How good would the graphics and connectivity have been with PCs in 1999, shortly after the first movie was released???
My point exactly, MXO graphics are marginally better than AO's (circa 2001). If it had been released in a timely matter (i.e. before its subpar sequels) it could have been a moderate success. Since it was released in 2005 a year AFTER World of Warcraft its graphics WERE DATED, character variety was LACKING and its playstyle was not innovative.
The only thing I can see as "lame" is your weak response for supporting a busted game.
"MXO could have been an above average MMOG if it had been released shortly after "The Matrix"... Dated graphics, a lack of graphical innovation and of course numerous game world glitches doomed MXO..."
How good would the graphics and connectivity have been with PCs in 1999, shortly after the first movie was released???
Due to customer defections and losses due to the Microsoft split. Turbine puts its fortunes into SOE in the hopes that its expansion AC2: Legions would save the franchise. Unfortunately the expansion tanked and the AC2 doors closed shortly thereafter.
What an idiot. You think that because SOE handled merely the publishing side of Legions, that Turbine "sold out to them"? This is easily the most asinine statment in the ENTIRE article.
The failure of AC2 is entirely Turbine's fault. They didn't repair the game soon enough to salvage it. No pun intended.
Your entire article lost credibility as soon as you named EQ2 a bust. Have you bothered at all to look at current populations, history of growth, or simply play any of these games on the list or are you just taking pot-shots at SOE because that is the hip thing to do?
