Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

A day and night cycle makes mmos feel more alive. Also no more on rails themeparks!

2

Comments

  • dave6660dave6660 New York, NYPosts: 2,543Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Theocritus
    Originally posted by dave6660
    Originally posted by Torgrim
    Most MMOs have day and night cycle.

    Yes but how many of them actually utilitize it for something other than aesthetics?

          EQ was the only one I remember where the night/day cycle really mattered...There were certain zones where you didn't want to be at night for example......

    A handful of others did too.  FFXI used day / night and weather effectively.  I think Vanguard did too but it's been a long time since I played so I don't remember much about it.

    “There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.”
    -- Herman Melville

  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Rydeson
    ... not just a small tone change..  I love how EQ racials made a difference in sight.. Oh well, that was the good ole days..

    Indeed. FYI for others. Back in the day, infravision was a major advantage; and ultravision was even moreso. But today, even the most blind Erud can see better and farther at night than dark elves (ultravision) back in 1999/2000/2001. LAME!

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Yamota

    Quest hubs, as main source of advancing your character, is the main "feature" which dealt the main blow to virtual worlds. Instead of exploring and adventuring to advance your character you simply go to NPC with glowie on head and then go to glowies on map, completely by-passing exploration and adventuring.

    GW 2, instead of getting rid of that, simply made the quest hubs mobile and not needing to click on glowie to get the quest but everything else is pretty much the same. It is cleverly hiding the quest hub but it is still there, just disguised and called "dynamic" quests.

    I think the genre has reached a dead end and instead of going back and finding another way, it is just keep bumping their heads into the dead end, which are meaningless quests, and finding new ways of giving you meaningless quests.

    The concept of creating a virtual world where you need to explore and find your place in it and figure out how to be successful is, I guess, considered a failed model by triple A devs. Why I am not sure but I guess they didnt feel SWG, EQ 1, AC and UO were profitable enough. They seem to go more for a model where they have big initial sales, like non MMOs, and then some bonus profit from a few months of subs. and/or selling trinkets in the cash shop.

    The genre has become big bussiness and there is apparently no big bussiness in virtual world MMOs...

    No that is innovation. They no longer need teh old idea of a virtual world. They are brave enough to take risk and do something different.

    And it makes a better game, so much the better.

    Dynamic quest .. hiding the quest hub .. is another way to make questing seemless.

    The point is this .. the fun part of the gameplay to many .. is combat and the meta game surrounding it (AH, gear optimization ...), and not a scavenger hunt of where the quest item is. If people like to hunt for items, spoiler sites would not be so popular, and add-ons that point the way would not be so popular.

    Quests are just excuses to kill things.

  • Goatgod76Goatgod76 Stow, OHPosts: 1,214Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Yamota

    Quest hubs, as main source of advancing your character, is the main "feature" which dealt the main blow to virtual worlds. Instead of exploring and adventuring to advance your character you simply go to NPC with glowie on head and then go to glowies on map, completely by-passing exploration and adventuring.

    GW 2, instead of getting rid of that, simply made the quest hubs mobile and not needing to click on glowie to get the quest but everything else is pretty much the same. It is cleverly hiding the quest hub but it is still there, just disguised and called "dynamic" quests.

    I think the genre has reached a dead end and instead of going back and finding another way, it is just keep bumping their heads into the dead end, which are meaningless quests, and finding new ways of giving you meaningless quests.

    The concept of creating a virtual world where you need to explore and find your place in it and figure out how to be successful is, I guess, considered a failed model by triple A devs. Why I am not sure but I guess they didnt feel SWG, EQ 1, AC and UO were profitable enough. They seem to go more for a model where they have big initial sales, like non MMOs, and then some bonus profit from a few months of subs. and/or selling trinkets in the cash shop.

    The genre has become big bussiness and there is apparently no big bussiness in virtual world MMOs...

    No that is innovation. They no longer need teh old idea of a virtual world. They are brave enough to take risk and do something different.

    And it makes a better game, so much the better.

