Slashdot Mirror
FF XI Goes Live in Japan
Castolari writes "Gameforms reports about the Japanese launch of FF XI, Square's online venture with
the series. Apparently, there's some serious technical problems with the
server load as well." They also have some
Screenshots.
I'm still hoping that someone will get the MMORPG right in the not so distant
future.
After their unsuccessful movie venture, Square is walking a dangerous line especially as initial reports are saying that takeup has been relatively poor yet the technical infrastructure is unable to handle even this. Hence, large amounts of dissatisfaction even before the usual problems with cheating and administration...
If you're looking for a MMOG that gets it right, look at Shadowbane. (http://shadowbane.ubisoft.com/) Your typical MMOG is like Disney World, you go there, have fun, but have no impact on the place besides giving them money, and all the other people just get in the way. If there's a plot, it turns out the same whether you're there or not. In Shadowbane, you make the plot while building your kingdom Machiavelli-style, then coming after anyone you don't like with ballistas and trebuchets. That sure beats camping monsters, whether or not the monsters come from some big franchise like Star Wars or Final Fantasy.
For great justice.
> I'm still hoping that someone will get the MMORPG right in the not so distant future.
Are you talking about this MMORPG, or MMORPGs in general? IIRC, FFXI isn't trying anything drastically new in the Massively Online RPG arena (besides being on a console. Whoop.)
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
UO, EQ, AO, AC all had problem starting. Only Camelot had a decent start up and that's only because they've done it all before. Funcom even lost a large chunk of their workforce due to the poor launch and its taken about 6 months to get back on track.
:)
MMPORGs are nothing to be taken lightly and they usually take a minimum of about 2-3 years of development. I honestly don't feel Square is up to the task, a RPG and MMPORG are completely differnet genres and require a completely different approach to games. With thousands of people playing and paying everday your customer service and community connections becomes a large factor, costs, hardware, in game and out of game support, patching, exploiting, bugs and a hundred other things become a daily task that is daunting to say the least.
The other large thing to look at is the console vs. pc. PC users are used to patching things, downloading, dealing with other people, dealing with connectivity issues and with 10 years and counting of online gaming things still work well but not great. Its a slow process and one I don't think the console user is ready for. Your average PC gamer understands ping and packet loss a little bit more and your average MMPORG user knows not to expect to log onto a new server let alone a new game the first week it goes live.
Going from a static game to a MMPORG is like a car making deciding to make planes all of a sudden. Its kind of the same, but not at all.
I congratulate Square in trying to do something new to the console but I think they are going to be nothing more then a guninea pig
I'm still hoping that someone will get the MMORPG right in the not so distant future.
Cross your fingers. If Neverwinter Nights turns out to be any good, it has the potential to be a peer-to-peer MMORPG. You can supposedly interconnect realms hosted on various machines through 'portals'. Granted, you may not be able to get 1000 users in one specific realm if some schmuck is running it in his basement on an overclocked 486, but with sufficient linking of portals, you can really pretend it's a huge single realm.
-Andrew
Some people do not like to go after anyone they don't like. Some people even don't like to fight monsters.
Which is fine! A problem that has often been mentioned in relation to MMORPGs is that everyone wants to be a king, a mighty warrior or a mage, and no one wants to play a peasant, underdog or craftsman. Existing MMORPGS have shown that that is not true: plenty of people do not mind roleplaying such a role. The truly succesful MMORPG will either cater to a sufficiently large group of one particular kind of player, or combine a multitude of play-styles, both within the game-world, and by having different worlds for different people (like the normal and the roleplay servers of Dark age of Camelot). I would prefer the second, since it will result in diversity, and create an opportunity to try different playstyles.
That is the hard part, try and make all of the following play styles and roles viable:
- people who like to play solo
- people who like to team up
- Hardcore / casual PvP'ers
- Both casual and full-time players. A big, big problem with many of these games is that low-level characters cannot join up with the more experienced warriors and go hunting together
- Craftsmen, peasants, merchants, diplomats, etc.
- People playing for fame, for gold, for fun or for company.
Also take in mind that people will switch from one role to the other often.
Next is your environment. You need stable servers and good staff, to help out players in trouble, catch grief players and cheaters, and perhaps provide content as well.
Lastly, players need to have an impact on the environment. This can take many forms, but the idea that your actions matter in the game is a big draw for many people.
