And what have we gotten from VO? For not very much, i might add.

Gutshottt wrote:
I feel that's a un-justified stab at a group of people trying to make a game. I'm a game dev my self bud. I'm making a in-depth rpg on my own time and let me tell you. One slip of a key can foul up everything! Let alone installing a new system into a game. The folks here are doing there best to build a game. If you want to point fingers you should point it at companies who honestly don't care. Cause I will say this group from what I've seen does care.

The most recent post talks about spreading the word, I am trying, will create a thread on CO or some other gaming forums, but people are just not interested. I will give you all my forum name and provide the link as evidence sometime later. This is why I brought up this topic, to give players something to wet their appetites, akin to what BDO recently did, releasing a free standalone creator that players can download before release/beta.

Be back a little later.

I wanted honest opinions of why my recent forum post pertaining to CoT and VO faded into the background with only a few comments or views. here are some comments.

forums.daybreakgames.com/dcuo/index.php?...vs-the-world.267187/

The main points were, it does not have a brand attached to it, not on consoles, hero MMOs are a niche genre, and the combat looks outdated. I think a beefy standalone creator could draw in a huge audience, being on consoles is also a plus. Not sure how that would work though. VO and CoT are not leaving a good impression judging from these comments.

We will white knight VO because we like it, but the five or 6 people whom post on these forums are a small minority; what about the millions of other people.

Sigose wrote:
You should reread what I wrote above.

Creating a game from the ground up is a difficult task.

The Devs are currently doing all this on their own time and doing a very good job. I designed a zombie card game that was successfully kickstarted and it took years to design and test and redesign just a card game without any consideration to bugs and forums and tech issues. I also ran a social media campaign and monitored a Facebook page with at it's peak around 1000 followers.

It was not at all easy. I also have a ton of cards that I've designed for a second edition but don't have time to work full-time and spend time with my wife and kid (soon to be plural) so it has gone by the wayside. But even those additional cards took a long time to design and layout even w/o testing.

From the experience I learned a great deal about basic game design in a very general sense and got an even greater respect for developers that are communicative and working on creating something for people to enjoy. I also understand having people asking questions and wanting answers and doubting things. I had an art issue that delayed my game shipping for several months and heard plenty about it from people who'd backed the game even when I kept them informed of any updates.

I understand what they're going through with not wanting to give too much info while also keeping people in the loop and giving them some hands on action with what is currently available. Even a paid team working full time on a game has a limited amount of bandwidth, games like WoW and mega-blockbusters have drastically blown expectations from some people out of the water as far as when and what to expect.

These guys are hard at work doing what they can, when they can. Have faith, have patience, and eventually you'll have fun in Valiance Online.

To take exception to *any* game before it comes to market is redundant. Everyone has their own idea of how to work. All kinds of ideas have made huge success out of what looked to be heading to failure, and there have been plenty of opposites. None of us can say for sure.
Until a game is actually published with a version '1.0' - there is no such thing as 'watered down'. None of us can say something is watered down until we see what they are offering as the final product.

Having spent an extensive amount of time with this project from pretty much the beginning, I have a comfort level here that I don't have anymore with CoT (also there from the beginning). They lost my trust in several ways. I'm not the only one either. I dropped a substantial amount of money for them. Gave them a lot of support. Received some sharp pains in the center portion of my shoulders for my efforts and a whole lotta lore. That's about it.
Doesn't say anything about the people working hard to create something - just the people running the show as it were.

In short: VO has given me returns for my investments and shown a genuine appreciation for them from the very start. CoT has given me a lot of reading material, suffering, bias, and some questionable media that I can only hope works out for them in the end.

I agree, CoT is mostly reading, which I could care less about. it is starting to get annoying if anything..... However, VO is not particularly lighting up the world neither. Just being fair.

Another thought, I am starting to see a correlation here. Both do a lot of talking, but no REAL progress. They cannot really move on their plans imo, being staff size or resources.

My opinion? Neither can/will do much unless they join together. It makes absolutely no sense for two parties with the same vision, a CoH rival to be working on separate projects. I know it is not as simple as dropping your plans and working together, because things for both parties are already in place, but I would seriously consider joining as one. CoT has missed so many promised deadlines that it lost fans. People view it as the boy whom cried wolf.

