PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:n/a | Pay Type:Subscription
Desktop Client | System Req:
| Out of date info? Let us know!
Mortal Online Review: The Official Review - Edit
6.9
| Pros |
 Appeals to old school MMO players Astounding potential Interesting class system |
| Cons |
 Buggy, glitchy, slightly broken, unfinished Focus on immersion may break the game Potential may not be realized |
World of Warcraft just isn’t deep enough, Lord of the Rings Online just doesn’t cut the Middle-Earth mustard, and Warhammer Online – well the less said the better. We, the loyal minions of the MMORPG genre are engulfed in a civil war: on one side are those waving the banner of accessibility, progression, and the ability to juggle virtual and physical social life – lining opposite on the battle field are the hardened old-school boys and girls; pockets full of useless loot, mouths dripping with attractive promises of immersive game-play, and the faraway look of someone who has spent too much time in Norrath - unsure whether they are man or Erudite.
Thumping its chest and cursing loudly at the infidels on the other side, Star Vault’s Mortal Online clearly puts its cards on the table and identifies its allies. This is an old-school sandbox experience that only requires a little imagination and the desire for freedom. Taking clear influence from Ultima Online and (Pre-NGE) Star Wars Galaxies, this may well be the free-roaming life-sapper we have all been waiting for.
The Elephant in the Room
Taking heed of the screaming, disgruntled customers in the corner, I feel we must first address the biggest issue regarding Mortal Online. While this is a game with masses of potential, of current, this game is nearer to state of closed-beta rather than retail release. From the desktop-launcher to the combat system, Star Vault’s creation is riddled with bugs, glitches, errors, misjudgements and everything in-between.
Now I must state that I do not like to judge an MMORPG on its launch and by how bug-ridden it is at any point. The very advantage of this beautiful genre is that the developer toils and slaves over their projects like none of their game studio peers; we pay a subscription fee and we, eventually, get a polished product – sometimes it just takes a little time.
With this said however, this immersive MMO is riddled to the core with bugs and is woefully unfinished to the point that is really hard to defend and shield it from criticism. During my initial period of play I encountered no less than 21 bugs, graphical issues and various other problems. While the majority do not really affect the ensemble as a whole, there is a lot to do here to convert the slightly less hard-core fan base.
The caveat to all this however, is that this game has bags and bags of potential. To simply write this title off for a number of programming deficiencies would be a supremely stupid move. With the right development, ideas, and future content, this is one sandbox experience that could go down with the best of them.
)
I am the (bearded) Warrior
From the initial character creation screen, you can tell that this online RPG is different from the rest of crowd. The character creation process is an amalgamation of attribute points, underlying race skills, and a plethora of invisible factors that you must consider when rolling and designing your avatar.
I think that players will be torn when rolling characters simply because of the complexity and past-generation’ness of the systems in use here. Unlike your Turbine or Cryptic games, the creation process harkens back to the old days of stat allocation - which leaves some frothing at the mouth with joy and others reeling. I myself tend to shift towards the latter camp, and while I do find a creation tool such as WoW’s to be too simplistic, I think Star Vault need to find a balance between complexity and accessibility.
It seems that Mortal Online goes out of its way to be a little different from the current crowd and the customisation options show this too. Characters are sculpted using a number of sliders and other such effects. While mostly I crafted bearded-wastrels, the options on offer here do not look like your standard-indie fare but instead something with a high quality appeal. Oh and did I mention that characters are created naked? I am pretty sure I did. Penises and vaginas everywhere.
)
The Skills that Kills
Genitals aside, the issue of class is also another point in which Star Vault goes against popular trend. Rather than choosing a class in creation, players choose a vague set of starter skills with which they can set out on their adventures. This is an interesting method of doing things as you can craft a class as you go along and of course this adds to overall sandbox atmosphere.
I started out my initial appearances in the world of Nave with the Weaponsmith sub-set. This meant that I had prior knowledge in various skill trees and also that I could start developing them. The game offers a system wherein doing a certain thing, for example wood cutting, you will gain skills in a number of areas: So for instance, something as simple as lumber-jacking will see you gain skills in constitution, gathering, and strength with every couple of axes swings.
It is a very interesting and immersive concept that by doing certain tasks, contextual skills will be developed. I fail to remember any game that really takes this idea and runs with it as Mortal Online does. By doing almost every action, something will be learnt; for the immersive gang this is almost pornographic news.
So the result of all of this means that your skill set is developed exactly how you play the game. Wish to butcher a few small creatures? Your specific weapon skill will increase along with various combat circumstantial skills. Perhaps along with animal genocide you also wish to tame horses and sell them on to others – this career path is yours to take and will define your character until your allocated 1000 skill points are used.
)
I find the approach to class and career in this MMO entirely appealing and interesting – basically because it reeks of the Ultima Online way of doing things. The only problem that I ran into here however is that, at the moment, players can’t exactly play the game how they want to. Certain player defined careers such as archer and specific-smith are the only viable options of play. There is a feeling that as the game feels slightly underdeveloped, the sandbox has yet to be fully realised.
And after a short time, players will find themselves delving deep into the catacombs of some forum looking for class builds and advice on how to sculpt their characters. While it is definitely needed, I just find it contradictory of the sub-genre that this title occupies. There just seems a very narrow selection of choices and paths within the game at the moment – perhaps this is something that will be remedied in future updates? We can surely hope.
get that eulogy ready.
Did you read the review?
"The caveat to all this however, is that this game has bags and bags of potential. To simply write this title off for a number of programming deficiencies would be a supremely stupid move. With the right development, ideas, and future content, this is one sandbox experience that could go down with the best of them."
"But with all the previous stated, I don’t find Mortal Online to be terrible – far from it - I just think that Star Vault need to nod their heads to one or two genre conventions just so certain systems work a little better. As I have said so many times already, this game has so much potential, it would be a terrible thing for it not to develop and grow it something...beautiful."
"Regardless of the bugs and slight unfinished feel, Mortal Online is supremely enjoyable. There are enough developed class-types to keep you occupied while more updates roll out and the game is more than stable enough to play. Sifting through community posts would tell a different story at times but I think people are not really taking the game in the spirit of how it is meant."
All in all, a pretty fair and accurate review in most areas.
Potential doesnt make a good game, in fact usually when something "has potential" that means thats its the opposite of good, or else they would just call it good.
"potential" is even worse in an undustry where first impressions and the state of your game months after relese can make or break your game, doesnt matter if you imporve 1000% if everyone ran off because of how bad it was.
We're probably all aware of the meaning of the word "potential", especially in the context of MMOs.
"Regardless of the bugs and slight unfinished feel, Mortal Online is supremely enjoyable."
The game is good, with the shortcomings that Mr. Tingle has pretty accurately pointed out in his review. I think it has the potential to be great - at least a great example of a game of its type within the genre.
I think your wrong, Eve Online had potential initially, this was realised and now it is a classic of the genre. You look at a game such as Age of Conan and it's good but doesn't really have the capcity to change much; MO however, has a real scope to change into somethin absolutley ground breaking.
I can't agree more, both with the interview and the above poster. I never played MO, I'm not big on the open-world PvP thing, but I always thought the videos and screenshots were lovely, and the mechanics of the game sounded pretty good. I never played APB either, but when it went down I felt sort of bad. That's how I feel about MO too; it's not down yet, but honestly that doesn't seem far off. When it happens, it'll be a shame, because with the right development team, I think MO would have appealed to the Ultima crowd, which is still fairly substantial.
But the above poster got it right, potential doesn't make a great game. The fulfilment of that potential does. It remains to be seen if MO will reach its potential, but at this point, it's looking pretty grim. Honestly they should just give up on the game, sell it to a more 'able' company, and let them continue its development. It would be a waste for it to end up in the trash heap.
I agree with you about EvE.
Another thing to consider with MMOs is competition with comparable games. EvE really had almost no serious direct competitor for that style of game for most of its development life.
On the other hand, the PvE themepark sub-genre is literally choked with competitors. Initial success is certainly much more critical here because of it.
From the Review:
Sifting through community posts would tell a different story at times but I think people are not really taking the game in the spirit of how it is meant.
At some point you have to wonder if there exist enough people who would even be able to take the game in the spirit of how it is meant. I would wonder if perhaps it's not the spirit of the game that bugs them so much as the fact they are paying for the experience.
I would actually play Mortal Online, but I wouldn't pay for the experience.
Potential should never be a factor into a game's score in my opinion. Name the last game that actually ended up reaching its potential, it's like giving points for something that could exist but doesn't. When people buy the game they are faced with the reality of what exactly is in the product, not what could be.
to all those talking about "potential".....
yes i also belive this game has potential, but that in itself will not save the game. it takes an idea with potential AND a competent company to make a succesfull game ( like EvE). unfortunately wile MO has potential SV does not have competence. that simple.
I think this is a fair review of where the game is today. And the future LOOKS bright, and despite what some say here, SV knows what they are doing. And as Henric says in the interview that you also can read here.
I quote: "We got a huge delay in one of our key components, the network solution, which made it harder for us to release planned content on time; this means we were forced to delay for about a year in our development. Because of limited resources we still had to release early just when we got the core to work. This means of course it’s been a tough ride for our gamers but we are now clearly noticing a solid player base and we are getting closer to the next step for marketing of the game".
So next we will see some content patches for the game, and the meat will grow on the bone that is Mortal Online.
I guess I don't understand the rating system here MO scores a 6.9? In my mind that's right around average - good, but not great.....that's pretty far from what MO is. Also: "To simply write this title off for a number of programming deficiencies would be a supremely stupid move." Shouldn't that be the first criteria for reviewing a PC game? Does it work? If so, how well? 21 bugs encountered in your first play experience sounds like a rating of 5 or lower to me. After hearing that I wouldn't even consider installing this title on my PC for free, much less purchasing the game or subscribing. Why would I waste my time? How is that a 6.9?
"It is a very interesting and immersive concept that by doing certain tasks, contextual skills will be developed. I fail to remember any game that really takes this idea and runs with it as Mortal Online does." - Isn't this the basis of Darkfall's (and others') skill system? Yep.
You point out that SV is hindered by realism and immersion and therefore does not include an ingame map. IMO this is silly on their part. It's not too immersion breaking for me to consider that at least one person in the world has made a map of it. Maybe they should make an ingame map that has like a fog covering it until you explore each area or maps that you need to purchase from cartographers, whatever, but having a map would not ruin immersion.
"With the right development, ideas, and future content, this is one sandbox experience that could go down with the best of them." With every problem you point out that one magical day it could be fixed (SV has done the same thing since closed beta started). Basically you are saying this "could" be a great game in the future. So could the game idea in my head or Desert Bus....so should people just continue purchasing the game and paying subscriptions in the hope that one day they will pay off? I guess if I'm looking to "support a company that has the communities best interest at heart...." Seriously? SV has the community's best interest at heart? Is that why they basically pissed all over their customers that ordered a hard copy of the game (book, figures, cd, etc.)?
Finally: " throwing yourself into an experience without a constant sigh of annoyance is as essential as owning a PC or Internet connection." Doesn't MO cause a constant sigh of annoyance (21 bugs in your first play through)? Therefore one should steer clear of this title not embrace it as you seem to suggest.
IMO, if you are looking for an old-school style sandbox game to get behind you are much better off going with Aventurine and Darkfall. Simply compare their track record to SV as far as delivering working content. DF certainly isn't perfect but is miles above MO.
And yet they still charged for their product. I guess it's better than most companies in that they admit it, but it doesn't really justify charging for a busted, incomplete product.
I'm playing it currently and having a ton of fun, to all those that claim it's dead, nothing could be further from the truth, I see tons of people every day when I log in and my guild is getting new players in at least once every two days or so. On top of that the their big content path hasn't even been released yet and I expect to see even more people sub or resub after that comes in.
Simply from a logical standpoint if the game was about to go under you would see free trials, a big attempt at viral advertising and nothing as resource draining and ambitious as the coming content patch. This coupled with the decent population I'm seeing everyday tells me that the game is alive and well and in no risk of shutting down anytime soon.
What I don't get is why so many on this site seem like they have made it their life's work to bad mouth this game and wish for it's failure, I mean by talking about it you're only generating publicity (the last 3 recruits to my guild told me that the only reason they knew about MO was because of MMORPG.com, so in effect the haters are doing the exact opposite of what they're trying to achieve)
Anyhow, this game has been a lot of fun for me so far and I can definitely recommend it (provided you can deal with a bunch of bugs that pop up from time to time) if you're sick of the standard MMO fare and don't like the cartoony feel and combat in DF.
Well, most of the people that plays it, still enjoys it. Even in the state that the game is in now. Just as the reviewer here. And the game WILL get better. It´s just a matter if you wanna stick in there, and live with the bugs. I know I do. Just gotta have some faith. ;)
Did they add PVE yet? I skimmed the review but saw no mention of it, other than killing squirrels. UO, EVE and Darkfall all have PVE...
Yeah, go DF if you wanna grind for 6 months to be able to do anything... Been there, done that, won´t ever do it again.
Nope, but if you read the interview with Henric, he says what all of us that play MO knows, that PVE content is coming next.
As has already been discussed, one example of a game reaching its potential is EvE. People have argued that Darkfall, which didn't start well, has been realizing its potential. In fact, most MMOs in history haven't started out as strong as they would eventually become - thus, realizing potential.
Beyond that, as the reviewer states, the game is enjoyable right now, and I believe his rating quite clearly reflects its current status. If anything, I think the reviewer believes that if the "bags of potential" are finally realized, that the score might eventually be one of the highest among all MMOs.
In short, the review reflects the reality of the current game. Realizing its potential might turn it into a truly great game.
Hmmmm. When they have something in there that gives me some indication that there's something to have faith in...then I might be willing to pay for it.
I'm not paying to get stuck in a roof on my horse so somebody can kill me and say, "Welcome to Mortal Online".
This might be true, if Darkfall was actually a sandbox game. Unfortunately, it's not, at least not in the same way that games like UO, EvE, and MO are. What's worse is that Darkfall doesn't ever plan to become a real sandbox.
Then there's the soulkilling grind of that game.
MO is much more sandbox at its core, and is headed toward becoming and even more sandbox game experience.
lol. Been there and done that to. As written. The game do have bugs. And you do die alot in MO as well. Yesterday my clanmates horse got killed and he ended up in a lake and drowned. Sh*t happens. Most of us can live with these bugs as long as they get fixed. And they do get fixed. You also need to have some patience with MO. :P
And as one that plays it regulary, it´s slowly, but surely, getting to where SV wants it to be. I think when this game gets a 1 year review. The score will but ALOT higher.
I disagree with a few posters hear, some said that a game shouldnt recieve a high score if it is buggy. But in my experience of playing pc games i have palyed a few that i would rate very highly even thoguh they were a buggy mess. Mainly because they gave me the chance to paly something unique and truley original. Games like Hidden and dangerous and stalker call of chynobyl scored very highly despite their bugs. The reason is a game can survive on its features alone despite a lack of polish. Same goes for mmos i have no problems with the review and agree on all points raised. I think people missunderstand the potential in MO when compared to any other game. Simply playing the game for a while makes your imagination start running with all the possible content that could be added to it. Since the developers are very open with the public and quite often take on board ideas from the community those ideas you have may well make it into the game.
I have never, in my life, contacted my credit card company to receive a refund for ANYTHING I've ever purchased. Until MO. I have never seen a company take the credit card information you used to purchase the game and automatically enroll you into a subscription one year later on that same credit card, without your permission. Until MO. I have never seen a company ship you the equivalent of a blank DVD inside a dented metal case. Until MO. I have never seen a game using a fanmade patcher system. Until MO. I have never seen I have never seen such a glitchfest, where each patch literally breaks the game. Until MO. I have never seen a game where patch notes keep saying 'such and such was fixed' month after month after month after month. Until MO. I've never seen a game with such blatant GM abuse/favouritism. Until MO. Christ, this is the game where people get banned for cheating and then immediately unbanned upon appealing to the CEO, lest he lose one of their few subscriptions.
Honestly, I see this review as a bit of a disservice to the community. Potential does not equal a good game. The ability to roleplay inside your head (which Tingle seems good at) does not equal a good game. And 6.9 is actually a decent score. It's a sneaky way of trying to give a 7.
Based on actual content and current track record, I wouldn't give this game higher than a 4.
Not a bad review, and outside of a slightly high score which i think was heavily influenced by the game's "potential" it id did a good job of stating what the game was (and wasn't.)
If they'd just tighten this up a bit I'd give it a go myself, but right now it just seems like this game is heading to oblivion. History has proven me wrong so far.
I have to disagree with this rating. In the review, it was mentioned that the game is basically in beta and people are paying to test. How can you rate a game that is still in such a state 6.9???? 6.9, that means solid to me. Good, solid gameplay, maybe with bugs (some are normal for newly-released products), not that much content and some shortcomings, but 6.9 means it is not in a beta state. Honestly, how does this score add up? I could understand everything between 5-6, but this is way too high. You can't rate a game on potential because if we were to buy the game now, it wouldn't be 6.9. You can't tell us "oh hey, this is 6.9. Yeah, it's buggy and there isn't much content beyond pvp, but in the future, this game will be awesome!" I will be the first to agree that this game can grow and become something special. But at the moment, it simply isn't. If the potential would be realized it could easily become a 7 or beyond, but at the moment, you have to look at the facts.
Very misleading score in my opinion.
First - First person only view is the first big mistake of this game. PvP reasons be damned. If they had to limit a characters view they could have done what the developers of Mount and Blade did. Their system works awesome and still allows for players to sneak up on others to get a first strike from behind. People like to see their character in action and see what they look like. Having only first person view as they do to this game no doubt turns many potential players off from even trying it.
Second - to many polies and not enough optimization of textures has a huge effect on graphics and the speed at which your standard GPU can handle them. That is why you see outrageous instances of rubberbanding in this game. It is crazy mad rubber banding. Server engineering and optimization of data to and from the server to the client is of utmost importance in any multiplayer game that relies on server client coms. Being that the game is an FPS with collision detection...they need better server to client and vice versa optimization.
Third - is it to much to ask for the developers to use some decent motion capture for animations? This tech has been out for ever and is not that expensive any more. It would help make the games animations not look so clunky.
Fourth - Combat is so limited. In this day and age, games like DF, and MO, scream for a better combat system than they currently have. One that is more fluid and has multiple options for strikes and blocks - with different weapons having different strikes and blocks as well - on top of that. A single handed sword does not play like a hand and a half or a two handed sword, not does a pike handle the same as a spear or a halbred. If a 5 person developers team of indie game developers from Turkey can create the game we know as Mount and Blade with its awesome, fluid and multifaceted combat system...why can't these game developer houses with more people and more money do it?
Fifth - ....why do they do like other game companies and refuse to squash the bugs that hurt the game. They aren't Blizzard, they aren't Mythic, they aren't CCP...they are a small outfit and it is of utmost importance that they provide a game that is as bugless as possible. If a bug does crop up they need to get on it and fix it ASAP. The smallest game breaking bug can kill any chance an indie game can have ever making it past its first year. We saw games like APB crash and burn due to this kind of stuff. MO is no different.
Sixth - Customer service! If you are going to provide a service - your game - provide the support that is needed to your customers! Do whatever it takes to stay in constant contact with your customers and do not mislead them or promise them something you cannot deliver. Respond promptly to your customers concerns and do not take advantage of them - ever! Your customers are your bread and butter- especially for a game company that has not proven themselves. You screw your customers - you are screwing yourself.
With that being said...it is a shame that MO will probably never make it past another year. If it does - more power to the company for doing it. I just do not see it happening as it is the game is a mess and so is the company behind it.
Sorry to say this but this game fail because Starvault are crap programmers, they should hire more competent coders instead of sending the engine in Cina to Epic. Yes, pratically they haven't the control of the engine, when they need a change they send the client in Cina because they aren't capable to put the hand in the source unreal 3 code. This explain why the game is full of bugs, desync in combat, stucks, craft stations not work properly, crashes.
Yes this game has potential, is like a miracle UO in 3D, but the incompetence of the SV coders will be the the failure of this game in the long run.
When they complete flash UI implementation and some PvE elements, I'll return back to the game. I am bored of standard MMORPG's, I am constantly trying LOTRO, AoC etc but they're not my type, I get bored in a few hours, with those games, what you do is really straightforward, get a quest, kill something, get your new gear as reward, equip it, level, your gear gets obsolete, rinse and start again.... Pfff
I honestly wonder what game the author was playing. I well understand the "potential", but so far all I've seen are broken patches, bugs, and unfinished features together with lack of content and extremely bad project management. Talk about biased review.
I also find it funny how fans at MO suddenly changed their opinion about mmorpg from "troll nest" to "those guys knows their shit". Hypocrites.
Ohh, the guys working on MMORPG aren´t the ones trolling the MO forums... Finally some1 wrote a honest and fair review of the state that MO is in right now.
reijan writes:
"I have to disagree with this rating. In the review, it was mentioned that the game is basically in beta and people are paying to test. How can you rate a game that is still in such a state 6.9???? 6.9, that means solid to me. Good, solid gameplay, maybe with bugs (some are normal for newly-released products), not that much content and some shortcomings, but 6.9 means it is not in a beta state. Honestly, how does this score add up? I could understand everything between 5-6, but this is way too high. You can't rate a game on potential because if we were to buy the game now, it wouldn't be 6.9. You can't tell us "oh hey, this is 6.9. Yeah, it's buggy and there isn't much content beyond pvp, but in the future, this game will be awesome!" I will be the first to agree that this game can grow and become something special. But at the moment, it simply isn't. If the potential would be realized it could easily become a 7 or beyond, but at the moment, you have to look at the facts.
