text:
|578 posts found
Originally posted by lizardbones
This is your discussion so I'm not gonna claim to know the the full history (though I have been following it a bit), but it seems to me that you guys should decide on what exactly each person is claiming. I know I personally don't think that "oldschool" games will outperform themeparks or that they'll ever be the "norm" when it comes to the MMO genre. But I do however think they can survive and I also think that the "oldschool" or sandbox market isn't currently being served as much as it should be. I think there are a lot of people who want a certain type of game and nobody has stepped up to really fill that role yet. I think that's because WoW was so incredibly successful and I also think that it's slowly starting to change.
I'm not trying to put words in Vermillion's mouth though.
Login or Register to never see this panel
Originally posted by lizardbones
There were no new old school type games essentially. EQ2 was far more on the WoW spectrum.
And this is where the breakdown always begins. Most people talking about modern old school are not wanting remakes. They want games that have old school principles and options in a modern engine, UI and thinking. A modern game that took a different path then just emulating the same game. A games where the worlds that promote exploration, interdepency that promotes community and socialization. Games focused on being an MMO and not a single player game. Games with sandbox elements that let players have more freedoms and make their own stories. A game where there is more danger and challenges outside elite raids.
I don't think many are promoting a mob grinder with updated graphics.
Spotlight Poster
Joined: 6/08/07
The problem is not the games, it is the gamers.
Frankly, let's forget about the mechanics of things like corpse runs, PK for profit, and losing levels. Anyone can introduce these elements to a game and it is not going to improve the experience, only make it more frustrating. Why? because in today's gaming environment you are basically ON YOUR OWN.
The days of people actually inviting you into their guild and teaming with you are done. People team with you to complete a single objective, then they break the party before you even have the chance to think them for teaming or ask them if they had any more missions they want to accomplish. They don't even stick with you to report back to the quest giver. I noticed that starting as far back as City of Heroes while it was still costing a subscription. In, out, done. There is no opportunity to bond, to form a team, or a guild. Guilds are just lists of names banded together for the bonuses you can incur.
In the "good old days" that the OP is referring to, many players came from paper 'n dice games and brought their sense of having to have a group to achieve anything from missions to immersions. Now, the gamer base is built from console kiddies who need nothing more than a controller to play.
I find that my best team mates are the ones that the game presents to me in the form of NPC companions. At least they stay in character and don't bolt as soon as the mission is complete. The genie has most definitely left the bottle.
Apprentice Member
Joined: 11/08/06
I couldn't agree more.. well put. Old school style has to be brought back,, although i am happy mmos are going more into sandbox type gameplay , which is a huge improvement. WOW style games are finally stopping. I believe the new era of sandbox gaming will bring a oldschool feel to it, well thats what im hoping for atleast. With EQ Next, The Repopulation, Star Citizen, Black Desert and Camelot Unchained. These 5 games are what i am most looking forward to , all being sandbox style they should pick up the MMORPG gaming industry because IMO its been EXTREMELY dull and lame last few years, and im sure many will agree.
Advanced Member
Joined: 1/28/04
"The MMOrpg genre is designed for the patient, curious, adventurous, ambitious gamers. The type of players who like to socialize, explore, and achieve self-set goals. It is factually not designed to be hopped-between and played solo. MMORPG's are the outlet for exploration and adventure not churning through quest after quest, and that is ultimately what these modern MMORPG's are designed for, all in the name of greed and money, not ambition."
I fully agree and IMO. This is what MMORPGs are about. This is how the genre started. This defined the great games that are still great.
I am perpetually baffled by why game developers ever shifted from what was working towards more casual and solo gameplay. I can see bean counters and corporate slime wanting huge numbers of players but it's not like the developers/designers themselves gain all that much of the extra profits from larger number of sales. So why create lame single player games full of ez-mode that have crappy players and communities. Why CONTINUE to do this when such games are considered failures as MMORPGs (they make money but they fail to retain subs, fail to remain sub-based, and never live up to what they should be).
I especially don't see why MMORPG devs keep up this trend given that the competition for online gamer time is much higher now than it was in the early days of MMORPGs. Everything is online now. It would seem that designing a lasting game for a smaller number willing to pay a sub would be a better model than designing for fast food players who have zero loyalty to anything except flitting around randomly.
Premium MMORPGs do not feature built-in cheating via cash for gold pay 2 win. PLAY to win or don't play.
Originally posted by Holophonist
Well, you can because I agree. And not every person is wanting the same thing. I was not an EQ person at all. But there are things I can appreciate from it that don't revolve around corpse runs and mob grinding.
Its like if soft drink makers at one point just stopped making all other sodas outside cola variations because Coke and Pepsi were the top sellers. And the only alternatives are made by people with inadequete funds and caused alergies to a lot of people. Then the guys who support cola says "Everyone buys cola and it's supported by stats" of course of mostly of people who have only had cola ever with no alternatives, " And there is nobody who wants other drinks look at those indie makers. That's as good as it gets. Look at the old drinks like that they caused indigestion and gas." That totally ignores that people want the different flavor not so much the outdated issues that new soda no longer has.
Elite Member
Joined: 12/08/07
Originally posted by Voqar
I agree with much of your post until the term "sub" comes up. I personally think it is a fallacy to believe that a subscription leads to loyalty in a game. I just don't understand where this thinking comes from.
IMO a subscription simply raises a players expectations. I am paying X dollars per month, this game better be pretty damn good or I will stop playing. So in other words, the money you are paying is meaningless, it is the content or quality of the game that keeps you playing. Add in the the box cost, plus subscription and many people are hesitant to even try the game much less subscribe.
Still don't get the thinking that a sub means a loyal player base. I think it is only in the minds of the so called "hardcores" that this is true.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Apprentice Member
Joined: 6/11/08
I think with my heart and move with my head.-Kongos
Having games that are worlds, and that promote community and socialization would be good. People would probably enjoy that. Giving players choices and a feeling of freedom in those worlds would be great. It's the methods that the "old school" games used to get there that's the problem with current gamers. The devil is in the details.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by Voqar
1) devs want bigger, than smaller audience even if we are not talking about money. If you write a book, do you want 100 people reading it, or a million? Isn't more people enjoying your product better?
2) Because they are not considered failure .. may be only some die-hard hard core old timers . but obviously dev don' t need to care about them. You really think most in the industry would consider GW2 a failure when it is "the fastest selling MMO"? Your opinion (of that it fails) matter little to them, and you can easily find someone who think it is great.
3) Don't sound like your preference is the only "right" one. It is a free world. Devs can (and should) cater to whoever they want.
Apprentice Member
Joined: 6/11/08
I think with my heart and move with my head.-Kongos
This scenario would be comparable to the MMORPG market is the other soft drinks' market share started to shrink before Coke & Pepsi were released. It would also be comparable if other soft drink manufacturers tried to deliver those other drinks on a small scale, and people just weren't interested in their products.
Other people in this thread have listed out the games that have been attempted in recent history to appeal to the "old school" gamers. None of those games really took off, even when the development quality was good. There just aren't that many MMORPG players interested in those games. Certainly not enough to make someone think that a AAA version of an "old school" game would be a worthwhile endeavor.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Hard Core Member
Joined: 1/28/05
Correcting wrongs on the Internet...
Originally posted by Holophonist
I never questioned your definition of watered down, it is your definition, I was questioning your logic regarding how you called WoW watered down. I pointed out how your "case" is flawed. Being casual friendly has nothing to do with being less targeted or more targeted. Casual friendliness means you can log in, do something worthwhile within 20 minutes and log out. The opposite is a game where doing anything takes an uninterrupted long play session. It has no relation to depth, difficulty or how well it is targeted.
WoW was a hit profuct. An anomaly in MMORPG circles, but not too uncommon in business. Companies do the exact same thing in any market regarding hit products. It is not unnatural.
Everyone adopted touchscreen technology soon after iPhones success even though the technology was originally developed by Nokia almost 15 years ago.
Remember Tamagochis? A hit product copied by many. Leatherman? Sony Walkman?
I have no issue with this although your comment about where market "needs to be" is rather odd.
I am saying there is nothing inherently better or worse in sandbox design although their execution has always been subpar to a point where the word "sandbox MMO" is synonomous with poor quality. Usually I'd say the case is developers have been overreached.
And you can't know whether Eve is a similar anomaly among sandboxes as WoW is among themeparks. It is impossible to know since Eve doesn't have and hasn't had much competition. Every other sci-fi game has been lacking severely. Every other sandbox has lacked severely. With competition like that, you don't need to be "good", you only need to be better than the alternatives.
Yes, Eve is a perfect game for some, but you don't really know to how many people it is their "fallback MMO".
I don't mind people voicing their opinion. I mind it when they do it in a rude and antagonizing manner. I mind when people make a weekly thread about how things were better "back in the day" and how current MMOs suck. It is so common MMORPG.com should reserve a separate section or a sticky for it. Or delete it as spam.
They very rarely lead to a constructive conversation. Most often they are simply threads for bashing and flaming - ideal breeding grounds for trolls. It is not only the most common topic on these forums but also the least productive.
Yes I think they are unrelated. To my knowledge, the complaining has been fairly constant the time I've been following these forums. If there was any significant change you could have a point, but even then you could not be sure: it could still be a coincidence.
I already explained above, I did not direct my criticism toward your definition but to your statement about how WoW is more watered down than SWG or UO.
I have. Many times already.
I wasn't quoting you. Clearly you can read from the context those were examples. And I already said, that is one way to further increase your playerbase but not the only one. And nothing says that WoW has had to rely on it any more than Eve, UO or SWG has. I feel like I am repeating myself.
You cannot make a judgement based on the size how watered down the game is. It is no way reasonable or intuitive to make that connection. You don't know how many of those players are precisely the target audience.
All I see is you making a strawman. And I wasn't the only poster to point it out.
Completely invalidates, huh?
Your opinion is as biased as theirs. Don't you think that maybe because they play a lot of those games they might be proficient identifying a "WoW clone"?
Copying UI design is normal practice when designing games. You'll notice a "copied UI"I, coming from a similar game it feels intuitive, benefiting the you, the player. In UI design, it is foolish to be different for the sake of being different.
But if you want to see a proper clone, you should check out Perpetuum or Heroes of Newerth. Perpetuum being a clone of Eve Online and HoN being a clone of the original Defense of the Ancients. You would be hard-pressed to find a themepark copying WoW to the same extent as those two games have copied their respective role models.
I'm already a classic? I'm touched.
It is far more complicated than that. The term hardcore does not only apply to players who play "hardcore games" it also applies to hardcore players who spend much of their time mastering and playing all games. In fact, I would say most of the players playing "hardcore games" are casuals, just like most of the players playing "casual games" are casuals.
Sandboxes are also known for their poor quality. Does that also mean people who like sandboxes like the poor quality? Themepark players are known for disliking bad games. Sandboxes are generally bad games. ... Really you could go anywhere with that logic.
Do you know who has a deeper knowledge of the industry? -The people who work in the industry. And some have been posting here opposing you.
But you would trust sandbox players talking about themeparks? How peculiar.
I am not only talking about aesthetics when I talk about quality. I am talking about everything in the game. What it tries to do and how well it achieves it, depth, amount of bugs, performance... everything.
And we've been over this already: Time spent playing is a poor measure of quality. I can play a game for a day and have more fun than playing something else for a year. As it has been pointed out, GTA V has less that 48 hours worth of content, yet it is undoubtedly one of the best games of the decade so far. I had more fun playing Nexus: Jupiter Incident and Freelancer (each of which took me a couple of afternoons to finish) than I've had playing Eve Online for well over 2 years.
Regarding PvP, I had more "good fights" in one weekend playing Guild Wars 1 than in all the engagements combined from open world PvP games I've tried. And the time spent in GW1 is less than playing all those open world PvP games. It is all relative. All subjective.
How does Repopulation keeping itself alive makes my position wrong in any way? Or EQN being a sandbox or not? And making EQN a sandbox would be rather odd considering neither of the previous games in the series were strictly sandbox. What is your point?
You can't possibly claim to know their motives. And I think it is juvenile to call them greedy or lazy solely on the basis that they don't serve or share your preferences.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by lizardbones
What games are these I am curious.
Originally posted by Quirhid
1. You absolutely did question what I meant by watered down. I think you said something about me using platitudes and then demanded I explain what I mean when I say watered down. That started a discussion that lead to using venn diagrams as an example and then eventually you changed the subject from what watered down means, to how I know that WoW is an example of watering down.
2. This is the first time you've responded to the connection between casual friendly and watered down. Casual friendliness doesn't just mean you can log in and do something in a short amount of time. That's one thing that casual people look for, I'm sure. But casual friendly games are in general not going to be as deep. Casual friendliness is kind of the antithesis of depth in a game. Depth means there's a lot to explore and a lot to consider and think about. Casual gameplay means you can kind of coast without having to take it too seriously. I'm not sure how you can claim that there's no connection between casual gameplay and watered down gameplay. Casual players pretty much by definition are going to care less about their game than a hardcore gamer.
I never said that taking proven methods or ideas from other companies is unnatural. I'm saying WoW's success was unnaturally, or abnormally, or unusually, substantial and so it lead to the market unnaturally favoring themeparks. The market has been in an unnatural state because of WoW's unusual success. I doubt 5 years from now the market will have as much of an focus on WoW-clones as it does now. If that ends up being the case (and I think it 's already happening), then that means we were right.
I have no issue with this although your comment about where market "needs to be" is rather odd.
When I say the market doesn't need to be where it is right now, I'm saying the MMO genre hasn't been figured out. It's still in a state of flux so you guys making the case that sandboxes won't exist simply because they don't already exist isn't accurate. Lizardbones in particular seems to like to talk about how the market knows best and the fact that developers aren't making them proves (or strongly suggests) that they're not viable. I'm saying I don't think that's true, I think developers are still figuring out what's doable and what isn't.
I don't think you understand my point about EvE. You guys are basically saying that sandboxes won't work. I'm saying they already do. EvE is a sandbox. The only reason I'm not playing it is because I'm not into the space combat. If you took the level of depth/complexity/consequence/sandbox-ness of EvE and made a fantasy game, that's a game I would be totally happy with.
The point of a forum is for people to talk about what they want to talk about. If there are SOOO many of these threads (and there probably are), then it's probably because there are a lot of people who want to talk about it. This kind of makes me consider just how much you guys rely on this "vocal minority" argument. I agree that forums in particular disproportionately represent the people with a grievance, but there are a LOT of us on these forums. It seems like these discussions are split pretty much right down the middle between pro sandbox and anti sandbox. I don't often make predictions, but I think in the coming years, all of this sandbox naysaying is going to look absolutely ridiculous. I think sandbox games are going to be a really big splash. I doubt they'll ever beat themeparks, but considering you guys are basically saying we shouldn't even expect one or two good sandboxes, I think that's WAY off.
Got it. A lot of people complaining about a lack of sandbox games, companies start to make sandbox games to sell to these (and other) people, and there's no connection.
I think you need to look at this last exchange and ask if this is a reasonable position to take.
Again, you can make that connection based on size. We were given the gift of reason, after all. You do realize that your position is that the MMO that has BY FAR the most subscribers hasn't had to water down their gameplay? Technically is it possible that they just happen to find this HUGE niche of players that all share as many common preferences as the much smaller audience of SWG? I guess. Do you really think that's a defensible position though?
So you're saying that you're right because other people agreed with you? Seems more than a little bit fallacious to me. Also, I don't remember people agreeing with you that it was a strawman aside from Loktofeit. But you and he both really don't have much credibility when it comes to this kind of thing. He is totally incapable of having a conversation, and you continuously ignore the most important stuff. You're still not even acknowledging the point about your lack of knowledge of the context in which is was using the word "satisfied." That's the WHOLE thing and over and over again you ignore it, choosing to pick out little bits here and there that you can argue with.
Yes! MOBAs aren't MMOs. Not only that, MOBAs are HUGE. LoL is the single most played game ever. I don't know if the MMO genre is growing or not, but using a number that includes MOBAs is utterly and absolutely pointless.
Of course my opinion is biased! I'm not nor have I ever claimed to be the overseer of what games are or aren't WoW clones. But how does that excuse you saying "If they don't think its a WoW clone, its not a WoW clone." ?? It seems like in any of these discussions whenever you hit a dead end, you just find some way to bring it back to me.
I highly doubt that MMORPG UIs have been figured out to the point of perfection. So anytime a company copies something from another game, that's a missed opportunity to discover more efficient or interesting ways of designing the UI. I fully expect companies to do that from time to time, obviously when I say a game is a WoW clone, I'm saying it relies more heavily on stealing ideas than they should.
Also, I'm sure certain UI choices are tied to how the game is made. So if a game is taking other ideas from a game like WoW, their UI is more likely to emulate WoW's UI. But also I don't care that much about what they take from the UI. I care way more about copying things like quest hubs, instancing, character progression, etc. Game structure stuff.
Since you're having such a hard time answering the question, let's just make it more specific. Do you think the % of SWG's playerbase who have also played WoW is higher than the % of WoW's playerbase who have also played SWG?
Who said anything about trusting sandbox players talking about themeparks? You're saying those powergamers play a lot of "games", so you'd trust their opinion about "games" more than the average gamer. I'm saying the games they're playing seem to be games that people are prone to jump around to and from. The themepark circuit. Oh I like that.
Also, I may trust that person's opinion over the "average game" but I absolutely would not trust that person's opinion over somebody who grew up playing Shadowbane or UO or SWG.
Time spent is a fine measure of quality in an industry that basically across the board is looking to keep people around. Portal is one of my favorite games of all time and it only lasts a couple of hours. But that's how it's designed. MMOs are always looking and trying to keep people around. If you don't think that MMOs care about their own longevity, than I'm not sure what to tell you. If they do care about their longevity, then time spent playing is definitely a good measure of quality.
I guess it depends on your position. Your position seems to be that I'm wrong. And my position is that there should be more sandboxes. So if a sandbox comes out and is alive enough for me to play it......?
What the hell dude. Are you serious right now? You think I'm calling them greedy or lazy based on the fact that they don't serve my preferences? This is one of the first times I've actually been PISSED in any of these discussions. This is a downright ridiculous thing to say.
I'm calling them greedy/lazy (though again, I try to say things like "lazy game design") because they're making games that are clearly blatant ripoffs of other games just with a new skin in order to make money. Not only that, a lot of them claim to be things they're not. How often do developers shy away from questions about PvP because they don't want to scare anybody away from their game? Instead of just being honest so people don't buy your game and then end up disappointed.
Did you really just link me to a video discussing one of the most basic and obvious concepts in philosophy? What does this have to do with anything? I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Imagine how much time would be saved if you just took a second and thought about what I'm asking and what your response is.
How is this statement nonsensical? "Just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true"
That's not asking you to prove a negative. All that is doing is pointing out that we're talking about something that may be true, even if I can't prove it. Again, this describes almost every discussion people have ever participated in. When I said it, I believe it was pointing out that this is a discussion. I'm not trying to PROVE something. I'm making claims, and you're supposed to argue against those claims if you don't agree with them.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
If he's talking about what I think he's talking about, it was a list of about 7 games, 4 of which aren't even out yet. The other 3 were Darkfall, Perpetuum annnnnd I can't remember the last. I pointed out the list's absurdity at the time and nobody really wanted to talk about it. Then Quirhid posted a list of some of the most obscure, low-budget games you could imagine.... some games I hadn't even heard of. The point of these lists were to show games that we sandbox players have been super excited for in the past and have propped up as being "THE ONE" of sandbox games.
Hard Core Member
Joined: 10/10/03
Originally posted by nariusseldon
GW2 is neither sandbox or old school.
As to how do we know if modern MMOs have not failed simply because they are not good MMOs? The number of them, and the ones that were perfectly decent, which should not have done so badly.
Hard Core Member
Joined: 1/28/05
Correcting wrongs on the Internet...
Originally posted by Holophonist
1. I demanded you to define exactly what you mean by watered down. I did not question it.
2. Casual friendliness does not mean what you think it means. It doesn't matter if a single player game, for example, is deep or not. The fact that you can save your progress at any time and continue your play session later makes it casual friendly. It makes a game casual friendly when you don't need to spend any lengthy time preparing to play it. It has nothing to do with depth or difficulty.
Party forming tools make a game casual friendly. Instanced PvP is casual friendly. They don't make grouping or PvP shallow.
I think you are wrongly using the word "unnatural" in this, because there is nothing unnatural about it. Is it an anomaly? Maybe. Is in unnatural? Definitely not. This is what happens with hit products.
I have no issue with this although your comment about where market "needs to be" is rather odd.
When I say the market doesn't need to be where it is right now, I'm saying the MMO genre hasn't been figured out. It's still in a state of flux so you guys making the case that sandboxes won't exist simply because they don't already exist isn't accurate. Lizardbones in particular seems to like to talk about how the market knows best and the fact that developers aren't making them proves (or strongly suggests) that they're not viable. I'm saying I don't think that's true, I think developers are still figuring out what's doable and what isn't.
We are not saying anything of the sort. We are explaining why it is unlikely for old-school games to make a comeback.
I didn't say there were a lot of people talking about it. I said there were many threads about it. It is more or less the same faces over and over who make 'em.
And if there is any sort of split on this topic, it is between fans and sceptics. You are seriously mistaken if you think we are anti sandbox.
The fact that you are attributing the development of a few games to yourself (and people like you) is rather amusing.
Now you get it. What if WoW has found that huge niche? I think it is entirely plausible. Certainly I find your assumption about how UO or SWG haven't had to expand their net as much as WoW very dangerous. And I think it is not very sound to base that argument on size alone.
Why didn't you change your position when Loktofeit further explained is post, then? His explanation was perfectly valid and the assumption he made very prudent.
It is not "utterly and absolutely pointless". Come on. You should know better than this.
Why is they saying a game is not a WoW clone any different from you saying a game is a WoW clone?
No I didn't claim UIs were developed to perfection. I only made a point how it is sometimes beneficial to copy existing UIs. This includes some features as well. But I find some of the things you list are quite high concept features. It would be foolish to call game clone based off of those. It would be equivalent of me saying that lack of instances, crafting, classless progression and a harsh death penalty makes a clone.
The proposition is preposterous, no? So it is with the features you list.
No. What does this have to do with anything?
Powergamers play a lot of games. All games. Not just themeparks.
It is like you want to hear the history of the ancient word only through the eyes of the Greeks. Everyone else is a barbarian.
No it isn't. P2P MMOs are designed to keep you playing as long as possible. And that actually leads to watered down content (Whaddya know; I got to use that term too!). Oftentimes these games require a lot of time to play but they don't have much substance in them.
If you had a can of soda and drank it, that would be your average single player RPG. If you have can of soda, poured it in a bucket full of water and enjoyed it with your friends, that would be your average P2P MMORPG. I exaggerate but I'm sure you get the picture.
I am merely voicing my scepticism and criticism toward your claims. Nothing more. All I've said - All anyone has said, is that they find your predictions unlikely.
Can you name a company that hasn't fallen short on their promises or lied outright?
But if you accuse me of attacking your reasoning - clinging to your the things you use to build your argument. What do you expect? That is all I can do, because I cannot prove a negative. But as Randi something along the lines of "You can use it to illustrate your point, but whenever you claim something is, rather than isn't, you should provide evidence toward the positive". The latter part is incidentally the same comment Loktofeit made.
I questioned some of the claims you made to which you responded with your comment "just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true". You didn't use it to illustrate your point, you made a claim, and that is why it is nonsensical.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Apprentice Member
Joined: 6/11/08
I think with my heart and move with my head.-Kongos
This is the list of games that are being put out to cater to "old school" players, minus Everquest Next. We'll have to see if Star Citizen and Black Desert follow the trend of fizzling out, but so far, Perpetuum, Darkfall Online, ArcheAge and Age of Wushu have failed to hit the big time. I've played Perpetuum and it's a good quality game. Bugs are few and the feature set is largely what was advertised before launch. I've not played the other games, but listening to conversations about them is not like listening to conversations about Mortal Online. There is every reason to believe those games are feature complete and have relatively few bugs.
I'm not saying these aren't good games, and I'm not saying they aren't successful. I'm saying that the target audience will largely determine the size of a game and while the build quality will determine the success of the game, regardless of how much time, money or faith that gets thrown at the game.
