Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by Comnitus

Instanced zones = bad.

Instanced dungeons = good.

 

 

There ya go, nice and easy. But no, some people dont want you to experience content. Content is only for those who do 5 hour gaming stretches.

You can experience the content of any single or multiplayer game with exactly the same success as any instanced game. The idea behind massive gameplay is iteraction between players. So you can help or interfere one another. When you have instances you on practice cut the iterraction and contest  between players. I know most players do not like exactly that things, but still do not understand why they want and think that they play MMO if they just play a mulitplayer mode of single player game?

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by iZakaroN

Instances=Multiplayer

I still do not understand why so many pure multiplayer (instanced) games name their self massive? It looks that now days almost no one know the meaning of Massive gameplay. It do not mean the massive amount of players to play the game. It mean that massive amount can play and interact together. That is why WC3 is considered multiplayer but not massive and its exact equality of instance. Get it?

 

'can' being the key word here, I would argue that a 'massive' amount of players 'can' interact together in wow too. Whats to stop 100 alliance players from battling 100 horde players in the non-instance world? nothing.

Yes exactly that was the idea when it was released. After months crying about world PvP from peoples that do not like it one day Blizzard decided to add battlegrounds that was the death of the massive aspect of WoW.  Who cares if you can do something in it but no one does?

Instances=Multiplayer

I still do not understand why so many pure multiplayer (instanced) games name their self massive? It looks that now days almost no one know the meaning of Massive gameplay. It do not mean the massive amount of players to play the game. It mean that massive amount can play and interact together. That is why WC3 is considered multiplayer but not massive and its exact equality of instance. Get it?

Originally posted by arcdevil

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

What if WoW was released before UO, EQ, DAoC, AC?

What if WoW was the first game old school gamers encountered? Would any of the others have had a chance?

Would any one now advocate for grouping, RvR, skills instead of levels?

 

Had WoW been released before UO, EQ, DAoC, AC, it would have looked like this

 

 

nothing to copy = no wow

You take my words :)

Originally posted by Amstrup

Do you agree ?? Wow is easy if you want to be a casusal gamer, and hard for those who want challange.

Reason i made this thread was because i saw haters flaming wow for being kids game, and in general to easy, but the problem was that i found wow hard and challanging since i play on high end arena, i do the hardest of the hardest hardmodes in pve.

Wow is easy if you want it to be

Wow is hard if you want it to be

 

Agree ?

It depend what your understanding of hard is.

In most old school MMO games I'm more casual than hardcore gamer till in WoW I was mostly likely a "pro" hardcore :)

Originally posted by Axehilt

Because good PVP is about player skill.

Class counters are a non-skill factor.  The greater influence non-skill factors have on combat, the less interesting each fight tends to be.  (Non-skill factors includes things like class counters, zerging, gear, and level.)  It's less interesting because the outcome is predetermined to a greater degree, so decisions made during the battle are less important.

Even in team battles this remains true.  The 4-rock, 1 paper team shouldn't get screwed because they face 4 paper, 1 scissors.

The only time this isn't true is when you can switch classes with ease (provided the act of switching classes doesn't cause other non-skill factors like gear and level to nerf your overall effectiveness.)  Basically like Team Fortress 2 (where class counters exist but they don't undermine player skill because you can switch classes each death to adapt to your opponent, and that becomes part of the game's strategy.)

Saying PVP "should" occur on a large scale is a very bad way to think regarding game design.  Unless you have some heavy-handed game mechanics in play, 1v1s are going to happen.

If you are talking about Multiplayer game you are right, but if you are talking about Massive Multplayer its a bit different.

In MMO main concept are counters. Its that way because it have to be massive but not single or just multiplayer. In MMO most important is coordination. Coordination in form of communication, to know when to attack and when to defend or escape. That are real skills in MMO - coordination, not button smashing.

I really like both genres FPS and RPG and like them because they are different. When I want multiplayer I go play some shooter but when want more immersive and slow placed gameplay I go play MMOs.

Originally posted by Kamayor

would a fifty or sixty dollar video card really help all that much wouldnt it be just the same as the crap i have now

Any not integrated video on the market works much better than any integrated :)

Originally posted by evilgreen5

 Why would I want to pay for something that will no doubt fail miserably and shut down a year after launch? I'm not trolling, you all know this to be true.

It will fail only if all people think like you. Its very nice that there are enough  (for now) peoples that support that game so SV collected enough funds to delayed release with one month.

For peoples like you: GL with all "Britney Spears" commercial craps on the market.

For peoples like me: Dont doubt, go support the underground \m/

Originally posted by Myria

Originally posted by Pinkerl

yes. guild wars is a mmoRPG. it has all skill unlocked on pvp.

 

Actually no, it's not. According to Anet GW is a CoRPG, or Co-operative RPG. They have said repeatedly that it is not an MMORPG.

Oh, and no, it doesn't. You only have the elites unlocked if you have capped them in PvE or bought the appropriate PvP skill packs (which weren't added until the third expac, by the way). By default a PvP character will not have any elites and very few regular skills unlocked.

On theory you are right. The problem is that there are tons of games with very similar mechanics that name their self MMO. GW is just the only game that do not recognize itself as a MMO. Most of modern games are just multiplayer leveling games exactly like GW and all they sign theirself MMOs.

Originally posted by Jakeadunk

 

---

Originally posted by Agricola1
It seems to have everything pre-cu did and more, could this MMORPG finally allow us SWG vets to end our exodus? After all these years lost in the digital wilderness searching for a home, Koster will lead us to the promised land?
Well if they implement what they promise I'll be there to build a pre-cu kingdom where we can burn a virtual effigy of Smed everyday! Are there anyother VETs planning on doing the same?
 

---

 

Not going to try SWGKOTOR? If a star wars fan im sure you should give that go first and then also keep an eye on Earthrise. I think Earthrise will be a fun and different game but may lack all the MMO goodness, being that it is made somewhat of a niche type game. The sandbox part tho will appeal to those that don't find Darkfall to be up to par when it is released.

It depend if you are up about the game play or about the story. I vote for the sandbox game play and Earthrise.

What "first person" and what to "keep" me from MO? if you mean "Will first person view keep you away from MO?" Then I answer No. Not only no, but first person view is my favorite views for a RPG as best RPGs are already FPV: Elder Scrolls and Might& Magic series.

The question is if you play "as" or "with"? I always prefer to play with females as playing with main is a bit gayish for me. I really hate to look a man ass all the time! Also it so awesome to have really powerful babe that is only for you :)

Because Tanking is difficult but most peoples play WoW because they search easy gameplay?

Originally posted by Cpt_Picard

I'm going compare blizzard to SOE. (Cringes) EQ started with decent subs and continued to rise untill about late 03. It was in 2003 that SWG was launched. Subs decreased a bit but were still fairly good till 2004. This was when two major games were released, EQ2 and Wow. Like EQ, wow started with decent subs.

I believe, a fair portion of EQ's population moved to EQ2. Having divided their game's population each game appeared to be slightly vacant. This resulted in people flocking to a neutral territory called wow, resulting in the "death" of EQ and resulted in EQ2 never flourishing. Afterwords, Sony has been publishing IPs like mad, spreading their subs over a larger and larger piece of bread.

If Blizzard's population divides themselves between two games, the result could be similar. The only thing we really know about Blizzard's new game is that it is an entirely new ip. We don't know if it's sci fi, historicle or whatever. The worst mistake they could make would be to release another fantasy game.  Blizzard has rounded up almost everyone even slightly interested in fantasy to wow. Should they choose to release a fantasy game, the result would be similar to EQ2.

If Blizzard chooses to release a Sci fi (or different genre besides fantasy), they would be drawing on subs from a slightly different crowd resulting in a slight decrease in Wow subs. (similar to the effect SWG had). They have to be careful.

 

They stated it will be something completely different. I do not believe it will be completely different than anything on the market but most probably than WoW it slef. So I expect some of the following elements:

1. FPS

2. SCI-Fi

3. Flight simulation

4. Sandbox

Originally posted by Thenarius

I really wonder this.
What's the thing that bumbs a MMORPG's difficulty in your eyes? Is it the time spent grinding random things to improve your status in the game? Is it PvE that PvP which demands you to use a huge amount of abilities to win? Or maybe...is it a MMO where game mechanics aren't explained so you must figure them on your own?
I really want to hear from you guys, what's a "challenging" MMO in your eyes?

For me hard mean:

1. Competitive.

2. Decision oriented

3. Risk vs Reward

For me casual mean:

1. Not competitive

2. Time sink oriented

3. Time vs Reward

In hardcore game most important thing are player actions. With wrong actions you can have very small or even negative progress till in casual game the main factor that determine the progress is time invested as your action have relatively small impact of it. That do not mean hardcore game require less time invested. It mean that it can need much more time if not played "correctly".

What kind of gameplay you prefer determine if you prefer more emotional or more balanced gameplay.

From many years I do not have much time to spend for games but even that I still prefer more "hardcore" style of games as it gives me the feeling that I have achieved something with my decisions while in most casual games I feel the time lost and no reward can satisfy me if I have not make any special decision for it in addition to the time spend.

Theme park - When you just want a game to spend some time.

Snadbox - If want more involving and deep gameplay, a virtual world, simulation.

Originally posted by Wizardry

I honestly don't find many mechanics to be outright dumb,but TCOS hotbar idea imo is maybe the only dumb idea i have seen in gaming.I do want to give the guy credit for trying to think outside the box,but all he accomplished was taking an idea "the hotbar" and make it worse,making something worse is imo a dumb idea.Different is ok also,but this was not a case of different ,because it still uses the exact same premise as a normal hotbar,it just made it so you were extremely limited in it's use.

The whole purpose of a hotbar is to make things simpler not more cumbersome and restrictive,and that is all that it achieved.

The idea behind something is the idea developers have about it :)

The idea behind TCoS hotbar is similar to the one in Guild Wars. I think it is briliant idea as it act as a "build" for your char. It give much more strategy in game play as you have restricted number of skills, till that restriction gives posibility for rich class skills overall.

For me most dumbest mechanics in mmos are all mechanics that eliminate massive gameplay from it and make them just a multiplayer. When I want a multiplayer gameplay typically I go to play some shooter or DOTA and its very dumb to try some MMO to find that it is just a persistent world multiplayer game!

I really will be glad to see a system "What you play is what you pay" - you pay you online hours instead of monthly subscription. That way player will have big freedom to choose multiple games to play. There is one big problem that come with such payment system: Multiple accounts. On practice there will be no penalty to have multiple accounts so it will be paradise for gold sellers and multi account exploiters.

How impressive! Collection of bugs from the beta and some even from very early stage of it. Anyway there are still some of them, and even if most of them stay at release it do not change the fact that some peoples prefer game play over pixels.

If you prefer crap but polished games there few around... What are you doing here?

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by WesKhan1

It really is amazing watching this game go from the great game it was when it first came out to this piece of shit.   It just gets worse and worse.  Personally I lost interest after they took out 40 man raids, it was the only thing fun for me since the PvP is horrific.

Battlegrounds aren't horrific, but 40 man raids sure were.

We are talking about massive or just multiplayer gameplay?