PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
MMORPGs all suck
December 9th 2001, 09:52 CET by Morn

Well, no, they don't really suck, but sometimes it seems like the developers are trying to mess things up on purpose. From <a href="http://www.ve3d.com/comments.taf?postID=23691">VoodooExtreme</a>:

I was playing EverQuest: The Shadows of Luclin yesterday and the thought that immediately sprung into my mind was - would this game have shipped in this pathetic state if Brad McQuaid was still the EQ producer at Verant? The guy might not have won any popularity contests, but it was very clear he knew what the hell he was talking about. By the time I got to the screen that asked: you only have 384 Megs of system ram, please pick the 20 player models you would like to load, I knew something was rotten in Denmark. I mean - come on! I have 384 Megs of ram in my computer and I have to pick which player models I want to see? That's f'd up…It's not like Luclin is winning any awards for its visual prowess and the concept that I have to limit my options when I have a PC that's clearly in the top 1% of what's out today is un-freaking believable. The fact that Verant was sending out free RAM (512 megs) to people reviewing the game speaks volumes. I'm not sure why other sites have yet to report that, but you can always trust me and VE. Nothing can ever break the trust we share, especially not 512 cruddy megs of ram.

Discuss!
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: MMORPGs all suck

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Apache"
2001-12-09 09:58:30
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
duuuuuuuude, where's my car?
#2 by "Bailey"
2001-12-09 10:04:07
bailey@evilemail.com
Suck.
#3 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-12-09 10:24:34
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicboy.com
That's insane.  And people say FPS games have ridiculous requirements.  :)

===

I am a magnificent three-toed sloth.
#4 by "shaithis"
2001-12-09 10:47:27
cwb@shaithis.com http://www.shaithis.com
I remember when one of the Ultimas was getting a lot of angry press for requiring 1mb of free ram. This was at a time when 4mb total was considered pretty extravagant (and would run you about 300 bucks, I believe).

At least in those days, the Ultima series was still delivering the goods, so there was some reward for those insane system requirements.

Now, instead, you have EQ requiring 512mb for graphics that still look, in many ways, dated next to the Quake2 engine.

Nice...

-shai
#5 by "Bailey"
2001-12-09 10:49:04
bailey@evilemail.com
EQ's code has been sloppy since the day one. No real shocker here, but when they want to keep up with the joneses, (i.e. Mythic) what choice do they have? All or nothing, this is war. Can't rewrite the thing form the base up, and since RAM's so damn cheap, might as well take advantage of it.
#6 by "crash"
2001-12-09 11:38:14
crash@dork.com
from the intro:

The fact that Verant was sending out free RAM (512 megs) to people reviewing the game speaks volumes.

especially when it's unsubstantiated. nothing more fun to read than a big fat book of blank pages. who'd they send the ram to? how much? which kind? because, you know, there are only six or eight different types of ram out now... pc100, pc133, pc1800, 2100, DDR, SDR, etc etc etc. which types? how much per stick? 128, 256, or 512? or did they just go apeshit and send reviewers twenty-four to thirty-six different DIMMs just to make sure they got the right one in the right quantities? or did they make some discreet phone calls to ask what all the potential reviewers might have in their machines? hey, i know--they sent MJ12 stealth ninjas in under cover of darkness with special x-ray specs to infiltrate all the major publications and examine their machines, and then they busted out screwdrivers and upgraded them all!

or maybe this claim is just bullshit. i'd like to see some proof, please. (psst: by the way, this is why people don't take web site "journalism" seriously. unsubstantiated/unverified "facts" = "rumors", but hey, report 'em as facts anyway. no one'll notice.)

...when I have a PC that's clearly in the top 1% of what's out today is un-freaking believable.

do tell. stats? where'd you get that number from? what sample size are you using? or are you just assuming that you have an uber machine to make the story sound good? and what's the average EQ user's machine look like, specs-wise? how hard is this change going to slam the casual player (i.e. EQ's bread and butter)?

as for Verant shipping SoL like they did? shit, Funcom got away with it, and they had zero subscribers to begin with. Verant's got four hundred thousand, already and previously hooked through the bag. yeah, i'll agree it was a shitty thing to do. maybe write a story about that--how Verant is forcing people to go out and upgrade because the "competition" has as high, or higher, requirements, and that laziness means sloppy code. or maybe take the "it's time for EQ2; stop hacking the crap out of your hoopty graphics engine cos the shit was barely hangin together in the first place" angle. or maybe the "Eidos Syndrome" angle; releasing the same game four times and charging full price because you know your fans will buy it anyway.

but making shit up and tossing out spurious "facts" to fuel your "outrage" is sloppy and irresponsible. imho.
#7 by "crash"
2001-12-09 11:44:53
crash@dork.com
Warren:

That's insane. And people say FPS games have ridiculous requirements. :)

is it really insane, though? think about it for a minute. how much does the client have to load or pre-cache?

* all the player models' bases. that's, what, how many races, then male/female, then variants... what variants does EQ have? dunno.

* all the possible weapons.

* all the possible armor.

* all the possible animations.

then, when you enter a crowded area, it has to spit all that back at once plus architecture and effects and etc. to put that another way, Warren, what kind of system requirements would you need to support 75-100 bot play in Unreal, if the bots had, say, 50 or 60 different models to pick from, around 100 weapons, and maybe 250 skins? and assuming it were possible to see them all at once. graphics-wise, not engine-wise.

bet you'd need a lot of RAM. :)
#8 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-12-09 12:07:38
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicboy.com
crash
Well, I agree with you that with the load EQ is placing on the client it would take a lot of RAM to hold all that crap in memory.  It just seems insane that they're expecting the average consumer to have 512+MB of RAM.  My Dad has 128MB and he think he's flying high on top of the world (I consider my Dad a step above the average gamer, but a few steps below the hardcore).

Hell, Ihave 512MB in this machine here and the only things I expect to actually use it all are my compiler and various development tools.  I certainly wouldn't expect a game to overload it.  :)

===

I am a magnificent three-toed sloth.
#9 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-12-09 12:13:44
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicboy.com
Oh and FYI ... textures and model vertices (depending on your animation system) are generally stored on the video card, not in system RAM.  You generally upload them to D3D and delete your copy, letting D3D handle it from that point forward (assuming EQ uses D3D, but I think it's much the same with OpenGL).  Now, if that's the case, the only way you will be using system RAM to store anything is if you overload the card to the point where D3D can't fit everything on it.  It then spills over into system RAM, where it needs to be swapped and uploaded every frame.

Which kills your performance.

Which is probably what people are bitching about.  :P

===

I am a magnificent three-toed sloth.
#10 by "Ashiran"
2001-12-09 12:14:27
ashiran@ashrain.net www.wtfpeople.com
#7 by crash
* all the possible weapons.

* all the possible armor.

* all the possible animations.

You know, if EQ had a voxelbased engine they memory need would remain at the same level no matter how many different objects you had! But then again the memreq would be staggering with even a single object type to begin with.

I'll be quiet now. :)
#11 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-12-09 12:15:41
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicboy.com
You know, if EQ had a voxelbased engine they memory need would remain at the same level no matter how many different objects you had! But then again the memreq would be staggering with even a single object type to begin with.

I'll be quiet now. :)

And God forbid anyone actually want to MOVE and we have to rebuild the voxel data every frame.  :)

===

I am a magnificent three-toed sloth.
#12 by "Ashiran"
2001-12-09 12:16:46
ashiran@ashrain.net www.wtfpeople.com
#9 by Warren Marshall
Which kills your performance.

Which is why there should be graphic cards that support voxels.

Doh, slipped up again. :P
#13 by "crash"
2001-12-09 12:18:44
crash@dork.com

It just seems insane that they're expecting the average consumer to have 512+MB of RAM.

is it? remember when win95 came out and it said "will work with 8mb of ram" or whatever it was, and people said, "yeah, if you don't actually run anything else, win95 will work just fine on 8mb" or whatever. but everyone knew to run win95 and anything else you wanted to run, you'd need about four times that much.

now here's winxp requiring 128 to run. four times that much is... 512. a large portion of the mainstream systems coming out today are 256, so 512 ain't a stretch--most times it's like a 30-60 dollar upgrade option on a drop-down. to have to upgrade to 512, and only for one game, and on (probably) an older machine, yeah, that's insane.

but i dunno. just... dunno. at this stage of the game, most video cards come with 64mb onboard. christ, hard drives come with 8mb buffers. 256mb really isn't all that much, and from a certain perspective, neither is 512--going forward. if you do the "snapshot in time" thing, yeah, i'll agree that 512 right now seems a little steep... but then again, it really doesn't.

or maybe i'm just really tired and i should get some sleep. yeah, probably both.
#14 by "crash"
2001-12-09 12:30:00
crash@dork.com
well. at least they're not lying about it like funcom did. if you're too lazy or undermotivated to hit that link, here's the info (RAM emphasis mine):

Minimum: Windows 98/2000/ME/XP; PII 400Mhz; 256 MB RAM; 16 MB Direct3D compliant video card and hardware T&L; DirectX 8.0 compatible sound card; 28.8 K+ Internet connection; 4X speed CD-ROM; 450 MB+ hard drive space. Note: Although technically below the minimum specs, players with 128 MB of RAM will still be able to run Luclin by turning off the new character models.

Recommended: Windows 98/2000/ME/XP; PIII; 512 MB RAM; 32 MB Direct3D compliant video card and hardware T&L; DirectX 8.0 compatible sound card; 56.6 K+ Internet connection; 16X speed CD-ROM; 1.5 GB+ hard drive space. Note: DirectX 8.0 or greater is required. System requirements subject to change as the game progresses.

can't get much clearer than that. anyone that plays games knows how to read specs, and hell, maybe for the first time ever, the recommended specs are sort of close to what you really do need.
#15 by "HoseWater"
2001-12-09 13:05:43
http://www.opencrap.org
The programmers, or whoever it was who got in the way, or the party responsible to forcing them to skip that little  section on the to-do list called optimization, should be hanging their heads in shame.

This story reminds me of the 64k demo that was posted here some months that still blows me out of my socks, and looks even better since I upgraded. They should all be forced to use the product as their screensaver just as a reminder.

If reviewers are getting the game with ram, they should mention it.  That's a good sign that they are not kidding about the system requirements.  Sure, they may have put it on the box, but everyone knows the numbers on the box are bullshit, I doubt many people pay attention to that anymore.

512 MB's, is certainly cheap enough to get these days, but I am willing to bet most people don't have it yet. Most systems don't ship with that much either.
#16 by "Spatula Man"
2001-12-09 13:50:00
llama@verbalchilli.com www.verbalchilli.com
Crash:
is it really insane, though? think about it for a minute. how much does the client have to load or pre-cache?


Bu.. bu.. but.. the sprites in EQ, no matter how many of them you need to cache, surely are miniscule by comparison (take the male soldier model in UT - 4 256x256 images plus 1 61x61 HUD image). I know absolutely bugger-all about graphics, but from my position of ignorance, I can't see how it should eat that much memory, even if it had to cache every single possible combination.
#17 by "ProStyle"
2001-12-09 15:20:18
prostyle@phreez.com
Crash, I respect your stance against using anonymous authority and non-backed statements in journalism, BUT... there comes a point when even if those statements about Verant sending out ram aren't true, the fact that the game requires THAT much and still looks THAT bad is inexcusable. Anyways, that's just my 2 bits.

Moving on, I tried the gothic demo linked in the previous thread. I thought it was really good, actually. Finally a game with it's own style and "personal" feel to it. I'm curious though, how many people here actually pay much attention to the artwork in a game, and modify it if it's possible?

For example, whenever I play counterstrike, I go nuts if the machine I'm on doesn't have custom models b/c I can't stand to play with those damned ass-faced low-poly goons that are excuses for some "leet krew". Let alone the weapon models.. *shudder*. Or am I just jaded and out-played? I thought at least the early beta models had style and some muscle to the characters, but damn. This is just ridiculous. Anyways.. I know where this is heading...

On that same general question, what game are you most looking forward to based on it's "wow, cool!" factor? I remember 2-3 years ago the fact that TF2 was going to have a "commander" class was just abso-fucking-revolutionary, blah blah blah, but since they've moved the project to the photoshop engine.... their once original concepts have been snatched and implemented in multiple upcoming titles. Why is this? Why do we now have to WAIT years for things that are innovative to get implemented, and not even by the original author/team? (No, I don't want to get into that "Intellectual Property" bullshit either..)

The point I'm trying to make is I think the competitiveness in the game-developing/selling scene is wayyy too high for any real innovation to be brought forth, and even if it did come about the most you'd see is a blurb on the publishers website about "this great new development blah blah blah".. when in fact it's more of a cheesy gimmick.

So what i'm really asking is, where's the next TF Software or said equivelant? I really don't want to narrow my emphasis that much. However, they're a prime example of people making a game they love to play, who watch it become massively popular and then stagnate in the years to follow (and why, exactly?)