In a lot of cases, an "old school" target audience will be too small to bother with, unless the developer is largely self funded, or has a way to bring development costs down dramatically.
Also, how are you guys even doing all that inline quoting? If I try to add one quote from another post, the editor borks and just merges all the quoted text together.
Last edit, I promise.
The biggest issue with creating games for the "old school" crowd is that there isn't just one crowd that can be targeted. You might have the Always On PvP crowd, but you also have the Consensual PvP crowd too. You might have the Mob Grind crowd, but you also have the Quest Grind or Mission crowd. You might have an old school Sandbox crowd, but you'll also have an old school Theme Park crowd. There's a World Boss crowd and an Instanced Boss crowd. The "old school" crowd is just as fragmented as the rest of the MMORPG group, but there are fewer "old school" players. Each of those crowd fragments is diametrically opposed to the other, so pleasing a large group of them at the same time is difficult at best. With the rest of the MMORPG market, a developer can pick a particular fragment of the market and have a sizable group.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Really? People are writing posts that takes up 10 screens and need 5 min just to scroll through. Personally i am not reading those, but have fun dueling with wall of text.
Novice Member
Joined: 4/08/05
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
lol then you were playing the game wrong. I remember fighting players to be able to fight mobs in the ob plains.... Not to mention you could lvl in multi ways in ac1.
Current mmorpgs are stale and dont really offer anything a single player rpg cant do better. Thats why the genre is bleeding out.
Originally posted by ray12k
That is not true. MMORPGs offer a star trek, TNG era, RPG with both ship and ground combat. I can't drive a ST2 version miranda or constitution class starship in any SP RPG.


text:
|94 posts found
Apprentice Member
Joined: 7/04/11
From what I have seen of gameplay, this thing is a console game with some user configurability. It won't be a true MMO, nor will it work like PnP Dungeons and Dragons. Better adjust your expectations now.
It may be a great game, but it won't be something like the campaigns of olde at yon kitchen table.
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011
Login or Register to never see this panel
Apprentice Member
Joined: 8/04/12
Originally posted by evilastro
- No trinity - there are four roles based on 4e like the first D&D game : controller,defender,striker and leader.
This part is integrally tied to the IP - of post spellplague NW campaign setting.
Novice Member
Joined: 5/11/11
Ah, NWN... I have fond memories of that game... and even log into it still from time to time, there are still some interesting PW going on to this day. It also reminds me of the good old days when BioWare actually made compelling stories and had good gameplay at the top of their lists... you know, before EA came along and scooped out and discarded all the good things about BioWare and left it to rot like an empty husk.
I think a big part of what Perfect World is trying to do with D&D: Neverwinter, is recapturing what was so great about NWN, and that was being able to create your own content to play with your friends. Unfortunately the Foundry just sounds like a map editor for making Dungeon Crawler campaigns, rather than actual Persistent Worlds like NWN had.
It's a step in the right direction, but I have my doubts about how succesful it will be...
"The problem with quotes from the Internet is that it's almost impossible to validate their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
Novice Member
Joined: 2/16/11
I'll kick your a**e so hard, you could build a swimming pool in the footprint!
It's a license they bought to appeal to an established fanbase.
Much like how rappers make crap actors, studios will still give it a go because they bring along a fanbase who'll go see the film just to see their favorite rapper in it.
So regardless of how the game is people will still try it out based on the name association. That's how branding works ;)
This looks like a job for....The Riviera Kid!
Novice Member
Joined: 2/18/04
What makes it D&D for me is that it has the module creator (I forget the name of it). You can create your own dungeons/quests/etc for a party to run through.
PnP D&D is a mixture of the setting, the mechanics (the rules), the ability to play with people, and the ability for the DM to get creative. Neverwinter is likely different in rules since it's an MMO and not a pencil/paper RPG. However, from what I have seen it does have the right to call itself D&D and Neverwinter (it has the setting, it has the ability to make your own quests/dungeons, you can play with friends, and it follows the tabletop rules as closely as it can while still being an MMO).
Now, I could be hugely dissappointed at release (it's happened before with games I was looking forward too). But so far it looks fairly good and at the very least it's being pretty true to it's license.
(I have not preordered the game and I play tabletop D&D weekly..same group for the last 7 years). Luckily my fiance also plays in the same group :)
Old School
Joined: 3/08/04
Players come for the game, but they stay for the people- Most Devs have forgotten this.
Originally posted by Omnifish
Well, Queen Latifah is not a crap actor by a long stretch, but I understand your point, and I get how branding works...
We all know branding can be ethical and honest or it can be cynical and dishonest, designed to fool people.
Which is this?
Apprentice Member
Joined: 6/20/10
Originally posted by ignore_me
I am probably showing my age here but, there were two sorts of AD&D of course : the PnP stuff you are talking about, and then the dungeon crawls where you had a board, pieces, and a dungeon setup that the dungeon master took you through and it was basically a bash-monster-and-grab-loot fest.
DDO and this Neverwinter game seem a lot like the latter than the super-involved PnP roleplaying game you are mentioning, yet both have been in AD&D/D&D since... well... the beginning pretty much.
I admit to preferring the more involved world-based PnP games myself.
Novice Member
Joined: 9/12/07
http://www.gamestop.com/pc/games/dd-ultimate-pack/102768 I'm guessing this would be more worth it??
Advanced Member
Joined: 12/12/05
So, its based on the 4e rules that WotC are quickly moving away from in their new D&D Next version, eh? Just all around odd vibes with this.
Originally posted by gillrmn
Just because they call it a 'Leader' does not make it any less a healer. The trinity will still hold true in Neverwinter.
The cleric's power source remains divine, and they fill the role of Leader. Their powers (called prayers) focus on healing, protection and support.
Devoted Cleric focus on support, ranged combat and Wisdom-based prayers.
Parties in Neverwinter will most certainly comprise of 'Guardian Warrior, Devoted Cleric... and others'. A trinity. Some might want a controller but that will be optional.
Joined: 11/22/05
"what a boring life, HATING everything" -Gorilla Biscuits
Originally posted by Vesavius
kinda hard to say without playing it.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at ones character in the face of logic and reason- Me
Advanced Member
Joined: 1/17/06
Originally posted by Vesavius
If its an unknown IP then its not possible to look at it as a fan. If your asking would I be looking at it as a fan of the genre then yes I would, exactly as I do with every new or announced RPG, RTS, FPS, or MMO. I then decide based on the information availible if it has the GAMEPLAY im looking for to make it worth investing some time and less money than I spend in 2 hrs at a restaurant on.
Unfortunately theres a good reason the word fan is derived from fanatic (which is apparently acceptable in video games but not religion!!), to qoute one of the posters on page 1:
What does a twitch-based action game have in common with a PnP RPG? Not much, in my opinion. I don't care what universe a video game is set in, or what 'rule set' it uses. If you can't play a rogue paladin who's on a quest to dethrone the corrupt leader of his order, you're not playing an RPG.
Yet hes on a website dedicated to games where you cant do that....
Apprentice Member
Joined: 6/20/10
Originally posted by Boraell
Yes, I think it is a shame that MMORPGs never went in the direction of PnP and the MUDs/MUSHes where you could indeed have such storylines in them. These were not hardcoded stories though : these were basically "live events", run by GMs. I don't really see any other way to do this than to have GMs and live events.
Elite Member
Joined: 1/13/05
I have a wandering mind, but that's ok, it brings back presents.
Don't forget that Neverwinter is the main political and economic power in that setting.
If you want to buy something, sell something, or hire someone, you can do it at Neverwinter.
Sure, they could always put the game in the underdark, but that wouldn't have half the possibilities that Neverwinter can provide as your adventuring hub. Though they could save a lot on graphics since you'd mostly be blind in the Underdark, unless you had darkvision, but that only goes so far (usually either 60' or 90' with a few rare 120') and is in black and white.
Then there's always Thay, but I don't think adventurers have much leeway there since it's rather totalitarian from what I've read. And of course, insulting one of the Red Wizards is a quick way to get outlawed if not executed. In my opinion, Thay is a great place to visit and cause chaos in, so long as you are high enough level to get away with it, and get away safely. :)
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
Novice Member
Joined: 8/30/10
Nothing , it doesn't even follow the 4E RULE SET , COME ON ! , never seen a warrior roll 250+ damage on any mobs . this great weapon fighter video is bull s h i t .where in any D&D rule set do you see any role do 1000+ crit , this is just a action Role playing game ,not D&D rule set
Apprentice Member
Joined: 8/04/12
Originally posted by barasawa
Neverwinter is the center of Netheril and Thay war right now. Ashmadai are two timing them while openly supporting Thay(as before Neverember came they ruled there).
Neverember is an outsider to Neverwinter and came there because he hates Thay and hates Netherese. So it is a four way standoff.
That and the city is multi-racial i.e. Any race can come freely there - no restrictions on magic either.
Only other good cities of Sword Coast that match NW are BG, Waterdeep and Amn.
Originally posted by Vesavius
You...haven't played a lot of tabletop D&D have you? D&D is, as IPs go, rather larger and more encompassing than just Black Isle and FR. As both properties go (not to mention prior Neverwinter titles) everything I've seen so far screams D&D...at least, D&D as it's been portrayed in various medai for the last fifteen years.
D&D has had four primary editions and two variant editions (the original "zero edition" and Basic/Expert). It's got tons of spin-offs, the core game is covered by more than a dozen published worlds (FR being only the more popular of them), and of course it's 3rd edition of the game...the one that started D20....spun off many variants, some of which even influenced games like KOTOR 1 and 2.
Anyway, if we decided that for NW to look/feel like D&D it must emulate the mechanics, then we must ask, "which edition, and to what extent?" because there is no single representation of D&D that is easily defined by its mechanics outside of some key "sacred cow" concepts like armor class, hit points, alignment and such. This gets even crazier when you consider that as of 2013 the 4th edition is effectively "dead" and they are developing a 5th edition for a 2014 release. In fact right now they are reprinting all the older editions, putting many in print again for the first time in decades.
If D&D is defined by its settings, then FR is a good choice, but personally I wish other worlds like Greyhawk, Eberron, Ravenloft or Dark Sun didn't get ignored all the time. Hell, a new Planescape game would be fantastic. But D&D at its core is not actually about any of these settings, but the one that the players and DM create, so even an "official" setting isn't exemplary of D&D necessarily (for example, the movies...for better or worse...do not use an established setting).
D&D does have a lot of concepts that, if present, make it feel more like D&D. Alignment...drow....beholders....the planar wheel....Orcus...stuff like that is ubiquitous in D&D.
Current MMOs: Rift, GW2, Defiance
Originally posted by Vesavius
We won't really know until it arrives, of course. If I had to guess based on what I'd seen so far, however, I'd say its an earnest effort to encapsulate the game's look, feel and lore but the mechanics will probably pay lip service to D&D 4th edition...and no one will be bothered, because that edition is already being buried in an early grave, unfortunately.
Current MMOs: Rift, GW2, Defiance
Originally posted by Vesavius
I bought into and have quite enjoyed Rift, which had no tie-in to anything prior to its own existence other than the broader scope of "fantasy gaming," so yes, its possible to be excited for a game without a distinct IP attached.
To answer the question about NW specifically: I think I would be interested in it regardless of the D&D bit because of the prospect for dynamic user-generated scenarios which has not been done (to the best of my experience) in a fantasy MMO before; I also like the ARPG element they have been advertising. So yeah, the game does indeed seem to be offering (according to all I've read) some interesting features that make it interesting regardless of the IP.
What I don't like, unfortunately is the $200 early adopter package they threw out there recently, which does not bode well for a game that can be played for reasonable money. Perfect World has, in my experience, been excellent and ruthless when it comes to gouging customers in its freemium models.
Current MMOs: Rift, GW2, Defiance
Elite Member
Joined: 8/13/09
"It is double pleasure to deceive the deceiver". - Niccolo Machiavelli
i never played Neverwinter, didnt like D&D and im waiting for this game. As for Elder Scrolls, i like morrowind, i like oblivion, and i LOVE SKyrim. I want skyrim online but i know TESO is far from it but im also waiting for that game.
If the story is good enough to keep me engaged then ill be happy. I dont play mmos without story anymore. Thats what keeps me pushing my character through any game. A good story. Since i neve played NWN im not even connecting that story to NW but as long as its engaging im fine.
Thats just me

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Keep things cozy while brightening up your room in the process with the help of this playful throw blanket. Designed by Fab for our collection of home accents, this lovely knitted accent is made of 100% cotton for a soft yet natural feel. Bright, cheerful, and engaging, this piece is covered with an eye-catching chevron pattern that looks gorgeous when paired with solids or sassy when set against additional prints.
This product has no reviews yet. Be the first to review this product. Write a review
Enjoy 10% off your first order*


text:
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bro, Nov 14, 2012.
The rich feel they deserve them.
says the poor people.
Blame the poor for entitlements while the rich rake in the Rich entitlements.
someone has to cook the fries.
at least the rich contribute.
I love me some fry cooks.
So does the middle class. The rich can afford to pay more. Or maybe they want to see the country go into the shitter.
Wake up white people.
Awesome thread, great posts. How can it get any better?
the white people wake up before noon.
No we don't.
god i hope you work second or third shift.
I do.
And so do many colored people.
working for a 10th of what i make.
It's good to be white.
In America.
we built that
Everywhere but South Africa
please define middle class.


text:
|Home > Tutorials > Bootstrap > Coding Actions
In the Using Tags lesson, we implemented a Logon form. In the Coding Actions lesson, we interpret the Logon form, and return a different result code depending on the circumstances.
If you have coded along, you can open the Logon action
and enter a likely username and password. Since we haven't given the Action any behavior, the mapping redisplays the default
Logon.jsp page.
Let's add an Action class that will make the Logon form more interesting.
Just as an example, we can examine the username and password values. If either or both properties are empty, return INPUT, so that we can collect a valid Logon. Otherwise, return SUCCESS.
The framework automatically populates the username and password properties for us. All that's left to do is checking to see if either property is empty.
The Actions do the "heavy lifting" in a web application. Actions interact with data base systems and business rule engines, so that we can turn "billboard" HTML into a rich, dynamic web experience.
After doing its work, an Action returns a result code to indicate what the framework should do next. Often, the next step is to go onto the "success" result. Other times, we might need to go to an "error" result instead. In either case, the Action does not worry about generating the response, only deciding which logical result to present next.
For more about Actions, see Big Picture in the Core Developers Guide.
Onward to Selecting Results
Return to Using Tags