Game currently sucks. I asked for my money back and was ignored multiple times. As others have said, the combat just isn't cutting it. This is kind of an understatement. For a game that focuses on combat, it's going to need a lot more than polish to survive. I'm sorry, but it's kind of ridiculous. The beta excuse just isn't valid anymore. Too many games that I've beta tested have had the same problems upon release. I'm afraid this game will be the same. There's no way that this game is coming out any time soon and if it does, it will fail big time. That is why I want my money back and that is why I'm discouraging others from wasting theirs.
I'm seeing alot of "Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble"...
Being in betas of Vanguard, WAR, Darkfall, LotRO, and playing games like WoW, EVE, and Ultima Online... Mortal Online doesn't seem bad at all...
Some of these users are right... MO does need work.
Alot of our MMOs need work lately...
Star Trek Online, Jumpgate, and even SWToR will likely be in the same boat. That is what the industry is facing today... but if you look at where Mortal Online is at right now... You can't say it's due to Lazy Developers, or even a quick grab for your cash.
The NDA drop was about presenting their work up to this point as it is. No hidden surprises or sudden twists... just open honesty with the MMO community.
Which, if you think about it... is a VERY risky thing to do. Over the last decade we've seen the "standard" of release MMOs keep getting raised to points so high, that the only thing a company can do is hold their NDA up till the very last second in order to obtain as many sales and pre-orders as possible. Many in the MMO community have even accepted this as standard procedure!!! These companies KNOW they will lose a great number of customers, and are trying to find any way possible to recoup costs in order to carry on with whatever pool remains.
The companies don't NEED millions of subscribers to keep going... but they need Millions of dollars to produce a product that meets the "standard" the MMO community finds acceptable... yet which the majority won't play or possibly even look at. The "Millions of subscribers/sales" = SUCCESS mentality is fading...
We are all seeing that... it's no longer something we can trust in. It probably never was...
So what's left? This is our hobby, our method of relaxation, and for many... something we love to do. We've gone from game to game over the years trying to find something that works... that we can settle into for the longterm... and we are getting tired.
We are tired of rollercoasters and bumper cars. We are tired of walking that long road of development and having the curtains pulled back... only to show something completely different than what we expected or were told to expect.
I look at Mortal Online and I don't feel like i've been lied to... I don't feel like the curtains are being held till the last second... and I don't feel like the development team is just trying to take my money and run for the hills.
It doesn't have millions of subscribers across 20+ servers, and it doesn't have thousands of features and locations that I will never visit, use, or even look at.
But it has all the basic things that I want and think should be in an MMO. I can run, jump, explore, swim, drown, fight, trade, craft, tame a pet, and build a house... and probably many more things I just have not gotten to see just yet.
Most importantly: it has a development team that wants to continue to work on it and make it better.
I can continue to wait... keep looking for a game that meets that standard, has all the things that I want, and where the developers won't keep it hidden till the last minute... I can keep taking my chances...
Or I can jump into a community of one server and about 10000 players.... and participate in the development of a world I like.
I'm seeing alot of "Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble"... Being in betas of Vanguard, WAR, Darkfall, LotRO, and playing games like WoW, EVE, and Ultima Online... Mortal Online doesn't seem bad at all... Some of these users are right... MO does need work.
Alot of our MMOs need work lately... Star Trek Online, Jumpgate, and even SWToR will likely be in the same boat. That is what the industry is facing today... but if you look at where Mortal Online is at right now... You can't say it's due to Lazy Developers, or even a quick grab for your cash. The NDA drop was about presenting their work up to this point as it is. No hidden surprises or sudden twists... just open honesty with the MMO community. Which, if you think about it... is a VERY risky thing to do. Over the last decade we've seen the "standard" of release MMOs keep getting raised to points so high, that the only thing a company can do is hold their NDA up till the very last second in order to obtain as many sales and pre-orders as possible. Many in the MMO community have even accepted this as standard procedure!!! These companies KNOW they will lose a great number of customers, and are trying to find any way possible to recoup costs in order to carry on with whatever pool remains. The companies don't NEED millions of subscribers to keep going... but they need Millions of dollars to produce a product that meets the "standard" the MMO community finds acceptable... yet which the majority won't play or possibly even look at. The "Millions of subscribers/sales" = SUCCESS mentality is fading... We are all seeing that... it's no longer something we can trust in. It probably never was... So what's left? This is our hobby, our method of relaxation, and for many... something we love to do. We've gone from game to game over the years trying to find something that works... that we can settle into for the longterm... and we are getting tired. We are tired of rollercoasters and bumper cars. We are tired of walking that long road of development and having the curtains pulled back... only to show something completely different than what we expected or were told to expect. I look at Mortal Online and I don't feel like i've been lied to... I don't feel like the curtains are being held till the last second... and I don't feel like the development team is just trying to take my money and run for the hills. It doesn't have millions of subscribers across 20+ servers, and it doesn't have thousands of features and locations that I will never visit, use, or even look at. But it has all the basic things that I want and think should be in an MMO. I can run, jump, explore, swim, drown, fight, trade, craft, tame a pet, and build a house... and probably many more things I just have not gotten to see just yet. Most importantly: it has a development team that wants to continue to work on it and make it better. I can continue to wait... keep looking for a game that meets that standard, has all the things that I want, and where the developers won't keep it hidden till the last minute... I can keep taking my chances... Or I can jump into a community of one server and about 10000 players.... and participate in the development of a world I like.
Could we please have a company make a worthy successor to UO and not these pvp-focused, feature-limited, half-assed attempts? DF isn't 1/10 the game UO and Mortal Online looks like it's following in similar footsteps.
MO is closer to UO than any other game since 1997, next patch they are are also adding stealing!
I'm seeing alot of "Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble"... Being in betas of Vanguard, WAR, Darkfall, LotRO, and playing games like WoW, EVE, and Ultima Online... Mortal Online doesn't seem bad at all... Some of these users are right... MO does need work.
