Age of Conan

What would you rather have:

A game with less than all planned features with a launch that is really smooth to play and looks good with wonderful core mechanics, which causes a lot of buys and thus more funding for more features?

Or

A game with everything in but since it was all rushed it is buggy as hell, crashes a lot, no one buys it so there is no funding to fix it?

Hm?

How about a game with a modest set of fully supported features, and continued development throughout the lifespan of the game?

And I fail to see what this has to do with Age of Conan.

Easily, the first one.

Originally posted by gamedever

What would you rather have:

A game with less than all planned features with a launch that is really smooth to play and looks good with wonderful core mechanics, which causes a lot of buys and thus more funding for more features?

 

Or

 

A game with everything in but since it was all rushed it is buggy as hell, crashes a lot, no one buys it so there is no funding to fix it?

 

Hm?

Both are unacceptable states for the release of a game.

first choice ..build from a good core.

and you made the second choice really really bad..i'm sure there is something in between.

and eeh..tantus games? go finish your website:)

Originally posted by gamedever

What would you rather have:

A game with less than all planned features with a launch that is really smooth to play and looks good with wonderful core mechanics, which causes a lot of buys and thus more funding for more features?

 

Or

 

A game with everything in but since it was all rushed it is buggy as hell, crashes a lot, no one buys it so there is no funding to fix it?

 

Hm?

you act like that 1st option is already in the bag...

I think only LOTRo came with a smooth launch..YES belive it or not WoW was far from it,none of your options are a good choice,what everyone wants is different to what can be delievered..

A game with a decent launch i.e you can see how the game should work and how classes maybe should handle(like WoW)and with the chance and team to build it into the final product.

These days every player wants a final product on day 1,well guess what that aint a MMo,so either play off line games or get used to it.

Yes, both are extremes, but you'll notice both are the presumed states of the game right now from different parties. As a fellow developer I would hope and strive for as close to finished as possible, but I also realize the risk of biting off more than I can chew, which is why projects scale back.

As for me, I played the Beta and personally had a blast, so my *opinion* is the game should be good.

Gamedever, these are two points on the same continuum, but NOT two extremes.

Two extremes would be "a game which releases incredibly smoothly but has no/nearly no features beyond the core gameplay mechanics" and "a game which releases absolutely laden with bugs and crashes and with little/no support, but which is packed full of all kinds of amazing features".

The question of which a person would rather have is a little less clear cut when you actually present two extremes.

When presented with a question of actual extremes and which I would prefer, personally I would rather deal with a buggy game that has infinite potential than a vanilla game that runs well. Everyone and their brother can put out a remake of EQ or WoW or whatever that runs well... but who gives a crap? I want to see something new, something truly innovative and, dare I say, revolutionary, no matter the opportunity cost.

You forgot the 3rd option which Age of Conan will fall into:

 A game with less than all planned features with a launch that is rushed, buggy as hell, and  crashes a lot.