The biggest issue with the game was always balance. In Mythic's attempt to have unique "versions" of the classes with EACH of the three realms, they created an extremely difficult dynamic to balance. I think I would prefer them to offer the same classes between each realm in DAOC, but provide an expanded offering (maybe a total of 10 classes). Races can then be used to "flavor" the differences between Realms, not to mention the "theme" of the realm.
DAOC has a great diverse range of classes, though, and I think the imbalances were worth it. I don't get why people worry about balance so much. I mean, I sorta do, but I prefer a game to be fun and interesting and diverse - I hate seeing any of that sacrificed for balance.
I think Mythic's obsession with balance was part of their downfall, and one of the reasons WAR is such crap. And yet people probably STILL complain about it, because it just can't be perfect until you make every character identical.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Naw, I wasted too much of my time playing the first one early on and their lack of timely caring for any attempt at balance. Not to mention it's an EA studio.
So anything by Mythic OR EA? Double f-that. Feel free to go ahead and pre-order now though. If people haven't learned their lessons with CO release I doubt they will when DAoC2 comes out either.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
If it was done similarly to DAOC, but updated, most likely yes. I think I like a lot of DAOC fans were expecting a lot more from WAR in terms of "DAOC 2" features but we didn't get them. To be honest if Mythic did DAOC again I bet they'd reduce it to two factions, because that's what all the other games have now. That would definitely take away a lot of its appeal for me.
As much as I liked early DAoC, I think the chances we would see DAoC2 let alone have a choice to play it are slim. WAR will be wound down to minimal crew (if they dont close it, EA might if its isnt profitable) and the remnants of Mythic being slowly swallowed up into Bioware and TOR is a distinct possibility.
I always wished they had kept going with Imperator! Now there was a game I wanted to play!
I agree Cyansword, I don't think we'll ever see a DAOC 2, this is just speculation. And I really wanted to play Imperator also. But the reality of the MMO landscape these days is that most companies just want to copy a successful game and trying something new is not usually successful.
I agree Cyansword, I don't think we'll ever see a DAOC 2, this is just speculation. And I really wanted to play Imperator also. But the reality of the MMO landscape these days is that most companies just want to copy a successful game and trying something new is not usually successful.
I think a strong case could that in gaming, it's the innovators that are usually the most successful, while copies tend to be easily forgotten shovelware. I think the same would even hold true in the case of MMORPGs, if devs were ever able to put out anything that was both different, and of competitive quality. Instead, we just see clone after clone, and really, it doesn't even make any sense, in any way, except that the high development costs make people so scared they don't even know what makes any sense.
It's just a primal gut reaction in the face of fear to stick to what works, not logic, or experience.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
It's just a primal gut reaction in the face of fear to stick to what works, not logic, or experience.
If logic prevailed they'd understand that there's no reason to leave a place you're comfortable with and go to another just like it.
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-
I agree Cyansword, I don't think we'll ever see a DAOC 2, this is just speculation. And I really wanted to play Imperator also. But the reality of the MMO landscape these days is that most companies just want to copy a successful game and trying something new is not usually successful.
I think a strong case could that in gaming, it's the innovators that are usually the most successful, while copies tend to be easily forgotten shovelware. I think the same would even hold true in the case of MMORPGs, if devs were ever able to put out anything that was both different, and of competitive quality. Instead, we just see clone after clone, and really, it doesn't even make any sense, in any way, except that the high development costs make people so scared they don't even know what makes any sense.
It's just a primal gut reaction in the face of fear to stick to what works, not logic, or experience.
Playing devils advocate though, isnt the greatest success (WoW) not innovative at all? They did what Blizzard do best, take a genre and just refine it evolution not revolution. No major bells and whistles (espcially at launch) just a good solid, and most importantly polished game.
Now games like LOTRO failing to match (as it was also solid and polished) show that it isn't that alone, but I would not consider Blizzard to be innovators all that much, they just make smart choices about the 'best bits' of a genre and make it solo friendly in a great art style (if it is your type of thing), but there wasnt a single feature in WoW at launch that hadn't been done elsewhere.
So that would tend to against the theory that innovators are the most successful. The innovators in MMOs either tend to not go far enough (AoC - or lack polish in addition in their case) or be too niche even if they are well made to really make a mainstream mark (EVE) or just maybe not so good (Darkfall)
so I am not sure that MMOs are a genre that has allowed innovation to succeed at all yet
Playing devils advocate though, isnt the greatest success (WoW) not innovative at all? They did what Blizzard do best, take a genre and just refine it evolution not revolution. No major bells and whistles (espcially at launch) just a good solid, and most importantly polished game. Now games like LOTRO failing to match (as it was also solid and polished) show that it isn't that alone, but I would not consider Blizzard to be innovators all that much, they just make smart choices about the 'best bits' of a genre and make it solo friendly in a great art style (if it is your type of thing), but there wasnt a single feature in WoW at launch that hadn't been done elsewhere. So that would tend to against the theory that innovators are the most successful. The innovators in MMOs either tend to not go far enough (AoC - or lack polish in addition in their case) or be too niche even if they are well made to really make a mainstream mark (EVE) or just maybe not so good (Darkfall) so I am not sure that MMOs are a genre that has allowed innovation to succeed at all yet
Well if you consider when WoW came out, I'd say it innovated a lot in terms of casual gameplay, and an approachable game that even non-gamers could get into. The games that existed before WoW were usually much less PVE/quest driven. It also was the first game to really have the cartoon style of graphics that have become popular as well.
Playing devils advocate though, isnt the greatest success (WoW) not innovative at all? They did what Blizzard do best, take a genre and just refine it evolution not revolution. No major bells and whistles (espcially at launch) just a good solid, and most importantly polished game. Now games like LOTRO failing to match (as it was also solid and polished) show that it isn't that alone, but I would not consider Blizzard to be innovators all that much, they just make smart choices about the 'best bits' of a genre and make it solo friendly in a great art style (if it is your type of thing), but there wasnt a single feature in WoW at launch that hadn't been done elsewhere. So that would tend to against the theory that innovators are the most successful. The innovators in MMOs either tend to not go far enough (AoC - or lack polish in addition in their case) or be too niche even if they are well made to really make a mainstream mark (EVE) or just maybe not so good (Darkfall) so I am not sure that MMOs are a genre that has allowed innovation to succeed at all yet
Well if you consider when WoW came out, I'd say it innovated a lot in terms of casual gameplay, and an approachable game that even non-gamers could get into. The games that existed before WoW were usually much less PVE/quest driven. It also was the first game to really have the cartoon style of graphics that have become popular as well.
Perhaps, but I'd argue they took the art style from their own games, so that wasn't an innovation, and that was kind of my point they didn't revolutionise anything and innovate, they just refined and made better suited to the mass market (like making it more casual and solo friendly), so I would still argue that WoW didn't really have any innovative features or gameplay when it launched.
granted though some of its dungeon play later on did very much verge on being innovative for the genre, but at launch I am not sure I would personally say they were innovative really.
I think WoW pulled off a feat that made a great substitute for innovation - they introduced the genre to millions of new players - to those millions, it might as well have been innovation, because it was totally new and different to them. That is something no other dev can even hope to accomplish. Least not until some breakthrough technology comes along and replaces primetime TV with an MMO that appeals to that market. Something I shudder to even think about.
Blizzard also refined the formula so well, to such a degree of polish and professionalism, that it was almost like innovation. An MMO that didn't make you want to pull your hair out at every turn? What will they think of next? To this day, most MMOs can't compete, simply because they're so shoddy in comparison.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Dark Age players are famous for crying for something, getting it and then crying for the old thing back. I'm an ex Dark Age player and I know a lot of ex Dark Age players and to a man we all agree that Dark Age in it's glory days was good, but none of us are coming back for DAoC 2 or Origins or anything like it. Why? Because we know it won't be the same and we've moved on. If they were going to do a sequel they should have done it when they had the player base to transfer to it.
Dark Age is the ghost of MMO past and people who think that it can be a force in today's MMO industry are just whistling past the graveyard. Out of respect for what DAoC was EAMythic should just pull the plugs out of the walls and let the ghosts of DAoC rest in peace.
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
Thought it came out already? Didn't they name it Warhammer?
Right on the spot.
WAR was their sequal to DAOC, just watered down and they got lazy and only made two factions.
As long as mythic is owned by EA I won't play any game they make.
That's like calling EQ2 a sequel to EQ1, even though it's a completely different game and plays nothing like the first. WAR is the same deal. In an effort to mass appeal and take slices off the WoW pie, they've managed to make RvR suck worse than DAOC's, while their PvE comes nothing close to what WoW can offer. So what they ended up having is a half/half game that ends up not catering to the people they were hoping to attract.
It's really too bad, they could've done WAR better. I mean the same company that made DAOC came out with the RvR design of WAR? The idea of having experience from a successful title is to know how to improve on it, not to make it worse. Mark Jacobs needs to get some old Mythic team together, buy back the IP rights to "Dark Ages of Camelot", and make a true sequel that players want. A 3 realm design with primary focus on RvR, both mass RvR and single group RvR.
Honestly when Warhammer was first announced I was sad because I knew it meant very little chance of seeing DAOC 2. Camelot was incredible for it's day, the PvP is still my favorite of all time. If they were to make DAOC 2 I would most definitely play it.
Ok simple question after reading Garret Fuller's column, if Mythic were to ressurect Dark age of Camelot and make it bigger and better, update graphics, etc. - Would you play it??? For me its a yes.
I would play it again in a Second.
DAoC was one of the best games out there. If people still played. I would go back to it
I'd play it. The main thing i didn'tlike about DAoC when I played (release) was the grind. I seriously doubt they would do 2.0 as a grindfest so it would definitely be something I'd be interested in.
The best thing I liked about DAoC was the good grouping game in PvE. It made the PvP more fun since both games were good, and you got to know players as you worked your way up to the PvP.
However, I agree that the grind was to much. It was to top heavy with the last 5 or 10 levels just taking way to long. Shorten the grind curve, and ad more features like Darkness Falls, upgraded graphics, and it's a hit.
Comments
DAOC has a great diverse range of classes, though, and I think the imbalances were worth it. I don't get why people worry about balance so much. I mean, I sorta do, but I prefer a game to be fun and interesting and diverse - I hate seeing any of that sacrificed for balance.
I think Mythic's obsession with balance was part of their downfall, and one of the reasons WAR is such crap. And yet people probably STILL complain about it, because it just can't be perfect until you make every character identical.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
If EA/Mythic Developed it...
HELL NO!
sell it to a decent developer.. and maybe
Absolutely. DAoC was the best PvP game to date. If it were populated I would still be playing it most likely.
Certainly would give it a go.
I was hoping that WAR would be in some way a DAOC2 but was horribly dissapointed.
Naw, I wasted too much of my time playing the first one early on and their lack of timely caring for any attempt at balance. Not to mention it's an EA studio.
So anything by Mythic OR EA? Double f-that. Feel free to go ahead and pre-order now though. If people haven't learned their lessons with CO release I doubt they will when DAoC2 comes out either.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
If it was done similarly to DAOC, but updated, most likely yes. I think I like a lot of DAOC fans were expecting a lot more from WAR in terms of "DAOC 2" features but we didn't get them. To be honest if Mythic did DAOC again I bet they'd reduce it to two factions, because that's what all the other games have now. That would definitely take away a lot of its appeal for me.
Thought it came out already? Didn't they name it Warhammer?
As much as I liked early DAoC, I think the chances we would see DAoC2 let alone have a choice to play it are slim. WAR will be wound down to minimal crew (if they dont close it, EA might if its isnt profitable) and the remnants of Mythic being slowly swallowed up into Bioware and TOR is a distinct possibility.
I always wished they had kept going with Imperator! Now there was a game I wanted to play!
I agree Cyansword, I don't think we'll ever see a DAOC 2, this is just speculation. And I really wanted to play Imperator also. But the reality of the MMO landscape these days is that most companies just want to copy a successful game and trying something new is not usually successful.
I think a strong case could that in gaming, it's the innovators that are usually the most successful, while copies tend to be easily forgotten shovelware. I think the same would even hold true in the case of MMORPGs, if devs were ever able to put out anything that was both different, and of competitive quality. Instead, we just see clone after clone, and really, it doesn't even make any sense, in any way, except that the high development costs make people so scared they don't even know what makes any sense.
It's just a primal gut reaction in the face of fear to stick to what works, not logic, or experience.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
If logic prevailed they'd understand that there's no reason to leave a place you're comfortable with and go to another just like it.
No required quests! And if I decide I want to be an assassin-cartographer-dancer-pastry chef who lives only to stalk and kill interior decorators, then that's who I want to be, even if it takes me four years to max all the skills and everyone else thinks I'm freaking nuts. -Madimorga-
Hell yah, If they dont screw it up like they did with war and make it a lot like WoW. lolol
Playing: Everthing
Played: DAoC,AC2,EvE,SWG,WAR,MXO,CoX,EQ2,L2,LOTRO,SB,UO,WoW.
I have played every MMO that has ever come out.
I think a strong case could that in gaming, it's the innovators that are usually the most successful, while copies tend to be easily forgotten shovelware. I think the same would even hold true in the case of MMORPGs, if devs were ever able to put out anything that was both different, and of competitive quality. Instead, we just see clone after clone, and really, it doesn't even make any sense, in any way, except that the high development costs make people so scared they don't even know what makes any sense.
It's just a primal gut reaction in the face of fear to stick to what works, not logic, or experience.
Playing devils advocate though, isnt the greatest success (WoW) not innovative at all? They did what Blizzard do best, take a genre and just refine it evolution not revolution. No major bells and whistles (espcially at launch) just a good solid, and most importantly polished game.
