|10 posts found|
At this point I'm wonder why they're making this game.
Skyrim, and the series, are amazing games. As I play Skyrim and have friends in my vent playing Skyrim, what we say is that the only thing that could make it better would be to be able to play it together. But we'd be fine with co-op, our own server or game, our own world responding only to us.
I'm worried that with TESO the parts that make elder scrolls the best will be obliterated. The immersion, depth, and amazingness of it all will be shot when xXDrizzt99Xx and other morons are flashing across your screen and general chat is full of child mentalities talking about WoW.
The other thing is, everything I'm hearing about this game sucks. Skyrim and the series are amazing PVE games - they do PVE content in a way that few can match. Huge open worlds full of endless things to do the way you want to do them. Millions of players doing this single player PVE content.
So...what're they doing? Making tons of PVP stuff for the game. Really? PvP has nothing at all to do with ES games. Why? Why even have PvP in TESO AT ALL? MMORPG PvP sucks under the best of circumstances but in a game like TESO where you have few skills and use two buttons to fight...the PvP will be horribly boring.
And really, is PvP what fans want? All the millions who have played this solo PvE game said, you know what, what would REALLY make this game better would be if you could PvP with these characters doing stuff that has nothing to do with the rest of the game (like all MMO PvP).
I just don't get it.
In a recent interview the TESO dude was asked about what kind of group content there was and he says, well we have PvP, there's that. Really? You pinheaded idea of group content for the online version of one of the best PvE franchises ever is PvP? I wanted to reach thru the web and slap the fool.
If they're going with a weak version of Skyrim's gameplay and content and hoping that PvP with their character development system, gameplay, and combat system is going to somehow be a good game, they are drastically mistaken.
TESO, just like Neverwinter (PvP has nothing to do with D&D) shouldn't even have PvP and should be focused on PvE. One reason why so many MMORPGs end up being mediocre and or having no lasting appeal is lack of PvE content to keep people busy past the solo ez-mode content. Once they finish the glorified single player game part of the so-called massively multiplayer game they move on. If devs would FOCUS a little more instead of trying to be everything for everybody, maybe they could retain some customers for more than a few months.
Wasting time making a complex PvP system for a franchise that has always been the pinnacle of PvE seems amazingly stupid. Especially when the combat is so simplistic. I can't even imagine anybody wanting to PvP with character setups and skills that are like those in skyrim. Click mouse or click and hold for power attack. How amazingly not compelling for PvP.
What they should be doing is throwing in as much group-based PvE stuff as they can possibly come up with so all those millions of players who have been doing PvE content for years and years can finally do that wicked content with other people.
Honestly, the more I hear about TESO at this point, the less interested I am in it because the last thing the MMORPG genre needs at this point is yet another clone of a game that tries to be everything for everybody. Too much solo ez-mode, crappy PvP, and not enough group content to keep people around. Same old crap formula that has produced mediocre and non-enduring MMO after MMO.
What the genre does need is a game that says, screw it, we're not doing yet another crappy attempt at PvP, and instead we're going to focus on fewer things, and instead of making a glorified single player game we're going to emphasize the one thing that's unique about MMOs and makes them special - the damn grouping. If the idiots who want to solo in multiplayer games don't play, too bad, if the people who want to PvP and usually don't even care about the rest of the game don't play, too bad. Take a chance on making the type of MMO that people will stick with and play for years, instead of making yet another generic MMO that has crap community and longevity because people play for 3 months, bail, come back once in a while if new content comes out, disappear again, repeat.
While this article was long winded and nearly devoid of substance, I agree with the author in spirit.
I'm kind of between MMOs right now too. Neverwinter is pretty mediocre and I despise F2P so I doubt I'll even bother. My crew and I destroyed TSW and unfortunately funcom's priorities suck (they spend 2 months creating solo content people vaporize in 2 hours and wonder why players dont' stick around) - unfortunate because TSW is a damn good game.
I'm dinking with Aion right now and don't get why people think so much of it. On the surface it's a mediocre WoW clone. I'll force myself to get thru more to see if it gets better but I'm already thinking that if I want tab target generic repetition I might as well go back to WoW where it's done far better. I'm also dinking with TERA again which has some really lame leveling content but the combat is so good that it keeps you interested in bursts.
