I have a lot of interest in this game. it looks like something i really want to play. However "messiah" never have seen one, Never will. I am Atheist when it comes to gaming religions, There will be no messiah, No god, No savior. We can only hope to have something that is increasingly rare if you go by release statistics. a good game.
I will say this about all your Favorate companies too.
Arena.net will never release the Messiah
Blizzard will never release the Messiah
Funcom (my favorite) Will never release the Messiah
Trion Will never Release the Messiah
CCP will never release the Messiah
And if i missed any companies
(Insert Name Here) Will never release the Messiah.
Because i can. I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out. Logic every gamers worst enemy.
It's hard not to get hyped , if you look hard enough . But you must be blind if you think this game doesn't look unrealistically amazingly too hard to believe .
Few people are receptive to new things, especially if it's vastly superior (not to imply this is the case) to what they were previously looking forward to.
It's mostly positive, more than other upcoming mmorpg's at least. When you copare vs. other upcoming mmorpg forums.
Anyway - even though it looks might impressive in many fields, I will not play it. Reason:
1. Sandbox + microtransactions? (BD is f2p) No thanks.
2. Already second trailer shown usual asian "cute" silly crap (absent in 1st trailer) here and there. ( For similar reason ArcheAge lost an appeal as well. ) Really can't stand it -especially if it's mixed into otherwise western firm medieval setting that look great.
Really a big shame cause otherwise - game really look both graphic and game concept-wise impressive.
Because people came to these forums and acted like it's Gods gift to MMO gamers.
No one likes arrogance.
Oh! Oh! Oh the Irony, Mkilbride! The irony!
You barely even posted before CU, and all you posted about was a concept. A game that isn't even a husk of an MMO yet. You urged people to fund their project even if they didn't want to play it. That's double standards, my friend.
People get hyped about games, they do. The title is looking promising, but it is almost as if everyone here suddenly forgot all the hype they've given games that have gone down the gutter. This behaviour reminds me of siblings fighting for attention. As soon as one of them gets praise the other one exclaims "I did that too, yesterday!".
Let's just wait and see. Let the ones whom are excited express it on these forums. You shouldn't alienate people. Especially not the ones whom are just like you.
Korean MMOs are generally massive grind games. That is what they are known for. The MMO industry/audience in America pales to that in Korea.
The game also has that typical, Asian grind-fest action combat....you know, the kind where your character does all kind of bizarre moves but it looks like a lot of the animation frames are removed making the character look impossibly fast. That in itself is not a problem, but when you actually look at the game world and non fighting stuff, the two don't mesh.
This game "looks" like it should have a realistic movement-orientated combat with physical weight and physics, sort of like Skyrim....but instead you get that arcade thing.
If you read up on ArcheAge, you will find that it is NOT as sandboxy as you might think it is. I think the same thing will hold true for this game. In fact, I think it might be so much like ArcheAge that there is no real difference between the two.
American MMOs copy WOW, there are about 100 or so that are identical. Korean games seem to have their own little niche, but they are all basically the same. Arcade action, mostly themepark with some sandbox elements but all are gindfests....oh, and BIZARRE mounts.
Korean MMOs are generally massive grind games. That is what they are known for. The MMO industry/audience in America pales to that in Korea.
2.
The game also has that typical, Asian grind-fest action combat....you know, the kind where your character does all kind of bizarre moves but it looks like a lot of the animation frames are removed making the character look impossibly fast. That in itself is not a problem, but when you actually look at the game world and non fighting stuff, the two don't mesh.
3.
This game "looks" like it should have a realistic movement-orientated combat with physical weight and physics, sort of like Skyrim....but instead you get that arcade thing.
4.
If you read up on ArcheAge, you will find that it is NOT as sandboxy as you might think it is. I think the same thing will hold true for this game. In fact, I think it might be so much like ArcheAge that there is no real difference between the two.
5.
American MMOs copy WOW, there are about 100 or so that are identical. Korean games seem to have their own little niche, but they are all basically the same. Arcade action, mostly themepark with some sandbox elements but all are gindfests....oh, and BIZARRE mounts.
Come'on mate. Just... those were the worse points ever. There is truth in what you said but you chose the most terrible reasons.
1. Remember Vanilla WoW? That was a grindfest. An utter grindfest, more so than most MMO's I've ever played. Now? WoW is basically just "Here, have max level and get to the endgame right away". That isn't much better.
2. Think of it as spectacle fighters. It will probably be more like Vindictus in the terms of combat, hopefully. But I wouldn't call it "Typical" for the asian MMO market.
3. Don't. Expect. Singleplayer Quality in MMO's. It's not happening.
4. This point I agree on. I doubt it will be as sandboxy as people hope. But it will probably feature some sandbox features, just not to the extent people wish for.
5. WoW copied a ton of other MMO's. It is not copying really, unless it really just feels like you are playing WoW with another skin on it. It is how games evolve. Guildwars 2 was one of the first games in the western market to gain enough marketshare to show off its mechanics and introducing them to the world. Other devs might build on that in order to get a better system than Arena Net. Hopefully one more fun. Much like WoW did back in the days.
I can't say you are wrong. Just that most of the things you said could be applied to any MMO ever.
4. This point I agree on. I doubt it will be as sandboxy as people hope. But it will probably feature some sandbox features, just not to the extent people wish for.
What exactly do you think people hope for in a sandbox ?
4. This point I agree on. I doubt it will be as sandboxy as people hope. But it will probably feature some sandbox features, just not to the extent people wish for.
What exactly do you think people hope for in a sandbox ?
That's the point, isn't it? Nobody has the same idea of what their sandbox should contain. I think most people whom want sandbox would settle for static player housing, player driven economy very open exploration. But that is still not my definition of sandbox. Nor should it be. Minecraft is a sandbox game. Most games that are heavily moddable are sandbox games.
Thing is, that your question is pointless. It serves no purpose whatsoever. What does it help you? You won't get what you want, and if you do you will still have opinions on how it could improve.
Personally I'd call it a sandbox if it allowed for sandstorms to terraform the desert, cover and uncover places. Or players being able to fell trees on a popular traderoute for player driven caravans to raid them. Sprouting forests and chopping them down again. Being able to have a unique world on each server so that if you join another server with a toon you would barely recognize the world. But these are sandbox features that will impact balancing issues and be abused by both trolls and exploiters.
Because people came to these forums and acted like it's Gods gift to MMO gamers.
No one likes arrogance.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . your jokeing right, i would say thats the pot calling the kettle black but i mean the pure volume is so diffrent that its silly, i mean these forums where literally wall to wall CO hypers who would rip apart anyone who said anything bad about the thing or dared ask a question, and you are jumping on someone for one or two threads, that most people barley notice?
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
4. This point I agree on. I doubt it will be as sandboxy as people hope. But it will probably feature some sandbox features, just not to the extent people wish for.
What exactly do you think people hope for in a sandbox ?
That's the point, isn't it? Nobody has the same idea of what their sandbox should contain. I think most people whom want sandbox would settle for static player housing, player driven economy very open exploration. But that is still not my definition of sandbox. Nor should it be. Minecraft is a sandbox game. Most games that are heavily moddable are sandbox games.
Thing is, that your question is pointless. It serves no purpose whatsoever. What does it help you? You won't get what you want, and if you do you will still have opinions on how it could improve.
Personally I'd call it a sandbox if it allowed for sandstorms to terraform the desert, cover and uncover places. Or players being able to fell trees on a popular traderoute for player driven caravans to raid them. Sprouting forests and chopping them down again. Being able to have a unique world on each server so that if you join another server with a toon you would barely recognize the world. But these are sandbox features that will impact balancing issues and be abused by both trolls and exploiters.
heck we cant even agree on a definition for sandbox, as i understand it thier are two main versions though
1. sandbox comes from being able to manipulate the world and hence make changes in the world via building and other things of that nature.
2. sand box means player authorship ( i dont understand it but meh) basicly being able to auther your own adventure via crafting and econammy mangement and creating your own stories whether thier is a toolsett or ot, basicly the freedom to run around and have no form of quest sytem or anyting to give you direction.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
Of all the things people can say, i am highly amused at the whole 'I dun likes it cuz it be purdy, and it be fast paced' and any other of the weird comments we heard above: When I am sure that those same posters have made the exact opposite 'argument' about other games.
heck we cant even agree on a definition for sandbox, as i understand it thier are two main versions though
1. sandbox comes from being able to manipulate the world and hence make changes in the world via building and other things of that nature.
2. sand box means player authorship ( i dont understand it but meh) basicly being able to auther your own adventure via crafting and econammy mangement and creating your own stories whether thier is a toolsett or ot, basicly the freedom to run around and have no form of quest sytem or anyting to give you direction.
they're th same thing. mot can't express very well what they want in their sandbox, - and neither can i - but at its core they basically want the same thing:
1) dear game, show me what options i have. maybe a han-holding tutorial showing me quickly how to mine, what mining is etc. show me basic crafting, how to use the ui, the materials. show me what other professions are.
2) dear game. Now you're no longer needed to show me anything. Other players and myself will decide where to go from here.
3) my daily 'life' in-game...what is it ? finding a home, finding a community. building stuff that clearly proves this is ours.
4) the stuff we built...why did we build it ? we built it how we wanted it but WHY did we build it ? it must serve a purpose. defensive ? offensive ? progressive ? convenience ? the game better provide us with a reason to build.
5) inflation...stuff gets gathered. stuff gets built. If it never gets lost or removed, we either fill the map or inflation skyrockets. Loss is necesary.
6) balance. can one lose more than he earns ? obviously this means his loss will lead to perma-death. No living character can lose more than he has. What is the right balance ? can you lose posessions but not life ? can you lose posession but not character progression ? Opinions vary greatly here.
In the end, most understand a sandbox as "what I do is done to complement my community, supplement my ressourcs, and counter my enemies. How I achieve this is entirely my choice from the list of available options.". the opposite being "i'm here to achieve the objective the new patch has set for me".
sandbox refers to a lack of game-set objectives. the game retains control over player activities but at an indirect level - through metagame. A game that has no direct control and no meta-game would qualify as a sandbox (minecraft early iterations, Xsyon) but it'd not be what most of us are looking for.
we dont want to "rebuild civilization". we want to build ourselves up, smash others, or get smashed, then rebuild ourselves bigger and better and try again...or keep expanding. we don't care about civilization.
see i see sandbox mainly as building tools and i have been told by several people this and such game and best sandbox evey that have no building tools in it, and that im wrong it all about authur ship not building . . . . but . . . . .. ya know what i dont wanna turn this into a sandbox argument thread so ill just stop.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
heck we cant even agree on a definition for sandbox, as i understand it thier are two main versions though
1. sandbox comes from being able to manipulate the world and hence make changes in the world via building and other things of that nature.
2. sand box means player authorship ( i dont understand it but meh) basicly being able to auther your own adventure via crafting and econammy mangement and creating your own stories whether thier is a toolsett or ot, basicly the freedom to run around and have no form of quest sytem or anyting to give you direction.
they're th same thing. mot can't express very well what they want in their sandbox, - and neither can i - but at its core they basically want the same thing:
1) dear game, show me what options i have. maybe a han-holding tutorial showing me quickly how to mine, what mining is etc. show me basic crafting, how to use the ui, the materials. show me what other professions are.
2) dear game. Now you're no longer needed to show me anything. Other players and myself will decide where to go from here.
3) my daily 'life' in-game...what is it ? finding a home, finding a community. building stuff that clearly proves this is ours.
4) the stuff we built...why did we build it ? we built it how we wanted it but WHY did we build it ? it must serve a purpose. defensive ? offensive ? progressive ? convenience ? the game better provide us with a reason to build.
5) inflation...stuff gets gathered. stuff gets built. If it never gets lost or removed, we either fill the map or inflation skyrockets. Loss is necesary.
6) balance. can one lose more than he earns ? obviously this means his loss will lead to perma-death. No living character can lose more than he has. What is the right balance ? can you lose posessions but not life ? can you lose posession but not character progression ? Opinions vary greatly here.
