Howdy, Stranger!

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

MMORPG.com will be down for maintenance beginning at midnight EST on Tuesday, August 30. Downtime is expected to last only a couple of hours.
«13

Comments

  • SgtFrogSgtFrog LondonPosts: 5,001Member

    sad to see an mmorpg go down.

    image
    March on! - Lets Invade Pekopon

  • RobokappRobokapp Dublin, OHPosts: 5,688Member Uncommon

    the death of a F2P is interesting news...I wonder how the rest will respond. (looking at Allods).

    image

  • DubhlaithDubhlaith EnnisPosts: 1,012Member


    Originally posted by Reiy
    Another POS off the market, only 9000 more to go  ;)

    This was a really good game. More than that though, is that they really tried to do something different with the game, and give players a new experience. It was admirable, what they did, and they did it out of love, and it showed in the world. It was pretty complicated, and they did not give players a really good introduction to the world, which was a problem.

    However, the real problem was Acclaim. It was poorly marketed and poorly supported, and it was not given a proper chance before they started to make it free to play, and once you take a pay to play game and make it free to play, most gamers just look at is as a joke. The exception to this is DDO, which seems to be doing quite well with the model.

    But if you think this is a POS, you must not have played it, or you do not understand what that means. You may not have enjoyed it, as it was difficult and complicated, but it was as well made as most other games on the market today.

    "Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true — you know it, and they know it." —Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007

    WTF? No subscription fee?

  • deadanddivindeadanddivin Quebec, QCPosts: 13Member

    i totally agree.

    i played this game when it was p2p and really enjoyed myself.

    the combat system was new and awesome.

    the only thing that got me to leave was the lack of pve content,

    but then again it was still in beta.

    the game had alot of potential.

  • vectrexevovectrexevo sant ana, CAPosts: 159Member Uncommon

    I don't post much...  but hands down..  this game had a ton of potential.  The combat system was unique ..  to bad they don't implement this type of combat in newer mmo's..   like the above post's said, it lacked content and direction.. to bad!   On a side note...  MMO's now a days remind me of the atari days when everyone was trying to get a piece of the pie and started to make cra*p games...  remember ET...    Sorry, totally off topic...

  • just2duhjust2duh City, NSPosts: 1,290Member

     That link doesn't really tell much at all..

     As far as I knew Acclaim was just keeping it running until someone else took it over, as part of an agreement of some sorts, and once this ghost company took it over the acclaim server was always planned to be shutdown.

     So to me if what that little "article" is trying to say is that the acclaim server is closing, then that could mean it's rebirth might be coming soon.

  • PapadamPapadam Tampa bay, FLPosts: 2,102Member

    Originally posted by Robokapp

    the death of a F2P is interesting news...I wonder how the rest will respond. (looking at Allods).

    Well I doubt anyone is going to react to this since Spellborn have been dead almost since release just kept in limbo by Acclaim. They amde no money from it and there was no support or updates they just kept the servers open

    Sad to see this one go, I really hope they would re-release this as a F2P MMO, since it was a fun and unique game.

    If WoW = The Beatles
    and WAR = Led Zeppelin
    Then LotrO = Pink Floyd

  • Luthor_XLuthor_X Campbellsville, KYPosts: 431Member

    No surprise here

  • grunt187grunt187 omaha, NEPosts: 956Member Common

    Did not enjoy the game one bit, but still sad to see a MMO die.

    On a happier note cant wait for the GUComic(Bug Zapper) image

    The following statement is false
    The previous statement is true

  • kaltoumkaltoum ParisPosts: 304Member

    People keep saying it had potential and that it was good and different. However, good games do not die but bad ones do. If it was really that different more players would be playing it. It was same with tabula rasa, similar comments about how much potential it had. And yet the population kept dwindling every month. Bad games shut down why? because  bad games don't make profit for the company. Potential alone isn't enough to bring profit.

    90% of haters are begging for love. 10% just want a little attention -- Paulo Coelho

  • DubhlaithDubhlaith EnnisPosts: 1,012Member


    Originally posted by kaltoum
    People keep saying it had potential and that it was good and different. However, good games do not die but bad ones do. If it was really that different more players would be playing it. It was same with tabula rasa, similar comments about how much potential it had. And yet the population kept dwindling every month. Bad games shut down why? because  bad games don't make profit for the company. Potential alone isn't enough to bring profit.

