PVP:Yes | Distribution:Retail | Retail Price:$49.99 | Pay Type:Subscription
Desktop Client | System Req:
| ESRB:M
Asheron's Call 2 : Fallen Kings Column: Five MMO Sequels
This week, MMORPG.com's Jon Wood uses the list to count down five MMO sequels, a rare breed for the genre.
By Jon Wood on September 29, 2009
Sequels are a video game tradition. If you look at nearly any other video game genre, the shelves are littered with follow-up after follow-up after follow-up to popular (and more importantly high selling) titles. These sequels are generally pumped out every few years, keeping true to the original ideas and gameplay styles of the original. This is how games build franchises.
Yet, the MMO world seems to have been left behind in that area with only a few sequels having been created. This probably owes something to the continuing revenue stream that a popular MMO creates via subscription and probably also has to do with the way that MMOs continue to evolve via patches and updates throughout their lifetimes. Expansion packs also play a role here.
Still, a few brave companies (and a few more on the way), have dipped into the sequel wellspring to produce the more traditional follow-ups that the rest of the games industry takes for granted. They don't always come in the most obvious of forms, and they don't always have a "2" in the title, but they're out there.
#5 Asheron's Call 2
For every Godfather 2, there's a Matrix Reloaded. For every Wrath of Khan, there's a Highlander II. In telling the story of sequels there are successes and then, for whatever reasons, there are failures.
Now, in reality, it isn't fair to compare Turbine's Asheron's Call follow-up to some of the worst sequels ever made but the truth of the matter is that, for whatever reason, Asheron's Call II holds the dubious distinction of being the highest profile MMO sequel to have ever been cancelled post-production.
AC 2 launched in 2002 and closed in 2005 after the game's Legions expansion failed to bolster its flagging subscriber numbers. Many critics of the game cite too much deviation from the original Asheron's Call as a reason for the game's cancellation.
;)
Sequel in the making - Jumpgate Evolution
In 2001, NetDevil released a space fighting MMO called Jumpgate, named after the game's primary means of faster than light travel. Those who enjoyed the original enjoyed dogfight-style PvP, a "near Newtonian" physics model that did its best to simulate actual speace flight (as opposed to more "arcade-like" space flight games, and a system that was designed to be used first and foremost with a joystick.
Those features, among others, endeared the game to a number of hardcore supporters. Now, eight years later, NetDevil is re-visiting the game, and bringing it into the competitive realm of AAA MMOs with the aptly named Jumpgate Evolution. This new offering will encourage players to once again take to the cockpit to pilot their way to power and fame.
#4 Champions Online
;)
First, and before anyone starts to throw a hissy fit in my general direction, I do realize that, for all intents and purposes, Champions Online is not a sequel. It's actually the first game in a franchise. The reason that I've included it on this list is because, as the second ever superhero genre MMO, from the same company the produced the first ever superhero MMO, Champions Online has carried all of the same expectations with it that any other follow-up game would. Call it the spiritual successor to Cryptic's City of Heroes if that helps. If not, please feel free to head onto the forums to tell me how dumb I am.
Cryptic, informed by the successes and failures of CoH, set out to create another successful interpretation of the comic book inspired superhero game. As a result, Champions carries over many of the successful aspects of its predecessor, such as the robust character customization and improves upon them (more costume choices, more power set choices, etc.)
There's no doubt that Champions as a successor to City of Heroes evolves the original Cryptic-designed concepts of the genre, but as development continues on CoH under new management at Paragon Studios (NCsoft) it will be interesting to see if and when the offspring surpasses the parent game.
Sequel in the making - Guild Wars 2
There is a lot of hope for ArenaNet's most recent follow-up to the massively successful Guild Wars franchise. While many credit Blizzard's World of Warcraft for the boom in MMO popularity, a nod must also be given to ArenaNet's no-subscription contribution to the MMO scene which brought in players looking for an RPG experience more robust than a single player game, but who weren't quite ready to pay for a game monthly.
Guild Wars 2, set 200 years after its predecessors, promises to improve on the original game in a way that should appeal to most fans of MMOs and put to rest fears that GW2 might fall into the same classification hole that the earlier games did: This game will take place on one, persistent world with instancing used far more judiciously.
With a focus on storytelling, old problems resolved, and a highly recognizable name on its box, Guild Wars 2 is likely to draw the attention of more than a few gamers.
More The List Features:
More Columns:
More Features:
Yet it became the basic template for most of the mmo's today. EQ1 + AC2 = Modern MMO's.
Good article.
AC2 definitely alienated much of the AC1 fans IMO. I thought it was ok and would have thought better of it if it had not had the Asheron's Call name. It was way too different from what I liked about AC1 and was probably too early for a sequel.
I still look forward to another AC game. I like very much the loot and skill point system they have.
On a brighter note I really hope Planetside 2 is going to be made. It is nice to see Sony asking the questions for it. Now we just need a survey from Turbine about the next chapter of AC.
Rumor's also afloat about 2 of the games on your list and them being expanded upon into a trilogy. NCSoft has supposedly begun working on Lineage 3, while I can't find an accurate source that can confirm or deny this I think it is highly plausible. Likewise, supposedly EverQuest 3 is in development behind closed doors somewhere, however I much doubt this one as it took them this long just to get GH in EQ2, which were advertised as coming soon on the original release box *cough*
I would have ranked the anticipation for GW2 up a little more, but then again with the inclusion of GWF and GWNF does it more make it the 4th game in the series then the second?
All in all it was a pretty good list.
---
Lineage 3 Blog http://lineage3.wordpress.com/
I'm a little bit dissapointed Ragnarok Online 2 wasn't mentioned, even though it never had a western release.
Sequels being canceled or not doing as good is really nothing new, we have seen it was Asherons Call and Everquest 2, which still did good but never reached the popularity of the original.
But Ragnarok Online was different. While Asherons Call had a respectable subscriber base, Ragnarok Online was one of the biggest mmorpgs in the world and was often seen as a popular alternative to NCsoft's Lineage series.
Ragnarok Online 2, on the other hand for some reason completely crashed and burned. It's now down to 2 open beta servers which appear to be nearly empty. I think Ragnarok Online 2 might just be the biggest drop in popularity in a sequel.
You could have added Ultima Online 2 as the shortest lived MMO sequel in history :D
I wasn't going to mention it, but the author mentioned the GuildWars "sequels," so now I have to.
If we use the same logic applied to GuildWars, then City of Villains is the direct sequel to City of Heroes. The game was built to be stand-alone, you didn't need CoH to play CoV, if you subscribed to CoH you still had to buy CoV, they didn't come in a single box. And it continued the "City of" franchise. It was the direct sequel to City of Heroes.
I agree fully that Champions online is a spiritual sequel to City of Heroes, after all CoH was originally based loosely on the Champions pen-and-paper RPG. Also, a lot of stuff in CO was first proposed for CoH. For example, in early beta the powers for CoH worked how they work in CO now, and the Nemesis system was originally proposed for CoH. But, City of Villains beat CO to the CoH sequel punch.
I was getting REALLY worried when I got to Lineage II as number 2, and then saw FFXIV underneath it, that you wouldn't be including EQ2 xD Eq2 had a rocky start IMO, but it became a really great game. I'm excited about FFXIV as well :) and GW2.
I'm actually hoping for another Everquest. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I just hope they go "back to their roots" more with a more group-oriented game-play experience.
The article does little more than describing minor facts of sequel games. If you're going for lists of games around some topic, then I would suggest looking at the »20 Game Design Essentials« series over at Gamasutra (e.g. Game Design Essentials: 20 RPGs) for some inspiration.
Another take would be like «5 ways to do mounts» «10 lessons learned from PVP systems» and things like that, that's more a documenting style with some opinions on what works better and what lesser. Could be interesting for people as well, who might hear of games they haven't heard of before or learn how other games tackle common problems. If you add some opinions, then there is a base for discussion, too.
Generally, getting away some more from blog posts would be nice. For some nice ideas, also see the awesome retrospective series (Zelda Retrospective or Final Fantasy Retrospective). Just trying to be constructive here :)
I agree with the first part of this post completly. I do not agree with Champions being a "spiritual sequel" to anything. If you use that method of classification, then there are multiple "spiritual sequel"s out there. To put a game into that category just because it's genre has limited examples makes no sense.
I agree with the first part of this post completly. I do not agree with Champions being a "spiritual sequel" to anything. If you use that method of classification, then there are multiple "spiritual sequel"s out there. To put a game into that category just because it's genre has limited examples makes no sense.
The game wasn't put there "simply because it's genre has limited examples" I'd think the biggest reason it is there which you totally ignored in your response is because the maker of COH is the maker of CO and as stated by the guy you even quoted it is really a spiritual successor if for no other reason than the fact that most of what is in CO are really every idea they had for COH but never implimented.
You nailed it about AC2. What we wanted what a sequel of AC 1 not an entirely different game. If AC2 would have been based on the AC 1 game mechanic it would still be running today.
Your definitely not alone
The game wasn't put there "simply because it's genre has limited examples" I'd think the biggest reason it is there which you totally ignored in your response is because the maker of COH is the maker of CO and as stated by the guy you even quoted it is really a spiritual successor if for no other reason than the fact that most of what is in CO are really every idea they had for COH but never implimented.
Except Cryptic wasn't the only company involved in CoX. NCSoft is also the maker of CoX and when Cryptic left, the game it help make was noticeable improved. And from what I hear so far, the problems with CO are the same type of problems CoX had when Cryptic was involved. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by a "spiritual sucessor".
I would say Vanguard was the "Spiritual" successor to Everquest.
Either way, what's the point of the list?
Yeah we wanted AC1 with better graphics...instead we got crap, pretty crap, but crap.
Very true. But what finally ended up killing it was the *endless* stream of "issues" and Turbine and Microsoft pointing fingers at each other. Hell, it got so bad at some points if you will remember, that even the basic chat system was broken. Not to mention the multiple times they broke the combat system, server sync and lord knows what else. Add all of that together and throw in Turbine closing down the game, right after selling us the expansion... And you have why many of us do not trust Turbine any more.
Yeah, you know sequels are an important element in any genera of entertainment except music itself. But I think only a few games can title there new creations as being "sequels" Those games are final fantasy, kings quest, and all those games that sort of invented the idea of "sequels." In general all mmos need to continue to label there additions and updates as they currently do. i.e. Eve , Jumpgate, PWI, Runes of Magic, and all those that don't put a number 2 or 3.... beside their new titles. In other words, a "sequel is implied by simply updating their titles.
i thought this was gonna be a sequels we should have and was gonna rage so hard over it. Good article but i am a firm believer that MMO's should only ever have a sequal if the original is over 5 years old.
Shouldn't Star Wars:TOR be listed? I know it will be by a different company, but its still going to be the second Star Wars MMO.
It is certainly not alone out there but AC2 was a game that never should have been cancelled. It could just not keep up its population though.
The tree system of abilities we still see in current MMO’s but watered down, the AC2 paths defined your character more than the paths you can take in WoW or AOC for example. The setting, of lost races reforging their empires is now a MMO staple.
Apart form that is was just a damn fine game.
Guild Wars Trilogy?
It's "Guild Wars Tetralogy" as you seem to have forgotten the third expansion "Eye of the North".
The game wasn't put there "simply because it's genre has limited examples" I'd think the biggest reason it is there which you totally ignored in your response is because the maker of COH is the maker of CO and as stated by the guy you even quoted it is really a spiritual successor if for no other reason than the fact that most of what is in CO are really every idea they had for COH but never implimented.
If you follow that path of thinking, then Vanguard : Saga of Heroes is the "spiritual successor" to Everquest. It also was developed by people who worked on the original Everquest, and Impliments ideas the original Everquest didn't/couldn't use. In fact, I think I even remember reading an interview where the term "spiritual succesor to Everquest" was used. Why wasn't that on the list? I still maintain it has to do with limited entries in the superhero genre for MMOs.
With all due respect. Doing these weekly is difficult. Some topics you're going to like, some you're not. While going into various design elements of MMOs would be great, we already have columnists who do that.
EyE of the North was actually a classic expansion, I believe. Not a stand-alone.
It's not "because there are limited options in the genre." The reasons I laid out in the article pretty much speak for themselves. As for Vanguard. I suppose, sure, that's true. Though with EQII already well out the door by the time Vanguard was made, the expectations that were put on the game weren't that of a sequel. Claiming to be a spiritual successor to sell a few boxes isn't the same as being one.
Champions, on the other hand, has been held up by media and players as a follow-up to City of Heroes since it was first announced. Either way, you're free to have your opinion.
I'm a huge fan of sequels and prequels, because it adds to the original story. I'm the type that has read every Star Wars adult novels ranging from the Old Republic times to the New Republic times. The type that reads entire series of books.
I'd be thrilled if more MMO's, the good ones, made sequels. The problem is that most MMO's don't have a central story, so making a sequel is essentially just creating a different time period. If all you're doing is advancing the time line, you could do that with an expansion. In fact, you can even advance the story with expansions, so a sequel isn't really necessary. But still, sequels would benefit the genre by allowing an older game to bow out gracefully, and allowing developers to create a similar game with updated features. For example, fans of DAoC have been clamoring for a sequel for years. DAoC is still a decent looking game, but the gameplay, animations, and movement is archaic compared to modern day MMO's. So Mythic could really do the game justice by creating a sequel that captures the essence of DAoC, and implementing all the things they wished they could do with DAoC in DAoC 2. So you'd have a sequel that looks a lot better, plays a lot smoother, and contains modern day features that gamers have come to expect, yet are still able to get the same experience they got in the old DAoC.
Where sequels fail is when they do too much different. The core audience of sequels are the players who played the first game. So it's bad to alienate them by introducing a sequel that doesn't play or really remind them of the original game at all. So I think Sequels could work for this genre, but they need to really be successors of the original game, not a totally different game than the original, where the only thing the two games share is lore, the name, and maybe a few features.
Actually your more right then you think :). In music plenty of artists have the problem of, 'second album syndrome', where the first record by them is so well recieved that theres a huge pressure to do better with the second or in their ego induced way do something completely different. If your looking for an example compare Justin Timberlakes first two albums with Ascherons Calls first two games.
Both had successful first outings which established a fanbase but that said fanbase got very annoyed when their second realease was very different and didn't conform to their standards or go down a similar route. Lucky for Mr Timberpants he doesn't have sever costs and a monthly fee to think about :). It might be strecthing the concept of sequels a bit but it is their in music :)
Anyway good article, I don't always find all of these weekly articles of interest but I'm glad MMORPG is expanding these sort of things so good work and keep it up :)
Kind of an interesting fact when discussing sequel's, that Wow is really a sequel of EQ done by it's players. The top echelon of Blizzard's Wow team were all ex EQ raiders who wanted to do a better design. When you get down to it, most of MMO's today are EQ sequels. They use the same formula with few variations. A sequel does not have to be identified by a similar name.
If you did COH and CO then you should have put warhammer as DAOC 2 in there also. Different IP yes, but definitly it was same the company, same genre, and even feature their same patented "RvR".
And like a previous poster said about why AC2 failed so did Warhammer failed. Instead of making WH a DAOC 2 they alienated every mythic fan that was salivating over Mythic's next project.
What a load of crap, Champions is more a spirtual successor to CoX rather than a sequal (would you call Bioshock and prequal to system shock?).
Guild War's stand alone expansions? Not really sequals.
Oh well, Jon article's are normally decent so i'll let him have a couple of mistakes.
Jon,
Actually, you are correct on the fact that Champions is a sequel. For two reasons: Sequels are in fact spiritual successors of previous works. (1) CoH was cryptics work and also the fact that it is the (2) successor of the pen and paper game becuase if I read correctly much of the content takes off from where the p+p left off.
So you are right in a technical way.
Sorry, no abuse here.
And, I am going to be happy to get back into the FF Online franchise through the release of XIV. That was the one game that I wish I never left. And to top it off I left it for wow.
I deserve abuse for that alone.
Best,
Frank
Like other posters...I would love a new Everquest to be in SOE's plans.
Turbine really needs to do a REAL sequel to Asheron's Call. AC2 was not worthy of the Asheron's Call name. I still feel it was just a tech demo for Turbine that helped them procure rights to DnD and LOTR.
I also think it is fair to call Champions Online a sequel to City of Heroes/Villians...because that is what it is. Same goes for WAR and DAOC.
I am surprised SW:TOR wasn't discussed because it really is a done-right-this-time sequel (prequel acutally) to SWG.
Oh, I din't see Dofus-Arena and Wakfu spin-off and sequel to Dofus.
A good column thoug, as usual.
Turbine did do a real sequel it's just that AC 1 fanbois are simple minded and couldn't see it. I have played both and AC2 is far and away a better overall product with better gameplay. Just a shame that they had to release it to far in advance.. Here is a post from another player that saw the similarities of the two that others failed to see. I think this guy hit it right on the spot.
Posted by BesCirga
No, cleary its your line of thinking is the wrong choice. He got to enjoy a great game, did you? I swear, everytime I read these kind of posts, AC2 wasnt AC1 with updated graphics - /whine, I smile alittle. Not because they are funny, but rather of their ignorance. Most former AC1 players, me included, had a hard time recognizing AC1's features through AC2 layout. We didnt see what we wanted to see, but AC1 and AC2 are/was almost identical with minor differences.
•Level/Skill hybid system with skills raised by earned XP
•Both games had the same twitchy combat
•melee/missile/magic defense and offense system
•Both had seamless worlds to explore
•Full random loot system
•Same death penalty
These are the things AC2 had taken from AC1 that was important to me. There were many more features taken from AC1, which were just presented differently in AC2.
Some differences between the two:
•In AC1; you set your "skill setup" in Character Creation and improved your current setup as you leveled. In AC2; you build your "skill setup" as you leveled up. (I choose not to say class because in teory, you didnt need to be one)
•AC1 had stats, AC2 didnt. Atleast not viewable.
•AC2 had a functional and enjoyable melee combat system. A pure melee build wasnt "inferior" like in AC1.
•AC1 had housing
•AC2 had mounts
Even with these diffences, the core of AC1 RPG rules and gameplay was put into AC2. Blaming Turbine for you not recognizing the features, seems rather silly to me. You even hail AC1 for their semi-twitch combat system, dodging arrows and spells FTW!... when the truth is, AC2 had the very same thing. Identical.
One thing is sure. Turbine had a lose - lose situation pleasing the AC1 fans...
I just pray that EQ next is better than EQ2 was a sequal..
EQ2 was the first MMO that really let down my expecations for the future of this genre...took all i liked about EQ and made it into a linear world you could barely recongise...no wonder since its expansions are all nostoglia EQ1 trips..
And how can your sequals cahracter models be more bland and dull than the originals..hmm
Actually CO lured the pnp game into a dark alley and mugged it. The two don't have very much in common. The rules are way different and the IP has enough key differences to keep it from being called a "spiritual successor". For example the pnp main villain, Dr.Destroyer, is a technological genius determined to take over the world. In CO he's a mystic who wants to deliver the world to his Lovecraftian overlords. Anyone familiar with any version of the pnp game knows that Destroy submits to no one.
Also look at Defender, what kind of powered armor leaves half his face and all of his neck exposed?
They also already brought Planetside2.com. However only logical before someone else does. My guess this game is very early in the development stage (The building of requirement documentation, hence the poll) and maybe some early designs. Looking forward to it though. However my faith in SoE is not to big and big change it will not be anything like PS1.
Well your list clearly shows that mmo sequals are a bad idea.
There is also no need to make a sequal of an mmo, you can keep improviing and adding to an mmo, that is the whole point.
So far I have not seen any successfull sequal to an existing mmo, that did not split up the playerbase and where the sum of the parts became bigger than the original.
If you make a sequal to an mmo, you are basically admitting failure with your original.
Clearly one of the few examples of how it should be done is EVE Online, with free expansions, a future vision ( even tho I don't always agree with where they are going ) and keep improving graphics, sound ( uhm yah nm that ) and gameplay.
Perhaps Guild Wars 2 may be different, but the 1st part can hardly be called an mmo anyway. And Jumpgate Evoluion will be very different from Jumpgate ( which has such low sub number it will be hard to do worse ).
So back to my point, mmo sequals are a bad idea and admitting you failed on your 1st attempt and did not try to fix it.
Without the horror show that was AO's launch...<shudder>. I swear to this very day, when someone uses the phrase worst launch, AO's comes to mind automatically. I'm always amazed that they managed recover to the extent that they did from that.
[quote]Originally posted by CyberWiz
[b]Well your list clearly shows that mmo sequals are a bad idea.
There is also no need to make a sequal of an mmo, you can keep improviing and adding to an mmo, that is the whole point.[/quote]
Well I was mentioning Wakfu and Dofus earlier... they prove this point. Wakfu is at the moment a seni-failure. It's still in beta (after a year) so there's still hope... But the open beta, after almost two years of hyping it, has deceived a lot of people, because most announced features were not there. (Yes, the fact that is was a Beta has been made countless times... but nowadays, open betas are supposed to be complete games and only to track the last few bugs, not just a sneak peek of a game.) That gives credit to this column and this one too, I guess.
On the other hand Dofus 2.) is launching in December. Now it has been in development as long as Wakfu, but only a screenshot here and there has been released. It's "only" graphics and performance enhancement, not a full new game, but it does resolves the problem of aging graphics.
And "soon" there will be Roma Victor 2.
Which will actually be the game everyone wanted 3 years ago.
It's not "because there are limited options in the genre." The reasons I laid out in the article pretty much speak for themselves. As for Vanguard. I suppose, sure, that's true. Though with EQII already well out the door by the time Vanguard was made, the expectations that were put on the game weren't that of a sequel. Claiming to be a spiritual successor to sell a few boxes isn't the same as being one.
Champions, on the other hand, has been held up by media and players as a follow-up to City of Heroes since it was first announced. Either way, you're free to have your opinion.
It was? Sorry, my bad.
Having played AO several times and I do like it. Just not the interface (wish they would modernize it). I was wondering if Fallen Earth is anything like it. I'm going to get FA in the next few days to check it out I think.
Yes, this. If they were to take the spirit of EQ1 add modern day visuals and features, they would have a big winner.
And this would be a good thing.
Sequels only work if they build on what has come before and not change everything that make the original good.
I just wonder when Blizzard will make Wow 2?
Only EA loves making sequls more than Blizzard. Diablo 2 & 3, Warcraft 2 & 3, Battlechess 2, Starcraft 2...
It would surprise me a lot if Blizzard wont make a Wow2, even though it wont be anything we see in the next few years, no need to compete with themselves.
well the key thing IF they want to make a sequel is to not alienate your current player base. if nothing else you will sustain current subscribers with a good familiar design, so if current players are tired of the old game will find the new one a nice change of pace.
Plus if they add a few new elements and make the game have more re-play value as well as fun activities within the game that give it more addictive playability the better.
That way they may gain new subscribers as well as appease your already fanbase. Consistency, value, quality and overall fun seem to be some key factors to paying close attention also when doing a sequel. And reading reviews about your own game can help a good bit, plus in-game questionaires of the original. that way they can really get a feel for what worked and what didn't and carry over all the favorite things of the original. Then add some more possibly innovative elements.
But hey, i'm just sayin...
Im shocked that you did not include Ultima Online and its endless expansions (or sequels by definition), for anyone who started out on UO i have found that most are still looking for a game that includes so many facets as this pioneer of the mmo era. But still a very good article.
I'm looking forward to FF 14! Should be an interesting game. Too bad DaOC didn't have a sequel. Great game! And of course UO-it just never updated itself with graphics.
Blame Microsoft.
Blame Microsoft.
Thats usually a good place to start...
But I was there for most of that sorry mess. There is much more than enough blame to go around for both of them. Not to mention that Mickysoft was long out of the picture, when Turbine sold us an expansion and then closed the game down not that long afterwards.
EVE Online is on its 3rd iteration and soon to be fourth in 2010.
Yours in Eve Plasma,
Star*Dagger
Final Fantasy XIV is not a PS3 Exclusive, S-E has even said so themselves. They are working with Microsoft and would like to bring FFXIV to the 360.
Does anyone care about Console mmos? Is that even possible without a proper PC?
OK maybe possible, but why?
Yours in PC Gamer Plasma,
Star*Dagger
Does anyone care about Console mmos? Is that even possible without a proper PC?
OK maybe possible, but why?
Yours in PC Gamer Plasma,
Star*Dagger
CCP seems to care about consoles, as DUST 514 will be first released on them. Current generation consoles have some advantages over PC's in terms of coding for them(standard hardware and SDK's). They also tap in to a different(but in some cases overlapping) demographic. The downside is they aren't nearly as effective when dealing with FPS style games. No standard interface so far has beaten the mouse, keyboard for smooth game play, and ease of access to many functions. A non FPS MMO on the other hand might be possible, if its controls are well thought out and implimented. But I suspect it would still suffer from the inherent limitations of the controller. Not to mention that the physical skills involved in PC's do not transfer over to console controllers.
CCP seems to care about consoles, as DUST 514 will be first released on them. Current generation consoles have some advantages over PC's in terms of coding for them(standard hardware and SDK's). They also tap in to a different(but in some cases overlapping) demographic. The downside is they aren't nearly as effective when dealing with FPS style games. No standard interface so far has beaten the mouse, keyboard for smooth game play, and ease of access to many functions. A non FPS MMO on the other hand might be possible, if its controls are well thought out and implimented. But I suspect it would still suffer from the inherent limitations of the controller. Not to mention that the physical skills involved in PC's do not transfer over to console controllers.
CCP is making Dust 514 to LINK INTO the EVE universe, making the console masses minions of the capsule-pilots playing EVE on the PC (and 2 or so on the Mac, lol)
Good point about CCP "caring", only CCP could, in a single stroke, both make money off of, insult and entertain console users.
Yours in PC Gaming Mastery Plasma,
Star*Dagger
I long for the day they make DAoC2. It doesn't look like they have any interest in it with EA in charge.... WAR was ok, but no DAoC, they got some good idea, but man I miss all the classes they had in DAoC. Since Mark Jacob left Mythic, all hope is gone. I think Mythic still owns all rights to DAoC, so even if Mark wanted to make DAoC2, he couldn't..
Jon, one part of your EverQuest II section is incorrect:
First, in 2004, EverQuest Online Adventures, a PS2 exclusive prequel to the original game that failed to garner the same kind of attention as the original. Then, the next year, SOE launched EverQuest II to much fanfare.
Not right. EQOA launched in early 2003. EverQuest II launched two weeks before World of Warcraft in November of 2004.
Otherwise, nice article.
Interesting article. Great to see Everquest 2 in the #1 spot--it's much deserved.