Very misleading score in my opinion".
I must disagree here as well. I do think the game desreves the "high" score that the reviewer gave it. It still IS tons of fun to play the game even with the bugs in it. And as I wrote before. Once they get more content into the game etc, the score will rise even more.
Now that I re-read my comment, it comes out to harsh to the author, which I apologize for. I take back the biased part, yet I still think that a 7 is to high for games current status. Potential alone doesn't cut it.
Irrelevant. I seen enough cases of MO fans blaming both mods, owners and writers on MO, not just normal members.
I also find it interesting that the author does not seems to mention complete lack of content for the game, but keeps naggins about great ideals and potential. I dont do charity so some UO fans can make a game for themselves over time.
And I´ve seen enough of MO-haters to last me a lifetime. It´s just gone so over the top with the hate towards MO and SV, that you just sit there with your jaw dropped, and wonder if these guys even played the game I´m playing now. Everything need to be put into context and that is what I thin this reviewer has done, and I he makes a fair judgement of the game and the state it´s in. It´s not like he hides the fact the the game is bug filled, and it´s not like he says you can´t enjoy it even as it is.
Also, all the talk about "Build your character the way you want" isn't completely true, if you dont roll certain "classes" you are useless, you can read more here:
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/361/view/forums/thread/299221/The-Classes-in-MO-What-race-to-pick.html
Such skill based concept doesnt seems to work out well for MO.
I think you need a hug... And then the game is a sandbox game. You get a bucket and a shovel, then a big ass sandbox to play in. It´s just as fun as you make it. If you don´t have any friends, or any idea how to move around in the world, you prolly won´t enjoy it. And there IS more content coming soon if you for example read the interview with Henric that they did here as well.
Sry to say it. But the guy is wrong. It´s way better to have a guy with 112 in strength if you wanna use the best bows as a archer for example. Don´t link to posts if you don´t know how to relate to it...
He covered this in the article.
Hey guys, just a little advice. If you have a lot to say please try and edit it into a previous post instead of posting right after yourself continuously. It keeps everything that you want to say in one spot :).
I wanted to edit one of mine but couldn´t. I know I´m dumb, but where is the edit button for post that you´ve made?
In no part of the review did he say that the score is influenced by the potential MO has. IMO game scores arent usually acurate anyway. The best thing to do is just read hte review and base your opinion off of that. Scores dont mean anything.
A 7/10 is an "average" game on MMORPG.com (think a C-), whereas a 5/10 is an unusually poor quality game (a straight up F). While you might disagree with this scale that is how games have traditionally been rated here, so it's not fair to accuse the reviewer of bias when he's simply following the standard given by the site.
It would probably be helpful if I point out for you that this discussion is actually happening in the forum itself where the full post editing options are displayed. If you make posts on this topic under the initial news post by Suzie then you only see the "comments" and not the actual forum thread posts with the full options. So click the " taking place in the forums" link under this original news post to get to the forum thread.
You aren't dumb, this comment system is dumb xD
I think on open world/sandbox like MO should have a few npcs...maybe hard to find..to make it challenging ..all of whom teach cartography. Then as a player uncovers more of the world ..he can use the cartography skill (with consumable inks papers..etc) to not only raise his skill...but make map copies of only areas he/she knows....then sell them on the auction house or hand them out for free if they desire. Eventually others could do this until all the globe is mapped out...either through one's own travels and cartographer skills (acquiring an entire map), by assembling together map pieces from many other travellers (purchased through trade) or waiting until some other patient slob starts selling entire maps . This could end up, initially, being a good means of revenue for the wandering entrepreneur.
At the least..I've always thought the map should not be whole at the beginning of a game. Have it dark or otherwise obscurred , only showing you the topography as you discover each new area. I believe many games already use this technique. Although I have used quest systems and game maps..I've always found it more immersive and fun to discover things on my own. In a game like MO...fully formed maps and quest helpers should not even come into the design...except in the manner I suggested :)
Any opinions ?
Thanks, I may check it out then.
nobody would buy them because you can get a free map online already. the world is also too small to be needing a map. once you'v played for a month or so you know it all by heart.
MO's problem is not maps, it's the endlessly broken basics mechanics like combat, functions, weappons, enviroment, structures, npcs, etc.
Ah, thanks, I didn't figured it out, though comments were taking place at the article or something.
Its a very informative review. At first i was runnin to go buy the game but then i read comments and im kind of torn.
It looks and sounds great, but if comments from the actual players of the game are any indication of whats to come i dont wanna buy the game. The game itself sounds fine but the way people talk about SV makes me not want to get it.
I had originally purchased the game but couldn't log in for the longest time and gave up. Perhaps I'll give it another go!
Thanks
this is no joke, it's true and only the tip of the SV iceberg. there is much more but i'm not gonna get into it. i'v played this game for 4 months and i didn't leave because MO didnt have potential but because SV didn't have a clue on how to develop a vidoe game.
If you find the review interesting, you´ll gonna wanna check it out by yourself. He´s more or less spot on. The game does have alot of bugs, but it´s still a joy to play, and soon comes santa with a nice content patch that will increase the game experience (and prolly the bugs as well to be honest) further. But the bugs always gets fixed sooner or later, and left we have a everly evolving MMO sandbox game. Make up your own opinion. Give it a go. And prepare to die. Alot.
You're right...the maps are not even close to being MO's major problem. I do think this system would work for other "sandbox" style games. Even if someone published the map online....I think most people would appreciate a decent in game equivalent. The last time I used an out-of-game map was when I played "Ultima 3: Exodus" on my Commodore 64. It came with a full-color cloth map which I had pinned on my wall. What a geek.lol. Now that I think of it..those were good times.
Mortal Online Has Potential.
The problem is the developers are small and want to stay small. If a big company took this on and had more minds to bounce ideas off of, we would end up with something more playable.
UO (the primary game this is modeled after) had proper templates and the point alocations were not spread to thinly. It is my belief that this is the primary point that the MO devs are missing. You should be able to be a grandmaster in carpentry and make everything great from wood including, boat, house, bow and arrow, furniture, carts, barrel, siege engine, bridge, and many other things. There should be almost no inter-dependance on other classes or skills to do these things and all for 100 points. Taming...same thing 100 points. Blacksmith should include making all weapons and armors of any type of metal for 100 points. Same with gathering skills. 100 in a quarry skill and 100 in blacksmith should be all you need to make any armor or weapon or equipment from rock and metal components.
This brings me to the point I am trying to make. Basically the devs didn't have enuff unique types of things to do in the world so they took 1 or 2 skills from UO and devided them so thinly that you could spend your 1000 points and not have a character that can even defend themselves at all against any attack.
Horrible design choices didn't stop there. The loot didn't need to drop from the sky. It could be simple like clicking the fallen corpse and a loot window opens. What were they thinking???
Also the Beta. OMG the beta. You had to PAY to be involved in the beginnings of the beta. The price of a full finished AAA title 9 months before release. And what did we get for our AAA money? I got Endless downloads from a torrent utility I had to download from another company. I got a funky password system to log into a secret IRC channel that I had to download another program from another company to use. And then to the game. In the beginning it was not a game. It was more, a non-working concept piece that you would maybe be able to log into for 5 to 10 minutes at a time. This changed again and again over the course of the many many months until the game was finally released. I was ok with the bugs in Beta but once the game was released and the disk sent was not even the final software to run the game and there was zero documentation I felt cheated.
I mean....can't you follow even the most basic design concept like UO and throw in a cloth map of the world or maybe like EQ and throw in a manual explaining the races and character starting process. NOPE.....not this company.
Don't get me wrong here. It was not all horrible. I did try the game and had some fun exploring during the day but the lack of content after release really made me scratch my head in disbelief.
So I am going to wait and wait and wait some more until they FIX the broken mechanics before I restart my subscription. And if they never do I will not lose sleep. There are great alternatives on the horizon like Guildwars 2 and Rifts.
They just need to re-examine the 1000 point skill system and come up with more content and more PvE as well.
IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN SIX MONTHS YET!
The thing with content in this game is entirely up to you and what you wanna do. Me and my clanmates have tons to do every single day. We explore the jungle, kill the spider queen, getting bullhorses, getting items to make armour etc, transport stuff to the keep, defend allies that need help, lure in a valley for enemy clans etc. If you just sit on your ass and hope that some1 will hold your hand and take you out into the world of Nave for adventures, that won´t happen now. There will be more PVE coming up soon, but still, as it is now, with all the bugs etc, the game is REALLY fun to play. Just use your imagination and go out and have fun.
Where is the 2 week trial offer?
The game may have many interesting things in it but as it is pvp focused game I will never have any interest in it.
I honestly don't think a game should be given points for 'potential' at all, unless that 'potential' is absolutely sure to be realised in the very near future.
If you want to check on 'potential' do another review later on and see if it has been realised.
Giving these scores cheapens your rating system, because I honestly don't think you can give many other games less than 6.9 if you give a buggy and unfinished game that score.
If you actually read the review, he doesn´t say anywhere that the score influenced by MOs potential... It IS fun to play now even with the bugs. Just imagine how much fun it will be futher down the road. I predict a nice 8.5 score in another 6 months... :P
I read the review.
"Astounding Potential" is one of the pros, potential gets 1/3 of a page, it influenced the score.
Regardless of what it influenced a game that is buggy as all hell (his words) doesn't get a high grade score, just like you don't get a grade if you deliver a paper full of obvious faults in college.
Yeah, I spent about an hour researching races, skills, and attributes and seriously considering blowing 50 bucks to try out this game... until I re-read their "flagging system" for pvp and realized that you can still be ganked even if you're at the "blue" level of innocence.
I thought at first that you could NOT be ganked until you becamed "grey" for "behaving badly." If they would make pvp a choice then I'd try it out.
Please note, I have never played Mortal Online and I don't have any bias towards it on way or another. These comments relate specifically to the quality of the review and it's ultimate score.
This review basically boils down to this (per the reviewer):
Negatives
Hey... I disagree with much of what Mr. Tingle said... that's OK though as everyone is allowed their own opinions.
What I have to take exception to however is this closing line:
if it meant a few hours of entertainment and supporting a company who truly have the communities best interests at heart – hell I’d recommend this game, us old timers need this game to succeed,
What? I mean... that is a STUNNING comment to toss out without any support whatsoever. This is a company that STILL has not shipped their promised replacement DVDs to customers 6 months after launch.. Not only that, but they ignore countless requests for updates on it.
Well.. I'm not going to get on a soapbox. I will simply say: Be VERY... VERY wary of any "review" that claims to know how any company has the "communities best interests at heart".