ESO won't be out for an eternity and a lot of their design is as stupid as the design for Neverwinter. D&D *IS* the godfather of PvE grouping and has never been about PvP so why does Neverwinter have mostly solo content and have PvP at all? ES is about exploration and tons of PvE content to explore. Options. Why add PvP when your entire franchise has been about quality PvE? ESO looks to be on a path of mediocrity, which is sad. I don't even like the ES games because they feel like lifeless MMOs...which is why I thought they might make a good MMO - they already make games similar, just need to have more than one player involved and shift to group-based content.
Most modern MMORPGs lack the hook to keep players around for a while. Like for years. I don't really get it. It almost has to be intentional, although you'd think that with the investment of years and millions it takes to make a good MMO that developers would want to enjoy the type of long time success that some earlier MMORPGs enjoyed.
I played EQLive at release and for well over a year. I played AC and DAoC for over a year each. I played WoW for 6.5 years. With newer MMOs I'm lucky if I last more than 3 months.
To me the problem is simple. Modern MMORPGs try too hard to be everything for everybody. A solo experience, a pvp experience, and a group experience.
They especially are going to much into the solo experience.
The result is this - you have MMOs where 80% of the content is solo content, 10% is instanced PvP, and 10% is group-based stuff. So the soloists finish the single player campaign, and they are done.
Those of us REAL players looking for a game we can stick with for a while devastate the solo content because solo content is always ultra ez-mode and it doesn't matter how hard you try to just relax and enjoy it, it still flies by, because it's so easy that a brain dead 2 year old chimp can smoke the content.
The PvP crowd obliterate the content they have and max out on their gear in a few weeks and essentially have nothing to do. Most PvPers don't give a crap about the rest of the game anyways, they just want to gank people in a different game for a while.
There ends up being a handful of instances and little to no raiding so the PvE grouping crowd. We max out our characters in a few weeks, grinding the few instances to dust and suffering thru raid lockouts to quickly max out raid gear. And then, your'e done. We'd like to stick around for years because your game is pretty good, but there's no content.
Why is there not enough content for the core players who WOULD stick around for years? Because 80% of dev time was spent making content for soloists who won't stick around no matter what and played your MMO like a single player game. Oh, and you also wasted dev time on PvP for people who don't care about the rest of the game and who ultimately don't even care about the PvP in this game because as usual, the PvP sucks and only appeals to a handful of griefers.
The one thing that is truly magical about MMORPGs is PvE grouping. The cooperative experiencing and conquering of content you could never do alone. It's something you can't find in any other genre.
And to me, the biggest failing of modern MMORPGs is NOT emphasizing the grouping, the CORE of what's best about MMORPGs. The players who would stick around for years are the ones who do grouping. The ones who raid. The ones who do progression.
So many other genres do PvP better. MMO PvP is usually instanced, fake, pointless, impossible to balance, impacted by gear and builds, and ultimately is all about grief. I call it grief-based PvP. I have better gear than you so I destroy you. I have a fotm build and you're clueless and trying to have fun, so I destroy you. There is almost no chance of MMO PvP being balanced or fair - but companies keep on trying and saying THIS TIME IT'LL BE DIFFERENT. Then they release their game with incomplete PvP because no, this time it didin't end up differnet, it didn't even get done in time for release. A few games integrate PvP with the whole game, which is something the majority of players do not want, so those games are very niche. If it's not integrated, it's usually instanced and has nothing at all to do with the rest of the game and is a minigame. An UNNECESSARY minigame because it adds nothing to the core.
So ask yourself, why does Neverwinter have PvP? Not only does PvP in MMOs generally suck, but D&D has absolutely nothing to do with PvP. D&D is the epitome of group based PvE going back to its PnP roots. Putting PvP in a D&D game is pretty much sick and wrong.
So why is it done? Because Cryptic wants to be like other MMOs and to try to be everything to everybody. If they don't have PvP a couple butthurts won't play their game at all. To this I say, who cares? I want to do group-based PvE. People who are PvP only/first are useless to me. Is PvP in a game like Neverwinter something that'll keep players around for years? Not even.
Why is ESO gonna have PvP? Because that's the formula. They could be different, try to stand out, focus on group-based PvE, focus on the core, focus one what THEIR FREAKING COMPANY DOES BEST - amazing PvE content. But no, instead they're promising this ultra complicated PvP implimentation. Something that has ZERO to do with former ES games.
There are no lack of single player games. In a multitude of genres. Again, what makes MMORPGs different from all other genres is cooperative PvE where you take on content you would never experience in any other genre and that you CANNOT do solo.
So why do so many MMORPGs these days have such heavy doses of solo content? Why is the majority of the content solo content? It makes no sense! Why do they make grouping optional to next to nonexistent while you level such that most real players say the real game doens't start til level cap because that's when almost all you do is group stuff?
Couldn't it be possible to design an MMORPG where you're expected to group almost all the time? That has SOME solo availability since nobody can group 100% of the time. But where grouping was clearly the best way to level up. And then have similar endgame but with tons more content?
If such a game existed would you really care if people who want to play MMORPGs like single players did not play at all? I wouldn't give a damn. Would you care if PvP focused players didn't play at all? I wouldn't give a damn. I want to be on servers with people like myself - people who want to group, people who want to be around for a long haul.
Woudn't it be easier for a company to produce more group content faster to keep group PvE players busy longer if they weren't constantly trying to appeal to soloists and PvPers? You can't ever please soloists. Ever. Solo content is EASY. BRAIN DEAD EASY. It has to be. Nobody can ever create enough content to keep soloists busy. That's why there are entire genres of single player games - they're to be digested and you move on to the next game. That's not how MMORPGs are supposed to roll. Companies try to hook you with DLC and xpacs but ultimately single player games are not something you'll play for years the way you could play a good MMO for years.
In the "good old days" you had to group. You weren't going to level much in EQ, FF, or DAoC without grouping. You had to have a good rep as a player and behave because if you didn't, you didn't get groups, and thus you didn't level. While some of the gameplay systems in those games could be considered brutal and even not very fun, the idea of having to group for the whole game is the right idea.
The side effect of "forced grouping" is that community actually happens. Not just a bunch of childish internet punks typing incessant stupidity in chat - that's not community - that's what you get in modern MMOs. When you interact with other players every day, maintain your reputation as a good person and quality player, and when you can't advance without cooperating, you tend to see good communities develop - of people that work together and care. In modern MMOs some guilds replace community but there is no community on the servers themselves, because when you solo 95% of the time and when so many players don't want to group, all you get is crappy behavior, crappy chat, no reason to deal with others, and general lameness.
I would really like to see some big MMORPG developer say fug it, we're going to make a real MMO instead of an MMO that's 80% single player game wtih public chat. We're going to charge a sub instead of going the ultra lame (not)F2P route. We're going to make a game that's worth playing over the long haul and that's worth a sub.
Selling a bazillion units doesn't make your MMO a good MMO, it just means you sold a lot of units up front - that's the goal of most games that aren't MMOs. When most of those players are gone 2-3 months after release due to being soloists who finish their part of the game and move on, what are you left with? When your incomplete and gonna be crappy PvP part of the game doesn't hold people and when the lack of endgame content doesn't keep groupers around... Where's that ongoing revenue stream you dreamed about?
[Column] General: Single Player MMO
News & Features Discussion « General Discussion
11/28/12 11:54:45 AM
Side note: any toad that responds "1st" to anything should be violently removed from the internet.
Good mini article and there could be a lot more said as this is something that I've been talking about with friends lately.
SWTOR definitely went overboard and could've done with about 1/3 or 1/2 as much VO/cutscenes. It's well done but you just don't need 5-10 minutes of that for what is essentially a kill 10 rats quest. A lot of that game was weak at release and is still weak and considering the money spent on it, a better balance of resource allocation would've been a really good idea. For one, they should've made their own engine because the piece of shit they used can't be optimized, runs like crap, and looks 10 years old already.
The main thing to me, having played MMORPGs since EQLive released, is this.
What makes MMORPGs special is the social, and especially the grouping elements. There are endless piles of single player games or single player games with multiplayer components of various types, but only MMORPGs give you that rich and deep grouping experience.
So to me, the emphasis on solo is a bad thing that hurts the genre and hurts games. It makes too much of MMORPGs feel like a single player experience and causes players to play like it's a single player game, where they level up (too quickly these days but that's another story) and are done. A small number do endgame if there's any they like and many either move on or start doing "replay" via alts. Grouping while leveling is entierly optional and the group content you are offered while leveling is tiny compared to the overload of single player content.
I think solo should be available, there most of MMORPGs should be about grouping since that is what is unique and special about MMORPGs. People who just want to solo should...wait for it...it's shocking...JUST PLAY SINGLE PLAYER GAMES. Basic logic. Use that thing called a brain.
So why has MMORGP gameplay shifted so much towards solo. Simple. Money. It costs a lot of money to make MMORPGs and devs want lots of players, so they've hybridized the genre to appeal to a wider audience.
In doing so, they've diluted the genre and what ultimately happens is that the "real" game, the core of the MMORPG, ends up being underdeveloped because they spend so much time catering to the soloists. Soloists play thru the single player portion of the game (leveling) then go away, while the real players who want to play for years end up having not so much to do because not enough group content is made.
You see this time and time again with new MMORPGs. Maybe companies should wonder why they have a huge initial rush when they release their MMO and then the numbers fall dramatically after a few months. It's because most of your soloists get done leveling and then either suck at grouping, don't want to group, don't want to guild, don't want to group, and bail. So you're left with your real fans, who end up having a handful of dungeons, 1-2 raids, and a little smidge of world content to keep them busy for years? Except that doesn't keep them busy for years and some of them stick it out, and some of them move on due to frustration.
Wouldn't it be better to design MMORPGs around what makes them unique and amazing - the grouping, and enable some solo to fill the gaps instead? You might have fewer useless soloists buying the game initially, but your core players, the ones who stick for years, would have a reason to stick for years. Develop the game around group content and grouping and fill it with way more group content so those players don't get bored a month after maxing the level cap.
In most MMORPGs the bulk of the content is leveling content. I love to level and to level alts but many do not. Tons of time and money is spent on content that for many is one and done or that they get thru then blast on future alts. Endgame is what most players (who will play for years) are concerned with but most MMORPGs ship with a miniscule amount of endgame content.
So devs are faced with the immediate problem of needing to crank out more and more endgame content to keep players around. Wouldn't it maybe make more sense to invest more in scaling group content that could be appealing whlie leveling and at endgame and to put more into endgame content up front to keep players busy for longer after they hit the level cap in the first few weeks of the game (since speed leveling seems to be the thing now and any serious player can hit cap in less than a month in any game).
I think ANet had some of this sort of in mind for GW2 but they kind of missed the mark in many ways - good intent though. They got the scaling right but there's no real incentive to do most content and IMO the game has other problems related to ideas that sounded good in theory.
Maybe I'm wierd. I see MMORPGs as the ultimate multiplayer games and I prefer to group over soling in them. I duo a lot, group a lot, and the people I run with love to group and do instances. Most of us get sleepy from soloing. I own a ton of games, most of which are single player - I have tons of outlets for single player gaming. But quality MMORPGs are so rare that I'd really love to see them focus on what makes them unique and special - the grouping - and screw people who want to solo exclusively in MMORPGs.
Originally posted by Arcondo87
Getting banned for exploiting doesn't make ANet a joke. As a player you have a choice when you find a bug or exploit. Report it, or abuse it. ANet bans you if you abuse it. Seems completely reasonable to me. Too many players think games are about getting away with everything and anything you can get away with and blaming the devs for everything. Coding games is complex and bugs and stuff WILL happen, period. It's up to you how you react, and it's up to them how they handle abusers. ANets policies on how they handle abusers are no secret.
I'm upset with ANet over various issues, like not sticking to their original design and manifesto. Like, real and significant issues.
Exploiters and cheaters crying because they got punished for abusing the game is a non issue, or, something to celebrate and be happy about. I don't want to be in a game surrounded by cheaters or people with the mentality of abuse everything you can to get ahead. Play the game (the right way) or go away.
ANet is pretty rigid with enforcement and it's kind of unlikely that someone would ADMIT to violating the TOS or whatever. ANet puts the smack down for things many games do not (which I love) and well beyond blatant exploiting and cheating. For ex:
You get banned for your 1st naming violation (might've been pet, guild, or character name), for ex.
You can get banned for inappropriate chat use.
If you are basing your expectations upon other games, you might wanna check out ANets TOS and rules a bit more deeply since you may not have even realized you did something ban-worthy.
[Column] TERA: Five Things TERA Got Right
News & Features Discussion « General Discussion
11/15/12 6:02:25 PM
1. Combat - very cool system. I actually miss it.
2. Gear appearance. At first it was odd to have my sorceress in a slinky minidress (instead of a robe or something more traditional looking) but ultimately - she looked damn good, and that's what really matters. Playing GW2, I hate the way almost all armor looks in that game - it's dreadful. Supervixenmodels launching fireballs in stilettos and thongs was pretty awesome by comparison.
Everything else about Tera was pretty much generic and/or bad. The claim to fame of having the first race ideally suited to pedophiles isn't a very good distinction.
Looking back at MMOExposed's spotlight thread regarding Lacking of tanking mechanics leads to zergfest, was he right?
General Discussion « Guild Wars 2
11/15/12 3:17:30 AM
Didn't read the original article. Didn't vote since almost every poll I've ever seen on the web like this one, is stupid with crappy options.
I'm of two minds here, and me and my friends (generally playing GW2) feel the same way.
It's kind of silly that tanks can magically hold threat and be the focal point of mob attacks (when you have a good tank), and it's sometimes a PITA to get groups in trinity-based systems (never is for me since I play with friends and don't solo my way thru MMORPGs then whine when I have no friends), but...
There's a certain elegance to grouping when people have roles and it's all done well.
Grouping in GW2 to me, even with friends who are long time MMORPGs, groupers, raiders, just feels like a group of soloists. There are no real roles. Some melee might get hit more but he surely isn't tanking, it's just that mobs tend to hit what's close much of the time (GW2 supposedly has AI variance here but let's be real - most mobs hit the melees if they're in melee - slaping extra toughness and vitality on said melee doesn't magically make them a tank, it just helps them survive the inevitable beating better). There is no healer. Everybody is a solo dps/hybrid with some element of support they may or may not use.
If you wanna call a group of soloists in a dungeon a zerg, so be it.
The dungeon content itself isn't that bad, it's ok for the most part, but I've seen better in several games (more interesting environs, mechanics, bosses, trash pulls, and definitely loot). The grouping is meh.
In most trinity dungeon situations you have to play smart (ideally) but you can also be that amazing tank that makes a run smooth as silk (or that crappy tank that people talk about), you can be that healer or whatever that bails out a horrible pull or situation, you can be a noticeably amazing dps who plays smart and puts the smack down.
In GW2, there's no real distinctions. You're all a bunch of hybrid clones with nearly the same mechanice, you can play smart, avoid damage, and that's about it. What else are you gonna say? Wow, that dude really does his support hybrid stuff amazingly well! Maybe but the difference between someone doing it at all and someone doing it well is barely noticeable.
One thing that really stands out is that in many different trinity-based MMORPGs I've been in situations that seemed hopeless or ridiculous but heroic effort and pulling out all the stops bailed out a sure wipe - those epic moments that make memories. I've yet to experience anything remotely like that in GW2 because down state, being able to run back to battles, no clear roles, different style of tactical and such, just don't provide that kind of experience.
In GW2 it's more common to have utterly miserable battles where you're laughing at how obsurd it all is and you beat it thru attrition and are glad it's over - do better next time. It's like no matter how poorly you execute/play you can still eventually win, you'll just have a higher repair bill.
[Column] Star Wars: The Old Republic: Reasons to Check Out SWTOR F2P
News & Features Discussion « General Discussion
11/14/12 5:33:16 PM
SWTOR is a good game checking out. It gets bashed a lot, mostly by clueless nublets who think it's trendy or cool to bash it. Was it ever worth $15/mo - that's the problem, IMO it was not. Of course, I don't think WoW is worth $15/mo but tons of fools pay bliz monthly for next to nothing. It's WoW's fault that companies like BioWare think they can ship incomplete and unbalanced games and charge a sub just for the honor of playing (on top of full box price).
I'm pretty much sick of most F2P. F2P is another trendy thing that's way overrated. Most of F2P is BS, scams, restrictions, and not fun. GW2 does buy and F2P ok, but you still too often feel steered to the cash shop.
I would much rather pay a sub for ALL access and not deal with nickel, dime, and devs/designers looking for ways to restrict the game to make money off of microtransactions that just become a hassle. I want to play a full game, not most of a game with financial decisions throughout.
Why do I mention all of this?
Because IMO, the F2P model BioWare is unleashing for SWTOR is utter garbage. It's a convoluted mess of restrictions and complications. As someone who bought the box, paid for several months, and ultimately put over $100 into the game, there is no way I could now do F2P and have everything I previously earned stripped away. That would not be fun.