We don't need two CoH's, just one great MMO. There are great ideas from both sides, I say join together. This is painful to watch. Yes, CoT is mostly talking and missed deadlines. Imo, neither can move really move forward. You both need one another whether you want to admit it or not. Same goal (CoH successor), too many egos.

Could be more productive and powerful together. Do it for the fans, do it for yourselves. How much do you want a CoH rival? As much as you say you do? Lets see how much you want release it. Or are the VO people more focused on a Sci-fi setting? Or are the CoT folks more focused on their lore?

TheCity wrote: What do you consider to be "real progress" here? Most of the efforts so far has been in developing the underlying systems, that is the "machinery" of the game.
I believe they did try and see if they could work together once they accepted that they couldn't bring CoH back but basic visions and design philosophies made them split into several groups (there are/were more than just CoT and VO). Having the merge now would effectively necessitate that one group abandons their project since merging them would take way more time and effort.

The thing for me is that both projects have fairly unique ideas in certain regards and merging those won't be that easy imo. Ohh, and vision is more than just "make spiritual successor".

Great points Black, I agree for the most part, but I still believe the division was an error which will hunt both parties.

Mark my words, no Steam release this year. I guarantee it. Judging from your comments, they were a unit at one point, now a house divided.

Again, no Steam this year.

I wish I could comment on the whole 'split' if you could call it that, but as a professional I just can't do it. I did my best to support all parties as a station and it went south fast and it was not pretty. The one thing I will say is that it is another huge reason I support and stand by the VO team. Without question.

Also, I will again agree to disagree on the Steam issue. With everything that has come to fruition as promised, combined with what they have been showing bits and pieces of and have announced is coming out within the next week or two - I have a feeling Steam is coming sooner rather than later. As in before the end of the year.

Honestly the interactive community is starting to rise again contrary to what you might believe. What I mean by that is just as you are beginning to see - people interacting with the developers, writers, and CSRs here on the forums, it is translating over to other spaces. Not just in world either - other places on the net.

Starting conversations in the forums of other games is not usually very productive in any circumstance. VO is slowly gaining momentum over time, and as soon as we start getting to the missions, buildings, bosses, crafting, etc. - I think it will be a big paradigm shift. Which would be normal for any game such as this (superhero, high fantasy, whatever kind of MMO really). Content, content, content, and watching all those underlying systems start to be fleshed out... like new character models, costumes, powers, etc. which we all know are coming. Just a matter of development.

Anyway, food for thought and fun to imagine until it hits. I'm betting on Soon(TM)

So I assuming you witness the break up? Interesting; anyway, this is Marvel 2015 from wiki.

"During development, Gazillion used an internal team of 75 people working for three and a half years. There were many others that are part of the support and marketing. Gazillion has raised more than $80 million to fund the game's development, but it hasn't disclosed exactly how much was spent.[15] In contrast to other MMO developers, Gazillion always planned to use the free-to-play model."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvel_Heroes_%28video_game%29

Doubt they used the entire $75,000,000.00 for game production. Marvel is a big name, AAA. 75 people, from three and a half years. CoT was funded in 2013 iirc. It is 2016,a little over 2 years and nada. This is why i am inclined to belive the split was a mistake, the progress is extremely slow.

Here is DCUO as-well.

"Initially slated for release in 2009, DC Universe Online took 150 programmers and artists across four U.S. cities 5 1/2 years to complete, at a cost of more than $50 million. That’s roughly twice the budget and timeframe of a typical game. DC Universe Online is atypical in another way — it belongs to a rare class in which thousands of players can inhabit the game’s world simultaneously and interact with one another in real time."

herocomplex.latimes.com/games/dc-univers...warcraft-cant-touch/

5 1/2 years for DCUO.

My question is simply this, do you think VO or CoT can rival even the dated DCUO or Marvel in the combat and visual department? I say no.

I have no idea where you are pulling this from. What does it even have to do with anything?

