"Unless Funcom somehow screws up"-- That was my mantra for over a year prior to Age of Conan's release. There were so many features that sounded great when discussed in dev interviews and on the AoC forums, I was so pumped for this game. Never before had myself and my friends / guildmates made such plans for a game prior to release-- and I feel burned for it.

I love the core game, the combat has been fantastic, visuals are stunning and the immersion is good as well. The city construction is cool, but turns out hollow since the cities themselves don't do much, especially on a PvE server where you can't run around and shoot arrows at each other from the walls.

Funcom has created what I feel is a great leveling up game with good solo fun, but it's not a compelling group experience. It's especially lacking in quality dungeons for small groups at Endgame. The crafting is bland and there are so few things to fiddle with besides just running around and killing mobs.

'Massive' Mistake?

Funcom is determined to push the 'massive' aspects of Sieges and Raiding, which is a direction leaving me cold. They're now working on even bigger Sieges, even bigger Cities and even bigger Guilds (in the form of Alliances). What happened to the original plans for PvP questing in the Border Kingdoms with smaller fights over resource areas and towers? Without that stuff, they have no initial buildup into Sieges, so they're trying to leapfrog higher to provide progression.

How can their game engine support 300-player Sieges? It doesn't even work well with the current Sieges or even their standard Raid size of 24. Anytime I've seen more than a handful of players casting at once, things get out of sync and characters pop in and out of existence. Hell, even just the streets of Tarantia the NPCs blip in and out. Their solution: Drop visual effects from other players? Ugh.

A perfect example of how screwed up their PvP system is: When a Siege is about to take place, all other players are kicked out of that Border Kingdom. Not that the Border Kingdoms have much to do anyway, they're complete wastelands, but this mechanic ensures Funcom will never be able to bring Border Kingdoms up to par with the pre-release expectations.

Even if they fix what's broken now, they're not even close to the Endgame they should have had.

I really feel as though Funcom has made the wrong game for their Dreamworld engine, which seems far more appropriate to smaller groups. It looks spectacular from a solo perspective. They should stick with their strengths.

Where I'm stuck

They're now dicking around with balancing, mostly for PvP and Raiding with a few things just thrown in to slow down the gangway pace of leveling. The glory of the combat is getting watered down fast as they reduce the number one fun factor of the game. Due to their recent changes to balance out the gender damage issue, my Polearm Guardian's animations seem stuttery and unnatural. =(

The Apprentice obliteration was a huge blow to my daily fun, the day it hit was the day I played significantly less since I can no longer team up in a meaningful way with Michelle or Lurch as well as most of my friends and family-related guildmates.

So what am I left with? I can compete with the 12-to-1 ToS ratio that's AoE'ing the snot out of the high end mobs in Kheshatta (no thanks) or I can do Villas over and over again. I can't even spend my time collecting resources for my Tier2 guild city because they won't fit in my bags unless I first spend 22.5g to progress my Architect skill. Crafting as a gold sink != fun. I'm left feeling very unenthusiastic for anything gameplay-related, I'm just socializing with my friends, which I can do regardless.

So it's moving on time

I'm going to be parking Bello, my level 77 Guardian for awhile. Perhaps a short while, perhaps a very long while, it all depends on whether Funcom brings in content I'd actually like to play. What's in the game at the high levels right now is lacking, I've just plain run out of things I'd like to do.

I thought I would have been able to hold out a minimum of six months.

I've had an "EA is the Devil" category on this blog for years, it's somewhat tongue-in-cheek but there's a real reason it's there too.

Keen just opened up a bucket of worms by making the issue of 'incomplete' MMORPG launches an ethical issue of inflated customer expectations. The problem is, he's pumping EA-Mythic as his example of a company he trusts to deliver on what he'd hold others accountable for.

I probably would have discussed more of the premise, but as it was, I choked on my drink and sprayed my desk in the process.

Needless to say, I don't think EA is the bastion example of ethical behaviour when it comes to customer expectations in the MMORPG market. I also don't think Mythic is a good example of responsible budgets and deadlines for the health of their products, although that perspective is interwoven with their arrival to their EA-Mythic roost.

I'm surprised to hear this from a fellow Peter Molyneux fan, the king of raised expectations. Developers do get excited and hype stuff that they want to get into the game, and much of that stuff doesn't make it in time, or doesn't work as planned. Passion for your game just comes out that way. This is especially true with the complexities involved in MMORPGs.

I think the implication that there's an intentional bait-and-switch is absurd. There's no sinister attempt to hijack expectations. Wishful thinking perhaps. From evidence Funcom seems almost too honest about their shortcomings.

I still see this as more of a Craft than purely a business. I'm more often disappointed when it's treated as the later.

Found a link to Blizzard's forums which led to this:

Sure to be removed quickly, because I don't recall a Blizzard employee that has ever referenced another MMORPG on their forums before. They corporately maintain some kind of fog-of-war over that stuff.

It's perfectly sane and reasonable of course, you can't expect people to play their own game much, if at all, but they've got an interest in these kind of games so there has to be an outlet in competing products. There's a bunch of other normal reasons, too many to list really.

Much of the fanboi trash talk seems so silly when (during the trade-shows especially) it's probably usual for the devs, CMs and employeees of these companies to sit down together over coffee to discuss what they have in common. Many of them have worked together in the past, the talent is related and interwoven this way. You can catch competing devs smiling at each other on discussion panels and they're honest smiles at that.

I've always liked Eyonix, even back when Warlocks saw no love and as the Warlock CM rep he was too busy enjoying his Mage. =P

I found the link for this on the AoC forums in a thread with the sensationalist topic "Even Blizzard employees play AOC", right underneath "AoC is the Ralph Nader of MMOs" and right above "Is Funcom Gutlessly Caving In To The Prudes..?" which just goes to prove that regardless of any differences in the games themselves, the general forums are exactly the same.

Funcom has posted Age of Conan's first roadmap teaser. It's straightforward and shows they're aware (for the first while at least) they'll be busy patching bugs, fixes and content holes.

I'm pleased they aren't getting too distracted with 'balancing', especially for PvP because as this line indicates, they need to rethink how PvP works with their combat mechanics anyway:

Focusing on content (PvE and PvP) is what Funcom needs to do for the next few months. I'm assuming that despite their record-breaking launch numbers, the active players / subscriptions have eased off a bit, this isn't the game for everyone. I love it, but it's not a mass-market-appeal game like WoW (and I wouldn't want it to be!).

I'm certain they want to build up their player base even more though, or at least insulate it against the onslaught that will be Warhammer and Wrath of the Lich King. Good, solid content is the only way to do that.

The debates still going over Age of Conan's expected performance are revolving around the premise that Funcom will be dead in the water because you can't mass-market an MMO with such high system requirements.

I think that's misleading. I was never under the impression that Funcom was ever aiming to be a WoW-beating mass-market MMO.

There's plenty of room in the MMORPG market to carve out a niche.

• Licensed Conan / Hyborian world = Niche.
• M-Rated, adult content = Niche.
• Active combat system = Niche.
• Guild-centric Endgame (PvP Battlekeeps & PvE Cities) = Niche.

And add:

• High system requirements = Niche.

For me, niche isn't a bad word, in fact I think we need a whole lot more of these games to innovate within the MMORPG genre.

What Funcom is betting on, is that these points target their intended audience. That the same adults that will play an M-rated game are the ones likely to upgrade their PCs to do so. Or maybe they already have a suitable machine: note that the most common graphics chipset on the Steam survey is now the 8800, which by most benchmarks is today's fastest GPU.

The people who are going to be the most shocked or disappointed with Age of Conan are the ones who've become accustomed to playing WoW on laptops or underpowered pre-built PCs from the likes of Dell and eMachines. Granted, there are a lot of those folks and it's a normal expectation to play ever game on a PC you've bought in the past year... but that says more about the sad state of standard PC hardware.

The funny thing is, given the niche, I expected Age of Conan to launch quietly, almost un-noticed. I underestimated how many bored MMO players out there are eager to get their hands on something new.

It's a shame this stuff has overshadowed many of the more interesting features planned for Age of Conan. I expect to talk a lot more about those in coming weeks though. =)

Funcom has Fun in their name, but of course, fun is subjective.

As Age of Conan approaches its release date, I'm noticing the MMO blogosphere is questioning whether it will perform on launch.

Syncaine @ Hardcore Casual outlines the most important part of all this in "Too WoW-like, a positive or negative?": The Fun Factor.

When WoW was released, it had plenty of problems. It wasn't a clean launch by any stretch of the imagination. In fact I'd say WoW was downright messy even compared to most MMOs, but.. and here's an all-important but... it was still a good launch. Why? Because it was clearly and uninhibitedly fun in a mass-market way. It was obvious within the first couple of weeks that WoW was going to be a resounding success, that it was going to surpass just the Blizzard fanbois and EQ migrators, it was going over the top.

Not too many people remember the problems associated with WoW's messy first few months, because why bother dwelling on it when it no longer matters?

Tycho writes eloquently about WoW's state of dominance, better than I could have put it.

This doesn't mean that there isn't room for other games, in fact I think there's plenty of room within WoW's shadow.

It doesn't matter whether there are bugs, or even if the launch is messy, a game.. any game makes or breaks on the fun factor. The question you should ask yourself when you're deciding to buy a game or not, to invest your dollars and your time, is whether you think you'll enjoy yourself.

Just like I'd done with WoW a few years back, I've intentionally skipped the Beta opportunities with Age of Conan. These are two games with so much potential that I don't wish to ruin my experience testing a beta that can be wildly different from the full game.

I've played enough betas (especially MMO betas: Ultima Online, Everquest, Guild Wars, etc.) to expect frustrations and disappointments that can all be avoided with a bit of patience for the actual game.

As expected, I'm seeing a variety of first impressions from the current 'Open' Beta of Age of Conan, that's very reminiscent of beta info leaked from World of Warcraft before its initial release. None of those reviews are fair of course, whether glowing praise or doom and gloom. You just cannot rate a game based upon its beta, no matter how close to release it is. At the most, you can get a general impression of gameplay.

The WoW comparison:

If WoW had to survive on the merits of its release (let alone beta), it would have failed miserably. Penny Arcade actually withdrew their 2004 Game of the Year award due to WoW's lack of server stability. The real test that Blizzard passed was in halting the game sales (yeah, they did that), refunding time to players and addressing the stability issue, although it took them months. At the time, WoW had sold just over 600,000 copies of the game, which was a great achievement but a far cry from the millions they have now.

As a player in 2004, I was thrilled to be playing WoW. I rarely commented on the bugs & problems (first day: fell out of the world, got stuck numerously in flower-picking pose, disconnected from server continuously) since I had expected them. I expect Age of Conan to have its share of issues too, in fact I'd assume more, it's designed to a much higher standard of visuals compared to WoW (which was hardly state of the art in 2004, let alone now).

The real test for any MMORPG if you ask me, is twofold:

• Is the gameplay fun? This is subjective of course. What's fun for me isn't necessarily for you, but there are some commonalities to mass-market fun. WoW certainly meets most player's standards, otherwise it wouldn't be so popular. Age of Conan's PvP beta gained some glowing reviews, though personally I'm more interested in PvE fun so I'll just have to wait to see, but what I've seen during development looks good and the RPG world certainly suits me.
• Are they a standup company? If there are problems, will they fix it? Or will they just cave, count their losses and dump the whole thing? I don't think I need to give examples of companies that are not what I'd consider standup in the MMORPG field, some of them are notorious and have either outright mismanaged their game developments or have let good games die on the vine.

  Blizzard is clearly a standup MMORPG company, they pulled their socks up when they needed to. I'd say Funcom's experience with Anarchy Online shows they are legit and worthy of faith too.

Funcom doesn't want a repeat of their nearly disastrous Anarchy Online launch. Proof that they're working to avoid that is in their current beta, which is clearly a stress test complete with heavy-duty debugging software. The downside is the impression they're leaving on the beta-testers while they try to push the client and servers to the breaking point, because as expected, things are breaking. That's the nature of the beast.

I'm pretty stoked with the pending release of Age of Conan, from what I've seen this game will suit me better than any that have come previously. I'm really looking forward to watching the game mature as it goes along.

Hell, I'll just be thrilled to play a fantasy MMORPG with no elves!