Howdy, Stranger!

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

Planetside 2 and The Secret World are 3 factions

12346

Comments

  • popinjaypopinjay Northeast, PAMember Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by grawss

    Originally posted by popinjay
    1. Planetside 2
    2. The Secret World
    3. Prime: Battle for Dominus
    4. The Repopulation (newest one I heard of)
     
    That's the three factioned PvP games coming out that I know of next year, more than likely. That's not even counting all the free PvP games like Firefall and even the other Warhammer PvP game that's free to play from Mythic/EA. Or even counting the couple sandbox PvP games like ArcheAge as well.
     

    I hope this game isn't charging for a sub because it's going up against some steep competition and FTP schemes...
    If it is charging, I don't see them breaking 200K at all given what's going to be out there already, especially with a tarnished name from Warhammer Online.
    I believe the failure of Warhammer Online will help more than hurt them if they do it right. Many people have ridden into Stardom piggybacking on bad publicity (e.g. Paris Hilton). Most of that publicity was aimed toward them, but in this case, DMO will be riding the bad publicity of someone else. "This is what they did wrong, and this is how we're going to fix it" is a pretty powerful statement, even if it's said indirectly.
    The Warhammer name is out there and everyone will know about it, so all Vigil has to do is not screw it up. :D


    Fame for people and fame for games don't work the same way. Paris Hilton got famous because she's an heiress (Hilton hotel chain), then later for the sex vid.

    A videogame is different because people pay for them because they are popular, not because the name failed.


    It's not like "Oh, I think I want to try Warhammer 40k because WAR Online failed." Usually with gamers and people, failed product names work in reverse.


    The Warhammer fanbase will buy the game for sure like any other game, but that's about it by and large unless it turns out to be something really, really good.. which they'll wait to read about or see in a trial.

  • popinjaypopinjay Northeast, PAMember Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by StMichael

    Originally posted by popinjay

    I hope this game isn't charging for a sub because it's going up against some steep competition and FTP schemes...

    Moral of the story: You get what you pay for, and it's not hard to convince people of that fact.



    I only agree with this a little. RIFT is an example of an okay game that is having a hard time convincing people "they get what they pay for".

    Many people expected more from how Trion hyped the game with commercials and ended up with WoWness (raiding ahoy) so they are passing on renewing even though the game is solid (but dry as toast).


    This game will have the WAR online stigma as name, and also has to open trials for the larger audience in the form of betas to get rid of that.


    If you don't see big betas coming out of this, don't expect people to line up and pay $60 for a game with a tarnished image.


  • grawssgrawss None, CAMember Posts: 419



    Originally posted by popinjaFame for people and fame for games don't work the same way. Paris Hilton got famous because she's an heiress (Hilton hotel chain), then later for the sex vid.
     
    A videogame is different because people pay for them because they are popular, not because the name failed.

    It's not like "Oh, I think I want to try Warhammer 40k because WAR Online failed." Usually with gamers and people, failed product names work in reverse.
     
    Take a relatively unknown name and try to make a successful MMO without an insane amount of marketing. Possible, yes, but extremely risky and difficult. W40k may be popular, but it isn't like Star Wars where they can throw any old MMO out and let word of mouth hype the game to the moon. But with Warhammer, regardless of its failure, far more people now know about the name. It'll be easier to throw out an MMO and get far more hype than if WAR never existed.

    Most people won't automatically judge a game based on the previous failures (assuming a different publisher/developer), so WAR will effectively be free advertising for DMO. They'll definitely have to do a bit to convince people it isn't going to be another failure, but that is the case for every game. People don't have as much faith as they used to.

    Sarcasm is not a crime!

  • popinjaypopinjay Northeast, PAMember Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by grawss

    Originally posted by popinjaFame for people and fame for games don't work the same way. Paris Hilton got famous because she's an heiress (Hilton hotel chain), then later for the sex vid.
     
    A videogame is different because people pay for them because they are popular, not because the name failed.

    It's not like "Oh, I think I want to try Warhammer 40k because WAR Online failed." Usually with gamers and people, failed product names work in reverse.
     
