No love from IGN?

brogar Profile Options #71

0

kDeviL on 05/01/2012, 12:30 PM - view
brogar on 05/01/2012, 12:25 PM
edgecrusherO0 on 05/01/2012, 12:18 PM
GreenEyedMonster on 05/01/2012, 12:14 PM
Tera has a chance to usurp current mmos with it's combat.

Other larger companies are doing what they can to keep media about Tera on the d-low.


Sadly, not really. It's too much of a niche game with the art style and a lot of the more traditional elements.

It's a great game and the combat is insanely fun, but it's not going to change how MMO's are made. At most, it will influence the combat systems in future MMO's to be more action oriented, which is a great thing IMO.


There you go saying "niche". What niche? Because of the art style? The art in the game really looks more western than anime with the exception of Elins. I think people say "anime niche" because someone else said it, so we recorded it to be a fact in our minds.

If Tera doesn't make it big, it's more about sparse marketing than niches.


He's Right though. He's not talking about art style, he's saying that aside from the combat and graphics this is basically like every other mmo out there.

Not to say it's a bad thing, it's just not as big of a deal as something that changes almost everything about the genre. Which is what is currently getting all the attention.


The change to the combat from traditional tab target style is pretty much universally considered to be a positive, often considered a vast, vast positive.

The questing is traditional and that's getting a lot of complaints. Personally I'm comfortable with the quest system, but I guess that a game with superior questing would be great. The problem is though, that unless a change is nearly universally seen as a positive, it marginalizes the game by creating, here's that word! a niche, by deviating too far from the "traditional" rpg. These things totally can backfire. I don't know what GW2 questing is like. What lay on the horizon, maybe more mini-game style quests, like how lockpicking got in TES? Maybe a wider, more open choose-your-own-adventure system (well I read that gw2 questing is more like this).. but how does that work in an open-world mmorpg, you can't all have things turn out meaningfully different without changing other people's worlds.. It's not like it can turn out that the Lion's Pride Inn burnt down in a fire when you failed to stop the arson therefore depriving all level 1's from a place to chill, unless you implement phasing so heavily that it ends up instancing your world and creating more walls, defeating the open world feel. Maybe something awesome would be more of an alignment system that meaningfully changes the way that npc's react to you, like you go down the wrong path and suddenly you're no longer welcome in Goldshire, the guards will attack on sight.

I know that the questing in GW2 sounds like it gets some things right, but my problem with it is that the GW franchise model isn't friendly to pve'rs. It caters to a certain pvp mindset that clamours for an even footing by nerfing the feeling of organically GROWING a character, giving you a ton of superficial abilities immediately and reducing questing/levelling to something pitiful. Do we really want to run dungeons for just cosmetic upgrades?

I think a true MMO needs just a bit of grind. It should be as painless a grind as possible with pit stops like soloing elites and the odd dungeon for breaks/fun times, but it's not an RPG without a little bit of grind, feeling like you earned something and becoming attached to your character for the work you put into it.

But maybe the future doesn't have a place for a true mmorpg, but some sort of weird hybrid.. IDK. I love Tera for having the right balance between innovating a truly positive combat system but not deviating into something unrecognizable. If i didn't want any part of a traditional mmo but still wanted to play online games, I'd personally move to shooters.
Edited by: brogar about 1 year ago - Reason: removed poor word choice in regards to gw2 questing.
brogar Profile Options #72

0

kDeviL on 05/01/2012, 12:36 PM - view
brogar on 05/01/2012, 12:26 PM

GW1 wasn't even an mmo, let alone an innovative one. You, sir, are trolling.


lolwut? It wasn't an mmo because it wasn't like other mmos? I guess everquest and wow decided that if other games aren't just like them then it's not an mmo? So what you're telling me is that gw1 was a multiplayer online rpg with a massive amount of players, That was different (aka innovative) from a traditional mmo.

But that doesn't make it an innovative mmo...


It wasn't an mmo because it had no persistent world, it was all instanced. Every time you left a "town" there was a loading screen and you went into an instanced, small segment of a world where all mobs spawned in exactly the same spot every time.
Omegatron Profile Options #73

0

kDeviL on 05/01/2012, 12:53 PM - view
Omegatron on 05/01/2012, 12:50 PM


Never played a Mudd have you?




Why the hell would I do that? They look retarded.



I'm obviously talking about the first graphical mmo's.




Known as Mudds kiddo
kDeviL Profile Options #74

0

@ bro

But who says that persistent world is the only way an mmo can be an mmo? People don't consider vidictus, D&D, Dragon Age, AoC, and c9 to be mmos?

And as far as GW2 goes it was personally the best PvE I've experienced. However it's not for people that want to have they're hand held the whole time and the learning curve is pretty high, Also I mostly did PvP and alot of my love for the game now is because of how amazing it was. And yes, we do want to turn upgrades from pure stats that make a gear based mmo into gear meant for solely making tons of different builds. If I'm a better player then you, should you be able to beat me in pvp just because you have better gear? absolutely not, not for me anyways. There is certainly gear progression in the game but it's for versatility rather then "haha i pwnz yu noob" because of better stats. That's how I think every game should be... Skill based.
brogar Profile Options #75

0

kDeviL on 05/01/2012, 01:06 PM - view
@ bro

But who says that persistent world is the only way an mmo can be an mmo? People don't consider vidictus, D&D, Dragon Age, AoC, and c9 to be mmos?

