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!

Mortal Online could have been the best MMORPG ever...

2

Comments

  • ToferioToferio RandomPosts: 1,405Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vexus_X
    Originally posted by Toferio
    Originally posted by Vexus_X

    /wait for Embers of Caerus

    Last time I checked in on that game, EoC suffered from same issues as MO, namely devs being stuck in an old "hardcore" mindset that will ultimately ruin the game. I recall, for example, reading some of them saying how cool it would be if you had no fast transportation but only horses.. Yeah, have fun guys with a game where it takes me hours just to meet a friend so we can play together. There is "hard but userfriendly" and then there's "questionably hard but annoying". MO fell into the latter category with its design issues. 

    WALL OF TEXT ENGAGE!

    No no no NO NO.  The hardcore mindset is why games like DayZ, Minecraft, and previously World of Warcraft and Ultima Online are SO POPULAR.  World of Warcraft was a hardcore game in terms of raiding pre-Burning Crusade.  Even BC had some hardcore aspect that kept a lot of players hooked.  40-man raids were hardcore as anything MO has to offer, requiring massive organization on the scale that most small businesses can't match.

    Minecraft, hardcore? Are you freaking serious? You are mixing everything into same pile. DayZ, like Demons's Souls, has challenging hardcore design. Games like MO and EoC (I think) have pain in the rear hardcore design. There is no challenge to it, just annoyance and waste of time, as per examples above. Did you entirely miss the last two sentences of the paragraph you are quoting? I am all in for a challenging game, but walking for hours across the map just to meet with a friend is not a challenge, it is an annoyance and the sooner you "hardcore" fans understand it, the sooner we will have an awesome, challenging game. I can't wait for it either, but it has to be well designed. 

  • RamanadjinnRamanadjinn Huntsville, ALPosts: 1,365Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Toferio
    Minecraft, hardcore? Are you freaking serious? You are mixing everything into same pile. DayZ, like Demons's Souls, has challenging hardcore design. Games like MO and EoC (I think) have pain in the rear hardcore design. There is no challenge to it, just annoyance and waste of time, as per examples above. Did you entirely miss the last two sentences of the paragraph you are quoting? I am all in for a challenging game, but walking for hours across the map just to meet with a friend is not a challenge, it is an annoyance and the sooner you "hardcore" fans understand it, the sooner we will have an awesome, challenging game. I can't wait for it either, but it has to be well designed. 

     

    Walking for hours across a map to meet your friends, Hyperbole?

    I've seen people call the Mortal Online map small, or even tiny.  Yet I see someone comment about walking for hours across the map to meet a friend.  It takes me 10-20 minutes to go from Vadda to Morin Khur. Or from Vadda to Tindrem.

    Still, I have to wonder.  I have many friends playing this game and every time I log in to the game we are all either very near each other, or running some errand for one another.  Why is this not the case with you and your friends?

    Regardless, i'd like to hear your ideas for how travel should be handled.  You've mentioned a couple of times this one subjective thing and how walking across a map is an annoyance with no benefit.  It sounds as if you don't see our point of view on why travel is a good thing.  

    Anyone can see why clicking a portal, casting a spell, or using the UI to instantly teleport to a friend is good.  It adds convenience to the game and the ability to instantly meet up with a friend or 5 to get to the actual content you want to do together as soon as possible.  It cuts out the transportation which you could argue doesn't add any real "fun" utility to the game in favor of spending more time doing the actual content together.

    Do you understand though why we don't necessarily agree with this philosophy?

    If you do not, you are arguing against something you do not understand.  If you do, why do you argue for something that is a matter of preference as if it were an objective fact? 

  • ArakaziArakazi OxfordPosts: 889Member

    Coulda, shoulda, woulda... I feel the same way about Vanguard. Could of been great if only...

    But the reality is that MO and VG and just about every other MMO game falls well short. l've just about had enough of MMO's. I'm tired of the grinding and the two dimensional gameplay. Tired of the griefing and the asshattery I have to put up with.

    MMO's should be fun. They're not. It's an endless tedium of small tasks that make me feel like one of Skinner's pigeons or like Sisyphus rolling his boulder up the hill only to find out the next day he has to do it all again.

    They should be virtual worlds that should make you feel like you are part of the story. They're not. They are game worlds and you are always the passive observer dancing to the games tune.

    MMO's should be social. They're not. It's full on people obsessed with gear and, mounts and these, frankly, annoying pets.

    I'm done. FFXV was the last shot. Shallow world, gameplay and pathetic story lines.

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member


    Originally posted by Toferio
    Originally posted by Vexus_X /wait for Embers of Caerus
    Last time I checked in on that game, EoC suffered from same issues as MO, namely devs being stuck in an old "hardcore" mindset that will ultimately ruin the game. I recall, for example, reading some of them saying how cool it would be if you had no fast transportation but only horses.. Yeah, have fun guys with a game where it takes me hours just to meet a friend so we can play together. There is "hard but userfriendly" and then there's "questionably hard but annoying". MO fell into the latter category with its design issues. 


    MO's biggest issue is that development on the game was just bad. People got stuck in walls and killed for months, giant mutant horses glitching through the landscape with invisible players and monsters killing stuff went on and on and on like the Energizer Bunny powered by black holes of sad.

    I think the "hard core" game style does limit the population for a game, but the game could still be well written and well received. It just wouldn't be for everyone, which isn't the same as being a really bad game.

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

  • ToferioToferio RandomPosts: 1,405Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
    Originally posted by Toferio
    Minecraft, hardcore? Are you freaking serious? You are mixing everything into same pile. DayZ, like Demons's Souls, has challenging hardcore design. Games like MO and EoC (I think) have pain in the rear hardcore design. There is no challenge to it, just annoyance and waste of time, as per examples above. Did you entirely miss the last two sentences of the paragraph you are quoting? I am all in for a challenging game, but walking for hours across the map just to meet with a friend is not a challenge, it is an annoyance and the sooner you "hardcore" fans understand it, the sooner we will have an awesome, challenging game. I can't wait for it either, but it has to be well designed. 

     

    Walking for hours across a map to meet your friends, Hyperbole?

    I am not talking about MO but in general, MOs map IS small. 

    Still, I have to wonder.  I have many friends playing this game and every time I log in to the game we are all either very near each other, or running some errand for one another.  Why is this not the case with you and your friends?

    Regardless, i'd like to hear your ideas for how travel should be handled.  You've mentioned a couple of times this one subjective thing and how walking across a map is an annoyance with no benefit.  It sounds as if you don't see our point of view on why travel is a good thing.  

    .. You DO know I replied to you above where I both mention the "why are you not together with friends" scenarios and discuss alternatives? 

    Do you understand though why we don't necessarily agree with this philosophy?

    I understand that people have weird fetishes, but that doesn't mean that should be the norm.  Now go back and re-read my first reply. 

     

  • RamanadjinnRamanadjinn Huntsville, ALPosts: 1,365Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Toferio
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
     

    Walking for hours across a map to meet your friends, Hyperbole?

    I am not talking about MO but in general, MOs map IS small. 

    Still, I have to wonder.  I have many friends playing this game and every time I log in to the game we are all either very near each other, or running some errand for one another.  Why is this not the case with you and your friends?

    Regardless, i'd like to hear your ideas for how travel should be handled.  You've mentioned a couple of times this one subjective thing and how walking across a map is an annoyance with no benefit.  It sounds as if you don't see our point of view on why travel is a good thing.  

    .. You DO know I replied to you above where I both mention the "why are you not together with friends" scenarios and discuss alternatives? 

    Do you understand though why we don't necessarily agree with this philosophy?

    I understand that people have weird fetishes, but that doesn't mean that should be the norm.  Now go back and re-read my first reply. 

     

     

    The crux of the matter here is i'm not calling what you subjectively enjoy in a game objectively bad design or the wrong way to do something.  You are doing this to me though.  Not every game needs to be made so that everyone will enjoy it.  

    I did not reply to your other post because I just didn't see anything worth replying.  I saw no point in going through point by point and saying "ok i disagree."  I said these things are subjective, you say they aren't "as subjective as i think."  I disagree.  I always thought subjectivity/objectivity were binary states and not on a spectrum.  Bananas are subjectively tasty and objectively yellow.  

    I don't feel meeting someone somehow that is across the world forcing you to travel for a long time to see him/her is inherently bad design.  I don't think pointing out one inconvenience of a system and then saying "See! bad design!" is a very good argument.  Maybe you do and thats ok.  I'll just disagree with that methodology and try not to use it personally.

    I saw no real solutions to the fast travel problem in your other post or this one.

    Just as I see no willingness from you to understand why I don't agree with your philosophy.

    Saying my point of view on the subject is due to a weird fetish I feel either shows you lack understanding on my viewpoint or are being intellectually dishonest.  I at least made an argument for why fast travel is good for a game.

    Once again though, if you're not going to try to understand me or those of us who enjoy the other end of the fast travel spectrum there is no point in discussing it.  You just won't have perspective on the issue if you will only look at it from that one narrow angle.

    Which is not to say you can't understand me, for all I know you can but are just unwilling thus far.

    It is a bit like some of the people who say things like "Full loot pvp is just objectively bad game design."  Often when your personal preferences are dictating what is "objectively" anything you are in error.

     

  • ToferioToferio RandomPosts: 1,405Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
    Originally posted by Toferio
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
     

    Walking for hours across a map to meet your friends, Hyperbole?

    I am not talking about MO but in general, MOs map IS small. 

    Still, I have to wonder.  I have many friends playing this game and every time I log in to the game we are all either very near each other, or running some errand for one another.  Why is this not the case with you and your friends?

    Regardless, i'd like to hear your ideas for how travel should be handled.  You've mentioned a couple of times this one subjective thing and how walking across a map is an annoyance with no benefit.  It sounds as if you don't see our point of view on why travel is a good thing.  

    .. You DO know I replied to you above where I both mention the "why are you not together with friends" scenarios and discuss alternatives? 

    Do you understand though why we don't necessarily agree with this philosophy?

    I understand that people have weird fetishes, but that doesn't mean that should be the norm.  Now go back and re-read my first reply. 

     

     

    The crux of the matter here is i'm not calling what you subjectively enjoy in a game objectively bad design or the wrong way to do something.  You are doing this to me though.  Not every game needs to be made so that everyone will enjoy it.  

    I never said that every game needs to be made so everyone can enjoy it, but certain features are not subjective. Only because YOU personally enjoy them, does not make them subjective by default. Some people are pedophiles (just an argument, not calling anyone here for that) and enjoy certain.. things, that are OBJECTIVELY horrible. I am pulling an extreme example here only to show that your argument of "well, I enjoy it" does not hold up. 

    I did not reply to your other post because I just didn't see anything worth replying.  I saw no point in going through point by point and saying "ok i disagree."  I said these things are subjective, you say they aren't "as subjective as i think."  I disagree.  I always thought subjectivity/objectivity were binary states and not on a spectrum.  Bananas are subjectively tasty and objectively yellow.  

    Yes, and while it is subjective whether you enjoy or not said taste of bananas, it is objective whether it is a healthy fruit or not. Same goes for design. You can enjoy a certain feature all you want, but it can still be a bad design move. Such as, for example, if we took and implemented instant teleportation from anywhere to anywhere in MO. Some people would surely enjoy it, but objectively it is a really bad design decision. I mentioned replying to my post because in your previous ones you raise questions that I answered in my previous reply.

    I don't feel meeting someone somehow that is across the world forcing you to travel for a long time to see him/her is inherently bad design.  I don't think pointing out one inconvenience of a system and then saying "See! bad design!" is a very good argument.  Maybe you do and thats ok.  I'll just disagree with that methodology and try not to use it personally.

    Fair enough that you disagree, we have different opinions and we don't really need to agree on one. But it was worth explaining why I personally consider games that make you waste your time on hours of travel (no MO) for goo game design unless a game is built around traveling as its core. 

    I saw no real solutions to the fast travel problem in your other post or this one. Just as I see no willingness from you to understand why I don't agree with your philosophy.

    There is no real problem to begin with, YOU brought up the discussion and then ignored my arguments regarding traveling and how starvault approached their design. There are decent ways to do fast travel, there are bad ways of doing it. Pulling a blanket statement and saying that it is all subjective is not the way to go. 

    Saying my point of view on the subject is due to a weird fetish I feel either shows you lack understanding on my viewpoint or are being intellectually dishonest.  I at least made an argument for why fast travel is good for a game.

    Once again, I pulled that comparison simply because your subjective opinion on how you like the features in your game has nothing to do with my discussion of general design approach. You have your kinks, fair enough. I am discussing that in general completely ignoring any form of fast travel is a very questionable approach, despite the handful of players to may think it's cool. 

    And I made arguments for why fast travel can be a good/bad thing too. 

    Once again though, if you're not going to try to understand me or those of us who enjoy the other end of the fast travel spectrum there is no point in discussing it.  You just won't have perspective on the issue if you will only look at it from that one narrow angle.

    Once again, this is not about what you personally like. I don't question what your poison is, nor do I care, I am talking about general approach to design in MMORPGs. You are the one who can't grasp that this is not personal, people enjoy many different things and I don't question that, I understand we all have our own preferences. I am simply arguing from the general perspective but you keep pulling "but it's all subjective" argument. Well, duh?

    Which is not to say you can't understand me, for all I know you can but are just unwilling thus far.

    It is a bit like some of the people who say things like "Full loot pvp is just objectively bad game design."  Often when your personal preferences are dictating what is "objectively" anything you are in error.

    And you are letting your own personal preferences to dictate what is subjective or not. Only because you enjoy certain something, you seem to be unable to discuss it from general perspective. There are always exceptions, of course, all I said is that generally speaking lack o any form of fast travel for a big map is not a good design. You start defending it from playing MO, which is not even relevant as the map can be crossed quickly enough. 

  • ShyaticShyatic Hell, NJPosts: 41Member

    Had to reply to this because it's a ridiculous premise.

    Having a great idea is *easy*. Lots of people have great ideas, lots of people can imagine worlds beyond compare, lots of people can think up things that nobody else does.

    DELIVERY is what makes the difference. Mortal Online could *never* have been the best MMORPG ever because it was not started by the best development team ever. Simple as that.

    The premise that "If it were made by a AAA developer with a lot of money and resources" basically is like saying that this Toyota Camry would be the BEST CAR EVER if it was made by Ferrari.

    This game is nothing close to Ultima Online other than skill points. Ultima Online's skillset was one that involved thought, preparation, quick reaction time, and more. MO is a button mashing fest that is highly impacted by poor lag/netcode optimizations, a LOT of luck, and horrible mechanics. It's not even isometric third person like UO, so there really is no comparison. UO involved combinations of attacks (ie, Harm, Explosion, Energy Bolt, Mini Heal, Halberd hit, etc), where MO is again -- basically a button masher largely impacted by very poor optimizations.

    I have learned in a professional capacity that the ability to deliver an idea, organize a team around a set of ideas, have talent on board and recognize that talent and how to best extrapolate it is actually more important than the idea itself. Want to know why? Because a good team and good roadmap in software development actually leads to MORE GOOD IDEAS from within the team, because everybody strives to make it the best.

    What you have in Mortal Online is a kid who thought that because he loved Ultima Online so much, that he would have his father bankroll the development of its "spiritual successor", despite him not having any knowledge of the software development world, hiring a lead programmer whose only claim to fame was making Unreal Mods, and his only experience HIMSELF was selling ads on gambling sites.

    No, Mortal Online was *never* even close to the greatest MMO ever and as it stands right now, it's one of the longest lived farces of an excuse for an MMO that has ever been released, which only goes to show that a rich father can imagine his son to be anything he wants, for as long as he's willing to keep putting up cash. You know, kind of like Paris Hilton being an "actress".

