Trending Games | World of Warcraft | Elder Scrolls Online | WildStar | Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,737,791 Users Online:0
Games:714  Posts:6,176,879
Star Vault | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 06/09/10)  | Pub:Star Vault
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:n/a | Pay Type:Hybrid | Monthly Fee:n/a
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

Mortal Online Forum » General Discussion » Mortal Online could have been the best MMORPG ever...

4 Pages « 1 2 3 4 Search
72 posts found
  User Deleted
10/16/13 3:47:07 PM#61
Originally posted by Ozivois

A game like this could never be the "best MMORPG EVER" for the simple reason that open world pvp with full looting sucks.

any game made for gank-squads will never be popular, end of discussion.

Umm... Ultima Online ring a bell?   Also, how does popularity equate to quality?

  Zeeraha

Novice Member

Joined: 12/07/12
Posts: 63

10/16/13 4:01:45 PM#62
Originally posted by RajCaj
Originally posted by grimrot

...if it was a AAA title made by a company with a ton of money and resources.

The immense detail, freedom, and realism in this true sandbox MMORPG is unsurpassed. The problem is that the graphics, animations,  environments, production quality, etc are a bit lackluster and bug ridden, although I am still having a blast playing it.

In fact, I just began playing it for the first time a few days ago and I am blown away by pretty much everything. For me, it seems like almost a dream come true having just about everything I ever wanted in an MMORPG. It feels like a much more detailed multiplayer Skyrim and what Elder Scrolls Online should have been more like.

My dream is that a big company would buy this game and simply remake it with a better engine leaving almost everything else intact.

This game is pretty much the closest thing to an Ultima Online in 3D predecessor that I could ever imagine.

If only the majority of new MMORPGs coming out were more like this game, I think most of us would be a lot more excited.

There is one pesky detail in all that.....COST

 

The more money a game costs, the wider the scope of the game needs to be, in order to attract enough subscribers to not only break even, but make earnings that made the investment worth while.

 

No AAA publisher will drop 10-100 million on a MMO game that appealed to the same niche audience that Mortal Online appeals to...even if it were as successful as EVE and pulled in 300-400k subs.

 

Lets assume a publisher like EA, or Blizzard picked up the game (ignoring the fact they would likley have to essentially start from scratch), they would likely redesign the entire game, so that it is palatable by the millions of casual MMO gamers, to the point where you wouldn't  recognize the game.

 

MMOs that appeal to niche audiences will need to be relatively cheap, so that the game can be financially viable, while limiting it's revenue base with polarizing features such as FFA PvP, Loot Drop on Death, Slow Skill / Level Gains, Competitive Resources Constraints, Team / Group Dependent Content, etc.

Totally agree. I beleive SV aimed that they will save money on lack of content development and hoped that in a sandbox players will generate content them selves, thus reducing development costs. 1 year after releas SV went towards total cost effectivness by having only 3 developers and 1 GM professional. It turns out MO currently doesn't have enough sandbox tools to complete initial goals, and have to invest on developing their MMO engine and releasing new content. Subs turnout won't be enough to fund content development, due to reasons mentioned in quoted post. Perhaps devs must make peace that they won't make much profit out of true open PvP sandbox genres.

  User Deleted
10/16/13 4:08:29 PM#63
Originally posted by Zeeraha
Originally posted by RajCaj
Originally posted by grimrot

...if it was a AAA title made by a company with a ton of money and resources.

The immense detail, freedom, and realism in this true sandbox MMORPG is unsurpassed. The problem is that the graphics, animations,  environments, production quality, etc are a bit lackluster and bug ridden, although I am still having a blast playing it.

In fact, I just began playing it for the first time a few days ago and I am blown away by pretty much everything. For me, it seems like almost a dream come true having just about everything I ever wanted in an MMORPG. It feels like a much more detailed multiplayer Skyrim and what Elder Scrolls Online should have been more like.

My dream is that a big company would buy this game and simply remake it with a better engine leaving almost everything else intact.

This game is pretty much the closest thing to an Ultima Online in 3D predecessor that I could ever imagine.

If only the majority of new MMORPGs coming out were more like this game, I think most of us would be a lot more excited.

There is one pesky detail in all that.....COST

 

The more money a game costs, the wider the scope of the game needs to be, in order to attract enough subscribers to not only break even, but make earnings that made the investment worth while.

 

No AAA publisher will drop 10-100 million on a MMO game that appealed to the same niche audience that Mortal Online appeals to...even if it were as successful as EVE and pulled in 300-400k subs.

 

Lets assume a publisher like EA, or Blizzard picked up the game (ignoring the fact they would likley have to essentially start from scratch), they would likely redesign the entire game, so that it is palatable by the millions of casual MMO gamers, to the point where you wouldn't  recognize the game.

 

MMOs that appeal to niche audiences will need to be relatively cheap, so that the game can be financially viable, while limiting it's revenue base with polarizing features such as FFA PvP, Loot Drop on Death, Slow Skill / Level Gains, Competitive Resources Constraints, Team / Group Dependent Content, etc.

 Perhaps devs must make peace that they won't make much profit out of true open PvP sandbox genres.

Competent developers do just fine in the genre.   MO being a commercial failure ( per their own financial reports) has nothing to do with it being a PvP "sandbox".  As stated earlier, SV had more than enough interest to be profitable.

  Ramanadjinn

Elite Member

Joined: 8/08/11
Posts: 1238

10/16/13 4:29:34 PM#64
Originally posted by Ozivois

A game like this could never be the "best MMORPG EVER" for the simple reason that open world pvp with full looting sucks.

any game made for gank-squads will never be popular, end of discussion.

 

I don't think it is just the pvp.

MO has quite a few features that are a big turn off for a lot of people.

A good sandbox game as best I can see them implemented is going to lose a lot of people out of the gate just from learning curves alone.  Then there are the countless other design choices that many players just aren't willing to pay for.

I just wish those people would admit they just don't like the game and stop filling the MO forum here with ranting about how horrible the game is because they don't like it.  It is sad seeing people post videos to show us people who play the game and enjoy it what we should be having trouble with.  

Prediction and desyncing don't really seem to be a problem for me, I don't need someone to show me a powerpoint presentation on why it actually should be a problem for me.

  Vexus_X

Advanced Member

Joined: 11/23/09
Posts: 38

10/16/13 4:38:49 PM#65
Originally posted by Zeeraha
Originally posted by Shyatic

Had to reply to this because it's a ridiculous premise.

Having a great idea is *easy*. Lots of people have great ideas, lots of people can imagine worlds beyond compare, lots of people can think up things that nobody else does.

DELIVERY is what makes the difference. Mortal Online could *never* have been the best MMORPG ever because it was not started by the best development team ever. Simple as that.

The premise that "If it were made by a AAA developer with a lot of money and resources" basically is like saying that this Toyota Camry would be the BEST CAR EVER if it was made by Ferrari.

This game is nothing close to Ultima Online other than skill points. Ultima Online's skillset was one that involved thought, preparation, quick reaction time, and more. MO is a button mashing fest that is highly impacted by poor lag/netcode optimizations, a LOT of luck, and horrible mechanics. It's not even isometric third person like UO, so there really is no comparison. UO involved combinations of attacks (ie, Harm, Explosion, Energy Bolt, Mini Heal, Halberd hit, etc), where MO is again -- basically a button masher largely impacted by very poor optimizations.

I have learned in a professional capacity that the ability to deliver an idea, organize a team around a set of ideas, have talent on board and recognize that talent and how to best extrapolate it is actually more important than the idea itself. Want to know why? Because a good team and good roadmap in software development actually leads to MORE GOOD IDEAS from within the team, because everybody strives to make it the best.

What you have in Mortal Online is a kid who thought that because he loved Ultima Online so much, that he would have his father bankroll the development of its "spiritual successor", despite him not having any knowledge of the software development world, hiring a lead programmer whose only claim to fame was making Unreal Mods, and his only experience HIMSELF was selling ads on gambling sites.

No, Mortal Online was *never* even close to the greatest MMO ever and as it stands right now, it's one of the longest lived farces of an excuse for an MMO that has ever been released, which only goes to show that a rich father can imagine his son to be anything he wants, for as long as he's willing to keep putting up cash. You know, kind of like Paris Hilton being an "actress".

I see good starting points, [...] Like previously said, due to developer's inexperience and financial constraints, it will take some time, but there is a chance that it will eventually be quite good game. [...]

