Trending Games | Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen | World of Warcraft | Red Dead | Dark Age of Camelot

    Facebook Twitter YouTube YouTube.Gaming Discord
Quick Game Jump
Members:3,909,297 Users Online:0

Show Blog

Link to this blogs RSS feed


My views on the industry, current games, technology and everything else I want.

Author: Vindicoth

Revolutionary vs Evolutionary, why both are good.

Posted by Vindicoth Thursday June 21 2007 at 12:23AM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!
First off, I'd like to address the whole why a game must be Revolutionary to be next gen. Many new MMORPGS will be hitting the market within the year, and some are trying the Revolutionary approach, and some the Evolutionary approach. The two most hyped are probably Age of Conan and Warhammer: Age of Reckoning.

Age of Conan is going after the Revolutionary approach, trying new things with combat, spellcasting, graphics engine. It is going with realistic graphics, mature rating, and next gen technology.

 Utilizing Directx 10 as well as Directx 9, the game will have a longer life without having to upgrade the engine.

Age of Conan will be using what they call " Real Combat " engine. It is based on six directions of which you can use your weapon. First, you can hack down against the head. Second, you can slash diagonally down from the right, while the third is slashing the same way from the left. Fourth, you can thrust against the torso. Fifth, you can slash diagonally up from the left, and sixth, you can slash diagonally up from the right. The point here is that these directions lend themselves naturally to being strung together in combinations. These combos unlock additional damage and faster combat, if done well.

The game is trying to achieve the Revolutionary approach by innovating where other companies don't dare go.

Then there is Warhammer Online. Warhammer Online is going toward the Evolutionary approach. EA/Mythic is taking what they've learned from Dark Age of Camelot and World of Warcraft and improving upon it.

I know using World of Warcraft in the same sentence as Warhammer Online is taboo around here, but listen for a moment.

EA/Mythic is taking the mechanics part of the game from WoW and improving, but not the graphics. While many people say that they have similar graphics, its actually quite wrong. They have similar art styles, but not the same type of graphics.

Warhammer Online is going for the click and attack using skills/spells approach. This is a very good system and has worked well for a long time, but they are also improving on it. Also by adding Collision Detection to the game for enemies, this allows strategy to be deployed by bigger, meatier players such as protecting them from charging enemies.

Warhammer's game engine is isn't uitlizing the newest technology, but isn't dated either. Warhammer will allow people across all computer spectrum's to play on decent settings without going to a crawl.

Now this brings me to my point. Even though the games are going for different approaches, there is no reason to say that one approach is better than the other. Thats like saying we shouldn't improve upon current existing CPU technology because it's not Revolutionary, but thats also like saying we shouldn't try to explore better technologies as well. In the end it comes down to implementation, you can have all the Revolutionary or Innovative stuff you want, but if it isn't implemented correctly, Evolutionary could prevail because it's a better foundation.

I applaud both companies for taking equal risk's. It's a risk to be Revolutionary as well as Evolutionary.