Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
UNBELIEVEABLE!! The FIRST time in MMORPG history this has HAPPENED!!!
Yes, just like the title of this thread says!
Something has happend in computer game history, in the MMORPG industry, that has NEVER happened before!!!
A parent game, has outlived its.... SEQUEL!!!! Not just any sequel! The original AC cost roughly 5 million to make. Technically it was finnished before EQ, but got held back, and released some months after EQ. But it is still of the same 2nd generation of mmorpgs as EQ. AC2 was the first 4th generation mmorpg to get released. It is of the same generation as SWG, EQ2, etc.... AC2 cost roughly 20-25 million to make. Four to five times more than AC!
And... and... AC such an old, ancient, outdated, mmorpg, has outlieved the ultra new, ultra modern AC2!!! UNBELIEVEABLE!!!
http://mmorpg.com/discussion.cfm/load/forums/loadforum/434/loadthread/58082/setstart/1/loadclass/144
-Personal Website (A Work still in progress):
http://www.geocities.com/xplororor/index.html
-AC, AC2, AO, EQ, Freelancer, SWG:
http://community.webshots.com/user/xplororor
-More SWG:
http://community.webshots.com/user/captain_sica_xol
-More EQ, Dungeon Siege, *UXO*, Diablo II:Lords of Destruction:
http://community.webshots.com/user/xplororor_archives01
-EverQuest II, Horizons:
http://community.webshots.com/user/xplororor_eq2archives01
-EVE Online !!!
http://community.webshots.com/user/sica_xol_archives01
-DAoC
http://community.webshots.com/user/sica_xol_archives02
-Coming sooner or later... CoH, WoW, MXO, UO, GW, As3, RS
Comments
That is kinda weird and stupid that AC1 outlived AC2 i mean how can you still find anything to draw you to AC1 with the modern day games out there. Mabey it's the people that can't afford to upgrade there computers to play the newere BETTER games.
Lenovo ThinkPad T60p
2.16GHz (2CPUs) 4.32GHz "i think"
2046MB RAM wanna up to 4 soon if im able.
ATI MOBILITY FireGL V5200 at 512.0 MB
Wide viewing angle & High density FlexView Display 1600x1200 it's a small 15"
You obviosuly have not played AC1
I only just quit this game 8 months ago, and i still cant find a better game.
BTW, i have an amd 3700+ and a 7800gtx, meaning i can play eq2 and the like at the highest settings.
Newer games just dont have any depth, they are not better, only more flashy.
Read what Kutuup wrote. He got my point and understood it!
It should be impossible for a parent mmorpg to outlive its sequel LOL!
Except AC2 wasn't so much a sequel as it was a third cousin. It used the same lore and races developed in AC1, but the engine (and therefore all gameplay) was entirely different. In fact, the common opinion was that the AC2 engine, though full of pretty graphics, was utterly unsatisfying when compared to Turbine's first game. If you look at any of the "What makes AC so great?" threads, you'll notice long lists full of details; very few, if any, of those details were present in AC2. They went in a different direction, but they clung to their old identity.
As a player of AC1, I would've loved a true sequel, but that just would've been bad business for Turbine; it would have done little more than moved players they already had from one of their games to another of their games, and it would've cost them millions of dollars in development costs to do so. As it was, a lot of AC1 players tried AC2, hated it, and went back to AC1. It really would've behooved Turbine to spend more time and creativity on their second game by coming up with entirely new lore and an entirely new name to go along with the entirely new gameplay (well, new for Turbine, but the same as every other game on the market at the time).
Another factor in AC2's demise was Turbine's disturbingly persistent avoidance of advertising. I don't think I've seen them promote anything other than their two latest expansions, and they barely even promoted those. That wasn't an issue for AC1 because there were only two other MMOs on the market, and both had very different gameplay. AC1 was 3D (unlike UO), it was very solo-friendly (unlike EQ), it was a mixture of skill-based (unlike EQ) and level-based (unlike UO), it was zoneless (unlike EQ), etcetera, etcetera.
AC1 drew an audience because it appealed to people who didn't like aspects of the other two games. AC2, on the other hand, launched against all kinds of competition. Competition that advertised. Competition with similar, but superior game engines and gameplay. When Turbine failed to promote their product this time, people just assumed it was a flash in the pan and went off to play the games with name recognition.
If the expansion for AC2 had more marketing, it might have kept the game alive. Looking back, the first year of AC2 was a nightmare of monthly patches. The patches were full of nerfs and unfun tweaks to the game, and the content they added was generally small and buggy. Certain turning points were reached, and the game seemed to be fairly competent after the crafting rewrite. It's sad that the last 6 months of the game were the best. The expansion pack and the one patch after that added a massive amount of new content. Unfortunately, nobody knew about the game, so they were never able to experience it at its prime.
Turbine needs to figure out how to market or their upcoming games will fly under the radar.
They realized their mistake. Upon announcing the closure of AC2, they said "We realize that sequels for games are just bad business. It divides a player base, and is counterproductive."
Takes notes, EQ2 :P
May it rest in peace.
The mistake was in making a sequel when they should have made a PREquel.
The history and lore of the game was written and very detailed, so that a game about "BEFORE Asheron called" would have been the natural extension.
What would have been good about a prequel (as long as they stayed TRUE to the original AC game mechanics, which AC2 did not) ... Asheron's Call: The Shadow Wars....
1) Insta-roleplay for PvP -- choose "evil" Shadows (Yo, BZ!), "good" Empyreans (Heya, Lord Atlan!), "isolationist" Undead (Long live Frore!) or "neutral" All Other Races.
2) Divide the large, seamless landmass into: Shadows in the West, Empyreans in the East, Undead to the North, and Neutrals to the South, No Man's Land (contested area) in the Central Region.
3) Can attack towns in enemy sectors (but cannot occupy), can attack and can occupy towns/areas in contested No Man's Land (where the phat lewt is), cannot attack or do any PvP in Neutral sectors (Carebears, Crafters and PvE'ers delight).
4) Get to interact and even be led by the famous NPC characters of AC history. We know where the story leads, but, ahhhhh, to be a part of that history would be grand.
~ Ancient Membership ~
I doubt but I HOPE Turbine is successful with DDO and LotRO, that way there is a chance for AC3 eventually and a prequal seems logical.
i have played almost all good mmos out there SWG, CoH, CoV, WoW, GW, DAoC, AC, AC2, EQ2, EQ and i still think that AC is the best mmorpg of all time, WoW and AC imo are the best mmorpgs that anyone can play, WoW has great community and the honor system is amazing, AC has the best pvp and gameplay i have ever seen in a game to date, graphically its not amazing, but think about it, most of the modern graphically amazing games arnt too good, expecially in mmorpgs, all it does is lag the network for most players because not only does the player have to connect to the game the computer has to keep up with the graphics too
AC=Greatest game of all time
WoW=Honorable mention
I think "ugly, red-headed stepchild" is a better analogy.
It seems weird that a sequel would bite the dust before the original to someone that hasn't played them both, but if you have, I'm sure this news did not come as a shock to you.
Still, it could have been a contender at some point in the development I'm sure. If nothing else, this was a good lesson for Turbine and the rest of the industry.
All things must pass
.....................................
...but time flows like a river...
...and history repeats...
-Leader of "The Fighting Irish" in DAoC on Hib/Kay-
I play AC1, I have several charactors over level 200. Love it.
I played AC2. Got two charactors to level 50. Loved the graphics.
I saw my refelection in the water. Splashed and made wakes in the water.
Saw Fish swim, leaves tumble, dust come up from our feet. We cast a shadow.
Too bad all the brilliance was in the graphics and none in the content.
If they want to put AC1 on ac2's server. I will wait. Tho with the development of middle earth, dungeons and dragons stormsearch, they may never bring AC1 up to speed.
the problem was AC2 wasn't anything like AC1 at all.
sequel's aren't "bad for business" as they say. the problem is the first one has to be dead before you can do it. make people see AC2 in like 2010 and have it be AC with complete upgrades to graphics, fix stuff that was missing, add the stuff all the others have and it'd be a best selling game. people would be like "man i remember AC it was awesome!"
AC2 on the other hand was more of the, here's the new AC, AC2. it's absolutely nothing like original other than races and a little lore. it plays like crap but looks awesome! and we expect everyone to jump ship from AC1 which you are all still playing and love to come play our new game. THAT business model won't work unless the sequel is so incresibly better that everyone wants to play it.
and i'm a little confuse by you calling AC2 a 4th generation mmorpg and AC a second generation...
wht do you mean? UO->EQ->AC sure UO was a ways before EQ and AC but they came out within months of eachother(EQ released, AC held a beta+stress test during that time)
i mean, unless you're calling UO the only 1st gen(which you can't sinec AC and EQ were both in development the same time as UO and were being worked on the same time UO was released) or are considering muds to be the 1st gen, then AC is a first gen... either way you sound a little
You obviosuly have not played AC1
I only just quit this game 8 months ago, and i still cant find a better game.
BTW, i have an amd 3700+ and a 7800gtx, meaning i can play eq2 and the like at the highest settings.
Newer games just dont have any depth, they are not better, only more flashy.
I played AC 1 for several years from launch and I don't recall it having anywhere near the depth of newer games. The only thing it had going for it was its slightly unique combat system and its skill system that was similar to UO's. The original magic system was trashed for a standard spellbook style one and eventually they even did away with comps.
Sorry, but not ALL people that have played AC1, even for extended periods of time think there is nothing superior too it. I played it because it was a game I could jump into quickly and solo mobs 30 levels over me or more and in mass. I played it like I now play guild wars, as a second option.
- Scaris
"What happened to you, Star Wars Galaxies? You used to look like Leia. Not quite gold bikini Leia (more like bad-British-accent-and-cinnamon-bun-hair Leia), but still Leia nonetheless. Now you look like Chewbacca." - Computer Gaming World
Except AC2 wasn't so much a sequel as it was a third cousin. It used the same lore and races developed in AC1, but the engine (and therefore all gameplay) was entirely different. In fact, the common opinion was that the AC2 engine, though full of pretty graphics, was utterly unsatisfying when compared to Turbine's first game. If you look at any of the "What makes AC so great?" threads, you'll notice long lists full of details; very few, if any, of those details were present in AC2. They went in a different direction, but they clung to their old identity.
As a player of AC1, I would've loved a true sequel, but that just would've been bad business for Turbine; it would have done little more than moved players they already had from one of their games to another of their games, and it would've cost them millions of dollars in development costs to do so. As it was, a lot of AC1 players tried AC2, hated it, and went back to AC1. It really would've behooved Turbine to spend more time and creativity on their second game by coming up with entirely new lore and an entirely new name to go along with the entirely new gameplay (well, new for Turbine, but the same as every other game on the market at the time).
Another factor in AC2's demise was Turbine's disturbingly persistent avoidance of advertising. I don't think I've seen them promote anything other than their two latest expansions, and they barely even promoted those. That wasn't an issue for AC1 because there were only two other MMOs on the market, and both had very different gameplay. AC1 was 3D (unlike UO), it was very solo-friendly (unlike EQ), it was a mixture of skill-based (unlike EQ) and level-based (unlike UO), it was zoneless (unlike EQ), etcetera, etcetera.
AC1 drew an audience because it appealed to people who didn't like aspects of the other two games. AC2, on the other hand, launched against all kinds of competition. Competition that advertised. Competition with similar, but superior game engines and gameplay. When Turbine failed to promote their product this time, people just assumed it was a flash in the pan and went off to play the games with name recognition.
I agree in manyways ac1 was better then ac2 and lack of advertisment also killed it but ive also played EQ2 and lineage2 and i say AC2 was better in manyways specially on darktide and when i got the hang of it ac2 was not a bad game at all it was only totally different from what ac1 was thats all.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit