polytourist97 on 24/10/2008 at 21:23
Yeah, you're right, not having to pay $15 a month to be able to use something you've already bought is a pretty bad idea. My bad.
swaaye on 24/10/2008 at 21:34
Quote Posted by polytourist97
Yeah, you're right, not having to pay $15 a month to be able to use something you've already bought is a pretty bad idea. My bad.
I'm not sure if he was referring to its "free online play" model or the in-game economy.
The "free online play" aspect is thoroughly evened out by the potential requirement of having to buy the full-priced addon packs and extras in their online store. If you want all of the skills, it gets very expensive. This may be something you need to do if you want to be most competitive in PVP. I dunno.
I never got into the PVP at all, believe it or not. I mainly played the game PVE style with my friends. Don't care about the goofy extra skills I "missed." Game was ok and yes it was certainly cheaper than a monthly $$ MMO. Guild Wars isn't a MMO though, really... I've never actually played a "real" MMO and don't really care to.
Ostriig on 24/10/2008 at 21:56
Quote Posted by polytourist97
Yeah, you're right, not having to pay $15 a month to be able to use something you've already bought is a pretty bad idea. My bad.
You might want to actually look into this shit before you start mashing the old sarcasm key. The post below yours describes a couple of the aspects I was on about. You can add to that stuff about the way in which ArenaNet/NC Soft saw fit to promote the purchase of additional accounts at first, additional slots later, by limiting the number of characters
below the number of playable classes, the shit about merging two or more chapters together resulting yet again in less slots than classes, the whole limited storage shit (which eventually got adressed... about two years after launch), and so on.
Quote Posted by swaaye
Game was ok and yes it was certainly cheaper than a monthly $$ MMO.
Oh, definitely, I agree. It was an ok game, and a shitload cheaper than games like WoW, or Age of Conan. But the truth is that, in the long run, if you wanted to enjoy this online RPG at its finest you'd end up spending a pretty penny more than what it said on the box.
Which is kinda what said in my previous post, really.
polytourist97 on 25/10/2008 at 09:11
Quote Posted by Ostriig
You might want to actually look into this shit before you start mashing the old sarcasm key.
Believe me, I thought about expounding upon the additional "financial systems" of GW (how it IS all optional, letting you decide what additional content is worth spending money on) and I didn't think anyone could possibly have a problem with being given options with how to spend their money.
I can see how some people would have problems with it, but I think it's much more reasonable than having a monthly rate on the game.
Sure you have to pay for additional character slots if you want to have one of every class in the game all at one time, you have to pay for the add-ons if you want every skill in the game, etc. But when it's all said and done it's YOUR choice to decide whether it's worth the money or not. If you decide it's not worth the money, then you can at least still play the game you paid for originally without any problems.
If some people feel that's a disingenuous way to market and sell a game, so be it, but I felt there was fair enough warning about what I was getting into and never ran into any surprises.
Quote Posted by swaaye
Guild Wars isn't a MMO though, really... I've never actually played a "real" MMO and don't really care to.
Absolutely, and that was more of the point I was making in my original post. I hope BioWare goes more in the direction of Guild Wars, where it's not a "real" MMO by comparison to standard MMO concepts.
EvaUnit02 on 25/10/2008 at 10:17
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdyqopE6lVI) Gamespot's feature on this MMO.
It's an interesting watch. The Bioware guys mention how they're trying to add a story element, that according to them, is missing from all MMO's on the market. Good luck with that. Age of Conan's "single player" wasn't very successful IMO - the fact that everyone running around is the "Chosen One" or whatever breaks the immersion.
The comment where the one dude says that they're making KotOR 4, 5, 6, etc. all at once is smug though.
Ostriig on 25/10/2008 at 12:27
Quote Posted by polytourist97
I can see how some people would have problems with it, but I think it's much more reasonable than having a monthly rate on the game.
Well, let's leave it down to a difference of personal preference. I, for one, prefer the more classical MMO business plan. I'd rather not get into that old GW fanforum clusterfuck of a debate - it's the stuff that headaches are made from.
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Age of Conan wasn't very successful IMO
Fixed! And that's coming from someone who really wished that wasn't the case.
EvaUnit02 on 25/10/2008 at 12:37
Quote Posted by Ostriig
Fixed! And that's coming from someone who really wished that wasn't the case.
Yeah, they shot themselves in the foot by shipping with several of the promised features missing. Eg DX10 mode. IIRC, they still have yet to implement the PvP arena system, or whatever.
N'Al on 25/10/2008 at 14:28
Incidentally, Eurogamer did a (
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=260266) re-review of AoC recently, where they go into some detail on the game's (still missing) promised features. Haven't played the game myself, so I don't really know how relevant all this is, but I thought it pretty interesting anyway.
Also, hurray for re-reviews!
Ostriig on 25/10/2008 at 15:24
In all honesty, AoC isn't bad as it is, and if/once they get around to finishing its development, it will probably be very good. Though at the rate people are jumping ship, there may not be that many players left by then. As for me, I think the main reason I'm not playing is more related to my growing apart from the online genre, rather than the game's admittedly still obvious shortcomings.
The short story on AoC is that it indeed shipped to early, but it was already way overdue. Delaying it further might have turned out just as bad for the game, since the release date had gotten pushed several times and over long stretches, if I recall correctly. I think Funcom's initial development schedule was simply unrealistic. A pity.
EvaUnit02 on 25/10/2008 at 15:40
AoC's Oceania designated servers are pretty much dead. A pity really, I enjoyed what I had played of the game. It was my first MMO experience.
I'll be weary of investing in MMO's in future. Though still I'm very interested in trying Star Trek Online and World of Darkness of Online once they've been released.
WoDO is on radar solely because of how much I enjoyed the Vampire the Masquerade games. I hope that the White Wolf universe is just as enthralling as the old one.