Alot of our MMOs need work lately... Star Trek Online, Jumpgate, and even SWToR will likely be in the same boat. That is what the industry is facing today... but if you look at where Mortal Online is at right now... You can't say it's due to Lazy Developers, or even a quick grab for your cash. The NDA drop was about presenting their work up to this point as it is. No hidden surprises or sudden twists... just open honesty with the MMO community. Which, if you think about it... is a VERY risky thing to do. Over the last decade we've seen the "standard" of release MMOs keep getting raised to points so high, that the only thing a company can do is hold their NDA up till the very last second in order to obtain as many sales and pre-orders as possible. Many in the MMO community have even accepted this as standard procedure!!! These companies KNOW they will lose a great number of customers, and are trying to find any way possible to recoup costs in order to carry on with whatever pool remains. The companies don't NEED millions of subscribers to keep going... but they need Millions of dollars to produce a product that meets the "standard" the MMO community finds acceptable... yet which the majority won't play or possibly even look at. The "Millions of subscribers/sales" = SUCCESS mentality is fading... We are all seeing that... it's no longer something we can trust in. It probably never was... So what's left? This is our hobby, our method of relaxation, and for many... something we love to do. We've gone from game to game over the years trying to find something that works... that we can settle into for the longterm... and we are getting tired. We are tired of rollercoasters and bumper cars. We are tired of walking that long road of development and having the curtains pulled back... only to show something completely different than what we expected or were told to expect. I look at Mortal Online and I don't feel like i've been lied to... I don't feel like the curtains are being held till the last second... and I don't feel like the development team is just trying to take my money and run for the hills. It doesn't have millions of subscribers across 20+ servers, and it doesn't have thousands of features and locations that I will never visit, use, or even look at. But it has all the basic things that I want and think should be in an MMO. I can run, jump, explore, swim, drown, fight, trade, craft, tame a pet, and build a house... and probably many more things I just have not gotten to see just yet. Most importantly: it has a development team that wants to continue to work on it and make it better. I can continue to wait... keep looking for a game that meets that standard, has all the things that I want, and where the developers won't keep it hidden till the last minute... I can keep taking my chances... Or I can jump into a community of one server and about 10000 players.... and participate in the development of a world I like.
Completely in agreement. Starvault has always let everyone know exactly where the game stood. They don't over exaggerate the state of the game and are completely honest in letting people know they have a tough (but worthwhile) road ahead. I wish them and the game the best.
Our spirit was here long before you
Long before us
And long will it be after your pride brings you to your end
As an old-school retired UO'er, this game does have potential.
However, the first-person ONLY view will keep me away from MO. Why on earth can't the devs simply adds a choice in this regard to make everyone happy? Ugh.
As an old-school retired UO'er, this game does have potential.
However, the first-person ONLY view will keep me away from MO. Why on earth can't the devs simply adds a choice in this regard to make everyone happy? Ugh.
I would assume that majority of the games on the market are third person view based and they're going for something a little more unique. Not to mention, third person completely destroys any semblance of tactics/strategy in terms of PvP. Think about playing Counterstrike (or Halo or any other popular FPS, simply filling a void for a name) in third person while everyone else is playing in first person. You'd have a severe advantage for seeing around walls and corners, instituting ambushes and preventing opposing one's much easier.
I really don't understand why people are so turned off by first person view. I'm a huge stickler for looking at my character and tweaking the looks be it armor etc, but this means zero if the first person element is pulled off correctly in combat and immersion.
To answer your question, having both views would be pointless as third person would provide the tactical advantages and people would more than likely never use first person anyway.
As an old-school retired UO'er, this game does have potential.
However, the first-person ONLY view will keep me away from MO. Why on earth can't the devs simply adds a choice in this regard to make everyone happy? Ugh.
To answer your question, having both views would be pointless as third person would provide the tactical advantages and people would more than likely never use first person anyway.
So the answer is that if people want to play this game they are forced into using a view, that if there were an option they wouldn't use in the first place.....? Sounds like it speaks volumes for why 3rd person should be the focus of the game, and not vice versa.... I'll be honest though, I'm chiming in for no reason. I'm not going to buy the game, have no interest in a game with no story, quests, content etc. Game might be feature rich when all is said and done, but for me having to create my own fun and reason for playing is...just not fun.
As an old-school retired UO'er, this game does have potential.
However, the first-person ONLY view will keep me away from MO. Why on earth can't the devs simply adds a choice in this regard to make everyone happy? Ugh.
To answer your question, having both views would be pointless as third person would provide the tactical advantages and people would more than likely never use first person anyway.
So the answer is that if people want to play this game they are forced into using a view, that if there were an option they wouldn't use in the first place.....? Sounds like it speaks volumes for why 3rd person should be the focus of the game, and not vice versa.... I'll be honest though, I'm chiming in for no reason. I'm not going to buy the game, have no interest in a game with no story, quests, content etc. Game might be feature rich when all is said and done, but for me having to create my own fun and reason for playing is...just not fun.
That's like complaining that any of those games I mentioned aren't as good as other shooters that use third person, it's merely preference and utility. Also if you're not interested in the game, and you're chiming in on a subject about the game you've admitted you won't buy, why are you even here? There are dozens of hand-holding and theme park style mmo's you could be involved in instead of wasting your time and ours.
As an old-school retired UO'er, this game does have potential.
However, the first-person ONLY view will keep me away from MO. Why on earth can't the devs simply adds a choice in this regard to make everyone happy? Ugh.
To answer your question, having both views would be pointless as third person would provide the tactical advantages and people would more than likely never use first person anyway.
So the answer is that if people want to play this game they are forced into using a view, that if there were an option they wouldn't use in the first place.....? Sounds like it speaks volumes for why 3rd person should be the focus of the game, and not vice versa.... I'll be honest though, I'm chiming in for no reason. I'm not going to buy the game, have no interest in a game with no story, quests, content etc. Game might be feature rich when all is said and done, but for me having to create my own fun and reason for playing is...just not fun.
Also if you're not interested in the game, and you're chiming in on a subject about the game you've admitted you won't buy, why are you even here? There are dozens of hand-holding and theme park style mmo's you could be involved in instead of wasting your time and ours.
I love that response, I see it all the time here on these forums and find it interesting that people seem to think that you must have an interest in a product in order to have an opinion. And to set the record straight, the lack of 3rd person view is the main reason for what caused me to steer clear away from this game well that and the ridculous price tag are a toss up for the main reason and the lack of content is a very close 2nd.
If I see a subject header on the main page that piques my curiosity then I read it, whether I like/intend to purchase the game or not. And sometimes I respond.
Now in my opinion using the FPS argument doesn't work, because it's a different Genre entirely. A majority of FPS do not fit with the theme of "RPG" that is also found in MMORPG. And with the exception of a few games out there, IE games like Oblivion, a majority of RPG's are 3rd person view, and I believe MO will find that most RPG players prefer 3rd person when they vote with their dollars to play elsewhere. (Which is why I believe is one of the reasons they have such a ridiculous price tag on the game, they need to charge so much more for the title, because it's a niche game and will not draw as many players as other titles out there.. and again this is my opinion, they are running out of funds to finish their product)
I don't think it's necessary to disparage posters as "trolls" who express specific opinions on different features. I'm a little leery of FPV as well (although I know I could adapt), and I would find a complete lack of PvE content in a MMORPG disturbing myself. If indeed that's how things work out.
