Howdy, Stranger!

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




Last Active
  • The Most Wanted MMO of 2018 is.........PANTHEON: RISE OF THE FALLEN! - Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen

    Jadden said:

    Shaigh said:

    The most wanted of 2018 is something that won't be launch ready in 2018.

    And it won nonetheless , it just shows how much people really want a game like this.
    It won, but that only shows how much the 300 people who regularly participate on this site want a game like this.  It says nothing of a larger segment of the market.  Let's wait and see, shall we?
  • Why are bigger developers scared to make an Old School MMO.

    VicusEQ said:
    Not a rant.  Just don't understand it fully.  EQ/UO/CoX/DAOC/SWG/ect  All these games where the foundation of their MMO genres but since their release no one has really made a successor to any of them.  The only real attempt have been by very little known companies that when they released them had very little resources for the game to be given any real shot.  I feel like its just been bad luck on many parts of these games to have true successors (meaning basis of the game is the same just updated graphics and expanded mechanics to what was already tried and true).  Also I feel the main reason is the greed for cash has made developers rush games or add things to the game that end up setting up their failure.

    My point is there is a crowd out there of players that really want an old feeling game with just updated graphics and maybe a few new little features.

    Several points to consider.
    • Companies did make games similar to the first generation of MMORPGs.  Only they evolved in ways you didn't like.  WoW succeeded EQ.  It came after, with updated 'graphics and expanded mechanics'.
    • Businesses look at the data they collect.  Was this game profitable?  If so, they call it success.  Customer opinions of 'success' doesn't affect them.
    • With increased customer numbers and profitability, businesses interpret that as 'this is better than our competitors'.  A businessman interprets that as "we're on the right path", and not as "turn back and embrace the ideas we just kicked to the side".  The data they look at says "our way is better".
    • A business can interpret their data to determine how the marketplace thinks.  Following the money, the conclusion that businesses come to is that "customers want the profitable product more".  So, in the less profitable 'old-school' concepts aren't what the current players in the marketplace want.
    • Where is this 'crowd out there ... that really want an old feeling game'?  Businesses can look at their data and deduce, these people have either dropped out of the market space, or they aren't really all that unsatisfied with our product because they keep paying us.  Dissatisfied customers leave for another company; satisfied customers stay with us.
    So, why do you think a business would make a new product based on the old ideas rather than the new ideas?  After all, the numbers support the interpretation that the new ideas are better than the old.

    Pardon me while I return to my corpse run.  Maybe this time I'll manage to get my stuff back.  Why can't I just pay to summon my corpse to a non-hostile zone and resurrect myself?  Oh wait!  That's how EQ evolved within itself.  It's a great convenience feature, because who has the time to find a necromancer, convince them to help you, drag them to gods knows where, and summon your corpse to a safe(ish) spot in the zone for you to recover?  You can do the old-school way, but people wanted a better way.

  • Doesn't it bother you?

    This part from the game description:

    "The player is a legendary hero, stripped of his or her powerful relics"

    It's not a big thing but it does rub me the wrong way.  How many of you have said in the past that you are annoyed by games that tell you you're a great hero or the chosen one or some crap like that when you know very well that the game is telling everyone else the same thing?

    I'm sure this will have very little (if any) impact on day to day gameplay.  However, it seems like the wrong tone to take for a game of the type they are making.  I think it would be better if they didn't say anything at all about player characters.  I have a bigger issue with the game than this, it's just a little thing that seems out of whack to me.

    This kind of thing is a perfect example of how writing to an individual is different than writing for a group.  You'd think that in a group-oriented game, they'd at least try to write for a group instead of individuals.   "Players are legendary heroes, stripped of their powerful relics." should be the way that reads, or at least one example that more closely meshes with a group philosophy.
  • Visionary Realms, something great will come.

    For me, Pantheon seems to be 'more of the same'.  That's not what I want.  That doesn't evolve the genre.

    Brad was involved in developing two games in the past, EQ1 and Vanguard.  Both were very influential within the industry.  But, both games were incredibly similar.  The early visuals and information from Pantheon suggest very strongly that he's making another very similar game.  Maybe it's the only kind of game he is capable of making.  I doubt that, though.  He's probably tied to old ideas due to money issues.

    I really don't want to be in another group pounding on a single critter, with specialists keeping everyone alive and preventing interruptions to the 6-on-1 'fight'.  That's too clean, too predictable.  A little more chaos, please.

    If a game has to keep the 6-on-1 model, give me something beyond combat and crafting systems to interact with the world.  An abstraction of a legal system; a means for players (and GMs) to build social events; a system for religion and interacting with the various gods.  Even a simple way to evaluate an in-game object's aesthetic value and a simple mechanism for a group of players to collect these scores into a unique value (a crafting competition).  A reason (and tools) to support role playing would be nice, too.

    Improve the genre.  The 'cashing in on the genre' will follow.

  • So you are happy with the direction It's going?

    centkin said:
    What has mostly happened to the progression of MMORPGs is that computers stopped getting faster.  There were a lot of good ideas, that were implausible back in the day and still implausible now. 

    We won't see much improvement until computers actually make a leap in something more meaningful than graphics.
    Things besides graphics aren't dependant on hardware speed though, so I'm not sure why you think more would help.  We've got enough hardware for good physics simulation, or for better AI if that existed.  We've got more than enough hardware for interactive story, intricate game mechanics, voice chat, deeply developed NPCs, less predictable monsters...
    Very true, @sunandshadow.  There is plenty of hardware on the client end to do much more elaborate things than games attempt.  The problem, in my view, is that games aren't attempting to do anything more elaborate.  Processing power is adequate for much more difficult applications, why haven't we seen game developers attempt anything that can't be reproduced with analog dice?