Age of Conan Troubles Continue to Surface

The Age of Conan (AoC) launch seemed to have gone off without a hitch, but the truth beneath the surface is starting to rear its ugly head. Which is fine with me, since it fulfills my interest in not eating crow.

AoC launched too early. The "Miracle Patch" that did fix some hardware and crashing issues, did not house any miracle fixes to the late-to-end-game content that many believed it did. Lack of quests, bugs, and malfunctioning game systems are plaguing players as they approach level 80 and begin to settle in for the long haul. That is, if they haven't quit already.

I don't even need to go farther than AoC's own developers to prove this point. They have fully admitted the game wasn't finished or tested enough in this Letter from the Game Director. They launched because the game was playable and could be patched into fruition, as evidenced in their aforelinked Letter and quoted below.

1. We will add content, specifically in mid-late thirties and mid-late fifties and make the leveling speed smoother in those areas, reducing the need to grind.
2. We will have an overhaul of the PvP system – adding consequence and a host of small things.
3. We are fixing bugs you reported through all channels we can get information from.
4. We will add a new large outdoor region in the 55-60 range this summer!
5. This is only a small taster! More information about the exciting summer and fall Roadmap will come the end of the next week!
6. We are staffing up Customer Service, Quality Assurance and Community departments!

Here we sit again, another MMORPG launch goes off technically smooth, but it does not take long for the lack of polish to set in. Most of us hate to use the word polish, but honestly it fits the problem perfectly. Blizzard polished World of Warcraft to a squeaky-clean shine. They didn't innovate; they simply executed the same ideas that have been around for years and polished, polished, polished.

I could go on, but I won't. Funcom simply did not heed the warning set down by Vanguard, Lord of the Rings Online, Tabula Rasa, and Pirates of the Burning Seas. Don't launch until the game is ready. Finish the game first, polish while finishing the game, and then launch.

I know it is easy for me to say that. After all, I'm not putting millions of dollars on the line and could really care less about running out of money. I've always stated that MMO developers need to be a business first and a game developer second. Good business practices will assist greatly in ensuring extra time is available if needed.

No, I'm not a game developer. I'm their customer (loyal btw) and I try to stay out of commenting on the business practices of developers. However, it is painfully obvious, especially with MMOs taking off due to WoW's success, that some developers just do not get it.

AoC, like LotRO, may enjoy financial positivity for a time, but I can't help but point out that these two games could of easily wound up in the state of Vanguard. Fortunately, both AoC and LotRO were able to polish enough of their early game to ensure a bleak existence and give hope to the MMO community that they may just be able to get it done.

I am jaded. I understand a lot of people do not like my constant negativity, but I'm not going to lie to myself. I can't be positive for these unpolished games. The MMO industry is very depressing right now, but has grown to immense proportions. There are players looking for games and AoC picked a great time to launch. I just can't excuse an unfinished game simply on the grounds of launching during a sweet spot. I know, I would probably be a horrible failure as a CEO.

To me, it is summed up in the first comment to this post over at Massively.

So... answer this: Why is it that they can do all of this now, instead of delaying release for 30 days and provide the public with a much more playable product?

Updated Thoughts on Mythos

I recently journeyed back into Mythos to experience the recent "Overworld" patch. The Overworld is simply a shared world for all the players of Mythos, where as before the Overworld, cities were instanced ala Guild Wars and then players simply traveled, instantly via maps, to another instance that they (and their group) would share. Now there is just a single, big world instance for all players to run around in. Within that world are entrances to dungeons, which operate as instances for the player or their group.

I'm not really sure I like the Overworld approach. For starters it seems to have completely reset the development of the game. There is an Overworld now, but not much else. Most quests are gone, crafting is being rebuilt, the map system is gone in favor of a similar rune system, and I'm not quite sure if there is a Shadowlands version of the Overworld. Shadowlands being the PvP mirror of the PvE areas.

Starting out definitely felt different in the Overworld. At first, I completely missed the first quest giver as a player ran past my screen, an impossibility in the original Mythos. Secondly, I was sort of lost as there was dots on my mini-map, but little explanation what the point of them were. After getting acquainted with the new Overworld, and finding my first quest giver, I was on my way to adventure.

There are NPCs that spawn in the Overworld to fight, but they are easily bypassed. They also don't seem to spawn fast enough to provide a proper means to level and most did not drop loot. I saw almost no purpose in them, but then again as I mentioned not much is in the game aside from the Overworld.

Once in a dungeon, I found the Mythos I was familiar with. Click, kill, loot, and repeat. Standard hack and slash. The first few dungeons I entered felt much smaller than before, which makes me wonder if the Overworld is supposed to provide some sort of filler content, while dungeons serve as quick in and outs.

There is also a new race, the Cyclops. In reality, it is just another, larger character model option. I noticed no difference playing a Cyclops than any of the other races. There were no new classes this beta phase.

Other than that, I was hard pressed to find something enjoyable. Standard hack and slash works because it is fast and fun. While parts of Mythos are fast and fun, the Overworld is not part of it.

Honestly, the Overworld feels like a neutered version of any other Diku-inspired MMO out there, from WoW to Everquest 2. Part of it is the unfinished nature as a lot of what I remember from the original Mythos is missing.

I guess the most depressing part of the Overworld is that it in no way inspired me to work together with players I might encounter. There was still no noticeable effort to get me to interact with other players, and with the Overworld, there are far less meeting places for players. The first city was relatively empty and the random wanderer I encountered in the Overworld could of been an NPC for all I knew. In the end, the only interaction was via chat.