    Dynamic quest .. hiding the quest hub .. is another way to make questing seemless.

    The point is this .. the fun part of the gameplay to many .. is combat and the meta game surrounding it (AH, gear optimization ...), and not a scavenger hunt of where the quest item is. If people like to hunt for items, spoiler sites would not be so popular, and add-ons that point the way would not be so popular.

    Quests are just excuses to kill things.

    LOL! Ok...I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in many posts, but now I am convinced you are completely clueless as to what a MMORPG is. You are asking for lobby games and console-like games. Quick fun, easy access. Although all MMORPG's offer these features in marginal amounts...they are NOT built around these concepts...or meant to be anyways...hence, why it is a different genre from lobby games and console games. MMORPG's are meant to be worlds for players to explore, interact, and take at their own pace...with MANY options to participate in and enjoy.

    But...eh, why bother...you are not trying to hear and comprehend what you need to. You just want them to be what you want them to be...hell with everyone else right? Sigh...

  • IstavaanIstavaan CorkPosts: 1,350Member
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Wow has a night and day cycle.

    Swtor hasn't, but its not the only thing that makes it unimersive. Cloned npcs, lack of critters, corridory design, heavy instancing etc..

    wow has a 24 hour day/night cycle so you never see the transition from day to night. might aswell not have one.

  • IstavaanIstavaan CorkPosts: 1,350Member
    Originally posted by Psychow
    Originally posted by evemaster00

    UO had a day/night cycle, Everquest did. I believe even DaoC did? Why is it all the old classics used day and night cycles yet most mmos today don't bother with it?

    I wonder if it's because WoW doesn't have one, and wow is supposedly popular, so developers stopped thinking it mattered. I played UO, EQ, and DaoC, and I felt a stronger connection with these games and played these games for far longer than any other mmo i've played. (Except for EVE online, which i've also played for a very long time).

    I guess all of the above mmos have one primary thing in common - they are not story driven themeparks. I don't know if EQ is now or not, I haven't played it for a decade. EVE is tthe only one without a day/night cycle, but that's a mute point because EVE takes places in space.

    I think now I realize what makes me feel so bored with WoW that i can't stand playing it. It was the first MMO that I know off that sent you down a predetermined path from the start of the game to the very end through a on rails questing system. Que Blizzards constant boasts of subscription numbers, everyone tried to copy them  = Blizzard ruined mmos.

     

    You're right. Without stupid Blizzard / WoW the MMO genre would be basking in it's 500K membership of awesomness with only a few released games. It'd have beeen amazing!! Damn you Blizzard!!

    well you can only play with 5k players per server so 500k is enough. but i guess you like wow becuase it has over 99999999999 players.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
     

    LOL! Ok...I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in many posts, but now I am convinced you are completely clueless as to what a MMORPG is. You are asking for lobby games and console-like games. Quick fun, easy access. Although all MMORPG's offer these features in marginal amounts...they are NOT built around these concepts...or meant to be anyways...hence, why it is a different genre from lobby games and console games. MMORPG's are meant to be worlds for players to explore, interact, and take at their own pace...with MANY options to participate in and enjoy.

    But...eh, why bother...you are not trying to hear and comprehend what you need to. You just want them to be what you want them to be...hell with everyone else right? Sigh...

    See .. that is the misconception. MMOs are just games. They are not meant for anything, and the devs can take them anyway they want to.

    Don't you agree that many MMOs are like lobby games? WOW LFD, LFR raid, Battle ground ....

    Don't tell me you don't know that. And if people want to play MMO like that .. why shouldn't they? Would you be happier if WOW is called a lobby game instead? It is just a label, you know.

    And i am just making an observation. Tell me it is not true, with a straight face, that many play MMOs like a lobby game. What i want is irrelevant of whether MMOs are becoming more lobby games.

