|
Looking forward to finding out the game is more theme park 'let's copy WoW' stuff like every other big name MMORPG released since 2004. I want to believe it'll basically be "Elder Scrolls except WITH OTHER PEOPLE," because that would be awesome as hell, but I know that's not going to happen. Also I really wouldn't worry so much about the engine as much as the direction. Even though TOR had problems with the Hero engine i'm sure people would've been able to look past them if it wasn't so generic.
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2012 17:32 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2013 14:35 |
|
|
All I want to know is whether it'll be a large seamless open world sandboxy style game (you know, like the thing it's named after) or instanced instanced instanced "queue up for x" style game. None of what i've seen so far answers this.
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2012 22:22 |
|
|
insider posted:Wow that article was disappointing. It is basically GW2 with healing. Hows it basically GW2? Because it has no questgivers and three factions? Those are really the only big similarities and it's not like having more than 2 factions is something unique to GW2. A more accurate assessment is that it's "generic MMORPG"
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2012 01:10 |
|
|
I don't claim to know poo poo about developing games, so can anyone that does explain to me why devs keep making the decision to make MMORPG's out of their big IP's? Is it REALLY profitable to launch an MMORPG, sell pretty well out the gate, and then have it slowly die over the next couple of months, compared to say, making a co-op or singleplayer game, or at least making a more unique MMORPG to cater to a loyal niche? I know this game isn't being made by Besthesda, but i'm sure the same team could've made a spin off that isn't an MMORPG.
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2012 22:50 |
|
|
Ashrik posted:You know that's not the general goal when companies make these games, right? They're hoping it'll be a money machine that will still be faithfully chugging away in 5 years. I love the idea of an Elder Scroll MMO and have wanted one for years. It's not the general goal, but it happens every time, so I think they'd notice this and realize it's the most likely outcome with their game as well.
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2012 23:06 |
|
|
Well the video certainly did a good job of turning me off the game. Looks very generic, sounds very generic. About the only thing about it that isn't generic sounding is the combat, which could be hit or miss depending on how they go about it. The parts they showed of it certainly weren't very flattering looking, though. I guess the natural progression from the Guild Wars 2 system was to completely eliminate servers and just have everyone auto-assigned to one of 5000 zone instances. I'm not at all surprised, though I am disappointed. Community is a thing of the past and no one seems to care. It's all been a snowball effect since WoW introduced cross server features and i'm kind of surprised it took this long for a game to completely eliminate it, really.
|
| # ¿ Nov 8, 2012 23:52 |
|
|
BadLlama posted:True but it will deter a certain number of people thus reducing the amount of griefing, and lets get loving real here, even playing a game like AoC at launch with completely open pvp I more than managed to level just fine without getting poo poo on by griefers/campers/whatever you want to call it. The hyperbole about lowbies just getting camped into submission in games with open pvp is ridiculous. Well this is pretty much where the mmorpg genres been going for a long time, honestly it's better that a game flat out entirely ignores open world pvp sooner rather than later. For a long time in most new games (Tera is a noticeable exception due to having no factions, which was cool) world PvP is totally irrelevant aside from being a mild annoyance once or twice when levelling up and maybe once a month when you're at max level, because the whole PvP server thing is practically an illusion and every theme park has been designing their maps to ensure that there is as little cross-faction interaction as possible for a very, very long time. If you give me the choice between that kind of segregation (which would be the only alternative, I mean it sucks for a lot of us, but the average person just doesn't like the atmosphere/tension that comes with the realistic possibility of running into someone who might very well attack and kill your pretend internet man at no penalty to yourself whatsoever, unless you're making a niche game like Darkfall) and not having open pvp at all i'd prefer #2. It makes it far easier to know what you're getting into - does this game have actual random pvp, or does it have the generic style of 'pvp' where the factions actually don't interact with eachother at all except on 1 quest per zone and maybe when travelling to instances? Usually the answer is #2 which just results in shattered hopes and dreams. "No, we won't have open pvp at all?" ok, awesome. Now I know what to expect without having to play the game first.
|
| # ¿ Jan 25, 2013 09:36 |
|
|
Orv posted:There is no worse time in the world, or more mentally excruciating experience for me, than leveling a themepark MMO character. So no, I am not willing to level three times to see all the content. At least not any time soon after the first time. I would like to note that that's not hyperbole. I would rather suffer Prometheus' punishment for a week than level an MMO character. Just let me do the fun poo poo. Not really. I mean lots of people will reply to you with "HA!! IDIOT! Why are you doing it if you don't like it!" but this is hardly a unique thing and MMORPG's often force you to do things you might not like to get to the parts of the game you do like. There's just as many people who like to focus on one character as there are altoholics.
|
| # ¿ Jan 25, 2013 12:46 |
|
|
AXE COP posted:Depends on the game. WoW seems pretty alt-unfriendly. City of Heroes on the other hand had like 50 character slots per server and that wasn't enough for some people. I'd probably have 50 alts with that character creator as well.
|
| # ¿ Jan 25, 2013 13:55 |
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:
This is totally subjective. The community thing is still a valid point, but really MMORPGs have been moving away from actually feeling like a community for a long time and a superserver system isn't any worse than sitting in a town and queuing up for dungeons or battlegrounds with people from one of 300 servers who you'll never see again. I'd rather have things back the way they used to be but it seems like i'm in the minority, otherwise why would every AAA MMORPG copy that system (or take it to a further extreme like TSW and TES are doing) I mean, I met the current group of people that I play with in absolutely every game ever because back in vanilla WoW we constantly world pvped against eachother to the point that we became acquainted, communicated out of game contact information via leetspeak, and the rest is history. That ain't ever gonna happen in todays MMO.
|
| # ¿ Jan 25, 2013 14:42 |
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:MMO communities do not exist! How many times does this come up!? The only real reason why this used to happen in other MMOs was because the games actively shat on you and people's only coping mechanism was huddle together and try to weather it out. They don't exist now, but they did exist. It's no coincidence that they stopped existing as the games started making moves towards not fostering them anymore. You correlate that with the games getting "better" because communities "never existed anyway," I correlate it with the fact that servers stopped mattering once the developers actively pushed to make them stop mattering as much as possible.
|
| # ¿ Jan 25, 2013 14:56 |
|
|
SheepNameKiller posted:See I can see this point of view, in that you don't want to level multiple characters to see different areas of the world. It's not something that troubles me personally but I can definitely see where you're coming from. It's actually not terribly uncommon to not get to experience all of the content in the world on one character in other MMOs though, especially once expansions start getting released. Is that the worst case scenario? Because it sounds to me like it's one step from what the PvP stuff is in most mmorpgs. Certainly not very farfetched at all.
|
| # ¿ Jan 25, 2013 16:06 |
|
|
Grimby posted:MMOs fostered communities for basically two reasons. First, it was impossible to get anything done without grouping up and second, the server populations were so small everyone got to know everyone else. Assholes were usually ostracized. If you were a real dick, people wouldn't group with you and you couldn't get anything done. This just isn't the case though. Even today server communities are being fostered in these games. 2 recent examples are SW:TOR and Rift, which launched without any cross-realm features. Both of these games didn't hit the server count sweetspot, though, which resulted in the usual server mergers/transfers 3 months after release. SW:TOR in particular was hilariously ambitious with the amount of servers it launched with. Of course, this stuff was added later. But was it all needed? Yeah, but only because of the aforementioned too many servers problem. Everyone I PvPed against while playing those two games, I knew. I constantly happened upon the same people in dungeon groups purely by coincidence, etc. The community worked just fine as long as you didn't happen to be on one of the servers that were dead on arrival. That's the problem, not anything else. I'm not sure why the dungeon finder feature HAS to be cross server in every game, with well populated servers there's no reason it can't work without it. Stuff like that could simply be remedied with more aggressive server mergers (i'm thinking a week after launch, and yes i'm not kidding, if you have a server with a drastically lower popular that soon after launch it's not gonna last, fix it now) or more accurate projections. Is there a thread where we can just shoot the poo poo about general MMORPG design? This is getting really off topic but this is an interesting thing to talk about.
|
| # ¿ Jan 25, 2013 20:05 |
|
|
Utnayan posted:Very true. For example, Lasom here on the forums (Higby) did a great job with Plansetside 2. Hartsman has done a fantastic job with Rift and Trion as a whole. I seriously doubt this game will somehow magically be so much worse than PS2 and Rift, both of which are totally unremarkable. I mean i'm not sitting here with the delusion that TES is going to be anything but your generic big name IP MMORPG that disappoints everyone, but you hate it really intensely and then you come out and say that Planetside 2 is "great" and Rift is "fantastic." That makes it sound like you have some sort of personal vendetta against this game. I thought maybe you just hated the direction of the genre in general which I could totally understand, but welp that's out of the window now.
|
| # ¿ Jan 27, 2013 01:31 |
|
|
ANAmal.net posted:Serious question: Do you have a source on any this, or are you just making stuff up? Is this a non-NDA breaking way of saying "he's wrong?" 
|
| # ¿ Jan 27, 2013 08:30 |
|
|
tekz posted:PS2 isn't unremarkable and even comparable to Rift, are you kidding me? It's ridiculously fun and has scratched my pvp itch better than any MMO I can think of. It's a generic military shooter with more guys on the map. I'm not sure what a "pvp itch" has to do with it since it's an FPS and every FPS is 'pvp.' You're right, it's not comparable to rift, they're not even the same type of game, but I didn't compare them to eachother. The only thing it has in common with MMORPGs is that it completely failed to live up to the hype.
|
| # ¿ Jan 27, 2013 13:54 |
|
|
tekz posted:Opinions differ I guess? I think it's a really good game. You're allowed to have fun in a game even if isn't ground breaking. I didn't say it was bad, just that it's unremarkable. It's a good analogy for the modern mmorpg really; it takes an existing game (Battlefield 3) and expands on it, much like how every single MMORPG release takes WoW, then takes some of the good features from other WoW-likes, then adds a couple of minor things here and there. This is a good way to make money and all, but I find it boring as a consumer. THE PWNER fucked around with this message at Jan 28, 2013 around 21:09 |
| # ¿ Jan 28, 2013 21:07 |
|
|
There's plenty of games with pickpocketing. It might not always be very useful but it's there. Runescape and WoW come to mind. Even in WoW you can make good money pickpocketing if you get lucky, and it's largely a forgotten skill there. And speaking of Runescape, I feel like the TES IP would've been ideal for ripping off Runescape and modernizing everything about it. An endless economy-driven skill grind would fit the generic TES' classless system where you grind any skill you want perfectly. A missed opportunity, since RS still gets 100k+ concurrent players and has almost a million subscribers (and i'm fairly sure it's maintained these numbers for a decade) yet no one has thought to try to copy the formula. People love just having a bunch of numbers to raise. THE PWNER fucked around with this message at Jan 29, 2013 around 01:49 |
| # ¿ Jan 29, 2013 01:39 |
|
|
Adraeus posted:No, there aren't. In UO, you could steal from other players and you could choose what to try stealing. If your Awesome Sword of Awesome was stolen, it was gone from your inventory. If you noticed the theft, the thief would be flagged for PvP and you could threaten or kill him or call for the guards to do it for you. If you didn't notice the theft, it was just gone. In every other game, stealing or pickpocketing is reduced to a dice roll with random cheap rewards that can only be used on NPCs who don't actually lose anything. Ok? Meanwhile there are still games that have pickpocketing. Just because they're not very important or well fleshed out doesn't mean they aren't there, or that a similar system shouldn't at least be included as a nod to the fact that it's loving TES.
|
| # ¿ Jan 29, 2013 02:46 |
|
|
If they wanted to put it in just because as a non-essential side sort of thing it'd be easy to do. For example, you can pickpocket every attackable npc once (per spawn) to get just a random item from their loot table. Simple and actually practically useful if you're farming a certain monster that drops crafting materials or whatever. Obviously it wouldn't work in pvp or on bosses.
|
| # ¿ Jan 29, 2013 04:17 |
|
|
Nobody loses or is harmed if you pickpocket an NPC anyway. I dunno if you noticed but the days of actually being able to do anything at all to other peoples characters beyond make them wait for a 5 second respawn are over.
|
| # ¿ Jan 29, 2013 05:26 |
|
|
peak debt posted:Classless leveling works in Skyrim because if your Sneak/Destruction/Pickpocketing build sucks compared to a Twohanded/Restoration/Heavy Armor one you can dial down the difficulty and still finish the game. In a multiplayer PvP game it would lead to your character being completely worthless and not invited into anything while the people who look up the current FOTM build on some web site kick your rear end all over the place. Respecs are a thing that can be implemented, man. Or worst case scenario, the game can allow you to level up everything and only use some of it at a time, like TSW.
|
| # ¿ Feb 8, 2013 14:02 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2013 14:35 |
|
|
Adraeus posted:Eve is a niche game but not a bad game. Eve, which had 50,000 players within a year after launch, has grown every year for 10 years and now has 500,000 players. Eve initially cost $x million to develop. CCP pulls in more than $x million every month now. (I'm not sure if I'm allowed to share those numbers yet, but x = x, so the point is made.) Theoretically, CCP could develop another Eve every month. What matters in the games-as-services business is profitability, not the total number of subscribers. CCP has earned back their investment many, many times over. You can't do that with a bad product. By this logic 99% of MMORPG's are good games.
|
| # ¿ Mar 7, 2013 17:31 |
|
