AC2 was RE: [MUD-Dev] Total Annilation of Downtime

[Amanda Walker]

On 12/9/02 7:35 PM, Brian Hook <brianhook at pyrogon.com> wrote:

> In the case of AC2, I honestly think the name is holding it back
> because AC, by and large, was considered utter crap by a large
> part of the gaming community -- poor design, poor graphics,
> uninspired milieu, etc.

I think this is holding it back on two counts.  People who didn't
like AC are less inclined to try the "sequel" to something they
didn't like, and people who did like AC (character stats d00ds, for
example) don't like AC2 and found that out in the beta (which was
open to most AC1 players).

Now, for a few of us, using AC1 as a backstory is kind of cool.  You
can come up on a ruined city and realize you know what it is from
your own experience, not from reading a documentation pamphlet.
These little bits of homage to AC do add some depth for AC players.
Luckily, they are relatively scattered, and in no way a necessary
part of gameplay--for new players they're just oddly named bits of
scenery.

> The two games don't feel similar at all.

They are quite different games.  This was quite a bone of contention
during the beta, with "hey, this is kind of cool" vs. "hey, this
isn't the same game with better graphics!".  I am curious about EQ2,
which looks like something much closer to "the same game with better
graphics", at least from the previews and press coverage.

> AC2 is a far greater accomplishment, IMO, and it does so many
> things right it's astounding.  They spent an insane amount of time
> addressing some common complaints, and they made the game feel
> like there was always something to do.  The UI feels really good
> to me.

My biggest complaint about the UI is the amount of screen real
estate it takes up.  I play at 1600x1024, and it's crowded.  DAoC
really gets that aspect right.  However, aside from graphic design
carping it works quite well.

> But I'll tell you exactly where it falls down -- variety.  Lack of
> variety absolutely and utterly kills that game.

I agree.  I think they have a window during which they can fix this,
but not a huge one.

> There isn't a terribly strong incentive to play one of the
> non-optimized race/class combinations, which means that
> effectively you have three different archetypes in the game.

Hmm.  There's not a whole lot of incentive not to play a
non-optimized combo, though, and class balance varies up the level
ladder and in PvP vs PvM.  Minmax players will definitely go for the
big three, though.

> Which is sad, because on a per-system basis, I think it's better
> than EQ across the board.  But EQ just has more stuff to see, do,
> be, kill and own.

But dang, is it tedious to do it, especially if you're not part of
an ongoing guild.  I played EQ for months.  Soloing is pointless,
and the game was mature enough that nobody wanted to bother talking
to an actual newbie.  I even tried EQ Legends for a while, hoping
that the community would be friendlier.  Nope, even worse.
Established cliques, very slow solo progress.  I know Greater
Faydark really well, though.  Bleah.  AC2 is at least *possible* to
play solo with occasional pickup hunting fellowships.

> A dozen+ races vs. three.  A dozen+ character classes vs. three.

Yes and no.  With some exceptions, you can mix and match skills,
which I find a very welcome change from EQ's very rigid classes.

Amanda Walker


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev