Trending Games | WildStar | Neverwinter | Elder Scrolls Online | Guild Wars 2

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,640,584 Users Online:0
Games:681  Posts:6,075,131
Portalarium Inc | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Development  (est.rel N/A)  | Pub:Portalarium Inc
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download,Retail | Retail Price:n/a | Monthly Fee:n/a
System Req: PC Mac Linux | Out of date info? Let us know!

Shroud of the Avatar Forum » General Discussion » We want full open world, not instanced! And first post!

4 Pages « 1 2 3 4 » Search
70 posts found
  Jean-Luc_Picard

Advanced Member

Joined: 1/10/13
Posts: 2393

There... are... four... lights!

3/20/13 8:16:29 AM#21
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by taus01
Originally posted by evemaster00

We want full open world, not instanced!

Why does richard garriot think ex UO players want anything less than an actual WORLD where all players are able to interact with each other? Be it for good, or for bad. It's the ups and downs that makes for the best experience.

The whole Kickstarter looks to me like an attempt to jump on the bandwagon and get some easy cash. I am puzzled by the design decisions and the lack of vision. It is not even an mmo, its more of the facebook generation pseudo online games we have seen in recent years. Lobby or world map with instanced multiplayer but mostly made for solo play.

I am disappointed Lord British!

You're puzzled because it doesn't fit the MMO mold. Hopefully this clears things up for you:

 

It's not an MMO.  It's a singleplayer/multiplayer RPG.

 

From what I understood, there are three modes to play this game:

- Single player RPG, very similar to the old Ultima series games.

- Multiplayer cooperative, like Neverwinter Nights or Guild Wars.

- MMORPG, like... well, a MMORPG, in a shared world with thousands of strangers.

Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2

Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO and GW2.

"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.

  Jean-Luc_Picard

Advanced Member

Joined: 1/10/13
Posts: 2393

There... are... four... lights!

3/20/13 8:22:48 AM#22
Originally posted by JasonJ

 What does FFA PvP have to do with this? He is talking about having an OPEN world, not an instanced one...and few UO players would say FFA PvP was a bad idea...as for your comment about FFA games failing...I find that rather amusing seeing the popularity of FFA games in Asia topping all but WoW in he west. Nexon and NCsoft became the powerhouses they are today based on FFA games. But I do thank you for the red herring which has nothing to do with the topic.

The majority of UO players would say FORCED FFA PvP was a bad idea. It worked while there was no concurence, before Everquest was released. Then, the majority of UO players realized they could play another game (EQ), where they weren't looted dry by psychopaths and their maxed out characters each time they left town safety. Why do you think they patched in Trammel? FFA PvP is ok, as long as it's the player's choice. As I said, I seriously doubt Garriot will make the same mistake twice.

And Asian games are irrelevant here. We're not in Asia. There's not a single FFA PvP game which is succesfull worldwide, and definitely not in the west. And before you say "EvE", EvE is not a FFA PvP game.

Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2

Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO and GW2.

"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.

  Kyleran

Bitter Vet™

Joined: 9/13/06
Posts: 18355

Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

3/20/13 8:29:00 AM#23
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by taus01
Originally posted by evemaster00

We want full open world, not instanced!

Why does richard garriot think ex UO players want anything less than an actual WORLD where all players are able to interact with each other? Be it for good, or for bad. It's the ups and downs that makes for the best experience.

The whole Kickstarter looks to me like an attempt to jump on the bandwagon and get some easy cash. I am puzzled by the design decisions and the lack of vision. It is not even an mmo, its more of the facebook generation pseudo online games we have seen in recent years. Lobby or world map with instanced multiplayer but mostly made for solo play.

I am disappointed Lord British!

You're puzzled because it doesn't fit the MMO mold. Hopefully this clears things up for you:

 

It's not an MMO.  It's a singleplayer/multiplayer RPG.

 

From what I understood, there are three modes to play this game:

- Single player RPG, very similar to the old Ultima series games.

- Multiplayer cooperative, like Neverwinter Nights or Guild Wars.

- MMORPG, like... well, a MMORPG, in a shared world with thousands of strangers.

C'mon, I know you understand the difference between what you wrote and what they say they are delivering.

Open Play Online (OPO)
In OPO players will see everyone that the server thinks they should see.  This will not necessarily be all people in the area but should be people you care the most about based on what we believe is their relevance to you.

They are being clear about what they intend to deliver (not a MMORPG) no reason to muddy the waters.

 

"The discrepancy between what we know is possible and what we currently have to choose from is beyond disappointing" - GeezerGamer
Kyleran - Bitter Vet ™ since 2006
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

  Jean-Luc_Picard

Advanced Member

Joined: 1/10/13
Posts: 2393

There... are... four... lights!

3/20/13 8:33:50 AM#24
Originally posted by Kyleran

C'mon, I know you understand the difference between what you wrote and what they say they are delivering.

Open Play Online (OPO)
In OPO players will see everyone that the server thinks they should see.  This will not necessarily be all people in the area but should be people you care the most about based on what we believe is their relevance to you.

They are being clear about what they intend to deliver (not a MMORPG) no reason to muddy the waters.

When you quote something, be at least honest enough to quote it entirely.

"This game mode will basically feel like an MMORPG."

EDIT: the fault isn't yours though, I just noticed previous posts also omitted that important part. Sorry about that.

Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2

Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO and GW2.

"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.

  JasonJ

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/19/13
Posts: 414

3/20/13 8:37:53 AM#25
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
Originally posted by JasonJ

 What does FFA PvP have to do with this? He is talking about having an OPEN world, not an instanced one...and few UO players would say FFA PvP was a bad idea...as for your comment about FFA games failing...I find that rather amusing seeing the popularity of FFA games in Asia topping all but WoW in he west. Nexon and NCsoft became the powerhouses they are today based on FFA games. But I do thank you for the red herring which has nothing to do with the topic.

The majority of UO players would say FORCED FFA PvP was a bad idea. It worked while there was no concurence, before Everquest was released. Then, the majority of UO players realized they could play another game (EQ), where they weren't looted dry by psychopaths and their maxed out characters each time they left town safety. Why do you think they patched in Trammel? FFA PvP is ok, as long as it's the player's choice. As I said, I seriously doubt Garriot will make the same mistake twice.

And Asian games are irrelevant here. We're not in Asia. There's not a single FFA PvP game which is succesfull worldwide, and definitely not in the west. And before you say "EvE", EvE is not a FFA PvP game.

 1. All FFA is forced...its Free For All.

2. The game was more popular before Trammel, so no, the majority disagrees...even Garriott says it was a mistake to allow it and Koster said it was a mistake to make it.

3. UOs population did not drop until Renaissance brought in Trammel, in 2000...EQ had been out for 2 years already. Nice try.

Asian games are irrelevant here? FFXI, FFXV, Tera, Lineage 2...Archeage is the second most hyped game on this site with Wildstar at #5 and they keep talking about Age of Wushu over and over again...

You grasp at straws because you have no ground to stand on.

  Jean-Luc_Picard

Advanced Member

Joined: 1/10/13
Posts: 2393

There... are... four... lights!

3/20/13 9:09:52 AM#26
Originally posted by JasonJ

 1. All FFA is forced...its Free For All.

You can have a game with FFA PvP servers and non-FFA PvP servers. One doesn't detract from the other, it only gives players the choice. The UO choice of putting both on the same server was the mistake of Trammel, if they had made separate servers with non-forced PvP, it would have worked much better. And fact is that what the FFA PvP lovers are the most angry about is that Trammel stole them most of their "easy prey" and that they had to fight skilled PvPers instead of the poor crafters just wanting to be left alone.

2. The game was more popular before Trammel, so no, the majority disagrees...even Garriott says it was a mistake to allow it and Koster said it was a mistake to make it.

3. UOs population did not drop until Renaissance brought in Trammel, in 2000...EQ had been out for 2 years already. Nice try.

I don't know where you get your imaginary numbers from, but this is wrong. It was said back then by the developers themself that they added Trammel because of the player bleeding resulting of the endless ganking. I'm not making this up, unlike you, it comes from the guys who made the game, in several articles back then, notably from Raph Koster himself, the lead developer of UO. I perfectly remember that, but it's not new that the FFA PvP lovers have long term memory problems with that specific point. They seem to believe that their play style is a sort of majority thing, even if everything in MMORPG history contradicts them and proves it's only a tiny, very tiny niche in the genre.

You are also wrong about the UO population drop... the drop actually started in 2004, way after Renaissance was released (April 3, 2000). Renaissance brought players who had left back to the game, and the game had a steady 250.000+ players up to early 2004.

Asian games are irrelevant here? FFXI, FFXV, Tera, Lineage 2...Archeage is the second most hyped game on this site with Wildstar at #5 and they keep talking about Age of Wushu over and over again...

And those games are one that "hyped" because of the Asian player base. As I said, Asia is irrelevant here, we talk about a western online RPG. Archeage is hyped like any upcoming release, Tera is not really a success in the west, and the FF franchise is just laughable in NA and Europe.

You grasp at straws because you have no ground to stand on.

And you go personal because I exposed your bluff.

Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2

Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO and GW2.

"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.

  JasonJ

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/19/13
Posts: 414

3/20/13 9:26:36 AM#27
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
Originally posted by JasonJ

 1. All FFA is forced...its Free For All.

You can have a game with FFA PvP servers and non-FFA PvP servers. One doesn't detract from the other, it only gives players the choice. The UO choice of putting both on the same server was the mistake of Trammel, if they had made separate servers with non-forced PvP, it would have worked much better. And fact is that what the FFA PvP lovers are the most angry about is that Trammel stole them most of their "easy prey" and that they had to fight skilled PvPers instead of the poor crafters just wanting to be left alone.

 You have a bad habit of doing nothing but arguing in circles and around what is said.

1. The topic is OPEN WORLD. NOT FFA.

2. FFA is FFA, to have options is NOT FFA.

I am not going to even bother touching on the rest of your post because you seem to be doing nothing but arguing for the sake of arguing and continually changing the talk points just to keep it going. /ending your thread hijacking now.

  Jean-Luc_Picard

Advanced Member

Joined: 1/10/13
Posts: 2393

There... are... four... lights!

3/20/13 9:35:20 AM#28
Originally posted by JasonJ

 You have a bad habit of doing nothing but arguing in circles and around what is said.

1. The topic is OPEN WORLD. NOT FFA.

2. FFA is FFA, to have options is NOT FFA.

If a game has both FFA and non-FFA servers, the FFA servers are still FFA, and there's still a choice. As I said in my previous post, it only annoys FFA PvP addicts because they will lose most of the "easy kills" and will have to fight only against willing, skilled players.

Games like Darkfall would have had a much bigger player base if the developers have had been less arrogant and if they had also catered to the non-PvP crowd with a server with non-forced PvP. You don't achieve huge success by only catering to like 1% of the total potential player base of a game genre.

I am not going to even bother touching on the rest of your post because you seem to be doing nothing but arguing for the sake of arguing and continually changing the talk points just to keep it going. /ending your thread hijacking now.

In other words, you have no arguments to oppose my previous post and you retreat. Point taken.

Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2

Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO and GW2.

"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.

  BadSpock

Hard Core Member

Joined: 8/21/04
Posts: 7649

Logic be damned!

3/20/13 9:45:14 AM#29
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
  • Fully Interactive World | Everything is interactive in one way or another.
  • Classless Character System | You won't be limited to any class, but instead will really be able to craft your own class.
  • Extensive Player Housing | There are several types of housing that will serve different purposes all together.
Sounds a lot like UO to me so far.
 
I don't expect Richard Garriot to repeat the MISTAKES he made in UO - notably forcing FFA PvP on everybody, something they had to revert with Trammel in order to stop the player bleeding. While this won't be pre-trammel UO made 3D, which would be doomed to failure (we all know how well FFA PvP games fare... very badly), it definitely takes root in the Ultima Games including UO.

This is an incredibly good post.

Anyone who doesn't realize that Trammel was the best thing to happen to UO has no idea what good game design is - and further reinforces the point RG made that most designers really just suck.

The "highpoint" of UO was pre-Age of Shadows with Trammel/Felucca split and Faction Warfare in Felucca (Council of Mages FTW!) Post Renaissance UO was the highest point of player population despite what the trolls will tell you. It's fact. The game only declined after SWG and EQ2/WoW etc. in 2003-2004.

Healthy PvP population in Felucca, healthy PvE population in Trammel.

All open world, sandbox adventure.

What RG seems to be doing with the whole single/friend/open world choice thing is letting players play their way - which is design 101 people.

MMOs seem to have forgotten how much better a game does when you offer different server types/shards that are actually different and meaningful.

RG is also right - vast majority of the time the other "random" players you see in an open world add nothing to your gameplay experience - even ESO is picking up on this with their single-shard world and phasing/instancing based on personal preference.

It's good design.

Let the solo artists have their vast country w/o interference, give the groupers shared spaces, give the fighters targets and allies.

Complete integration and co-existance is impossible. All of human history has proved this time and time again.

Now Playing: D3:RoS
Looking Towards: Destiny

  Jean-Luc_Picard

Advanced Member

Joined: 1/10/13
Posts: 2393

There... are... four... lights!

3/20/13 10:02:06 AM#30

When TNG meets TOS... ;-)

I'd add one thing to the great post of BadSpock:

TRAMMEL KILLED THE GRIEFERS, NOT THE TRUE PVPers.

And that's fact. A specific category of "players" was angry because they could no longer gank harmless crafters just outside of town. They were angry because now, they had to fight skilled PvP players, those who would fight back and strip them naked, instead of them doing the stripping.

Everyone else was enjoying the change, and UO had more total players than it ever had.

Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2

Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO and GW2.

"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.

  Wizardry

Elite Member

Joined: 8/27/04
Posts: 6341

Perhaps tomorrow will be better.

3/20/13 10:14:39 AM#31

There shouldn't be any excuses to former games like Ultima ,the developers SHOULD be trying to create what at least appears to be a WORLD.We know it is just game code,but games shouldn't act like game code.Warping players to instances is ridiculously lame game play,we can however accept the limitations of memory/cache/bandwidth to load zones.There is always the simple FACT the developer can design variations on quality based on players and objects,so instances are not needed.

If a developer creates a game that is so shallow,where every single player is lead throguh the exact same linear questing path,then it is the game that is at fault,that is extremely lazy,poor game design.There SHOUDL be lots of conten t at al llevels,players should have the feeling of going anywhere to live out the ROLE PLAYINMG experience,it should NEVER feel liek a connect the dots game.

Instances are not game worlds,they are not realistic in terms of the genre,they really should have no place in a role playing world.They also remove the MMO factor,you can't cal la game a MMO just becuase you can login massive amounts of players,the game has to actually operate as one.This would be like sticking a Corvette decal on a Volvo and selling it as a Corvette.

The real truth is developers are on a trend to FLOOD the market with incredibly cheap games that are designed to run for pennies a day.They simply toss in terms like MMO or RPG to attract gamers.Most of these games run like browser games or single player console games,they really are very cheap products.

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/Napolianboo#p/u/15/rCYLLQCNc1w
Samoan Diamond

  Balkin31

Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/06
Posts: 225

3/20/13 10:20:11 AM#32
Originally posted by evemaster00

We want full open world, not instanced!

Why does richard garriot think ex UO players want anything less than an actual WORLD where all players are able to interact with each other? Be it for good, or for bad. It's the ups and downs that makes for the best experience.

I think it's fine the way it is.... This game is NOT UO/2... but I'm sure you know that!

  JasonJ

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/19/13
Posts: 414

3/20/13 10:23:41 AM#33
Originally posted by Wizardry

The real truth is developers are on a trend to FLOOD the market with incredibly cheap games that are designed to run for pennies a day.They simply toss in terms like MMO or RPG to attract gamers.Most of these games run like browser games or single player console games,they really are very cheap products.