I just want to have FUN and be enthralled in a world or at least an atmosphere induced by play style and game mechanics/speed. Damn! Is it that much to ask?
#18 by "Hugin"
2001-12-09 16:17:11
lmccain@nber.org
Prostyle, I'd say part od it, honestly, is that at this stage of the game, innovation is complicated and expensive.  I mean, here at the end of 2001, what would a game have to feature to count as a breakthrough?  Realtime voice recognition?  Sentient AI? Telepathic interface? Weather control?

Okay, I'm joking, but only a little bit. I think there's a fair amount of profit driven caution/mediocrity out there to be sure...but...see, I helped a friend build a new computer last night

Anecdote on:
I built a nice machine earlier this year. 1 Gig Athlon, 512 MB RAM, blah blah nice stuff.  Seven months later, we build what we built last night.  Processor clocked 50 percent faster, with a reworked core that does more work per cycle anyway. Twice the RAM, running nearly twice the speed, for less than twice the money. All the supporting motherboard achitecture moving data around faster/deeper/wider.

(Oh, Shaithis you should have been there, no kinks, no snags, no incompatabilities,and neither of us cut our hands on the case, woo!).

Anyway, getting back to the point...this thing is just damn nice.  And we were sitting there talking while it installed Win98, then a Win2K upgrade in about ten minutes for goodness sake...and we were saying..you know..this is, by one metric, more or less the pinnacle of our civilization. Technology that could have gotten us kidnapped or killed by a variety of world governments if we had had possession of it only ten years ago.  I certainly have days when computers piss me off, and I'm convinced that Microsoft, or AMD or Intel or Via or whoever are obviously run by a million monkeys.  

But sometimes I really have to admit that this stuff is A: Hideously complex. B: Pretty fucking cool. C: Works better than anything this complex has a right to, compared to the complexity of pretty much any other item I own or could buy as a private citizen.

So, to stop answering a software question with hardware anecdotes: One (not all) but one legitimate reason why it takes a long time for cool stuff to make its way into games, I'm convinced, is because really, it's hard. (Yeah, there are plenty of cynical reasons too, but.)
#19 by "Duality"
2001-12-09 16:27:15
Duality@neo-tokyo.org http://urf.gq.nu
#8 Warren Marshall
Hell, Ihave 512MB in this machine here and the only things I expect to actually use it all are my compiler and various development tools.  I certainly wouldn't expect a game to overload it.  :)

512MB make oCrap a happy app ...
would that fall under 'development tool'?

Or are you of the unclean and don't even use it?

-Duality

I saw this documentary about how codfish have been gill-netted into extinction in Newfoundland, so I went out to Burger King to get a Whaler fish-wich-type breaded deep-fried filet sandwich while there was still time.
#20 by "Erik"
2001-12-09 16:28:12
I just read Apache's glowing review of Halo, and nowhere in it does he mention that Microsoft gave him ALL the hardware on which he played it.  Way to be bought off, there, boyo.
#21 by "Duality"
2001-12-09 16:33:15
Duality@neo-tokyo.org http://urf.gq.nu
#13 crash
but i dunno. just... dunno. at this stage of the game, most video cards come with 64mb onboard. christ, hard drives come with 8mb buffers. 256mb really isn't all that much, and from a certain perspective, neither is 512--going forward. if you do the "snapshot in time" thing, yeah, i'll agree that 512 right now seems a little steep... but then again, it really doesn't.

Even after 6+ months ... I'm still reeling over the fact that I've got system resources equivalent to some of my servrs at work (1GHz CPU w/ 512MB of RAM).  I can't help but wonder if we're going way too fast in terms of new hardware.

-Duality

I saw this documentary about how codfish have been gill-netted into extinction in Newfoundland, so I went out to Burger King to get a Whaler fish-wich-type breaded deep-fried filet sandwich while there was still time.
#22 by "Gabe"
2001-12-09 17:06:31
gabe@opencrap.org http://www.opencrap.org
#19 Duality
512MB make oCrap a happy app ...

?
#23 by "Duality"
2001-12-09 17:23:39
Duality@neo-tokyo.org http://urf.gq.nu
#22 Gabe
It was more directed as a comment of his usage of PlanetCrap at work when he stated that his work machine is used only with a compiler and development tools.