Not saying anyone is wrong for taking umbridge to my marks for 'potential' but, I think (in this genre in-particular) that future potential plays a big part in attraction. When playing this game, for myself, a draw is the fact that I can see that this game could improve drastically beyond anything on the market currently. A good example for my justification is the RPG 'The Witcher' that game was broken and unplayable for most, but at the core, man what an experience - would you have dismissed that game as a 5 because of its initial release?
Also, you wouldn't play an MMORPG that was uninspired and had nowhere else to take it, the fact that Mortal Online is still playable and enjoyable - then add that the game could be absolutely awesome with a few content patches, I think it deserves a few marks for that. But that's my opinion and I respect anyones grievances with it; so just ignore the score and read the review. I find scores arbitrary and mostly wrong according to my tastes anyway.
What will you do with the patch DVD's? The game is patched every week. Having the DVD's prepared and sent to customers will take at least a month. So you will be missing 4 patches anyway (the most optimistic scenario)
If you write a story in school, and the story is REALLY good, but you didn´t spell all that well. You usually still get high grades because the story was good and interesting. The same thing goes with for MO. It´s a really good game, but it has alot of bugs. And deserves the score it got. I don´t think it´s to high or to low. I think it is spot on.
But the bugs ain´t so bad that you can´t play the game. I still get tons made in MO without running into any bug. You know what you get when you buy the game. I knew there were bugs in it when I got it. People who read this interview knows it. SOme will see past the bugs and actually enjoy it, some will have no patience and leave it. That´s the way it goes. But more will surely pick it up and stay, then the once that will leave.
I think the developer does have the communities best interests at heart, at the very most I think they can be somewhat poorly organised but I don't think there scheming or plotting anything untoward. The DVD issues aside, StarVault are trying to create a sandbox MMORPG that many gamers have been crying out for for nearly a decade - in return they get a lot of flack and abuse that makes them out to be Scandinavian na'er-do-wells.
But.. your review rating actually referrs to "potential". I suppose we have a difference of opinion about what a review actually is...
To me.. a review must be based on what a game actually delivers. An article about "potential" is commonly referred to as a Preview.
Heck.. every game could POTENTIALLY be patched to become a 10 at some point....
I once had an interest in trying this game then I read player reviews and looked at the website and the developers practices. I changed my mind easily.
Just reading the mmorpg review and then looking at the rating it was given is enough to make me chuckle. Basically the review boils it down to the game is bad, the state of release was bad, the bugs are bad and the future grim. But.. because it is "different" and "has potential" the score is decent. That makes no sense at all. Review the game on what is reality, not what is a fantasy of what it could turn out to be if several "if's" were to line up like magic.
Sugar coating the truth does no one any favors.
People are afraid of hurting feelings so they tip-toe around reality. If people feel hurt because you say the game they play sucks right now and list facts of why it sucks then that is a personal issue of that individual. The people looking at the review and wondering if it's worth spending money on just want to hear the dirt on it and call it a day.
Did mortal online get more rating then darkfall? Wow congrats!!!
Key sentences from this review: "Regardless of the bugs and slight unfinished feel, Mortal Online is supremely enjoyable. There are enough developed class-types to keep you occupied while more updates roll out and the game is more than stable enough to play. Sifting through community posts would tell a different story at times but I think people are not really taking the game in the spirit of how it is meant".
Amen.
I wonder when journalists stop judging games by "potential". I mean WTF, review it in its current state, not what it could be if developers had some brains.
Mortal Online is one of the worst MMORPGs of all time and a good example of how you can screw EVERYTHING. There is not a single part which is done right. Its so bad that makes Metin 2 look good
Great article....you do a good job of articulating the GAP that needs to be filled in MMORPG gaming, the challenges of creating a successful sandbox game, and some of the overcompensation in the recent the Sandbox sub-genere games (Mortal Online, Darkfall Online)
I just wish the aformentioned games didn't go so far off the sandbox edge that it did. Its virutally divided sandbox players into another sub group.....regular sandbox enthusiasts and dogmatic sandbox pureists. The sandbox sub-genere doesn't need another sub division of players. Our numbers are far too thin as it is to support any kind of financial backing that is required for releasing a well developed and polished game experience.
The no map is a perfect issue (as the OP pointed out). What is the value in creating a huge expansive 3D environment...ripe for exploring wide expansive landscapes when you find out you've been running for 20 minutes North East when you needed to run 20 minutes North?
No one's calling for waypoint arrows or automated flight paths. Just a little something that doesn't put you waisting 20 mintues of your play time NOT getting somewhere you thought you were getting to.
There are without a doubt advocates for exactly this kind of game...just recognize (as a sandbox fan) that the smaller the group your game is playing too, the smaller your chances are of financially supporting the game in a way that is needed to refine it past the beta crap state its currently in. You don't have to sell your soul to the themepark devil the way WOW did....just moderate the hard knocks a bit to where its palatable for the majorty of the sandbox community.
I agree 1000%
It's fine for a reviewer to put in a paragraph about what potential they see in a game. IMHO a review has jumped the shark once it starts to factor in that "potential" as a major element... heck THE major element in a review. And then to also use that potential when scoring a game just seems far fetched.
A review is something that describes how a game exists at the time of the review. The score should reflect that. If you feel something in the future might potentially CHANGE that score.. feel free to include some text about that possibility.
Otherwise... it's not a review.. it's a preview.
They should remove this review. It makes this website look really bad.
This review is not a review. You either review the game and score accordingly to what the game really is. Or you don't.
Giving the game such a high score is an insult to our intelligence. And more importantly. Hurts the credibility of this site.
You are doing no one here any favours by trying to sugar coat, twist and twist and twist some more, to come up with some kind of excuse of such a high score. All just because it's a poor poor little indie company? Give me a break!
Starvault had (and still haven't) no clue about what they were getting into. Or what it involves into making a MMO.
Not to mention that they licensed a very expensive game engine, that's an FPS engine at it's heart. And takes considerable amount of resources and very experienced developers with lots of expertise to mod and adjust for a MMO.
There are plenty of other game engines out there, that are already optimised for MMO games. But no no. Starvault had to do it the hard way and failed miserably!
Just have a look at the little indie studio that just released Perpetuum Online. A very solid game that actually works! Those guys really deserved to be praised. They actually knew what they were getting into and knew what it takes to make a MMO. And succeeded.
Cheers
Couple comments I'd like to make. First, about not having a map: I like the idea that they are trying to make the game more free-form and using old-school games as a base. I enjoy a challenge and believe that many new MMO games have lost a lot of what made the older games so great. Having said that, I am absolutely horrible at navigation and direction. I always have been and probably always will be, both in video games and in real life.
In EQ I had to print the maps out or have people show me the way. It would take 2-3 trips before I could get somewhere w/o getting lost. I don't need a detailed map with quest markers etc, but a basic layout map (such as EQ implemented around the time of the PoP expasion) is a very handy crutch for someone like me. It would even make sense to be able to "draw" the maps in-game. Not physically, but the the areas you explored would show up for future reference as you discovered them.
Also, there was no mention in the review of the races beyond that you get certain benefits depending on which race you choose. I am going to have to go find out for myself what races are available and what they are all about. This information would have been very useful in the review, in my opinion, as race selection is a big factor for me in RPG games.
Your missing the point of the article. The writer is obviously a sandbox fan that (like the rest of the sandbox MMO audience) has been waiting for SOMEONE to do something other than the same theme park crap thats co-opted the MMORPG genere into nothing more than a glorified single player experience.
As he states in his article.....fans of sandbox MMORPGs should be supporting things like what Adventurine or Star Vault has done. Supporting doesn't mean you have to buy their product.....or even doesn't mean you cant critisize some of the things you feel its done wrong. It can mean highlighting the good points, the intent, the spirit of the game and calling out the features and mechanics it failed on......which is exactly what I think the author did.
On paper (aside from the FPV only), Mortal Online is the second coming of UO.....its a different story when you log in. Much of it has to do with lack of funds to put together a solid graphics engine, resources to work on bugs, glitches, etc.....not game logic.
Games like Darkfall and Mortal Online are in the right direction...they just need to pull the "hardcore" reigns in a bit so that it appeals to more fans in the sandbox genere.
>>>>> LoL @ You're doing it wrong
I have not played the game and have no opinion on it personally but this excuse used by perma-fans, particularly people that are supposed to be professionals, is insane.
There is no right or wrong in player perception. Reality is reality. If the majority of players say the game is broken, buggy, and the developer is not trustworthy or follows through with anything he says then that is the reality. You can sprinkle sugar all over it and it won't change the facts no matter how much you hold your breath or squint your eyes.
The intelligent way to defend a game is to debate the critics rationally and provide your own counter-proof to prove your point. That is not being done. Fans agree with critics but "like" the game anyway for reasons that are usually not provable with data from reality.
It's a seriously disturbing trend that points to the industry itself contributing to players purchasing every game from the genre they like just to find out if it's worth spending money on or not.
You know what makes most of these negative comments pointless is that..........
Mortal online can only get better.
Spot on. I was literally just thinking this in my head. Honestly, there are people here that are perma-fans, no matter what. And people here that take their hatred of MO to unhealthy levels, nitpicking and taking everything to extremes -- they're just as bad as the fanboys. But if you look at the area in the middle, at the actual facts, at the way this game is being handled...
Well, it speaks for itself.
You missed the "Regardless of the bugs and slight unfinished feel, Mortal Online is supremely enjoyable. There are enough developed class-types to keep you occupied while more updates roll out and the game is more than stable enough to play"-part... And if you read what I´ve written before you can see some of my points on it. I don´t wanna repeat myself every single time.
A good review and one that could have been extended on for pages. I like the "group up with this game" deal where feeling as if the game is coming out of beta and growing with is reminds me of Eve when it first came out.
On the postive side, Patches come out often sometimes leading to the negative side, patches create new problems. However, those problems are addressed fastly. It is a give and take game that has me afixed with the direction it is going. The political status of the map can and is changed by power and by diplomacy...I like that.
I'm not saying that there is a wrong or right way to play a game. What I'm saying is, with sandbox MMOs, if you don't take the adventure and excitement from the little things, then the genre is not for you. If you throw yourself into the experience and take everything in the spirit and context of the setting you will get more enjoyment out of it. You don't play something like Call of Duty and pick out every single inaccurate point and gameplay element. Anyway...thats what I meant.
Please dont call MO a sandbox game. UO is sandbox, EVE is sandbox. MO is an empty ugly looking world where you can do nothing except mine ore from dawn to dusk and PK noobs in boring and buggy combat. Sometimes you can meet 2 headed NPCs staring at walls all days long. Thats about it.
