Originally posted by Acidon

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by Draemos
It's a good game...

I agree, excellent choice for those duo's out there looking for something fast paced and fun.

This is the general feeling I get out of it.  If I had a partner or small group to play this with I think it could be entertaining.  Being locked out of so many loot options in the dungeons due to class or lack of kits rubs me the wrong way.  That's a personal issue, everyone will be different of course.

This is just an impression from very little gameplay.  Played once during one of the closed betas (that was open to everyone) and Played for a while tonight.  So obviously my experience with it is very limited.

 I could see someone playing alone feeling like they're missing the part that's fun, at least based on my own experience.

Originally posted by Draemos
It's a good game...

I agree, excellent choice for those duo's out there looking for something fast paced and fun.

Originally posted by JeroKane

Originally posted by moldrath

Originally posted by furbans
And let the mass of bashing threads begin...

I have no intention of leaving any bshing remarks. This happens to all MMO's on opening day, and some for even longer. Anyone who bashes it for having a few bugs during open beta isnt realistc.

 The key difference here is, it's not a new launch for Cryptic.

All their games run on the same infrastructure. All use the same Front End (Login servers) and back end.

Hence, why ALL their games are inaccessable  now. CO, STO and NW.

There's not a difference here when considering just about all opening hours of an open beta ever...

Originally posted by Instigator-Jones
I'm more interested in what this says about the current CU community. I'm not sure I want to spend time in a PVP RVR game with a group of nitwits that can't even organize a unique and personal plea to a news outlet for coverage of their holy grail game. Seriously, using form letters or copy/paste email chains is base level stuff. You can only imagine all the crap that would likely go on IN the game. I was moderately excited about CU, now I'm leaning towards the 'pass crowd'.

These are the backers (actually a subset of those who backed the project) we're talking about here, which is not representive of what the community of a game will be years from now (if it funds); at least no more than the typical venomous fans that exist for every title years before they see completion.

If this sort of "fan" bugs you enough to skip a prospective title, how could you ever play anything?

Originally posted by simsalabim77

Originally posted by Horusra
no desire to see a high level running around in my low or mid level zone from an other faction.  Seeing them do stupid emotes or jumping around acting the fool.

 

No worries about that. The people your level will do it instead. I think this is the dumbest "feature" I've heard of in an MMO in awhile. What's the point of it? I can't think of a single good reason for it. Anybody have any ideas about what this accomplishes?

More content to take part in is my best guess.

Originally posted by Torgrim

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by DocBrody

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Why is it a "problem"? It is not like we are running out of games to play.

It is a problem because devs are running out of players playing their game.

Some devs are running out of players playing their games.  That isn't an industy problem.  (well no more than retention of customers is for any business in any market anywhere on the planet).

 

So it's not the industry problem when you actually can "beat" a MMORPG under a month these days?

 

 

It's kinda funny really, because if you look at player numbers (excluding WOW), many games have roughly the same numbers in regard to core audience as games did pre-wow.  Considering the huge disparity of the number of options (far more options today). I can't really say the indsutry is facing a new sort of problem, There's an average between 200-400K (give or take a hundered to one end or the other) this has always been the case when ignoring the run away success of WOW.

Maybe the key for new founded success is truly merging these audiences (both past and present) into a well financed as well as executed experience.

Originally posted by Kyleran
If me and 10 of my friends who used to buy MMOs and pay subs now spend all of our time on free shards of older titles because nothing new is of interest to us is it really a problem with us or with the industry and what it is producing?

It's only a problem for the industry if you and ten of your friends are an integral part of the industry. That's unlikely, what's more likely is that it has become a problem for you and those friends, that the industry took the turn it did.

Originally posted by Pixel_Jockey

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by Pixel_Jockey

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Theocritus
The problem with the industry as a whole is that almsot all of the newer games are built for short term entertainment...They are made so companies can get their money fast then move on.....Has there been any MMO in the last couple of years that had any lasting value whatsoever?

Why is it a "problem"?

It is not like we are running out of games to play.

It's a problem for some of us because we don't like the same recycled bullshit over and over again.

Then don't play them? How is something you don't want to play a problem?

I never said I did play them, you assumed I did. 

I never said you did either, I was just pointing out there is a solution to that "problem".

Originally posted by Pixel_Jockey

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Theocritus
The problem with the industry as a whole is that almsot all of the newer games are built for short term entertainment...They are made so companies can get their money fast then move on.....Has there been any MMO in the last couple of years that had any lasting value whatsoever?

Why is it a "problem"?

It is not like we are running out of games to play.

It's a problem for some of us because we don't like the same recycled bullshit over and over again.

Then don't play them? How is something you don't want to play a problem?

Originally posted by PieRad

Originally posted by Emeraq
Wait... You're requesting a refund because you don't want to pay the listed prices for other items in the cash shop???  I truly hope you are declined, as you clearly state the game is fun and decently designed, so you clearly aren't unhappy with the product you received.. it's the other products that you haven't even paid for that you are pissed about... Some people amaze me.

What a nice guy you are, to stand up for a company ripping off gamers...

 

Round of applause for this gentleman right 'ere!

 

It's not about standing up for a company, it's more like expecting people to live with the mistakes they make. The only reason a refund/charge-back should ever be sought is when the product is not what was advertised.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by Cuathon

Quizzical you take your filthy logic off of these forums! We don't like your kidn around here!

 

On a serious note the fact of the matter is that your average pleb is too dumb and unimaginative to take advantage of advanced gameplay where as "the shiny" is totally understandable to them. Mainstream media of every kind values flash over substance. Except books I guess, but if you were a reader as a kid you know how much contempt the public holds for books, unless they are romance novels or written at a 3rd grade level.

Gameplay matters to the largest demographic the same way a quality script matters to the movie industry.

You can get a pass on graphics for casual games perhaps because its about icons more than worldscapes.

Of course if you ask Axehilt or Narius the gameplay is better than ever these days. God forbid a game should take some intellectual capacity.

It's sad that such a well written and thought out thread devoles to this so soon. 

Are you a fan of older MMOs by chance? I am, however I have a hard time thinking back to one made before 04 that has what I'd consider good "game-play". They had  a far more freeform focus. Some like SWG offered a large variety in styles of game-play .

Where all of them lacked was in offering actual execution of all those game-play options. Movement, combat, animations, adapatability; not to mention quality of content/objectives, lacked style or substance. Today if a game released like those (same combat, same execution, etc) they would be considered archaic or bland ( with the exception of possibly SWG due to so many options). In just about any MMO pre 04,  almost everything was sacrificed to make them work with massive amounts of people around.

What they offered was a more social, and/or free atmosphere (choice), they didn't offer superior execution in game-play compared to games of today.

If you are a fan of older MMO's. To me, this post is no different than those you are attempting to scrutinize, as you are just as guilty of confusing what good game-play means. It doesn't mean a bigger gameworld or a larger amount of poorly executed content (by todays standards). Most MMO's of today opt for a more up to date form of game-play, they may offer less variety and\or freedom, that's the trade off in most of these newer titles.

 

 

The oldest MMO I ever played was WoW. It was shit. I am a fan of a lot of space empire browser games. OGame was far worse than Warring Factions or SpaceFed even though WF has almost no graphics and SpaceFed's are vastly inferior to OGame's.

The failure of understanding you have is that you actually like sandbox MMOs. You don't. You like the IDEA of them.

 

So many people make mistakes about what they like because they believe the lies fed to them by non-interactive media. You CANNOT have politics or combat the way its described in books or movies. The creator controls all the variables there but in the game world you have the player, often more than one, to deal with.

 

I know the trade offs I have to make to to have the gameplay I want and I'm okay with that. I work everyday to develop improved gameplay so that someday the gameplay that you all despise so much will be good enough. Good enough that it won't put off the people I need to want to play the same kinds of games I do in order for those games to be made.

I would be fine if developers focused on the really important gameplay. If I have to spend 2 hours doing something dull to get the most amazing gameplay in existence I will. Sadly I can't do that because not enough people are intelligence enough and exposed to the necessary environmental factors to make that sacrifice with me.

Its not all about intelligence. Many smart people a re fine with games the way they are. Maybe they have a job that takes a lot out of them, or maybe its one of the many other social or environmental factors that stop them from making the jump. I undertstand that we all have different priorities. I'm just not happy with where that leaves me.

There is a lot of boilerplate gameplay needed to power the systems that provide the amazingness that comes out of sandboxes. And a lot of that can be made more interesting, I still spend time on the high, and even low, level design to make that happen based on the MMO design threads I used to make here. And I work with single player exploratory strategy games to make some of that design playable.

I do all this stuff that doesn't even involve playing a game to get to the games I want. Because if it was done even half decently it would be worth it.

But there is only so much that can be done, and honestly, should be done. I can only think of a dozen people on this site, the premier MMO focused forum, that I would want to play an MMO with. The rest of you have what you want, are not actually interested in a real player driven game, and you are welcome to what you have. I won't fight you for any of that garbage.

You couldn't play the game I like to play even if you wanted to.

Do you know why the gameplay of non-WoW-likes is bad? Because no one even tried to work on it. Except perhaps SWG and sort of EvE. There are literally hundreds of free-to-play themeparks and how many of those are worth something? There are a dozen player driven and/or sandbox games and probably 1/3 of them is amazing. And that is surprising since the gameplay of all of them is all so different compared to themeparks that are all essentially the same. So I'd say they have a BETTER track record than your games.

Imagine how good the best ones would be if there were as many of them as there are themeparks.

While I made the mistake of thinking you were into the older games like I was, you're making the mistake of lumping me in with whoever you referred to as ("your games").  As a result i feel  you must have mistaken the point I was making in the post above.

The issue here falls in line with the premise Quiz laid out. That premise is (in simple terms), no matter what demographic you're catering to you're going to be sacrificing important factors in order to cater to your audience. These open-ended sandbox games always lack mainly because the scope of the product. Even SWg had that problem, one which they could never solve, and eventually killed the game, "how do we turn what we have into great gameplay". They sacrificed great game-play for abundance from the get go, turning that around is too big an undertaking for a game/service that is losing traction.

WOW had decent game-play but it lacked so many things I want in a long term MMO, same with AOC, same with etc... They're good distractions even TOR is, but that's all they are to me, they fill the void until I find what i want.

 Skyrim lacks solid polished game-play, it's satisfactory and doesn't hinder the experience, but by no means is it what i consider great game-play. Again great game-play is sacrificed to offer something else (some might say to offer something more, as in lots of activities to occupy your time).

Most of the modern games that offer great game-play are shallow in most other respects, as everything was sacrificed to offer great game-play.

Originally posted by Cuathon

Quizzical you take your filthy logic off of these forums! We don't like your kidn around here!

 

On a serious note the fact of the matter is that your average pleb is too dumb and unimaginative to take advantage of advanced gameplay where as "the shiny" is totally understandable to them. Mainstream media of every kind values flash over substance. Except books I guess, but if you were a reader as a kid you know how much contempt the public holds for books, unless they are romance novels or written at a 3rd grade level.

Gameplay matters to the largest demographic the same way a quality script matters to the movie industry.

You can get a pass on graphics for casual games perhaps because its about icons more than worldscapes.

[mod edit]

It's sad that such a well written and thought out thread devoles to this so soon. 

Are you a fan of older MMOs by chance? I am, however I have a hard time thinking back to one made before 04 that has what I'd consider good "game-play". They had  a far more freeform focus. Some like SWG offered a large variety in styles of game-play .

