Trying to appeal to the FPS crowd is tricky business. I'm not sure if TR was going for that crowd but I suspect if you really want to appeal to that crowd you can't half step. TR still had some dice rolls going on in the background plus the RPG system is a turn of to FPS gamers. Not having PvP would be suicide for that audience too

I would think a pure MMOFPS would be like CoD4 / BF2142 whereas everyone is on an even playing field. so no levels in the traditional RPG sense. Now that would appeal too me greatly. Could be really huge if technology ever scales up to support this

Originally posted by PatchDay

Trying to appeal to the FPS crowd is tricky business. I'm not sure if TR was going for that crowd but I suspect if you really want to appeal to that crowd you can't half step. TR still had some dice rolls going on in the background plus the RPG system is a turn of to FPS gamers. Not having PvP would be suicide for that audience too

I would think a pure MMOFPS would be like CoD4 / BF2142 whereas everyone is on an even playing field. so no levels in the traditional RPG sense. Now that would appeal too me greatly. Could be really huge if technology ever scales up to support this

 

 

 

I don't see the point. Battlefield 2142 was fun, they're making tons of games like that, and it wouldn't be any MORE fun with 2K players.

I can't shoot 2 thousand players at the same time.

I personally liked Tabula Rasa 2.  It was at the very least a different theme.  Its combat was more fluid then other mmos, and its instances were well thought out.  However, what killed it for me was the lack of PVP.

Originally posted by gillvane1

Originally posted by PatchDay

Trying to appeal to the FPS crowd is tricky business. I'm not sure if TR was going for that crowd but I suspect if you really want to appeal to that crowd you can't half step. TR still had some dice rolls going on in the background plus the RPG system is a turn of to FPS gamers. Not having PvP would be suicide for that audience too

I would think a pure MMOFPS would be like CoD4 / BF2142 whereas everyone is on an even playing field. so no levels in the traditional RPG sense. Now that would appeal too me greatly. Could be really huge if technology ever scales up to support this

 

 

 

 

I don't see the point. Battlefield 2142 was fun, they're making tons of games like that, and it wouldn't be any MORE fun with 2K players.

I can't shoot 2 thousand players at the same time.

Many people prefer action combat versus whack-a-mole auto attack. This is why many new RPGs are heading towards more action (fable, fable 2, mass effect, oblivion, two worlds, fallout 3, etc)

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Two words can define the major problem easily "End Game".  It is pretty non existant. 

While I agree that end-game is non-existant (I actually believe that mid-game is also extremely lacking), I think a better two words that define the major problem are: Incompetent Devs.

Four months in closed beta and I never felt like they had a clue what they were doing, ever.  Even when they would accidentally do something right, they'd quickly correct themselves and screw it up.

I know the game isn't what lots of folks want, but why are we stil basing comments today on closed beta? What almost a year ago? Even though the game may currently still not offer what some folks want, it is still a much different game than it was in closed beta. 

The long and short of it is this. you can argue and debate forever about what the game should or shouldn't have had at launch, how it should have been done, what they should have implimented, etc. The crux of the matter is, all this should have been decided and done *before* the game launched. What went wrong is simply that DG was forced by NCSoft to release the game earlier than they should have. This is because NCSoft had already sunk tens of millions of US dollars into a game that was completely scrapped after about 4 years in development.

Also I would say that trying to make Korean and Western development teams work together was a very bad idea. The design philosophies are totally different. I am sure that it was part of the reason that the first iteration of TR was scrapped. Too many cooks in the kitchen with completely different ideas about how thing needed to be done. NCSoft should have seen the mistake that was made and at the point that the original TR was scrapped, gave DG a reasonable timeline to get the new game developed. I would go so far as to say that they should have looked at the original iteration of TR as a completely separate game project that turned out to be a failure, and looked at the new TR as a completely different project, and given it a development timeline as such.

What needs to happen now is, DG needs to figure out what exactly their vision going forward is. In the beta they spent entirely too much time and effort listening to the anti-WoW "OMFG lets be different just to spite WoW" crowd. Since because of that TR was left with pointless and repetitive PvE with no real reward. I am sorry, but if you're not going to reward PvE with something other than XP simply because you can't come up with a different reward model than most gear-based MMOGs, then that's not "ground-breaking", it's "game-breaking".

There should have been different gear both visually and game mechanics-wise for PvE rewards. There should be places in the game that require teams to complete that reward the teams appropriately. There should be NPC factions for both PvE and PvP reasons. At the very least to put some meaningful content into the game. These things, or some meaningful alternative to these things were left out of TR to spite the game models of current MMOGs, specifically and especially WoW. I don't think the developers were all WoW hating rebels, but I know they wanted to create something different. However I think they listened too much to the beta crowd who was so ravenously anti-WoW, and DG couldn't really come up with any reasonable alternatives.

The bottom line here is that the game was pushed out too early and needed not only about another year in development, but a much clearer direction to go in for release...

After all that doom and gloom I should probably say that Tabula Rasa has a lot of good points. The main of which being that firstly it has a great combat system that is fun and exciting to play. They have also done a good job fixing tons of bugs and doing some good rebalancing of classes and abilities. Granted both of those things should have been taken care of during the beta, but if you read my previous post you know why that didn't happen. They have also added some new content and started implimenting more PvP things. Things *are* plugging along, and yes it's not going as quickly as it might, and yes at this point the main focus should be on content, but it's not like nothing has been done. On the contrary a lot has been done since release... If the game can survive, and DG picks a feasible direction to bring the gameplay, Tabula Rasa could be a quite great MMOG.