I didn't "miss" anything. I have become an expert at "disregarding" things that are nonsense.
re·gard·less/ri?gärdl?s/
Adverb: Without paying attention to the present situation; despite the prevailing circumstances
It is clear the review ignores reality in favor of magic rainbows and roses land but I don't need to hear fandom in a review, I just read it for the facts of what the game actually is.
Facts: Bugs and unfinished feel.
Game has been released almost 6 months and players continually make lists of serious issues.
I don't blindly support any game with the label "sandbox" or "themepark" or anything else on it because that's ridiculous.
For being a guy that "have not played the game and have no opinion on it personally" you sure know alot of what about whats wrong and don´t work with MO... You seem to be completly blind to the good things people have to say about it. Test it out yourself and ACTUALLY get a REAL opinion on it.... Or just move on.
No the game has not been released for 6 months yet!
The game will be 6 months old on Dec 9th.
Considering this review was made based off of game play from just before the last patch you can only assume that the game is EVEN BETTER now then it was for the reviewer.
First...
Great review. Informative, fair and equally praising and critical. Enjoyable read.
That said...
I think after reading the (all too predictable) responses, two things are absolutely clear:
1. Statements of how "you should give a MMO at least a few months before you can fairly review it" are meaningless. Regardless of how long you wait, the reaction from the community is going to be exactly the same as any other time. When it's reviewed has absolutely no bearing.
2. People were complaining that the Survivor Guy series about MO wasn't leveling enough criticism toward the game.
Here we are with a review that is quite harsh and critical of the game... Yet, people still aaren't satisfied. Why? Because the reviewer had the *nerve* to say positive things about it as well.
Not at all surprising 'round these parts, though.
"riddled to the core with bugs and is woefully unfinished to the point that is really hard to defend and shield it from criticism"
Fun? Maybe, if you're a fan of the game and genre and have an inhuman tolerance for bugs, desync, lag, and an unfinished beta game. Fun is only one component of the game's rating, though and there's no arguing the game--as a whole--is a mess.
~Ripper
The spirit of this review was simply this: Bugs-a-plenty... but show me something else that fits my needs and the needs of those that want a sandbox... Show me something that is trying to be more like UO than this game. Show me something better.
Be honest... you can't. How could you know what I want or like? Sure there are some games coming out in the future, other indie projects, but... what? Stop playing this game until those come out?
Or perhaps I should demand perfection... Supporting games that do not meet a certain standard only encourage developers to make crappy games... Right?
With all the patches and fixes this team is trying to do, they certainly seem to be trying to avoid a crappy game...besides... waiting for a future game, or demanding a high level of quality means only one thing:
I don't get to play.
We don't get together to elect winners. We all want more games, we want different types of games, and we want to encourage improvements in the games we play.
UO-Everquest-DAoC-WoW-LotRO-WAR... and so many in-between and around... Look what the industry has progressed to. A certain level of quality is expected, but then we don't really get anything different.
When someone says a game is good, yet buggy, and writes fairly detailed review about it... why call them liars, or try to discredit them? What is the problem? What is your goal?
Is one game the right game? or... if one does not match up to certain expectations... does that make it wrong? Are we supposed to protect people from that? Are we supposed to condemn those that say differently?
Are we extremists here?
Zealotry for a game is one thing, but when zealots attack others for simply having a different perspective and belief, nothing good can come from it.
Well you apperantly haven´t played the game then. Cause the bugs aren´t making the game unplayable. Me and my fellow clanmates are having a blast together. Ofc we run into bugs, but it´s not as bad as it would make any of us quit, or bring down the experiencce of it. Also the bugs gets fixed. And I can say that the desync has improved ALOT with yesterdays patch. Just read up on it on the MO forums. I´m not making this up. And having fun, at least to me, is the most important part with playing a MMO or any videogame for that matter.
Amen. Couldn´t have said it better myslef. That actually was so good, that I won´t write more on this topic, cause I can´t top that argument.
Can we get a multi-quote option? Pretty please?
The review looks fair to me and accurate.
I myself do not play until they add the PvE and social features I've been waiting for. The game is fun for a 3-4 months with the current content but I understand the game needed major fixing and now needs content.
Readers aren't dissatisfied with the overall review. It's that the overall score doesn't accurately reflect the written word. It seems arbitrary and artificially skewed high based on nebulous concepts like potential and overall preference for the genre, despite the game's many glaring technical and design issues. As I said in my other post, the tooltip for the Mediocre rating states "has a few stand-out features with few, if any, glaring detractors". That seems perfectly reasonable, except that the definition is totally contrary to the state of the actual game, per the reviewer's own words, which is "woefully unfinished", "Star Vault’s creation is riddled with bugs, glitches, errors, misjudgements and everything in-between", " riddled to the core with bugs", "buggy as all hell", "the game falls flat in many directions" and "this game is nearer to state of closed-beta rather than retail release".
You're right, the review was "quite harsh and critical of the game", but the score didn't reflect that. That's what people are upset about.
~Ripper
My problem with the review is a philosophical one. I strongly believe that reviews should be based on the product that exists when being reviewed. If a reviewer has high hopes for future changes in a game.. those should be factored in seperately and not listed as a key factor in the rating. Again.. that is simply MY opinion. If the review simply stated, "The game is currently rated as X... but I think it has the potential to get a rating of Y down the road if they can fulfill all this potential"... I would have no issues with it.
Just look at the title.. it's called "Six Month Review". But that's not actually true, as the vast majority of the positives relate to something it could be later on.
As I said perviously... every MMO game in existance has had the potential (no matter how small) to eventually turn into a "10".
Hey guys, lets not attack or bait other users into personal arguements. Discuss the review and express your opinion. Please also remember to respect other's opinions.
There are some major flaws with this review.
1. The game is not yet 6 months old.
2. A new patch came out just after the review but before the 6 month mark.
3. Most if not all of the 21 bugs the reviewer claims to have encountered have already been patched.
4. There is no mention of nudity or the extremely "adult" content in the game. Probably to ensure a pg13 review that's suitable for mmorpg.com
5. So called desync issues players were experiancing have disappeared in this newest patch.
With all these things considered I'm sure the reviewer would have rewarded Mortal Online a 9+ if he based his review off the current patch instead of older versions of the client.
If your into openword open pvp sandbox MMO's you can't go wrong with Mortal Online.
Knowing what the conversation is talking about is an important factor to reading comprehension, you have explained the topic well Ripper.
>>>>> So does everyone else that has nothing to hide.
>>>>> Exactly, and how many actually achieve a "10". Ignore reality at your own peril. Or your wallets.
MMORPG.com reviews are getting to the point where you need to subtract 2-3 just because of the source.
You may as well rate every MMO game a 6-8 because it has models that function and the "potential" to become more than it is. Wait....
Great review. I think this game is great, yes it is still buggy but just the direction they are going is everything I have been waiting for in an MMORPG for a long time.
For some reason some people have been trying to discredit this game even before it was released. All you need to do is check their post history and you can see that they have been posting negative info about the game for a very long time.
As time goes on and the bugs are worked out this game is going to be a classic I think.
Have a nice day! :)
As far as #3 is concerned, how the hell do you know that? He didn't say what the bugs were.
Also, #4 - "no mention of nudity..".. Did you even READ the review? He mentions the nudity in 2 or 3 sentences, at least, and I got bored and stopped reading before I finished the review.
6.9 seems overly generous, considering the things even HE SAID about the game. I agree with another poster. Rating a game based on potential? Christ! How stupid is that? You could go ahead and say EVERY lacking, unfinished, game has potential, if you really wanted to, and you wouldn't be wrong. Some may have more potential than others, but that would never make me rate a game higher than where it should be because of it. Judge the game for what people actually see now, some some "potential" of what it could be, and from what people are saying, probably will never see.
The comment that people hate MINDLESS pvp, killing or being a prick just because the game lets you, then blaming people that don't like it, and saying they don't have imagination, was effing absurd. WTF does imagination have to do with griefers? These people RUIN online games. If they did anything like this in real life, they would get their asses handed to them, in a heartbeat, and I'd be in line to provide that service.
Whatever.
Not to mention, it's a sub-based game, so you are throwing your money away too.
Even with the positive comments - I'm staying far away from this title. That same old adage comes to play here. DO something about games that come before they are even close to complete - I am. I'm NOT going to pay for it. No one else should either. Screw potential. Charging money for this garbage, is THIS day and age? Pathetic.
MMORPG.com now has Mortal Online rated higher than Darkfall. Get f'in real.
Can you get killed by being stuck in a roof in Darkfall? No! It lacks features! Thus the rating. :-)
Paying for the game and then a sub seems wrong given how busted the code is, even compared to the other busted games that publishers try to feed us.
Greatest Thread Ever Created On This Site! evAr!
Look out. Giving Mortal Online anything less than an 8 will result in SV contacting you for "vandalizing" their game. You'll be recieving their bully attempts soon.
It is a pretty cool game to play for maybe a week but you will soon find yourself asking "What is there to do?"
Everything is nearly based on interacting with other players. There aren't many long term goals you can do in this game. When you log on for the day and think about what you need to do, well you find that you are either playing solo and only can think on working on your character skills, or you have to log on to IRC, vent, teamspeak, or whatever to talk with your guild to see what things you need to work on to do some kind of activity together.
This game needs more work. It's cool that they have lore and stuff but what good is it all if you can't reflect any of your gameplay on it. One of the features that had the biggest impact on me was the mentioning of monsters that were only in the game one time, and once it was killed it would never been seen again (So you would hope the killers at least FRAPS it first).
One thing I can think of off the top of my head that would just add so much more to the game is adding some sort of boss type monster. So to put lore to use, you could figure out that there are legends of a wizard who lives in a certain mountain in Nave. You get a bunch of guys together to mine the rocks there and over time with enough of it mined you all uncover a hidden entrance. Entering the darkness of inside the mountain you discover many new hostile creatures never before seen. So you have to fight your way through and explore. You come across evidence of civilization, only to discover it is by some foreign creatures.
Now here is were player choices really begin to shape the world. The players who discovered the area could try to protect the creatures from other players who want to kill them for loot, could kill them for loot themselves, could try to decode their dialog to be able to understand them, steal from them all but leave them alive, join them in their civilized practices, live with them, and so many other things they could do. The choices players make will create some kind of stir in the world because for all we know those creatures could be planning to launch some kind of attack on a city. Killing that race of creatures could prove to be beneficial or harmful. To throw in another twist what if they were able to teach dark magic. If you were in a mage guild then you might try to hide it from the world, figure out how to obtain their dark magic, and then you would be the only one's in the game with dark magic (for the moment because if you keep up with your lore you could find alternatives)
That is just the kind of stuff I believe Mortal Online is capable of but I'm holding off on buying this game again until they add more to the world than just wanting to kill other players without much goal other than to get their loot.
All i can say is beware of these MMO sites pushing reviews for game companies that spend advertising $ with them. This is a perfect example.