    Actually, they died for very similar reasones.

    1: The combat system was new and very different from what MMO players were expecting. This alone through a great many people off of the game from the start, and they did not enjoy it.

    2: They were not given the proper marketing by their publisher, and so the niche people that may have enjoyed it were much less likely to hear about the game.

    3: When the game did not have a spectacular launch, little to no effort was put into making the changes that would entice players to try the game. Spellborn did a bit better with this, but ultimately Acclaim ruined any chances they had.


    Important note:

    It is a common fallacy that good games/books/films succeed and bad ones fail. Popular ones succeed and unpopular ones fail. Things do not usually become popular by being good. They sometimes stay popular by being good, but not always. Thing become popular by becoming known, and they become known through advert and other methods of marketing/dissemination of the information. Remember, if people do not know about a thing, they cannot like it.

    Here are to good examples of why this logic is a fallacy, from history where we can have a long perspective: Edgar Allan Poe, and Van Gogh. Both are widely regarded, today, as one of the very best in their fields of all time. However, they both died before people found out about or began to like their work. So, their work was amazing, but it was not successful for many, many years. Their work failed because it was unpopular at the time, not because it was bad. I feel like I can safely assert that their work was very good.

    So, from this we can assume that good does not always equal successful.


    I hope this information has been enlightening for you. It is important to me that people begin to understand this about games, as most people already understand it for other works of art. Simply saying "it failed because it is bad" ignores the real problem, and does not help people figure out what really went wrong. And developers and publishers need to understand what went wrong so they can try to prevent it in the future. Even if you did not like the game, there are others who did, and it is sad to see them lose a game they care about. I myself enjoyed this game for several months before I quit. The reason we have many different games is that one person will not like what another likes. That alone does not make them bad games; it simply makes them different tastes.

    "Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true — you know it, and they know it." —Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007

    WTF? No subscription fee?

  • CzelsiorCzelsior undefinedPosts: 41Member

    R.I.P Spellborn

    It was the best MMORPG ever..

    -The Chronicles of Spellborn-
    Czelsior - Wrathguard LvL 50 -Dorzhan
    Kaiyn - Trickster LvL 50 - Deiquonril

    TCoS Gameplay videos

    http://www.youtube.com/user/czelsior

  • EladiEladi ArnhemPosts: 1,106Member Uncommon

    sad to hear, it was a good game , it realy was, but unfortunate the developer had the wrong publisher from the start.

    little to no marketing made sure that it stayed a low population game and were there is low population new people wont stay.

    MMO's are desight around the ( massive) if it lacks that ..well nothing you can do

  • NizurNizur Austin, TXPosts: 1,417Member

    It was a fun game, but lacked something I could never put my finger on. I tried it for a few weeks, but couldn't stick with it. Part of it was because I think I only ever saw two other people playing the game.

    Current: None
    Played: WoW, CoX, SWG, LotRO, EVE, AoC, VG, CO, Ryzom, DF, WAR
    Tried: Lineage2, Dofus, EQ2, CoS, FE, UO, Wurm, Wakfu
    Future: The Repopulation, ArcheAge, Black Desert, EQN

  • NephaeriusNephaerius Posts: 1,663Member Uncommon

    It sucks that TCoS is shutting down.  Is it just shutting down through Playdom or through Acclaim as well?  There is no news concerning a shutdown on the Acclaim site.  In addition, TCoS 2.0 has been up and running in Japan since January or earlier and they are still working on a global release.

    Steam: Neph

  • SnarlingWolfSnarlingWolf Thereiam, ARPosts: 2,697Member

    Originally posted by Dubhlaith

     


    Originally posted by kaltoum

    People keep saying it had potential and that it was good and different. However, good games do not die but bad ones do. If it was really that different more players would be playing it. It was same with tabula rasa, similar comments about how much potential it had. And yet the population kept dwindling every month. Bad games shut down why? because  bad games don't make profit for the company. Potential alone isn't enough to bring profit.



     

    Actually, they died for very similar reasones.

    1: The combat system was new and very different from what MMO players were expecting. This alone through a great many people off of the game from the start, and they did not enjoy it.

    2: They were not given the proper marketing by their publisher, and so the niche people that may have enjoyed it were much less likely to hear about the game.

    3: When the game did not have a spectacular launch, little to no effort was put into making the changes that would entice players to try the game. Spellborn did a bit better with this, but ultimately Acclaim ruined any chances they had.

     

     

     



    Important note:

    It is a common fallacy that good games/books/films succeed and bad ones fail. Popular ones succeed and unpopular ones fail. Things do not usually become popular by being good. They sometimes stay popular by being good, but not always. Thing become popular by becoming known, and they become known through advert and other methods of marketing/dissemination of the information. Remember, if people do not know about a thing, they cannot like it.

    Here are to good examples of why this logic is a fallacy, from history where we can have a long perspective: Edgar Allan Poe, and Van Gogh. Both are widely regarded, today, as one of the very best in their fields of all time. However, they both died before people found out about or began to like their work. So, their work was amazing, but it was not successful for many, many years. Their work failed because it was unpopular at the time, not because it was bad. I feel like I can safely assert that their work was very good.

    So, from this we can assume that good does not always equal successful.

     

     

     



    I hope this information has been enlightening for you. It is important to me that people begin to understand this about games, as most people already understand it for other works of art. Simply saying "it failed because it is bad" ignores the real problem, and does not help people figure out what really went wrong. And developers and publishers need to understand what went wrong so they can try to prevent it in the future. Even if you did not like the game, there are others who did, and it is sad to see them lose a game they care about. I myself enjoyed this game for several months before I quit. The reason we have many different games is that one person will not like what another likes. That alone does not make them bad games; it simply makes them different tastes.

     I highly disagree with the italicized part of your post. Elitest and snobish people want to believe that differet/artsy/under-appreciated things are good. In fact they automatically think they are better when no one else accepts them. It is an invalid way of looking at things.

     

    I feel that a lot of shows/movies/games that did not do well were great. But I have a different taste then the majority. Just because my taste is different doesn't mean the things I like are better and the majority can't realize it, all it means is that for my taste it is better.

     

    Good is also a very subjective term in these cases, I see two different ways of something being referred to as good. First is that it does well. This is a very straight-forward way of evaluating a product and it is one that doesn't leave much room for argument. If it does well then it is good, if it doesn't then it is bad.

     

    Second is how it appeals to a certain audience, it's enjoyment/depth/artistic elements etc. This is a purely opinionated level of good and different tastes will pick different things to be good. The problem is this is what you were referring to, and it is never a fact. But the elitest groups tend to think that their views (which are never in the majority, and one of the reasons they like their views so much - because they're different) are the correct ones. Therefore anything they find to be good is good and everything else i bad. No other factors play into it. Problem is that is opinion and not ever fact.

     

    I just get tired of people not seperating facts from opinions when making statements like that. The strange part is you acknowledge that in your final paragraph, which directly contradicts the italicized portion.

     

    Whenever a game decides to be VERY different from the competition it will generally not do well. People do not adapt well to sudden changes so they can't stick with it. Change needs to be gradual, which is why all the successful games change 1 or 2 pieces but keep the rest of the game the same as what people are used to. Fortunatly the bright side is companies tend to look at those failed games and then take the best pieces to add to future games, so the changes (assuming it is thought they can be successful) will still show up again.

  • saraphimknigsaraphimknig Rochester, NYPosts: 17Member

    Actually, SnarlingWolf, he has a point. What he mentions is something we actually take very seriously in the game industry. His point about popularity and the like tends to be correct, as even horrible transmedia and game adaptations of movies and the like make a profit (G.I Joe game, many of the Nicktoons games, etc). From a game standpoint, many of these are horrible. But all you need is someone to buy it based of popularity, and it will fly a lot better.

    Now, taking that for what it's worth, I agree with you. Spellborn failed because of many reasons. The gameplay was unfamiliar, but calling it bad is subjective, just as saying a game is bad. However, we can typically look at games and define whether certain gameplay elements are well done or not, which helps to create that definition. Those things aside, Spellborn's failure is really up to being 1. different, 2. lacking money / direction, 3. poor publicity. Poor publicity doesn't mean no publicity, but means that it didn't get a lot said about it.

