Originally posted by therain93

 City of Heroes, City of Villains, and City of Heroes: Going Rogue are far better than CO and DCUO ( ' :

Better in some ways and not in others, it depends on what you are looking for out of the game. DCUO isn't going to provide a replacement for COX (for most plkayers) because currently their focus is very different.

First you have to define “fun” because it has different connotations for people, but “fun” in the sense of being spontaneous enjoyment I think DCUO is more fun. It's faster, more responsive, has better PVP, and does a great job of placing the player in the DC universe and allowing the player feel super-powered.

COX is a better MMO and RPG. COH has better character creation and customization allowing players better tools to create story with their characters, much better tools for allowing the community to interact and feel like they are playing with other players, gives a better sense of accomplishment, and more over all longevity as player are more likely to identify with their characters.

I don’t see how many can think that DCUO isn’t more fun to play, I mean it’s set up as an action game, but COH is a better value and has the potential to be more satisfying for many players. i think people get these two dichotomies understandably confused (not that some people can't enjoy COX's game-play more as well). Without some pretty major changes to DCUO I expect it to be free-to play within two years, as people will play it as a very extensive action game, while COH maintains it’s audience (assuming it weathers the first 3-6 months of DCUO).

Originally posted by Warjin

Bottom line, I will no longer listen to people on the forums because It came to my understanding the ones that bash the games really don't like any MMO or they would be playing a MMO instead of posting lol.

I feel that they will never be happy no matter what MMO comes out, they will fine the negative.

A lot of people didn't like the game while a handful do ,including you. I say this in no way to invalidate your own enjoyment, but when you say that you won't listen to others opinions because they bash all MMOs that's being overly myopic. I say this for two reasons: first, that many of the reasons that people didn't like the game were consistant and not the reasons that you say you enjoy the game. Opinions on this site should ultimatly help people to make decisions about game purchases, buit that doens't mean that you can just take every opinion at face value. You find the complaints that are consistant and then compare those complaints to your values.

Secondly,  It's not fair to accuse everyone who didn't like the game as haters because you failed to filter the information correctly. I mean SWG failed to keep most of the player base that played the game, so there must of been some validity to the problems that many of the nay sayers had said the game had. I don't mean to isolate you I'm just trying to add a little temperance to your statment.

Don't shortchange EQ on name recognition

I don't want to be argumentative or dismissive, but it's not anywhere near comparible. You're to young to of had the exposer of the phenomenom that the warcraft franchise was. I'm not suggesting that you don't remember the game, but at age 6 it's unlikely that you could of understood how far reaching the warcraft games were. Not only in the amount of people that played, or it's expanding a wide gambit of age groups, but the fanaticism of so many that played day and night for years on end. With MMOs that doesn't sound so far-reaching but at that time it was about unheard of.

It's about money Rennfield. Wow is the most financially successful US produced MMO. Although I mostly agree with you that WOW is much like EQ what wow had that EQ didn't was brand recognition. Wow had millions of players biting at the bit to play it because it was a spin off of the previous warcraft games.

The financial success is also why people refer to games copying WOW when in fact WOW may of copied a certain game mechanic from another game; the connection is that the game "copying WOW" is attempting to cash in on WOWs success through immalation not necessiarly on WOWs brilliant design.

Now a solid release is an ambiguous term, but i felt that WOW was a very smooth release. I have seen where a couple of WOW haters have made the claim about WOW having a bad release within the last 2-3 years, but no chatter at the time and have gone back before and search for articles and forums that still exsist from when WOW was released and failed to find anything very negative. Obviously, WOW was able to capitalize on their brand and keep a lot of people playing for a long time so the release had to of been good enough to not discourage many players.

Originally posted by Elox1

Ignoring the petty bickering back and forth ...I really don't give a shit who is the publisher of the title as long as the end result  is meeting my expectations.  ...All the boo hooers about NCSoft can spout as many conspiracy theories as they like about how they could or will ruin the game

( facepam)

kettle

pot

= black

Oh and I am sure you are getting this from all your years of producing stuff, and this is just not your opinion.

My grandfather and uncle were/is very successful in a particular field of movie/TV production, which I have spent many hours listening to stories about and working in. I have direct experience with book and magazine publishing, theatre promotion and board/rpg game creation; and have close friends that have shared their experiences with modeling/acting and record labels. I also had just started a blog at the start of the new-year specifically focused on performance artist who choose to self publish. So, why I might not be an “expert” I have had exposure to various forms of media production.

Like I said you do not screw with the talent, only a fool does that.

There is a long road between protecting the bottom line and screwing with talent and like most things in life its not usually as extreme as you want to potray it (although sometimes it can be) and generally talent need producers a lot more then producers need the talent. There are a lot more talented people out there looking for someone to take a chance on them then there are producers with a crap load of money and the infrastructure to support them.

You can keep arguing, but you’re trying to make a case that the people who pay to give a product exposure, and choose how much that investment will be, don’t have the power to dictate (much of) the terms of the agreement; it’s a foolish argument and just makes you look foolish.

 

Originally posted by shae

I completely, whole heartidly agree. I've been saying this for years.

