Age of Conan

[bylam]

Anybody have any thoughts on this game? www.ageofconan.com
The first twenty levels are single player and from there the game branches into an MMORPG up to level 80 or so.
What do people think about this approach?

 

[suibhne]

I'm actually somewhat interested in this game. If it ends up having a reasonably diverting SP portion, I'll probably buy it out of curiosity if nothing else. If Funcom gets the tone right, the gameworld could be pretty much awesome.

I've generally avoided MMORPGs like the plague, but I feel like I need to at least have a passing knowledge of the scene. MMOs are one of the frontiers of game design - good or bad, like it or not.

 

[Durwyn]

Shit, i say NO to monthly subscripiton fee.... i would pay even 100$ but without any subscription... this is fucked up. Is server maintainence so expensive or devs just wanna buy own island on pacific ?

 

[DarkSign]

It constantly amazes me why people dont realize that there's a lot of shit to pay for even after launch - stuff that justifies a monthly fee.

You want new players to join and contribute? That takes advertising which takes cash.

You want servers that stay running and are bug free? That takes more cash.

You want new content to keep all levels interested? That takes more cash.

The list goes on.

 

[psycojester]

You want new content to keep all levels interested? That takes more cash.

Correct me if i'm wrong but thats generally called an expansion pack. Which traditionally you pay for

 

[Limorkil]

After playing MMOGs for years I finally came up with The Single Player Theorem:

People suck, so the only reason to play a MMOG - regardless of how good it is - is the single player experience; but if you want a single player experience then there are lots of single player games that are better and cheaper.

The alternative is to do the MMOG dance:
1. Drool over forthcoming MMOG and defend it as being "not like all the others"
2. Spend money on it
4. Really enjoy it for a few weeks
5. Defend it on the forums because you are playing it
6. Discover that people suck
7. Curse the developers because of technical difficulties and imbalance
8. Stop playing
8. Go on the forums and tell everyone that it is a great game but people suck
9. See a new MMOG advertised.
10. Go to step one. Repeat until you wise up.

 

[DarkSign]

You want new content to keep all levels interested? That takes more cash.

Correct me if i'm wrong but thats generally called an expansion pack. Which traditionally you pay for

There are 2 ways of paying for it:

a) pay a monthly fee and get continual updates for a small, distributed price

b) pay for an expansion and only get that new content

both are valid in my eyes.

 

[Sovy Kurosei]

You forgot the third option:

c) pay a monthly fee for the small updates as well as purchasing the necessary (semi)annual expansion pack.

 

[OccupatedVoid]

You forgot the fourth option:
d) Join or set up a private server and don't pay at all.

 

[suibhne]

People suck, so the only reason to play a MMOG - regardless of how good it is - is the single player experience; but if you want a single player experience then there are lots of single player games that are better and cheaper.

That's pretty much where I am with this whole goddamn genre. I play online with a clan dedicated to competitive FPS's, and I guess I can imagine playing something like Conan with those guys if a few of them are into it. But getting together with a few dozen random retreads from all ages and walks of life in order to lay imaginary siege to an imaginary fortress in my spare time? Waiter, check please!

But I also wonder why something like that inevitably ends up sounding so effing stupid. I do it in single-player; why shouldn't multiplayer be able to add compelling new dimensions to the experience? And then I remember that way too many people, granted with anonymity, end up role-playing furries or walking a penis on a leash.

The funny thing is, in the end, MMOs haven't solved the problem that's always been at the foundation of PnP: with the right people it's great; with the wrong people, nothing on earth can stop the excruciating experience from harrowing your very soul.

 

[mister lamat]

actually, killing them in vast tracts with pvp is rather soothing... but that's very similar to fps clan play.

 

[bylam]

I think it sounds pretty cool. Essentially it seems like Funcom are trying to draw away the "mature" crowd from WoW.
If anyone has read the Robert E Howard stuff then they know just how cool it could be.
But as for the monthly subsrciption fee... it depends on the cost of the game. If you can play through the single player in less than a month (highly probable) and it is a good single player campaign, then it is probably worth paying for a single month, even if you only like single player games.
Some of the clan options are exciting and the drunken brawling seems like good fun. Worth $XX a month? I don't know. But I am always a fan of a game that says fuck it, if we are doing real-time combat we are making it fun and violent.

Yes I am drunk posting this in case anyone was wondering.

 

[dagorkan]

I would get this for the SP which looks good, but I refuse to pay monthly fees. Hopefully the Russians will make a crack to play offline.

 

[User was nabbed fit]

What would we do without the Russian underworld... no, seriously, I'd have a lot less business.

 

[DarkSign]

Fuck you guys are cheap. Cheaper than cheap. Unreasonably cheap. You guys make Ebenezer Scrooge look like a first-round draft football player buying his first 3 houses and two Lambos on signing day.

 

[dagorkan]

I'll buy it only if I can play solo (with a hack) because I have no interest in MMOs. What's wrong with that?

Multiplayer can add to a game if it's strategy or straight action (FPSes) because humans are smarter and less predictable than AI and there's nothing to mess up, but with roleplaying there's everything to lose. People & RPGs don't mix.

 

[User was nabbed fit]

Age of Ass > Age of Conan.

 

[DarkSign]

I'll buy it only if I can play solo (with a hack) because I have no interest in MMOs. What's wrong with that?

Multiplayer can add to a game if it's strategy or straight action (FPSes) because humans are smarter and less predictable than AI and there's nothing to mess up, but with roleplaying there's everything to lose. People & RPGs don't mix.

Only if you're a elitist, self-absorbed, bastard who has to always have things his way. Of course there are lots of dickheads online, but to think that people and RPGs don't mix is retarded.

 

[Grandpa Gamer]

Only if you're a elitist, self-absorbed, bastard who has to always have things his way. Of course there are lots of dickheads online, but to think that people and RPGs don't mix is retarded.

I can't see how any MMORPG can break away from being just a huge chat room with better graphics. The very concept is broken to begin with. You can't have Lord of the Rings with everybody playing as Gandalf or some such. It's ridiculous. What do we have here? A world full of Conans chatting about the latest TV show? Online is the worst that ever happened to our beloved genre.

 

[DarkSign]

Only if you're a elitist, self-absorbed, bastard who has to always have things his way. Of course there are lots of dickheads online, but to think that people and RPGs don't mix is retarded.

I can't see how any MMORPG can break away from being just a huge chat room with better graphics. The very concept is broken to begin with. You can't have Lord of the Rings with everybody playing as Gandalf or some such. It's ridiculous. What do we have here? A world full of Conans chatting about the latest TV show? Online is the worst that ever happened to our beloved genre.

The essence of the RPG is the hero's journey...an exploration of life and all that's in it. Our relation to other people. Sure, leet-speek kiddies are terrible to play with, but if you're going to write off all humanity, play games with no humans in them. At all.

 

[Spectacle]

I find that in CRPGs, simulated humans usually give a far more realistic experience than human controlled humans.

BTW: Why do we write "humans" and not "humen"?

 

[Jaime Lannister]

http://r095.d1.funcom.com/conan/fronten ... _Quest.pdf

So Funcom basically decided that choices and consequences were lame, and that collecting planks of wood is fun, and that Crom's balls are funny. The PvP is now the only thing keeping this game on my "Games that might be awesome" list.

 

[elander_]

That quest is so lame. I am a fan of R.E.Howard much more than i ever was of sissy Tolkien. My collection of 150+ Conan the Barbarian comic books and a small library with all the text adventures Howard wrote proves it. There's nothing like reading the original. I will never touch this thing to not pollute my memories of the Hyborian age.

 

[bylam]

http://r095.d1.funcom.com/conan/frontend/files/CONTENT/Conan_Foundations_of_Trust_Quest.pdf

So Funcom basically decided that choices and consequences were lame, and that collecting planks of wood is fun, and that Crom's balls are funny. The PvP is now the only thing keeping this game on my "Games that might be awesome" list.

Admittedly that quest is rather lame - but can it really be taken as representative of the entire game? Especially with regards to what was said on the website about it.

simple and straight-forward quest

Keep in mind that the content of this storyboard is subject to change, and that much of it is put together using unpolished assets and a healthy bit of developer humor.

What you see in the storyboard is but some of the possible dialogue.

Also what kind of choice and consequence is expected in an MMO? They don't even state if this is in the single player section of the game.