Originally posted by nariusseldon

This is a primary example of indie developers .. they don't have the resources to produce content.

Well, for one thing, there are teams of fifty or more commercial developers who can't produce content, either.

For another, Love is clearly meant to be a sandbox game wherein you make your own content, mostly.

Finally, it's not meant to be a full-fledged MMORPG. It looks more like a fun cooperative diversion to me.

I'm not saying you're wrong. It is true that small, independent developers can't match the resources of a large developer, but I personally never expected them to.

Yeah... I mean, we're always hamming it up here on MMORPG.com:

"Why, in the 1990s, there were actually some GOOD computer games around! You had your Frontier: Elite II, your King's Quest, X-COM, Wing Commander, Fallout, Duke Nukem..."

But the thing is, when I see 99% of upcoming computer games post-2006, my brain doesn't even register them. I couldn't care less. In 99% of cases, they're literally the same thing rehashed over and over and over again, completely unexciting. A good example of a game that broke the mold is Beyond Good and Evil; before that, Giants: Citizen Kabuto.

When I see something like Love, though, I actually get excited about it. There's no faking that. It's not just a "Why, back in my day" sort of thing, it's real. The industry literally quit making good games; they now design them by committee, and send them down a 100-person assembly line of artists and programmers for mass consumption.

I remember seeing Love sometime last year before it was even available to playtest. Apparently you can play now, and I think that's what I'll do.

EDIT: This being the Internet, of course some douchebag had to pop in with a completely useless comment about Love not being new.

If more computer games were made this way -- by a small group of developers (or one developer) with a unique, creative vision -- I'd be a whole lot happier with the industry as a whole.

I haven't purchased a computer game yet this year.

Originally posted by Gdemami

CCP no longer supports Linux client for EVE Online.

They do, however, still support the Macintosh client for EVE Online.

I occasionally play female avatars in MMOs. When I do, it's for any or all of these reasons:

• The visual design of the game's male avatars is subpar. They look awkward, clumsy and boring. (#1 reason)
• The clothing and armor available to male avatars is dull, plain and unappealing in comparison to female versions.
• A female avatar fits the class or character concept I want better than a male one (or maybe the class is female-only).
• I plan to role-play, and I decide I want the challenge and novelty of playing a female character.

• Getting free stuff from deluded, horny males.
• Being "treated better" and receiving additional help.
• Engaging in transsexual cybersex without divulging my real-life gender.

Well, Windows' market share as of April 10, 2010 was 91.46%. Mac's was 5.32%, and Linux had 1.05%. Personally, I'd say that 95-98% of the MMO target market comprises PC owners, even higher than the market share data.

It's not just expensive and time-consuming to develop for non-Windows operating systems, it's wasteful and virtually pointless. Blizzard did it because, to them, even a 2-3% increase in revenue (Mac owners in the target market) is astronomical and worth the investment. I'm not sure why CCP did it.

MMO developers haven't managed to create a good MMO on Windows in years, let alone multiple operating systems. EVE Online and World of Warcraft are virtually the only titles in this entire industry to have shown significant growth, consistent quality, and integrity of design year after year after year.

Everything else is either garbage right out of the gate (especially in recent years), or else is ruined or allowed to decline by its developers and parent company.

In short: Developers don't bother with multiple OS releases because they've got a hard enough job trying to make games that aren't glorified piles of turd, and they can't even manage to do that these days.

---

Originally posted by Xondar123
 
Not to mention Cryptic and Atari have been boasting that they can make MMOs in 2 1/2 years.

---

It doesn't get any more clear-cut than that, does it? Self-incrimination at its finest.

Anyway, every game developed by Cryptic Studios to date has been feature-lite and nearly devoid of content, not only on release day but also a year or two down the road. City of Heroes succeeded largely because it was the world's first supers MMORPG, and comic fans were willing to overlook grave shortcomings for the chance to play a superhero online. The costume design system was also revolutionary for the time, and that helped, too.

It still might have failed, but apparently it's been greatly enhanced over the years through the various expansions. That couldn't have happened if it had tanked out of the gate, though.

So I knew from the get-go that Star Trek Online would bomb. Science fiction fans will be far less tolerant of shallow, content-lite games, especially in 2010 when the genre is much larger and offers gamers far more options than when CoH released in 2004.

----------------------

But, I'm probably preaching to the choir here. Carry on.

Agreed, there hasn't been a truly good new MMORPG for years, and most of the ones that were good:

1.) have been ruined by the developers (e.g., SWG, UO [Trammel])

2.) have simply declined and stagnated with age (e.g., AO)

3.) are still good, but I eventually had enough of them (e.g., EVE, FFXI)

4.) shut down and/or suffered an unfortunate calamity (e.g., Ryzom*)

5.) are plagued by bots and exploiters to the point of not being fun (e.g., Lineage 2)

...And so on and so forth. I've tried games like WoW, WAR and GW, but I couldn't stick with them for more than a few months before becoming disinterested and/or disgruntled. I've also tried a great many other MMORPGs over the years, and none of them have really done it for me.

Overall, EVE and FFXI are the only two MMORPGs for which I still have a great deal of respect. I'm far too fed up with them (due to years of playing them) to want to go back, but they were good then and they're good now. Hardcore as a sumbitch, too.

* I know Ryzom has been back in action for a while now, but the community that used to exist was greatly shaken up and has been substantially reduced — my entire guild moved on to other games and stayed gone, for instance. Anyway, it's just an example.

Okay, I don't even know where to begin with this, so I'm just going to play it by ear. I've been hesitating to post this for months, but I've finally decided to do so, hoping someone can help me out.

I've been visiting MMORPG.com for years, and I've been using (and in a few cases, moderating or even administrating) Internet forums since the 1990s. On most forums, you click the "Reply" button or the "Quote" button, type in your message, add BBML or HTML tags as desired, then click the "Post Message" button (or its equivalent elsewhere).

However, for me, MMORPG.com is different. On Firefox (latest version), I can't post messages at all. The browser just hangs when I click "Reply" or "Quote." On Opera — which I downloaded solely for use with MMORPG.com — I can usually post replies, but sometimes the enhanced editor hangs and won't give me a cursor, and the function buttons above the editing box are all broken links.

And on all browsers, the "Quote" function at MMORPG.com has been buggy ever since I can remember, ESPECIALLY when you're dealing with nested quotes. If you want to alter someone's quote, you have to do so very carefully. In Enhanced mode, you can easily screw up the formatting just by deleting parts of the quote that you don't need. The only way to make sure you get it right is to use BBML mode and do everything manually.

Why is the forum software like this? I've never had this problem on any other forum I've ever visited, period. My computer (Windows XP SP3) is clean, fast, up-to-date, and free of malware and spyware — I use Kaspersky anti-virus, various free online tools like Ad-Aware, a professional firewall, and of course my own computer safety savvy and common sense learned through years of computer use.

I would appreciate any advice you can give. I like MMORPG.com, but the user-friendliness really suffers a lot, at least on my end.

Well, I've always scoffed at Xfire being used as a measure of an MMORPG's popularity....

But even I have to admit that such a dramatic decline can't bode well, Xfire numbers or no. Then again, I pretty much expected STO to crash and burn, so this doesn't exactly come as a surprise to me.

However, in this case there is other evidence that supports the Xfire numbers — the MMORPG.com ratings, critic reviews, buzz on various forums (like this one), et cetera.

Originally posted by Loktofeit 

Your entire argument seems to be based on a familiarity with mainstream Diku-style MMOs, which has nothing to do with how EVE works. It also seems to indicate you are under the impression that people who can fly motherships are flying motherships. You'd probably be surprised at how many people have been playing for years and probably could have trained for capital ships but simply had absolutely no need to fly one.
 

I'm perfectly aware of how EVE "works." I played regularly for almost two years, and immensely enjoyed my later career as a pirate in the Applied Eugenics corporation.

In response to your statement, I offer another statement: There are motherships in EVE Online. These motherships are piloted by EVE players. The fact that not everyone needs or desires to pilot a mothership is irrelevant to my point, as is the fact that motherships and titans are considered to be alliance assets.

