I had the same thought, "Is the Warhammer brand cursed when it comes to computer gaming?"
The last WH game I really liked, /and/ thought was really well made, was the first Dawn of War strategy-game series. Dawn of War 2 is prettier, but it doesn't feel as deep or as strategic -- at least not to me.
I'm not knocking Planetside 2, or saying it's bad, I'm saying that if it's essentially the same as all the other quality multiplayer online shooters I have available to me now -- merely bigger -- that's not enough of a difference to make it compelling to those who don't already love Planetside or that gamestyle.
Jef was worrying that Planetside 2 would lack /gameplay/ elements which would make it stand apart, and stand out.
I was offering myself as an example of a gamer who would only be interested in Planetside 2 if it does bring some new gameplay elements to the table.
Yes, the grand scale of Planetside 2 is cool, but a bigger cheese pizza is still a cheese pizza, no matter how delicious it may be to cheese pizza fans.
I'm wondering if we can get some new toppings going on. :-)
You are absolutely right; all this Pandaren stuff has been around since WarCraft was a strategy game. It's not new to the lore at all.
I'm not a WoW player myself, but it seems odd to damn Blizzard for things they haven't done, when there appear to be so many things they /have/ done which make certain gamers crazy.
The fact that Planetside 2 looks to be simply an SF-flavored, high-quality shooter built on a grand scale is precisely why I expect I'll never play it.
I own an XBox 360; I own a very good computer -- If I want a massively-populated online shooter game, I have dozens of good choices available to me already, with the promise of more arriving every year.
Jef's requests for context, aren't simply the fluff yearings of Mr. Sandbox, as he seems to fear. He's latched onto a bigger issue here.
If Planetside 2 is going to be seen as more than "yet another online shooter game", it needs elements which set it apart from the pack.
I have no doubt that Planetside 2 will most-likely arrive well-made and entertaining -- but if it hopes to do more than offer a familiar playstyle to a familiar segment of gamers, it needs to go beyond the tried-and-true.
It needs to incorporate elements which give gamers who don't automatically love it because it's Planetside, or because it's an online shooter, a reason to look more closely..
My opinion, anyway.
(And Jef, I'm sorry, but comparing yourself to Malcolm Reynolds verges on blasphemy. If you're not Nathan Fillion, you're just making it awkward for everyone :-) )
I've noticed that, in these discussions insisting that "Lost Elements Must Be Restored To MMORPGs", many posters will rally to the general concept (as in these comments) but it breaks down after that.
While many will agree on the general notion, they disagree on /which/ elements need to be restored.
Some want a harder game; some want free-for-all PvP; some want harsh death penalties of a specific type; some want forced grouping for the highest advancement; even the people who want the return of sandbox elements seem to disagree on which sandbox elements, and on what sandbox truly means when enacted.
Tellingly, when people cite examples from the early days of MMORPGs, they are typically citing /different/ games from that period as The One True Way
While the fact remains that major publishers /are/ risk-averse when going against the current trends in MMORPG design -- the fact that even the fans of a different flavor of MMORPG can't reach any sort of compromise consensus on feature sets is equally troubling.
The risk is that, even should someone invest millions inthe development of a major non-standard MMORPG, the self-proclaimed ardent fanbase could still splinter and withdraw from the project because said alternative MMORPG wouldn't meet their personal criteria for what makes a "proper" alt-MMORPG.
Going off-standard is risky enough. Going off-standard for an exacting, often fractious playerbase who may reject your project out of hand anyway, regardless of your best efforts, it's just too much of a long shot to be financially viable.
"They should ask/listen to the community, then!!!" someone will shout. What community? It's a cacophony of voices, all shouting for different things, even though they stand under the same flag.
More to the point on this last -- from an investor standpoint -- why bother? Just make a mainstream WoW clone in a different skin, and your chances of at least breaking even on your millions of investment go /way/ up.
For those who think I'm against an alternative to the current standard of MMORPG design, I'm certainly not.
I'm saying that, until investors see an identifiable market (not a collection of conflicting voices) that they can believe will support what they fund, in the modern age, a big-money alternative to the current flavor of MMORPG design seems a distant hope indeed.
My friends and I have often wondered why a Wild West MMORPG hasn't happened yet. The genre seems to offer a lot of the familiar elements gamers like in their MMORPGs, all wrapped up in something which isn't the same-old, same-old.
There used to be a belief that "nobody cares about Wild West stories today", but Red Dead Redemption kinda put the spike to /that/ idea, didn't it? :-)
You almost made a valid point about the problem of groupthink on these forums -- but then you had to launch a personal attack on the original poster by calling him a fanboy.
He wasn't insulting anyone. He's right; there are a faction of people who routinely post simply to attack whatever's popular, and to convince themselves they're "cool, original, and knowledgeable" thereby.
Your own need to insult betrays your own bias, and undercuts your own credibility.
But see, that's part of my problem with Shon; he really wasn't anyone of particular note for players until this Featured Episode specifically built him up as being supposedly interesting and worthy.
I don't hate the character of Shon, but in a game where Hikaru Sulu's great-grandson, Akira Sulu, is something of a cult-reference ("Where's Sulu?") and a notable figure -- and where players have met and adventured with Starfleet officer Miral Paris -- I think two worthier candidates were missed right there. Captain and XO, even.
But hey, your mileage may vary, and that's totally cool.
For me, though, Shon is already the Andorian equivalent of Captain Harriman -- and I may be too harsh on poor Harriman with the comparison. Hee hee hee.
DC Universe Online makes Legendary members even more legendary
Mar 30th 2012 5:16AM (Massively)It's great looking, to be sure, but am I the only one who feels it's still incredibly light on story-based content?
I mean, DC Comics has been about superhero stories since, well, 1938, but every time I log in, the emphasis seems to be on raid and PvP-type content.
Nothing wrong with this sort of content, per se, but I'd really like more genuine stories for my hero in the DC Universe.
Eh. Maybe it's just me ...
EVE Online declares war (more efficiently)
Mar 30th 2012 5:06AM (Massively)You're one up on me, Sarge. I'm still not sure what he was trolling about , precisely.
WAR40K devs laid off, game will no longer be an MMO
Mar 29th 2012 5:42PM (Massively)I had the same thought, "Is the Warhammer brand cursed when it comes to computer gaming?"
The last WH game I really liked, /and/ thought was really well made, was the first Dawn of War strategy-game series. Dawn of War 2 is prettier, but it doesn't feel as deep or as strategic -- at least not to me.
The Firing Line: A couple of PlanetSide 2 concerns
Mar 23rd 2012 3:09PM (Massively)Unique in scale, certainly.
I'm not knocking Planetside 2, or saying it's bad, I'm saying that if it's essentially the same as all the other quality multiplayer online shooters I have available to me now -- merely bigger -- that's not enough of a difference to make it compelling to those who don't already love Planetside or that gamestyle.
Jef was worrying that Planetside 2 would lack /gameplay/ elements which would make it stand apart, and stand out.
I was offering myself as an example of a gamer who would only be interested in Planetside 2 if it does bring some new gameplay elements to the table.
Yes, the grand scale of Planetside 2 is cool, but a bigger cheese pizza is still a cheese pizza, no matter how delicious it may be to cheese pizza fans.
I'm wondering if we can get some new toppings going on. :-)
Blizzard already talking about post-Pandaria WoW expansions
Mar 23rd 2012 2:45PM (Massively)You are absolutely right; all this Pandaren stuff has been around since WarCraft was a strategy game. It's not new to the lore at all.
I'm not a WoW player myself, but it seems odd to damn Blizzard for things they haven't done, when there appear to be so many things they /have/ done which make certain gamers crazy.
The Firing Line: A couple of PlanetSide 2 concerns
Mar 23rd 2012 2:26PM (Massively)I own an XBox 360; I own a very good computer -- If I want a massively-populated online shooter game, I have dozens of good choices available to me already, with the promise of more arriving every year.
Jef's requests for context, aren't simply the fluff yearings of Mr. Sandbox, as he seems to fear. He's latched onto a bigger issue here.
If Planetside 2 is going to be seen as more than "yet another online shooter game", it needs elements which set it apart from the pack.
I have no doubt that Planetside 2 will most-likely arrive well-made and entertaining -- but if it hopes to do more than offer a familiar playstyle to a familiar segment of gamers, it needs to go beyond the tried-and-true.
It needs to incorporate elements which give gamers who don't automatically love it because it's Planetside, or because it's an online shooter, a reason to look more closely..
My opinion, anyway.
(And Jef, I'm sorry, but comparing yourself to Malcolm Reynolds verges on blasphemy. If you're not Nathan Fillion, you're just making it awkward for everyone :-) )
The Soapbox: What you loved is still there
Mar 17th 2012 8:10PM (Massively)While many will agree on the general notion, they disagree on /which/ elements need to be restored.
Some want a harder game; some want free-for-all PvP; some want harsh death penalties of a specific type; some want forced grouping for the highest advancement; even the people who want the return of sandbox elements seem to disagree on which sandbox elements, and on what sandbox truly means when enacted.
Tellingly, when people cite examples from the early days of MMORPGs, they are typically citing /different/ games from that period as The One True Way
While the fact remains that major publishers /are/ risk-averse when going against the current trends in MMORPG design -- the fact that even the fans of a different flavor of MMORPG can't reach any sort of compromise consensus on feature sets is equally troubling.
The risk is that, even should someone invest millions inthe development of a major non-standard MMORPG, the self-proclaimed ardent fanbase could still splinter and withdraw from the project because said alternative MMORPG wouldn't meet their personal criteria for what makes a "proper" alt-MMORPG.
Going off-standard is risky enough. Going off-standard for an exacting, often fractious playerbase who may reject your project out of hand anyway, regardless of your best efforts, it's just too much of a long shot to be financially viable.
"They should ask/listen to the community, then!!!" someone will shout. What community? It's a cacophony of voices, all shouting for different things, even though they stand under the same flag.
More to the point on this last -- from an investor standpoint -- why bother? Just make a mainstream WoW clone in a different skin, and your chances of at least breaking even on your millions of investment go /way/ up.
For those who think I'm against an alternative to the current standard of MMORPG design, I'm certainly not.
I'm saying that, until investors see an identifiable market (not a collection of conflicting voices) that they can believe will support what they fund, in the modern age, a big-money alternative to the current flavor of MMORPG design seems a distant hope indeed.
The Daily Grind: Which non-existent MMO genre would you play?
Mar 16th 2012 8:48AM (Massively)My friends and I have often wondered why a Wild West MMORPG hasn't happened yet. The genre seems to offer a lot of the familiar elements gamers like in their MMORPGs, all wrapped up in something which isn't the same-old, same-old.
There used to be a belief that "nobody cares about Wild West stories today", but Red Dead Redemption kinda put the spike to /that/ idea, didn't it? :-)
Diablo III launches May 15th [Updated]
Mar 15th 2012 6:53PM (Massively)You almost made a valid point about the problem of groupthink on these forums -- but then you had to launch a personal attack on the original poster by calling him a fanboy.
He wasn't insulting anyone. He's right; there are a faction of people who routinely post simply to attack whatever's popular, and to convince themselves they're "cool, original, and knowledgeable" thereby.
Your own need to insult betrays your own bias, and undercuts your own credibility.
Captain's Log: The 2800 -- Boldly they rode into the sunset
Mar 13th 2012 9:19PM (Massively)But see, that's part of my problem with Shon; he really wasn't anyone of particular note for players until this Featured Episode specifically built him up as being supposedly interesting and worthy.
I don't hate the character of Shon, but in a game where Hikaru Sulu's great-grandson, Akira Sulu, is something of a cult-reference ("Where's Sulu?") and a notable figure -- and where players have met and adventured with Starfleet officer Miral Paris -- I think two worthier candidates were missed right there. Captain and XO, even.
But hey, your mileage may vary, and that's totally cool.
For me, though, Shon is already the Andorian equivalent of Captain Harriman -- and I may be too harsh on poor Harriman with the comparison. Hee hee hee.