All Posts by etomai

Originally posted by grimmbot

4) Instancing the way it's done here: Necessary. Why? To cut on lag in a zone. Why is this important?

Because without "auto-attack", any time your machine spends hitching is a potential missed opportunity to hit an attack button. The more PCs you're going to see on a screen, the more likely low- and mid-end machines will start hitching. If they tried to smash everyone into one zone, you'd have a problem where only the highest-end machines would be successful at PvP because of lag issues.

Actually it's a server issue.  If you have 100 guys standing around and 1 picks his nose, the server has to let the other 99 know about it.  When they're all acting at once it gets ugly fast.  So you're right that it is necessary to cut lag and improve responsiveness, but it's not really dependent on the speed of the local machine.

Originally posted by Housam

 

i said the games are pretty old...they can run on anything now...w3 came out in 2002

And I played it in 2002.

Originally posted by Housam blizzard hasent had a new game in years,,,all there games graphics fit in for the time.

SC2 does not look like its going to need low requirements...does it now...

I've played every game they've made since War2 on work laptops and $50 video cards.  That is to say, whatever I had lying around.

 Yes, their graphics always fit in, because they understood well before most that strong artistic style beats pixels.

I expect SC2 to be the same.

I'm not sure what the point here is.  Perhaps that one whiny rant begets many more.

When people talk about PC gaming on boards like this, they think in terms of the Doom/Quake-spawned culture.  People in that culture call themselves "serious PC gamers" and absolutely should update their hardware as often as possible.  However, what is often missed is that this is a niche market with very narrow demographics, it has only existed for about 12 years, and it is dying out.  One of Blizzard's keys to success has been consistently catering to those of us who got tired of upgrading, who are slipping out of that culture.  We in turn invite friends who never were "serious PC gamers" to play with us and, hey, they can try out the games without having to go buy a new PC.

Consoles are dominating and PCs are becoming increasingly "appliance", as all technology does.  The best hope for PC gaming is probably that the two continue to become increasingly the same.

Originally posted by Thrift

Im pretty sure blizzard said that WoW is the only MMO they are working on so getting a graphical update is a must since there wont be a WoW 2 anytime soon or even a new MMO from blizzard.

So figure SC2 is supposed to come out in 2009, we'll see another WoW expansion and a graphics update in 2010, then we'll start to hear about the next MMO.  Figure it'll release in 2013.

Originally posted by Greek_Matt

Originally posted by etomai

[Lots of interesting and valid points, many of which I don't particularly disagree with and others which will only be resolved by time.]

 

Y'know, the more I think about it the more I suspect that the real success of Conan will be on the XBox, and that the PC release could almost be considered (by the very cynical) as a kind of extended Open Beta. After all, as you so rightly said AoC is more or less fairly similar to many MMOs that already exist, albeit with a lot more pace under the hood and a beautiful shiny new lick o' paint.

For those of us who've played more than their fair share of the genre already, it is a step along the road (in my opinion an important one, and one I'll thoroughly enjoy). For most console gamers though, who've never been tempted into RPG territory because of the slow gameplay, lack of action and competition and comparatively subpar graphics, Conan will quite possibly stand out as an attractive prospect. Assuming the engine runs smoothly on that platform, it will most certainly stand up against other console titles sporting stunning visuals and action-based gameplay as it does. Think this is where Funcom really will be taking it to the bank.

And who knows, Microsoft might be hoping that it'll help boost sales of their console from would-be PC players thwarted by the high tech requirements. Surely even working dads like you can afford to spring for an XBox now and again...?

Cheers!

Originally posted by Greek_Matt

Also, for the most part my arguments have been concerned more with the concept that high tech demands have no business in the MMO genre in general rather than debating the particular merits of AoC specifically, since until release it's difficult to gauge for sure exactly how successfully they'll hit their target.