And as far as GW2 goes it was personally the best PvE I've experienced. However it's not for people that want to have they're hand held the whole time and the learning curve is pretty high, Also I mostly did PvP and alot of my love for the game now is because of how amazing it was. And yes, we do want to turn upgrades from pure stats that make a gear based mmo into gear meant for solely making tons of different builds. If I'm a better player then you, should you be able to beat me in pvp just because you have better gear? absolutely not, not for me anyways. There is certainly gear progression in the game but it's for versatility rather then "haha i pwnz yu noob" because of better stats. That's how I think every game should be... Skill based.


A persistent world is a defining characteristic of an mmorpg. Refer back to the wikipedia entry on mmorpg:

Massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) is a genre of role-playing video games in which a very large number of players interact with one another within a virtual game world.
As in all RPGs, players assume the role of a character (often in a fantasy world) and take control over many of that character's actions. MMORPGs are distinguished from single-player or small multi-player RPGs by the number of players, and by the game's persistent world (usually hosted by the game's publisher), which continues to exist and evolve while the player is offline and away from the game.

When there is zero chance to interact with other players than those in a party you formed in-town while in the 90% of the game that is not a town, it would really be cheating the definition to call GW1 an mmo.

In regards to pvp, how would I have better gear than you if I'm worse than you at pvp? I used to wonder why on earth WoW felt the need to provide ever-more-leeter pvp gear to players who were already the best at pvp, but you're arguing this one the wrong way. And I am cool with it because whatever, it works. The wow model had bg's as a place to grind up to a point to pay your dues before you launched your arena phase. Grindy, but I believe that it's the kind of grindy that with only minimal pain keeps you interested in the game until the next content patch, not a horrible thing.
brogar Profile Options #76

0

And HOLY CRAP did this thread get jacked. Sorry for helping derail my own thread.. Back to complaining about how Tera is an underdog story. =)
zwild Profile Options #77

0

...or it could just be TERA actually does suck which something the fanboi "super-thick" ruby glasses can not see.

Once again:

- Animation Lock does NOT equal "fluid combat", it is actually the opposite of fluid!!!

- Crafting System that is so utter expensive AND useless at the same time!!! Pick ONE, you can't have both.

- Max level in less then 2 weeks. Really? SWTOR did the same thing... it is like companies these days don't care about keeping their players actually playing thier game.

But once again the "Super-Thick ruby glasses" will hide these facts from the fanbois. I don't care one iota about those other games either, I am just getting sick of the fanboism.
Skan Profile Options #78

0

Hampy on 05/01/2012, 09:09 AM - view
Yeah they used to say "OMG Tera is the MMO to keep an eye on and possibly the MMO of the year." Yet they sell out to GW2... Way to go IGN..


I can't help but feel this way about totalbiscuit.

Played TERA twice and loved it, then all of a sudden all he covers is GW2 and never mentions TERA again.
Bojanglz Profile Options #79

0

kDeviL on 05/01/2012, 12:38 PM - view

Yea but PvP is what makes it fun and worth playing. And for the most part it's how they started.

Actually that is just your opinion. PvP for me gets boring fast. Not to say it isn't fun, but I can only do so much of it so often before it bores me.

I started playing mmo's with UO and had no clue what I was doing. Didn't last long because I didn't know anyone who played and was to busy going out to worry about it. Then Came SWG which basically had 0 content and the community made its own. PvP I really enjoyed there because that was all there was to do really. I didn't know anything about end game or raids. Just defending your player city, attacking players cities, or just go to Naboo and attack.

Then came WoW and I love(d). I was able to play for hours on end every day when I was at home. I learned about end game and raiding and ever since then I play mmo's for the end game. PvP to me is just a side fun thing to do at times.

The problem is you will never make the 2 happy. PvP players ruin classes because they cry about other classes being overpowered and hence nerfs for the class and it effects the pve players.

My solution to have both but keep separate would be pvping usually happens in arena or bg's. So why not take the same specs of that class and make them pvp specs and trees. So since these places are instanced it could switch from pve to pvp tree. PvP gear you can only get through pvp and vice versa. World pvp you pick the tree and go from there. PvE gear will always put out the higher damage by a lot and pvp gear would be towards health and able to withstand more damage. So in World pvp both types can all just go at it.

Anyways sorry for going off topic there for a bit. But imo PvE only has the higher population then PvP players only. AoC, Warrhammer, and Aion were built with the main focus on PvP and how are they doing now? If you took the PvE completely away in WoW, I would be the population would drop way over half.

To each is own though. I still like having both in game but to say pvp is what makes or breaks the game is ridiculous. It's the end game not pvp.
TPReview Profile Options #80

0

See that's why you need friendly non-profit sites with early reviews up like www.TPReview.co.uk :p