True Fantasy Live Online - Still Xbox's Killer MMO App?

Thanks to XBN for its in-depth preview of Level 5's Japanese-developed Xbox MMORPG, True Fantasy Live Online, the long-in-development Microsoft funded title which is finally "hitting Xbox Live in early summer 2004." The piece points out that Level 5's RPG portfolio "...is stunningly impressive; in addition to Microsoft's Fantasy, the studio is developing the Dark Cloud series for Sony and Dragon Quest VIII for Square Enix", before speaking to chief game designer Akihiro Hino, who "believes it's possible to play and enjoy a noncombat character without fighting for the entirety of a lifeline in Fantasy", and the article ends by boldly claiming: "Fantasy already has more environments, enemies, vehicles, items, skills, classes, monsters, pets, and foods than any console RPG to date." Are you remotely, significantly, or excessively excited about this Xbox Live exclusive title?

Comments

more != better

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish companies would stop using the philosophy that 100 different swords is always better than 1 sword. I wish they'd concentrate on making the game intrinsicly fun to play regardless of what items are in it or not. Here's a concept: make a combat system for an rpg that's enjoyable IN AND OF ITSELF! What's wrong with having a game where people go and fight monsters or whatever for the fun of it rather than entirely for the rewards they get? Give me simple and fun over complex to compensate for lack of fun any day.

Better Combat?

[madygoosey]

I don't know about the combat system in MMORPGs, I mean I know they are supposed to be more relaxed and easily accesible, but can't someone come up with a zelda(ocarina of time?) like combat system, where more than a dice roll affects your attack. Maybe like planetside without the human vs human comabt, and swords and bow and arrows instead of machine guns and rocket launchers. Battle would be so much more fun. The game could actually be more about fighting harder monsters even which a weak character, than spending hours and hours in some stupid cave fighting frog men to level your character to 65 and then go 'fight' the bigger and 'harder?' creatures.

Re:Better Combat?

[Highrollr]

The reason MMOs are limited to typical MUD turn-based combat is more of a technical limitation than a creative one. Think for a second about the sheer amount of data that have to be moved to keep a 16-player game of UT2004 in sync. That kind of bandwidth usage simply does not scale to thousands of players. Even Planetside does not have true FPS combat. The bandwidth costs to keep the server going would be too high. It has an approximation based on trusted clients and large cones of fire. I think having true reflex-based MMO combat would make them much more fun to play, but it looks like we'll have to wait a while until we get it. On the bright side, designers have come up with enough tricks with time-based special attacks and such that combat is still fairly involving. For those who have played it, I think a system like Legend of Dragoon would work well to enhance MMO gameplay. This sort of system is basically turn-based, but by clicking at precise moments one's damage output can be increased dramatically. I believe EQ2 may have something like this planned.

Re:Yes

[DrSkwid]

pure nonsense

people clock up hours on both games because they prefer one to the other

you need depth *and* gameplay not one or the other

why do you think counterstrike doesn't have just 1 weapon and 1 map?

DAOC, for instance, had less item depth, each class at each level has an optimum set of kit. Part of the fun of Everquest was the array of items. Even though I was a specialist in 2H Axe I used to carry a set of thulian claws and a rapier. I could then choose whether to deal damage or interrupt casting. No such need in DAOC, the scope of your activity was much less.

I have played quite a few MMOs and EQ has by far the best items. We'd often just go on an adventure to get specific items even though we didn't really need them because that was the fun.

The real variety needs to be in the way the MOBs fight the party. DOACs approach was poor in this area. It wasn't until I hit level 36 that there was any difference in the way one pulls and kills the mobs (chain pulling the pygmies). However, the game was really aimed at PVP so it's slightly excusable.

As for this game, I couldn't care less.

EQ2 is the one the hardcore people are waiting for.

more = better

[DavidBrown]

In defense of "100 different swords", I have to say that the wide variety of swords, armor, etc. is much of what made Diablo II a success. I'm not saying that gameplay, fun, etc. isn't important - that's the heart of any good game. It's just that having a variety of weapons and other stuff to discover makes a game more interesting.

It actually has to do with the psychology of operant conditioning. Kill a monster or open a chest and get a weapon. If you get the same sword every time, you won't bother seeking out and killing the monster unless you happen to need the sword (which you won't need because you already have). But if there's a chance you may wind up getting a much better sword, then you're going to go out, time after time, killing and looting until you find the sword and start looking for the next one, or you give up, bored.

Operant conditioning is why gambling is so addictive. It's why people who can't afford it buy lottery tickets. And it's why having a variety of "neat" weapons in a fantasy RPG is part of what makes it fun. Even NetHack has more than one sword.

And it doesn't have to be complex. Diablo II is a very simple game to play, with a very large number of items that can be acquired by a player. None of the rare ones are needed to do well in the game - they're just neat, and a way to make your character different in its own way from the rest of the crowd.

Bound to be a success

[rpillala]

Foods. That's what's been missing from the online and offline games that I've been playing. More foods.

Ravi