Submitted by Abalieno on February 6, 2006 - 13:20.
In the part 1 I traced a pattern that from my point of view summarizes "all things EQ2". I believe it portrays perfectly the WHOLE situation, not just the small example I used.
Noone negates that EQ2 team is doing a whole lot for the game. They are trying HARD to do a good work and they surely did a whole lot more than Blizzard in the last year, there is no comparison. They also achieved a lot and this is apparent if you read the comments of the players. No other game that went through as many significant changes received the same amount of overall positive feedback. Today, without a doubt, EverQuest 2 is a better game.
But I still find curious how this game had to "jog" all over the place to arrive at the same conclusions of WoW (and reuse its concepts). For a whole year EQ2 kept running restlessly just to arrive near to the same spot where WoW was sitting already from a long time. WoW didn't need to budge at all. As static as it is it didn't need to go through all that work and experimentation because "it got things right" already from the very beginning.
It is so similar to the story of the ant and the grasshopper. WoW is the result of a long and focused work along five, if not more, years. It probably "consumed" Blizzard more than every other game. This while SOE preferred to not focus on anything and start a bunch of different projects, all lacking a solid direction. They pretended too much and felt untouchable. They cared more for the marketing value of the development than the actual passion about building something valuable. When the two games were released the difference was obvious and Blizzard was and still is rewarded. They did a so much better work and the result of that focus paid them back largely.
During this year the situation pretty much reverted. Blizzard continued with its trend. Starting to farm what they sowed, but definitely failing at creating new developments and ideas. They just reiterated more of the same to the point of even putting a strain on it. Most of the partially new ideas, imho, failed. From the PvE endgame raids, to the faction points farming, to the most horrid PvP system ever created. But the game was already so solid that it didn't need anything else to impose itself on the market and trigger a recursive, growing (and now even self-feeding) success.
In the meantime EQ2 became a better game, it didn't just crumble to pieces as I was expecting but instead it resisted and changed completely attitude. That work is now paying them back, I believe, but at the same time they still suffer and probably will continue to suffer some core differences.
The design in WoW is extremely polished. Here "polished" means simplified. Compared to EQ2 design which is instead more cluttered. The UI is a perfect example of this, but the same happens for every other element of the game, from the general design to the technical aspects and even the graphic. EQ2 feels a lot less consistent and polished. It is more a mess. Sometimes this mess is even mistaken for a "richness". While WoW's polish, sleekness and simplification is mistaken for absence of value.
The truth is that WoW has still a considerable advantage over its competitor(s) and it probably will retain it without much effort for the next few years.
This doesn't mean that EQ2 cannot continue on its journey. If it was already viable, it will remain so now that it is a better game and seems to winback more and more players. Far from being a commercial success but it is surely the one in the better condition between those in SOE's portfolio, as I already commented. We can even argue whether they should focus completely on it or not (I think yes, by the way. And from many years).
So WoW is already the perfect mmorpg that has found the best recipe for a game? It is truly the "one mmorpg to rule them all"?
Of course no, I do not think that WoW achieved the best design possible as I concluded at the end of the first part of this article. There are many parts of WoW design that could be improved and so many possibilities that WoW didn't even care to explore.
The point is that I do not see EQ2 taking advantage of those possibilities either. Or even try to move past the boundaries traced by WoW. In fact, as written in the first part, EQ2 often stops right in the same place of WoW. It seems its natural, unavoidable destination. Without trying to move past it or find new directions. I have this image of EQ2 like someone driving a car and trying to surpass the other car next to it. It is so absolutely focused on what the rival is doing that his eyes are locked on the other car. To the point that it doesn't look anymore forward and risks to crash right into a wall. EQ2 seems so completely focused on WoW that it seems to be blind at the possibilities that could be opened.
Its upcoming PvP system is a carbon-copy of the one used in WoW (l'll come to the PvP but I hope to write just some terse comments about one particular aspect). The class system, as explained, is now as close as possible to the one used in WoW. The two games seem to progressively converge instead of defining their own unique space and quality. They are so completely focused on a tiny dot that noone sees how big is the space of the possibilities. Every element of the game seems to mimic this trend.
As an example I commented a thread on FoH's forums that describes some changes about the aggro system. It was changed to be closer to WoW, once again. With the result that there are now "design leftovers" from the old system that make grey mobs aggro despite their color code would state the opposite. It's like trying to mark a difference where there is none. The old system used was simply "bad design" to the point that it was largely exploited (low level players grouping with high level ones to get a "free pass" and avoid completely the aggro code - defined "passporting"), and the new one is close to the one used in WoW, yet different. Where that difference is now a design inconsistency then generates other problems.
But are we truly limited to JUST ONE pattern (and, incidentally, the one that WoW used for a long time)? Of course not!
There are so many possibilities for an "aggro mechanic". In my comment on that thread I suggested to make the "grey con" mobs to run away from high level characters. I think it would be cool. Already innovative enough to define a small quality. But you can use this as an example for a whole new approach: try to make the aggro mechanics more and more realistic, varied and entertaining (and not strictly game-y).
For example we could mix both WoW and EQ2 mechanics. In WoW the aggro system consists in a variable range depending on the difference in levels. Mobs with a level higher than yours will aggro from further away, while mobs below your level will have a very small aggro radius. In EQ there's no dynamic radius (maybe it's based on the type of mob, but not factoring the levels) but the aggro varies depending solely on your level. So that grey con mobs won't aggro even if you sit right on top of them.
Mixing them would be adding value and depth to the system. To begin with we could create a base system where every creature type is linked to a small group of "behavioral general patterns". For example some creatures will never start an attack, or always run away from threat. We could implement different reactions depending on specific environments, light sources or night and day cycles. Where the predators could "aggro" and try to ambush the players during the night, or try to stay away if the player has a light source or is walking around in a group instead of alone. Some creatures could attack no matter of the conditions, because they are too stupid to figure a menace and so on. Already on this level the possibilities are endless and the gameplay more varied. It just depends on how much you want to "push the boundaries".
On a simpler level you could start with a small number of basic groups defining the "type" of creature. One for those aggressive, one for those neutral, one for those friendly, for example. Then adding a simple level check that goes to match within the group that particular pattern that is appropriate for the situation. For example walking between creatures that should be aggressive but that are much below your level could make them run away from you, scared. Not just always aggroing, or ignoring you, or having just small or bigger aggro radiuses. Mixing instead these in more varied and realistic behaviours. A "green con", but neutral, mob could try to ignore or avoid you but still bite you *once* and run away if you trigger an "annoy check" (for example by standing too close for an amount of time). While an aggressive mob could show a defensive behaviour only when the difference in levels is wider.
A system like this can be then even extended to the combat encounters themselves. Think for example to a pack of wolves that during the night starts to move closer to you and then circling you, with one or two wolves running in from opposite directions, biting and running back. Effectively "kiting" the player. This is what's "cool". The possibilities are ENDLESS. You can design a very simple and stylized method that just repeats a few rules (the basic groups types + the level check mechanic to pick the specific pattern) or go in depth and add as much "substance" as you want. It's easily scalable to the complexity you desire to achieve.
All these ideas would make these mobs much more like "animals" or creatures, instead of just "bags of experience". It's a direction that I would love to see explored and that could mark a rather strong difference from WoW.
Yet it's completely absurd. Impossible. Dave Rickey and Raph Koster love to talk about AI, but here we are BILLION years away from that. It would be already *unbelievable* to see these mobs follow some very simple, yet entertaining, behavioral patterns. But it's already science fiction.
This was just an example to explain how these games offer so many possibilities if you only open a little your eyes to embrace what the genre truly offers, instead of just remaining trapped in the exact same model and rinse and repeat it endlessly without any enthusiasm.
In fact that's what I believe the industry misses: the enthusiasm. The desire to discover new things. The sense of wonder. Feeling like a kid to discover the world a second time.
Submitted by Abalieno on February 6, 2006 - 11:16.
A few days ago the last, massive patch went live with some significant changes, in particular about the newbie experience. The classes don't branch up as you level your character, but you can choose your specialization right away, trying to make each character more unique already from the start, while still fitting it in its archetypical role.
This change doesn't seem too bad, in particular if coupled with a new character progression system that will be added to the game later this month, with the launch of the second expansion. Taken from an interview with the ubiquitous Scott "Gallenite" Hartsman:
GamerGod:
Can you give more detail on the new Achievement system? Will this be like the AA's from EQLive?
Scott Hartsman:
Achievements are abilities that you earn, ideally during the course of normal gameplay – things you’re already doing. You’re not diverting from primary advancement in order to invest in Achievement.
Achievements really can’t be directly compared to Alternate Advancement from EQLive. Earning them, spending them, changing them, and the way they let people specialize their characters are all handled differently.
As you’re accomplishing things in the world you’re also earning Achievement Points. Doing particularly adventurous things for the first time (such as defeating specific foes or doing a certain quest) can gain you bonus Achievement Points as well.
Achievement Points can be spent in a tree of abilities that’s based on your class. Most abilities have multiple ranks. Some people might choose to specialize by spending their points to ensure they have all ranks of a small number of abilities. Other people may choose to spend their points more broadly to gain some amount of proficiency in as many as they can.
This system isn’t about providing a never-ending path of growth – there are a set number of Achievement points that any given character can have. If you don’t like what you’ve chosen or want to try something new, you can re-specialize your character to try out a different path entirely.
This system is about doing heroic, adventurous things in the world, taking your character’s knowledge from having done them, and investing it in further enhancing your character in ways that you choose.
This is one idea I really like and one I examined during some freeform brainstorming sessions. It's like a linear, evolutionary path.
We start with the original mmorpgs where questing was a only side activity. The main source of experience and character progression was killing repeatedly the same monsters in a zone. This is the repetitive pattern that brought to all the critics about treadmills and grinds. The quests had a purpose in the advancement but they didn't integrate well, or tried to replace, the camping. The second step is with World of Warcraft. It streamlined the whole questing system by making it the primary focus of the character progression. Making it more efficient and worthwhile than just camping a spot. This type of questing added variation in the game, directing the players around the zones, moving between the sub-areas, each with its own mood and story. The quests become "segments" that the players reorder to create their own "stories". The repetition is hidden or dissimulated because the attention is focused on smaller, frequent goals that break up the monotony of longer and longer levels. After WoW we have another attempt with DDO (Turbine). Camping mobs is not anymore an option. This mechanic is completely removed and replaced by a mission system that rewards the player only on its completion. The repetition is (supposedly) removed since the experience (and so the progression) is driven directly by "content". Till there is "stuff to do" the character can progress. This step was partially flawed in the implementation but was still an attempt to find new patterns to mitigate the boredom, giving the developers a more direct control on the "flow". Then we have the last step that is also described in the quote above.
I went with this superficial excursus because it's how I arrived to this idea myself. The purpose was to detach the progression completely from the quest system (or mission system) so that it could have been more powerful. You could award points not only for completing quests, but for every type of activity offered in the game. So removing the strict dependence (you complete the quest and gain one point) to create a system that covers a wider range of possibilities. You could gain points for the first time you kill a particular mob type (and only the first time), for killing a named mob, for completing selected quests, discover hidden areas in the map, discovering new resources, create crafting recipes, achieve PvP goals and so on. A system not tied to a particular sub-set of the game, but embracing the whole experience in all its parts, following the character from the beginning to end and encouraging the players to explore all the game has to offer. A diversification of activities.
This was a positive goal because I wanted to fight the tendence in other games to encourage (or enforce) the specialization. In SWG, for example, you were encouraged to specialize on a combat role or on a "roleplay" role (like the politician or the entertainers) or on the crafting. Something similar is happening in WoW, where they are trying hard to force the players to specialize on either PvP or PvE. The designers try to "force" the players into player-types. This is a trend that I always tried to fight. I never believed on the "player-types" and I always fought against games designed around this concept. I believe it's detrimental and it doesn't help the fun.
When I play a game I never feel the desire to specialize into one activity only and I dislike the games designed to force me in that direction. Instead I like to experiment and explore what the game has to offer in all its possibilities. I think that this approach makes the game more rich and helps to push back the boredom that comes as the consequence of repetition. It feels more like a virtual world where you can access different possibilities, making the game more complete and varied. This is why I always criticized SWG specialized gameplay. What the game has to offer should be linked by "AND" operators, instead of "OR" operators. Letting the players specialize into HOW they tackle an activity, but NOT by forcing them to choose only one.
All these ideas bring back to the progression system defined above. Since the game should encourage the diversity of the gameplay, there was the need to design a progression system that could be used in all these cases, uniformly. Hence the idea to detach the "experience points" from the quest system to create something more malleable where you could flag every kind of activity. Each new type of interaction added in the game should be implemented with an "hook" that you could use for the flag system so that the game was designed from the ground up with that idea in mind.
This is pretty much what suggests the idea of "Achievements" described in the quote, even if it misses my design reasonings and purposes. It's not used to encourage the players to discover the qualities of "sandbox" game (that is founded on a variation of activities instead of a focus on combat), but instead to complement what EQ2 is.
Despite my ideas and goals diverge from those of this game, I still think this is a truly solid mechanic even for EQ2. With the removal of the branching classes system there was the need to add some specialization to the characters. In DAoC we have points to spend on specialization lines (directly as "skills"), in WoW we have the talent system that "bends" a class toward a more specialized role, by adding incentives and perks. In EQ2 (if I'm not wrong) this design role was implemented through the branching classes. You started the game with one of the basic archetypes (useful as an accessible learning mechanic for the new players and to keep the game balanced) and then progressively specialized your character by selecting sub-classes as you levelled up.
