Since it seems that most of the RPG talent is foucesd on online games these days which one will you be playing?
personally i like Dark Age of Camelot. . .looks like EQ in better clothing imo. . .plus the idea of pvp at higher levels sounds fun.
By Mark Asher on Saturday, January 20, 2001 - 10:57 am:
I'm intrigued by Anarchy Online. It looks like it will be the strongest game graphically yet, and the sci-fi setting could be interesting.
Do you really think Camelot looks better graphically? I don't, but it's hard to tell from screenshots. I do like the three area setup they have where you're safe from PVP among your own kind but still have plenty to fight, and then if you want to attack others you can go into their realms.
The real problem with PVP is how do you set it up so that the victor wins something worthwhile and the loser isn't really penalized for being jumped? EQ's struggled with that on their PVP servers, finally going to coin loot only on them, I think. It was too painful to lose a treasured item to PVP.
My highest level EQ character is on a team PVP server. I rarely engage in PVP, but it did add some excitement when I was hunting in "enemy" zones, so to speak. Not only did I need to look out for monsters, I had to keep an eye out for players of the enemy races.
By mtkafka (Mtkafka) on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 03:37 am:
Anarchy Online looks pretty cpool as well. . .i think the sci fi setting will be a nice change of pace from the "generic" fantasy setting of EQ. I think im particularly interested in Camelot since it looks to be both class/skill based and has the added "racial" wars, and as well sounds like a vast upgraded version of EQ with some choosable skills(based on faq). i agree the graphics in Camelot look ho-hum in screenshots (even compared to an older EQ), but for some reason the terrain, environment looks like a cross between Everquest and . . . hard to place it, just that the outdoor graphics look more "real" than in eq and bigger and more full (EQ trends to be empty looking sometimes). . . the character models look a little more blocky compared to EQ though i think ppl have said that if you saw it in motion ppl would change there mind. as well the spell effects STAY on the characters models after casting; ie. like a guardian spell etc (though not really neccesary still a nice detail!).
I too had a few chars on the pvp team server in eq. . .the first month or two was AWESOME . . . the "roleplay" aspect was much more evident with the racewars. i remember running from steamfont (as a gnome) to butcherblock keeping an eye out for the wily elves! was a hoot, added alot more adrenaline to EQ
on pvp in general i think its neccesary in an mmorpg's later levels since i think it adds another gameplay dynamic for "dedicated" players. . . though i think pvp should be kept out of the newbie ranges ENTIRELY. . . whacking newbies for the "grief" of it is not my idea of fun (from both sides of the coin), and id say most ppl agree. any online game that is only against the computer enviroments seems to defeat the purpose of multiplayer imo (meaning i think most ppl play online to at some point compete in one form or another).
By Mike Latinovich on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 03:22 am:
I've been playing "MMORPG" games for quite some time now.. started with beta Ultima Online, played it some, got frustrated with it once it was released and very, very buggy... then got onto the Asheron's Call beta, played til the beta ended, did other stuff, and ended up buying a copy of the game about March of last year. I've been playing that ever since... Not because it's addicting or anything like that, but more along the lines of 'nothing better has come out yet'.
AO looks to be pretty nice.. I don't care at all for the character graphics (especially the big hulking guys.. they just don't look right), but the rest of it seems pretty nice. A decent backgrounder of info on the game on their website, lots of 'fan' sites, etc. The only thing that is keeping me from delving further into this and getting more information would be that I'm not exactly certain as to what the end-goal is in-game...is it to find out _WHAT_ the end-goal is, perhaps? heh.
I've also looked at 'Dawn', but it sounds too much like it's vaporware being hyped by a 17yr old kid. If it isn't, shoot me. :)
The Star Wars 'MMORPG' sounds like a big yawn to me. I love Star Wars, and golly, wouldn't it be great to play in that universe.. Granted, I haven't exactly been on a manhunt for info on this one either, but..
..well damn.. there's only so much money I'm even willing to shell out for this stuff to begin with. It's difficult to determine at this point whether any of these new 'MMORPG' games are even going to be worth my $xx to buy it, plus $xx/mo to play it.
-Mike Latinovich .. stuck in east-central Illinois-
By Mark Asher on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 04:11 am:
Mike, you may want to check out UO again when Third Dawn is out. That's the new 3D client. I think the game has progressed a great deal since you played it, and with the new facelift, it might be kinda cool.
I'm also waiting for something new. I think AO, Shadowbane, Dark Age of Camelot, and Neverwinter Nights all have a shot of grabbing me.
By Mike Latinovich (Mike) on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 04:30 am:
"Mike, you may want to check out UO again when Third Dawn is out. That's the new 3D client. I think the game has progressed a great deal since you played it, and with the new facelift, it might be kinda cool."
Mark, I definately will be *looking* at it- reviews, etc.. hopefully it won't cost an arm and a leg. :) UO with 3d might make up for it's early inadequacies and the unstoppable PK mobs, among a serious many other problems.
AO, I think has a good amount of the current dis-satisfied 'MMORPG' audience's attention. I'm not getting my hopes up... but a good amount of the people in my monarchy on AC seem to be eyeing AO as well.
NWN would have me more interested if I kept up with the information about it, I suppose.. But since I haven't..could anyone perhaps point me in the right direction to a site with some good info about it? Is it an 'MMORPG', or is it a 'more multiplayer' version of BG2? (SEE? I ADMIT how little I know about it!)
As for the other titles mentioned, can't say I've even really heard of them. :( The one title that has looked interesting from the little I have read has been UO2 or whatever they are calling it this week.
anyways, enough rambling.
-Mike Latinovich .. stuck in east-central Illinois-
By Jim Frazer on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 12:31 pm:
AO has grabbed my interest and won't let go. It sounds like the developers have been playing the current MMORPGs and have kept what they liked and changed what most agree is broken. It also has that epic Star Wars like feel to it with rebels who are trying to win their freedom from the evil "Empire" of the Omni-Tek Corporation. Here's hoping I can get into Beta 3.
Shadowbane might be fun for a little while, but since it's a third person game designed from the ground up to be a PvP game, I have a feeling it's going to be more like UT than any of the current MMORPGs. UT is fun, but it's not something that I'm going to take a day or two off of work to play.
Ultima Online lost me within the first couple of months that I owned it. It was like living in a movie version of New York where you can't take 2 steps without someone pulling out a knife and taking everything you own. There isn't much of a chance of me giving Third Dawn a shot.
Neverwinter Nights is going to have to learn from the mistakes of Vampire. Vampire had a great concept for allowing people to create their own multiplayer adventures and then running other players through it. The problem was that it was dang difficult to create these adventures, so only a few dedicated people set one up. If NWN has an intuitive system that anyone can use, then it should be a huge success. If not, it's going to end up being another one of those Great Idea games that didn't quite work out.
By Mark Asher on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 07:46 pm:
NWN should get more mod support regardless of how easy the editor is to use. D&D will just generate more enthusiasm than White Wolf's Vampire setting.
Bioware has promised it will be easy to use, though, so I'm hopeful.
By mtKafka (Mtkafka) on Wednesday, January 31, 2001 - 02:21 am:
thats the key to NWN, ease of use in making and running a game as dungeonmaster. there are alot of ppl already planning to make mods and/or semi fulltime servers for NWN.
i really hope this game does well. will bridge the divide between Diablo and the EQ's of the world.
plus did you read about interplay.com? supposedly theres a bioware mmorpg in the works. though they dont say if NWN is it, or something else entirely.
By Mark Asher on Wednesday, January 31, 2001 - 03:25 am:
Any MMORPG on Interplay.com is likely to be a Fallout game. Infogrames holds the rights to make D&D games; I'd be surprised to see them license that to Interplay at this point.
Speaking of Fallout and multiplayer, the Tactics demo rocks. I've been having a blast playing it in multiplayer.
By Mike Latinovich (Mike) on Wednesday, January 31, 2001 - 04:21 am:
Sigh... does anyone else wish that Fargo & Co. could buy back the rights (from EA) to The Bard's Tale and make some new games and an MMORPG out of the old franchise that I love so much?
-Mike Latinovich -- stuck in east-central Illinois-
By mtKafka (Mtkafka) on Wednesday, January 31, 2001 - 04:52 am:
maybe Interplay is getting the sirtech wiz license for an mmorpg? ah im dreamin'.
anyway theres a ton of mmorpg franchises that could and should be made. . . like with the LoTR movie coming out, wouldnt you think Sierra should have kept up with an mmorpg for LoTR? personally id rather play a LoTR mmorpg than a Star Wars one.
By Jim Frazer on Wednesday, January 31, 2001 - 11:51 am:
If Sierra decided to start up the LoTR MMORPG again, they'd have to start from scratch. The graphics engine was dated before the game even left the concept stage and from what I was told by a couple of folks who were close to it, the entire system was hopelessly flawed.
I could be wrong, but Sierra seems to be having some internal problems that we don't know about. After they let Relic leave to go over to Microsoft, I knew there was some bad decision making going on. Sierra keeps saying that it was because they weren't sure Homeworld was going to be a success. It seems pretty obvious that even if Homeworld fell on its face, you'd want to keep someone like Alex Garden around.
By Mark Asher on Wednesday, January 31, 2001 - 01:32 pm:
Did you guys ever hear of the strange and twisted tale of Sierra's LotR license? It's one for the books. It's longish, so I don't feel like typing it now, but if you don't know about it I'll post it.
By mtKafka (Mtkafka) on Wednesday, January 31, 2001 - 03:12 pm:
stupid stupid sierra! whatever happened to LoTR, they should have stuck with it. im definite it could have been a sure top seller. and Homeworld wasn't . . . so great, imo of course.
anyway, what was this strange and twisted tale? maybe they wanted to make a Half-Life LoTR mod? or Kings Quest ala LoTR? hmm
By Mark Asher on Wednesday, January 31, 2001 - 03:21 pm:
Here's the quickie version. Sierra had a license to do a LotR game and were in danger of losing it because they were about to be in breach of contract with the Tolkien estate. So they did a quickie LotR game to satisfy the contract. What they did was find some little-known RPG in development, cut a deal with the developer, and did a quickie conversion to make it a LotR game. In other words, they changed names to make them LotR characters, etc. The Tolkien estate blocked the release of the game as Sierra probably expected they would, citing lack of quality or something like that, and the matter's now in the courts last I heard, with Sierra moving to seal the proceedings.
Now remember, this is a computer game and Sierra is claiming they actually finished it and were ready to release it, yet they never once announced it or attempted to publicize it. How often does that happen? Like never?
Essentially, Sierra fumbled the license but didn't want to lose it so they engaged in some murky shenanigans, and the Tolkien estate wants the license back so they're taking them to court.
By mtKafka (Mtkafka) on Thursday, February 1, 2001 - 03:31 am:
damn sierra. They're holding back ANY LoTR type games for the future. i hope the Tolkien estate sues them for all there worth! aye, it will prolly be a while b4 we see any LoTR mmorpg. Sierra can stick with there friggin half life (I will buy TF2 though, cuz im a hypocrite).