Title: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Mrbloodworth on February 13, 2008, 11:00:41 AM Quote I know that all of you are anxious to learn more about what's up with Age of Conan, especially after our recent announcement. I will use this opportunity to try to, in a rather detailed manner, go through the very essence of the game – what we have accomplished, what we have changed, where we stand, and also touch on the great future ahead. As all of you know we are deep in Beta at the moment, and so far way more than ten thousand people have been invited. Naturally not all people are playing all the time (reminder from me: check your email;), but we have some really awesome testers, hacking away at our systems and design. As you all also know we have been in various stages of beta for a long time, but it's over the last months we have really been able to get the feedback we need. Let me take side-step here to tell you a bit how we look at various aspects of the game. You probably don’t know this, there are more than 500 or so code-features that we have in the game. Each of these features are tracked with a status description defined by QA, beta testers, the core team etc. They also have a level of importance. We do this for all the content as well, every region/zone, monster, mesh and item. We do this to try to make sure nothing slips through the cracks – that everything gets enough testing, polish and rework. We, as most developers, call each round of creation, testing and polish “iterations”. The higher the iteration count, the better the result. Most of the content and most of the features have been deployed to the beta, or are waiting for deployment in QA. Let me give you an example on some things we have a special focus on right now. Things like core hands-on combat (iteration nine now), items and quest rewards (iteration 3), feat system (was redesigned after last delay. It is now in a new iteration and feels truly awesome), PvP mini-games (iteration three, soon going live on Beta, with more areas on the way) and GUI (iteration 5, 3, 2 or one depending on the area) are all things we have a special eye on. Some places in our development things are coming slowly to the beta version, in other places it is blindingly fast. As an example; when the new rendering engine was patched to beta recently, the engine we had on the beta was almost three months old. On other stuff we patch it out almost instantly, and what it all boils down to is quality and iteration. Is it good enough to test yet, are we happy about it? That is why we have features in the beta which can only be triggered by GM commands (like building a battle keep). The entire foundation and code is there though– it just needs cleanup before it is enabled. Through the rest of February and March (and beyond) we will implement what we have, make it available to test, and then polish, and polish. Once we move towards our initial March deadline we will then focus harder on shifting to a launch mind-set, but still continue the polish as we move towards May 20th. Seeing from my side of things, and seeing that I can play or peek at ALL parts of the game, I therefore actually feel very good these days. It’s busy, for sure, but what we have coming for you is something special. So then; what about the cuts you might have heard about after the community event? First of all; we wanted to tell our community sites this first as they are so important to us. That some cuts had to come is a natural part of creating an MMO, and I will tell you why. As you all know it is my responsibility as a Game Director to guide the vision, tinkering at every little part of the game to make the WHOLE much better than each of the parts. That means that my job is not only about creating but also about changing stuff, or cutting them – or as in the case of classes pool them up. At the end of the day someone has to say «this was a much better idea on paper than in the game. Let us focus on what is there – for the good of the whole game.» I do this all the time, through the whole development cycle. I do this on hundreds of things you have never heard about. I do this with regret more often than not, but I always know it is the right thing to do. With more than 500 features, tons of content and endless combinations of features and content to balance - each and every one a building block in the great MMO world of Hyboria, it must be done. For each and every single one it is my job to go in and say «go go go», or, «cut», or «this must change». I don't do alone of course, thousands of beta testers, the Funcom team and our close partners are also part of this. For let's face it. When we announced Conan in 2005 we had to go out with a feature list. We had to communicate what our game was about. When announcing a feature list we also made a promise to you! And our promises are very, very important to us as a company as well as to me as a person. When it comes down to the essence of this promise to you it is however clear that the most important is the one about giving you a good game as a whole when played, not as a list of features on a piece of paper or in a message on a board. I wish I had the fantastic ability to communicate an idea, a vision, an feeling – not as a list of features in mere words ,p Sadly, it is not possible. List of features are what the players expect and will get. I will go through the list of features changed or cut compared to what it sounded like three years ago. And, honestly, these cuts DO actually make our game better, I know you might not want to see this from my point of view, but it’s true. Global Forced Player Formations – This is a fantastic idea on paper, and we have even demoed it live. At E3 we had fifty people in a formation. The player formations were implemented and tested, we even have tools to set up positions and add their effects. The problem was, it never excited people to lose control over their characters. Having your character move when someone else moves sort of undermines the idea of a game don’t you think? The coordination of a voluntary formation was just too much for most players, especially with the collision system we have. It simply wasn’t fun! It has now melted down to location based effects only for some classes. (Stand in line with a Conqueror when he is running his formation, and you will have a great deal of resistance vs knockbacks for instance…) Two more classes merged – The Lich into the Necromancer and the Stormcaller and Scion of Set merged into the Tempest of Set. I use the word merge here instead of cut, as we have not really cut what those classes could do. We have rather taken the best of what they had, to make our other classes even more unique. At the end of the day we chose «unique, varied, fun, solid». Remember that unbalanced classes are the number one topic of all released MMOs, or where you know EXACTLY what a class must do in the end-game. When it comes to our classes it has been more important for us to look at the whole instead of each single piece. Prestige Classes - It was a great idea those many years ago before we got into the depth of our character progression, but as we moved deeper and deeper into development and our internal alpha testing we found that the prestige classes were not giving the experience they were supposed to. In fact, the prestige classes were doing the opposite of what we wanted them to do when they got into the mix. It didn't give more variety or more solid character progression, it rather cornered the player. We wanted character progression to be about choice, and not about running down a small corridor to a given end. The end result was something people weren’t used to and upset them too much. Going to hell as a result of screwing up your spell-weaving - Hmmm, two crucial magicians wiped from a raid test sort of left us asking if this idea was even good on paper ;p I rest my case. That was our cuts, and you might not ever see these things either. It’s not a lot, and it won’t make the game any lesser. In fact, most of our ideas and announced features have proven to be sound, well performing features, and the ones who haven’t been was better off left out. That is not to say that everything stays the same as it was originally intended, seldom anything do, it only means that we have found that the vision was working as intended, and gone with that. This means that Age of Conan keeps on having a feature list which is groundbreaking for the launch of any MMO. I mean, the siege PvP is still in (and you will have an awesome time with it as you come to the end-game), mounted combat is still in (and it works, he he, I know some didn't believe we could pull that one of ;p), our great hands-on combat system is still in, PvP progression is still in, our raid dungeons are still in, player-made cities are still in (and they will still be in the resource and building regions) tradeskills are still in, thousands of items and great rewards are still in, all of our dungeons are still in (and they look and play great), all of our cities are still in, Conan is still in the game, Tarantia noble district is still there, our destiny quests are still there, our thousands of general quests are still there, our amazing landscapes are still there (and working great with the updated engine;), our 7.1 audio technology is still in (and what an audio landscape!), the dynamic camps are still there, the AI is still there, the hundreds of emotes are still there (yes, you can sit of course – even on chairs – just wait and see ;p), the ability to solo to level 80 is still in (but it won't be trivial), the feat tree is still in (and getting better all the time!), great solo game play in the beginning is thriving, you can behead, dismember, gut and gawk at the sexiest females in the MMO universe… ...phew. When we gave you our feature list it was not an empty marketing promise to merely grab your attention, but our serious effort of telling you what we were trying to accomplish. We told you about our vision for the game. The vision has not changed at all! The true Conan experience awaits. So what about the open beta then, when can you get to play? We will continue to invite more and more people to our general beta and our tech events all the way up to the end of April. If that number goes up to 35000 I wouldn't be very surprised at all, perhaps even more. With these numbers we are able to test all we need to test – and to control the logistics of a simultaneous US and European launch in 4 languages! And then in May, well, we will soon tell you ;p! So what about the times ahead then? In one of the first postings I did several years ago I talked about what I think we have a proud tradition of doing in Funcom – have a dialogue with our players. We ask, you tell - we listen, you ask, we tell - you listen. In the post launch road this is what we will have the highest focus on – dialogue. An MMO is a joint venture. The first months will only be about instantly (or as fast as possible) deal with “issues”. After that, we shall have more foci: expansion packs, live content updates and working on an Xbox 360 version. Before launch I plan to commit on a roadmap for all content that we at that time want to add, change or investigate. I am not sure I will communicate this entire plan, but some of it will come as another statement, and will include loose dates with a solid order. I plan to make some of these features and areas actually come in the order as decided by a poll. We shall see what the future brings! I have told the dev-team quite often – “I have never worked on a better team”. I can now say to you, “I have never worked on a game of which I have been more proud”. The other day the Combat and Control team and I visited a level 37ish “outdoor dungeon” called the “Sanctum of the Burning Souls”. It is a group instance. We were sweating through the dungeons barely managing to stay alive as the Guardian lost aggro because a Barbarian did too much dps or the Tempest of Set went out of mana and couldn’t keep his heals up - and I thought to myself: “I am playing a real, deep, fun and truly engaging MMO here, but with approaches and action like no other online game before!» The great house of Hyboria has been erected, and we are now doing the final interior work. The red (blood stained;) carpet is ready to be rolled out . Soon! And I just know you will love most all of what we have ready for you. I know this now. Yours truly Gaute Source (http://mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setview/features/loadFeature/1765/gameID/191/page/1) (Warning, MMORPG.com) Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Evildrider on February 13, 2008, 11:46:13 AM I stopped caring about this game.. As I feel it's going to tank like Vanguard did.
Unfortunately I know a bunch of people that are salivating over the game like it's the second coming. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Wershlak on February 13, 2008, 11:52:03 AM I stopped caring about this game.. As I feel it's going to tank like Vanguard did. Unfortunately I know a bunch of people that are salivating over the game like it's the second coming. I'm conflicted. Part of me deep down inside is excited about this game while the rest of me hates that part. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Mrbloodworth on February 13, 2008, 12:12:42 PM I think a lot of people now, just don't put as much into a "Coming soon" game anymore. For various reasons.
However, i am looking froward to checking this game out. And this blog article is a decent one, and i found it somewhat telling about the man who wrote it. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: slog on February 13, 2008, 12:14:28 PM While I really like some of the PvP ideas, I have no faith in Funcom's ability whatsoever.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Signe on February 13, 2008, 12:33:05 PM Well, you know me. I try very nearly almost everything. I am, however, under no illusion that this game and ALL the games on the horizon will be anything more than a smelly pile of shitey shite shite. I am almost looking forward to the launches.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: tmp on February 13, 2008, 12:35:57 PM That's lot of words but in the end doesn't really tell much.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Draegan on February 13, 2008, 01:02:53 PM Nice PR piece.
This game is not anywhere near VG I don't think. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Venkman on February 13, 2008, 01:29:37 PM I think a lot of people now, just don't put as much into a "Coming soon" game anymore. For various reasons. Yes. The genre is saturated now, and the veteran set has their favorites, split into factions somewhat. AoC is unfortunately in this wierd zone of not directly appealing to any of the factions, while trying to carry the whole play2crush thing that didn't work so well in the past either. The game world itself boasts the kind of things young aggressive males respond to, but it's a bit over the top I think even for them. And no matter the technical achievements on the graphics, the screenshots show a world that doesn't inspire visitors, even less so than the dungy/brown of EQ2. Great for a very core group of people who like the lore, but I wonder about the size of that core versus the size it needs to be for budget. But this is all based on the public info. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Dash on February 13, 2008, 01:32:10 PM Cant bring myself to care much about this game for some reason. Maybe it will surprise me somehow. Depending on when it comes out I may give it a go, or if word of mouth is good.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Ingmar on February 13, 2008, 03:53:56 PM That part about the guardian losing aggro because the barbarian did too much dps and the set priest ran out of mana healing doesn't really fill me with a lot of "hey, this fantasy MMO will be DIFFERENT" glee.
Also wtf: if the barbarian can't take a few hits, this game is just not Conan. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Signe on February 13, 2008, 04:34:55 PM Vanguard was terrible. I hope this game isn't that terrible. That would be just terrible!
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Simond on February 13, 2008, 05:08:16 PM Nice PR piece. Which is a shame, because at least watching Vanguard crash and burn was amusing. Hell, watching Utnayan get proven (mostly) correct and the revelations about Brad McQuaid gave VG a sort of meta-relevance. AoC is shaping up to be merely mediocre-to-poor...and that's no fun at all.This game is not anywhere near VG I don't think. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Margalis on February 13, 2008, 05:09:16 PM At least the reasoning mostly makes sense. I have to question the spell-weaving thing though. They have a feature where you can die if you screw up, someone screws up and dies, and that convinces them that it's a bad idea? What?
Forced formations are a dumb idea, good they recognized this. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Dtrain on February 13, 2008, 05:25:58 PM I was playing russian roulette last night with a friend. He blew his head off and then I was like... "Woah, maybe this isn't such a good idea afterall."
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: UnSub on February 13, 2008, 07:38:11 PM There's a train of thought that goes, "Magic is so powerful, but it should have a downside too! I know, mages can go mad / hurt themselves / go to hell if they don't cast right!". Such things are dark and edgy.
Of course, such systems aren't fun for mages and completely ignore the fact that if you want dark and edgy, sword-weilders should have a chance of chopping their own head off if they do it wrong. I'm still interested in AoC, but I'm not particularly confident about it. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: tmp on February 13, 2008, 07:51:59 PM At least the reasoning mostly makes sense. I have to question the spell-weaving thing though. They have a feature where you can die if you screw up, someone screws up and dies, and that convinces them that it's a bad idea? What? It wasn't the dying part that convinced them. It was the "our dumb spellcasters just sent themselves to hell so entire raid is sitting on their asses twiddling thumbs and giving boss mob over there dirty looks until they drag themselves out of it" that did it. They wouldn't "just" die, the going to hell part was literal.Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Threash on February 13, 2008, 07:52:24 PM Forced formations worked fine in sb, they were only used instead of a /follow command though nobody would ever use them in combat.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Velorath on February 13, 2008, 08:02:48 PM I think a lot of people now, just don't put as much into a "Coming soon" game anymore. For various reasons. However, i am looking froward to checking this game out. And this blog article is a decent one, and i found it somewhat telling about the man who wrote it. I just take a wait and see stance with most games these days. I don't tend to feel the need to rush to judgement before I've even played the game, and I think a lot of people that do just want to be able to get their "I told ya so"'s in after the game releases. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: NiX on February 13, 2008, 09:38:08 PM Reading the first paragraph made me miss Mark Jacobs state of the game.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Venkman on February 14, 2008, 05:36:51 AM Ya know, I had forgotten all about the formations thing. Had they been planning something where being in a formation extended your range, or buffed your armor, added some sort of impulse/morale boost or in any way?
If not, what would be the point? You're either forcing a PUG to work together in ways they never would anyway or will be ignored by the VoIP coordinated players who do it anyway. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: slog on February 14, 2008, 05:44:20 AM Forced formations worked fine in sb, they were only used instead of a /follow command though nobody would ever use them in combat. I think Formations would have been used in SB more if it had collision detection. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: MrHat on February 14, 2008, 05:56:14 AM Quote The other day the Combat and Control team and I visited a level 37ish “outdoor dungeon” called the “Sanctum of the Burning Souls”. It is a group instance. We were sweating through the dungeons barely managing to stay alive as the Guardian lost aggro because a Barbarian did too much dps or the Tempest of Set went out of mana and couldn’t keep his heals up - and I thought to myself: “I am playing a real, deep, fun and truly engaging MMO here, but with approaches and action like no other online game before!» That makes me not want to play the game at all. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Draegan on February 14, 2008, 06:06:34 AM Quote The other day the Combat and Control team and I visited a level 37ish “outdoor dungeon” called the “Sanctum of the Burning Souls”. It is a group instance. We were sweating through the dungeons barely managing to stay alive as the Guardian lost aggro because a Barbarian did too much dps or the Tempest of Set went out of mana and couldn’t keep his heals up - and I thought to myself: “I am playing a real, deep, fun and truly engaging MMO here, but with approaches and action like no other online game before!» That makes me not want to play the game at all. Why? Because you're tired of RPG combat or are you tired of the genre as a whole? Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: slog on February 14, 2008, 06:07:56 AM Quote The other day the Combat and Control team and I visited a level 37ish “outdoor dungeon” called the “Sanctum of the Burning Souls”. It is a group instance. We were sweating through the dungeons barely managing to stay alive as the Guardian lost aggro because a Barbarian did too much dps or the Tempest of Set went out of mana and couldn’t keep his heals up - and I thought to myself: “I am playing a real, deep, fun and truly engaging MMO here, but with approaches and action like no other online game before!» That makes me not want to play the game at all. Not sure how I missed that. LOL? I can't imagine any other MMO where tanks lose aggro to DPS and healers go /oom. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: MrHat on February 14, 2008, 08:42:53 AM No, because the guy in charge of the overall vision of AoC used that example as one that made him think to himself: wow this is real, deep, fun and engaging.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Draegan on February 14, 2008, 09:19:06 AM Or maybe that it was a fun experience where shit hit the fan and the came through in the end with a win and it was memorable because he was playing with his friends?
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: bhodi on February 14, 2008, 09:36:46 AM I think there are people with a whole mess of things to say, but who are muzzled by the NDA. Even though some of you might want to play, I think it's good to delay (until after the NDA goes away) so that you can say "Hey. Okay. Let's try this today."
Or, alternatively, "No way. I don't want to play." Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Wershlak on February 14, 2008, 09:38:16 AM Quote The other day the Combat and Control team and I visited a level 37ish “outdoor dungeon” called the “Sanctum of the Burning Souls”. It is a group instance. We were sweating through the dungeons barely managing to stay alive as the Guardian lost aggro because a Barbarian did too much dps or the Tempest of Set went out of mana and couldn’t keep his heals up - and I thought to myself: “I am playing a real, deep, fun and truly engaging MMO here, but with approaches and action like no other online game before!» Not sure how I missed that. LOL? I can't imagine any other MMO where tanks lose aggro to DPS and healers go /oom. I'm pretty sure the rest of the story goes like this. Quote Then after a few more minutes of this barely staying alive we wipe. Then the Tempest of set says "L2P newbz" and uses what we call in AOC his "hearthstone" and we were without a healer - and I thought to myself: “I created a real, deep, fun and truly engaging MMO here, but with approaches and action like no other online game before!» would look real good on my resume when this game fails" Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: tkinnun0 on February 14, 2008, 10:08:38 AM Quote The other day the Combat and Control team and I visited a level 37ish “outdoor dungeon” called the “Sanctum of the Burning Souls”. It is a group instance. We were sweating through the dungeons barely managing to stay alive as the Guardian lost aggro because a Barbarian did too much dps or the Tempest of Set went out of mana and couldn’t keep his heals up - and I thought to myself: “I am playing a real, deep, fun and truly engaging MMO here, but with approaches and action like no other online game before!» That makes me not want to play the game at all. And then, Conan stepped in from the shadows and thrust his sword deep into the guts of the fake Cimmerian while throwing his knife right through the left eye of the Guardian. With one swift movement, Conan drew his sword from the dying Barbarian, who in death showed himself to be the pitiful scoundrel he had sought not to be in life. The leader of the Burning Souls had been momentarily dazed by Conan's entrance, but now charged Conan. Dodging the his blows from up, Conan aimed low at his ankle, slicing it right off, falling him down on his knees. Using a dexterity only a true Barbarian possesses, Conan sprang and jumped high at the Diamond of Souls embedded in the head of statue of their animal god, using the back of the leader of the Burning Souls as a stepping stone. With the diamond in hand, Conan was already leaving, when the Tempest of Set called. "What about me", she inquired. "You should choose your companions more carefully, for these murderous villains would have surely killed you, or worse", replied Conan. "Luckily for you, I am only going to steal a kiss." Right? RIGHT??? Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Ingmar on February 14, 2008, 10:35:41 AM Quote The other day the Combat and Control team and I visited a level 37ish “outdoor dungeon” called the “Sanctum of the Burning Souls”. It is a group instance. We were sweating through the dungeons barely managing to stay alive as the Guardian lost aggro because a Barbarian did too much dps or the Tempest of Set went out of mana and couldn’t keep his heals up - and I thought to myself: “I am playing a real, deep, fun and truly engaging MMO here, but with approaches and action like no other online game before!» That makes me not want to play the game at all. And then, Conan stepped in from the shadows and thrust his sword deep into the guts of the fake Cimmerian while throwing his knife right through the left eye of the Guardian. With one swift movement, Conan drew his sword from the dying Barbarian, who in death showed himself to be the pitiful scoundrel he had sought not to be in life. The leader of the Burning Souls had been momentarily dazed by Conan's entrance, but now charged Conan. Dodging the his blows from up, Conan aimed low at his ankle, slicing it right off, falling him down on his knees. Using a dexterity only a true Barbarian possesses, Conan sprang and jumped high at the Diamond of Souls embedded in the head of statue of their animal god, using the back of the leader of the Burning Souls as a stepping stone. With the diamond in hand, Conan was already leaving, when the Tempest of Set called. "What about me", she inquired. "You should choose your companions more carefully, for these murderous villains would have surely killed you, or worse", replied Conan. "Luckily for you, I am only going to steal a kiss." Right? RIGHT??? :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Evildrider on February 14, 2008, 11:20:43 AM Quote The other day the Combat and Control team and I visited a level 37ish “outdoor dungeon” called the “Sanctum of the Burning Souls”. It is a group instance. We were sweating through the dungeons barely managing to stay alive as the Guardian lost aggro because a Barbarian did too much dps or the Tempest of Set went out of mana and couldn’t keep his heals up - and I thought to myself: “I am playing a real, deep, fun and truly engaging MMO here, but with approaches and action like no other online game before!» That makes me not want to play the game at all. Not sure how I missed that. LOL? I can't imagine any other MMO where tanks lose aggro to DPS and healers go /oom. Umm DDO. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Venkman on February 14, 2008, 11:34:20 AM You saw the green text right? :-)
Seriously, that is every MMORPG with an aggro mechanism. Which I think is all of them, 'cept maybe ATiTD. Quote from: Draegen Or maybe that it was a fun experience where shit hit the fan and the came through in the end with a win and it was memorable because he was playing with his friends? An important point; however, I think the core issue is around "but with approaches and action like no other online game before".See above: every MMORPG with aggro. In this one paragraph alone AoC is summed up as more of the same with a different look. Even if that's not actually the case, given that the core AoC target is already in the genre, they need to be talking about real differences, not fake marketing-speak/PR ones. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: tmp on February 14, 2008, 11:41:49 AM however, I think the core issue is around "but with approaches and action like no other online game before". I find it perfectly with sync with other gem of that report, "gawk at the sexiest females in the MMO universe…"Let's just say it'd take rather peculiar tastes to say that with straight face. That or Bradesque approach to development of game. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Draegan on February 14, 2008, 12:07:38 PM If their whole directional attack vs. opponent's shields or defense actually works, it's definitely a change in the combat area.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Nerf on February 15, 2008, 01:25:48 AM AC1 had directional attacks (low, medium, high) and different AC for different zones in 1999. It's been almost 10 years now, I wouldn't call it groundbreaking.
This game will be fun for the gore and decapitations, I think the combat is going to end up getting macro'd for most people, so it'll be pretty neat having to do the different swings for different combos in the beginning, but it's going to boil down to press 1-9 in the end. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Tebonas on February 15, 2008, 02:00:59 AM Or Omega (1987)
Nothing is new and groundbreaking anymore. Its about finding the right mixture. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Ratman_tf on February 15, 2008, 07:50:44 AM AO had the aggresive/defensive slider. Which everyone set to max aggresive and forgot about. :grin:
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: K9 on February 15, 2008, 08:57:22 AM AO had the aggresive/defensive slider. Which everyone set to FIFY Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Ratman_tf on February 15, 2008, 10:26:28 AM AO had the aggresive/defensive slider. Which everyone set to FIFY lolwut? First thing I do with new chars (when I played AO) was set full agg. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: WayAbvPar on February 15, 2008, 10:30:13 AM I thought the first thing everyone did in AO is rebuild their newly formatted HDD.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Ratman_tf on February 15, 2008, 12:26:03 PM I thought the first thing everyone did in AO is rebuild their newly formatted HDD. :drill: Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: K9 on February 15, 2008, 04:45:37 PM lolwut? First thing I do with new chars (when I played AO) was set full agg. Past level 50 or so there's really no reason to be full agg FWIW. I don't think I moved off full def except for odd situations in 2 years or so :o :Sorry for going offtopic: Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Phred on February 16, 2008, 04:07:34 PM I thought the first thing everyone did in AO is rebuild their newly formatted HDD. Only if they were silly enough to subscribe in the first 6 months. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Signe on February 17, 2008, 08:08:13 AM I was afraid to play AO after it tried to stab me in the face with my computer. I might give AoC a try, but only after I'm sure everyone I know has survived.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: stray on February 17, 2008, 08:32:17 AM Technically, AO was the first MMO I ever bought and played. I liked the name. Before that, I was just looking over the shoulder of my friend playing
That was late 2003, early 2004-ish when I played it. Enough time to get their shit together. And it did run well, I guess. It just sucked. Also, when I started seeing high level characters, I was completely demoralized. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Hoax on February 19, 2008, 07:10:32 AM Post WoW new MMO resentment?
AoC if it isn't broken might be pretty damn cool, the chance of it not being broken is pretty fucking slim. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Slayerik on February 19, 2008, 10:10:39 AM I wouldn't go so far as to say AO sucked. It had some drawbacks but it did many things well, and I may be sounding like a broken record.
Atmosphere is being underrated here. How many virtual worlds do you go into and think....'this doesn't really feel alive.' AO was not like that, the game's graphics and music were excellent (at that time compared to other MMOs). If AoC can reproduce atmosphere with some fun and good PVP, my Eve guy will be doing some long trains for months. If they try to suck Wow's cock like so many other recent MMOs...I'll make it about a month I imagine. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Slayerik on February 20, 2008, 08:01:42 AM http://pc.ign.com/articles/853/853174p2.html
Back on topic (kinda), a quicky review of some of the city building and mounted combat info. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Xuri on February 20, 2008, 10:22:00 AM GDC08 Presentation (http://trailer.onlinewelten.com/videos,id3264,age_conan_praesentation.html) - Rather lengthy presentation showing plenty of gameplay, including a short dungeon crawl, some mounted combat,
EDIT: Oopsy, city-building wasn't in there. That was shown in another video from january or some such. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: tazelbain on February 20, 2008, 10:36:18 AM Quote If you're a member of one of the eight or nine best guilds on the server, your city is entered into PvP eligibility, which means others can attack, break apart structures, and if they manage to smash your keep, can take over. After a keep is destroyed, there should be enough resources lying around so the conquerors can at least build a keep of their own, so they don't have to wander around scouring for resources to merely claim ownership. Seems like a strange distinction. I would guess you could still camp a city even if it isn't attackable.Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Lantyssa on February 20, 2008, 01:24:08 PM GDC08 Presentation (http://trailer.onlinewelten.com/videos,id3264,age_conan_praesentation.html) - Rather lengthy presentation showing plenty of gameplay, including a short dungeon crawl, some mounted combat, I like!Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: NiX on February 20, 2008, 02:31:48 PM GDC08 Presentation (http://trailer.onlinewelten.com/videos,id3264,age_conan_praesentation.html) WHY DOES HE HAVE TO SAY "UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" SO FUCKING MUCH!? :ye_gods:Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Draegan on February 20, 2008, 04:32:36 PM Because English is probably his 4th language. However it was extremely annoying and someone else should of done the presentation.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Aez on February 20, 2008, 07:21:12 PM "UHHHHHHH"
The stealth system is SO hackable. "UHHHHHHH" Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: tmp on February 20, 2008, 07:46:02 PM edit: removed the original comment about performance; turns out it was the movie viewer apparently acting up, with it back to normal the game itself seems to move ok. :awesome_for_real:
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Engels on February 21, 2008, 08:32:26 AM I don't know about the rest of the game, but the character facial customization was very nifty, as was the horse back animation. Best I've seen so far. Seemed to lack the sluggish feel Vanguard had. I know, I know, VG.exe, but shut up.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Slayerik on March 06, 2008, 12:40:25 PM http://forums.ageofconan.com/showthread.php?t=58241
Kinda lame, but go pray or something. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 06, 2008, 12:53:59 PM http://forums.ageofconan.com/showthread.php?t=58241 Kinda lame, but go pray or something. Good hype machine. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Threash on March 06, 2008, 04:06:54 PM This game seems to similar to shadowbane its starting to worry me.
Quote Strength: Gives you a damage bonus for melee attacks and also increases the attack rating for certain weapons. Dexterity: Gives you a bonus to your defense rating and increases the attack rating for certain weapons. Constitution: Determines the amount of health and stamina your character has. Intelligence: Determines the amount of mana your character has, and increases magic rating for mages. Wisdom: Determines the amount of mana your character has, and increases the magic rating for priests. That could have been copy/pasted from the sb site as far as i can tell. Yeah, yeah str makes you hit harder and int gives you mana works for every game, but the wording is damn near the same. Attack rating vs defense rating, health and stamina, etc, it all sounds very shadowbanish. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Aez on March 06, 2008, 04:18:59 PM This game seems to similar to shadowbane its starting to worry me. Quote Strength: Gives you a damage bonus for melee attacks and also increases the attack rating for certain weapons. Dexterity: Gives you a bonus to your defense rating and increases the attack rating for certain weapons. Constitution: Determines the amount of health and stamina your character has. Intelligence: Determines the amount of mana your character has, and increases magic rating for mages. Wisdom: Determines the amount of mana your character has, and increases the magic rating for priests. That could have been copy/pasted from the sb site as far as i can tell. Yeah, yeah str makes you hit harder and int gives you mana works for every game, but the wording is damn near the same. Attack rating vs defense rating, health and stamina, etc, it all sounds very shadowbanish. You never played [D&D], so I'm going to cut you some slack. Trust me. Just turn around and walk away. - credit goes to Tycho. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Threash on March 07, 2008, 09:13:14 AM Bleh ive played pretty much everything under the sun, including dnd long before i got online not to mention practically every single mmo and the first thing i thought when i read that was "that sounds exactly like sb". The sb combat system was the best thing about that game, or the only good thing about it i guess, so this is actually a good thing in my book.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Velorath on March 07, 2008, 07:31:36 PM Bleh ive played pretty much everything under the sun, including dnd long before i got online not to mention practically every single mmo and the first thing i thought when i read that was "that sounds exactly like sb". Are you forgetting the green text or something? Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Falwell on March 08, 2008, 03:00:33 AM GDC08 Presentation (http://trailer.onlinewelten.com/videos,id3264,age_conan_praesentation.html) WHY DOES HE HAVE TO SAY "UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" SO FUCKING MUCH!? :ye_gods:It's a common occurrence in their presentations. I'm not sure if it's the language barrier, computer geeks being gunshy in front of a camera, hard liquor, or a combination of these but it is distracting as hell when viewing their material. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Velorath on March 10, 2008, 10:33:54 PM AOC system requirements:
Quote Minimum Specifications: OS: Windows Vista/XP Processor: 3GHz Pentium IV RAM: 1GB RAM Video Card: Shader Model 2.0 and 128MB RAM: NVIDIA GeForce 5800 or ATI 9800 Recommended Specifications: Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz (E6600) or better Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7950GX2 or better RAM: 2GB or more Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Falwell on March 10, 2008, 10:39:35 PM AOC system requirements: Quote Minimum Specifications: OS: Windows Vista/XP Processor: 3GHz Pentium IV RAM: 1GB RAM Video Card: Shader Model 2.0 and 128MB RAM: NVIDIA GeForce 5800 or ATI 9800 Recommended Specifications: Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz (E6600) or better Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7950GX2 or better RAM: 2GB or more So much for those "Similar to Oblivion" system requirements. Their minimum is Oblivion's recommended. I hate to say it, but those steep requirements may have just insured that AoC bombs. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: K9 on March 11, 2008, 01:32:01 AM What were Vanguard's requirements again?
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Falwell on March 11, 2008, 02:02:22 AM Vanguard's were...
System Requirements Windows 2000/XP 2.4gig Intel processor or 2400+ or higher model AMD processor 512Mb ram 100% DirectX 9.0c compatible computer 100% DirectX compatible keyboard or input device Vertex and Pixel shader 2.0 compatible hardware with 128mb of texture memory 100% DirectX compatible sound card 56k+ internet connection 16x speed dvd rom 20 gigabytes hard drive space Recommended Specifications Windows 2000/XP/Vista 3.0 gig Intel processor or 3500+ or higher model AMD processor 2 Gb ram Vertex and Pixel shader 2.0 compatible hardware with 256mb of texture memory DirectSound compatible audio hardware Broadband internet connection 16x speed dvd rom 20 gigabytes hard drive space This is sure to be a completely different scenario than Vanguard however. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Merusk on March 11, 2008, 04:22:00 AM Now is when the compare those to the Steam system survey and laugh, right? I'm 'old' and don't upgrade my PC every three years and my vid card every 18 months anymore so I'm not up on what's the latest and greatest these days.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Baldrake on March 11, 2008, 04:40:39 AM When AoC releases in 2010, those requirements will appear quite modest.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Falwell on March 11, 2008, 04:42:48 AM Well the truly scary part is that anyone who's played any fair amount of MMO's knows that minimum specs are NOT playable specs in most cases.
Think those minimum specs include heavy traffic areas like vendors, banks, quest hubs or POI's? Hell no. Those are probably out on your lonesome in the middle of butt fuck Egypt in non combat I would guess. No hard facts on this of course, but I'm working off past history. Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping AoC is successful, as long as it's crafted well and deserves to be rewarded. It takes a few steps off the beaten path design wise and that should be encouraged at all times in the MMO scene. But those system specs, coupled with the fact that the combat is very twitch based and thus requires quick response time and fluid gameplay, scare the hell out of me. They're already working with a very niche IP imo and they just slashed their customer base considerably when they dropped those numbers. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: K9 on March 11, 2008, 06:31:23 AM ...
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: HaemishM on March 11, 2008, 08:06:59 AM Yeah, those system requirements probably just shitcanned any chance I had at playing AOC this year. Even if I could, it would probably look like refried monkey ass.
The lessons of Vanguard are apparently really hard to learn. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 11, 2008, 08:23:22 AM Yeah, those system requirements probably just shitcanned any chance I had at playing AOC this year. Even if I could, it would probably look like refried monkey ass. The lessons of Vanguard are apparently really hard to learn. A lot of vanguards issues were coding issues. Some, made the minimum specs a down right lie, you need more horsepower to overcome bad code/graphic programing choices. I guess it really all depends on how well AOC's fall back features are. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: WayAbvPar on March 11, 2008, 08:47:35 AM Quote Minimum Specifications: OS: Windows Vista/XP Processor: 3GHz Pentium IV RAM: 1GB RAM Video Card: Shader Model 2.0 and 128MB RAM: NVIDIA GeForce 5800 or ATI 9800 Ummm, yeah. (http://goodgo.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/wavegoodbye.jpg) Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Nebu on March 11, 2008, 08:51:22 AM Quote Minimum Specifications: OS: Windows Vista/XP Processor: 3GHz Pentium IV RAM: 1GB RAM Video Card: Shader Model 2.0 and 128MB RAM: NVIDIA GeForce 5800 or ATI 9800 Those don't seem unreasonable for anyone that plays PC games regularly. Especially for a game that isn't likely to be released for another 6+ months. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Hoax on March 11, 2008, 09:08:51 AM It will certainly come down to how well it plays on a min spec machine, its not looking good for them though is it.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: WayAbvPar on March 11, 2008, 09:28:17 AM Quote Minimum Specifications: OS: Windows Vista/XP Processor: 3GHz Pentium IV RAM: 1GB RAM Video Card: Shader Model 2.0 and 128MB RAM: NVIDIA GeForce 5800 or ATI 9800 Those don't seem unreasonable for anyone that plays PC games regularly. Especially for a game that isn't likely to be released for another 6+ months. Not to go back to the elephant in the room, but WoW runs on nearly anything with a graphics card. No way in hell are they busting 100k subscriptions if everyone needs cutting edge machines to play the game. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: tmp on March 11, 2008, 10:06:41 AM Those don't seem unreasonable for anyone that plays PC games regularly. Especially for a game that isn't likely to be released for another 6+ months. Given they're the "yeah, right" minimum specs i think there's certain unfounded amount of optimism about them.Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: UnSub on March 11, 2008, 05:56:43 PM So... how do those specs fit in with AoC ever launching on the Xbox360?
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: schild on March 11, 2008, 06:00:31 PM Those specs are roughly what I had in a computer 5 years ago (except the graphics card, kind of expected though). They're completely fair and there's no reason it wouldn't run on a 360.
Edit: The only "issue" is the 35GB install. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: UnSub on March 11, 2008, 06:12:11 PM Those specs are roughly what I had in a computer 5 years ago (except the graphics card, kind of expected though). They're completely fair and there's no reason it wouldn't run on a 360. Edit: The only "issue" is the 35GB install. I obviously missed where it said it was a 35GB install. That's kind of insane. I wish the NDA would drop. C'mon, open beta! :awesome_for_real: Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: schild on March 11, 2008, 06:15:38 PM A bunch of people were just put into the general beta now that the tech beta is over.
I may have been one of those people. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: schild on March 11, 2008, 06:21:18 PM (http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7559/conaninstallym2.png)
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: schild on March 11, 2008, 06:23:34 PM Guys.
There's no cancel button on this install. What happens if I didn't have 70GB free? Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Ratman_tf on March 11, 2008, 06:25:25 PM Guys. There's no cancel button on this install. What happens if I didn't have 70GB free? Get a second hard drive and plug it in before your HD fills up! Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: K9 on March 11, 2008, 06:26:22 PM ...
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: schild on March 11, 2008, 06:26:48 PM Guys. There's no cancel button on this install. What happens if I didn't have 70GB free? Get a second hard drive and plug it in before your HD fills up! I can't! I'm already using drive letters C through Z! Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Ratman_tf on March 11, 2008, 06:43:26 PM Ohshit Funcom. It's gonna delete your windows directories to make room!!!
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: schild on March 11, 2008, 06:43:50 PM I think it deleted 3 other MMOGs.
Good thing I don't remember what they were. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Draegan on March 11, 2008, 07:42:46 PM Did you get the game to actually patch properly?
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: schild on March 11, 2008, 07:47:13 PM Watching In Treatment, can't be bothered to play an MMOG.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: schild on March 11, 2008, 08:09:59 PM Patching up to the new version is working, I think. The patcher window disappeared but the process is running.
I'm pretty sure an install process is not covered by NDA. Especially when you CAN'T SEE WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Slayerik on March 11, 2008, 08:54:04 PM Seriously, to the people crying about the minimal specs......get a fuckin job. My daughters PC is over the minimal. Is 1 GB of RAM too much for you?
Anyways, I am totally for Wow's approach of 3 years ago...but...You cant expect a game coming out in 08 to be playable on a Pent 3. The 35gb install.....hopefully they are....ah fuck it...thats just stupid. The real issue isn't what all you are crying about, the real issue is if they have any handle on their netcode. That will make or break the game more than any roughly recommended requirements. Chances are that they will fail. You guys predicting it are truly brilliant. I personally go for the underdogs....AoC made the right move pushing it back. Their system reqs aren't horrible. If the game is fun, and the netcode is decent...I'll get myself a new rig for this one (beyond my 3600 AMD 64, 2gb ram, 7800 GT) just so i can see it in DX10. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: schild on March 11, 2008, 08:57:59 PM Correction. Download was 35GB. Install was like 24.5 or something after the patch.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: rk47 on March 11, 2008, 09:05:47 PM :ye_gods: you're not joking are you?
Are we staring at a 4 DVD release? This is dwarving Vanguard's famed 20 GB install size. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: schild on March 11, 2008, 09:09:30 PM :ye_gods: you're not joking are you? Are we staring at a 4 DVD release? This is dwarving Vanguard's famed 20 GB install size. Look at the screenshot a few posts up. Look how much was left on the install. ANYWAY. Disc space is cheap. I joked about the vanguard size. But who cares. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: rk47 on March 11, 2008, 09:19:52 PM Correction. Download was 35GB. Install was like 24.5 or something after the patch. maybe i'm stupid , but how is it that the install size is smaller than the download? isn't it the other way around usually? Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: schild on March 11, 2008, 09:22:18 PM NEGATIVE PING CODE TAKES UP SPACE.
BOOBS MAYBE. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Engels on March 11, 2008, 09:45:20 PM I hear 3 gig of that are nipples that won't be present in the American distribution, so its really only 17.1 gig.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Nerf on March 11, 2008, 11:45:11 PM I'm not saying if I downloaded it or not, but IF I had, the original download would been around 18 gigs, not 35. If I had installed, it would've told me to have 35 gigs free, but not use all of it. If I had done those things of course, which I havn't. :awesome_for_real:
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: UnSub on March 12, 2008, 12:13:09 AM A bunch of people were just put into the general beta now that the tech beta is over. I may have been one of those people. Tech beta is over? I obviously haven't been paying attention. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Phred on March 12, 2008, 12:19:00 AM AOC system requirements: Quote Minimum Specifications: OS: Windows Vista/XP Processor: 3GHz Pentium IV RAM: 1GB RAM Video Card: Shader Model 2.0 and 128MB RAM: NVIDIA GeForce 5800 or ATI 9800 Recommended Specifications: Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz (E6600) or better Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 7950GX2 or better RAM: 2GB or more So much for those "Similar to Oblivion" system requirements. Their minimum is Oblivion's recommended. I hate to say it, but those steep requirements may have just insured that AoC bombs. Are you sure Oblivion recommended a 9800 pro? I remember selling mine off because it was such a dog in Oblivion, even with most of the extra frills turned off. I'd say recommended cards there would be the 5900 and x800 class cards which were a generation after the 9800 pro. Edit. Just looked it up and I'm right. Straight off the Bethsoft Oblivion page. Recommended: * 3 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor * 1 GB System RAM * ATI X800 series, NVIDIA GeForce 6800 series, or higher video card Minimum System Requirements: * Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows XP 64-bit * 512MB System RAM * 2 Ghz Intel Pentium 4 or equivalent processor * 128MB Direct3D compatible video card * and DirectX 9.0 compatible driver; * 8x DVD-ROM drive * 4.6 GB free hard disk space * DirectX 9.0c (included) * DirectX 8.1 compatible sound card * Keyboard, Mouse Supported Video Card Chipsets: * ATI X1900 series * ATI X1800 series * ATI X1600 series * ATI X1300 series * ATI X850 series * ATI x800 series * ATI x700 series * ATI x600 series * ATI Radeon 9800 series * ATI Radeon 9700 series * ATI Radeon 9600 series * ATI Radeon 9500 series * NVIDIA GeForce 7800 series * NVIDIA GeForce 6800 series * NVIDIA GeForce 6600 series * NVIDIA GeForce 6200 series * NVIDIA GeForce FX series Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Velorath on March 12, 2008, 01:01:13 AM Seriously, to the people crying about the minimal specs......get a fuckin job. I'm having flashbacks of Sony's pre-launch PS3 P.R.. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Falconeer on March 12, 2008, 04:16:20 AM My wife is in the beta (wait.. I am not married) and what I saw over her shoulder says Vanguard and Conan should never appear in the same sentence, post, thread, forum, internet.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: tmp on March 12, 2008, 04:28:01 AM Those specs are roughly what I had in a computer 5 years ago (except the graphics card, kind of expected though). They're completely fair and there's no reason it wouldn't run on a 360. 3 GHz Pentium 4 saw the daylight in early 2003 so that was extremely bleeding edge 5 years ago. As curiosity, the Steam survey shows dual core CPUs are currently in ~35% of systems and 60% are single CPUs... but only ~10% of total numbers reports speeds above 3GHz. Read whatever you want out of it.Anyway it's not "crying" since i don't have Funcom stocks so no personal interest if they tank. More of reality check. Personal perspective -- my current system was built roughly year ago, and used mid-to-lower end of spectrum components available back then since i'm too old to bother and spend shitload of money to play the hardware race for 2-3 interesting games released per year. It's dual core 2.13 GHz, 2 gb ram, wih 7600GT card. Meaning yup, it doesn't quite meet their "you might actually play rather than just get frustrated" specs. Sorry, it just really doesn't seem like very sensible approach to me. Given for every Slayerik telling people to 'get a fuckin job' there's 6-8 people telling him back to 'fuck off man, i have dozen more important things to spend my job money on than a computer that still works well enough'. It's these people's money Funcom is going to miss out on. But i'm fairly sure Blizzard will be more than happy to keep receiving it instead. Speaking of which: Quote from: WoW Technology F.A.Q. Recommended Specifications meaning, cpu-wise WoW recommended specs at the moment of launch was hardware released 4+ years ago. If AoC was to emulate that approach, that 3GHz single core would have to be their recommended hardware level, not the minimum.Windows® System 2000/XP OS: Intel Pentium® IV 1.5 GHz or AMD XP 1500+ MHz 1024 MB RAM 64 MB 3D graphics card with Hardware Transform and Lighting, such as NVIDIA® GeForce™ FX 5700 class card or above Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Draegan on March 12, 2008, 06:36:12 AM So anyone have cousins who have this game? Because my cousin has this game too and he hasn't been able to get it working. Patches never finish etc. He really needs help and I feel bad for him. I think I'm going to give him a cookie.
Mmmm cookies. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Slayerik on March 12, 2008, 06:45:05 AM It's dual core 2.13 GHz, 2 gb ram, wih 7600GT card. Meaning yup, it doesn't quite meet their "you might actually play rather than just get frustrated" specs. Pure speculation? My guess is that rig will do fine at low-mid settings. But who knows, its easier to just talk bullshit though. My single core 3600 AMD, with 2 GB, and a 7800 GT runs COD4 fine..I'm guessing it will run AoC. Maybe I'm just an optimist. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 12, 2008, 06:51:26 AM My wife is in the beta (wait.. I am not married) and what I saw over her shoulder says Vanguard and Conan should never appear in the same sentence, post, thread, forum, internet. This would imply that one of them is far superior than the other. Which one is the question. :| Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Falconeer on March 12, 2008, 07:18:52 AM Don't be silly. Vanguard redefined the word "trainwreck". Conan won't tank.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: tmp on March 12, 2008, 07:22:40 AM Pure speculation? My guess is that rig will do fine at low-mid settings. Yup that's what i'm expecting but it's bit beside the point. What i meant was, if their recommended specs are above the level of up-to-date (though not the high end) hardware from year ago, then the amount of people who is going to see that game with the visuals "as intended" is bound to be very narrow. Compared to WoW which set the recommended requirements at ~3 year old hardware which is imo far more reasonable approach.(this is mostly regarding cpu + typically mainboard combination, as that i suspect takes people longer to upgrade... since it's more work than plugging fresh gfx card) In a way that reminds me of EQ2 -- they targetted 'tomorrow's hardware' with their engine but since people play their games on today's and yesterday's hardware instead, they pretty much shot themselves in the foot with that. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: bhodi on March 12, 2008, 07:23:48 AM Don't be silly. Vanguard redefined the word "trainwreck". Conan won't tank. O RLY? Maybe it won't "tank" but I wouldn't say glorious success.I suspect it will go the route of CoH; decent initial subscription followed by a slow ablation of the player base that solidifies at a core of realm-type pvpers. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 12, 2008, 07:24:22 AM Don't be silly. Vanguard redefined the word "trainwreck". Conan won't tank. Did you wife say if this was based on opinion about the game(play), or that the assembly of the technologies used is more solid? As of late, i think many people in this thread are worried about performance, buggyness, and fall back systems for non-cutting edge systems (or at least, meets min requirements). Gameplay is a separate category to fail on, all on its own. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Falconeer on March 12, 2008, 07:47:35 AM Based on the data I read, collected, gathered and smuggled, I think Conan definitely won't fail. Despite the technicalities, despite expectations and all. Will it bring good money to Funcom? Yes I believe so. Will it make everyone happy? Nah, but what does it anyway?
Wife knows nothing about specs, but her cousin says the engine is heavy still scalable AND that there's no point in talking about it before release, debugging and all. Quote the assembly of the technologies used is more solid? Yes. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: rk47 on March 12, 2008, 07:50:30 AM I'm just scratching my head at why a lot of developers aim at the medieval setting market, when there's a huge void in the sci-fi MMO setting where ppl are made to suffer SWG. The devs instead prefer to dive into the pool of Zerg that is WoW and hope they can somehow gain a chunk of the swarm that is 'tired of WoW but not tired of medieval orcs and elves'
Fuck, even Warhammer too. Wtf? You have space marines and orks but thinks you can get better chunk of the pie by putting a more RvR-centric WoW? Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 12, 2008, 07:55:34 AM I'm just scratching my head at why a lot of developers aim at the medieval setting market, when there's a huge void in the sci-fi MMO setting where ppl are made to suffer SWG. The devs instead prefer to dive into the pool of Zerg that is WoW and hope they can somehow gain a chunk of the swarm that is 'tired of WoW but not tired of medieval orcs and elves' Fuck, even Warhammer too. Wtf? You have space marines and orks but thinks you can get better chunk of the pie by putting a more RvR-centric WoW? The tech level is easer to recreate with believability. Si-fi is hard due to the "science" and "Design" issues. (Space marines are Warhammer 40k, not warhammer. I believe.) Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Jerrith on March 12, 2008, 08:14:48 AM Check out Scott Hartsman's blog post on "Why Fantasy? (I’d love to be wrong.)" at http://www.hartsman.com/ (http://www.hartsman.com/). It's got some really good answers to the question.
One of the most relevant: Quote I enjoy Sci Fi worlds a lot now, but I enjoy them for what they are - Crafted places of varying degrees of quality and fun - They don’t have the same kind of difficult-to-define resonance that Fantasy does. They take effort to get “lost” in. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: rk47 on March 12, 2008, 08:49:43 AM can't read the link
broken? :( I just wish that Granado Espada (sword of new world etc) squad play would fit on WH40K setting. Instead of gay-supermodel riflemen we would have space marines with melee or ranged loadout, that you can upgrade with Requisition Point ( cash ) and gain EXP as you participate in battles. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: shiznitz on March 12, 2008, 09:59:56 AM His blog being down might mean an announcement is coming.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: schild on March 12, 2008, 11:07:15 AM His blog isn't down. Hasn't been.
Just the uberguilds network being super spotty. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: palmer_eldritch on March 12, 2008, 01:07:06 PM My current system was built roughly year ago, and used mid-to-lower end of spectrum components available back then since i'm too old to bother and spend shitload of money to play the hardware race for 2-3 interesting games released per year. It's dual core 2.13 GHz, 2 gb ram, wih 7600GT card. Meaning yup, it doesn't quite meet their "you might actually play rather than just get frustrated" specs. Doesn't that setup beat the crap out of AoC's minimum setup? You may be proved right in the end, but surely it's a bit early to assume you couldn't run the game just fine. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: schild on March 12, 2008, 01:56:39 PM Uhhhhh.
2.13ghz dual core with 7600GT and 2gb ram >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AOC's requirements. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Draegan on March 12, 2008, 02:57:03 PM I built a AMD core duo platform last year with 2 gigs and a 7950 512MB card last year, monitor and all, for 1200. That was 1 year ago. I'm pretty sure you could knock off another 200 from that, and even more if you have a monitor already.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: tmp on March 12, 2008, 03:01:48 PM Doesn't that setup beat the crap out of AoC's minimum setup? The minimum setup, yes. I think if year-old computer couldn't meet these then even few devs would realise they're perhaps setting the bar little too high.I mean shit, even Crysis asks for less; both for minimum and recommended hardware setups. (in that post you quoted i was saying the setup cited was below the recommended setup, sorry if it came across confusing) Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: WayAbvPar on March 12, 2008, 03:18:59 PM I built a AMD core duo platform last year with 2 gigs and a 7950 512MB card last year, monitor and all, for 1200. That was 1 year ago. I'm pretty sure you could knock off another 200 from that, and even more if you have a monitor already. Only a grand to play a game I am not at all sure is even worth the box price yet! :ye_gods: Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Draegan on March 12, 2008, 06:40:51 PM Well I don't think many people are building computer just for this game. I'm just saying a computer that can play this well doesn't cost a lot of money compared to bleeding edge equipment.
Duh. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Margalis on March 12, 2008, 07:02:05 PM I think the main appeal of fantasy is that you can have tons of items, monsters, magic, etc, and just generally make shit up to your heart's content. If you want an enemy that has the body of a dog and the head of a dolphin you just do it.
In sci-fi you can have - humans with guns. Lots and lots of different kinds of guns... Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Murgos on March 12, 2008, 07:37:42 PM I think the main appeal of fantasy is that you can have tons of items, monsters, magic, etc, and just generally make shit up to your heart's content. If you want an enemy that has the body of a dog and the head of a dolphin you just do it. In sci-fi you can have - humans with guns. Lots and lots of different kinds of guns... LOL WAT? (http://starwars.ugo.com/extras/images/forgottenheroes/momawnadow_th.jpg) Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: rk47 on March 12, 2008, 08:11:35 PM and alien lesbians. don't forget that. :awesome_for_real:
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Margalis on March 12, 2008, 09:19:11 PM There's much more freedom in fantasy because of the existence of magic. Yes, Star Wars had some weird aliens and such but mostly it was guys with guns.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Nerf on March 12, 2008, 09:27:34 PM Is that supposed to be in green? Star wars was about dudes who could control an invisible force with their mind that allowed them to do incredible things, one might say magical things.
Oh, and also FIGHTING WITH FUCKING PLASMA SWORDS. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Engels on March 12, 2008, 09:46:42 PM I've heard it argued that StarWars isn't strictly sci-fi, that at its core its Fantasy with a sci-fi makeover. Hence its massive popularity above 'straight' sci-fi
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Margalis on March 12, 2008, 10:15:39 PM It certainly isn't hard or military or speculative sci-fi, and "The Force" is obviously magic. But even if you accept it as sci-fi 99% of the guys in Star Wars are humans in armor with guns.
In sci-fi there is a genre sometimes called "future fantasy" or "science fantasy" which is basically what Star Wars is. Not scientific, not speculative, not an extension of human history. Usually "future fantasy" takes place so far in the future that the writer can justify anything - planets inhabited by dragons, multiple regressions back to the stone age, etc. Star Wars doesn't have any sort of timeline at all, it's an undisclosed time and location and takes place in another galaxy. If you look at what makes Star Wars more diverse (the force, swords, etc) it's all fantasy. It's fantasy with spaceships and robots. Star Wars is like futuristic steampunk - whatever that means. (I can't believe I just wrote that) I think trying to do any sort of harder sci-fi as a MMORPG would be difficult, especially a traditional character-centric DIKU one. That PS3 game "The Agency" is going to have the same problem, how many different types of guns can you have as items? I would note that Phantasy Stary Online/Universe is also sci-fantasy, and once again the itemization and variation comes mostly from the fantasy part. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: schild on March 12, 2008, 10:25:22 PM Sci-Fi AND Fantasy both need their Citizen Kane.
And don't try to feed me LOTRO. (Snow Crash movie? Mebbe? Probably not. Transmet could've been it for sci-fi, maybe. Probably not.) Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: UnSub on March 12, 2008, 11:35:18 PM I think the main appeal of science fiction is that you can have tons of items, monsters, psionics, etc, and just generally make shit up to your heart's content. If you want an enemy that has the body of a dog and the head of a dolphin you just do it. In fantasy you can have - different sized humans with swords. Lots and lots of different kinds of swords... FIFY If you want to be as general as that, any genre can be distilled down to base elements. However, looking at science fantasy vs hard sci fi vs distopian sci fi vs whatever flavour sci fi it doesn't all come down to the same elements. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Velorath on March 13, 2008, 12:40:49 AM There's much more freedom in fantasy because of the existence of magic. Yes, Star Wars had some weird aliens and such but mostly it was guys with guns. I guess this would be the part where somebody throws in the Arthur C. Clarke quote that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is is virtually indistinguishable from magic." There's not really a whole lot you can do with fantasy that you just can't do with Sci-Fi. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Lantyssa on March 13, 2008, 06:24:39 AM It certainly isn't hard or military or speculative sci-fi, and "The Force" is obviously magic. But even if you accept it as sci-fi 99% of the guys in Star Wars are humans in armor with guns. In most fantasy it's the same. Only the exceptional people get magic. Only in games where everyone wants to be a wizard is everyone actually capable of magic.In sci-fi you have all kinds of strange alien races. In fantasy you get, uh, orcs, goblins, elves. Over and bloody fucking over. If you're unable to see the possiblities in a science fiction world where anything goes, you're just not being very imaginative. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Falconeer on March 13, 2008, 06:35:32 AM There's no Science in the Fiction of Star Wars, at all. Not even flight physics, or gravity, are scientific there.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: rk47 on March 13, 2008, 06:53:25 AM yeah my childhood memory of watching it labels it as World War 2, in space. With some magical swordsman somehow taking centre stage in mid trilogy (i prefer pew pew than the zoom-zoom of the sabers thank you)
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Draegan on March 13, 2008, 08:06:18 AM Futuristic steampunk :grin:
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 13, 2008, 09:56:43 AM Big differences between science-fiction, science-fantasy, and medieval-fantasy, and high-fantasy (and steampunk, lol).
Most of it has to do with the amount of REAL world grounding/basis. Like i said before, i think fantasy is simply easer to produce, as science fiction needs a level of reality to base its technologies on, and real world design that you can easily omit in fantasy. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Murgos on March 13, 2008, 12:39:04 PM Forget Star Wars. I knew it was a bad example about 15 seconds after I posted it because some dork was going to pull the old, "It's actually fantasy in a future setting." Whatever that means.
The point was that the realm of Sci Fi is as equally unbounded as the realm of Fantasy. Actually, I think Fantasy is more bound by convention than Sci-Fi is, to the point where it is much more limited a genre for story telling purposes. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 13, 2008, 01:00:54 PM Forget Star Wars. I knew it was a bad example about 15 seconds after I posted it because some dork was going to pull the old, "It's actually fantasy in a future setting." Whatever that means. The point was that the realm of Sci Fi is as equally unbounded as the realm of Fantasy. Actually, I think Fantasy is more bound by convention than Sci-Fi is, to the point where it is much more limited a genre for story telling purposes. Ok. Example: There is a floating city, the questions is, "How is it floating". medieval-fantasy, and high-fantasy would explain it as "Magic". science-fantasy would explain it as an engine (science) powered by bottled dragons breath (magic). science-fiction would explain it as an engine, powered by a solid fuel source, or other (Dilithium crystals and antimatter creating force) that is simply 1k times more effective than what we currently have. That was just the first part of my point. Now, from a production side of it. The DESIGN of the various "Explanations" now need to be created. At the top, the easiest is the medieval, and high fantasy. Its magic, it can look like what ever they want it to, it does not have to make one lick of real world sense. The science-fantasy would have to incorporate what we humans are accustomed to seeing, such as pipes, gears and the like...Something that Design wise, looks feasibly mechanical, and with shapes and functions we can relate to in our modern world (But that can be stretched a bit before entering "wholly Not believable" realm)...and of course huge vats of dragons breath bottles and the like (Dash-o-Magic). science-fiction would have to Barrow heavily from DESIGN, look near functional, and feasible. It will barrow heavily from real world sciences and sometimes even be backed by Designers, architects, engineers and the like. Creating an overhead in the creation, lore, and artwork of the object. Thats my take on it anyway. Its simply easer to do straight fantasy. Your right however, Most (Tolken/DnD) Fantasy is bound by convention. There is also something to be said about player/people being able to relate/accept it. Alot of Si-fi goes way out there, and becomes something not easily digestible by the viewer. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Murgos on March 13, 2008, 01:08:16 PM I disagree entirely. Any Sci-Fi structure can look like whatever you want. There is no limit and it doesn't have to look 'functional'.
And it's borrow. A barrow is a tomb. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: tazelbain on March 13, 2008, 01:08:56 PM Science Fiction has a tone realism that Stars Wars lacks.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: K9 on March 13, 2008, 01:16:38 PM Why is it so hard to do modern-day magic in an RPG, or cyberpunk/magic. Final Fantasy games manage to pull it off remarkably well, with some of the best gameworlds around; yet I'm stretched to think of many western RPGs that do the same. Seems like an untapped resource to me.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: tmp on March 13, 2008, 01:18:00 PM Science Fiction has a tone realism that Stars Wars lacks. Wouldn't that be because Star Wars is space opera and so focuses more on larger than life characters and drama rather than the tech bits..?Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Murgos on March 13, 2008, 01:20:47 PM Science Fiction has a tone realism that Stars Wars lacks. Once you have the ability to make something trivially then what it looks like is an aesthetic decision left to the constructors. Using the 'sky city' example if gravitation and building material strengths are a trivial concern then if I want my sky city to look like giant plastic pink lawn flamingos all dipping their heads into a pool of water while their feathers each and individually travel the visible light spectrum in patterns that occasionally coalesce into images of popular 20th century sit com actresses I can do that. The conventions of Fantasy, however, pretty much reduce the chance of a writer being able to incorporate that design into a Fantasy themed 'world' to pretty much nil. But a Sci-Fi author can always make his floating city look like 400bc Athens or even The Shire from LOTR if he wants to excuse the residents as history buffs or fans of english fiction. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Lantyssa on March 13, 2008, 01:28:39 PM Ok. Example: Only Star Trek technobabble has to explain it like this.There is a floating city, the questions is, "How is it floating". medieval-fantasy, and high-fantasy would explain it as "Magic". science-fantasy would explain it as an engine (science) powered by bottled dragons breath (magic). science-fiction would explain it as an engine, powered by a solid fuel source, or other (Dilithium crystals and antimatter creating force) that is simply 1k times more effective than what we currently have. A good writer knows it is not necessary to say how it works regardless of the genre, and is often counterproductive. In Laputa and Battle Angel Alita (first examples that popped into my head), the floating cities are never explained beyond being giant floating cities. It's just the way it is and the why of it is not important. Don't confuse specific occurances of how things were done with how entire genres need to be written. (Even my fantasy race example was mocking this. A good fantasy can have fantastic races, too. Or only one race.) Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 13, 2008, 01:32:57 PM Ok. Example: Only Star Trek technobabble has to explain it like this.There is a floating city, the questions is, "How is it floating". medieval-fantasy, and high-fantasy would explain it as "Magic". science-fantasy would explain it as an engine (science) powered by bottled dragons breath (magic). science-fiction would explain it as an engine, powered by a solid fuel source, or other (Dilithium crystals and antimatter creating force) that is simply 1k times more effective than what we currently have. A good writer knows it is not necessary to say how it works regardless of the genre, and is often counterproductive. In Laputa and Battle Angel Alita (first examples that popped into my head), the floating cities are never explained beyond being giant floating cities. It's just the way it is and the why of it is not important. Don't confuse specific occurances of how things were done with how entire genres need to be written. (Even my fantasy race example was mocking this. A good fantasy can have fantastic races, too. Or only one race.) But when you looked at one of those city's, the mechanisms was apparent your brain accepted them, and they fell into one of the examples, and was acceptable for the genre it was in. I think visually. Not much of what i wrote has anything to do with things like dialog, script, or the like. With spelling and grammar like mine, i wouldn't even dream of trying to talk about such things. @Murgos - Si-Fi = Science Fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction). Science-fiction isn't the same as science-fantasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science-fantasy), your castle would fall under that category. Yes, i follow some of the more literal definitions, but i have to. Going to steal a quote from that page, as it gets across what i am saying better than i can apparently. Quote Rod Serling said that "science fiction makes the implausible possible, while science fantasy makes the impossible plausible." Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: tazelbain on March 13, 2008, 01:51:24 PM Science Fiction has a tone realism that Stars Wars lacks. Wouldn't that be because Star Wars is space opera and so focuses more on larger than life characters and drama rather than the tech bits..?Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: tmp on March 13, 2008, 03:05:50 PM What the author chooses to focus on is what the genre is. BSG has both of those things, but its always within a realistic treatment of an imaginary world. Ahh that's rather debatable i think -- BSG had its own share of convenient devices that were no less 'magic'* in function than Star Wars technology.*) "any technology advanced enough..." etc. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Typhon on March 13, 2008, 03:18:26 PM This current derail is even more demented than most on f13. This is the CONAN thread.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Lantyssa on March 13, 2008, 04:17:39 PM But when you looked at one of those city's, the mechanisms was apparent your brain accepted them, and they fell into one of the examples, and was acceptable for the genre it was in. Floating roots are an obvious sci-fi mechanism? (http://www.otakucity.org/IMG/jpg/laputa_castle_in_the_sky001.jpg)I wonder what it's attached to? Dunno, it never says. (http://gunnm.sioc.org/images/tiphares.jpg) Just because you expect it does not mean it is required. On the converse, the Conan game will have ubiquitous magic even though my impression of the source material is that it is a pretty low magic world. Why is that? Because people expect magic in a fantasy game, even though there is nothing to require its presence. Kind of like sci-fi and explainations. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Velorath on March 13, 2008, 04:25:13 PM On the converse, the Conan game will have ubiquitous magic even though my impression of the source material is that it is a pretty low magic world. It's a low magic world for the most part (you generally wouldn't see people just walking around town casting spells), but Conan himself does have a knack for running into magic and supernatural threats. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Johny Cee on March 13, 2008, 04:42:32 PM Ah, the scifi vs. fantasy debate.
I think a good general rule is: Scifi implicitly deals with societies and societal mores, where as fantasy implicitly deals with individual choice and morality. Outside of "hard" scifi (your golden age authors, Kim Robinson, etc.), the breakdown between the scifi and fantasy genres is mostly at what level the author engages in the handwaving or technobabble to make his or her world work. As for realism.... I've always found an author like Glen Cook (or Martin, etc.) to have far more of a realist bent despite an obviously fantastic world than your traditional utopian or dystopian scifi author. Fuck, the sheer ignorance and mistakes of most scifi authors in regards to sociology, economics, and political science make them de facto fantasy writers. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: UnSub on March 13, 2008, 05:52:58 PM This current derail is even more demented than most on f13. This is the CONAN thread. As soon as something worth mentioning happens around AoC, I'm sure we'll get back to talking about it. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: rk47 on March 13, 2008, 06:22:12 PM :awesome_for_real: the moment Margalis said something about sci-fi being 'humanoids, different humanoids with different guns' I know we're in for a :drill:
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Murgos on March 14, 2008, 05:13:56 AM @Murgos - Si-Fi = Science Fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction). Science-fiction isn't the same as science-fantasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science-fantasy), your castle would fall under that category. Yes, i follow some of the more literal definitions, but i have to. Pointless conversation. You're drawing arbitrary lines between things that don't exist saying, 'thus and not thus' subjectively. Good luck with that. Quote from: Worthless Wiki Articles Science fiction (abbreviated SF or sci-fi with varying punctuation and case) is a broad genre of fiction that often involves speculations based on current or future science or technology. Science fantasy is a mixed genre of story which contains some science fiction and some fantasy elements. Science fantasy is therefore even more elusive of definition Dude, I mean, seriously, you "have to follow more literal definitions"? WTF does that mean? More literal than broad and elusive? Well, that shouldn't be hard. edit: BBcode hard and whatnot. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 14, 2008, 09:56:45 AM Nice AOC Video showing a good portion of the combat. (http://www.gamespot.com/video/927504/6187806/age-of-conan-hyborian-adventures-official-trailer-13)
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Signe on March 14, 2008, 10:35:30 AM Damn. Couldn't make it past the advert.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Evildrider on March 14, 2008, 11:19:59 AM Is it me, but after watching that video, I still don't see this *active combat system*? Maybe I'm just too spoiled by DDO's combat system, but AoC's just looks like a flashier version of WoW. The only thing I really liked was the different weapon melee ranges. All the blood and crap was more annoying then anything else.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Slayerik on March 14, 2008, 11:24:39 AM They re-did their website as well if anyone wants to check it out.
www.ageofconan.com :) Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: SnakeCharmer on March 14, 2008, 11:36:03 AM Looks good.
:nda: Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Numtini on March 14, 2008, 11:45:55 AM That is the most annoying website, just censor the thing to death so I can actually get to something rather than inputting my age constantly.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 14, 2008, 11:48:17 AM That is the most annoying website, just censor the thing to death so I can actually get to something rather than inputting my age constantly. Just click the British flag. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Falconeer on March 14, 2008, 11:52:25 AM Is it me, but after watching that video, I still don't see this *active combat system*? How come? There is NO autoattack. You have to swing your weapon, every single time and in different directions. They say it clearly in the video. Does everything with something resembling a hotbar reeks of WoW to you? Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Evildrider on March 14, 2008, 02:40:21 PM No but standing in one spot swinging does.. so there's no auto attack button.. woo.... I consider active to be more then what they are doing there. I really didn't see them moving to flank.. the only thing they mention is attacking from behind. Maybe I'm just used to moving most of the time while attacking.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Ratman_tf on March 14, 2008, 02:51:24 PM How come? There is NO autoattack. You have to swing your weapon, every single time and in different directions. They say it clearly in the video. Does everything with something resembling a hotbar reeks of WoW to you? When did autoattack go from a desired feature (Diablo-click-click-click) to a liability? Shit. I better post something to be on topic... hmmm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZHoHaAYHq8 Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Falconeer on March 14, 2008, 03:19:15 PM You guys, you are never happy :oh_i_see:
You have collision detection, you have to swing your weapon manually and you have multiple basic attacks (and I am not talking about specials) as in every 3rd person action game (but NO mmorpg that I know of), you have bonii if you attack the unguarded side of your enemies and you have to actively guard your sides too... still the game looks like a flashier version of WoW? Well, ok. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Falconeer on March 14, 2008, 03:20:33 PM How come? There is NO autoattack. You have to swing your weapon, every single time and in different directions. They say it clearly in the video. Does everything with something resembling a hotbar reeks of WoW to you? When did autoattack go from a desired feature (Diablo-click-click-click) to a liability? What? I am not sure I am understanding you but while Evildrider thinks this is just a flashier WoW, you think it is a flashier Diablo? Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Evildrider on March 14, 2008, 03:25:55 PM I think what he's saying is that clicking to attack doesn't necessarily mean it's active combat.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Nerf on March 14, 2008, 03:37:13 PM If you're "moving around alot" in DDO to fight you're a fucking idiot. DDO's combat system is either spamming clicks while tripping, or you took the awful "I can strafe and attack!" feats that totally gimped your character. Also, DDO has autoattack, it works alot better than sitting there spamming clicks.
From what I've heard, this combat system is NOTHING like WoW, or any other MMORPG really. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Falconeer on March 14, 2008, 03:39:13 PM There is no point in talking about this with a :nda: in place. I think that video, and what the devs say, shows some of the differences between AoC and WoW.
It's not like you are going to play Soul Calibur MMO, but to say it is a flashier WoW (which instead is a flashier EQ) would be an understatement. The Diablo comment deserved to be ignored as I mentioned different attack directions but Ratman chose the smarty way regardless. I got distracted by its lack of a point. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Evildrider on March 14, 2008, 03:45:19 PM If you're "moving around alot" in DDO to fight you're a fucking idiot. DDO's combat system is either spamming clicks while tripping, or you took the awful "I can strafe and attack!" feats that totally gimped your character. Also, DDO has autoattack, it works alot better than sitting there spamming clicks. From what I've heard, this combat system is NOTHING like WoW, or any other MMORPG really. Huh? If you think getting spring attack is gimping your character.. well.. I'm not even gonna go there. I don't tend to stand in one spot and let spells get spammed on me, or I move position to always be behind or flank. Yes, there is an auto attack.. and it also attacks slower then actually clicking to attack. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Evildrider on March 14, 2008, 03:49:49 PM If you're "moving around alot" in DDO to fight you're a fucking idiot. DDO's combat system is either spamming clicks while tripping, or you took the awful "I can strafe and attack!" feats that totally gimped your character. Also, DDO has autoattack, it works alot better than sitting there spamming clicks. From what I've heard, this combat system is NOTHING like WoW, or any other MMORPG really. Huh? If you think getting spring attack is gimping your character.. well.. I'm not even gonna go there. I don't tend to stand in one spot and let spells get spammed on me, or I move position to always be behind or flank. Yes, there is an auto attack.. and it also attacks slower then actually clicking to attack.. Maybe you should learn the game a bit more before calling me a *fucking idiot* lol. If you are standing in one spot using auto attack and hitting your one special attack, then you are better off playing some other mmo's. bah doublish post :( Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Ratman_tf on March 14, 2008, 06:26:35 PM The Diablo comment deserved to be ignored as I mentioned different attack directions but Ratman chose the smarty way regardless. I got distracted by its lack of a point. #1. Every game can be boiled down to clicking on shit. One man's involved combat is another's spastic clickfest. #2. Attack facings, unless they're very careful, can easily degenerate into PvP being about grabbing the other guy's ass. The RPPvP equivalent of bunny hopping. #3. They should have made this game about a Real Barbarian (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhAobPugvsk). Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Nerf on March 14, 2008, 11:50:11 PM Lol @ avoiding spells in DDO. Sorry dude, but thats a load of shit, DDO melee combat is clickspam and spamming trip. You can't effectively flank or get behind NPC's unless you're not tanking, and good fucking luck avoiding anything except at point blank.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Evildrider on March 15, 2008, 04:25:12 AM Lol @ avoiding spells in DDO. Sorry dude, but thats a load of shit, DDO melee combat is clickspam and spamming trip. You can't effectively flank or get behind NPC's unless you're not tanking, and good fucking luck avoiding anything except at point blank. Yes, any one that doesn't play your way sucks.. you know everything.. :uhrr: Sorry because you may not know how to avoid spells.. that's your flaw. you do realize you can get out of line of sight by moving when you start seeing casting animations right? Oh wait.. you are just standing there spamming.. you might not have picked that up. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Nerf on March 15, 2008, 10:50:21 AM How long has it been since you played DDO? Most npc's don't even have spellcasting animations, at least the ones that really fucking hurt you. The only time moving and attacking would be worthwhile in DDO is shot on the run for ranged classes, spring attack is a total waste of way too many feats for the benefit it provides.
I've only got a couple 16s though, what would I know. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Evildrider on March 15, 2008, 11:42:18 AM Umm been playing since beta.. have 1 capped cleric, 1 battle cleric at 14, 1 wizzy at cap, 1 sorc at cap, 1 fighter at cap, 1 ranger at cap, 1 rogue at cap.
It's just different playstyles probably. However you can dodge most of the damage spells like flame strike, fireball, and scorching ray, cone of cold... Their animations are quick but you can tell when they are casting. And if you ahve a fighter you have more then enough feats for spring attack.. if you are a twf ranger.. you are probably getting spring attack for Tempest ranger. I'd say over 50% of the fighters in my guild carry spring attack. Barely any of them trip.. because you aren't tripping the Orthos and Beardeds Devils on the higher difficulties. Since the devils port ALOT that also makes Spring Attack well worth it.. especially on the Orthos on ELITE who's AC is insane. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Nerf on March 15, 2008, 12:17:41 PM Ah, maybe the content made spring attack wortwhile, my fighters been mothballed for awhile, but it used to be fucking worthless, unless you just felt like running around all cracked out.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Falconeer on March 15, 2008, 12:19:55 PM Umm been playing since beta.. have 1 capped cleric, 1 battle cleric at 14, 1 wizzy at cap, 1 sorc at cap, 1 fighter at cap, 1 ranger at cap, 1 rogue at cap. Wait. Are you trying to say that D&D Online is fun? Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Falwell on March 15, 2008, 12:46:33 PM So I've been trying to dig up some more info on the spellweaving system they mentioned back in the day with no luck. Anyone know if this is just under tight NDA or has this went the way of the Dodo?
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: K9 on March 15, 2008, 01:10:05 PM I think it's pretty heavily :nda: and probably not as polished as the physical combat system (guessing0; hence it has been showcased less. The only casting dynamic to get shitcanned was the hell consequence of being overambitious with your casting because it just lead to unfun downtimes in groups while the caster had to fight their way out of hell.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Pennilenko on March 15, 2008, 02:24:40 PM The only casting dynamic to get shitcanned was the hell consequence of being overambitious with your casting because it just lead to un-fun downtimes in groups while the caster had to fight their way out of hell. Heh. That sounds fun. I really think people need to lose the concept of having to stay constantly busy on the go and grindy in MMO's. What ever happened to real risks for your choices and socialization? Spending time chatting with people and getting to know them better? Outside of everyone's guild how many people do you really know in <insert your current mmo name here>? Does anyone actually use their MMO to relax anymore? Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Aez on March 15, 2008, 04:04:38 PM The only casting dynamic to get shitcanned was the hell consequence of being overambitious with your casting because it just lead to un-fun downtimes in groups while the caster had to fight their way out of hell. Heh. That sounds fun. I really think people need to lose the concept of having to stay constantly busy on the go and grindy in MMO's. What ever happened to real risks for your choices and socialization? Spending time chatting with people and getting to know them better? Outside of everyone's guild how many people do you really know in <insert your current mmo name here>? Does anyone actually use their MMO to relax anymore? It's called MySpace. It's all pink and fuzzy. Have fun. (http://www.partytimeimpressions.com/images/carebear_color_L0H8.jpg) Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Pennilenko on March 15, 2008, 04:17:29 PM The only casting dynamic to get shitcanned was the hell consequence of being overambitious with your casting because it just lead to un-fun downtimes in groups while the caster had to fight their way out of hell. Heh. That sounds fun. I really think people need to lose the concept of having to stay constantly busy on the go and grindy in MMO's. What ever happened to real risks for your choices and socialization? Spending time chatting with people and getting to know them better? Outside of everyone's guild how many people do you really know in <insert your current mmo name here>? Does anyone actually use their MMO to relax anymore? It's called MySpace. It's all pink and fuzzy. Have fun. I wasn't suggesting that people become total slack asses. I was mearly pointing out what i think is a worsening trend in MMOs. Also i was asking questions in which i was intersted in discussing. You didn't need to go overboard and throw poo at me. :uhrr: :roll: Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Megrim on March 15, 2008, 05:08:56 PM The only casting dynamic to get shitcanned was the hell consequence of being overambitious with your casting because it just lead to un-fun downtimes in groups while the caster had to fight their way out of hell. Heh. That sounds fun. I really think people need to lose the concept of having to stay constantly busy on the go and grindy in MMO's. What ever happened to real risks for your choices and socialization? Spending time chatting with people and getting to know them better? Outside of everyone's guild how many people do you really know in <insert your current mmo name here>? Does anyone actually use their MMO to relax anymore? Soooo.... they threw out the only thing which was going to make casting interesting. Yea, ok, gw. It's an interesting strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off for them.... Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: rk47 on March 15, 2008, 05:30:33 PM hell why don't they just add a pacman mini-game whereby it kicks in when you're knocked out of the fight. If the 'ghosts' gets your pacman you can't self rez.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: tmp on March 15, 2008, 05:38:46 PM Does anyone actually use their MMO to relax anymore? Sure, when they choose to. Not when they have to because one guy in group screwed up and there's nothiing they can do about it but sit and pretend forced downtime for nth time in the row is fun and relaxing.Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Raguel on March 16, 2008, 12:53:08 AM It used to drive me crazy when I read devs/players discussing a unique,innovative system/feature but it gets canned because it conflicts with the grind. Now I just accept that this is just what the industry is going to make (at least when it comes to fantasy mmos). :dead_horse: Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Phred on March 16, 2008, 03:55:18 AM I think trying to do any sort of harder sci-fi as a MMORPG would be difficult, especially a traditional character-centric DIKU one. That PS3 game "The Agency" is going to have the same problem, how many different types of guns can you have as items? They could always do what they did with AO, and make a shit ton of useless guns. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Venkman on March 16, 2008, 05:07:38 AM Smith & Wesson called. They want their business model back.
(always wanted to do that) On AoC system requirements: anyone who's surprised hasn't followed the game at all. This was one of those titles they pulled out as a reason DX10 was worth getting Vista for, so that should have been the big hint. Those of Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Aez on March 16, 2008, 06:23:28 AM The only casting dynamic to get shitcanned was the hell consequence of being overambitious with your casting because it just lead to un-fun downtimes in groups while the caster had to fight their way out of hell. Heh. That sounds fun. I really think people need to lose the concept of having to stay constantly busy on the go and grindy in MMO's. What ever happened to real risks for your choices and socialization? Spending time chatting with people and getting to know them better? Outside of everyone's guild how many people do you really know in <insert your current mmo name here>? Does anyone actually use their MMO to relax anymore? It's called MySpace. It's all pink and fuzzy. Have fun. I wasn't suggesting that people become total slack asses. I was mearly pointing out what i think is a worsening trend in MMOs. Also i was asking questions in which i was intersted in discussing. You didn't need to go overboard and throw poo at me. :uhrr: :roll: Sure. There's good and bad wayy to encourage socialisation in mmog. The good ways include : - Mini-game (WoW card game) - Elaborate pointless but fun feature (music instrument in Asheron's Call 2, dancer profession in SWG) The bad ways are mainly when the socialisation is forced to your throat : - Having to watch a Wookie dance to regenerate an obscure meter - Having to tolerate a bad/stupid/annoying healer because you can't do shit with out him - And yes, having to wait for your mage to come out of hell by doing a lame and repetitive punitive quest Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 16, 2008, 12:29:31 PM The only casting dynamic to get shitcanned was the hell consequence of being overambitious with your casting because it just lead to un-fun downtimes in groups while the caster had to fight their way out of hell. Heh. That sounds fun. I really think people need to lose the concept of having to stay constantly busy on the go and grindy in MMO's. What ever happened to real risks for your choices and socialization? Spending time chatting with people and getting to know them better? Outside of everyone's guild how many people do you really know in <insert your current mmo name here>? Does anyone actually use their MMO to relax anymore? It's called MySpace. It's all pink and fuzzy. Have fun. I wasn't suggesting that people become total slack asses. I was mearly pointing out what i think is a worsening trend in MMOs. Also i was asking questions in which i was intersted in discussing. You didn't need to go overboard and throw poo at me. :uhrr: :roll: Sure. There's good and bad wayy to encourage socialisation in mmog. The good ways include : - Mini-game (WoW card game) - Elaborate pointless but fun feature (music instrument in Asheron's Call 2, dancer profession in SWG) The bad ways are mainly when the socialisation is forced to your throat : - Having to watch a Wookie dance to regenerate an obscure meter - Having to tolerate a bad/stupid/annoying healer because you can't do shit with out him - And yes, having to wait for your mage to come out of hell by doing a lame and repetitive punitive quest None of that is really social interaction. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Merusk on March 16, 2008, 01:36:53 PM You obviously weren't a dancer in SWG's beginning and didn't partake in some of the music groups in AC2. They were very social bits during the time I played with both.
What ruined the social bit of SWG was the holocron grind. All of the sudden folks who had no interest in being a dancer were forced to be master_dancer. Better to just afk macro and walk away, they thought. It fucking killed it for the small group of us dedicated to Theed & Corellia's scene on Scyllia. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Aez on March 16, 2008, 02:08:42 PM None of that is really social interaction. Care to elaborate? Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Venkman on March 16, 2008, 03:35:50 PM Quote from: Mrbloodworth None of that is really social interaction. Wuh? Having been in bands in both SWG and LoTRO, I beg to differ.Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: palmer_eldritch on March 16, 2008, 05:27:40 PM I used to love going to the cantinas with my tailor and touting for business. The entertainers would buy stuff, and then the fighters who were watching them would want stuff. There was a crafting station outside the cantina in the town I used to go to (too long ago to remember the name), so I could make stuff to order right there. It certainly seemed more social than doing instances in WoW.
Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Slyfeind on March 16, 2008, 05:48:50 PM Quote from: Mrbloodworth None of that is really social interaction. Wuh? Having been in bands in both SWG and LoTRO, I beg to differ.I used to love the entertainer community. We'd braid each others' hair after getting a bubble in music or dance. Great fun. Nothing to do really but bullshit while our experience bars filled themselves. Raph needs to put this crap in his new MetaMMO and he knows it! DAMMIT! Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: schild on March 16, 2008, 06:06:27 PM Yea, I need experience bars to chat with other people too.
(http://xs225.xs.to/xs225/08121/ooooooooooooooooh_swg175.jpg) HOW I PINE FOR THE CANTINA. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 17, 2008, 06:41:48 AM You obviously weren't a dancer in SWG's beginning and didn't partake in some of the music groups in AC2. They were very social bits during the time I played with both. What ruined the social bit of SWG was the holocron grind. All of the sudden folks who had no interest in being a dancer were forced to be master_dancer. Better to just afk macro and walk away, they thought. It fucking killed it for the small group of us dedicated to Theed & Corellia's scene on Scyllia. Oh, i was a lot of things, including the mayor of a 4 guild city of over 100's +. My point being, that those mechanics may have CAUSED social interaction. They, themselves, were not. Most social interaction was happening in spite of, or during the time those mechanics were required, or in someones other words, "forced". Manly, the mechanics brought people to a common place. Thats about it. Social interaction happened anyway. I don't believe you can code social interaction. Your right about the holocron grind. Bands and traveling circus were another thing entirely, and were 100% player created. No mechanic required you to come up with a name for the band, song selection, matching outfits and a date list. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Ratman_tf on March 17, 2008, 07:52:33 AM Outside of everyone's guild how many people do you really know in <insert your current mmo name here>? I know them enough to know that I don't want to communicate with them. [trade: A$$HaT] CHUCK NORRIS!!! Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Venkman on March 17, 2008, 04:18:37 PM Quote from: schild Yea, I need experience bars to chat with other people too. Quote from: Mrbloodworth They, themselves, were not. Most social interaction was happening in spite of, or during the time those mechanics were required, or in someones other words, "forced". Here's what Aez said: Quote from: Aez - Elaborate pointless but fun feature (music instrument in Asheron's Call 2, dancer profession in SWG) The pointless-but-fun part is what enabled social interaction, not the Battle Fatigue/Mind Wound nonsense. Don't think about SWG the total game (because these systems shouldn't have been forced in the first place). Just consider the music/dance/ID activities in comparison to the equally pointless-but-fun music system in AC2 and LoTRO. By themselves they did not give XP, and there really was no reason to do them from a gameplay point of view. They are mere toys people created experiences around. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: grunk on March 22, 2008, 07:13:19 AM oh man,i cant get over this...
IS THIS GAME UBER OR NOT!? WTF... !!!! :pedobear: Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Slayerik on March 23, 2008, 08:40:16 PM oh man,i cant get over this... IS THIS GAME UBER OR NOT!? WTF... !!!! :pedobear: The prophecy has been fulfilled. He has returned. All praise be grunk. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Triforcer on March 24, 2008, 10:28:03 AM oh man,i cant get over this... IS THIS GAME UBER OR NOT!? WTF... !!!! :pedobear: Apparently, it is. http://www.techchill.com/2008/03/24/age-of-conan-tops-sales-charts-despite-being-unreleased/ Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Evildrider on March 24, 2008, 10:51:06 AM oh man,i cant get over this... IS THIS GAME UBER OR NOT!? WTF... !!!! :pedobear: Apparently, it is. http://www.techchill.com/2008/03/24/age-of-conan-tops-sales-charts-despite-being-unreleased/ Well it has CGI boobies, and now we know how many people love those. :awesome_for_real: Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: Threash on March 24, 2008, 10:55:24 AM oh man,i cant get over this... IS THIS GAME UBER OR NOT!? WTF... !!!! :pedobear: Apparently, it is. http://www.techchill.com/2008/03/24/age-of-conan-tops-sales-charts-despite-being-unreleased/ Well it has CGI boobies, and now we know how many people love those. :awesome_for_real: Very appropiate avatar for this post. Title: Re: AOC - State of the Game: February 2008 Post by: DarkSign on March 24, 2008, 01:55:34 PM Always met fun people at the teleportation spires in EQ1. Waiting for them to go off started many a friendship.
|