The reason they have small instances and 48v48 sieges Is obvious. Because its going to be on the Xbox360.
And 48 is quite enough. How often you see more than 20+ people on screen all at once anyway?
Erm, most MMO's thats why there massive? if I wanted a 48v48 match I'd play COD4 or BF2, ever played Planetside when it was new? That was massive.
There is really no need for "massive". I suppose you need massive for the AH, but other than that, the trend is to DECREASE the number of players needed (see WOW reduces the dungeon requirement to get more people into them).
It is just a legacy name from the early days of the industry. All industry evolves and if they want to take the word "massive" out of the title .. i have no problem with it. I also have no problem if they leave it in.
RPG does not mean the same thing as 20 years ago and we still use the term. So it is just semantics.
The reason they have small instances and 48v48 sieges Is obvious. Because its going to be on the Xbox360.
And 48 is quite enough. How often you see more than 20+ people on screen all at once anyway?
Erm, most MMO's thats why there massive? if I wanted a 48v48 match I'd play COD4 or BF2, ever played Planetside when it was new? That was massive.
There is really no need for "massive". I suppose you need massive for the AH, but other than that, the trend is to DECREASE the number of players needed (see WOW reduces the dungeon requirement to get more people into them).
It is just a legacy name from the early days of the industry. All industry evolves and if they want to take the word "massive" out of the title .. i have no problem with it. I also have no problem if they leave it in.
RPG does not mean the same thing as 20 years ago and we still use the term. So it is just semantics.
I think there is need for "massive" its not really semantics, it sets it apart from a normal online game. I want to interact with hundreds of people in a world. Not a few people in a small instance I can do that in Diablo 2 or something I play for free. If this is a trend MMO's will die, just because its massive doesnt mean it has to have 40 man raids either, I thought the whole reason they did that was because the guilds who raided were some damn hardcore and eliteist, the casual gamer saw no endgame nothing to do with population. Infact I would say it increased population because it gave most players more to do.
I didn't like the instancing or offline portion of AOC too....
WOW had a massive seemless world apart from the raids and that is sooo kool but I just wish'd that had been in a skill based mmorpg instead of class based.
AOC isn't worth a frigging dime. I seriously would not even play it if the game were F2P. It's just not my taste for an "MMO". I'd rather go play a big game of COD4 or something.
The only reason AOC has any speed at all right now is because there are a lot of people that loved those old games in the genre (like those mentioned) and they are so desperate for something to play now that will give that feeling again that they just plopped down $50 bucks and are really praying and hoping that AOC will provide the same level of complexity and immersion that those old MMO's did before everything became simplified with these more recent MMO's.
And Warhammer really probably won't be any different. These MMO companies these days don't want to think outside the box and take any risk, because of the huge investment they have to make. They all want to play it safe and follow the Blizzard blueprint.
I won't be buying Warhammer. The only title I could say right now that I'd blindly buy would be a Diablo 3 or a new Star Wars MMO, merely because I'm a fan of those titles. I would be interested in a new sandbox / not holding your hand constantly MMO that actually felt like a living breathing world and not just a bunch of stupid instances.
Now that we can spell, let's move on to the discussion.
I'm not sure why everyone is surprised about AoC. Just rewind four years ago. Another game that was supposed to be next-gen, which failed with making a seamless world. Everquest 2, that's what it was called. Soon after, World of Warcraft made grouping, raiding, and pvp as instances, popular. Then, a revolutionary concept came about with Guild Wars. Private instancing for yourself and party as the whole game concept.
To me, a pure seamless world should have no zoning at all. If anyone can name me an MMORPG with this definition, please list it. Don't be too hard on me either, i started this genre with EQ2.
Speaking of sacrifice, instancing does just that. The days of mob camping, kill stealing, raiding outdoor bosses, have been severely reduced or wiped out totally. Would you really go back to those days just for immersion? If there could be some sort of balance or solution to this, with real revolutionary ideas and concepts, then i would love if instancing would be extinct, but i'm not interested waiting 30 min or longer for a mob to spawn. So, i prefer balance.
Now, fast forward since Guild Wars release. Guild Wars 2 is being developed and abandoning that concept. Why? I'm not sure, but the developers are taking it that way. Maybe private instancing wasn't what the majority of players wanted.
I'm not sure where Hellgate: London fits in all this either, but apparently it's listed on this site as an MMORPG.
The game will be on multiple servers or "worlds," but players will not be bound to a world and may therefore change worlds as they would districts, except that they encompass the entire game, instead of just an outpost.
There will be changes to the instancing system used. Persistent areas, similar to those traditionally used in other online multiplayer games, will be introduced to Guild Wars which may allow players to meet and interact while exploring.
Instances will still be used for missions and dungeons.
An "Event System" will be used to notify players of big events in the world: the return of a dragon, for instance.
Such a tired old argument. It's boring, really. UO, AC, DAoC, and SWG were not seamless. Please go review your nostalgic memories against the realities of those games. They were much more seamless than an instanced, zoned game...yes. But the claim is false...and it simply murders the argument.
SWG not seamless??? You could run at any direction you wanted. Houses had doors that opend and closed, no instances. Same with dungeons. Only with NGE they tryed the "new popular" thing with instances.
But ok, if that doesnt mean seamless, what exactly are AoC then? It doesnt even have a a tenth of freedom that SWG had.
*Yawn* Yes, we all get it, Darkfall is "vaporware" because it's been in development for ages. Instead of spending valuable time marketing the game and making as much media noise as possible to get people sold like countless other let-down titles in the past, perhaps they're actually more concerned with developing their ideal game. That's just my own rational stance on the matter, though.
