Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Exclusive New World Q&A - The Shroud of Mystery Begins to Lift - MMORPG.com

124

Comments

  • KinringKinring Member UncommonPosts: 99



    Kinring said:









    Glad a company with some funding decided to make a pvp oriented game with some vision behind it. Darkfall was the last one to come out and thanks to the shady greek devs, it was a train wreck.




    I must be missing the vision part.  It sounds like a standard survival game.  More copy/paste then vision.  






    Considering you are missing the fact that it is not a survival game, it is easy to see how you are missing the vision part.


    OK, please tell me about the vision part.



    I could care less if you see the developers vision or not. My point was more that you and many others keep calling it a survival game when it is not a survival game. Why don't you explain to me why you think it is a survival game?

    image

  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Phry said:
    erevus said:
    Just implement a "storm wall" and you're good to go.
    Why on earth u want to make a PvP game but with PvE elements when all that your player base
    will ever want is to kill each other ? duh
    Because having a larger playerbase = money? trivial reasons like that i guess  :p
    But if your revenue model is based on twitch eyeballs, and we are repeatedly told this is Amazon's intent,  why do you care how many "boring" PvE players there are in your gankfest game?
  • parrotpholkparrotpholk Member EpicPosts: 4,564
    Kinring said:



    Kinring said:









    Glad a company with some funding decided to make a pvp oriented game with some vision behind it. Darkfall was the last one to come out and thanks to the shady greek devs, it was a train wreck.




    I must be missing the vision part.  It sounds like a standard survival game.  More copy/paste then vision.  






    Considering you are missing the fact that it is not a survival game, it is easy to see how you are missing the vision part.


    OK, please tell me about the vision part.



    I could care less if you see the developers vision or not. My point was more that you and many others keep calling it a survival game when it is not a survival game. Why don't you explain to me why you think it is a survival game?
    Here is one article,,,,

    https://www.pcgamer.com/hands-on-with-amazons-mmo-new-world-where-hundreds-of-players-war-over-a-supernatural-continent/

    That would likely be why...........
    TorvalOctagon7711
  • KinringKinring Member UncommonPosts: 99
    Kinring said:



    Kinring said:









    Glad a company with some funding decided to make a pvp oriented game with some vision behind it. Darkfall was the last one to come out and thanks to the shady greek devs, it was a train wreck.




    I must be missing the vision part.  It sounds like a standard survival game.  More copy/paste then vision.  






    Considering you are missing the fact that it is not a survival game, it is easy to see how you are missing the vision part.


    OK, please tell me about the vision part.



    I could care less if you see the developers vision or not. My point was more that you and many others keep calling it a survival game when it is not a survival game. Why don't you explain to me why you think it is a survival game?
    Here is one article,,,,

    https://www.pcgamer.com/hands-on-with-amazons-mmo-new-world-where-hundreds-of-players-war-over-a-supernatural-continent/

    That would likely be why...........
    Yeah, it is sad that even a pcgamer reporter doesn't know the difference between survival elements and sandbox elements...

    image

  • parrotpholkparrotpholk Member EpicPosts: 4,564
    Kinring said:
    Kinring said:



    Kinring said:









    Glad a company with some funding decided to make a pvp oriented game with some vision behind it. Darkfall was the last one to come out and thanks to the shady greek devs, it was a train wreck.




    I must be missing the vision part.  It sounds like a standard survival game.  More copy/paste then vision.  






    Considering you are missing the fact that it is not a survival game, it is easy to see how you are missing the vision part.


    OK, please tell me about the vision part.



    I could care less if you see the developers vision or not. My point was more that you and many others keep calling it a survival game when it is not a survival game. Why don't you explain to me why you think it is a survival game?
    Here is one article,,,,

    https://www.pcgamer.com/hands-on-with-amazons-mmo-new-world-where-hundreds-of-players-war-over-a-supernatural-continent/

    That would likely be why...........
    Yeah, it is sad that even a pcgamer reporter doesn't know the difference between survival elements and sandbox elements...
    The head of the studio was the one discussing the survival stuff and not the reporter.
    TorvalOctagon7711
  • KajidourdenKajidourden Member EpicPosts: 2,692
    Bring in the alpha, I'm impressed how it runs and how it looks, but the game itself is just another bullshit survival game.  An unbalanced one at that, where all ranged weapons will win all fights.
  • KajidourdenKajidourden Member EpicPosts: 2,692
    edited December 2018
    Kinring said:



    Kinring said:









    Glad a company with some funding decided to make a pvp oriented game with some vision behind it. Darkfall was the last one to come out and thanks to the shady greek devs, it was a train wreck.




    I must be missing the vision part.  It sounds like a standard survival game.  More copy/paste then vision.  






    Considering you are missing the fact that it is not a survival game, it is easy to see how you are missing the vision part.


    OK, please tell me about the vision part.



    I could care less if you see the developers vision or not. My point was more that you and many others keep calling it a survival game when it is not a survival game. Why don't you explain to me why you think it is a survival game?
    How about because every single mechanic is a survival game mechanic and the combat is total crap like all other survival games with no mechanics or anything of any interest?
    Post edited by Kajidourden on
    craftseeker
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,614
    Just a Question.. maybe someone can shed some light here.

    How did eating and drinking become a Survival Game thing, when that's been around since at least EQ.


  • boris20boris20 Member UncommonPosts: 251
    To everyone saying a pvp centric game will fall short ect... have you seen the numbers fortnite is pumping out? Those numbers are not for the Pve... Its the Pvp portion that shot it to stardom. 
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,614
    boris20 said:
    To everyone saying a pvp centric game will fall short ect... have you seen the numbers fortnite is pumping out? Those numbers are not for the Pve... Its the Pvp portion that shot it to stardom. 
    Yes I have.

    I also saw how well Day-Z launched. That was amazing. 

    And I hope that the devs of this game have been paying attention as well.

    I also hope they have been paying attention to all the other PvP MMO's that have flopped.
    craftseeker
  • parrotpholkparrotpholk Member EpicPosts: 4,564
    boris20 said:
    To everyone saying a pvp centric game will fall short ect... have you seen the numbers fortnite is pumping out? Those numbers are not for the Pve... Its the Pvp portion that shot it to stardom. 
    Fortnite is not a virtual world MMO.  It is a cute BR that you can jump in and out of without much time investment or work put into your character.  COD is the same.  

    Apples and oranges comparison.  

    Games you could compare this to would be a game life Darkfall or Legends of Aria.  I would say BDO but BDO you can stay in safe areas and never be forced to PVP.
    Ungoodcraftseeker
  • Mars_OrbitalMars_Orbital Member RarePosts: 711
    Feels a bit Mortal Online -ish with the hype and even screenshots.
    "Killed just about everything that walked or crawled at one time or another,and I'm here to kill you Little Bill, for what you did to Ned" - William Munny / Unforgiven .
  • Preacher802Preacher802 Member UncommonPosts: 89
    edited December 2018
    Really well done so far, a lot of potential. Anyone writing this off as just another survival game is just plain wrong. Remember those old mmos we all loved and supposedly miss where you had to eat/drink to help regen, that’s all it is. 
    Post edited by Preacher802 on
    craftseekerRovn
  • jeeshadowjeeshadow Member UncommonPosts: 131
    I was just browsing various games on Steam and saw the comments for Worlds Adrift. Wherein, the players have taken over the world and hunt new players with their new ships the moment they enter the pvp area, with the sole purpose of destroying everything they've worked up to with their ship.
    The world is sparse now, and the reviews are terrible.

    I realize there's a group that enjoys hardcore pvp. But it seems very very short sided for any gaming company to create this huge world and force pvp on everyone in that world. Why shorten your market? Why risk your game becoming deserted after a few "Companies" take over the world and grief everyone else's gametime?

    If you think you're putting in boundaries to keep players from finding ways to make other players miserable in the game, you're not learning from other games.
    1. It won't work
    2. You're not ready for your playerbase.
    3. You're creating the gun players will use to shoot the success of your game in the head.

    Good times.
    parrotpholkOctagon7711UngoodTacticalZombeh
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 18,929
    jeeshadow said:
    I was just browsing various games on Steam and saw the comments for Worlds Adrift. Wherein, the players have taken over the world and hunt new players with their new ships the moment they enter the pvp area, with the sole purpose of destroying everything they've worked up to with their ship.
    The world is sparse now, and the reviews are terrible.

    I realize there's a group that enjoys hardcore pvp. But it seems very very short sided for any gaming company to create this huge world and force pvp on everyone in that world. Why shorten your market? Why risk your game becoming deserted after a few "Companies" take over the world and grief everyone else's gametime?

    If you think you're putting in boundaries to keep players from finding ways to make other players miserable in the game, you're not learning from other games.
    1. It won't work
    2. You're not ready for your playerbase.
    3. You're creating the gun players will use to shoot the success of your game in the head.

    Good times.
    It's a PvP game. That was made clear in the interview. People who don't want to PvP should probably find another game. They shouldn't expect a game to carve out a special rule set for them. So PvP isn't forced on anyone. It's not a surprise. If you opt-in for a swim and wonder why you're wet, guess who's to blame.
    KajidourdencraftseekerNycteliosKinringRovn
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

  • asdfsdf34534asdfsdf34534 Member UncommonPosts: 52
    Torval said:
    jeeshadow said:
    I was just browsing various games on Steam and saw the comments for Worlds Adrift. Wherein, the players have taken over the world and hunt new players with their new ships the moment they enter the pvp area, with the sole purpose of destroying everything they've worked up to with their ship.
    The world is sparse now, and the reviews are terrible.

    I realize there's a group that enjoys hardcore pvp. But it seems very very short sided for any gaming company to create this huge world and force pvp on everyone in that world. Why shorten your market? Why risk your game becoming deserted after a few "Companies" take over the world and grief everyone else's gametime?

    If you think you're putting in boundaries to keep players from finding ways to make other players miserable in the game, you're not learning from other games.
    1. It won't work
    2. You're not ready for your playerbase.
    3. You're creating the gun players will use to shoot the success of your game in the head.

    Good times.
    It's a PvP game. That was made clear in the interview. People who don't want to PvP should probably find another game. They shouldn't expect a game to carve out a special rule set for them. So PvP isn't forced on anyone. It's not a surprise. If you opt-in for a swim and wonder why you're wet, guess who's to blame.
    ok
    craftseeker
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,429
    nickiamx said:
    Torval said:
    jeeshadow said:
    I was just browsing various games on Steam and saw the comments for Worlds Adrift. Wherein, the players have taken over the world and hunt new players with their new ships the moment they enter the pvp area, with the sole purpose of destroying everything they've worked up to with their ship.
    The world is sparse now, and the reviews are terrible.

    I realize there's a group that enjoys hardcore pvp. But it seems very very short sided for any gaming company to create this huge world and force pvp on everyone in that world. Why shorten your market? Why risk your game becoming deserted after a few "Companies" take over the world and grief everyone else's gametime?

    If you think you're putting in boundaries to keep players from finding ways to make other players miserable in the game, you're not learning from other games.
    1. It won't work
    2. You're not ready for your playerbase.
    3. You're creating the gun players will use to shoot the success of your game in the head.

    Good times.
    It's a PvP game. That was made clear in the interview. People who don't want to PvP should probably find another game. They shouldn't expect a game to carve out a special rule set for them. So PvP isn't forced on anyone. It's not a surprise. If you opt-in for a swim and wonder why you're wet, guess who's to blame.
    ok
    There a reason you're spamming this on multiple threads?  :|

    image
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,614
    jeeshadow said:

    3. You're creating the gun players will use to shoot the success of your game in the head.

    Good times.
    I think this is the most accurate description I have ever read for Open World PvP.
    craftseeker
  • cameltosiscameltosis Member EpicPosts: 2,129
    I still have no clue what this game is actually trying to be.

    They call it an MMORPG, but I've not heard any evidence that it'll actually be an MMO (and the RPG elements seem to be limited). What's the player cap? The limited info I've seen suggests it'll just be one big map with a very low (for an mmo) player cap or high (for a survival game) player cap.

    As I'm only interested in playing an actual MMO, this is a big deal. I'm pleasantly surprised to read that they've put in effort to achieve large scale battles, but I reckon they probably just mean 50 people, and not 500+.

    As for the rest of it, it seems like this game is just uninspired. Very basic twitch gameplay (I hate action combat!), some territory control and some building/crafting. Its like the most basic elements of a sandbox, potentially fun for a short amount of time but crap for longevity. The only interesting element (in my mind) is the alt history aspect, but given that this is a PvP game I just can't see how vampires, werewolves, ghosts etc are going to become important....unless you can play them yourselves and I've missed that bit of info!
    craftseeker
  • KajidourdenKajidourden Member EpicPosts: 2,692
    I still have no clue what this game is actually trying to be.

    They call it an MMORPG, but I've not heard any evidence that it'll actually be an MMO (and the RPG elements seem to be limited). What's the player cap? The limited info I've seen suggests it'll just be one big map with a very low (for an mmo) player cap or high (for a survival game) player cap.

    As I'm only interested in playing an actual MMO, this is a big deal. I'm pleasantly surprised to read that they've put in effort to achieve large scale battles, but I reckon they probably just mean 50 people, and not 500+.

    As for the rest of it, it seems like this game is just uninspired. Very basic twitch gameplay (I hate action combat!), some territory control and some building/crafting. Its like the most basic elements of a sandbox, potentially fun for a short amount of time but crap for longevity. The only interesting element (in my mind) is the alt history aspect, but given that this is a PvP game I just can't see how vampires, werewolves, ghosts etc are going to become important....unless you can play them yourselves and I've missed that bit of info!
    It is mechanically a survival game.  I played UO, I played EQ, this is nothing like those games.  This is ARK set in a different time period....kinda like ATLAS.  The difference is it will at least play well, unlike those two.
  • RazimusRazimus Member UncommonPosts: 127
    I'm not the biggest PvP fan in the world, but this game looks good, if you're not for PvP don't play it, but there are plenty of old school gamers and new gamers alike that are happy to see a rare gem in the millions of fluffy white cloud games that cater to non-PvP, this one actually has hope, with it's budget and team it won't be poorly made, extremely high quality all around, I'm looking forward to this game. PvP isn't a scary concept for those who played Ultima Online in 1997-1999. This game brings back some of that. Back in old school UO nobody willy nilly killed others just because they could, there was trust built between players, guilds, and when an attack happened there was always someone to counter it, it's a war game and designed to be fun for those that like the risk factor. Without the risk factor the reward isn't nearly as good. This game hands down has the best potential to be great over all the many trying to do the same, and unlike the others this game won't be in a permanent unfinished alpha state. It could be the next pre-trammel UO, time will tell.

    --- Razimus

  • KinringKinring Member UncommonPosts: 99
    Kinring said:
    Kinring said:



    Kinring said:









    Glad a company with some funding decided to make a pvp oriented game with some vision behind it. Darkfall was the last one to come out and thanks to the shady greek devs, it was a train wreck.




    I must be missing the vision part.  It sounds like a standard survival game.  More copy/paste then vision.  






    Considering you are missing the fact that it is not a survival game, it is easy to see how you are missing the vision part.


    OK, please tell me about the vision part.



    I could care less if you see the developers vision or not. My point was more that you and many others keep calling it a survival game when it is not a survival game. Why don't you explain to me why you think it is a survival game?
    Here is one article,,,,

    https://www.pcgamer.com/hands-on-with-amazons-mmo-new-world-where-hundreds-of-players-war-over-a-supernatural-continent/

    That would likely be why...........
    Yeah, it is sad that even a pcgamer reporter doesn't know the difference between survival elements and sandbox elements...
    The head of the studio was the one discussing the survival stuff and not the reporter.
    Incorrect, it is the reporter that makes the direct comparison to a survival game, not the developer. The quote is as follows:

    "It feels like part MMO, part survival game. You build forts with other players, you can cut down every tree, mine pretty much every stone, and if there's a resource you need but don't have, you might need to venture to another part of the world to get it. What they're aiming for sounds like a simulated society. You'll apparently be able to set quests for other players, paying them gold if there's a certain resource you need tracking down."

    He says that it feels like an MMO and survival game but then goes on to describe sandbox and MMO elements. None of the reasons he mentions are survival based.

    The part that the developer talks about is as follows:

    "We looked at a lot of survival games, and it's like the zombie apocalypse, the disintegration of society, right? Small raiding parties roaming around," says studio head Patrick Gilmore. "And we thought, this technology gives us the ability to look at how big a society can grow, and what happens when civilisation's working. We're looking forward to seeing how players organise themselves in that context."

    He is simply stating that when they looked at survival games they liked how people would work together to grow, and he is stating that they want to expand on the idea of people working together to grow into civilizations through their technology. This is not a survival aspect he just used survival games as an example. People working together to form a civilization is actually an MMO aspect.

    Even if he did say that it was a survival game, which he did not, that still doesn't make it a survival game. Sometimes developers label a game incorrectly in order to get more people interested, or they are just flat out wrong. Remember a little game called No Mans Sky? That was labeled by the developers as an MMO. When it was released there was a huge backlash by the community because it turned out to not be an MMO.

    I have been playing the alpha since September and I can say based on my experience in game that it is not a survival based game. Also, I have been playing MMOs since 1997 with Ultima Online. I know how to distinguish between an sandbox and a survival, which I think most people get confused. 
    Torval

    image

  • KinringKinring Member UncommonPosts: 99
    Kinring said:



    Kinring said:









    Glad a company with some funding decided to make a pvp oriented game with some vision behind it. Darkfall was the last one to come out and thanks to the shady greek devs, it was a train wreck.




    I must be missing the vision part.  It sounds like a standard survival game.  More copy/paste then vision.  






    Considering you are missing the fact that it is not a survival game, it is easy to see how you are missing the vision part.


    OK, please tell me about the vision part.



    I could care less if you see the developers vision or not. My point was more that you and many others keep calling it a survival game when it is not a survival game. Why don't you explain to me why you think it is a survival game?
    How about because every single mechanic is a survival game mechanic and the combat is total crap like all other survival games with no mechanics or anything of any interest?
    I have been playing the alpha since September. Please explain which mechanics are survival and why that makes this a survival based game as opposed to a guild focused, territorial conquest through pvp, sandbox, MMO. I assume you are playing the alpha as well and have experience with "every singe mechanic" that makes it a survival game, as you say.

    There are a few survival aspects of the game, but as I mentioned before, they are minor elements compared to the sandbox, MMO, and territorial conquest aspects of the game.

    image

  • KinringKinring Member UncommonPosts: 99
    I still have no clue what this game is actually trying to be.

    They call it an MMORPG, but I've not heard any evidence that it'll actually be an MMO (and the RPG elements seem to be limited). What's the player cap? The limited info I've seen suggests it'll just be one big map with a very low (for an mmo) player cap or high (for a survival game) player cap.

    As I'm only interested in playing an actual MMO, this is a big deal. I'm pleasantly surprised to read that they've put in effort to achieve large scale battles, but I reckon they probably just mean 50 people, and not 500+.

    As for the rest of it, it seems like this game is just uninspired. Very basic twitch gameplay (I hate action combat!), some territory control and some building/crafting. Its like the most basic elements of a sandbox, potentially fun for a short amount of time but crap for longevity. The only interesting element (in my mind) is the alt history aspect, but given that this is a PvP game I just can't see how vampires, werewolves, ghosts etc are going to become important....unless you can play them yourselves and I've missed that bit of info!
    They already have a server size of 500 (considered by many as an MMO, but disputable by others) and they have stated that they want to expand that in the future to 10k as technology allows.

    Don't forget that the game is still in alpha. They have 1-2 years worth of development to add content to the game. But keep in mind that this is a sandbox game, which means that the players will be making a large part of the content. Much of the content will be through territorial disputes between guilds. People are also calling it a survival game. It is not a survival game. 

    image

  • KinringKinring Member UncommonPosts: 99
    boris20 said:
    To everyone saying a pvp centric game will fall short ect... have you seen the numbers fortnite is pumping out? Those numbers are not for the Pve... Its the Pvp portion that shot it to stardom. 
    Fortnite is not a virtual world MMO.  It is a cute BR that you can jump in and out of without much time investment or work put into your character.  COD is the same.  

    Apples and oranges comparison.  

    Games you could compare this to would be a game life Darkfall or Legends of Aria.  I would say BDO but BDO you can stay in safe areas and never be forced to PVP.
    BDO doesn't have safe zones other than towns, which is the same as LoA and New World. But I do agree that New World is comparable to LoA.

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.