Asheron's Call 2

Games
21

Jessica can maybe comment on long-term direction, marketing, the repurchase of the franchise, and all that good stuff.

I will at least say, in terms of business stuff, that we are offering new downloads and CD keys via fileplanet, at http://www.fileplanet.com/promotions/asheronscall2/.

What we have in the game right now is a stable character system, without constant skill changes, though from time to time they do have to be tweaked. We have a rather large amount of quest content, and have kept to our monthly schedule, with new quests, monsters, items, etc. every month. We have a “hero” system for high level players, which extends the level range from 50 to 150. The hero system was introduced in September, and right now our top players are in the mid-60s, with a plurality of players in the mid-50s (yes, it’s a level grind, but there are at least monthly content updates for the high level players, so it’s not always repetitious.)

We still have good graphics :)

In June we’re looking forward to our huge crafting system revamp, which should lead to some large scale gameplay changes.

This is the plan for the coming year for new features: http://forums.ac2.turbinegames.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3042

22

AC2 is dead. Turbine has interest to keep it alive just because they need the brand. They bought two big licences in the last year and they need to show their strenght in some way. AC2 has a “symbolic” value. It’s there to show the money guys that Turbine deserve more funding. And money guys don’t know anything about the actual games.

Perhaps AC was decent. AC2 was not. That’s all Turbine has produced and despite the failures they got Middle Earth and D&D. Perhaps the two biggest licence you could dream about. How?

Because Turbine doesn’t develop games, they develop PRs. They are good at marketing and finding money but they simply aren’t able to make a decent game. Because, you know, games need ideas. Not just money and tons of tech.

We’ll see again the proofs when they will be able to fail despite the two big licences.

(my opinions)

23

I’m not willing to be so harsh to Turbine. AC1 is still a very solid game today. My wife has an active subscription to it. It just looks incredibly dated, which is fair considering it’s age.

AC2 tried to do this whole ‘rebuilding the empty world’ theme, but it just didn’t work for me. I hated the empty towns. The world just felt like a ghost town, no matter how many players were standing around crafting or running around hunting. Despite this theme of rebuilding, I felt like I couldn’t make any mark on the world, even more so than I feel it in other MMORPG’s. FFXI’s quests, on the other hand, do a great job of making you feel like you’ve had an impact on the world around you, even if it is only an illusion. To be fair, I may not have gone far enough into AC2’s quest system, and maybe the ‘story’ does get better later on, but it didn’t really draw me in from the beginning. It was also vaguely disturbing to me that all classes had the same base hp/mana values, but then again the Asheron’s Call series has never been about the EQ/D&D style party dynamic. All in all I felt it was a very technically solid game, but it just wasn’t my style. You have to admit though that the game is simply beautiful. Better visuals than FFXI and Lineage 2, for sure. Unfortunately it was also a huge departure from AC1, which hurt migration and general word of mouth for the game. I truly believe AC2 would have been more successful if they had given it another name and not billed it as a sequel.

Another point where everyone should be giving kudos to Turbine is the incredible amount of added content that they release for free every month. In AC1 and 2, you truly feel like you’re getting what you’re paying for from your monthly fee, because the world constantly evolves. We’re not just talking about the addition of a new dungeon or PVE zone here and there, though you did see some of that, but a continuously developing story delivered in a serialized fashion that the player gets to experience firsthand. Hell, in AC1 they took the city that was the most popular player gathering point and utterly destroyed it. Wiped it from the map! Talk about shaking things up! The only other game I can think of that has added so much extra content is Everquest, but you have like 7 pay expansions to reach that point.

Don’t say that Turbine will fail just because you didn’t like AC1 or 2. In some areas they have far outperformed their peers in the industry. I expect some pleasant surprises from them over the next couple of years.

