I just wanted to comment that I think you are dead-on on every point you made. lol. I love how you said the combat system was an "illusion". Because I agree...in a way it is...however, its fun! And it's new, to boot. I'm sure the dps theorists are gonna have a field day breaking the system down, lol! :)
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I have to agree. Having played in the beta, I got the very distinct feeling that AoC would be initially successful due to word-of-mouth momentum, but the realities of its limitations would catch up to it in the end.

My expanded thoughts on the matter:

http://adamsimportantshow.blogspot.com
 

I think it's too early to call AoC "so successful" yet. Let's wait a few months and see what the subscription numbers look like then.

AoC has had excellent initial sales, showing that there's strong demand for new MMORPG products. This is very good news for the industry and the investors.

However, since the game has been out for such a short time, it's unlikely that most customers bought it on based on the known quality of the product established through "word of mouth". Rather, they bought it based on the successful marketing effort by Funcom.

Marketing success does not equal long-term financial success (although it certainly is a major contributor). If the game doesn't measure up to the early adopters' expectations in the long term, they will leave, and they'll generate negative buzz that will drive other potential customers off too.

Personally, I'm taking a cautiously optimistic stance on AoC. I'm eager to see where it ends up in a few months, if only because its major success would signal a break in WoW's stranglehold on the market.
 

It's true that the combat system really is a huge selling point for Conan, with swings and shields and hitting all the mobs you're .. hitting.

However, I do feel that the gore adds to this as well. Not every kind of gore mind you, but fatalities bring a cinematic feeling to the whole thing, make battles way less dull than they would be otherwise by spicing them up from time to time, and it's so much more satisfying to lob off an opponent's head than simply slashing him like I've slashed every other guy in the last few hours. In that way, the gore could be reduced, but taking it all away including fatalities would definitely lose some of the combat system's appeal.
 

Hmm, I wonder how much the development costs were? And also how many initial subs they need to recoop those costs?

If they've already got 500k, then at $50/box, that's $25M already.
 

i think its the hype, they have a product manager smiling in every camera he can find,talking about features we are still missing in the release clinet, so everyone talks about aoc and now its a must have.
Lets see what hapens in month two after release, when they all notice the lacking of content, the horrible bugs and the missing of the ingame support, there will be a big wave of leavers, or funcom gets theese things done, we will see
 

I think your last point is the main one. If LOTR had just launched I think it would have picked up just as many people. Most Wow players are on thier 4 or 5 alt and are desperate for something with new content that's fun to play.
 

The combat system is a big thing for AoC. I think the other big thing is following on some of the addictive patterns built by WoW, with the rapid progression and acquisition of new abilities.

That raises a lot of questions for longevity and rightfully so, but nobody seems to believe that Funcom may be perfectly aware of what it's doing here. Hook with the WoW-style of reward-for-everything and then stretch it out into a lengthy, good-PVP endgame? Or just let everyone cap and the game fades after six months as a "successful project" by anyone's definition?

We know the first half of that, but not the second.
 

AoC is a success. It will not be another WoW because the 1+million women who play will not be drawn by the head & arm chopping. I mean if you haven't seen it, the Barbarian has a fatality where he chops a guys arm, then the other, then his head lol. It is truly awesome, but won't appeal to many. So yea, WoW has the cute graphics while AoC has the gore, and will therefore appeal to those type of people.

You are dead on with the release. Funcom knew there were not done with the game, still patching in content almost daily, but they knew to release with Summer during a MMOG vacumn would be produce a winner. In a few months summer will be over and many will probably be "done" wiht the game as 3-6months is when plenty of people finish and move on. I'll be moved on then as well and waiting on WAR.
 

The combat system is certainly the biggest draw for me. I only started noticing AoC a few months ago, and the combat system is really what put it on the radar.

Though, I have to say, the amount of gore in this game is really satisfying. I don't care much about the nipples, but the fatalities are a really excellent addition to the game.
 

Everyone discusses the combat, but my added feature that I enjoy is that the story seems more in depth...
They try to capture you by making the quests more enjoyable, and almost novel like..
Not a big ole box of text ala WoW or LOTRO, but more conversational like EQ2 or a Bioware title..
Your decisions may not make much difference, but the fact that I am put into my own cutscene, and having this discussion (and a lot of it well written...yes...typos exists but, hey.../bugreport is a good tool), and the quests can be long stories...complete with certain plot points (like the underlying story of the Mayor of Tesso and Zelata the witch in the Wild Lands...makes me want to read the background on that situation)
Or the one story I commented on before about an apothecary who wanted to make a love potion...so I get him his herbs (in standard MMO fashion)..
But, I come back later after a level or two, and he wants to talk to me again...and tells me he got busted, and needs further help...
This is a better avenue of questing than our other favorites of old...
You know the type..Click Ok, Click Ok...now look at quest log...kill 10 boars...alright...GO!

