Slashdot Mirror

You're looking for Uru.

I wonder what the folks at Cyan and Ubisoft think about this? They've announced a game named Uru: Online Ages Beyond Myst , for relase in Q4 2003. I wonder who got the trademark first?

Name could be confused with the upcoming game from Cyan, which sounds like sort of a cross between Myst and EverQuest.

Uru, online ages of Myst ( http://uru.ubi.com/ ), is the one Massively Multiplayer Persistent World I am somewhat interested in -- the screenshots show it captures the D'ni feel very well, and they promise it is possible to play it without having to meet all these other people.

That, for me, is why I like singleplayer games much more than multiplayer games (or even singleplayer games with AI comrades) -- I like the singleplayer experience. Still, I'm going to wait for the first independant reviews before buying.

Whoever posted TSO fails because there are no Sims, is exactly right -- I tried the beta, and disliked it. You have to spend hours just levelling up, and I don't go play a game just to sit and wait.

Perhaps here is what you are looking for. Cyan is (trying) to create a persistent, everchanging and changable (by the players) world. Based on the Ages of Myst you are an explorer ferreting out the secrets, traps, puzzles, and whatnot of the different Ages. Yes, no battles and bloodshed but beautifully rendered worlds for one (or many) to explore. It looks to be a fresh change in MMORPG.

Shadowbane now has a release date, March 25.

I too was a little dissapointed in WC3's graphics. After seeing the way Battle Realms looked, and the fact that it was still smooth on a P166, made me think WC3 was going to be so much more. However, I don't find the gameplay of Battle Realms to be even close to as good as Warcraft 3's.

Last time I played starcraft, it was impossible to play terrans, cause if the opponent played Zerg, with the appropriate build order, he could bring in 6 zerglings into your base before you even built a barracks. Also, I'm a defense oriented person, so I lose all the time, unless the game lasts long enough for me to build a good defense and expand (I love playing the waiting game for them to run out of resourses).

And I'm no fan of micromanagement. That's why I like Conquest (if you do like micromanagement, UbiSoft also made an RTS thats wonderful, called BattleRealms. Give the demo a shot).
When I think micromanagement, I think of games like Myth, which is a "tactical" game. "Strategy" doesn't come with pointing each individual trooper and telling him where to shoot. Its about having a good plan in a "general" sense. I want to tell my admiral to flank my opponents from the high ground, as a main gruntforce approaches from the valley, and to get archers prepared before the initial rush, and horsement to come in from the rear.
Sorry, but I don't have the mouse skill or speed to do that on my own. My job, then, would be the "strategist", and the "admiral's" job would be the "tactician".

So, in my humble opinion, strategy games can't have micromanagment... tactical games do.

Most important, if you're looking forward to the game, be assured: the gameplay is cool. This time you have a choice between four races: Human, Undead, Orc, or Dark Elf. Your race really doesn't matter in multiplayer mode; winning basically comes down to building everything up quickly and creating a massive army with which to crush your opponents. Or in my case, getting crushed.

RTS is dead. Its all about who's the 1337 D00D that can build up his army faster and rush the enemy. Adding 3D and new races isn't helping. You need to force strategy on the opponent. Games like Conquest:Frontier Wars is a game thatforces stratgy on the player, and removes the micromanagement. That needs to be done to bring RTS back to life.

I'm afraid WarCraft3 is nothing more than an upgrade of Warcraft2. Sure, its pretty, and will entertain for about a week, but it'll all come down to who can rush faster.