Most of todays MMORPSs seem to focus on fighting and/or PvP, and have no viable crafter classes. The ever so popular 1st person view makes having conversations with more than 2 people rather hard Compare looking at a tiny chat window that shows all text around you, to the overhead view of Ultima Online, where speech text appears over the heads of the people speaking. Whatever faults that game may have, they got that part right. Lack of meaningful, non-aggressive interaction and having only combat characters as a viable class makes all the current MMORPGs a rather bland experience. Excepting Ultima Online: I have tried all the others, but I have never given up on that one. It is still the game with by far the widest possible range of play styles.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
My major problem is, while walking, I tend to think, "Hey, I'm tired of walking and that's a nice car! I should just jack it."
I may be wrong, but I'm never uncertain.
Personally, I'd rather play through a world that people have poured their energy into over years than get all excited about kicking a plastic ball around. I'm not against exercise, or sports that actually have some sort of intrinsic enjoyment, but hockey, soccer, basketball/whatever just don't hold any appeal to me. Sports and Final Fantasy have almost nothing in common anyway... I think by "life-like" the original poster meant that the games were becoming more complicated and more pretty.
Seriously, what's so great about MMORPGs? Do people just like throwing money away? You have to pay to get the game on your system (whether it be PC or console) and then you have to pay a monthly fee to play the game. Let's take a normal rate of $10/month. That's $120/year just to PLAY a game you probably paid atleast $35 to get, plus the cost of an ISP. Does anyone realize that's just stupid? Do you REALLY need a game that never ends, sucks all your money out of the bank, and withdraws you from a real social life? Why are people happy this is coming to the console games?
I realize everyone's tastes are different, but online games seem extremely expensive to me. Diablo II was a game that never really ended and I just paid a one time flat fee to buy the game. Why would I want to spend even more money to play such a game online?
I've played almost every FF game since FF 1 on NES, and with the exception of FF8, I've largely enjoyed all of them. I am bummed that FFXI is a MMORPG game simply because I begin to wonder if they'll target all their future RPGs for onling play. I will not play online games with the current cost structure (I have a hard time justifying paying $50 for a game and usually wait until they become $20). Square has largely been a reliable source for great RPGs (with a few exceptions), and if they start making online games only, what's left to fill the void? I've always enjoyed RPG games and would be rather upset if they all went online and as such disappeared from my gaming life.
I for one am bummed. Anyone know if FFXII will be online also?
KhyronHere are some of the highlights:
Unlimited numbers of players within one persistent-state world
Advance, Distributed Artificial Intelligence
Every game genre
Multiple, concurrent games
Any connected device
Hot-swappable components
Shared-source developer sandbox
http://www.kubuntu.org/
You stole my thunder :)
To get a MMORPG right, first take out the first M. In all of my years of enjoying RPG's whether it be pen & paper or video games, I have never enjoyed it with 2500 other people, I only enjoyed it with 4 or 5 other people.
As soon as people realize that camping out spawns is not a true RPG, more and more people will realize that anything multi-massive anything is not the way to go.
My hope is not for NWN to be kickass (because the geek boy in me is wishing to God that it is) but for the game to be revolutionary.
ChozSun
ChozSun.com
I think the problem can be traced back to the statement "This game looks good."
Admittedly I haven't been giving FFXI the attention it deserves (in lack of Sakaguchi), but taking into consideration the limited power of the PS2, and the graphic compromises in even the most advanced PC MMORPGs, I find myself wondering just how many characters we can expect to see on-screen? How many enemies? How many unique environment elements and NPCs?
Part of the appeal of MMORPGs is the ability to have insane numbers of players all interacting simultaneously.
The question I pose to those that've followed the progress of FFXI is whether it's truly an MMORPG, or simply an online RPG of the same sort as Phantasy Star Online, where clear limits are placed on the number of active characters?
As for MS, if I were them, I'd be perfectly happy with Morrowind for the XBox. It's a beautiful, engrossing game for the PC. But then, it doesn't have the words "Final" and "Fantasy" anywhere in its name, so it's unlikely that the bulk of console RPG gamers'll give it any notice.
I am not a gamer, but armed with a little bit of knowledge and common sense, find many posts a bit strange.
People say: 150$ to get online is a lot/not a lot. Well, 150 is the HD + Eth. card, but since you don't need the HD, you can get online for 40$ (price of the Eth. addon).
People say: PS2 doesn't have an advantage because Xbox will have online games, too. Well gee, PS2 has an online game right fucking now. If that's not an advantage, I don't know what is. And FF fanatics will get on the bandwagon, I believe. The Xbox doesn't have a title with a solid reputation and broad following.
Sigged!