Curse

Saraphim · May 02, 2008, 05:04 PM // 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balan Makki

Some of my favorite characters look best in mixed armor, and my Mesmer is gonna look awsome in shades. . . if only I could find a cheap pair in Pre Searing.

Oh I agree, out of 9 (active) characters only one of mine ever wears a full set. Mixing armour is one of my addictions in this game. I actively avoid looking the same as every other bugger in the game if I can.

I just think calling it "character customisation" is stretching it a bit for a few pairs of gloves and glasses. Most of the armour innovation in this game comes from the fun the players themselves have with figuring out what works well.

Stats are irrelevant on max level, so you have to get your depth somehow.

DarkNecrid · May 02, 2008, 05:12 PM // 17:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

You remarkably underestimate the PC's that gamers have nowadays

You remarkably underestimate gamers.

World of Warcraft has 10,000,000+ subscribers, and I guarentee you at least half those guys run the game in all low graphics, and you're telling me you expect a ton of people to run AoC w/o buying a new rig?

lo?

Quote:

A considerable number of those problems stemmed from the engine choice. It was probably the single biggest mistake made on that project.

I'm not a big fan of UE3. That game had so many framerate problems like jesus christ I could run Crysis better than that shit, and that was with areas that were nearly empty. o_O

The game also had more useless skills than GW does too. Goddamn.

The game could of been good, if they would of used a less TECHNOLOGICALLY NEW engine that didn't suck and actually put some thought into shit. There was some interesting things to the game (elemental shifting, taking some guys fire mana shit and making it all water so he can't do shit = WIN), but too much bad.

It was better than Big Rigs for the PC tho.

I don't even know whats going on with that game anymore, I heard it got worse somehow, which is amazing.

Bryant Again · May 02, 2008, 05:17 PM // 17:17

As a current and avid WoW player, I'm glad you're enjoying Guild Wars : ) Both appeal to different audiences, so it's good to see you found your spot.

Welcome to the forums, by the way!

moriz · May 02, 2008, 05:22 PM // 17:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctb

Citation or it didn't happen. And we don't care about the "average computer graphics in North America", we care about the "average computer graphics in North America among the target audience of AoC".

scan though every flyer from futureshop and bestbuy for the past few months, and you'll find intel GMAs and nvidia 6150SE outnumber computers with actual graphics cards 8 to 1. then take into account that these computers will be sold a lot more because they're cheaper, and you'll realize that the majority of people with a computer will have one of those two. i can't be bothered to dig up the actual statistics. i'm sure it's out there somewhere. use common sense and it's obvious that i'm pretty much on the mark.

the "target audience" is pretty much every person over 18 years old with a computer. in that demographic, you'll obviously find your hardcore gamers, but also many, many more college/university kids on laptops (most of which does not have a dedicated graphics chip), middle-aged business men with very little computer knowledge, and probably many older people who are fans of the conan series. only the hardcore gamers (and maybe the college kids and business men) will have machines adequate for AoC. that's certainly a very small viable audience.

the take-home message is this: computer parts are expensive, and not everyone is willing to fork out for them. i mean, why do you think GW and WoW are two of the most successful MMORPGs (even though GW is technically not a MMORPG, but i digress) ever created? it's because they both run on pretty much anything. joey kiddo can go over to his buddy's house, oggle at GW's amazing graphics, go to the local bestbuy and start playing on his 4 year-old machine with little hassle. you just can't do this with AoC.

bhavv · May 02, 2008, 05:28 PM // 17:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

scan though every flyer from futureshop and bestbuy for the past few months, and you'll find intel GMAs and nvidia 6150SE outnumber computers with actual graphics cards 8 to 1. then take into account that these computers will be sold a lot more because they're cheaper, and you'll realize that the majority of people with a computer will have one of those two. i can't be bothered to dig up the actual statistics. i'm sure it's out there somewhere. use common sense and it's obvious that i'm pretty much on the mark.

You dont get the point either, well done to you.

People buying computers with integrated graphics are not buying them to play games on, they are buying them for office or work use, or even just general web surfing.

People that actually play GAMES will buy a PC with a dedicated graphics card. Just about every hosehold in a developed country will have a PC, not everyone in every household is interested in, or buys games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

You remarkably underestimate gamers.

World of Warcraft has 10,000,000+ subscribers, and I guarentee you at least half those guys run the game in all low graphics, and you're telling me you expect a ton of people to run AoC w/o buying a new rig?

WoW has 10 million subcriptions after three years of running, and so what?

Guild Wars only has 5 million copies sold, likey 4 copies per the hardcore players, and quite a lot to bots, so the actual number of people playing the game is more like 1 million or less? After 3 years of the game was released?

So does that mean GW is unsuccessful because it doesnt have as many players as WoW? Of course it doesnt.

I dont expect AoC to be as big as WoW, but you dont need 10 million subcriptions to make a game good. Saying otherwise is the same as saying that GW must be crap because compared to WoW, hardly anyone plays it.

Bryant Again · May 02, 2008, 05:31 PM // 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

the take-home message is this: computer parts are expensive, and not everyone is willing to fork out for them. i mean, why do you think GW and WoW are two of the most successful MMORPGs (even though GW is technically not a MMORPG, but i digress) ever created? it's because they both run on pretty much anything. joey kiddo can go over to his buddy's house, oggle at GW's amazing graphics, go to the local bestbuy and start playing on his 4 year-old machine with little hassle. you just can't do this with AoC.

True that. Guild Wars, for as good as it can look, is decently optimized. If you want a better example, look at how well Sins of a Solar Empire has sold.

bhavv · May 02, 2008, 05:35 PM // 17:35

Guild Wars on release had a same minimum requirement equivalent to what AoC has today, dont you understand that?

A geforce 3 three years ago wasnt present in every PC. People still bought the game, it was still successful.

And you still have no clue of how well AoC may be optimised. A 6600 GT is *CHEAP, OLD and ANCIENT* nowadays. Anyone that classifies themselves as a gamer will have a better card then that by now.

Bryant Again · May 02, 2008, 05:55 PM // 17:55

It's a big "wait and see". I first got Guild Wars with about a 2-3 year oldish computer. While it was crappy, it was still able to look decent with a happy frame rate. These days, I've run into very few new games that are as optimized as Guild Wars was.

But yes, we have no clue how optimized it will be. We'll wait and see but, giving the fact that I've ran into only a couple of decently optimzied games, I won't really be holding my breath.

(I will say that I'm glad to see a game besides WoW getting mauled at

)

Antheus · May 02, 2008, 05:58 PM // 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

And you still have no clue of how well AoC may be optimised. A 6600 GT is *CHEAP, OLD and ANCIENT* nowadays. Anyone that classifies themselves as a gamer will have a better card then that by now.

A game that targets gamers today will be a financial flop. Double so for the MMO market.

The number of "gamers" is surprisingly small, but definitely too small to support AAA development costs.

The only way to cater to gamers these days is through consoles, the cost of PC development is simply too high. And there's still the old falacy that most studios cater to hard-core gamers and pushing the technology, but leaving playability way behind.

Blizzard is arguably the most successful hard-core game company today. They have a history of never pushing technological boundaries.

But overall, the water-cooled, quad-SLI, LED-illuminated gamer is rare, and overall isn't worth the cost. They exhaust content in several hours, then move on.

It may be also worth pointing out, that the only MMO that succeeded in post-WoW world was Lord of the Rings. All others either folded, were never completed, or are still in development. The few ones that did launch peaked during first month, then went into stagnation.

Just something to think about...

Rocky Raccoon · May 02, 2008, 06:03 PM // 18:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

Soory, no.

The people in GW are far worse then the people in WoW. In my first week of playing WoW, I found a level 70 that ran me through an instance and let me have every blue drop. He / she even checked the loot and pointed out anything that I had missed.

I have never in my 3 years of playing GW found someone as helpful as that. The GW community just sux.

Then you just have been playing with the wrong people.

Bryant Again · May 02, 2008, 06:07 PM // 18:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risky Ranger

Then you just have been playing with the wrong people.

You could say that to any game, really. What matters is how unfortunate a player is to keep running into those wrong people, and this is what varies from game to game, player to player.

bhavv · May 02, 2008, 06:16 PM // 18:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antheus

A game that targets gamers today will be a financial flop. Double so for the MMO market.

Oblivion, Gothic 3, Far Cry, Crysis, Doom 3, Assasins Creed, Black and White 2....

Dont think any of them were a financial flop

And the engine of AoC scales backwards to graphics cards from three years ago, it isnt just for current gamers. Some people just have a serious lack of reading comprehension.

Also, I dont think any other MMO has been as hyped up and had anywhere near as much interest or critical success prior to its release as AoC has been recieving. It's a success already just waiting to be released.

Saraphim · May 02, 2008, 06:26 PM // 18:26

Bhavv... they're not running one of those schemes where you get free 'stuffs' for virally promoting something as much as possible across teh internetz are they?

I'm beginning to wonder.

Bryant Again · May 02, 2008, 06:26 PM // 18:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

Oblivion, Gothic 3, Far Cry, Crysis, Doom 3, Assasins Creed, Black and White 2....

Dont think any of them were a financial flop

Oblivion and Assassin's Creed are available for consoles, to which I would say contributed largely to their success.

Gothic 3? B&W 2? I've heard next to nothing about those games, just previews of them (hell, no one really seemed to notice they were released).

D3 had a huge reputation backing it (Doom), a similar reason to why WoW (and other Blizz games) was such a large success.

Can't say much about Far Cry or Crysis, only that the latter was advertised by EA and was claimed to be the "most advanced game to date".

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

Also, I dont think any other MMO has been as hyped up and had anywhere near as much interest or critical success prior to its release as AoC has been recieving. It's a success already just waiting to be released.

If I got a quarter for every time I heard that...

Nevin · May 02, 2008, 06:51 PM // 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by CagedinSanity

Actually,

WoW quests flow through better, have chains that get somewhat harder, and actually relate to lore (generally). Guild Wars quests are very individual based, most of them you're just doing it for the gold. Every single one of our characters is basically a mercenary.
"I lost my treasure, go get it and i'll give you money."

In woW it's
"This gang is terrorizing our land. Clear them out." Makes a lot more sense.

If there's anything GW did do right, it was the 8 skills only. It adds a lot more strategy where in woW you can use 40 skills or so anytime.

I play both games, sometimes within the same hour. I flip between the two. I like 'em both.

Since WoW lacks Missions, one must add Missions to the "questing" category of game play. If one compares ALL the elements of questing GW has to offer (Missions+Quests) it definitely out does WoW's questing system by miles. Missions progress the story line, but most importantly INCLUDE the player in "world changing events" that directly effect lore. So the argument that it doesn't really delve into RP is extremely subjective, after playing a game like Oblivion- sure you may think the RP elements of GW are dumbed down. But even more so are the RP elements of WoW, sure if you're a heroic paladin of the human race and want to bash some horde orcs- thats all fine and dandy, but alas even WoW's quests are repetitive lore wise as well. How many times have "orc raiding parties" crossed onto realm territory and vice versa, or "threats" of hostile actions from a foreign race imposed onto the players. Hell going by Warcraft lore, one thing can be assumed above all others- Theres a lot of races, and they're always warring with each other- sometimes they back stab allies and sometimes they ally with each other against a common enemy. In it's basics its nothing but a long spread drama/epic with few long lasting characters, but rather minor significant characters that play the role of a historical figure that somehow change\ the overall plot. For instance, the characters played in the BMP missions are prime examples. All of the characters in the Warcraft universe are like this to me when viewed within the games and merchandise. The novels are a much better source for lore but to me how its portrayed in the games (especially WoW) has never really been intriguing or persuading enough to delve deeper into the world as many make it to seem.

bhavv · May 02, 2008, 06:55 PM // 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saraphim

Bhavv... they're not running one of those schemes where you get free 'stuffs' for virally promoting something as much as possible across teh internetz are they?

I'm beginning to wonder.

And if only I got a quarter for every time I heard that.....

I get annoyed by people that know nothing about other games claiming that no one is going to buy them because the system requirements are too high.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Oblivion and Assassin's Creed are available for consoles, to which I would say contributed largely to their success.

They sold / are selling great on the PC too. Assasins Creed on the PC alone is currently on the third spot for PC game sales on play.

Really, if you think that Oblivion wasnt successful on the PC, you really dont know much about how well games with top graphics and gameplay sell. And just because you havnt heard of other games that I mentioned doesnt mean that they werent successful. I had never heard of GW before I bough it, so erm, that means it wasnt successful right? (/sarcasm).

Bryant Again · May 02, 2008, 07:32 PM // 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

And if only I got a quarter for every time I heard that.....

I get annoyed by people that know nothing about other games claiming that no one is going to buy them because the system requirements are too high.

We're claiming that there will be less purchases because the system requirements are too high. And that's true: The higher the requirements, the less accessible it becomes to lower-end PCs and thus lower-ended PC users.

Unless they're catering only to the "gamers", in which case that's a very bad idea for an MMO (see Antheus' post above).

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

They sold / are selling great on the PC too. Assasins Creed on the PC alone is currently on the third spot for PC game sales on play.

Really, if you think that Oblivion wasnt successful on the PC, you really dont know much about how well games with top graphics and gameplay sell. And just because you havnt heard of other games that I mentioned doesnt mean that they werent successful. I had never heard of GW before I bough it, so erm, that means it wasnt successful right? (/sarcasm).

If they *were* successful, do you think I would've heard of them? I've barely heard any publicity on either after their release.

But I was taking that in too much of a literal sense. I knew a lot about Black & White 2 and Gothic 3, most especially that they didn't sell "amazingly". Gothic 3's last records were recorded at about 500k. I have no clue about B&W 2's success (or lack thereof) but given the "disappointment" of the predecessor and Fable I'm not going to say it's too high.

Oblivion's sales have been pretty good, but it hasn't been stated how it's run for the PC has been.

Granted, I did talk a bit out of my ass about sales for AC and OB on the PC. I'll admit that much. Haven't found PC sales for OB, though.

Sorry I insisted in this derailing, Inde : ( You know I can't control myself all the time...

moriz · May 02, 2008, 07:38 PM // 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhavv

You dont get the point either, well done to you.

People buying computers with integrated graphics are not buying them to play games on, they are buying them for office or work use, or even just general web surfing.

People that actually play GAMES will buy a PC with a dedicated graphics card. Just about every hosehold in a developed country will have a PC, not everyone in every household is interested in, or buys games.

nope, you don't get the point.

the point is to create NEW gamers, not trying to pander towards those who already are. this is because the actual computer gamer population in north america (or anywhere in the world) is TINY. you don't just want to entice over the tiny amount of players to play your game. operating on that is a recipe for financial ruin.

one of the greatest reasons why WoW and GW are successful is because they created NEW gamers, and not just recycled the same people over and over again. the way they accomplished this was that the games can run on a wide variety of machines and still look good. before picking up GW, i had absolutely no interest in online gaming at all. the last game i played before GW was D2 and heroes of might and magic 3. when i found out about how good GW looks even on my intel GMA 910, i was hooked. this wouldn't have happened if, let's say, GW required a FX5200 AGP to start.

the point of a MMORPG is to make as many people play it as possible, and the way to do that is to ensure maximum potential market. as such, limiting your game to those with a 6600GT or better, even today, is sheer stupidity.

bhavv · May 02, 2008, 07:38 PM // 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryant Again

Oblivion's sales have been pretty good, but it hasn't been stated how it's run for the PC has been.

Same article, different site:

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/700/700917p1.html

Quote:

According to the NPD group Oblivion is currently the top selling PC game in North America, Germany, France, and the UK with the Special Collector's Edition (which includes Pocket Guide to the Empire, "Making of Oblivion" Documentary, and a Septim Gold Coin for a retail cost $10 more than the non-collector's edition) right behind it. The two versions represented 13% of all PC game sales during their first week of release.

Although it did have the success of morrowind behind it, the hype and the graphics played an important part in its early sales figures. A lot of people simply bought it for the graphics alone.

bhavv · May 02, 2008, 07:41 PM // 19:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

the point of a MMORPG is to make as many people play it as possible, and the way to do that is to ensure maximum potential market. as such, limiting your game to those with a 6600GT or better, even today, is sheer stupidity.

Oh so the 18+ age rating must be even more stupid then, since most people playing games are below that age

Also, its going to be very hard creating new gamers out of people over 18. People of this age that play games have likely been doing so since they were kids.

A 6600 GT is god damn ANCIENT! It isnt a fast card and you can get better ones for £50 or less nowadays.

When GW was released it was limited to people with a geforce 3 or better. So no one without a Geforce 2 or less could play the game, so they werent really ensuring a maximum potential market either.