I Want My PVP: Forge Launches

If I arranged to meet an MMO for a blind date in a crowded café or bar, chances are I’d end up in an awkward situation, smiling and half-nodding at every MMO that walks past in case it’s the one that’s expecting me. “Hi, you must be Forge?” I’d say, before realising I was talking to a bloody panda or high-ranking member of the Illuminati. Then I’d leave without ever meeting the PVP-centred potential love of my life. Thankfully, Forge’s developers have released a video to coincide with its release, hoping that people will pick up on a distinguishing feature or two. Let’s see what we can see.

I think Forge wants to be recognised for its lack of levelling, and blend of class-based team-killing and PVP spell-biffing, but I’ve got to admit that after watching the footage above I’d be looking out for someone who can jump really high and spins round and round quite a lot. Still, at least Forge isn’t just wearing a thousand ostentatious hats or a rose in its lapel.

You can arrange a date with Forge now but this fellow is not free-to-play. It’ll cost you, although at these prices you’re not going to be ordering anything other than the house red.


  1. ChainsawCharlie says:

    Indie multiplayer game? Sure, those always last.

    • Beartastic says:

      Oh man, I remember this obscure indie multiplayer game called defense of the something?? God I wish that game had caught on.

      • mr.ioes says:

        wasn’t it called … defense of the … of the ANCIENTWAR?

      • DK says:

        You mean the one based on one of the best selling RTSes of all time, using the most widely used server network of the time, which means it wasn’t indie in any way shape or form?

        Better compare it to actual indie multiplayer titles – like Crasher (remember that one? Neither did anyone else, it was dead after a week). Or Stellar Impact (was doing so well they had to switch F2P/not F2P several times). Or how about APOX (unique multiplayer Indie RTS? Dead on Arrival).

        • Beartastic says:

          Your arguments against DOTA being a valid comparison are extremely weak.

          Unreal and Unity out of the box have enough architecture that implementing a MOBA is simple for a small team. And these guys have clearly got their assets together, so don’t even need to mod something.

          If you want a better comparison, how about Minecraft?

          • Stevostin says:

            No, his argument is very strong, it’s just that you don’t get it. It’s not a technical issue. Here are two places. One is a Stadium full of people called Warcraft III. One is a field in the country called “put whatever name it is your indie game has here”. Either you get than launching a game in a context where a heap of gamer will have it popping every day under their fingers for free make such a huge difference, either you don’t. I for my self have a hard time figuring out a multiplayer game starting in indie land lasting but maybe you’ll prove me wrong. Just not with DOTA or CS or even NS please. Take a game starting with no community and no big name.

        • Droniac says:

          Indie means independently developed, no more, no less. As such DotA was an independently developed mod, based on a (bestselling) independently developed RTS. It’s about as indie as it gets.

          If you meant to imply that using an existing game to independently build a game upon makes something not indie, well that’s just ridiculous. The mod was made independently without outside interference – that makes it indie, period. If using a third-party solution made a game non-indie, then there’s simply no such thing as an indie game, at all.

          As to the ‘indie’ games you mention. APOX was terrible, Stellar Impact competed directly against a solid mod for StarCraft 2, Crasher was a highly unoriginal concept that had already failed before at NCSoft. None of them were even remote candidates even if they hadn’t been indie.

          That’s not to say that there aren’t multiplayer indie games that were absolutely good but died out rather quickly. I can name a few: Plain Sight, Shattered Horizon, Multiwinia, Defcon, The Ship, Nuclear Dawn, Iron Grip: Warlord, Oil Rush, Metal Drift.

          That being said, there are a lot of indie multiplayer games that do find success: Natural Selection 2, Chivalry, Torchlight 2, Awesomenauts, League of Legends, Heroes of Newerth, Tribes Ascend, Global Agenda, AirMech, DotA 2, Bloodline Champions (in Europe), Killing Floor, Team Fortress 2, Sanctum, Altitude, Super Monday Night Combat, Savage 2/XR, Magicka, Orcs Must Die 2, Path of Exile, etc.

          Granted, Forge is likely to be on the former list. It seems exactly like Lord of the Rings Conquest and Fury, but with less to offer. Both of those games were shut down within record time, because the concept of generic MMO combat in a regular multiplayer environment proved unworkable. Fury is the fastest MMO shut-down I know off, its servers went offline within less than 10 months. LotR Conquest is the fastest non-MMO shut-down I’ve ever heard of, its servers went offline within little over a year. Forge seems doomed to follow in those games’ footsteps, because it’s exactly the same concept but without publisher funding and with a far smaller, less interesting scope. Plus its competing directly with very recent, genuinely successful games like Chivalry, War of the Roses, and Guild Wars 2. It’s not going to win against any of those.

          • bjohndooh says:

            Can I ask by what criteria was Blizzard independent in 2002?

            They had been around about a decade, and had changed names and owners a few times by then.
            (Davidson and Associates, CUC, Vivendi)

        • Moraven says:

          Warcraft 3 and Half-Life would live on if DotA and Counterstrike died out in a year or two.

          Compare it to the many other indie online only games, which die off as with the group that made it.

      • ChainsawCharlie says:

        mod != indie

        • Beartastic says:

          You have no idea what the word indie means.

          • jrodman says:

            On the contrary I would say a fairly firm idea is being asserted here. It’s just kind of bizarre.

          • MrWolf says:

            He has no idea what the word indie means to you, methinks.

    • Malibu Stacey says:

      Team Fortress 2?
      Counter-Strike[:Source/Global Offensive]?
      Killing Floor?
      Natural Selection 2?

