Howdy, Stranger!

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




Last Active
  • CU big announcement Thursday Jan 18th

    I've been checking in on the CU site every hour today.....well, since 9am US anyway. Nothing yet, but I remain excited!
  • CU big announcement Thursday Jan 18th

    So, the announcement is bigger than formal announcement of beta 1. That doesn't leave many options. 

    1. Announcing release date

    I think this is actually the most likely thing. It's definitely bigger than announcing beta, they've completed enough features so hopefully they can be confident in a date. Mark has also constantly espoused the virtues of an old-school development model....well, in an old-school dev model, beta only happens when you've basically finished the game, and release used to follow beta very quickly. 

    2. They've licensed their game engine

    Their game engine is unique. It's one of the few that can actually handle massively multiplayer features (the other being EvE's) and it's designed for an environment that we love (fantasy). It would not surprise me if CSE white-labeled their engine and licensed it to other dev studios. It would be a great source of income for CSE without putting any pressure on feature expectations of the game. It would be even more awesome if they licensed the engine to a AAA studio, and this announcement is going to coincide with the announcement of a new AAA MMORPG that we've never heard of...... yeh, maybe that was going too far!

    3. They're changing the name

    I feel this is less likely given that backers voted on the name of the game, plus I don't think the name of the game is necessarily bigger than the beta announcement. But, from Mark's point of view, it might be considered bigger, especially if he won back the full DAoC name. 

    4. They've attracted another investor, resulting in first expansion

    Attracting an investor is not a big announcement by itself. CSE have already been through this a few times so it would only be big if it prevented the cancellation of the game. I don't think we were in danger of that. However, if the investor brought enough money (and pressure) to start changing features, that is big. I like to think that Mark is wise enough not to go down the Star Citizen route and keep expanding the scope of the project, so instead I believe that he'd go down the expansion route. So, a large investor may result in CSE being confident about a first expansion and they might announce that. 

    5. Cancellation

    Extremely unlikely, but would certainly be a bigger announcement than beta 1!
  • Player's Choice 2017 - The Best Overall MMO - MMORPG.com

    Torval said:
    For those arguing about the definition of MMO. 

    Bill et al actually did an editorial on the definition of MMO a while back. 


    For this, they interviewed Richard Garriott, who said the definition is about the number of players within the same virtual space. Raph Koster also joins in in the comments section, and backs up what Garriott said - its all about the number of people with the same virtual space. 

    But, you can read through Bill's and the teams reasoning. They basically dismiss the experts opinions, dismiss the rules of english comprehension and seem to settle on "well, if it has similar features to other MMOs, then it's an MMO". 

    Bills exact definition:

    "To me, if I must put a definition - it's any persistent online game that hosts thousands of players and lets them play together. Even MOBAs could be considered MMOs of a kind. But they're certainly not MMORPGs."

    This should tell you everything you need to know. His own definition contradicts itself. 
    An expert's opinion is only as valid as the facts it stands on.

    Garriott calls Shroud an MMO, something a lot of people here don't agree with. Do you agree Shroud is an MMORPG? The creator of the term and "expert" calls it one.

    Raph has also said that many things, including Facebook, is an MMO and that much of our online world and interactivity has become "mmo-ified". 

    You can't even come up with a definition yourself so who are you to criticize? It's a case of the incapable criticizing the imperfect. You all could start a site called the "Incapable Authority" and tell others what they're not doing good enough about things you can't actually do yourselves.
    I have a very clear definition myself:

    MMOG = "A game that supports 500+ players within the same virtual environment."

    Virtual environment being defined as a gamespace that players can traverse without loading screens, in which they can play the game. 

    I'm willing to drop the number (500) down to 250+. The reason I'm willing to let the number change is because "massively" is a comparative term, so as what you are comparing it to changes (other multiplayer online games), so should this. Given that 128 tends to be the max cap for standard multiplayer games, just pick a number that is "massively" bigger. I chose 500, because "double" and "triple" to me don't count as "massively" bigger, but 4x is getting into that realm.

    This definition holds up against english comprehension. This definition is easy to understand. This definition matches up against the majority of games that defined the genre initially. This definition has absolutely nothing to do with features, so it can be universally applied to all genres of gaming. 

  • most-of-the-real-mmo-players-are-gone-from-this-site

    Kyleran said:
    Meh, I am an old school MMORPG elitist, PC master race no less, and I just won't play games that aren't to my very specific tastes.

    Fortunately there is Fallout NV and 4, most fun I've had in recent years and the npcs / companions are more social than most human players in MMOs today.

    You're beginning to sound like Sean! Don't go to the dark side....
  • Player's Choice 2017 - The Most Wanted MMO - General Awards

    Voted Camelot Unchained

    I've looked into a lot of the MMOs listed throughout their development and I'm just not impressed with any of them. I read through their manifestoes / designs / newsletters and get excited for the features that they're adding. There are some truly great ideas out there, from the family/aging mechanics in Elyria, or the community/sandbox feel of Pantheon, or the procedurally generated campaigns in Crowfall. Really epic stuff. 

    But then I dig a bit deeper. 

    Most of these games simply don't have the budget to achieve what they want. This is most evident by the fact that most indie MMOs in development are using off-the-shelf game engines that are completely unsuited to a massively multiplayer environment. So, my expectation is that most of these games will have one or two really interesting features and push the genre forwards, but the overall game experience is going to be pretty flat and uninspiring. 

    Camelot Unchained is different. Their scope is fairly limited, which means they should actually be able to achieve it. They've created their own game engine so that it can actually handle being an MMO, it won't be a hacked-up bloated engine that grinds to a halt when 20 people turn up. They've already done the hard parts, creating their engine, creating their building system with voxel-like destruction, created their unique ability system and animation system. They've shown us that all these hard parts actually work, so now they're onto the more easy bits - creating the world, creating more abilities and classes etc. 

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think CU is going to be a runaway success or anything like that, it's a pretty niche game. But, I do believe it will launch with the features advertised, I think it will work well and be extremely fun for those who enjoy RvRvR with deep combat.