In the end, most understand a sandbox as "what I do is done to complement my community, supplement my ressourcs, and counter my enemies. How I achieve this is entirely my choice from the list of available options.". the opposite being "i'm here to achieve the objective the new patch has set for me".
sandbox refers to a lack of game-set objectives. the game retains control over player activities but at an indirect level - through metagame. A game that has no direct control and no meta-game would qualify as a sandbox (minecraft early iterations, Xsyon) but it'd not be what most of us are looking for.
we dont want to "rebuild civilization". we want to build ourselves up, smash others, or get smashed, then rebuild ourselves bigger and better and try again...or keep expanding. we don't care about civilization.
see i see sandbox mainly as building tools and i have been told by several people this and such game and best sandbox evey that have no building tools in it, and that im wrong it all about authur ship not building . . . . but . . . . .. ya know what i dont wanna turn this into a sandbox argument thread so ill just stop.
Yeah to be honest I don't think this game can really be a true sand box because the game engine doesn't cater for it . As seen in the siege video the cannons aren't blowing away bits of the castle because the object is pre rendered .
I don't know of any 3d engine that looks good that allows you to do what can be done in a game like minecraft. The few that I have seen look like crap i.e voxel terrain with boxes for building etc .
it's sad when games can't incorporate features because it would be too much work. That usually means they reached the end of their cycle. If you are already seeing this in things such as pre-rendering then you best bet is to avoid it even though it may be somewhat enjoyable.
I have already been bashed for this, but I can't hype the game based on their official website. Now if they have one different than what MMORPG.com posts, then it needs to be updated.
I don't care what product it is, if I go to their website and all I see is a video and a simple statement like
"Black Deserts is a large scale of sandbox oriented MMORPG that provides you a variety of unique experiences with spectacular action and battle, strategy-oriented castle siege, sophisticated simulation contents such as trade, NPC-hiring and real-estate management."
then I am not going to get hyped about. Sure there may be reasons to NOT have a good website, and just because you have a good website doesn't mean your game will be, but this site just puts me in the wait and see category.
and on a side note about people not liking Korean games, it has nothing to do with race. In a broad and some what stereotypical view Koreans and Americans like different things. If you go to Korea and order a hamburger from McDonalds it will taste a bit different. It's not that they hate American food, just that the culture generally has different taste.
the missing link in a chain of destruction.
All spelling and typographical errors are based soely on the fact that i just dont care. If you must point out my lack of atention to detail, please do it with a smile.
I can teli you this,the little we know the game definitely has some promise,but i have seen some pretty amazing videos and games end up crap.
I don't care about sieges or 400-400 ,i don't care for pvp...period.
The kind of Siege content i like is in FFXI "Besieged",where the mobs attack the city and the players join together to defend it.There is so much that can be done with that idea it is just crazy at how good you can make it.
Mount combat if done right is great but if EVERY single player can use it,they will ,so it ends up looking a bit shallow with every player on a mount.I prefer Knight classes to be on a mount nobody else unless it makes sense.
However ,like i said it looks promising,we do need more to go on to actually hype it up.
I remember getting all excited for TERA and it's HQ videos.I finally got into that game and almost threw up.Then i laid down and started to think,oh ya maybe my settings were not very good,so i went back in after already deleting it.Nope all settings on max,it looked just awful,exactly like all f2p games look to keep bandwidth costs down.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It's hard not to get hyped , if you look hard enough . But you must be blind if you think this game doesn't look unrealistically amazingly too hard to believe .
For those like me who have been playing MMOS for long don't care much about the looks. It is gameplay that matters. No matter how pretty it looks it is not going to help if gameplay sucks.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.' -Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid." -Luke McKinney
Comments
I have a lot of interest in this game. it looks like something i really want to play. However "messiah" never have seen one, Never will. I am Atheist when it comes to gaming religions, There will be no messiah, No god, No savior. We can only hope to have something that is increasingly rare if you go by release statistics. a good game.
I will say this about all your Favorate companies too.
Arena.net will never release the Messiah
Blizzard will never release the Messiah
Funcom (my favorite) Will never release the Messiah
Trion Will never Release the Messiah
CCP will never release the Messiah
And if i missed any companies
(Insert Name Here) Will never release the Messiah.
Because i can.
I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out.
Logic every gamers worst enemy.
It's hard not to get hyped , if you look hard enough . But you must be blind if you think this game doesn't look unrealistically amazingly too hard to believe .
It's mostly positive, more than other upcoming mmorpg's at least. When you copare vs. other upcoming mmorpg forums.
Anyway - even though it looks might impressive in many fields, I will not play it. Reason:
1. Sandbox + microtransactions? (BD is f2p) No thanks.
2. Already second trailer shown usual asian "cute" silly crap (absent in 1st trailer) here and there. ( For similar reason ArcheAge lost an appeal as well. ) Really can't stand it -especially if it's mixed into otherwise western firm medieval setting that look great.
Really a big shame cause otherwise - game really look both graphic and game concept-wise impressive.
Oh! Oh! Oh the Irony, Mkilbride! The irony!
You barely even posted before CU, and all you posted about was a concept. A game that isn't even a husk of an MMO yet. You urged people to fund their project even if they didn't want to play it. That's double standards, my friend.
People get hyped about games, they do. The title is looking promising, but it is almost as if everyone here suddenly forgot all the hype they've given games that have gone down the gutter. This behaviour reminds me of siblings fighting for attention. As soon as one of them gets praise the other one exclaims "I did that too, yesterday!".
Let's just wait and see. Let the ones whom are excited express it on these forums. You shouldn't alienate people. Especially not the ones whom are just like you.
Korean MMOs are generally massive grind games. That is what they are known for. The MMO industry/audience in America pales to that in Korea.
The game also has that typical, Asian grind-fest action combat....you know, the kind where your character does all kind of bizarre moves but it looks like a lot of the animation frames are removed making the character look impossibly fast. That in itself is not a problem, but when you actually look at the game world and non fighting stuff, the two don't mesh.
This game "looks" like it should have a realistic movement-orientated combat with physical weight and physics, sort of like Skyrim....but instead you get that arcade thing.
If you read up on ArcheAge, you will find that it is NOT as sandboxy as you might think it is. I think the same thing will hold true for this game. In fact, I think it might be so much like ArcheAge that there is no real difference between the two.
American MMOs copy WOW, there are about 100 or so that are identical. Korean games seem to have their own little niche, but they are all basically the same. Arcade action, mostly themepark with some sandbox elements but all are gindfests....oh, and BIZARRE mounts.
Come'on mate. Just... those were the worse points ever. There is truth in what you said but you chose the most terrible reasons.
1. Remember Vanilla WoW? That was a grindfest. An utter grindfest, more so than most MMO's I've ever played. Now? WoW is basically just "Here, have max level and get to the endgame right away". That isn't much better.
2. Think of it as spectacle fighters. It will probably be more like Vindictus in the terms of combat, hopefully. But I wouldn't call it "Typical" for the asian MMO market.
3. Don't. Expect. Singleplayer Quality in MMO's. It's not happening.
4. This point I agree on. I doubt it will be as sandboxy as people hope. But it will probably feature some sandbox features, just not to the extent people wish for.
5. WoW copied a ton of other MMO's. It is not copying really, unless it really just feels like you are playing WoW with another skin on it. It is how games evolve. Guildwars 2 was one of the first games in the western market to gain enough marketshare to show off its mechanics and introducing them to the world. Other devs might build on that in order to get a better system than Arena Net. Hopefully one more fun. Much like WoW did back in the days.
I can't say you are wrong. Just that most of the things you said could be applied to any MMO ever.
What exactly do you think people hope for in a sandbox ?
That's the point, isn't it? Nobody has the same idea of what their sandbox should contain. I think most people whom want sandbox would settle for static player housing, player driven economy very open exploration. But that is still not my definition of sandbox. Nor should it be. Minecraft is a sandbox game. Most games that are heavily moddable are sandbox games.
Thing is, that your question is pointless. It serves no purpose whatsoever. What does it help you? You won't get what you want, and if you do you will still have opinions on how it could improve.
Personally I'd call it a sandbox if it allowed for sandstorms to terraform the desert, cover and uncover places. Or players being able to fell trees on a popular traderoute for player driven caravans to raid them. Sprouting forests and chopping them down again. Being able to have a unique world on each server so that if you join another server with a toon you would barely recognize the world. But these are sandbox features that will impact balancing issues and be abused by both trolls and exploiters.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . your jokeing right, i would say thats the pot calling the kettle black but i mean the pure volume is so diffrent that its silly, i mean these forums where literally wall to wall CO hypers who would rip apart anyone who said anything bad about the thing or dared ask a question, and you are jumping on someone for one or two threads, that most people barley notice?
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to
Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
heck we cant even agree on a definition for sandbox, as i understand it thier are two main versions though
1. sandbox comes from being able to manipulate the world and hence make changes in the world via building and other things of that nature.
2. sand box means player authorship ( i dont understand it but meh) basicly being able to auther your own adventure via crafting and econammy mangement and creating your own stories whether thier is a toolsett or ot, basicly the freedom to run around and have no form of quest sytem or anyting to give you direction.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to
Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
see i see sandbox mainly as building tools and i have been told by several people this and such game and best sandbox evey that have no building tools in it, and that im wrong it all about authur ship not building . . . . but . . . . .. ya know what i dont wanna turn this into a sandbox argument thread so ill just stop.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to
Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
Yeah to be honest I don't think this game can really be a true sand box because the game engine doesn't cater for it . As seen in the siege video the cannons aren't blowing away bits of the castle because the object is pre rendered .
I don't know of any 3d engine that looks good that allows you to do what can be done in a game like minecraft. The few that I have seen look like crap i.e voxel terrain with boxes for building etc .
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to
Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
I have already been bashed for this, but I can't hype the game based on their official website. Now if they have one different than what MMORPG.com posts, then it needs to be updated.
I don't care what product it is, if I go to their website and all I see is a video and a simple statement like
"Black Deserts is a large scale of sandbox oriented MMORPG that provides you a variety of unique experiences with spectacular action and battle, strategy-oriented castle siege, sophisticated simulation contents such as trade, NPC-hiring and real-estate management."
then I am not going to get hyped about. Sure there may be reasons to NOT have a good website, and just because you have a good website doesn't mean your game will be, but this site just puts me in the wait and see category.
and on a side note about people not liking Korean games, it has nothing to do with race. In a broad and some what stereotypical view Koreans and Americans like different things. If you go to Korea and order a hamburger from McDonalds it will taste a bit different. It's not that they hate American food, just that the culture generally has different taste.
the missing link in a chain of destruction.
All spelling and typographical errors are based soely on the fact that i just dont care. If you must point out my lack of atention to detail, please do it with a smile.
Bad Hype?? is that possible?
I can teli you this,the little we know the game definitely has some promise,but i have seen some pretty amazing videos and games end up crap.
I don't care about sieges or 400-400 ,i don't care for pvp...period.
The kind of Siege content i like is in FFXI "Besieged",where the mobs attack the city and the players join together to defend it.There is so much that can be done with that idea it is just crazy at how good you can make it.
Mount combat if done right is great but if EVERY single player can use it,they will ,so it ends up looking a bit shallow with every player on a mount.I prefer Knight classes to be on a mount nobody else unless it makes sense.
However ,like i said it looks promising,we do need more to go on to actually hype it up.
I remember getting all excited for TERA and it's HQ videos.I finally got into that game and almost threw up.Then i laid down and started to think,oh ya maybe my settings were not very good,so i went back in after already deleting it.Nope all settings on max,it looked just awful,exactly like all f2p games look to keep bandwidth costs down.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Wait, why would we admire these qualities more than arrogance?
Aion marketed itself with much the same selling points only to be mis interpreted by "western gamers"
Just because things look good and they say all the right things, Doesnt mean its going to be how you imagine.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
For those like me who have been playing MMOS for long don't care much about the looks. It is gameplay that matters. No matter how pretty it looks it is not going to help if gameplay sucks.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
-Luke McKinney