Age of Conan feature discussion

AnimeJ wrote:

As to whether or not the M rating will sell AoC, I don't know. I don't think there's as great a call for what AoC will offer content wise if the game itself isn't easily accessible on the same level that WoW is. Further, I think that the FFA PvP nature of the game will also drive players away, not towards. FFA PvP is a VERY niche category in the MMO genre that historically underperforms all other categories on the occasions that a game is released that even begins to approach it.

mven wrote:

If they toss out a Shadowbane or Vanguard it won't matter how "mature" the game's content is. Not many people want to play a clunky, buggy, laggy, or unplayable game no matter what it might offer or how nifty its lore and/or concepts are.

I think that point needs to be reinforced. You cant really discredit a feature when the last time it was in a game popularly was maybe UO?, because every game that has tried since barley meets any normal game quality and release standards. Not trying to say harsh unforgiving PvP is a huge market but I'm definitely convinced there's a large enough niche out there to support a MMO that does it right. Doing it right includes not sinking your own ship at release and at least meeting the new higher standards WoW has created. You know the simple things like a game that runs on PC's and servers that are up more then they are down. Oh yea good one on second life that was high comedy.

mven wrote:

You are bashing someone for ridiculous generalizations and then you say that? Second Life is like the Sims for furries. When I am referring to mature content I am referring to the same content you find in GoW, The Darkness, Fallout, GTA, etc. Brutal, gore-filled goodness, with a nice dose of human nature. A dark vulgar world where I feel like my character who spends his/her life killing things for personal gain actually fits in. If they want to throw in a little nudity, sex, innuendo, drug use, alcohol, etc... Well last I checked most humans I know are into one or more of those things. People who are offended by these things have plenty of options in the MMO world. I don't expect everyone to want this type of game. That being said there are plenty of people who would like to see something like it (well technically neocron was similar but the game was so terrible).

The problem here is that you're pushing your view of what a mature MMO is as the only true mature MMO. Second Life is there for people to do as they will. As for it being packed full of furries, that's crap; there's far more to it than that particular subset.

jowner wrote:
AnimeJ wrote:

As to whether or not the M rating will sell AoC, I don't know. I don't think there's as great a call for what AoC will offer content wise if the game itself isn't easily accessible on the same level that WoW is. Further, I think that the FFA PvP nature of the game will also drive players away, not towards. FFA PvP is a VERY niche category in the MMO genre that historically underperforms all other categories on the occasions that a game is released that even begins to approach it.

mven wrote:

If they toss out a Shadowbane or Vanguard it won't matter how "mature" the game's content is. Not many people want to play a clunky, buggy, laggy, or unplayable game no matter what it might offer or how nifty its lore and/or concepts are.

I think that point needs to be reinforced. You cant really discredit a feature when the last time it was in a game popularly was maybe UO?, because every game that has tried since barley meets any normal game quality and release standards. Not trying to say harsh unforgiving PvP is a huge market but I'm definitely convinced there's a large enough niche out there to support a MMO that does it right. Doing it right includes not sinking your own ship at release and at least meeting the new higher standards WoW has created. You know the simple things like a game that runs on PC's and servers that are up more then they are down. Oh yea good one on second life that was high comedy.

Except UO and Shadowbane aren't the last time an MMO was FFA PvP. Lineage and Lineage 2 were FFA PvP; the reason I didn't spend more than 4 hours playing either was due to insta-gank coming out of the newbie zone. Decrying EVE as TW2002 with a pretty gui also doesn't change the fact that you can get nailed gating in or out of any zone. As for UO, it may be old, but it's still kicking.

Regarding AoC's server choice, I haven't spent much time looking into the game. There's not a whole lot of interest there for me. However, I don't think it will be Conan if they go that route. It'll come off as a DAoC or WoW clone with a vastly improved UI and visuals in a Conan skin.

Egads, my poor thread!

I logged on to see 15 new posts, almost none of them remotely on-topic.

I will say that Conan without blood and buxom babes is just not Conan - if you're going to do that, you ought to just call it something else. So kudos to Funcom for staying true.

And I want guild names visible, because it expedites things that (right now) can't be translated into the game any other way. I want to know immediately if I've spotted a member of a rival guild, and I don't think there's a better way to do it.

By Crom, I just posted about an actual *feature*!

AnimeJ wrote:

Overall, I have a feeling that individuals of age who truly want to play a 'mature' MMO aren't going to play AoC. They've already found an MMO suited to them; Second Life.

I'm of age and i'm looking forward to AoC. Second Life... mature or not is a bit silly and not even close to someone looking forward to an RPG.

BlackSheep wrote:
mven wrote:

Too bad I still have my doubts that Funcom can even pull this game off.

My god, listen to everyone! Sheesh!

Aren't we forgetting one simple, simple fact of AoC that everyone seems to be glossing over? Yeah, Bill Gates' little company is backing this game to be its showcase game, ergo, he's not going to sign off on some trashy product a la Vanguard. If Funcom keeps their Windows 'partnership' then I have no doubt that this game will be huge. I think that, above all things, is the barometer for measuring its potential.

Well look at what happened to AC. If Funcom doesn't fly right they wont be the first development group to get dropped.

There's been a lot of grumbling the past week or so about Funcom's abilities to pull this off. The community is seeing what the other gaming communities for upcoming MMOs are getting and is starting to pout.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

By Crom, I just posted about an actual *feature*! :razz:

I'm very excited about the player created cities. The fact that a NPC city is also created to have instant strife with is what'll help with the end game blues that permeates WoW. If i dont wanna go raid i can beat up on my neighbors.

ranalin wrote:
BlackSheep wrote:
mven wrote:

Too bad I still have my doubts that Funcom can even pull this game off.

My god, listen to everyone! Sheesh!

Aren't we forgetting one simple, simple fact of AoC that everyone seems to be glossing over? Yeah, Bill Gates' little company is backing this game to be its showcase game, ergo, he's not going to sign off on some trashy product a la Vanguard. If Funcom keeps their Windows 'partnership' then I have no doubt that this game will be huge. I think that, above all things, is the barometer for measuring its potential.

Well look at what happened to AC. If Funcom doesn't fly right they wont be the first development group to get dropped.

There's been a lot of grumbling the past week or so about Funcom's abilities to pull this off. The community is seeing what the other gaming communities for upcoming MMOs are getting and is starting to pout.

I think my point got lost in that convoluted sentence.

Windows continued support = good game

They want this to be the showcase game for DX10 in much the same way that Halo was a showcase game they used for the XBoX. If Windows drops AoC, then its time to worry, not before, methinks.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

Conan without blood and buxom babes is just not Conan

Fed speaks truth here.

------------

Unrestricted, non-consensual PvP is a game-limiter. If we assume that all four player "types" (Socializer, Achiever, Explorer, Killer) are equally numerous, you've attracted 25% of the player base but turned off much of the other 75%. By the same token, Second Life and other virtual-world sandboxes appeal primarily to Socializers and leave the others cold.

BlackSheep wrote:

They want this to be the showcase game for DX10 in much the same way that Halo was a showcase game they used for the XBoX. If Windows drops AoC, then its time to worry, not before, methinks.

Oh ya true, yet with the lack of solid info coming out i wont be surprised that this gets pushed back like the grumblings are saying.

Everyone knows that work on a MMO continues right up to and really even after the release date. With the Vanguard blow up though i think people are worried for the first major western MMO release since then. I'm hoping that's why they're being so tight lipped and surprise us with a great game.

Animej wrote:

The problem here is that you're pushing your view of what a mature MMO is as the only true mature MMO. Second Life is there for people to do as they will. As for it being packed full of furries, that's crap; there's far more to it than that particular subset.

I am posting about mature games in the context that AoC is a mature game. You are talking about something completely unrelated. You are the one who brought up the fact that second life was there to satisfy the desire for a mature game. It's like saying if someone wants a GTA style game they should be perfectly happy playing Leisure Suit Larry which is also a "mature" title. I don't see anywhere in my post where I am saying that AoC is somehow the only true mature title. Reread what I said. Everything you quoted was simply me clarifying what I was referring to when I was talking about a mature game. I want to play an MMO which has the same grit and gore as Gears of War, by comparisson Second Life is pretty much the Sims with furries.

Animej wrote:

Except UO and Shadowbane aren't the last time an MMO was FFA PvP. Lineage and Lineage 2 were FFA PvP; the reason I didn't spend more than 4 hours playing either was due to insta-gank coming out of the newbie zone. Decrying EVE as TW2002 with a pretty gui also doesn't change the fact that you can get nailed gating in or out of any zone. As for UO, it may be old, but it's still kicking.

Lineage 2 has its own share of problems. I didn't include it because it isn't a Western MMO nor does it play like one. It is an insane and terribly boring grindfest. I am someone who has spent 18+ hours a day for weeks at a time playing EQ in my younger less employed days. I can handle a pretty hardcore grind. Lineage 2 would literally put me to sleep. I was playing two characters at the same time and it was so incredibly boring that I could not force myself to advance. I would fall asleep at the keyboard. Most people who avoid Lineage 2 do not do so because of the PvP.

The reason I am dismissing EVE is because it does not play like your typical MMORPG. You essentially play as a spaceship rather than a visible character. It is extremely slow paced starting out, it does not really allow you to have much control over the rate of your character's development, etc. I have tried and tried to play this game, I have never been PKed, and yet I cannot make myself interested in it. It just isn't fun for me. I have more fun with the insane cookie-cutterness of WoW than I ever have playing EVE. I just can't get into it. Almost every single person I know who has tried it feels the same way. Again this has nothing to do with PvP.

Shadowbane was so crappy that it was a turn off to most anyone. If you followed any PvP forums from back around its release you will see how horribly disappointed people were when it hit the market. Their dream PvP game was a steaming pile of craptasticness. Play it for an hour and tell me you would be happy playing that game if only it didn't have open PvP.

UO is alone the one game that was successful for its time despite having open PvP. I think in the time of UO things were so new that the PvP population WAS really small and as you have probably figured out people who have absolutely no interest in PvP do not want to have it forced upon them. I am perfectly okay with this. I don't want to "force" people to play a PvP game. Everyone has their own taste and I am glad to see that a lot of them are accomodated. The PvP crowd however does not have the options of the non-PvP folks. It's either learn to like asian MMOs (I personally doubt I will ever like this style of game), accept what is probably one of the worst big name MMOs to date, or play as a space ship.

There is really no PvP game with the kind of thought and care that went into the PvE of games like WoW or Everquest. Obviously I don't expect the same quality as it is a smaller chunk of the playerbase. I do however think it is a big enough chunk to support a successful well made PvP game. *shrug*

Animej wrote:

Regarding AoC's server choice, I haven't spent much time looking into the game. There's not a whole lot of interest there for me. However, I don't think it will be Conan if they go that route. It'll come off as a DAoC or WoW clone with a vastly improved UI and visuals in a Conan skin.

I don't really think it will be vastly different at least in terms of gameplay mechanics. The primary differences will be in the setting and lore. The combat system is also a bit different though from all accounts I have read not insanely different. Beyond that you will still be killing vast numbers of NPCs, doing quests, collecting gear, crafting etc just like any other MMORPG. On the PvP side of things they have a few gimmicky things that should be fun like drunken bar room brawling. The biggest difference here however will be in the fact that they are supposed to allow players to both build and lay siege to other players castles and/or towns. Only shadowbane allows for this that I am aware of. Hopefully this will be implemented and functional at release as it could have a large impact in how attached players become to the game.

Blacksheep wrote:

Windows continued support = good game

Microsoft wanting to use a game to show off the potential of DX10 doesn't necessarily mean they will be tossing Funcom insane amounts of money. The game is getting close to release and they are being very tight lipped about it. In my experience every newer MMO that does this tends to have serious issues at release. I WANT Funcom to do well, they are one of my favorite dev shops. I loved a lot of things in AO once they ironed out all of the post release problems. I just can't help feeling a bit of de ja vu as the post release behavior of the folks at Vanguard, Shadowbane, Horizons, etc keeps flashing through my head. All of the more solid games such as WoW and/or LOTRO had way more available information.

mven wrote:

You are the one who brought up the fact that second life was there to satisfy the desire for a mature game.

Way to put words in my mouth. I said that the majority of the adult market had found it's title in second life. I said nothing of the sort in the way you're interpreting it.

mven wrote:

Lineage 2 has its own share of problems. I didn't include it because it isn't a Western MMO nor does it play like one. It is an insane and terribly boring grindfest. I am someone who has spent 18+ hours a day for weeks at a time playing EQ in my younger less employed days. I can handle a pretty hardcore grind. Lineage 2 would literally put me to sleep. I was playing two characters at the same time and it was so incredibly boring that I could not force myself to advance. I would fall asleep at the keyboard. Most people who avoid Lineage 2 do not do so because of the PvP.

This is you ignoring facts again to push your own agenda. Lineage 2 is out there and very real. It wasn't received well in the US for a number of reasons, the grind being the least among them. Every comment I saw slamming L2 slammed it for the nature of FFA PvP, not the grind. You're correct saying that EVE is a departure from the typical MMO gameplay style. That doesn't make it any less a game built around true, absolute FFA PvP. Denying it because it doesn't fit your mold weakens your argument for the same reason as L2 does. As for UO, I have a hard time calling it successful. Even at its peak, the player base was extremely limited.

mven wrote:

There is really no PvP game with the kind of thought and care that went into the PvE of games like WoW or Everquest. Obviously I don't expect the same quality as it is a smaller chunk of the playerbase. I do however think it is a big enough chunk to support a successful well made PvP game. *shrug*

This statement does nothing but further reinforce what I'm saying. You make this statement based on the claim that only UO counts, and UO was a drop in the hat when I was in high school nearly a decade ago. Since then Lineage has proven that the hardcore FFA PvP category doesn't work well, and EVE shores that argument up.

I am posting about mature games in the context that AoC is a mature game. You are talking about something completely unrelated. You are the one who brought up the fact that second life was there to satisfy the desire for a mature game.
This is you ignoring facts again to push your own agenda.

Not just these statements in particular, but sometimes arguments reach that point where the ideas are less important than the interpretation of them and the overall positionalities of the participants. We've reached that juncture here, and it's time to move on before it gets out of hand.