-Duality

I saw this documentary about how codfish have been gill-netted into extinction in Newfoundland, so I went out to Burger King to get a Whaler fish-wich-type breaded deep-fried filet sandwich while there was still time.
#24 by "Scrozzy"
2001-12-09 17:39:09
scrozzy@bigfoot.com
and what's 512 megs cost ... £30 ($50 USD)? geez, guys, get a job or something.

</troll>

yeah i know ... it's the "principle".
#25 by "Matthew Gallant"
2001-12-09 17:40:23
mg@truemeaningoflife.com http://truemeaningoflife.com
#20 Erik
I just read Apache's glowing review of Halo, and nowhere in it does he mention that Microsoft gave him ALL the hardware on which he played it.  Way to be bought off, there, boyo.


Publishers! Take note:

512MB RAM = Bad review, exposure of your pitiful offering.
Free X-Box = Good review, your company gets to pick its favorite screenshots that are 4X the resolution of the actual game.
#26 by "WeeMadArthur"
2001-12-09 17:45:47
smarteyman@interia.pl http://www.opencrap.org
#25

Yes, but from the looks of things he didn't get the RAM. Hence the rant.
#27 by "Matthew Gallant"
2001-12-09 17:53:46
mg@truemeaningoflife.com http://truemeaningoflife.com
#0 Morn
From VoodooExtreme:

I was playing EverQuest: The Shadows of Luclin yesterday and the thought that immediately sprung into my mind was - would this game have shipped in this pathetic state if Brad McQuaid was still the EQ producer at Verant?


Oh yeah, Brad had that rep for hiring awesome programmers and pushing them to do it right. What a beauty that EQ Client was...right up until he left.

Come on. Brad's greenlighted more crap than your English teachers have, Apache.
#28 by "...an ethereal being..."
2001-12-09 17:56:39
etherbe@cinci.rr.com
#6 by crash

especially when it's unsubstantiated. nothing more fun to read than a big fat book of blank pages. who'd they send the ram to? how much? which kind? because, you know, there are only six or eight different types of ram out now... pc100, pc133, pc1800, 2100, DDR, SDR, etc etc etc. which types? how much per stick? 128, 256, or 512? or did they just go apeshit and send reviewers twenty-four to thirty-six different DIMMs just to make sure they got the right one in the right quantities? or did they make some discreet phone calls to ask what all the potential reviewers might have in their machines? hey, i know--they sent MJ12 stealth ninjas in under cover of darkness with special x-ray specs to infiltrate all the major publications and examine their machines, and then they busted out screwdrivers and upgraded them all!

or maybe this claim is just bullshit. i'd like to see some proof, please. (psst: by the way, this is why people don't take web site "journalism" seriously. unsubstantiated/unverified "facts" = "rumors", but hey, report 'em as facts anyway. no one'll notice.)


See Shadows of Bribery for two emails supposedly from Verant about the free RAM.

Yeah they could be fake, but that's a very stupid thing to do.  It would be begging for a slander case.

...an ethereal being...
#29 by "Erik"
2001-12-09 18:01:12
"See Shadows of Bribery for two emails supposedly from Verant about the free RAM."

Here's the conspiracy nobody's talking about: It appears that Verant also sent reviewers a free game!
#30 by "Stepto"
2001-12-09 18:16:39
stepto@gamersangst.com http://www.gamersangst.com
#29 Erik
"See Shadows of Bribery for two emails supposedly from Verant about the free RAM."

Here's the conspiracy nobody's talking about: It appears that Verant also sent reviewers a free game!


I'm not getting the dilemma here. People are actually saying that Verant sending people enough RAM to run the game (most machines reviewers use are at least 256 megs of ram, so upping it another 256 is what, 40 bucks?  less?) is some kind of horrible ethical thing?

I would think as long as the reviewer mentions it in the review it's not a problem.  Under "cons" put "Enormous RAM requirement of 512 megs.  Verant even had to send us RAM to run the game so we could review it"

Bam.  No problem.

S.
#31 by "...an ethereal being..."
2001-12-09 18:17:01
etherbe@cinci.rr.com
#29 by Erik

Here's the conspiracy nobody's talking about: It appears that Verant also sent reviewers a free game!


Good point!  I just posted the link because crash was looking for proof that the RAM offer was made.

So how does this compare to any other review situation?  I'm thinking about the local newspaper's car reviews.  The manufacturer sends you a car that you can keep for a week or so.  You can write what ever you want about that car, but somehow I doubt the manufacturer will continue to keep sending you cars if you continue to trash their products.  You need test vehicles for your reviews and there are only a handful of manufacturers.  There is no way the newspaper can afford to purchase vehicles for review, so it's loaner cars or nothing.  That being said, do you trust the reviews?
#32 by "The Joker"
2001-12-09 18:18:16
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.jackinworld.com
Why don't you all quit bitching and go play Sanity. It fucking beats every game that game after it up till now.