      • derbefrier says:

        Valve is indie? I wouldn’t think so so strike the first 2 off your list..

        But for the 5 or 6 games you guys might mention there’s tons of failed multiplayer indies out there which makes these games the exception to the rule. The multiplayer market is just saturated I think. Theres just so much to choose from now were as back in the day when a lot of these games you have mentioned started out as mods, were free with already established communities for the base game(except for minecraft of course) it was a lot easier to break in the market because the conditions were so good at the time and the competition wasn’t so tight. now your just another little fish in a big pond with thousands of other little fish all battling for the same dollar. Well thats my theory at least.

        The game does look interesting though and I may end up giving it a shot but not before I am pretty positive I will have someone to play with a month from now.

        • zeroskill says:

          Strictly spoken, yes, Valve is an independent developer. They arn’t published or owned by anyone.

          It is one of the many reasons, besides them actually making amazing vidya games, why they are that popular amongst PC gamers, because they arn’t subject to some corp like Vivendi, Zenimax or what have you.

      • darkChozo says:

        Also Chivalry, it’s been like a month since release and that game is ludicrously active.

    • portchd says:

      I picked this up on launch day, and jumped into a game, the learning curve is so damn high and the tutorial system could do more to flesh itself out, my main problem is there isn’t enough feedback to let you know you are doing damage to anyone, and then you die…again, but there are plenty of people playing for now, I hope it works out for them

  2. caddyB says:

    Wasn’t this the one with the failed Kickstarter? I think TotalBiscuit did a video on this. I’m interested, but not interested enough to actually buy it, so any impressions from the people who did is welcome.

  3. Faxanadu says:

    Is there PvE? I’ve been waiting for a proper PvE/PvP MMORPG ever since Blizzard decided World of WarCraft world PvP would be more fun with lots of guards. Lots and lots of guards.

    Edit: As in, both aspects combined. Smacking a separate PvP game into an MMORPG ala GW2 style just doesn’t cut it for me.

    • Xzi says:

      Forge, as I understand it, is a bit more like a combat arena, focused on an FPS style of sorts. So hardly an MMO at all. And I’m pretty darn sure that there’s no PvE.

  4. killmachine says:

    there is no pve. this is a pure pvp experience.

    i played the beta once. was fun mostly. negative things were the lack of ui and direction to find map objectives and team mates. some of the spells (i played the pyromancer) felt weak.

    all in all it’s a fun game though. wrong decision to not release it free2play in these days though.

    • Xzi says:

      F2P is a lot harder to balance for an indie company. It would just have claims of pay2win thrown at it and get abandoned immediately. Not that there isn’t some chance of this happening, anyway, but still.

    • mouton says:

      After playing a bunch of F2P games, I really prefer to just pay the full price and have the whole game, instead of either having to play for weeks or pay 3 times the price of the game, to get the stuff I want.

      • Noburu says:

        I agree and any f2p games I give money to, I end up spending more than if the game had been a one time purchase.

  5. Nexozable says:

    Apparently this game plays like that F2P Warhammer Wrath of Heroes game, just button mash everything until you get kills and overall just really bleh.

    You should never try putting MMO combat into an arena based game, unless if you know what you’re really doing. Shame really, the game looks great.

    • misterT0AST says:

      Except it’s not MMO combat.
      And that’s the whole point of the game. Having skill based combat.

      • Kitsuninc says:

        It’s kind of a Third Person Shooter and MMO mix. You move and aim like a shooty game, but you have cooldowns, energy, and skills like an MMO. If anything the MMO elements add even more skill to the game.

    • Stevostin says:

      Yeah, like WoW battlegrounds isn’t a huge precedent, with huge amount of player playing it a lot and enjoying it tremendously, to proove that the whole concept does make sense.

      I was one of those person playing bg over bg and I realised it was just one of the best multiplayer action game I had played so far – and I am a FPS veteran. The thing that makes it unique : there are skill, skill trees, cooldown, mana, etc, all those game mechanics that build up interesting decision making, but there’s also spacialisation and some pure skills coming from FPS/TPS games too. Despite me really not liking TPV I had to admit the final gameplay of rotating your cam super fast to get a good cover of the battlefield and combining constantly tactical, strategical and just sheer opportunistic decision was building up better games & battle field stories than any FPS I had played. I realised this when telling for the 10th time what happened the other day in a battleground – something I just could nearly never do with any FPS match.

      The big issue with wow was the awful network “2 turns of action per second” engine that made all skills pretty leveled down, and the vertical itemisation. 2 things this game got rid off.

    • zeroskill says:

      Well you obviously have no idea what you are talking about if you are comapring this to the horrible Wrath of Heroes game.

  6. Lobotomist says:

    Got the game at release.

    It looks very good , runs very smoothly – but it also crushes quite often and suffers many lacking features.
    Clearly pushed out beta.

    As for gameplay its superb. Exactly what you can expect from action based / MMOrpg arena style game.

    Classes are all pretty much fun providing range of playstyles(although everyone plays pyromancer being total OP at the moment)

    If the game can climb out betaish state , and retain player population it may be quite fun place to visit :)

    • zeroskill says:

      I’m looking forward to pick it up at a slightly reduced price, maybe the winter sale that should be around the corner on Steam. I usually play Dota 2 and Guild Wars 1/2 for all my PvP needs, but i’m always looking forward to another promising PvP title. And this looks good. Maybe a bit rough around the corners, but I take it, we can look forward to patching, balancing and the sort that should be commen for a title like this.