Unfortunately for Darkfall, it's been in production for far too long. Theres no way possible for the game to live up to all the production time its been in. Look at what a dissappointment Tabula Rasa was after its 5 year production time/rewrite.
So what? Darkfall is an indie project, the more time they spend developing the game, the better it will be in the long run.
And Tabula Rasa was only hyped by ignoramuses. I never thought highly of it, even in its early stages when it wasn't even an action/FPS.
And 'Darkfall' is only hyped by delusional fanbois. Anyone in their right mind can see that Darkfall will never happen, it's beyond belief why it's still listed on this site. It has become a laughing stock to entire community.
I doubt you even read up on the game's progress. Like countless other thoughtless individuals, all you perceive is a negative image due to its low-key media coverage.
If you are impatient, simply don't follow its development or don't play it when it comes out this year. Its success won't depend on its mainstream appeal.
Speaking of sacrifice, instancing does just that. The days of mob camping, kill stealing, raiding outdoor bosses, have been severely reduced or wiped out totally. Would you really go back to those days just for immersion? If there could be some sort of balance or solution to this, with real revolutionary ideas and concepts, then i would love if instancing would be extinct, but i'm not interested waiting 30 min or longer for a mob to spawn. So, i prefer balance.
Make a bigger world. Don't pack it wall-to-wall with mobs. Make mobs spawn dynamically. Let mobs travel.
Voilá! No spawn camping! You don't know where they WILL spawn.
Originally posted by observer
I'm not sure where Hellgate: London fits in all this either, but apparently it's listed on this site as an MMORPG.
Guild Wars is no MMO. It doesn't claim to be, and that is why I respect them more than the other MMO wanna-be's. At least they were open about not being an MMO. That the rest of the world obviously don't understand it, in spite of having been clearly told straight to it's face, is not GW's fault.
Hellgate London and DDO are pseudo-MMOs. They could have made the same game with a serverlist+lobby known from standard multiplayer games like BF and Quake. IMO trying to market themselves as MMO's is an attempt to con the public.
We had seamless worlds in 1997 with UO, in 2000'ish with AC, not long after with DAoC, and then the immense SWG.
God I have just about had it with stupid complaining ass f*ck mmo winers.
We had seamless worlds - cry cry, LOOK AT THE GRAPHIC DIFFERENCE!!!!! the only reason they add instances is because of technical limitations.
I have never seen so many people complain about something the say they like to do.
I have yet to play a MMO that is as fun as a MUD. THE MORE GRAPHICS YOU ADD THE LESS YOU CAN DO.
You want real fun. Give up your precious graphics altogether and go back to MUDing.
I'm sorry but you can't have both. The better the graphics, the simpler the games. Accept it and shut the f*ck up.
I don't think it's unreasonable to want both graphics and the abilities of servers and coding to cope with them to progress with time. The real problem is that graphics now are ahead of the curve....
WoW got it right in the abilities to have graphics which are ok (good choice of art design), and which run on most computers, now and at release. The servers also allow the ability to run from one side of the map to the other without a loading screen or multiple instances of the main world. Instances are used for specific areas and for gameplay reasons.
A previous poster was right in saying that for AOC (and the same for games like Vanguard as well), the graphics were designed before the world.....
I don't think it's unreasonable to want both graphics and the abilities of servers and coding to cope with them to progress with time. The real problem is that graphics now are ahead of the curve....
WoW got it right in the abilities to have graphics which are ok (good choice of art design), and which run on most computers, now and at release. The servers also allow the ability to run from one side of the map to the other without a loading screen or multiple instances of the main world. Instances are used for specific areas and for gameplay reasons. A previous poster was right in saying that for AOC (and the same for games like Vanguard as well), the graphics were designed before the world.....
Graphics is *not* ahead of the curve! Far from it. Software still has some way to go to catch up with the graphics hardware.
Graphics can be scaled dynamically. With tricks like LoD you can scale how detailed graphics should be over distance (far away terrain/objects don't have to be rendered with as much detail because you can't tell the difference anyway). S.T.A.L.K.E.R and Oblivion has already demonstrated that you can have BOTH advanced graphics AND a huge, seamless world.
IMO AoC devs were possibly:
1: Inept
2: Ignorant
3: Unambitious
4: Taking the audience for being stupid
5: Making their game for consoles - PC version being secondary
Your opinion would hold more water if you had some relevant background and you were not referring to single player games as examples.
I would risk a guess myself and say that they developed their in-house engine (AO) that had zone boundaries, thus the updated engine had also zone boundaries.
Your opinion would hold more water if you had some relevant background and you were not referring to single player games as examples. I would risk a guess myself and say that they developed their in-house engine (AO) that had zone boundaries, thus the updated engine had also zone boundaries. What do you think is more possible?
What would you say if I told you I *DO* have some relevant background? I am a game programmer.
When it comes to presentation, the limit is exactly the same for singleplayer games and MMOs. It is a matter of the amount of triangles and textures that can be rendered to the screen. So if S.T.A.L.K.E.R and Oblivion can do it, so can any MMO.
Btw. Funcom started out with trying to extend the AO engine for AoC but gave up and scrapped it and leased the Unreal engine.
AoC - is there any limit to the depth this genre can plummet to?
We had seamless worlds in 1997 with UO, in 2000'ish with AC, not long after with DAoC, and then the immense SWG.
...
Are the players really willingly sitting there, as the developers chip pellet after pellet away on the very foundation of Massive Multiplayer?
The mainstreamification of this genre looks more and more like a curse.
I'm still debating if and when to purchase AoC, and am sorting through threads here in the hopes of finding some information that would help me make a decision.
This thread caught my eye because it makes some assumptions as to what MMOs *should* be.
