize they can't compete with people playing with mouse and keyboard..  If all FPSs started going this route..  I bet you would see those PC sales go up.

It's an entirely different level of complexity and skill on the PC.  Consoles can't hold a candle, and if any console player thinks I'm wrong and we had the chance I'd show him just how little skill he has compared to us PC FPSers.  'Nuff said.

Is it obvious that I don't like the haughty "I'm a 12-year old ph34r my energy sword!!11!!1!one1!one" mentality that seems to saturate Xbox Live?  Seriously, go pick up Counter Strike: Source and find me there.  I'll have lots of fun.

Am I the only one who believes a Harry Potter IP would provide too much temptation to fall into "Toontown" areas?  I mean, no doubt if it was taken seriously, it would be great, but with the movies being out and those movies being so popular with kids..  It'd be hard not to try to sucker those parents into buying their kids Harry Potter Online.

As far as a focus group goes, meh.  Way too early to tell.  Focus groups could mean everything or nothing at all, and only the people involved in the creation of the game will know just how much it will affect things.  People can shout about how much they aren't impressed with Bioware, but I wasn't impressed with Blizzard before WoW.  Now, I'm impressively impressed.

I guess I used to be hardcore; as far as hours go, anyways.  While back I used to play a shit ton, but I wasn't ever hardcore raiding or what not.  I usually just sat and grinded casually while talking with my guild (great group of people, they were), or grouping with them.  It was mostly BSing with my buddies, though.  That's always been the best MMO experiences for me.  Not these epic raids, not even the epic PvP (though that's a close second), it was always the funny shit that used to get discussed in guild or group chat.

Anyways, I find anywhere from an hour to three hours a day during the week to play MMOs, maybe a little more on weekends.  I don't think that's too hardcore, since last semester I 4.0'd 16 hours of college and this semester I'm finding time to join a fraternity..

Someone else here already said it best.  It's not necessarily the amount of hours, but the amount of life put into the game.  When it starts alienating you from real life friends and activities, that's when it's becoming too much.

Not sure if anyone has seen this or not, or if everyone has and for some reason I don't know about, has discarded it, but:

http://www.earthandbeyond.ca/

Not even sure if I should've posted that..

Originally posted by Koma

 

Which is stupid. The MMO market needs diversity so that it can cater to the billions of different tastes in one way or another.

The logic should be:

WoW is loot-centric with arena pvp?

Well than I am going to make a open pvp, skill based game with a whole different artistic style to get those people who don't like wow.

other games and hate it lost a lot of friends/guild members to wow.

 

Thing is, it seems obvious WoW has caught the majority as far as tastes go.  Answer me this, why would developers and/or producers want to cater to the tastes of the minority?  It just doesn't make good business sense.  There are niche games out there, but as a general rule, you want to appeal to as many people as possible, not "that group that likes player looting and encouraged spawn camping to cleanse the n00bs."

Originally posted by DeaconX

 

Well see it's because of lack of constriction that they based their previous game, KOTOR, in an era 4000 years before baby skywalkers were walking around.  It's a largely unexplored timeline which allowed the devs to forge their own tale within the Star Wars universe.  Granted, it is STILL Star Wars and thus the laws/rules/restrictions of that universe persist, but there is no 'set story' for that era which allows great creative freedom.

 

Maybe it's not Star Wars but it's what I'm hoping for, because I'd love to see just ONE proper SW MMORPG.  And BioWare can do it.  If it isn't, I'm pretty confident I'll be interested in whatever else they choose.

I do feel for Star Wars fans over the whole SoE debacle, but I just feel Bioware can make a world as interesting as Star Wars while also taking a fresh, new look at IPs in MMOs.  A KOTOR would give them a lot of freedom, true, but they would still be victim to what LucasArts said could or couldn't go (as you mentioned).

Either way, I'm sure it will be at least a competent MMO, judging by Bioware's previous endeavors, and at most be an immensely popular MMO, judging by Blizzard's previous endeavors.   Just how good it will be can't be judged right now, and I certainly don't mean to see it would be any less of an MMO just because it was Star Wars.