| Username | Chrysos |
| Real Name | |
| Rank | Advanced Member |
| Joined | September 29, 2004 |
| Gender | Male |
| Age | 40 |
| Location | London, United Kingdom |
| Last Visit | December 5, 2008 |
| Post Count | 63 |
| Biography | |
| Quote |
30 years ago we didn't have a gaming industry and we certainly didn't have journalists spending time writing articles about games. A lot has changed in a short time. Now we can buy glossy magazines from newsstands, read articles on websites (free or for a fee), read articles in established magazines that have added a (usually very small) feature on games and even watch gaming shows on television.
I am in no way shape or form part of the gaming industry (except as a consumer) so I can't speak from experience but I can't imagine that many people worldwide graduating from journalism schools are looking to break into gaming journalism. Which leads to the question who is writing all these reviews we read.
For a time it seemed to be difficult to find a derogatory remark in any of the articles in the glossy magazines. Of course if you buy the Official "insert brand of your choice" Magazine you wouldn't really expect them to write anything negative about their own games. However from the more general and independent looking magazines you would have expected the occasional bad review. Maybe they there were only good games out there or maybe they made the editorial decision to only write reviews of good games.
On the various internet sites there will be a wide range of quality but in the competitive open market the best of it should rise to the surface (our favourite MMORPG site being a prime example). On the glossy magazines you would expect that writers of proven quality would be hired on internet and fan sites no such expectation exists. After all anybody can start his own website and write reviews on games or any other subject. This isn't a bad thing, some of the best reviews I've read have been on forums written by Joe Blogg.
Personally I don't hold tv gaming programs in high regard. For some reason they all seem to be geared at the 12 to 15 year old market. No matter that the average age of the gamer is considerably higher than this. I find this a pity as tv seems a perfect medium for gaming reviews being able to actually show you some game play. Luckily the internet steps up again and anybody can go to YouTube and search for reviews of varying quality.
Who knows in the years to come journalism schools will cover gaming as part of the curriculum. I don't think a gaming journalist will ever pull in a Pulitzer prize but there is a lot of room still for the industry to grow into to.
I am certainly not a fan of PvP and basically avoid it. However I do like to play in a game that has PvP even if I try not to participate. It adds an element of danger and uncertainty. Also with PvP and areas that you can defend or conquer you can actually make an impact on the game that you'll never get from a PvE game.
What you have to remember about full loot is that you have to hold the field at the end of the battle to be able to loot. So if you die solo you'll always be looted but if you're in a group and your friends fight off the attackers they can loot your corpse and return the items to you. Looting in the middle of a fight is usually a good way to die.
Originally posted by sepher
Rest of 'em seemed to release with no real plan to continue any launch momentum and transition out of that timeframe.
That's a good point. As important as the launch is, having a plan to move forward after launch is probably even more important. Something probably overlooked by most devs or pushed backward as something to think of after launch.
I was wondering how many MMO's have had a successful launch in the last couple of years. There have been several high profile games that seem to have fallen pretty flat on release and I can't off the top of my head remember a great problem free launch for a while.
Of course there is no real definition of a successful launch and what constitutes a good launch could lead to quite a discussion in itself. So it's down to perception and personal opinion which are never very exact or objective parameters.
Does my perception that there hasn't been a truly successful release since WoW (a game I haven't myself played) mean I've become too demanding (how many relatively problem free launches have there really been), my expectations for the games itself are too high and can never be met, I've become too open to internet trolls, games development costs too much and games are generally released too early.
It used to be I would look forward to a new release and try to get in at launch to be first to explore a new world. Now after several disappointments I tend to wait, maybe get a buddy key and if I don't and initial feedback is negative I'll wait and see if they decide to do a free trial. For me personally this isn't a financial decision as I can easily enough afford to buy a new game. I've heard other people say much the same thing and they'll only go for the launch now if it's what they consider an unmissable game. Hopefully I'm pretty much alone though as if people are not willing to get involved at launch new MMO's will have a difficult time getting off the ground.
Has anything been mentioned about an NDA?
If they do try for an NDA you've got to imagine it will be very difficult for people who do get into a beta to keep quiet about their experiences in view of the years of passion (pro or con) already invested in this game.
What aspect of MMORPG's are you more into?