If someone aspires to pilot one of the most powerful ships in the game (this is not limited to motherships or titans), it's going to take them an exceedingly long time to reach their goal.

This thread is based on the premise that older players don't keep accumulating more and more personal power for their characters; instead, they learn a wider variety of skills, allowing them to pilot a wider variety of ships and accomplish more things within the game (the analogy made by the OP re: character classes in fantasy MMORPGs).

That's true, but it's misleading since, indeed, EVE does in fact have "super characters" (titanic ships with huge skill requirements and equipment that's far more expensive than the ship itself). So if someone's idea of "catching up" means having a very powerful ship (like having a very powerful fantasy MMO character), yes, it's going to take them a long time.

EDIT: Apparently motherships have been replaced by supercarriers? Yeah, I've been out of the loop for a while. BoB and the Goons are gone too, what's the world coming to?

My response to the original post in this thread:

Analogizing EVE with maxed-out characters in a fantasy MMORPG is a semi-decent way to show people how "you really can catch up"... but EVE is different from fantasy MMORPGs in one key way: While fantasy MMORPGs invariably have "classes" that are more-or-less equally powerful and balanced once they reach "max level," in EVE ships are most definitely not created equal.

In a very real sense, your analogy is misleading. A new player can't "catch up" to a mothership pilot with maxed-out skills in three months. They can get a bunch of T2 frigate skills up to level 4 (maybe a few 5s) in six months, but that frigate can't dream of going head-to-head with a mothership in combat, nor contributing as much to a fleet battle, etc.

Yeah yeah, I know, no EVE ship is all-powerful and they all have different roles to play... but a mothership is still better by far than any T2 frigate. Yes, it has a specific role to play, but it's still a far more precious and powerful asset.

If it weren't better than a T2 frigate, everyone would just fly around in T2 frigates, since those are cheaper.

The fact of the matter is, you can only "catch up" in less than one real-life year if you aim fairly low as far as which ships you'll want to be flying. If you want to fly a mothership, it's going to take you at least a couple of years to "catch up"... and while you're skilling up to fly it, your choice of other activities in EVE will be a bit limited (to combat) unless you pay for multiple accounts.

BoB and Goonfleet have disbanded? Wow. They were household names in EVE for years, certainly during the entire time I played (2007-2008, ~1.7 years).

Even though I haven't played in a long while, somehow it's sad to hear that they've gone, like the cancellation of a beloved television show or some such.

---

Originally posted by jaxsundane

---

Originally posted by DoktorTeufel

I haven't played STO yet (and most likely won't), but given Cryptic's track record and what I'd been hearing about the game, I'm willing to bet that your review is spot-on. I certainly agree with your general pessimism regarding at-launch DLC, lifetime subscriptions, and tacked-on micropayments in today's gaming industry.
 
I follow the release of most major MMORPGs closely; however, I only remembered that today is STO's release date because there's a Star Trek marathon on the SyFy channel as part of the game's publicity — which includes STO commercials.
 
I'm sure IGN, GameSpot and the like will give STO 9 out of 10 stars, even though it's almost certainly incredibly shallow, casual, and not particularly representative of the source material.
 

---

You have some pretty strong opinions for someone who has not even played the game, and while Cryptic may have a hard time fooling the population into thinking there is actually a game behind all this talk of microtransactions and such the mmo community seems primed and ready to be fooled by anyone who comes on a message board and complains.
 

---

"Primed and ready to be fooled?" Let me tell you something, friend: I (and many others) have, over the course of the past few years, been fooled into thinking that various new MMORPGs might not suck and would actually be worth playing. Time and again, once released, 95% of them turned out to be casual shovelware. The smart thing to do these days is to assume the worst.

I pray for the day when I'm "fooled" into thinking that a new MMORPG sucks, when in actuality it's deep, complex, long-lasting and rewarding. I hope and pray for that day, because I'd LOVE to be proven wrong. I'd register an account and start playing that deep, complex, long-lasting and rewarding game, loving the fact that I'd been mistaken.

