The ass ugly characters are the main reason I won't go near it. When an RPG is all about investing in your character, you can't enjoy the game unless you like how the character looks and moves.

They're making a huge mistake with this cartoon sh-t, and they'll burn for it.

 Instances are also just another bit of lazy mass market design. Real MMOs value having a sense of an interconnected and shared world. If everything is instanced there is no god damned point, they may as well set it up like guildwars. DDO is going free to play because it's all instanced which makes it cheaper to run, plus people are less willing to pay for a game where there is nothing massively multiplayer about it. People only keep paying for instanced crap because they don't realize it's cost cutting, they pay $15 every month and only get a half assed game that doesn't live up to the moniker of MMO.

It won't deviate from the basic WoW foundation.

It will look like ass.

It will be a simplified game meant to appeal to the mass market casual.

The only redeeming quality of the game, the only thing that sets it apart, will be the dynamic personal story system. But good luck enjoying that when everything else is hopelessly average.

Mechwarrior has the most perfect setting for a sci-fi PvP based MMO.

The fact that it hasn't be exploited yet, and that it was even cancelled once, just speaks to the stupidity of game publishers.

I think there are two reasons it hasn't been pursued, and both are mistakes of bad judgement:

1. Publishers are convinced that people won't buy a PvP based MMO.

2. Publishers are convinced that sci-fi MMOs don't sell.

3. Publishers are convinced that a sim-ish MMO won't sell.

Fucking morons.

Mechwarrior is a goldmine potential of an MMO if someone were willing to invest the time and money to do it right.

-EVE is sci-fi, and it's original too. There's no explaining your assertion other than confusion. EVE doesn't have a heavily scripted in game story like an RPG, but that doesn't mean it's not a bonafide sci-fi world.

-War and politics. The fact that the game replicates it so well, bringing out what you call the worst in real life human behavior, is testiment to it's design.

-What is economics in real life but accumulation? Whether it be building an infrastructure or amassing raw materials. You can't fault a game for accurately simulating what drives people.

-You don't know what atmosphere is anymore than you know what sci-fi is.

-Controlling the experience of other people, ie power over them, is what people seek in games like this just like it's what many people seek in real life. Again you're faulting EVE for being good at what it is intended to do. They call people like you carebears for a reason, you want a game that insulates you from the impact of others; Where you can make yourself feel important by accumulating the best loot by whacking unskilled NPCS over the head and showing it off to others, without any unpredictable challenges ever being put in your path, without actually having to match wits with another human and face the potential sting of failure.

You've got it backwards if you think PvP is the means to advancing PvE. Rarely do games actually give you anything of value in PvP to advance your PvE - It's always the other way around. People PvE as a means of making themselves competitive for PvP. PvP is ultimately the highest form of end game content available, it's dynamicly changing content where your opponents have intelligence capable of adapting. DAoC was a horrible PvE game, but the PvP made the month long grind worthwhile. Even in WoW you'll frequently find people saying their ultimate goal is to be competitive in PvP, and raiding is just a means to that end.

There's a lot of buzz generated around PvP. People want it. It's often something that gets hyped up a lot in the pre-release phase of an MMO, but ultimately they all fail to deliver; Either because their commitment to PvP was shallow from the beginning, or because the money handlers got cold feet and decided the game should just focus on being a PvE grinder using "proven" mechanics.

WAR was advertised as a PvP MMO, but it utterly failed in execution. I think EA got an identity crisis halfway through and the project lost it's way.

AoC was originally advertised as a PvP heavy MMO, but utterly failed to deliver on any of it's features or promises and didn't even have a basic complete PvE component.

Darkfall was the first MMO since shadowbane to truly attempt a PvP based MMO, but suffers from the same problem it did: Low cost, leading to poor production values. Shadowbane was never a failure of concept as much as it was too outdated in it's execution to interest a wider audience. Darkfall's major execution failing is that in the end they tacked on a ridiculous and mind numbing PvE grind, in a fit of horrendously bad design judgement, which actually prevents people from enjoying or participating in the PvP (even though they themselves tried to say the game had no grind when it was in development. Obviously they lost their way, got cold feet and lost faith in the ability of their dynamic PvP and city building system to support the game on it's own. And that hesitation is ultimately going to be what kills them).

Star Wars The Old Republic tried to emphasize the "War" in their name when questioned about PvP, but this is something I've seen before so I don't have much faith that they will deliver anything more than instanced arenas, if at all. But the mere fact that they are trying to pretend PvP is important, or at least not inisgnificant, speaks to the fact that PvP means a lot in an MMO. Even for those who primarily want PvE, a lot of them ultimately have the goal in mind of being able to take what they've worked to build and pit it against others in a meaningful way.

Guildwars lets you start off any character at max level for PvP.

But that's what happens when you focus on just making a game fun instead of trying to bleed player's wallets every month.

Originally posted by batolemaeus

There's a problem with making everything into 0.0.
Of course, as long as there's a source for certain npc goods to fuel pos and buy bpo, the 0.0 alliances will be fine.

But currently, an alliance that is defeated on the battlefield can surrender and retreat into empire. And that's okay, the can take a break, they deserve it. Without such space to retreat to, 0.0 will be a lot less dynamic. Not being able to build up a small force in empire is bad for the game.

You all suffer from a lack of imagination. There would be places to retreat to under a 0.0 game as I described.

"Put BF1942 on a massive scale and I guarantee it would sell like hotcakes. "

Obviously you haven't been paying attention: Everyone in this thread is telling you what I've just said, which is that if all they were given was a bigger version of BF1942 then they would refuse to pay monthly for it. Their only mistake is in assuming that it's not possible for an MMOFPS to offer anything significantly different or better than what a shoebox game has to offer, and they are wrong. There is a lot more depth that a MMOFPS can offer players besides scale, and if they don't try to do it then they are going to fail because nobody will pay $15 a month for what is essentially a larger BF1942 server.

Originally posted by bobfish

Come on, lets be serious here, if there is an existing free game out there that does it you can't force people to pay for it, people will not pay for something they can get for free.

Once again, you say this out of complete ignorance for what a game like WW2OL has to offer that those free shooters can never, ever, come close to.

Yet this is a perfect example of the kind of mentality gamers hold that must be overcome somehow, to make them realize what these games have to offer.

It's not about wanting to solo, it's about wanting to have the power to solo. Games of forced grouping have a way of making your character feel the same as everything else. MMOS have yet to tackle how they can make individuals feel powerful in a sea of others just like them.

Any online FPS has to leverage to the hilt what a MMO server based game can do that typical shooter online play can't, otherwise you'll run into the perception by players of "why should I pay for something similar to what I already get for free?"

This kind of comment was brought up a lot with regards to WW2OL, and was done in absolute ignorance. It is maddening when morons conclude that battlefield 1942 is basically the same game but free.

I played planetside too, but ultimately what turned me off from it was that it was too dumbed down as a shooter to be tactically very interesting. This is another problem you're bound to run into as well; Making a shooter designed for the lowest common denominator in an attempt to gain a larger market share, in the end all you've done is alienated the people most willing to pay (the more mature gamers who demand something more involving than what they can get from a standard online FPS). Those kids and casual gamers they are trying to win over aren't willing to pay monthly for most games anyway, even less so FPS games, and they are aso less likely to hold a subscription for prolonged periods.

Originally posted by dhayes68

Originally posted by Trenchgun

How could it be bad when the only truly worthwhile thing to do in this game revolves around 0 space corporate conflict and it's a goal that everyone works towards? Is there anyone that seriously enjoys EVE for it's 1.0 missions hunting of NPCs, or because they like to mine in 1.0 space all day and forever?

Ultimately the division between what the players run and what NPCs run does not have to be there, you make it possible for the players to establish their own systems of order to fill the void.

What is gained by the current system that can't be simulated under a fully player run system? All it does is segregate new players from the real game, leading them to quite out of sheer boredom before they get to experience where the real game is: PvP. 

 

That statement is simply not true, so your conclusions based on it will be wrong.  Apparently a lot of people play in, and enjoy 0.1-1.0 space.

You assume there must be people out there who enjoy it simply because 1.0 space exists. Your assumptions and conclusions are wrong.

Originally posted by Malickie

Originally posted by Trenchgun

It will just turn around to bite me in the ass like SWG did. I won't do that again.