    Take a relatively unknown name and try to make a successful MMO without an insane amount of marketing. Possible, yes, but extremely risky and difficult. W40k may be popular, but it isn't like Star Wars where they can throw any old MMO out and let word of mouth hype the game to the moon. But with Warhammer, regardless of its failure, far more people now know about the name. It'll be easier to throw out an MMO and get far more hype than if WAR never existed.

    Most people won't automatically judge a game based on the previous failures (assuming a different publisher/developer), so WAR will effectively be free advertising for DMO. They'll definitely have to do a bit to convince people it isn't going to be another failure, but that is the case for every game. People don't have as much faith as they used to.



    I think WAR40 will be "okay" but like RIFT or any other game.


    But based on it's gaming history, I don't think it's going to garner more than fans overall when it's said and done.

    That said, there are a lot of Warhammer fans around so the game can live well on 100-200k, but it's highly doubtful it's going to do better than that.


    Even Space Marine is getting lukewarm results as far as a console game with a game like Gears of War 3 outshining it. The same will probably happen with WAR40k.. okay but nothing extraordinary played by fans which is good enough.

  • StMichaelStMichael Fullerton, CAMember Posts: 183

    Originally posted by popinjay

     

    I think WAR40 will be "okay" but like RIFT or any other game.
     

    And you're basing that on...what? A hunch? Some kind of insider info? Clarvoyance? Could you cut me in on some stock tips?

     

    The MMO itself will have to earn subscriptions based on it's merits, that much is true. It's no starwars, so it doesn't have that kind of popularity to carry it to fame. But really, warcraft 3 wasn't all that much more popular before world of warcraft than warhammer is now. DMO could be a completely new and unheard of IP, and it could still do great if the game itself is what it needs to be.

  • cheshyrecatcheshyrecat Kirkland, WAMember Posts: 137

    Originally posted by popinjay



    I think WAR40 will be "okay" but like RIFT or any other game.


    But based on it's gaming history, I don't think it's going to garner more than fans overall when it's said and done.
     
    That said, there are a lot of Warhammer fans around so the game can live well on 100-200k, but it's highly doubtful it's going to do better than that.


    Even Space Marine is getting lukewarm results as far as a console game with a game like Gears of War 3 outshining it. The same will probably happen with WAR40k.. okay but nothing extraordinary played by fans which is good enough.

    I'm curious as to what reviews you've read that paint Space Marine as being just 'Ok'?  Everyone i've spoken with and every review I've read pretty much say the same thing.  Space Marine was a great game.  Perfect? no, but easily worth the price. 

    And considering that many mmos that are released can't maintain 200k subs, I don't think 200k is "OK".  I think that's success.  Certainly not great success but a good start.  Far better that THQ achieve "a good start" then shoot too high and fail completely.

     

     

    We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.

  • kitaradkitarad RomeMember Posts: 2,516 Rare

    Well okay it sounded good in my head but after you listed the problems not so much.

  • popinjaypopinjay Northeast, PAMember Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by cheshyrecatI'm curious as to what reviews you've read that paint Space Marine as being just 'Ok'?
    Metacritic
  • popinjaypopinjay Northeast, PAMember Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by StMichael

    Originally posted by popinjay
     
    I think WAR40 will be "okay" but like RIFT or any other game.
     
    And you're basing that on...what? A hunch? Some kind of insider info? Clarvoyance? Could you cut me in on some stock tips?
     

    Your sarcasm aside, that is just as good a guess as whatever is cooked up in your head as an obvious unobjective person.


    It's called "opinion". As in .. forums?


    Sorry to tell you but no one knows what will happen for sure until launch. Until then, YOU, me and anyone else is guessing. That's the fun of the forum game.. welcome to it.

  • cheshyrecatcheshyrecat Kirkland, WAMember Posts: 137

    Originally posted by popinjay

     


    Originally posted by cheshyrecat
    I'm curious as to what reviews you've read that paint Space Marine as being just 'Ok'?



    Metacritic

     

     

    77 out of 100 is just okay?  fair enough.  I can't argue with that opinion.  I thought it was a great game as did many of the reviewers.  A few of the reviews seemed a bit excessive in their critique.  To each his own I guess.

     

     

    We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.

  • StMichaelStMichael Fullerton, CAMember Posts: 183

    Originally posted by popinjay

     


    Originally posted by StMichael





    Originally posted by popinjay

     

    I think WAR40 will be "okay" but like RIFT or any other game.

     





    And you're basing that on...what? A hunch? Some kind of insider info? Clarvoyance? Could you cut me in on some stock tips?

     






    Your sarcasm aside, that is just as good a guess as whatever is cooked up in your head as an obvious unobjective person.

     



    It's called "opinion". As in .. forums?



    Sorry to tell you but no one knows what will happen for sure until launch. Until then, YOU, me and anyone else is guessing. That's the fun of the forum game.. welcome to it.



    But you likened it to Rift, which, apart from the fact that they're both MMOs, has nothing in common. Standard MMO gameplay vs 3rd person shooter, fantasy vs sci-fi, PvE focus vs equal parts PvP and PvE, everything we actually know about DMO is very different from Rift.

     

    For better or worse is what remains to be seen, and on that end your guess is as good as mine.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAMember Posts: 10,910 Common


    Originally posted by cheshyrecat

    Originally posted by popinjay
     


    Originally posted by cheshyrecat
    I'm curious as to what reviews you've read that paint Space Marine as being just 'Ok'?


    Metacritic

     
     
    77 out of 100 is just okay?  fair enough.  I can't argue with that opinion.  I thought it was a great game as did many of the reviewers.  A few of the reviews seemed a bit excessive in their critique.  To each his own I guess.
     
     



    It's #12 out of all of the games rated on Metacritic for the PC by users. I wouldn't call that mediocre. If it were a $60 game, then yeah, I'd call it too much money, but it's in the $50 range, soon to be the $40 range on Steam. That's probably when I'll pick it up.

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

  • popinjaypopinjay Northeast, PAMember Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by cheshyrecat

    Originally posted by popinjay
     


    Originally posted by cheshyrecat
    I'm curious as to what reviews you've read that paint Space Marine as being just 'Ok'?


    Metacritic

     
     
    77 out of 100 is just okay?  fair enough.  I can't argue with that opinion.  I thought it was a great game as did many of the reviewers.  A few of the reviews seemed a bit excessive in their critique.  To each his own I guess.
     
     


    Yeah, if you look at it like a grade, under 80 would be a "C", which is average. That's kind of what I thought about Space Marine myself.


    Fun in spots but mostly average because the game played like this:


    MOBS!!!!!...............MOBS!!!!!...............MOBS!!!!!............MOBS!!!!!....teenyweenybossfight. (The dots were long stretches where you just ran through empty streets and hallways with nothing to fight and cutscenes.)

    The boss fight in that game was so moronically easy, I'm not sure it could even be called a boss fight.

    You end up with a God of War minigame pressing X,X,X,X,then BBBBBBBBBB. X,X,X,X, BBBBBBBBB, X,X,X,X, Y, BBBBB.. it was almost like the guys who made it just gave up at the end for difficulty.

    A few reviewers were brutal, but on the other side a few reviewers were acting as if they were paid so they balance out.

  • popinjaypopinjay Northeast, PAMember Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by StMichael

    Originally posted by popinjay
     


    Originally posted by StMichael



    Originally posted by popinjay
     
    I think WAR40 will be "okay" but like RIFT or any other game.
     


    And you're basing that on...what? A hunch? Some kind of insider info? Clarvoyance? Could you cut me in on some stock tips?
     




    Your sarcasm aside, that is just as good a guess as whatever is cooked up in your head as an obvious unobjective person.
     

    It's called "opinion". As in .. forums?

    Sorry to tell you but no one knows what will happen for sure until launch. Until then, YOU, me and anyone else is guessing. That's the fun of the forum game.. welcome to it.

    But you likened it to Rift, which, apart from the fact that they're both MMOs, has nothing in common. Standard MMO gameplay vs 3rd person shooter, fantasy vs sci-fi, PvE focus vs equal parts PvP and PvE, everything we actually know about DMO is very different from Rift.
     
    For better or worse is what remains to be seen, and on that end your guess is as good as mine.



    No I didn't "liken" it to RIFT. I said it will probably end up in the same category as RIFT with it's own niche fans. That's not comparing it as far as a shooter or a DIKU MMO or something, and I'm not sure how you stretch it to that.


    When I say it will be like any other MMO (like RIFT), I mean it's going to have a niche crowd. RIFT's niche crowd are going to be PvE dungeon raiders.. the PvP people will gravitation to the more PvP games instead when they are released, and there is a ton coming.


    I don't know what WAR40K focus is (PvP or PvE) mainly, but that's not the point. The point is the basic fan will have to have a desire for this type of game (WoW friendly like WoW according to the VP) which will make it niche, since people are moving away from WoW type gaming anymore.


    I'm wondering how closely you read what I wrote because I already said before you, that your guess is as good as mine since it isn't launched.

  • PilnkplonkPilnkplonk zagrebMember Posts: 1,532

    Originally posted by StMichael


    Originally posted by Pilnkplonk




    Imo if you want to create a dynamic, persistent conflict-driven setting you must have an absolute minimum of 3 independent factions. A game with 2 factions is inherently unstable and therefore better suited for one-off events, that is when you want someone to eventually win. And in a mmorpg you don't want any faction to actually do win-win the whole MMORPG, now do you?

    But this IS a one time event setting. The MMO is set in the conflict over the Sargos Sector, not the entire 40k galaxy. You're expecting an all-inclusive conflict that delivers all of warhammer 40k in a box, but nothing can do that. It's not just space marines, orks, guardsmen, chaos, eldar, and so on. It's beyond the scope and scale of being fully represented probably within our lifetimes, and certainly within this decade.

     

    So instead of trying to achieve the impossible and failing at it, Vigil is giving us one small slice of the galaxy that happens to be split into Order and Destruction.

    Well as I was sayin, if they base their game on an event that's all fine and dandy... if they don't care about retention. Because event is something that ENDS. That's my whole point. If you want to make a game that can be played indefinitely then you create a timeless stable world and not an "event". Of course  the world itself can be filled with events but the basis of the game is that it is a "world" rather than an "event".

    Imo it's Vigils inexperience with mmo's that's showing. Like Bioware their design philosophy is based on creating a super-cool game based on an exciting series of events that is played online with other people.. But that is not a world. It is still temporarily limited "event" rather than a timeless space in which events happen. It is world being a vehicle for story rather than the other way around. The very bottom line design philosophy is at stake here.

    EVE online is perfect example of "world" game that lasts indefinitely and yet supports various events. WAR is an anti-example. By making ther game so time based - you travel the road... and what to do when you reach the end? WAR and many similar games failed with retention because they have an in-built self-destruct mechanism - being based on an "event" rather than "world" structure.

    And that's where 3 vs 2 factions come in. 2 factions is event (in RL that would be a war or something, in mmos an instanced BG or a particular fight in open world). 3+ factions is a world (say RL Earth with various nations having wars between each other throughout history).

  • StMichaelStMichael Fullerton, CAMember Posts: 183

    Originally posted by Pilnkplonk



    And that's where 3 vs 2 factions come in. 2 factions is event (in RL that would be a war or something, in mmos an instanced BG or a particular fight in open world). 3+ factions is a world (say RL Earth with various nations having wars between each other throughout history).

    So wait, having a 3rd faction would magically change their current game from an event with a definite end into a setting that goes on forever? Unless you mean that they should scrap the whole Sargos idea and go for total galactic scale in which case I'd tell you to slap yourself and get a grip on reality. Such a game would easily be three times as large as the Old Republic with infinitely more complex game mechanics. No producer from THQ to EA is willing or able to risk that kind of money on ANY project, much less one that doesn't have a millions-strong cult following it.

     

    The fight over the Sentinel devices can go on as long as there are people to die in the fighting. Orkz will never stop as long as there's a fight, Chaos will devote all resources to opening up a second eye of terror, the Imperium will do whatever is necessary to prevent that from happening, and the Eldar...probably don't want to see a second eye of terror either, but who knows what's going on in their heads. If there is even a shred of competence at Vigil (and I played Darksiders, that's very much a yes) they'll find a way to make sector-wide dominance a prerequisite to destroying the Sentinel devices or banishing Chaos. In other words: they'll have the mechanical equivalent of a "world" instead of an "event."

     

    I must congratulate you though, you've actually found yet ANOTHER thing to add to the list of reasons why WAR failed. I honest to God can't keep track of them anymore, but they must number in the thousands by now.

  • PilnkplonkPilnkplonk zagrebMember Posts: 1,532

    Originally posted by StMichael


    Originally posted by Pilnkplonk




    And that's where 3 vs 2 factions come in. 2 factions is event (in RL that would be a war or something, in mmos an instanced BG or a particular fight in open world). 3+ factions is a world (say RL Earth with various nations having wars between each other throughout history).

    So wait, having a 3rd faction would magically change their current game from an event with a definite end into a setting that goes on forever? Unless you mean that they should scrap the whole Sargos idea and go for total galactic scale in which case I'd tell you to slap yourself and get a grip on reality. Such a game would easily be three times as large as the Old Republic with infinitely more complex game mechanics. No producer from THQ to EA is willing or able to risk that kind of money on ANY project, much less one that doesn't have a millions-strong cult following it.

    You're twisting my words again. 3 factions won't "magically" change anyhing. However having more than two factions inherently promotes stability of the game state (it's a negative feedback system) which is something any board game designer could tell you. Number of factions is just one feature that influences whether a game is an "event" or a "world". As I said, there's nothing wrong with a game being an event-based one... if you don't care about retention.

     And please don't strawman me. Imo Sargoss sector as a region is fine in size and variety the but real problem as I can see it is that it is all about the "event" happenng there rather than the "region" itself (or "world" if you will).

    I must congratulate you though, you've actually found yet ANOTHER thing to add to the list of reasons why WAR failed. I honest to God can't keep track of them anymore, but they must number in the thousands by now.

    Did I? 2 factions and linearity of the PvE are frequently cited as some of the main reasons for WAR failure. If you ever played WAR's endgame world PvP you'd realize how mind-numbingly boring it is to fight the same one oponent time and time again, especially if there is any imbalance and there often is... And the story thing with its linearity is also a major turnoff there. Follow the road lol...

     

  • grawssgrawss None, CAMember Posts: 419

    On the Australian version of THQ's DMO Page:

     

    "Developed by Vigil Games in Austin, Texas Warhammer 40,000 Dark Millennium Online, takes the hit sci-fi brand into the MMO genre to offer fans of the franchise the most intimate and visceral experience possible of the 41st Millennium. Players will be able to select their race and enter a beautifully crafted world of intrigue, adventure and all-out war."

     

    In the same spot on the US version of the website is this:

     

    "On the very edge of the galaxy lies the Sargos Sector. For centuries it was rendered uninhabitable and isolated by volatile Warp Storms. Even now, deep within the sector the very fabric of reality is unraveling. Only the ancient Sentinel Devices hold the Warp at bay.



    But the ravages of time and meddling of humanity have weakened the Sentinel Devices—and now, the battle for these lost worlds is at hand. Drawn to the conflict, the great races of the galaxy descend upon the Sargos Sector, seeking to preserve reality—or to tear it asunder.



    Side with the forces of Order, or the vile hosts of Destruction, in a war that will unlock ancient secrets, reveal dark purposes, and determine the fate of the Sargos Sector. For in this dark millennium, there is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter."

     

    And that was taken from the main website, which had been changed a few weeks ago.

    It's not much, but the first is an implication that each race will be its own faction. The only reason I bring it up at all is because the main website changed immediately after the enormous outcry about the two-faction system. Knowing a bit about web design, marketing and the way corporations work gives me the impression that they mistakenly posted the second description of the game.

    Or maybe I'm just looking too hard into it. image

    Sarcasm is not a crime!

  • popinjaypopinjay Northeast, PAMember Posts: 6,539


    Originally posted by grawss

    And that was taken from the main website, which had been changed a few weeks ago.
    It's not much, but the first is an implication that each race will be its own faction. The only reason I bring it up at all is because the main website changed immediately after the enormous outcry about the two-faction system. Knowing a bit about web design, marketing and the way corporations work gives me the impression that they mistakenly posted the second description of the game.
    Or maybe I'm just looking too hard into it.
    I'd say your call about your own judgement is right.


    Even in WAR you could choose your own race and faction... of which there were only two factions: Chaos or Order.


    The race you chose determined which one of the two factions you'd be stuck with. It will probably be the same setup, you chose "Order" then you get all the races available from order side. Not multiple factions.

    The best you can hope for is each race gets it's own starting zone, but almost guaranteed it's just going to be two faction game period.

  • warmaster670warmaster670 Simcoe, ONMember Posts: 1,384

    Originally posted by popinjay



     

    The best you can hope for is each race gets it's own starting zone, but almost guaranteed it's just going to be two faction game period.

    which is good, since based on the lore, thats how it WOULD be.

     

    Not how the 40k fan posers pretend like it would be.

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

  • Cik_AsalinCik_Asalin SoCal, CAMember Posts: 3,033

    Originally posted by Avathos

    Planetside 2 and The Secret World are 3 factions

    And so is Dominus.  3 games, though Dominus is more Sandparky than the other 2, that might do quite well.  http://www.dominusthegame.com/

  • quotheravingquotheraving WorthingMember Posts: 279 Uncommon

    Originally posted by grawss
    It's not much, but the first is an implication that each race will be its own faction. The only reason I bring it up at all is because the main website changed immediately after the enormous outcry about the two-faction system. Knowing a bit about web design, marketing and the way corporations work gives me the impression that they mistakenly posted the second description of the game.
    Or maybe I'm just looking too hard into it. image

    I would say that this is more an indication that the developers feel that the whole 2 faction thing is being unfairly judged by some more vocal members of the community and that this is resulting in too much negative opinion.

    My guess is that the PVP side of the game (which factions influence) is still very much under review at present and so they want to wait till they have fleshed this out and have more to show people so that the potential player base can at least see how things are likely to stand with regards to factions both in PVE and PVP (remember they may well operate seperately so PVP could very well be multifaction while PVE is 2 faction) with some perspective rather than being put off by the shoutier 3 faction fundamentalists.

    Without a fully finalised vision for how factions will operate in PVP any comment they would be likely to make may be subject to change which would result in yet more negative feeling from people believing that they had been lied to.. better to wait until they have worked the main kinks out before showing it off. 

    image

  • TardcoreTardcore MinskMember Posts: 2,325

    Originally posted by warmaster670


    Originally posted by popinjay




     

    The best you can hope for is each race gets it's own starting zone, but almost guaranteed it's just going to be two faction game period.

    which is good, since based on the lore, thats how it WOULD be.

     

    Not how the 40k fan posers pretend like it would be.

    I love the irony that YOU claim to know unequivocally exactly how this game world should be adapted according to the lore, and then childishly slag off other people for doing exactly the same thing, only holding a contrary opinion to your own. I'd like to point out that in doing this you only weaken your own stance by sounding arrogant an immature.

     

    Warhammer and Warhammer 40k were bulit for a table top battle game where the universe is meant to be a world of continuous and endless conflict. There is no clear good or bad guy and it is quite usuall to see armies from even the same factions battle one another. And this is just as true in the years of fiction novels written for the IP. This works out perfectly for what the game worlds were designed for.

     

    Sadly it would not work at all in the realm of MMORPGs, as the game would end up in a ridiculous and continuous free for all.

     

    That said, this is due to the weaknesses of the MMO platform and not the source material. Trying to cram such a complex and gray morality world into the boring straight jacket of typical themepark MMO gaming, is pretty much a lesson in futility, as said MMO will resemble its source material in nothing but art design. This might be acceptable to other gamers but it isn't acceptable to me, so I'm going to voice my displeasure on such a decision.

     

    So to posters Warmaster670 who don't take issue with changes needed to make this IP into an MMO, feel free to think what you want, but understand some of us long time fans of the Warhammer universe see this game as less of an adapation of a cheerished IP, and more a a perversion of it, for nothing more than venal greed. Just because such an outlook annoys YOU, doesn't mean we don't have a right to it. You of course have the right to disagree.

    image

    "Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "

  • warmaster670warmaster670 Simcoe, ONMember Posts: 1,384

    Originally posted by Tardcore


    Originally posted by warmaster670



    Originally posted by popinjay




     

    The best you can hope for is each race gets it's own starting zone, but almost guaranteed it's just going to be two faction game period.

    which is good, since based on the lore, thats how it WOULD be.