As to various "issues"...the fact I read posts from the Devs and Community manager like this recent post
"We know right now people are feeling like all armor in Age of Conan is the same and brown. I assure you this is not the case, for a long time now we have had a "GM area" where we spawned lots of NPC's that had all sorts of armor appearances so we could tell when art was completed. We have one of these for armor, weapons, and social clothing. Hundreds upon hundreds of appearances.
Anyway to cut to the chase I took your guys concerns and shot an email to Ole Herbjornsen our Lead Designer to ask about Itemization. Ole came back with some very encouraging news. They are going to put blue loot on bosses in the outdoor playfields now and not only on bosses in instances. In addition 3 sets of epic armours for each class (for a total of 36) will allow the item designers to move more of the unique stuff down to lower tiers and over from purple and blue towards green."

That is a game on the right track to me..
 

@Openedge1: The 'story' telling is something that's a noticeable difference. If you care to pay attention, Funcom seems to be more about immersion, story and perhaps roleplay as a natural extension of the first two.

The world seems very true to its literary source. Meanwhile, the media and ugh much of the blogosphere have chosen to focus on the 'adult' parts in such a juvenile way. Sure, yes that adult content is there, but it's part of the scenery, the backdrop.

I'll say this, I've never seen so many oldschool MUD and players with so much older MMORPG experience under one roof. Everyone joining my guild has listed virtually every game except WoW and LOTRO. So much for the theory that AoC was going to attract a young audience, that prediction was about as accurate as the "train wreck" ones.

Just like the fanbois really want something to succeed, there seem to be a lot of people that can't accept the success of something they weren't onboard with.

I'd completely disagree that LOTRO would gather any more audience this year than last. In fact I'd calculate they'd have gathered less, because there were more people disgruntled with the TBC raiding progression then. Some of you folks have awfully short memories.

I've said from the beginning, I think the LOTR universe is fantastic for novels and movies but many of us diehard LOTR fans don't find it suitable to play in Middle-Earth. It's too-well-defined and revered. It wouldn't matter how well they did it, it could never become more than moderately successful.

The reality is that it is what it is. WoW is still number one. AoC launched and sold well. LOTRO did okay too. The entire MMORPG field looks bright and the top tier doesn't need to be toppled for more to enter the fray.
 

I am not sure that it's "just" the combat and the timing. As an outside observer, it seems to me that the game succeeds not just through hype, fun combat, WoWnui and timing, but also because it has, in a number of key ways, distinguished itself from WoW and appears to be graphically beautiful, atmospheric and fun game in its own right - warts and all.

Based on the various comments on the Internet, it does seem to have flaws, and needs additional polishing and streamlining. However, two things: First, they seem to have a good momentum going and have quite a bit of time to polish, streamline and add a bit of content before Warhammer & WotLK come out (publishing a “roadmap” to keep players salivating is probably also a good idea). Second, I would hazard a guess that most players won't even hang around until they have exhausted the current existing content. The average subscription is, what, six months? That is an average that probably hides a lot of variation, I wouldn't be surprised if that average hides another instance of the 80/20 rule, meaning in this context that 80% of subscription time lies with 20% of the playerbase, i.e., the real hardcore. Most players probably buy the game, play for a couple of months at best, enjoy themselves and get out.
Putting it another way: AoC’s flaws possibly do not matter that much in the short run, and may very well be ameliorated in the long run.

MMO blogerati, being relatively "hardcore" MMO'ers are probably not too representative...Many gamers flit from game to game, rarely spending more than a few weeks (in the case of relatively short action games) or a couple of months (the larger RPGs and strategy games) playing a particular game, often alternating genres and so keeping their game experience somewhat varied. Long-term commitment to a particular genre, or even more specifically a particular game, is definitely not the norm. However, if you DO belong to that group, I guess AoC’s current flaws become more quickly apparent though sheer familiarity with the genre; it also makes for an experience and point of view that’s probably very different from that of most other gamers.
 

@morog:

Concerning LotRo, I agree. I'm an old diehard Middle Earth fan, and so are most of my friends. None of us even bothered to look at the game. It looks pretty, it got good reviews: but based on screenshots and movies alone, it just doesn't "feel" right. When it comes to the non-Tolkieniac "mass market", the fact that the game's graphics look too different from the movies' visual style may have been a major disadvantage.
 

@das tentakel

I agree with this point as well..
Visually, a lot was...off
Compared to the EA games which used the movie visuals.
Battle for Middle Earth, The Third Age were both stunning games using Warcraft mechanics or Final Fantasy gameplay, and then keeping the style of the movies everyone enjoyed. This also prevented EA from trampling too much on the books...
Yet, all games based on the book licenses have been a disaster
Fellowship of the ring, and another RTS that I cannot even remember the name of were awful..
Then we have Turbines lackluster Lord of the Borefest
This MMO was just shite...
AoC has so much more material to work with, open world settings that were more general and allows some leeway for additions of Funcoms own...and ...it does not have an end...
LOTR does, and this is where it is difficult for LOTRO to do anything outside the norm..

AoC is not perfect by any stretch, but is quite fresh in what they are attempting..
I am glad for that...
 

At the risk of turning this into a LotRo thread (not my intention :-(), another thing that may be a problem in that game is the fact that basically it's a sideshow to the well-known "main quest". Call me strange, but if I want to "play" in LotRo, I want to visit Moria, Lothlorien, Minas Tirith, Rohan, Mount Doom, the Lonely Mountain...in short, all the famous places, not just the Shire or Rivendell. It's like playing a Star Wars RPG game as and remaining stuck on Tatooine...
Not that there might not be great content, but it's hardly stuff of which great marketing is made...
 

Ultimately Vanguard failed because the "miracle patch" didn't exist, so the game went live in a terrible state. Much to my surprise, there really was a miracle patch (well, several, actually) for AoC, so it was playable at launch. I still have my doubts about its long term future as a PC game, but it's impressive for an Xbox MMO, which is where I can see the lng term subscriptions coming from.
 

@ das tentakel. You nailed the reason I quit LOTR. I felt banished to the sidelines. I never once felt like a hero.
 

I am not sure if success can be nailed down on a few factors. LotrO seemed to have a lot on its side, but still was not really successful compared to WoW. We know it isn't the license, see SWG. And it probably isn't the combat system either, as TCoS is miles ahead. Vanguard was pretty cool in terms of graphics as well.

I believe: 70% hype. 10% timing and 20% game, for now. Long term the game factor will increase though this will still not say much about the game quality itself, when social bonds and stuff kicks in (people play bad games with friends more likely than better games without their friends).
 

I think that Lord of the rings online would have done allot better if they had actually steered away from the book based interactive shite to be honest. Originally they slated the name to be middle earth online, two factions playable (kinda like WoW) then the massive hit of the movies came and they basically redid allot of it to cater to the movie fans who were obviously going to buy a game that was titled after the movies they loved rather than the world it was set in (which not everyone would know what it was).

If they had stuck to the original plan I think they would have more long term subs than they do now. With the wealth of information about the world setting they could have done so so much more than they did, they actually are cutting allot of content off from themselves just because of putting it in the book/movie settings.

Age of connan, well I like it but I don't think allot that convert from WoW (especially as their first mmo) will grow to love it, the invention that WoW made ... grinding, is what what we would have called leveling or gathering in previous mmo's. It was part of the game ... what made it set apart from other single player mmo's that really gave it the epic feel of a game. Not grinding mobs over and over but having to group up and meet allot of new people find new places to gain exp, but again with AoC it's more 'efficient' to grind out the later levels by solo killing things.

Brings me to another point why oh why do they make grinding solo mobs more efficient than group killing things? Getting a group formed and in the right area (which can be challenging in AoC right now) should be more rewarding than hacking on your own for 2 hours, and not just rewarding exp wise.
 

@ghiesuk: The LOTR books are arguably the most read non-religious texts of all time. AFAIK the ticket sales and DVD purchases of the movies still hasn't matched the publications of the books.

I'd expect most everyone playing a game based upon Middle-Earth would in fact know what it was, even if the movies were never made.

The problem with LOTRO to me, is not whether they stayed true to the books or the movies, but that the world itself does not lend itself well to be played out from the sidelines, as several have noted here.

Tolkien's universe is best borrowed from for other fantasy worlds when it comes to games.
 

Pretty much agreed on all point except that LotRO used its license better. I found LotRO's vision of Middle-Earth to feel incredibly flat and artificial. On top of that, I though that the basic gameplay was pretty boring. Which is really too bad, because it's a game that has many virtues aside from that.
 

People seem to be really excited about the fatality moves. "Ooh..arm off! Ooh..another arm off! Ooohhh..head off!" Maybe I'm just in the minority, but I see this as a future annoyance. How many people loved the scenic flights in WoW when they first saw them? Just about everyone. It gave you some eye candy.

How many people love the flights now? Hardly anyone. It's a waste of time, or at best, it's a chance to go afk and grab snacks/take a bio break. Now imagine having to see the arm/arm/head move for the 10,000th time. Bleah. It would quickly get boring, and I wouldn't bother with it since it takes a few seconds longer to do the animated move.

I'm seeing all the love for AoC as the honeymoon syndrome. Everything's fantastic since the "new car smell" hasn't worn off. It's new, people are bored stiff with WoW, there's nothing new or better on the horizon. I think major reason for AoC's success to-date is it's brilliant release date. They fill a void. I will be shocked if it has the legs to keep >25% of its subscriber base after WOTLK and WAR come out. Most everyone I've talked to consider AoC as filler material until the next big thing hits late in '08.

mm
 

"I will be shocked if it has the legs to keep >25% of its subscriber base after WOTLK and WAR come out. Most everyone I've talked to consider AoC as filler material until the next big thing hits late in '08."

Am I the only one who gets the "French General Staff 1940 conventional wisdom" feeling here?
"Sure, les Boches had some success against les Polonais, but it won't last. Besides, we have polished l'enfer out of the Maginot Line".

Quite a few MMO blogerati and MMO forum dwellers claim this; a very similar claim was made against WoW.
Comparing AoC's "longevity" in reference to a game and an expansion that isn't even out and can't be judged on their quality is even more foolishness.

It is quite obvious that a lot of people wish AoC to sink and disappear quickly and without a trace. Others appear to have serious but justified criticisms against it (the game was released at least a couple of months before it had been completely polished to full shininess, I get that).

Seriously, some people can do with both a modicum of historical consciousness and imagination; it's still too early to tell for sure, but it appears we are looking at the first real, genuine western mmo hit in the post-WoW age (Mythos might be another one).
A lot of people seem to have trouble with that, expecting Warhammer to be that game and AoC likely to fail; others are too experienced (and too jaded?) MMO players not to quickly recognize AoC's flaws and don't forgive Funcom for that.

Ironically, some of the harshest critics are people who defended Vanguard (almost) to the last, the game that became a byword for all that is unholy in MMO-land.
For those able to read German, it pays to visit the usually very enjoyable MMO-satirist Olnigg's site, and compare his views on Vanguard (http://www.olnigg.de/jahr2007/olg136.htm) and AoC (http://www.olnigg.de/jahr2008/olg149.htm)...

Hilarious...but by Crom, what unreasonable hate!
(and hate leads to the dark side...sorry, couldn't resist that one :-))
 

Disclaimer: I’ve not played AoC.
But like many others, I’m rather burned out on WoW (my Horde shadow priest is epic-ed out and bored, so yesterday I was tinkering around with lowbie Alliance pally alt).
Therefore I lean toward the “AoC success based on timing of release” camp.
Kudos to Funcom for a solid, playable product (in other words, not blowing the opportunity).

The timing of AoC could not have been much better:
WoW has greatly expanded the MMO player base, but ‘vanilla’ WoW is old news, WoW-TBC is 16 months old, and the already-played-out 2.4 patch was a collection of dailies, a single instance, and a raid that few will see (and fewer will see a boss down). And WotLK is not close enough to generate anticipation and an “I’ll just wait for it” feeling. None of the WotLK sneak-peeks seem to have generated a lasting “gotta see that” buzz.

IMO, if people stay with AoC for the summer, and are pleased with it, and get to the point of feeling like they’re invested in the game, then I don’t think that WotLK will kill AoC. A well-timed AoC content patch and a welcome-back offer could pull back some of the people who leave AoC to try WotLK or WAR (if it ever releases).
 

Concerning timing, it undoubtedly helps, but I am not sure whether it is THE major factor here, rather than just a significant one.