    Once again, not disagreeing with you. But if you do not think we in the industry do not look at what the previoius commentor said, much less what you said, then you are mistaken. From a business end, we look at it all. Making something new and different (from controls to gameplay, etc) is a calculated risk, which without taking into account the other factors, can become a massive failure. Unfortunately for Spellborn, their risk did not provide poor gameplay completely, but combined with the other factors, made for a project that could not recover from failure.

  • disownationdisownation Wadsworth, OHPosts: 243Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by SnarlingWolf


    Originally posted by Dubhlaith

     


    Originally posted by kaltoum

    People keep saying it had potential and that it was good and different. However, good games do not die but bad ones do. If it was really that different more players would be playing it. It was same with tabula rasa, similar comments about how much potential it had. And yet the population kept dwindling every month. Bad games shut down why? because  bad games don't make profit for the company. Potential alone isn't enough to bring profit.



     

    Actually, they died for very similar reasones.

    1: The combat system was new and very different from what MMO players were expecting. This alone through a great many people off of the game from the start, and they did not enjoy it.

    2: They were not given the proper marketing by their publisher, and so the niche people that may have enjoyed it were much less likely to hear about the game.

    3: When the game did not have a spectacular launch, little to no effort was put into making the changes that would entice players to try the game. Spellborn did a bit better with this, but ultimately Acclaim ruined any chances they had.

     

     

     



    Important note:

    It is a common fallacy that good games/books/films succeed and bad ones fail. Popular ones succeed and unpopular ones fail. Things do not usually become popular by being good. They sometimes stay popular by being good, but not always. Thing become popular by becoming known, and they become known through advert and other methods of marketing/dissemination of the information. Remember, if people do not know about a thing, they cannot like it.

    Here are to good examples of why this logic is a fallacy, from history where we can have a long perspective: Edgar Allan Poe, and Van Gogh. Both are widely regarded, today, as one of the very best in their fields of all time. However, they both died before people found out about or began to like their work. So, their work was amazing, but it was not successful for many, many years. Their work failed because it was unpopular at the time, not because it was bad. I feel like I can safely assert that their work was very good.

    So, from this we can assume that good does not always equal successful.

     

     

     



    I hope this information has been enlightening for you. It is important to me that people begin to understand this about games, as most people already understand it for other works of art. Simply saying "it failed because it is bad" ignores the real problem, and does not help people figure out what really went wrong. And developers and publishers need to understand what went wrong so they can try to prevent it in the future. Even if you did not like the game, there are others who did, and it is sad to see them lose a game they care about. I myself enjoyed this game for several months before I quit. The reason we have many different games is that one person will not like what another likes. That alone does not make them bad games; it simply makes them different tastes.

     I highly disagree with the italicized part of your post. Elitest and snobish people want to believe that differet/artsy/under-appreciated things are good. In fact they automatically think they are better when no one else accepts them. It is an invalid way of looking at things.

     

    I feel that a lot of shows/movies/games that did not do well were great. But I have a different taste then the majority. Just because my taste is different doesn't mean the things I like are better and the majority can't realize it, all it means is that for my taste it is better.

     

    Good is also a very subjective term in these cases, I see two different ways of something being referred to as good. First is that it does well. This is a very straight-forward way of evaluating a product and it is one that doesn't leave much room for argument. If it does well then it is good, if it doesn't then it is bad.

     

    Second is how it appeals to a certain audience, it's enjoyment/depth/artistic elements etc. This is a purely opinionated level of good and different tastes will pick different things to be good. The problem is this is what you were referring to, and it is never a fact. But the elitest groups tend to think that their views (which are never in the majority, and one of the reasons they like their views so much - because they're different) are the correct ones. Therefore anything they find to be good is good and everything else i bad. No other factors play into it. Problem is that is opinion and not ever fact.

     

    I just get tired of people not seperating facts from opinions when making statements like that. The strange part is you acknowledge that in your final paragraph, which directly contradicts the italicized portion.

     

    Whenever a game decides to be VERY different from the competition it will generally not do well. People do not adapt well to sudden changes so they can't stick with it. Change needs to be gradual, which is why all the successful games change 1 or 2 pieces but keep the rest of the game the same as what people are used to. Fortunatly the bright side is companies tend to look at those failed games and then take the best pieces to add to future games, so the changes (assuming it is thought they can be successful) will still show up again.

     

     

    And yet. people scream for something new and different, innovating. Yet when something comes along, they cry that its "not the same" as other MMOs. What? People can't have their cake and eat it too. You cannot have different but the same. And even when you do have an MMO that deviates just a little from the norm - gives a little bit of difference -  people still state that its not "innovative".

     

    I am so confused by some. I'm most certain developers are as well. Developers can't offer people what they want when the people don't even know what they want to begin with. Boggles the mind.

     

    That said, this was a great and unique MMO. I am sad to see it go. Sometimes, even the good games lose. Like someone said prior. Good and bad does not determine success. Popularity does.

  • saraphimknigsaraphimknig Rochester, NYPosts: 17Member

    Originally posted by disownation

    And yet. people scream for something new and different, innovating. Yet when something comes along, they cry that its "not the same" as other MMOs. What? People can't have their cake and eat it too. You cannot have different but the same. And even when you do have an MMO that deviates just a little from the norm - gives a little bit of difference -  people still state that its not "innovative".
     
    I am so confused by some. I'm most certain developers are as well. Developers can't offer people what they want when the people don't even know what they want to begin with. Boggles the mind.
     
    That said, this was a great and unique MMO. I am sad to see it go. Sometimes, even the good games lose. Like someone said prior. Good and bad does not determine success. Popularity does.

    This, is what we're taught in all those years of software engineering and business requirements elicitation. People rarely know what they want, especially about a product in which they are not directly involved. It's hard enough having a client tell you what they think they want, but now try making a game for people you don't directly talk to, much less reach a broad enough group of people. In the end, as game developers, we take conventions, new ideas, and some of the stuff we'd like to see, and try to make a game out of it.

  • ray12kray12k riverside, CAPosts: 451Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by disownation


    Originally posted by SnarlingWolf


    Originally posted by Dubhlaith

     


    Originally posted by kaltoum

    People keep saying it had potential and that it was good and different. However, good games do not die but bad ones do. If it was really that different more players would be playing it. It was same with tabula rasa, similar comments about how much potential it had. And yet the population kept dwindling every month. Bad games shut down why? because  bad games don't make profit for the company. Potential alone isn't enough to bring profit.



     

    Actually, they died for very similar reasones.

    1: The combat system was new and very different from what MMO players were expecting. This alone through a great many people off of the game from the start, and they did not enjoy it.

    2: They were not given the proper marketing by their publisher, and so the niche people that may have enjoyed it were much less likely to hear about the game.

    3: When the game did not have a spectacular launch, little to no effort was put into making the changes that would entice players to try the game. Spellborn did a bit better with this, but ultimately Acclaim ruined any chances they had.

     

     

     



    Important note:

    It is a common fallacy that good games/books/films succeed and bad ones fail. Popular ones succeed and unpopular ones fail. Things do not usually become popular by being good. They sometimes stay popular by being good, but not always. Thing become popular by becoming known, and they become known through advert and other methods of marketing/dissemination of the information. Remember, if people do not know about a thing, they cannot like it.

    Here are to good examples of why this logic is a fallacy, from history where we can have a long perspective: Edgar Allan Poe, and Van Gogh. Both are widely regarded, today, as one of the very best in their fields of all time. However, they both died before people found out about or began to like their work. So, their work was amazing, but it was not successful for many, many years. Their work failed because it was unpopular at the time, not because it was bad. I feel like I can safely assert that their work was very good.

    So, from this we can assume that good does not always equal successful.

     

     

     



    I hope this information has been enlightening for you. It is important to me that people begin to understand this about games, as most people already understand it for other works of art. Simply saying "it failed because it is bad" ignores the real problem, and does not help people figure out what really went wrong. And developers and publishers need to understand what went wrong so they can try to prevent it in the future. Even if you did not like the game, there are others who did, and it is sad to see them lose a game they care about. I myself enjoyed this game for several months before I quit. The reason we have many different games is that one person will not like what another likes. That alone does not make them bad games; it simply makes them different tastes.

     I highly disagree with the italicized part of your post. Elitest and snobish people want to believe that differet/artsy/under-appreciated things are good. In fact they automatically think they are better when no one else accepts them. It is an invalid way of looking at things.

     

    I feel that a lot of shows/movies/games that did not do well were great. But I have a different taste then the majority. Just because my taste is different doesn't mean the things I like are better and the majority can't realize it, all it means is that for my taste it is better.

     

    Good is also a very subjective term in these cases, I see two different ways of something being referred to as good. First is that it does well. This is a very straight-forward way of evaluating a product and it is one that doesn't leave much room for argument. If it does well then it is good, if it doesn't then it is bad.

     

    Second is how it appeals to a certain audience, it's enjoyment/depth/artistic elements etc. This is a purely opinionated level of good and different tastes will pick different things to be good. The problem is this is what you were referring to, and it is never a fact. But the elitest groups tend to think that their views (which are never in the majority, and one of the reasons they like their views so much - because they're different) are the correct ones. Therefore anything they find to be good is good and everything else i bad. No other factors play into it. Problem is that is opinion and not ever fact.

     

    I just get tired of people not seperating facts from opinions when making statements like that. The strange part is you acknowledge that in your final paragraph, which directly contradicts the italicized portion.

     

    Whenever a game decides to be VERY different from the competition it will generally not do well. People do not adapt well to sudden changes so they can't stick with it. Change needs to be gradual, which is why all the successful games change 1 or 2 pieces but keep the rest of the game the same as what people are used to. Fortunatly the bright side is companies tend to look at those failed games and then take the best pieces to add to future games, so the changes (assuming it is thought they can be successful) will still show up again.

     

     

    And yet. people scream for something new and different, innovating. Yet when something comes along, they cry that its "not the same" as other MMOs. What? People can't have their cake and eat it too. You cannot have different but the same. And even when you do have an MMO that deviates just a little from the norm - gives a little bit of difference -  people still state that its not "innovative".

     

    I am so confused by some. I'm most certain developers are as well. Developers can't offer people what they want when the people don't even know what they want to begin with. Boggles the mind.

     

    That said, this was a great and unique MMO. I am sad to see it go. Sometimes, even the good games lose. Like someone said prior. Good and bad does not determine success. Popularity does.

     the problem was this game sucked and had really no fun factor.

  • DubhlaithDubhlaith EnnisPosts: 1,012Member

    SnarlingWolf, I provided empirical evidence to support my point. There are many examples of something that, today, is regarded by the vast majority of people as brilliant and masterful, that was a complete failure during its time. There are nearly as many example of this as there are of something being incredibly popular during its day.

    You cannot say it is elitist when something is regarded as excellent around the world. History has proven my point time and again. There are people that say they like weird and different things for the sake of it, but you cannot say that is the case with the evidence I provided. And for the record, those people annoy the crap out of me.

    I did not contradict myself. Kaltoum said that Spellborn was bad, and that is why it failed. You failed to distinguish between fact and opinion, not I. I asserted that something fails because it is unpopular, regardless of it being good or bad. A bad game could be unpopular, and it could be unpopular because it is bad, but that is not always the case, as you implied.

    It is not just my opinion when almost everyone around the world has the same opinion. I can safely assert that Van Gogh was one of the best artists of all time because this is a well known idea. Almost all art critics would say the same thing, and most everyone else as well. Therefore, we can know that he did not fail as an artist because his art was bad. We all know it was good. He failed because he was unpopular, and in his case he was unpopular because he was different.

    I am not saying Spellborn was one of the best games of all time, but it was also unpopular because it was different, not because it was bad. It seems to be you are having a hard time understanding my point, which is a serious problem among gamers, and people in all fields. You think your opinion is the truth, and what you do not like must be bad.

    What is interesting to me is that you say basically what I was saying in your last paragraph, even though the rest of your post is devoted to refuting me. Nevertheless, I provided real world evidence to support the idea, and this is a well known idea among art critics of any genre. What is good is not always popular, and what is popular is not always good. What is popular is what gets known, and in this day and age, things get known by marketing. If you have poor marketing, you will be unpopular unless there is a massive word-of-mouth campaign by fans, regardless of how good you are.

    And though you seem think I was saying something about what makes something good or not good, and you try to explain that what makes something good is subjective, I agree with most of what you said in the paragraph. I would ask you to re-read my post and find where I asserting anything different.


    If you want more modern examples, look at the plethora of television programmes that are cancelled because they did not have enough viewers during the first season, even though they received broad critical acclaim. They are good shows that were unpopular because they were not well-marketed.

