| 917 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
I don't get how Wizardry can make these statements. I mean opinion is opinion and all, but he's trying to state it as fact. WoW, the biggest RPG ever has PvP servers and PvP battlegrounds. DAoC should have demonstrated that it can be done well. The winner of best MMORPG on this site has tons of PvP. The winner of the best new RPG on this site has tons of PvP.
PvP is popular, it can be done right, it does work well when done right. The problem is that a lot of people seem to equate "Level and gear matter" with "Skill is unimportant." As if choosing the right gear/skill set isn't a skill in and of itself.
|
|
Originally posted by Isane First of all, and just to get this out of the way, this is CONAN we're talking about here. Maybe if it was "The Collected Works of William Shakespere, the MMORPG" I'd understand you thinking it was out of line with the original material (though Shakespere was full of sex) but Conan? If there aren't half naked women, they ain't stayin true to the source. Just sayin' Anyway, nudity for immersion purposes makes perfect sense, IMHO. Its like those movies and TV shows where people have sex, but convienently the covers stay in all the right places. Its having your cake and eating it too. They get to pretend they're all innocent, while having sexual content. And nothing, honestly, is less immersive than having entities in the world conform to outside standards. In the case of movies, this is characters keeping covered up like they're being watched - I'm sure you've seen those sex scenes where oh-so-convienently the characters are absurdly modest, despite, y'know, them having sex and it being completely out of character for them to be modest, etc. etc. In the case of games, this is the characters going out of the way to cover their breasts despite the fact that uncovered breasts aren't a sin in their morality (especially the characters that are deliberately sexual... jeesh). As I said, it is a jarring immersion snap, and I can understand why the developers would make a choice to avoid that rather than avoiding the 'boobies.' And if you seriously think this game is going to be free of sexual situations... Conan? Really? You've read it? |
|
|
Question - Best Story driven /questing mmo or rpg out there now.
The Pub at MMORPG.COM « General Discussion 1/06/08 8:40:34 PM
Originally posted by RecantWoW has lousy story driven questing. It also has some of the best on the market. That is the paradox of WoW. It has many features that aren't great - but they're better than all the other ones out there. The game itself could use many improvements. The point of many of the instances is questionable (Seriously, beyond Hellfire Citadel, is there any lore to any BC instance? Zangarmarsh made an attempt, but it all kinda fell apart when we all realized that there was secretly no point to draining the marsh, it was just a hook to make us all want to kill Vashj, which maybe 1% of the players will ever do). The questlines are semi-cool, but there's no real life to them. You run around for the skyguard, and get declared king of the ogres. But why? We all know you ain't king of the ogres, when 10 feet north there's High King Pushover, and the Gronn squad sitting in a cave. Does anyone really mention the fact that Gruul can come out of his cave any time he wants, and lay the hurt into a five man party that's beating on his kids?
That's the problem with WoW. Its the disneyland of MMOs. You hop on the rides, see the attractions, but there's no personal involvement. Sure, the ride itself is nifty, and you get to scream at all the cool parts, but in the end, its rather shallow. |
|
|
I know hating on WoW is trendy and all, but Blizzard was actually quite good about adding features that people wanted. The problem is that Blizzard stopped communicating with its players about two years ago, so people would be bitching about some problem for months (or in some cases years... thanks Fear Ward), get used to it being there, and then randomly a patch would come out that would apply some fix to the problem. Usually with no notice or commentary from any blue. Also it turns out that people on the forums don't actually have any idea what makes a game fun, so things like The Burning Crusade are a result. I think really Betas are very useful. Look at Anarchy Online's launch if you don't believe it (if ever a game needed a beta). It lets them test their code on many platforms, it fixes bugs, and it can change features of the game. The problem is some companies, not to name names, (rhymes with 'Phony Online Entertainment') rush the games out before anything has a chance to be fixed or tweaked. |
|
Originally posted by Xiaoki Thank God. Consoles can't support the sort of features that computers can. It would have to be dumbed down, like every other console/PC game. |
|
|
MMOs never demand high performance computers. Even TR, the most graphically demanding one, is a joke to my 8800GTX. Seriously, I think the thing basically wakes up slightly, renders everything, then goes back to sleep. If you want to show off graphics, just go get Crysis. Or wait for new MMOs, 2007 was not a banner year for the genre. |
|
|
Okay, to start with, I've seriously played WoW and Tabula Rasa, and tried the original Everquest, Saga of Ryzom, Anarchy Online, and Planetside. I'm looking for a game with a good community. Something nice and solid, I can enjoy. People help other people, and there's established guilds - as well as there being a reason for guilds. I rather liked instances and raiding - not necessarily the 10 minute setup before every pull, but 25-40 people working together and coordinating. Its a rush like nothing else. I would also like a decent crafting system. WoW's is... basic. Saga of Ryzom basically had what I was looking for, too bad the game is currently dead as a doornail. If it ever does start up again, maybe receive an engine update (not a graphics whore, but... you couldn't jump. Seriously, wtf?) I'd be back there. I enjoy crafting, its fun to hunt down different materials and make cool things. Nothing Korean-style, period, the end. I'm not saying I wouldn't play a Korean made RPG, but if its what we've come to associate with Korean style... no. No way.
I've been thinking about DDO, but I've heard the game just isn't that fun to play, and the community is very elitist, something I don't think I could get behind. Can anyone help me? |
|
|
You know, frankly, I rolled my eyes when I heard there would be boobs in AoC. Either it would be tasteless, at which point... bleh, or it would be flavorful (like the topless succubi in Diablo) at which point it would still end up focusing all sorts of bad attention on the game, and attract the wrong crowd. So I should be happy, right? NO! The worst form of censorship is self-censorship, its what George Orwell ranted about at the start of 1984. Not government imposed censorship, but censorship that occurs before anyone even says anything. An artistic vision is an artistic vision. If dryads and Succubi are part of your game, they shouldn't need convienently placed hair and unnecessary clothing. If that's the developers vision, fine, they can do as they choose. It gives the world a less realistic, more cartoony feel, but if they're shooting for that, fine. If they think it damages immersion, and don't want it, and have to stick it in anyway... that's censorship. |
|
|
PvP is not like that at all. For good, actual, RPG PvP, content is hugely important. That is the sort of PvP where you fight across the world, seeking to claim territory for your own. Imagine assaulting a base, stargate style. Teleporters, those flying ships, etc. Fighting through the corridors of the mothership, seeking to get to an engine room/control center to destroy it (which might despawn it from the game world for a few days or a week). Other players fighting back to keep their base alive, guilds calling in favors, making alliances, teleporting into the system through stargates. Imagine the sense of accomplishent you'd get when for the next 2-3 days you can see pieces of the mothership breaking up in the atmosphere. Or when you finally drive the humans back to the stargate, and eradicate their colonies, winning the planet. Its very different when its against real players - these accomplishments tend to linger, even as others fade. I'd agree if its just "Capture the flag, WSG style" don't bother, but if there's an actual PvP planet or two, with real, PvP objectives that really change parts of the world, and involve a full knowledge of the area, its amazing. Imagine for a second you could enlist the locals to fight beside you, if you completed some quests for them, or terrorize them into submission by kidnapping their leader, or something. The entire planet would be very interesting, and each fight would be different. Because of the stargate mechanic, it would actually work well - you could have a PvP planet where the fight could naturally last a week or more, or simply be an ongoing war, but never spill beyond the bounds of the planet. |
|
|
Your average video game nowadays is clocking in 8-10 hours. Lets assume you avoid the $60 retail, and wait until it drops to $30. Then lets assume you play games for 10 hours a week, and you spend half that time playing old games (like, I dunno, GOW multiplayer or somesuch). You're spending $60 a month. I might buy one game a month, probably more like one game every other month, and play an MMO. I'm spending a lot less than you do. MMOs offer more bang for the buck than other games. Seriously, after playing MMOs, I consider NON-SUBSCRIPTION GAMES the rip off. I mean look, I sink $60 in, what do I get? Anything? MMOs I usually get a free trial for a few days or even a week to see if I like the game. Go see if you can play Crysis for a week to see if you like it, before you buy it. |
|
|
won people's choice award, but will it beat out WAR?
General Discussion « Age of Conan 1/06/08 3:03:41 PM
I don't trust Warhammer. Their idea appears to be to take Blizzard head on, and beat them at their own game. Yes, WoW is showing its age, but lets face it, the last two years reads like a history of game developers who were going to beat Blizzard at their own game. Many of them promised better PvP, and better PvE (but in that distinctive, linear, sandbox-free WoW style). Blizzard yawned, and their games died. Honestly, I played WoW, and the community was full of ups and downs, but most of the ones who were planning on migrating to WAR were the downs - the annoying ones. I don't predict a good community, and I don't predict an amazing game. AoC sounds amazing. Disclaimer: Many games have sounded amazing and failed to deliver (Tabula Rasa, looking at you right now). Still, the combat actually sounds interesting - an element of twitch based without dragging FPS elements in, simply by focusing hard on combat. Sandbox game, player made cities, interesting crafting, etc. Now might AoC turn out to be a dud? Yeah, it might. I'd honestly rank the chance around 50-75%. It still COULD be great. Warhammer WILL be mediocre. |
|
|
All I know is that 2008 is shaping up to kick 2007's ass when it comes to MMORPGs. I look down at the games in development, and am strongly interested in AoC and Warhammer, would definitely check out Chronicles of Spellborn, Warhammer, and Fallen Earth, and might play some of the others just to see what they were. 2007's MMOs, meanwhile, have stunk. The winner of the 2k7 readers choice awards was LotR:O. Not saying the game is the worst piece of junk ever programmed by mortal man - but aggressively mediocre could definitely be used. Of course when weighed in against heavyweights like Tabula Rasa (currently playing it, but it has many problems) and Vanguard (blech)... In conclusion, whatever happens, we, the players, are going to win in this fight. Lets just sit back, and see how the games turn out.
|
|
|
Not in any way similar. You can't compare the two.
|
|
|
If Blizzard did make a Sci-fi, what would you like to see?
The Pub at MMORPG.COM « General Discussion 1/05/08 9:03:09 PM
Screw Starcraft. I think players need to realize something that inherently is tough to see right off the bat: Space is BORING. There's nothing to do out there. Have you ever watched Firefly? Joss got it right - the crew is usually bored as shit when they're not on the planet. What I want to see is Blizzard take on Cyberpunk. I've been waiting for a real cyberpunk sandbox to emerge (Neocron tried but... no. Just no). Imagine that the entire game took place in a city. A single city. Gangs, factions, etc. You'd have politics, government, crime, etc. Imagine if it was done sandbox style. You get a bounty (kill Mr. Jones, or sth). So what do you do? Well you can't knock on every door in the city looking for Mr. Jones. You find a hacker, and negotiate giving him a cut. The hacker hacks into the system, and tracks down information about him, and now you know stuff about where he likes to hang out, etc. You can hire a socializer class (I dunno, like the Entertainer or the Bard or sth) who can find out information about his routine. Maybe you have someone follow him around, find somewhere discrete to assassinate him. Or you bang on every door in the city, take his head off with a shotgun, and deal with the cops. Sandbox.
Blizzard actually has the budget to pull something like this off, with real, interesting hacking interfaces, full scale missions, developed and interesting crafting, etc. |
|
|
I think there should be Bane in the game. Adding them would NOT necessitate reworking the starting areas. See, they already have the perfect mechanic for the Bane - Wormholes. The Bane could be attacking through the wormholes, essentially establishinbg footholds in this zone of reality. The Bane zones would essentially be behind the wormholes for the starting area - they'd only encounter humans on assaults (which they could teleport into). As they approached mid 20s to 30s they could start interacting more and more with the human controlled zones, until they moved mostly/completely into contested zones. Meanwhile humans could start to get more and more missions 'through the wormhole' into heavily Bane turf. It would probably require reworking some of the Lore, but honestly, it would make for an interesting experience. |
|
|
I don't really understand the negativity for this game ...
General Discussion « Hellgate: London 12/15/07 3:07:42 AM
Originally posted by Cowl_sSeriously now, if you don't like reading my post, close your eyes and skim past it. I am comparing it to Diablo 2 because it billed itself as the next Diablo 2. It mentioned very prominently that it was made by the creators of diablo 2. Look on the back cover. The one and only quote from a review/preview they chose to put on it? "The creators of DIABLO are bringing HELL to you." Shall we try the website? "Key Features The RPG Authority – Flagship Studios was founded by the core creators of Diablo, one of the biggest PC gaming franchises in history with over 13 million units sold worldwide – they are the first, last and only voice in the world of action RPGs." So, in short, the game billed itself as being the spiritual successor to Diablo, at every step it has held onto Diablo's coattails, and now you're telling me I can't compare it to Diablo? When every piece of information about the game trumpets Diablo, I can compare it to Diablo. Period. As for just not playing it, nice. The good ol' "Negative opinions should not be voiced." Because we should all go through life hearing only good things, being told our farts smell like flowers and our shit don't stink. Maybe someone will read this, and avoid spending money on the game. Because God knows, I wish I had. If you enjoy the game, fine, great for you. I'm going to go play one of the very many great games out there that are NOT WoW grinding, and yet deliver a fulfilling experience. Honestly, anyone who wanted an MMO-Style ARPG should either be playing Guild Wars or spending money on Tabula Rasa (which has quite a few flaws, but is still doing what Hellgate: London wanted to do).
|
|
|
I don't really understand the negativity for this game ...
General Discussion « Hellgate: London 12/15/07 12:18:18 AM
Hellgate: London is a competent game. There's no question of that. The problem isn't that its a competent game. The problem is, as people have said, that it billed itself as the second coming of Diablo 2. Blizzard's games are classic. Starcraft defined the RTS genre. There have been many, many RTS games I have played and enjoyed that were inferior to Starcraft. The thing is, none of them billed themselves as the sucessor to Starcraft (in fact even Blizzard was leery of that with War 3). Similarly, Diablo has defined the action RPG genre. The variety of skills, the number of builds you could use for your character, the speedy playstyle, everything about Diablo 2 made it an addictive, classic game. Remember the quests? If you were a huge multiplayer fan, like I was, you probably have almost forgotten them, but remember how cool they were the first time through? Killing the Countess, blotting out the Sun, even the crappy jungle level had some good moments (okay... some). If you listened to the quest, you got interesting backstory. If you didn't, well, THE FRIKKIN SUN WENT OUT! Compare that to Hellgate's "Kill 6 orcs" and the HORRIBLE voice acting. Okay, so the plot is inferior. There's no other way to put it, its inferior. What about the gameplay? I was hoping for Diablo 3 - an epic, well crafted game as far beyond Diablo 2 as Diablo 2 was beyond Diablo 1. Instead I got... Diablo 1.5. A dungeon crawl in a mostly randomized dungeon. Neater abilities than Diablo 1, more options, a bit more scale, etc. It didn't even manage to touch Diablo 2. |
|
