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

Reader Comments (15)

Posted: Jan 22nd 2012 12:14PM Deliverator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What makes this a MMO?
Command and Conquer allows multiplayer over the internet.
Is the world persistent?
IMHO, this looks like C&C with a dedicated DLC store hooked into a chat lobby.

Is Massively just a Multiplayer Game site now?
And a MMO card game? Are you kidding?

Posted: Jan 22nd 2012 12:16PM Deliverator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deliverator
Can you fight more than one play at once?
Can you walk from your little corner of the world through all/any of theirs?
Reply

Posted: Jan 22nd 2012 12:29PM Beau Hindman said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Deliverator It is an MMO, yes. Is it not a single-player game with a lobby attached. The world is persistent, and most MMORTS' actually meet the criteria for "MMO" more than many "MMOs" do. Those are all other real players in the livestream.

Massively is still an MMO site, but we do have a column for "Not So Massive" games like LoL and others: http://massively.joystiq.com/category/not-so-massively/

An MMO does not need to have 3 dimensional avatars to be an MMO.

Beau
Reply

Posted: Jan 22nd 2012 12:45PM Deliverator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman
See, I watched the livestream. I didn't see any other players. I saw a map. I saw a square avatar picture move slowly across the map. I heard you say "30 seconds" "4 seconds" I heard a sound effect and I saw some battle results.

Can other players take down your cities when you are offline?
Reply

Posted: Jan 22nd 2012 12:55PM Ozewa said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman

I think the point s/he was trying to make is that just because the game calls itself a MMORTS doesn't make it a MMORTS. Basically the game you just described was another revamp of the concept that Barren Realms and Barren Realms Elite set out with back when online gaming was done on a BBS. Except that Barren Realms Elite executed the mechanics better than any of the last 60 MMORTS titles I played.

The only game in that vein that came close to that level of design excellence was Astronest. Not AstroN, not Astronest 2, just Astronest. I think it may have something to do with the game itself not being tainted by all the stuff you can purchase from the cash shop, but it goes deeper than that. The two I mentioned, every server I played on had a very dynamic top players list because the combat was actually strategic to a point.

Regardless of any of that, any of the "MMORTS" games in that vein just make me want to walk away from my computer and go find somebody to play RISK with.

The few that were actually sort of refreshing at first were completely destroyed by their cash shop, and could have easily been standalone titles with more success than having the word "MMO" attached to it. Games like Age of Empires Online and Battleforge to name a couple.
Reply

Posted: Jan 22nd 2012 12:56PM Beau Hindman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deliverator Yes, those cities are the players, along with their armies or (in some MMORTS') caravans or trading units. An MMORTS has layers of persistence, where a "normal" MMO tends to have one: the player's avatar.

In an MMORTS a player has a city. That city really acts like an avatar. The "stats" are the buildings, armies, etc. The movements and interactions with other players come from moving armies/trading, etc. Again, it depends on the specific title but some have more interaction than others.

Then you have the heroes or, in the case of this one and a few others, a central "giant" to play with. That hero or central army character has armor, stats, abilities...an avatar within a city within a persistent world. :)

MMORTS' are awesome. Unfortunately, there are just so many of them. Also, I choose the games I play usually right before I play them, so sometimes I cover some that are "not so massive." That's been the purpose of the column for a long time: to pick out MMOs almost at random and go for it. Then write it up. :)

Beau
Reply

Posted: Jan 22nd 2012 12:56PM Ozewa said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Deliverator Of course other players can take out your cities while you're offline. That is the persistent aspect of it.
Reply

Posted: Jan 22nd 2012 12:58PM Beau Hindman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ozewa I'm not sure he was saying that the game's design made it a non-MMORTS. He was questioning (from what I can tell) whether or not the game had the persistence and interaction that make it an MMORTS. As in online, massively multiplayer. I have shown that it does.

You are questioning a game's quality, which has nothing to do with its status as an MMO.

Beau
Reply

Posted: Jan 22nd 2012 1:00PM Deliverator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman
Thanks for answering my questions :)
Reply

Posted: Jan 22nd 2012 1:09PM Ozewa said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Beau Hindman

Fair enough.

Given the dearth of games available in the strategy genre, like Heroes of Might and Magic 6 and Disciples III and a half dozen other games which provide a similar experience in a much more gratifying manner, while at the same time being stand alone with accessible multiplayer and one game costs on average half of what it would cost to become competitive in one of those psuedo-door games, don't you think people would be better off spending their money elsewhere?

Does vampires in the setting really add anything to the game?
Reply

Posted: Jan 22nd 2012 3:18PM Beau Hindman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ozewa Well, I have heard a lot about this "cost" to become competitive, and have seen quite a few examples of it. At the same time, it is very possible that time can equal power as much as money can in most of those same titles.

There are some titles, like my favorite Illyriad, in which money is nothing but a bit of a help. In that game you can use money to help speed up building and for a few minor buffs in combat, but the buffs are so tiny that they are just one part of the much bigger picture. The cool thing about titles like that is that there is true (almost) permadeath...a player's city can be completely wiped off the face of the map, so the game is more intense. To gain real power you need the time to learn the skills (like in EVE Online) but you cannot speed up the learning time with money.

So, there are examples of good and bad in the genre. I just need to collect my favs in an article sometime. :)

The vampires add nothing really to the game, by the way. Then again, I'm just not a fan of the whole vampire thing really.

Beau
Reply

Posted: Jan 23rd 2012 12:25AM demonlife said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ozewa

You absolutely nailed it. Same could be said for some of these F2P First Person Shooters *especially* when the cash shop allows you to buy better guns.

Why bother? Spend $20 on a decent game and play it for years without worrying your opponents bought their way to victory.

I suspect games like this are popular with credit card-less kids who might occasionally manage to talk mom into coughing up $10 for some power-ups or a game card at WalMart.

Gee, do I really want to play online with a bunch of gothy 14 year olds?
Reply

Posted: Jan 23rd 2012 12:26PM Redhanded said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So is the theme of this game vamp versus vamp or vamp versus human? From the way Beau was described it, the vamp theme sounds like it is just tacked on to "suck" fans of that genre into trying it.

Red

Posted: Jan 23rd 2012 12:46PM Beau Hindman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Redhanded The vamps are in charge now, and humans are sort of more primitive. It's interesting, but could be replaced by almost any lore. I mean, vamps haven't been too fresh for a while now. :)

Beau
Reply

Posted: Feb 19th 2012 9:31PM mayeen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thirst of Night review and screenshots: http://www.mmohunter.com/thirst-of-night.html

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW