All Posts by Amaranthar

---

Originally posted by Zorkpor

Fraud or not, that Alienware contest really generated a lot of paying customers for this game.  Just look at the tons of activity on their forums.  And the game continues to generate rave reviews all over the world.  This game is huge.

The devs constantly claimed that they listen to their fanbase and will never screw them.  So if they decided to refuse to award any Alienware grand prize, it's only because the Irth fans told them to do so.

Now they are promising "IrthWorlds".  If they don't deliver that either, it's the fans' fault.

---

Huh? What forums are you looking at? Irth was a;ways pretty dead, from what I could see. I was in beta for a while, and what caused me to drop away was the system, not the unfinished state or bugs. They promised a skill based system, but forgot to follow through with the ideals of a skill based system. It felt just like a level grind. I could have lived with an indie game with bugs and lack of content, paying to play while the game built onto it's foundation, but their foundation was wrong in the first place.

Then that contest, it just showed me they were going for the static quest/grind play style anyways. I can play that in any number of much more refined products.

---

Originally posted by Jenuviel

Hero's Journey is the only one that really sounds interesting to me, primarily because of the Journey System. There really hasn't been a lot of information released on it, but it's supposed to dynamically generate plot points, storylines, and even recurring enemies based on where your character goes and what your character does.

I originally got into MUDs and MMOs because I was looking for a replacement for tabletop gaming that'd be available whenever I had time to play. Unfortunately, the only aspects of tabletop gaming that MMOs have attempted to capture so far are the mechanics and rules sets. What I've been looking for all these years isn't a bunch of game mechanics, it's actual involvement in an ongoing story- the Journey System in Hero's Journey is the first time I've heard of any MMO trying to provide that. Now, whether it actually turns out to be entertaining (or even functional) is yet to be determined.

---

I'm affraid you're going to be sorely dissappointed then. WoW has a "journey system", DAoC has a "journey system". They just didn't call it that. So what if they code in to substitute "Ogres" for the standard "orcs" because your characters history says to do that? Or the alternative, like in CoH/CoV if they give you a named enemy that gets thrown into the mix of static quests.

Think about it. If it's coded in, then it has to follow the coded formula. It's just not possible to do anything but substitute things, maybe monsters, maybe the reward, maybe the locations, but it still boils down to static play that's dictated to you just like the other games. So you get to defeat {your nemesis} at {random quest location X } and retrieve a {+100 sword to replace the +90 sword you got last time}.

Next up...follow the coded brick road, follow, follow, follow, follow, follow the coded brick road.  

This is, after all, how level grind games are played. Look for new things (like ships in Vanguard, not sure about HJ), sure, but the game play is exactly the same.

---

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

There are A LOT of people who stomach online games with the small hope that maybe it will get better with a later expansion, reason they keep paying that monthly fee, look at swg, that game should be dead right now but it isnt, people bash warcraft so much, on forums and ingame, yet people still play, why?

" I heard X patch will make this better?" " you did, cool, i will hang around i hope they add that".. "oh they didnt do it, well there are talks that it will be in a later patch, alright i will stick around, lets get ready for naxxramas"

The games out today are terrible, personally i am hopeing end of 2006, begining 2007 brings some great games, Heros journey, Age of conan, i guess vangaurd, all look promissing.  Online gaming industry makes a lot of money sure, doesnt mean the games being released arent failures, or failing.

---

I'm curious what you see in any of the games you listed. They seem to me to be more of the same, level grind to end game/end game/expansions-of-more-of-the-same to keep people happy.

How can these games be promising? It seems to me they are direct continuations of those kinds of promises that current games use to snare players. Am I wrong? What do you see as promising about these games that will possibly make them better to play? Or anyone, the question is open.

All I can do is agree. The question keeps comming up, "is there nothing more?"

Realistic. I don't care for the cartoony look in the first place, but then to see some of the really goofy stuff, like oversized body parts, really ruins the feel for me.

Yes I did. In fact, I was born quite a few years before then. It was just the other day that someone was asking me if Soilent Green was a pre-trammel movie. I knew the answer, of course.

Hehe, just joking around.

 I agree that games are too easy, and dumbed down. But I don't think that the majority of gamers want it easy. Remember that only a small percentage of gamers post on message boards. So, the next question is if those who do post are a microcosm of all gamers. I don't think so, and I can only point to things like DDO's lack of subscriptions to prove certain points. But it's more difficult when talking about this issue. What I can point to is the early success of some games, then the drop off that seems to be more present in the easier ones.

Examples?
UO, got real easy and is on a definite path down. You can't find more than a dozen players (playing) on a shard now, and the only thing keeping it alive is the housing speculations and multiple accounts to hold the houses.
EQ vs. EQ2, I could be wrong but players seem to be headed back to EQ, and wanting a throw back.
AC and AC2, AC2 was so easy that you didn't even have to go anywhere to sell stuff, and it died on the vine.
WoW, well, too early and they did do some things exceptionally well. But it seems like they are losing players on the N. American servers. (Their numbers are inflated due to foreign speculators for real money. Did you know that even on the N. American servers they count every account in every gaming parlor ....China, wherever.... as an account? 1,000,000 North American accounts but we don't know how many are money makers from other parts of the world.)
DDO, is it too easy, or too restricted, or just not a true MMO?

Another question is, what do we mean by "easy"? What are we talking about? Easy as in easy to learn? Or easy as in easy to succeed? Personally, while I don't want a game to be overly difficult to learn, I'm more talking about the ease of succeeding. MMO's guarantee success. Just put in the time, do what they tell you to do, and you win. Where's the challenge? How many players consider hand-outs of nether art and levels as fun?

