Age of Conan

[shihonage]

Not only is this how an ever-growing (read: most kiddies these days who can't be arsed to be part of a group) segment plays these games, but when done well, a game designed around a person's specific point of view gives a much more immersive experience - things are timed right and respond intuitively etc.

So the evolution of Massively Multiplayer Online games means shifting toward being single-player games ? That doesn't make any sense.

Extensive single-player design is not a flaw and in fact, something that designers need to try to do more often

Of course, extensive single-player design is not a flaw ... in a single-player game that is built around utilizing the narrative and gameplay potential of single-player gameplay.

When it is however shoehorned into the MMO design formula, you get zero-depth, zero-replayability, very linear single-player RPG. It's shoving a square peg into a round hole, and it is self-evident in every instance where it was tried.

Sadder yet, the solution to the whole single-player shebacle has been in implementation since City of Heroes. Instances. An instance allows you and a group of others to go through crafted single-player MMO content without being locked into the mundanity of being a _single_ player. It is a reasonable compromise, when used in moderation.

 

[Truth]

(.Y.)

 

[jenna010986]

the game looks good, I'll try playing this game soon. :D

 

[Korgan]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
*DUMBFUCK BEACON HERE*
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Fucking ESF...

 

[DarkSign]

Not only is this how an ever-growing (read: most kiddies these days who can't be arsed to be part of a group) segment plays these games, but when done well, a game designed around a person's specific point of view gives a much more immersive experience - things are timed right and respond intuitively etc.

So the evolution of Massively Multiplayer Online games means shifting toward being single-player games ? That doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps not to you, oh weak-minded one, but yeah it is. There are a million different aspects of single-player games that could be and have started to be translated to multiplayer games, giving them a much more tailored feel and responsive interaction. MMORPG makers have been so caught up in making "expansive" worlds that they've stretched 1000 feet of butcher paper out merely to make a scribble every20 feet. There's so much ground to cover that the detail and interaction of single-player games has been lost.

Extensive single-player design is not a flaw and in fact, something that designers need to try to do more often

Of course, extensive single-player design is not a flaw ... in a single-player game that is built around utilizing the narrative and gameplay potential of single-player gameplay.

When it is however shoehorned into the MMO design formula, you get zero-depth, zero-replayability, very linear single-player RPG. It's shoving a square peg into a round hole, and it is self-evident in every instance where it was tried.

Sadder yet, the solution to the whole single-player shebacle has been in implementation since City of Heroes. Instances. An instance allows you and a group of others to go through crafted single-player MMO content without being locked into the mundanity of being a _single_ player. It is a reasonable compromise, when used in moderation.

Not every moment of MMO playing is group oriented. You can make a case for that if you want, but that's up to the designer and player of each game really. These are virtual worlds - loosely-based approximations of real worlds where players can choose to play alone or often play alone for other reasons (scheduling, behavioral conflicts, etc.). So when they're playing the game alone or as they want to all those ways that single-player games get it right can be ported over to MMOs.

You really just don't get it do you? It's a shame that you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[shihonage]

There are a million different aspects of single-player games that could be and have started to be translated to multiplayer games, giving them a much more tailored feel and responsive interaction. MMORPG makers have been so caught up in making "expansive" worlds that they've stretched 1000 feet of butcher paper out merely to make a scribble every20 feet. There's so much ground to cover that the detail and interaction of single-player games has been lost.

You didn't answer my question. Remember, you're defending Age of Conan's single-player gameplay areas - therefore you're advocating that the next evolutional step in MMO formula is to include segments of single-player gameplay.

I say that is a step backward, not forward. If someone really wants a detailed interaction with a world, actions and consequences, total immersion, they should see a good single-player RPG. That's what those games are for. Comparing a single-player RPG vs. a MMO with single-player elements on those merits is like putting Mike Tyson and Larry King into the ring. MMO has its own strengths.

MMOs by definition are about creating an illusion of a living world around you, filled with live people, whether you just grind your boars by yourself or not, you will still see them around you, doing things. That is what a Massively Multiplayer Online game is, and thats one aspect that is the core of it and will always remain that.

And, another thing - the reason MMOs are shallower than single-player games is not because of SPACE. It is because once you save the princess, the princess doesn't stay saved. She resets to her original location and gets saved by someone else. Every quest is reset for the next player that comes along, so they, too, can be the HERO.

The design reasons for such decisions go deep, and are some of the problems MMO designers are struggling with since the first MUD. The very nature of a MMO dictates a gameplay mechanic different from a single-player game, and if you really want depth and character, single-player RPG is _always_ the winner. No need to shell out a monthly fee to play it on someone's servers, either.

Not every moment of MMO playing is group oriented. You can make a case for that if you want, but that's up to the designer and player of each game really. These are virtual worlds - loosely-based approximations of real worlds where players can choose to play alone or often play alone for other reasons (scheduling, behavioral conflicts, etc.). So when they're playing the game alone or as they want to all those ways that single-player games get it right can be ported over to MMOs.

You really just don't get it do you? It's a shame that you can't see the forest for the trees.

The key word you used several times in the above quote is "choose". In a MMO you should be able to choose to play alone. There isn't an inherent design flaw in the MMO formula that prevents that. WoW (among others) can be solo'ed much of the time, yet it doesn't have to resort to single-player.

From what I've seen of AoC's single-player, it is neither super revolutionary nor deep compared to typical MMO content. It is just MMO content, instanced, with no _choice_ to bring others along. A step backward from the concept of instancing, not a step forward from the concept of MMO. Not having other people in the equation kills replayability in MMO world, and as such this content will go sour quickly and never be touched again by most people. That's why, as I said, it was a waste of development man-hours.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

The instancing this game is unreal, i have no problem with zones, but i do when those zones are instanced to 20/30 people. The world feels very lonely. Almost like guild wars actually, how the fuck are pitched battles gonna work with this kind of system?

Maybe they were overly cautious with the launch but they need to sort that shit out.

 

[King Crispy]

The answer to attracting customers like myself who love single-player RPG's, but want to and are willing to come back to MMORPG's and are even willing to pay the monthly fees, if only for a few months: Come up with some mechanism to at least curb the rampant dumb-fuckery that is typical with every MMORPG that's come before that will quickly turn off the above 75 I.Q. customer. By adding in single-player missions that tie in very nicely with the rest of the (multiplayer) game, and incidentally only using them as a vehicle to get you up to speed -- in this case, to level 20 or so -- they have accomplished this.

That aspect alone is what convinced me to give AoC a try. I knew that I'd have the option of tuning out all the bunny-hopping, brain-dead fuckwads for a while, still being able to advance the story and my character at my pace, but also having the option when I want to of jumping back into the cesspool and swimming around with my fellow RPG geeks which is as pointed out what MMO's are all about.

It's a method that, while maybe not perfect and should probably be considered only a stopgap, works for me and has worked to get Funcom a chunk of my money.

What happens after level 20, though, I'll have to see.

 

[Kortalh]

And, another thing - the reason MMOs are shallower than single-player games is not because of SPACE. It is because once you save the princess, the princess doesn't stay saved. She resets to her original location and gets saved by someone else. Every quest is reset for the next player that comes along, so they, too, can be the HERO.

I don't mean to speak for DarkSign, but I believe this is exactly what he means by expanding the single-player concepts into MMO games. Imagine an MMO where you spend a week working on a quest line, which builds up to the big, epic Save The Princess end boss. Once you've completed it, the instances you enter change to reflect her rescuing. Instead of entering King's Castle A, where the royal court is weeping over their missing princess, you enter King's Castle B, where everyone is happy to see their dearest back home again.

Obviously there needs to be more to it than that, so please don't nitpick. What I mean to suggest is that the biggest thing lacking in an MMO is the feeling of being a true hero, and the only way such thing is possible is to bend the world to make it respect your actions... which is impossible in the standard EverQuest-like game where the orcs respawn in their fort ten minutes after you slaughter their warchief.

World of WarCraft, to belabor the point, has a handful of quests that are designed to make the player feel like he's accomplished something. Warlocks have to gather the resources to summon a demon, then fight it one-on-one to gain control over it. Druids have to travel across the world to learn a Shapeshifting spell. Blood Elf Paladins have to gather artifacts from the depths of multiple dungeons in order to be accepted as part of their order. These are the things that make you feel special -- in a way that MMOs have traditionally been unable to do.

The instancing this game is unreal, i have no problem with zones, but i do when those zones are instanced to 20/30 people. The world feels very lonely. Almost like guild wars actually, how the fuck are pitched battles gonna work with this kind of system?

Maybe they were overly cautious with the launch but they need to sort that shit out.

Don't quote me on this, but I've heard that they intend to crank it up in the near future. Apparently it's like it is now just to deal with the massive onslaught of low-level characters that comes with launch. They'll tweak their code to support more players per instance once things have settled down a bit. At least those are the rumors. If they don't, then I agree that it definitely feels too lonely right now (especially when compared to Orgrimmar or Ironforge).

 

[Scruffy]

i plan on buying it, but what makes WOW unplayable for me is that: it gets really boring, really fast, once you hit the cap. Instancing and all that stuff gets annoying, i don't have time to be in a guild and trying to raid with a casual group is impossible, in the "high-end" instances.
I don't want the outcome of a fight to depend so much on what gear you are wearing (i am talking about one year ago more or less, so i don't know if this has changed meanwhile...), i could defeat better players than me simply because i outgeared them, which is pretty retarded.
Some classes simply don't stand a chance in PVP (again, i'm talking about holy/discipline priest about 1year ago, so i don't know if this was fixed).

Are this kind of issues present in AoC too? Is it a grindfest? is it possible to gather a group and enjoy some content without having to spend hours tuning and making like a sort of second job? is it heavily item-dependent?

 

[Mareus]

Your small discussion here just proves why MMORPGs suck. I admit they can be fun at times, but for someone like me they still have a long way to go before they will be able to compete with single player games. In MMORPGs all comes down to grinding and a serious roleplayer in the end just cannot compete with grinding lunatics who go to the same instance over 100 times just to get that piece of equipment they so badly want. Also they just eat up too much time and when you get addicted to MMORPG you just miss a lot of other games. I said to myself I will never again let myself lose a year of my life for something so dumb as grinding game. If there was atlease some more depth to MMORPGs...

PS. My dad plays WOW and from what I saw lately it has become even worse. All he does now is Battlegrounds and arena. Grinding, grinding to get more and more honor points so he could buy that equipment he so badly wants. Retarded if you ask me.

 

[DarkSign]

There isn't an inherent design flaw in the MMO formula that prevents that. WoW (among others) can be solo'ed much of the time, yet it doesn't have to resort to single-player.

On one level, they don't have to because the game is already playable single-player as-is. So many people solo the game (a term as old as UO) that you've already got your single player mode.

On another level, I'd love to see custom puzzles (radio dials, plumbing pipes etc) and environment interaction (aka Tomb Raider or Prince of Persia) integrated into the WoW world that simulate...wait for it...wait for it...a single-player RPG.

 

[made]

Well, WoW is only fun if you're in a high end raiding guild that can actually manage the advanced content. If you can't dedicate the time for that, or simply don't like that aspect of the game, I can't fathom why you would pay a monthly fee at all to do repetitive menial quests or run the same boring instance over and over again with random retards.

AoC sounds like a mixed bag from the limited (non-fanboy based) info that's available. I imagine the novelty of the combat system and graphics will wear off quickly leaving the tired old MMO concepts of "kill x of y and repeat". Endgame supposedly consists of PvP raids and sieges, but that's not really my cup o' tea.

That said, does anyone have a friend pass they are willing to part with? I'd like to try the game to see if my comp can actually run it and I'm unsure stores in Germany take back MMOs once the box has been opened.

 

[Mareus]

Oh I forgot to mention the WOW quests like:
Kill 10 vermin and 15 vermin veterans.
Kill 10 boars and bring me their brains.

Seriously, I cannot belive they payed someone to come up with crap like this.

 

[Kortalh]

it gets really boring, really fast, once you hit the cap. Instancing and all that stuff gets annoying, i don't have time to be in a guild and trying to raid with a casual group is impossible, in the "high-end" instances.

I don't really know anything about the end-game PvE content, but I believe PvP could be fun. As I understand it, guilds can build their own cities, and they can go to war or somesuch... sieging one another's walls and destroying their city.

I believe guilds are limited in such a way that having too many members is detrimental, as well. I don't know the details, so I could be completely wrong, but I think when the guilds get up in the 30-40 members range, they have a much harder time gaining guild-levels. So the smaller guilds actually have the advantage... In which case, there won't be any such thing as uberguilds with 150 members slaughtering all of the other guilds.

I could be way wrong about all this, though... I'm just repeating what I've read in the AoC forums. I believe it's all correct, but it can sometimes be difficult to differentiate between facts and player speculation in a fan-forum.

I don't want the outcome of a fight to depend so much on what gear you are wearing (i am talking about one year ago more or less, so i don't know if this has changed meanwhile...), i could defeat better players than me simply because i outgeared them, which is pretty retarded.

I'm only level 17 (out of 80), but from what I've seen, the game is very much focused on player skill, with gear being more of a handy bonus. The equipment I've seen so far only gives very minor benefits. For example, my chest-piece gives a +0.2 boost to constitution -- which gives me 100.2 constitution (all stats start out at 100). Going the extra mile to defeat the dungeon boss and finish a quest might reward you with a +0.3 shirt instead.

This could change in the higher levels... I have no clue what it's like at level 80. But I've heard people say that Funcom designed the gear to give only mild benefits, favoring player skill instead.

Some classes simply don't stand a chance in PVP (again, i'm talking about holy/discipline priest about 1year ago, so i don't know if this was fixed).

This is definitely a problem with the game right now. Once again, I'm going based on what I've read in the forums and in-game chat, but people have been complaining about the Tempest of Set and the Herald of Xotli being massively overpowered, while the Necromancer is horribly weak. It's only the first week of release, so imbalances are to be expected... whether they'll be fixed or not is up for grabs. WoW is still imbalanced after years of tweaking, so I wouldn't put much faith in AoC being perfected any time soon.

Anyway, I don't want to come off sounding like a fanboy... AoC's got its flaws as much as any other game. For now, I try to ignore them with the expectation that they'll be patched. I could go on a huge rant about what bothers me, but I've already typed too much for one sitting. :wink:

 

[Vagiel]

So how does it fare as an RPG, it is hyped as such by many friends (thought i have yet to find an actual online rpg). Someone said something about interesting quests? i hope they are more interesting than the usual "bring me 100 goblin tits"

 

[bylam]

I can chime in on this point as I had a hand in writing quite a few of them.

1-20 : Single Player Experience/Multiplayer hybrid. Destiny quests which take place at night give a few "world changing" events. Quite a few "new" things for MMO's such as eavesdropping quests e.t.c. During the multiplayer daytime there are a good variety of "kill x of y" and "collect x of y" quests, but sprinkled among them are some gems which lead into single player instances. Many of the multiplayer quests tie into the main storyline and pursuing some of those quests will reveal more information about the player and the mysterious Mark that they wear on their chest.

20-80 : Settles into more of an MMO rhythm, with a lot more "kill x of y". Some quests stand out, such as interrogating prisoners to discover who committed a crime or debating with a priest of Set about the decadence of Aquilonian society. There are also several "branching" questlines (enslave the mantis men on the necromancers behalf, or free them?).

Dialogue system is similar to KOTOR, though generally all responses lead to the same outcome except in some very special circumstances (like the aforementioned debate).

In general, I may be biased, but I feel the quests are a quality notch above that in other MMO's. That said, there is still plenty of standard MMO fare and if you absolutely hate that sort of shit then it certainly isn't a game for you.

Oh yeah, and I threw in a couple of Cthulhu style quests that are too subtle for most people to understand.

 

[Kortalh]

So how does it fare as an RPG, it is hyped as such by many friends (thought i have yet to find an actual online rpg). Someone said something about interesting quests? i hope they are more interesting than the usual "bring me 100 goblin tits"

The singleplayer destiny quests have been pretty cool. They're extremely linear in terms of "Start at A, Pass through B, then end on C." However, depending on your class/archetype, the path goes differently. For example, a Rogue-type might be asked to free a prisoner from his cage, while a Warrior-type would have to slaughter the guards, and the Priest-type would have to heal the prisoner. They all still follow the same storyline, though, so while the differences might keep it somewhat interesting, it's still somewhat repetitive.

The multiplayer quests have been mostly the standard fare. Collect 10 bottles off the beach. Kill 50 enemy warriors. Find the 20 crocodile skins. Those sorts of things. There have been a good amount of more interesting ones, though, such as freeing a man from his curse or helping another investigate his family heirloom. A lot of these have instanced areas which make quests seem a bit more personalized -- a never-before-tread crypt actually seems never-before-tread when you're the only person in it and things react to your actions as though it hasn't been touched in years.

What's been exceptional about the entire thing is that most of the quests have a sense of importance to them. You're not killing rats and beetles to get a rusty sword from a guard, you're fighting off an evil cannibal death-cult, or you're stopping an evil sorceress' army, or you're overthrowing the oppressive government. Even the more lame quests have you working towards these goals, which (in my opinion) makes them more tolerable.

They also all have a KOTOR-style dialog system... it's hollow, in that what you say doesn't seem to matter, but you do get to approach quests in-character. Good people might purge a demon to clean the land, neutral people might do it for revenge, and evil people might do it for the thrill of spilling blood for cash. Pretty simplistic, sure, but certainly better than WoW's style of "Accept? Yes or no."

I really hope I don't come off sounding too fanboyish. I should repeat that the game's not perfect, and the quests aren't revolutionary or completely new concepts (even for an MMO). I also expect that after the initial awe of playing wears off, the fetch quests will seem a lot more repetitive to me. And since all new characters have to go through the exact same area for levels 1-20, I can foresee it being incredibly dull to start up more than one or two alts.

I haven't yet experienced anything past the newbie island yet (I'm only level 18). But for reference, I'd probably say it's about equal to NWN2 or either of the KOTOR games. It's a lot of fun, but don't go into it expecting to have your mind blown by RPG awesomeness.

 

[Korgan]

Um... wow. Just wow. From what I've read it's awesome! Never mind the bugs, I'd love to see the combat system and the OMG CRPG BITS for myself. On the other hand, I definitely won't switch to this from WoW until at they have at least half a year to patch it into shape, and then WAR will have had already come out...

 

[Shannow]

Pretty simplistic, sure, but certainly better than WoW's style of "Accept? Yes or no."

Hmm, I never liked "every answer leads to the same outcome". I could just as well LARP that my yes/no has some deeper meaning.

WoW and Guild Wars both have quests that consist of more than kill x of y or gather z of u. I only played the trial for WoW and the quests were actually ok (for an mmo). What I dislike about mmos is the staticness of the worlds. Nothing ever changes (for long) and that goes directly against the "adventure in a whole world, peopled with real people and not just npcs".

But I'm still interested in AoC
*Waiting for trial version*

 

[Kortalh]

Hmm, I never liked "every answer leads to the same outcome". I could just as well LARP that my yes/no has some deeper meaning.

I agree wholeheartedly. It would've been really awesome if AoC had gone all the way and implemented more choice in the matter. For example, if a thief stole all of a merchant's pineapples... give the option to either A: Gather more pineapples, B: kill the thief and get them back, or maybe even C: Do something for the thief in trade for the pineapples.

It's really not that much more complicated, but it gives the player more control over his path -- plus it makes starting up an alt much less tedious, and more alts leads to more months of playing, which leads to more money to the developer to justify all the extra scripting. :wink:

WoW and Guild Wars both have quests that consist of more than kill x of y or gather z of u.

But really, just about every RPG quest can be boiled down to that in some way. In Fallout, you had to fetch a water chip, and kill the mutant leader. Individual quests involve things like "kill Y radscorpions". But they did it with enough flourish that we, as gamers, didn't care. Our character was properly motivated, and it was fun to do, so off we go with Malcolm to the radscorpion cave.

MMOs have been slowly progressing towards adding flourish. AoC is nowhere near the level of Fallout, of course. And some here would argue that MMOs never will be... maybe they're right. But I think, given enough creativity on the part of the designers (and a budget to back it up), MMOs might finally reach the happy medium between multiplayer dungeon crawling and singleplayer heroic storytelling.

 

[Data4]

I'll probably check out AoC after it's first price reduction for the game itself. It'll take that long at least to bring my computer up to snuff.

You know, this and WAR were hyped to be WoW-killers, or at least serious contenders, but one thing will ALWAYS keep a competitive game down, regardless of how good the content is: polish. Blizzard are absolute masters of making sure a game is 95% ready for release before opening the gates, and they're pretty good at patching up that other 5% before it becomes a major issue.

Just what is it that they have that the other developers are lacking? (besides, of course, a 10 million x $15 x 12 per year income, less overhead)

-D4

 

[shihonage]

I am sorry but IMO there's no hope for Warhammer Online.

I was super-excited about this game, seeing all the enthusiasm coming from the developer videos, I thought it was going to be the first true 2nd gen MMO, but the closed beta buzz is very very... ungood.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

I'll probably check out AoC after it's first price reduction for the game itself. It'll take that long at least to bring my computer up to snuff.

You know, this and WAR were hyped to be WoW-killers, or at least serious contenders, but one thing will ALWAYS keep a competitive game down, regardless of how good the content is: polish. Blizzard are absolute masters of making sure a game is 95% ready for release before opening the gates, and they're pretty good at patching up that other 5% before it becomes a major issue.

Just what is it that they have that the other developers are lacking? (besides, of course, a 10 million x $15 x 12 per year income, less overhead)

-D4

Wow had a poor launch, pretty much no end game content, no meaningfull pvp. couldn't log in for days, and don't forget the loot/mining bug that took months and months to fix which pretty much made you relog every hour or so.

 

[Castanova]

Shihonage, what's the negative buzz about Warhammer? What makes it go from 2nd gen MMO to piece of crap?

 

[shihonage]

One of the testers just came out and said it.

Others are more conservative with words, but it seems pretty unanimous among them that the game is a waste of IP, along those lines.

It seems that the difference between WAR development videos and the actual game is similar to the difference between Hellgate London CGI movies and Hellgate London the game.

I actually created an excited thread about WAR on another forum several months ago, about how it seemed like the best thing since a sliced murloc, but with all the crap I keep hearing about it as of late, plus those atrocious screenshots they released, it just doesn't look good.

 

[Raapys]

I never got what was supposed to be so great about Warhammer. Short summary?

Anyway, I'm now a level 67 barbarian in Age of Conan. I've been playing far too much, but I've little else to do anyway. While I wouldn't say this is a bad start for a MMORPG, there are a number of problems, as is to be expected. Poor item/ability descriptions, many smaller bugs, and a lack of quests for the 50+ level range sums up my own issues. On the positive side, server stability has been great.

Quests continue to be decent. The areas, I feel, have actually gotten more interesting/fun at higher levels, even though there's the mentioned lack of quests. I think it's the terrain and general design that makes it so great; very good use of mountains, height and snow in some of the later areas.

The combat is still very fun for me, more so than in other MMORPGs I've played.

There's a bit much running in the game, and the mounts are a bit too slow; hoping they'll do something about this in the future.

Anyway, give the game a few months to polish up and get some more content and it will probably be excellent. While I haven't played World of Warcraft above level 30 or so myself, I found Age of Conan to be generally alot more fun to play. I've yet to try either games' end content, though.