|
|
Post by daft alchemist on Feb 16, 2007 15:37:58 GMT -5
Oh man. All I'm doing so far is making my hobbit girly, and I'm already in love. You can even add scars to them! And in the name area, it actually tells you what sort of names the race/gender uses. Not only that, but when you pick class, it tells you what position they play in groups. So far all I know is guardian is the tank, burglar is the debuffer, hunter is the nuker, and minstrel is the healer. SO damn cool!  |
|
Jalathas
Forum Frequent
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain
Posts: 1,076
|
Post by Jalathas on Feb 16, 2007 16:04:35 GMT -5
Wow, sounds cool. Sounds like a lot more character customization than WoW. And $199 for lifetime play is very good, unless the game flops or you suddenly decide you hate it or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cobra5 on Feb 16, 2007 16:52:03 GMT -5
Sounds like they're thinking its gonna flop, and they're like "If we get people to pay their full subscription money before its even out, how can we go wrong!?"
But.
If I was interested in the game I'd get it I guess. I mean, some MMOs, you play for years right? And in the long run I guess you are saving money. I just really hate subscriptions.
I'm not an MMORPG guy though. When the genre first appeared, I thought it was an amazing idea, and loved it. Now, though, its all grind, and no-one seems to be doing anything about that.
They need to make an MMO where, making your character more powerful then he was ten seconds ago is not your only goal. Meaningful global inter-faction conflict? Cooperative struggle against superior universally hostile and aggressive forces?
And not just a "main quest", like was Guild Wars' "solution". Something that goes with the game, not is the game.
|
|
Jalathas
Forum Frequent
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain
Posts: 1,076
|
Post by Jalathas on Feb 16, 2007 18:17:04 GMT -5
I really liked the original version of SWG, before they WoW-ized it. It actually had a modicum of what you're talking about, like inter-faction warfare with entire cities changing hands and quests whose server-wide effect was determined by player actions. It wasn't perfect, but it was certainly better than most of what I've seen since.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cobra5 on Feb 16, 2007 18:32:48 GMT -5
Yeah. I know a lot of people who played that game, and they have said similar things.
|
|
|
|
Post by daft alchemist on Feb 16, 2007 19:38:59 GMT -5
Well this LotR MMORPG seems like it's got a lot of improvements in it that everyone complains about. For instance, they're trying to make layers to the world, or so I understand. So that if Bilbo672 witnesses an entire city burn down in a quest, it'll always be charred rubble when he goes there. But if Frodo224 walks by it and hasn't done that quest yet, it's still a happy little town. It also seems like they plan on doing large game-wide events that push the whole world along in the storyline. It really does sound like they're going to try to make the game change over time, almost like changing seasons or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku350 on Feb 16, 2007 19:53:15 GMT -5
That would be cool kinda like what they did in guild wars with the different seasons and holidays
|
|
|
|
Post by Cobra5 on Feb 16, 2007 21:02:29 GMT -5
Well this LotR MMORPG seems like it's got a lot of improvements in it that everyone complains about. For instance, they're trying to make layers to the world, or so I understand. So that if Bilbo672 witnesses an entire city burn down in a quest, it'll always be charred rubble when he goes there. But if Frodo224 walks by it and hasn't done that quest yet, it's still a happy little town. It also seems like they plan on doing large game-wide events that push the whole world along in the storyline. It really does sound like they're going to try to make the game change over time, almost like changing seasons or something. The idea of "layered" worlds where one guy sees a charred city and the other sees a happy city is a really, really bad idea if you ask me. It may as well be instanced. Game-wide events that move everything forward is a very good thing but its hardly a "new idea". More MMORPGS should have things like that, and I don't understand why they don't. Edit: and gasp! zaku! |
|
|
|
Post by zaku350 on Feb 17, 2007 11:57:53 GMT -5
* runs and hide in the corner and acts like noone ever saw him...*
|
|
Coral
Forum Frequent
Thievious Raccoon
Posts: 1,076
|
Post by Coral on Feb 17, 2007 12:35:11 GMT -5
A good MMORPG would have wars that start meaningfully, limited and unevenly distributed resources, advanced political systems (think a simulated US government), and reason to play other than killing or levelling, such as researching new technologies--making weapons using a real physics engine where weaponry acts on true-to-life physics.
In fact, such a game would merely be an amalgam of several already existing games--political systems from GoonZu online, class and level systems from UO, research systems from a little known game called SS13 and unevenly distributed resources are, of course, a reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cobra5 on Feb 17, 2007 18:14:43 GMT -5
I would call that, an "MMOSim". And I that would be something I'd try. |
|
|
|
Post by daft alchemist on Feb 19, 2007 10:37:58 GMT -5
I don't think the game developers expect the game to flop. I just think they realize it's a much better idea to pay one large sum than 30 bucks a month to play a game. Please stop being so critical of a game you haven't even tried.  I tried out a hobbit and a human (from Rohan specifically). It's pretty cool how the beginning starts when compared. I mean, I don't know if it's the beginning that will be in the full version, but there is one character that appears in both the beginnings, though the locations and situations are different, and both of the races end up in the same town. I thought it was interesting that way. The hobbit NPCs do talk a bit funny, but hobbits in general do talk funny. |
|
|
|
Post by Tassatul on Feb 19, 2007 12:19:05 GMT -5
Last I heard, the new Warhammer MMO is supposed to be based entirely around war (how apporpriate, right?) I havent looked in a while, but I remember seeing stuff about invading towns and catapaults and the like, and it sounded really neato. Hopefully better than Warcraft PvP, which has major flaws.
|
|
|
|
Post by BugHunter on Feb 19, 2007 17:58:37 GMT -5
Thats nice that Warhammer isn't beating around the bush about what its about. All war? Sounds like a plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cobra5 on Feb 19, 2007 21:50:15 GMT -5
Right. They've have gotten so far into... forcing innovation. I think a lot of people have forgotten the basics. I mean yeah, creativity is damn important, but for example, no matter how much extras you tack on, if basic combat doesn't hold me, what's the point? (This was WoWs flaw for me. Sure huge world to explore, and people to meet and levels to gain, but as a warrior, battle was boring). Meanwhile take something like, say, Crimsonland. It has like three modes of play really, which aren't too far apart from eachother... for the most part, they give you a gun, a lot of enemies, and let you figure out the rest... and I still play it all the time.
I mean I don't mean to bash on WoW. Its a pretty good game. not for me, but I understand where its merits lie. I was juts using an example.
So at one end of the spectrum, you have something like the ideas Coral mentioned, with detailed research trees, balanced but unequal resource systems, etc... on the other end you have something like said above, "It's about war".
At any rate if an MMO gives a war setting, I'm gonna try it out. I was never a fan of Warhammer but hey. I was never a fan of Star Trek but me and Dan could never stop playing Armada when that first came out.
|
|
