All Posts by Xasapis

I believe some other poster said it best (I think I read it on this site). Even if all the cooks have the same material, the soup will still taste different. It does't matter that some ideas are getting rehashed, as long as each generation adds something to the previous one.

As long as the majority of player have to use outside the game sources to play the game properly, something does not work properly. This situation plagued the old games more than the modern ones (even if the improvement is slight). Hopefully in the future we'll see games that do not require outside sources to be played properly.

To Gishgeron :

What I tried to say (unsuccesfully it seems) is that subscription numbers have an impact to future development but it's not a direct analogy. Past examples have shown that smaller companies have presented more material and expanded their world much further than more established ones.

My point remains however that as far as players are concerned, more subscriptions just mean more servers. And since we usually just spend our time in just one, it doesn't affect our gameplay. To give an example, once upon a time I used to play AO, a game with two servers. Once upon a time I also used to play WoW, a game with ... 800? servers? The bottom line is that I had a blast in my stay in both games, regardless of the amount of people that were playing them.

The best MMO is the one you like and play. Subscriptions mean one thing only, expansions to the game world. And we have seen first hand that the amount of suscriptions is not directly related to the amount of content produced by each MMO company.

So, subscriptions mean nothing to the gamers really. Maybe to those not mature enough to need numbers to affirm their hobby. It may mean a lot to the company and the shareholders, but we are not them. We are gamers. One full server is enough to have fun.

To Alan0n:

You are right about the sieges but wrong about the mounts. At least the part where you say that hey were not available long enough.

What I did not witness is mounted PvP of a small or larger scale. Probably  because there weren't a ton of things you could do on top of a mount.

Actually the max 50 people is misinformation. The poster probably read it in these forums and now just parroting it.

Actually the 500.000 number originated from a Funcom announcement to their investors. They were referring to the amount of people making an account up to that point. So that number can be taken as a confirmed amount of units sold up to that point. I estimate that this number is now higher. How much higher though is unknown. We'll probably need the next announcement to the investors for it.

Besides, somebody who bought and activated an account is not guaranteed to have stayed in the game. It just means that he bought the box and tried the game for the free month. Retention and amount of subscribers over time is still pretty much in the air.

To the OP:

I like AoC and I feel confident that it will grow to something good, given time. Your attitude however is something that is not necessary nor needed. Despite popular belief, people can spot a highly subjective opinion. And I'm afraid, this whole thread is just that.

How do you people come up with all these numbers? (not talking to anyone specifically)

How did you manage to split the 30 mins it takes to reach level 6 in a week? Sorry friend, it's just that I found the title of your thread funny and kind of detached from what you're writing in your post.

As for the combat, it's a matter of taste. If you didn't like it early, you probably won't like it later on.

Between two games with equal gameplay, the one with the better presentation wins.

Gameplay is a given. If it's not, there is no point in playing any game. What matters from that point on is the package deal that comes with it.

Too bad I can't seem to be able to reach 20 without dying ... always something happens ... hehe

Your opinion would hold more water if you had some relevant background and you were not referring to single player games as examples.

I would risk a guess myself and say that they developed their in-house engine (AO) that had zone boundaries, thus the updated engine had also zone boundaries.

What do you think is more possible?

...

I am so sick of the standard fanboy responses about going back to WoW and the bugs of WoW or how WoW sucked at launch. This is many years after, plus WoW was fine after three to five days of server problems due to the massive amount logging in. Sure all raids were not in etc. But the game was filled to the brim with content.

...

Don't worry about me, I'm not burned by anything. I have my likes and dislikes and a personal opinion of the games I've played and that's it. Besides, if I would disagree with the OP on something, I would have mentioned it.

To Draccan:

I would suggest you read the thead you're responding before copy-pasting a responce from another thread. What you're describing in your post is not on par with what was said by the previous posters of this thread.

What exactly did you expect when you're the OP of a thread claiming to know the status of the game without even playing it?

And how exactly that would prevent people from keep on exploiting and sending the gold to others? (thus implicating possibly unaware people?)

The crime committed was by the exploiters. Innocent people are suffering due to them. It's like having to stand in a police line-up because you happened to be in a place where a crime was committed. Do you blame the police for it?

Well, you've gone through all this trouble to write it. It would have been a shame for noone to read it due to presentation issues.

Much better, thank you.

lol, was quoting him really necessary?