Online gaming

[><FISH'>]

whilst we're on the subject of online games it wouldnt hurt people to try this.

 

its called netstorm and its a very simple online strategy game that takes place on floating islands in the sky.

 

its a relatively small download and easy to get the hang of but can take years to develop a true mastery of the game.

 

and its based solely around online play and as far as i know there arent many problems that can occur.

 

im posting this because we really need more people and im sure you people wouldnt mind checking it out. :D

[Aponez]

The problem with Guild Wars, from what I've heard, is that it's geared towards the PvP crowd.  I'd rather have something in which to act cooperatively.  I don't really have the energy to go heavy PvP.  I've done it, but I would probably just grab a good FPS if that were my goal.

 

I'd rather do co-op PvE rather than PvP.  I certainly have no use right now for a game completely premised on PvP.

 

My biggest beef with PvP is that, to be competetive at all, you must dedicate a lot of time to the game.  Either you suck or you practice as part of a clan essentially every day.  I don't have time for that anymore.  I haven't for years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Eldar, if you want PvP with toooooooo many people, play the WoW and in some PvP servers like Agamaggan go to Tarren Mills and you'll see what is tooooooooooooo many people or try a raid in DAoC against a Relic Keep

 

I played Guild Wars, and until now almost all time was be alone or with a group against monsters.

[Aponez]

WarCraft predates Ages of Empires, its goes way back to floppy days (or close enough) being one of the first RTS games and its interface is pretty much used by most RTS even today.

 

Before it there was Dune, the first RTS game.

 

Be careful, there is a reason why its WarCraft 3 and why Ages of Empires is still at 2, one very much predates the other and one heavly borrowed concepts of the other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dune, good film and good game, for his time was a real wonder

[Yst]

WarCraft predates Ages of Empires, its goes way back to floppy days (or close enough) being one of the first RTS games and its interface is pretty much used by most RTS even today.

 

Before it there was Dune, the first RTS game.

 

Be careful, there is a reason why its WarCraft 3 and why Ages of Empires is still at 2, one very much predates the other and one heavly borrowed concepts of the other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dune, good film and good game, for his time was a real wonder

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But neither was Dune the first RTS game, nor was it an RTS game at all.

 

Dune II was crucial to the emergence of the RTS genre, but Dune itself is a fairly inconsequential Adventure-Strategy hybrid, and isn't any more significant to the emergence of the RTS than any of ten or twenty other hybrid adventure or military strategy games from the eighties and early nineties.

 

Most people consider the first RTS (simultaneously, first Multiplayer RTS) to be Herzog Zwei for the Genesis, which significantly predates both Dune and Dune II. It's nowhere near as historically important as Dune II which followed it later, but it does have the best claim to first of its kind.

[Aponez]

But neither was Dune the first RTS game, nor was it an RTS game at all.

 

Dune II was crucial to the emergence of the RTS genre, but Dune itself is a fairly inconsequential Adventure-Strategy hybrid, and isn't any more significant to the emergence of the RTS than any of ten or twenty other hybrid adventure or military strategy games from the eighties and early nineties.

 

Sorry for the mistake Yst my friends and me call Dune to the Dune II, because was the first Dune we played, after it Dune 2000 and Emperor.

[Azarkon]

Guild Wars' style of PvE combat bores me to no ends (too similar to Dungeon Siege in terms of what you're expected to do during combat), but I do enjoy playing it with friends who would've never gotten into any MMORPG with a monthly fee.

[Kalfear]

"The problem with Guild Wars, from what I've heard, is that it's geared towards the PvP crowd. I'd rather have something in which to act cooperatively. I don't really have the energy to go heavy PvP. I've done it, but I would probably just grab a good FPS if that were my goal."

 

Nope. Like Drakron said, it's party based vs. monsters mostly. I've spent 90% of my time doing that and not fighting other players. And, the story mode is pretty decent at that...

 

D&D Online looks silly. Doesn't even have all the races and classes last I checked amongst ohter things. Not impressed with that along with the pay per month thing which means no go automatically for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Anyone else getting tired of the "The game im playing is best so all others are bad until I switch to next game then it becomes best" attitude? I sure am.

 

DDO looks to be a new approach to MMORPGs. Its graphics are comparable to any other game out there or in production (and vastly better then some).

 

For anyone interested in actually reading up on the game BEFORE casting judgement, Turbine has announced many times in many areas that additional classes and races will be added to game after game goes retail FREE of charge. For the moment they are focusing on a limited number of races and classes (which for the record is ALOT more then WoW currently offers and is about par for most new MMORPG releases).

 

The game is an attempt to bring the table top D&D experience to online gaming. This ha never actually been attempted before in MMORPGs and at the very least should be interesting to watch and see how it does.

 

Will the game be good? Only time will tell. I know I plan to alpha/beta test it and see from there.

 

Im just tired of people bashing something the have no clue about. Far as looks(excluding EQ2 which has everyone beat), mechanics, ideas, new concepts go, DDO is equaling or bettering other MMORPGs currently on the market.

 

So no it doesnt look silly. From the information available it looks comparable to everything else (including Guild Wars).

 

As for the monthly fee arguement. $15.00 /month is a LOW LOW LOW cost for the number of hours of entertainment you can get from a MMORPG. Its less then the cost of a night at a movie. Less then the cost of 3 movie rentals. Less then the cost of many many many one night only activities. So the monthly cost really is a non issue in the topic as no matter how you look at it, its all entertainment and 15.00/month is really inexpencive when compared to other more limited activities.

 

Personally, Im more then willing to pay $15.00/month for something that will give me on average 80-160 hours of entertainment in a month. I consider that a bargin compared to many games that start and end in 20-30 hours and cost $70.00+ from the store.

 

Lets do the math. 25 hours of entertainment for a product that costs 70 = $3.50/hour actual cost.

 

Compared to (lets say 3 months even though most folks play for years) 120(hours per month to be fair) multiplied by 3 months = 360 hours. 360 hours for a product that costed $70.00 (purchase) and $30.00 (monthly, first month always free) = $0.27 per hour actual cost.

 

Heck, even the most die hard casual player only pays 1.66/hour actual cost (based on 20 hours a month playing time)

 

Wow, the numbers pretty much say it all dont they!

[Volourn]

"For anyone interested in actually reading up on the game BEFORE casting judgement"

 

ASSuming only makes an ASS out of you; not others. I have done the reading,a nd yp, they expect one to wait to get all basic classes and races. Nope, not gonna do that. The game sounds crappy. And, if you had done the research for real it would sound crappy to you.

 

$15/month may sound good; but ti isn't since you pay that amount no matter how much play.

 

You may be the D&D Online Fanboy here willing to sacrifce your life for your new God; but it doens't change the fact that the game sounds like it's gonna suck. The sad thing is I love D&D, and I know the game is gonna suck.

[Cantousent]

Someone throw Vol a hunk of red meat. He's gotten out of his cage again.

 

Anyhow, I'll keep an eye on Dungeons and Dragons online. If they can get it right, I'd love to play DnD online. I currently have two PnP DnD groups, but I'm lucky to get two games going a month even so. I'll keep the PnP groups going, but it would be cool to have access to a good game 24/7.

[Volourn]

"Someone throw Vol a hunk of red meat. He's gotten out of his cage again."

 

I don't bite; I just nibble (my food lasts longer that way). :D

[GhostofAnakin]

"Someone throw Vol a hunk of red meat. He's gotten out of his cage again."

 

I doubt bite; I just nibble (my food lasts longer that way). :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He doesn't make sense when he's hungry too.

 

I think the last online game I attempted was that 30 day free trial of City of Heroes. My comp just usually can't handle online gaming, and I personally get frustrated with many online gamers who just goof around and act like idiots when I'm trying to have a series (relatively speaking) game.

[Kalfear]

"For anyone interested in actually reading up on the game BEFORE casting judgement"

 

ASSuming only makes an ASS out of you; not others. I have done the reading,a nd yp, they expect one to wait to get all basic classes and races. Nope, not gonna do that. The game sounds crappy. And, if you had done the research for real it would sound crappy to you.

 

$15/month may sound good; but ti isn't since you pay that amount no matter how much play.

 

You may be the D&D Online Fanboy here willing to sacrifce your life for your new God; but it doens't change the fact that the game sounds like it's gonna suck. The sad thing is I love D&D, and I know the game is gonna suck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ROFL, sorry Volo.

 

Not a DDO fanboi, just reasonable enough to 1) read up on a game first, and 2) Actually play the game before writing it off!

 

You should try either point in the future

 

PPS: Here is a good string for folks to read regarding GW and how free it is actually... Guild Wars, not so free after all

[Drakron]

...

You may be the D&D Online Fanboy here willing to sacrifce your life for your new God; but it doens't change the fact that the game sounds like it's gonna suck. The sad thing is I love D&D, and I know the game is gonna suck.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am not going that far but D&D Online is not going to emulate the D&D experience.

 

I also decided to check it and I have to say their "inovation" appears to be not allowing players to gain experience and items until they complete a quest, not only that strikes me as dumb beyond reason (it prevents exploration for the sake of exploration) in trying to fix some MMORPGs issues (farming) but what it does is simply make item selling issues to grow out of hand.

 

Also I am suspecious of turning a turn based system into a real time, I could not care less about thei claims that WotC aproves then since they made 3.5 and they are more Hasbro "yes man" milking the D&D brand dry that anything else.

[Drakron]

PPS: Here is a good string for folks to read regarding GW and how free it is actually... Guild Wars, not so free after all

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That forum requires registration to read and that says all.

[Volourn]

"Not a DDO fanboi, just reasonable enough to 1) read up on a game first, and 2) Actually play the game before writing it off!"

 

1. Take your advice, and read what I wrote.

 

2. I did read up on it. That's why I know I have no more interest in it unless they change their whole game plan.

 

3. The advice to play a game before writing it off is what got me to buy POR2 even knowing before hand I had great doubts about its quality. Because of that philosophy I got to own one of the crappiest games ever.

 

4. From what I've read, DDO is gonna be crappy. You have given me no reason to think otherwise - neither has the information they've given.

 

Game over for DDO.

 

 

"PPS: Here is a good string for folks to read regarding GW and how free it is actually"

 

Outside of purchasing the initial game, and any possible expansions, GW is free to play on line. there are no extra charges inspite of them adding quite a bit in free downloads.

 

GW > DDO until proven otherwise.

[Drakron]

MMORPGs all charge for expansions, they rightly do so since as the monthly fee is to pay the server support as a expansion is creating new content for the game.

[Volourn]

Actually, all games charge for expansions. That's my point. GW is free other than the obvious purchase of the actual game which makes total sense yet a certain someone is trying to imply that GW has some sort of hidden cost.

[Yst]

Me, I'm distrustful of any MMORPG that doesn't have monthly fees, because I want my MMORPGs to have a big, expensive dev team working on big, expensive monthly updates and tweaks not just months but years down the line, and a one time fee is not a credible funding format for a monthly service in perpetuity. Asheron's Call 1, to which I renewed my subscription recently, for example, has a very dedicated core group of players, but a virtually non-existent inflow of new players and, not having really had one for years now, cannot reasonably charge any significant price per unit upon purchase, or gain any substantial retail shelf space at this time. If not for monthly fees, it would be dead. Because of monthly fees, it continues.

 

I feel and have always felt the same way about any other service which offered me a one-time fee which does not credibly translate into an appropriate funding format for services provided.

 

I will consider identically and with similar criticisms any company which proposes to market a product whose revenue stream does not attempt to base itself on cost of operation.

[Drakron]

Yst.

 

I will explain, the cost of MMORPGs goes to servers, in guild wars the only time you see the other in the server is in city districts (towns) and even there you have several districts to ease server load, the mission areas are set on a map that only have you and the people that have joined with you.

 

So servers dont get much strain allowing a low cost, my guess is what the servers get in strain is similar to what Diablo 2 got in strain, in the city players cannot attack anything so its more a "3d chat room" that a mission map.

 

ArenaNet is behind Guild Wars so they have a pretty good idea of how the server system operates, besides less that a week after the "casinos" start to take place (meaning, people were using the /roll emote for running online gambling) they removed the emote, they also make several alterations and the next update will seperate european servers by language, so if you have language preference to german it will send you to german districts, they also changed many things and are on top of farming areans with unusual high drops.

[Yst]

Yst.

 

I will explain, the cost of MMORPGs goes to servers, in guild wars the only time you see the other in the server is in city districts (towns) and even there you have several districts to ease server load, the mission areas are set on a map that only have you and the people that have joined with you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, indeed, you missed the chief thrust of my post, which regarded the funding of a live dev team providing and supporting updates and gameworld events. Servers and bandwidth may get cheaper, but dev teams don't. If I were satisfied with a static gameworld which does not develop over time then a "one time" fee might be a more credible funding formula, but indeed I'm not. So if an MMORPG proposes to create a universe where nothing ever develops or evolves or happens then we can nix the live dev team and say that, like Battle.net, product support and server infrastructure are probably minor enough costs that they can be bankrolled without too much worry by a large company such as Blizzard, but if this is really going to be a persistent, evolving universe, then development costs are ongoing, and are as much a concern after release as before.

 

Of course, one might try to restrict the evolution of the gameworld to paid expansions, in order to support continued development, but that introduces a huge array of problems, including the potential for the forced stagnation of original gameworld regions and gameplay elements, the insanity of trying to keep legacy version players compatible with heavily updated expansion version players, the unnecessary stilting of product development in between expansions and, in a PvP game, the reality of paid expansions being imposed as matter-of-fact necessities in order for players to remain in play.

[Drakron]

Well right now there are no new "gameworld events", the game does use a quest system that is in many cases tied to classes, if you are a warrior/mesmer you never go in monk quests.

 

I understand some people will run out of quests eventually, its possible to redo the missions even after completed then and their bonus (but no mission or bonus XP if they were already done.

 

I think adding new maps and quests is not incredible hard and likely they will do so in some cases but since Guild Wars require no fee to play its likely the blunt of new content will be expansions since Guild Wars is more a game that must be played online that a classic MMORPG, its also story driven so you cannot move into new towns without being send there or walk there, the story unfolds as you play along.

 

Of course I wonder exactly how far they can push the story, the game starts in pre-searing and then moves into 2 years after it (nothing you will not know if you read the manual) and you cannot come back to pre-searing, I doubt the expansion packs are going to make any radical changes to the existing maps of the terms of a searing.

 

I think they are not trying to keep legacy players by giving then incentives to play their lv20 characters, MMORPGs do that because such players form the core of the people that will continue to pay to play, Guild Wars is not trying that and so they have to attract players in diferent ways.

 

I think they looked at the StarCraft community that played for years and the Diablo community that also played for years and build Guild Wars for then, they appear to be trying something new that is very diferent from the classic MMORPGs in many ways.

[Cantousent]

I've downloaded the utility for Anarchy online and I'm looking at Utopia right now. I don't mind paying a monthly fee, but I'm waiting for the time being before a I buy a new game, so I might as well look at some of the free ones.

[Darth Jebus]

I've been playing WoW for a couple weeks now. And surprisingly I'm totally addicted. I didn't think I would be. Like others have said on here, I never saw the point of having to pay a monthly fee to play a videogame. It was just kind of dumb to me.

 

Also, the lack of a coherent storyline was really bothersome to me. I kept asking people that raved about WoW what the point of the game was. What is it you do? Are you out to achieve something or is it just questing everywhere all over the place all the time. Which I guess was a stupid question seeing as how you have to pay a monthly fee to play it. Why would anything that has a recurring fee have an ending?

 

Anyway, the answer to the question was obviously, you just do whatever you want with the "object" of leveling up and getting new equipment, spells, and weapons. And once you get to lvl 60, then the game is basically over, because there is nothing in the game that can challenge a lvl 60 player, and also, the game caps at lvl 60.

 

But surprisingly there IS a semblance of a coherent storyline if you choose to do certain quests that either involve your class, race, and/or specific locations in the game. These quests can actually get really interesting and complex depending on what lvl you are.

 

And more importantly, it makes you want to play it more.

 

This is probably why it's actually not a pure MMORPG, but rather more like a hybrid MMORPG/CRPG or like Kal said, an MMORPG with training wheels.

 

For this reason I don't really mind paying for the game because I'm paying for something I like. I think I finally caved in and started playing because half my office is playing the darn thing and also, I just needed an RPG fix. And seeing as how there are no RPGs coming out soon that I know of, I decided to give it a try.

 

I'm glad I did. Since this is my first experience with an MMORPG I have no complaints. But it's certainly no comparison to a good old fashioned RPG, IMO.

[Cantousent]

Okay, I've signed up for Anarchy online and I should be playing sometime soon!

 

...And it's cool that it's free for the time being.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Okay, I've signed up for Anarchy online and I should be playing sometime soon!

 

...And it's cool that it's free for the time being.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I played that ages ago.

 

I had an Engineer with one of those stalker robots and a mystic with two of those floaty pets which I called posh and becks..

 

I only played it for about 6 months but it was a lot of fun. I especially liked the fact that you could just program your own dungeon to avoid the crowds. Highlight of my AA time was finding a flying car which retailed at several 100,000 in a chest in a dungeon, buggered if I know how it got there but after that I never died once