All Posts by Gishgeron

Originally posted by Aragon100

 

Originally posted by StyleMonkey

It's not my fault DF's gameplay style caters to the lowest common denominator.

All hardcore PvP games with little rules and regulations do. It attracts all the losers like flies to shit.

Darkfall is for the mature veteran players where for example Age of Conan PvP with no consequences, no rules and no regulations caters for the lowest of the lowest players. Just look at the spawncamping going on in Age of Conan, thats where you find the wannabee PvP:ers, the lamers and the worst griefers.

 

Darkfall have consequences, rules and a very good alignement system which will punish you for behaving like a moron. Thats how a PvP game should be. Building the game arround PvP and not add it as some cool features like in Age of Conan with no consequences, no rules and no alignement system.

The real PvP:ers is gonna play Darkfall.

  Thats terribly bold, assumptive, and ignorant a thing to say all at once.

  First, what is a 'rea' PvP'er?  Is this a title left only to those who deal in equal and fair competitive PvP?   That player would be better off in either WoW Tourneys (which equally gear all players) or Guild Wars (which is a thousand times better on a competitive level than anything suggested by DF)

  Perhaps its left to ONLY those who want substantial and meaningful battles over locations.  Those whom wish to have towns and capitals to destroy.  But...then would it not be best to play EVE, or even AoC?  Both of those games already have years worth of time spent on them, and EVE has already been through so much and added so much you'd be backpedalling to do anything else.

  What IS a real PvP'er?  I cannot say, but I can say this:  Any PvP'er worth his salt wants to be where the most players are.  That leaves you with very little to choose from, I'm afraid...and its the most honest thing a person can say.  Why do you THINK so many PvP'ers are still with WoW when it obviously offers sub-standard PvP compared to others?  I can tell you, its numbers.  More people to play against, more battles to be had.  That means DF would have a LONG, HARD road to get to be what you claim it will.

  Last, DF is at this moment the biggest joke in the gaming industry.  Based on every logical comparison a person can make...its not even real.  Every last excuse used by fans and devs alike to explain the lack of any actual showcased work have so many holes in them it isn't funny.  By any stretch of the imagination...we aren't comparing apples to oranges here, we are comparing Santa Claus to Samuel Jackson.  Maybe Sammy isn't your favorite man alive, but by god....you can go shake his hand and at least confirm his own existence.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

  You have to do the exact same thing as in a level based game to increase those skills.

  Actually, the typically used example of skill-based games stands to disprove you on this.  Using SWG as a base (oh, I could have chose another...but I think many will relate to this example more readily.) a person did not level, say....doctor trees, by killing mobs.  You did so by USING doctor abilities.  You gained (and this isn't a joke) "doctor" xp for using "doctor" skills which was then spent to raise you ability tiers to another level.  That is far removed from the level game, in which you can only get better at things by doing ONE thing.  XP grind.  It does not matter in what form it arrives...in the end monsters must die.

  Now there ARE ways a level based game could actually emulate this effect.  What it would require is a quest system so diverse that it would make your head explode.  Instead of JUST kill 'x' monsters...you could have one which repeats daily and gives a set % of level for you having ressurected 'x' players, or for having healed "x" damage (and it would only count ACTUAL damage healed..not just potential).   You could have quests for "x" doors lockpicked, or "x" herbs gathered.  The possibilities are quite endless, and would do most level based games well to remove you from simple monster hunts all day.

  I skimmed over your post rather hurriedly because I already had an answer in mind when I saw the title to this thread.

  Try City of Heros / Villains.  Seriously, while not everyone will like the actual GAME, its MORE than worth a download and 14 days free JUST to use the character creator.  I kid you not when I say I'd gladly pay the monthly cost at least once a year JUST to make toons on that game.  The creator is a game in and unto itself. 

  Now, as for the actual GAME, I happen to like it.  I do not mind the mission farming (don't ask, if you even try to play the game you'll understand this one soon enough) and rather like the set up of the game.  I do think they could have done a ton better...and I look forward to Champions online to see just how much they've grown as an MMO developer.  One thing is for sure, once you taste travel powers in this game (and you get them as early as level 14) every other MMO will feel like sloshing through mud.

EDIT:

  I noticed you spoke quite a bit about pets...Villain side has an Archetype called "Mastermind" which is essentially the last pet class you will ever want to play.  By the time you are done, that class will have you in total control of 6 minions, each of which are capable of killing something their level alone.  Taste that for a moment if you like pets enough.  I especially enjoy doing mayhem missions (big, city sized instances where you rob a bank that are full of destroyable things.  Like cars, phones, booths, trucks, boxes, trash cans, light poles, meters, ect...) and watching my screen light up in a flurry of laser fire and exploding cars and enemies being sent sailing through the air by repulsion from laser fire.

  It would appear that someone here does not think you can suitably make a Zelda MMO without using the main three characters in it.  I can prove this wrong, and even lay down a very believable story to accompany it AND set the stage for the whole game.

  "BAM!  Its been 10-100 years since whatever Zelda game you feel like referencing.  Hyrule has not seen another "Hero" since the last time some guy in green broke his sword over gannons face.  In that time, lots of bad things happened...lots of bad people skipped around and made happy all over the place, and lots of good people from the 4 corners of Hyrule were left with no one to save them.  The leaders of the tribes of Hyrule finally figured out that it wasn't such a bad ideal to start teaching its own people how to take care of business."

  There you have it.  Stage set.  You pick one of at least three races.  Hyrulian, Goron, Zora.  You go out, you slash and stab at things with whatever weapons they feel like using (The Zelda series already makes use of Swords, Spears, Axes, Bows, Crossbows, Bombs, Boomerangs, Punchie facies, scythes, morningstars, flails,...the entire list of medieval weaponry) and help make the world a safer place until such a time comes that the lazy Green Man shows back up. 

  I wouldn't actually use a level system though.  I mean, it could work...and there is nothing wrong with it.  But it would just be more fitting to use the same system that rocks the regular series anyway.  You get hearts, and more damage, and better armor, by completing tasks in the world.  You know, beating dungeons...killing big crazy things...exploring the overworld....doing this games version if the gladiator challenge (the one where you have 100 rooms to go down and each one gets harder).  Levels remove all of the awesome fun there is to be had in the elements that already MAKE the game fun.  It would be SOO nice to actually have a game which rewarded me nicely for just poking my head around the world.

Originally posted by Brezjnev

What struck me more was this part: "World of Warcraft released roughly six months after City of Heroes and we, of course, know its success. One of the truly amazing features was that a player could solo effectively the vast amount of the game. Certainly, this told us something at Cryptic. But more important than that was the feedback from our fans. They simply didn't like the idea that they would need to stop their mission in order to go find help. And you know what? The players were right!" 

I haven't played either game at launch, but just looking at all the fundamental changes to CoH during the first issues, I would say that the big difference was that Blizzard actually managed to launch a polished game, unlike Cryptic . If Jack Emmert thinks what made the difference was that not all ATs in CoH could solo everything, then Champions Online is in for some big trouble.

 

  You'd be quite wrong.  From a fundamental standpoint, we all have expectations on a very basic level when approaching a game.  For instance, if a Mario MMO released today we would all expect to have some sweet platforming involved.  We'd probably have some notions about the act of killing baddies with hammers and shells too.  If a Devil May Cry MMO dropped, we'd expect to be juggling demons in the air with pistols and cleaving marionettes in twain with our awesome swords.

  Bear with me.

  Now, a SUPER HERO MMO hits shelves.  I'm willing to bet that "running around asking for 4 other super heroes to help you take down a single armed thug" is probably the furthest thing from "super" you could imagine.  You'd be rather correct about this, as many other players felt the same way too.  In order for a super hero game to work, you have to fight and FEEL like a super hero.  That means taking on swarms of basic thugs without breaking a sweat.  Even Batman could rock out the simple gang members...and he didn't even have super powers.  So, for CoH to work...yeah...being able to solo IS the most important thing.   Structurally, a super hero game sucks monkey organs if you can't even fight off ONE single un-super thing alone.

  To be honest, CoH had a rather nice launch.  The largest issue it ever had was the mundane mission farming you had to do.  The game was actually nothing BUT instanced quest missions.   Oh, it has great zones...but you don't often actually DO anything in them.  They had some bugs, naturally, but nothing which actually detracted from those two big issues.

  Given the changes they made to CoX, and the lessons they have stated they paid attention to when other games learned them...I think Champions is shaping up to easily be the best thing since sliced cake.  I've not heard them say they are trying to add things I feel they cannot.  Indeed, most of the things they are promising are things they have already touched on in CoX with some additions and improvements.  There is no massive hype being generated...no insane promises, thus far.

Originally posted by Xasapis

To Gishgeron :

What I tried to say (unsuccesfully it seems) is that subscription numbers have an impact to future development but it's not a direct analogy. Past examples have shown that smaller companies have presented more material and expanded their world much further than more established ones.

My point remains however that as far as players are concerned, more subscriptions just mean more servers. And since we usually just spend our time in just one, it doesn't affect our gameplay. To give an example, once upon a time I used to play AO, a game with two servers. Once upon a time I also used to play WoW, a game with ... 800? servers? The bottom line is that I had a blast in my stay in both games, regardless of the amount of people that were playing them.

    Name one.  No seriously, name one small company which has provided more material and better quality than large ones.  Name one game with tiny subs which offers more game play options than games with large subs.

  I cannot think of one single game.  Even the best AAA titles ever imagined have found their subs in the 300K+ range.  If you cannot connect subs to success, I'd love to hear what reasonable concepts we SHOULD be using instead.

Originally posted by Xasapis

The best MMO is the one you like and play. Subscriptions mean one thing only, expansions to the game world. And we have seen first hand that the amount of suscriptions is not directly related to the amount of content produced by each MMO company.

So, subscriptions mean nothing to the gamers really. Maybe to those not mature enough to need numbers to affirm their hobby. It may mean a lot to the company and the shareholders, but we are not them. We are gamers. One full server is enough to have fun.

  Without solid subs, the company has to let go of its staff to compensate.  By cutting their staff, they also either slow down new content production, or remove it entirely.  Games with larger subs (we don't use WoW as an example, because no game NEEDS that kind of sub base to be rolling steady) can afford to pay for more support, more programmers, more designers, and in general just plain run a better game.

  Subs matter the MOST of all things considered when discussing a game.  Even the most enjoyable game ever made will fall quickly to the wayside if its cannot afford to pay for good server maintenance and a solid GM team to keep the trash out.  Its just that simple.  Using AoC as an example...how much fun would the game be if they had to let go of the majority of their GMS?  When doing so allowed practically everyone to use bots instead of playing?  Your beloved game would become a cesspool overnight (trust me, I've seen it happen in other games already) as you had to compete harshly with these bots for spawns...especially resource spawns.  The servers would become over taxed as thousands of players no longer had to log off anymore.

  I can do this all day.  A game NEEDS high subs to keep it running.  A game without high subs is doomed to fail.  I notice all of you SAYING you would play a game with only one server, but I wonder how many of you actually ARE?  I don't recall seeing any of you in the Tale in the Desert forums.  Can't say I remember you from ANY of the low pop games out right now either.  I'm willing to bet you'd say they all sucked, and thats why you didn't play them.  I'd have to agree, and then remind you that if they DIDN'T suck that they would have far higher subs.

Originally posted by bee52

First game fission, then came fusion now comes fassion? The OP has discovered the solutions to the world's energy crisis.

  Refusing to eat and wearing stupid clothes?  No...I can actually see how refusing to eat MIGHT actually solve some energy issues.  It would, after all, cut out all the wasted energy being funneled into transporting food and processing it.

Originally posted by Jaelum

I've been playing AoC since open beta and have been loving it.  It has been the best launch of any MMO that I've experienced, and I give Funcom a lot of props for building a really beautiful and subtly different game.

 

To the OP or anyone who agrees with the OP - would you please detail your complaint regarding "they have conned, cheated and lied about the game and its content from pretty much day one"? 

 

  Sure, hell I'll take a shot at this.  I could be wrong, mind you...but I'll do my best to translate it for you.

  I BELIEVE that what he is referring to is the fact that the game was heavily marketed as "Super Awesome Siege PvP game with DX10 support, Great combat and uber AWESOMEZ bar fights and such to feel like Conan!" and what you GOT was "Well, we have great combat!" painted over a very simplistic and tired MMO format.  They didn't even have completed content throughout there game...forcing players to fall off the rather nice story and quest series to delve into the boring grind that most AAA games left some time ago.

  Beyond that, I suppose that, if you wanted, you could view many of their pre-release choices as shady and viral in term of marketing.  They definitely kept a tight lock down on any information getting out about the game...and the open beta (which....wasn't an open beta) and early access were both very well controlled so that no one could have ever seen the mid-to-late game flaws that have been springing up around here.

  Basically...as far as content goes, they've only actually hit ONE note right.  That note being their combat.  Everything else promised to you guys over the last few years is noticeably missing.

Originally posted by bee52

@ OP.

That poll is pointless. It's so easy to break and fudge the results

Wish people would wait till some hard facts on active subscriptions come out in a few months.

..this coming from someone who doesn't give a damn about AoC either way.

 

  Amen.  Active subs is the ONLY way to judge a success., or even a failure.  If they cross the 2 month threshold without at least 150K in the pocket...well, they will be shaping up for a swift lay-off season in their dev department.   We won't be able to tell if there is any hemorrhaging until a least a month later, when we can see the change first hand.  Of course, it won't BE a month later...as most do not release sub numbers until their quarterly reports are due.  But you get the gist of it.

Originally posted by Ghist

Why not check out AoC's forum to see what the people playing it think?

http://forums.ageofconan.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8

  It would appear that we cannot rely on the official forum any longer.  Based on what I saw posted across the stickies...Funcom has begun removing negative posts en masse.  That really bothers me, because Blizzard never did anything like that.  I hate lots of things about Warcraft (up to, and including, the game itself) but I can never say an ill word about the company.  Every player was allowed to speak their piece.  The only times they ever began heavily moderating and locking posts was when it was spammed.  By spam, I do not mean posted more than once, either.  I mean...SPAMMED.  Like, 10 or more times in the same 10 minute block.  Most spammers would do even more...usually capping out the entire first page (and I had mine set to 75 threads) with nothing but the thread of their choice.

  I dislike over-moderation.  It reminds me of SOE far too much to be acceptable.  If players are hounding you about something, its because its IMPORTANT.  You do not close them out, you leave their post alone and respond to it.  I realize that such an endeavor takes time, and frankly it would do them well to have CM's just as Warcraft did for such things.

  Moderation really irritates me.

Originally posted by Ascension08

Originally posted by denshing

If you are some of the ignorant masses spewing nonsense in a biased fassion about AoC, we dont want you to play it in the first place.  The problems will be fixed for sure, successful MMO's like this don't have a low priority on improvement. There is only 1 man who would ruin a popular MMO when trying to fix it, and this is not that MMO. Lets be real, this so called  "Miracle fix"  will be no miracle" it will simply happen, subscribe count will go up, Funcom will become richer, and the people who enjoy AoC will enjoy burning down cities on a game that cost some millions of dollars to produce.  "Please dont flame im just an innocent little girl" jk whatevr

Wouldn't the highlighted part in red also apply to fanbois?

  Not if he were a fanboy as well.  You see then, to his distorted logic, it would appear quite fine.  What scares me MORE is that, given his implied mark on Smedly, you might assume he came from SWG.  Why is this terrifying, you ask?

  Because this game should, by all rights, appear stupid and empty compared to the game they came from.  I couldn't imagine for a moment a single Pre-Cu fan coming into this game and think its awesome.  I can see WoW players doing it, and even EQ players doing it.  Maybe even some Vanguard fans.  But I always assumed the draw of the core SWG fan to be the open ended gameplay and world.

  Perhaps I am mistaken.

Originally posted by Hairysun

Ahhh.... very impressive.  Put some thought into this I see.  Numbers don't lie ........ I think I'm gonna go out tomorrow and pick up the game.  It quite simply "IS" a 9.0 (average) game as it stands.  I think that's an "A" in some parts of the US.  Damn ...... that even beats the MMORPG.Com user rating. 

~Hairysun~

PS:  I like the way you highlighted dates in green to avoid confusion for me.

 

  I cannot honestly tell if your post is dripping with sarcasm, or completely lacking of it.  It boggles my mind, and I think that, IF you are being massively sarcastic, that you deserve a gold star.  You got even me, and I BREATHE sarcasm.

  I wouldn't look at any review site twice, they are all tainted goods as far as I'm concerned.  Judging from what I see, I think AoC deserves a high score.  But a 9?  Oh hell no, they didn't even TRY hard enough to earn a 9 in my book.  The best games ever to grace a screen haven't even received a 9....in no way does this slice of poop pie deserve it.  NO MMO does, when compared against some of the best games ever produced.

  I voted, mostly because I find your poll to be very good in covering most possible options.  You did well to include varying branches of "happy" and "hate".  You even included two for people who haven't played.  I honestly wish more polls around here (those which relate to player opinion) were as well done as this.

  Easy to see its a scam.  When dealing with MMO's...the most important thing you can know is that the company already has all of your information.  They never need to ask you for it, as a simple button press will give them all the account info they will ever need from you.  Were you ACTUALLY selected to be a tester, Blizzard would have simply activated your account and, if they actually NEEDED to mail you, would have done little more than inform you of such and, should they actually need to link something, link you to the site that held a client for you.

Originally posted by Consensus

who the hell gives a purple monkey about numbers, either subscribtions or copies sold. they dont make the game good. focus on the reviews, they are all awesome. thats what shows its a good game not the popularity. look at world of warcraft, britney spears, mc donalds. all very popular, all terrible.

i know this has been said before, but you people need to hear it alot more. age of conan has already beaten wow.

  Review sites!?  Are you MAD!?  By the way, those review sites ALSO said that EQ2, WoW, and LoTR were the best thing since cake...but I'm willing to bet that you have a WONDERFUL reason why they were wrong about THOSE games, but right about AoC?  Hmmm?

  Only one thing shows how good a game is.  Subs, end of story.  If people aren't willing to play your game, then your game isn't good.  I don't care what idiotic, non-conformist, bullshot reason you have to disagree with me about this.  When last I checked, AoC has not yet released its august report...and as such we have no ideal how well the game is doing at all.  What we DO know is that they screwed some things up really badly, and are now rushing to fix it all before they start hemorrhaging subs.  They learned that leaving critical things out of the game is a bad ideal, and are swiftly correcting it.

  How well this works to salvage some of the initial sub loss (which every game receives) has yet to be shown.

  Also, I don't recall seeing that AoC has reached 10 million subs.  I also don't recall seeing any of WoW's 10 million subs go down because AoC released.  Until one of those two happen, making statements like your last line are just plain trolling.  By the way, being an ass isn't a good way to get people to jump ship to your game.  Most of us want a nice and intelligent community to play with.  If you REALLY want WoW to suffer, you're gonna have to at least TRY to act like someone those players want to play with.

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by dethgar

 

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by pencilrick

Read this from a review on Gamespot:

"Players stepped onto this stage as Commander Shepard, a hero at the vanguard of humanity's ascension in the arena of galactic politics, and thus began an epic story bolstered by engaging characters and rich, branching dialogue..."

Sounds more like a movie than a game.  They name your character, you're in a story, "branching" dialogue.

How is the gameplay.  Any freedom at all?

 

No same crap as SWkotor and NWN. After BG1 when a good bunch of their designers left, bioware is going downhill.

Yeah they've hit bottom. I mean, no one played those two so why play mass effect? AMIRITE?!?!

 

Is there a game out there that this forum won't take a big shit on?

Seriously, do you evaluate quality based on popularity? I don't. I didn't like these games after BG1, I found them too linear too forgiving and especially NWN/kotor were too combat oriented.

  What a strange thing to say.  I suppose that, were there less combat, you would say the game was crap because it was little more than a glorified storybook?  Seriously, if you remove the combat...what "gameplay" is there left?  I'm quite lost on this concept you have...and I'm not entirely sure if you aren't just being a grump just for the sake of being one.  To tell the truth, I've liked ALL of Biowares games.  I mean, I even liked  Jade Empire.  Loved it even. 

  Not sure why you hate them so....even less sure how you could FOOLISHLY not equate popularity to quality.  If something were actually BAD, then naturally no one would like it.  We can debate all day why it is that YOUR tastes are something magical...and that most of the world are just idiots.  I find that being a non-conformist just for the sake of being one is rather stupid...and actually works AGAINST the very ideals it is supposed to uphold. 

Originally posted by neonaka

 

Originally posted by Battlekruse

The development and production cost of Age of Conan is $70 million dollars.

(49.99 * 400,000) - 70,000,000 = Whoops

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

 

Not quite $20 million, yeah I would say funcom is in a spot of trouble soon.

They haven't even recouped 1/3 of their production cost yet. With the subs dropping like flies, it could take them close to a year or more to even break even on this game.

  It takes MOST businesses (Not just MMO ones) at least a year to get out of the red.  Its fairly standard in market investment for the investors to expect a year, or more, wait to see a return.  Even WoW didn't make back its investment in the first 5 months. 

  I support you hating AoC, and Funcom, 100%....trust me, I do too.  The choices they made irritate me to no end, but thats neither here nor there.  You have to at least have a core understanding of how a business operates before you state things like "Funcom will be in a spot of trouble soon".  Funcom won't be in trouble until the end of the first year, and only then if they cannot manage at least 150,000+ subs.  Just that figure will net them 27 million a year, not  counting box sales.  It takes VERY little to make an MMO profitable...though I'd never expect one to reach Blizzard numbers regardles