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

Reader Comments (45)

Posted: Feb 1st 2011 10:27PM Ergonomic Cat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The section on "how is it different from Planetside" seemed, to me, to say "It's totally not."

The clones are cool idea. Other than that, it really sounds a hell of a lot like Planetside, but with only two factions.

Posted: Feb 1st 2011 11:21PM Valdamar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So you ask him how Line of Defense will stand out compared to Planetside Next, and he reveals that the character progression in LoD is going to be almost identical to the original Planetside? Such innovation astounds me!

I'd never look forward to, or dare to become interested in, a Derek Smart game. However I am extremely interested to read about the next PR disaster for Mr Smart, which is undoubtedly just around the corner - I absolutely cannot wait to see what happens next!

I feel the same way about Derek Smart games as I do about EVE Online - no interest in playing them, but I'm glad they exist for the entertaining dramas they give birth to :)

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 12:36AM organiclockwork said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"I'm not too concerned about "buying power" because, at the end of the day, it all depends on how you choose to play the game."

By which he means, "You can either choose to pay us gratuitous amounts of money for the better weapons, or you can choose to be vastly underpowered compared to those who did."

How does he expect to be taken even remotely seriously after the debacle that was Alganon?

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 1:01AM goatfoam said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Derek Smart?

I smell fail.

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 1:52AM Birk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Note that Windows XP is not in that list. This is because we simply don't want to (officially) support a legacy OS because then we might as well support DOS. The game probably will work on XP, but we're just not going to support it."

That's a bit of a slippery slope there. A lot of folks still use XP, because Vista was a disaster and they haven't yet purchased Windows 7.

That's all good and well to not support it. I get it. The argument is the only thing that ticked me off.

-Birk

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 2:42AM SKYeXile said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
DX11 it up I say...and yes it totally sounds like PlanetSide.

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 4:23AM Cwurle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm willing to put the Derek Smart factor aside and play if the game has crouch, prone, use of cover and ballistic physics. I'm sick of arcade shooters.

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 7:41AM Lobotomist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They are not supporting XP and comparing it to DOS.
LOL

The guys just dont want money

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 8:28AM Grumms said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This game sounds like another clone.
NO INNOVATION.

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 9:07AM eLdritchZ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Is it just me or does their character creation sound like they traveled back in time and asked someone what Planetside's progression will be like?

It's even called almost the same thing...

oh well... 2 factions alreasy blew it for me... Rift will be the last 2 faction game I play... 3+ factions or no deal, period. There's always the hope SoE doesn't frack up Planetside Next I guess...

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 9:47AM dsmart said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
This will be my one and only post and only to clarify the silly misconceptions here.

1. Every FPS is just like the next FPS. With very little innovation.

2. I already made a game like LOD. It was called All Aspect Warfare. So none of this is new to me. The game did very well, which is why I decided to do an MMO and a game that was more accessible.

3. Anyone who has actually PLAYED my games, will immediately see my hallmarks by just reading the game's FAQ. In other words, its not just another FPS or some Planetside (!) clone.

4. THIS game has two sides from a game lore that has no less than 13 alien races and 23 castes. Anyone who has actually played my games, knows that. Which invariably means that I am going to be adding new races and classes (aka castes) to the game as time goes on. That was the plan since day one when I designed the game.

The two sides in LOD have four UNIQUE classes each and it goes beyond having "just two factions". I chose to keep it simply from the start.

There is ZERO empirical evidence or research to suggest that more than two factions makes a game any better, any balanced or any more fun than one with three or more. So that notion, apart from the ludicrousness of the math involved, is pure rubbish. I'm a game developer. Have been so for going on 28 years now. Developed a total of 15 games. Played - and OWN - thousands of games (http://www.dereksmart.com/pics/08-04-03). So yeah, I should know.

I do this for fun. So why on Earth would I gimp a game when I could just as easily add three or more factions if I so choose?

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 10:14AM gamebynight said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@dsmart Haha, he couldn't resist. I love how everything he says is "I'm" going to do this, and "I'm" going to add that. Because it's just his game. Not like there's anyone else actually doing the bulk of the creative work.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 6:00PM organiclockwork said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@dsmart

Your post reeks of arrogance, man. I'M A GAME DEVELOPER AND I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING SO WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO LISTEN TO WHAT ANYONE ELSE THINKS?

How about addressing the foremost concern here: The item shop. Your quote about how you're "not concerned about buying power," due to the fact that it's all about how people, "choose to play," just screams, "Yeah, we're going to put powerful items in the shop that will give people with more buying power an advantage."

It's really -not- about how you "choose" to play the game, it's about how much the items available in the item shop affect game balance. Despite the obvious controversy that comes with your name being attached to the project after the whole Alganon debacle, I'd be willing to say this game could be successful, but not if it's going to turn into something like Battlefield Heroes where if you want better weapons, you have to pay for them, and if you don't have the spending power for it then you're left out in the cold.

So instead of touting your arrogant, "I know what I'm doing so shut the fuck up," stance, how about you provide some evidence and reason for -why- what you're doing is the right thing to do, and how spending power will supposedly not be a factor?
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 6:04PM organiclockwork said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@dsmart

And one more thing:

"There is ZERO empirical evidence or research to suggest that more than two factions makes a game any better..."

No, there's not. There's also zero empirical evidence to suggest that having two factions makes it such. It's a matter of what the players want, and many players want three factions. Ever try listening to what your potential players might like? Might work in your favor.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 10:15AM startruck said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Itoao

Just do a google search on Derek Smart and the word controversy....make some popcorn..

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 10:17AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"There is ZERO empirical evidence or research to suggest that more than two factions makes a game any better, any balanced or any more fun than one with three or more."

This is pure hyperbole. I could equally well say there is zero empirical evidence to suggest the opposite position. What does "better" mean in this context in any case? Surely that is a subjective measure? I give you DAoC and Planetside, both examples of games that have used a 3 faction system and which are "better" for it, at least anecdotally.

"I'm a game developer. Have been so for going on 28 years now. Developed a total of 15 games."

You're a game developer with a reputation for developing unfinished, unworkable games, exacerbated by unbridled arrogance, bigotry and a total lack of self-awareness. Just look at the reactions of the commenters here - you earned your reputation and it is well-established amongst gamers.

You may be unwilling to consider the possibility that some of the people offering criticism are not only not the ignorant fools you seem to believe, but some are just as experienced in the industry as you. Time will tell though (again.)

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 11:49AM Titan1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well I never played any of Derek Smarts games but I do see a sci fi title on the way.
I'll do what I normally do, wait for it to launch and see how it goes before I purchase it.
Needless to say, I haven't purchased many MMOs in the last 5 years. Based on the genre history, I'm not very optimistic ;)

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 1:12PM Old Tom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Think its important to point out the difference between QOL and 3000AD. Derek took over QOL *after* the Alganon was already developed. Though I'm sure he'll sing high praises of the "huge improvements" he's made on that title.

3000AD is another story, Derek's personal development studio, producer of the massively buggy and panned Battlecruiser series. Its not only that 3000AD (i.e. Derek) hasn't produced a playable game. But if you make the mistake of buying the buggy, unplayable product, he blames you for not being able to get it to run the way Derek delusionally thinks it should. Textbook Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 1:35PM pid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Derek is a legend in my book. No one else on planet earth managed a project for so many years, features, different devs and source code. Nobody knows how many times the source code of Battlecruiser was changed because of new features that had to be included. It's his total failure that spurred new paradigms in computer science LOL

Posted: Feb 2nd 2011 2:40PM YeOldeFool said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Smart sure knows how to bring out the trolls. Even people creating anon accounts just so they can jump on the wagon to no place special. AFAIK, the guy made one bad game (BC3K?) and so? If you are going to attack someone try to do it for something that is totally different. There are so many bad, buggy and stupid (Bulletstorm anyone?) games out there but I guess it is ok because smart didn't make them.

FYI Alganon was a mess before smart came into the picture. I was in the Beta and I still play the game. If you played the game you would know that without him it would never have been finished or even still arund. Say what you will but history shows that he does his job and nobody can fault him for that unless you hate him of course which will always happen if you attack him and he strikes back hurting your feelings.

I am not a big fan of his games because I like my games simple but to call his studio a master of buggy games is stupid and you should be laughed out. Well funded studios with awesome games are shutting down and you think that a master of buggy games is around because of what? We don't even buy awesome games anymore so obviously there is a market for his games. You don't have to like them you can laugh at him or whatever because you clearly hate him. Everyone hates Bobby Kotick at Activision and am sure that he doesn't care about you because you don't exist. You exist because smart bothers to respond to trolling because honestly he can't help himself. So if your going to troll do it without posting crap that only you believe in.

Also you do know that if you make personal insults against someone they will be deleted correct? So why do it?

Featured Stories

MMO Week in Review: QueueAge

Posted on Sep 21st 2014 8:00PM

StarCraft II: An MMO player's perspective

Posted on Sep 21st 2014 4:00PM

One Shots: The sacred bosom dance

Posted on Sep 21st 2014 10:00AM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW