It's all anecdotal. I personally wouldn't say it's a sucker bet "most of the time." I've backed 28 projects for a total of $3500 and the only one that didn't come through was a $15 card game.
I didn't say that the FTC was going to effectively enforce that the funders get refunded if the kickstarter was declared fraudulent. The FTC isn't going to make kickstarter investments 100% risk-proof. It's just there as a hopefully strong-incentive to make sure that kickstarter project organizers get their **** together and make it a point to deliver whatever it is they've promised and to try to refund their backers as soon as possible if things turn into dire straits. Considering that federal action would be taken regardless even if the organizer has spent all the money and is unable to do any refunds, I'm not expecting that they'd be let off the hook just because they're broke.
All I did was to show that when done right and ethically, kickstarter can be a good form of alternative funding without having to rely on publishers, especially those that hold IP hostages and mothball them into oblivion and allowing for spiritual successors in the same vein to cater to people who want those IPs to continue in some form or another without being totally dead, and that it's not just for "suckers".
Anyways, regardless of what the instance cap is, I don't see the same names running around from day-to-day (keep in mind that all your characters use the same name), in actual instances and the different global chats (their global chat is really freakin' weird, it's not tied to whatever zone instance you're in - often when I play with my brother, we'll be in the same instance but different global chats). I haven't played in a couple months or so, but unless it's drastically changed, it seems like there's plenty of people. Most of the game zones are fairly populated, and they have a lot of zones.
I'm not trying to white knight the game, just saying what I've seen with my own eyes.
No offense Smack, but we've personally, here at Champions, have heard that very healthy statement multiple times. Personally, watching how their updates work, I will strongly disagree on that.
Both Marvel and DCUO are big brand names with big companies behind them and big advertising budgets.
as for the new games. I hope they aren't copies because I have been watching the people on CoX channel lose the rose tinted glasses all year, as they remember the things they didn't like about the game , as well as what they liked.
apart from an occasional, "has anyone heard?". Most chat is about STO, CO and sometimes NW, as in, "I am playing this, can anyone tell me how to do this?"
Last person who tried to say something bad, got smacked down by someone else and told to take it to Zone.
No offense Smack, but we've personally, here at Champions, have heard that very healthy statement multiple times. Personally, watching how their updates work, I will strongly disagree on that.
But we can quantify how well things are, based on how often we get updates, how much work goes into events and whatnot. Also, TrailTurtle was pretty dang transparent when it came to how the game was doing, and I have no reason to doubt him.
You can listen to shadowy whispers all day long, that's fine. But still, it's just rumors to me, and my personal choice is to take them with a grain of salt.
Ha! Definitely not. Considering they just fired several of their developers, one of which they tried to disguise as said developer just leaving cause he was tired of the industry only to later confirm he was fired. Marvel Heroes isn't doing too hot and Marvel is getting testy.
CO did better, they just promoted them to STO and NWO :*
But we can quantify how well things are, based on how often we get updates, how much work goes into events and whatnot. Also, TrailTurtle was pretty dang transparent when it came to how the game was doing, and I have no reason to doubt him.
You can listen to shadowy whispers all day long, that's fine. But still, it's just rumors to me, and my personal choice is to take them with a grain of salt.
Not really. You can see how often they shove out their latest cash grab and costumes, but real updates, with tangible content are far between. A lot of the newest heroes are actually just reskins of previous heroes and powers as has been noticed since at least She-Hulk, and the latest one, Blade, even had Deadpool's powers by name for the first few days. This isn't so much a healthy statement of the games current standing as the content portion, the part people would consider content (new quests, missions or zones in particular) is on the shallow side of things.
Not really. You can see how often they shove out their latest cash grab and costumes, but real updates, with tangible content are far between. A lot of the newest heroes are actually just reskins of previous heroes and powers as has been noticed since at least She-Hulk, and the latest one, Blade, even had Deadpool's powers by name for the first few days. This isn't so much a healthy statement of the games current standing as the content portion, the part people would consider content (new quests, missions or zones in particular) is on the shallow side of things.
Regardless. Listen to rumors all you want, I'm not gonna be the guy who cites "whispers" as his sources. Just a personal preference.
I never heard much talk in-game about a lack of content updates. I think the heroes and loot are what most people are interested in. Honestly I hear a ton of talk regarding upcoming characters and character reviews (there's a big disparity of power between old and new characters which is frustrating) and nothing about new content. People get excited about the weekly events, which they do update from time to time. It is a very different kind of MMO, after all.
Regardless. Listen to rumors all you want, I'm not gonna be the guy who cites "whispers" as his sources. Just a personal preference.
I never heard much talk in-game about a lack of content updates. I think the heroes and loot are what most people are interested in. Honestly I hear a ton of talk regarding upcoming characters and character reviews (there's a big disparity of power between old and new characters which is frustrating) and nothing about new content. People get excited about the weekly events, which they do update from time to time. It is a very different kind of MMO, after all.
Yea, it's a cash grab MMO, nothing more really. And my friends list and SG list is anything to go by, there is nothing but a hardcore dedicated group of people who think Gaz can do no wrong (I listen to them regularly) with devs (particular the one that got fired) who took feedback as just hate speech and downvote those who didn't like how things were going.
Marvel Heroes is an MMO in name only as it's just basically a Diablo game with the lack of having private maps. While I see some familiar names, most names have since moved on and become disillusioned with the way Gaz is handling things and grumblings have been getting louder due to the fact that Gaz has been delivering this last year underwhelming characters. I know She-Hulk was a personal upset of mine and I wasn't the only one, while we voiced our grievances only to be down voted by the fanbois (the self same fanbois who would get upset if you dare click that disagree button on them and proclaim you a harasser) when suggesting changes to improve and fix her broken game play (game play that was a copy of a previous character no less).
The irony, those same people who would tell me I didn't know what I was talking about are now making the exact same posts and trying to proclaim them as their wild experience to the world at large, despite I still have my post stating those same problems verbatim that I made back when. Yea, it's such a great community and thriving.... with apologists mostly.
Cash grab MMO? As opposed to all the, NPO MMOs? And about not taking feedback, that sounds silly since they've had a pretty big success with basically a relaunch based largely on their player feedback. Again, though, I'm not interested in "I know a guy who knows a guy who said such-and-such."
An MMO by name only? That is a hilariously weak point to make. First off I don't know what you're trying to prove with it. Second, just because it plays like diablo doesn't mean it can't be a true MMO. MMO is not a genre, it's a feature.
What do you mean by "underwhelming characters" exactly? I see new characters used all the time. I though Ant-Man was fun, I saw lots of praise for Warmachine and Doom. Can't remember who else came out while I was playing.
Anyway, I hardly ever looked at their forums and never participated either. I'm not sure why you bring up their fanboys, trying to cast a shadow over their community. As far as in-game community, you get all kinds of people. Just like every other online community. Again though, I don't know how this relates to whether the game is doing well or not. You seem to just be bringing up any negative thing you can think of. Meanwhile, to me, it's just "I heard from a guy who knows a guy..."
"Massively Multiplayer Online" applies to what we usually think of as "MMOs" (properly MMORPGs), to Halo Multiplayer online (an MMOFPS, if you will), on up to Marvel's MMO, even though it displays and plays as a variety of Diablo.
I don't personally care for the Diablo style, but I appear to be in the minority on that. I also don't care for Marvel's game because I prefer an MMORPG, where I can create my own character rather than playing someone else's. Those, however, are merely my opinions, with which others obviously differ.
"Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"
Well, think about what it means. You got single player games, which you play locally. You have multiplayer games where you play locally on one machine, or remotely, in a small network, like a LAN party, where only a certain number of people can connect. Then you have massively multiplayer online games, where the world is constantly there, and anyone and their sweet aunt Tilly can connect, with a cap of thousands of people who can connect.
MMO doesn't mean "a third-person perspective game where you level up, gain skills, and find loot." It just means that several hundred or thousand people can be playing it at once.
Single player and multi player are not game genres. They're features of a game. Just like the MMO in any massively multiplayer game.
I agree with that, MMO is not a genre in itself. Although if we have maybe 90% of MMOs behaving a more specific way, then it could be considered a gender too.
Which means you can create a great outfit for your character, and then when you try to log in, you either get disconnected from the server, or it just strips the offending pieces from your outfit.
Game: Strip that hero nude! He is wearing unowned content! XD
"I'll never look back I've got no regrets Cause time doesn't wait for me I choose to go my own way."
Genre is supposed to categorize artistic and stylistic themes, like sci-fi, fantasy, comedy, not technical terms like "how many people can log in at once."
However, if we're going to just bastardize language and use the word genre for any sort of categorical implementation, I'll just let you know that right now I'm wearing socks of the "gym" genre but tonight I'll be rocking the "argyle" genre.
I find it funny that "single player" and "multiplayer" aren't counted as a genre in that list, despite the fact that they're all things that describe how many people can play in the game at once.
At any rate, Marvel Heroes, even when defined by that definition of genre, is still an MMO, and not only "by name."
Genre is supposed to categorize artistic and stylistic themes, like sci-fi, fantasy, comedy, not technical terms like "how many people can log in at once."
However, if we're going to just bastardize language and use the word genre for any sort of categorical implementation, I'll just let you know that right now I'm wearing socks of the "gym" genre but tonight I'll be rocking the "argyle" genre.
I find it funny that "single player" and "multiplayer" aren't counted as a genre in that list, despite the fact that they're all things that describe how many people can play in the game at once.
At any rate, Marvel Heroes, even when defined by that definition of genre, is still an MMO, and not only "by name."
I think that the term, "MMO," as often used, has gone well beyond, "how many people can log in at once," in terms of what people expect of a game so labeled. The term conjures certain expectations in terms of content delivery, storytelling approach, play mechanics, and so on. Even so, technical terms can very well describe a genre of artistic endeavor, Pointillism for example.
I think that the term, "MMO," as often used, has gone well beyond, "how many people can log in at once," in terms of what people expect of a game so labeled. The term conjures certain expectations in terms of content delivery, storytelling approach, play mechanics, and so on. Even so, technical terms can very well describe a genre of artistic endeavor, Pointillism for example.
Perhaps, but when you start diluting the real meaning of a word just because it's become popular to do so (take the word "literally" for example), then you start getting arguments like "Marvel Heroes is not a real MMO" which is absolutely untrue. Having an isometric view does not take the Massively Multiplayer Online portion out of the game.
The term MMORPG should be what conjures your expectations, not simply "MMO."
I think that the term, "MMO," as often used, has gone well beyond, "how many people can log in at once," in terms of what people expect of a game so labeled. The term conjures certain expectations in terms of content delivery, storytelling approach, play mechanics, and so on. Even so, technical terms can very well describe a genre of artistic endeavor, Pointillism for example.
Perhaps, but when you start diluting the real meaning of a word just because it's become popular to do so (take the word "literally" for example), then you start getting arguments like "Marvel Heroes is not a real MMO" which is absolutely untrue. Having an isometric view does not take the Massively Multiplayer Online portion out of the game.
The term MMORPG should be what conjures your expectations, not simply "MMO."
I had never seen the term MMO prior to its use as part of MMORPG. Even after the advent of MMORPGs I have primarily seen MMO used as a shortened version of MMORPG.
For what type of game was the term coined? I cannot find any indication that it was not coined for MMORPGs.
I think that the term, "MMO," as often used, has gone well beyond, "how many people can log in at once," in terms of what people expect of a game so labeled. The term conjures certain expectations in terms of content delivery, storytelling approach, play mechanics, and so on. Even so, technical terms can very well describe a genre of artistic endeavor, Pointillism for example.
Perhaps, but when you start diluting the real meaning of a word just because it's become popular to do so (take the word "literally" for example), then you start getting arguments like "Marvel Heroes is not a real MMO" which is absolutely untrue. Having an isometric view does not take the Massively Multiplayer Online portion out of the game.
The term MMORPG should be what conjures your expectations, not simply "MMO."
I had never seen the term MMO prior to its use as part of MMORPG. Even after the advent of MMORPGs I have primarily seen MMO used as a shortened version of MMORPG.
For what type of game was the term coined? I cannot find any indication that it was not coined for MMORPGs.
Yeah, pretty sure it was for MMORPGs, but those first three letters have a distinct meaning. I mean, they literally have the meaning of Massively Multiplayer Online, which means, a lot of people connecting to it over the internet. It's only natural that this be applied to other types and genres of games, like RTS, because it doesn't have any other literal meaning than "lots of people can connect over the internet."
If you had an RPG game that played just like World of Warcraft, but it was connected on a very large, closed network, it technically wouldn't be an MMO, it would be... MMRPG.
If you had an RPG game that is constantly online and behaves just like World of Warcraft, but has a cap of 24 people that can play it at once, would you call that an MMORPG? No, drop one of them Ms, it's an MORPG.
Here's a question, if a Neverwinter Nights persistent world was somehow changed to have a player limit of like, 2000, what would you call it? Is it not an MMO? Is it not an RPG? It would be an MMORPG in every sense of each letter (heck, it would be more of an RPG than World of Warcraft is), and yet it's a third-person isometric-perspective game. Does it lose the MMO or the RPG because of its perspective?
I'm just saying that just because a large number of people use the term incorrectly, it's not right to just make it correct so that they don't have to learn the difference between the correct and incorrect usage.
Biff, you're just being anal and arguing semantics. Regardless of whether you like the way someone used a term, if you can understand what they mean that is what actually matters. So if you understand what someone means, why not just reply to that instead of turning the thread into a silly argument about video game definitions.
I've already made that point I tried to make. Marvel Heroes is an MMO.
If you don't want this discussion turning into what an MMO is and what it isn't, then don't make posts that lead me into that part of the discussion. You do realize you contributed to the semantics argument, right?
I'm more than happy to drop it, it just seems people (including you) were interested in discussing it.
I've already made that point I tried to make. Marvel Heroes is an MMO.
If you don't want this discussion turning into what an MMO is and what it isn't, then don't make posts that lead me into that part of the discussion. You do realize you contributed to the semantics argument, right?
I'm more than happy to drop it, it just seems people (including you) were interested in discussing it.
It sounds like what are saying is, you are willing to drop it...as long as you get the last word. But feel free to prove me wrong...by actually dropping it.
Prior to the coining of the term "MMORPG", most such games were run over IRC and similar chatnets, and were referred to as "MUDs" (Multi-User Dungeons) or MUSHes (a backronym, created as a play on MUD, and sometimes held to mean Multi-User Shared Hallucination). They weren't really massively multiplayer; you could get a number of users online at a time, of course, but not in the hundreds or thousands.
For most of the (short) history of MMOs, they've been MMORPGs; it's arguable whether Halo Multiplayer should count as "massive", as while a large number of arenas might be running at a time, they've typically been limited to a maximum of 16 players each. Marvel is unusual in that while it's massively multiplayer, it doesn't allow enough flexibility in either character creation or character progression to really be an RPG - there's no role to play, really. The fact that it uses a Diablo-style high-angle perspective doesn't change the fact that it's massively multiplayer, and online.
"Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"
It sounds like what are saying is, you are willing to drop it...as long as you get the last word. But feel free to prove me wrong...by actually dropping it.
That's completely a figment of your imagination. And to be perfectly honest, it looks like you posted that only to challenge me into getting the last word in after your post.
If you think this discussion is against the rules in some way, feel free to contact another moderator to take a look at it since if I close it, I'm sure I'll be getting a PM about just wanting to get the last word in.
In the meanwhile, it seems people are interested in discussing it...
For most of the (short) history of MMOs, they've been MMORPGs; it's arguable whether Halo Multiplayer should count as "massive", as while a large number of arenas might be running at a time, they've typically been limited to a maximum of 16 players each. Marvel is unusual in that while it's massively multiplayer, it doesn't allow enough flexibility in either character creation or character progression to really be an RPG - there's no role to play, really. The fact that it uses a Diablo-style high-angle perspective doesn't change the fact that it's massively multiplayer, and online.
I would say that Halo is definitely not an MMO, because after a match or a round of matches, the "world" created by the server is wiped out of existence. MMOs pretty much always (I could be wrong but I can't think of a single one that doesn't) have persistent worlds which exist whether or not anyone is logged in. When a person logs out, they're not even guaranteed a spot back into the same game if they wanted.
Going back to Neverwinter Nights, in which players can log into a persistent world but with a similar player cap, as well as several other persistent worlds existing at the same time, and in total, serving up a "massive" amount of players, it would make a better example of if it could be an MMORPG, but alas it's not because a massive amount of players can't be logged into one persistent world.
Regarding Marvel Heroes, have you played it? There's a lot of character progression, from level to gear to skill points and skill trees. Honestly, there's a lot more in the way of options for gearing your character in that game than in Champions. And far, far more in the way of end-game progression than Champions does. As far as the true term of RPG goes, there's very, very rarely any real roleplay in most computer games, even of the RPG type, unless you're doing player-run RP. If you're just playing the game, the only choices our characters get to make is whether or not to accept a mission and which one to do first. Playing a role means making decisions as your character, and whether or not you created the character (ie, Champs vs Marvel), you can still roleplay as them. As a matter of fact, they have an in-game reason for why there are so many of each superhero running around, so nothing is really putting the brakes on your immersion to roleplay.
Anyhoo, it's worth bearing in mind that I didn't call Marvel Heroes an MMORPG, just an MMO, even though I think it fits the bill by the "newer" definition of RPG being "has RPG-like elements like level progression, skill trees, gear progression, etc." (all things that are not even required to have in a true RPG, like pen-and-paper RPGs.
It sounds like what are saying is, you are willing to drop it...as long as you get the last word. But feel free to prove me wrong...by actually dropping it.
That's completely a figment of your imagination. And to be perfectly honest, it looks like you posted that only to challenge me into getting the last word in after your post.
If you think this discussion is against the rules in some way, feel free to contact another moderator to take a look at it since if I close it, I'm sure I'll be getting a PM about just wanting to get the last word in.
WTH are you talking about? Who said anything about this discussion being against the rules? What I did say, and say again, is that you seem really hung up on proving you are right about some subjective video game term rather than discussing whatever point was in question. But if you want to keeping arguing about semantics, that's your malfunction.
I assumed that with your nasty tones and silly accusations that you wanted to forcibly stop this discussion.
I suppose nothing I can say will prove to you that I'm not "hung up" on proving anything. Discussions only work when there's a back-and-forth between people, and that's what's been going on. I don't see you getting all huffed up with anyone else who's continuing to further the discussion (again, including injecting yourself into the discussion then throwing a fit when I disagreed with you).
Call it a malfunction all you want, but I'm just having a discussion here. As long as others are willing to participate, I'm going to, also. Sorry if it gets your knickers in a twist, but that's what discussion forums are for.
Now who's trying to get the last word in? Pot meet kettle.
I'm not even trying to do that. I mean, trust me, I could get the last word in. I think he's just got something against me, since I've gotten some strange replies from him recently.
Oh I know you're not doing it at all. Just wanted to point out that he's doing the exact same thing that he's accusing others of.
Actually, I'm not. I didn't bring up the "last word" thing out of nowhere, I brought it up specifically because Biff said he had already made his point on the subject and was willing to drop it. The thing is, he was apparently only willing to "drop it" if no one questioned his point and he got to have the last word. So no, I'm not doing what he is, because I never made any comment about having already made my point and dropping the issue. Personally, I don't really care what the terms "genre" or "MMO" mean to other people, because other people's understanding of those terms is not my business nor does it affect my gaming experience. But if it makes Biff happy to keep trying over and over again to prove other people wrong about words they use, I guess that is his right to do.
Simply because others wanted to keep discussing it. I wasn't aware that us discussing it was a problem until you interjected.
Just because I made my point and others disagree doesn't mean that every other post I make is just trying to get the better of them (these are two people I get along pretty well with, what would be the point?) and getting the last word in. It's a discussion, nothing more.
Biff, you aren't getting my point. Yes, different people keep chiming in with their 2 cents on what terms mean. But you are the only one that repeatedly keeps challenging any response you don't agree with and insisting that your interpretation of what words mean is right. Other people aren't doing that Biff, only you. I only made 1 single post about the word "genre", and when you immediately jumped on it, I didn't even follow up. All I am doing now is pointing out that when every other post is from you, that is not "people having a conversation", that is basically the biff smackwell blog.
You got a strange way of seeing things. I didn't immediately jump on your post, I just replied to it. Whatever attitude you think I've got when replying to these comments is in your head.
The thing is, people are bringing up different reasons why "MMO" means one thing or the other. I'm replying to the differing reasons and giving examples as to why I think those examples are wrong. This didn't turn into any sort of bickering until you jumped in and provided the bickering.
And no, if it were me just saying the same thing over and over again without anyone posting inbetween, then it would be a "blog" but the fact that there are several people involved bringing up different points makes it a conversation. Seriously, come off it, you're the one turning this into a problem. Even when I said I was willing to drop it, before anything else happened, you accused me of saying that just so I could get the last word in. And again, why get on my case about it? There's two other people in the conversation that are sharing their opinions on the matter multiple times, just as I am, but they get no heat from you. It seems like you just have a problem with me and you're trying to pick me apart because of it.
I'm just saying that just because a large number of people use the term incorrectly, it's not right to just make it correct so that they don't have to learn the difference between the correct and incorrect usage.
Thing is, I don't necessarily think that they are using the term incorrectly.
How many people have to be playing for the multiplayer component to be, "massive?" Define, "massively," in terms of number of people...just an example of how subjective this is.
-----
And for what it is worth, to those who have posted criticism regarding the discussion (the discussion itself, not the topic of discussion), there is nothing wrong with having a discussion in which people do not agree. One in which people express why they do not agree. One in which they express their views in contrast to another's.
A discussion consisting largely of one person expressing an opinion followed a slew of others telling him how right he is can be pretty boring. I find a great deal of value in seeing a point of view that I don't initially share, perhaps one I hadn't even considered, presented. I am far more likely to gain something from someone who opens my eyes to a new POV, or who forces me to examine my own in greater detail, than from someone giving me a +1.
Thanks Smack for disagreeing with me, and expressing that disagreement, without muckslinging.
I'm just saying that just because a large number of people use the term incorrectly, it's not right to just make it correct so that they don't have to learn the difference between the correct and incorrect usage.
Thing is, I don't necessarily think that they are using the term incorrectly.
How many people have to be playing for the multiplayer component to be, "massive?" Define, "massively," in terms of number of people...just an example of how subjective this is.
The way I see it, and yeah I guess we're going into our own definition of things here, you have to look at the difference that caused them to need a new term for it. For all purposes, an MMO is definitely just a multiplayer game, so what separates it from the others?
I personally can't think of a regular multiplayer game that had more than a hundred players on at once. I mean, I don't think I know of one that even does fifty. At the time the phrase was coined, you probably didn't have more than 20 people maximum in one multiplayer game. Something that uses a dedicated server or server farm in order to connect a hundred or more people to this game over the internet is probably what I would put the baseline of "massively" at. Yeah, it's just my definition of it, but it comes from the distinction between regular multiplayer games and the necessity of a new term to mean "more players than normal multiplayer games." I think it's a logical tipping point.
Thanks for the rest of what you said, too. I'm in 100% agreement.
Garry's Mod based off Half-Life 2 had an update that allows the dedicated server player limit to be 128.
However I personally think it still doesn't quite qualify the game to be called a MMO all of a sudden, because from my understanding of MMOs, they tend to involve exploration of multiple huge or "massive" ingame worlds and zones that accommodate for such huge player populations. The biggest map size allowed for Garry's Mod is laughably small compared to such zones even if 128 players are concurrently logged in and switching to another "zone" or map in this case involves everyone being forced to logged into whatever map that's next on the rotation. The feeling you'd get from being in a massive ingame world typical to MMOs just isn't the same as being one of a 100 players running about in a single map with very well-felt space restrictions.
Using another example, that being Minecraft, the biggest server limit I've seen is 1000. Could Minecraft be considered a MMO? Well in a way yes, due to the additional fact that the random-generated worlds for Minecraft are so ridiculously vast it feels like an impossible feat to actually explore everything available.
I think that it isn't just a case of how many players are online to start branding a game as a MMO. It also has to do with exactly the kind of content that game has that is typical to the very genre itself in the most general terms, regardless of whether it's a MMORPG, MMOFPS, bla bla bla.
So anyway, DCUO has really significant problems on the PC platform with the UI. Chat is very annoying to use, and the controls with keyboard/mouse are pretty lousy--I would say clunky. If you play with a game controller, then combat and movement will be fine, but using chat still stinks.
I do like the art style in DCUO, despite how everything looks like plastic or metal.
love the artstyle in DCUO too, I wish CO was more like that style, instead of flashy plain colors with exagerated face features. but it's what we have, and it will hardly change lol.
love the artstyle in DCUO too, I wish CO was more like that style, instead of flashy plain colors with exagerated face features. but it's what we have, and it will hardly change lol.
I actually feel exactly the opposite and prefer Champs. But taste is totally subjective, so there is no right or wrong.
When comparing Champions to City, what you're probably seeing is their use of texture vs Champs use of normal mapping for most details.
If you don't have Lighting Quality set to high on your options, it's probably the reason you think those old textures look better. If you do have it on, then it's probably just a matter of taste. I personally prefer everything Champions did in the characters and costumes department better.
Comments
All I did was to show that when done right and ethically, kickstarter can be a good form of alternative funding without having to rely on publishers, especially those that hold IP hostages and mothball them into oblivion and allowing for spiritual successors in the same vein to cater to people who want those IPs to continue in some form or another without being totally dead, and that it's not just for "suckers".
No offense Smack, but we've personally, here at Champions, have heard that very healthy statement multiple times. Personally, watching how their updates work, I will strongly disagree on that.
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
as for the new games. I hope they aren't copies because I have been watching the people on CoX channel lose the rose tinted glasses all year, as they remember the things they didn't like about the game , as well as what they liked.
apart from an occasional, "has anyone heard?". Most chat is about STO, CO and sometimes NW, as in, "I am playing this, can anyone tell me how to do this?"
Last person who tried to say something bad, got smacked down by someone else and told to take it to Zone.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
You can listen to shadowy whispers all day long, that's fine. But still, it's just rumors to me, and my personal choice is to take them with a grain of salt.
Not really. You can see how often they shove out their latest cash grab and costumes, but real updates, with tangible content are far between. A lot of the newest heroes are actually just reskins of previous heroes and powers as has been noticed since at least She-Hulk, and the latest one, Blade, even had Deadpool's powers by name for the first few days. This isn't so much a healthy statement of the games current standing as the content portion, the part people would consider content (new quests, missions or zones in particular) is on the shallow side of things.
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I never heard much talk in-game about a lack of content updates. I think the heroes and loot are what most people are interested in. Honestly I hear a ton of talk regarding upcoming characters and character reviews (there's a big disparity of power between old and new characters which is frustrating) and nothing about new content. People get excited about the weekly events, which they do update from time to time. It is a very different kind of MMO, after all.
Yea, it's a cash grab MMO, nothing more really. And my friends list and SG list is anything to go by, there is nothing but a hardcore dedicated group of people who think Gaz can do no wrong (I listen to them regularly) with devs (particular the one that got fired) who took feedback as just hate speech and downvote those who didn't like how things were going.
Marvel Heroes is an MMO in name only as it's just basically a Diablo game with the lack of having private maps. While I see some familiar names, most names have since moved on and become disillusioned with the way Gaz is handling things and grumblings have been getting louder due to the fact that Gaz has been delivering this last year underwhelming characters. I know She-Hulk was a personal upset of mine and I wasn't the only one, while we voiced our grievances only to be down voted by the fanbois (the self same fanbois who would get upset if you dare click that disagree button on them and proclaim you a harasser) when suggesting changes to improve and fix her broken game play (game play that was a copy of a previous character no less).
The irony, those same people who would tell me I didn't know what I was talking about are now making the exact same posts and trying to proclaim them as their wild experience to the world at large, despite I still have my post stating those same problems verbatim that I made back when. Yea, it's such a great community and thriving.... with apologists mostly.
Silverspar on PRIMUS
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
An MMO by name only? That is a hilariously weak point to make. First off I don't know what you're trying to prove with it. Second, just because it plays like diablo doesn't mean it can't be a true MMO. MMO is not a genre, it's a feature.
What do you mean by "underwhelming characters" exactly? I see new characters used all the time. I though Ant-Man was fun, I saw lots of praise for Warmachine and Doom. Can't remember who else came out while I was playing.
Anyway, I hardly ever looked at their forums and never participated either. I'm not sure why you bring up their fanboys, trying to cast a shadow over their community. As far as in-game community, you get all kinds of people. Just like every other online community. Again though, I don't know how this relates to whether the game is doing well or not. You seem to just be bringing up any negative thing you can think of. Meanwhile, to me, it's just "I heard from a guy who knows a guy..."
Not so sure that I can agree with that.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
I don't personally care for the Diablo style, but I appear to be in the minority on that. I also don't care for Marvel's game because I prefer an MMORPG, where I can create my own character rather than playing someone else's. Those, however, are merely my opinions, with which others obviously differ.
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
MMO doesn't mean "a third-person perspective game where you level up, gain skills, and find loot." It just means that several hundred or thousand people can be playing it at once.
Single player and multi player are not game genres. They're features of a game. Just like the MMO in any massively multiplayer game.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension! - (Dr. Ivo Robotnik: You took the words right out of my mouth.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_genres#Other_notable_genres
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Genre is supposed to categorize artistic and stylistic themes, like sci-fi, fantasy, comedy, not technical terms like "how many people can log in at once."
However, if we're going to just bastardize language and use the word genre for any sort of categorical implementation, I'll just let you know that right now I'm wearing socks of the "gym" genre but tonight I'll be rocking the "argyle" genre.
I find it funny that "single player" and "multiplayer" aren't counted as a genre in that list, despite the fact that they're all things that describe how many people can play in the game at once.
At any rate, Marvel Heroes, even when defined by that definition of genre, is still an MMO, and not only "by name."
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
The term MMORPG should be what conjures your expectations, not simply "MMO."
For what type of game was the term coined? I cannot find any indication that it was not coined for MMORPGs.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
If you had an RPG game that played just like World of Warcraft, but it was connected on a very large, closed network, it technically wouldn't be an MMO, it would be... MMRPG.
If you had an RPG game that is constantly online and behaves just like World of Warcraft, but has a cap of 24 people that can play it at once, would you call that an MMORPG? No, drop one of them Ms, it's an MORPG.
Here's a question, if a Neverwinter Nights persistent world was somehow changed to have a player limit of like, 2000, what would you call it? Is it not an MMO? Is it not an RPG? It would be an MMORPG in every sense of each letter (heck, it would be more of an RPG than World of Warcraft is), and yet it's a third-person isometric-perspective game. Does it lose the MMO or the RPG because of its perspective?
I'm just saying that just because a large number of people use the term incorrectly, it's not right to just make it correct so that they don't have to learn the difference between the correct and incorrect usage.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
If you don't want this discussion turning into what an MMO is and what it isn't, then don't make posts that lead me into that part of the discussion. You do realize you contributed to the semantics argument, right?
I'm more than happy to drop it, it just seems people (including you) were interested in discussing it.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
For most of the (short) history of MMOs, they've been MMORPGs; it's arguable whether Halo Multiplayer should count as "massive", as while a large number of arenas might be running at a time, they've typically been limited to a maximum of 16 players each. Marvel is unusual in that while it's massively multiplayer, it doesn't allow enough flexibility in either character creation or character progression to really be an RPG - there's no role to play, really. The fact that it uses a Diablo-style high-angle perspective doesn't change the fact that it's massively multiplayer, and online.
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
If you think this discussion is against the rules in some way, feel free to contact another moderator to take a look at it since if I close it, I'm sure I'll be getting a PM about just wanting to get the last word in.
In the meanwhile, it seems people are interested in discussing it... I would say that Halo is definitely not an MMO, because after a match or a round of matches, the "world" created by the server is wiped out of existence. MMOs pretty much always (I could be wrong but I can't think of a single one that doesn't) have persistent worlds which exist whether or not anyone is logged in. When a person logs out, they're not even guaranteed a spot back into the same game if they wanted.
Going back to Neverwinter Nights, in which players can log into a persistent world but with a similar player cap, as well as several other persistent worlds existing at the same time, and in total, serving up a "massive" amount of players, it would make a better example of if it could be an MMORPG, but alas it's not because a massive amount of players can't be logged into one persistent world.
Regarding Marvel Heroes, have you played it? There's a lot of character progression, from level to gear to skill points and skill trees. Honestly, there's a lot more in the way of options for gearing your character in that game than in Champions. And far, far more in the way of end-game progression than Champions does. As far as the true term of RPG goes, there's very, very rarely any real roleplay in most computer games, even of the RPG type, unless you're doing player-run RP. If you're just playing the game, the only choices our characters get to make is whether or not to accept a mission and which one to do first. Playing a role means making decisions as your character, and whether or not you created the character (ie, Champs vs Marvel), you can still roleplay as them. As a matter of fact, they have an in-game reason for why there are so many of each superhero running around, so nothing is really putting the brakes on your immersion to roleplay.
Anyhoo, it's worth bearing in mind that I didn't call Marvel Heroes an MMORPG, just an MMO, even though I think it fits the bill by the "newer" definition of RPG being "has RPG-like elements like level progression, skill trees, gear progression, etc." (all things that are not even required to have in a true RPG, like pen-and-paper RPGs.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I suppose nothing I can say will prove to you that I'm not "hung up" on proving anything. Discussions only work when there's a back-and-forth between people, and that's what's been going on. I don't see you getting all huffed up with anyone else who's continuing to further the discussion (again, including injecting yourself into the discussion then throwing a fit when I disagreed with you).
Call it a malfunction all you want, but I'm just having a discussion here. As long as others are willing to participate, I'm going to, also. Sorry if it gets your knickers in a twist, but that's what discussion forums are for.
Edit: I'm not even trying to do that. I mean, trust me, I could get the last word in. I think he's just got something against me, since I've gotten some strange replies from him recently.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Just because I made my point and others disagree doesn't mean that every other post I make is just trying to get the better of them (these are two people I get along pretty well with, what would be the point?) and getting the last word in. It's a discussion, nothing more.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
The thing is, people are bringing up different reasons why "MMO" means one thing or the other. I'm replying to the differing reasons and giving examples as to why I think those examples are wrong. This didn't turn into any sort of bickering until you jumped in and provided the bickering.
And no, if it were me just saying the same thing over and over again without anyone posting inbetween, then it would be a "blog" but the fact that there are several people involved bringing up different points makes it a conversation. Seriously, come off it, you're the one turning this into a problem. Even when I said I was willing to drop it, before anything else happened, you accused me of saying that just so I could get the last word in. And again, why get on my case about it? There's two other people in the conversation that are sharing their opinions on the matter multiple times, just as I am, but they get no heat from you. It seems like you just have a problem with me and you're trying to pick me apart because of it.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Whoever you are, be that person one hundred percent. Don't compromise on your identity.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
How many people have to be playing for the multiplayer component to be, "massive?" Define, "massively," in terms of number of people...just an example of how subjective this is.
-----
And for what it is worth, to those who have posted criticism regarding the discussion (the discussion itself, not the topic of discussion), there is nothing wrong with having a discussion in which people do not agree. One in which people express why they do not agree. One in which they express their views in contrast to another's.
A discussion consisting largely of one person expressing an opinion followed a slew of others telling him how right he is can be pretty boring. I find a great deal of value in seeing a point of view that I don't initially share, perhaps one I hadn't even considered, presented. I am far more likely to gain something from someone who opens my eyes to a new POV, or who forces me to examine my own in greater detail, than from someone giving me a +1.
Thanks Smack for disagreeing with me, and expressing that disagreement, without muckslinging.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
I personally can't think of a regular multiplayer game that had more than a hundred players on at once. I mean, I don't think I know of one that even does fifty. At the time the phrase was coined, you probably didn't have more than 20 people maximum in one multiplayer game. Something that uses a dedicated server or server farm in order to connect a hundred or more people to this game over the internet is probably what I would put the baseline of "massively" at. Yeah, it's just my definition of it, but it comes from the distinction between regular multiplayer games and the necessity of a new term to mean "more players than normal multiplayer games." I think it's a logical tipping point.
Thanks for the rest of what you said, too. I'm in 100% agreement.
However I personally think it still doesn't quite qualify the game to be called a MMO all of a sudden, because from my understanding of MMOs, they tend to involve exploration of multiple huge or "massive" ingame worlds and zones that accommodate for such huge player populations. The biggest map size allowed for Garry's Mod is laughably small compared to such zones even if 128 players are concurrently logged in and switching to another "zone" or map in this case involves everyone being forced to logged into whatever map that's next on the rotation. The feeling you'd get from being in a massive ingame world typical to MMOs just isn't the same as being one of a 100 players running about in a single map with very well-felt space restrictions.
Using another example, that being Minecraft, the biggest server limit I've seen is 1000. Could Minecraft be considered a MMO? Well in a way yes, due to the additional fact that the random-generated worlds for Minecraft are so ridiculously vast it feels like an impossible feat to actually explore everything available.
I think that it isn't just a case of how many players are online to start branding a game as a MMO. It also has to do with exactly the kind of content that game has that is typical to the very genre itself in the most general terms, regardless of whether it's a MMORPG, MMOFPS, bla bla bla.
I do like the art style in DCUO, despite how everything looks like plastic or metal.
Whoever you are, be that person one hundred percent. Don't compromise on your identity.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
If you don't have Lighting Quality set to high on your options, it's probably the reason you think those old textures look better. If you do have it on, then it's probably just a matter of taste. I personally prefer everything Champions did in the characters and costumes department better.