Joker, Phd. Procedural Assholian Behaviour, Pedophilosopher
- All your ass are belong to my wang Jafd. Prepare to are penetration.
#33 by "Apache"
2001-12-09 18:42:27
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
erik, I was totally honest about ms sending out free xbox units and mentioned it several times on the site in the 'in other news' posts. I even mentioned when they sent out updated debug units... as far as proof goes about the ram, here are the mass emails to the media that verant sent out

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rizzer, Greg" <grizzer@soe.sony.com>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 2:47 PM
Subject: What's your motherboard?


> Hi there,
> If your on this list that means you're getting free RAM from us. However,
I
> need to know spherically what type of Motherboard you have. Please reply
to
> this email so I can simply forward to the IT department. Thanks!!!
>
> Riz
>


...


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rizzer, Greg" <grizzer@soe.sony.com>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 3:24 PM
Subject: Free RAM


> Please call our IT guru at 858.577.3106. His name is Jeff Bolaris.
>
> Tell 'em I sent ya.
> He's the one that needs your info for the RAM slots.
>
> thanks,
> Riz
>
#34 by "WeeMadArthur"
2001-12-09 18:47:23
smarteyman@interia.pl http://www.opencrap.org
#33
There's a mistake in the first message from Greg Rizzer. It should go like this:

However,
I
> need to know spherically what type of Motherboard you have. Please reply
to
> this email so I can squarely forward to the IT department. Thanks!!!
>
> Riz
>
#35 by "mgns"
2001-12-09 18:53:50
wratte@home.se
OT: Is there any release date on Halo for PC? Or is it ready when done?

---
my other .sig is a funny one.
#36 by "Scrozzy"
2001-12-09 19:00:21
scrozzy@bigfoot.com
sending free hardware along with a game is nothing new. lionhead studios sent me a free logitech vibrating mouse with my copy of b&w. too bad my sister stole it. hohoho.
#37 by "Apache"
2001-12-09 19:39:04
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
hey crash, you're throwing you life away doing whatever you do now. you should be a detective with those keen logic skills. nevermind that verant sent out those emails to dozens of reviewers. I think you could be the next Matlock or even Parry Mason.
#38 by "Apache"
2001-12-09 19:42:05
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
damn, I even previewed that post.
#39 by "Duality"
2001-12-09 19:45:27
Duality@neo-tokyo.org http://urf.gq.nu
#37 Apache
hey crash, you're throwing you life away doing whatever you do now. you should be a detective with those keen logic skills. nevermind that verant sent out those emails to dozens of reviewers. I think you could be the next Matlock or even Parry Mason.

Crash ... I wanna be the sidekick from the late 80s / early 90s Mason TV movies ... yah know ... the one with the multi-dimensionally curly blonde hair ...!

-Duality

I saw this documentary about how codfish have been gill-netted into extinction in Newfoundland, so I went out to Burger King to get a Whaler fish-wich-type breaded deep-fried filet sandwich while there was still time.
#40 by "The Joker"
2001-12-09 19:48:30
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.jackinworld.com
#39 Duality
#37 Apache
hey crash, you're throwing you life away doing whatever you do now. you should be a detective with those keen logic skills. nevermind that verant sent out those emails to dozens of reviewers. I think you could be the next Matlock or even Parry Mason.
Crash ... I wanna be the sidekick from the late 80s / early 90s Mason TV movies ... yah know ... the one with the multi-dimensionally curly blonde hair ...!-DualityI saw this documentary about how codfish have been gill-netted into extinction in Newfoundland, so I went out to Burger King to get a Whaler fish-wich-type breaded deep-fried filet sandwich while there was still time.


Yeah, and crash, if you're playing a gay detective you can count me in as your lover.

Joker, Phd. Procedural Assholian Behaviour, Pedophilosopher
- All your ass are belong to my wang Jafd. Prepare to are penetration.
#41 by "Dinglehoffen"
2001-12-09 19:53:20
What we need is a MMORPG that is made up of naked amazons. Each nude slut is equipped with a slinky that has a fourteen-pound bowling ball attached to the end. The entire landscape is one giant trampoline, and it's always night. The "W" button would mean "whirl", so you'd have to fucking get the slinky going in one huge, whirling vortex while jumping up and down. If you hit someone, the only way you'd know is by the immediate ending of the whirling. Then you'd hit "L" for light stick, and you could run up and see who you hit. Dismemberment would get one point, but a bruise to the nipple would make you respawn inside a bowling ball. Now inside this bowling ball is a Daikatana, which you would have to retrive with two sidekicks in order to respawn back into the real world of utter darkness. If you wrap several people up in the slinky, and they've got you so you can't move, you have to hit "F" for FUCKED.
#42 by "Eris"
2001-12-09 20:03:10
#41 by Dinglehoffen

I'm up for that. MultiorgasmicMMORPGs.
#43 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-12-09 20:22:56
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicboy.com
HoseWater
This story reminds me of the 64k demo that was posted here some months that still blows me out of my socks, and looks even better since I upgraded. They should all be forced to use the product as their screensaver just as a reminder.

Not to put that demo down, but it isn't like games can generate skins for their models using algorithms at runtime.

Duality
512MB make oCrap a happy app ...
would that fall under 'development tool'?

Or are you of the unclean and don't even use it?

My OpenCrap, as of this moment, is using 13MB of RAM.  What am I missing?

===

I am a magnificent three-toed sloth.
#44 by "HoseWater"
2001-12-09 20:28:08
http://www.opencrap.org
#43 Warren Marshall
HoseWater
This story reminds me of the 64k demo that was posted here some months that still blows me out of my socks, and looks even better since I upgraded. They should all be forced to use the product as their screensaver just as a reminder.

Not to put that demo down, but it isn't like games can generate skins for their models using algorithms at runtime.

Duality
512MB make oCrap a happy app ...
would that fall under 'development tool'?

Or are you of the unclean and don't even use it?

My OpenCrap, as of this moment, is using 13MB of RAM.  What am I missing?

===

I am a magnificent three-toed sloth.


Agreed, but it is a reminder of a long lost art. Not that games need to be hand tweaked assembly anymore stealing bits and bytes wherever you can get them, but 512Mb is almost embarasing.
#45 by "Gabe"
2001-12-09 20:32:59
gabe@opencrap.org http://www.opencrap.org
#43 Warren Marshall
My OpenCrap, as of this moment, is using 13MB of RAM.  What am I missing?
I need to look into what exactly Task Manager is reporting. Watch the memory usage when you first minimize OC. On my machine it drops to under 400 KB.
#46 by "shaithis"
2001-12-09 20:34:53
cwb@shaithis.com http://www.shaithis.com
I would be more concerned about verant sending free ram to reviewers if they were not being up front about the program's requirements.

If the box says "requires 64mb" and they weren't letting anyone review it with less than 512, that would be bad. Having a box that says "requires 256, 512 recommended" makes it not so much bad as... just a little icky.

Certainly not as much of a problem, imho, as Funcom asking reviewers to hold off on their reviews for two weeks.

But whatevs. I had my flirtation with MMORPGs when I played Asheron's Call. Wake me when someone's doing something interesting with the genre... you know, in like 2008 or so.

-shai
#47 by "shaithis"
2001-12-09 20:36:09
cwb@shaithis.com http://www.shaithis.com
My OpenCrap is using whatever IE uses, because I'm not using OpenCrap. =)

-shai
#48 by "shaithis"
2001-12-09 20:45:35
cwb@shaithis.com http://www.shaithis.com
Okay, so I just decided to check out OpenCrap again, because I felt bad that I was supporting Gabe's efforts (and by supporting I mean: Using his program without paying him anything).

I think the addition of the honk button may keep me with it this time. ;)

-shai
#49 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-12-09 20:46:06
warren@epicgames.com http://www.epicboy.com
Gabe
I need to look into what exactly Task Manager is reporting. Watch the memory usage when you first minimize OC. On my machine it drops to under 400 KB.

I wasn't complaining it was using 13MB ... it was more like, "Yeah, 13MB ... so?"

===

I am a magnificent three-toed sloth.
#50 by "Matthew Gallant"
2001-12-09 20:50:47
mg@truemeaningoflife.com http://truemeaningoflife.com
I think it was an oblique reference to OpenCrap seemingly being one of your various development tools.

Ihave 512MB in this machine here and the only things I expect to actually use it all are my compiler and various development tools.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: MMORPGs all suck

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]