    I just get frustrated when people do not pay attention or understand something, and then rail against it without thinking about or trying to understand that point that was made. Remember, I was and I am not trying to define what is good, and I do not disagree with you that what is good is subjective, but I am saying one simple thing that I will try to impress upon everyone again, because it is important.


    Good does not equal popular.
    Bad does not equal unpopular.
    Because good and bad are subjective for the most part, there can be no direct correlation between the two ideas.

    Let me try again.

    Good /= popular.
    Bad /= unpopular.

    "Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true — you know it, and they know it." —Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007

    WTF? No subscription fee?

  • LukainLukain WestmeadPosts: 591Member Uncommon

    Looks like its allready shut down , I have not been able to log in for a few days " says No universe availble"  all these game that close should have there open source online for anyone that wants to run a free server ..

     

     

  • RobokappRobokapp Dublin, OHPosts: 5,688Member Uncommon

    I don't know how we can argue if it was a good game or not...in this industry, good games have players, and this one did not.

     

    I think its death itself says that it either wasnt good enough or it wasnt managed properly. Either way, we the consumers decide what's a good game...and sadly for them we decided this one wasn't good.

     

    Evolution of MMOs can't be achieved without the death of those who can't compete. it's a necessity. Sucks beig on the losing side but somebody has to be there too.

    image

  • SynthetickSynthetick Portland, ORPosts: 977Member

    It was a good concept of game. The combat system might not of been popular, but it worked quite well, was fluid, and offered enough diversity between the classes to where the skill selection was unique and plentiful. The game dared to be very different in terms of character development and equipment during the process of character development. It sounded good on paper, but it felt almost shallow to me.

    Regardless, the game had all the makings of a good game. The atmosphere was great, the character models and animations weren't bad, the classes and skills unique and flavorful, the game world offered various environments, an engaging storyline, a unique combat system that managed to be as fluid as most mainstream systems. The problem is it was just a concept or a shell.

    There was no content, nothing to break the monotony, nothing to steer you away or even attempt at hiding/disguising the grind of quests and levels. Max level there was nothing to do, no feats to accomplish, no goals to achieve. The leveling process, while pretty and fluid in terms of going from sight A to B and whathaveyou, was very bland due to lack of anything other than quests. A late added attempt at group instanced content was too late and too little.

    Had the game been fleshed out with more content the story would of been different. Niche and small, but we wouldn't be in this boat. Hell, had they went with different publishers and actually had the means to advertise it would of been another story. Just a bunch of what-ifs and shoulda-beens.

    image

  • StormwatchStormwatch UndercityPosts: 86Member

    Originally posted by SnarlingWolf


    Originally posted by Dubhlaith

    Important note:
    It is a common fallacy that good games/books/films succeed and bad ones fail. Popular ones succeed and unpopular ones fail. Things do not usually become popular by being good. They sometimes stay popular by being good, but not always. Thing become popular by becoming known, and they become known through advert and other methods of marketing/dissemination of the information. Remember, if people do not know about a thing, they cannot like it.

     I highly disagree with the italicized part of your post. Elitest and snobish people want to believe that differet/artsy/under-appreciated things are good. In fact they automatically think they are better when no one else accepts them. It is an invalid way of looking at things.

     [...]

    Good is also a very subjective term in these cases, I see two different ways of something being referred to as good. First is that it does well. This is a very straight-forward way of evaluating a product and it is one that doesn't leave much room for argument. If it does well then it is good, if it doesn't then it is bad.

    Yes, any kind of in-group may have things they love and think it's objectively awesome and out-group people are just too stupid/lazy/etc to get into it. And sometimes they want to preserve the perceived awesomeness for themselves, by guarding it (defend over-complex systems, clunky design, steep learning curves etc.). Granted. AND? It's a fallacy to apply this pladitudes to any case.

    If you want to approach it rationally, you identify different components that are chained up like a signal chain. If the signal ends up noisy or out of tune, to stay with the metaphor, it can have many different reasons. Some are within the game, some are not. Sold Bad = Bad Game is obviously flawed logically. To put it extreme: what if you made a scientific experiment with two groups (one control group): in one case you show them the game "World of Warcraft" and measure their enjoyment, and in the other case you don't tell them anything at all and just leave them waiting ("game is not known, not released control group"). Then you look at their enjoyment and ask them if they would like to repeat the experience or recommend it to friends.

«13
Sign In or Register to comment.