If you have never played the game before, the F2P is like an extended trial that will ultimately show you that the only way to really enjoy the game without hassles is to sub.
Then you're back to the SWTOR is nowhere near worth $15/mo.
I would much rather have seen BioWare make SWTOR worth $15/mo.
And btw, the ONLY MMORPG worth $15/mo is Rift - because Trion cranks out ungodly amounts of content and features for your sub dollar. All other subs are paying for the privelidge of logging on with a joke of an amount of content added over time for the money, and are not worth it. This is why we have so much F2P idiocy - greedy sub-based devs NOT delivering and making it worth it.
EQ next!! who want punishing death?
The Pub at MMORPG.COM « General Discussion
11/14/12 5:24:14 PM
Originally posted by whiteoak21
Actually, I don't play games to be in fear, I play them to have fun. Odd concept, that one.
Harsh death mechanics are a terrible idea for a variety of good reasons.
- not fun for people who are sane
- discourages exploration
- discourages experimentation
- discourages grouping
What bothers me most in MMORPGs these days is the solo emphasis and lack of grouping opportunities. You wanna talk original EQ? Talk about forced grouping making players play well, behave, and worry about and develop a good reputation since if you couldn't get groups, you didn't level. Period.
I would never want to return to the boring days of camp and grind and forced grouping, but I WOULD like to see MMORPGs be more about grouping and less about solo ez-mode, which IMO, leads to lots of brats and poor players. I would like to see MUCH more group content and grouping potential.
We'll never get to a point where grouping is encouraged and more optional group content is viable with harsh death penalties, because nobody wants to group if there's a risk of losing xp and/or gear due to someone else screwing up. It's critical to have tolertable death penalties to encourage grouping.
Harsh death penalties are akin to a kick in the nuts. Do you really need to be kicked in the nuts to enjoy your game? If you do, I sure hope you're the minority.
[General Article] RaiderZ: Review In Progress - Part One - Starting Out
News & Features Discussion « General Discussion
11/06/12 6:00:26 PM
"grade B version of Tera"
B might be pushing it. Grade C version maybe. But this game does remind one of Tera due to the almost exact same combat system and the overall simplicity of everything else.
It has almost the exact same combat system as Tera, with fewer skills, no real perk tweak like Tera's rune things, one race - period, fewer classes (noteably no archer type), similar (lame) enchantment system as Tera, simplistic crafting system, even more simplistic questing than Tera and Tera's questing is ultra simplistic so that's saying something.
One noteable difference in the combat system that will hopefully be fixed/changed. If you're a caster and you have your reticule over a mob and cast, that spell will land, period - whereas in Tera if a mob moves or something, you miss. It seems to go against action combat to have ranged abilities hit whether you place them well or not, may as well be tab targeting.
Similar to Tera you feel like zones or whatever you want to call them exist purely for doing quests - there's nothing interesting to see really, nothing there that isn't quest related, nothing to explore. Just plow thru areas to do hub-based questing.
The game has oddly high sys reqs considering Tera, which uses a slightly dated graphics engine, utterly crushes it for graphics.
The mechanism for building your character is marginally interesting.
The game is oddly fun even with it being simplistic. Maybe mindless slaughtering of mobs doing kill 7 quests 10 feet from the quest giver is something we need periodically.
And it's free and would seem to not have P2W leanings - although it's still early and their cash shop is nowhere near fully populated or setup yet.
I guess that begs the question, why does RaiderZ have an ungodly amount of gold spammers and reviews in progress when I swear it's still in beta?!
I kind of like the action combat systems of this game and Tera, although I think Tera does it better, and I wish a game like GW2, which has incredibly content and sexy zones to explore and dabble in, had a combat system like this. GW2 combat is kind of between tab target and stand there and action, but action is so much more involving, even in a simplistic game like RaiderZ.
I also don't care much for the eastern feel and I don't like anime or the squeaky noises character make. RaiderZ has the obvious eastern styleings. I could tolerate the easternness of Tera since the female avatars look like supermodels (or high class hookers, depends on your persective I guess).
I'm hoping Neverwinter, also action, also published by RaiderZ's Perfect World, ends up having the slickness of action combat without the lameness of eastern influence and with much slicker content.