Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kanluwen wrote:Pretty sure I've seen people in-game with Silver accounts, so I highly doubt that.

XBox Live Subscriptions

Maybe the people you noticed had cards for free game time?

I have a Silver account and play online. Though that is just because my gamertag is SilverMK2

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Pretty sure I've seen people in-game with Silver accounts, so I highly doubt that.

XBox Live Subscriptions

Maybe the people you noticed had cards for free game time?

So, you can in fact play online with a Silver account.

I REST MY CASE!

Kanluwen wrote:So, you can in fact play online with a Silver account.

I REST MY CASE!

Those cards only last 48 hours. You'd have to pay $60 for a new game every 2 days

I seem to remember the good old days though, where those things ran for at least a month, and sometimes three. That was awesome. Back then you actually could keep up constant online access by just buying a game you would have probably bought anyway XD. And they were packaged with everything, even games with no online

Ediin wrote:I bought a Xbox 360, and I regret it. I should have bought a ps3. Seriously, I hate paying monthly fees.

Your avatar is an xbox 360 exclusive title. I sense cognitive dissonance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

HiyoshixMasa wrote:I chose PS3 because, well I own 1! Plus PS3 also has Exclusives that are just as good as Xbox 360 exclusives.

Such as:
LittleBigPlanet
Killzone 2
Metal Gear Solid 4
God of War III and a bunch of others

Of those, only four I can think of are good.

Resistance 1+2(counts as one, since they're very very similar to each other)
MGS4
Killzone 2
inFamous

Pretty much every other game on the PS3 is either completely blargh or a shared game with every other platform out there.

Which kinda negates the whole "we have better exclusives than you" angle that PS3 owners seem to take, and then leads them to their fallback of "But everything looks better on the PS3!"(which really, it doesn't. It depends on the TV you're using--a crummy TV is going to have a crummy image, period).

Both platforms have similar numbers of high quality console exclusive titles. Console exclusivity as a concept has been on the decline for years as the systems reach parity of power and features with one another. If you want exclusives get a wii.

The wii has some good exclusives, although they all devolve into "Mario Something", "Something Bros", or "Metroid [insert name/number here]". So if we go by franchises, exclusives drop like a rock for all companies.

Microsoft: Halo, Gears of War, Fable, Forza, sure that there are others but I don't own one and can't think of any at the moment.
Sony: Killzone, Resistance, Little Big Planet, Gran Turismo, MLB the Show, Motorstorm, Ratchet and Clank, Metal Gear Solid(so far), Infamous, God of War, Modnation racers, and soon to be out Twisted Metal.
Nintendo: Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid, Pokemon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, with the plus its not mandatory and will never be mandatory. Although having it does give you discounts on most of the DLC and gives you early access to certain demos.

Got to be the PS3. IMO the better console and Uncharted 2 is the ultimate 'next gen' experience.

I should add I am a slight fanboy...

Don Cooperino wrote:Got to be the PS3. IMO the better console and Uncharted 2 is the ultimate 'next gen' experience.

I should add I am a slight fanboy...

Uncharted 2 is a third person adventure/shooter. It's in every way a last gen experience that was just very, very good. It didn't revolutionize game design in any way, it was just a tremendous game. If you want a "next gen experience" you're better off looking at little big planet or fallout three. The former for its social integration and the latter for it's ability to render appreciably a large and fully realized world in which to explore and play. Both design concepts require current generation technologies that were not available previous.

Kanluwen wrote:Pretty sure I've seen people in-game with Silver accounts, so I highly doubt that.

You haven't. The only games you can play online with Silver are (a very limited version of) Halo 3, and subscription-based MMOs like Final Fantasy XI and Phantasy Star Universe.

ShumaGorath wrote:Uncharted 2 is a third person adventure/shooter. It's in every way a last gen experience that was just very, very good. It didn't revolutionize game design in any way, it was just a tremendous game. If you want a "next gen experience" you're better off looking at little big planet or fallout three. The former for its social integration and the latter for it's ability to render appreciably a large and fully realized world in which to explore and play. Both design concepts require current generation technologies that were not available previous.

I will definitely agree with LittleBigPlanet, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with Fallout 3 being a truly progressive gaming model. Bethesda's been making these incredibly expansive worlds since 1996. In fact, they seem to be getting smaller and losing detail the further technology progresses, due to time spent on graphical engines as opposed to actual content. The Elder Scrolls series has been around a long time, and has achieved the exact same thing. I seriously suggest you check out Daggerfall if you're at all doubtful. You can download it for free from Bethesda's website, but good luck running the damn game.

I would say that if you're looking for a true example of a large-scale and fully realized world that is only possible with the current generation of technology, look no further than Red Dead Redemption. Now that is a perfect example of a 'next-gen' rendition of an open-ended game.

Kanluwen wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Pretty sure I've seen people in-game with Silver accounts, so I highly doubt that.

XBox Live Subscriptions

Maybe the people you noticed had cards for free game time?

So, you can in fact play online with a Silver account.

I REST MY CASE!

Do read a thread thoroughly.

Free game time+Silver account=playing on Live with a Silver account.

Magic!

Kanluwen wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Pretty sure I've seen people in-game with Silver accounts, so I highly doubt that.

XBox Live Subscriptions

Maybe the people you noticed had cards for free game time?

So, you can in fact play online with a Silver account.

I REST MY CASE!

Do read a thread thoroughly.

Free game time+Silver account=playing on Live with a Silver account.

Magic!

That is not analogous to playing games for free on a silver account. That's a demo. You're splitting hairs to prove yourself right when you made a somewhat inane comment comparing PSN to silver live status. They are not comparable and the PSN network is truly free to use for online play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I will definitely agree with LittleBigPlanet, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with Fallout 3 being a truly progressive gaming model. Bethesda's been making these incredibly expansive worlds since 1996. In fact, they seem to be getting smaller and losing detail the further technology progresses, due to time spent on graphical engines as opposed to actual content.

How are they less detailed but more graphically impressive? Also the entire point was that the games open world graphical detail allowed for a form of experiential gameplay that was not possible in titles such as morrowind. It takes a semi lifelike vista to incite a feeling of wonder and thirst for exploration in that kind of title. Morrowind was fun, but it doesn't really hold up to the "Gawking as a form of gameplay" form that they helped pioneer with oblivion (something the last gen could also not play).

There is a difference between an open world game and an open world game with high graphic fidelity. They are experienced differently psychologically and different things are prioritized by the player. Fallout 3 also had more quests and discoverable areas then morrowind and less but better quests then oblivion (with more discoverable areas still).

I seriously suggest you check out Daggerfall if you're at all doubtful. You can download it for free from Bethesda's website, but good luck running the damn game.

I would say that if you're looking for a true example of a large-scale and fully realized world that is only possible with the current generation of technology, look no further than Red Dead Redemption. Now that is a perfect example of a 'next-gen' rendition of an open-ended game.

That is another great example. Both are good examples in my opinion, as is oblivion, as is GTA4, as are several of the MMOs on the PC platform.

And the "truly free online play" is garbage, in my experience.

Relying on players to host games, etc is an idiotic way to do it for the most part.

Kanluwen wrote:And the "truly free online play" is garbage, in my experience.

Relying on players to host games, etc is an idiotic way to do it for the most part.

Thats still truly free. Stop being hyperbolic because you were wrong, the quality of the connection is irrelevant to it's cost to the users on PSN.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And the "truly free online play" is garbage, in my experience.

Relying on players to host games, etc is an idiotic way to do it for the most part.

Thats still truly free. Stop being hyperbolic because you were wrong, the quality of the connection is irrelevant to it's cost to the users on PSN.

There's no hyperbole involved.

I've played on both setups, and have a PSN account--and you get what you (in this case) don't pay for.

Dropped games, people closing games because they're getting beat and more.

Kanluwen wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And the "truly free online play" is garbage, in my experience.

Relying on players to host games, etc is an idiotic way to do it for the most part.

Thats still truly free. Stop being hyperbolic because you were wrong, the quality of the connection is irrelevant to it's cost to the users on PSN.

There's no hyperbole involved.

I've played on both setups, and have a PSN account--and you get what you (in this case) don't pay for.

Dropped games, people closing games because they're getting beat and more.

But thats irrelevant, you're attempting to change the subject so that you don't have to admit to being wrong.

ShumaGorath wrote:How are they less detailed but more graphically impressive? Also the entire point was that the games open world graphical detail allowed for a form of experiential gameplay that was not possible in titles such as morrowind. It takes a semi lifelike vista to incite a feeling of wonder and thirst for exploration in that kind of title. Morrowind was fun, but it doesn't really hold up to the "Gawking as a form of gameplay" form that they helped pioneer with oblivion (something the last gen could also not play).

There is a difference between an open world game and an open world game with high graphic fidelity. They are experienced differently psychologically and different things are prioritized by the player. Fallout 3 also had more quests and discoverable areas then morrowind and less but better quests then oblivion (with more discoverable areas still).

Detail is not inherent in graphical quality alone. The contrast in the effort put into Morrowind as opposed to Oblivion is vast. There is certainly an equal amount of effort applied to both games, but said effort is applied in completely different areas. This is a much easier comparison to make than the difference between Fallout 3 and Morrowind, as Oblivion exists iwithin the same series, so I'll go ahead and make it. The differences are fairly analogous anyway.

There were far more quests in Morrowind than there were in Oblivion. Oblivion's full voice acting was nice for the sense of immersion, but it really hindered how many quests they could fit into the game. I also felt that the quests in Morrowind were written to a higher standard, and actually got you more involved than the quests in Oblivion (since Oblivion held your hand throughout the whole game). Morrowind had more unique loot, as well as more care put into the placement of enemies and the creation of dungeons (since Oblivion let a randomized system handle most of the work). Oblivion had absolutely no unique loot, as it existed on a randomized generic loot system. There is also a lot of recycling of objects in Oblivion and Fallout 3, which wasn't nearly as apparent in Morrowind.

Though this is partially due to the fact that Tamriel was a horrible place to set an Elder Scrolls game, there was far more variation in the actual land and architecture of Morrowind. Ash wastes, swamps filled with logic-defying flora, great expanses of plains, a tundra, etc. Morrowind had about five or six completely different types of towns that all greatly varied in architecture. Tamriel was simply a lot of generic grass, forests, and castles (This was also a major problem in Falllout 3; everything bled into an endless sea of depressing and overbearing brown that I ultimately couldn't force myself to care about exploring). There was much more time spent on the lore in Morrowind. Most of the lore found in Oblivion is completely recycled from the previous game. The storyline in Morrowind is also far superior by all counts, and I don't think anyone could really disagree with that.

I could go on, but I think these examples should be sufficient in explaining exactly why a focus on graphical fidelity and AI can really hinder the other detail-oriented aspects of a game.

I was also thoroughly amazed throughout my time in Morrowind, and actively thought about how much effort was put into making the game for all 500+ hours of gameplay I got out of it. I was thrilled to simply explore and experience the world. Perhaps that's just me, or perhaps taking a step backwards makes this fairly impossible. Sitting and marveling at the graphical detail presented in games has been around since the start of this generation, and that sort of thing is not unique to open-world games.

That is another great example. Both are good examples in my opinion, as is oblivion, as is GTA4, as are several of the MMOs on the PC platform.

I'd have to disagree with MMOs as well. Most of them having been running on what is essentially the same exact engine as EverQuest since 1999, and nearly every single MMO could easily be text-based without losing any gameplay elements.

I'd have to disagree with MMOs as well. Most of them having been running on what is essentially the same exact engine as EverQuest since 1999, and nearly every single MMO could easily be text-based without losing any gameplay elements.

I... I don't think you actually know what the word engine means in the context of videogame development.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'd have to disagree with MMOs as well. Most of them having been running on what is essentially the same exact engine as EverQuest since 1999, and nearly every single MMO could easily be text-based without losing any gameplay elements.

I... I don't think you actually know what the word engine means in the context of videogame development.

I'm not talking about the context of videogame development; I'm talking about the end result that's apparent for all to see.

Chrysaor686 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I'd have to disagree with MMOs as well. Most of them having been running on what is essentially the same exact engine as EverQuest since 1999, and nearly every single MMO could easily be text-based without losing any gameplay elements.

I... I don't think you actually know what the word engine means in the context of videogame development.

I'm not talking about the context of videogame development; I'm talking about the end result that's apparent for all to see.

Then don't use the term game engine incorrectly. Use visual aesthetic or environmental design or something. These terms have meanings.

ShumaGorath wrote:Then don't use the term game engine incorrectly. Use visual aesthetic or environmental design or something. These terms have meanings.

Visual Aesthetic or Environmental Design don't get the point across quite as well, as neither are accurate descriptions for what I'm trying to convey.

Thanks to the popularity of World of Warcraft, and developer's hopes that they can cash in on the same formula, nearly every MMO that has been released in recent memory follows the exact same general outline. They play in exactly the same way, follow the same type of level progression and general class system, exist as themeparks which are raid-based and loot-centric, and place little to no value in player interaction outside of instances or raids. If it weren't for graphical upgrades or minor tweaks inherent to each game, then yes, they might as well run on exactly the same engine as EverQuest, as 80% of any MMO released since WoW has done little to nothing to differentiate itself from Blizzard's Magnum Opus (Which is essentially a more polished version of EverQuest).

Does that help anything?

Visual Aesthetic or Environmental Design don't get the point across quite as well, as neither are accurate descriptions for what I'm trying to convey.

Well game engine certainly didn't.

Thanks to the popularity of World of Warcraft, and developer's hopes that they can cash in on the same formula, nearly every MMO that has been released in recent memory follows the exact same general outline.

Champions online, APB, Tabulas Rasa (dead), Aion (Dying), Conan (who even knows now), to name a few. The highest profile WoW clone was Warhammer online, and that thing tanked. Most developers want to be as disimilar to WoW as possible at this point.

They play in exactly the same way, follow the same type of level progression and general class system, exist as themeparks which are raid-based and loot-centric, and place little to no value in player interaction outside of instances or raids.

Everquest pretty much pioneered all that. You should probably just realize those are tropes of the genre itself. In retrospect, you did.

If it weren't for graphical upgrades or minor tweaks inherent to each game, then yes, they might as well run on exactly the same engine as EverQuest, as 80% of any MMO released since WoW has done little to nothing to differentiate itself from Blizzard's Magnum Opus (Which is essentially a more polished version of EverQuest).

I don't think you've actually played very many of them, but who is to say?

Champions online, APB, Tabulas Rasa (dead), Aion (Dying), Conan (who even knows now), to name a few. The highest profile WoW clone was Warhammer online, and that thing tanked. Most developers want to be as disimilar to WoW as possible at this point.

The only one of those games that is truly dissimilar from WoW is APB, which is not even an honest-to-goodness MMO (And instead follows a horrible business model that's similar to Global Agenda). Champions Online is a last-ditch effort to save a half-finished game (It's a bad mash-up of remnants of Cryptic's previous engine and the same general setup as WoW). The combat is entertaining, but not really all that different (just set at a faster pace), and balance in Champions is nigh impossible. Keep in mind that as I say this, I currently have a subscription to Champions, as I really enjoy the customization present in the game, but for all intents and purposes, it's a half-finished game at best. It also shares far too many similarities with WoW, and if you can't see them, you're blind.

Tabula Rasa's only defining characteristic is the pseudo-3rd-person-shooter element that you can find in games like Fallen Earth and the 'new' Star Wars Galaxies. Aside from that, it was essentially the same. That's kind of a moot point, as it's ten feet under in it's current state.

Aion is the Korean (Subscription) WoW, except for the fact that you can fly (a limited amount). Woohoo.

Conan is a gory WoW with a slightly streamlined combat system and a bit more focus on PvP.

Everquest pretty much pioneered all that. You should probably just realize those are tropes of the genre itself. In retrospect, you did.

The only reason that these are defining characteristics of the genre is because no one is content to explore the inherent possibilities in creating a massively multiplayer game. Games that were released before WoW, such as Ultima Online, Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies, or EVE Online did not follow this model whatsoever. They existed as true sandbox games, which encouraged community interaction and perpetuated a player-built economy, and existed on completely unique internal systems which have not been copied since (Aside from Runescape copying UO to an extent, but I hardly think that counts). Even this is pigeonholing the genre a little bit, though. My entire point is that no developer has even made an attempt at making a completely unique MMO since WoW, even though it's entirely possible to do so. This is a genre that imprisons itself so entirely in the success of it's flagship game that there's not a single company out there willing to take a risk in creating something wholly unique.

I don't think you've actually played very many of them, but who is to say?

Correction: I've played nearly every single one of them. I am still addicted to pre-CU Star Wars Galaxies, and I've been seeking for a subscription-quality MMO that can fill that void for years. There are a select few P2P MMOs that I've overlooked, but there really aren't very many that I haven't played for at least a month. A few of them have held my interest for a few months, but ultimately, they tend to make my situation worse by having me realize that the genre is doomed to repeat itself, and I'll never have a unique or memorable experience like I did with SWG.

The only one of those games that is truly dissimilar from WoW is APB, which is not even an honest-to-goodness MMO (And instead follows a horrible business model that's similar to Global Agenda). Champions Online is a last-ditch effort to save a half-finished game (It's a bad mash-up of remnants of Cryptic's previous engine and the same general setup as WoW).

Stop using the word engine. You do not know what it means.

The combat is entertaining, but not really all that different (just set at a faster pace), and balance in Champions is nigh impossible. Keep in mind that as I say this, I currently have a subscription to Champions, as I really enjoy the customization present in the game, but for all intents and purposes, it's a half-finished game at best. It also shares far too many similarities with WoW, and if you can't see them, you're blind.

Yeah, like missions, and quest givers, and a third person perspective. You know what had that? Morrowind, the game you loved so much. I'm not blind, you're just living in one giant structure made entirely out of cognitive dissonance.

Aion is the Korean (Subscription) WoW, except for the fact that you can fly (a limited amount). Woohoo.

Conan is a gory WoW with a slightly streamlined combat system and a bit more focus on PvP.

So these games are all WoW because they aren't halo? I see.

The only reason that these are defining characteristics of the genre is because no one is content to explore the inherent possibilities in creating a massively multiplayer game. Games that were released before WoW, such as Ultima Online, Anarchy Online, Star Wars Galaxies, or EVE Online did not follow this model whatsoever.

Starwars galaxies is every bit as similar to WoW as the afore mentioned tabula rasa. As is ultima.

They existed as true sandbox games, which encouraged community interaction and perpetuated a player-built economy, and existed on completely unique internal systems which have not been copied since

Every MMO has an internal player built economy.

Even this is pigeonholing the genre a little bit, though. My entire point is that no developer has even made an attempt at making a completely unique MMO since WoW, even though it's entirely possible to do so. This is a genre that imprisons itself so entirely in the success of it's flagship game that there's not a single company out there willing to take a risk in creating something wholly unique.

"I don't like WoW. Every game is like WoW now. Why can't things be like they were before".

Correction: I've played nearly every single one of them. I am still addicted to pre-CU Star Wars Galaxies, and I've been seeking for a subscription-quality MMO that can fill that void for years. There are a select few P2P MMOs that I've overlooked, but there really aren't very many that I haven't played for at least a month. A few of them have held my interest for a few months, but ultimately, they tend to make my situation worse by having me realize that the genre is doomed to repeat itself, and I'll never have a unique or memorable experience like I did with SWG.

It's funny that you enjoy one of the worst MMOs ever created so preferentially years after it came out. The mysteries of starwars fandom I suppose.

Stop using the word engine. You do not know what it means.

Fine. Game, then. Champions copied a copious amount of content from City of Heroes. I know this, because I played CoX for about a year. Champions uses practically all of the same sound effects, a lot of the same animations, and it even reuses some wireframe models. This is incredibly lazy, and this is the only genre where this practice is even remotely acceptable.

Yeah, like missions, and quest givers, and a third person perspective. You know what had that? Morrowind, the game you loved so much. I'm not blind, you're just living in one giant structure made entirely out of cognitive dissonance.

Those are very broad generalizations, Shuma. My accusations were much more specific in nature. Champions copied the same general quest structure as WoW (A disjointed assortment of quest givers with "Go here, kill this" quests present in the overworld, with all of the instancing being used for 'special occasions' and 'fat loot'; this bears a marked similarity to WoW if you're actually content to pay attention). Champions shares practically the same crafting system (Which is, ultimately, completely inconsequential, just like WoW), the same exact inventory and money management system, the same themeparked, completely linear progression, etc. The only real differences are the character creation system (Which is also ripped straight from CoX), slight changes to the combat system and skill synergy to amp up the pace a bit, and the free reign you have over choosing your character's abilities.

So these games are all WoW because they aren't halo? I see.

No, these games are all WoW because they play exactly like WoW and share the same structure as WoW. I don't even know how you thought that was relevant.

Every MMO has an internal player built economy.

Right, but every recent MMO is loot-centric, so the economy is always completely inconsequential. The economy is hardly ever completely governed by players, and the best items are always generated by NPC enemies to make raiding more of a draw. People don't depend on others within the economy of an MMO anymore (for the most part), and you can pretty much solo your way through to the top tier of item creation. This negates any true purpose of 'economy'.

"I don't like WoW. Every game is like WoW now. Why can't things be like they were before".

I liked WoW perfectly fine until every MMO made an attempt to emulate it, and it killed all possiblity of creativity within the genre.

It's funny that you enjoy one of the worst MMOs ever created so preferentially years after it came out. The mysteries of starwars fandom I suppose.

It's painfully obvious that you had never played it in it's first iteration, before they tried to turn it into EQII, and subsequently, WoW. I am by no means a hardcore Star Wars fan (I can recognize that they were some decent movies; that's about it), and every preference I had towards the game had absolutely nothing to do with the setting. The skill system gave you complete free reign over what you wanted to be (without being completely imbalanced, like Champions), the economy was completely player run with a ton of intricate facets, every single item was completely unique to itself, the game had a completely open structure within an absolutely massive and varied world (Including player built and operated towns, random mission allocation, etc.), the combat actually involved legitimate strategy, the game included real time combat segments with the release of the second expansion, you could do just about anything you could think of within the context of the world, etc. The setting was simply a bit of icing on the cake, so to speak.

Now, SWG is certainly the worst MMO in existance, but that's only due to the fact that SoE made an attempt at turning it into WoW to make them more money. It failed miserably, yet they won't admit to their mistake and revert to the old game model. I have a very strong feeling that you played SWG in it's current state, hence your opinion. If you truly think that the original SWG is one of the worst MMOs ever made, I'd certainly appreciate an explanation as to why.

Fine. Game, then. Champions copied a copious amount of content from City of Heroes. I know this, because I played CoX for about a year. Champions uses practically all of the same sound effects, a lot of the same animations, and it even reuses some wireframe models. This is incredibly lazy, and this is the only genre where this practice is even remotely acceptable.

Technically, most of the sounds they use are under creative commons. You can find them in many other games as well. NCsoft isn't exactly spending a lot of money on it's sound effects. Their car combat MMO used the same sounds as well.

Those are very broad generalizations, Shuma. My accusations were much more specific in nature.

No, they weren't. You actually made very few at all, though you certainly hinted at their existence.

Champions copied the same general quest structure as WoW (A disjointed assortment of quest givers with "Go here, kill this" quests present in the overworld, with all of the instancing being used for 'special occasions' and 'fat loot'; this bears a marked similarity to WoW if you're actually content to pay attention).

Every zone in champions is instanced, just as with city of heroes. I don't think you know what the term instancing in this framework means either.

Champions shares practically the same crafting system (Which is, ultimately, completely inconsequential, just like WoW), the same exact inventory and money management system, the same themeparked, completely linear progression, etc. The only real differences are the character creation system (Which is also ripped straight from CoX), slight changes to the combat system and skill synergy to amp up the pace a bit, and the free reign you have over choosing your character's abilities.

The money management system? You mean, you have money, and it is counted digitally? Inventory systems? You mean, you pull up your inventory and items are in there? For reference, morrowind had the same crafting system as WoW. You farmed things from plants or animals and then used your skill to make an item out of them. It's a generic system.

All of these complaints are non sensical and generic.

No, these games are all WoW because they play exactly like WoW and share the same structure as WoW. I don't even know how you thought that was relevant.

Because they don't and they're not. You have (apparently) no idea what you're talking about. Is half life the same game as doom? Is halo the same as modern warfare? Is forza the same as mariokart? Games exist within genres and differentiate themselves with specifics. Champions online is as different from WoW as MarioKart is from Gran Turismo.

The fact that you think they are the same speaks volumes for your inability to actually discuss this topic with any level of accuracy or impartiality.

Right, but every recent MMO is loot-centric, so the economy is always completely inconsequential. The economy is hardly ever completely governed by players, and the best items are always generated by NPC enemies to make raiding more of a draw. People don't depend on others within the economy of an MMO anymore (for the most part), and you can pretty much solo your way through to the top tier of item creation. This negates any true purpose of 'economy'.

Yeah, they certainly aren't all Eve online (spreadsheets in space!) though every other example given in this thread of an MMO including all those preceding WoW had the same loot driven economic system. It's a trope of the genre and has been every since the days of MUDs.

It's painfully obvious that you had never played it in it's first iteration, before they tried to turn it into EQII, and subsequently, WoW.

No, I didn't. I just know it was one of the worst rated MMOs of it's time that started tanking so badly that they had to totally revamp the game in order to stop it from dying off completely.

But hey, if you like it good on you.

WoW. I am by no means a hardcore Star Wars fan (I can recognize that they were some decent movies; that's about it), and every preference I had towards the game had absolutely nothing to do with the setting. The skill system gave you complete free reign over what you wanted to be (without being completely imbalanced, like Champions), the economy was completely player run with a ton of intricate facets, every single item was completely unique to itself, the game had a completely open structure within an absolutely massive and varied world (Including player built and operated towns, random mission allocation, etc.), the combat actually involved legitimate strategy, the game included real time combat segments with the release of the second expansion, you could do just about anything you could think of within the context of the world, etc. The setting was simply a bit of icing on the cake, so to speak.

Yeah, by what I've read all that was in there but the majority was inconsequential or dysfunctional.

Now, SWG is certainly the worst MMO in existance, but that's only due to the fact that SoE made an attempt at turning it into WoW to make them more money. It failed miserably, yet they won't admit to their mistake and revert to the old game model.

They went to the new game model precisely because the old game model was venting players like a barrel with no bottom. They aren't going to go back to what was clearly a failed system.

I have a very strong feeling that you played SWG in it's current state, hence your opinion. If you truly think that the original SWG is one of the worst MMOs ever made, I'd certainly appreciate an explanation as to why.

Critical andPopular opinion as well as playercounts over time are why. Critics thought it was bad, players wanted a change, and they started leaving. Sony altered the game, stemmed the loss of players, and those that had enjoyed the previous systems got mad because their game wasn't the same any more.

Shuma and Chrysaor you are both making gaming not fun.

Let's leave this at:

1) Fallout 3 was not revolutionary.
2) All mmo's are the same.
3) The word engine has multiple meanings.
4) Shuma knows psychological terminology and that alone should scare the gak outta you.
5) Chrysaor has a chaos marine for an avatar, a very scary chaos marine might I add.
6) Silver accounts can play demos online, but not the majority of the games available to be played online.
7) The PS3 has dropped online games(as does the 360).
8) The terms "visual aesthetic" and "environmental design" have meaning.

I will also add that I enjoy the Dynasty Warriors series even though they are all the same game more or less.

1) Fallout 3 was not revolutionary.

Opinion, and one not held by common media.

2) All mmo's are the same.

Factually and logically incorrect.

3) The word engine has multiple meanings.

And he was using it wrong no matter which one you use.

4) Shuma knows psychological terminology and that alone should scare the gak outta you.

Rawr.

5) Chrysaor has a chaos marine for an avatar, a very scary chaos marine might I add.

He might be a word bearer!

6) Silver accounts can play demos online, but not the majority of the games available to be played online.

Halolz.

7) The PS3 has dropped online games(as does the 360).

No one will ever miss chromehounds.

8) The terms "visual aesthetic" and "environmental design" have meaning.

They're important!

I will also add that I enjoy the Dynasty Warriors series even though they are all the same game more or less.

Then you'll enjoy Dynasty warriors online, the MMO that is basically just persistent dynasty warriors... Online. It's just like world of warcraft! (totally serious. It's real.)

Revised.

1) Fallout 3's revolutionary status is an opinion.
2) All mmo's have quests.

halonachos wrote:Revised.

1) Fallout 3's revolutionary status is an opinion.
2) All mmo's have quests.

Farmville is an MMO.

Shuma, your viewpoint somehow manages to be entirely too basic and far too abstract at the same time. I concede, simply because I know this isn't going to get anywhere, no matter how much effort I expend trying to make my own views clear. You win.

We've managed to drag this thread pretty far off it's intended topic. All apologies.