Originally posted by disownation

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by Dubhlaith

 

---

Originally posted by kaltoum
People keep saying it had potential and that it was good and different. However, good games do not die but bad ones do. If it was really that different more players would be playing it. It was same with tabula rasa, similar comments about how much potential it had. And yet the population kept dwindling every month. Bad games shut down why? because  bad games don't make profit for the company. Potential alone isn't enough to bring profit.

---

 

Actually, they died for very similar reasones.

1: The combat system was new and very different from what MMO players were expecting. This alone through a great many people off of the game from the start, and they did not enjoy it.

2: They were not given the proper marketing by their publisher, and so the niche people that may have enjoyed it were much less likely to hear about the game.

3: When the game did not have a spectacular launch, little to no effort was put into making the changes that would entice players to try the game. Spellborn did a bit better with this, but ultimately Acclaim ruined any chances they had.

 

 

 

Important note:

It is a common fallacy that good games/books/films succeed and bad ones fail. Popular ones succeed and unpopular ones fail. Things do not usually become popular by being good. They sometimes stay popular by being good, but not always. Thing become popular by becoming known, and they become known through advert and other methods of marketing/dissemination of the information. Remember, if people do not know about a thing, they cannot like it.

Here are to good examples of why this logic is a fallacy, from history where we can have a long perspective: Edgar Allan Poe, and Van Gogh. Both are widely regarded, today, as one of the very best in their fields of all time. However, they both died before people found out about or began to like their work. So, their work was amazing, but it was not successful for many, many years. Their work failed because it was unpopular at the time, not because it was bad. I feel like I can safely assert that their work was very good.

So, from this we can assume that good does not always equal successful.

 

 

 

I hope this information has been enlightening for you. It is important to me that people begin to understand this about games, as most people already understand it for other works of art. Simply saying "it failed because it is bad" ignores the real problem, and does not help people figure out what really went wrong. And developers and publishers need to understand what went wrong so they can try to prevent it in the future. Even if you did not like the game, there are others who did, and it is sad to see them lose a game they care about. I myself enjoyed this game for several months before I quit. The reason we have many different games is that one person will not like what another likes. That alone does not make them bad games; it simply makes them different tastes.

 I highly disagree with the italicized part of your post. Elitest and snobish people want to believe that differet/artsy/under-appreciated things are good. In fact they automatically think they are better when no one else accepts them. It is an invalid way of looking at things.

 

I feel that a lot of shows/movies/games that did not do well were great. But I have a different taste then the majority. Just because my taste is different doesn't mean the things I like are better and the majority can't realize it, all it means is that for my taste it is better.

 

Good is also a very subjective term in these cases, I see two different ways of something being referred to as good. First is that it does well. This is a very straight-forward way of evaluating a product and it is one that doesn't leave much room for argument. If it does well then it is good, if it doesn't then it is bad.

 

Second is how it appeals to a certain audience, it's enjoyment/depth/artistic elements etc. This is a purely opinionated level of good and different tastes will pick different things to be good. The problem is this is what you were referring to, and it is never a fact. But the elitest groups tend to think that their views (which are never in the majority, and one of the reasons they like their views so much - because they're different) are the correct ones. Therefore anything they find to be good is good and everything else i bad. No other factors play into it. Problem is that is opinion and not ever fact.

 

I just get tired of people not seperating facts from opinions when making statements like that. The strange part is you acknowledge that in your final paragraph, which directly contradicts the italicized portion.

 

Whenever a game decides to be VERY different from the competition it will generally not do well. People do not adapt well to sudden changes so they can't stick with it. Change needs to be gradual, which is why all the successful games change 1 or 2 pieces but keep the rest of the game the same as what people are used to. Fortunatly the bright side is companies tend to look at those failed games and then take the best pieces to add to future games, so the changes (assuming it is thought they can be successful) will still show up again.

 

 

And yet. people scream for something new and different, innovating. Yet when something comes along, they cry that its "not the same" as other MMOs. What? People can't have their cake and eat it too. You cannot have different but the same. And even when you do have an MMO that deviates just a little from the norm - gives a little bit of difference -  people still state that its not "innovative".

 

I am so confused by some. I'm most certain developers are as well. Developers can't offer people what they want when the people don't even know what they want to begin with. Boggles the mind.

 

That said, this was a great and unique MMO. I am sad to see it go. Sometimes, even the good games lose. Like someone said prior. Good and bad does not determine success. Popularity does.

 the problem was this game sucked and had really no fun factor.

SnarlingWolf, I provided empirical evidence to support my point. There are many examples of something that, today, is regarded by the vast majority of people as brilliant and masterful, that was a complete failure during its time. There are nearly as many example of this as there are of something being incredibly popular during its day.

You cannot say it is elitist when something is regarded as excellent around the world. History has proven my point time and again. There are people that say they like weird and different things for the sake of it, but you cannot say that is the case with the evidence I provided. And for the record, those people annoy the crap out of me.

I did not contradict myself. Kaltoum said that Spellborn was bad, and that is why it failed. You failed to distinguish between fact and opinion, not I. I asserted that something fails because it is unpopular, regardless of it being good or bad. A bad game could be unpopular, and it could be unpopular because it is bad, but that is not always the case, as you implied.

It is not just my opinion when almost everyone around the world has the same opinion. I can safely assert that Van Gogh was one of the best artists of all time because this is a well known idea. Almost all art critics would say the same thing, and most everyone else as well. Therefore, we can know that he did not fail as an artist because his art was bad. We all know it was good. He failed because he was unpopular, and in his case he was unpopular because he was different.

I am not saying Spellborn was one of the best games of all time, but it was also unpopular because it was different, not because it was bad. It seems to be you are having a hard time understanding my point, which is a serious problem among gamers, and people in all fields. You think your opinion is the truth, and what you do not like must be bad.

What is interesting to me is that you say basically what I was saying in your last paragraph, even though the rest of your post is devoted to refuting me. Nevertheless, I provided real world evidence to support the idea, and this is a well known idea among art critics of any genre. What is good is not always popular, and what is popular is not always good. What is popular is what gets known, and in this day and age, things get known by marketing. If you have poor marketing, you will be unpopular unless there is a massive word-of-mouth campaign by fans, regardless of how good you are.

And though you seem think I was saying something about what makes something good or not good, and you try to explain that what makes something good is subjective, I agree with most of what you said in the paragraph. I would ask you to re-read my post and find where I asserting anything different.

If you want more modern examples, look at the plethora of television programmes that are cancelled because they did not have enough viewers during the first season, even though they received broad critical acclaim. They are good shows that were unpopular because they were not well-marketed.

I just get frustrated when people do not pay attention or understand something, and then rail against it without thinking about or trying to understand that point that was made. Remember, I was and I am not trying to define what is good, and I do not disagree with you that what is good is subjective, but I am saying one simple thing that I will try to impress upon everyone again, because it is important.

Good does not equal popular.
Bad does not equal unpopular.
Because good and bad are subjective for the most part, there can be no direct correlation between the two ideas.

Let me try again.

Good /= popular.
Bad /= unpopular.

Looks like its allready shut down , I have not been able to log in for a few days " says No universe availble"  all these game that close should have there open source online for anyone that wants to run a free server ..

I don't know how we can argue if it was a good game or not...in this industry, good games have players, and this one did not.

I think its death itself says that it either wasnt good enough or it wasnt managed properly. Either way, we the consumers decide what's a good game...and sadly for them we decided this one wasn't good.

Evolution of MMOs can't be achieved without the death of those who can't compete. it's a necessity. Sucks beig on the losing side but somebody has to be there too.

It was a good concept of game. The combat system might not of been popular, but it worked quite well, was fluid, and offered enough diversity between the classes to where the skill selection was unique and plentiful. The game dared to be very different in terms of character development and equipment during the process of character development. It sounded good on paper, but it felt almost shallow to me.

Regardless, the game had all the makings of a good game. The atmosphere was great, the character models and animations weren't bad, the classes and skills unique and flavorful, the game world offered various environments, an engaging storyline, a unique combat system that managed to be as fluid as most mainstream systems. The problem is it was just a concept or a shell.

There was no content, nothing to break the monotony, nothing to steer you away or even attempt at hiding/disguising the grind of quests and levels. Max level there was nothing to do, no feats to accomplish, no goals to achieve. The leveling process, while pretty and fluid in terms of going from sight A to B and whathaveyou, was very bland due to lack of anything other than quests. A late added attempt at group instanced content was too late and too little.

Had the game been fleshed out with more content the story would of been different. Niche and small, but we wouldn't be in this boat. Hell, had they went with different publishers and actually had the means to advertise it would of been another story. Just a bunch of what-ifs and shoulda-beens.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by Dubhlaith

Important note:

It is a common fallacy that good games/books/films succeed and bad ones fail. Popular ones succeed and unpopular ones fail. Things do not usually become popular by being good. They sometimes stay popular by being good, but not always. Thing become popular by becoming known, and they become known through advert and other methods of marketing/dissemination of the information. Remember, if people do not know about a thing, they cannot like it.

 I highly disagree with the italicized part of your post. Elitest and snobish people want to believe that differet/artsy/under-appreciated things are good. In fact they automatically think they are better when no one else accepts them. It is an invalid way of looking at things.

 [...]

Good is also a very subjective term in these cases, I see two different ways of something being referred to as good. First is that it does well. This is a very straight-forward way of evaluating a product and it is one that doesn't leave much room for argument. If it does well then it is good, if it doesn't then it is bad.

Yes, any kind of in-group may have things they love and think it's objectively awesome and out-group people are just too stupid/lazy/etc to get into it. And sometimes they want to preserve the perceived awesomeness for themselves, by guarding it (defend over-complex systems, clunky design, steep learning curves etc.). Granted. AND? It's a fallacy to apply this pladitudes to any case.

If you want to approach it rationally, you identify different components that are chained up like a signal chain. If the signal ends up noisy or out of tune, to stay with the metaphor, it can have many different reasons. Some are within the game, some are not. Sold Bad = Bad Game is obviously flawed logically. To put it extreme: what if you made a scientific experiment with two groups (one control group): in one case you show them the game "World of Warcraft" and measure their enjoyment, and in the other case you don't tell them anything at all and just leave them waiting ("game is not known, not released control group"). Then you look at their enjoyment and ask them if they would like to repeat the experience or recommend it to friends.

I will give this game it's due respect. It did something for me that no other game could- made me PvP. I used to go out of my way to NOT PvP in games. This game opened me up to it now. I liked that the skill combinations coupled with player reflexes (a good internet speed also helped) made for interesting duels. I topped out  an Adept and got schooled by lower level players who knew the right combos to throw at me and had better reflexes/anticipation. I also learned how to PvP and started to beat higher level characters who didn't understand the mechanics. I guess everyone has different ideas about what is fun. For me, I really enjoyed the system and hoped they would continue to expand on the game. Sadly for me, not enough people shared my enthusiasm for this game to be financially sound. It was also classic to have weapons and armor be all the same as far as damage and defense power. Nothing like wearing clothes, armed with a dagger and owning a guy in full plate armor with a 2 handed sword....

Doesn't matter whether it was a good game or not, I am sorry for anyone who lost their game. It's unfortunate to lose something you enjoy regardless of what others think.

Darn. It sucks when a game shuts down. Even if only 5 people that were still playing that means 5 people are without a place to call home. :P

Welcome to MMORPG. I like to call it limbo.

This is really depressing news to me. I loved this game, but haven't played it in a long while because it was clear that it was not getting any content patches for a long time. All this game needed was content and players. Everything else, the combat, classes, char progression and customisation, atmosphere (this game has some of the best music I've heard in a video game. the login screen is amazing) and a great art direction. The game needed fleshing out, but how many games don't need some polish when released.

Anyone who says this game failed because it was a bad game either has no clue or did not play it and is simply trolling. Even if you played it and didn't like it it would be hard not to see the potential in the game, and how it could be successful if it was given a chance to grow. It wasn't perfect but it was far superior than many releases that have been around for ages. If anything Spellborn proves that building a very good game isn't enough to ensure success nowdays. You have to have a plan for how it will be delivered, how it will be funded and how it will be supported. All the devs fantastic work went down the drain because they chose a publisher that had no idea how to turn a raw product into a success. Imagine this game in the hands of Turbine.

Not very surprising, but horrible news all the same. I am simply gutted.

EDIT: It likely won't make a shred of difference, but here's a petition to sign if you feel as strongly as I and others do.

http://www.petitiononline.com/tcos/petition.html

Originally posted by SynthetickRegardless, the game had all the makings of a good game. The atmosphere was great, the character models and animations weren't bad, the classes and skills unique and flavorful, the game world offered various environments, an engaging storyline, a unique combat system that managed to be as fluid as most mainstream systems. The problem is it was just a concept or a shell.

There was no content, nothing to break the monotony, nothing to steer you away or even attempt at hiding/disguising the grind of quests and levels. Max level there was nothing to do, no feats to accomplish, no goals to achieve. The leveling process, while pretty and fluid in terms of going from sight A to B and whathaveyou, was very bland due to lack of anything other than quests. A late added attempt at group instanced content was too late and too little.

Thing is the game only got a couple of content pages after release before it went FTP. They should have been a bit more frequent, but it highlights the issue with this game which was not enough support.

That said, everything you mentioned was more or less true.

*waves to Czelsior and other TCoS refugees*

@ robokapp - it DID have players, and recent ones, the petition proves that.

The only thing that ruined this game was the lack of support and publicity and the endless changes in management.

The players of The Chronicles of Spellborn were recently informed the game will be closing at the end of this month.

Since Acclaim sold out to Playdom months ago our community has been ignored by all administrators/moderators/support team and have been fighting keep the game going by contacting all the companies involved.

Acclaim did not reply to any e-mails.
Playdom replied stating they have no involvement in the game.
Spellborn NV did not reply.
Frogster directed us to their German site even after being told the correspondent was English and therefore unable to use a German site.

This latest news about the game’s closure was not received by Playdom, but by a Games.com writer who received an e-mail from Playdom informing them of this decision, this seems strange as they informed us they are not involved in the game.  They way in which each of these companies have treated the players is disgraceful to say the least.

We love this game, and do not want it to end.

The players have created a petition here to keep the game online –http://www.petitiononline.com/tcos/petition.html

We have appealed to Playdom to review their decision but are not hopeful of a reply.

A couple of days ago after numerous game sites reported on the players attempts to contact "someone" "anyone"  there finally appeared this post on our forum, locked by an Acclaim representative I doubt any of us have heard of -

"

TCOS will no longer be in service effective Aug 25, 2010

We regret to inform you that The Chronicles of Spellborn will no longer be in service effective August 25, 2010 ACCLAIM COINS Please spend all of your remaining Acclaim Coins by Aug 25. Otherwise, any unused Acclaim Coins can be reimbursed by emailing contact@acclaim.com. OTHER GAMES Check out other Playdom games at http://www.facebook.com/Playdom Or sign up to test our new game Kogamu at http://apps.facebook.com/kogamugame Please contact customer support with any questions or concerns at: contact@acclaim.com Thank you for your support!

Yesterday I received word of a friend actually receiving a reply from a Frogster representative.  It states that Frogster are in discussions with Spellborn NV about the game, but as we all know, they are in court proceedings with each other due to financial problems, so I am guessing NOTHING can be resolved until this is over.

All we can do is wait :) xx

Originally posted by Amarok44

Originally posted by SynthetickRegardless, the game had all the makings of a good game. The atmosphere was great, the character models and animations weren't bad, the classes and skills unique and flavorful, the game world offered various environments, an engaging storyline, a unique combat system that managed to be as fluid as most mainstream systems. The problem is it was just a concept or a shell.

There was no content, nothing to break the monotony, nothing to steer you away or even attempt at hiding/disguising the grind of quests and levels. Max level there was nothing to do, no feats to accomplish, no goals to achieve. The leveling process, while pretty and fluid in terms of going from sight A to B and whathaveyou, was very bland due to lack of anything other than quests. A late added attempt at group instanced content was too late and too little.

Thing is the game only got a couple of content pages after release before it went FTP. They should have been a bit more frequent, but it highlights the issue with this game which was not enough support.

That said, everything you mentioned was more or less true.

There were content updates any 5 weeks or so. You've got auction house with advanced features, really big arena system, demon chest PVP, tutorial, starter zone revamp among many smaller things like speech bubbles, high house icons (meant to ramp up PVP), and more in the works. The studio in the netherlands was closed and another team took over to change the game towards item shop (and probably something more). When the dev team in the netherlands ceased to exist, the support also stopped.

You can read some of the plans for Lore here. There was also a world PVP system in the works (the Lore text ties into that a bit), with control points, resources and based on the High Houses and also an advanced mount system.

Originally posted by Stormwatch

You can read some of the plans for Lore here. There was also a world PVP system in the works (the Lore text ties into that a bit), with control points, resources and based on the High Houses and also an advanced mount system.

Woah, that would be so awesome.

To bad those things will never get in the game now. TCoS RIP 

EDIT: The servers are currently up again! http://www.stillbruch.ch/test/TCOS.php

thanks deb for letting us know :D

If they wont support the game online anymore, can they turn it into a single player campaign?

Not really a suprise, I did beta testing before acclaim had the game, it just wasn't very good. In my opinion.

Originally posted by uohaloran

Darn. It sucks when a game shuts down. Even if only 5 people that were still playing that means 5 people are without a place to call home. :P

Welcome to MMORPG. I like to call it limbo.

I call it a collective of angry Smurfs, but that's what keeps me coming back. I loved The Smurfs.

Anyway, COS was decent, it just never captured me in the long haul. Regardless, it's sad to see any game go south.

no surprise here. They hoped that by making it free more people would join. then quickly without anyone noticing switch it back to p2p. Main reason i didn't play it in the first place.

Why do all the good ones die first and the over bloated, rip off and  time wasters seem to live on forever?

The Chronicles of the Spellborn, will be truly missed, it was a great game and I just loved that combat.

• I remember how, so many new players use to complain that there were not enough wild boars to go around and that other players were hogging them, while they would just stand there and wait for the boars to spawn around them, then there was that big old boar that kept on killing me when I tried to solo it, man she was a challenge and a half I tell you, this game will be very much missed.

                                      R.I.P. TcofS 2010

Originally posted by aleos

no surprise here. They hoped that by making it free more people would join. then quickly without anyone noticing switch it back to p2p. Main reason i didn't play it in the first place.

They didn't switch it back to p2p, since there isn't even an option to pay for the game. It was just one of the many errors that  we had lately. There is a temporary fix for it by the way.