Your idea of a 'break up' never happened. I was there in the beginning of all the projects. Too many egos that never joined period in the first place.
I simply can't expand on it. However, I reiterate that what transpired are defining reasons why I have confidence in the people here as individuals and as a team. I've seen the kind of people they are and what they're capable of.

Again - you're talking about apples and oranges. I'll play along though...

Do you think that Runescape can match the graphics of Guild Wars 2? No? Well that's interesting because it is still extremely successful. I mean, we're talking more successful than DCUO and Marvel combined actually. Any takers?
You have 3 main developers, a minimal budget, a good idea, and for the last 3 years they are the second most popular MMORPG on the planet. 500k paid subs, 9.5 million free accounts with lots of shop purchases. That's active accounts. They're billionaires. Not bad.

Do I think the VO team will eventually get to the same quality and level of visual presentation and effects? Absolutely I do. It *may* take a bit longer, because of budget and manpower, but absolutely they can do it. Just take the time to go back and look at some of their concept work. These are not rank amateurs.

In the end, do I think that VO can rival DCUO or Marvel? Yes. As you have just stated and I don't think you are even realizing it...
DCUO - 5.5 years
Marvel - 6+ years
SWTOR - 8+ years
The list goes on and on
Valiance Online ... Just over 2 years and still going.

This is a different release model and the gaming industry needs to wake up and smell the roses. Just like the head of Lyon Studios has stated in the past - game development needs to change and keep up with the gamer rather than keep things in a little box with the same tiresome challenges. We're losing to the indie industry faster than we know.

So you're coming up on a smidge over year 2 of serious work on this project. Think about how it looks already. Think about another 3 years of development, refining, releases, Beta, actual release, updates, expansions. What do you think it is going to look like? What it looks like now? Why do you even think that?

You say no, I say yes. We'll just have to see who is right in the end eh?

Mandrake wrote: I would very much caution to say there were too many egos since it only takes one ego to "spoil" it for the rest. I don't think anyone would stay one if they feel that their ideas/input isn't even considered, especially for what they think is "wrong". You may label that as "ego" but the implication is then that one person can aggressively assert their own ideas and the rest should just fall in line.

blacke4dawn wrote:
There is no need for a cautionary tale, as 'ego' is exactly the word to use. Ergo - too many people with too big an ego (asserting their way is the best way - if you need your example). Not one singular ego that ended it for all.
No different than any number of situations throughout life. Some people try to extend an olive branch, get people to work together, others don't see past their own ego and can end up creating a wedge. End of story.

This is the same old conversation and stretching it out isn't going to provide any more insight so I propose we just drop it.
It is counter-productive and I'm not going to discuss it further as you can obviously draw whatever conclusions you would like to from the words I use, even though there are no other meanings to be taken.

Have a good one and I look forward to seeing you and everyone in game!

Just for reference Mandrake, are you honestly saying that if only one person refused to give in to concessions/compromises to such a degree that the other ones who left to work on their own vision also had "too big egos"? I'm just trying to understand were you set that level.

That is what I meant that it only requires one person to create such a "split".

blacke4dawn wrote:
You are trying to create an argument where none exists. On a purely academic level, examine your own premise.

Let's employ the simplest arrangement of 3 parties (maintaining the actual context):
- 3 parties (A, B, and C) present their 'vision' as you put it
- A states flatly that their way is better than the others.
- B states flatly that no, theirs is better than the others.
- C states 'Hey, we've all got great stuff here - let's combine all this and work together'.
- Assumption of context: A and B do not relent positions.

In the above scenario you will only have one truth that remains constant in the end:
- C will come away bearing the brunt of two greater egos, the end result being all parties end up on their own.

You are insisting on perceiving an academic possibility that is not related to the context that is the only valid context in this instance.
If you want to play academic philosophy and flip the context, that's fine and is certainly valid - but it is not relative to the situation at hand.

What is your point of continuing to dwell on a premise that does not exist?

The folks at VO have said that combining forces isn't happening. I believe something was said about potential crossover stuff. So your argument that they should combine their efforts is moot.

Gutshottt wrote:
Yea, we know that, which is why I was saying they should in the first place. Read up a few comments, this was already alluded to.