First and foremost, I'm looking for games that I think will be fun to play, regardless of genre. I can imagine a MMO with no combat in it (maybe something with a lot of social interaction, user generated content, goal directed, etc.). I wouldn't call that a step backward in terms of the genre, just like I wouldn't call it a step forward. It's just a different type of game, and my only concern is whether or not it would be fun for me to play.
If a developer asked my opinion on what features had to be in a game (such as a MMO) for me to consider playing it, I wouldn't be able to give them a list. I'm looking for the game design to be novel, and the features of the game to be consistent with the vision of the game. I have no preconceptions about what the MMO genre should be, just like I can't imagine my "perfect" MMO game. In fact, I'd rather that developers (as a group) *never* reach any consensus as to what the genre should become. Instead, I'd rather see different visions across different games.
Why should MMOs (or games in general) be treated differently than other media? Using books as an example - if people read something that was written in a novel style or using novel literary devices, you wouldn't expect future books to be judged on the basis of whether or not they used that same style or literary device. Or films - there are still films that are filmed in black and white, or using what would now be considered outdated methods (cameras / film). Other media is judged on its own merit, and I can't imagine applying "rules" to what would make a good book or movie.
Rather than wishing that developers would abide by some set of rules for development (future games of genre X must have no loading screens, must allow an arbitrarily large number of players to interact), I'd rather see numerous different visions of what is possible with a genre. Sometimes that may mean breaking what is considered "standard" gameplay for the genre. I'd welcome that as long as the resulting game was fun and features were consistent with that vision.
I'm not looking for incremental growth in how "massive" the next MMO is - does it support more simultaneous players than game X? I'm not even sure that's a positive feature - given that many MMOs to date allow "shout"-like chat between players, listening to an ever growing cacophany of other players may not be my cup of tea. I'm more interested in seeing differences in *how* players are able to interact with each other / with the world than in *how many* players are in the world at one time.
I understand that zoning (and the loading screens that accompany zoning) and instancing may break the concept of "immersion". I also think "immersion" is a nebulous concept - often, other players can break my "immersion" in a game - especially those players named "I_PwN_YoU" and "Mister Goublecoque" on a role-playing server who enjoy griefing the "Newbs" and love shouting "QQ more" every minute. Loading screens are way down on my personal list of things that I feel break "immersion" in this type of game. But then again, I'm not the immersion police.
So when I read posts that decry the use of zones and instances, it doesn't help me to judge whether or not I would find the game fun to play. I would need more details for that. How often do you encounter a loading screen in the game? How long does it take for a zone to load? What is the effect of instancing on gameplay? Are there any benefits to the use of zones / instances? And what are other factors that may affect whether the game is fun or not (story, social interaction, artificial intelligence, emergent gameplay, etc.)? I'd rather hear what a game *is* and whether it is fun in and of itself than what it *should* be.
Originally posted by Mahni I'm still debating if and when to purchase AoC, and am sorting through threads here in the hopes of finding some information that would help me make a decision.
Let me sum it up for you.
Like all games even if this game was bug free, it would not be for everyone (the big non-bug issues are all zones are instanced, some maps can feel restrained at parts, female armor could be sexier).
At the moment is has some bugs and missing content, most of this is noticeable after level 40.
And it has high hardware requirements.
Some big class balance issues.
So buy this game if you are looking for a good looking MMO and don’t mind all of the above issues. Right now there is more pvp going on in the AoC forums than in the game. It is a hater vs fanboy battle to the death.
For the record, I like it a lot, But I don’t have a lot of time to play and I like many alts so I am under the level 50 zone where most of the hate starts to kick in. I like how it looks, the FFA PvP, and the Roleplay potential. I also like that they are trying to do something new with the combat, even though it may not be the best way to do it. It is a step in the right direction I think.
1 note on Stalker. There is NOTHING seamless about it. There are specific zones/levels. Some of them, you can only enter or exit from a single location and you hit a loading screen every time you switch. Anyone who says Stalker is seamless really needs to take some classes on game design and stop talking about what they know nothing about.
Reading the description of Stalker is much different than actually playing it. I loved it. But that seamless world they talked about is a total scam. Just because you can revisit older zones, which become mostly pointless once you "beat" them, jumping from level to level by running to a zone line, doesn't mean its seamless. Seamless is when you don't see a load screen. COD4 is about as seamless as Stalker since I can just pick my level and load it up. If I had to litterally take a helicopter or jet from one level to the next it would be the same thing. Pointless, but the same thing.
I think the main reasoning behind 48v48, besides the technical limitations was the fact that it's a lot easier to organize 48 people on each side than say 300 people. This also allows for smaller guilds to compete with the bigger ones.
As there is limited space for battle keeps, if there was no limit to how many players can participate, only huge uber guilds would own keeps as they can flood the battlefield with canno fodder. The limit allows for smaller and mid size guilds of skilled players to take over and hold a battle keep. So I can see why there is a limit.
As far as instancing goes, it's been done before. CoH/CoV comes to mind when I think about instancing zones.
That is not to say that AoC, in its current state, does not have any problems. It does and lots of them. A lot of the end-game content is either broken or non-existent. Crafting is FUBAR. Itemization is horrid and stats on armor and weapons don't do anything yet. Grouping takes no tactics, it's all about the zerg. Most of the stuff that was promised is either not in or works half-assed.
The game has some nice aspects though. The graphics and animations are amazing, probably some of the best I've seen in an MMO. The combat is very fun and the fatalities are sweet. If Funcom manages to fix the glaring problems, AoC may turn into a great game with a large following.
