Majestic to End

EA's ambitious Majestic game, which embroiled players in a mystery that involved real-world interactions with instant messages, email, faxes, and more, will be shut down sometime in the middle of next year, but not before costing the company between five and seven million dollars. This revelation is found in Can PC gamers handle innovation on CNN Money, a column that examines the idea that while PC gamer's demand innovation they don't necessarily reward it. The article quotes an unrepentant Jeff Brown, vice president of corporate communications for EA, as saying: "Maybe the consumer didn't get it, but in five years, everyone's going to be making games based on this engine. I'm not apologizing for anything!"
View : : :
40.
 
Re: writing mr. morris
Dec 26, 2001, 21:27
40.
Re: writing mr. morris Dec 26, 2001, 21:27
Dec 26, 2001, 21:27
 
I played Majestic as soon as it came out... I'll be honest: the first chapter was fun, but then the novelty started to wear off.

Phone calls in the middle of the night? I can live with that. Faxes of odd things at odd hours? I can live with that too. Badly acted streaming videophone clips? Sure.

But in the end, it was the waiting that got to me. I found out this clue in about five minutes reading this page, or that web page... and then, I wait. I get an IM from someone, give them the key word, I wait in Standby for two RL days.

Look, some verisimilitude is good... but this was ridiculous. Especially since the puzzles became few and far between, replaced by rather inferior 'wait for the IM or phone call, then go to this page' clues. Or some of those futile Flash games; I found out that I had NO way of changing the story at all, or of really interacting with the game in a meaningful fashion. Those of you who knew of the break-in will know of what I mean. That game was rigged, and I felt cheated out of it after.

I mean, the game's supposed to play us? They could've found a better schtick to use on the players than 'let's make this scenario impossible, after making them think they're really contributing, because we can'.

Then again, I'm not sure I expected better of the people who shoved 'UO: Renaissance' out the door without the Faction/Reputation system that was ballyhooed as the best thing to happen to UO since pre-casting (which, as a matter of note, was all over the box - the Faction/Reputation system). Or who cancelled UWO, because they were afraid of the idea of having a MMORPG which was new. Or who took Battletech 3025 and turned it from an online game that might have been Kesmai's pride and joy and turned it into a half-baked turkey that was canned a few weeks after the beta was opened up to the public.

Excuse me while I go taunt the black helicopters outside my window.


Date
Subject
Author
1.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
anon@65.92
12.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
anon@65.93
13.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
14.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
  Damn
anon@12.105
15.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
   Re: Damn
anon@66.68
2.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
29.
Dec 20, 2001Dec 20 2001
30.
Dec 20, 2001Dec 20 2001
31.
Dec 21, 2001Dec 21 2001
34.
Dec 24, 2001Dec 24 2001
41.
Dec 26, 2001Dec 26 2001
anon@66.69
32.
Dec 21, 2001Dec 21 2001
anon@24.205
35.
Dec 24, 2001Dec 24 2001
3.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
5.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
17.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
20.
Dec 20, 2001Dec 20 2001
anon@203.59
4.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
6.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
7.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
anon@208.35
8.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
9.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
anon@165.91
11.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
anon@12.252
10.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
anon@144.96
16.
Dec 19, 2001Dec 19 2001
anon@158.252
18.
Dec 20, 2001Dec 20 2001
anon@203.96
19.
Dec 20, 2001Dec 20 2001
21.
Dec 20, 2001Dec 20 2001
22.
Dec 20, 2001Dec 20 2001
anon@194.205
23.
Dec 20, 2001Dec 20 2001
anon@192.156
24.
Dec 20, 2001Dec 20 2001
anon@194.205
28.
Dec 20, 2001Dec 20 2001
anon@192.25
36.
Dec 24, 2001Dec 24 2001
37.
Dec 25, 2001Dec 25 2001
39.
Dec 26, 2001Dec 26 2001
anon@12.237
 40.
Dec 26, 2001Dec 26 2001
    Re: writing mr. morris
25.
Dec 20, 2001Dec 20 2001
anon@24.219
26.
Dec 20, 2001Dec 20 2001
27.
Dec 20, 2001Dec 20 2001
33.
Dec 22, 2001Dec 22 2001
anon@63.14
38.
Dec 25, 2001Dec 25 2001