 

 Thankfully that will not remain so with games coming out of South Korea like Archeage, Bless, Ein and Black Desert. Companies make cheap games because they know a portion of the playerbase will eat it up and they abuse labels because they know they not only can get away with it, but players love to do it as well, as can be seen above.

  BadSpock

Hard Core Member

Joined: 8/21/04
Posts: 7649

Logic be damned!

3/20/13 11:22:26 AM#34
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

When TNG meets TOS... ;-)

I'd add one thing to the great post of BadSpock:

TRAMMEL KILLED THE GRIEFERS, NOT THE TRUE PVPers.

And that's fact. A specific category of "players" was angry because they could no longer gank harmless crafters just outside of town. They were angry because now, they had to fight skilled PvP players, those who would fight back and strip them naked, instead of them doing the stripping.

Everyone else was enjoying the change, and UO had more total players than it ever had.

This is very true.

For that same "dog eat dog" playstyle from pre-Trammel I just played a toon on Siege Perilous - the "hardcore" Felucca only shard with slower skill gains.

Felucca PvP on "regular" shards was better than ever in the post split world thanks to the Factions PvP - people would "gear up" and skill up etc. in Trammel and go into Felucca and fight for their faction (or gank anyone they thought they could beat) just the same as pre-Trammel, things were just a lot more balanced and fair.

I still have fond memories of sneaking around Brittania and pick pocketing AFK players at the Bank and trying to outrun the Guards and ganking True Brits at the town portals in Felucca.

I just also had an "escape" to RP and do PvE and craft / farm and build up my guild's keep in Trammel without being harrassed.

Now Playing: D3:RoS
Looking Towards: Destiny

  Loktofeit

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/13/10
Posts: 11358

Currently playing EVE, SMITE, ESO, and Combat Arms

3/20/13 2:52:43 PM#35
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
Originally posted by Kyleran

C'mon, I know you understand the difference between what you wrote and what they say they are delivering.

Open Play Online (OPO)
In OPO players will see everyone that the server thinks they should see.  This will not necessarily be all people in the area but should be people you care the most about based on what we believe is their relevance to you.

They are being clear about what they intend to deliver (not a MMORPG) no reason to muddy the waters.

When you quote something, be at least honest enough to quote it entirely.

"This game mode will basically feel like an MMORPG."

EDIT: the fault isn't yours though, I just noticed previous posts also omitted that important part. Sorry about that.

Here's the actual statement. If anyone is expecting an MMO, they did not get that expectation from Portalarium.

 

Open Play Online (OPO)
In OPO players will see everyone that the server thinks they should see.  This will not necessarily be all people in the area but should be people you care the most about based on what we believe is their relevance to you.

For the most part, OPO will feel like an MMO.  Lots of social interaction options with friends and other players.  We are trying to distinguish ourselves from traditional MMOs only in that, unlike a normal MMO players are frequently connected directly to each other instead of all data flowing through our servers. We believe this will provide numerous advantages to both players and our service, but does differ from a traditional MMO in that the upper limit of players simultaneously on one map may be restricted.

Source: https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?p=3955 (also on the Kickstarter page)

  Loktofeit

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/13/10
Posts: 11358

Currently playing EVE, SMITE, ESO, and Combat Arms

3/20/13 2:58:33 PM#36
Originally posted by BadSpock

Anyone who doesn't realize that Trammel was the best thing to happen to UO has no idea what good game design is - and further reinforces the point RG made that most designers really just suck.

I don't think many game designers have really understood the significance of Trammel. They saw it as a sign that open PVP didn't work, rather than see it was one of sevreal MMOs that have shown that in an open PVP virtual world, about 20% are going to want to participate in that, and that the more there is both division and optional passage to and from the pvp/pve areas, the more successful the game is. There are a lot of similarities between Trammel/Felucca, EVE Online and Puzzle Pirates in game design.

  Jean-Luc_Picard

Advanced Member

Joined: 1/10/13
Posts: 2393

There... are... four... lights!

3/20/13 3:01:30 PM#37
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by BadSpock

Anyone who doesn't realize that Trammel was the best thing to happen to UO has no idea what good game design is - and further reinforces the point RG made that most designers really just suck.

I don't think many game designers have really understood the significance of Trammel. They saw it as a sign that open PVP didn't work, rather than see it was one of sevreal MMOs that have shown that in an open PVP virtual world, about 20% are going to want to participate in that, and that the more there is both division and optional passage to and from the pvp/pve areas, the more successful the game is. There are a lot of similarities between Trammel/Felucca, EVE Online and Puzzle Pirates in game design.

And even the "World of Warcraft" model, I'd daresay - feel free to disagree.

Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2

Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO and GW2.

"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.

  Torvaldr

Elite Member

Joined: 6/10/09
Posts: 5162

Opportunist

3/20/13 3:26:19 PM#38
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
Originally posted by Kyleran

C'mon, I know you understand the difference between what you wrote and what they say they are delivering.

Open Play Online (OPO)
In OPO players will see everyone that the server thinks they should see.  This will not necessarily be all people in the area but should be people you care the most about based on what we believe is their relevance to you.

They are being clear about what they intend to deliver (not a MMORPG) no reason to muddy the waters.

When you quote something, be at least honest enough to quote it entirely.

"This game mode will basically feel like an MMORPG."

EDIT: the fault isn't yours though, I just noticed previous posts also omitted that important part. Sorry about that.

Here's the actual statement. If anyone is expecting an MMO, they did not get that expectation from Portalarium.

Open Play Online (OPO)
In OPO players will see everyone that the server thinks they should see.  This will not necessarily be all people in the area but should be people you care the most about based on what we believe is their relevance to you.

For the most part, OPO will feel like an MMO.  Lots of social interaction options with friends and other players.  We are trying to distinguish ourselves from traditional MMOs only in that, unlike a normal MMO players are frequently connected directly to each other instead of all data flowing through our servers. We believe this will provide numerous advantages to both players and our service, but does differ from a traditional MMO in that the upper limit of players simultaneously on one map may be restricted.

Source: https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?p=3955 (also on the Kickstarter page)

The definition of MMO is sort of changing.  There is some short, but interesting comments with regards to this in the recent MMOFTW with Scott Hartsman as the guest.  Basically he says that what we always expect are MMORPGs and what we're seeing is games that bring more multi-player online features together in a persistant world in a way that we haven't traditionally thought of as "mmo".  He was referring to Sim City (which was playing in the background on Bill's computer) among other games.

I think the need for mmo gamers to shoehorn a traditional definition of "mmo" onto every game is one thing that is holding progress back.  Hopefully we'll see more developers and studios that are willing to shed the mmo label and just make a good game.

  BrownAle

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/16/13
Posts: 402

3/20/13 3:41:01 PM#39

You know im getting fairly tired of this litmus test on games.  By that i mean "i can only enjoy a game if it has features X, Y,Z and cannot possibly like a game that has features A,B,C"

I mean really?  Are people these days so incapable of enjoying a game?  Not just with this game, but i see people who are not interested in games that DONT have player housing, or if it does it needs to be open world player housing (which has major issues with the game world and home avalibility btw)...

Seriously?  We cant possibly enjoy a game if it has instances?  We cant possibly enjoy a game if it has a certain feature or lacks another:?

 

People wonder why they cant find a game they like...its because the one specific game that you will like will never get made.  Play games for fun, stop with the 30 point checklist where one missing feature or one feature you dont like means your going to hate the game.  And yes, when you walk into a game expecting to hate it, chances are your not going to enjoy it.

 

Secondly, who cares what this guy wants to make?  Let him make the game as he sees fit and see if you like it, however i relaize most wont bother due to it failing the 30 point checklist.

 

Will i play it?  Well if it launches and looks decent i probably will. 

  cybersrs

Apprentice Member

Joined: 5/10/10
Posts: 153

3/20/13 4:27:30 PM#40
Why is it so hard to build it like EVE Online?
4 Pages « 1 2 3 4 » Search