Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Mortal Online: The Official Review

SBFordSBFord Associate Editor - News ManagerThe Land of AZPosts: 16,585MMORPG.COM Staff Uncommon

MMORPG.com writer, Adam Tingle, has written extensively about his adventures in the realms of Mortal Online in his Survivor Guy series. Due to his extended play experiences in Mortal Online, Adam has a review of a game that has just recently turned six months old. See what Adam has to say and then weigh in with your comments below.

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.

Read more of our exclusive Mortal Online Six Month Review.


Associate Editor: MMORPG.com
Follow me on Twitter: @MMORPGMom

image
«1345678

Comments

  • JakdstripperJakdstripper logan lake, BCPosts: 2,126Member Uncommon

    get that eulogy ready.

  • RohnRohn Saint Peters, MOPosts: 3,740Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Jakdstripper

    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.

    Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.

  • warmaster670warmaster670 Simcoe, ONPosts: 1,384Member

    Originally posted by Rohn

    Originally posted by Jakdstripper

    get that eulogy ready.

     

     

    "The caveat to all this however, is that this game has bags and bags of potential."

    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.

    Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
    Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.

  • RohnRohn Saint Peters, MOPosts: 3,740Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by warmaster670

    Originally posted by Rohn

    Originally posted by Jakdstripper

    get that eulogy ready.

     

     

    "The caveat to all this however, is that this game has bags and bags of potential."

    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.

     

    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.

    Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.

  • shakermaker0shakermaker0 SheffieldPosts: 194Member

    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.

  • gaeanprayergaeanprayer Somewhere Out There, PAPosts: 2,320Member Uncommon

    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.

    "Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."

  • RohnRohn Saint Peters, MOPosts: 3,740Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by shakermaker0

    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 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.

    Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member

    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.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • Paragus1Paragus1 Philadelphia, PAPosts: 1,739Member Uncommon

    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.

  • JakdstripperJakdstripper logan lake, BCPosts: 2,126Member Uncommon

    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.

  • LahuzerLahuzer BorPosts: 666Member Uncommon

    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.

  • NephaeriusNephaerius Baltimore, MDPosts: 1,539Member Uncommon

    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.

    Steam: Neph

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Lahuzer
    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.

    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 can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • Capybara101Capybara101 Jackson, NJPosts: 2Member

    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.

  • LahuzerLahuzer BorPosts: 666Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by lizardbones

     




    Originally posted by Lahuzer

    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.



    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.


     

    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. ;)

  • grimfallgrimfall Missouri City, TXPosts: 1,155Member Uncommon

    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...

  • LahuzerLahuzer BorPosts: 666Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Nephaerius



    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.


     

    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.

  • LahuzerLahuzer BorPosts: 666Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by grimfall



    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...


     

    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.

  • RohnRohn Saint Peters, MOPosts: 3,740Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Paragus1

    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.

     

    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.

    Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Lahuzer

    Originally posted by lizardbones
     


    Originally posted by Lahuzer
    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.

    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.

     


    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. ;)

    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".

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • RohnRohn Saint Peters, MOPosts: 3,740Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Nephaerius

    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.

     

    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.

    Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.

  • LahuzerLahuzer BorPosts: 666Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by lizardbones

     




    Originally posted by Lahuzer







    Originally posted by lizardbones

     








    Originally posted by Lahuzer

    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.








    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.



     





    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. ;)


    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".


     

    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.

  • deathshrouddeathshroud londonPosts: 1,366Member

    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.

    there are 2 types of mmo, imitators and innovaters.

  • linksalulinksalu Par, NJPosts: 38Member

    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.

    Originally posted by geldonyetich

    Wow, I knew you guys were pretty desparate to slam the game, but hacking the web page of a major game site so a user review masquarades as an official one? Pretty impressive.

    [Edit: no, after seeing there's an actual video associated with it, I guess not, despite the wierd way GameSpot distributes its content making it looks like the reviewer didn't even write this.]

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 19,980Member Uncommon

    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.

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "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

«1345678
Sign In or Register to comment.