I just hope that the first expansion for Middle Earth is one that adds in the evil races and areas for epic-scale PVP, like what you see in the movies. Then they would have one game to rule them all. :)

24

No, it’s not. If Turbine is able to produce three whole new games they surely are able to support AC and improve it. Yes, there’s a new expansion planned with “new textures”. No, that’s not what “support” is about. In particular after many years of stall.

Mmorpgs are different from single player worlds because, potentially, they never grow old.

They are also to be judged as the year passes. AC was decent at release? Ok. AC is now old? Yes, because they stopped to work on it to spend resources on those other products, instead of improving what they had. This stupid mentality applied to mmorpgs is totally wrong. And I’m happy to see that they aren’t going to be rewarded for these decisions.

They have four damn mmorpgs and they aren’t able to support one.

This genre needs IDEAS. Not more titles and big licences. Obviously Turbine isn’t able to realize that. Remember, four titles. Two brand new and big licences.

Shiny money.

25

So Microsoft is “the evil” again? Perhaps, I don’t know Turbine’s games and I’m not delving on the merits or demerits of them. Nor on what lurks behind the scenes.

I’m simply noticing that they have two of the biggest licences despite they delivered nearly nothing till now. I also see their interest splitted on many different projects when they aren’t able to consolidate one. I don’t know if it’s about the money, or the agreements with Microsoft, or simply because they suck at building games.

But what is the sense of creating four indipendent mmorpgs? In particular when noone seems a solid project aside the licence itself?

When I hear about a new mmorpg I want to see if behind there’s a solid project aside a bloated press release. For me Turbine isn’t different from a vaporware company. Perhaps they built a fancy engine that runs at 5 FPS on a Cray compurter, why should I care? Where’s the value aside the hype of those licences? I see nothing aside the steam.

And considering the industy in general you see the need of more and more titles? I don’t. I see the need of work, a lot of work, on what you have now. You have good ideas and resources to make a new game? Ok, use those damn ideas and resources to expand or improve what you already have.

They don’t seem to have this huge team to support four damn mmorpgs. Point at me the last patch about AC1. Point at me when the patch before that last was released. They let it die as EA is letting UO die. With the stupid excuse that: “It’s old”. Their head is old, not the game.

I’m not interested in ten Turbine’s mmorpgs. I would be interested if they used all their supposedly huge resources to support one of them. And put there their passion.

I can understand if a company tries to make different games based on a different type of design and aim, like Mythic is supposed to do between DAoC and Imperator or the old “Origin” with UX:O and UO classic. But I cannot accept what Turbine is doing now.

The truth is that Turbine wants the money. They don’t believe in good games, they believe in the hype and the big names. No one noticed that both the licences they acquired are absolutely bad to create a decent mmorpg, they just linked the big name to the big money. It doesn’t matter if they have ideas about the final game, it doesn’t matter if the setting is unsuitable for a mmorpg. The important part is that they secured the name. They saw that they suck at making games, so they bought a big licence.

Perhaps the next time they will be able to blame Tolkien directly when the game will fail. Or perhaps they’ll find a different scapegoat.

P.S.
Doh? Walt censored himself?

26

Hrose, I’m not sure why you are so bitter, but you really make no sense. You write a long rant about how Turbine can’t support their games or make games or provide any content, then turn around in the next post and admit you aren’t even familiar with their games. At best that is grossly unfair. At worst it’s either ignorant or just malicious.

So far as what they have produced, they have produced 2 games that seem to be well-liked by the players and reviewers, but just never seemed to catch the lightning. Getting 2 (apparently good) MMOs to market is probably how they won the bids for the new games. Just be thankful Sony didn’t distribute the LoTR movies or the everquest guys might have ended up a monopoly.

Now, why didn’t AC or AC2 catch on with the big market? What was differentthat alienated people?

27

Perhaps you cannot see the obvious? Or perhaps you are one of those that think that it’s due to some “magic” or Microsoft’s evil power? Or perhaps you are asking the same thing about Earth and Beyond’s death?

For me those game have zero value. The fact I haven’t played them is because I knew already that they weren’t valuable products. For the same reason I’m not able to delve on what was wrong because I usually speak only about what I know well. What I wrote here is about Turbine shattering into many projects just to run after the money and the big names. The big names that allow you to reach the money even when you aren’t able to build a decent game.

The money isn’t the aim of the games, the money is the medium that allows you to build games. What I see here is a company that is clueless about making games and just runs after the big licences. And those big licences are the only thing they can brag about.

Everyone knows they are making MEO and D&D but there’s someone who knows what’s different or original or interesting aside the licence? For me this is equivalent to vaporware. They’ve only shown press releases and silented their failure about AC2 by blaming Microsoft. And I’m not taking the bait.

You don’t buy a damn licence before coming up with an idea for a game. First you need to have a creative approach, you need passion.

My “hate” is about this. Is about them dropping AC1 to build their new and supposedly great mmorpgs. I will never pay a cent for a company that leaves their product being replaced by a newer one, because these are mmorpgs and they need constant resources, not constant splits to rebuild everything from scratch.

Every time they restart something they are going backwards, and those are the results.

28

I’ll slide past the opinion parts of your post, but I do want to respond to this:

The support team for AC1 is over 20 people right now and growing. As I noted in another thread, we’re hiring like crazy.

To point you to the last patch for AC1; it was this month. We patch in new content and features on the second Wednesday of every month. Right now, each content patch is roughly ¼ to 1/3 the size of the average expansion pack for other games and we give the patches to the players at no additional cost. In the past 4 ½ years of AC’s life, we’ve added the equivalent of about 8 expansion packs through patches alone, put one expansion pack on the shelves and have begun working on another expansion pack, all while continuing the monthly updates.

And now that we own the franchise, we are most certainly moving to do additional work on the game and in the process we’re spending a considerable amount of that filthy money for which we lust. The first expansion pack and the initial graphic upgrade are only the start; AC1 is here to stay and we will continue to support it.

I am sorry you don’t appear to like what we’re doing; like every other developer, we want universal acclaim, <grin>. However, I do wish it was an informed opinion; that would be so much more meaningful and instructive for me. Our best source of info is the player’s opinion, after all.

So I’ll make you this offer; contact me privately and I’ll set you up with a free account in both AC1 and AC2 for three months. Having first hand knowledge of the game might not change your opinion; on the other hand, it might, who knows?

-Jess

29

The fact I haven’t played them is because I knew already that they weren’t valuable products. For the same reason I’m not able to delve on what was wrong because I usually speak only about what I know well.

I don’t have any comment, I just wanted to highlight this. “I’ve never played their games, but I know they are worthless!”. Bravo!

30

That’s ridiculous. It’s the same reason that EQ and UO are finally getting expansions. I mean, you can keep fixing an old car, put nice wheels on it, get a nice paint job over the top to keep it looking new, etc. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s an old car and there are things that you can get from a new car that it will never be able to give you. It’s the same thing with MMORPGS. As developers collectively learn how to make these games better and better, it often becomes impractical at best to keep trying to shine up the old model, and a better idea to put your effort into a new game.

Ludicrous. Everything grows old. Your house, your furniture, your computer, and your games too. I agree that MMO’s have the potential to stay fresh longer, but you have to admit that they grow old too, just because people tire of the mechanics and want to try something new, and it would be stupid to completely change the core mechanics of the game that far into a product’s lifecycle.

Ironically though, your attack on AC1 & 2 is on the two games that have done the most to keep them from going old of any MMOs on the market.

You show an unbelievable ignorance of the subject matter. They do free monthly updates. They have an expansion in the works. How the hell do you arrive at the idea that they have stopped working on it?

If they have the manpower, then they can run as many as they want. Personally I think there is a drawback to running products that essentially compete against each other, but maybe when they have more of those games on the market they will consider something akin to Sony’s all access pass to give better value to their customers.

You say they have four games, because they have two in development and two that are out but require upkeep. What about blizzard? They have teams working on WoW & Starcraft Ghost and maybe something else as well. On top of that they maintain battle.net’s service FOR FREE for players of SC, WC2, WC3 and D2. I would think that would be just as much on their plate as Turbine, so having so much on the pot is hardly unique or unusual within the industry. Someone from Turbine (Jessica?) even posted the other day that they have been hiring like crazy. Give them a little credit.

31

Damn, he’s hating on your games and your company and gets offered a free ride, and I try to champion your cause and get nothing? Pfft. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. :P

(kidding, kidding - not looking for free stuff)

32

Yes, now.
After the situation changed and you need to show everyone how Turbine is cool so you are able to support those new projects.

For me it’s too late. You are hiring for a game that is years old, you should have never stopped to support it and you are doing this now just because AC2 failed and you need to mantain a reputation in a critical moment. The same reason why you aren’t shutting AC2 considering the failure.

This is an impression obviously, I have explained why I don’t like your company and that limitates my interest and so my competence. I’m quite sure that the support of AC1 has been dropped to a minimum for a long period, but I can be wrong (and I won’t believe you even if you say the opposite).

Yeah. Everyone says the same, from Blizzard to Mythic to SOE. It feels no different from a press release. So I surely appreciate it, if it’s true.

Your offer is appreciated if you want feedback, I like to be able to discuss games, in particular if it has an effect and it isn’t just blowing in the wind. I don’t usually need more than a few days to understand the value of a game. The point isn’t again the money. I’m quite sure I won’t like both games, even if it’s for free. The fact that what I do could be useful could make me dedicate to it some of my time. And that needs to fit with the fact that I’m on ISDN and downloading a client isn’t something I do every day.

–

About Lokust. No, mmorpgs are basically worlds and worlds never get old. In a game you can change everything, from the combat system till the engine. DAoC is a perfect example of this, even if still timid. Each year they updated the engine and the zones, both old and new. Now they are rebuilding completely the RvR, improving where they left. They aren’t planning DAoC2 because what they can do to make a better game can be done already with the current game.

Sometimes it can be hard to rebuild a core part of the game and it can be easier to work on a brand new project but it can still be done. And I’m sure it’s way more rewarding than build something completely new. Rewarding as money.

That’s why I accept game companies building a game completely different in the aim and the setting. It’s ok to make SWG and EQ. It’s not to make AC and AC2. Or EQ and EQ2. Or UO and UO2. This is the industry still tied to a single-player concept, without daring to move from there.

The players want an evolving game, something with which they can stick so they won’t loose all their hours of “work”. They want what they play already to grow constantly. That’s the soul of a mmorpg. A persistent development environment along the persistent world idea. It’s persistent both for devs and players. Because you are working on a world and your ideas are just limited by the tech. Once the tech improves you can go on with the constant development.

Not just new zones or new classes. New gameplay, new game systems. What is generally done with brand new games.

The market has already shown that players don’t like to move a lot, in particular when these games require you hundreds of hours of dedication.

All the efforts must aim there. To build a code that is modular and is easily upgradable. A platform where you can build and improve. Not just a product you kick out after it is barely finished.

“If they have the manpower”. If they have the manpower thay can use it to improve one of their games instead of building 10 of them. I never heard of a game company with “too much” manpower. Use those damn resources, develop more and more content, fix what won’t work.

Why they didn’t used the AC2 engine into AC1? No, the “texture upgrade” isn’t something valuable now. It’s too late to renew AC1, they should have done this long ago.

33

it isn’t as if Turbine just up and decided “hey, we now own the franchise, let’s support it again!”… because they’ve been providing support for the franchise since the day it existed. you are talking as if that isn’t the case… of course, someone who hasn’t played the game would quite obviously be of that opinion.

you need to get some facts straight. you’ve got no experience with the games, and so, your opinion should be counted as non-existant.

now go away, please.

