| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (82)

Posted: Aug 3rd 2009 10:00AM elocke said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I'm down for Champions Online. August can't go fast enough! Also, on that note, just wanted to say, after playing CoH for a few days and hating it mostly due to the control style and bland scenery, Champions Online will hopefully fill that superhero craving I've had since I even heard about ANY superhero mmos.

Posted: Aug 3rd 2009 9:57AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Games that will be better than CO:

APB
Global Agenda
SW:TOR

Posted: Aug 3rd 2009 10:25AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
APB, no. 100 player server limitations = fail
Global Agenda, too soon to tell.
Old Republic, definitely. But CO comes out in a month, OR is still a long ways out.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2009 10:31AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah youre right. Server limits ruin games. No one plays games like Counterstrike, Team Fortress 2, Modern Warfare.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2009 11:59AM Firebreak said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

You have come up with a list of games I am just as excited about but are forever away from being released.

Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2009 10:34AM Aganazer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Even if it were true, whatcha gonna do till then?

Seriously, out of those, only SWTOR is a serious MMOG and its years away. The others are niche titles that eschew many of the standard features we take for granted in the genre. They may be great games, but most people won't even consider them to be MMOGs.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2009 10:38AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
People of course play those games but no one calls them MMOs just because they are online games.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2009 11:27AM CCon99 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I find it funny people are complaining about server limits, but what Champions has is much much worse, and that's the dreaded Instance Cap that made AoC feel so antisocial. What's the point of having all of your players play on one universal server, then only allow them to play in a zone 25 people at a time? It makes grouping with your friends harder because some of your friends get locked out of instances you are in, and it makes planning guild events impossible because your guildies will be locked out of the zone too. There won't be much socializing because unlike other games where you can meet a hundred or more people (social zones like Pocket D in CoH) in a zone, CO you'll be limited to only 25 players at a time.

So people can make fun of a game like APB only allowing 100 people per server, but I'll bet you that game when released will feel a lot more crowded with 100 people, then CO will with a few thousand scattered over a few hundred instances with 25 people in them.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2009 1:55PM ultimateq said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's not limited to 100 people per server. It's limited to 100 people per combat district, That is very different from 100 people per server. Virtually all games do this.

WoW, EQ, EQ2, and other games with raid instances allows only a small number of people per instance, and even smaller with group instances. WoW took it a step further by adding "phasing", which is a fancy way to have your own instance without actually going to a different zone. The only difference is APB is allowing more per instance.

I don't think limiting the player count per district is a bad idea at all. I welcome it. I would rather have a controlled population to maximize fun. Over having a hugely crowded area where you can't do anything because it's a big clusterf**k.

If the game turns out to be bad, it won't be because of the district limit. I can promise you this.
Reply

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 7:18AM tristanfey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@CCon99

Your confusing Mission Instances with Zone Instances. Mission Instances are designed for solo, group or raid play and the limit is in place so the challenges can be designed and scaled appropriately. It is no different than any setup in other MMOs. You can plan guild events like any other game ,as everyone on your "Team" will be able to enter the instance, while excluding everyone else. World or Zone Instances on the other hand are not even close to that limit based on my beta play.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2009 5:54AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hmm I think the testers forgot about something called an NDA or Non Disclosure Agreement. You know that thing you clicked "I agree to all these things" and clicked next in your hurry to play CO Closed Beta. Yeah that basically said you cannot reveal any details about the game or your testing experience to anyone OTHER than the people you are testing with. Let us keep this in mind so we do not run our mouths about, ruining possibly what could be a good thing.

The only thing I will say right now is that the devs are still currently working on the game and improving it for launch so that everyone who decides to shell out the $50 for it will have an enjoyable experience at launch and in future gameplay time.

See ya September 1st!
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2009 10:11AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
i check out this website all the time, i cant believe the people at masively agree / are telling us to get this game with its dual payment methods... An MMO site should be looking out for MMO players not trying to sell every piece of crap game that comes out. maybe if consumers stopped buying crappy games and played the free games (that are just as good) then the gaming industry might try harder to make a good product worth our money.

Posted: Aug 3rd 2009 10:23AM wjowski said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes, damn them for charging for things like name changes and servers transfers, things that MMOs have been charging for since Everquest 1.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2009 10:26AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Free games, overall, suck. They force microtransactions on you in order to play the game. Every free game I've ever played wasn't free. You had to pay for the game if you wanted to log in at prime hours. You had to pay to reduce the penalties of death. In order to decrease grinding from 40 hours per level to 20 hours per level you had to pay for experience boosts. To fight at high levels you need to pay for the upgrades to get better equipment. Free, I think not. You can be cheap if you choose. I choose to have proper support from a team that cares.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2009 10:29AM Firebreak said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report

I could really care less about the micro transactions and I don't understand why there is all the hub dub about it. It comes down to the state of the game. If I don't think the game is going to be fun then it is worth less, if I think it will be more fun then it is worth more. For me Champions Online is worth 50+15 and that is what I am planning on paying. If I find it is worth more then that then I might buy a few of the store items. If I find it is worth less then I will be canceling my sub but I am not going to be getting all bent out of shape about the stores existence.
Reply

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 3:39PM Crode said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The major issue for me is paying for the client box. Also the subscription fee is slightly bothersome. Microtranactions are fine. I can log into the game whenever I want and I am not forced to play each day because of a subscription that I dont want to go to waste.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2009 10:29AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So someone explain to me how easy it is to forget what happened to COH. What could have been a great game was left to rot with little to no endgame, a pitiful PVP system and promised updates that took eons to appear.

How exactly will Cryptic be doing things different this time around?

Posted: Aug 3rd 2009 11:38AM Anatidae said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It is really hard to tell from the sort access I got on Friday - I was only on a friend's account when he had to work. Of my 4-ish hours I went through the starting zone, grabbed a couple more levels, then did the PvP arena as part of a quest.

PvP was pretty fun. I was having a good time. Oh, a tip for when you (if you choose to) do play Champions - most of your abilities you can move while you use them. I noticed lots of people in the PvP standing still to attack. Some attacks force you to stand still, but most don't (at least with the build I was playing around with). I found even the simple manuver of going behind my target allowed me to launch more powerful attacks where my target didn't bother blocking because he was not looking at me. Also, I would run by and attack my target then run out of range of a return attack. Then strafe back into the fight. It kept me untargeted. Out of a dozen matches, this simple tactic kept me alive the whole time.
Reply

Posted: Aug 3rd 2009 11:50AM Pingles said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Agreed. Not to mention the fact that this game seems more like an "upgrade" to CoH than a new game. Even the screenshots show very CoH-esque environments.

I enjoyed CoH but I'm not ready to play it again.
Reply

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 1:01AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm assuming you haven't been following the game at all, because Cryptic has been putting a lot of emphasis on putting varying, enjoyable PvP modes in the game from launch. Please actually read about the game before you make uninformed comments like that.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW