What About World War II Online (and other MMOG's)? 12
mmaddox asks: "Who ELSE is following, or has invested in, the awful release of the MMOG (Massively Multiplayer Online Game), World War 2 Online? Plagued with server problems, switch configuration issues, poor client performance (less than 5 FPS on some systems, with 8-10 commonly reported), and a growing list of angry users returning software to the store, it looks like this much-heralded game may well be tolling its own death knells. The final outcome is still to be seen. Are releases like this to be expected? Should a game buyer be patient and wait for the system to be repaired, or is the buyer justified in demanding results for hard-earned money?" I've noticed that there have been several MMOG's that have been looking to get off of the ground over the past year and a half, however not many of them have (of course, for reasons of my own, I'm hoping Neverwinter Nights succeeds). What MMOG's, currently under development, have you all been following and do any of them look to be progressing the way they should?
Reality check (Score:1)
The second worst thing that can happen to game software is when a system can no longer be expanded to include new concepts. When this happens, and when you have explored the given concepts to your satisfaction, you jump ship to the next game. If only there was a single system that allowed you to accrue useable score points and prestige across multiple games! You would always be a proud customer of the consortium that established that system, because whenever you got bored with one world you could choose another without losing touch with your gaming peers, without having to learn an new user interface, without abandoning your prestige (or infamy), without having to begin anew with score 0.
Everquest will always be a fantasy genre. As it stands it cannot be expanded to include something like Star Wars, it would be two separate games. If the money is there, they might write a separate system for a genre with a large following such as Star Trek or Star Wars. But you'll never see a VampireQuest or Hitchhikers GuideQuest because Everquest is money driven, and the best bang for the buck is the large genre game. And I suspect WWII falls somewhere in the middle as a genre.
A money-driven system will never be able to transcend this, because developing computer games is vastly expensive. There are money-driven companies [sjgames.com] that manufacture pencil-and-paper game systems that manage to incorporate hundreds of subgenres because their costs are different. But an open source system might, if enough people got on board. There are some folks on SourceForge [sourceforge.net] that are aiming to do just that.
Misconceptions about "massively" multiplayer games (Score:1)
Also, things like Diablo 2 don't count for the same reasons. For a multiplayer game to be "massive" it needs a persistent world and the possibility to be played by thousands of people at the same time, in that same world. It helps to have equipment and skills that stay on a character when the player logs off, but that's optional.
The basic MUD of olden days has all it takes to be a MMOG, it only lacks the piles upon piles of players.
Examples of MMOGs include
- EverQuest
- Anarchy Online
- Planetside
- Star Wars Galaxies
I'm not listing things like Dawn or Horizons that are still far from release or even rumored to be a hoax. The games above will definitely be released or are available already, the only thing that's scary about it is that 75% of them are made by Sony. I hope you see a trend, though
Trying to get back on topic, I think it takes a LOT of effort to make a good MMO(RP)G. While gameplay mechanics are a lot simpler than in most games, the vast numbers of NPCs, the huge world, the simple fact that you're working with multiples of a normal game's data in form of textures and models already keeps you working for years.
Add to that the storyline that needs to be incorporated to keep it interesting or other methods of making your customers keep paying for their accounts (as in EQ, I still don't know what makes it so addictive) and you're busy for another year. Networking code must also be solid because you're dealing with a large number of clients that you're passing from server to server constantly, and there's data like inventory, items etc. that must be preserved somehow.
Even if I'm wrong about many of these points, it still takes a lot to make a successful MMOG. Well, if you don't count Lineage, which in my opinion should have gone straight back to 1990 where it came from - I have no idea how they got that many subscribers in Korea.
[rant off]
(And I'm just posting as AC because my password doesn't want to be mailed to me. Hrm.)
Unpredictability? (Score:2)
"Ultima online, old technology as it is, is still (to me) the most intriguing MMORPG out right now. Shadowbane would have been cool, had it had a publisher. Camelot is great looking and well thought out, but suprisingly limited. The gameplay in AO annoys me a bit. EQ... well EQ is boring. Horizons is going to kill." (These being my opinions)
See the obvious opinions I made just from some of my experiences? In the MMORPG community I think that this is extremely commonplace. Look at the boards for some of the upcoming games (Namely horizons http://artifact-entertainment.com/horizons - of course that assumes that their servers are back up) and see the amazing support they've gotten, the amazing criticism on what they've put out and havent put out. The levels of involvement of gamers in these games is quite indicated in their public involvement.
One of the best things I have done, however, is get in betas for games when possible. See what kind of userbase it will have, and you can make a pretty decent judgement on how well the game will do. There are a number of korean games I would LOVE to try out (tetramorph!) that I saw at e3, if only I spoke Korean
AO drawing people away from EQ (Score:2)
--
SecretAsianMan (54.5% Slashdot pure)
Other MMOGs on the horizon... (Score:1)
Granted, those games mentioned frequently have received the greatest number of players (even in Beta stages, for AO). I just thought I'd mention a few places where I see MMO-type games really taking off. First, I think Verant's [verant.com] other works, such as Sovereign [verant.com] should be considered instead of just EQ. It looks to be an excellent game in both MMO and RTS catagories. The idea of an RTS where once you've won an area, you can continue to resource in that region to fund later attacks is good (though I think it has been done somewhat in games like Earth 2150)... As is the idea of having an entire planet to fight over rather than a small chunk of ground. Without any map edges to build against, players will finally need to surround their entire base with defenses rather than only 2 sides. Also coming from Verant (and Sony), Planetside [sony.com] should be a good extension of games like Tribes. Where Tribes had some nice versions of games (like Capture and Hold) where out-lying base buildings could hold a tactical advcantage, generally there was little in terms of being able to seriously gain or lose ground. The front-line was in the middle, and it stayed there. With a game like Planetside, you have the capability (I don't know if this will occur, mind you) of having a moving front. One of the previous games to do something similar to this was Total Annihilation: Kingdoms, where they had a server set up that allowed the games which were played to alter a more global map. The matches were just standard battles, but what was happening in theory was that each win allowed the player's side to gain or retain a section of land. Enough wins on one side claimed that territory and moved the fight forward into the next. Eventually one team would conquer the planet and the map would be reset.
The expanded nature of these games is a real improvement, IMHO. Instead of having a meaningless battle on planet X over a flag (ok, I'm willing to go further and say that the flag represents data or materials or some other tactical advantage, but the battle remains meaningless as there is no tangible benefit to winning in the subsequent match) the players will be able to achieve a victory that (hopefully) will have other benefits to aid them in later attacks. If a few good commanders appear in Planetside who happen to know where various useful buildings are, coordinated assaults on outposts would be possible, lending to the atmosphere and frankly to the fun factor in the game.
Of course, if winning a section of land in Planetside has no benefit other than more land to retreat over, I'd say it probably isn't worth the effort of making the game function in a MMO fashion... I'd even put forward small benefits gained, like capturing a vehicle factory allows for faster or better or even just more available vehicles for your team would be good enough.
(This is mainly in response to anothr comment) As for Neverwinter Nights being MMO... That's debatable. Some might say something like, "Massively Multiplayer should mean more than a standard Multiplayer. If NWN is MMO, then so is Tribes..." Almost. Tribes allows for an equal number of players on a given server (I believe NWN is currently slated for a maximum of 64 players per server). However, the NWN servers can be linked via portals, which would allow for a set of 10 servers so linked to handle 640 clients. The other complaint leveled is in regards to a persistant world. Nothing in MMO says persistant, though a good NWN server should be able to maintain itself for several months if so desired.
WW2 Online sounded like a good idea gone wrong. Personally, I wouldn't have played it, but I can see how it might've been a good game. Especially if they'd included hooks for other games to be linked in, such that you could have an FPS client, a commander client (available to those who've risen far enough in rank, so only a few get the priveldge is they want it) plotting out attack routes for the FPS people, a flight simulator so you could allow bomber runs and fighter-plane pilots to join in, and a few tanks and such (which I believe were included)... things to take all the fighting aspects and include them.
The only other game I know of in the works that looks interesting is Star Wars: Galaxies... but not for the RPG aspect. Instead, I'm looking at the propsed Space Expansion, which is the only genre I feel is seriously missing from the current MMO arena. A good MMO Space-Sim would be a lot of fun, I think... Having the capability of being a trader, a fighter pilot, a gunner or maybe even a capital ship commander would lend itself to some great gaming opportunities. Especially if space was limited to play-bubbles (here I'm thinking of something like Wing Commander or maybe Terminus, where you might be able to range over a single solar-system in your ship, but interstellar travel would be limited to jump-points) it could be an excellent strategic game as well as a fun Space Sim. Having blockades and blockade runners alone would be something neat...
I think I'll cut this short here and not go on to mention the plethora of other MMOGs that have been announced. I've covered those genres where I think expansion into the MMO arena will be good. I don't think many other game types will be able to make the switch (Sim City Online? Pharoah Online? Maybe some trading or something...)
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
"Veni; Vidi; Vi C++"
Anarchy Online (Score:1)
--
Full plate and packing steel! -Minsc
Anarchy Online (Score:2)
I played Everquest for a couple months, and quit just because I found it boring, what with the camping and everything, and I couldn't tolerate all of the servers crowded with lame users.
While I like fantasy settings better, I think that AO has some good things going. Of course, I find that a lot of the problems that are in Everquest are in this game too. Sitting around to regenerate health for one, and the fact that it seems my character has little plot-based motivation, etc. Still, these things aren't any worse, and in most cases not as bad, as they seem to be in EQ.
Mind you that right now the game has some issues associated with the beta. It is playable, though. So long as the major bugs are fixed, AO will probably attract a lot of the EQ crowd.
What I like right now about AO is that there don't seem to be the deluge of lame players there are in EQ. This will probably change after the release. Suffice to say, I don't think I'll be sticking around. Maybe if all the lamers forsake EQ and flock to Neverwinter, it'll be my chance to get back into EQ, and maybe it will be more fun... but maybe not.
I think I'll just wait for Neverwinter Nights. ^_^
What I dont understand (Score:1)
If I was setting up a MMOG I would make sure I had enough bandwidth and server power to handle an amount of clients equal to the number of pre-orders + the initial number of games shipped to retailers.
One other thing I am clueless on is that I saw a preview of WW2online and the graphics looked really good w/ a decent frame rate and good looking models of machines. However all of the graphics I have seen since it was released have horribly blocky, w/ low framerates, and very boxy models of the machines. What did they do? Ship the wrong version of the game?
Rich
Re:Shame (Score:1)
The question is... (Score:1)
The question is, why did the company release such a crappy system. I would be patient if you really thought the game was going to be cool. Look at Blizzard, they delayed D2 so long, a year and half. And even then, the game still had bugs. But people still bought and played it.
Re:What I dont understand (Score:1)
2M FPS Games--the future or pure shite? (Score:1)