Now games like LOTRO failing to match (as it was also solid and polished) show that it isn't that alone, but I would not consider Blizzard to be innovators all that much, they just make smart choices about the 'best bits' of a genre and make it solo friendly in a great art style (if it is your type of thing), but there wasnt a single feature in WoW at launch that hadn't been done elsewhere.
So that would tend to against the theory that innovators are the most successful. The innovators in MMOs either tend to not go far enough (AoC - or lack polish in addition in their case) or be too niche even if they are well made to really make a mainstream mark (EVE) or just maybe not so good (Darkfall)
so I am not sure that MMOs are a genre that has allowed innovation to succeed at all yet
Well if you consider when WoW came out, I'd say it innovated a lot in terms of casual gameplay, and an approachable game that even non-gamers could get into. The games that existed before WoW were usually much less PVE/quest driven. It also was the first game to really have the cartoon style of graphics that have become popular as well.
Well if you consider when WoW came out, I'd say it innovated a lot in terms of casual gameplay, and an approachable game that even non-gamers could get into. The games that existed before WoW were usually much less PVE/quest driven. It also was the first game to really have the cartoon style of graphics that have become popular as well.
Perhaps, but I'd argue they took the art style from their own games, so that wasn't an innovation, and that was kind of my point they didn't revolutionise anything and innovate, they just refined and made better suited to the mass market (like making it more casual and solo friendly), so I would still argue that WoW didn't really have any innovative features or gameplay when it launched.
granted though some of its dungeon play later on did very much verge on being innovative for the genre, but at launch I am not sure I would personally say they were innovative really.
Right on the spot.
WAR was their sequal to DAOC, just watered down and they got lazy and only made two factions.
As long as mythic is owned by EA I won't play any game they make.
I think WoW pulled off a feat that made a great substitute for innovation - they introduced the genre to millions of new players - to those millions, it might as well have been innovation, because it was totally new and different to them. That is something no other dev can even hope to accomplish. Least not until some breakthrough technology comes along and replaces primetime TV with an MMO that appeals to that market. Something I shudder to even think about.
Blizzard also refined the formula so well, to such a degree of polish and professionalism, that it was almost like innovation. An MMO that didn't make you want to pull your hair out at every turn? What will they think of next? To this day, most MMOs can't compete, simply because they're so shoddy in comparison.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
To answer the original question, No.
Dark Age players are famous for crying for something, getting it and then crying for the old thing back. I'm an ex Dark Age player and I know a lot of ex Dark Age players and to a man we all agree that Dark Age in it's glory days was good, but none of us are coming back for DAoC 2 or Origins or anything like it. Why? Because we know it won't be the same and we've moved on. If they were going to do a sequel they should have done it when they had the player base to transfer to it.
Dark Age is the ghost of MMO past and people who think that it can be a force in today's MMO industry are just whistling past the graveyard. Out of respect for what DAoC was EAMythic should just pull the plugs out of the walls and let the ghosts of DAoC rest in peace.
Many a small thing has been made large by the right kind of advertising.
No
"I'm not dead yet. I'm getting better."
Right on the spot.
WAR was their sequal to DAOC, just watered down and they got lazy and only made two factions.
As long as mythic is owned by EA I won't play any game they make.
That's like calling EQ2 a sequel to EQ1, even though it's a completely different game and plays nothing like the first. WAR is the same deal. In an effort to mass appeal and take slices off the WoW pie, they've managed to make RvR suck worse than DAOC's, while their PvE comes nothing close to what WoW can offer. So what they ended up having is a half/half game that ends up not catering to the people they were hoping to attract.
It's really too bad, they could've done WAR better. I mean the same company that made DAOC came out with the RvR design of WAR? The idea of having experience from a successful title is to know how to improve on it, not to make it worse. Mark Jacobs needs to get some old Mythic team together, buy back the IP rights to "Dark Ages of Camelot", and make a true sequel that players want. A 3 realm design with primary focus on RvR, both mass RvR and single group RvR.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
Right on the spot.
WAR was their sequal to DAOC, just watered down and they got lazy and only made two factions.
As long as mythic is owned by EA I won't play any game they make.
/second
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
Honestly when Warhammer was first announced I was sad because I knew it meant very little chance of seeing DAOC 2. Camelot was incredible for it's day, the PvP is still my favorite of all time. If they were to make DAOC 2 I would most definitely play it.
I would play it again in a Second.
DAoC was one of the best games out there. If people still played. I would go back to it
The best thing I liked about DAoC was the good grouping game in PvE. It made the PvP more fun since both games were good, and you got to know players as you worked your way up to the PvP.
However, I agree that the grind was to much. It was to top heavy with the last 5 or 10 levels just taking way to long. Shorten the grind curve, and ad more features like Darkness Falls, upgraded graphics, and it's a hit.