Green Monster Games - Curt Schilling
- Thread starter Lord Thanos_foh
- Start date
I would definitely pay for that game regardless of the subscription model.CylusSoulreaver said:
/duck
Never would have guessed it that way. Was always saying "EN gruk" in my head whenever I saw it. Oh wellNgruk said:
Just a suggestion, please take a very good look at Tabula Rasa"s UI, and how it allows the player to play the game rather than the UI, and see if you can emulate that minimalistic, immersive approach in your future title, it is something every MMORPG should strive for IMO.
Specifics about this? Have seen folks playing the game and haven"t noticed anythingcompletelydifferent than most MMOs. Granted, without a hand"s on, I"m obviously less than informed...ajiatus said:
...just wondering what struck you as "omg" or "better" while playing TR If you"re referring to the fact that there aren"t windows in your way and any info that you need is coming from a place other than a chat box, that need is fairly intuitive. Just wondering if I"ve missing anything
That"s probably what it is. I know when I was playing a priest in WoW, I got to stare at raid bars all the time until I declared myself the shadow priest.
I haven"t played TR yet, but watching the hotkeys instead of the game definitely is a problem with some recent games.
Things like "episodic content," fancy ways of dropping NPCs in the world, zones that are affected by seasons, or trees that grow over time are all just gimmicks. They ultimately are meaningless in the scope of whether or not a game is fun.
The next step in the genre is to take combat in a completely different direction than it has been going in for what seems like an eternity. Any game that immediately just adopts the EQ model, from WoW to LOTR, or even tries to disguise it as an FPS (Tabula Rasa) in my eyes has missed any chance of being the next big game or taking the genre one step further.
It"s like most developers immediately glaze over what it"s like to actually PLAY the game, and then try to figure out ways to do exactly the same thing you do in every other game (Auto attack, click x ability, wait for mob to kill you) only in a different setting, universe, theme; against a player, group of players, boar, or Illidan; as a hobbit, dwarf, alien, or car; while trying to quest, instance, grind, or battleground it up.
MMO developers need to be looking at the console genre; find out what"s popular and capitalize on it. Console games have had thousands of titles to ship and be evaluated by the gaming public, ironing out what types of game play players enjoy most. Capcom has it down to a science. Console games are almost always on a mass appeal level easily comparable to WoW and dwarfs any other MMO on the market. Console games focus on game play and player enjoyment, are almost never social experiments and demand a level of refinement almost unheard of in the MMO business.
The comparisons between WoW and successful console titles are very apparent and by no means coincidental. Mark my words: the next big MMO that will even come close to challenging WoW will be available on the 360, PS3 and PC, and will be played by both the same people currently addicted to WoW and the 3 million people who are going to purchase Halo 3 in September.
The next step in the genre is to take combat in a completely different direction than it has been going in for what seems like an eternity. Any game that immediately just adopts the EQ model, from WoW to LOTR, or even tries to disguise it as an FPS (Tabula Rasa) in my eyes has missed any chance of being the next big game or taking the genre one step further.
It"s like most developers immediately glaze over what it"s like to actually PLAY the game, and then try to figure out ways to do exactly the same thing you do in every other game (Auto attack, click x ability, wait for mob to kill you) only in a different setting, universe, theme; against a player, group of players, boar, or Illidan; as a hobbit, dwarf, alien, or car; while trying to quest, instance, grind, or battleground it up.
MMO developers need to be looking at the console genre; find out what"s popular and capitalize on it. Console games have had thousands of titles to ship and be evaluated by the gaming public, ironing out what types of game play players enjoy most. Capcom has it down to a science. Console games are almost always on a mass appeal level easily comparable to WoW and dwarfs any other MMO on the market. Console games focus on game play and player enjoyment, are almost never social experiments and demand a level of refinement almost unheard of in the MMO business.
The comparisons between WoW and successful console titles are very apparent and by no means coincidental. Mark my words: the next big MMO that will even come close to challenging WoW will be available on the 360, PS3 and PC, and will be played by both the same people currently addicted to WoW and the 3 million people who are going to purchase Halo 3 in September.
I don"t know... just because Vanguard was a failure doesn"t mean the formula is dead. World of Warcraft hasn"t really adopted "console" methodologies, but things that aren"t typical in previous MMOs. Quality should be universal in the gaming industry (like in any industry), not a "console" feature. Releasing a half-finished game to the real world should be completely unacceptable regardless of what industry you"re in. WoW also provides ease of use; another aspect that should be adopted by any product. Making your product accessible and overall focusing on "fun" and the "game" aspect of it, is definitely the route to take. World of Warcraft, from what I recall, was created so that even if you played alone through the entire game, it would be fun and entertaining. This is what most games fail to factor in. It should work great as a single-player, and the MMO aspect should only amplify that greatness.
I"m curious though, what types of combat you think would actually work, as opposed to the EQ/EQ2/WOW/WAR/etc. combat we have where you target and attack. There"s the new AOC hack-n-slash type combat which ends up feeling spammy, and then the FPS-like combat of Tabula Rasa (which is, I guess, not different enough), so where do you go from there? Obviously MMOs are much more limited by what they can do by connection speeds, so combat can"t be too twitchy or it becomes unreliable and can feel disconnected.
Vanguard tried going into an almost turn-based fighting style in it"s earlier iterations, from what I saw, and that didn"t seem to turn out to well.
Regarding the episodic content, seasons, growing trees, etc. No, they don"t make a game fun, but that can make it more interesting, imo.
I"m curious though, what types of combat you think would actually work, as opposed to the EQ/EQ2/WOW/WAR/etc. combat we have where you target and attack. There"s the new AOC hack-n-slash type combat which ends up feeling spammy, and then the FPS-like combat of Tabula Rasa (which is, I guess, not different enough), so where do you go from there? Obviously MMOs are much more limited by what they can do by connection speeds, so combat can"t be too twitchy or it becomes unreliable and can feel disconnected.
Vanguard tried going into an almost turn-based fighting style in it"s earlier iterations, from what I saw, and that didn"t seem to turn out to well.
Regarding the episodic content, seasons, growing trees, etc. No, they don"t make a game fun, but that can make it more interesting, imo.
- 0
- 0
Totally disagree.Teclisen said:
Blizzard didn"t really change the typical MMO formula with WoW, they just did the best job of implementing it and removed a lot of the barriers that made it hard for new players to get into the game.
I"d argue that WoW would be even more successful if they had more of the above mentioned types of content. Or to put it in another way, if the game had expanded "horizontally*" a lot more than it has. Sure things like housing or dynamic content may be gimmicky but it broadens the appeal of the game and allows a greater variety of players to enjoy playing it together.
Take UO for example. There are tons of people who play it for features, seemingly pointless to us more hardcore minded players, like housing or player vendors or even things like "rares" collecting. If UO didn"t have that variety of features and was purely a PvE/PvP game it probably wouldn"t still exist today. But because of that diverse feature set UO still boasts a decent player base despite all the crap EA has done to ruin it.
WoW may have 9mil+ players but chances are they"ve had another 3mil+ that tried the game and no longer play. People who might still be around if Blizzard had expanded WoW horizontally as much as they have vertically (ie new levels, new dungeons, new land).
*note - Horizontal in the sense of expanding the feature set of the game.
This blog on WoW Insider talks about it more:Bring on the horizontal changes, please - WOW Insider
WoW is as successful as it because it simply didn"t do what you suggest. Make a few things and make them really cool instead of making a bunch of things and being unable to polish them within the decade.