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.
this is no joke, it's true and only the tip of the SV iceberg. there is much more but i'm not gonna get into it. i'v played this game for 4 months and i didn't leave because MO didnt have potential but because SV didn't have a clue on how to develop a vidoe game.
Its a very informative review. At first i was runnin to go buy the game but then i read comments and im kind of torn.
It looks and sounds great, but if comments from the actual players of the game are any indication of whats to come i dont wanna buy the game. The game itself sounds fine but the way people talk about SV makes me not want to get it.
If you find the review interesting, you´ll gonna wanna check it out by yourself. He´s more or less spot on. The game does have alot of bugs, but it´s still a joy to play, and soon comes santa with a nice content patch that will increase the game experience (and prolly the bugs as well to be honest) further. But the bugs always gets fixed sooner or later, and left we have a everly evolving MMO sandbox game. Make up your own opinion. Give it a go. And prepare to die. Alot.
I think on open world/sandbox like MO should have a few npcs...maybe hard to find..to make it challenging ..all of whom teach cartography. Then as a player uncovers more of the world ..he can use the cartography skill (with consumable inks papers..etc) to not only raise his skill...but make map copies of only areas he/she knows....then sell them on the auction house or hand them out for free if they desire. Eventually others could do this until all the globe is mapped out...either through one's own travels and cartographer skills (acquiring an entire map), by assembling together map pieces from many other travellers (purchased through trade) or waiting until some other patient slob starts selling entire maps . This could end up, initialy, being a good means of revenue for the wandering entrepreneur. Any opinions?
nobody would buy them because you can get a free map online already. the world is also too small to be needing a map. once you'v played for a month or so you know it all by heart.
MO's problem is not maps, it's the endlessly broken basics mechanics like combat, functions, weappons, enviroment, structures, npcs, etc.
You're right...the maps are not even close to being MO's major problem. I do think this system would work for other "sandbox" style games. Even if someone published the map online....I think most people would appreciate a decent in game equivalent. The last time I used an out-of-game map was when I played "Ultima 3: Exodus" on my Commodore 64. It came with a full-color cloth map which I had pinned on my wall. What a geek.lol. Now that I think of it..those were good times.
The problem is the developers are small and want to stay small. If a big company took this on and had more minds to bounce ideas off of, we would end up with something more playable.
UO (the primary game this is modeled after) had proper templates and the point alocations were not spread to thinly. It is my belief that this is the primary point that the MO devs are missing. You should be able to be a grandmaster in carpentry and make everything great from wood including, boat, house, bow and arrow, furniture, carts, barrel, siege engine, bridge, and many other things. There should be almost no inter-dependance on other classes or skills to do these things and all for 100 points. Taming...same thing 100 points. Blacksmith should include making all weapons and armors of any type of metal for 100 points. Same with gathering skills. 100 in a quarry skill and 100 in blacksmith should be all you need to make any armor or weapon or equipment from rock and metal components.
This brings me to the point I am trying to make. Basically the devs didn't have enuff unique types of things to do in the world so they took 1 or 2 skills from UO and devided them so thinly that you could spend your 1000 points and not have a character that can even defend themselves at all against any attack.
Horrible design choices didn't stop there. The loot didn't need to drop from the sky. It could be simple like clicking the fallen corpse and a loot window opens. What were they thinking???
Also the Beta. OMG the beta. You had to PAY to be involved in the beginnings of the beta. The price of a full finished AAA title 9 months before release. And what did we get for our AAA money? I got Endless downloads from a torrent utility I had to download from another company. I got a funky password system to log into a secret IRC channel that I had to download another program from another company to use. And then to the game. In the beginning it was not a game. It was more, a non-working concept piece that you would maybe be able to log into for 5 to 10 minutes at a time. This changed again and again over the course of the many many months until the game was finally released. I was ok with the bugs in Beta but once the game was released and the disk sent was not even the final software to run the game and there was zero documentation I felt cheated.
I mean....can't you follow even the most basic design concept like UO and throw in a cloth map of the world or maybe like EQ and throw in a manual explaining the races and character starting process. NOPE.....not this company.
Don't get me wrong here. It was not all horrible. I did try the game and had some fun exploring during the day but the lack of content after release really made me scratch my head in disbelief.
So I am going to wait and wait and wait some more until they FIX the broken mechanics before I restart my subscription. And if they never do I will not lose sleep. There are great alternatives on the horizon like Guildwars 2 and Rifts.
They just need to re-examine the 1000 point skill system and come up with more content and more PvE as well.
The problem is the developers are small and want to stay small. If a big company took this on and had more minds to bounce ideas off of, we would end up with something more playable.
UO (the primary game this is modeled after) had proper templates and the point alocations were not spread to thinly. It is my belief that this is the primary point that the MO devs are missing. You should be able to be a grandmaster in carpentry and make everything great from wood including, boat, house, bow and arrow, furniture, carts, barrel, siege engine, bridge, and many other things. There should be almost no inter-dependance on other classes or skills to do these things and all for 100 points. Taming...same thing 100 points. Blacksmith should include making all weapons and armors of any type of metal for 100 points. Same with gathering skills. 100 in a quarry skill and 100 in blacksmith should be all you need to make any armor or weapon or equipment from rock and metal components.
This brings me to the point I am trying to make. Basically the devs didn't have enuff unique types of things to do in the world so they took 1 or 2 skills from UO and devided them so thinly that you could spend your 1000 points and not have a character that can even defend themselves at all against any attack.
Horrible design choices didn't stop there. The loot didn't need to drop from the sky. It could be simple like clicking the fallen corpse and a loot window opens. What were they thinking???
Also the Beta. OMG the beta. You had to PAY to be involved in the beginnings of the beta. The price of a full finished AAA title 9 months before release. And what did we get for our AAA money? I got Endless downloads from a torrent utility I had to download from another company. I got a funky password system to log into a secret IRC channel that I had to download another program from another company to use. And then to the game. In the beginning it was not a game. It was more, a non-working concept piece that you would maybe be able to log into for 5 to 10 minutes at a time. This changed again and again over the course of the many many months until the game was finally released. I was ok with the bugs in Beta but once the game was released and the disk sent was not even the final software to run the game and there was zero documentation I felt cheated.
I mean....can't you follow even the most basic design concept like UO and throw in a cloth map of the world or maybe like EQ and throw in a manual explaining the races and character starting process. NOPE.....not this company.
Don't get me wrong here. It was not all horrible. I did try the game and had some fun exploring during the day but the lack of content after release really made me scratch my head in disbelief.
So I am going to wait and wait and wait some more until they FIX the broken mechanics before I restart my subscription. And if they never do I will not lose sleep. There are great alternatives on the horizon like Guildwars 2 and Rifts.
They just need to re-examine the 1000 point skill system and come up with more content and more PvE as well.
The thing with content in this game is entirely up to you and what you wanna do. Me and my clanmates have tons to do every single day. We explore the jungle, kill the spider queen, getting bullhorses, getting items to make armour etc, transport stuff to the keep, defend allies that need help, lure in a valley for enemy clans etc. If you just sit on your ass and hope that some1 will hold your hand and take you out into the world of Nave for adventures, that won´t happen now. There will be more PVE coming up soon, but still, as it is now, with all the bugs etc, the game is REALLY fun to play. Just use your imagination and go out and have fun.
I honestly don't think a game should be given points for 'potential' at all, unless that 'potential' is absolutely sure to be realised in the very near future.
If you want to check on 'potential' do another review later on and see if it has been realised.
Giving these scores cheapens your rating system, because I honestly don't think you can give many other games less than 6.9 if you give a buggy and unfinished game that score.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
I honestly don't think a game should be given points for 'potential' at all, unless that 'potential' is absolutely sure to be realised in the very near future.
If you want to check on 'potential' do another review later on and see if it has been realised.
Giving these scores cheapens your rating system, because I honestly don't think you can give many other games less than 6.9 if you give a buggy and unfinished game that score.
If you actually read the review, he doesn´t say anywhere that the score influenced by MOs potential... It IS fun to play now even with the bugs. Just imagine how much fun it will be futher down the road. I predict a nice 8.5 score in another 6 months... :P
I honestly don't think a game should be given points for 'potential' at all, unless that 'potential' is absolutely sure to be realised in the very near future.
If you want to check on 'potential' do another review later on and see if it has been realised.
Giving these scores cheapens your rating system, because I honestly don't think you can give many other games less than 6.9 if you give a buggy and unfinished game that score.
If you actually read the review, he doesn´t say anywhere that the score influenced by MOs potential... It IS fun to play now even with the bugs. Just imagine how much fun it will be futher down the road. I predict a nice 8.5 score in another 6 months... :P
I read the review.
"Astounding Potential" is one of the pros, potential gets 1/3 of a page, it influenced the score.
Regardless of what it influenced a game that is buggy as all hell (his words) doesn't get a high grade score, just like you don't get a grade if you deliver a paper full of obvious faults in college.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Yeah, I spent about an hour researching races, skills, and attributes and seriously considering blowing 50 bucks to try out this game... until I re-read their "flagging system" for pvp and realized that you can still be ganked even if you're at the "blue" level of innocence.
I thought at first that you could NOT be ganked until you becamed "grey" for "behaving badly." If they would make pvp a choice then I'd try it out.
Please note, I have never played Mortal Online and I don't have any bias towards it on way or another. These comments relate specifically to the quality of the review and it's ultimate score.
This review basically boils down to this (per the reviewer):
Negatives
The game feels more like beta quality than launch-ready
It's buggy as hell
There are a number of questionable design issues regarding immersion vs. acecssibility
Apparently difficult for the sake of being difficult
"woefully unfinished"
Questionable and sluggish combat mechanics
Positives
Has potential
Is a sandbox, I really like sandboxes, hooray for sandboxes!
It's fun, regardless of the bugs, if you really, really like sandboxes, are a fan of the game and can tolerate a buggy, glitchy mess
In other words, it was an overwhelmingly negative review tempered with the reviewer's bias towards potential and his general admiration for the genre (regardless of the game's ability to actually realize it's potential). As such, how is a reasonably high score of 6.9 justifiable? According to the tooltip description of the mediocre rating, mediocre "has a few stand-out features with few, if any, glaring detractors". That's the opposite of this review. This review listed several glaring detractors with no real stand-out features other than "it's a sandbox".
The score for this review is exactly why mmorpg.com needs to publish and follow scoring standards. Nowhere in the article does it justify any numeric score. It seems completely arbitrary. When players rate a game, they have to assign scores from 1 to 10 in 8 specific categories. Yes, those categories are still subjective (for example "graphics" means different things to different people), but at least is a baseline for scoring the game. I'd really like to see something similar implemented for reviewers. Even subjective ratings would be fine if they were justified within the context of the review. Some great categories, in addition to those 8 used for the user ratings (Graphics, Fun, Sound, Community, Role-playing, Performance/Lag, Value and Service), would be:
Polish - how polished is the experience from a technical perspective? Is it relatively bug free or is it buggy as hell?
Execution - how well executed is the overall concept? Do the game mechanics really "work" or are they complex for the sake of being complex. As an example, does it take 5 steps to do something that could otherwise be accomplished in 2 or 3 without being detrimental to the overall design and theme of the game?
Target Audience - who is this game designed for and does it successfully meet those design goals? Is it still accessible and enjoyable for other players? Wizard101 is a great example - it's designed for kids, but is remarkably popular with adults.
Hey... I disagree with much of what Mr. Tingle said... that's OK though as everyone is allowed their own opinions.
What I have to take exception to however is this closing line:
if it meant a few hours of entertainment and supporting a company who truly have the communities best interests at heart – hell I’d recommend this game, us old timers need this game to succeed,
What? I mean... that is a STUNNING comment to toss out without any support whatsoever. This is a company that STILL has not shipped their promised replacement DVDs to customers 6 months after launch.. Not only that, but they ignore countless requests for updates on it.
Well.. I'm not going to get on a soapbox. I will simply say: Be VERY... VERY wary of any "review" that claims to know how any company has the "communities best interests at heart".
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Not saying anyone is wrong for taking umbridge to my marks for 'potential' but, I think (in this genre in-particular) that future potential plays a big part in attraction. When playing this game, for myself, a draw is the fact that I can see that this game could improve drastically beyond anything on the market currently. A good example for my justification is the RPG 'The Witcher' that game was broken and unplayable for most, but at the core, man what an experience - would you have dismissed that game as a 5 because of its initial release?
Also, you wouldn't play an MMORPG that was uninspired and had nowhere else to take it, the fact that Mortal Online is still playable and enjoyable - then add that the game could be absolutely awesome with a few content patches, I think it deserves a few marks for that. But that's my opinion and I respect anyones grievances with it; so just ignore the score and read the review. I find scores arbitrary and mostly wrong according to my tastes anyway.
Hey... I disagree with much of what Mr. Tingle said... that's OK though as everyone is allowed their own opinions.
What I have to take exception to however is this closing line:
if it meant a few hours of entertainment and supporting a company who truly have the communities best interests at heart – hell I’d recommend this game, us old timers need this game to succeed,
What? I mean... that is a STUNNING comment to toss out without any support whatsoever. This is a company that STILL has not shipped their promised replacement DVDs to customers 6 months after launch.. Not only that, but they ignore countless requests for updates on it.
Well.. I'm not going to get on a soapbox. I will simply say: Be VERY... VERY wary of any "review" that claims to know how any company has the "communities best interests at heart".
What will you do with the patch DVD's? The game is patched every week. Having the DVD's prepared and sent to customers will take at least a month. So you will be missing 4 patches anyway (the most optimistic scenario)
I honestly don't think a game should be given points for 'potential' at all, unless that 'potential' is absolutely sure to be realised in the very near future.
If you want to check on 'potential' do another review later on and see if it has been realised.
Giving these scores cheapens your rating system, because I honestly don't think you can give many other games less than 6.9 if you give a buggy and unfinished game that score.
If you actually read the review, he doesn´t say anywhere that the score influenced by MOs potential... It IS fun to play now even with the bugs. Just imagine how much fun it will be futher down the road. I predict a nice 8.5 score in another 6 months... :P
I read the review.
"Astounding Potential" is one of the pros, potential gets 1/3 of a page, it influenced the score.
Regardless of what it influenced a game that is buggy as all hell (his words) doesn't get a high grade score, just like you don't get a grade if you deliver a paper full of obvious faults in college.
If you write a story in school, and the story is REALLY good, but you didn´t spell all that well. You usually still get high grades because the story was good and interesting. The same thing goes with for MO. It´s a really good game, but it has alot of bugs. And deserves the score it got. I don´t think it´s to high or to low. I think it is spot on.
But the bugs ain´t so bad that you can´t play the game. I still get tons made in MO without running into any bug. You know what you get when you buy the game. I knew there were bugs in it when I got it. People who read this interview knows it. SOme will see past the bugs and actually enjoy it, some will have no patience and leave it. That´s the way it goes. But more will surely pick it up and stay, then the once that will leave.
Hey... I disagree with much of what Mr. Tingle said... that's OK though as everyone is allowed their own opinions.
What I have to take exception to however is this closing line:
if it meant a few hours of entertainment and supporting a company who truly have the communities best interests at heart – hell I’d recommend this game, us old timers need this game to succeed,
What? I mean... that is a STUNNING comment to toss out without any support whatsoever. This is a company that STILL has not shipped their promised replacement DVDs to customers 6 months after launch.. Not only that, but they ignore countless requests for updates on it.
Well.. I'm not going to get on a soapbox. I will simply say: Be VERY... VERY wary of any "review" that claims to know how any company has the "communities best interests at heart".
I think the developer does have the communities best interests at heart, at the very most I think they can be somewhat poorly organised but I don't think there scheming or plotting anything untoward. The DVD issues aside, StarVault are trying to create a sandbox MMORPG that many gamers have been crying out for for nearly a decade - in return they get a lot of flack and abuse that makes them out to be Scandinavian na'er-do-wells.
Not saying anyone is wrong for taking umbridge to my marks for 'potential' but, I think (in this genre in-particular) that future potential plays a big part in attraction. When playing this game, for myself, a draw is the fact that I can see that this game could improve drastically beyond anything on the market currently. A good example for my justification is the RPG 'The Witcher' that game was broken and unplayable for most, but at the core, man what an experience - would you have dismissed that game as a 5 because of its initial release?
Also, you wouldn't play an MMORPG that was uninspired and had nowhere else to take it, the fact that Mortal Online is still playable and enjoyable - then add that the game could be absolutely awesome with a few content patches, I think it deserves a few marks for that. But that's my opinion and I respect anyones grievances with it; so just ignore the score and read the review. I find scores arbitrary and mostly wrong according to my tastes anyway.
But.. your review rating actually referrs to "potential". I suppose we have a difference of opinion about what a review actually is...
To me.. a review must be based on what a game actually delivers. An article about "potential" is commonly referred to as a Preview.
Heck.. every game could POTENTIALLY be patched to become a 10 at some point....
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
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.
this is no joke, it's true and only the tip of the SV iceberg. there is much more but i'm not gonna get into it. i'v played this game for 4 months and i didn't leave because MO didnt have potential but because SV didn't have a clue on how to develop a vidoe game.
I once had an interest in trying this game then I read player reviews and looked at the website and the developers practices. I changed my mind easily.
Just reading the mmorpg review and then looking at the rating it was given is enough to make me chuckle. Basically the review boils it down to the game is bad, the state of release was bad, the bugs are bad and the future grim. But.. because it is "different" and "has potential" the score is decent. That makes no sense at all. Review the game on what is reality, not what is a fantasy of what it could turn out to be if several "if's" were to line up like magic.
Sugar coating the truth does no one any favors.
People are afraid of hurting feelings so they tip-toe around reality. If people feel hurt because you say the game they play sucks right now and list facts of why it sucks then that is a personal issue of that individual. The people looking at the review and wondering if it's worth spending money on just want to hear the dirt on it and call it a day.
"I'm not cheap I'm incredibly subconsciously financially optimized" "The worst part of censorship is ------------------"
Key sentences from this review: "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".
I wonder when journalists stop judging games by "potential". I mean WTF, review it in its current state, not what it could be if developers had some brains.
Mortal Online is one of the worst MMORPGs of all time and a good example of how you can screw EVERYTHING. There is not a single part which is done right. Its so bad that makes Metin 2 look good
Great article....you do a good job of articulating the GAP that needs to be filled in MMORPG gaming, the challenges of creating a successful sandbox game, and some of the overcompensation in the recent the Sandbox sub-genere games (Mortal Online, Darkfall Online)
I just wish the aformentioned games didn't go so far off the sandbox edge that it did. Its virutally divided sandbox players into another sub group.....regular sandbox enthusiasts and dogmatic sandbox pureists. The sandbox sub-genere doesn't need another sub division of players. Our numbers are far too thin as it is to support any kind of financial backing that is required for releasing a well developed and polished game experience.
The no map is a perfect issue (as the OP pointed out). What is the value in creating a huge expansive 3D environment...ripe for exploring wide expansive landscapes when you find out you've been running for 20 minutes North East when you needed to run 20 minutes North?
No one's calling for waypoint arrows or automated flight paths. Just a little something that doesn't put you waisting 20 mintues of your play time NOT getting somewhere you thought you were getting to.
There are without a doubt advocates for exactly this kind of game...just recognize (as a sandbox fan) that the smaller the group your game is playing too, the smaller your chances are of financially supporting the game in a way that is needed to refine it past the beta crap state its currently in. You don't have to sell your soul to the themepark devil the way WOW did....just moderate the hard knocks a bit to where its palatable for the majorty of the sandbox community.
Comments
I had originally purchased the game but couldn't log in for the longest time and gave up. Perhaps I'll give it another go!
Thanks
this is no joke, it's true and only the tip of the SV iceberg. there is much more but i'm not gonna get into it. i'v played this game for 4 months and i didn't leave because MO didnt have potential but because SV didn't have a clue on how to develop a vidoe game.
If you find the review interesting, you´ll gonna wanna check it out by yourself. He´s more or less spot on. The game does have alot of bugs, but it´s still a joy to play, and soon comes santa with a nice content patch that will increase the game experience (and prolly the bugs as well to be honest) further. But the bugs always gets fixed sooner or later, and left we have a everly evolving MMO sandbox game. Make up your own opinion. Give it a go. And prepare to die. Alot.
You're right...the maps are not even close to being MO's major problem. I do think this system would work for other "sandbox" style games. Even if someone published the map online....I think most people would appreciate a decent in game equivalent. The last time I used an out-of-game map was when I played "Ultima 3: Exodus" on my Commodore 64. It came with a full-color cloth map which I had pinned on my wall. What a geek.lol. Now that I think of it..those were good times.
Mortal Online Has Potential.
The problem is the developers are small and want to stay small. If a big company took this on and had more minds to bounce ideas off of, we would end up with something more playable.
UO (the primary game this is modeled after) had proper templates and the point alocations were not spread to thinly. It is my belief that this is the primary point that the MO devs are missing. You should be able to be a grandmaster in carpentry and make everything great from wood including, boat, house, bow and arrow, furniture, carts, barrel, siege engine, bridge, and many other things. There should be almost no inter-dependance on other classes or skills to do these things and all for 100 points. Taming...same thing 100 points. Blacksmith should include making all weapons and armors of any type of metal for 100 points. Same with gathering skills. 100 in a quarry skill and 100 in blacksmith should be all you need to make any armor or weapon or equipment from rock and metal components.
This brings me to the point I am trying to make. Basically the devs didn't have enuff unique types of things to do in the world so they took 1 or 2 skills from UO and devided them so thinly that you could spend your 1000 points and not have a character that can even defend themselves at all against any attack.
Horrible design choices didn't stop there. The loot didn't need to drop from the sky. It could be simple like clicking the fallen corpse and a loot window opens. What were they thinking???
Also the Beta. OMG the beta. You had to PAY to be involved in the beginnings of the beta. The price of a full finished AAA title 9 months before release. And what did we get for our AAA money? I got Endless downloads from a torrent utility I had to download from another company. I got a funky password system to log into a secret IRC channel that I had to download another program from another company to use. And then to the game. In the beginning it was not a game. It was more, a non-working concept piece that you would maybe be able to log into for 5 to 10 minutes at a time. This changed again and again over the course of the many many months until the game was finally released. I was ok with the bugs in Beta but once the game was released and the disk sent was not even the final software to run the game and there was zero documentation I felt cheated.
I mean....can't you follow even the most basic design concept like UO and throw in a cloth map of the world or maybe like EQ and throw in a manual explaining the races and character starting process. NOPE.....not this company.
Don't get me wrong here. It was not all horrible. I did try the game and had some fun exploring during the day but the lack of content after release really made me scratch my head in disbelief.
So I am going to wait and wait and wait some more until they FIX the broken mechanics before I restart my subscription. And if they never do I will not lose sleep. There are great alternatives on the horizon like Guildwars 2 and Rifts.
They just need to re-examine the 1000 point skill system and come up with more content and more PvE as well.
IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN SIX MONTHS YET!
Never trust a screenshot or a youtube video without a version stamp!
The thing with content in this game is entirely up to you and what you wanna do. Me and my clanmates have tons to do every single day. We explore the jungle, kill the spider queen, getting bullhorses, getting items to make armour etc, transport stuff to the keep, defend allies that need help, lure in a valley for enemy clans etc. If you just sit on your ass and hope that some1 will hold your hand and take you out into the world of Nave for adventures, that won´t happen now. There will be more PVE coming up soon, but still, as it is now, with all the bugs etc, the game is REALLY fun to play. Just use your imagination and go out and have fun.
Where is the 2 week trial offer?
The game may have many interesting things in it but as it is pvp focused game I will never have any interest in it.
I honestly don't think a game should be given points for 'potential' at all, unless that 'potential' is absolutely sure to be realised in the very near future.
If you want to check on 'potential' do another review later on and see if it has been realised.
Giving these scores cheapens your rating system, because I honestly don't think you can give many other games less than 6.9 if you give a buggy and unfinished game that score.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
If you actually read the review, he doesn´t say anywhere that the score influenced by MOs potential... It IS fun to play now even with the bugs. Just imagine how much fun it will be futher down the road. I predict a nice 8.5 score in another 6 months... :P
I read the review.
"Astounding Potential" is one of the pros, potential gets 1/3 of a page, it influenced the score.
Regardless of what it influenced a game that is buggy as all hell (his words) doesn't get a high grade score, just like you don't get a grade if you deliver a paper full of obvious faults in college.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Yeah, I spent about an hour researching races, skills, and attributes and seriously considering blowing 50 bucks to try out this game... until I re-read their "flagging system" for pvp and realized that you can still be ganked even if you're at the "blue" level of innocence.
I thought at first that you could NOT be ganked until you becamed "grey" for "behaving badly." If they would make pvp a choice then I'd try it out.
Please note, I have never played Mortal Online and I don't have any bias towards it on way or another. These comments relate specifically to the quality of the review and it's ultimate score.
This review basically boils down to this (per the reviewer):
Negatives
The game feels more like beta quality than launch-ready
It's buggy as hell
There are a number of questionable design issues regarding immersion vs. acecssibility
Apparently difficult for the sake of being difficult
"woefully unfinished"
Questionable and sluggish combat mechanics
Positives
Has potential
Is a sandbox, I really like sandboxes, hooray for sandboxes!
It's fun, regardless of the bugs, if you really, really like sandboxes, are a fan of the game and can tolerate a buggy, glitchy mess
In other words, it was an overwhelmingly negative review tempered with the reviewer's bias towards potential and his general admiration for the genre (regardless of the game's ability to actually realize it's potential). As such, how is a reasonably high score of 6.9 justifiable? According to the tooltip description of the mediocre rating, mediocre "has a few stand-out features with few, if any, glaring detractors". That's the opposite of this review. This review listed several glaring detractors with no real stand-out features other than "it's a sandbox".
The score for this review is exactly why mmorpg.com needs to publish and follow scoring standards. Nowhere in the article does it justify any numeric score. It seems completely arbitrary. When players rate a game, they have to assign scores from 1 to 10 in 8 specific categories. Yes, those categories are still subjective (for example "graphics" means different things to different people), but at least is a baseline for scoring the game. I'd really like to see something similar implemented for reviewers. Even subjective ratings would be fine if they were justified within the context of the review. Some great categories, in addition to those 8 used for the user ratings (Graphics, Fun, Sound, Community, Role-playing, Performance/Lag, Value and Service), would be:
Polish - how polished is the experience from a technical perspective? Is it relatively bug free or is it buggy as hell?
Execution - how well executed is the overall concept? Do the game mechanics really "work" or are they complex for the sake of being complex. As an example, does it take 5 steps to do something that could otherwise be accomplished in 2 or 3 without being detrimental to the overall design and theme of the game?
Target Audience - who is this game designed for and does it successfully meet those design goals? Is it still accessible and enjoyable for other players? Wizard101 is a great example - it's designed for kids, but is remarkably popular with adults.
~Ripper
Hey... I disagree with much of what Mr. Tingle said... that's OK though as everyone is allowed their own opinions.
What I have to take exception to however is this closing line:
if it meant a few hours of entertainment and supporting a company who truly have the communities best interests at heart – hell I’d recommend this game, us old timers need this game to succeed,
What? I mean... that is a STUNNING comment to toss out without any support whatsoever. This is a company that STILL has not shipped their promised replacement DVDs to customers 6 months after launch.. Not only that, but they ignore countless requests for updates on it.
Well.. I'm not going to get on a soapbox. I will simply say: Be VERY... VERY wary of any "review" that claims to know how any company has the "communities best interests at heart".
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Not saying anyone is wrong for taking umbridge to my marks for 'potential' but, I think (in this genre in-particular) that future potential plays a big part in attraction. When playing this game, for myself, a draw is the fact that I can see that this game could improve drastically beyond anything on the market currently. A good example for my justification is the RPG 'The Witcher' that game was broken and unplayable for most, but at the core, man what an experience - would you have dismissed that game as a 5 because of its initial release?
Also, you wouldn't play an MMORPG that was uninspired and had nowhere else to take it, the fact that Mortal Online is still playable and enjoyable - then add that the game could be absolutely awesome with a few content patches, I think it deserves a few marks for that. But that's my opinion and I respect anyones grievances with it; so just ignore the score and read the review. I find scores arbitrary and mostly wrong according to my tastes anyway.