But the fact of the matter is, I'm not just "primed and ready to be fooled." Although I haven't played STO myself, I have a lot of anecdotal evidence to peruse:

1.) STO has an abysmal user rating on MMORPG.com
2.) Initial reports of the gameplay on MMORPG.com and elsewhere are mediocre at best
3.) Cryptic has a track record of releasing shallow games devoid of content
4.) Press releases about the game's features raised many red flags

So yes, I am primed and ready to be fooled. Can't wait to be fooled into thinking a game sucks, only to be pleasantly surprised later when it turns out I was mistaken.

I haven't played STO yet (and most likely won't), but given Cryptic's track record and what I'd been hearing about the game, I'm willing to bet that your review is spot-on. I certainly agree with your general pessimism regarding at-launch DLC, lifetime subscriptions, and tacked-on micropayments in today's gaming industry.

I follow the release of most major MMORPGs closely; however, I only remembered that today is STO's release date because there's a Star Trek marathon on the SyFy channel as part of the game's publicity — which includes STO commercials.

I'm sure IGN, GameSpot and the like will give STO 9 out of 10 stars, even though it's almost certainly incredibly shallow, casual, and not particularly representative of the source material.

In a realistic medieval MMO, 95% of players would be peasants and  perform tedious, soul-crushing labor for sixteen hours a day just to survive. There would be no hope of escape from this lifestyle, and characters would experience perma-death randomly and at an early age.

The lucky 1% get to create a nobleman character. They will tax and exploit the peasants in order to build castles, pay their soldiers, and buy food, horses and weapons. They are forced to marry a noblewoman to increase their family's status at some point in the game. Despite being noblemen, they too will experience more hardships than modern people are used to, and will in all likelihood die early as well.

The remaining semi-lucky 4% get to be commoner soldiers, churchmen, merchants, craftsmen, and tax collectors.

The only worthwhile skill-based fantasy games with strong role-playing communities are text MUDs.

Final Fantasy XI is level-based, not skill-based, and you'd have to dig mighty deep to find any role-playing. It really only fits the "fantasy" bill. Darkfall is fantasy themed and skill-based, but the idea of "role-playing" in that community is utterly absurd. EVE Online you already know about. Mabinogi... well, I can't speak from experience, but I highly doubt it's anything worth looking into. Fallen Earth isn't fantasy; I suppose it might have a decent role-playing community, though I suspect you'll have to look hard to find one.

Basically, if any of the graphical MMOs people mention in this thread do by some miracle have all three qualities you're looking for, they'll probably fall dramatically short in one or more other areas... like population (no one playing), poor overall quality, and so on and so forth.

It's much easier to find the things you want in text MUDs, most especially the role-playing (your average MUD has 10x more of it than your average graphical MMORPG), but unfortunately MUDs are a dying breed.

They haven't necessarily lost my sub.

Given Cryptic's track record of releasing ultra-casual MMOs nearly devoid of content (City of Heroes at launch and 1-2 years after), I'll be waiting six months after release to see if STO has anything going for it other than fancy character creation. I'm not going to get worked up about every nitty-gritty detail (PvP-only Klingons, f'rex) like some of you guys; if the game seems to be decent by August 2010, I'll try it. If it seems to be a piece of shit in August 2010 (as 90% of MMOs are six months after launch), I'll pass.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by BloodDuality

While I do like Eve's system a lot, it is also one of the reasons why I quit the game. I just don't like the idea that other characters are more powerful simply because they have had an acount running longer. You can catch up in eve if you choose to limit yourself, but its not the same as somoene who has been around for years.

 

The EVE forum here has several threads of extensive posts debunking that myth.

 

No, the EVE forum here has several threads of extensive posts arguing many different sides of this issue. It's not a "myth"; that's just sarcastic, oversimplified garbage spread by propagandists.

Not everyone shares the same opinion. I played EVE for two years, and I strongly disagree with people who paint a rose-tinted picture of how easy it is to "catch up" in the game. I've seen at least a handful of other longtime players — well spoken, clearly knowledgeable folks — who agree with me.

You can check out the extensive posts made be myself and others arguing the non-rose-tinted side of EVE. And you know, I still recommend the game and consider it to be excellent... but that doesn't mean it's without some rather significant flaws. I think people should be properly informed about what they're getting into, not fed idealized nonsense.

This dream is going places.