Sony just launched their Living Legacy program for EverQuest and EverQuest II which provides a lot of freebies to people with cancelled or trial accounts if they convert to a paid subscription. Since I was still subscribed to the Station Access all-in-one subscription plan when the program started, I guess I didn't qualify for these rewards. My subscription just lapsed. Now I wish I had cancelled earlier... I probably would have continued my subscription longer if I had access to the EQ expansion packs (just to look around), and recruitment passes (to invite some friends to join me in my former home, EverQuest II, since I quit mostly since everyone I was closest to in game had moved on.)
Anyway, its an interesting program. They try to bring back players who have let their subscriptions lapse (or who never converted to a paid subscription) every year or so, but generally its nothing on this scale. I wonder if Age of Conan has something to do with the sudden desire to bring back old players? Like many, I have moved on to the "latest shiny" (Age of Conan -- for how long, I don't know), and the bribes to come back to the familiar haunts of my former home would have been tempting -- had I quit sooner (my pending account didn't turn fully cancelled until today, just after the program started.)
I wonder if these types of plans can occasionally backfire... it seems to me that some subscribers might resent all these gifts being showered on people who have not shown the same degree of loyalty. While its a natural part of the business cycle for a subscription based business to attempt to reward people for resubscribing (or to prevent them from cancelling in the first place), usually the freebies aren't quite so overt. I know that my cell phone provider is giving away free minutes to people who threaten to quit, and that they attempt to get people to re-commit themselves to a contract. However, they aren't going around advertising what they are willing to give away.
But the Living Legacy program does exactly that -- it puts the rewards out in the open, and some of the gifts are quite attractive (such as in-game items to increase XP, movement speed, upgraded weapons and armor, and more)... the upgrades are much more than the usual: typically, these programs simply issue free play time so people can see what has changed. And so its inevitable that there will be some jealousy from active subscribers...
Of course, the point of this is to boost subscriptions, and active subscribers are getting exactly what they pay for, so they aren't being "ripped off" (as some might claim). And active subscribers do benefit from the program, since it reinvigorates the game, by bringing in fresh blood, as well as returning players. But still, I think there will be many people who will certainly feel ripped off. And I don't blame them...
Some companies do allow people to apply special promotions (even those intended to attract new subscribers) to their accounts even if they are already active subscribers. Should Sony do this as well?
Aha -- I found the "paid subscribers get squat while nonsubscribers get all THIS?!" thread on the forums. I wonder if anything will come of this.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Age of Conan
Well, I built a new machine and bought Age of Conan so I can see how nice it looks. I've become rather bored with Pirates of the Burning Sea and EverQuest II. However, I haven't figured out whether I am into Age of Conan yet. I'm enjoying it so far, but some of that might just be due to the newness.
One of the nice things I like about Age of Conan is that the combat system is more interesting. Playing soldiers and hybrid classes like the Bear Shaman is fun as you have to balance the enemy's shields with the kinds of combo's you are trying to unleash.
I like the dialog system. The game goes into a cut scene (rendered in game in real time, so you can still see other people moving about the world), which adds a cinematic quality to the dialog. I think this helps make the world feel more immersive.
On the other hand, so far, the game is incredibly linear. I haven't gotten too far in game because I've been rerolling and playing each character class up through the starter quests, and quite frankly, I'm getting rather sick of killing the slave master and the ape king and getting my shackles removed over and over again. Having only one starter area makes rerolling an unnecessary chore.
The game also doesn't feel very "worldly" like EverQuest II does. This is partly due to the linearity of the quest line, and partly because the zone design seems very constrained such that you don't really have a lot of room for exploration. The zones aren't as wide open like in Vanguard or World of Warcarft, or many EverQuest II zones. They are more like Guild Wars zones where you have paths that you can follow that you can't deviate very far from.
I guess we'll see how I feel about the game when I pick a main and get it out of the intro zones into the "real" world...
One of the nice things I like about Age of Conan is that the combat system is more interesting. Playing soldiers and hybrid classes like the Bear Shaman is fun as you have to balance the enemy's shields with the kinds of combo's you are trying to unleash.
I like the dialog system. The game goes into a cut scene (rendered in game in real time, so you can still see other people moving about the world), which adds a cinematic quality to the dialog. I think this helps make the world feel more immersive.
On the other hand, so far, the game is incredibly linear. I haven't gotten too far in game because I've been rerolling and playing each character class up through the starter quests, and quite frankly, I'm getting rather sick of killing the slave master and the ape king and getting my shackles removed over and over again. Having only one starter area makes rerolling an unnecessary chore.
The game also doesn't feel very "worldly" like EverQuest II does. This is partly due to the linearity of the quest line, and partly because the zone design seems very constrained such that you don't really have a lot of room for exploration. The zones aren't as wide open like in Vanguard or World of Warcarft, or many EverQuest II zones. They are more like Guild Wars zones where you have paths that you can follow that you can't deviate very far from.
I guess we'll see how I feel about the game when I pick a main and get it out of the intro zones into the "real" world...
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Designed for the Future
I went out and bought one of those nice new BFG 8800 GT OCs. It runs wonderfully and I can play in higher settings and get much improved frame rates in most every game I play. Except the game I really wanted it for: EverQuest II.
Eventually I want to get a more modern gaming rig, with SLI, and a quad core CPU. But EQ II doesn't support that either.
I guess that's the problem with designing your system "for the future." It never quite gets here.
Eventually I want to get a more modern gaming rig, with SLI, and a quad core CPU. But EQ II doesn't support that either.
I guess that's the problem with designing your system "for the future." It never quite gets here.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Myst Online RIP
Myst Online just bit the dust (again...) Its latest incarnation, on Gametap, apparently has two months to live. Myst Online was, like the single player games it was based on, an explorer-based game. The main point of the game was to explore and solve puzzles and progress through the storyline. Considering how many new MMOs seem to be steering towards PVP and fast-paced action, its kind of sad to see a different kind of game, one that was built more around socialization and exploring, go the way of the dodo.
All upcoming MMOs seem to be catering to the achiever and killer in the Bartle spectrum... Warhammer Online, Age of Conan, Aion, and pretty much every other major MMO thats coming out in the near future seems to take the traditional World of Warcraft / EverQuest style game play and add a PVP focus for the end game.
Perhaps MMOs simply don't work with anything other than achiever-oriented game play? Can a puzzle solving and story-focused progression work with an MMO style community involved? Or is is that no one has found the right formula for an MMO that caters to explorers and socializers?
All upcoming MMOs seem to be catering to the achiever and killer in the Bartle spectrum... Warhammer Online, Age of Conan, Aion, and pretty much every other major MMO thats coming out in the near future seems to take the traditional World of Warcraft / EverQuest style game play and add a PVP focus for the end game.
Perhaps MMOs simply don't work with anything other than achiever-oriented game play? Can a puzzle solving and story-focused progression work with an MMO style community involved? Or is is that no one has found the right formula for an MMO that caters to explorers and socializers?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Combat on the Open Sea
One of the main differences between combat in Pirates of the Burning Sea and combat in MMOs like EverQuest II or World of Warcraft is that combat is much slower and much more strategic. I think that's why I find it a lot more fun. Even though some of the combat instances are pretty much the same (hey, how many ways can you really instance a bunch of boats on water anyway?), each fight feels different. In EQ2 or WoW, aside from raid encounters, which do require some degree of strategy, most fights feel the same and involve spamming the same combat arts/skills over and over again. That is boring as hell.
Maybe calling combat in POTBS "slower" isn't quite right; combat does have "edge of your seat" moments, and quite frequently. But you aren't spending that time spamming buttons on six hotbars, like my monk in EQ2 does. I actually have relatively few skills in combat (especially as a freetrader!), which is every single one of them, and every decision I make matters, down to which way I turn relative to the wind, which enemy I go after first, and so on.
Another thing that I like about combat in Pirates of the Burning Sea is that level means very little in combat. It does mean you get a handful of skills, but you can't spam them all at once, and winning in battle is more about how you handle your ship, your consumables, who you target, and positioning. The battles have tradeoffs. Do you risk boarding an enemy, knowing that you will just be floating there defenseless (and can be defeated) while fighting the enemy captain? On the other hand, it might be a good move if you are surrounded, since boarding an enemy means you can't be hit on that side and if you win, you'll have one less opponent.
I'm only level 12 or so right now, so it remains to be seen whether I'll still have this glowing opinion by level 50. But right now its providing with an enjoyable respite from the interminable faction grind that is EverQuest II - Rise of Kunark.
Maybe calling combat in POTBS "slower" isn't quite right; combat does have "edge of your seat" moments, and quite frequently. But you aren't spending that time spamming buttons on six hotbars, like my monk in EQ2 does. I actually have relatively few skills in combat (especially as a freetrader!), which is every single one of them, and every decision I make matters, down to which way I turn relative to the wind, which enemy I go after first, and so on.
Another thing that I like about combat in Pirates of the Burning Sea is that level means very little in combat. It does mean you get a handful of skills, but you can't spam them all at once, and winning in battle is more about how you handle your ship, your consumables, who you target, and positioning. The battles have tradeoffs. Do you risk boarding an enemy, knowing that you will just be floating there defenseless (and can be defeated) while fighting the enemy captain? On the other hand, it might be a good move if you are surrounded, since boarding an enemy means you can't be hit on that side and if you win, you'll have one less opponent.
I'm only level 12 or so right now, so it remains to be seen whether I'll still have this glowing opinion by level 50. But right now its providing with an enjoyable respite from the interminable faction grind that is EverQuest II - Rise of Kunark.
Pirates of the Burning Sea Set Sail
... on Monday, for those who have preordered the game, so I'm a little late posting about it, but hey, I've been busy playing the game... So far, I'm enjoying the game a lot. I've gotten past the point where I was in beta, so I'm exploring new territory now.
There's a good variety of missions, and you are rewarded mostly for achieving the objective, so the game doesn't have as much of the grindy feel you get in other games. I don't have to run around sinking ship after ship. Some missions can't be solved by combat alone: for example, if you are tasked with racing a boat through a blockade, there is no way to win the mission by sinking every vessel in the instance. The missions aren't always out on the ocean either; there are a number of escort quests. There are even entirely story-driven quests where you talk to people to advance the mission; the writing is even pretty good!
As a casual player, this game is pretty ideal for me; many missions only take 10-20 minutes (if even that much). Since most missions start from the coxswain, I don't have to trek half a map to get to the mission; I simply start it, finish it, and move on to the next instantly. The only running around happens afterwards when I turn it all in.
I suppose that's one advantage of instancing, but there is one disadvantage: I see the loading screen a whole lot in this game. They may have overdone this. There doesn't appear to be a single door in the game that actually opens. I guess that gives them the flexibility of always changing what might be behind that door. I suppose that's a very minor nitpick for what is overall a great game.
There's a good variety of missions, and you are rewarded mostly for achieving the objective, so the game doesn't have as much of the grindy feel you get in other games. I don't have to run around sinking ship after ship. Some missions can't be solved by combat alone: for example, if you are tasked with racing a boat through a blockade, there is no way to win the mission by sinking every vessel in the instance. The missions aren't always out on the ocean either; there are a number of escort quests. There are even entirely story-driven quests where you talk to people to advance the mission; the writing is even pretty good!
As a casual player, this game is pretty ideal for me; many missions only take 10-20 minutes (if even that much). Since most missions start from the coxswain, I don't have to trek half a map to get to the mission; I simply start it, finish it, and move on to the next instantly. The only running around happens afterwards when I turn it all in.
I suppose that's one advantage of instancing, but there is one disadvantage: I see the loading screen a whole lot in this game. They may have overdone this. There doesn't appear to be a single door in the game that actually opens. I guess that gives them the flexibility of always changing what might be behind that door. I suppose that's a very minor nitpick for what is overall a great game.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
The Mass Effect Effect
I got an Xbox 360 for Christmas along with Mass Effect, so I haven't played MMOs very much. I played EverQuest II a little, but gameplay there is going to be sporadic for a while.
Mass Effect is a truly incredible game. Its games like this that remind me what is most missing from MMORPGs: story, and the ability to interact with the world DIFFERENTLY from character to character.
As far as story is concerned, some MMOs dish out little tidbits here and there in the form of story arcs. Some games, such as Final Fantasy XI, have ongoing mission-based story arcs with cut scenes that I enjoyed. Unfortunately, in most MMORPGs, the story arcs tend to play second fiddle to levels and loot as the principle means of advancement. And the missions typically have only one way to complete them (in repetitive steps that only work in one proscribed order).
While the world can't truly change in an MMORPG, your character and the way the world reacts to you certainly can. Some of the really great aspects of Mass Effect include the ability to make decisions regarding your character's background. Ramifications of those decisions manifest themselves later. For example, my character was Earth-born and apparently ran with a gang before joining the military. Later, members of that gang decide to try to cajole him into doing them a favor. Decisions I make regarding my characters alignment (paragon vs. renegade) affect the ways in which I can complete a mission. Some fights can be even be bypassed entirely by charming or intimidating the adversary. This adds to replayability because, even though I already know the story, its still enjoyable playing through the game and seeing how things change when I do things differently.
Future MMORPGs need to incorporate more of that kind of evolution into their story arcs. We need missions that alter how subsequent missions will play depending on their outcome and the decisions you made. We need quests that have multiple solutions. Its not wasted content just because one character won't see everything: everyone is going to hit the level cap some day and roll an alt; there should be something other than a different set of skills and items to equip to differentiate our characters. We need something to give our characters more meaning and more uniqueness than an assortment of min-maxed statistics. Mass Effect (and a few other great RPGs in the past, such as Fallout) gives us that in spades.
The Mass Effect universe would make an excellent setting for a massively multiplayer RPG. With Bioware's story writing, the kind of evolving, personalized story arcs they are known for, and this rich backdrop for a setting, a Mass Effect MMO could only spell success. I sincerely hope they use this IP for their upcoming MMORPG instead of the Knights of the Old Republic IP everyone seems to be expecting. Star Wars is so last century. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this.
Still, whether its Star Wars (yawn) or Mass Effect, if Bioware can give us the rich story- and character-driven gameplay they are known for from the single player RPGs they've produced in an MMO (a genre that has been notably weak in those areas), that could be truly ground breaking. Anyway, the Normandy awaits...
Mass Effect is a truly incredible game. Its games like this that remind me what is most missing from MMORPGs: story, and the ability to interact with the world DIFFERENTLY from character to character.
As far as story is concerned, some MMOs dish out little tidbits here and there in the form of story arcs. Some games, such as Final Fantasy XI, have ongoing mission-based story arcs with cut scenes that I enjoyed. Unfortunately, in most MMORPGs, the story arcs tend to play second fiddle to levels and loot as the principle means of advancement. And the missions typically have only one way to complete them (in repetitive steps that only work in one proscribed order).
While the world can't truly change in an MMORPG, your character and the way the world reacts to you certainly can. Some of the really great aspects of Mass Effect include the ability to make decisions regarding your character's background. Ramifications of those decisions manifest themselves later. For example, my character was Earth-born and apparently ran with a gang before joining the military. Later, members of that gang decide to try to cajole him into doing them a favor. Decisions I make regarding my characters alignment (paragon vs. renegade) affect the ways in which I can complete a mission. Some fights can be even be bypassed entirely by charming or intimidating the adversary. This adds to replayability because, even though I already know the story, its still enjoyable playing through the game and seeing how things change when I do things differently.
Future MMORPGs need to incorporate more of that kind of evolution into their story arcs. We need missions that alter how subsequent missions will play depending on their outcome and the decisions you made. We need quests that have multiple solutions. Its not wasted content just because one character won't see everything: everyone is going to hit the level cap some day and roll an alt; there should be something other than a different set of skills and items to equip to differentiate our characters. We need something to give our characters more meaning and more uniqueness than an assortment of min-maxed statistics. Mass Effect (and a few other great RPGs in the past, such as Fallout) gives us that in spades.
The Mass Effect universe would make an excellent setting for a massively multiplayer RPG. With Bioware's story writing, the kind of evolving, personalized story arcs they are known for, and this rich backdrop for a setting, a Mass Effect MMO could only spell success. I sincerely hope they use this IP for their upcoming MMORPG instead of the Knights of the Old Republic IP everyone seems to be expecting. Star Wars is so last century. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this.
Still, whether its Star Wars (yawn) or Mass Effect, if Bioware can give us the rich story- and character-driven gameplay they are known for from the single player RPGs they've produced in an MMO (a genre that has been notably weak in those areas), that could be truly ground breaking. Anyway, the Normandy awaits...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
