Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
AC transition to AC2
KenFisher
Member UncommonPosts: 5,035
Been reading up on the older MMOs.
I read an interesting comment today about how when Asheron's Call 2 came out, it put some AC fans off of the new game because what they wanted was an Asheron's Call with better graphics, and what they saw was a whole new game.
Was this really that significant? Are the two games that dissimilar that it would upset players?
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
Comments
Yes they were two totally different games. Same thing happened with EQ and EQ2...players wanted the EQ experience but with better graphics, instead they got a quest hub, game on rails experience like a bad WoW.
This is the trend, in fact I cannot think of any sequel that didn't totally change from the first run of the game. It has to do with the developer's not trying to compete with their own products, and instead they end up losing both game's playerbase. Devs seem to have forgotten the one true adage...don't fix what isn't broken.
That was one of several issues it had, yes. It's interesting because had it been named something other than AC2, I think the AC fans would have received it better, as the complaint wasn't that it had bad features but that it wasn't the game they wanted. AC2 was plagued with problems (one was chat not working for a month or so) but it did move the genre forward, if by no other measure than its introduction of the UI design that we use to this very day in most EQ/WOW style MMOs.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I don't think (western) devs have forgotten anything, as attempts to make sequels died over a decade ago. I think Neocron 2 was the last attempt at that.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It's wasn't that deep. The main thing is the Chat System did not work. It never worked. There was a huge lag with chat, and back then most people did not use and out of game source of communication like they do now.
I think this was one of the first games where people left right after their free month, at least that is what I did. It never recovered, in fact it never even got started.
I think it's more a matter of trade secrets passing along, through dev conferences and other avenues. Look at WOW and EQ2, both released around the same time, both featured similar designs, most of the closely following games also had similar features as well as presentation. Which they too would have been past the conceptual stage during those game's launches.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
It is really funny because some of the bigger games had a solid fanbase but the developer DID NOT LISTEN.
Lets look at EQ>EQ2....FFXI>FFXIV....AC>AC2...All people wanted was better graphics.
The problem is that as a developer they do not see the big money from simply updating graphics,that would be more like a free update,so the developer puts in effort and gets no return.SO they feel a RUSHED sequel is the more profitable approach,looks good to the investors.Besides that NEW always sells better than updates,expansions.
Developers seem to very quickly forget the object is not just to make money but KEEP your player base and keep them happy or any other effort would be for nothing.If your game is lasting 5+ years,you have already made your money,taking another 15 a month from players should be put to good use,put that money and invest back into the game to keep players interested.You don't get greedy and say ok we want your 15 a month AND we want another 50 to buy a new rushed game that we used your 15 a month to make.
Simple math people,they charge 50/60 for a game that took 5 years "used to be that kind of effort" but then ask 30 bucks for 6 months of expansion pack effort.That math simply doesn't add up,you already have the engine and systems ,over 6 months that is already 90 bucks+the added 30,so your getting 120 bucks a player "expansion" when you only needed 60 over the 5 years to build the entire game.What it really tells us is not only greed but the actual effort going into these games is a LOT LESS than what they claim.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Giffen is correct. It was the cannibalization and schism of existing playerbases that made it a bad business model for MMOs. There's an interview here where Hanna mentions that, too.
"One of the key lessons that we learned is the customer perception of sequels in the MMO space. They end up splitting your community more so than growing it. So they are counterproductive, unlike sequels in other game genres where they can be really successful." (link)
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Asheron's Call 2
was built on the first iteration of the engine used in Dungeon's & Dragons Online and Lord of the Rings Online.
had a significantly smaller very linear world
significantly less complex magic system. In AC most avatars including melee invested heavily into three of the four magic schools
more complex melee system. In AC you could set the attack and walk away to get a drink. Almost anything would have been more complex.
A horrible chat system contracted out to Microsoft. After about 6 months of retail release Turbine started over and built their own chat system.
buildings with no interior. You had to portal in to interior instances.
Equipment was simplified.
A crafting system that was more involve that what AC had at the time. AC's crafting evolved greatly since then.
Crafting was intended to be the primary source for equipment.
Loot drops that were about 1/20th of what AC players were used to. Starting inventory space went from 120 slots to somewhere around 40.
Housing was going to consist of tents with storage boxes as opposed to apartments, cottages, estates and guild mansions in AC.