My advice to people who are thinking about purchasing AoC is to wait a few months. Hopefully by then most of the problems will be fixed. I plan to cancel my account, before the 30 days runs out, and reactivate it later because I want to play a finished game. Right now, although the game is fun, it is simply not finished and I don't feel like my $15 are well spent on an unfinished product. Almost every MMO that gets released is either lacking in the promised features and or broken and I, for one, am really tired of this.
AoC - is there any limit to the depth this genre can plummet to?
We had seamless worlds in 1997 with UO, in 2000'ish with AC, not long after with DAoC, and then the immense SWG.
...
Are the players really willingly sitting there, as the developers chip pellet after pellet away on the very foundation of Massive Multiplayer?
The mainstreamification of this genre looks more and more like a curse.
I'm still debating if and when to purchase AoC, and am sorting through threads here in the hopes of finding some information that would help me make a decision.
This thread caught my eye because it makes some assumptions as to what MMOs *should* be.
First and foremost, I'm looking for games that I think will be fun to play, regardless of genre. I can imagine a MMO with no combat in it (maybe something with a lot of social interaction, user generated content, goal directed, etc.). I wouldn't call that a step backward in terms of the genre, just like I wouldn't call it a step forward. It's just a different type of game, and my only concern is whether or not it would be fun for me to play.
If a developer asked my opinion on what features had to be in a game (such as a MMO) for me to consider playing it, I wouldn't be able to give them a list. I'm looking for the game design to be novel, and the features of the game to be consistent with the vision of the game. I have no preconceptions about what the MMO genre should be, just like I can't imagine my "perfect" MMO game. In fact, I'd rather that developers (as a group) *never* reach any consensus as to what the genre should become. Instead, I'd rather see different visions across different games.
Why should MMOs (or games in general) be treated differently than other media? Using books as an example - if people read something that was written in a novel style or using novel literary devices, you wouldn't expect future books to be judged on the basis of whether or not they used that same style or literary device. Or films - there are still films that are filmed in black and white, or using what would now be considered outdated methods (cameras / film). Other media is judged on its own merit, and I can't imagine applying "rules" to what would make a good book or movie.
Rather than wishing that developers would abide by some set of rules for development (future games of genre X must have no loading screens, must allow an arbitrarily large number of players to interact), I'd rather see numerous different visions of what is possible with a genre. Sometimes that may mean breaking what is considered "standard" gameplay for the genre. I'd welcome that as long as the resulting game was fun and features were consistent with that vision.
I'm not looking for incremental growth in how "massive" the next MMO is - does it support more simultaneous players than game X? I'm not even sure that's a positive feature - given that many MMOs to date allow "shout"-like chat between players, listening to an ever growing cacophany of other players may not be my cup of tea. I'm more interested in seeing differences in *how* players are able to interact with each other / with the world than in *how many* players are in the world at one time.
I understand that zoning (and the loading screens that accompany zoning) and instancing may break the concept of "immersion". I also think "immersion" is a nebulous concept - often, other players can break my "immersion" in a game - especially those players named "I_PwN_YoU" and "Mister Goublecoque" on a role-playing server who enjoy griefing the "Newbs" and love shouting "QQ more" every minute. Loading screens are way down on my personal list of things that I feel break "immersion" in this type of game. But then again, I'm not the immersion police.
So when I read posts that decry the use of zones and instances, it doesn't help me to judge whether or not I would find the game fun to play. I would need more details for that. How often do you encounter a loading screen in the game? How long does it take for a zone to load? What is the effect of instancing on gameplay? Are there any benefits to the use of zones / instances? And what are other factors that may affect whether the game is fun or not (story, social interaction, artificial intelligence, emergent gameplay, etc.)? I'd rather hear what a game *is* and whether it is fun in and of itself than what it *should* be.
The problem is maybe that these games "genre" themselves by claiming they are MMOG. If DDO, Hellgate and GW had declared themselves an entirely new genre, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem arises when they falsely label themselves something they are not.
AoC is effectively little more than a serverlist+lobby that you know from BF, Counterstrike and Quake. But instead of using that interface, you walk up to a guy and ask to join a new server with a new land (like choosing another server in the serverlist with another map than what you have just played), or you choose another server with the same land (you change instance of the zone - the same as changing to a server on the serverlist with the same map). There will be some restrictions, like you can only take servers that are bordering. But if AoC chose to break that rule, that wouldn't really change the game at all - all guys you ask to change server, would just be linked to all areas.
So you see, AoC is effectively little more than a slightly restricted serverlist+lobby. It segregates the population in exactly the same way as BF2 or Counterstrike does their populations.
IMO that is what is the deal breaker when it comes to MMO: When you play an MMO, you (potentially) interact with the entire world population, not a random subset of it.
If all you want is a confusing serverlist+lobby standard multiplayer game, then AoC is fine. But calling it an an MMO is stretching it, when it has broken so many MMO elements.
1 note on Stalker. There is NOTHING seamless about it. There are specific zones/levels. Some of them, you can only enter or exit from a single location and you hit a loading screen every time you switch. Anyone who says Stalker is seamless really needs to take some classes on game design and stop talking about what they know nothing about. Reading the description of Stalker is much different than actually playing it. I loved it. But that seamless world they talked about is a total scam. Just because you can revisit older zones, which become mostly pointless once you "beat" them, jumping from level to level by running to a zone line, doesn't mean its seamless. Seamless is when you don't see a load screen. COD4 is about as seamless as Stalker since I can just pick my level and load it up. If I had to litterally take a helicopter or jet from one level to the next it would be the same thing. Pointless, but the same thing.
Ok, I might be mistaken on Stalker then. I played some of it (quite a large area really) and didn't encounter any load-screens, so I assumed it was seamless (because I have read elsewhere that it was).
