Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
So what do you think?
GrayGhost79
Member UncommonPosts: 4,775
Basicaly what I am wondering is......
DF or Mortal
1) Do people think DF and MO are going to be able to co-exist? I mean there both going after the same community basicaly. DF has more of the features many have been asking for while MO seems they may have the graphics some have been asking for.
2) If they can not co-exist will the competition between DF and MO finaly answer the question of "gameplay vs graphics which is better"? MO seems to have the better graphics (If the teaser is in game footage) but falls short of the gameplay value of DarkFall. Age of Conan even has a hard time with 45 vs 45 battles with the major instancing they have. A Large open seamless world with graphics like what many of you have told me MO will have seems ... like a realy bad idea to me, but we will have to wait and see.
3) Both games claim to be based on the spirit of UO to some extent, which game do you feel will be more like the old UO many of us knew and loved?
4) Not having heard otherwise yet I will assume that MO will have CE's and pre-orders and do the standard no free trial (Until much later on) which is standard in the industry, Which method do people preffer DF's no CE's or pre-orders and a free trial from the start so that you have played before ever spending money on the game or CE's , pre-orders and the standard 50-60$+ out of pocket to try the game which is the industry standard which MO will more than likely follow?
I do not deny I am a DarkFall fan and have little intrest in MO ( I did not say no interest just little) because it just doesn't seem to have the Gameplay value of DarkFall. If DF were to fail I may check out MO.
Comments
My take:
I am looking forward to both games, but as it stands, I will jump ship for MO from DF on launch day. I personally don't think that Aventurine will deliver a quality, polished product, but I do think I will be able to enjoy it based on premise alone. From what little we have seen from SV, MO is looking to be a very well done sandbox game with the added bonus of looking great.
Only time will tell, but I'm sure that once DF comes out it will have a following that will never want to leave, and a following that will jump ship to MO when it launches, some will return to DF, some will stay with MO.
1) Yes, I do think they will be able to co-exist. Why? Because while they do indeed both aim to deliver an UO'esque sandbox environment, there are various traits that set them apart.
2) Gameplay vs Graphics, the age old debate. Well, all I can say is that I hope in the future the day will come when we won't have to sacrifice one of them for the other in a MMORPG game.
That being said, they are currently aiming for about 100 people on your screen simultaneously. May not seem as much, but it will suffice I think.
3) Honestly, no clue.
4) I have no idea what you based that on. They have said absolutely nothing about distributing the game and how trials and all that will be handled. At least not in an official statement.
See that's the thing, you don't know what the gameplay value of either of these games will be. You have no way of knowing that before you try both. I know I sure will.
people will get tired of themepark MMOs sooner or later, so i dont think the games have to be rivals at all.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
I'll let you know after I play them.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
They have annouced how they are going to distribute the game, around when they lauched the website. They are gonna sell the game itself for around 300 sek (which is around 40 us dollars ) online for a digital download and then charge a monthly fee. They do not have a distributor at all.
But the document that says that is in swedish so I understand that it's kinda hard to read if you're not swedish .
Yeah Mptr, now that you mentioned it I remember this being discussed somewhere.
But is there any info about free trials? I certainly don't recall.
L1ghtsaber: afaik we don't know about any free testing period. Beside devs really want that all feature players have the chance to test the game, before they actually have to pay. I don't know a good way to let this wish come true.
3/7/14day free trial sucks; free starting zones sucks (in the way spellborn is going to have), 10 day friend ticket sucks ... is there any other method ?
--
/thread
Remember, your advantage lies in your opponent's weakness (J)
I am a Sandbox fan, at the moment I am following Darkfall, but I am well open to MO, Earthrise and Fallen Earth.
I don't see how the OP can judge the Gamplay of either, since I guess he didn t play DF or MO.
Anyway I try them both and will play the best gameplay, graphic is secondary to me (although important)
Obviously Ill play both just like everyone here, however I think MO has the look and hopfully the feel of the next big sandbox. If i were a betting man I would put my money on MO mainly because the graphics far exceed DF's. Alot of things can/will change so we'll see.
And that exactly is MO's biggest potential mistake; demanding graphics that will force them to tone down gameplay features.
if theres market for 12 WoW clones I'm sure there's market for 2 UO/AC clones
OK , I see you want to play smart;, tell that to AoC developers and ask them how it worked out with their intended 'massive siege battles' .
And that exactly is MO's biggest potential mistake; demanding graphics that will force them to tone down gameplay features.
Mistake? WTF?! This doesn't force them to do anything, lmao. Graphics and gameplay are developed by separate people, you don't have to sacrifice anything. So because people have 4 year old computers game developers shouldn't push hardware to it's limits for the people with the hardware so they can have the best experience possible? It's not 2003 anymore, get a new computer and shut the fuck up about it, I'm sick of these "omg graphics too good game must suck," people.
I disagree. In AoC it would be unplayable for anyone besides people 3way SLI'ing to have 200 people on the same screen fighting without a great deal of lag. I'll giv eup graphics for gameplay.
And that exactly is MO's biggest potential mistake; demanding graphics that will force them to tone down gameplay features.
Mistake? WTF?! This doesn't force them to do anything, lmao. Graphics and gameplay are developed by separate people, you don't have to sacrifice anything. So because people have 4 year old computers game developers shouldn't push hardware to it's limits for the people with the hardware so they can have the best experience possible? It's not 2003 anymore, get a new computer and shut the fuck up about it, I'm sick of these "omg graphics too good game must suck," people.
I disagree. In AoC it would be unplayable for anyone besides people 3way SLI'ing to have 200 people on the same screen fighting without a great deal of lag. I'll giv eup graphics for gameplay.
It's not Starvault's fault that AoC's engine is absolutely terrible, it's Funcoms.
Last time I said what i think about mortal.... i got banned for a few days....
now u can imagine what i think about this....
Right on.Both will get a shot from myself and we'll see where the chips fall.
Locked due to necro.