     

    Not how the 40k fan posers pretend like it would be.

    I love the irony that YOU claim to know unequivocally exactly how this game world should be adapted according to the lore, and then childishly slag off other people for doing exactly the same thing, only holding a contrary opinion to your own. I'd like to point out that in doing this you only weaken your own stance by sounding arrogant an immature.

     

    Warhammer and Warhammer 40k were bulit for a table top battle game where the universe is meant to be a world of continuous and endless conflict. There is no clear good or bad guy and it is quite usuall to see armies from even the same factions battle one another. And this is just as true in the years of fiction novels written for the IP. This works out perfectly for what the game worlds were designed for.

     

    Sadly it would not work at all in the realm of MMORPGs, as the game would end up in a ridiculous and continuous free for all.

     

    That said, this is due to the weaknesses of the MMO platform and not the source material. Trying to cram such a complex and gray morality world into the boring straight jacket of typical themepark MMO gaming, is pretty much a lesson in futility, as said MMO will resemble its source material in nothing but art design. This might be acceptable to other gamers but it isn't acceptable to me, so I'm going to voice my displeasure on such a decision.

     

    So to posters Warmaster670 who don't take issue with changes needed to make this IP into an MMO, feel free to think what you want, but understand some of us long time fans of the Warhammer universe see this game as less of an adapation of a cheerished IP, and more a a perversion of it, for nothing more than venal greed. Just because such an outlook annoys YOU, doesn't mean we don't have a right to it. You of course have the right to disagree.

    See, all of that could make sense, if, you know, in 40k when theres  huge conflicts the sides didnt split into order and chaos for the most part, but they do, its a fact, just like with teh thirnteen black crusade.

     

    40k races are NOT stupid and WOULD team up together, and its a fact that anyone saying otherwise is wrong.

     

    "

    -Dark Eldar allied with Chaos Space Marines, conducting a joint raid against a prey-race, combing the speed of the Dark Eldar with the hardiness of the Toughness 4, power armoured Chaos Space Marines.

    -Tau accompanied by allied Terminators, representing a alliance of circumstance against a common foe, forming a devastating counterattack unit."

    Just 2 of the hundreds of possibilities, also for someone who claims to be a long time fan, its also funny you forget that pretty much every single tabletop game that gets played, is side A vs Side B, not 4-6 way free for alls.

     

     

     

     

     

     

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

  • NonderyonNonderyon GyulaMember Posts: 182 Uncommon

    Originally posted by warmaster670

    See, all of that could make sense, if, you know, in 40k when theres  huge conflicts the sides didnt split into order and chaos for the most part, but they do, its a fact, just like with teh thirnteen black crusade.
     
    40k races are NOT stupid and WOULD team up together, and its a fact that anyone saying otherwise is wrong.
     
    "
    -Dark Eldar allied with Chaos Space Marines, conducting a joint raid against a prey-race, combing the speed of the Dark Eldar with the hardiness of the Toughness 4, power armoured Chaos Space Marines.
    -Tau accompanied by allied Terminators, representing a alliance of circumstance against a common foe, forming a devastating counterattack unit."
    Just 2 of the hundreds of possibilities, also for someone who claims to be a long time fan, its also funny you forget that pretty much every single tabletop game that gets played, is side A vs Side B, not 4-6 way free for alls.

    Nop, you are wrong here in my option...yes they do "join force" some times because of the need, but they never trust to mix in warband or trust enought make them true ally.

    I don't think i have to tell you why...i hope you read enought w40k books to know this

    Especially the imperium, when they talk or make "friendly" contact other xenophobe creature(like eldar or tau) they concidered Heretic almost all the time and executed on sight or taken away to purge there souls...

    Or we can see the Eldar view poin about ally: they almost see humans  equalent as orks and just use them before they are take any action about the common foe (so let the humans fight with orks than we can wipe them out both later)

    I can tell lot more other options but i dont want to....

    When they make this game only "2 side" than this is just ruin the game it self.

    RF online have 3 faction war and lot other...

Sign In or Register to comment.