WoW has, how much, nearly five million players in the western markets? There must be several times that who dropped out of that game a long time ago (2.5 years in my case), probably mostly after 3-6 months of playing. We're likely to talk about several tens of millions of gamers here...Then there's an unquantifiable number of people who never got over WoW's cartoony graphics (in my circle of gaming friends and acquaintances most, actually).
Then there's the point that there never was a real alternative for many people, EQ2 being initially buggy and hardware-hungry and in many ways a very similar fantasy setting (pseudo-Tolkienian lite high fantasy) with, in the view of many, substandard art design.

Many among the current WoW playerbase may, indeed, be thoroughly sick with the game; but there's a much, much larger number of people who left that game behind a long time ago, or who wanted something different from a cartoony pseudo-Tolkienian, slightly steampunkish, lite high fantasy setting.

Maybe AoC does not so much fulfil a need that exists currently among the WoW playerbase, but rather one that has been there for much, much longer, among non-WoW players?

Finally, referring to Warhammer again. I sort of pulled that "Maginot Line" comparison out of my mind, but it did make more clear why I'm currently uneasy with the expectations and hype concerning that game. And that is, in a nutshell, this: I fear that Warhammer may be the game that would have been Blizzard's worst nightmare...had it been released in late 2004 / early 2005: focusing a bit too much on improving on WoW's and DaoC's weaknesses, rather than trying to be "its own thing" and looking at least a little bit to the future.

But that's just my personal fear, by itself in principle just as irrational as the "Warhammer Will Rule" attitude.

Lovely debate by the way, kudos to Tobold for creating one of the more reasoned and polite blogs :-)
 

Everyone knew Lotro was just a WoW clone in the Lotr universe....minus any PvP. Plus there wasn't any rampant WoW burnout last year.

WoW burnout is getting higher by the minute, and AoC appears to be different enough.

The question, as always, is stickiness...which it appears AoC doesn't have much of.
 

I haven't played AoC and was not aware of the gratuitous Mortal Kombat'esque "fatalties" until now, which makes me less inclined to buy it, what with having an 8-year old son who already plays WoW and would be very hurt that Dad is not letting him play the new game.

But I'm curious if when the Barbarian is performing an arm/arm/head fatality, which has to take a couple of seconds, can someone come from behind take off the Barbarian's head? Or at least get in a couple of free whacks?

Does performing a Fatality make you immune to damage for a couple of seconds while you relieve someone of a few extremities? Or does it actually leave you defenseless and completely open to attack from behind?

Also can the Fatalities and gore be switched off, at least graphically, via a Parental Control switch? That might make me consider giving the game a try, given how amazing it looks in the screen shots I've seen.
 

What's with all the threadcrapping on LOTRO going on here? As they say, to each their own...I happen to find the Turbine commitment to Middle-Earth lore refreshing. I don't need to be an uber-geared character with flames coming off my shoulder armor to feel "special". Frankly, to think that in any MMO you're somehow any more of a hero than the next guy is rather naive. (That's what single player games are for.) I like how it avoids MUDflation better than most MMOs by simply making good gear optional, not required. I like how more areas of Middle-Earth (Moria, Lothlorien, etc.) are being opened to explore with future expansions. I like the trait/deed system as those things stay with your character regardless of level, unlike items that will be replaced when an expansion pack comes out. I like the epic quest/book system because it goes beyond the standard "blah, blah blah, click accept and move on to the next quest" syndrome I found myself doing with WoW.

And speaking of WoW, after playing it for 3+ years, anyone calling lotro a simple "WoW clone" either hasn't played both games or is grossly oversimplifying them.
 

I haven't played AoC yet as I'll need to make a substantial investment in a new computer to do so, but I have been following it closely and living vicariously through others who are playing it. I am extremely tempted to play it because of the combat system alone. Even if the system becomes repetitive as other MMOG combat systems do, it still appears a lot faster and more fun. But that's just me.

There are some issues that may arise as time passes, but I think FunCom scored a big win with this game. I hope that subscriber numbers grow to over a million as that would be a fitting number for a well developed game that had no real following prior to release and whose lore was one of the lesser read in the fantasy genre, even though the "Ahnold" movies made the character popular.
 

Hi all. I played AoC meanwhile for 4 weeks and can say, it's the worst mmorpg I ever have seen. A real dazzler. Graphics: nice, all other: thumb down. Nothing of the basics as bank, trade, postal, items, stats or anything else runs proper. What can you expect from game, whose postal system eats posted items? Fundamental bugs are not fixed. And, by the way, neither ingame nor rl support exists. You are let alone with your problems. This is not a game I would pay a monthly fee for.
cu
Lasaint, Aries, pvp