I have to agree that UO's early PvP, and the whole game set up, was by far the best I've ever seen or experianced. By far.  The Freedom of choice combined with the more realistic approach to the game world (items that you could drop, store in houses, house locks and keys, boat keys, all the things involved in realism that have been taken out of newer games because they aren't used anyways) and skill system and no end game (because the game was designed to play for other things than level capping).

UO felt like a world, rather than a scripted screen play.

Unfortunately, crime payed and justice had no teeth. UO lost way too many players because of this. Of course they could have stuck to their guns and stayed that way. I wonder if they would have ended up like Shadowbane, 10,000 subscriptions and cancellation. But UO went completely the other way. The game looks more and more like the other games now. Camping for loot to add to an ever growing hoard, and little else.

I don't know why anyone would get excited about it. The lead guy, James Ohlen, has produced nothing but levelling class based games. He in the same fold as those who brought you EQ, DAoC, and WoW. If you liked those games, then yes, go ahead and get excited.

But from my point of view, class/level based games thrive on telling you
A) "you can't do that"
B) "grind, grind, grind"
C) "don't talk to those players, your level are over there"
D) "Everything you've done, everything you've earned, everything you've accomplished has served only to get you to this point. It is all useless now. You have graduated from gold to platinum. Go there and do this to proceed."
E) "When you reach the end, we will give you more, new, bigger content that's just like all the other content we've shoved down your throat, only it will look different."

Maybe this one will be different. That would be a rare thing.

I play MMOs for the community. If they don't have it, then a person might as well play a single player game. I like getting to know other players, both friendly and not so. It adds life to a game.

I think the game needs to be built with community in mind. Support is needed to foster community. But a lousy game otherwise isn't going to attract many players, and I wouldn't stay in a game that's got great community if the rest of the game isn't good too.

I think games need to empower players in it's social structure. The best example of a social structure would be cities. Player built, player run, and player protected. The more a game can give us players in this reguard, the better. What's good about this is that players can have that feeling of belonging, yet still play mostly solo if they choose. They can recognize that a strong city strengthens themselves, yet not be entirely beholden to their city. Instead of forcing partying with others, they can choose to cooperate with others, or go their own way, or mix it up as desired.

Nothing right now.

---

Originally posted by admriker444

You all have a misconception of how purchasing of money is RV works. There are limits folks. A player cant just buy their way to the top like you all think. There are limits each month to how much one can buy.

Perhaps if you all read the FAQ instead if being so quick to comment on something you know little about would help ???

---

I did read the FAQ. Then I had to read farther.

For example, we can adjust the difficulty associated to earning currency in-game to make sure that the majority of players need only make a modest purchase of Sesterces in order to supplement their in-game income and maximise their enjoyment of the service. Of course there will be those who choose the harder route of paying less, if anything and these players will have to work hard in the game in order to continue to survive and progress. And at the other end of the spectrum there will be those that spend much more when purchasing Sesterces so that they can buy extravagant properties, hire many NPC's and benefit from all the most expensive items and in-game services without necessarily having to spend days and weeks accruing these virtual assets.

So, it appears that while I'm "these players will have to work hard in the game in order to continue to survive and progress", groups of rabbid PKers can "other end of the spectrum there will be those that spend much more when purchasing Sesterces so that they can buy extravagant properties, hire many NPC's and benefit from all the most expensive items and in-game services without necessarily having to spend days and weeks accruing these virtual assets."

No thanks.

The money thing is one of two issues keeping me away. I don't want to play a game where players can buy their way to the top.

The other issue is about the lack of PvP control. Tell me if I wrong here, but doesn't it seem like groups of players will buy money and use their in-game finacial advantage to go around killing everyone and burning their homes down? Especially on the Barbarian side?

Other than that, I'd be really excited about his game and would gladly pay a monthly sub for it.

I like to go solo in MMORPGs sometimes just for the challenge, or just to "be alone" sometimes. But I also really like the social aspects, dealing with others in game, making new aquaintances, working together for a goal, etc. What I like most about MMORPGs is that whatever you do, it has some sort of meaning to the rest of the world and it's players. Maybe simply that I provide another "character" in the game, maybe it's more.

I haven't played many single player games. They don't have enough interest for me to draw me in. But the social part of MMORPGs, combined with a virtual world to play in, that's something I've always been interested in.

I'll always want a fnatasy world first. But I think there's plenty of room for a good sci-fi too. In fact, given the choice between the current fantasy realms built on grinding, if there was a good sci-fi with an immersive and social world design I'd play that.

I'd love to have a large tracked vehicle to use on expeditions and live/work out of.

One of the biggest drawbacks to these games is the "everyone wins everything" mentality. If everyone has a space ship, then no one needs to hire them for transportation. The same with everything else. If a game were designed so that it's very difficult to buy and maintain even one major craft/home/ship/whatever, then the social aspects start comming into play. Otherwise, it all just gets boring when we all can have everything we want.

Yes, he did you a favor and got that out of the way. Hehe.

I agree that it's a good system for games that don't have a "world" social factor. I would never stick with a game that's supposed to be a world, immersive, social, and fair, if they went that route. But for games that are designed for instant "king of the hill" type play, or even something like DDO, where the world doesn't really exist in the flesh, this is a great idea.

I wondered how DDO could have the testies to charge monthly. I guess they are pushing the envelope, hehe.