All these systems are never unambiguously good or wrong. The old system used by EQ2 achieved those goals but felt too generic for the first twenty levels or so. The new decision to remove the branching and let the players select their class right as they start the game solves the generic feeling, but probably reintroduces the other two problems: accessibility and balance. Actually the first is a special case because the original design didn't achieve the intended goal and the new system was designed to reiterate on that problem. In fact what was intended to be an aid for the players in the old system (letting them choose just a general archetype so that they could make the more meaningful choices later on) revealed to be a problem (it was hard for the players to pick up an archetype so that they could "land" on a specific sub-class they liked later on. It was just too hard to figure out how a class would play in the longer term). So still forcing the "blind decision" that they were supposed to counter.
Now if you follow this line of thoughts and if my assumptions are correct you'll probably arrive at my same conclusions. Imho this just BEGS to be transformed into a completely different system. It's the same concept of "permeable barriers" that I repeated many times in the last months. It's the natural, spontaneous drift of this type of system. The next step: the characters should just not be locked into a class. They shouldn't be locked at level 1 as they shouldn't be at level 70. This is how you directly remove the "blind decision" both at character creation and later on. Letting the player experiment, similarly to what already happens in FFXI or SWG (old style). The classes should become "permeable barriers" that, while defining a role, still allow the players to go back on that choice and experiment something else, retaining the character's identity and social ties they already build, if they wish.
EQ2 didn't arrive at this point and still sticks to the standard commonplaces of a class-based game. With the removal of the branching classes the game loses its specialization system and I believe that the new "Achievements" system to be introduced with the expansion was built with the purpose to fill that precise role. It should mirror more or less what the talent system represents in WoW. This is why I said that it complements the design of the game. It goes to fill that particular function that was lost with the recent changes. It re-adds the customization to the classes without creating the same design inconsistences of the AA points in EQ1 (nor trying to achieve the same goals since it's not a "never-ending path of growth"):
GamerGod:
How extensive are Achievements going to be? Are they designed to cater to the power gamers that are wanting more, and are they trying to keep the game gear towards the casual player? The adding of AA points may make balancing the mobs so high that you have to have so many AA's to be the right "level," making the game geared more to power gamers.
Scott Hartsman:
You’re exactly right. That’s why we don’t think of Achievement as a system in the same way as EQ’s Alternate Advancement. They’re a fun new dimension for everyone’s character development, not the sole domain of the power gamer.
If we made a system that caused characters to grow infinitely, without changing their level, and characters advanced down it by spending time that was an addition to the time they had already spent leveling up, we’d end up in a situation where we had to make content for any given level progressively harder, until having tons of Achievements became a requirement of basic gameplay. Over time, the game would get progressively less approachable, which isn’t the direction we’re choosing to take EverQuest II.
This further confirms that the functional role of this system is identic to the talent system in WoW. The only element to differ is about how these specialization points are awarded. In WoW they are a byproduct of the levelling system (you gain one point for each level above the tenth), while EQ2 they'll be linked to a flagging system that may be tied to specific quests or specific mobs, as explained above. Since the focus of the game is on the "killing" it makes sense to grant points in those cases.
I don't criticize EQ2's design. In fact I still find this idea solid and fitting the purpose and functional role.
I just find fun that, after this long journey and experimentation, they could only arrive at the conclusion that the system used by WoW is actually the best one ;)
Which leads me to the "Part 2" (that I'll try to write later)
It seems that Eve-Online has now more than 100.000 legit subscribers:
This Saturday the 100.000 subscriber mark was broken. As you can imagine this is a major milestone for both EVE Online and CCP. So we wanted to personally thank you for all the support and input into the game. Tomorrow we are going to find out who holds the honor of being the 100.000 subscriber and pod him a few times.
Again, thank you all and we look forward to having the new server hardware in place for you later this month. That hardware will more than triple the performance of EVE Online and provide you with an unmatch game experience.
Big, huge congratulations!
You truly deserved this success. I hope you'll continue to support this game even more than before. Push the boundaries!
Submitted by Abalieno on February 5, 2006 - 14:18.
It seems that Jessica Mulligan isn't anymore with the french.
I read the news on Corpnews. It seems J is still the living who's who:
Rasputin:
She was only on a 1 year contract I believe. Land would know better than I would.
J.:
Yeah, Mulligan's out and is apparently back in Austin, and is trying to get her own startup going. She's going about it fairly slowly, though. Surprised more people didn't know about this.
Ohh, new studio. Juicy link there. NOW I'm curious.
Good luck with everything!
(and throw us more bones. I would love so much to follow these things)
Mulligan’s rant boiled down to a repeated “you suck,” aimed at nearly everyone in the room: Carnegie Mellon students, developers of MMOGs, developers of the games’ content and themes, and even Gordon Walton. “I am so frustrated after the last 20 years of making the same mistakes over and over and over,” Mulligan said, citing examples such as coding before designing, changing a game after launch, ignoring the community of players, launching before the game and team is ready, and shoddily established billing systems. “Don’t start coding before the design is fleshed out,” she said. “Before the ship sails out from the dock, you’ve got to know where you destination is.”
(and I still dream about what could have happened if an "all star" team could be built for a greater, focused effort that goes on with the passion. Like convincing Dave Rickey to join, kidnap Raph from SOE, rescue Lum from his office with an elicopter and all the other guys "with dreams" that are now scattered everywhere and have to respond to companies that only choke those dreams... A repatriate! The revolution!!)
Submitted by Abalieno on February 5, 2006 - 12:18.
Gamasutra again has an article proposing to remove HUDs from games.
Not too different from what I wrote about the "faked dragon". The article even restates the two fundamental traits I also identified: the immerison and the accessibility.
Immersive gameplay
For many years, game developers have spoken of the goal of achieving a cinema-quality experience in a video game. One of the key ingredients for such an experience is the successful immersion of the player into the game world. Just as a filmmaker doesn't want a viewer to stop and think, “This is only a movie,” a game developer should strive to avoid moments that cause a gamer to think, “This is just a game.”
The rise of the casual gamer
As video games attempt to reach new audiences beyond the core gamer market, developers are realizing the need to simplify interface design. While hardcore gamers might not be intimidated by numerous status bars and gauges onscreen, a casual gamer is much more likely to feel overwhelmed. Gamers looking for a “pick up and play” experience are not inclined to spend time figuring out what all those bars and gauges are for. The simpler and more intuitive the interface, the more accessible the game can be to non-traditional gamers.
With the difference that it would be so much more interesting to apply those ideas to a mmorpg instead of a single player game. Aren't those two "hot topics" (and weak points) for this genre? It's not just about the representation, but about the whole design approach to "render a world". Or the "simulation of realities" of my definition that tries to be reminiscent of the ideal that started this genre.
Setting that as a goal would already force a revolution.
Submitted by Abalieno on February 5, 2006 - 08:41.
That looks a lot like the Barrens with floating trees.
It seems that a korean site released a bunch of screenshots from Draenor, an unfinished region in "The Burning Crusade", the expansion for WoW that will arrive later than sooner.
Eww. It seems that WoW's solid art style just went to hell. Too many things and textures are clashing or looking plain bad. Most of the stuff that doesn't look terrible is about reused art assets that are already in the game. One of the best things of WoW is the wonderful art of the ground textures. This is the first thing that seems lost in these screenshots. The new brushes used are terrible and only a very bleached copy of the graphical splendor of the Blasted Lands (or the orc/troll lands but I didn't have a screenshot ready).
The sense of choesion and careful level building seems also completely lost and leaning more toward the bowl-model of zone, with the mountains at the margin and open space in the middle. Without the nooks and crannies to explore, small passages to cross and all those elements that make the exploration of the places so much satisfying. Instead this zone seems to have no sense, with the objects added at random and without a specific planning.
Of course it is obviously far from finished. We can only hope that the final result will look completely different but the work in progress looks at the antipodes of the concept art at the base of that region. The zone will be polished, but it's the overall layout and feeling that isn't convincing me. I've seen plenty of unfinished zones in the past, but noone looked ugly like in this case.
The original source is here. I have the images saved on the HD in the case that site goes down.
EDIT- Comments useless since it seems that the zone was already in the mpq files long ago.
Bogus
Those aren't pictures of anything in the Burning Crusade. Those are hacked pictures of a 2-year old demo zone that a level designer was experimenting with before he had tile sets, objects etc. You can see Eastern Plaguelands mushrooms there and the thorns from the Quilboar camps from the Barrens. That's what level designers do when they are experimenting -- they use existing textures and objects to try to simulate what an actual zone would be like.
It's a picture of a level designer's experiment, ripped open with a map hacker. I'm confident you'll find the actual screenshots of the zones in Outland to be much more pleasing.
Submitted by Abalieno on February 5, 2006 - 06:42.
As I finished patching the test client I found a new poll, I didn't notice it mentioned on the Herald. Odd:
Let's see:
- "New lands to explore" - No, the world is already deserted as it is. No need for more wasted space when 95% of the content is unused or has lost its role in the game.
- "New dungeons and boss monsters" - No, see above. Even the dungeons are completely deserted or unused. Or devoid of an actual purpose.
- "New races" - Well, at least this wouldn't be a game-breaking point as those above. I don't really feel the need for this, though. Maybe new and more unique animations would be better to justify more lag. New models too since the meshes on the heads are still looking awful (or bugged).
- "New classes" - Oh my god, please no. The opposite: consolidate the specializations into full-featured classes.
- "More ways to earn Realm Points" - Yes, falling from the sky. No, really. This one was stupid.
- "More BattleGrounds" - Yeah, because they aren't already deserted enough. We need more empty space to waste.
- "More areas to fight in RvR" - Who the hell wrote this poll? Has he ever played this game?
- "More abilities to use in RvR" - It depends.
This is poll was stupid. I hope DAoC can offer more that wasted space and new classes that will take years to fit and balance. The game's possibilities are REALLY not limited to that. It's really deluding to see devs asking for ideas that are solely limited to "more of the same" fluff when the possibilities are instead *infinite*. This game has so much more to say. Something that ADDS and complements what's there already. Not just pointless extensions of the same. Noone wants the game even more stretched than how it is already if there isn't solid DESIGN below. Ideas with a purpose and a role in the game. Not just excuses to keep the dev team busy.
It's time that this game goes to untap more its own potential and use better its resources. Adding more worthless content as it happened for the past expansions isn't going to be useful for everyone, in particular when there are other games that can offer that type of mudflated content with greater polish and depth. In fact DAoC would definitely need a reorganization, not another stretch when the fabric of the game is already thin and vulnerable. I'd hate to see those resources wasted even more on a type of development that doesn't fit this game.
I also do not think that this form of demagogy through polls is going to help the game. The players, massively polled like that, erasing the level of the discussion, cannot suggest new ideas. DAoC needs to move onward. Not backwards. You cannot continue to copy a model that worked in the past in the hope that it can still work today. The game needs a direction, not a "return". This game has already wasted too much dev work to develop content that noone is using.
Learn from Eve-Online (which hit 95k of subscribers and not far from surpassing DAoC's peak of contemporary users worldwide). Or rehire Dave Rickey.
Now about the patch. Thls last "fragment" is less interesting than the previous because it's reserved more to the "bugfixing", tweaking and completing the work started with the previous patches than adding meat. Since the changes are minimal, in particular about the classes, I won't comment them. There isn't anything deep that depends on design. These just depend on a careful balance that is possible only through lots of testing. It can only come after the design.
Other notes that are more relevant are about the fix to one bug that was one of the hugest gripes of the community in the last months:
- Line of sight issues have been improved for all towers in New Frontiers. This fix also addresses many of the 'cast through walls' issues that Bainshees had on towers.
Oddly enough I didn't see anyone celebrating. This is one fix that should be worth the whole patch after all the complaints from the players. It's between the best changes on this patch.
Then the gravestones (that the players leave to litter the place as they die) received a graphic restyle. I logged in to see these because I always appreciate when the game is reworked and refined. But in this case I didn't like them. They are bigger and the white marble makes them too intrusive. They look too much "kitsch". I wish the artists didn't change the style because now they are really ugly to see around. The old version was much less disturbing and more similar to stones, making them fit well with the environment instead of clashing with it. But then who will you ever find that goes on a lenghty commentary about gravestones in a game?
And finally a card game. I went to check this one too. Of course I wish a card game had actually, you know, cards. With artwork and everything. Instead, but as expected, the card game is just about a dialogue with an NPC. You buy a "token" (1 gold) and then use it to select three cards/options from three decks. The first deck has three cards, the other two are bigger. You win prizes depending on how many cards you "match" for each deck. The prizes range from fluff ("roleplay" items you can equip like mugs or flowers) to various types of currency (gold and the coins used by the merchants in Catacombs and Darkness Falls). And even respec stones (I'm not sure about this one).
This patch also adds a timeout for inactive characters at the border keeps that will affect the buffbots. They said that this change was intended to reduce the lag but I don't see the difference if these buffbots sit at the destination keeps instead of at the border ones. It is more coherent, though, since it forces the players to move them out of a "secure" space and into keeps that can be attacked.
I also don't see how this system can actually affect someone in the practice since it triggers after 30 minutes and then gives a warning for another 15 minutes. Plenty of time (45 mins) to move the buffbot a little to circumvent the timeout. You also usually need a rebuff way more often than that.
There are many other smaller changes aimed to complete the work that started with the previous patch fragments.
Overall the patch is good but also feels near completition. Many players rant because the class changes didn't meet the expectations. As I commented in the previous occasions the class changes in this patch differ from those in the previous one about the "heavy tanks" and came more in the form of tweaks and adjustments than new gameplay patterns that add or transform the game. I didn't comment these exactly because they were more a result of a balancing work that is always redundant more than a result of design.
So I'm not surprised if the players expected some more, in particular if you consider that these changes arrive after very long periods, and after your class is examined it will take a huge amount of time till you'll see more changes (since the number of classes to examine is so high).