Not quite. I believe Funcom have correctly perceived that many (MMO)RPG players have grown tired of playing games where everything is completely determined for you by behind-the-scenes dice rolls, to the point where you don't really have to dedicate much of your attention towards playing the game (which seems to defeat the purpose of playing in the first place). They are certainly not the first to introduce a more action-oriented gameplay style to a RPG, but this certainly doesn't amount to a move towards FPS gaming. It's still firmly a RPG-style game in many senses, albeit one that requires your complete concentration and a little hand-eye coordination. And really, when was the last time you saw a significant part of the playerbase truly "roleplaying" in any of the MMORPGs currently on the market?

As for FPS players being the only ones who need/choose to upgrade their PCs at least every couple of years (which is the time frame we're talking about here, since AoC runs fine on a 2yr old computer), I don't believe this is the case at all. Take a look at the RTS, RPG, driving, adventure and even sim games that have released in the last year - think you'd find in most cases if your rig is more than 2 years old, you'll be dialing down the settings significantly to get playable performance. Unless Flash games are your bag, of course.

As a RTS/RPG/sim fan, I've found that companies regularly cater to my old hardware.  I can't speak to driving and adventure games, but I think of those as console strongholds along with fighters and sports.  While I enjoy FPS games too, they clearly put up a sign that says "upgrade all ye who enter here".  I could upgrade, but, like most of the family-kids-professional people I know, it's not worth it to me.  There's nothing wrong with that, only a comment on who their market is.  From all the marketing I have seen, beta flame wars aside, AoC is putting up that same sign.

1. I'm not so sure that's true at all - I think you've seriously underestimated the interest in AoC (don't let the users on MMORPG.com be your only benchmark). I think a huge number of people will at least try the retail edition of Conan, either by buying a copy themselves or using one of the many tens of thousands of buddy keys that will be floating around out there (5 keys per preorder copy wasn't it?). Whether they choose to subscribe themselves is another story, but again that won't only be due to performance issues. The game was never going to have the low-maintenance mass appeal of WoW, Funcom have stated this from the outset (and indeed have deliberately attempted to limit their potential market to the 18+ age group). I'm inclined to think that more than a few people will be pleasantly surprised with their computer's ability to pay this game, if (and I know it's a BIG if) Funcom manage to iron out the bigger engine-based issues (chunking, crashing etc).

2. That's true enough, and indeed it's the reason for the performance issues that exist in the Beta at the moment. But just because something seems difficult or over-complicated, doesn't mean it can't be done. Funcom have set themselves an ambitious target and have gambled heavily that they will overcome it. We'll have to wait to see if they succeed, but it's certainly possibly and in general I'd say adopting a defeatist attitude never helped progress in any field.

3. As in 1. above, I don't think Funcom are pitching at FPS gamers at all. I think they'll find a comfortable and reasonably sized market within the sick-of-current-MMO/RPG-gameplay-<2yr old-system-owner-low-fantasy-fan user base. Certainly not universal, but then it was never trying to be "E for Everyone". Also don't forget that this game will also (eventually) be releasing on XBox - unless they completely screw up their programming, this should be a far simpler platform to code for and thus will render the "only rich gamers with high-end rigs can play this game" argument meaningless.

I have to agree with you that Funcom probably did misjudge where we'd be as PC owners in 2008, but not by much (though indeed if they'd released in 2007 as they'd originally planned then they would have been that much further off the mark, it's true). In doing so they've created problems for themselves, but I don't think these problems are insurmountable by any means. World of Warcraft played it incredibly safe when they engineered their MMO engine, and its subsequent colossal success has if anything been a blow to what could have been a much more progressive and experimental genre of gaming. Investors (who are not gamers and only care about the bottom line) have seen the numbers and dream of similar glory, so they put a lot of pressure on developers to compromise their creative concepts in favour of mass appeal.

Sure Funcom isn't revolutionising the genre, but they are trying to make a couple of significant changes (combat interactivity and graphics/art direction) in an effort to make their product more immersive and ultimately successful. To say that they shouldn't be trying to do this feels pretty narrow-minded to me, and the fact that it's certainly not going to be the failure Vanguard was means that even if it isn't a staggering success it will still do well enough to hopefully encourage a little more much-needed lateral thinking and boundary-pushing in this godforsaken industry.

Someone was going to up the graphics bar, question is whether Funcom jumped the gun.

Originally posted by Greek_Matt

Fact is most people would agree games today are a lot more varied and visually exciting than they were twenty years ago. Imagine the doldrums we'd be stuck in today if developers back then had listened to all the ranting Luddites and frozen computer games tech requirements at 1987 levels?

Who are these ranting Luddites and why are you so concerned about them?  It's certainly not the OP, nor excellent responses to your posts by elvenangel and mmonkeyboy (post #99) that you may have missed.

The sane point of this thread is questioning a business decision made by Funcom, and it's a very good point.  For whatever reason, they have ended up targeting the traditional FPS PC gaming market who are accustomed to regular hardware upgrades.  In every other PC gaming market I can think of, companies (often Blizzard, for better or worse) have succeeded by dialing down system specs.  Funcom's apparent strategy raises at least 3 legitimate concerns.  First that a large number of potential customers won't buy the game because of real or imagined hardware barriers. Second that MMOs are already a technical nightmare without adding higher code complexity and content requirements.  Third that many FPS gamers find MMORPGs boring, unskilled and beneath them, further reducing their potential stake in a highly competitive market.

I'm inclined to agree with mmonkeyboy that the most likely reason for this strategy is that either Funcom misjudged where the tech would be at or they misjudged their ability to create an engine with reasonable specs.  Perhaps Funcom decided to risk going down in a blaze of glory for the sake of their art.  Seems unlikely, but perhaps.

That is an interesting thing to discuss, not because the world is ending or art is dying or Funcom should be morally condemned, but because the business of development is interesting.  If Funcom screwed up, that will be interesting.  If all that hype was for a niche game, that will be interesting.  If someone decided that pushing the creative envelope was more important than feeding their employee's families, that will be interesting.

My favorite was levitate wall-walking for priests.  I think it counts as a bug because:

1) walking over mountains between zones got me to lots of untextured/unfinished areas (silithus, hyjal)

2) priests had a not insignificant advantage for getting to resource spawns in hilly terrain

So sad when they "fixed" it and levitate became nearly useless.  For an explorer like me it was awesome.

While I'm here I'll second the opinion that the early open world no rewards PvP was the best PvP experience I had.  I was on a PvE server too, but there was plenty of action if you were looking for it.  The honor system made it too much of a grind and then BGs obliterated it.  Ah well, things are probably better when they end while they're still fun.

On a related note, anyone still playing WoW who has reasonably good hardware should check this out:

http://boards.worldofraids.com/topic-12738-1.html

It's an in-game macro for jacking up the graphic settings - increases the view distance, the foliage density, etc.  I play on a 5-yr old laptop so I can't say how good it looks, but the pics are nice.

For at least a year before WoW came out there was a constant flame war over how EQ2 had superior graphics and WoW looked like a kiddie game.  Wasted time and bandwidth to say the least.

A good part of Blizzard's success can be attributed to having talented artists who make distinctive, aesthetically pleasing low-polygon art.  Lots of games failed because companies refused to learn that mediocre photo-realistic CG *sucks*.  The photo-realistic approach eventually became viable for fighters, then shooters, then RTS...soon for MMOs if not already.

A sideways answer to the spirit of some of your questions, one thing I find interesting about WAR is that the character descriptions all point to some manner of in-combat power increase in addition to pre-combat buffs and mana levels.  Think rage or combo points in WoW - you have to fight in order to become more powerful in the fight.  So even the healers have to go whack something to build up whatever the stuff is that makes them effective healers.  Likewise the tanking classes get more powerful if you try to ignore them (read the dwarven one).

Hopefully this will indeed result in more dynamic combat, but as someone said they are not going for revolutionary here.

As I recall, that's exactly what WoW did.  The stress test was in September and they didn't announce gold/release until October.  The game released in November, before Thanksgiving.