OK, I guess I can't give up on blogging completely. :)
I'm going to move to tumblr and give that a whirl. My new blog is www.mymomentofzen.com. See ya there!
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Time to Move On
I think I've grown tired of the MMO treadmill. I've cancelled EverQuest II. No, don't worry - no whiny, this is why I'm quitting post follows. It's a fun game, but ultimately, it's just a treadmill, and I've reached a point, where both of my characters had their mythicals, and a decent assortment of fabled, that while they certainly weren't uber in any normal sense of the term, it's as close to winning the game as I care to get.
Hopefully one of these days, we'll see MMORPGs shift from being treadmills to having event-driven gameplay (like Guild Wars 2 promises). Where logging on is driven more by a desire to keep up with the everchanging story and everchanging world, and less by a desire to increase arbitrary numbers. There are enough games like that already, and I think I've grown tired of them. And I'm starting to realize that what I want most in a game is to feel like I'm a part of a damn good story. Bioshock gave me that. Mass Effect gives me that. Dragon Age, Final Fantasy XIII, and Guild Wars give me that.
World of Warcraft and EverQuest II are fun games, but they don't have that. Sure, there's some good writing in some of the quest arcs, but ultimately, the stories do very little to disguise the fact they are thinly veiled plots to get you to run to five random places and click on five random things. That's not entirely bad; it's fun on occasion. And I'm not giving up on MMOs completely: I will play Star Trek Online casually for the time being. And I'll probably check out Final Fantasy XIV when that comes out.
But MMO play is going to move to the backburner; my gameplay time will likely be spent playing single player games. And I also intend to complete one of my dreams: actually publishing my own game, probably for the iPhone. I've started writing a few games as prototypes and just have to figure out what I want to follow through to completion with.
I'm not going to continue updating this site, since I have little to add to the MMO discussion, and I think I've said about all there is to say about MMOs as they are now. Maybe I'll start up again if something revolutionary comes out.
Thanks for reading and I hope you have continue to have a great time wherever your online adventures take you.
Hopefully one of these days, we'll see MMORPGs shift from being treadmills to having event-driven gameplay (like Guild Wars 2 promises). Where logging on is driven more by a desire to keep up with the everchanging story and everchanging world, and less by a desire to increase arbitrary numbers. There are enough games like that already, and I think I've grown tired of them. And I'm starting to realize that what I want most in a game is to feel like I'm a part of a damn good story. Bioshock gave me that. Mass Effect gives me that. Dragon Age, Final Fantasy XIII, and Guild Wars give me that.
World of Warcraft and EverQuest II are fun games, but they don't have that. Sure, there's some good writing in some of the quest arcs, but ultimately, the stories do very little to disguise the fact they are thinly veiled plots to get you to run to five random places and click on five random things. That's not entirely bad; it's fun on occasion. And I'm not giving up on MMOs completely: I will play Star Trek Online casually for the time being. And I'll probably check out Final Fantasy XIV when that comes out.
But MMO play is going to move to the backburner; my gameplay time will likely be spent playing single player games. And I also intend to complete one of my dreams: actually publishing my own game, probably for the iPhone. I've started writing a few games as prototypes and just have to figure out what I want to follow through to completion with.
I'm not going to continue updating this site, since I have little to add to the MMO discussion, and I think I've said about all there is to say about MMOs as they are now. Maybe I'll start up again if something revolutionary comes out.
Thanks for reading and I hope you have continue to have a great time wherever your online adventures take you.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Casually Going Where Every Other Blogger Went
Well, if Raptr is to be believed, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be, I've only been spending between 5 and 10 hours a week in MMOs lately, most of that in Star Trek Online. I popped into EverQuest II for a bit to check out the new quests for some of my lower level alts still in the Kingdom of Sky zones, and to see the battlegrounds. Unfortunately, Battlegrounds was delayed. And since my mains couldn't level without owning the expansion pack, I didn't feel like playing them, since every quest I completed would just feel like XP being thrown away.
I feel like Star Trek Online has been very compatible with my hectic schedule. I can pause the zone quickly on ground missions if I need to stop gaming briefly. And the death penalty isn't severe, so if my baby wakes up crying, I can do the right thing (drop everything to take care of her) without coming back to a mound of XP debt or a long run back to my corpse.
The missions in Star Trek Online are constructed kind of like in City of Heroes. Most of the maps are pretty small though, as you spend time going back and forth between space and ground. This is good: in City of Heroes, I often got bored because the long, winding maps were too large, which was most problematic on missions that required you to kill everything on the map. It wasn't much fun spending half the time on the mission just finding that one last guy hiding in some obscure corner. So Star Trek Online manages to avoid that problem by keeping each portion of the mission nice and compact and bite sized.
The Open Grouping system that Star Trek implements is nice because it allows me to play with other people, but without forcing me to waste valuable game time trying to find them. So far, that's been working well for me.
Not everything about Star Trek is perfect, of course. As many bloggers have noted already, it is very much based on combat. There isn't much to do besides run around and destroy everything. Unless you get one of the horrible missions where some random planet needs some random supply which you never have. I always delete those. There are worse things in MMO game design than killing ten Klingon rats.
Hopefully, over time, they'll add some new gameplay models. Some things I'd like to see in Star Trek Online:
- "Hacking" mini-games like you see in Mass Effect. These mini-games should be used wherever an episode has us hacking computers or bypass or fix various technologies. Instead of simply clicking on them, we should solve a puzzle. The RPG aspect isn't necessarily lost because we could earn skills (which increase the amount of time to solve the puzzle or let us fail more often.)
- Other forms of puzzle solving as a form of clue gathering for stories involving "archaeology" or "investigation." This would also be in the form of a mini-game.
For people who don't want to play mini-games, allow them to recruit NPCs BESIDES Bridge Crew members who provide various perks, such as occasionally auto-solving a mini-game within their career. This way we can collect archaeologists on our ship. They won't be running around on the ground shooting things, but we can have them beam down to solve something real quick if we need to (and maybe on occasion we would have to protect them from any nearby enemies while they worked!).
Or, allow them to recruit help from the player community. Stargate Worlds was going to have a feature where you could call in other PCs to do this type of work as well. Cryptic could borrow that idea as well, giving people who want to focus purely on non-combat scientific research a way to level up AND group up with other players.
- Borrow (but improve on) the Diplomacy card game concept used in Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. Allow us to collect new cards over time as we develop our abilities at negotiation. A mission should involve building a deck (some clues in the text would hint as to what strategy would likely work.)
- Have failure sometimes result in something other than simple respawning. In the real Star Trek, Captain Kirk didn't always get away. Sometimes, he got captured. This was usually an excuse to have him strapped to a torture device bare chested, but perhaps on some missions, if the group wipes, they should reappear in a prison cell.
- Have multiple routes to success. While running and gunning our way through a base, we might come across a large, locked door preventing entrance into an armed compound you need to investigate. Today, we would have to run around to 2 or 3 locations to flip certain switches to unlock it. Keep that, but add alternatives: maybe we could hack the door where it is, if we have someone with that skill set with us. Or maybe there is a way to have a crew member be captured (assuming we are playing with PCs) and THEY are taken inside the compound and are temporarily disarmed of all weapons/shields. Perhaps that character can use Diplomacy (or hand to hand combat) to escape (naturally, their items should be available somewhere and automatically re-equip when discovered) - and they can open the door from the inside easily.
- Steal City of Heroes' Architect system and apply it to the Holodeck.
- Don't forget that half the galaxy seems to be littered with godlike beings who toy with humanity and can disable our weapons with a thought. Do so IN A PVP setting, so Feds and Klingons have to compete against each other using the non-combat gameplay systems to achieve their objectives.
- Have missions where the enemies are too tough to defeat and we have to sneak by them, avoiding aggro, or simply running from them, while completing our objectives. Devices that reduce awareness or distract enemies (having alarms that can be triggered which affects how the guards' AI pathing is implemented) would aid in this form of gameplay.
Features like these would be nice to haves in any MMO, but they are especially needed in Star Trek Online, because it is severely lacking in non-combat options. And Star Trek was a show where characters were usually very diplomatic.
I feel like Star Trek Online has been very compatible with my hectic schedule. I can pause the zone quickly on ground missions if I need to stop gaming briefly. And the death penalty isn't severe, so if my baby wakes up crying, I can do the right thing (drop everything to take care of her) without coming back to a mound of XP debt or a long run back to my corpse.
The missions in Star Trek Online are constructed kind of like in City of Heroes. Most of the maps are pretty small though, as you spend time going back and forth between space and ground. This is good: in City of Heroes, I often got bored because the long, winding maps were too large, which was most problematic on missions that required you to kill everything on the map. It wasn't much fun spending half the time on the mission just finding that one last guy hiding in some obscure corner. So Star Trek Online manages to avoid that problem by keeping each portion of the mission nice and compact and bite sized.
The Open Grouping system that Star Trek implements is nice because it allows me to play with other people, but without forcing me to waste valuable game time trying to find them. So far, that's been working well for me.
Not everything about Star Trek is perfect, of course. As many bloggers have noted already, it is very much based on combat. There isn't much to do besides run around and destroy everything. Unless you get one of the horrible missions where some random planet needs some random supply which you never have. I always delete those. There are worse things in MMO game design than killing ten Klingon rats.
Hopefully, over time, they'll add some new gameplay models. Some things I'd like to see in Star Trek Online:
- "Hacking" mini-games like you see in Mass Effect. These mini-games should be used wherever an episode has us hacking computers or bypass or fix various technologies. Instead of simply clicking on them, we should solve a puzzle. The RPG aspect isn't necessarily lost because we could earn skills (which increase the amount of time to solve the puzzle or let us fail more often.)
- Other forms of puzzle solving as a form of clue gathering for stories involving "archaeology" or "investigation." This would also be in the form of a mini-game.
For people who don't want to play mini-games, allow them to recruit NPCs BESIDES Bridge Crew members who provide various perks, such as occasionally auto-solving a mini-game within their career. This way we can collect archaeologists on our ship. They won't be running around on the ground shooting things, but we can have them beam down to solve something real quick if we need to (and maybe on occasion we would have to protect them from any nearby enemies while they worked!).
Or, allow them to recruit help from the player community. Stargate Worlds was going to have a feature where you could call in other PCs to do this type of work as well. Cryptic could borrow that idea as well, giving people who want to focus purely on non-combat scientific research a way to level up AND group up with other players.
- Borrow (but improve on) the Diplomacy card game concept used in Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. Allow us to collect new cards over time as we develop our abilities at negotiation. A mission should involve building a deck (some clues in the text would hint as to what strategy would likely work.)
- Have failure sometimes result in something other than simple respawning. In the real Star Trek, Captain Kirk didn't always get away. Sometimes, he got captured. This was usually an excuse to have him strapped to a torture device bare chested, but perhaps on some missions, if the group wipes, they should reappear in a prison cell.
- Have multiple routes to success. While running and gunning our way through a base, we might come across a large, locked door preventing entrance into an armed compound you need to investigate. Today, we would have to run around to 2 or 3 locations to flip certain switches to unlock it. Keep that, but add alternatives: maybe we could hack the door where it is, if we have someone with that skill set with us. Or maybe there is a way to have a crew member be captured (assuming we are playing with PCs) and THEY are taken inside the compound and are temporarily disarmed of all weapons/shields. Perhaps that character can use Diplomacy (or hand to hand combat) to escape (naturally, their items should be available somewhere and automatically re-equip when discovered) - and they can open the door from the inside easily.
- Steal City of Heroes' Architect system and apply it to the Holodeck.
- Don't forget that half the galaxy seems to be littered with godlike beings who toy with humanity and can disable our weapons with a thought. Do so IN A PVP setting, so Feds and Klingons have to compete against each other using the non-combat gameplay systems to achieve their objectives.
- Have missions where the enemies are too tough to defeat and we have to sneak by them, avoiding aggro, or simply running from them, while completing our objectives. Devices that reduce awareness or distract enemies (having alarms that can be triggered which affects how the guards' AI pathing is implemented) would aid in this form of gameplay.
Features like these would be nice to haves in any MMO, but they are especially needed in Star Trek Online, because it is severely lacking in non-combat options. And Star Trek was a show where characters were usually very diplomatic.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Stat Changes in EQ2
With the coming expansion pack in EverQuest II, there will be changes to how statistics work. Sony is "streamlining" stats such that there will be ONE statistic that is the primary statistic you need for each archetype. Tanks will focus on STR, mages on INT, scouts on AGI, and priests on WIS.
While I am not in beta and won't know how well the changes work until the expansion pack comes out, I am a little wary. Part of the fun in an RPG is balancing trade-offs. Having to pick between items with a lot of STR to increase damage, or INT to increase the likelihood of critical hits, or WIS for better resists, well that's basically what makes itemization FUN.
What fun is there if everything has a very clear and obvious upgrade?
While I am not in beta and won't know how well the changes work until the expansion pack comes out, I am a little wary. Part of the fun in an RPG is balancing trade-offs. Having to pick between items with a lot of STR to increase damage, or INT to increase the likelihood of critical hits, or WIS for better resists, well that's basically what makes itemization FUN.
What fun is there if everything has a very clear and obvious upgrade?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Going Where No Grind Has Gone Before
I've been playing the Star Trek Online open beta. Well, trying to mostly. The lag is intense, and I frequently crash out or suffer hitching or "server not responding" errors. But that's the point of beta. Hopefully they're gathering some good information from my playtime. I suffered a few issues, such as zoning into an instance without my party (I was supposed to zone into an open instance with another group, but I ended up alone, facing 15 Orions on my own. The battle did not go well.)
And sometimes I end up beaming back to my shop, only to somehow end up BECOMING my ship. Because of some strange quantum entanglement due to diapose leakage in the arlithiation chambers of course. Here's me, zooming around outer space:
But I have been able to play it enough to say: I'm liking the game. It's exactly what I thought it would be. There are a lot of people who seem to hate it. It seems to me a lot of people don't like the instanced nature of the game. You know what, guys: get over it. Not every game can suck like Vanguard. I don't think an open world sandbox would really work with the Star Trek IP anyway.
The game really resembles Pirates of the Burning Sea in many ways. It is incredibly instanced, which some people criticized POTBS for as well. When you are flying around in sector space, you are in a different scale than in the battle zones, similar to how your boat was scaled differently when travelling between ports in Pirates of the Burning Sea.
Just like Pirates of the Burning Sea, ships fly around in two scales: sector space and system space. In sector space you fly much faster given the distances because you are technically going around at warp speed. You are also as bad as the planets on the map. In system space, you appear more closely to scale. It's fine, it's just an abstraction, and works better in this context than it did in Pirates of the Burning Sea where everyone turned into a speedboat half the size of a city upon leaving port until they got too close to a pirate.
Ship combat in Star Trek Online rocks. It's a lot of fun, especially with groups. Star Trek Online features an open grouping feature; while working on some of my episodes, when zoning into an instance, I would join an existing group to tackle the content. Not having to mess around with LFG is awesome.
Most missions (at least the ones I've tried so far) start out with some in space action and then transition for some ground based action. That's where this game is weakest.
Avatar combat is flaky. The animations are stiff, and when the enemies run up really close to you, the fights look funky. But, still, it's typical MMO combat: you tab over to your enemy, hit some hotbar buttons, and watch their shield and health bars go down.
One killer feature of the game is that everyone is a pet class: if you don't have a full group, the rest of your away party is made up of bridge personnel you can collect over time, or generic security officers (red shirts). This makes it really easy and accessible to solo, since you always have a full party.
But an MMO that you solo through entirely just isn't a true MMO is it? That's why it's great that Cryptic borrowed the Open Grouping concept that Mythic pioneered in Warhammer Online. When you start an episode you will automatically be grouped with other players who are working on the same quest. If there aren't anyone around, well you still have your pets or can LFG the old fashioned way. But Open Groups makes the game feel more organic. I'm playing on MY terms. I go to the system *I* want to go to. But I get to play with other people, if someone else is working on the same thing I am. All without having to sit around, twiddling my thumbs, spamming in a chat channel.
Is Star Trek Online innovative? No, not really. It's standard MMO gameplay, but it builds on the most recent innovations in MMO gameplay (open groups, public quests via Fleet Actions, etc.). Is it true to the IP? I think so. Granted, I haven't had the opportunity to use diplomacy yet (though I hear they have those missions), and the game is much more trigger happy than the series. That's probably to be expected, really, since all MMOs tend to be about groups of heroes valiantly banding together to commit genocide on the local wildlife. That's Lord of the Rings Online in a nutshell. At least in Star Trek Online, it's mostly humanoids we're slaughtering.
It would be nice if they had stolen Vanguard: Saga of Heroes diplomacy card game mechanics to provide additional non-combat avenues for playing. But the game is complete enough that I'm quite content with what it offers.
The zone chat is filled with people who aren't though. Mostly, I think, it boils down to these issues: too many instances and too much combat. Too many instances - yes, it's annoying to click on every door and watch a loading screen, but Star Trek wouldn't really work well as a open world sandbox. It's more about the episodes (e.g., the quest system) and quests just work better with instances and scripting.
As for too much combat, well, yes, Vangaurd's diplomacy system, Oblivions speechcraft system, or even Spore's dance-off contests would have been a nice addition, but you know what? As much as I'd love to dance that Klingon ambassador into accepting my terms, most video game players, especially with a group, simply enjoy combat more. So it's naturaly they would focus on that. I'm sure if we hound Cryptic long enough, they'll add some more gameplay systems as well.
But the game is quite complete already and a good foundation for much more to come. The open group instances system makes playing on my terms fun by taking out the more tedious aspects of MMO grouping while still encouraging socialization. Every MMO from now on should build in matchmaker or auto-grouping systems. Sure, it would be nice if I could explore strange new lands without having to blow everyone up, but it's REALLY FUN when we do. Ship combat, in particular, is a blast.
So, I say: Beam Me UP, Cryptic.
And sometimes I end up beaming back to my shop, only to somehow end up BECOMING my ship. Because of some strange quantum entanglement due to diapose leakage in the arlithiation chambers of course. Here's me, zooming around outer space:
But I have been able to play it enough to say: I'm liking the game. It's exactly what I thought it would be. There are a lot of people who seem to hate it. It seems to me a lot of people don't like the instanced nature of the game. You know what, guys: get over it. Not every game can suck like Vanguard. I don't think an open world sandbox would really work with the Star Trek IP anyway.
The game really resembles Pirates of the Burning Sea in many ways. It is incredibly instanced, which some people criticized POTBS for as well. When you are flying around in sector space, you are in a different scale than in the battle zones, similar to how your boat was scaled differently when travelling between ports in Pirates of the Burning Sea.
Just like Pirates of the Burning Sea, ships fly around in two scales: sector space and system space. In sector space you fly much faster given the distances because you are technically going around at warp speed. You are also as bad as the planets on the map. In system space, you appear more closely to scale. It's fine, it's just an abstraction, and works better in this context than it did in Pirates of the Burning Sea where everyone turned into a speedboat half the size of a city upon leaving port until they got too close to a pirate.
Ship combat in Star Trek Online rocks. It's a lot of fun, especially with groups. Star Trek Online features an open grouping feature; while working on some of my episodes, when zoning into an instance, I would join an existing group to tackle the content. Not having to mess around with LFG is awesome.
Most missions (at least the ones I've tried so far) start out with some in space action and then transition for some ground based action. That's where this game is weakest.
Avatar combat is flaky. The animations are stiff, and when the enemies run up really close to you, the fights look funky. But, still, it's typical MMO combat: you tab over to your enemy, hit some hotbar buttons, and watch their shield and health bars go down.
One killer feature of the game is that everyone is a pet class: if you don't have a full group, the rest of your away party is made up of bridge personnel you can collect over time, or generic security officers (red shirts). This makes it really easy and accessible to solo, since you always have a full party.
But an MMO that you solo through entirely just isn't a true MMO is it? That's why it's great that Cryptic borrowed the Open Grouping concept that Mythic pioneered in Warhammer Online. When you start an episode you will automatically be grouped with other players who are working on the same quest. If there aren't anyone around, well you still have your pets or can LFG the old fashioned way. But Open Groups makes the game feel more organic. I'm playing on MY terms. I go to the system *I* want to go to. But I get to play with other people, if someone else is working on the same thing I am. All without having to sit around, twiddling my thumbs, spamming in a chat channel.
Is Star Trek Online innovative? No, not really. It's standard MMO gameplay, but it builds on the most recent innovations in MMO gameplay (open groups, public quests via Fleet Actions, etc.). Is it true to the IP? I think so. Granted, I haven't had the opportunity to use diplomacy yet (though I hear they have those missions), and the game is much more trigger happy than the series. That's probably to be expected, really, since all MMOs tend to be about groups of heroes valiantly banding together to commit genocide on the local wildlife. That's Lord of the Rings Online in a nutshell. At least in Star Trek Online, it's mostly humanoids we're slaughtering.
It would be nice if they had stolen Vanguard: Saga of Heroes diplomacy card game mechanics to provide additional non-combat avenues for playing. But the game is complete enough that I'm quite content with what it offers.
The zone chat is filled with people who aren't though. Mostly, I think, it boils down to these issues: too many instances and too much combat. Too many instances - yes, it's annoying to click on every door and watch a loading screen, but Star Trek wouldn't really work well as a open world sandbox. It's more about the episodes (e.g., the quest system) and quests just work better with instances and scripting.
As for too much combat, well, yes, Vangaurd's diplomacy system, Oblivions speechcraft system, or even Spore's dance-off contests would have been a nice addition, but you know what? As much as I'd love to dance that Klingon ambassador into accepting my terms, most video game players, especially with a group, simply enjoy combat more. So it's naturaly they would focus on that. I'm sure if we hound Cryptic long enough, they'll add some more gameplay systems as well.
But the game is quite complete already and a good foundation for much more to come. The open group instances system makes playing on my terms fun by taking out the more tedious aspects of MMO grouping while still encouraging socialization. Every MMO from now on should build in matchmaker or auto-grouping systems. Sure, it would be nice if I could explore strange new lands without having to blow everyone up, but it's REALLY FUN when we do. Ship combat, in particular, is a blast.
So, I say: Beam Me UP, Cryptic.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
New Year, New MMOs
Well, it's a new year, and time for new MMOs. Unfortunately, I haven't had too much time to play the ones I subscribe too already. :) And that will likely drive my decision making processes as I look for a new MMO lands to venture into. I'm not likely to quit EverQuest II any time soon -- it's been my home for over five years now -- but I do find myself in need of something that I can jump in and play solo when necessary, but still has a satisfying group-based game for when I do have more time to commit. And the solo game in EverQuest-like games (especially WoW) just is not that appealing. So I've been looking for a more accessible casual friendly (but still social) MMO to play on the side.
One game I'm looking forward to is Star Trek Online. The missions (story-driven quest arcs?) sound appealing, and I hear rumors of instant action like scenarios. Give me something like Warhammer's Public Quests and instant access PvP Scenarios and I will be a very happy man. Those features allowed my to play WITH OTHER PEOPLE but on my own terms and with very short time commitments required. It was beautiful. Too bad the rest of Warhammer wasn't. If Star Trek Online could just steal that feature, plus the awesome ship combat a la Pirates of the Burning Sea, I think I'll be happy with it.
I'm also looking forward to Final Fantasy XIV. Final Fantasy XI was one of my favorite games in terms of mechanics and itemization. The monsters were beautifully detailed and the game was a lot of fun - when I got to play it. Unfortunately, the time commitment it required was prohibitive, and I eventually had to quit as the responsibilities in my life ramped up. But if Final Fantasy XIV can create a game system that is as good PLUS be casual friendly, well, SOE watch out, I may have a new home.
The main feature in Final Fantasy XIV that attracts my attention is that the guildleves system they describe seems like it would scale up depending on my ability to socialize. If I have to quickly get in game and out on my own, I can solo - otherwise, I can group, and the game's equivalents of quests will accomodate. Unless I'm misinterpreting that.
So it looks like the next year might be a good year for casual MMO gaming. But we'll see. :)
One game I'm looking forward to is Star Trek Online. The missions (story-driven quest arcs?) sound appealing, and I hear rumors of instant action like scenarios. Give me something like Warhammer's Public Quests and instant access PvP Scenarios and I will be a very happy man. Those features allowed my to play WITH OTHER PEOPLE but on my own terms and with very short time commitments required. It was beautiful. Too bad the rest of Warhammer wasn't. If Star Trek Online could just steal that feature, plus the awesome ship combat a la Pirates of the Burning Sea, I think I'll be happy with it.
I'm also looking forward to Final Fantasy XIV. Final Fantasy XI was one of my favorite games in terms of mechanics and itemization. The monsters were beautifully detailed and the game was a lot of fun - when I got to play it. Unfortunately, the time commitment it required was prohibitive, and I eventually had to quit as the responsibilities in my life ramped up. But if Final Fantasy XIV can create a game system that is as good PLUS be casual friendly, well, SOE watch out, I may have a new home.
The main feature in Final Fantasy XIV that attracts my attention is that the guildleves system they describe seems like it would scale up depending on my ability to socialize. If I have to quickly get in game and out on my own, I can solo - otherwise, I can group, and the game's equivalents of quests will accomodate. Unless I'm misinterpreting that.
So it looks like the next year might be a good year for casual MMO gaming. But we'll see. :)
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Reasons Why EQ2 Is Better Than WoW (Or Any Other MMO on the Market Right Now)
In honor of EverQuest II's fifth year anniversary, Professor Syp asks us to blog reasons why we feel EverQuest II is better than WoW. I made a post similar to this before, but I suppose there's no harm in doing it again. As the Sypster demands, I will refine my list down to five core features that I think define the EverQuest II experience; these are the features that World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings Online, and other MMO games on the market simply can't match.
Five Reasons Why EverQuest II > World of Warcraft
1. Mentoring and Level Scaling -
The leveling system in MMORPGs is great for providing a sense of progress, but it has its drawbacks. Two of the most significant problems are:
- Levels separate players who otherwise would want to play together.
- Levels block you from a lot of the content in the game.
EverQuest II addresses both of these issues by making leveling more flexible than in other games.
In EverQuest II it doesn't matter what level two players are -- they CAN play together. Using the Mentoring system, high level players in EverQuest II can lower their level so they can play with newer players who might not have a character that is as developed. To play with real life friends can be a chore in World of Warcraft since as a higher level character, you will completely trivialize their quests, and you get no reward. With the Mentoring feature, the higher level character still DOES get a reward, in the form of bonus Alternate Advancement XP. If the higher level character isn't at the level cap, they also still gain a small amount of normal XP as well.
In addition, if you are looking for something to do, EverQuest II provides two ways to ensure that a lot of the content is accessible to you. Many dungeons scale to the level of the party. And if there is content that does not scale in level, you can always temporarily de-level yourself to take on that content as a less powerful form of yourself using the Chronomagic feature.
2. More Interactable World
EverQuest II has several quests that involve:
- walls you can climb
- walls you can destroy
- explosive barrels you can move around
- crates you can move and stack on top of one another to get past a barrier
- items in your inventory that you can place at physical locations in the world [such as a flag that, when placed, allows guild members to teleport to that location]
- items you need to placed at certain locations in a dungeon to trigger events
The majority of quests don't involve this level of interactivity, and I tend to take them for granted, but every time I try to play another MMO, such as World of Warcarft or Lord of the Rings Online, I notice that the quests just aren't quite as involved. The world seems more decorative. The extent of interaction with the world that I experienced in World of Warcraft was simply clicking on items at a certain location to trigger quest updates [EverQuest II, of course, has that too].
3. Crafting
EverQuest II has a much more interesting crafting system than almost any other fantasy MMORPG. Vanguard: Saga of Heroes might have a superior system [I didn't craft in that game, but from what I read, it was more involved.] In World of Warcraft, however, it is simply a matter of gathering ingredients, and clicking on a button to make your items. After that, tradeskilling resembles Progress Quest.
In EverQuest II, you have to use abilities in a mini-game, to build your items. It could be better [I would prefer more variety to the mini-games, like in Warhammer Online or Free Realms], but it is much better than World of Warcraft's take on crafting.
Another nice feature about crafting: it's a separate advancement track from adventuring. This used to be the case in World of Warcraft as well, at least in beta, but for some reason they changed that and put in skill caps based on your character's level. I think that was a poor decision. Some people just want to craft: EverQuest II gives them the ability to do so. It even offers quests and missions, even crafting "raids" that tradeskillers can go on even if their character stays perpetually at level 1 in adventurer levels.
4. Adjustable Leveling
EverQuest II has a feature called Alternate Advancement XP (AA XP). AA XP are the EverQuest II equivalent to Talent Points. They let you unlock abilities in various trees that increase the abilities of your character. However, in World of Warcraft and Age of Conan and most other games, these abilities are tied to your character's level.
In EverQuest II, you have a slider so you can determine how much of the XP you earn from combat goes to normal XP or AA XP. Also, you earn bonus AA XP from completing quests and the first time you kill named monsters or discover a new area. These means you can choose to race to the level cap (and be weak for that level), or take the slow, more casual route and make yourself the strongest possible character for any level.
In addition to this, you can also shut off XP gain from combat, tradeskilling, or completing quests completely. If you are a completist and want to finish all the quests in an area before outleveling it, you can do so. (You could also just use the Chronomagic feature to delevel yourself, but still, the choice is there.) If you want to lock a character at a certain level forever, you can do so.
5. Appearance Armor
In World of Warcraft, every character looks like a clown with ugly, mismatched armor. And huge spiked shoulder pads usually. Unless they have a complete set and then they might look a little decent, but they'll look like every other character of the same class at that same point in the raid progression.
In EverQuest II, you have a separate tab in your inventory you can use to put in items that override the appearance of the armor you are wearing. This means your hero can truly look like a hero and not a clown with spiked shoulder pads.
Many of the rewards in the game are purely cosmetic in nature - and it's still fun to try to collect them. A game need not be a neverending treadmill of increasing statistics to be fun, and EverQuest II proves that. (Though, of course, it still offers the treadmill of increasing statistics, for those that want that, as well.)
Conclusions
EverQuest II has something for everyone. Raid types can concentrate on getting the most powerful items. More casual players have content that rewards appearance armor so they can just doll up their characters so they LOOK cool. The amount of variety in the content is staggering. There is plenty to do for both crazy hardcore raiders as well as more casual players like myself.
It's not perfect: clearly, the designers of the game went to great lengths to give it more of everything: more quests, more classes, more races, more zones, more everything. And in some cases, this becomes more of an annoyance: in particular, I don't like how I have nine hotbars filled to the brim with abilities and baubles and what not that I always use. Luckily, the designers ARE aware of that: the next expansion pack doesn't introduce new abilities that go on your hotbar; instead, they add new abilities that are triggered as combos.
However, for the most part, the sheer amount - and more importantly, variety - of content that is available to you, regardless of the class and level of character you play, is what keeps me coming back to EverQuest II.
Five Reasons Why EverQuest II > World of Warcraft
1. Mentoring and Level Scaling -
The leveling system in MMORPGs is great for providing a sense of progress, but it has its drawbacks. Two of the most significant problems are:
- Levels separate players who otherwise would want to play together.
- Levels block you from a lot of the content in the game.
EverQuest II addresses both of these issues by making leveling more flexible than in other games.
In EverQuest II it doesn't matter what level two players are -- they CAN play together. Using the Mentoring system, high level players in EverQuest II can lower their level so they can play with newer players who might not have a character that is as developed. To play with real life friends can be a chore in World of Warcraft since as a higher level character, you will completely trivialize their quests, and you get no reward. With the Mentoring feature, the higher level character still DOES get a reward, in the form of bonus Alternate Advancement XP. If the higher level character isn't at the level cap, they also still gain a small amount of normal XP as well.
In addition, if you are looking for something to do, EverQuest II provides two ways to ensure that a lot of the content is accessible to you. Many dungeons scale to the level of the party. And if there is content that does not scale in level, you can always temporarily de-level yourself to take on that content as a less powerful form of yourself using the Chronomagic feature.
2. More Interactable World
EverQuest II has several quests that involve:
- walls you can climb
- walls you can destroy
- explosive barrels you can move around
- crates you can move and stack on top of one another to get past a barrier
- items in your inventory that you can place at physical locations in the world [such as a flag that, when placed, allows guild members to teleport to that location]
- items you need to placed at certain locations in a dungeon to trigger events
The majority of quests don't involve this level of interactivity, and I tend to take them for granted, but every time I try to play another MMO, such as World of Warcarft or Lord of the Rings Online, I notice that the quests just aren't quite as involved. The world seems more decorative. The extent of interaction with the world that I experienced in World of Warcraft was simply clicking on items at a certain location to trigger quest updates [EverQuest II, of course, has that too].
3. Crafting
EverQuest II has a much more interesting crafting system than almost any other fantasy MMORPG. Vanguard: Saga of Heroes might have a superior system [I didn't craft in that game, but from what I read, it was more involved.] In World of Warcraft, however, it is simply a matter of gathering ingredients, and clicking on a button to make your items. After that, tradeskilling resembles Progress Quest.
In EverQuest II, you have to use abilities in a mini-game, to build your items. It could be better [I would prefer more variety to the mini-games, like in Warhammer Online or Free Realms], but it is much better than World of Warcraft's take on crafting.
Another nice feature about crafting: it's a separate advancement track from adventuring. This used to be the case in World of Warcraft as well, at least in beta, but for some reason they changed that and put in skill caps based on your character's level. I think that was a poor decision. Some people just want to craft: EverQuest II gives them the ability to do so. It even offers quests and missions, even crafting "raids" that tradeskillers can go on even if their character stays perpetually at level 1 in adventurer levels.
4. Adjustable Leveling
EverQuest II has a feature called Alternate Advancement XP (AA XP). AA XP are the EverQuest II equivalent to Talent Points. They let you unlock abilities in various trees that increase the abilities of your character. However, in World of Warcraft and Age of Conan and most other games, these abilities are tied to your character's level.
In EverQuest II, you have a slider so you can determine how much of the XP you earn from combat goes to normal XP or AA XP. Also, you earn bonus AA XP from completing quests and the first time you kill named monsters or discover a new area. These means you can choose to race to the level cap (and be weak for that level), or take the slow, more casual route and make yourself the strongest possible character for any level.
In addition to this, you can also shut off XP gain from combat, tradeskilling, or completing quests completely. If you are a completist and want to finish all the quests in an area before outleveling it, you can do so. (You could also just use the Chronomagic feature to delevel yourself, but still, the choice is there.) If you want to lock a character at a certain level forever, you can do so.
5. Appearance Armor
In World of Warcraft, every character looks like a clown with ugly, mismatched armor. And huge spiked shoulder pads usually. Unless they have a complete set and then they might look a little decent, but they'll look like every other character of the same class at that same point in the raid progression.
In EverQuest II, you have a separate tab in your inventory you can use to put in items that override the appearance of the armor you are wearing. This means your hero can truly look like a hero and not a clown with spiked shoulder pads.
Many of the rewards in the game are purely cosmetic in nature - and it's still fun to try to collect them. A game need not be a neverending treadmill of increasing statistics to be fun, and EverQuest II proves that. (Though, of course, it still offers the treadmill of increasing statistics, for those that want that, as well.)
Conclusions
EverQuest II has something for everyone. Raid types can concentrate on getting the most powerful items. More casual players have content that rewards appearance armor so they can just doll up their characters so they LOOK cool. The amount of variety in the content is staggering. There is plenty to do for both crazy hardcore raiders as well as more casual players like myself.
It's not perfect: clearly, the designers of the game went to great lengths to give it more of everything: more quests, more classes, more races, more zones, more everything. And in some cases, this becomes more of an annoyance: in particular, I don't like how I have nine hotbars filled to the brim with abilities and baubles and what not that I always use. Luckily, the designers ARE aware of that: the next expansion pack doesn't introduce new abilities that go on your hotbar; instead, they add new abilities that are triggered as combos.
However, for the most part, the sheer amount - and more importantly, variety - of content that is available to you, regardless of the class and level of character you play, is what keeps me coming back to EverQuest II.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Direct Downloader's Fate
I'm pretty excited about the new Sentinel's Fate expansion pack that's due in February of next year. Based on the trailer, it looks great. The artists in EQ2 are doing a great job in creating spell effects, armor, and monsters, that rival even some of the newer games on the market. The game's look has improved dramatically in the last few years; it's a far cry from the much maligned sea of gray and brown textures that the game had when it launched.
One thing that bothers me are the increasing number of extra items that you can only get by purchasing a game in a certain format. This isn't a criticism of EverQuest II in particular; Age of Conan and World of Warcarft all have bonuses or collector's editions or special in-game items you can only get through one channel or another.
However, once upon a time the difference were little figurines or fluff in-game items like a pet dragon that couldn't leave your home (and that was controversial enough at the time!) Nowadays we seem to be suffering from perkflation, as the extra perks that come with the retail pack has expanded to include things like the best mounts in the game and 7-day headstarts before anyone else can play.
Now, I do understand that offering retail perks is important to help get the game onto shelves, which helps attract new players. Apparently some people actually leave their homes to shop. But there's a line somewhere there that shouldn't be crossed, and I get the feeling, like so many other things in the recent past (particularly Legends of Norrath loot cards), we're getting precariously close to crossing it. If we haven't already. I don't know. It's only seven days and then the perk is useless, so it's not a huge deal. Except that if I don't buy it I may end up having to solo those seven days because the rest of the server are in the new zones. But still...
Where do you draw the line?
One thing that bothers me are the increasing number of extra items that you can only get by purchasing a game in a certain format. This isn't a criticism of EverQuest II in particular; Age of Conan and World of Warcarft all have bonuses or collector's editions or special in-game items you can only get through one channel or another.
However, once upon a time the difference were little figurines or fluff in-game items like a pet dragon that couldn't leave your home (and that was controversial enough at the time!) Nowadays we seem to be suffering from perkflation, as the extra perks that come with the retail pack has expanded to include things like the best mounts in the game and 7-day headstarts before anyone else can play.
Now, I do understand that offering retail perks is important to help get the game onto shelves, which helps attract new players. Apparently some people actually leave their homes to shop. But there's a line somewhere there that shouldn't be crossed, and I get the feeling, like so many other things in the recent past (particularly Legends of Norrath loot cards), we're getting precariously close to crossing it. If we haven't already. I don't know. It's only seven days and then the perk is useless, so it's not a huge deal. Except that if I don't buy it I may end up having to solo those seven days because the rest of the server are in the new zones. But still...
Where do you draw the line?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Finally Some Brawler Love
A dev post on the main forums hints that EverQuest II brawlers will be getting some love in the expansion pack. FINALLY!
There are no details yet, but brawlers have had a hard time in recent expansion packs since we don't DPS as well as scouts or mages (nor should we) and we don't tank as well as (equally talented and geared) plate tanks. The only consolation is the fact that we solo very well. Which is nice, I guess, but if I just wanted to solo, I'd probably be playing Neverwinter Nights...
Hopefully, the devs will realize the brawlers have a little fighter icon next to them, and we will be able to tank with better survivability and manageability so parties will no longer feel the need to specify "LF ***PLATE*** TANK" when they need a tank.
Brawlers are getting a lot of changes with the expansion so I would recommend a little patience until we can reveal the full scope of what is being done.
There are no details yet, but brawlers have had a hard time in recent expansion packs since we don't DPS as well as scouts or mages (nor should we) and we don't tank as well as (equally talented and geared) plate tanks. The only consolation is the fact that we solo very well. Which is nice, I guess, but if I just wanted to solo, I'd probably be playing Neverwinter Nights...
Hopefully, the devs will realize the brawlers have a little fighter icon next to them, and we will be able to tank with better survivability and manageability so parties will no longer feel the need to specify "LF ***PLATE*** TANK" when they need a tank.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Gotta Captcha Them All
Aion is going to have a change in an upcoming update to help keep bots from monopolizing the game's resources. On paper, that sounds great, but they decided to implement it by putting a debuff on the player after gathering, which is removable by answering a captcha.
LOL.
While combating bots is a good thing, I think this is a very poor and laughable implementation. I'd prefer it if they did something that was in the context of the game. Age of Conan, for instance, sometimes spawned NPCs that would attack you when harvesting, like bandits or druids [angered that you were felling a sacred tree or whatever]. They posed little threat to a player that was paying attention, but a bot would be taken down eventually.
A better alternative would be to make harvesting/gathering involve a mini-game, like the ones in Free Realms.
Devs, if you really want to combat bots, just make the gameplay fun. Don't make crafting and harvesting a simple matter of clicking on a button and waiting. Make it something you have to play and react to.
LOL.
While combating bots is a good thing, I think this is a very poor and laughable implementation. I'd prefer it if they did something that was in the context of the game. Age of Conan, for instance, sometimes spawned NPCs that would attack you when harvesting, like bandits or druids [angered that you were felling a sacred tree or whatever]. They posed little threat to a player that was paying attention, but a bot would be taken down eventually.
A better alternative would be to make harvesting/gathering involve a mini-game, like the ones in Free Realms.
Devs, if you really want to combat bots, just make the gameplay fun. Don't make crafting and harvesting a simple matter of clicking on a button and waiting. Make it something you have to play and react to.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Legends of Screwing You Over
Sony has decided to change the "Standard Format" requirements for Legends of Norrath gameplay to invalidate the oldest sets of cards. This makes cards from the earliest decks illegal in tournaments, and in raids and Scenarios you must use a Standard Format compliant deck or else it will not give a reward.
I can understand some of the reasoning behind it. As they add new sets with new cards, the complexity of the game grows exponentially. I think it even makes sense in tournament play as it helps to create a more level playing field. Veteran players are more familiar with all the cards since the game first came out, but by limiting tournament play to the most recent sets, newer players only have to learn the most up to date cards to become competitive.
Where I have a problem with this is that they decided to make it so the Player vs Computer Scenarios in the game (which sometimes give rewards such as new Legends of Norrath cards or loot cards) no longer reward the player if they aren't using a Standard Format deck.
This means, among other things, that you can't get a reward for playing an Oathbound Scenario using cards FROM THAT SET.
I understand limiting some cards, especially from older sets, that are unbalanced, but invalidating entire sets at a time for casual play against the computer is simply ridiculous, especially when it invalidates cards that were perfectly valid against those scenarios when they were introduced!
As a casual player, I simply do not want to constantly have to rebuild every single deck every time a new deck comes out because I have tons of cards from a now obsolete set. I think, IF Sony simply HAS to make these kinds of restrictions, they should instead have three formats:
- an Open format which allows any cards for casual competitive play or unrewarded play against the computer
- a Tournament format which, like the current "Standard" format, eliminates the oldest sets
- and a "Scenario" format which allows any card from any set except the cards that are the most broken... there should be very few of these cards.
But even this approach would still has its disadvantages:
One of the main reasons to play a trading card game is to be able to trade cards, but now they are making it so old cards become worthless! This is backwards. In Magic: the Gathering, my oldest cards became MORE valuable when they went out of print. In Legends of Norrath, they are useless to trade. They are useless in tournaments. Hell, they are useless when I'm sitting at home, just playing by myself!
Imagine that: a collectible card game where there's no point in COLLECTING. Great job, Sony.
I can accept having to replace a few cards on occasion. But having to rebuild every single one of my decks that I've constructed that have cards from pretty much every set (and therefore will break every time a set comes out) is simply not my idea of fun. And not being able to gain rewards unless I rebuild all my sets takes away a powerful incentive to keep playing.
While I understand that Sony has some good reasons for wanting to make this change, this really comes off more as a cheap money grab. It comes off more as if they are just being lazy so they can simply reintroduce existing cards with new artwork in new sets instead of coming up with new ideas; and a way to force us to buy new cards just to keep playing the game.
The sad thing, I WAS going to buy new cards. Until I read about this. Now, I'm simply not going to bother.
I can understand some of the reasoning behind it. As they add new sets with new cards, the complexity of the game grows exponentially. I think it even makes sense in tournament play as it helps to create a more level playing field. Veteran players are more familiar with all the cards since the game first came out, but by limiting tournament play to the most recent sets, newer players only have to learn the most up to date cards to become competitive.
Where I have a problem with this is that they decided to make it so the Player vs Computer Scenarios in the game (which sometimes give rewards such as new Legends of Norrath cards or loot cards) no longer reward the player if they aren't using a Standard Format deck.
This means, among other things, that you can't get a reward for playing an Oathbound Scenario using cards FROM THAT SET.
I understand limiting some cards, especially from older sets, that are unbalanced, but invalidating entire sets at a time for casual play against the computer is simply ridiculous, especially when it invalidates cards that were perfectly valid against those scenarios when they were introduced!
As a casual player, I simply do not want to constantly have to rebuild every single deck every time a new deck comes out because I have tons of cards from a now obsolete set. I think, IF Sony simply HAS to make these kinds of restrictions, they should instead have three formats:
- an Open format which allows any cards for casual competitive play or unrewarded play against the computer
- a Tournament format which, like the current "Standard" format, eliminates the oldest sets
- and a "Scenario" format which allows any card from any set except the cards that are the most broken... there should be very few of these cards.
But even this approach would still has its disadvantages:
One of the main reasons to play a trading card game is to be able to trade cards, but now they are making it so old cards become worthless! This is backwards. In Magic: the Gathering, my oldest cards became MORE valuable when they went out of print. In Legends of Norrath, they are useless to trade. They are useless in tournaments. Hell, they are useless when I'm sitting at home, just playing by myself!
Imagine that: a collectible card game where there's no point in COLLECTING. Great job, Sony.
I can accept having to replace a few cards on occasion. But having to rebuild every single one of my decks that I've constructed that have cards from pretty much every set (and therefore will break every time a set comes out) is simply not my idea of fun. And not being able to gain rewards unless I rebuild all my sets takes away a powerful incentive to keep playing.
While I understand that Sony has some good reasons for wanting to make this change, this really comes off more as a cheap money grab. It comes off more as if they are just being lazy so they can simply reintroduce existing cards with new artwork in new sets instead of coming up with new ideas; and a way to force us to buy new cards just to keep playing the game.
The sad thing, I WAS going to buy new cards. Until I read about this. Now, I'm simply not going to bother.
Monday, October 12, 2009
You Are Not Worth $15 A Month
Apparently Alganon, the WOW clone you probably never heard of will be distributed exclusively by Direct2Drive, which isn't surprising since this isn't a AAA game shop with a AAA title we're talking about. Yet for some reason they are thinking of charging $15 a month, the same as all the AAA titles out there.
Seriously guys, what are you smoking? If you charge $15 a month, you better offer something really amazing, because you are competing with Aion, WoW, Age of Conan, Lord of the Rings, and the EverQuest games.
You, Alganon, are in a different camp entirely. You look like a painfully clunky WoW clone and your major competitor is FREE. And it's pretty apparent from your forums that you aren't blessed with the same kind of financial backing.
I'm going to bet Alganon reinvents itself as a free to play game - like Spellborn did - within 6 months. Or goes under. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Seriously guys, what are you smoking? If you charge $15 a month, you better offer something really amazing, because you are competing with Aion, WoW, Age of Conan, Lord of the Rings, and the EverQuest games.
You, Alganon, are in a different camp entirely. You look like a painfully clunky WoW clone and your major competitor is FREE. And it's pretty apparent from your forums that you aren't blessed with the same kind of financial backing.
I'm going to bet Alganon reinvents itself as a free to play game - like Spellborn did - within 6 months. Or goes under. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
It Sounds Wrong
The sound effects in Aion bother me. There's nothing necessarily wrong with them. They sound like the kind of effects you'd hear in any JRPG. And I'm a huge fan of the Final Fantasy series which has similarly video game-y sounds. But, for some reason I can't quite explain, it bothers me in an MMO.
The jarring sound the guards make when you alert them in Metal Gear Solid doesn't bother me. But the metallic beep-beep sound that occurs when you draw aggro in Aion irritates me to no end.
I guess I'd rather hear the bear growl or the monster shout or something a little more "realistic" in an MMO. I don't want a constant reminder that the virtual fantasyland I'm immersing myself in is just make believe. But that's exactly what the video game sounds do for me.
The jarring sound the guards make when you alert them in Metal Gear Solid doesn't bother me. But the metallic beep-beep sound that occurs when you draw aggro in Aion irritates me to no end.
I guess I'd rather hear the bear growl or the monster shout or something a little more "realistic" in an MMO. I don't want a constant reminder that the virtual fantasyland I'm immersing myself in is just make believe. But that's exactly what the video game sounds do for me.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Travelers Might Get Me Traveling... to Another Game
When Legends of Norrath was first introduced, we were told that the loot cards would only be "fluff" and would not impact the gameplay. The new Legends of Norrath card game loot pack promises exclusive "new quests in EverQuest® and EverQuest® II that open all new chambers and rewards of loot and XP". To me, that goes well beyond the definition of "fluff"...
In EverQuest II, I have not specifically bought cards for the loot cards (I have bought packs but I play Legends of Norrath on occasion. Most of my loot cards came from the free ones that come with the subscription.) I have never bought in game items for Station Cash.
I HAVE bought things (hirelings and unlocking the monk class) in Dungeons and Dragons Online. Willingly. It doesn't bother me there.
The main reason why I'm ok with the RMT in Dungeons and Dragons Online but not in EverQuest II -- it FEELS optional in Dungeons and Dragons Online. I'm not subscribing so I control exactly how much I want to spend.
On the other hand, in EverQuest II, the really valuable RMT is locked up in loot cards which you MAY OR MAY NOT get. You could spend hundreds of dollars and end up with nothing but trash. The Station Cash items I don't have much of a problem with, except I'm already paying for two subscriptions and some of the best looking items in game have to be paid for! Unlike Legends of Norrath cards, I have NO chance of getting them with my subscription alone. That's simply doing RMT wrong.
EverQuest II is obviously not going to get rid of RMT and microtransactions now. But it needs to do a Dungeons and Dragons Online makeover soon or I'm probably done with it.
- Subscription fees need to be optional, like in D&D.
- You need to be able to level to the cap without spending a dime, just like in Dungeon and Dragons Online.
- You need to be able to play much of the content in game (maybe reserving some instances like Nektropos Castle for subscribers or people who unlock the individual instance), just like in Dungeons and Dragons Online.
- Subcribers need to get a stipend of Station Cash just like we get free Legends of Norrath cards every month.
- Subscribers should be able to earn Station Cash in game by completing quests (just like Turbine Points are awarded in game)
- Do Legends of Norrath boosters still drop in game? It's been ages since I've seen one. Put them back or increase the drop rate for subscribers. (It can be an extra loot popup just for subscribers just like quest loot appears only for the people who need them.)
Subscribers should be able to get anything you can PAY for just by PLAYING for them.
Dungeons and Dragons Online does microtransactions right. They work (for me) because they FEEL optional. I don't FEEL like I HAVE to buy anything. So I am quite willing to. They've made a lot of money off of me when I had written the game off at launch. My friends and I are thinking of starting a guild in game (none of us subscribe so we have to pay for the right.) Hell, I think in this first month I already spent more than a one month subscription costs.
But EverQuest II seems like it is treading down a road where every month it feels like my subscription is worth less and less. Which makes me want to spend less and less money on the game. See how that works, Sony?
In EverQuest II, I have not specifically bought cards for the loot cards (I have bought packs but I play Legends of Norrath on occasion. Most of my loot cards came from the free ones that come with the subscription.) I have never bought in game items for Station Cash.
I HAVE bought things (hirelings and unlocking the monk class) in Dungeons and Dragons Online. Willingly. It doesn't bother me there.
The main reason why I'm ok with the RMT in Dungeons and Dragons Online but not in EverQuest II -- it FEELS optional in Dungeons and Dragons Online. I'm not subscribing so I control exactly how much I want to spend.
On the other hand, in EverQuest II, the really valuable RMT is locked up in loot cards which you MAY OR MAY NOT get. You could spend hundreds of dollars and end up with nothing but trash. The Station Cash items I don't have much of a problem with, except I'm already paying for two subscriptions and some of the best looking items in game have to be paid for! Unlike Legends of Norrath cards, I have NO chance of getting them with my subscription alone. That's simply doing RMT wrong.
EverQuest II is obviously not going to get rid of RMT and microtransactions now. But it needs to do a Dungeons and Dragons Online makeover soon or I'm probably done with it.
- Subscription fees need to be optional, like in D&D.
- You need to be able to level to the cap without spending a dime, just like in Dungeon and Dragons Online.
- You need to be able to play much of the content in game (maybe reserving some instances like Nektropos Castle for subscribers or people who unlock the individual instance), just like in Dungeons and Dragons Online.
- Subcribers need to get a stipend of Station Cash just like we get free Legends of Norrath cards every month.
- Subscribers should be able to earn Station Cash in game by completing quests (just like Turbine Points are awarded in game)
- Do Legends of Norrath boosters still drop in game? It's been ages since I've seen one. Put them back or increase the drop rate for subscribers. (It can be an extra loot popup just for subscribers just like quest loot appears only for the people who need them.)
Subscribers should be able to get anything you can PAY for just by PLAYING for them.
Dungeons and Dragons Online does microtransactions right. They work (for me) because they FEEL optional. I don't FEEL like I HAVE to buy anything. So I am quite willing to. They've made a lot of money off of me when I had written the game off at launch. My friends and I are thinking of starting a guild in game (none of us subscribe so we have to pay for the right.) Hell, I think in this first month I already spent more than a one month subscription costs.
But EverQuest II seems like it is treading down a road where every month it feels like my subscription is worth less and less. Which makes me want to spend less and less money on the game. See how that works, Sony?
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Can I Borrow Some Hours?
Like Blue Kae, I'm playing too many games for the meager amount of time I have free. I don't generally even start playing until after 9, because my job is pretty demanding with the hours, plus I decided to do some consulting on the side. And then of course I have a wife and a baby that have demands (particularly the baby!) and a house to maintain. But somehow I still manage to squeeze in enough time to explore some of these online worlds that fascinate me.
So what have I been playing?
EverQuest II
Well, EverQuest II still. I have two accounts. I am going to start a third account for a month (since, with Refer-a-Friend, it doesn't really cost extra) so I will try my hand at triple-boxing. I'm sure that will make doing quests somewhat of a nuisance, but I don't really like quests anyway. Instead, I'll try plowing through some of the dungeons solo. I don't know what it is about multiboxing in EQ2 that I enjoy so much, but it's a lot of fun. I've always like playing multiple characters; the first CRPGs I played were games like Might and Magic and Bard's Tale where you created and controlled a full group at a time.
Dungeons and Dragons Online
I have some real life friends I meet up in Dungeons and Dragons Online. I'm still enjoying the game, but I had some awful PUG experiences. I think my last group was started by a ten year old. It fell apart miserably. This could be a drawback of having a free to play game: there is no barrier to entry for maturity. Not that an 18 year old with a credit card and a summer job is that mature, but at least they might be able to form a coherent English sentence. When you are doing elite difficulty quests, that ability comes in handy.
Aion
Lastly, I'm playing Aion. I paid for it, so I figure I may as well. So far I've only gotten to level 6, so no further than I did in beta. I haven't earned my wings. I think I should at least do that before making my final judgment. But, so far, I'm really not liking the game.
I know people say you can't judge an MMO after only a few hours of gameplay, but I think that's crap. I mean, granted, I can't judge the PVP, since I haven't tried it. And I can't judge the end game. But I can tell you that 99% of the gameplay is the same old quest based grind we get in World of Warcraft and EverQuest II. And it's mostly really simplistic quests like: kill X or run to someone and click on them.
EverQuest II is rife with those quests too, but it tends to shake them up a bit with other kinds of quests as well: discovery quests, quests that require using an item in your inventory in some fashion, quests where you have to avoid killing the mobs you are fighting, etc. So it shakes things up, and that's what keeps me interested.
The combat, so far, is dull, but then combat in EQ2 was dull under level 10 as well. Mostly I root or slow the mob and shoot them a couple times with ranged magic attacks. Rinse, repeat. I'll have to find a dungeon or a named and see how things differ in a group or against more elite mobs, but I haven't found those yet.
What Next?
Well, I guess I'll have to focus, and that's likely to be EverQuest II again. I just can't seem to find a game to replace it. I guess that's a good thing.
I'll probably keep D&D Online going on the side, but just when my real life friends are in game since the dungeons are a blast with the right company. I don't know how much longevity the game will have, for me, if my friends get bored of it and move on: the problem I have with it so far is that, even with henchmen, you really need to group, but my PUG experiences have been extremely poor so far.
I have a feeling I won't be continuing the Aion subscription after the free month expires. When I feel like I've toured the world enough to get a good feel for it, I'll move on and find something else to fill up those free hours. I'm not sure what that will be. Maybe something to give me a reprieve from all these fantasy games I play:
I'm somewhat curious about Fallen Earth because I like the idea of a sandbox based gameplay and I like the post-apocalyptic setting. However, I don't think what is obviously not a AAA title should be charging the same subscription fee as the leaders of the pack like World of Warcraft. It doesn't even look polished from the screenshots, and while I can tolerate that if the gameplay is solid, it should still be priced accordingly.
I'm also curious about Champions Online but mostly from a comparative standpoint, to see how it fares in gameplay compared to City of Heroes. I also like the idea behind the Nemesis system.
Or maybe I'll play more single player games or, heck, get back into some non-computer game related hobbies, like writing music again. Either way, I really need more hours in the day for everything I want to do.
So what have I been playing?
EverQuest II
Well, EverQuest II still. I have two accounts. I am going to start a third account for a month (since, with Refer-a-Friend, it doesn't really cost extra) so I will try my hand at triple-boxing. I'm sure that will make doing quests somewhat of a nuisance, but I don't really like quests anyway. Instead, I'll try plowing through some of the dungeons solo. I don't know what it is about multiboxing in EQ2 that I enjoy so much, but it's a lot of fun. I've always like playing multiple characters; the first CRPGs I played were games like Might and Magic and Bard's Tale where you created and controlled a full group at a time.
Dungeons and Dragons Online
I have some real life friends I meet up in Dungeons and Dragons Online. I'm still enjoying the game, but I had some awful PUG experiences. I think my last group was started by a ten year old. It fell apart miserably. This could be a drawback of having a free to play game: there is no barrier to entry for maturity. Not that an 18 year old with a credit card and a summer job is that mature, but at least they might be able to form a coherent English sentence. When you are doing elite difficulty quests, that ability comes in handy.
Aion
Lastly, I'm playing Aion. I paid for it, so I figure I may as well. So far I've only gotten to level 6, so no further than I did in beta. I haven't earned my wings. I think I should at least do that before making my final judgment. But, so far, I'm really not liking the game.
I know people say you can't judge an MMO after only a few hours of gameplay, but I think that's crap. I mean, granted, I can't judge the PVP, since I haven't tried it. And I can't judge the end game. But I can tell you that 99% of the gameplay is the same old quest based grind we get in World of Warcraft and EverQuest II. And it's mostly really simplistic quests like: kill X or run to someone and click on them.
EverQuest II is rife with those quests too, but it tends to shake them up a bit with other kinds of quests as well: discovery quests, quests that require using an item in your inventory in some fashion, quests where you have to avoid killing the mobs you are fighting, etc. So it shakes things up, and that's what keeps me interested.
The combat, so far, is dull, but then combat in EQ2 was dull under level 10 as well. Mostly I root or slow the mob and shoot them a couple times with ranged magic attacks. Rinse, repeat. I'll have to find a dungeon or a named and see how things differ in a group or against more elite mobs, but I haven't found those yet.
What Next?
Well, I guess I'll have to focus, and that's likely to be EverQuest II again. I just can't seem to find a game to replace it. I guess that's a good thing.
I'll probably keep D&D Online going on the side, but just when my real life friends are in game since the dungeons are a blast with the right company. I don't know how much longevity the game will have, for me, if my friends get bored of it and move on: the problem I have with it so far is that, even with henchmen, you really need to group, but my PUG experiences have been extremely poor so far.
I have a feeling I won't be continuing the Aion subscription after the free month expires. When I feel like I've toured the world enough to get a good feel for it, I'll move on and find something else to fill up those free hours. I'm not sure what that will be. Maybe something to give me a reprieve from all these fantasy games I play:
I'm somewhat curious about Fallen Earth because I like the idea of a sandbox based gameplay and I like the post-apocalyptic setting. However, I don't think what is obviously not a AAA title should be charging the same subscription fee as the leaders of the pack like World of Warcraft. It doesn't even look polished from the screenshots, and while I can tolerate that if the gameplay is solid, it should still be priced accordingly.
I'm also curious about Champions Online but mostly from a comparative standpoint, to see how it fares in gameplay compared to City of Heroes. I also like the idea behind the Nemesis system.
Or maybe I'll play more single player games or, heck, get back into some non-computer game related hobbies, like writing music again. Either way, I really need more hours in the day for everything I want to do.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
This Only Happens Once
Ah - the excitement of a new MMO, as throngs of new players log on for the first time, breathe in the fresh air of a new world, and shout in unison "OMFG LOL ROFLCOPTER GOGOGOGO WHERE MY BROS AT".
I know I said I think I wasted my money on Aion on my twitter account (@mymomentofzen). That opinion hasn't changed. But I did preorder it, so I may as well give it a somewhat more serious look. At least for the month I've already paid for.
So far, after getting to level 3 and having the server kick me off, all I've seen is this lovely "server is full, wait 4 hours" message.
Friday, September 18, 2009
It's Like Multiboxing On a Single Account
Recently I've been playing Dungeons and Dragons Online. I tried the game when it first launched and enjoyed it, but it never seemed worth the $15 a month. So I played off and on for a month and quit. Never looked back.
Now it's free to play. And you know what? They actually made $12 off of me yesterday. And you know why I was so willing to plunk down money on DDO when I never paid for microtransactions in any other game (including Runes of Magic, Atlantica Online) or paid extra for a freemium tier (in games like Dungeon Runners)? Because I didn't feel like I had to. I was already having fun. Paying extra felt like it was something I just wanted to do. That's the trick. Turbine did microtransactions right.
One of the features I've really been enjoying are the hirelings. Part of the reason for this is - I simply enjoy playing with more than one character. It just feels more natural. I grew up on games like Bard's Tale and Wizardry and Might and Magic where you took an entire part through dungeons.
Nowadays games like World of Warcraft design most of the content so that its soloable. But here's the problem: since they can't tell in advance what skills any player will bring to the table, the quests and mobs are designed for the lowest common denominator. Which means they don't deal much damage to threaten a tank because that would cause them to destroy the cloth armor classes. Which means they can't have so much HP that they challenge a wizard because the tanks would still be fighting their very first mob when that wizard gets to the level cap. Which means the quests can't require you to do things like feign death or sneak or disarm a trap as a part of the quest without inexplicably requiring you to do so with a specific bauble.
So the quests and mobs became more of a chore. They aren't that exciting. You have your spell rotation and know exactly what you are going to do for almost every solo mob in the game.
With games that allow hirelings, there's no problem like that. Designers can expect that you will have an array of different skills and will likely have a rogue, a healer, and a tank in the group. They can have quests that expect one person to be in one place while another player has to do something elsewhere (pull a lever, keep two monsters separated, whatever.)
With hirelings, you tackle the same group content that everyone else does. Only you have NPCs to pad the party out for those times when you can't find a group (one of the reasons I quit DDO originally was the sometimes lengthy spells I'd be jumping up and down in a bar shouting LFG) or don't want to find a group (not necessarily because I'm antisocial - maybe I just know my baby will wake up within the hour and want to start on a dungeon but know I might have to go AFK for 30 minutes at any moment.)
So Dungeons and Dragons Online has been a lot more fun. Since I can always find a group - I can make my own when other players aren't doing what I need or want to do - there's no unwanted downtime. I just go and find the quest, summon some help, and go. And the game play is more interesting: playing NPCs allow you to bring more skills to the table since you are no longer confined to a very narrow role.
It hasn't been entirely without challenges. The NPCs do exactly what I tell them and a single misclick can cause them to rather happily run through the acid laden spike traps until they die. But that's part of the fun.
What about grouping? MMOs should encourage grouping right? I agree. Hirelings also improve grouping. I've convinced some real life friends to give Dungeons and Dragons Online a shot. Early on, we ran into a problem: I play a paladin in my real life D&D campaign and I decided to recreate that character in game as my main. My friend also made a paladin as well. I also have a cleric and a monk and a wizard but I didn't want to play them at the time. There was a specific quest I wanted to finish, on my paladin. My friend's other character (he only had two slots) was still on the starter island and couldn't group with me. We weren't going to get far without a healer, unless we played the easier difficulty levels. But no problem! We bought one in game and off we went.
Hirelings in Dungeons and Dragons Online could be better. The way theya re implemented, they are temporary. But in some games they are permanent and have their own inventory and skills. Guild Wars, for instance, allows you to have Heroes that you can improve in game. That's a great way to introduce lateral progression to a game. Instead of simply adding more and more levels, a game with Heroes can add more variety to the Heroes, and players will be addicted on two fronts: collecting all the Heroes, and leveling each of them up.
I wish more games would move away from the dichotomy between group content and solo content. The solo content is generally just no fun. But the more interesting, challenging, and scripted content, the dungeon crawls, have historically been relegated to groups only. To make games more accessible to the casual time-challenged players, instead of dumbing down the mobs and the quests, it's much better to let players round out the party and fill needed roles with NPCs.
I wish EverQuest II had hirelings. But if they did it well, they'd probably lose my second account. And there are a LOT of EverQuest II players who at least dual box. So I guess that won't happen. :)
Now it's free to play. And you know what? They actually made $12 off of me yesterday. And you know why I was so willing to plunk down money on DDO when I never paid for microtransactions in any other game (including Runes of Magic, Atlantica Online) or paid extra for a freemium tier (in games like Dungeon Runners)? Because I didn't feel like I had to. I was already having fun. Paying extra felt like it was something I just wanted to do. That's the trick. Turbine did microtransactions right.
One of the features I've really been enjoying are the hirelings. Part of the reason for this is - I simply enjoy playing with more than one character. It just feels more natural. I grew up on games like Bard's Tale and Wizardry and Might and Magic where you took an entire part through dungeons.
Nowadays games like World of Warcraft design most of the content so that its soloable. But here's the problem: since they can't tell in advance what skills any player will bring to the table, the quests and mobs are designed for the lowest common denominator. Which means they don't deal much damage to threaten a tank because that would cause them to destroy the cloth armor classes. Which means they can't have so much HP that they challenge a wizard because the tanks would still be fighting their very first mob when that wizard gets to the level cap. Which means the quests can't require you to do things like feign death or sneak or disarm a trap as a part of the quest without inexplicably requiring you to do so with a specific bauble.
So the quests and mobs became more of a chore. They aren't that exciting. You have your spell rotation and know exactly what you are going to do for almost every solo mob in the game.
With games that allow hirelings, there's no problem like that. Designers can expect that you will have an array of different skills and will likely have a rogue, a healer, and a tank in the group. They can have quests that expect one person to be in one place while another player has to do something elsewhere (pull a lever, keep two monsters separated, whatever.)
With hirelings, you tackle the same group content that everyone else does. Only you have NPCs to pad the party out for those times when you can't find a group (one of the reasons I quit DDO originally was the sometimes lengthy spells I'd be jumping up and down in a bar shouting LFG) or don't want to find a group (not necessarily because I'm antisocial - maybe I just know my baby will wake up within the hour and want to start on a dungeon but know I might have to go AFK for 30 minutes at any moment.)
So Dungeons and Dragons Online has been a lot more fun. Since I can always find a group - I can make my own when other players aren't doing what I need or want to do - there's no unwanted downtime. I just go and find the quest, summon some help, and go. And the game play is more interesting: playing NPCs allow you to bring more skills to the table since you are no longer confined to a very narrow role.
It hasn't been entirely without challenges. The NPCs do exactly what I tell them and a single misclick can cause them to rather happily run through the acid laden spike traps until they die. But that's part of the fun.
What about grouping? MMOs should encourage grouping right? I agree. Hirelings also improve grouping. I've convinced some real life friends to give Dungeons and Dragons Online a shot. Early on, we ran into a problem: I play a paladin in my real life D&D campaign and I decided to recreate that character in game as my main. My friend also made a paladin as well. I also have a cleric and a monk and a wizard but I didn't want to play them at the time. There was a specific quest I wanted to finish, on my paladin. My friend's other character (he only had two slots) was still on the starter island and couldn't group with me. We weren't going to get far without a healer, unless we played the easier difficulty levels. But no problem! We bought one in game and off we went.
Hirelings in Dungeons and Dragons Online could be better. The way theya re implemented, they are temporary. But in some games they are permanent and have their own inventory and skills. Guild Wars, for instance, allows you to have Heroes that you can improve in game. That's a great way to introduce lateral progression to a game. Instead of simply adding more and more levels, a game with Heroes can add more variety to the Heroes, and players will be addicted on two fronts: collecting all the Heroes, and leveling each of them up.
I wish more games would move away from the dichotomy between group content and solo content. The solo content is generally just no fun. But the more interesting, challenging, and scripted content, the dungeon crawls, have historically been relegated to groups only. To make games more accessible to the casual time-challenged players, instead of dumbing down the mobs and the quests, it's much better to let players round out the party and fill needed roles with NPCs.
I wish EverQuest II had hirelings. But if they did it well, they'd probably lose my second account. And there are a LOT of EverQuest II players who at least dual box. So I guess that won't happen. :)
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Another NCSoft MMO Bites the Dust
Dungeon Runners is shutting down. I can't say I'm surprised. I tried the game a few times and thought it was cute, but ultimately I decided the game wasn't for me. The game used a freemium model of play where you could optionally choose to pay for extras. Though those extras included better loot and stacking potions, and without them inventory management was annoying, so it kind, to me, like it was necessary.
I wasn't attracted to the humor or the cartoonish graphics. The game didn't take itself seriously at all, which might be part of the appeal to me, but not for me. They are putting a nuke in the main town set to blow up when the servers go down for good. Yeah, a nuke. And some of the weapons included pizza cutters and guitars.
So it's not a game that I'll miss. Though I have to wonder what's going on with NCSoft after several consistent failures in a row. Of course it makes no sense to run a game that doesn't make money, but it almost seems like they aren't even bothering to try. At least Sony tosses them into their Station Access collection where they can go on into MMO undeath. Sure, Sony shut down Matrix Online but they still have quite a few games like Planetside and Pirates of the Burning Sea that would have definitely seen death's door already if they were NCSoft titles.
I wasn't attracted to the humor or the cartoonish graphics. The game didn't take itself seriously at all, which might be part of the appeal to me, but not for me. They are putting a nuke in the main town set to blow up when the servers go down for good. Yeah, a nuke. And some of the weapons included pizza cutters and guitars.
So it's not a game that I'll miss. Though I have to wonder what's going on with NCSoft after several consistent failures in a row. Of course it makes no sense to run a game that doesn't make money, but it almost seems like they aren't even bothering to try. At least Sony tosses them into their Station Access collection where they can go on into MMO undeath. Sure, Sony shut down Matrix Online but they still have quite a few games like Planetside and Pirates of the Burning Sea that would have definitely seen death's door already if they were NCSoft titles.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
The Secret World A Little Less Secret Now
A few trickles of information have been unveiled about the Secret World. Gamespot has a reveal on the Factions that will be part of the game's backstory. And there is an Initiation Test on the main web site, http://www.darkdaysarecoming.com/, that lets you figure out which of the three in game Factions you are most suited for.
I guess I'll be a Dragon. Working from the shadows, patient, subtle, and strategic. That's so me.
The quality of the promotional material is impressive. Unfortunately, we still know little about what the actual game play will be like. But I'm patient. All will be revealed in due course...
I guess I'll be a Dragon. Working from the shadows, patient, subtle, and strategic. That's so me.
The quality of the promotional material is impressive. Unfortunately, we still know little about what the actual game play will be like. But I'm patient. All will be revealed in due course...
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Streaming EQ2 Client
Autenil reports that he is working on reducing the size of the EQ2 client to 60MB and getting it to stream the rest of the content, like Guild Wars does. They are apparently leveraging some of the great work done by the Free Realms team.
I think this is a brilliant move to increase exposure. I had tried the refer-a-friend feature on a few people (none of them decided to subscribe unfortunately) and without exception the first thing out of their mouth was "how long is this going to take?!" referring to the extremely long download time. It's kind of hard to convince people to try a ten day trial for a game when the first two days are used up just downloading the game.
Also, you have to consider that people's attention is fleeting these days. There are dozens of MMOs on the market. There are thousands of other forms of entertainment. If you manage to capture someone's attention at the computer, getting them to download EQ2, the clock starts ticking. You do NOT have much time left. You have to grab them right away.
Although I have a much higher tolerance for the time it takes to download an MMO (and a willingness to try every MMO that has come on the market since I first got hooked on the genre with Final Fantasy XI), anecdotally, I know there are a few games that probably lost possible income from me simply because of download times.
Runes of Magic had previously announced that they were going to develop a streaming client. It's too bad they haven't, because I tried that game out, and liked it, but I stopped bothering to try to play. EverQuest II is my primary game, but it doesn't run on my old, cheap, crappy laptop. One of the reasons I was attracted to Runes of Magic was that it was a fun game and free with optional RMT -- which meant I could control how much money I invested in the game and didn't have to worry that I might end up too busy to justify a subscription fee. But everytime I played it it would take an hour to download the latest content. Which was usually about how long I had to play!
Another game I couldn't play due to download times was Warhammer Online. They came out with a Mac version, so I tried to get my brother to try it out, since he is a Mac (and I am a PC). So it took forever for him to download the first night which meant the two hours we had became thirty minutes. A couple nights later we find time to play together - but they released the new Lands of the Dead patch or whatever. I say "whatever" because it doesn't affect me, since I'm playing in the very first Chapter. But I was forced to download it and that was another play session lost. Then we didn't have that much time the rest of the week to play together and the free trial expired. A lot of the attraction for an MMO is to play with other people - especially ones you know - but it's hard to coordinate all that when massive downloads and patch times eat up what little time you have to play.
So I'm excited to see that the SOE team is on the ball here. MMO games are not getting any smaller, so streaming the content is necessary to attract and retain players.
I think this is a brilliant move to increase exposure. I had tried the refer-a-friend feature on a few people (none of them decided to subscribe unfortunately) and without exception the first thing out of their mouth was "how long is this going to take?!" referring to the extremely long download time. It's kind of hard to convince people to try a ten day trial for a game when the first two days are used up just downloading the game.
Also, you have to consider that people's attention is fleeting these days. There are dozens of MMOs on the market. There are thousands of other forms of entertainment. If you manage to capture someone's attention at the computer, getting them to download EQ2, the clock starts ticking. You do NOT have much time left. You have to grab them right away.
Although I have a much higher tolerance for the time it takes to download an MMO (and a willingness to try every MMO that has come on the market since I first got hooked on the genre with Final Fantasy XI), anecdotally, I know there are a few games that probably lost possible income from me simply because of download times.
Runes of Magic had previously announced that they were going to develop a streaming client. It's too bad they haven't, because I tried that game out, and liked it, but I stopped bothering to try to play. EverQuest II is my primary game, but it doesn't run on my old, cheap, crappy laptop. One of the reasons I was attracted to Runes of Magic was that it was a fun game and free with optional RMT -- which meant I could control how much money I invested in the game and didn't have to worry that I might end up too busy to justify a subscription fee. But everytime I played it it would take an hour to download the latest content. Which was usually about how long I had to play!
Another game I couldn't play due to download times was Warhammer Online. They came out with a Mac version, so I tried to get my brother to try it out, since he is a Mac (and I am a PC). So it took forever for him to download the first night which meant the two hours we had became thirty minutes. A couple nights later we find time to play together - but they released the new Lands of the Dead patch or whatever. I say "whatever" because it doesn't affect me, since I'm playing in the very first Chapter. But I was forced to download it and that was another play session lost. Then we didn't have that much time the rest of the week to play together and the free trial expired. A lot of the attraction for an MMO is to play with other people - especially ones you know - but it's hard to coordinate all that when massive downloads and patch times eat up what little time you have to play.
So I'm excited to see that the SOE team is on the ball here. MMO games are not getting any smaller, so streaming the content is necessary to attract and retain players.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