  • Goatgod76Goatgod76 Stow, OHPosts: 1,214Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
     

    LOL! Ok...I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in many posts, but now I am convinced you are completely clueless as to what a MMORPG is. You are asking for lobby games and console-like games. Quick fun, easy access. Although all MMORPG's offer these features in marginal amounts...they are NOT built around these concepts...or meant to be anyways...hence, why it is a different genre from lobby games and console games. MMORPG's are meant to be worlds for players to explore, interact, and take at their own pace...with MANY options to participate in and enjoy.

    But...eh, why bother...you are not trying to hear and comprehend what you need to. You just want them to be what you want them to be...hell with everyone else right? Sigh...

    See .. that is the misconception. MMOs are just games. They are not meant for anything, and the devs can take them anyway they want to.

    Don't you agree that many MMOs are like lobby games? WOW LFD, LFR raid, Battle ground ....

    Don't tell me you don't know that. And if people want to play MMO like that .. why shouldn't they? Would you be happier if WOW is called a lobby game instead? It is just a label, you know.

    And i am just making an observation. Tell me it is not true, with a straight face, that many play MMOs like a lobby game. What i want is irrelevant of whether MMOs are becoming more lobby games.

    I don't disagree a lot of people like lobby games. What you are misunderstanding is the difference between MMO and MMORPG. And you continuously push your agenda of making them all MMO lobby games no matter the thread is my point. Especially if they mention anything that has to do with not having them the way you insist on them being. There are plenty of lobby games already...must they ALL be that way? Again, it's what you constantly seem to be peddling.

    The thread is about day and night cycle, as well as discussion on them not all being hand held themeparks. If you have nothing of use to contribute to the topic of the thread...just pass the thread by. How hard is that really.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
     

    I don't disagree a lot of people like lobby games. What you are misunderstanding is the difference between MMO and MMORPG. And you continuously push your agenda of making them all MMO lobby games no matter the thread is my point. Especially if they mention anything that has to do with not having them the way you insist on them being. There are plenty of lobby games already...must they ALL be that way? Again, it's what you constantly seem to be peddling.

     

    How do i "make" anything? And it is obviously not all of them are lobby game. You forget PS2, and Eve?

    But don't you think there is a larger point? Many (but not all) MMOs are lobby games because like you say "a lot of people like lobby games" .. and it shows that they are games, not world simulation.

    Which is relevant to this thread .. is a day night cycle make a game more fun?

  • Goatgod76Goatgod76 Stow, OHPosts: 1,214Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
     

    I don't disagree a lot of people like lobby games. What you are misunderstanding is the difference between MMO and MMORPG. And you continuously push your agenda of making them all MMO lobby games no matter the thread is my point. Especially if they mention anything that has to do with not having them the way you insist on them being. There are plenty of lobby games already...must they ALL be that way? Again, it's what you constantly seem to be peddling.

     

    How do i "make" anything? And it is obviously not all of them are lobby game. You forget PS2, and Eve?

    But don't you think there is a larger point? Many (but not all) MMOs are lobby games because like you say "a lot of people like lobby games" .. and it shows that they are games, not world simulation.

    Which is relevant to this thread .. is a day night cycle make a game more fun?

    Quit taking everything so literally. I forgot the word "trying" before the red highlighted part....but shouldn't be that difficult to comprehend...so I thought anyways.

    Day and Night makes it more "immersive" for those that enjoy that element...which (IMO) is mainly players who played since the genre's birth (MMORPG's that is) when those features, as well as others,  were a large portion of them.

    Sadly...yes...most player's only seem to care about getting their fun now now now. And want stat and leader boards to gloat over and fight to be #1 of...and show off leet gear. ALL elements that already exist in other genres....FPS games or console fighting games. And it's ok to have those kinds of games.....in their own genre/category, NOT in the MMORPG genre calling themselves MMORPG's.

    Why people want to keep stuffing features from one genre into another until neither is recognizeable as a unique genre is beyond me. Not saying it isn't a good thing to add features from one to the other at times...but man,  there can be such a thing as too much.

     

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Goatgod76

    Sadly...yes...most player's only seem to care about getting their fun now now now. And want stat and leader boards to gloat over and fight to be #1 of...and show off leet gear. ALL elements that already exist in other genres....FPS games or console fighting games. And it's ok to have those kinds of games.....in their own genre/category, NOT in the MMORPG genre calling themselves MMORPG's.

    Why people want to keep stuffing features from one genre into another until neither is recognizeable as a unique genre is beyond me. Not saying it isn't a good thing to add features from one to the other at times...but man,  there can be such a thing as too much.

     

    hmm .. i am not sure what else a gamer should care about. It is entertainment, not ethical or moral issues. And you seem to be very adamant about how a genre should be defined. Why? A genre is just a collection of games. Genre alway changes and evolve. There is no reason why we should stick to the old way.

    And i am a big proponent of using good ideas, and disregard genre boundaries. Look at games like Borderland 1 & 2 .. it is so much fun precisely because it is a mix of FPS and RPG. Look at Dead Space? Not a pure action title. Not a pure horror title but hell of a fun game.

    There is no reason why MMORPG should be shackled by its past. Do you think it will be even 1/10 as popular if the EQ camping problem is not fixed? And if it changes a lot .. so be it .. as long as the games are still fun.

  • Goatgod76Goatgod76 Stow, OHPosts: 1,214Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Goatgod76

    Sadly...yes...most player's only seem to care about getting their fun now now now. And want stat and leader boards to gloat over and fight to be #1 of...and show off leet gear. ALL elements that already exist in other genres....FPS games or console fighting games. And it's ok to have those kinds of games.....in their own genre/category, NOT in the MMORPG genre calling themselves MMORPG's.

    Why people want to keep stuffing features from one genre into another until neither is recognizeable as a unique genre is beyond me. Not saying it isn't a good thing to add features from one to the other at times...but man,  there can be such a thing as too much.

     

    hmm .. i am not sure what else a gamer should care about. It is entertainment, not ethical or moral issues. And you seem to be very adamant about how a genre should be defined. Why? A genre is just a collection of games. Genre alway changes and evolve. There is no reason why we should stick to the old way.

    And i am a big proponent of using good ideas, and disregard genre boundaries. Look at games like Borderland 1 & 2 .. it is so much fun precisely because it is a mix of FPS and RPG. Look at Dead Space? Not a pure action title. Not a pure horror title but hell of a fun game.

    There is no reason why MMORPG should be shackled by its past. Do you think it will be even 1/10 as popular if the EQ camping problem is not fixed? And if it changes a lot .. so be it .. as long as the games are still fun.

    Sigh....why bother.

  • jimdandy26jimdandy26 salem, ORPosts: 527Member
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Goatgod76

    Sadly...yes...most player's only seem to care about getting their fun now now now. And want stat and leader boards to gloat over and fight to be #1 of...and show off leet gear. ALL elements that already exist in other genres....FPS games or console fighting games. And it's ok to have those kinds of games.....in their own genre/category, NOT in the MMORPG genre calling themselves MMORPG's.

    Why people want to keep stuffing features from one genre into another until neither is recognizeable as a unique genre is beyond me. Not saying it isn't a good thing to add features from one to the other at times...but man,  there can be such a thing as too much.

     

    hmm .. i am not sure what else a gamer should care about. It is entertainment, not ethical or moral issues. And you seem to be very adamant about how a genre should be defined. Why? A genre is just a collection of games. Genre alway changes and evolve. There is no reason why we should stick to the old way.

    And i am a big proponent of using good ideas, and disregard genre boundaries. Look at games like Borderland 1 & 2 .. it is so much fun precisely because it is a mix of FPS and RPG. Look at Dead Space? Not a pure action title. Not a pure horror title but hell of a fun game.

    There is no reason why MMORPG should be shackled by its past. Do you think it will be even 1/10 as popular if the EQ camping problem is not fixed? And if it changes a lot .. so be it .. as long as the games are still fun.

    Sigh....why bother.

    You shouldn't because he is correct.

    I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.

    To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Goatgod76

    Sadly...yes...most player's only seem to care about getting their fun now now now. And want stat and leader boards to gloat over and fight to be #1 of...and show off leet gear. ALL elements that already exist in other genres....FPS games or console fighting games. And it's ok to have those kinds of games.....in their own genre/category, NOT in the MMORPG genre calling themselves MMORPG's.

    Why people want to keep stuffing features from one genre into another until neither is recognizeable as a unique genre is beyond me. Not saying it isn't a good thing to add features from one to the other at times...but man,  there can be such a thing as too much.

     

    hmm .. i am not sure what else a gamer should care about. It is entertainment, not ethical or moral issues. And you seem to be very adamant about how a genre should be defined. Why? A genre is just a collection of games. Genre alway changes and evolve. There is no reason why we should stick to the old way.

    And i am a big proponent of using good ideas, and disregard genre boundaries. Look at games like Borderland 1 & 2 .. it is so much fun precisely because it is a mix of FPS and RPG. Look at Dead Space? Not a pure action title. Not a pure horror title but hell of a fun game.

    There is no reason why MMORPG should be shackled by its past. Do you think it will be even 1/10 as popular if the EQ camping problem is not fixed? And if it changes a lot .. so be it .. as long as the games are still fun.

    Sigh....why bother.

    No more arguments? You agree that games should be fun to the players, and should not rigidly adhere to what genre it is supposed to be in?

  • Goatgod76Goatgod76 Stow, OHPosts: 1,214Member
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Goatgod76

    Sadly...yes...most player's only seem to care about getting their fun now now now. And want stat and leader boards to gloat over and fight to be #1 of...and show off leet gear. ALL elements that already exist in other genres....FPS games or console fighting games. And it's ok to have those kinds of games.....in their own genre/category, NOT in the MMORPG genre calling themselves MMORPG's.

    Why people want to keep stuffing features from one genre into another until neither is recognizeable as a unique genre is beyond me. Not saying it isn't a good thing to add features from one to the other at times...but man,  there can be such a thing as too much.

     

    hmm .. i am not sure what else a gamer should care about. It is entertainment, not ethical or moral issues. And you seem to be very adamant about how a genre should be defined. Why? A genre is just a collection of games. Genre alway changes and evolve. There is no reason why we should stick to the old way.

    And i am a big proponent of using good ideas, and disregard genre boundaries. Look at games like Borderland 1 & 2 .. it is so much fun precisely because it is a mix of FPS and RPG. Look at Dead Space? Not a pure action title. Not a pure horror title but hell of a fun game.

    There is no reason why MMORPG should be shackled by its past. Do you think it will be even 1/10 as popular if the EQ camping problem is not fixed? And if it changes a lot .. so be it .. as long as the games are still fun.

    Sigh....why bother.

    You shouldn't because he is correct.

    According to you. But judging from your gaming resume, you haven't played UO and/or EQ, or others prior to ...you know, that 2004 game. So of course you'd agree with him. ...no surprise there.

  • jimdandy26jimdandy26 salem, ORPosts: 527Member
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Goatgod76

    Sadly...yes...most player's only seem to care about getting their fun now now now. And want stat and leader boards to gloat over and fight to be #1 of...and show off leet gear. ALL elements that already exist in other genres....FPS games or console fighting games. And it's ok to have those kinds of games.....in their own genre/category, NOT in the MMORPG genre calling themselves MMORPG's.

    Why people want to keep stuffing features from one genre into another until neither is recognizeable as a unique genre is beyond me. Not saying it isn't a good thing to add features from one to the other at times...but man,  there can be such a thing as too much.

     

    hmm .. i am not sure what else a gamer should care about. It is entertainment, not ethical or moral issues. And you seem to be very adamant about how a genre should be defined. Why? A genre is just a collection of games. Genre alway changes and evolve. There is no reason why we should stick to the old way.

    And i am a big proponent of using good ideas, and disregard genre boundaries. Look at games like Borderland 1 & 2 .. it is so much fun precisely because it is a mix of FPS and RPG. Look at Dead Space? Not a pure action title. Not a pure horror title but hell of a fun game.

    There is no reason why MMORPG should be shackled by its past. Do you think it will be even 1/10 as popular if the EQ camping problem is not fixed? And if it changes a lot .. so be it .. as long as the games are still fun.

    Sigh....why bother.

    You shouldn't because he is correct.

    According to you. But judging from your gaming resume, you haven't played UO and/or EQ, or others prior to ...you know, that 2004 game. So of course you'd agree with him. ...no surprise there.

    LOL oh wow. Behold the bitter vet angst put forth for the whole world to see!

     

    See how I just completely dismissed you. Yeah, feels AWESOME doesn't it. His point, which I agree with, is that YOU do not determine the genre, and YOU have no place saying what does or does not belong in a game. Players are ill equipped for the job of design, especially in the modern age. You want to know why games are going down the toilet? Its due almost entirely to listening to players. You want to know why there is "less freedom" now than back in the days of UO, its because developers have learned from the game. The honest fact that most of you sandbox junkies refuse to realize is that you cannot trust the player base. You are quite correct, I have not played UO. Sandboxes in general tend to bore me. That does not change the fact that unlike many of the players here, I have looked into it. Reading blogs from the developers, looking at timelines, discussing with players where the game "went wrong", even watching the gdc post mortem on it, which was extremely telling. Especially the part at the end where they skip over and dismiss all of the bad they just went over for the last hour and attempted to show all of the good that the community can bring to the game.

    Systems like 3 way pvp do not work with the current playerbase. You never see the 2 smaller sides team up against the larger, infact you almost always see a food chain appear. Look at the current games, trying to please the masses with reviving older systems that just do not work with the much larger and much more experienced playerbase we have today. Which is true in almost all ways. It impacts everything from questing to raiding to pvp. Remember the days of EQ when guilds would not release a strat because it threatend there potential progression? Look at all of the people clamoring for an open world, when they forgot just how much trouble an open world caused! Do you not remember how WoW was heralded for its instances? People not being able to get ahead because of guilds watching and killing stuff that they did not have use for entirely because it kept anyone from tagging the mobs that were relevent to them?

    Now, do not get me wrong, there are players that play to be immersed into the world. Just like there are players who do not gives 2 shits about the world, just the math that goes into making his character the best. Either path is not wrong, but the sad fact (for you) is that you are an extreme minority. That little presentation that the Pathfinder Online guy did was rather hilarious in this regard, since the very basis of the "themepark trap" applies just as much to sandboxes. I truly hope you and your segment get your game to play, I even hope its successful, but the numbers do not look good for you and yours.

    I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.

    To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
     

    According to you. But judging from your gaming resume, you haven't played UO and/or EQ, or others prior to ...you know, that 2004 game. So of course you'd agree with him. ...no surprise there.

    But i did. I started with kingdom of drakkar, a precursor of MMO. Then i played UO beta .. very bad GAME. Then EQ . only for a year .. the camping and grinding same mob was getting to no fun very fast.

    Those are not good games .. and there was a reason why EQ eclipse UO soon, and itself being eclipsed by WOW. Devs finally figured out that a fun game is more important than a world sim.

  • jimdandy26jimdandy26 salem, ORPosts: 527Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
     

    According to you. But judging from your gaming resume, you haven't played UO and/or EQ, or others prior to ...you know, that 2004 game. So of course you'd agree with him. ...no surprise there.

    But i did. I started with kingdom of drakkar, a precursor of MMO. Then i played UO beta .. very bad GAME. Then EQ . only for a year .. the camping and grinding same mob was getting to no fun very fast.

    Those are not good games .. and there was a reason why EQ eclipse UO soon, and itself being eclipsed by WOW. Devs finally figured out that a fun game is more important than a world sim.

    Thats not exactly accurate. The UO devs had to actively take the world sim out of UO because players are douchebags.

    I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.

    To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.