Companies like MO and sites like MMORPG seem to think it's the norm now to release a game and promote it as "ready" only to make excuses as to why content isn't as promised prior to release or even in a working state for that matter.
They start spamming reviews like this exhorting "potential" and "sandbox" instead of publishing the truth which is" show your consumer choice and don't fall for these games that are unfinished piles of crap"
This site is becoming as sad as this game.
SV nor MO won't shut down in the end of this year or anytime near it, The license agreement with Epic doesn't even work like that, those so called "devs" or "guys" on that site that talks about that, they have obviously no clue about how it works nor our partnership with Epic Games, whats being said about it is all wrong.
Like I said before, we are now focusing on social/pve for MO. And will start getting new players into the game, and make people aware of Mortal Online, which is still a minority.
Thanks for your support guys.
You get the right facts and information on this community and no other.
I guess this will come next on that site"
I'm surprised MMORPG.com even hosts MO on this site for all the sh!t that Community Managers and Developers say about MMORPG.com
Apparently we're all trolls, fakes, liars, and kids.
The review is mostly spot on. Games got potential but is simply buggy and lacking in content. Otherwise it has the base for a trully epic game.
Its much much muich better then it was in beta or a couple of months after "release". If you are wiling to put up with alot of BS its worth it now... if not then wait on it.
Thank you for this review and a great write-up too. It neatly described the strengths and weaknesses of this game. I'm looking forward to some developer efforts before I jump in.
Considering how broken this game is, it should of gotten a lower score than darkfall even if some of the systems are better than darkfalls.
IMO this review is highly disingenuous. I think it wrong to award as a positive somethings potential...surely you appriase what is infront of you not could be infront of you?
K let me make it clear to everyone about these dvds. Since some are trying to use that as a way to discredit the devs so here are the facts.
. There were originally no boxed copies planned for mo or special edition. However to to the constant requests from the fan base at large who were wanting to pay extra to help support the devs and their game they decided to offer a boxed copy. Also 999 limited editions copies which were practically non profitable.
. Part of the deal with these boxed copies was that future versions of the game would be sent out on discs throughout the life of MO. Probably after major expansions etc (which are free to all)
.On release a large portion of the community were demanding there dvd discs. Esentially wanting them regardless of the fact the release was a mess and the disc would be outdated extrmeely quickly afterall patches were every 2 weeks and large in size. Discs were sent and recieved.
.After first few weeks the game could no longer be installed from the discs becasue suprisingly the version wasnt the same and the whole patching process had changed.
.A few weeks later the game can now be installed using the original discs. All this time those who owned the discs were still able to download the game through the site so they could still play fine. But now the discs work with the patches all is good.
.New discs will likely be sent out when some major changes and conant have been added. wanting a new disc every few months isnt what the devs were planning. Think of it like this you buy eve. Then recieve a new disc for each major expansion like tyrannis and not for each patch.
So people please stop going on about these discs they work you can insdtall the game, it was shitty you couldnt use the discs for the first month but you could still paly by downloading it through the site.
also i found no point in this review were he said the score had been influenced by the games potnetial so why do people jump to conclusions? is it becasue theres a lot of hate mongering aimed at this game so the fact that he enjoyed it enough to give it 6.9 must mean hes reviewing a future version? i have enjoyed the game alot despite its bugs. Infact hidden and dangerous was a game that was buggy beyond belief but at the time of release awarded a 9.10 score because its was the best ww2 game on the market at that time and had some serious features to seperate it from the norm. Same goes for stalker.
I would also like to add that you can, if you want, evaluate this potential better. Particularly if you insist on using that as a value in your final score. Here you have to look at SVs ability to deliver which would mean looking at their track record of successful patches. And here we hit a brick wall. SV has failed in its patches.
Go look at the bug tracker and look at its history. There are still bugs from clsoed beta in the game. Even when they claim to have fixed them and close a ticket, the reality is that sometimes it is not fixed and another ticket appears. Hell, all the duping bugs are not allwoed to be put on the tracker! I got told off for posting one on the tracker!
Nearly every patch said to fix something or provide content has broken something else. So how the hell can you award such a large weighting to potential given SVs track record on delivering is so poor? This si waht we mean by potential too, potential to deliver and clearly we know that they can't.
This is not a subjective remark and can be verrified if you took the time to actually do your homework. If you keep this score of 6.9...which is average, and keep to this potential thing so that you can justify such a score, I really have to ask to what extent are you complicit in creating a false impression? You have not even used your own screen shots but rather those ptovided for you. Lets see what the game looks like on your machine as you play it when everything is not set to high and highly structured and planned eh?
*fumes*
yea duping bugs are to be private messagd to the devs to stop people learing them from the tracker.Which is imo a good thing.
i play the game on a 4 year old system with medium setting dynamic shadows and bloom. Looks great.
Way to play the strawman deathshroud in choice picking which of my comments to engage with. Really interested to see the reviewer respond to what I say about asessing potential.
he iddnt mention in his review that potential played a part in th score so...
Don't be an idiot deathshroud, of course it played a role in his score. He clearly outweighs the negatives with it. Just look at the pros and cons as indicatives of the vbreakdown of the score. You getting desperate mate?
Scot the game has been launched / released. People are being charged to play this game and reviews like this will encourage otehrs to part with their cash for a game that is not what it is advertised to be. Its getting criminal tbh; its a trend in the mmo industry more generally imo.
provided you know what MO is and what its all about i see no reason for people to feel they were cheated when buying the game. I enjoy it alot and after UO is the Second mmo i have played for aronud a year. Im not usually one of those players who stick with an mmo becasue they usually fill me with disapointmnet MO hasnt done that. frustrations yes but never disapointment.
Im also not a player who chooses his next game on how polished it is. I would sooner go for inovation with bugs over imitation with polish. If i wanted to play WOW i would i woulndt play one of its many imitiators. MO offers something different.
Wow, a really well done review. I never expected this from mmorpg.com :D
I agree 100% and frankly am amazed such a flawed approach to rating a game was accepted by this site. Having played MO, I'd give it a 1.9 and any potential I see based upon the track record of SV reads of failure. If I factored my expectations of what the developer can deliver I'd give it a minus, remove it from my mind and give the money to unicef.
if all ppl who comment this will play MO the population will go up 25% :D:D:D
I think the score is rightly deserved. Any who argue that it should've gotten a much lower score likely aren't scoring each aspect as it should be. The game's models look great, therefore it scores high. The game's world is vast and populated, therefore it scores well. The combat, albeit slow and not quite complete, is immersive and entertaining, warranting a decent score. The bugs are what drags the score down, the incomplete nature of the game, and so on and so forth.
I look at 6.9 and think it a fair score; the game isn't broken, but it isn't fully functional. However, what IS there is mostly entertaining, and in such a manner that very few games have--or do--provide. To give it a score such as 1.9 would be to deny the fact that it is indeed fun when it plays as it should. 1.9 says that it's a terrible game that has absolutely no good or redeeming qualities and that barely anyone actually likes the game. MO does still have a player-base and players who enjoy the game, so this cannot be true.
Anyhow, I think potential a good thing; any game without potential, regardless of how good, shows that it has hit its peak. The game likely cannot--and will not--improve any more, and this is not something an MMO should be, it is not something a game should be. Sure, potential shouldn't factor in to the score, but it certainly shouldn't go without mention; we watch trailers and videos of gameplay and think "This game has potential. I may potentially enjoy this game". Should not a review point out that the game in question has such a potential? Mind you, it is different to say that the game HAD potential, meaning all hope for improvement is gone, which is not the case of Mortal Online.
Good review. I agree with this:
"Regardless of the bugs and slight unfinished feel, Mortal Online is supremely enjoyable. There are enough developed class-types to keep you occupied while more updates roll out and the game is more than stable enough to play."
MO is a really good game even thou the bugs. Looking forward to the coming PvE and Social patches the coming weeks.
I will be blunt. The author to me seems to be another old school veteran who jizzes in his pants as soon someone mentions UO 3D. I by no means want to insult the author, but I felt that would describe the vibes I get from the review best. So I toss it out: biased, least to say.
Almost half of the review is about potential, which I am sick to hear about at this point, it been tossed around since the very first beta. Professionals should not score the games based on their potential, psecially half a year after the release. Another half of the review is about games ideals an ideas, I found almost nothing on the actual gameplay and content. Why? Because there is no, and the great lack of PvE content alone should have heavily impacted the score.
Once again, potential doesn't cut it. SV are least to say amateurish in every decision they make, one would have though that by now they would have learnt how to ship their patches to avoid critical and obvious bugs, but no. A player found EIGHT bugs in the new patch, and that in just 5 minutes of normal gameplay. That is inexcusable, specially after Henrik stated they made a strict control over shipped patches after their GaulKor fail.
SV havn't even shipped the promised after launch DVDs to those who bought the boxes, and that is half a year after the games release. Bad design decisions and poorly implemented features can be seen everywhere in this game, and you give it 6.9? What a joke. The Author should have continued with his Survival Guy impression series, since he is beiased enough to not be able to professionally review the game.
To me, a 7 is a solid playable game, not this pay to play beta. MMORPG gave Darkfall a 6, a game which got more content and less bugs then MO, so I really do call bias here. That someone prefers skillcap and FPV is a personal preference and should not affect score. A right score would be something of 5.5-5.9, considering the "potential", and I am being generous here.
And that is why they introduced "quests", eh? The sandbox tag is by no means an excuse for the lack of content. A good game will provide you with both. Not to mention that MO lacks any kind of sandbox tools. Could you mention to me three mechanics that don't have a clear use but can be adjusted to the situation and used in different means?
I will give you an example of a sandbox tool as I see it. Most basic one, to get the ideas across. A grappling hook. You can use it to climb walls, pull your enemy towards you, snare someone from running away, use it to reach new places, use it to transport something heavy up the walls. That is a sandbox tool, which can be used in many different ways, assisting players in creation of their own content.
Now, could you please name any tools like that in MO?
Thankyou for the dose of sanity Toferio! Thankyou very much indeed!
how is wanting a 3d version of uo a bad thing? uo was one of the great mmos and without it its doubtful mmos would have even become popular. UO EQ WOW EVE there the main ones right there.
Also those quests you speak for were planned from the start they are i beleive even mentioned in the powerpoint presentation. Still though they work very differently to quests you find in a typicl mmo mainly because you are told about them but have no actual quest to do. you can bring the items to that particular vendor or to any vendor. The tasks are for new players to find inofrmation ingame on how to make money that is all. Later they hope to bring tasks that are for veterans which involve alot more but of course we need to wiat and see.
Its a fair review dont listen to the haters simply visit the forums and read whats written on there it gives a better understanding of whats happening.
I did not say it is a bad thing, did I? I did however say that I believe his wish for a 3D UO heavily impacted his review, resulting in a bit biased outcome.
I see no difference. A quest is a quest, with or without an entry in your quest log to help you keeping track of the objective. The concept and the result remains the same, even if you twist the mechanic around a bit. Then again, I am not against quests, I am just pointing out that the "make your own fun" doesn't hold in longer terms, specially for new players.
I think you know as well as I that MO forums are heavily moderated, resulting in majority of negative opinions about the game being deleted. There is no need to link me few posts which dodged the censor, I know what I am talking about.
I aggree. If you seek immersion, this is a very good way to achieve it. Traveling blindly is not exciting to me, but traveling blindly knowing that you can mark your tracks and make your own map is cerainly appealing.
Great review, spot on imo!
Been around since beta, havent played at all since then and tried my 7 free days, and what a change! The visuals were truly great in comparison, and it all seems to work right now. Some glitches, but nothing that was bothering me at all!
Keep up the good work! You got me subbing again!
Yeah, wmada2k I guess YOU would say that.
"Now I must state that I do not like to judge an MMORPG on its launch and by how bug-ridden it is at any point. The very advantage of this beautiful genre is that the developer toils and slaves over their projects like none of their game studio peers; we pay a subscription fee and we, eventually, get a polished product – sometimes it just takes a little time."
I stopped reading after this little innane quip. It's this sort of enabling attitude that causes studios to deliver us craptastic games. Nobody gives a fly's ass how much work the devs put in, or how much they're 'slaving' over their projects. When you go to a movie, and it's gawd awful, do you give it a pass because the producer ran out of money in post-production, or that the directer couldn't get the actors he really wanted so had to settle for a bunch of commercial has-beens.
Yeah, I thought not...
Sorry but once again you have basic FACTS wrong.
1. True (Well.. except for the last part as I have no evidence to support or deny that the Loot Bags were "practically non-profitable")
2. Incorrect. The game advertised "all pre-launch updates freely shipped on DVD". All post launch updates and expansions as you describe were to be freely available in DIGITAL form. Here is the exact description from their website which proves this.
3. Not fully true. The discs were originally sent out in January. They did not work and were unable to be patched when received because SV changed their engine. SV's patcher will now recognize the disc and automatically do a full digital download (which defeats the purpose of a DVD). At the time.. customers were PROMISED by SV that they would receive updated DVDs AT LAUNCH. Here is the very announcement from the CM http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/45492-boxed-version-mo-rewards.html Which was later confirmed in a PM posted here http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/51203-opt-patch-dvd-any-updates.html#post1056127
I am an old-school MMORPG player but I dont see why I must feel obliged to support it. It is a bug ridden, unstable, amaterusticly created mess with complete lack of content (no, sandbox does not equal zero content). And now 6 months after release those issues are still there.
Also what has forced FPS style combat have anything to do with old school MMORPGs? UO did not have it, nor did EQ or Asherons Call. I for one hate it as it makes combat like a poorly made Quake mod.
So no, I am a fanatic supporter of old school MMORPGs but that does not mean that I will support whatever crap is thrown at us. It should not need to be said but we want well done, stable MMORPGs with content supported by a team that has the expertise to develop it. And after 6 months I dont feel Mortal Online and StarVault fits into that. So I dont recommend this game to anyone, old school or not.
However I do think Darkfall, as it is now, is an OK game if you like old school MMORPGs. Maybe Mortal Online will be at that stage some day, but today it is clearly not.
Shrug.. I can't really claim I am unbiased either to behonest, since I do dislike SV and the way they handle their community and the design of the game. With that being said, I don't really have anything MO as the game and believe my attitude to it is neutral enough to discuss it. It can be good fun and it's not that bad of a game if you are ready to ignore the bugs, bad patches, and slow paces content. But majority of the players are used to a kind of "standard" when it comes to MMOs, and MO is way below it. There is no need to call me out on what a standard is, since it is a rather vague term, but I believe we both know what I mean by it.
But I think that such bugs as players being teleported to a lake when their horse dies being detected by QA is a part of a sandard for a released game.
As for my attitude.. Well, sorry that the manner I post in makes you think of me as a hater, but that's the way I type. I don't want to put SV in positive light when I write about them (since as I stated above, I dislike the company), which probably reflects on me chosing to write a bit more negative rather then writing something positive I didn't intend to. We can argue a lot about my english, but I used "even" to put emphasis on that they didn't sort the most basic stuff such as working DVD.
Yes, why wouldn't I?
So you being ported to a lake when your horse dies is not a bother? I would then question your standards when it comes to games.. Some people seems to be able to take a lot of crap just to play a game with FPV and no target. I dont question that the game might be fun, but stating taht "all seems to be working right, nothing taht bothers me" is ridiculous.
I guess this sums it up:
http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/55869-glad-see-reasons-i-left-got-fixed.html
I think we need another review (preferably from the same reviewer) in 6 months.
I take it you didn't read the e-mail they sent out telling everyone that had purchased the game that it was about to go live, and how to cancel the subscription.
Rightly deserved based on what? Aren't scoring each aspect of what? That's my point - mmorpg.com reviews don't follow any published standard for choosing their scores. There's nothing in the article that states each aspect was scored X resulting in the averaged overall score of 6.9. All we have to go by is written word, which is extremely harsh of the game--as it exists today--but glows with admiration for future potential (something that shouldn't factor into the overall rating, unless it's a specific metric published alongside X other scoring meters).
"I look at 6.9 and think it a fair score; the game isn't broken, but it isn't fully functional" - the problem with that statement is that it isn't what 6.9 means, according to mmorpg.com. A "mediocre" score of 6.9 means a game "has a few stand-out features with few, if any, glaring detractors". That's what it says when you mouse over the score. The problem is that the score and it's definition are contrary to the authors own review, in which he states the game is: "woefully unfinished", "Star Vault's creation is riddled with bugs, glitches, errors, misjudgements and everything in-between", "riddled to the core with bugs", "buggy as hell", "the game falls flat in many directions", and "this game is nearer to state of closed-beta than retail release". I would consider all of those to be glaring detractors to the game's quality. As such, the score doesn't match the review. Potential and bias towards the genre clearly skewed the score higher regardless of the harsh criticism. I'd be perfectly happy if it didn't have any score attached to it. The problem I have is with the score itself. It just doesn't match the review.
~Ripper
Incorrect, sir. There was no such commentary on the review by Seraohina over at massively http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/09/02/anti-aliased-i-can-finally-stop-playing-mortal-online-now/. From your use of the word "vandalizing" I take it you are commenting on the wiki article in which case I will point out that "vandalism" was in fact wrong, but the comments were taken out for being biased and unsourced as well as the account adding that being banned http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mortal_Online&action=history
From the looks of it the game looks amazing. At least the developers are attempting to do something with it. On a positive note, all the people who bought the game and are "playing" are helping to fix the game and make it better. I'll check it out again in 6 months, maybe they will have a trial island or something.
They are charging full price for a game that is in a closed beta state. Why would they give a free trial area for a game that is actually in a release state?
I have no interest in this game other than the entertainment the forums here provide me, but WOW remind me to never, ever take a review from this author seriously. Clearly, he is so desperate for a sandbox game, that he'll eat a turd sandwich and ask for seconds. How does "nearer to the state of close-beta than retail release" translate into a 6.9?
Listing potential as a pro? Seriously?!? What game would potential NOT be a pro?
"Now I must state that I do not like to judge an MMORPG on its launch and how bug-ridden it is at any point". LOL what? How bug ridden it is should be a major factor in judging any piece of software.
"we pay a subscription fee and we, eventually, get a polished product - sometimes it just takes a little more time". This attitude is exactly why we get beta state MMOs inflicted upon us.
"...perhaps this is something that will be remedied in future updates? We can surely hope." "...feeling of excitement and the desire for this game to succeed." Biased review is biased. I get the feeling he only grudgingly acknowledges negatives because the editors insisted. Protip to MMORPG com: don't let gushing fanboys write reviews. Why did this game get the benefit of being released for 6 months before seeing a review?
Who knows, stranger things have happened. As long as people keep buying the game and subbing the developers will continue to try to fix it.
That's not a player's job in a released game, especially for which he or she pays a subscription. That's the role of a beta player. That's not to say that players for released games can't test content on a public test server, provide feedback, etc.., but that's not their primary role. As a customer, their role is to consume the product and be entertained.
~Ripper
That's not why people are bashing him. It's because his score and it's definition, per mmorpg.com, does not match what he wrote. I think his written review is fine. A score should be based on the game the reviewer experienced, not potential it may or may not realize in the future. Based on his written review, the game--while fun for him--is a mess. His score should reflect that, but it doesn't.
~Ripper
In the grand scheme of things, is the score really that important that a debate should rage for this long?
CCP didn't had compenence back when EVE got launched 2003 either, they worked for free for months just to get the game stable, EVE was riddle with bugs.
EVE fanboys like myself stayed despite how crappy EVE was but we saw the potentials in the game so we stayed, look what EVE is today.
I'm not saying it will happen to SV but you have the trial and error period as a fresh developer with little experience when i'ts thier first game very much like CCP, So the fat lady haven't sung yet, I still have hopes for MO to crawl out of it's crib and stand on it's two feets and smell the roses.
btw did you know how CCP got thier money to start developing EVE?, they made boardgames ;)
They should use the same rating system they give to the site users...rate the game's 'Sound', 'Fun', 'Graphics', etc. Mortal already had a chance to be hyped, now it's time for it to be weighed and measured. I think this should be done with all the released games for that matter, but it seems more appropriate here.
It is for a couple of reasons:
If MO gets a 6.9, DFO should easily pull off a 8 - 9
I do hope MO gets better over time but currently AV is doing a great job with DFO. MO has alot of work ahead of them if they want to steal the DFO gamers. My guess is sometime in 2011 the Darkfall population will at least double once a few more xpacks are released.
One game's ratings should have nothing to do with another's, except that they should follow the same guidelines for scoring. Each game's should be based on its own merits and detriments based on the game at the time of review.
~Ripper
I think what has happened here is that the review rating system itself may need to be adjusted. In the context of all the other reviews done on this site in 2010 the rating doesn't seem to be too far off. It's 6.9 score ranks it at the bottom 25th percentile of all games reviewed this year. The only games which scored lower were Alganon (which went F2P), 2Moons (3 year old F2P game), Soul of the Ultimate Nation (F2P) and All Points Bulletin (which was cancelled on arrival). That's it. Every other game reviewed this year including titles such as FallenEarth, PoTBS, Global Agenda, STO, and even Football Manager Online were rated higher. So.. I guess... first impression looking at the score and the text seems to be a mismatch, but if you take it in context of all the other reviews which were done in 2010.. it probably was appropriately ranked. It just seems that maybe MMORPG.COM needs to do a revamp of the scoring system.
So.. to the review author... while I still believe that "potential" is more appropriate for a preview than an official review, when looking at the way the review system is applied I guess I actually do support your final rating which puts it squarely in the bottom 25% of games reviewed this year.