  • RamanadjinnRamanadjinn Huntsville, ALPosts: 1,365Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Toferio

     

     

    And I guess this is why this whole discussion is pointless.  There is nothing here i'm "not grasping."  it is simply a matter of me disagreeing that these things are objectively bad design.  Small scale examples of why something can lead to frustrating gameplay for some people at times just doesn't prove they are.  Not when I am claiming there is give and take to every method a developer might use when implementing a fast travel system.

    My argument doesn't hinge on whether anyone enjoys a feature or not and i'm not the only one making blanket statements.  A lack of fast travel is bad game design is a blanket statement. 

    And i'm sorry if you feel I ignore your arguments.  I read your entire post each time, and as I said before.  If I don't feel you've actually countered any argument i've made with a valid point I may just not address it here.  It is not out of spite but I don't wish to clutter the thread too much arguing over something that will have no resolution.  This is what usually happens when people argue over subjective things in the entertainment industry, there is no resolution.

     

  • RohnRohn Saint Peters, MOPosts: 3,740Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
    Originally posted by Toferio

     

     

    And I guess this is why this whole discussion is pointless.  There is nothing here i'm "not grasping."  it is simply a matter of me disagreeing that these things are objectively bad design.  Small scale examples of why something can lead to frustrating gameplay for some people at times just doesn't prove they are.  Not when I am claiming there is give and take to every method a developer might use when implementing a fast travel system.

    My argument doesn't hinge on whether anyone enjoys a feature or not and i'm not the only one making blanket statements.  A lack of fast travel is bad game design is a blanket statement.

    And i'm sorry if you feel I ignore your arguments.  I read your entire post each time, and as I said before.  If I don't feel you've actually countered any argument i've made with a valid point I may just not address it here.  It is not out of spite but I don't wish to clutter the thread too much arguing over something that will have no resolution.  This is what usually happens when people argue over subjective things in the entertainment industry, there is no resolution.

     

     

    Absolutely.  The argument over fast travel as an aspect of game design is a matter of subjective opinion, and as such, cannot be argued to a black and white "fact".

    The lack of fast travel in the game is one of the things that gives MO it's overall flavor.  It is basic to the game's design.  Some people like that factor being incorporated into the game, some don't.  There's no way to please everyone.

    Personally, I think easy, constant fast travel in games has hurt the overall world feel in those games.  That's just me, and I don't expect everyone to agree.  I'm glad it's not an element in MO, though, because it's one of the elements I really like about it.

    Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.

  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLPosts: 4,529Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Shyatic

    Had to reply to this because it's a ridiculous premise.

    Having a great idea is *easy*. Lots of people have great ideas, lots of people can imagine worlds beyond compare, lots of people can think up things that nobody else does.

    DELIVERY is what makes the difference. Mortal Online could *never* have been the best MMORPG ever because it was not started by the best development team ever. Simple as that.

    The premise that "If it were made by a AAA developer with a lot of money and resources" basically is like saying that this Toyota Camry would be the BEST CAR EVER if it was made by Ferrari.

    This game is nothing close to Ultima Online other than skill points. Ultima Online's skillset was one that involved thought, preparation, quick reaction time, and more. MO is a button mashing fest that is highly impacted by poor lag/netcode optimizations, a LOT of luck, and horrible mechanics. It's not even isometric third person like UO, so there really is no comparison. UO involved combinations of attacks (ie, Harm, Explosion, Energy Bolt, Mini Heal, Halberd hit, etc), where MO is again -- basically a button masher largely impacted by very poor optimizations.

    I have learned in a professional capacity that the ability to deliver an idea, organize a team around a set of ideas, have talent on board and recognize that talent and how to best extrapolate it is actually more important than the idea itself. Want to know why? Because a good team and good roadmap in software development actually leads to MORE GOOD IDEAS from within the team, because everybody strives to make it the best.

    What you have in Mortal Online is a kid who thought that because he loved Ultima Online so much, that he would have his father bankroll the development of its "spiritual successor", despite him not having any knowledge of the software development world, hiring a lead programmer whose only claim to fame was making Unreal Mods, and his only experience HIMSELF was selling ads on gambling sites.

    No, Mortal Online was *never* even close to the greatest MMO ever and as it stands right now, it's one of the longest lived farces of an excuse for an MMO that has ever been released, which only goes to show that a rich father can imagine his son to be anything he wants, for as long as he's willing to keep putting up cash. You know, kind of like Paris Hilton being an "actress".

    ABSOLUTELY!  This is why I always took people to task for saying "Yeah it sucks now but it has POTENTIAL".

     

    Every single game could POTENTIALLY be great if X, Y, and Z happened. Even disasters like WarZ..  or MO.   Greatness however is not measured by what "could have happened"...

     

    That is actually how we measure failure.  Failure to reach its potential and thus wasting it.

     

     

     

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • ToferioToferio RandomPosts: 1,405Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Rohn
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn
    Originally posted by Toferio

     

     

    And I guess this is why this whole discussion is pointless.  There is nothing here i'm "not grasping."  it is simply a matter of me disagreeing that these things are objectively bad design.  Small scale examples of why something can lead to frustrating gameplay for some people at times just doesn't prove they are.  Not when I am claiming there is give and take to every method a developer might use when implementing a fast travel system.

    My argument doesn't hinge on whether anyone enjoys a feature or not and i'm not the only one making blanket statements.  A lack of fast travel is bad game design is a blanket statement.

    And i'm sorry if you feel I ignore your arguments.  I read your entire post each time, and as I said before.  If I don't feel you've actually countered any argument i've made with a valid point I may just not address it here.  It is not out of spite but I don't wish to clutter the thread too much arguing over something that will have no resolution.  This is what usually happens when people argue over subjective things in the entertainment industry, there is no resolution.

     

     

    Absolutely.  The argument over fast travel as an aspect of game design is a matter of subjective opinion, and as such, cannot be argued to a black and white "fact".

    The lack of fast travel in the game is one of the things that gives MO it's overall flavor.  It is basic to the game's design.  Some people like that factor being incorporated into the game, some don't.  There's no way to please everyone.

    MO is not even relevant to the argument because of its small map :p

  • Vexus_XVexus_X Orlando, FLPosts: 40Member
    Originally posted by Toferio
    Minecraft, hardcore? Are you freaking serious? You are mixing everything into same pile. DayZ, like Demons's Souls, has challenging hardcore design. Games like MO and EoC (I think) have pain in the rear hardcore design. There is no challenge to it, just annoyance and waste of time, as per examples above. Did you entirely miss the last two sentences of the paragraph you are quoting? I am all in for a challenging game, but walking for hours across the map just to meet with a friend is not a challenge, it is an annoyance and the sooner you "hardcore" fans understand it, the sooner we will have an awesome, challenging game. I can't wait for it either, but it has to be well designed. 

    Yes, Minecraft at its roots is a hardcore game.  It is harsh and unforgiving.  Nothing is handed to you.  You have to work for everything you do.  There is no fast travel, and if you are out of position it could take hours to reach your friends.  Of course, it is casual to jump in and start mining.  But consider the end-game, where you have players now with years invested into their world, shaping it to be something spectacular.  It is a huge amount of work to make that happen - nothing is given to you for free - and all those blocks each placed by a person, each with some effort behind it, makes it hardcore.  Casual games remove the semblance of 'work' from gameplay.  They just make it fun i.e. Guild Wars 2.  Have fun, but don't work, don't invest in the character or the world.  That is the difference.

     

    Walking for hours IS a challenge, and is a lot of fun... I have to take a step back and remind you we are talking about hardcore games here.  MO is a hardcore game, and that is where we are posting.  It is completely subjective, as others have noted, but please keep in mind that we have been given games with instant teleportation to anywhere in the game world.  We know how it works and there are those of us who feel it degrades the game.

    Your whole approach when you think of 'walking for hours to meet with your friends to finally enjoy the content' is flawed.  If you think that 'doing the content' is the reason for playing a hardcore game you are wrong.  The content is the people in the game with you.  This is why the games are so harsh, because people are harsh, and so most of the time you try to avoid random people in hardcore games.  The content then becomes scarce, and you look around thinking what kind of instances or dungeons or NPCs there are to interact with, and fail completely at understanding the game.

    The reason 'walking for hours' is fun is because it is meaningful, as I said before.  It is because if you walk for hours to a rare location and set up shop with a few friends, you know you have the advantage over anyone else coming to that area the longer you are in that area.  It will take any single person hours to find you, and take their group hours of walking to come assault your location, and as such it is meaningful to have those encounters.  You know when you see someone way off in nowheresville that it is a rare occurrence, and needs to be treated with some respect; if he is more skilled than you, you might lose everything.  Or, if you are lying in wait with your friends to ambush the one passerby-per-week, you may gain all that poor soul had.  You may start a large conflict from such a thing, or end up never hearing from that player again... who knows.

    What is boring, is grinding NPC mobs in the middle of a field, engaging some frequent but random passerby of the enemy faction which has been predetermined for you, and having his friend log in randomly and fly to the location to help in the matter of a minute or two.  What is the 'meaning' in that except to put you all back on the grind?

     

    I have been playing Salem a lot recently, and it achieves this kind of 'run for hours to meet with friends' by making the content the simple act of building or maintaining your town.  There are no dungeons, or boss monsters to kill.  Everything relies on the potential fatal permadeath interaction of other players into your game experience.  Why build a town where someone could come along and demolish much of it?  Because you too want to get to a point where you can come along and demolish someone else's town, and thus, there is a need to build a town to advance.  I never need to run for hours to meet with my friends; they are logged out around my town, and there is no reason to go off for miles for no reason, and so we become familiar with our local terrain and resources.  We all work to better the town to thus better ourselves, and in doing so it becomes fun when the game systems click in your mind.  Fun isn't determined by how many NPCs you were able to kill, no, the fun is determined by what you were able to achieve together as a group that left to your own devices would have taken an exponential amount of time.  The core of hardcore gaming exists in Salem.  I would argue some of its flaws actually lie in the ez-mode things such as the initial free-teleport to your friends, among other things.

     

    Hardcore is not for everyone.  So if you want to hurry up and get to the 'content' then you need to go back to a casual game.  EVE is a hardcore game where current players are half a decade invested into massive conglomerates.  That is the potential in a hardcore game which cannot happen in GW2, WoW, COD, BF4, or any other casual game we could care to talk about.  Hardcore really means 'meaning'.  Each action, each choice, each movement left right forward or backward, means something in the large scope of the entire game.  That is something we crave when playing any game, it just gets masked by faking you into thinking that killing 100x monsters has some kind of meaning besides allowing you to see the next 'content' sooner.  That is why we call it a Themepark MMO; stand in line at the spawning location of mobs until you can get on the 'ride' which is the main boss and say you've rode the Great Awesome Raid Dungeon!

  • ZeerahaZeeraha ZagrebPosts: 67Member
    Originally posted by Shyatic

    Had to reply to this because it's a ridiculous premise.

    Having a great idea is *easy*. Lots of people have great ideas, lots of people can imagine worlds beyond compare, lots of people can think up things that nobody else does.

    DELIVERY is what makes the difference. Mortal Online could *never* have been the best MMORPG ever because it was not started by the best development team ever. Simple as that.

    The premise that "If it were made by a AAA developer with a lot of money and resources" basically is like saying that this Toyota Camry would be the BEST CAR EVER if it was made by Ferrari.

    This game is nothing close to Ultima Online other than skill points. Ultima Online's skillset was one that involved thought, preparation, quick reaction time, and more. MO is a button mashing fest that is highly impacted by poor lag/netcode optimizations, a LOT of luck, and horrible mechanics. It's not even isometric third person like UO, so there really is no comparison. UO involved combinations of attacks (ie, Harm, Explosion, Energy Bolt, Mini Heal, Halberd hit, etc), where MO is again -- basically a button masher largely impacted by very poor optimizations.

    I have learned in a professional capacity that the ability to deliver an idea, organize a team around a set of ideas, have talent on board and recognize that talent and how to best extrapolate it is actually more important than the idea itself. Want to know why? Because a good team and good roadmap in software development actually leads to MORE GOOD IDEAS from within the team, because everybody strives to make it the best.

    What you have in Mortal Online is a kid who thought that because he loved Ultima Online so much, that he would have his father bankroll the development of its "spiritual successor", despite him not having any knowledge of the software development world, hiring a lead programmer whose only claim to fame was making Unreal Mods, and his only experience HIMSELF was selling ads on gambling sites.

    No, Mortal Online was *never* even close to the greatest MMO ever and as it stands right now, it's one of the longest lived farces of an excuse for an MMO that has ever been released, which only goes to show that a rich father can imagine his son to be anything he wants, for as long as he's willing to keep putting up cash. You know, kind of like Paris Hilton being an "actress".

    I see good starting points, but why all the ad hominem arguments? If one looks previous SV's financial reports and current investments, you can see there are many sources of financing, largest owner/investor of SV is Nordnet pension fund, I couldn't find any connection to Henrik's father.

    Considering MO's gaming development, due to recent events, I believe it will live up to grow closer to starting vision. Like previously said, due to developer's inexperience and financial constraints, it will take some time, but there is a chance that it will eventually be quite good game. Even if MO never makes profitable game, why wouldn't it survive if there is enough people that can financially support it. Maybe even as a non profit project.

  • ilivesilives Fort Dodge, KSPosts: 418Member
    Originally posted by Zeeraha
    Originally posted by Shyatic

    Had to reply to this because it's a ridiculous premise.

    Having a great idea is *easy*. Lots of people have great ideas, lots of people can imagine worlds beyond compare, lots of people can think up things that nobody else does.

    DELIVERY is what makes the difference. Mortal Online could *never* have been the best MMORPG ever because it was not started by the best development team ever. Simple as that.

    The premise that "If it were made by a AAA developer with a lot of money and resources" basically is like saying that this Toyota Camry would be the BEST CAR EVER if it was made by Ferrari.

    This game is nothing close to Ultima Online other than skill points. Ultima Online's skillset was one that involved thought, preparation, quick reaction time, and more. MO is a button mashing fest that is highly impacted by poor lag/netcode optimizations, a LOT of luck, and horrible mechanics. It's not even isometric third person like UO, so there really is no comparison. UO involved combinations of attacks (ie, Harm, Explosion, Energy Bolt, Mini Heal, Halberd hit, etc), where MO is again -- basically a button masher largely impacted by very poor optimizations.

    I have learned in a professional capacity that the ability to deliver an idea, organize a team around a set of ideas, have talent on board and recognize that talent and how to best extrapolate it is actually more important than the idea itself. Want to know why? Because a good team and good roadmap in software development actually leads to MORE GOOD IDEAS from within the team, because everybody strives to make it the best.

    What you have in Mortal Online is a kid who thought that because he loved Ultima Online so much, that he would have his father bankroll the development of its "spiritual successor", despite him not having any knowledge of the software development world, hiring a lead programmer whose only claim to fame was making Unreal Mods, and his only experience HIMSELF was selling ads on gambling sites.

    No, Mortal Online was *never* even close to the greatest MMO ever and as it stands right now, it's one of the longest lived farces of an excuse for an MMO that has ever been released, which only goes to show that a rich father can imagine his son to be anything he wants, for as long as he's willing to keep putting up cash. You know, kind of like Paris Hilton being an "actress".

    I see good starting points, .

    News Flash...MO RELEASED OVER 3 YEARS AGO! image

    Where have all the "good" shills gone?

  • ZeerahaZeeraha ZagrebPosts: 67Member
    Originally posted by ilives
    Originally posted by Zeeraha
    Originally posted by Shyatic

    Had to reply to this because it's a ridiculous premise.

    Having a great idea is *easy*. Lots of people have great ideas, lots of people can imagine worlds beyond compare, lots of people can think up things that nobody else does.

    DELIVERY is what makes the difference. Mortal Online could *never* have been the best MMORPG ever because it was not started by the best development team ever. Simple as that.

    The premise that "If it were made by a AAA developer with a lot of money and resources" basically is like saying that this Toyota Camry would be the BEST CAR EVER if it was made by Ferrari.

    This game is nothing close to Ultima Online other than skill points. Ultima Online's skillset was one that involved thought, preparation, quick reaction time, and more. MO is a button mashing fest that is highly impacted by poor lag/netcode optimizations, a LOT of luck, and horrible mechanics. It's not even isometric third person like UO, so there really is no comparison. UO involved combinations of attacks (ie, Harm, Explosion, Energy Bolt, Mini Heal, Halberd hit, etc), where MO is again -- basically a button masher largely impacted by very poor optimizations.

    I have learned in a professional capacity that the ability to deliver an idea, organize a team around a set of ideas, have talent on board and recognize that talent and how to best extrapolate it is actually more important than the idea itself. Want to know why? Because a good team and good roadmap in software development actually leads to MORE GOOD IDEAS from within the team, because everybody strives to make it the best.

    What you have in Mortal Online is a kid who thought that because he loved Ultima Online so much, that he would have his father bankroll the development of its "spiritual successor", despite him not having any knowledge of the software development world, hiring a lead programmer whose only claim to fame was making Unreal Mods, and his only experience HIMSELF was selling ads on gambling sites.

    No, Mortal Online was *never* even close to the greatest MMO ever and as it stands right now, it's one of the longest lived farces of an excuse for an MMO that has ever been released, which only goes to show that a rich father can imagine his son to be anything he wants, for as long as he's willing to keep putting up cash. You know, kind of like Paris Hilton being an "actress".

    I see good starting points, .

    News Flash...MO RELEASED OVER 3 YEARS AGO! image

    So what if MO released 3 years ago. Release date has no real reference whatsoever concerning ongoing development. CCP was developing EVE online for 5 years before its unstable release in 2003 and was successful longterm. MO development started in 2007, 6 years ago, but it released prematurely and even sifnificant revenue out of client sale and subs. MO still can make it, even if it is compared to development pace of other succesfull titles.

  • ilivesilives Fort Dodge, KSPosts: 418Member
    Originally posted by Zeeraha
    Originally posted by ilives
    Originally posted by Zeeraha
    Originally posted by Shyatic

    Had to reply to this because it's a ridiculous premise.

    Having a great idea is *easy*. Lots of people have great ideas, lots of people can imagine worlds beyond compare, lots of people can think up things that nobody else does.

    DELIVERY is what makes the difference. Mortal Online could *never* have been the best MMORPG ever because it was not started by the best development team ever. Simple as that.

    The premise that "If it were made by a AAA developer with a lot of money and resources" basically is like saying that this Toyota Camry would be the BEST CAR EVER if it was made by Ferrari.

    This game is nothing close to Ultima Online other than skill points. Ultima Online's skillset was one that involved thought, preparation, quick reaction time, and more. MO is a button mashing fest that is highly impacted by poor lag/netcode optimizations, a LOT of luck, and horrible mechanics. It's not even isometric third person like UO, so there really is no comparison. UO involved combinations of attacks (ie, Harm, Explosion, Energy Bolt, Mini Heal, Halberd hit, etc), where MO is again -- basically a button masher largely impacted by very poor optimizations.

    I have learned in a professional capacity that the ability to deliver an idea, organize a team around a set of ideas, have talent on board and recognize that talent and how to best extrapolate it is actually more important than the idea itself. Want to know why? Because a good team and good roadmap in software development actually leads to MORE GOOD IDEAS from within the team, because everybody strives to make it the best.

    What you have in Mortal Online is a kid who thought that because he loved Ultima Online so much, that he would have his father bankroll the development of its "spiritual successor", despite him not having any knowledge of the software development world, hiring a lead programmer whose only claim to fame was making Unreal Mods, and his only experience HIMSELF was selling ads on gambling sites.

    No, Mortal Online was *never* even close to the greatest MMO ever and as it stands right now, it's one of the longest lived farces of an excuse for an MMO that has ever been released, which only goes to show that a rich father can imagine his son to be anything he wants, for as long as he's willing to keep putting up cash. You know, kind of like Paris Hilton being an "actress".

    I see good starting points, .

    News Flash...MO RELEASED OVER 3 YEARS AGO! image

    So what if MO released 3 years ago. Release date has no real reference whatsoever concerning ongoing development. CCP was developing EVE online for 5 years before its unstable release in 2003 and was successful longterm. MO development started in 2007, 6 years ago, but it released prematurely and even sifnificant revenue out of client sale and subs. MO still can make it, even if it is compared to development pace of other succesfull titles.

    But....EVE had a good foundation and actually got much better. image  MO is a blight on the genre.

    Where have all the "good" shills gone?

  • RamanadjinnRamanadjinn Huntsville, ALPosts: 1,365Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ilives
     

    But....EVE had a good foundation and actually got much better. image  MO is a blight on the genre.

     

    I feel Mortal Online had a good foundation and got better.   While Eve is great, MO is the best of the genre at this time.  Thats how different perspectives work I guess.

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid hell, NJPosts: 6,787Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    One of the worst games I've tried. It fails in nearly every aspect but graphics. And graphics are not without problems either.

    this. The graphics are dated as well, but if the game was at least good and smooth the graphics would be just fine. THis game has a lot of good ideas, all poorly executed (big time).

    image
  • AnubisanAnubisan Boulder, COPosts: 1,801Member
    Originally posted by ilives

    But....EVE had a good foundation and actually got much better. image  MO is a blight on the genre.

    In your opinion maybe. In mine, the game has improved VASTLY over the last three years and is the only game in the genre that I actually want to play. Good thing we are each entitled to our own opinions...

  • ilivesilives Fort Dodge, KSPosts: 418Member
    Originally posted by rojo6934
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    One of the worst games I've tried. It fails in nearly every aspect but graphics. And graphics are not without problems either.

    this. The graphics are dated as well, but if the game was at least good and smooth the graphics would be just fine. THis game has a lot of good ideas, all poorly executed (big time).

    I think the graphics are the only thing going for MO.

    Where have all the "good" shills gone?

  • ilivesilives Fort Dodge, KSPosts: 418Member
    Originally posted by Anubisan
    Originally posted by ilives

    But....EVE had a good foundation and actually got much better. image  MO is a blight on the genre.

    In your opinion maybe. In mine, the game has improved VASTLY over the last three years and is the only game in the genre that I actually want to play. Good thing we are each entitled to our own opinions...

    They still haven't fixed desync and prediction image

    Where have all the "good" shills gone?

  • ZeerahaZeeraha ZagrebPosts: 67Member
    Originally posted by ilives
    Originally posted by Anubisan
    Originally posted by ilives

    But....EVE had a good foundation and actually got much better. image  MO is a blight on the genre.

    In your opinion maybe. In mine, the game has improved VASTLY over the last three years and is the only game in the genre that I actually want to play. Good thing we are each entitled to our own opinions...

    They still haven't fixed desync and prediction image

    [mod edit]Desync is not an issue in MO since 2 years ago (to be precise, for players that have normal broadband connection). Prediction will never be resolved for players having high latency, only solution is placing servers on each continents. I live in EU, and never experienced prediction problems, not since release. 

  • ilivesilives Fort Dodge, KSPosts: 418Member
    Originally posted by Zeeraha
    Originally posted by ilives
    Originally posted by Anubisan
    Originally posted by ilives

    But....EVE had a good foundation and actually got much better. image  MO is a blight on the genre.

    In your opinion maybe. In mine, the game has improved VASTLY over the last three years and is the only game in the genre that I actually want to play. Good thing we are each entitled to our own opinions...

    They still haven't fixed desync and prediction image

    Please don't lie or troll. Desync is not an issue in MO since 2 years ago (to be precise, for players that have normal broadband connection). Prediction will never be resolved for players having high latency, only solution is placing servers on each continents. I live in EU, and never experienced prediction problems, not since release. 

    Whatever, go watch a few recent videos.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LksqMmdlBWM

    When the players perceived position and the server don't match, they are DESYNCED.  It's really obvious when you run two accounts.

     

    Funny...you call me a liar and troll, but then add a caveat. image

     

    Prediction will never be fixed period, unless they rewrite the entire game.  Its one of those core issue that I was referring to earlier. Saying you've never experienced prediction problems is just false, by it's very nature it impacts all players.  Why has Henrik wasted so much time  trying to fix predection then, how many times has it been "fixed"? Y

    Where have all the "good" shills gone?

  • RajCajRajCaj Lafayette, LAPosts: 694Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by grimrot

    ...if it was a AAA title made by a company with a ton of money and resources.

    The immense detail, freedom, and realism in this true sandbox MMORPG is unsurpassed. The problem is that the graphics, animations,  environments, production quality, etc are a bit lackluster and bug ridden, although I am still having a blast playing it.

    In fact, I just began playing it for the first time a few days ago and I am blown away by pretty much everything. For me, it seems like almost a dream come true having just about everything I ever wanted in an MMORPG. It feels like a much more detailed multiplayer Skyrim and what Elder Scrolls Online should have been more like.

    My dream is that a big company would buy this game and simply remake it with a better engine leaving almost everything else intact.

    This game is pretty much the closest thing to an Ultima Online in 3D predecessor that I could ever imagine.

    If only the majority of new MMORPGs coming out were more like this game, I think most of us would be a lot more excited.

    There is one pesky detail in all that.....COST

     

    The more money a game costs, the wider the scope of the game needs to be, in order to attract enough subscribers to not only break even, but make earnings that made the investment worth while.

     

    No AAA publisher will drop 10-100 million on a MMO game that appealed to the same niche audience that Mortal Online appeals to...even if it were as successful as EVE and pulled in 300-400k subs.

     

    Lets assume a publisher like EA, or Blizzard picked up the game (ignoring the fact they would likley have to essentially start from scratch), they would likely redesign the entire game, so that it is palatable by the millions of casual MMO gamers, to the point where you wouldn't  recognize the game.

     

    MMOs that appeal to niche audiences will need to be relatively cheap, so that the game can be financially viable, while limiting it's revenue base with polarizing features such as FFA PvP, Loot Drop on Death, Slow Skill / Level Gains, Competitive Resources Constraints, Team / Group Dependent Content, etc.

2
Sign In or Register to comment.