Doesn't really matter, because Oblivion has good graphics and IS seamless, and it takes only one game to prove that good graphics and seamless is not mutually exclusive.
AoC is effectively little more than a serverlist+lobby that you know from BF, Counterstrike and Quake.
OK, that is just total bullsh*t. You have like 400k people on 22 servers. WoW had less than that on 80 servers (first week).
Instancing is a way to get more people on one server with better graphics, end of f*cking story.
I run around in a pvp server and fight many people in my instance you can't do that in a server list lobby.
Imagine Blizzard grouping groups of 10 servers, and saying you can now move from server to server in this group any time you want, to increase interaction potential. That's all this is.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Rasputin
What would you say if I told you I *DO* have some relevant background? I am a game programmer.
When it comes to presentation, the limit is exactly the same for singleplayer games and MMOs. It is a matter of the amount of triangles and textures that can be rendered to the screen. So if S.T.A.L.K.E.R and Oblivion can do it, so can any MMO.
Btw. Funcom started out with trying to extend the AO engine for AoC but gave up and scrapped it and leased the Unreal engine.
Actually you very wrong yet again about Age of Conan. This is 3 times in this thread your argument has been proven worng. Leaving with you just the opinion Zoned games are bad. Its not even about AoC now.
FYI the game engine is the Dreamwrold one a modified AO game engine and not a leased Unreal engine.
Seriously, its been no secret Age of Conan would be zoned. Your back ground and credential dont really matter here, your just spewing hate for Age of Conan because it is zoned. Every other point about its gameplay has been thrown out the window, and no comparing an mmorpg to a single player game is pretty silly.
FC were straight up with info on how their game will be the past few yrs.
Its seems like you have been reading elsewhere and are so mis-informed its just too funny... You have never played AoC right? yep it shows...
Comments
And 48 is quite enough. How often you see more than 20+ people on screen all at once anyway?
Erm, most MMO's thats why there massive? if I wanted a 48v48 match I'd play COD4 or BF2, ever played Planetside when it was new? That was massive.
There is really no need for "massive". I suppose you need massive for the AH, but other than that, the trend is to DECREASE the number of players needed (see WOW reduces the dungeon requirement to get more people into them).
It is just a legacy name from the early days of the industry. All industry evolves and if they want to take the word "massive" out of the title .. i have no problem with it. I also have no problem if they leave it in.
RPG does not mean the same thing as 20 years ago and we still use the term. So it is just semantics.
And 48 is quite enough. How often you see more than 20+ people on screen all at once anyway?
Erm, most MMO's thats why there massive? if I wanted a 48v48 match I'd play COD4 or BF2, ever played Planetside when it was new? That was massive.
There is really no need for "massive". I suppose you need massive for the AH, but other than that, the trend is to DECREASE the number of players needed (see WOW reduces the dungeon requirement to get more people into them).
It is just a legacy name from the early days of the industry. All industry evolves and if they want to take the word "massive" out of the title .. i have no problem with it. I also have no problem if they leave it in.
RPG does not mean the same thing as 20 years ago and we still use the term. So it is just semantics.
I think there is need for "massive" its not really semantics, it sets it apart from a normal online game. I want to interact with hundreds of people in a world. Not a few people in a small instance I can do that in Diablo 2 or something I play for free. If this is a trend MMO's will die, just because its massive doesnt mean it has to have 40 man raids either, I thought the whole reason they did that was because the guilds who raided were some damn hardcore and eliteist, the casual gamer saw no endgame nothing to do with population. Infact I would say it increased population because it gave most players more to do.
I didn't like the instancing or offline portion of AOC too....
WOW had a massive seemless world apart from the raids and that is sooo kool but I just wish'd that had been in a skill based mmorpg instead of class based.
The article is spot-on.
AOC isn't worth a frigging dime. I seriously would not even play it if the game were F2P. It's just not my taste for an "MMO". I'd rather go play a big game of COD4 or something.
The only reason AOC has any speed at all right now is because there are a lot of people that loved those old games in the genre (like those mentioned) and they are so desperate for something to play now that will give that feeling again that they just plopped down $50 bucks and are really praying and hoping that AOC will provide the same level of complexity and immersion that those old MMO's did before everything became simplified with these more recent MMO's.
And Warhammer really probably won't be any different. These MMO companies these days don't want to think outside the box and take any risk, because of the huge investment they have to make. They all want to play it safe and follow the Blizzard blueprint.
I won't be buying Warhammer. The only title I could say right now that I'd blindly buy would be a Diablo 3 or a new Star Wars MMO, merely because I'm a fan of those titles. I would be interested in a new sandbox / not holding your hand constantly MMO that actually felt like a living breathing world and not just a bunch of stupid instances.
AOC has more holes that swiss cheese.
Definitely
Seamless
Now that we can spell, let's move on to the discussion.
I'm not sure why everyone is surprised about AoC. Just rewind four years ago. Another game that was supposed to be next-gen, which failed with making a seamless world. Everquest 2, that's what it was called. Soon after, World of Warcraft made grouping, raiding, and pvp as instances, popular. Then, a revolutionary concept came about with Guild Wars. Private instancing for yourself and party as the whole game concept.
To me, a pure seamless world should have no zoning at all. If anyone can name me an MMORPG with this definition, please list it. Don't be too hard on me either, i started this genre with EQ2.
Speaking of sacrifice, instancing does just that. The days of mob camping, kill stealing, raiding outdoor bosses, have been severely reduced or wiped out totally. Would you really go back to those days just for immersion? If there could be some sort of balance or solution to this, with real revolutionary ideas and concepts, then i would love if instancing would be extinct, but i'm not interested waiting 30 min or longer for a mob to spawn. So, i prefer balance.