Here's the list of reviews to support my statements:
i dont think that the review system needs reworking to be honest. I think the score is accurate. it MO is in a better state when it was reviewed than darkfall was. Thats why darkfall scored much lower if they were to revist darkfall and review it im sure it would get higher.
[Mod Edit]
Sure, they sent an e-mail just before release. It happened to go into my spam folder, just like every newsletter they've ever sent me. Gmail puts it there by default, despite me never telling it to do that. I'm not one of the people that got ninja-billed, since I actually followed the game, hoping it might get better. But it's the PRINCIPLE of what they did that makes me so angry. People pre-purchased the game to get into beta, never set up a subscription, get auto-enrolled one year later, and that's okay with you because they sent an e-mail out a year after the fact? I really want an answer, so I can decide whether or not to take you seriously in the future. Can your brain conceive of the fact that, after so much time, some people might have changed their e-mail addresses? Or just started ignoring or auto-spamming anything having to do with Mortal Online due to a dislike of the game? Can you honestly fault them for not divining from the heavens that they would be auto-enrolled into a subscription one year after they bought the game?
SV could have easily (well, okay -- maybe not easily. This is SV, after all) done what every MMO company I've ever seen does. You know, have you manually enable your subscription and billing plan if you want to continue after the free 30 days. They could've done it. But they knew there would be people out there that would be billed, maybe not notice right away, and probably wouldn't bother with the hassle of calling their CC company for a chargeback. People like that exist. I have a RL friend that would've been autobilled if I didn't tell him. I encouraged him to get his money for the game back too, but he's one of those people that doesn't like ordering Chinese on the phone, let alone contact his bank for fraud.
Do you seriously think it's even vaguely ethical? If you do, just wow. With that logic, SV can send me an e-mail right now, saying they're going to auto-subscribe me so I can check out their game six months after release. Because if they send me an e-mail right before it happens, surely it's okay?
Just a reminder, lets stay on the topic of the thread. Thanks!
Absolutely incredible. You're a very special person, Death.
I did not realise the game was already out. :)
If it is this buggy 6 months in then it is a prime example of the launch soon and be damned mentality. I think the game as gone beyond the point where the bugs will be fixed, like Vanguard they were trying to put in new content when basic bugs were not fixed. Though I have to say from what people are saying MO seems even worse bug wise.
As seen over and over and over and over now in this "genre". It's sad when games that are 6 years old destroy "newer" games that have been released after all the experience and struggles of the previous generation have been public for years.
http://gamejournos.tumblr.com/post/2069188731/not-shit-journalism-gamrfeed-vgchartz-joseph
Be happy mmorpg.com wasn't listed... yet.
This reviewer comes off as being a bit new to the MMO genre with some of the things he says
I bought 2 x boxes of this game on pre-order. In its current state there is NO WAY I would pay to play it.
All I see is wasted posts about something so trivial as "scores" (and who is anyone here to say that they are doing it wrong, its their damn point system, not yours) when the thread is supposed to be about an MO review. Remember people, its not absolute, its not the end-all-be-all deciding factor in the MMO food chain. It's a fawking score to compare with other games interpreted by a single person. If Mike feels its a 6.9, its a damn 6.9. Read the review, take it for what is and consider/don't consider playing the game based on it.
In regards to the review, I think Mike does a good job in portraying the necessary information for me to make a buying/investing decision in a game that I only been following. No, I'm not going to buy it now, but it definitely looks like it might be worth another look in another year. It answered many of my questions of the game, confirmed some things I wanted to hear and brought to light some other things that I might of not known since I don't play the game currently. Basically, the review gets the job done plain and simple.
I been a fan of Ultima Online and really do see the Ultima Online elements being drawn from it, wish there was more information about its crafting system since I believe that was supposed to have been another big draw of the game, right? Or was I thinking Darkfall? Where you can control things like the curvature of the bow, use different materials for the same "item" etc.? With many sandboxes, generally the economy becomes a much bigger deal too especially since there was a mention of no Auction House etc. (how do they sell? market? is it just shouting near the banks like the good ol UO days?) More detailing could of been done in regards to the review itself, but again, it got the job done.
In MO there are i believe over 1 million possible weapon/armor combinations with choosing handle and grip material, along with head/blade material. As well as many different heads/blades and handles. Armor crafting takes it further with density also. Allowing the crafter to use up more resources to make the armor stronger at the cost of weight.
weapons can choose
head/blade as well as handle and grip- theres alot of different handles and blades/heads its possible for example to put a dagger blade on a spear, a mace head on a 1 handed hilt or a sword on the end of a long pole. Also you have mateiral types. for example a copper handle with a bone grip and a steel blade.
Armor can choose
Base material and support material, as well as density sliders for both. Theres roughly 10 different crafted armor types with alot of possible material types for each. Armor is split into, left right shoulder arm and gloves, along with helm boots greaves and torso. With damage locations in MO its possible to go for a weaker protected part of a players body with your attacks.
It's pretty simple, really. When I appear in the world, and walk outside of town, will I immediately be attacked by half a dozen people, killed with little, or no, ability to defend myself, stripped of all that I own, and belittled in a manner that can only be described as "sub-literate"?
If the answer is yes, well then, you can keep your game with my regards. I played DAoC, Sullon Zek when EQ was still worth playing, and so on. I played SWG back in the glory days. I've even played Darkfall, but the grind is just too much to bear. TL;DR: I likes me some sandbox games, and I enjoy pvp. That said, being held hostage to some nipplehead Slipknot fans while they work out their real life anger issues over ma taking away their Dragon Ball Z dvds doesn't strike me as fun.
And no, making pretend that they're just banditos doesn't make it any less not fun.
As to the replies that the game has recently received it's miracle patch, I look forward to their Comming Soon(TM) free trial, wherein I can try out their game, and see it for myself.
Potential is irrelevant. The game blows and the 6.9 is way generous. FFXIV has potential but it deserved the 4.0 is got and the devs are letting people play free until they make it right.
Potential in a game is a measure of how much is not there. A game with full systems in place does not have as much potential, the potential has been realized.
The game that has not been started in design has the most potential.
I think this review is spot on, the game is enjoyable but buggy.
If u quit games just because of bugs then i know of more than 20 big titles that got a few pretty darn big bugs, no game is bugfree its just how severe the bugs are that matters.
And the fact that the company is totally new and inexperienced also tells anyone who isnt a total retard that the game will have bugs and unstable features for the first year at least.
But what i think SV can do better is listen abit more to people that reports on things they do all day and tries to figure out how to best change that feature, u cant ask a fisherman, crafter or extractor to balance out PvP for example then u need to ask PvPers.
But i have my hopes up that they will get shit in order in a few months.
Its hard to imagine how a game that pretty much does not have PVE and mostly broken PVP comes up with a 6.9 rating . .. I was very excited about this game when I first heard about it many years ago. To me, it sounded like a dream come true until I played it and found out that it is not even ready enough to be called a game. I havent felt like I wasted time in a game like this since atari's infamous ET game back in the 80s . .. it does have a lot of potential and if it was a game that was ready to be played, than I would play it, as it has so many things that I have been looking for, but it doesn't even have mobs pretty much and even walking around is broken. It feels almost criminal to recommend this game to someone. Its almost like they are asking for a monthly subscription so that you can watch how a game is developed pre-beta!
I mean, how could they release the game without mobs or anything to be found in dungeons?
"I know we'll just throw some pigs in there and some deer but make sure that the deer are really difficult!"
WHAT . ... THE . .... HELL?
Are you kidding me?
I remember when I first logged into MO and tried to find out about maps so that I could know where the bank was. I came across a thread where where people were asking the DEVs about this and they recommended to use graph paper. At first I thought, "cool!", but then I explored a dungeon and wasted several hours mapping an empty dungeon. What a waste of time!
The best part of this game was downloading it and wondering what it will be like.
I've played some broken releases before (like Vanguard and Darkfall's failed releases . .. and btw MMORPG.com's review of Darkfall, which is the best PVP game I've ever played, is 6.0 . ..?!) but nothing nearly as incomplete as MO.
I want MO to succeed . .. I really do . .... and if the DEVs made their game free along with accepting donations, I would donate to them even though I do not play, but it seems almost criminal to charge a monthly fee for it. Makes me think of Global Agenda's release (much more complete game btw) and how they handled things so much better by making the game F2P right after release since its not really right to ask for a monthly sub for a game that has less content than most solo PC games.
Quotes from the reviewer in "White"
I can only imagine given what the reviewer said how many of the points came from a hope & a prayer as is typical of the few who subscribe to this wanna-be game. Look at what the reviewer says.
"During my initial period of play I encountered no less than 21 bugs, graphical issues and various other problems.
The caveat to all this however, is that this game has bags and bags of potential.
it must be said that this game is buggy as all hell, and it is not the game that it should be yet."
After reading the following two statements by the reviewer and having played this mess of a game with what I experienced as a totally inept and we all know totally inexperienced developmnent team, I believe 4.9 of the rating was on imagined potential. Read ...
"us old timers need this game to succeed,
To simply write this title off for a number of programming deficiencies would be a supremely stupid move"
Clearly the reviewer has an agenda as being an "old time gamer" who "needs" the game to succeed and while it is the reviewers opinion that writing the game off due to how freaking bad it actually is would be stupid due to its "potential", I must say to pad the rating of this game as the reviewer has done due to his desire for its success and imagined potential is not only stupid but an extremely biased approach making the review terrible and lacking of any merit what-so-ever. Adam should be ashamed of himself for trying to entice good money from people to support a game he wants so badly to succeed that isn't worth playing for free let alone a retail and subscription fee.
-CC
I wasn't going to chime in on this but the reviewer lost my suspension of disbelief in his attention to detail when he said "penises and vaginas everywhere"-- there are bare buttocks, there are flaccid penises (more comical than in any way offensive), there are bare breasts, and there is pubic hair-- there is not an actual vagina or even a bare pudenda within view, and one could argue that anyone who sees this game and thinks he's spotted one is either disturbingly unfamiliar with female anatomy or wishing, wishing awfully hard.
I only hope he was being sloppy with his language on purpose out of a misguided sense of his audience's comprehension.
Aside from nudity, there is in my opinion no other extremely adult (with or without quotes around "adult") content in this game aside from whatever might be created in the course of the game by players-- for which Mortal Online and its makers can take no credit whatsoever.
Made be LOL many times, good summary
Playing MO just makes me want to reactivate mydarkfall account.. atleast in DF the hotkeys and basic elements of gameplay function properly..
Are you serious? I was told this by some helper " Its ok, its just a bug, type /tame to tame as the hotkey doesnt work yet"????????? WTFS?
Yea if they cant handle making hotkeys work, among the myriad of other problems.. I have no hope.