Where all of them lacked was in offering actual execution of all those game-play options. Movement, combat, animations, adapatability; not to mention quality of content/objectives, lacked style or substance. Today if a game released like those (same combat, same execution, etc) they would be considered archaic or bland ( with the exception of possibly SWG due to so many options). In just about any MMO pre 04,  almost everything was sacrificed to make them work with massive amounts of people around.

What they offered was a more social, and/or free atmosphere (choice), they didn't offer superior execution in game-play compared to games of today.

If you are a fan of older MMO's. To me, this post is no different than those you are attempting to scrutinize, as you are just as guilty of confusing what good game-play means. It doesn't mean a bigger gameworld or a larger amount of poorly executed content (by todays standards). Most MMO's of today opt for a more up to date form of game-play, they may offer less variety and\or freedom, that's the trade off in most of these newer titles.

Originally posted by Tkyle

Originally posted by Muke

Originally posted by Tkyle

 Why is it when someone talks about a sandbox it always turns into a PvP post? When you look up Sandbox this is what it is, not just pvp.

Because a modern MMO has PVE+PVP in it -players will always ask for pvp if it's not in the game, look at EQ2 after launch- and the main problem with sandboxes with PVP is the fact that players accept the benefits, not the downsides -getting ganked at inconvenient moments- .

 

 

  Wasn't SWG's a sandbox and somehow avoided the whole gank mess? If I remember, it had nice pvp in it but without worrying about that. You was able to choose when and how you wanted to pvp. Just can't see why every sandbox now has to be forced pvp, there are other options.

For the most part after TEF's, out in the world when TEF's existed you could place faction sensors, which made you overt (attackable) many a gank was handled this way in faction cities, mostly on noobs, who didn't realize they existed. Also if you attacked a faction NPC it made you attackable to players. Or if you were grouped with a person who did.

Originally posted by stragen001

Originally posted by augustgrace
MJ has said that if the KS was close they would give it another go.  I think people have shown there is interest, but at the same time have made it painfully clear that he needs to have a lot more to show.  They'll probably put a couple months work in (assuming it fails), then come back with a better thought out KS.

 

What he SHOULD do, is put his own money where his mouth is and spend a year getting a working pre-alpha together, THEN ask for other people's money.

So wait, he should spend a bunch of money on something he would have no idea whether or not it will sell? I don't think it's hard to understand where you're coming from here, but think about this for a second, it's much more effective finacially to do it the way many do KS'.  Put the idea out there, in turn see how much interest there is for such a product.  Until it funds it costs no one anything. If it doesn't fund (gain enough interest), no one loses a thing.

Any other risk (post funding) would exist regardless of a working prototype.

Originally posted by Elikal

Originally posted by Grunty

Originally posted by Torgrim

Originally posted by Cacaphony

Flemeth I think, in the first Dragon Age. She has a genuine chuckle about something, but I forget what about.

 

Yes she did laughed out pretty good about how powerful she is and you as a player didn't had a chance to kill her or something down those lines.

Elikal's point is the lack of physical changes to the face that a laugh entails. Cheeks raise up, mouth upturns, teeth shown in a smiling mouth, how eyes crinkle at the side. That sort of change.  Flemeth doesn't do any of this except open her mouth in a manner that isn't a smile or a grin.

Then again most games don't put any effort into this either. This is where the voice acting plays an important role in these games.  The animators don't animate the face or body to show emotion so the voice actors have to do it all on their own.

 

Yes. It is really more an artistic question for me. As you may or may not now, I am drawing, and I know how DAMN difficult it is is to draw laughing faces without looking creepy and off. A laughing face is among the most difficult expressions you can make, drawing or modelling, because it is probably THE most detailled and nuanced expression of the human face, and slight changes can make it look unnatural or wicked.

And this screenshot proves it. At leas to me it looks all kind of off and creepy.

I guessed that's why Bioware had it so rarely, but I assume other games struggle with the same. But then, most games today are dark, gritty and gloomy and there isn't much room for a good laugh, eh? :(

Tip- The key is to keep the roundness of the face in your "laugh lines" if you go too sharp in your curves it tends to look creepy.:)