34

no “dragons”, no “gold”, and no “elves”… in AC1.

in AC2, they did adopt gold as a common currency, and ‘dragons’ sort of exist… still no elves, though… unless that’s recently changed.

35

Asheron’ Call has got to be one of my most cherised game.

I’ve been playing AC since retail…taking breaks every year or so, of course, but it’s always been there for me.

Best thing I ever did was getting the wife a computer and AC account of her own.

EDIT As for creativity, that’s one of AC strengths. Not one goblin, orc, troll, elf, dragon, giant blah blah blah…give me Olthoi, Virindi, Tuskers and Carenzi anyday.

36

don’t forget mites. :D (kidding, of course… everyone hates the mites)

37

But not having his facts straight and just mouthing off actually got him an offer to play the game for free! Anybody know where I can mouth off to the FFXI team?

Maybe the thinking is that if he plays the game and likes it, there’ll be 20k word dissertations about AC2 that we can all not read and will have no effect on public opinion whatsoever. Hmm, still a head-scratcher.

38

That’s a bad example. Sony has a great deal to lose if they alienate their current userbase, and EQ2 isn’t just a tech upgrade. They’re making a lot of fundamental changes to the gameplay prevalent in EQ1. Many people, perhaps even their core subscriber base, wouldn’t like things like locked encounters or small raid limits, or losing things like complete heals and kiting. Besides, SoE seems pretty adamant that they’re still going to support EQ1.

39

Yes, but the fact is that I’m not interested in playing a game for free. If a game has a value for me I’m more than happy to pay those 13-15$.

P.S.
I’m the one betting for EQ2 big failure, we’ll see how it goes.

40

Since you’re listening I’ll tell you why I quit AC2:

I’d spent about 18 levels in the game. I liked the quest system for the most part (wasn’t so happy with getting quests I really couldn’t do, even with a partner or two, for another 3-5 levels from when I got them/finished the last leg), I loved the combat system and the character skill tree control. The world was gorgeous, and the monsters were inventive. But the whole place was still just sterile feeling. I’m not sure if it was the whole “Rebuild the world” theme or what, though I don’t think that’s quite a proper excuse. The ultimate ending episode for me was thus:

A friend and I were bored and on our way to somewhere when we pull up the map and notice the marked scenic view spot nearby. (Haunted Monastery or somesuch if I recall correctly, it’s probably been a year since I played.) We decide that seeing cool stuff is more important than phat XPs, so we detour to go find it. It takes a while to run there (Kudos… vast feeling world is a big plus in my book!) and we have to fight through some new (and sometimes difficult) monsters (more kudos due to the whole “scenic viewpoint” system which takes us out of our way to see/experience new things without requiring a quest/phat loot mechanism). We fight up, get up there, all the while noticing the nice architecture looming closer, really anticipating what we’re going to find up there. When we finally get to the top, we find… nothing.

No artifacts, no relics, no ghosts of fallen monks, no corrupted monsters, nothing other than a static geometry feature which, if it were removed, wouldn’t look as pretty, but otherwise would leave no net change in the world for its absence. A perfect chance to draw me into the world totally missed. This wasn’t the only time this happened, of course, but it was the last. It’s really important to at least try to fool me into believing the world has history; make me want to know what it is; give me little glimpses even if I’m not on the beaten footpath of following through the vault quests. I don’t need great loot drops, or fantastic experience. Heck, I don’t even need NPCs. I would have been ecstatic simply to see a purely graphical, completely noninteractive ghost trooping around… maybe 2 or 3. I would have felt like it was actually a Haunted Monastery, instead of simply a tribute to your level designer’s skills.

Of course, in a perfect world there would have been a complete ghostly ritual going on, where if you stick around long enough you catch snatches of whispered conversations which lead into a quest. But I can forgive that lack in an MMO; I understand how non-trivial that is. Not having anything, though, that sets one region apart from the other until I cross continents, especially when one of your continents is large enough to allow for it, is pretty harsh.