Auto Assault now grasping at straws
In perhaps Auto Assault's final attempt at building any semblance of a community base, the folks at NCsoft will merge the sparse populations of their varied servers onto one magnificent pleasure palace of dullness tomorrow; apparently that big update from last month didn't quite do the job. It's hard not to feel slightly sorry for this MMO -- they got spunk, you gotta give them that -- but, in the end, it looks like it's just not gonna work out. It's not you AA, it's me, honestly.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Chessasaur @ Jul 12th 2006 7:09PM
Gonna be a big loss for NCsoft. They hyped the hell out of this one. I remember seeing print and net ads for AA for months before it came out.
Silver R. Wolfe @ Jul 12th 2006 7:19PM
I never thought it would really take off, despite all the ads that I saw for this one. It just screamed: Bleh.
Rask @ Jul 12th 2006 7:20PM
It's sad cause AA was a pretty unique game in the veins of CoH or CoV.
NCSoft seriously needs to make an all access pass that gives people CoH/CoV/AA/Lineage1&2 for 20$ a month.
Killer Instinct @ Jul 12th 2006 7:23PM
Same thing happened to Motor City Online. People dont want to race online for a fee really. I'd like to see a good online multiplayer racing game that is perhaps just limited to 16 or 32 cars. And sorry but nascar isnt the way to go on that idea either.
Night Elve @ Jul 12th 2006 7:26PM
Guild Wars is the way to go
epobirs @ Jul 12th 2006 7:44PM
Perhaps it would work better as a subgame within a larger, more genral MMORPG game.
Jeremy Wright @ Jul 12th 2006 7:47PM
I was part of the original 100 alpha testers for this, what, 2 or 2.5 years ago? I wasn't having then. Few of us were. We sent big long letter after big long letter to the team and they kept on saying things would get better (anyone's who beta tested for NCSoft is familiar with this line).
Thankfully they're normally right. With AA they weren't.
st3v3n @ Jul 12th 2006 8:03PM
make it 50 to buy, then free monthly (like guild wars), and i'd buy it.
noizbot @ Jul 12th 2006 8:13PM
Guild Wars is the way to go? What you mean to say is "I don't want to pay for the games that I play", right? Guild Wars? Two $50 expansions a year. By the time the second expansion rolls around many GW players will have spent at least $150 (assuming no Collector's Editions) for a year and a half of gameplay. It's not free. Things cannot be free. If GW's expansion packs were free, you'd see the game crawling with micropayments and the only people able to play and compete were those willing to dish out for the gear expenses.
I spent quite a bit of time with the AA beta, because I really love post-apocalyptic settings. There aren't nearly enough post-apocalyptic games. The problem is that I also hate cars and AA's marketing is naturally to the "car crowd". It's like they were trying to lure in the "hot chicks and fast cars" and "trick out your wheelz" idiots into MMOs and it didn't get those people and simultaneously alienated most of their actual, potential audience.
LaughingTarget @ Jul 12th 2006 8:33PM
The biggest problem is the MMO genre is way too saturated. It is difficult to convince people to fork over $15/mo for more than one game. Titles are expanding, market is not. That is not good for games trying to pull a profit.
Royale @ Jul 12th 2006 8:34PM
I remember playing this at E3 three years ago and it wasn't that fun then... 2 years ago I remember the concert with the fire wielding chicks and stuff (if any of you were there and saw this YOU WILL REMEMBER) and it was interesting. You could kind of tell then that it was not going to be that great.
Master X 24 @ Jul 12th 2006 8:39PM
Put on the 360 and ill buy it
the_game_master @ Jul 12th 2006 8:49PM
I beta tested this game last year, and I knew this game was garbage right from the get go.
Who the hell wants to play a Twisted Metal/Vigilante 8 style MMO?
NCSoft done it big one game, and that was CoH.
Night Elve @ Jul 12th 2006 9:22PM
@ 9.
Sadly my friend you are very wrong. Of course Ncsoft will deliver an expansion every 6 months or so, but you are not obligate to buy it.
You can perfectly play online with your original copy with no need to buy the expansions.
And by the way some updates includes new great stuff and quests and new zones which is free.
noizbot @ Jul 12th 2006 10:27PM
@14.
No, I totally agree with you. You can decide not to buy the GW expansion packs. I have the first release and Factions, but I doubt I'll be running out to pick up the 2nd one. That said I think that many serious GW players would expect to buy the expansions at some point though. That's all I'm saying.
I think a better MMO payment model is, assuming we can agree that micropayments aren't so hot, is if we paid for time, like with contractless cellphones. So we put $50 into our account, and we only get charged per hour (rounded up) for the time we play. It would only be like 5 cents an hour or something. It would work out such that someone playing a freaking ton would end up paying equivalent to the $15/mo that is the standard fee for MMORPGS today. Basically, developers would charge based on bandwidth plus a little extra for profit. I would definitely be at least interested in an MMORPG that used that model... there are a lot of MMORPGs I'd probably play if I just had to pay for the time that I actually spent in the game.
Jay @ Jul 13th 2006 12:10AM
>Same thing happened to Motor City Online. People dont
>want to race online for a fee really.
What killed Motor City Online was its game money structure. People were so deathly afraid of wrecking their cars and paying what meager scraps of cash they could pull down to fix them that the vast majority of people raced on one or two safe race courses and no one got to race any of the cool tracks. Otherwise, the community liked the game, but it was structured to be no fun. I think online driving games are probably better tailored to consoles, such as with Forza Motorsport and so on.
I played the Auto Assault beta, and it was just no fun either. A big part of it was the design and availability of the cars themselves. In a game that tried to stand out from all the other MMOs by using cars, they sure completely fudged up their implementation of said cars. They were terribly ugly, severely lacking in choice and customization, and tough to control well. And a high-end system was needed to get any real playability out of it.
Taylor G @ Jul 13th 2006 1:33AM
I play Auto Assault, and first of all, it's not a racing game. It's an RPG. There are quests, experience, skills, etc. Unless it was a completely different game in beta, then I question whether any of you beta tested it. Comparing it to MCO is completely invalid.
Comparing it to Vigilante 8/Twisted Metal is also silly, because AA relies on dice rolls for each attack. It's the same as being, say, an archer in any other MMORPG. In addition, AA has skills (like Diablo, WoW, etc). I can't emphasize enough that this is an RPG, not a driving game.
As far as system requirements, I have a mid-range computer that runs it perfectly.
boneyard @ Jul 13th 2006 3:29AM
it's a shame something else then the more or less default fantasy setting mmorpgs do good and the other ones often strugle.
Omega2k3 @ Jul 13th 2006 4:03AM
I'd have to disagree with you, Taylor. While there -are- skills, and it's not a racing game, the majority of what you do is drive and move your mouse around to aim. The skills barely even affect your performance in battle.
It's just kind of boring gameplay, it's that simple. I kind of liked the deathmatch stuff, but it really just relied on your level and what stuff you have.
Ryan Williams @ Jul 13th 2006 4:47AM
I didn't really spend enough time with the beta to get a feel of how Auto Assault plays over a long stretch of time, but I — like many others — certainly couldn't see it ever flying with the masses from the moment I saw it.
It might be a technically sound game, and it might even be fun, but the fact remains that the world is a dingy, miserable looking place. I mean, who really wants to spend the endless hours that the MMO genre demands in such a godforsaken place?
Okay, so that is kind of a requirement of the post-apocalyptic genre, but maybe that's exactly why an MMO in such a genre shouldn't be attempted. Perhaps the atmosphere is just too depressing to live an MMO life in. And let's face it, if a post-apoc game doesn't have a horrifically depressing world, it's not really doing things right.
Just seems like a basic clash that ought to have been caught by the ever vigilant marketing team at the beginning: horrible world that nobody wants to be in + genre that's designed to encourage excessive hours of play = disaster.
Jdoki @ Jul 13th 2006 5:08AM
It's a shame... I loved the idea. I came in towards the end of the beta test and found the game fairly solid, but in need of at least another 6 months polishing.
I always intended to buy the game, but not until a few more bugs had been squashed. I loved the fast paced combat, and found the crafting pretty deep.
If NCSoft are making money on this (unliklely) then they should keep it going - however I'd love to see them re-develop AA in to a single player RPG. The world needs more car based single player RPGs!!!
Part of the problem, I think, was they marketed it all wrong. If they had pushed it as an online Carmageddon meets Road Blasters (the old Atari arcade game for those too young to remember!), with a big reference to being a post-apocolyptic World of Warcraft on Wheels (WoWoW) it may have done better.
I just found the advertising was all wrong and totally unappealing. I can imagine the conversation the marketing people had:
Marketing Guy 1: Right, we've got a post apocalyptic MMO...
Marketing Guy 2: MMO what?
Marketing Guy 1: Umm, I think a lot of people play at the same time.
MG2: Ah ok.
MG1: So, we have a post apocalyptic MMO based on cars. We need to come up with some good ads.
MG2: Hot chicks!
MG1: Huh?
MG2: Throw in a hot chick with boobies, and put her on the bonnet of the car.
MG1: What does that have to do with a post-apocalyptic MMORPG based on cars?
MG2: Duh! Everyone knows that if you have a picture of a car you need a hot chick. It's like Marketing 101.
MG1: Works for me. Lets grab a beer.
idioteraser @ Jul 13th 2006 7:23AM
Actually they have added more vehicles. Tanks and motorcycles for instance. You also do have the tricks and trim dealer to see for customization.
idioteraser @ Jul 13th 2006 7:26AM
Nor did I have a problem controlling the cars. Maybe people need to get out of a game tutorial and the newb levels before they are allowed to critize a game. Also the skills do play a part you just didn't get the ones beyond the starter ones.
Taylor G. @ Jul 13th 2006 9:28AM
@19 19. "While there -are- skills, and it's not a racing game, the majority of what you do is drive and move your mouse around to aim."
As opposed to WoW where there -are- skills, it's not a racing game, and the majority of what you do is walk around and move your mouse to aim.
"but it [deathmatch] really just relied on your level and what stuff you have."
Or in WoW battlegrounds/PvP where it really just relies on your level and what stuff you have.
Mastermind/Archon/Etc. = Hunter
Agent/Etc = Rogue
Commander/Etc. = Warrior
Constructor/Etc. = Priest
You don't really even spend that much time in battle once you get your class skills if you're not a "warrior" type. You do what the equivalent class in WoW would do, i.e. send in pets to fight if you're a hunter. The skills DO play a part, you just have to be at a decent enough level to get the significant ones.
People just have problems seeing past the cars to the RPG
SymetriX @ Jul 13th 2006 9:49AM
NERF SHAMANS
dubz @ Jul 13th 2006 9:50AM
And people wonder why developers/publishers don't make enough "innovative" games. It's because none of you people buy em!
Danny @ Jul 13th 2006 10:56AM
I had the chance to play the beta through an ad in Penny-Arcade and I have to say it bites the big one. Every aspect of the game seemed tragically flawed. From charecter creation to the combat it just wasn't fun. PvP in any MMO essentially boils down to who has the best stuff, so it's a moot point to aruge which is better. Anyway I havn't played the game recently so I can't comment on it's current state but from what I hear it's less than stellar. I'll stick to WoW thank you.
Jess @ Jul 13th 2006 11:41AM
I went into the beta hoping for a Mad Max game. Driving through an infinite desert at 50 mph fighting against your enemies. What I found was finding a mostly stationary enemy amongst a field of enemies, and then sitting in one place, or maybe driving in a tight circle, and holding down the fire button until they were dead. So what I got was WoW with wheels. But without nearly the depth or breadth of WoW. If you're going to have a game with cars, have the players actually take advantage of the cars for more than travelling around the world getting to the next fight, which then plays exactly like a dozen other MMO's already on the market!
When are people going to learn? Don't try to compete with Warcraft! Blizzard is doing it better than you, they did it sooner than you, and they have the people playing already. People aren't going to leave Warcraft for an equivalent game if it's only just as good, let alone a worse game. Why would they do that?
The only MMO's which have any marketshare are the ones which either do something much different that WoW or were lucky enough to come before. AA did neither of those, so there it goes.
Killerfox @ Jul 13th 2006 12:12PM
It's so sad that such a good, innovative game gets squashed because NCSoft is so avaricious, There are not many people playing Auto Assault, but there should be enough for NC to be making money out of it. Why slam it so soon? This game is one of the must fun multiplayer experiences I've had, honestly I hate that fantasty MMORPG setting, and AA really made the difference, But noooo, It had to outsell WoW to have it stay.
Furinol @ Jul 16th 2006 4:50PM
Heh, I love the comparisons made to WoW. Who ever said this was a game designed to appeal to the WoW players? I played WoW and left because life at lvl 60 was duller than dirt. The pvp system was completely borked and you couldn't do a thing without 4 hours of free time and 39 of your closest friends Read:5 friends and 34 people you would love to choke.
AA fixed that, it is a much faster pace and I can log in for 30 minutes and get something done. I dont' need to wait for the schedules of dozens of other people to clear.
AA is targeting a completely different group of gamers than WoW is. The setting, the pace, the need for groups.
Personally, I was completely relieved when I saw a title come out that didn't have an elf anywhere in sight. Once I started to play I was hooked. Sure, it has its faults, but so does every other MMO upon release, and even years after.
Red_Daze @ Jul 18th 2006 10:39AM
I played AA in beta and left in about 10 minutes. I know thats not a fair judge of the entire game system, but when I couldn't run over mutants/humaniods with my spikey car I was po'd.