An example of a game that uses an historic gameplay setting, but not a totaly accurate storyline is Assassin's Creed. I was thinking of something amoung those lines whn i wrote this topic.
@breaking3po: First of all, I never said you would be fighting each and everyone of these things, I just gave you examples of possible enemies. Secondly, no one in real life is anyone thing for its entire duration. So you could work your way up from one thing to another. It's just a dumbass idea to think you are born a politician, like you assume kid. And lastly, all of this is way off point. All this thread was about was the setting (I just added that the typical gameplay is getting old fast), and since you have offered no decent arguments as to why an MMO can't have an historical setting, I'll just assume you have none.
Again I remind you kid, I am talking about the setting, not the gameplay, which does not have to be ALL historicly accurate.
And by the way, the main reason why there aren't more Historicly based MMO's I believe, is because the first big MMO was Everquest, which wasn't historicly accurate and after that it was WOW. This led Big companies to try and copy these games to get a piece of the pie, and the only ones who actually take a shot at producing historicly based MMO's are small budget developers. Besides, the fact that there isn't a good one out there doesn't mean it can't be done.
"I used to hate EA, but then got over it when they started putting out more good, originalish games. I do have some distaste for Nintendo, but it isn't strong enough to keep me from enjoying some games that come out on the Wii or DS. "
EA has been alot better then it has been. "
EA was good back in the red alert 2 days, then it got bad with the LOTR games (just milking that cow for all it was worth) and now its becoming good again. As for EA Sports, I don't hate them... They just can't make good games, but I don't hate them for it...
@TheMustacheHero: Believe me there is more than enough customizable loot to draw from historicly speaking. Besides that stuff should be secondary in a game, your ability to play it well should count for more than the armor your wearing.
@breaking3po: There are more than enought enemies to fight. Barbarians, thugs, enemy soldiers, spies, diplomats to assassinate, faction leaders, merchants, gladiators, slaves, farmers, lions in the arena, and a myriad of other ppl... That's just narrowminded of you to think there is a lack of diversity when it comes to killing people. If you need the thing you kill to get bigger by the level... I don't know what to say to that.
More and more games are ditching the class based system, take Modern Warfare for example. But if you want classes, you could be a soldier, a bandit, a diplomat/politician, a spy, a merchant, a gladiator, a slave dealer... and I'm not even that creative. And if you look at Champions Online, a game with no classes, you can see how you can customize your caracter's look without resorting to any of that stuff (probably the game with most customizing options).
And again, the setting can evolve. Leaders can age and die, factions could be persecuted or benefit from it, cities can be destroyed much like reality. Besides, you say WOW has evolved... has it? They added a bit more history, which you had nothing to do with and little influence over. I would much prefer to have a saying in the evolution of things like in KOTOR.
Log in to comment