As someone else pointed, MO has been around for YEARS.  The last time I played was before I got recalled into the Army for a year tour in Iraq back in 2010!  And I was playing for a time before that in Beta.

 

The main problem is every new person to MO thinks the same thing: "these developers have a good idea, but not enough experience and funding, so it will take some time to be a really good game!"  That is the same thing we all said 3.5-4 years ago now.  Think of logging into World of Warcraft right now and saying, "Well, give it some time, it will get better!"  If anything gamers have realized it is that games get WORSE over time.  This is true in almost all cases.  Rarely does a developer make their game harder and more challenging with time that brings in more players.  EVE is an example of this actually going against the rule.

If you find yourself saying Mortal Online could be really good just give it some time! Just stop!  It is like hearing 18 year olds talk about how raising taxes is the solution to our problems!  History has shown MO sucks and is going nowhere, and it will continue to be that way as long as they can pull money from new player pockets who get lured into the "AWESOME NEW" 3 year old screen shot of a skill tree!  Fuuuuu!

Please don't fall for it!  I never spend this time hating on any game like I hate on this one because of how badly they ruined such a good attempt by throwing their financial issues in between players and the game, and never ever coming up with a viable solution to the whole thing, which of course would be (completely free to play with purchasable cosmetic coloring for armor among other cosmetic effects).

MO was the best game I played in a long long time.  It got worse over time and now they just want to extract money from you while giving minor updates and never polishing the game.  I honestly think The War Z was based upon the model of MO.  

This is why I am SO SO cautious of Embers of Caerus which is promising us the same great things.  They said they would have a world-explorable demo out 'soon'.  Still waiting.  My faith is waning with them now.  In business, something it seems these europeans don't understand, "When you say you're going to do something, you better do it."

Makes me think of our politicians...

  onlinenow25

Novice Member

Joined: 6/26/07
Posts: 278

10/16/13 4:56:46 PM#66

Can I just point out if you want combat like this you can play Chivalry: Medieval Warfare.

 

You also won't get your items looted, and you won't have as much desync issues in that video I watched with the computer from 1999.

  Toferio

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/26/09
Posts: 1455

10/17/13 1:04:51 AM#67
Originally posted by Vexus_X

This is why I am SO SO cautious of Embers of Caerus which is promising us the same great things.  They said they would have a world-explorable demo out 'soon'.  Still waiting.  My faith is waning with them now.  In business, something it seems these europeans don't understand, "When you say you're going to do something, you better do it.

Im not worried as much about whether they will deliver, but more about their outdated design choices. They think that making a hardcore pvp rpg with dated design would success without adapting it to modern gamers. 

  Zeeraha

Novice Member

Joined: 12/07/12
Posts: 63

10/17/13 3:02:10 AM#68

Originally posted by Ramanadjinn

Originally posted by Ozivois

A game like this could never be the "best MMORPG EVER" for the simple reason that open world pvp with full looting sucks.

any game made for gank-squads will never be popular, end of discussion.

 

I don't think it is just the pvp.

MO has quite a few features that are a big turn off for a lot of people.

A good sandbox game as best I can see them implemented is going to lose a lot of people out of the gate just from learning curves alone.  Then there are the countless other design choices that many players just aren't willing to pay for.

I just wish those people would admit they just don't like the game and stop filling the MO forum here with ranting about how horrible the game is because they don't like it.  It is sad seeing people post videos to show us people who play the game and enjoy it what we should be having trouble with.  

Prediction and desyncing don't really seem to be a problem for me, I don't need someone to show me a powerpoint presentation on why it actually should be a problem for me.

That's right. MO has set of features that are turnoff for many players. One of them is full loot PvP and that no player is no where safe, even with guards around. Other thing is that there are no quests, nor factions. Rewarding PvE is quite dificult and it takes a teamwork to fight mobs that drop better items. That's why MO will always struggle attracting subs.

IMO, people bitch about MO because 10K of them bought pre-ordered clients for more than 70$ and were (justifiably) disappointed about game quality. SV presented itself as AAA company  with relatively good website design and often communicating with community, but really they never promised AAA polish and were honest that development will be a bumby ride. Players just won't hear this and still keep their high expectation. I wouldn't blame them, but these people need to be mature and move past "lost" 70$ and eventually move along. On the other side, there are people who are willing to donate more than 50$ despite all MO's downsides. It is all about personal value.   

Originally posted by Vexus_X

Originally posted by Zeeraha
Originally posted by Shyatic

Had to reply to this because it's a ridiculous premise.

Having a great idea is *easy*. Lots of people have great ideas, lots of people can imagine worlds beyond compare, lots of people can think up things that nobody else does.

DELIVERY is what makes the difference. Mortal Online could *never* have been the best MMORPG ever because it was not started by the best development team ever. Simple as that.

The premise that "If it were made by a AAA developer with a lot of money and resources" basically is like saying that this Toyota Camry would be the BEST CAR EVER if it was made by Ferrari.

This game is nothing close to Ultima Online other than skill points. Ultima Online's skillset was one that involved thought, preparation, quick reaction time, and more. MO is a button mashing fest that is highly impacted by poor lag/netcode optimizations, a LOT of luck, and horrible mechanics. It's not even isometric third person like UO, so there really is no comparison. UO involved combinations of attacks (ie, Harm, Explosion, Energy Bolt, Mini Heal, Halberd hit, etc), where MO is again -- basically a button masher largely impacted by very poor optimizations.

I have learned in a professional capacity that the ability to deliver an idea, organize a team around a set of ideas, have talent on board and recognize that talent and how to best extrapolate it is actually more important than the idea itself. Want to know why? Because a good team and good roadmap in software development actually leads to MORE GOOD IDEAS from within the team, because everybody strives to make it the best.

What you have in Mortal Online is a kid who thought that because he loved Ultima Online so much, that he would have his father bankroll the development of its "spiritual successor", despite him not having any knowledge of the software development world, hiring a lead programmer whose only claim to fame was making Unreal Mods, and his only experience HIMSELF was selling ads on gambling sites.

No, Mortal Online was *never* even close to the greatest MMO ever and as it stands right now, it's one of the longest lived farces of an excuse for an MMO that has ever been released, which only goes to show that a rich father can imagine his son to be anything he wants, for as long as he's willing to keep putting up cash. You know, kind of like Paris Hilton being an "actress".

I see good starting points, [...] Like previously said, due to developer's inexperience and financial constraints, it will take some time, but there is a chance that it will eventually be quite good game. [...]

As someone else pointed, MO has been around for YEARS.  The last time I played was before I got recalled into the Army for a year tour in Iraq back in 2010!  And I was playing for a time before that in Beta.

 

The main problem is every new person to MO thinks the same thing: "these developers have a good idea, but not enough experience and funding, so it will take some time to be a really good game!"  That is the same thing we all said 3.5-4 years ago now.  Think of logging into World of Warcraft right now and saying, "Well, give it some time, it will get better!"  If anything gamers have realized it is that games get WORSE over time.  This is true in almost all cases.  Rarely does a developer make their game harder and more challenging with time that brings in more players.  EVE is an example of this actually going against the rule.

If you find yourself saying Mortal Online could be really good just give it some time! Just stop!  It is like hearing 18 year olds talk about how raising taxes is the solution to our problems!  History has shown MO sucks and is going nowhere, and it will continue to be that way as long as they can pull money from new player pockets who get lured into the "AWESOME NEW" 3 year old screen shot of a skill tree!  Fuuuuu!

Please don't fall for it!  I never spend this time hating on any game like I hate on this one because of how badly they ruined such a good attempt by throwing their financial issues in between players and the game, and never ever coming up with a viable solution to the whole thing, which of course would be (completely free to play with purchasable cosmetic coloring for armor among other cosmetic effects).

MO was the best game I played in a long long time.  It got worse over time and now they just want to extract money from you while giving minor updates and never polishing the game.  I honestly think The War Z was based upon the model of MO.  

This is why I am SO SO cautious of Embers of Caerus which is promising us the same great things.  They said they would have a world-explorable demo out 'soon'.  Still waiting.  My faith is waning with them now.  In business, something it seems these europeans don't understand, "When you say you're going to do something, you better do it."

Makes me think of our politicians...

IMO, referring to developing time as a measure of future success is wrong, especially because total MO development time is on par with AAA titles, but AAA titles were released much later in total development timeline. EVE online was developed for 5 years before it released, and it had like 500 players (http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility). Now MO has total 6 years of development and around 2500 subs. Technically speaking and game mechanic wise, objectively MO has improved allot last 3 years, but part of people don't like some game mechanic change, and leave the game disappointed. I played during release, and population was not much higher than today. There was longer periods (more than 1 year) when MO had much less subs than today. So objectively, it succeeded in retaining natural player base and objectively MO is still in high development phase. They decided to release prematurely so they can gain revenue from subs. It may not seem fair, but no one is forcing anyone to pay the subs. When buying some products, better read the terms of buying. MO sold beta access, month of free gameplay, and a DVD case with game client (game client worked for a month before being completely outdated), that's all. Not the best situation for SV, people would like them more if they were still in beta-phase, but would bitch why game didn't release yet, they made wrong approach, but also many people stick with them and help them because they believe in their cause of creating that kind of unique sandbox MMO.  

 

  RajCaj

Advanced Member

Joined: 3/11/08
Posts: 679

10/17/13 4:32:35 PM#69
Originally posted by Zeeraha
Originally posted by RajCaj
Originally posted by grimrot

...if it was a AAA title made by a company with a ton of money and resources.

The immense detail, freedom, and realism in this true sandbox MMORPG is unsurpassed. The problem is that the graphics, animations,  environments, production quality, etc are a bit lackluster and bug ridden, although I am still having a blast playing it.

In fact, I just began playing it for the first time a few days ago and I am blown away by pretty much everything. For me, it seems like almost a dream come true having just about everything I ever wanted in an MMORPG. It feels like a much more detailed multiplayer Skyrim and what Elder Scrolls Online should have been more like.

My dream is that a big company would buy this game and simply remake it with a better engine leaving almost everything else intact.

This game is pretty much the closest thing to an Ultima Online in 3D predecessor that I could ever imagine.

If only the majority of new MMORPGs coming out were more like this game, I think most of us would be a lot more excited.

There is one pesky detail in all that.....COST

 

The more money a game costs, the wider the scope of the game needs to be, in order to attract enough subscribers to not only break even, but make earnings that made the investment worth while.

 

No AAA publisher will drop 10-100 million on a MMO game that appealed to the same niche audience that Mortal Online appeals to...even if it were as successful as EVE and pulled in 300-400k subs.

 

Lets assume a publisher like EA, or Blizzard picked up the game (ignoring the fact they would likley have to essentially start from scratch), they would likely redesign the entire game, so that it is palatable by the millions of casual MMO gamers, to the point where you wouldn't  recognize the game.

 

MMOs that appeal to niche audiences will need to be relatively cheap, so that the game can be financially viable, while limiting it's revenue base with polarizing features such as FFA PvP, Loot Drop on Death, Slow Skill / Level Gains, Competitive Resources Constraints, Team / Group Dependent Content, etc.

Totally agree. I beleive SV aimed that they will save money on lack of content development and hoped that in a sandbox players will generate content them selves, thus reducing development costs. 1 year after releas SV went towards total cost effectivness by having only 3 developers and 1 GM professional. It turns out MO currently doesn't have enough sandbox tools to complete initial goals, and have to invest on developing their MMO engine and releasing new content. Subs turnout won't be enough to fund content development, due to reasons mentioned in quoted post. Perhaps devs must make peace that they won't make much profit out of true open PvP sandbox genres.

I think it's important for these developers (and publishers) to understand their audience, and understand what competitive forces there are out there.

Things are different since the days of Ultima Online & Everquest.  There were many of people that endured the rough edges of those games because they had no other place to go.  Ultimately many of those players ended up adapting to some of those "hard knocks" game mechanics...and the game community benefited from it.

With all the competition today, they have to find other ways to attract & keep folks playing.

Part of that is understanding your target audience.

Sandbox MMO types are looking more for the experience of an open world, synergetic ecosystem, player driven economy & content vs. visual asthetics.  You can get nice & pretty in MANY games available today.  Not the case when it comes to a quality sandbox MMO experience.

Imagine if the developers at SA chose to go with a top down, isometric viewpoint (think Diablo III / Torchlight II) instead of trying to integrate a full 3D engine, complete with all the camera angles, complex textures, etc.

The isometric view wouldn't interfere with many of the proposed features, and the cost savings might have allowed them to actually implement more of what was promised.

Given what is available today, I'd sure as heck play it.

  Slapshot1188

Elite Member

Joined: 5/06/07
Posts: 4088

10/17/13 4:55:10 PM#70
Originally posted by RajCaj

 

I think it's important for these developers (and publishers) to understand their audience, and understand what competitive forces there are out there.

Things are different since the days of Ultima Online & Everquest.  There were many of people that endured the rough edges of those games because they had no other place to go.  Ultimately many of those players ended up adapting to some of those "hard knocks" game mechanics...and the game community benefited from it.

With all the competition today, they have to find other ways to attract & keep folks playing.

Part of that is understanding your target audience.

Sandbox MMO types are looking more for the experience of an open world, synergetic ecosystem, player driven economy & content vs. visual asthetics.  You can get nice & pretty in MANY games available today.  Not the case when it comes to a quality sandbox MMO experience.

Imagine if the developers at SA chose to go with a top down, isometric viewpoint (think Diablo III / Torchlight II) instead of trying to integrate a full 3D engine, complete with all the camera angles, complex textures, etc.

The isometric view wouldn't interfere with many of the proposed features, and the cost savings might have allowed them to actually implement more of what was promised.

Given what is available today, I'd sure as heck play it.

I think it's important for developers to be realistic in their capabilities.  It is BEYOND arrogant to assume that you can realistically create a FFA, Open World, Sandbox MMORPG as your first professional product when your company and employees have no significant experience in publishing ANYTHING.  Feel free to correct me if I miss-state this but the original lead programmer had no experience other than being a UE modder and the #2 programmer's only professional experience was working on a milk carton assembly.

 

Companies like CityState Entertainment, Cloud Imperium games and Goblinworks all have ambitious starter projects but they ALL have folks with extensive industry experience.

 

At least those companies have a CHANCE to succeed.  Mortal Online was doomed from the start, but you wouldn't have known unless you researched the company.  Never had to do that before, but I've sure learned my lesson.

 

"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  TangentPoint

Elite Member

Joined: 2/12/12
Posts: 1095

The "Real Game" begins at character creation.

10/17/13 5:10:11 PM#71
Originally posted by grimrot

...if it was a AAA title made by a company with a ton of money and resources.

The immense detail, freedom, and realism in this true sandbox MMORPG is unsurpassed. The problem is that the graphics, animations,  environments, production quality, etc are a bit lackluster and bug ridden, although I am still having a blast playing it.

In fact, I just began playing it for the first time a few days ago and I am blown away by pretty much everything. For me, it seems like almost a dream come true having just about everything I ever wanted in an MMORPG. It feels like a much more detailed multiplayer Skyrim and what Elder Scrolls Online should have been more like.

My dream is that a big company would buy this game and simply remake it with a better engine leaving almost everything else intact.

This game is pretty much the closest thing to an Ultima Online in 3D predecessor that I could ever imagine.

If only the majority of new MMORPGs coming out were more like this game, I think most of us would be a lot more excited.

I agree with ya. The concept behind it is solid and could make for a really superb world/game, were it handled by a developer with more experience and funding.

I don't even think it has to be a AAA production. In fact, it's unlikely a AAA company would ever even want to touch a MMO that tries to do what MO does. Too much of a risk and the "mass market data" doesn't back it up. They'd water it down so much it wouldn't resemble the same game.

The size of the original team and even the funding could have been ideal if the experience was there, I think. I think the ambition of the developers was simply beyond their skillset. Their reach exceeded their grasp, so to speak. MMOs have been made by smaller and even less funded teams, and still manage to be pretty solid and fun. So it can be done. It just wasn't in the case of MO.

Unfortunate. There's definitely a market (albeit niche) for a game like that done really well.

 

My philosophy on MMORPGs:

Leveling is what happens while you're playing the rest of the game.

Don't worry about levels. Just play.

  YoungCaesar

Hard Core Member

Joined: 7/08/13
Posts: 213

10/18/13 10:23:58 AM#72
Thats funny, I think open world full loot mmos are the only mmos that are fun anymore.....
4 Pages « 1 2 3 4 Search