It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by greenreen Originally posted by lizardbones I did, right up until I played in the City of Steam beta. It can actually work. I still prefer a downloadable client though. It seems like the control scheme was a bit wonky, but I can't be sure if that was because of the web client, or if they just made a wonky control scheme.
This gives an overview of what is mostly baked into the DOM http://w3schools.com/jsref/dom_obj_event.asp This gives it to you in nerd speak from the board that creates all the standards. http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Events/events.html
That might give you info to decide if it was a limitation of the system or them being obtuse.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Browser, 2d, or anything that looks like it'll run on an SNES.
I'm exceptionally baffled at games that are developed today, that require you to pay for them, but look like they would run on an 8bit console.
Edit: My problem with browser based is that you can make really good looking games with a lot of depth that is browser based, but I have yet to see one that doesn't look horrible.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!
Originally posted by Zaradoom Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by BearKnight Originally posted by greenreen I think that's because the right devs aren't all there yet or are just getting into things. Browsers are poised for being a big thing with some of the new tech.
Sorry, but as a developer I can tell you that Browser based MMORPG's will NEVER take off unless some drastically fantastic tech is integrated into future browsers.
Web Browsers have resource limitations that every engine I have come across run into, and eventually stone-wall to death over.
Non-browser based games will always have the advantage of pure system-resource access allowing much more fidelity and control over BB-Games. Only PR spinning a game into levels of ludicrously high Hype would ever go anywhere. As only lies and frustrating promises will ever get a BrowserBased MMORPG off the ground.
Free Realms, Travian, Runescape and Evony are just a few reasons why you probably should dial back on your "I'm (supposedly) a developer, so I know" shtick.
Might want to doublecheck your facts.
Neither of those games you listed is a MMORPG of any value to speak of. All of those games are near the "trash"definition and are FAR from being a good game. I am not even sure IF they are even considered MMORPGs, Travian for sure is not.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I don't even make it as far as looking at browser based games...
Maybe I've missed out on real gems?
What happens when you log off your characters????.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMkDark Age of Camelot
Not really, I have tried several. But this is the same as with "normal" pc mmorpg's
If I read about things that makes the overal game seem fun and the artwork could be something I either enjoy or might get use to.
Browser games are often free so there is not much risk apart them trying to get you to spend money in their cs.
I don't discard them. Some are fun even if it's short term.
Originally posted by DibdabsNo, I'm just the same as regards browser games. Other game genres that instantly make me lose all interest are 2D games, platformers and arena/lobby games. there's nothing inherently wrong with them but they just don't appeal to me.
Like you said, nothing wrong with these games and they appeal to many players. They just are not my cup o' tea.
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I haven't played any, but I have looked at 2d listings before, to see if anyone had a game out similar to UO, be it browser or not, but 2d.
I will read listing and such some, but I would say the things that throw me first are payment type and what you can buy. If I find it too reaching, I don't bother.
Most browser MMO games are Pay to Win and/or have severe limitations like Energy/Stamina in place. They're generally all about monetization for maximum profit and artificial time sinks to delay progression through the limited content available.
However, they're not all cheap cash grabs. I've played a few that are legitimately good games without a ton of restrictions and money grabbing. It's very uncommon to see a decent browser game though.
I usually just look for the publisher attached to a browser game and decide to brush it off from there. I'm not going to name any names but certain companies constantly push out crappy browser based cash grabs every month or two. Let's just say that they encourage everybody to get maximum VIP while pushing out new servers every week and then release a new game a couple months later.
IMO the majority of browser games are traps designed to steal the money of careless gamers.
wake me up when there is one that isn't point/click to move.
worst mechanic ever.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by BearKnight Originally posted by greenreen I think that's because the right devs aren't all there yet or are just getting into things. Browsers are poised for being a big thing with some of the new tech.
Given that Evony is primarily known for its awful browser-based ads that had nothing to do with the game, maybe that's not the best example.
Making a browser-based game really cripples what you can do. But making a game for NES also really crippled what you could do as compared to modern computers, and that didn't stop Tecmo Super Bowl from being a great game. Still, anything you can do in a browser, you could have done better in a standalone client. Some games have done both.
But you know what's worse than browser-based games? Facebook-based games.
Originally posted by Quizzical
Originally posted by azmundai wake me up when there is one that isn't point/click to move. worst mechanic ever.
Dungeon rampage .
It not good , but not point/click to move.
Originally posted by Quizzical Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by BearKnight Originally posted by greenreen I think that's because the right devs aren't all there yet or are just getting into things. Browsers are poised for being a big thing with some of the new tech.
In what way do you see Runescape, Travian or Free Realms 'really crippled'?
Point and click movement completely kills it for me. I won't get far enough into it to see if it's any good or not.
Anything java based just has to much security baggage to make it appealing.
WASD movement or directional keys and I''m golden.
Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by Quizzical Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by BearKnight Originally posted by greenreen I think that's because the right devs aren't all there yet or are just getting into things. Browsers are poised for being a big thing with some of the new tech.
Crippled not so much in a sense of "game is bad" as "developers faced some severe restrictions that they wouldn't have faced with a standalone client". For example, not being able to get much use out of the GPU.
It's not just the tools you use, of course. What you do with them matters, too. A lot. Which is why I cited Tecmo Super Bowl: the hardware capabilities of the NES were vastly inferior to what you have available in a modern cell phone.
Still, Runescape is easily the worst MMORPG that I've ever played. That's a good deal of selection bias, though. It was my first MMORPG, and a learning experience on what to avoid in future games.
Depends on the type of game. Card games work fine as a browser game. Board games work fine as browser games. Even some turn based strategy games are fine as a browser game.
I can't say I've ever played an RPG or action browser game that I liked.
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
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Originally posted by Siveria Am I the only one who reads about a mmorpg, then the second I find out its a browser mmorpg I just kinda turn my scoff at it and walk away? I've never personally played a browser mmorpg that was any good. If you know of any please link me, i need something to play and I will try pretty much anything at this point. I have played alot of mmo's thou. Though only tried a few broswer mmo's because well.. they sucked. Anyway, I cannot be the only one who thinks like this am I?
You're not. No offense, but I didn't even want to read your POST about scoffing at browser-based MMOs. :P
Originally posted by Torvaldr Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by BearKnight Originally posted by greenreen I think that's because the right devs aren't all there yet or are just getting into things. Browsers are poised for being a big thing with some of the new tech.
Well said! not to mention that every engine has resource, technological, and other, limitations. That's why different devs choose different engines. I really hate when people use crappy logic backed by the authority fallacy so they can promote a biased agenda.
And what is "greater fidelity" as it relates to "non-browser based games". What are "pure system resources" as opposed to impure system resources? What control are we talking about - graphics and sound API control? If someone is going to throw around techy blah then they should explain what they mean so those of us who aren't "real developers" might try and understand.
Well i will give him this, who wants to add another layer between the game and resources. It would be like saying oh this is mantle ready but it goes through a browers, doesnt that kind of defeat the purpose? Also if Java or adobe is involved, that is just asking for trouble.
Then that extra layer, being a browser, is also prone to all sorts of problems like memory leaks. I cant remember a single firefox release that didnt have some sort of memory problem...
What would make much more sense to me is if a developer created their own browser, which is small, then you use that to access their game. Obviously it isnt a true browser and only exists to access the game. This way you get away from the inherent problem of using other peoples software(browsers) and the problems that arise from it and you still have the benefit of having very little to download or install on the client pc.