  • DirkinDirkin Manassas, VAPosts: 78Member

    In a small attempt, to sort of get this thing back on the topic, here's a dynamic weather time lapse from Vanguard. It was recorded in low quality and at really low resolution, so it doesn't really do the game graphical justice. It's actually raining in the video but you can hardlty see it. You can see the weather effects at least, though. Pretty neat.

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV8WRqTaEe8

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
     

    According to you. But judging from your gaming resume, you haven't played UO and/or EQ, or others prior to ...you know, that 2004 game. So of course you'd agree with him. ...no surprise there.

    But i did. I started with kingdom of drakkar, a precursor of MMO. Then i played UO beta .. very bad GAME. Then EQ . only for a year .. the camping and grinding same mob was getting to no fun very fast.

    Those are not good games .. and there was a reason why EQ eclipse UO soon, and itself being eclipsed by WOW. Devs finally figured out that a fun game is more important than a world sim.

    Thats not exactly accurate. The UO devs had to actively take the world sim out of UO because players are douchebags.

    I long left before they did that. EQ was a better game then, just beacuse it did not have forced pvp, and i am not required to up mining by clicking a rock 10000 times.

  • jimdandy26jimdandy26 salem, ORPosts: 527Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Goatgod76
     

    According to you. But judging from your gaming resume, you haven't played UO and/or EQ, or others prior to ...you know, that 2004 game. So of course you'd agree with him. ...no surprise there.

    But i did. I started with kingdom of drakkar, a precursor of MMO. Then i played UO beta .. very bad GAME. Then EQ . only for a year .. the camping and grinding same mob was getting to no fun very fast.

    Those are not good games .. and there was a reason why EQ eclipse UO soon, and itself being eclipsed by WOW. Devs finally figured out that a fun game is more important than a world sim.

    Thats not exactly accurate. The UO devs had to actively take the world sim out of UO because players are douchebags.

    I long left before they did that. EQ was a better game then, just beacuse it did not have forced pvp, and i am not required to up mining by clicking a rock 10000 times.

    Thats why the developers did things like Trammel, which is hilarious because many consider that to be the "death" of UO. All of the complaining that Devs do not listen to players, yet almost every time you do it pisses off another group!

    I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.

    To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.

  • XAPKenXAPKen Northwest, INPosts: 4,936Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Dirkin

    In a small attempt, to sort of get this thing back on the topic, here's a dynamic weather time lapse from Vanguard. It was recorded in low quality and at really low resolution, so it doesn't really do the game graphical justice. It's actually raining in the video but you can hardlty see it. You can see the weather effects at least, though. Pretty neat.

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV8WRqTaEe8

     

    The storm clouds rolling in effect is very cool.  No guess on how that works.  Nice effect.


    Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now turned Amateur Game Developer.  I don't Forum PVP.  If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident.  Realm Lords 2 on MMORPG.com
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by jimdandy26
     

    Thats why the developers did things like Trammel, which is hilarious because many consider that to be the "death" of UO. All of the complaining that Devs do not listen to players, yet almost every time you do it pisses off another group!

    But why don't you cite the positive examples, rather than the negative ones?

    For example, the D3 1.04 and 1.05 patch (fix legendaries and progression) makes the game a lot better, and if you trace Xfire numbers, it increases the player base.

    So listening to players is not all bad. The problem about trammel is probably that it is too little too late. EQ is already there eating UO's lunch.

  • madazzmadazz A town, ONPosts: 1,564Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    The problem about trammel is probably that it is too little too late. EQ is already there eating UO's lunch.

    HEY! I've been quite lately, but that is crossing the line ;)

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by madazz
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    The problem about trammel is probably that it is too little too late. EQ is already there eating UO's lunch.

    HEY! I've been quite lately, but that is crossing the line ;)

    madazz, feel free to hammer if you need to. Don't pull your punches just because we agree on SOME aspects of gaming. We can't be agreeing on everything.

    I wouldn't count it aganist you .. and will still count you as a friend.

2
Sign In or Register to comment.