I truly believe that "balancing" classes in a class based MMORPG is a myth... you can work like heck forever to try to attain it but something will always be unbalanced. Someone will always be unhappy and a class structure will always favor one load out or another.

Enough with the balancing...

 I agree shae, balance is a bit of a loaded word wheat should be strived for is equaliy. What I mean is that classes should have equal value to a group dynamic in order to make each classs worth playing (otherwise whats the point.) As for PVP I have always been a fan of the rock/paper/scisssor form of balancing; where each class has a measured advantages/disadvantages over other classes. Then each class doesn't have to be perfectly balanced with each other they just have to be balanced amoung each other.  2 cents

ok I know this is silly, but this post is for no reason other then it made me uncomfortable to be setting on post count of 666

yes we can agree to disagree and you can keep ignoring what i actually say and keep making up the most extreme absurd examples and pretend I presented them so you can argue with yourself. That way you don't actually have to come to terms with the fact that you insinuated something stupid like producers are in the business of spending tens of millions of dollars to produce entertainment without the ability to moniter and decide if the entertainment product is worth the investment before actually spending the majority of the money.

Originally posted by AKASlaphappy  

 

Of course the publisher’s chooses what they want to publish with their money, they get a pitch from a developer then they decide if it is worth investing in. What happens after that is not only on the publisher, if a move sucks it is not just the publisher’s fault. There is the screen writers guild that wrote the script, there is the director’s guild that gives the director so much control over said product. There is the actor’s guild that has so much control over said product. So how again is it only the publishers fault that a bad movie was made. Yes they approved the money after they approved the pitch, but did they write the screenplay? Did they direct the movie? Did the act in the movie? Since you said it doesn’t take a “genius to realize”, well then genius how is it entirely the publisher’s fault a bad movie was made. Are you saying that they have control of what the screen writer produce? Or are you saying that it is their fault because they thought the pitch was a good idea and funded it? I guess in that case it is the book publisher’s fault when a bad book is written. It is not the writer’s fault; they have absolutely no blame in that. And I guess Jack Johnson did not make it big without a big record label telling him what to do. So then it is the record labels fault not the artist that signed the contract.   

 

Oh yes let’s not ever take personal responsibility for anything, I like it. From now on blame everything on the corporations and publishers it is their fault if anything bad happens.

Again you just toss out a bunch of irrelevant information that even if it was true is irrelevant to what I said. No where did I say or saw that anyone else said that the publisher is the only resaon a product fails or succeeds. What was said is that a publisher has a great deal of influence over the direction of its products. What's the point of throwing 500 words of unfocused, ignorant, conjecture that in no way addresses the statement your responding to? Your first sentence looked like it may of actually been an attempt to address what I said, but then you went on a tangent that has nothing to do with anyhing we're discussing before actually developing an argument about why a publisher hearing a pitch is relevant. I mean it sounded like you might of been suggesting that a publisher makes a decision to spend millions of dollars on producing a product on nothing more then a sales pitch without any recourse based upon the final product, but i can't believe that anyone could be monumentally stupid enough to believe that . Regardless, your tangent is illogical, how much power the guilds have (which your are actually severely overemphasizing)  in no way addresses how much power a producer/publisher has. Just because other people in the chain of command have power doesn't mean that producers don't have influence as well and ultimatly since they control the purse strings they have a great deal of influnce.

I don't mind a difference in opinion but your argumentative development is abhorred and little more then verbal regurgitation. You didn't address what I said you simply created a seperate dicussion and then began countering a series of your own assertions as if I was the one that presented them (the really pathetic thing is I think you lost the argument with yourself).

That's myopic. I mean yes a game dosen't have to be competitive to enjoy, and yes some people can have a lot of fun role-playing, but if you are going to make a game and the focus or a part of the focus is to be competitive then that part needs to be balanced. Does the whole game need to be balanced perhaps not in the convential sense, but the part focused on competition certainly does. I think you did so unknowingly, but your argument was a red-herring you focused your retort on aspects of a game that might not need to be balanced, but that doesn't mean that none of the aspects of any games never have to be balanced.

Originally posted by Loke666

No, do you mean Virgin records don't write all Madonnas songs as well?

Only a few morons would confuse a publisher with the the developer. Of course in some cases the publisher owns the developer and might even have a rather nasty contract, like EA have with Mythic but this is not the case here. And even Mythic isn't EA, even if EA have the right to fire the boss.

Actually in most cases a publisher has a lot of control over the creative direction of entertainment. This is true in Music, TV, Movies and in games. Everyone seems to know this as it's often a common joke about how suits screw up good music and TV but for some reson there is this disconnect that some gammers want to possess that with game developers that publisher/creator dynamic is some how different.

Not that I have any problem with NCsoft, I just get tired of peoples self-delusion to justify their hard-ons for their over fantasized expectations of a games development.

are there offical forums?

Originally posted by Papadam

If it didnt have a monthly fee I would buy it for ps3... To bad they were stupid enough to do that. Would be perfect as a b2p.

 My understanding was that there is no monthly fee for the PS3. You just need to be a member of the PS3 online group (which has a monthly fee, but is for all the PS3 games)

Originally posted by IgavOn

Worked fine for me in beta

 ditto