I have ever confidence this game will capture none of what made SWG great before it was destroyed by SoE, I believe this game will be just another generic MMO like WOW, aimed at kids and the lowest common denominator of PC users; The only difference being you have jedi running around everywhere.

I believe being developed by bioware is irrelevent in the grand scheme of lucasarts pursuing profit, as such the pressure to great a generic and dumbed down "accessible" game with low end graphics will be overwhelming.

 

 

 

Actually it will have the most important aspect of what made SWG great. People.

MMO developers have forgotten that. They just create online themeparks where players are shuttled through, without giving them the tools or the reasons to truly interact in a RPG fashion.

How could it be bad when the only truly worthwhile thing to do in this game revolves around 0 space corporate conflict and it's a goal that everyone works towards? Is there anyone that seriously enjoys EVE for it's 1.0 missions hunting of NPCs, or because they like to mine in 1.0 space all day and forever?

Ultimately the division between what the players run and what NPCs run does not have to be there, you make it possible for the players to establish their own systems of order to fill the void.

What is gained by the current system that can't be simulated under a fully player run system? All it does is segregate new players from the real game, leading them to quite out of sheer boredom before they get to experience where the real game is: PvP.

This game reeks of LOTRO because LOTRO took a sure fire IP and only used it to deliver a highly polished yet very shallow experience modeled off WoW, trying to emulate and even break the marketshare of WoW.

SWTOR has absolutely no hope in hell of being anything than a watered down shallow quest grinder. It won't feel like a world at all, like SWG did prior to NGE. Instead it will feel like an amusement park focused around shallow combat with shallow quests, in a bubblewrap world of disconnected instances, and capture the flag PvP.

WAR also proved to use that as far as MMOs go, the quality of your prerendered cinematics is inversely proportional to the suckatude of your actual game and it's poor in-game graphics.

Also this game is automatical fail for three reasons:
1. EA owns bioware.

2. Lucasarts hate the PC.

3. The graphics are cartoon city.

It will just turn around to bite me in the ass like SWG did. I won't do that again.

I have ever confidence this game will capture none of what made SWG great before it was destroyed by SoE, I believe this game will be just another generic MMO like WOW, aimed at kids and the lowest common denominator of PC users; The only difference being you have jedi running around everywhere.

I believe being developed by bioware is irrelevent in the grand scheme of lucasarts pursuing profit, as such the pressure to great a generic and dumbed down "accessible" game with low end graphics will be overwhelming.

Would this as a game be workable with a few changes?

Imagine if space stations were in competition to be the best trading hubs by using their tax profits to fund NPC guards and automated defenses, thus theorhetically offering players the equivalent of 1.0 space but done in a way that is under the player's ability to influence.

There could be the corporate controlled equivalent of jita, maintained by an alliance of those who see it in their interest to have some safe zones; But it would also be within the power of other aliances to economically strangle these zones, wage wars of attrition, and outright destroy the infrastructure...

Vanguard is a great game to play with a static group of friends because you can run around just exploring and dungeon crawling. Other games feel like tram rides from one area to the next or a series of disconnected instanced levels. Vanguard will give your group a sense of actually venturing out into an unknown world in search of adventure, as the world is completely open, beautifully crafted, and full of stuff to find (I haven't gotten that feeling from an MMO since the original AC).

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/05/06/richard-garriott-sues-nc-soft-over-millions-stock-options

http://t-machine.org/index.php/2009/01/16/we-need-to-talk-about-tabula-rasa-when-will-we-talk-about-tabula-rasa/

They sabotaged the success of TR when they pushed what was essentially a great game foundation out the door too early, not giving them enough time to properly fill it out.

They only gave the game an obligatory year long run to save face, but from the beginning they never intended it to be a success and weren't willing to devote a scrap of resource to further develop the game after it came out (no MMO is successful if they aren't prepared to follow up the launch with an aggressive and continued supportive development). They just wanted to get the game gone and over with, to clear it off their books. They pushed it out early to ensure it would struggle, then cut off all further development to prevent it from experiencing any growth.

Even worse was the machiavellian tactics they used to screw over Garriott, commiting fraud while he wasn't in a position to defend himself.