What will you do with the patch DVD's? The game is patched every week. Having the DVD's prepared and sent to customers will take at least a month. So you will be missing 4 patches anyway (the most optimistic scenario)
If you write a story in school, and the story is REALLY good, but you didn´t spell all that well. You usually still get high grades because the story was good and interesting. The same thing goes with for MO. It´s a really good game, but it has alot of bugs. And deserves the score it got. I don´t think it´s to high or to low. I think it is spot on.
But the bugs ain´t so bad that you can´t play the game. I still get tons made in MO without running into any bug. You know what you get when you buy the game. I knew there were bugs in it when I got it. People who read this interview knows it. SOme will see past the bugs and actually enjoy it, some will have no patience and leave it. That´s the way it goes. But more will surely pick it up and stay, then the once that will leave.
I think the developer does have the communities best interests at heart, at the very most I think they can be somewhat poorly organised but I don't think there scheming or plotting anything untoward. The DVD issues aside, StarVault are trying to create a sandbox MMORPG that many gamers have been crying out for for nearly a decade - in return they get a lot of flack and abuse that makes them out to be Scandinavian na'er-do-wells.
But.. your review rating actually referrs to "potential". I suppose we have a difference of opinion about what a review actually is...
To me.. a review must be based on what a game actually delivers. An article about "potential" is commonly referred to as a Preview.
Heck.. every game could POTENTIALLY be patched to become a 10 at some point....
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I once had an interest in trying this game then I read player reviews and looked at the website and the developers practices. I changed my mind easily.
Just reading the mmorpg review and then looking at the rating it was given is enough to make me chuckle. Basically the review boils it down to the game is bad, the state of release was bad, the bugs are bad and the future grim. But.. because it is "different" and "has potential" the score is decent. That makes no sense at all. Review the game on what is reality, not what is a fantasy of what it could turn out to be if several "if's" were to line up like magic.
Sugar coating the truth does no one any favors.
People are afraid of hurting feelings so they tip-toe around reality. If people feel hurt because you say the game they play sucks right now and list facts of why it sucks then that is a personal issue of that individual. The people looking at the review and wondering if it's worth spending money on just want to hear the dirt on it and call it a day.
"I'm not cheap I'm incredibly subconsciously financially optimized"
"The worst part of censorship is ------------------"
Did mortal online get more rating then darkfall? Wow congrats!!!
C:\Users\FF\Desktop\spin move.gif
Key sentences from this review: "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".
Amen.
I wonder when journalists stop judging games by "potential". I mean WTF, review it in its current state, not what it could be if developers had some brains.
Mortal Online is one of the worst MMORPGs of all time and a good example of how you can screw EVERYTHING. There is not a single part which is done right. Its so bad that makes Metin 2 look good
Great article....you do a good job of articulating the GAP that needs to be filled in MMORPG gaming, the challenges of creating a successful sandbox game, and some of the overcompensation in the recent the Sandbox sub-genere games (Mortal Online, Darkfall Online)
I just wish the aformentioned games didn't go so far off the sandbox edge that it did. Its virutally divided sandbox players into another sub group.....regular sandbox enthusiasts and dogmatic sandbox pureists. The sandbox sub-genere doesn't need another sub division of players. Our numbers are far too thin as it is to support any kind of financial backing that is required for releasing a well developed and polished game experience.
The no map is a perfect issue (as the OP pointed out). What is the value in creating a huge expansive 3D environment...ripe for exploring wide expansive landscapes when you find out you've been running for 20 minutes North East when you needed to run 20 minutes North?
No one's calling for waypoint arrows or automated flight paths. Just a little something that doesn't put you waisting 20 mintues of your play time NOT getting somewhere you thought you were getting to.
There are without a doubt advocates for exactly this kind of game...just recognize (as a sandbox fan) that the smaller the group your game is playing too, the smaller your chances are of financially supporting the game in a way that is needed to refine it past the beta crap state its currently in. You don't have to sell your soul to the themepark devil the way WOW did....just moderate the hard knocks a bit to where its palatable for the majorty of the sandbox community.