I played shortly after release for a few months and, for the most part, enjoyed myself.  What killed it for me was the constant "balance" changes.  I got tired of reseting points and skills wihout having a clue as to what the new changes were really like.  I decided to quit until things settled down.  When I went back this month for the free "welcome back", my characters again had 0 skills and everything had to be reset. I just didn't want to do the  research to find out what skills were useful now, so I started a couple of new toons.  I just couldn't get back into it.

Some reasons TR went wrong, I copied this from the TR page on this site it is a list of features and benefits of TR. I will add my comments to each.

Features:

• Go to the frontlines of a futuristic war in a massively multiplayer war game that combines the character growth of an RPG with the action of a shooter.  There are no frontlines of the war, after the first couple areas the war becomes a backstory for missions. The warlike feel dies around level 20 and after that you feel like a delivery boy. Character growth? The skill tree is limited and every character of any given class is almost the same as the next.
• Players will participate in large scale battles with NPC allies against an intelligent enemy known as The Bane for control of entire planets. Large scale battles? Really? Which version of TR? Other than CPs the bane seem quite scarce and never are a real threat. You do not get to control entire planets and even controling a CP is meaningless.  Some epic battles might save TR but they have none.
• Players will go behind enemy lines in missions that directly impact the war effort, either solo or with teammates. Talk about things that never happen. Nothing you do affects the war effort ever. You can not change the course of the war because it is a linear story.
• Rich storyline and fictional universe features Richard Garriott’s signature creative vision and attention to detail. Yes the story is good, RGs attention to detail fell off in this game. Things like missions having an effect on your character and moral choices in the end are meaningless.
• It’s not all guts and guns; a mysterious power known commonly as “Logos,” allows players to harness the very fabric of the cosmos to offer rebel forces an advantage against an overwhelming foe. Overwhelming foe? Where is this foe I hear about? The bane and their huge war machines that any soldier of equal level can destroy in wholesale lots like he was Rambo? There are way too many Logos that at release never come into use in any skill. Better use of that system is needed.
• Simplified game interface is complimented by built-in voice chat technology to create a seamless cooperative gaming experience. Simplified game = not enough time spent making the skills and the game deep enough or interesting enough to hold the average players attention.

Benefits

• Role-playing game fans will enjoy a game design that focuses more on depth than complexity, with an immersive story and rich character growth driven by player choices. This game is about as deep as the kiddie pool at the local YMCA. Character building is shallow and lacks any big time choices. Player choices mean nothing since even when you help or decide not to help certain groups it means nothing in how they treat you. Lets say you turn in a group who is against the AFS, that group does not hate you and attack you on sight after that. Or if you help the AFS group known as the Penumbra and finish all their missions, they still attack you in Howling Maw. RG has such attention to detail but they missed these things that really make a game feel like your choices matter.
• First person shooter fans who crave a richer gaming experience will appreciate a massively multiplayer game that is reactive to player choices and allows for a broad range of character movement. They’ll also find FPS standards including explosions, vehicles and big guns. Vehicles? Who gets to use vehicles? Not the AFS or the players thats for sure. Again reactive to player choices? Maybe this list was made when the game was in closed beta or something because the live TR has no affect from the choices you make. Unless you count certain NPCs not giving you missions which has no effect on your character or his course through the game.

• Massively multiplayer online game fans will enjoy being able to garner rare collectibles and inventory, a large community to interact with, and frequently updated content to both the game and the storyline. Rare collectibles? They must  mean the monthly vet rewards. Nothing else is rare in the game. The community is not large and the frequent updates are more like fixes and balances than real content . The storyline has not advanced in almost a year.

Basicly the entire list of features and benefits seems to have been about another game. Not sure if TR made this list of this site but I have to say its accuracy must be questioned.

Originally posted by indiramourn

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Two words can define the major problem easily "End Game".  It is pretty non existant. 

While I agree that end-game is non-existant (I actually believe that mid-game is also extremely lacking), I think a better two words that define the major problem are: Incompetent Devs.

Four months in closed beta and I never felt like they had a clue what they were doing, ever.  Even when they would accidentally do something right, they'd quickly correct themselves and screw it up.

That speaks to me more of "Lack of leadership."
 

Actually, that summarizes my problems with Tabula Rasa.  "Lack of Leadership."  Unlike Vanguard, which died in the technical details (Games should not actively attempt to kill you for playing them), Tabula Rasa does most things technically correct.

Take the weapons, for instance.  Well done?  Yes.  Each one unique?  Yes.  Fun to use?  Yes.

Take the quests.  Sure, there's gather quests and stuff, but a lot of them are a ton of fun.

Take the instances.  Each one is well crafted.

Now look how they fail.  The weapons have no unifying theme.  They were well made by the programmers, but with no unifying vision, they're just 'weapons.'   The skills have little interaction with the weapons, to the point where you wonder if anyone told the teams to talk to eachother at all.   The quests are individually awesome, but on a whole they tell you nothing about the society you're living in.  Take the natives.  We have quests where they're being forced to be warriors quests talking about their warrior society, quests to kill things, by the end of it we should understand their culture.  Instead we're left kind of 'blah' because nothing brings it all together.

The admittedly awesome instances were another example.  Look at them.  They look awesome.  They play... less awesome.  Each one is totally unfocused.  Were they meant to be single player experiences?  Multiplayer?  By  failing to decide, the developers created something that was mediocre all the way down.

I really think the failure is all on RG.  He needed to take a commanding leadership role, tell the team what they should be spending time on, and instead he punted.  And the team wandered around and worked on many different issues, instead of trying to create a coherent game.