I have uninstalled Mythos, again. It has a long way to go with the shift in development. Prior to the Overworld, I felt Mythos was a few tweaks and content additions away from being a free and fun time waster. Now I'm not so sure. In an attempt to become more like an MMO, I think Mythos has lost a lot of reason to play it. When Mythos is just like that "other game", but not nearly as good, who cares if it is free? Oh and only free until Flagship Studios can not support it on micro-transactions alone.

Official Age of Conan Forums Open to Public

Funcom has opened the Age of Conan forums to the public. A game account is no longer needed to access the forums.

Visit them here.

What to do, what to do

So, I'm not playing World of Warcraft at the moment. Most of the people I know are playing Age of Conan or Vanguard. Both games I could care less for. Most of them are about bored of AoC already, so I am sure they will be back in Vanguard soon enough. Actually, I doubt they ever left.

Once again, I sit wondering what to do with the few hours a week I get to play games. Here are my options:

Mythos Beta - The developers are launching a new "over world" patch soon that will bring Mythos in line with a more standard MMO where players share a world instead of being separated into a bunch of instances. Oh, and its free of charge.

Team Fortress 2 and other FPS games - I still love to play TF2, but I don't think it is my solution. I need something else to play along with my action games.

Dark Ages of Camelot - I could go back, fight the old control scheme, and choke down some nostalgia. Maybe even get an account to borrow to cut out the leveling process. I am just worried about not having expansions available and getting bored before getting back into some RvR.

And thats about where my brain stops.

Bleh.

The WoW-Clone Syndrome

NOTE: If you don't want to read a bunch of feature lists, skip to the conclusion at the bottom.

I'm going to hunt down and flog every single little twit that continually calls Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning (WAR) a WoW-clone, simply because they saw an early alpha screen shot of an Orc. These are the same people that believe Age of Conan to be the new "hotness".

First, WoW-clone needs to be defined. This is simple.

1. Level based advancement, primarily via solo PvE quests. Variation in quests is limited. Required group interaction minimal. Other activities do not contribute to leveling.
2. Classes based on archetypes: healer, tank, and DPS.
3. End game focuses on instanced PvE raiding and group-required content. Other end-game content a sideshow to main PvE aspects.
4. Gear centric approach to character advancement at max level, also known as meta-levels. Division of gear: one set for PvP, one set for PvE.

Other than that, everything else in WoW is really just good game design, applicable to all games in all genres. No need to list "responsive controls", etc. Those are items expected out of all games, but for some reason not seen in the MMO space until WoW.

Now that the WoW-clone is loosely defined, we can put the contenders up to the test to see which one is the true WoW-clone.

Age of Conan

PvE leveling via solo quests: yep.
Variation in quests limited: yep.
Required group interaction during leveling limited: yep.
Other activities do not significantly contribute to leveling: yep.

Classes based on archetypes: yep.

End-game focuses on PvE raiding and PvE group-required content: to a degree.
Other end-game activities: yes, cities, border kingdoms, but still to be determined level of importance.

Gear-centric advancement at max level: yep.
Differing sets of gear for differing aspects of game: unknown.

My WoW-clone'o'meter for Age of Conan: 90%

Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning

PvE leveling via solo quests: yep, but in the form of public quests which can involve interaction among many solo players.
Variation in quests limited: yep, but once again public quests break the stereotypical quest mold, offering a staged series of events to unfold for the players participating.
Required group interaction during leveling limited: unknown, but again shattered by public quests.
Other activities do not significantly contribute to leveling: false. WAR will offer three very distinct activities to contribute equally to leveling: PvE questing experience, Realm vs Realm experience, and Tome of Knowledge experience will all contribute in part or in whole to leveling. Most things a player does in WAR will contribute to leveling.

Classes based on archetypes: yep.

End-game focuses on PvE raiding and PvE group-required content: to a degree, but end game PvE raiding will be a result of the Realm vs Realm campaign.
Other end-game activities: yes, the campaign system, scenarios, sieging, and open-field RvR, all contribute equally as much as PvE raiding and PvE group play.

Gear-centric advancement at max level: yep.
Differing sets of gear for differing aspects of game: unknown, but unlikely.


My WoW-clone'o'meter for WAR: 50%

Conclusion

People are going to yell at me for comparing feature lists. Others will scream that AoC just launched and WAR is still in beta. Unfortunately for those yelling, the base of these "games like WoW" are not going to change. WoW hit the nail on the head in terms of online game play, and not just for MMOs, but for games in general.

That leads me to compare the features of each game, because honestly, there are not many features in WoW. WoW is a great base of a game, with a ton of potential being wasted. I hate to say it, but I was wrong for a very long time thinking that WoW could ever be anything more than a well done and simplistic PvE game.

Age of Conan is almost a direct WoW-clone, but saves face by adding some new end-game activities in the form of player-owned cities and border kingdom PvP. AoC's combat is pretty standard, with just a bit more clicking. AoC is taking the WoW base, copying it whole-sale, and fluffing the fringes to make it feel unique.

WAR is half a WoW-clone, which really isn't a clone at all. WAR will have a PvE end game, but the means of getting there will be drastically more dynamic than what is found in WoW. On top of this, WAR is shaping up to be a far deeper and more feature-rich game than WoW will ever be. WAR is taking the WoW base and piling on the goodness.

I fully embrace playing new games that "feel" a bit like WoW, because honestly, that is the way I want my games to play. I would kill for WoW's responsiveness and controls in a dozen other games I've played over the last few years. However, the time has come for a game to capitalize on WoW's success by adding a full feature set and in doing so, become the non-WoW Clone of the "next generation".