So why don't you just call this guy closed minded for being so final about a game that is still in beta - and obviously one that does have promise - and then wait and see yourselves how things look on release. Because I've seen the shout'em down fanboys be wrong plenty of times too.
As an old-school retired UO'er, this game does have potential.
However, the first-person ONLY view will keep me away from MO. Why on earth can't the devs simply adds a choice in this regard to make everyone happy? Ugh.
To answer your question, having both views would be pointless as third person would provide the tactical advantages and people would more than likely never use first person anyway.
So the answer is that if people want to play this game they are forced into using a view, that if there were an option they wouldn't use in the first place.....? Sounds like it speaks volumes for why 3rd person should be the focus of the game, and not vice versa.... I'll be honest though, I'm chiming in for no reason. I'm not going to buy the game, have no interest in a game with no story, quests, content etc. Game might be feature rich when all is said and done, but for me having to create my own fun and reason for playing is...just not fun.
Also if you're not interested in the game, and you're chiming in on a subject about the game you've admitted you won't buy, why are you even here? There are dozens of hand-holding and theme park style mmo's you could be involved in instead of wasting your time and ours.
I love that response, I see it all the time here on these forums and find it interesting that people seem to think that you must have an interest in a product in order to have an opinion. And to set the record straight, the lack of 3rd person view is the main reason for what caused me to steer clear away from this game well that and the ridculous price tag are a toss up for the main reason and the lack of content is a very close 2nd.
1. I love that response, I see it all the time here on these forums and find it interesting that people seem to think that you must have an interest in a product in order to have an opinion.
I love this response even more, clarifying the fact that you have absolutely nothing better to do than troll a forum about a game you have no interest in....can someone say pathetic loser...LOL.
2. well that and the ridculous price tag
Wow, because the 50$ Digital Download is just waaaaaay over priced...seriously dude, you're a just a pathetic excuse for a human and a troll.
Nice! It's great that you have such insight to my life based on typed dialogue on forums, bravo.
I don't think it's necessary to disparage posters as "trolls" who express specific opinions on different features. I'm a little leery of FPV as well (although I know I could adapt), and I would find a complete lack of PvE content in a MMORPG disturbing myself. If indeed that's how things work out. So why don't you just call this guy closed minded for being so final about a game that is still in beta - and obviously one that does have promise - and then wait and see yourselves how things look on release. Because I've seen the shout'em down fanboys be wrong plenty of times too.
Thank you for 'defending' me. It's just the way of these forums to label anyone a troll that has a different opinion about a subject than fanboy of a particular product.... I really didn't feel I was trolling either and felt my opinion on first person was valid.
Feel free to call me closed minded as well, I really can't see myself even trying this game. I get completely lost and turned around in FP view, alwasy have and likely always will I guess my 'coordination' just isn't good enough to play in those type of games.
As an old-school retired UO'er, this game does have potential.
However, the first-person ONLY view will keep me away from MO. Why on earth can't the devs simply adds a choice in this regard to make everyone happy? Ugh.
To answer your question, having both views would be pointless as third person would provide the tactical advantages and people would more than likely never use first person anyway.
So the answer is that if people want to play this game they are forced into using a view, that if there were an option they wouldn't use in the first place.....? Sounds like it speaks volumes for why 3rd person should be the focus of the game, and not vice versa.... I'll be honest though, I'm chiming in for no reason. I'm not going to buy the game, have no interest in a game with no story, quests, content etc. Game might be feature rich when all is said and done, but for me having to create my own fun and reason for playing is...just not fun.
Well said - for those who would prefer theme-park games. From what I understand this game is not designed to be one and those who like only theme-park games won't like it. There are plenty of those - I hope this game succeeds so that the sandbox game niche gets a little deeper. I'm still not sure if I will try this - it looks good, and I do enjoy sandbox games, such as EVE. I am not sure if I want to go through all the frustrations inherit in starting at the beginning of a sandbox game though. I am a older player - almost 58 and I think I might let the younger crowd advance the feel of the game before I try it. I did that with EVE and it worked well. I hope that MO becomes a good solid game for those of us who can create our own fun = not knocking those who prefer not to but not every game should be just for them. As far as whether or not this is a replacement for or a successor to UO - who cares, why not let it be just itself? I am tired of hearing about WoW and UO as if they are the only standards for games. Each game should be judged on itself and not on other games. No 1 game is going to kill Wow, and no 1 game is going to replace UO in the hearts of those who played it. Here's hoping that MO has success in it's own regard.
As an old-school retired UO'er, this game does have potential.
However, the first-person ONLY view will keep me away from MO. Why on earth can't the devs simply adds a choice in this regard to make everyone happy? Ugh.
To answer your question, having both views would be pointless as third person would provide the tactical advantages and people would more than likely never use first person anyway.
So the answer is that if people want to play this game they are forced into using a view, that if there were an option they wouldn't use in the first place.....? Sounds like it speaks volumes for why 3rd person should be the focus of the game, and not vice versa.... I'll be honest though, I'm chiming in for no reason. I'm not going to buy the game, have no interest in a game with no story, quests, content etc. Game might be feature rich when all is said and done, but for me having to create my own fun and reason for playing is...just not fun.
Well said - for those who would prefer theme-park games. From what I understand this game is not designed to be one and those who like only theme-park games won't like it. There are plenty of those - I hope this game succeeds so that the sandbox game niche gets a little deeper. I'm still not sure if I will try this - it looks good, and I do enjoy sandbox games, such as EVE. I am not sure if I want to go through all the frustrations inherit in starting at the beginning of a sandbox game though. I am a older player - almost 58 and I think I might let the younger crowd advance the feel of the game before I try it. I did that with EVE and it worked well. I hope that MO becomes a good solid game for those of us who can create our own fun = not knocking those who prefer not to but not every game should be just for them. As far as whether or not this is a replacement for or a successor to UO - who cares, why not let it be just itself? I am tired of hearing about WoW and UO as if they are the only standards for games. Each game should be judged on itself and not on other games. No 1 game is going to kill Wow, and no 1 game is going to replace UO in the hearts of those who played it. Here's hoping that MO has success in it's own regard.
I'm not arguing with you, I really am curious, why must a game with story/lore and plenty of quests be theme park? I know folks say that because most PVE centric games are linear and lead you from zone to zone.... But without pointing you from zone to zone, aren't most 'sand box' games the same way, IE: each zone progressively becomes more difficult so you must train up your skills before moving on to said zone in order to further advance your skills?
I wish that a true hybrid existed so we could all enjoy a skill based game, yet one with plenty of lore/quests, perhaps with several story archs/lines that will make the game truly different for each player. But also one that doesn't force the quests on you so you can advance to zones/instances that require completion of a quest/story line.
As an old-school retired UO'er, this game does have potential.
However, the first-person ONLY view will keep me away from MO. Why on earth can't the devs simply adds a choice in this regard to make everyone happy? Ugh.
To answer your question, having both views would be pointless as third person would provide the tactical advantages and people would more than likely never use first person anyway.
So the answer is that if people want to play this game they are forced into using a view, that if there were an option they wouldn't use in the first place.....? Sounds like it speaks volumes for why 3rd person should be the focus of the game, and not vice versa.... I'll be honest though, I'm chiming in for no reason. I'm not going to buy the game, have no interest in a game with no story, quests, content etc. Game might be feature rich when all is said and done, but for me having to create my own fun and reason for playing is...just not fun.
Well said - for those who would prefer theme-park games. From what I understand this game is not designed to be one and those who like only theme-park games won't like it. There are plenty of those - I hope this game succeeds so that the sandbox game niche gets a little deeper. I'm still not sure if I will try this - it looks good, and I do enjoy sandbox games, such as EVE. I am not sure if I want to go through all the frustrations inherit in starting at the beginning of a sandbox game though. I am a older player - almost 58 and I think I might let the younger crowd advance the feel of the game before I try it. I did that with EVE and it worked well. I hope that MO becomes a good solid game for those of us who can create our own fun = not knocking those who prefer not to but not every game should be just for them. As far as whether or not this is a replacement for or a successor to UO - who cares, why not let it be just itself? I am tired of hearing about WoW and UO as if they are the only standards for games. Each game should be judged on itself and not on other games. No 1 game is going to kill Wow, and no 1 game is going to replace UO in the hearts of those who played it. Here's hoping that MO has success in it's own regard.
I'm not arguing with you, I really am curious, why must a game with story/lore and plenty of quests be theme park? I know folks say that because most PVE centric games are linear and lead you from zone to zone.... But without pointing you from zone to zone, aren't most 'sand box' games the same way, IE: each zone progressively becomes more difficult so you must train up your skills before moving on to said zone in order to further advance your skills?
I wish that a true hybrid existed so we could all enjoy a skill based game, yet one with plenty of lore/quests, perhaps with several story archs/lines that will make the game truly different for each player. But also one that doesn't force the quests on you so you can advance to zones/instances that require completion of a quest/story line.
to answer your question, from my experience, sandbox games - usually you can go from a zone for newbies to a zone where even skilled players have problems fairly quickly - EVE for example. Low-sec space is often right around the corner and death awaits the unwary. Games that I call Theme-park are mostly story driven, often very rigid in structure for class and skill, and one most travel for awhile to get to heavily dangerous areas. Now this varies, LOTRO for example has zones where lvl 20-30 content bumps against lower content - the Shire for example - to the North is a zone that is easily reached where you might want to be lvl 25, or so as I remember it, before you go. To me Themepark means the story and the game are inseperable, to play you will eventually have to address the storyline. Sandbox games usually are light on storyline and are more about player interaction. Eve for example has some story but the interaction between Corporations(player driven) is the best part of the game - also the interaction of the pk'ers and pirates - they might be hated but they make the game much better. The majpr thing though is does the player have a choice to make their own story or does the player have to integrate themselves into the developer's story.
So underdeveloped it'll be more like a partial-birth abortion than a preemie MMO at launch. Pass.
EDIT: Just read the dissing of first-person only -- LOL. You'd play Counterstrike in third-person too if you could; the tactical advantage would just be too great for you to compete any other way. It's a gameplay decision. Saying it's a missing feature is like saying the ability to switch into a Supreme Commander-style godlike view of the map in CS is a missing feature -- it isn't designed to be there because it would fucking suck.
Actually it is $60USD, which is quite a bit more than any other game sold on the store shelf.
I bought it a while back and I play in the beta alot. The game is fun at times (on patch day especially...once you can get in after the slow download of 4gb from a really lousy patch server... I am US and the server is in Sweden). After a few hrs of playing with whatever new feature they add, it gets kinda boring though. The theft system was put in this last patch, and I have to say it is the most annoying pain in the as* thing that they could have added. It wouldn't be bad if the interace wasn't so screwed up and you could actually stop someone in the act. If you are at the refiner or the smith (currently the only places to refine ore and make weapons and armors) you are virtually locked into a window sysem that by the time you get out of it, your stuff is long gone (in many cases without even an alert in the chat window) There are hackers/cheaters (althoough SV has banned a couple of them...about 3 or 4 and they monitor the server logs for them). There are no real penalties for being a scumbag or murderer (red) as a matter of fact the countryside is ridden with them. And, usually the reds live to just gank noobs and steal their stuff, especially since the only thing that is gonna happen to them is not being able to safely go into a guarded town without someone calling guard on them. there are griefers that use pushes (which cause only 1pt. damage and doesn't flag them) to slowly grief you to death and the guards will not come since they don't flag. There are just alot of issues with this game that need serious serious fixing and should have had more thought go into them. One other thing I dislike is the fact that you have to login to the patcher and then you have to login to the game (2 logins total). I know it is just a login, but my god why can you not just have the patcher and the game client use the same login...it is easy to do...it has been done that way for years now.
I would like to say on a positive note that SV is working on it and they do post new patches every 2 weeks like clockwork for the bigger updates like housing, character creation, new areas etc. They also post quick patches (like with the latest patch the sky was black in some places so they did a hotfix and sent a server message out to restart your client via the patcher) when they can/need to.
Before I bought this game, I had been on the fence about whether or not I wanted to take a chance on wasting $60 on another game that may or may not be worth playing. In the last few years I have literally been left with a bad taste in the mouth by releases like Dark and Light, Irth Online, Dark Fall and Age of Conan (which was actually pretty fun for a couple weeks but then lost it) and a couple others. I looked around all I could to try and find out anything I could about the game. Needless to say the only thing you would find then on the MO site was praise of what they were going to do (NDA was in effect). Finally I came across this article that was supposed to be a first look at the game. It talked about when the author logged in for the first time he was amazed by the sky, the beauty of the world and the vegetation so dense in areas you could barely walk. The article and the "screenshots" had me so overjoyed that, like an idiot, I yanked out my wallet and popped $60 right from my bank over to theirs. Then I proceded to download the game and login for the first time. I immediately felt like I had been bent over, reemed really hard and then left hanging there without even getting a kiss or a thank you. The sky IS amazing and pretty, I will give them that. It would be better if it wasn't the same clouds floating over the same moon in the same spot all the time. It is daytime ALL the time at this point. There is no weather at this point. There is no vegetation that is so dense you can barely walk...unless you run into a tree lol. There is not even any grass except for in a patches here and there (and is there then really ugly might I add). I could go on and on about what the article had listed that I would see that simply is not there, but I won't. Needless to say I was more than a little disappointed, and I will never ever hand another company money for a game that is in beta again, preorder in the hopes it will come out or pay for a long term subscription only to be ripped off by the game closing down because the company mislead people so badly that they all just walked away.
I still am holding out hope for the game though, because as I said SV does seem to be actively developing it and they do stay in touch with the community (even though I feel that the article was probably a marketing ploy to get more ppl to buy at the time). I do have fun with it for a few days each patch at this point, even with the crashes and non-working/bugged or missing systems that it has right now. Hopefully it will become alot more fun when they implement the crafting system so you can craft and sell stuff from your house instead of going to town and getting robbed by a thief because of a broken/poorly designed UI. so for now I will keep hanging out with the fanbois that play and defend it like it is made of pure gold, just from a very skeptical point of view. It IS still in beta, and we haven't seen what exactly will be done when it goes gold. So, I will give it until the end of the free month I get when it goes gold and then see if I am up to subscribe to it or not.
They sold us a half-baked Fail-sauced pizza. * With a side of monthly fee!
I would assume that majority of the games on the market are third person view based and they're going for something a little more unique. Not to mention, third person completely destroys any semblance of tactics/strategy in terms of PvP. Think about playing Counterstrike (or Halo or any other popular FPS, simply filling a void for a name) in third person while everyone else is playing in first person. You'd have a severe advantage for seeing around walls and corners, instituting ambushes and preventing opposing one's much easier. I really don't understand why people are so turned off by first person view. I'm a huge stickler for looking at my character and tweaking the looks be it armor etc, but this means zero if the first person element is pulled off correctly in combat and immersion.
For me, it has nothing to do with seeing my own character, but a hatred of the tunnel vision that FPV provides. There is no peripheral vision, there is next to no situational awareness. Granted - with third person, I see more than I should be able to see, but with FPV, I see far less than I do in real life. It's like looking at the world through a tube.
I would think that graphics engines are advanced enough to provide a realistic view, but apparently not. The software isn't good enough to provide over-the-shoulder view, but not render stuff that my character couldn't actually see? Too bad. Forget the bloom effects and realistic trees, and shiny water, and work on this instead.
FPV is a deal-breaker for me, and I suspect for the great majority of players. Too bad.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
First person view sucks. And it's not at all like 'real' view, where you have a little more than 180° awareness (with recognizing motion very quickly at the cost of resolution on the edges), plus you can turn your head constantly to keep track of what's going on around you and 'scan' 360°. And as a bonus, in RL you do this subconciously.
In an FPS you see the 80° in front of your character and that's it. Some games give you "rear view mirror"-distortion so you can check a larger angle at the sides. But all in all, first person view gives you the tunnel vision of a 5 whisky-ontherocks drunkard...
And that's just plain dumb. You COULD play Oblivion in 3rd person BTW.
M
EDIT: Oh and another thing, hearing. In RL you constantly identify your environment based on loudness and angle of sounds. People with a 2 speaker desktop system are pretty much facing disadvantages before they even launched the game.
Comments
Game currently sucks. I asked for my money back and was ignored multiple times. As others have said, the combat just isn't cutting it. This is kind of an understatement. For a game that focuses on combat, it's going to need a lot more than polish to survive. I'm sorry, but it's kind of ridiculous. The beta excuse just isn't valid anymore. Too many games that I've beta tested have had the same problems upon release. I'm afraid this game will be the same. There's no way that this game is coming out any time soon and if it does, it will fail big time. That is why I want my money back and that is why I'm discouraging others from wasting theirs.
I'm seeing alot of "Rabble Rabble Rabble Rabble"...
Being in betas of Vanguard, WAR, Darkfall, LotRO, and playing games like WoW, EVE, and Ultima Online... Mortal Online doesn't seem bad at all...
Some of these users are right... MO does need work.
Alot of our MMOs need work lately...
Star Trek Online, Jumpgate, and even SWToR will likely be in the same boat. That is what the industry is facing today... but if you look at where Mortal Online is at right now... You can't say it's due to Lazy Developers, or even a quick grab for your cash.
The NDA drop was about presenting their work up to this point as it is. No hidden surprises or sudden twists... just open honesty with the MMO community.
Which, if you think about it... is a VERY risky thing to do. Over the last decade we've seen the "standard" of release MMOs keep getting raised to points so high, that the only thing a company can do is hold their NDA up till the very last second in order to obtain as many sales and pre-orders as possible. Many in the MMO community have even accepted this as standard procedure!!! These companies KNOW they will lose a great number of customers, and are trying to find any way possible to recoup costs in order to carry on with whatever pool remains.
The companies don't NEED millions of subscribers to keep going... but they need Millions of dollars to produce a product that meets the "standard" the MMO community finds acceptable... yet which the majority won't play or possibly even look at. The "Millions of subscribers/sales" = SUCCESS mentality is fading...
We are all seeing that... it's no longer something we can trust in. It probably never was...
So what's left? This is our hobby, our method of relaxation, and for many... something we love to do. We've gone from game to game over the years trying to find something that works... that we can settle into for the longterm... and we are getting tired.
We are tired of rollercoasters and bumper cars. We are tired of walking that long road of development and having the curtains pulled back... only to show something completely different than what we expected or were told to expect.
I look at Mortal Online and I don't feel like i've been lied to... I don't feel like the curtains are being held till the last second... and I don't feel like the development team is just trying to take my money and run for the hills.
It doesn't have millions of subscribers across 20+ servers, and it doesn't have thousands of features and locations that I will never visit, use, or even look at.
But it has all the basic things that I want and think should be in an MMO. I can run, jump, explore, swim, drown, fight, trade, craft, tame a pet, and build a house... and probably many more things I just have not gotten to see just yet.
Most importantly: it has a development team that wants to continue to work on it and make it better.
I can continue to wait... keep looking for a game that meets that standard, has all the things that I want, and where the developers won't keep it hidden till the last minute... I can keep taking my chances...
Or I can jump into a community of one server and about 10000 players.... and participate in the development of a world I like.
^^this
/signed
MO is closer to UO than any other game since 1997, next patch they are are also adding stealing!
Completely in agreement. Starvault has always let everyone know exactly where the game stood. They don't over exaggerate the state of the game and are completely honest in letting people know they have a tough (but worthwhile) road ahead. I wish them and the game the best.
Our spirit was here long before you
Long before us
And long will it be after your pride brings you to your end
As an old-school retired UO'er, this game does have potential.
However, the first-person ONLY view will keep me away from MO. Why on earth can't the devs simply adds a choice in this regard to make everyone happy? Ugh.
I would assume that majority of the games on the market are third person view based and they're going for something a little more unique. Not to mention, third person completely destroys any semblance of tactics/strategy in terms of PvP. Think about playing Counterstrike (or Halo or any other popular FPS, simply filling a void for a name) in third person while everyone else is playing in first person. You'd have a severe advantage for seeing around walls and corners, instituting ambushes and preventing opposing one's much easier.
I really don't understand why people are so turned off by first person view. I'm a huge stickler for looking at my character and tweaking the looks be it armor etc, but this means zero if the first person element is pulled off correctly in combat and immersion.
To answer your question, having both views would be pointless as third person would provide the tactical advantages and people would more than likely never use first person anyway.
To answer your question, having both views would be pointless as third person would provide the tactical advantages and people would more than likely never use first person anyway.
So the answer is that if people want to play this game they are forced into using a view, that if there were an option they wouldn't use in the first place.....? Sounds like it speaks volumes for why 3rd person should be the focus of the game, and not vice versa.... I'll be honest though, I'm chiming in for no reason. I'm not going to buy the game, have no interest in a game with no story, quests, content etc. Game might be feature rich when all is said and done, but for me having to create my own fun and reason for playing is...just not fun.
To answer your question, having both views would be pointless as third person would provide the tactical advantages and people would more than likely never use first person anyway.
So the answer is that if people want to play this game they are forced into using a view, that if there were an option they wouldn't use in the first place.....? Sounds like it speaks volumes for why 3rd person should be the focus of the game, and not vice versa.... I'll be honest though, I'm chiming in for no reason. I'm not going to buy the game, have no interest in a game with no story, quests, content etc. Game might be feature rich when all is said and done, but for me having to create my own fun and reason for playing is...just not fun.
That's like complaining that any of those games I mentioned aren't as good as other shooters that use third person, it's merely preference and utility. Also if you're not interested in the game, and you're chiming in on a subject about the game you've admitted you won't buy, why are you even here? There are dozens of hand-holding and theme park style mmo's you could be involved in instead of wasting your time and ours.
To answer your question, having both views would be pointless as third person would provide the tactical advantages and people would more than likely never use first person anyway.
So the answer is that if people want to play this game they are forced into using a view, that if there were an option they wouldn't use in the first place.....? Sounds like it speaks volumes for why 3rd person should be the focus of the game, and not vice versa.... I'll be honest though, I'm chiming in for no reason. I'm not going to buy the game, have no interest in a game with no story, quests, content etc. Game might be feature rich when all is said and done, but for me having to create my own fun and reason for playing is...just not fun.
Also if you're not interested in the game, and you're chiming in on a subject about the game you've admitted you won't buy, why are you even here? There are dozens of hand-holding and theme park style mmo's you could be involved in instead of wasting your time and ours.
I love that response, I see it all the time here on these forums and find it interesting that people seem to think that you must have an interest in a product in order to have an opinion. And to set the record straight, the lack of 3rd person view is the main reason for what caused me to steer clear away from this game well that and the ridculous price tag are a toss up for the main reason and the lack of content is a very close 2nd.
If I see a subject header on the main page that piques my curiosity then I read it, whether I like/intend to purchase the game or not. And sometimes I respond.
Now in my opinion using the FPS argument doesn't work, because it's a different Genre entirely. A majority of FPS do not fit with the theme of "RPG" that is also found in MMORPG. And with the exception of a few games out there, IE games like Oblivion, a majority of RPG's are 3rd person view, and I believe MO will find that most RPG players prefer 3rd person when they vote with their dollars to play elsewhere. (Which is why I believe is one of the reasons they have such a ridiculous price tag on the game, they need to charge so much more for the title, because it's a niche game and will not draw as many players as other titles out there.. and again this is my opinion, they are running out of funds to finish their product)
I don't think it's necessary to disparage posters as "trolls" who express specific opinions on different features. I'm a little leery of FPV as well (although I know I could adapt), and I would find a complete lack of PvE content in a MMORPG disturbing myself. If indeed that's how things work out.
So why don't you just call this guy closed minded for being so final about a game that is still in beta - and obviously one that does have promise - and then wait and see yourselves how things look on release. Because I've seen the shout'em down fanboys be wrong plenty of times too.
To answer your question, having both views would be pointless as third person would provide the tactical advantages and people would more than likely never use first person anyway.
So the answer is that if people want to play this game they are forced into using a view, that if there were an option they wouldn't use in the first place.....? Sounds like it speaks volumes for why 3rd person should be the focus of the game, and not vice versa.... I'll be honest though, I'm chiming in for no reason. I'm not going to buy the game, have no interest in a game with no story, quests, content etc. Game might be feature rich when all is said and done, but for me having to create my own fun and reason for playing is...just not fun.
Also if you're not interested in the game, and you're chiming in on a subject about the game you've admitted you won't buy, why are you even here? There are dozens of hand-holding and theme park style mmo's you could be involved in instead of wasting your time and ours.
I love that response, I see it all the time here on these forums and find it interesting that people seem to think that you must have an interest in a product in order to have an opinion. And to set the record straight, the lack of 3rd person view is the main reason for what caused me to steer clear away from this game well that and the ridculous price tag are a toss up for the main reason and the lack of content is a very close 2nd.
1. I love that response, I see it all the time here on these forums and find it interesting that people seem to think that you must have an interest in a product in order to have an opinion.
I love this response even more, clarifying the fact that you have absolutely nothing better to do than troll a forum about a game you have no interest in....can someone say pathetic loser...LOL.
2. well that and the ridculous price tag
Wow, because the 50$ Digital Download is just waaaaaay over priced...seriously dude, you're a just a pathetic excuse for a human and a troll.
Nice! It's great that you have such insight to my life based on typed dialogue on forums, bravo.
Thank you for 'defending' me. It's just the way of these forums to label anyone a troll that has a different opinion about a subject than fanboy of a particular product.... I really didn't feel I was trolling either and felt my opinion on first person was valid.
Feel free to call me closed minded as well, I really can't see myself even trying this game. I get completely lost and turned around in FP view, alwasy have and likely always will I guess my 'coordination' just isn't good enough to play in those type of games.
To answer your question, having both views would be pointless as third person would provide the tactical advantages and people would more than likely never use first person anyway.
So the answer is that if people want to play this game they are forced into using a view, that if there were an option they wouldn't use in the first place.....? Sounds like it speaks volumes for why 3rd person should be the focus of the game, and not vice versa.... I'll be honest though, I'm chiming in for no reason. I'm not going to buy the game, have no interest in a game with no story, quests, content etc. Game might be feature rich when all is said and done, but for me having to create my own fun and reason for playing is...just not fun.
Well said - for those who would prefer theme-park games. From what I understand this game is not designed to be one and those who like only theme-park games won't like it. There are plenty of those - I hope this game succeeds so that the sandbox game niche gets a little deeper. I'm still not sure if I will try this - it looks good, and I do enjoy sandbox games, such as EVE. I am not sure if I want to go through all the frustrations inherit in starting at the beginning of a sandbox game though. I am a older player - almost 58 and I think I might let the younger crowd advance the feel of the game before I try it. I did that with EVE and it worked well. I hope that MO becomes a good solid game for those of us who can create our own fun = not knocking those who prefer not to but not every game should be just for them. As far as whether or not this is a replacement for or a successor to UO - who cares, why not let it be just itself? I am tired of hearing about WoW and UO as if they are the only standards for games. Each game should be judged on itself and not on other games. No 1 game is going to kill Wow, and no 1 game is going to replace UO in the hearts of those who played it. Here's hoping that MO has success in it's own regard.
To answer your question, having both views would be pointless as third person would provide the tactical advantages and people would more than likely never use first person anyway.
So the answer is that if people want to play this game they are forced into using a view, that if there were an option they wouldn't use in the first place.....? Sounds like it speaks volumes for why 3rd person should be the focus of the game, and not vice versa.... I'll be honest though, I'm chiming in for no reason. I'm not going to buy the game, have no interest in a game with no story, quests, content etc. Game might be feature rich when all is said and done, but for me having to create my own fun and reason for playing is...just not fun.
Well said - for those who would prefer theme-park games. From what I understand this game is not designed to be one and those who like only theme-park games won't like it. There are plenty of those - I hope this game succeeds so that the sandbox game niche gets a little deeper. I'm still not sure if I will try this - it looks good, and I do enjoy sandbox games, such as EVE. I am not sure if I want to go through all the frustrations inherit in starting at the beginning of a sandbox game though. I am a older player - almost 58 and I think I might let the younger crowd advance the feel of the game before I try it. I did that with EVE and it worked well. I hope that MO becomes a good solid game for those of us who can create our own fun = not knocking those who prefer not to but not every game should be just for them. As far as whether or not this is a replacement for or a successor to UO - who cares, why not let it be just itself? I am tired of hearing about WoW and UO as if they are the only standards for games. Each game should be judged on itself and not on other games. No 1 game is going to kill Wow, and no 1 game is going to replace UO in the hearts of those who played it. Here's hoping that MO has success in it's own regard.
I'm not arguing with you, I really am curious, why must a game with story/lore and plenty of quests be theme park? I know folks say that because most PVE centric games are linear and lead you from zone to zone.... But without pointing you from zone to zone, aren't most 'sand box' games the same way, IE: each zone progressively becomes more difficult so you must train up your skills before moving on to said zone in order to further advance your skills?
I wish that a true hybrid existed so we could all enjoy a skill based game, yet one with plenty of lore/quests, perhaps with several story archs/lines that will make the game truly different for each player. But also one that doesn't force the quests on you so you can advance to zones/instances that require completion of a quest/story line.
To answer your question, having both views would be pointless as third person would provide the tactical advantages and people would more than likely never use first person anyway.
So the answer is that if people want to play this game they are forced into using a view, that if there were an option they wouldn't use in the first place.....? Sounds like it speaks volumes for why 3rd person should be the focus of the game, and not vice versa.... I'll be honest though, I'm chiming in for no reason. I'm not going to buy the game, have no interest in a game with no story, quests, content etc. Game might be feature rich when all is said and done, but for me having to create my own fun and reason for playing is...just not fun.
Well said - for those who would prefer theme-park games. From what I understand this game is not designed to be one and those who like only theme-park games won't like it. There are plenty of those - I hope this game succeeds so that the sandbox game niche gets a little deeper. I'm still not sure if I will try this - it looks good, and I do enjoy sandbox games, such as EVE. I am not sure if I want to go through all the frustrations inherit in starting at the beginning of a sandbox game though. I am a older player - almost 58 and I think I might let the younger crowd advance the feel of the game before I try it. I did that with EVE and it worked well. I hope that MO becomes a good solid game for those of us who can create our own fun = not knocking those who prefer not to but not every game should be just for them. As far as whether or not this is a replacement for or a successor to UO - who cares, why not let it be just itself? I am tired of hearing about WoW and UO as if they are the only standards for games. Each game should be judged on itself and not on other games. No 1 game is going to kill Wow, and no 1 game is going to replace UO in the hearts of those who played it. Here's hoping that MO has success in it's own regard.
I'm not arguing with you, I really am curious, why must a game with story/lore and plenty of quests be theme park? I know folks say that because most PVE centric games are linear and lead you from zone to zone.... But without pointing you from zone to zone, aren't most 'sand box' games the same way, IE: each zone progressively becomes more difficult so you must train up your skills before moving on to said zone in order to further advance your skills?
I wish that a true hybrid existed so we could all enjoy a skill based game, yet one with plenty of lore/quests, perhaps with several story archs/lines that will make the game truly different for each player. But also one that doesn't force the quests on you so you can advance to zones/instances that require completion of a quest/story line.
to answer your question, from my experience, sandbox games - usually you can go from a zone for newbies to a zone where even skilled players have problems fairly quickly - EVE for example. Low-sec space is often right around the corner and death awaits the unwary. Games that I call Theme-park are mostly story driven, often very rigid in structure for class and skill, and one most travel for awhile to get to heavily dangerous areas. Now this varies, LOTRO for example has zones where lvl 20-30 content bumps against lower content - the Shire for example - to the North is a zone that is easily reached where you might want to be lvl 25, or so as I remember it, before you go. To me Themepark means the story and the game are inseperable, to play you will eventually have to address the storyline. Sandbox games usually are light on storyline and are more about player interaction. Eve for example has some story but the interaction between Corporations(player driven) is the best part of the game - also the interaction of the pk'ers and pirates - they might be hated but they make the game much better. The majpr thing though is does the player have a choice to make their own story or does the player have to integrate themselves into the developer's story.
So underdeveloped it'll be more like a partial-birth abortion than a preemie MMO at launch. Pass.
EDIT: Just read the dissing of first-person only -- LOL. You'd play Counterstrike in third-person too if you could; the tactical advantage would just be too great for you to compete any other way. It's a gameplay decision. Saying it's a missing feature is like saying the ability to switch into a Supreme Commander-style godlike view of the map in CS is a missing feature -- it isn't designed to be there because it would fucking suck.
Actually it is $60USD, which is quite a bit more than any other game sold on the store shelf.
I bought it a while back and I play in the beta alot. The game is fun at times (on patch day especially...once you can get in after the slow download of 4gb from a really lousy patch server... I am US and the server is in Sweden). After a few hrs of playing with whatever new feature they add, it gets kinda boring though. The theft system was put in this last patch, and I have to say it is the most annoying pain in the as* thing that they could have added. It wouldn't be bad if the interace wasn't so screwed up and you could actually stop someone in the act. If you are at the refiner or the smith (currently the only places to refine ore and make weapons and armors) you are virtually locked into a window sysem that by the time you get out of it, your stuff is long gone (in many cases without even an alert in the chat window) There are hackers/cheaters (althoough SV has banned a couple of them...about 3 or 4 and they monitor the server logs for them). There are no real penalties for being a scumbag or murderer (red) as a matter of fact the countryside is ridden with them. And, usually the reds live to just gank noobs and steal their stuff, especially since the only thing that is gonna happen to them is not being able to safely go into a guarded town without someone calling guard on them. there are griefers that use pushes (which cause only 1pt. damage and doesn't flag them) to slowly grief you to death and the guards will not come since they don't flag. There are just alot of issues with this game that need serious serious fixing and should have had more thought go into them. One other thing I dislike is the fact that you have to login to the patcher and then you have to login to the game (2 logins total). I know it is just a login, but my god why can you not just have the patcher and the game client use the same login...it is easy to do...it has been done that way for years now.
I would like to say on a positive note that SV is working on it and they do post new patches every 2 weeks like clockwork for the bigger updates like housing, character creation, new areas etc. They also post quick patches (like with the latest patch the sky was black in some places so they did a hotfix and sent a server message out to restart your client via the patcher) when they can/need to.
Before I bought this game, I had been on the fence about whether or not I wanted to take a chance on wasting $60 on another game that may or may not be worth playing. In the last few years I have literally been left with a bad taste in the mouth by releases like Dark and Light, Irth Online, Dark Fall and Age of Conan (which was actually pretty fun for a couple weeks but then lost it) and a couple others. I looked around all I could to try and find out anything I could about the game. Needless to say the only thing you would find then on the MO site was praise of what they were going to do (NDA was in effect). Finally I came across this article that was supposed to be a first look at the game. It talked about when the author logged in for the first time he was amazed by the sky, the beauty of the world and the vegetation so dense in areas you could barely walk. The article and the "screenshots" had me so overjoyed that, like an idiot, I yanked out my wallet and popped $60 right from my bank over to theirs. Then I proceded to download the game and login for the first time. I immediately felt like I had been bent over, reemed really hard and then left hanging there without even getting a kiss or a thank you. The sky IS amazing and pretty, I will give them that. It would be better if it wasn't the same clouds floating over the same moon in the same spot all the time. It is daytime ALL the time at this point. There is no weather at this point. There is no vegetation that is so dense you can barely walk...unless you run into a tree lol. There is not even any grass except for in a patches here and there (and is there then really ugly might I add). I could go on and on about what the article had listed that I would see that simply is not there, but I won't. Needless to say I was more than a little disappointed, and I will never ever hand another company money for a game that is in beta again, preorder in the hopes it will come out or pay for a long term subscription only to be ripped off by the game closing down because the company mislead people so badly that they all just walked away.
I still am holding out hope for the game though, because as I said SV does seem to be actively developing it and they do stay in touch with the community (even though I feel that the article was probably a marketing ploy to get more ppl to buy at the time). I do have fun with it for a few days each patch at this point, even with the crashes and non-working/bugged or missing systems that it has right now. Hopefully it will become alot more fun when they implement the crafting system so you can craft and sell stuff from your house instead of going to town and getting robbed by a thief because of a broken/poorly designed UI. so for now I will keep hanging out with the fanbois that play and defend it like it is made of pure gold, just from a very skeptical point of view. It IS still in beta, and we haven't seen what exactly will be done when it goes gold. So, I will give it until the end of the free month I get when it goes gold and then see if I am up to subscribe to it or not.
They sold us a half-baked Fail-sauced pizza.
* With a side of monthly fee!
For me, it has nothing to do with seeing my own character, but a hatred of the tunnel vision that FPV provides. There is no peripheral vision, there is next to no situational awareness. Granted - with third person, I see more than I should be able to see, but with FPV, I see far less than I do in real life. It's like looking at the world through a tube.
I would think that graphics engines are advanced enough to provide a realistic view, but apparently not. The software isn't good enough to provide over-the-shoulder view, but not render stuff that my character couldn't actually see? Too bad. Forget the bloom effects and realistic trees, and shiny water, and work on this instead.
FPV is a deal-breaker for me, and I suspect for the great majority of players. Too bad.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
First person view sucks. And it's not at all like 'real' view, where you have a little more than 180° awareness (with recognizing motion very quickly at the cost of resolution on the edges), plus you can turn your head constantly to keep track of what's going on around you and 'scan' 360°. And as a bonus, in RL you do this subconciously.
In an FPS you see the 80° in front of your character and that's it. Some games give you "rear view mirror"-distortion so you can check a larger angle at the sides. But all in all, first person view gives you the tunnel vision of a 5 whisky-ontherocks drunkard...
And that's just plain dumb. You COULD play Oblivion in 3rd person BTW.
M
EDIT: Oh and another thing, hearing. In RL you constantly identify your environment based on loudness and angle of sounds. People with a 2 speaker desktop system are pretty much facing disadvantages before they even launched the game.