Now, fast forward since Guild Wars release. Guild Wars 2 is being developed and abandoning that concept. Why? I'm not sure, but the developers are taking it that way. Maybe private instancing wasn't what the majority of players wanted.
I'm not sure where Hellgate: London fits in all this either, but apparently it's listed on this site as an MMORPG.
I completely agree with the sentiment that this is a poor mans guild wars 2 for a rich mans price.
----ITS A TRAP!!!----
Info we have on GW2 is at this site: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2
That doesn't sound like AoC to me.
We had seamless worlds - cry cry, LOOK AT THE GRAPHIC DIFFERENCE!!!!! the only reason they add instances is because of technical limitations.
I have never seen so many people complain about something the say they like to do.
I have yet to play a MMO that is as fun as a MUD. THE MORE GRAPHICS YOU ADD THE LESS YOU CAN DO.
You want real fun. Give up your precious graphics altogether and go back to MUDing.
I'm sorry but you can't have both. The better the graphics, the simpler the games. Accept it and shut the f*ck up.
We had seamless worlds - cry cry, LOOK AT THE GRAPHIC DIFFERENCE!!!!! the only reason they add instances is because of technical limitations.
I have never seen so many people complain about something the say they like to do.
I have yet to play a MMO that is as fun as a MUD. THE MORE GRAPHICS YOU ADD THE LESS YOU CAN DO.
Now now, no need to spoil their fun.You want real fun. Give up your precious graphics altogether and go back to MUDing.
I'm sorry but you can't have both. The better the graphics, the simpler the games. Accept it and shut the f*ck up.
I mean, the bitching and the whining is all they have. Take that away from them and they'd be truly pathetic. Just let them vent worthlessly.
SWG not seamless??? You could run at any direction you wanted. Houses had doors that opend and closed, no instances. Same with dungeons. Only with NGE they tryed the "new popular" thing with instances.
But ok, if that doesnt mean seamless, what exactly are AoC then? It doesnt even have a a tenth of freedom that SWG had.
Unfortunately for Darkfall, it's been in production for far too long. Theres no way possible for the game to live up to all the production time its been in. Look at what a dissappointment Tabula Rasa was after its 5 year production time/rewrite.
So what? Darkfall is an indie project, the more time they spend developing the game, the better it will be in the long run.
And Tabula Rasa was only hyped by ignoramuses. I never thought highly of it, even in its early stages when it wasn't even an action/FPS.
And 'Darkfall' is only hyped by delusional fanbois. Anyone in their right mind can see that Darkfall will never happen, it's beyond belief why it's still listed on this site. It has become a laughing stock to entire community.
I doubt you even read up on the game's progress. Like countless other thoughtless individuals, all you perceive is a negative image due to its low-key media coverage.
If you are impatient, simply don't follow its development or don't play it when it comes out this year. Its success won't depend on its mainstream appeal.
Make a bigger world. Don't pack it wall-to-wall with mobs. Make mobs spawn dynamically. Let mobs travel.
Voilá! No spawn camping! You don't know where they WILL spawn.
Guild Wars is no MMO. It doesn't claim to be, and that is why I respect them more than the other MMO wanna-be's. At least they were open about not being an MMO. That the rest of the world obviously don't understand it, in spite of having been clearly told straight to it's face, is not GW's fault.
Hellgate London and DDO are pseudo-MMOs. They could have made the same game with a serverlist+lobby known from standard multiplayer games like BF and Quake. IMO trying to market themselves as MMO's is an attempt to con the public.
We had seamless worlds - cry cry, LOOK AT THE GRAPHIC DIFFERENCE!!!!! the only reason they add instances is because of technical limitations.
I have never seen so many people complain about something the say they like to do.
I have yet to play a MMO that is as fun as a MUD. THE MORE GRAPHICS YOU ADD THE LESS YOU CAN DO.
You want real fun. Give up your precious graphics altogether and go back to MUDing.
I'm sorry but you can't have both. The better the graphics, the simpler the games. Accept it and shut the f*ck up.
I don't think it's unreasonable to want both graphics and the abilities of servers and coding to cope with them to progress with time. The real problem is that graphics now are ahead of the curve....
WoW got it right in the abilities to have graphics which are ok (good choice of art design), and which run on most computers, now and at release. The servers also allow the ability to run from one side of the map to the other without a loading screen or multiple instances of the main world. Instances are used for specific areas and for gameplay reasons.
A previous poster was right in saying that for AOC (and the same for games like Vanguard as well), the graphics were designed before the world.....
Graphics is *not* ahead of the curve! Far from it. Software still has some way to go to catch up with the graphics hardware.
Graphics can be scaled dynamically. With tricks like LoD you can scale how detailed graphics should be over distance (far away terrain/objects don't have to be rendered with as much detail because you can't tell the difference anyway). S.T.A.L.K.E.R and Oblivion has already demonstrated that you can have BOTH advanced graphics AND a huge, seamless world.
IMO AoC devs were possibly:
1: Inept
2: Ignorant
3: Unambitious
4: Taking the audience for being stupid
5: Making their game for consoles - PC version being secondary
I think it is a good mix of them all.
Your opinion would hold more water if you had some relevant background and you were not referring to single player games as examples.
I would risk a guess myself and say that they developed their in-house engine (AO) that had zone boundaries, thus the updated engine had also zone boundaries.
What do you think is more possible?
What would you say if I told you I *DO* have some relevant background? I am a game programmer.
When it comes to presentation, the limit is exactly the same for singleplayer games and MMOs. It is a matter of the amount of triangles and textures that can be rendered to the screen. So if S.T.A.L.K.E.R and Oblivion can do it, so can any MMO.
Btw. Funcom started out with trying to extend the AO engine for AoC but gave up and scrapped it and leased the Unreal engine.
This thread caught my eye because it makes some assumptions as to what MMOs *should* be.
First and foremost, I'm looking for games that I think will be fun to play, regardless of genre. I can imagine a MMO with no combat in it (maybe something with a lot of social interaction, user generated content, goal directed, etc.). I wouldn't call that a step backward in terms of the genre, just like I wouldn't call it a step forward. It's just a different type of game, and my only concern is whether or not it would be fun for me to play.
If a developer asked my opinion on what features had to be in a game (such as a MMO) for me to consider playing it, I wouldn't be able to give them a list. I'm looking for the game design to be novel, and the features of the game to be consistent with the vision of the game. I have no preconceptions about what the MMO genre should be, just like I can't imagine my "perfect" MMO game. In fact, I'd rather that developers (as a group) *never* reach any consensus as to what the genre should become. Instead, I'd rather see different visions across different games.
Why should MMOs (or games in general) be treated differently than other media? Using books as an example - if people read something that was written in a novel style or using novel literary devices, you wouldn't expect future books to be judged on the basis of whether or not they used that same style or literary device. Or films - there are still films that are filmed in black and white, or using what would now be considered outdated methods (cameras / film). Other media is judged on its own merit, and I can't imagine applying "rules" to what would make a good book or movie.
Rather than wishing that developers would abide by some set of rules for development (future games of genre X must have no loading screens, must allow an arbitrarily large number of players to interact), I'd rather see numerous different visions of what is possible with a genre. Sometimes that may mean breaking what is considered "standard" gameplay for the genre. I'd welcome that as long as the resulting game was fun and features were consistent with that vision.
I'm not looking for incremental growth in how "massive" the next MMO is - does it support more simultaneous players than game X? I'm not even sure that's a positive feature - given that many MMOs to date allow "shout"-like chat between players, listening to an ever growing cacophany of other players may not be my cup of tea. I'm more interested in seeing differences in *how* players are able to interact with each other / with the world than in *how many* players are in the world at one time.
I understand that zoning (and the loading screens that accompany zoning) and instancing may break the concept of "immersion". I also think "immersion" is a nebulous concept - often, other players can break my "immersion" in a game - especially those players named "I_PwN_YoU" and "Mister Goublecoque" on a role-playing server who enjoy griefing the "Newbs" and love shouting "QQ more" every minute. Loading screens are way down on my personal list of things that I feel break "immersion" in this type of game. But then again, I'm not the immersion police.
So when I read posts that decry the use of zones and instances, it doesn't help me to judge whether or not I would find the game fun to play. I would need more details for that. How often do you encounter a loading screen in the game? How long does it take for a zone to load? What is the effect of instancing on gameplay? Are there any benefits to the use of zones / instances? And what are other factors that may affect whether the game is fun or not (story, social interaction, artificial intelligence, emergent gameplay, etc.)? I'd rather hear what a game *is* and whether it is fun in and of itself than what it *should* be.
Let me sum it up for you.
So buy this game if you are looking for a good looking MMO and don’t mind all of the above issues. Right now there is more pvp going on in the AoC forums than in the game. It is a hater vs fanboy battle to the death.
For the record, I like it a lot, But I don’t have a lot of time to play and I like many alts so I am under the level 50 zone where most of the hate starts to kick in. I like how it looks, the FFA PvP, and the Roleplay potential. I also like that they are trying to do something new with the combat, even though it may not be the best way to do it. It is a step in the right direction I think.
1 note on Stalker. There is NOTHING seamless about it. There are specific zones/levels. Some of them, you can only enter or exit from a single location and you hit a loading screen every time you switch. Anyone who says Stalker is seamless really needs to take some classes on game design and stop talking about what they know nothing about.
Reading the description of Stalker is much different than actually playing it. I loved it. But that seamless world they talked about is a total scam. Just because you can revisit older zones, which become mostly pointless once you "beat" them, jumping from level to level by running to a zone line, doesn't mean its seamless. Seamless is when you don't see a load screen. COD4 is about as seamless as Stalker since I can just pick my level and load it up. If I had to litterally take a helicopter or jet from one level to the next it would be the same thing. Pointless, but the same thing.
I think the main reasoning behind 48v48, besides the technical limitations was the fact that it's a lot easier to organize 48 people on each side than say 300 people. This also allows for smaller guilds to compete with the bigger ones.
As there is limited space for battle keeps, if there was no limit to how many players can participate, only huge uber guilds would own keeps as they can flood the battlefield with canno fodder. The limit allows for smaller and mid size guilds of skilled players to take over and hold a battle keep. So I can see why there is a limit.
As far as instancing goes, it's been done before. CoH/CoV comes to mind when I think about instancing zones.
That is not to say that AoC, in its current state, does not have any problems. It does and lots of them. A lot of the end-game content is either broken or non-existent. Crafting is FUBAR. Itemization is horrid and stats on armor and weapons don't do anything yet. Grouping takes no tactics, it's all about the zerg. Most of the stuff that was promised is either not in or works half-assed.
The game has some nice aspects though. The graphics and animations are amazing, probably some of the best I've seen in an MMO. The combat is very fun and the fatalities are sweet. If Funcom manages to fix the glaring problems, AoC may turn into a great game with a large following.
My advice to people who are thinking about purchasing AoC is to wait a few months. Hopefully by then most of the problems will be fixed. I plan to cancel my account, before the 30 days runs out, and reactivate it later because I want to play a finished game. Right now, although the game is fun, it is simply not finished and I don't feel like my $15 are well spent on an unfinished product. Almost every MMO that gets released is either lacking in the promised features and or broken and I, for one, am really tired of this.
I'm still debating if and when to purchase AoC, and am sorting through threads here in the hopes of finding some information that would help me make a decision.This thread caught my eye because it makes some assumptions as to what MMOs *should* be.
First and foremost, I'm looking for games that I think will be fun to play, regardless of genre. I can imagine a MMO with no combat in it (maybe something with a lot of social interaction, user generated content, goal directed, etc.). I wouldn't call that a step backward in terms of the genre, just like I wouldn't call it a step forward. It's just a different type of game, and my only concern is whether or not it would be fun for me to play.
If a developer asked my opinion on what features had to be in a game (such as a MMO) for me to consider playing it, I wouldn't be able to give them a list. I'm looking for the game design to be novel, and the features of the game to be consistent with the vision of the game. I have no preconceptions about what the MMO genre should be, just like I can't imagine my "perfect" MMO game. In fact, I'd rather that developers (as a group) *never* reach any consensus as to what the genre should become. Instead, I'd rather see different visions across different games.
Why should MMOs (or games in general) be treated differently than other media? Using books as an example - if people read something that was written in a novel style or using novel literary devices, you wouldn't expect future books to be judged on the basis of whether or not they used that same style or literary device. Or films - there are still films that are filmed in black and white, or using what would now be considered outdated methods (cameras / film). Other media is judged on its own merit, and I can't imagine applying "rules" to what would make a good book or movie.
Rather than wishing that developers would abide by some set of rules for development (future games of genre X must have no loading screens, must allow an arbitrarily large number of players to interact), I'd rather see numerous different visions of what is possible with a genre. Sometimes that may mean breaking what is considered "standard" gameplay for the genre. I'd welcome that as long as the resulting game was fun and features were consistent with that vision.
I'm not looking for incremental growth in how "massive" the next MMO is - does it support more simultaneous players than game X? I'm not even sure that's a positive feature - given that many MMOs to date allow "shout"-like chat between players, listening to an ever growing cacophany of other players may not be my cup of tea. I'm more interested in seeing differences in *how* players are able to interact with each other / with the world than in *how many* players are in the world at one time.
I understand that zoning (and the loading screens that accompany zoning) and instancing may break the concept of "immersion". I also think "immersion" is a nebulous concept - often, other players can break my "immersion" in a game - especially those players named "I_PwN_YoU" and "Mister Goublecoque" on a role-playing server who enjoy griefing the "Newbs" and love shouting "QQ more" every minute. Loading screens are way down on my personal list of things that I feel break "immersion" in this type of game. But then again, I'm not the immersion police.
So when I read posts that decry the use of zones and instances, it doesn't help me to judge whether or not I would find the game fun to play. I would need more details for that. How often do you encounter a loading screen in the game? How long does it take for a zone to load? What is the effect of instancing on gameplay? Are there any benefits to the use of zones / instances? And what are other factors that may affect whether the game is fun or not (story, social interaction, artificial intelligence, emergent gameplay, etc.)? I'd rather hear what a game *is* and whether it is fun in and of itself than what it *should* be.
The problem is maybe that these games "genre" themselves by claiming they are MMOG. If DDO, Hellgate and GW had declared themselves an entirely new genre, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem arises when they falsely label themselves something they are not.
AoC is effectively little more than a serverlist+lobby that you know from BF, Counterstrike and Quake. But instead of using that interface, you walk up to a guy and ask to join a new server with a new land (like choosing another server in the serverlist with another map than what you have just played), or you choose another server with the same land (you change instance of the zone - the same as changing to a server on the serverlist with the same map). There will be some restrictions, like you can only take servers that are bordering. But if AoC chose to break that rule, that wouldn't really change the game at all - all guys you ask to change server, would just be linked to all areas.
So you see, AoC is effectively little more than a slightly restricted serverlist+lobby. It segregates the population in exactly the same way as BF2 or Counterstrike does their populations.
IMO that is what is the deal breaker when it comes to MMO: When you play an MMO, you (potentially) interact with the entire world population, not a random subset of it.
If all you want is a confusing serverlist+lobby standard multiplayer game, then AoC is fine. But calling it an an MMO is stretching it, when it has broken so many MMO elements.
Ok, I might be mistaken on Stalker then. I played some of it (quite a large area really) and didn't encounter any load-screens, so I assumed it was seamless (because I have read elsewhere that it was).
Doesn't really matter, because Oblivion has good graphics and IS seamless, and it takes only one game to prove that good graphics and seamless is not mutually exclusive.
OK, that is just total bullsh*t. You have like 400k people on 22 servers. WoW had less than that on 80 servers (first week).
Instancing is a way to get more people on one server with better graphics, end of f*cking story.
I run around in a pvp server and fight many people in my instance you can't do that in a server list lobby.
Imagine Blizzard grouping groups of 10 servers, and saying you can now move from server to server in this group any time you want, to increase interaction potential. That's all this is.
Actually you very wrong yet again about Age of Conan. This is 3 times in this thread your argument has been proven worng. Leaving with you just the opinion Zoned games are bad. Its not even about AoC now.
FYI the game engine is the Dreamwrold one a modified AO game engine and not a leased Unreal engine.
Seriously, its been no secret Age of Conan would be zoned. Your back ground and credential dont really matter here, your just spewing hate for Age of Conan because it is zoned. Every other point about its gameplay has been thrown out the window, and no comparing an mmorpg to a single player game is pretty silly.
FC were straight up with info on how their game will be the past few yrs.
Its seems like you have been reading elsewhere and are so mis-informed its just too funny... You have never played AoC right? yep it shows...
I just released this guy created a MMORPG.com account just for this thread. F*cking anti-advertiser.
One of the better ones, I have to give him credit.