One of my fellow authors over at NegativeGamer found an interesting semi-MMO game being developed called Love. I dub it "Semi-MMO" for the fact each server will only hold about 100-200 people. The game boasts an environment that will be fully editable in game and also fully destructible. So anything you can see can be built AND destroyed. Something that may turn people off (or may not, depending on the MMO "generation" you are.) is that your character's perspective is first person.(If you don't know what this means, its where you don't see yourself. The screen is your character's eyes.)
According to Love's website nearly everything can be created. Terra forming, building cities, everything. While this in itself is amazing for an MMO to boast, this game that uses a more "artistic" style than most MMOs. (Think like the game Okami.) All of this is being done by one man.
Eskil Steenberg is developing the project all by himself. While I could go on how this indie title is shaping up to be major news in the MMO world, I'll just show a brief video of the game in pre-alpha stages. Enjoy. Please tell HalfLeft over at NegativeGamer thanks.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Y'know, as Chris over at IHasPC notes, the "gameplay" of WoW really isn't all that "massive"; even the biggest raids are only 40 people. Yes, there's an Auction House, but for most of the game play, WoW is surprisingly solo or small groups. The naming convention of "MMO" is pretty flexible, and very imprecise.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on that, however there are several people that regard an MMO as having thousands of people *Even though they will NEVER interact with that many.*
ReplyDelete*shrug*
ReplyDeleteI've never been too fussed about the nomenclature. Since it's such a fuzzy term, fanboys will use it as a blunt tool to demonize anything that is *different* from their definition of the word, or just a game they don't like. I see this often when subscription fans demonize Guild Wars as being something other than an MMO because it has the gall to use a different business model and instancing.
As such, I don't actually attribute much weight to the term "MMO" itself. It's about as useful as "RPG" when talking about anything from D&D to Final Fantasy.
Fanboys will use ANYTHING to demonize anything that resembles competition to their "altar". Guild Wars being disliked for the simple fact it's different in the way it approaches game mechanics is a good example.
ReplyDeleteI've made several post over the past few weeks talking about Micro-Transactions models and subscription, and no matter how valid the fact MT can produce a game with the same quality as a subscription one, people will instantly without any recourse trash it with a variety of stereotypes. For example, the stereotype that the entire game's population is immature "brats" which is totally different than what *as an example* WoW or EQ has.
We both know there is an equal, if not more child like mentalities on these games. If it's not children then it's people with enough racism and other vices to make Xbox Live's population look sophisticated.
Very true.
ReplyDeleteHave you seen much on the Love gameplay? From what little I've seen, it's a pretty world with terraforming, but I don't know much about whether it will wind up playing like anything we've seen yet. The quick shots I've seen of what look like characters make it look like a really big malleable low poly counterstrike rather than what we might think of in an MMO "world".
That's not a complaint, just an observation... I'm not sure Love is really geared up for anything like crafting or an economy; it seems more like a rather spartan sandbox. Done right, that can be great fun.
I've only seen what my video has. My work schedule has really prevented me a lot of free time, and that time is spent working on this site and checking out other neat MMO blogs. I do agree with your observation on Love from what I've seen.
ReplyDeleteHowever considering how early the game is I can only imagine the graphics will become a bit more detailed. If it doesn't...well it honestly is fine with me. I'm a big fan of the Gameplay > Graphics mentality.
Oh, added your website to my "blog" roll. =) Prepare for sudden Danshir comments.
Ruh-roh. :)
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree with the gameplay>graphics sentiment. I'm a product of the 80s, though, so perhaps I have a higher tolerance for less than Pixar visuals in my gaming. If Love is fun, I'm ready to call it a success.
80s was great. It got even better with the early 90s as the SNES and other such systems emerged. Some of my favorite games look poor to downright crap compared to the games being made today.
ReplyDeleteHowever there is some type of charm that surrounds them. Perhaps it was more of a focus on things like fun instead of graphics and "innovation".
There are still a few games coming out that focus more on fun gameplay than overwhelming production values. I'm really enjoying W101 for the simple fact it's unique and fun, even if it's graphics are more akin to Quake III. (It even looks like its using the Quake III engine sometimes)