Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

World War II Online Reloaded - Can MMOs Be Rehabilitated?

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the back-from-the-dead dept.

Role Playing (Games) 32

Thanks to FiringSquad for its article revisiting the state of PC MMO World War II Online, as the writer asks: "Three years ago I uninstalled World War II Online and lamented a good idea gone bad. Now I can barely force myself to write this article for fear of losing Maastricht to a British counter-offensive." With FiringSquad's original review stating "the vast majority of you will simply feel cheated", things seem to have changed, from the same reviewer's perspective: "Somewhere along the way, World War II Online got good. The game isn't so much better than it used to be because the graphics got some sprucing up or because of new weapons. It happened in the community." Can a keen, well-organized community and post-launch patching rehabilitate an MMO, or will a sub-optimal launch doom it?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Communities can change a game IMO (5, Interesting)

Donjo (797935) | more than 10 years ago | (#9728947)

I play SWG right now and I can barely stand to play on the live servers because of the constant whining and bickering. The forums are un-bearable. I play test center now and it is like playing a whole new game, people help each other out and it is like the game used to be on live servers back at launch.

it's so nice when all the 12 y/o's go elsewhere... (5, Interesting)

Nyder (754090) | more than 10 years ago | (#9728977)

I like it when the lame people disappear so only the serious are playing the games. Of course, it costing money helps, because chances are only the serious fans are going to pay to continue playing, and since they are paying, they are going to go the little extra to keep it going. hopefully.

Re:it's so nice when all the 12 y/o's go elsewhere (4, Insightful)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 10 years ago | (#9729006)

Woukld have worked 20 years ago. Now days all the 12 year olds have daddy's credit card. Not to mention there's a huge problem with 30 year olds acting like two year olds.

Re:it's so nice when all the 12 y/o's go elsewhere (4, Interesting)

DruidBob (711965) | more than 10 years ago | (#9729045)

I've found that most greifers I meet are actualy much older.
Twelve year olds can get away with being bad durring the day, but adults will use the anonyminity of the games for this release since they cannot.

Re:it's so nice when all the 12 y/o's go elsewhere (2, Insightful)

wookieemoose (797913) | more than 10 years ago | (#9729313)

I agree with this sentiment, there are way too many cranky and therefore annoying people on the MMOs these days. RPGs aren't nearly as bad as FPS's though. partially because of the higher fee, but also because i feel those cranky and irritating indviduals don't have the patience for RPGs. I mean, when you get onto something like Counter Strike, you'll be gamin along having a relatively civilised fragfest/bloodbath when some little squeaky voice (or older one for that matter) starts streamin curses like a southern sailor and callin everybody cheaters and hackers among everything else every time they run out guns ablazing and die. It's getting so that the only place to have a civilised war is in elite servers! and even then it can be bad. and as far as fee's go, they don't even work that well either, take Rainbow Six 3 for X-BOX for example, you get on those servers and you're always switching servers because of some annoying kid or TKer. It's rediculous! Civilise the Fragfests People!

Re:it's so nice when all the 12 y/o's go elsewhere (4, Interesting)

elasticwings (758452) | more than 10 years ago | (#9730298)

I play Battlefield Vietnam and occasionally there will be people griefing on there. Mostly, you hear people who can't fly bitch about people who can. I was on a server last night, and some guy kept going on and on about how happy he will be when the helicopters are nerfed. Of course, I'm sure if this person could actually fly a helicopter then they would have a completely different view on it.

Re:it's so nice when all the 12 y/o's go elsewhere (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 10 years ago | (#9734355)

"some guy kept going on and on about how happy he will be when the helicopters are nerfed."

Yeah, since helicopters played almost no role in the war to begin with...

Re:it's so nice when all the 12 y/o's go elsewhere (1)

wookieemoose (797913) | more than 10 years ago | (#9744921)

are you kidding? the choppers were often a decisive weapon in the vietnam war, it would have been a much bigger disaster had we not had them. of course if we didn't have them we may not have gotten so involved in the first place...

Re:it's so nice when all the 12 y/o's go elsewhere (1)

FriedTurkey (761642) | more than 10 years ago | (#9738347)

No helicoptors suck when your NVA becuase there isn't a good way to shoot it down. The viet-cong have the anti-aircraft missiles to balance it out. Trying to shoot it down with a machine gun is impossible when the spinning helicopter is camping the spawn. Plus when 75% of your team is waiting around for a stupid helicopter it really sucks. Yeah I can fly a helicopter but I am not waiting around to get killed by my own team member to fly the stupid thing.

Re:it's so nice when all the 12 y/o's go elsewhere (1)

leland242 (736905) | more than 10 years ago | (#9738472)

Well, the helicopters shouldn't be able to withstand the abuse from several RPG's and machine gun fire. The armor is way too powerful. They should have damage specific zones.

Re:it's so nice when all the 12 y/o's go elsewhere (1)

wookieemoose (797913) | more than 10 years ago | (#9744896)

i agree with that one, i think damage zones would greatly improve the game in that respect. there's now way shooting the wing stub has the same effect as shooting the tail rotor. But i also think that not every hit should cause damage, a pistol round the bottom of the chopper, where there isn't so much vital stuff, shouldn't do damage. and if it does, only a very tiny amount.

Both Ways?. (5, Insightful)

DruidBob (711965) | more than 10 years ago | (#9729022)

I've played a few; Asheron's Call(AC), which I still log into now and again. AC 2, which I don't touch for fear of plague DAoC, didn't get into it much. Star Wars Galaxys, which I played for a while then stoped. Yo-ho-ho Puzzle Pirates, play and love. Now the last three I have all stoped. I didn't like the people in AC 2, and frankly they had it right with the orginal. DAoC had problems with my computer at the time (or vise versa) so with a frame rate of about 4/min. I tossed it into my bottom desk drawer never to be seen again. SWG was fun, but people were spread out, I didn't get to know many and without a comunity hold I ended up quitting. Now AC 1 has some great people, I probably added about 30 people to my messenger lists because of that game. Many times I'd find myself logging in just to talk to people. now YPP (Puzzle Pirates) is a game all about community. Unlike the previous 4 games; had less fan-fare, started small, wasn't in a retail box, and started with many problems. Because of the communities in AC and YPP I stuck with those games, the lack for me in the others killed the fun of them. Really, would you play a solo game for over 80 hours total (a long rpg game length)? So the community does matter, it is the lifeblood of MMO games. And like YPP a game can have a small release, but can build a comunity later.

Sub-optimal launch? (2, Insightful)

mikew03 (186778) | more than 10 years ago | (#9729574)

Can someone please tell me which MMORPG did NOT have a sub-optimal launch?

Re:Sub-optimal launch? (4, Insightful)

Qetu (732155) | more than 10 years ago | (#9729928)

City of Heroes? [cityofheroes.com]

I have only read and heared good things about that game. If i had a job i'd probably play it. :P

IMHO, in a MMO, the community is what makes it or breaks it. After all, it's the interaction what you pay for.

Re:Sub-optimal launch? (1)

mutewinter (688449) | more than 10 years ago | (#9730831)

Thats something alot of people forget when they blast every single new MMORPG. Ultima Online took a long time for all the bugs to get fixed. I first played UO years after its launch. I participated in the Neocron beta test after getting free CDs for it at GenCon. For a beta, I didn't think Neocron had a whole lot of problems. (By the way, Neocron was the cyberpunk MMORPG with naked strippers.)

I'm really looking forward to World of Warcraft. I haven't heard too many bad things about WoW beta so I'm crossing my fingers and hoping it'll be good -- I'm going to be there at launch. (I'd be there now if I got into the beta.)

Re:Sub-optimal launch? (4, Informative)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 10 years ago | (#9731970)

COH had a very good release. Server's were very good, login and regestration were no problem.

DAoC had a very good release. I experienced no hiccups but some did. Overall it was more like an A- release.

EQ's release wasn't that bad really. People make it out to be worse then it was. The 1st 3 days of release had as much downtime then uptime due mostly to the login servers. Overall though, it didn't go that bad.

Horizon's launch went smoothly. Mostly because no one was playing it.

I would say all of those at the least had acceptable launches. With CoH being nearly flawless (even though I don't care much for the game itself) and DAoC being good enough to be what I would call optimal.

SWG, AO, WWIIO, all had horrible launches with more problems then should be acceptable.

What sets the top from the bottom apart the most was that the client and server source code was stable in the top list of games. Where DAoC and EQ had problems were in there login servers being overloaded. DAoC was able to handle it a little better (but of course it was two years later).
Where as that bottom group all had bugs that crashed the client or the server with regularity. That to me is not acceptable in a commercial game. I can understand being a victim of popularity, and thankfully it seems like that side of things have been addressed for the most part. I cannot understand releasing a non-stable codebase in a commerical product.

Maybe... (5, Insightful)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 10 years ago | (#9729582)

This is a tough one. On the one hand, I can understand the phenomenon the article talks about. I've never played WW2 Online, but I remember the publicity when it launched; easily horrible enough that I never felt any inclination to try it. I'm sure this dissuaded a lot of other potential customers from ever picking up the game. I'm also sure that a lot of those who did pick it up dropped it again after a month (obviously, I don't know for sure, but I'd guess it gave you the first month's subscription free when you bought the game, as most MMORPGs seem to).

However, those that were left after the initial exodus were probably those whose interest in the game was deep and genuine enough that they were prepared to stick with it through the initial difficulties. Once the problems start getting patched out, it's easy to see these players forming a pretty deep bond with the game. However, what I'm less sure about is whether a MMORPG which suffers a terrible launch can then draw in new players at a later date. Obviously, there's going to be a certain word-of-mouth effect surrounding the people who still play the game; many of them will try to sign up friends. However, this alone won't be enough to have a huge effect on the player-base.

The other approach to drawing in new players after a horrific launch is to release a massively hyped expansion. Witness SW Galaxies and the forthcoming space expansion. With Galaxies, they may well have some success, because the pre-release interest in Galaxies was like nothing I've seen before for a MMORPG and I know the number of players who lost interest when it was announced there would be no space combat at release was pretty large. Whether this will actually work in practice and whether the technique can be adapted by other games without the huge license to support them remains to be seen.

Developing a MMORPG is a huge risk for a developer, as demonstrated by the number we've seen cancelled before release lately. It's a difficult market to break into, not least because of the relatively high initial costs for players when the game is released. (On a side note, I have NO sympathy for those who claim a MMORPG shouldn't charge both a purchase charge and a monthly fee. Developers need to do this, it's simple economics. After the years spent developing the game, the developers will almost certainly need some hefty cash-flow straight after release just to stay afloat, hence the box-costs. The monthly fees then pay for continuing support). With some recent MMORPGs such as FFXI proving that you CAN do a good roll-out, patience for sloppy MMORPG releases is at an all-time low. Sure, it's possible you can recover if things go pear-shaped, but why take the risk?

Size matters (4, Interesting)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 10 years ago | (#9729697)

To an extent, yes a well developed and very active (not to mention LISTENED to) community can seriously help a development of ANY game not just MMOGs. Its like all utopian experiments. Sure when you did it with 20 or 30 of your most hardcore believers its gonna work at least for a period of time. But as you add more and more people the chances of someone breaking down eventually gets to the point where someone will ALWAYS be a jerk/waste water/hit another person/etc.

The same thing with gaming. Everyone talks about how Counter-Strike can be a really awesome and strategic game 'when you play on a well moderated, private server'. Thats like saying 'Iraq is a really safe place if you stay inside a military bunker in the Green Zone.' You may think 'oh well thats just one or two bad cases' but there are roughly 50,000 players playing the game at any given time, do you REALLY think that my bad experiences won't be replicated by other people?

Re:Size matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9738219)

To an extent, yes a well developed and very active (not to mention LISTENED to) community can seriously help a development of ANY game not just MMOGs. Its like all utopian experiments. Sure when you did it with 20 or 30 of your most hardcore believers its gonna work at least for a period of time. But as you add more and more people the chances of someone breaking down eventually gets to the point where someone will ALWAYS be a jerk/waste water/hit another person/etc.

And the better games design in ways that the community can be self-policing or self-regulating. Which is extremely important when designing MMOGs where the customers can't just setup a server of their own if they disagree with how the server is run. One way to do that is to force players to depend on each other to get things done. Bad players get denied services by the good players and tend to leave quickly.

For long-term survival of a MMOG:

1. Start from the PoV that all players will be evil if they can get away with it.

2. No player-requested name changes allowed. Allowing name changes willy-nilly lets bad players start over without the pain of starting over.

3. No account selling or trading or loaning. It ruins the ability of players to track reputations of other players. It also causes problems where a 3-day old ebay player tries to go into an area which requires in-depth knowledge about how the game works. Gear selling is okay, if the game discourages camping for items.

4. In-game travel between areas should never be free. It should either cost money (pay either a player or NPC for a port), time (run!), or effort (level up a porter class, make friends with a porter). In a larger game world, allowing a griefer to cause trouble at one end, and freely run to the other side of the world will lead to abuse.

my 2 cents (4, Informative)

dd3123 (797979) | more than 10 years ago | (#9730021)

I've played a lot of MMOGs and I can honestly say, none of them held my interest for long. Perhaps its because I've been spoiled on WWIIOL and nothing comes even close to what it does. Did WWIIOL have a really bad launch? Yep. No one disputes that at all. But CRS (the developers) have quite literally taken on the likes of a pheonix, rising from the ashes of destruction to produce IMHO a brilliant game. Despite claims by other companies, WWIIOL *IS* the largest battlefield. No zones. No loading. Once you are in, you can fly, walk, swim, drive across all of europe. Hop in a HE-111 bomber deep within Germany, fly to England and bomb some factories in a raid, and pray you don't get shot down by scrambling fighters. Anyways, I wont bore you guys with another review, as most of the community feel that the firingsquad review was quite fair. There is a free trial at filefront (14 days) and obviously I highly suggest you join the war and see why this game has survived, and grown for 3 years despite the disaster launch: http://files.filefront.com/3406002;/pub2/World%20W ar%20II%20Online/Official%20Demos// [filefront.com]

Re:my 2 cents (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9733428)

I was one of the many that bought WWIionline when it first came out, needless to say i was dissappointed. but after casually following the game for about a year afterwards, my interest peaked yet again and i played on one of them 14-day trial thingys, needless to say, i was hooked thereafter.

the interation between the Devs (CRS) and the community is one that other MMO companies should establish. the devs very regularly post and interact with the players in the game, and on the forums, thats almost unheard of in some mmo's.

i'll admit the sys specs are high, you'll need a pretty fast cpu, atleast 1 gb ram and a min 64 mb vid card. but when you look at the size of the map and scale, you'll see why the sys specs are so high, there is no "zoning" in this game, its one continous map. heck people even have expeditions to the alp ingame heh.

its very exhilarating to participate in a tank column of 20-30 tanks. or on a bombing run to destroy the enemies factories. there are so many aspects to this game, and everytime you log on to play its always something different, its never the same ol, same ol.

want to see how big the map is?

http://gophur.playnet.com/gophur/map.html [playnet.com]

I hope people will shake off the label that WWIIonline recieved at launch and give this great game a try.

see you on the BattleField.

Re:my 2 cents (1)

Lightwarrior (73124) | more than 10 years ago | (#9738587)

> Hop in a HE-111 bomber deep within Germany...

Are you now able to enter/exit vehicles, or are you still stuck as whatever you spawn? And have medics been added yet? One of my biggest problems was bleeding to death regardless of the seriousness of an injury, and being unable to ditch a badly damaged plane.

This is one of the reasons why I love BF1942, though it's quite a bit more of an action game than WWIIO's attempted sim.


Re:my 2 cents (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9738993)

We looked long and hard at medics and ultimately wnt to add them, but for gameplay in a realistic sim, you have to realize that by the time you need a medic, you're not firing your rifle much more. It does make for a brutal but hinest game. We leave the power ups to the arcade shooters.


Anarchy Online... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9730141)

had a horrible launch, but through patching it became better, and more popular game.

It's all about Management (5, Interesting)

fallingdown (709840) | more than 10 years ago | (#9730256)

I think that games like Eve Online, Meridian 59 and the other smaller MMORPGs have all proven that attentive developers and a dedicated community can keep any game alive. That's the benefit of the monthly subscription model. Even games like Anarchy Online - the game that everyone cites when they talk about bad launches - can not only survive but thrive if the developers make an effort to build community.

Games are complicated to make and MMORPGs are even harder because of the added technical, socialogical and (in-game and out) economic hurdles. Since gamers have proven that they are willing to wait around for the developers to work the bugs out, the practice of releasing an MMORPG at the point of minimal stability has become an industry standard.

It's also the reason that these games will never reach main-stream acceptance. Only a bunch of geeks would be willing to put up with this sort of behaviour.

I've played quite a bit of City of Heroes lately and what really makes it brilliant is not so much the game play (which is good) but rather the way the game is being managed. First - and this is the key to their success - they avoided "feature creep." City of Heroes does one thing - combat - and does it very well. It's tight, fast and resonably balanced but that's it - that's the entire game. No crafting, no economy, no loot, No PvP. THey've avoided 90% of the trouble most other MMORPGs get into by making the choice to put it in at a later date. I'm sure that each of these areas will be added eventually, but in the form of expansion packs and additional revenue.

Next, they planned a staggered release. Rather than delivering boxes to all the stores at once and throwing open the servers, they let the pre-order customers ( read "the hardcore") start three days before the official launch. THen they staggered the delivery of the boxes to retails over the period of about a week. SO there was no real launch day rather they planned and executed "launch week."

Cryptic Studios ( the developers) also did a very bright thing by lopping off a good bit of the game (levels 41-50) and patching it in to the game about 6 weeks after launch as it's first official content patch. Most of the player population couldn't get near level 40 in that time period so patching this bit in later gave Cryptic a chance to focus on the the newbie experience for launch and polish the high end game for later. It also made them look good by adding a good chunk of content just a few weeks after launch.

I could cite a few more examples suffice to say that I consider City of Heroes the first true "second generation" MMORPG not because of any game play or technological innovation but because they're the first MMORPG to look at the predecessors and impliment the lessons learned.

If WWIIOL and the other troubled MMORPGs had been managed so well, I'm sure they would have no trouble surviving.

Re:It's all about Management (4, Insightful)

Psychochild (64124) | more than 10 years ago | (#9734608)

I think that games like Eve Online, Meridian 59 and the other smaller MMORPGs have all proven that attentive developers and a dedicated community can keep any game alive.

Thanks for the compliment. I think. ;) (I'm one of the devs on Meridian 59 [meridian59.com] .)

It's suprising how often people forget that online RPGs change, especially since that's supposed to be one of the bigger selling points. Many online games change radically as the game gets older and more content is added. The Meridian 59 you can play today is rather different than the game you could have played back in 1996 thanks to 7 updates to the game. Especially after we finish the new client upgrade [meridian59.com] , the game will be more modern.

The biggest problem is that most game reviewers don't really pay much attention to a game past launch. Most of them are stuck in the mindset of single-player games, where you want to review the game as soon as possible after launch, then you ignore it. It makes some sense; who wants to read a review of Warcraft 2 these days? Yet, a review of Meridian 59 might still be of interest to some people, since the game has changed. The same reviewers that eagerly want to review the newest sequel won't even pay attention to the latest expansion to an online game. (It's even worse for those of us that don't put boxes in stores, since it's often not seen as a "real" expansion [or even a "real" game!] without the box. Yet another reason why you have to pay $40 in the store in addition to a monthly fee for the majority of games.)

I've been marginally involved with an upcoming site that is looking to change how games are reviewed. A new perspective on how to review online RPGs should help solve some of these problems.

As for City of Heroes, it is a good game. I'll counter your assertion that focusing on one aspect is a good thing, however. While the combat is fun, it ultimately comes off as very shallow. Many games have had to endure complaints that there's a "lack of content" when they've trimmed back the game to plan for a more stable launch. The novelty of the superhero genre and CoH's highly customizable character costume creation system gave the game a bit extra time, in my opinion. Initial success is one thing, but retaining customers is very, very important to the long-term health of the game.

It's also interesting to note that the publisher of CoH, NCSoft, is a very experienced online game publisher. NCSoft has plenty of experience to share, and they've hired on some of the more experienced US online game developers.

Some more information for those interested.

Have fun,

Re:It's all about Management (1)

fallingdown (709840) | more than 10 years ago | (#9737538)

I'll counter your assertion that focusing on one aspect is a good thing

I agree that CoH is shallow. I played up until level 24 and stopped because the level 24 game is the same as the level 1 game.

That being said, I still maintain that what makes CoH brilliant is not the game itself but rather the execution. Cryptic/NCSoft has taken the opposite tact from every other game out there. Rather than release a feature rich, buggy game with the promise of fixes down the line, they've instead released a tight game, with a fun, fast paced core and the promise of more content to be added down the line.

It's the antithesis of Star Wars Galaxies. Most of SWG's features have bugs associated with them and many of professions are useless. SWG continues to promise both bug fixes and additional content - neither of which they've gotten right in the year plus that it's been up and running.

All CoH has had to promise is a little balancing and more content.

So the question seems to be - which is better? Both methods put developers under the gun. Both methods run the risk of losing customers either from boredom or frustration. It will be interesting to see where CoH is on their first anniversary.

I'm not a developer but I am a project manager and I can tell you that one of the keys to managing any project is managing stakeholder expectations. CoH has done that in spades. They've also set themselves up for many, many change orders - what you developers call expansion packs. If CoH continues to succeed, I'm sure they'll add every feature SWG has but as expansion packs and their clientele will pay for them happily.

Contrast this again with SWG. Their first expansion pack is coming up and while many people will buy it, many will assert that it's just more features that should have been in at launch. SWG failed to manage the expectations of their stakeholders.

Getting back to the original thread- the same argument could be made for WWIIOL. They released a feature rich, bug heavy game and it's taken them a couple of years to work it out.

Since these games are so much more complex to make in comparison to single-player games - the lesson seems to be start small and grow into something grand.

Free trial is available for curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9733799)

quick plug here for my favourite game:

didn't want to bother creating an account, but anyone who want to try the game out for free can participate in the 2 week trial:
http://www5.playnet.com/bv/wwiiol/filefron t_promo. jsp

if your having any issues with the trial be sure to check: the community support forums:http://discussions.playnet.com/viewforum.ph p?f=8


Re:Free trial is available for curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9733812)

sorry typo. theres a space between the . jsp delete it

WWII Online (3, Insightful)

Moose4 (182029) | more than 10 years ago | (#9734122)

As somebody who just left WWIIOL last month because I got a bit burned out, I'll back up everything the reviewer said in his article. WWIIOL is dated in a lot of areas, but the days of the botched release are long, long behind it. CRS has a pretty good relationship with most of the playerbase, as well.

The interesting thing he barely touched on is that the warring armies--British and French on one side, German on the other--have command structures completely staffed by players. For example, I played in a squad called 3CD (Third Canadian Division). 3CD and its internal subunits were part of the Corps de Cavalrie, 1re Armee, Armee Francais. At each intermediate level, there were player COs, XOs, and subordinate officers, all the way up to a Supreme Commander for each side, Allied and Axis.

CRS codes the org charts for each side into the game, to a point. But the leadership positions are staffed by players who volunteer to take the time and do it. And it's on those players' shoulders that much of the success or failure of an entire "army" rests. Army CinCs probably spend more time out of the game working on "administrative" things than they do actually playing...it's practically a second job.

The WWIIOL Phoenix (2, Interesting)

Mittermeyer (195358) | more than 10 years ago | (#9734586)

WWIIOL is a unique situation in that you have a developer-run outfit that deeply believes in it's vision and runs a tight enough ship to keep it afloat through the tough times.

Moose4 has it right, the players create content by running the virtual army organizations and attacking each other with different tactics and combinations of equipment. Since the terrain is immense and varied every attack is different even using the same tactics because the ground changes and situations change. And if you get bored with a certain nation's equipment or fighting style, you can simply switch over. And the Rats are constantly introducing new equipment and play changes. The replay value is immense.

The community has stuck by CRS during the tough times because they believe in the vision as well, and have an incredible level of access and direct communication with the developers. And enough of the vision has come true to keep most interested.

If the Rats were doing this for someone else this very unique game would not exist- I think that is the most important part of WWIIOL's phoenix story.

BTW, the reviewer is showing a bit of Axis bias and ahistorical expectation- the German tanks ARE suppossed to be fragile in 1940. If you expect to recreate the Tiger killer tank experience that will probably come with a later release, and even then the German High Command will have to decide to research for it, which might be affected by the strategic bombing campaign constantly going on.

Re:WWII Online (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9764135)

To add to Moose's comments about the command structure, one of the coolest upcoming things for this game is Brigade Spawning and Deployment.

From what I can gather this will, essentially, turn the High Command structure into a rather large Strat game along the lines of Medieval Total War, etc.

Basically it will allow the folks in the Command Structure to decide what equipment is researched, how much of it is produced, and where to put it. In essence they'll be directing the war as if it were a Strat game the biggest difference being that instead of a bunch of computer AI executing the battle plans with what they've supplied it will be the playerbase doing so.

As far as I'm concerned, the future of this game is exceedingly bright, especially when it's ignominous beginnings are taken into account.

- Nastero (in wwiiol)
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?