True Fantasy Live Online - Still Xbox's Killer MMO App?

Thanks to XBN for its in-depth preview of Level 5's Japanese-developed Xbox MMORPG, True Fantasy Live Online, the long-in-development Microsoft funded title which is finally "hitting Xbox Live in early summer 2004." The piece points out that Level 5's RPG portfolio "...is stunningly impressive; in addition to Microsoft's Fantasy, the studio is developing the Dark Cloud series for Sony and Dragon Quest VIII for Square Enix", before speaking to chief game designer Akihiro Hino, who "believes it's possible to play and enjoy a noncombat character without fighting for the entirety of a lifeline in Fantasy", and the article ends by boldly claiming: "Fantasy already has more environments, enemies, vehicles, items, skills, classes, monsters, pets, and foods than any console RPG to date." Are you remotely, significantly, or excessively excited about this Xbox Live exclusive title?

ExitED!

[Deliveranc3]

"remotely, significantly, or excessively excited!"

Boy am I! I love feature bloat!

more != better

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish companies would stop using the philosophy that 100 different swords is always better than 1 sword. I wish they'd concentrate on making the game intrinsicly fun to play regardless of what items are in it or not. Here's a concept: make a combat system for an rpg that's enjoyable IN AND OF ITSELF! What's wrong with having a game where people go and fight monsters or whatever for the fun of it rather than entirely for the rewards they get? Give me simple and fun over complex to compensate for lack of fun any day.

Re:Yes

[DrSkwid]

pure nonsense

people clock up hours on both games because they prefer one to the other

you need depth *and* gameplay not one or the other

why do you think counterstrike doesn't have just 1 weapon and 1 map?

DAOC, for instance, had less item depth, each class at each level has an optimum set of kit. Part of the fun of Everquest was the array of items. Even though I was a specialist in 2H Axe I used to carry a set of thulian claws and a rapier. I could then choose whether to deal damage or interrupt casting. No such need in DAOC, the scope of your activity was much less.

I have played quite a few MMOs and EQ has by far the best items. We'd often just go on an adventure to get specific items even though we didn't really need them because that was the fun.

The real variety needs to be in the way the MOBs fight the party. DOACs approach was poor in this area. It wasn't until I hit level 36 that there was any difference in the way one pulls and kills the mobs (chain pulling the pygmies). However, the game was really aimed at PVP so it's slightly excusable.

As for this game, I couldn't care less.

EQ2 is the one the hardcore people are waiting for.

Re:Yes

[Xzzy]

> Part of the fun of Everquest was the array of
> items.

Sort of. There was still always an "absolute best" that every gamer insisted on owning. The only time weapons varied were when new expansions released and people were finding new gear.

I'm not sure that there's a real solution for it. You mentioned DAoC, and they had a novel idea of giving different weapons varying effectiveness against different types of armor. I think something like that is a good start for a system that rewards all weapon choi

Re:Yes

[DrSkwid]

> Wow, when was that.. 1999? :) I stopped playing EQ 9 months ago and hadn't seen BTC's for years at that point.

back end of '99 when I got my claws, gifted though.

Managed to drop them outside Freeport (friend who was suing them handed them back but i had full inventory) and someone hoovered them up.

I eventually went and camped the AOF to get some more.

Interesting...

[weaklink]

you seem to like Daoc for the same reasons I left.

In the beginning there wasn't alot of uber items, this was good because as you said Daoc is a pvp game.

Eventually they started putting in Uber items, this means to compete in pvp, you have to spend alot of time not pvping in huge raid groups. I know there's alot of players who like epic raids, but I'm not one of them. If I've got to spend 4 hours with 100+ people, and then try to get a high random number, so I can get an Uber item, and then do it over and

Re:Interesting...

[DrSkwid]

i left daoc becuase the scope of gameplay is too shallow.

Going after mobs is boring because the use the same attack pattern, pvp is fun but boils down to just a numbers game and unless you are level 50 you can pretty much forget it.

I was a master chef and master fishermen in EQ. Both almost totally useless pastimes (though they did add stat boosting to food after I was master). One of the most delightful things was that they added different species of fish in the expansion. This ws good because it added j

more = better

[DavidBrown]

In defense of "100 different swords", I have to say that the wide variety of swords, armor, etc. is much of what made Diablo II a success. I'm not saying that gameplay, fun, etc. isn't important - that's the heart of any good game. It's just that having a variety of weapons and other stuff to discover makes a game more interesting.

It actually has to do with the psychology of operant conditioning. Kill a monster or open a chest and get a weapon. If you get the same sword every time, you won't bother seeking out and killing the monster unless you happen to need the sword (which you won't need because you already have). But if there's a chance you may wind up getting a much better sword, then you're going to go out, time after time, killing and looting until you find the sword and start looking for the next one, or you give up, bored.

Operant conditioning is why gambling is so addictive. It's why people who can't afford it buy lottery tickets. And it's why having a variety of "neat" weapons in a fantasy RPG is part of what makes it fun. Even NetHack has more than one sword.

And it doesn't have to be complex. Diablo II is a very simple game to play, with a very large number of items that can be acquired by a player. None of the rare ones are needed to do well in the game - they're just neat, and a way to make your character different in its own way from the rest of the crowd.

Re:more != better

[Lemental]

Did you even RTFA?

In this case More does equal better.
In all the other MMORPG's I have played, if I was a crafting character, I was stuck doing that, craft. I would have to rely on others for my resources. In this case, the combat system they have designed has come up with a way for me, a lowly chef, to kill a beast and get the stuff from it I need.

If that isnt enjoyable, I dont know what is. No longer limiting combat to combat only characters is awesome. What are you smoking?

Maybe Pac-Man Online would b

The game looks nice

[oprahwinfree]

Checking out the article, it looks nice. But I wonder how many people may buy it mistaking it for a Final Fantasy title?

Re:The game looks nice

[richie2000]

I wonder how many people may buy it mistaking it for a Final Fantasy title?

That's the whole point, ain't it? It's Microsoft-funded. Connect the dots.

Re:The game looks nice

[bigman2003]

To me, it sounds more like a Phantasy Star Online game.

Re:The game looks nice

[Alkaiser]

It's like the Marketing Dept. over there had a competition for the least descriptive, yet most derivative name that included the word "Live".

I mean..."True Fantasy"? WTF?

Once again...worst PR in the biz. They might as well have called it "Developers, Developers!"

Better Combat?

[madygoosey]

I don't know about the combat system in MMORPGs, I mean I know they are supposed to be more relaxed and easily accesible, but can't someone come up with a zelda(ocarina of time?) like combat system, where more than a dice roll affects your attack. Maybe like planetside without the human vs human comabt, and swords and bow and arrows instead of machine guns and rocket launchers. Battle would be so much more fun. The game could actually be more about fighting harder monsters even which a weak character, than spending hours and hours in some stupid cave fighting frog men to level your character to 65 and then go 'fight' the bigger and 'harder?' creatures.

Re:Better Combat?

[Highrollr]

The reason MMOs are limited to typical MUD turn-based combat is more of a technical limitation than a creative one. Think for a second about the sheer amount of data that have to be moved to keep a 16-player game of UT2004 in sync. That kind of bandwidth usage simply does not scale to thousands of players. Even Planetside does not have true FPS combat. The bandwidth costs to keep the server going would be too high. It has an approximation based on trusted clients and large cones of fire. I think having true

Re:Better Combat?

[weaklink]

My understanding is AC2 had a system like this (clicking at specific times), and it wasn't very popular?

I also believe that MMO's are turn based many time because of the fact they are level based. Making combat turn based helps to maintain the established level heirarchy. Most MMO players don't want "skill" (i.e. twitch) based combat. Turn based combat helps to alleviate the disparity between players with broad ranges of bandwidth, and therefore will appeal to a broader range of players as you don't have t

Anti-MS Troll?

[superultra]

pay them to do it.

Is there a free way to make first and second party games?

This is not unusual at all. Nintendo is probably the only one who doesn't, but Sony does this all the time. It's a good way to test the waters with a developer, as Sony has often contracted out games and then bought the studio. In fact, Sony did very much the same thing with Guerilla Studios to make their "Halo-Killer", and then just recently bought [psxnation.com] them out. I think EA did the same thing; hired out Blackbox for a game or t

Re:Anti-MS Troll?

[Dark Nexus]

Nintendo has, and still does.

Rare, for example. And more recently, Retro Studios is a good example. The big difference between Nintendo and Sony/MS is that with Nintendo, it's generally using their existing franchises.

If you want a company that didn't do that, my guess would be Sega, but even then I just might not have heard about it.

Re:Anti-MS Troll?

[rufo]

Originally, Sega was a whole bunch of teams working together under the Sega name.

I think at some point they all split up, and now all the different teams are individual companies, although often still branded as Sega games.

I don't know the details here... anyone know? Bueller? Anyone?

Re:Anti-MS Troll?

[The Evil Couch]

I think he's pointing out that while MS has tried to deliver a few persistant universe games, it still hasn't actually put one on the shelves.

so, instead of trying to develop one, they just funded one.

Re:XBOX aka: PC games for dummies

[FubarPA]

Why would anyone buy an X-box when virtually every title for it is out for the PC?
Well, I can think of a few reasons:
- The Xbox is now only 149.00. If you have an out of data machine, you may spend at least that much to upgrade it.
- Ease of use. Some people may not like to use a computer, but they love video games. Open the DVD tray, drop the game in, and off you go.

half of the "new" titles coming out for the X-Box are three year old PC titles?
If you can show me that Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomo

Re:XBOX aka: PC games for dummies

[MMaestro]

And half of the "new" titles coming out for the X-Box are three year old PC titles?

Um, Halo came out on Xbox first and then came out as three year old Xbox title on the PC..

Cheaper!

[2nd Post!]

An XBox costs less than a reasonable CPU upgrade
Less than most decent 3d video cards
Less than a new motherboard and ram
Less than a case, hard drive, and power supply

So the better question is, (and as a Mac user, I get this *all* the time), why should I spend more on a PC when an XBox is 90% as good?

Re:XBOX aka: PC games for dummies

[merdark]

Half the time the PC versions of the XBOX games are crippled. Notably, many many XBOX games have co-op multiplayer abilities. None of the PC versions have this ability. :(

Halo PC has no co-op.
Lord of the Ring PC has no co-op.
Doom3 PC will not have co-op, but XBOX version will (makes me sad).

Re:XBOX aka: PC games for dummies

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, I KNEW we couldn't go one frickin /. article on a cool Xbox game without an obligitory troll.

And to answer your question, the Xbox provides the best of both the PC ports (games for XBox are ported to PX and vice versa, a la Knights of the Old Republic and Splinter Cell : Pandora Tomorrow), and console ports (There are very few multi-console games that don't look or play the best on the XBox, excepting SSX Tricky and Sonic Heroes), plus a bunch of stellar titles that are only on XBox (Ninja Gaiden, Pr

Re:XBOX aka: PC games for dummies

[Planesdragon]

Why would anyone buy an X-box when virtually every title for it is out for the PC?

Same reason they buy a GameCube, or a dedicated DVD player, or a Mac. It "just works."

Let's say that I want to play Halo. I can either spend $400 upgrading my PC so it runs the game acceptably, or I can spend $150 on an X-Box.

doubtful

[weaklink]

This game is being made to run on xbox live. Don't think you can use that from your PC. (Not that I have heard of yet.)

I'm betting Microsoft's contract with 5 levels dictates the game can only be played over xbox live. A decent MMO could help push alot of people to "opt in."

Also the game seems to be working to replace typing with speaking via voice, and voice filtering. From the article:

To keep players' voices consistent with their online avatars, be they brawny righteous knights, wizened wizards, tiny e

Monthly Fee?

[MBCook]

I didn't see it mentioned in the article, so does anyone know what the monthly fee is expected to be? Since I'm already paying for X-Box Live is there no monthly fee? (Unlikely but I hope I hope I hope).

There are many MMORPGs that I'd like to try (Everquest, FFXI especially) but the monthly fee really puts me off. But since I'm already paying for X-Box Live (which pays for the infrastructure, among other things) they could have a very low monthly fee to pay for this game's origional contentand such ($2 may

Re:Monthly Fee?

[weaklink]

The main page of the companies website for this game, says that the price is undetermined. This seems to infer that there will be some monthly price. (Price undetermined, could == 0, but that's doubtful.)

Here's the Url for the page if you would like to check for yourself:

http://www.level5.co.jp/english/products/new/tfl o/

Pay to play = no play

[cabra771]

I would be quite interested in this if there was no additional charge except for the XBox Live subscription. In fact, I would be very interested in this game. I've always wanted to play a MMORPG like Star Wars Galaxies or Final Fantasy XI, but I can justify 15+ dollars a month plus the cost of my internet connection. What does XBox Live cost now? 50-60 bucks a year? I'm in. This article doesn't talk about subscription costs, though.

Re:Pay to play = no play

[cabra771]

but I can justify
That should be "but I can't justify"

and it looks like the post right before me had the same question, too.

Article needed more research

[Ondo]

From the article:

"The genre traces its roots to the publication of G. Gary Gygax's seminal pen-and-paper RPG, Dungeons & Dragons, almost 25 years ago."

D&D came out 30 years ago, in 1974. Wizards of the Coast is doing various stuff this year to celebrate the 30th anniversary.

I'm looking forward to the game...

[josh glaser]

...but they really should change the name. It's like they're just throwing on 3 adjectives to make a long title that sounds Japanese. :-|

Bound to be a success

[rpillala]

Foods. That's what's been missing from the online and offline games that I've been playing. More foods.

Ravi

Eye candy.

[SphericalCrusher]

I just think the game looks good, personally. Since the Xbox's price has dropped, I'll probably be picking up one soon. I never really wanted one, but I'm sure this game will make me appreciate the purchase. I also want to mod the console.

Sure, it's not EverQuest, Final Fantasy XI, Star Wars Galaxies, or any other dominant MMORPG, but it has some nice visuals. It's just something about water in games that make me really want to play it. I also would like to enjoy playing it from the confines of my couch

May Be Too Late

[blueZhift]

This may be too late to market to be successful without some real (ie costly) work. I still think that the MMORPG market is too crowded at this point. And since True Fantasy is coming out well after FFXI made its US PS2 debut the console market may not be there at all.

Not that FFXI is all that (it is very good though), but this type of game takes two things that are in limited supply, time and money. Time is generally not negotiable in this universe, but money... Given that XBox live requires a fee already

Priorities

[fondue]

"Fantasy already has more environments, enemies, vehicles, items, skills, classes, monsters, pets, and foods than any console RPG to date..." ...and thanks to being locked into Xbox Live, will always be doomed to have far fewer players, crippled means of interaction and player expression and a less varied community than any other MMO. (I wonder if they'll have territory-divided servers again like PSO?)

Consider for a moment why no third party publisher has launched or plans to launch an MMO game on the Xbox