Submitted by Abalieno on February 5, 2006 - 05:42.
Oh, come on. Fuck the "more robust mathematical models".
That idea on Gamasutra is one of the most stupid I ever read. It hits my nerves when I see so many others discussing it and giving it legitimacy.
Now I only wait a mmorpg to implement it so I can point my finger and having a good laugh.
This is the perfect example of control that YOU DO NOT WANT to give to the players. It will jump in the first position as a source of finest-quality DRAMA.
I think that these games have already enough problems with this type of harassment that often can trespass the limit of "a few" players. Give the players more of this power and you are just begging to turn a community into the biggest clusterfuck ever.
With the addition that people play these games to have fun. To pass a good time. Noone would like to feel under constant examination (of fourteen years old) or have other people rating them.
You know what? The exact opposite of the intended purposes will happen.
The players will start to group less and less with players they do not know. They'll play alone as much as they can in order to avoid that public, now legitimate, form of harassment.
The rate system will slowly have a recursive outcome where more and more players that were branded as "bad" (or "less good", where's the difference?) start to consequently drag everyone they can in the same status, or worst.
So really, where is the use? It's a public guillotine. It's a tool to create exponential amounts of drama and make even the most solid community blow up. It's a way to put another barrier between the players so that they have now legitimate tools to harass each other. Even in larger organizations, now.
If I play a game it's also because I want to experiment with it. I don't think it adds to the fun if I'm being punished now even by a rating system that allows every jerk to judge what I do. Or the fact that I didn't read a spoiler site or min/maxed my equipment enough before entering a dungeon.
Really. Fastest way to blow up an entire community. I don't think that there will be many players that would tolerate such a thing. It's already hard as it is right now. A system like that would definitely complete the transition: "Fuck the other players. I value my time more than this shit."
NEVER, ever give the players more reasons to divide themselves. To create differences. To create reasons of hate, misjudgment and prejudice. These things already happen without giving them even more "aid". The "communal" form of government can only happen under one, fundamental condition: everyone must be equal. This is why it's an utopia. Because people create divisions and divisions create hate.
Fuck the rating systems. Under every form. The guilds already fuck these communities with all sort of inventions, like ranks, DKPs, 3rd party programs and all the other shit and requirements they impose. We should remove the barriers, bring people in, NOT OUT. Remove those lines and boundaries of legitimacy, pretence and control over each other. Not add more of them.
Not turn every player into a totally arbitrary number. Not remove even that little bit of personal interaction that we have left.
We must free ourselves of this shit. Not sink even more into it.
The conclusion? A system like the one proposed would encourage exactly what it tried to remove: Dishonesty. Theft. Malice. Petty disregard.
This is the most retareded idea I've heard in a long while. I hope it wins a prize.
Submitted by Abalieno on February 2, 2006 - 14:21.
"Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion" is another game that I'm anticipating (and I'm definitely not alone in this case) and that should be out about at the same time of Prey. I'm more doubtful about this one, though, it has too many things that sound even too good. The expectations about this game are so high that I'm sure it will finish to delude on some aspects, as it happened with Morrowind and Daggerfall before.
On the boards people are complaining about the recent announces about the lack shadows for static objects or the impossibility to use random objects as a throwing weapon and all sort of fluff. I don't think that these details will matter and I'm even sure that the problems of the game will be somewhere else. I pray that the gameplay will feel more involving and fun than the bad examples of the previous chapters. And I also hope that the game world will have some interesting living characters and dialogues instead of just "database indexers" as Charles defined them on QT3.
I like a lot the idea to add more content as the game is released. From what I heard Bethesda plans to release mini content packs at a low price that can be downloaded directly from the site. This strategy has a lot of potential and if they commit to release a good amount of high-quality content (and assuming the game reveals to be a solid platform) this could turn into a gold mine. I so love this idea of "ongoing" development even applied to a single player game. I could support these just forever.
Anyway, this video is really, really good and builds good hype. It is so much better than the video released at the E3 and it seems taken from a Deutsche TV or something similar. It's really worth seeing from the beginning to the end since it shows various aspects of the game, from the environment to the "feel" of combat and the physics engine. The only thing that still looks bad (and only slightly improved over Morrowind) is the animation of the human characters. They still move like wooden puppets. The transitions between different animation states is particularly awful.
I also hope they scale up the weapons models over those in MW. That's one part that I hated so much. All the weapons look so tiny and even a 2-handed sword looks like a normal 1 hand. While the 1 hand look like daggers at best.
Anyway. I'm still working (slowly) on my "total" Morrowind mod pack. I hope to finish and balance it before Oblivion is released :)
The running time of the video is 5:28
(the video here below is embedded in flash, so it's not really hosted on this site - if it breaks or if it's slow it doesn't depend on me)
EDIT- This is an update I wrote today on Q23, about the other side of the hype:
I just finished to read a preview on an italian magazine and they praised the game a lot (this about the European press preview in London, I don't know exactly when it was).
But they also said they are worried about the release because in the four hour test the game crashed many times and the engine seems to be rather heavy.
They also said that the shaders 3.0 were still not complete and because of this the game had problems with the light system and even showed graphical artifacts on the scene. In fact Bethesda prohibited to publish screenshots not approved or take photos during the demo.
Still, they repeated that they are confident to solve the bugs before the game is released.
If you were wondering about the delay, these seem to be the reasons. This about the PC version.
They also wrote that the graphic quality of the NPCs, armors and clothes was overall high but also varying.
Submitted by Abalieno on February 2, 2006 - 09:03.
Prey is one of the few games I'm anticipating this year.
It has something interesting to say on every front: a top-notch engine with advanced features, innovative design and gameplay, the best art that is possible to expect and first quality sounds and music (Jeremy Soule again). Along with many other smaller elements like dynamic elements in the environment (like spikes coming through the pavement), an innovative death system (spiritwalking) and perfectioned light and animations systems for the monsters.
I already commented the previews of the game a while ago. These days 1UP is giving the game a special week coverage and the articles have been rather interesting, confirming that my expectations and hopes were well put.
Today's article gives more details on the work thay have put on the Doom 3 engine to add the new features that are deeply tied with the innovative game design behind the game. And this is also why I consider it so much interesting. It is trying to revolutionize the genre (FPS, in this case) by breaking up some of the basic patterns to introduce unpredictable elements. By developing specific technology to support their design ideas they can shape up the game to radically change its structure and principles. Their portal system mixed with the variable gravity system and the "wall walking", promise to open up a whole new dimension for this genre.
So it goes right to the core of the gameplay, to untap a potential that remained hidden or underestimated till today. Demolishing the feeling "on rail" of the current FPS, that too often are limited to more or less pretty two-dimensional labyrinths. In this game all the principles and rules at the base of the genre are broken. The rooms can flip upside down, the monsters can walk on the ceiling and walls, and the portals destroy completely the limits of the perception of the space. Every game starts with a set of rules that the player quickly learns. Here the boundaries of what we have seen till today are broken. The design started from the beginning with the aim to push those limits.
We still have to see if the execution will match the ambition, but the design ideas and the technology behind are rock solid. The possibilities they opened are endless.
One of the original Prey engine's novelties was a little invention called Portal Technology (PT). The premise was simple: Instead of stepping into an elevator, hitting the Up button, observing the onscreen action grind to a halt, and then waiting for the hard disk to load the next level, Prey teased a braided area system that essentially warped Euclidean geometry (the solid geometry that defines the three dimensional sort of space we live in) by allowing the existence of hierarchical levels within levels.
"Our portal system allows you to move fluidly from area to area, orientation to orientation," says McArthur, adding that general objects in the world can pass through the portals as well and that the developmental obstacles were manifold. "Several elements in a game need to be dealt with to produce fully functional portals. First, we have to render the scene from the point of view of the destination portal, which is the kind of portal." In Prey, however, that's just the beginning. "The fun part of portals is the creation of impossible non-Euclidean spaces where you're being torn away from the expected," says McArthur, hinting at labyrinthine, Escher-like conglomerations. "As players of FPS games, we're used to mapping out an environment in our heads and having these realistic 3D spaces. We're not expecting spaces to overlap each other or lead back into each other. The most interesting use of portals occurs when you don't realize there's a portal at all, where you're just experiencing an environment that your mind says isn't quite right."
According to McArthur, one of the biggest challenges involves getting motion through the portals to stay smooth while the orientations are changing radically. Likewise with weapon ballistics. "Having weapons fire through portals can be troublesome with ray-cast types [weapons fire with only one endpoint]," says McArthur. "Also [troublesome is] getting high-speed projectiles to play well with paper-thin surfaces. All of the weapons in the game are subject to the laws of physics, so shots over long distances will drop toward whatever the local gravity direction happens to be." Fire into a portal that reorients gravity, in other words, and your bullets could be bending some serious curves.
This also raises the question of noise. Imagine getting sound to flow through a portal so that even though it may be emanating from an object a mile away, you can hear it through the portal as if it were right next to you. "We do that, too," says McArthur. "The sound system was altered to allow not only audio flow through doorways, but also through portals." Add AI navigation modeling to the mix--how AI peers through and navigates a portal--and you can see how Portal Technology has a trickle-down impact on every major system in the game.
Gravity and weight are, in fact, central to a variety of gameplay elements. "We can have gravity fields of any shape, strength, or direction, or in all directions as in the case of the local gravity field of a small planet," says McArthur. "Of course, the projectiles will obey these fields of gravity, which may in some cases make them appear to go snaking through a maze of invisible forces." These fields can change or be affected by the player as well (Ender's Game, anyone?), and though the alien sphere in which the game takes place lacks traditional environmental conditions (e.g., weather effects like rain and thunder), the sphere is prone to electromagnetic storms that can produce tears in space and gravity sinks.
Couple gravity with juggling orientations and you get another of Prey's curious gameplay variants: wall walking. "Wall walking is the ability to walk on marked surfaces within the game regardless of their orientation," explains McArthur. "We use curved surfaces to great extent, allowing you to travel in directions that would normally require an elevator or ladder, as well as spaces you'd simply be moving through in another game. So instead of walking through a building, for example, you might be walking up its outside surfaces." McArthur says this is intended to give players a different perspective on areas altogether by allowing vantages from any angle. "Prey's wall walking and manipulation of gravity required that all our characters and players have the ability to exist at any arbitrary orientation," continues McArthur. "The combinations of these factors required that the systems be very robust."
There isn't such thing as "enough hype" for this game.
Submitted by Abalieno on February 2, 2006 - 08:25.
As reported on many forums:
Dave "Zeb" Cook aka Lord Recluse has officially left Cryptic Studios. He was the lead designer for CoV.
No reasons given yet for why he left, which only leads to lots of speculation (did he jump or was he pushed?). It's been noted in the original thread that he hadn't posted in about six weeks - enough time to give official notice before quitting.
As he was the lead designer of CoV, of which the second half (Issue 7 will finish off Villains, adding 40-50 content, Epic powers, a new zone, etc) is not complete yet, speculation ranges from "contract simply ended" to "he pissed someone off and got the bewt" to "he got a better offer from DDO".
I believe he also designed the not-out-yet new zone (Grandeville) completely, so the timing is rather odd.
Anyone recall any cases of one of the lead designers leaving a successful game mid-development? Is it time to start crying Co* is DOMED yet?
Getting the game to this point was probably a lot more interesting than slowly expanding it from here. We see the shift from design team to live team all the time (although I wonder if that is really the best way since it often leads to a change in direction).
In particular on QT3 this triggered a discussion on whether is good or not to switch/rebuild teams as a game is launched. To bring in "fresh ideas" or to let the creative guys move onto something more exciting.
My opinion is still the same, as I wrote in the comments on the forum. I brought up many, many times on this site the problem of "authorship" and I keep a section named "migratory fluxes" to try to track for what it's possible what happens behind the scenes, the "who's who".
That's what matter from my point of view. The "brand" is nothing. Are the people behind it to be important, even if too often overshadowed.
The mistakes you do are the premise of what you can learn, so it's always important that a team is solid and that the people working can develop experience and learn from those mistakes.
This is also why I'm never one of those wishing devs I disagree with to be fired. I despise that. Instead what I do is to search a dialogue so that the problems can be discussed and acknowledged. So that there is a confrontation and different points of view can be examined. That's how things can move on. With dedication, continued observation and dialogue.
And not by jumping from company to company and game to game, while dismissing the responsibilities and that commitment that is the foundation of these games.
Submitted by Abalieno on February 1, 2006 - 14:26.
My father brought home a webcam because he needs it for school, so I toyed with it for a while, making faces at it like a two years old. It was lots of fun.
So yes, that's me.
I collected the rest of the pictures here. I'm sure many of you were waiting to use my face as your desktop wallpaper :D
Submitted by Innsmouth on February 1, 2006 - 06:47.
Are we done announcing new MMOs? Not at all, this is just the beginning. It seems that we are starting to see the result of the lust that WoW's success generated.
Cheyenne Mountain EntertainmentTM has obtained the license to create online games based on the popular science fiction television series, StargateTM SG-1 and StargateTM Atlantis. We are currently in pre-production of Stargate Worlds, which is a MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game) of historical human time periods, alien environments, and outer space locations. Step through the StargateTM as an SG team of soldiers and scientists, and travel instantly to fantastic worlds in this galaxy and beyond. Players can forge alliances, establish trade, investigate ancient mysteries, and defend Earth from such hostile forces as the Goa'uld and the Ori in an immense multiplayer universe.
It sounds as they stole Mythic the assets from Imperator.
Some more details:
Stargate Worlds provides players with a form of ranged combat unique to MMORPG that will take full advantage of modern and science fiction weaponry, cover, and terrain. Players will be able to form squads with their friends or use bots for players who want to go solo. Squad leaders will control maneuvers and objectives through an innovative combat control interface. Players may choose to create characters that are members of either the SGC (the Good Guys) or the System Lords (the Bad Guys). Characters are equipped with varied and mixed skills, with the choice to form such classes as Research, Combat Marine, Medical, Scientific, Diplomatic, Engineering, Archeological, and Exploration. PVP will be possible between the two alliances on many contested worlds, actually swaying the balance of power on those planets, and unlocking hidden content. Cooperative play will also be possible, and players will be encouraged to forge temporary alliances to deal with greater threats, such as the Ori.
Underline mine. It sounds like what SWG should have been when it comes to combat.
It's also interesting that they'll add bots to fill the group requirements as it partially happens in Guild Wars with the henchmen. Instead I'm doubtful about the classes. Those aren't different roles in a given gameplay situation. Those are completely different styles of play (and styles that should be accessible to everyone in the case they are present, instead of making the player specialize on one), how can they expect those classes to interact?
From a side it sounds like another evolved FPS (the description of the squad leaders), from the other like a sci-fi "4X" strategy game.
The universe evolves as players inhabit and vie for control over alien worlds. Local populations will shift their allegiance between the two alliances. Outside threats, such as the Ori, will conspire to further change the face of these worlds. Players will be able to tip the balance of power on these worlds, beating back the Ori invasion, and swaying the local populations to their side through quests, combat and trade. Whether you are a solitary explorer, master tradesman, or commander of a massive armed force- your every action will alter the worlds of the StargateTM universe.
We'll see. I'm all for world conquest. It's that part that is currently missing from the current mmorpgs where the environment is just a backdrop populated by passive NPCs.
That said I'm not fond of this setting. In fact I find it completely uninspiring and I couldn't even remain awake the first time I saw the movie.
There are some elements that make me seriously doubt of the whole project:
Cheyenne and MGM Interactive entered into a licensing agreement to develop Stargate Worlds in September 2005 and Cheyenne has quickly built a very talented development team and created some impressive initial art and technology assets.
A brand new development team? The very first thing that a mmorpg needs is a solid and well-oiled team. The teamwork and synergy is really everything when you build a project with such a scope and that is supposed to going on in the long term. Mmorpg development seriously needs specialization, not teams formed in a hurry with people who have nothing to share and that have never worked together.
Joe Ybarra, Vice President of Product Development for Cheyenne, stated that "Today's MMO market challenges developers in many ways. Creating a product that separates itself from the pack requires a unique combination of two elements: a superior game concept implemented by a superior development team.
No. They need lots of commitment, dedication and passion for this specific thing.
Timothy N. Jenson — President and Chief Executive Officer
Joseph Ybarra — Vice President of Product Development
David Adams — Vice President of Strategic Partnerships
Stu Rose — Art Director
Chris Klug — Creative Director
Jim Brown — Director of New Product Development
I think Ybarra was the producer on Matrix Online.
Ybarra is a big name, and their art guy has been involved in ... almost everything Blizzard, inc. WoW.
Chris Klug was lead content designer on Earth & Beyond.
World Exclusive: Industry veteran John Romero to venture forth into the MMO world with latest project
In summer 2005, John Romero's stint at Midway came to an end. The ex-id Software and ex-Ion Storm staffer had joined the company in 2003 as Creative Director and was involved with Gauntlet project Seven Sorrows. Shortly after his departure, he stated he was "looking at lots of exciting developments" but added that it'd be a few months before he announced his next destination.
Well, the sand's finally stopped falling through the hourglass and we can now exclusively reveal that the industry legend is at a new company and working on a massively multiplayer online project.
"I started looking at what I was going to do next, so I looked around on the net and I saw there was an opportunity for an MMO, there was a person starting an MMO so I contacted him," Romero told us recently, explaining where his involvement with the project began. "We talked for hours on the phone, we had a lot of common interests and ideas about this title and so basically this guy was really excited, brought me on as a co-founder of the company and I've been here for almost four months now."
Strangely, Romero isn't willing to divulge the name of the company, nor is he slapping a name on the MMO title. "I can't really say too much... this is [a] complete secret, stealth company", he said, adding cryptically that "This is not a typical games company and we're not making typical games".
According to Romero (who says he loves MMOs), the game he's working on is "very different from any other MMO for some special reasons." Precisely what those special reasons are, he wouldn't elaborate. He did, however, admit that funding for the project is lurking in the many millions of dollars bracket. "It's a lot of money, this is the most money I've ever spent on a game - in Gauntlet it was like $10 million, but this is much more," Romero revealed.
As for when we'll first get to see Romero's MMO title, he said nothing will be shown until next year.
Oh well.
I guess people already started taking bet on when this will get get cancelled.
I checked his site but he doesn't say much beside "everyone can feel that something extremely rocking is happening." And that he seems to have good taste for (underage) women.
Btw, while reading his blog I found links to some of the best flash games ever. Like this one.
Submitted by Abalieno on January 31, 2006 - 07:00.
I was writing some comments on what Tigole wrote after all the bitching of the past days when Lum posted his thing that dragged me in a whole different direction (but an occasion to mark the points).
So back to the bitching now. I defined what Tigole wrote as "PR fluff".
When he'll have something to add to the discussion or even willingly to have it, I'll consider what he has to say. Or what he has to show when the patch notes are up.
Till then, this is the summary of his (void):
Tigole:
It’s not an argument as simple as “hardcore versus casual” – it goes way beyond that.
It goes beyond that. But of course he refuses to say what it is.
I think it also needs to be mentioned, that players need to keep in mind that by railing against content that you don’t personally enjoy – whether it be raids, casual content or PvP – it won’t improve anything.
And that's the whole point that he is totally missing (and that his design will probably fail to address if it reflects his words).
If you want to play this game and don't want be left out of the community or your friends. YOU HAVE to adapt. It's not a choice.
This is what the players are complaining about. Not that there are distinct options available. But that they are strongarmed into a direction that they don't like. So they bitch because they would like the game to steer away from that mandatory progression.
It's about the accessibility and REQUIREMENTS for that content. Set by the design. DEPENDENCIES. Commitment. They *forced* the players in that direction.
The increased requirements to access content. The need to "catch up" or "put up with". The game CREATED these requirements and is responsible for putting many smaller guilds (and players) out of business.
The main point is that Tigole is acknowledging the wrong problem, while he is totally ignoring where the real issue is. Which brings me to a comment from Megyn that I steal from Lum:
Man, and I remember when it was just rants about the ongoings of UO and Great Lakes :) I’ve always understood the plight of all sides of this argument. Unfortunately, I think developers always pick one of the sides and cater exclusively to that one. Blizzard knew this was going to happen in beta. Because several developers astutely observed “we’re out of stuff to do,” which was preceeded by the testers levelling through the whole game three times and saying the same thing. They won’t fix it because I don’t think they know how.
That or they’ll build a money boat and sail to a money island and forget about this world of warcraft thing.
Tigole's defence didn't end with that "letter" and inflated "declaration of intent", but he went on revealing some details about the next patch. The next patch is the 1.10. The next patch is also the one that the CMs tirelessly repeated IT'S NOT the one where the new "casual" armor sets will go in.
I guess things can change quickly ;)
We’ve been hard at work at Patch 1.10 and I’m excited to bring you a small sneak preview of some of the content. We’ll be offering a series of quests for maximum level players so they can obtain a really good, class-specific armor set. This should prove to be a great way for non-raiding players to upgrade their gear. Here are some highlights:
• Characters follow a new quest line to obtain an armor set
• The armor sets contain 4 rare and 4 epic pieces
• Some of the pieces can be obtained by soloing (including one of the epic pieces)
• The most difficult pieces to obtain require a UBRS level group
• We are adding new bosses to existing dungeons
• Some of the existing dungeons are being re-itemized
Now, some of these points aren't bad. The last two in fact are good decisions and I surely support that approach (add more meat to the spaces we already have, add more quests for the same dungeons and so on - previously linked).
We still have to see if "some of the pieces can be obtained by soloing" actually translates into "some of the pieces can be obtained by farming". Because that's the whole point that is worth discussing. Whether this content is desirable or not (both journey and destination).
And we still have to see how "really good, class-specific armor set" actually translates, compared with the rest of the gear in the game. Where it will be "positioned". Because "gear" here is a systemic relationship where the value is defined by the relation and relative position of a loot piece within the whole system. If the whole system shifts, even the value of the single loot piece does the same. Which concretely means that "really good" is subject to change.
So we got some informations but not much really worth commenting. We know that they are being lazy (reusing the same dungeons) and that they'll add some content. But we still don't know if this will help the current situation or not. Because I still have the suspect that they are addressing the wrong problem.
EDIT: 1UP has already some images of the stats of these armor pieces. Starting from here.
We’ll do everything in our power to make sure that we can deliver content for everyone, not just a select few.
Oh yeah. In fact they have right now the artists working on two new boar models and four worm models. Just for you casuals!!!
While the catasses get the flying city, of course :) And dragons, demons, new tiers of the skills, new powers...
--
Beside all this I spotted a comment from Caydiem that made me really happy and still about the upcoming patch:
Caydiem:
(about weather effects)
I believe they're currently still slated for 1.10.
They do look awesome, and for what it's worth, I haven't noticed any significant slowdown in performance when they were on.
Wow! Finally! I'm happy!
Well... at least till I scrolled down to discover another message that killed my enthusiasm:
Of course, the option will be there to turn them off if you dislike them or you find they're causing you issues, but performance is definitely something the developers kept in mind when creating the effects.
DUH....
Turn the weather effects off ...?
Okay, so why not let everyone turn off the terrain, the buildings so you can more easily see through them? Why not making everyone feely port everywhere? Why not letting them turn off the spell effects, or set a custom time of the day so you can play during the day or at night all the time? Why not removing the hills and valleys? Why not removing the trees and other barriers so that you can walk in a straight line?
There's only one thing that you can screw in the design of weather effects: giving the players the possibility to "turn them off".
Submitted by Abalieno on January 31, 2006 - 04:28.
So I was going to comment Tigole's "defence" on the forums and why I think it's just PR fluff. But Lum chimed in. And when it happens things go in another direction and change perspective.
The point is that this time I completely disagree because he goes just with the demagoguery to explain that "what people want" is stupid. Okay, we already knew that.
Demagogy is built through commonplaces. Here are some:
You mean MMO players resent any development time and effort put into a playstyle they don’t personally engage in? O RLY?
False. Noone argues with the development till the game is felt as satisfying. Noone complained that Blizzard was developing raid content till the players began to crush against that wall to discover that the game continued in that direction. With or without them.
Noone cares much if there are (more) options available in the game. In fact most people would be glad. If I'm at level 10 and Blizzard announces they are working on a dungeon for level 50s, I'm happy. Because eventually I'll get there. If Eve-Online devs decide to build superHUGE capital ships that I will never even remotely hope to fly, I'm happy. Because it creates the context of the world. It gives it scope.
People complain when they meet a signpost that BLATANTLY says: "Go that way". They try and they find a wall they cannot pass. And they start to see their friends with better luck that manage to "get promoted" and join the "fun stuff". Returning with sparkling loot and laughing at you while you kill your worms to grind the faction. Which is the only option you have left: Go in a corner and feel ashamed of your condition. Enjoy being oucast from that community that you slowly started to enjoy and integrate with through 60 levels. At that point some jump the fence to reach greener pastures, while some bite the dust and are left with the crumbs.
This is WoW's endgame and this is what the players complain about. It's not for the demagogic commonplace about "development time and effort put into a playstyle they don’t personally engage in". It's about those patterns becoming mandatory and inaccessible. The community moves onward while selecting who can go and who is left behind. And who could eventually join later and who is out for good.
Another commonplace:
You have a player base composed mostly of people for whom this is their first MMO, and definitely the first MMO they’ve reached the endgame in. They want more stuff. They want more stuff like they already played.
They absolutely do not want different stuff. They want stuff like they liked.
False again. The great majority of the players would appreciate some variation in the gameplay.
I'd gladly mix in my playtime some PvP, casual PvE and raid content. But this is EXACTLY what WoW is negating. Because Lum, as everyone else, you are missing the point. It's again not the availability of options. It's not about the variance.
It's instead THE LACK OF THEM.
WoW's endgame isn't a scenario where many doors suddenly open to offer you a whole slew of options to choose from. IT'S THE EXACT CONTRARY. These doors shut in your face. Those door that become mandatory become also more and more SELECTIVE.
The game SHRINKS. Till the point that it is so tight that you cannot breath. Till the point where it chokes the fun. Till the point that people start to complain.
WoW's raiding isn't criticized because it's another of the many options available. But because it is the only one and, in particular, because it's the one THE GAME REWARDS THE MOST.
If the games offer feedback through rewards. If the games are patterns of learning and the feedback is used as a guide. Think about it. Where the game is pointing the players to? Where?
This is why the two player types are now two FACTIONS, one at war with the other. It's just the consequence of a tension that the design of this game actively built up.
And that’s where some people get REALLY ANGRY. Because they have a lot invested into their characters, their friends and the connections between the two, and they REALLY. DO. NOT. LIKE. BEING. TOLD. NO.
And this is the final point. The players see their friends move on a level they cannot access and are cut out. This is the process of exclusion and this is the original nature of a mmorpg. A concept that goes beyond the "competitiveness". Because it's a broader system where the community builds the game and where the game world acquires depth and significance depending on other players.
Of course they are pissed off if they are lured in and if they can only stare when their friends move on and kiss them goodbye. They aren't needed anymore. They are out.
This is the process of a culture. This is what a culture builds. This is the "mass market" and its effect on the people. The need to belong and be there. The need to share something and don't feel different. The need to "succeed" in the same way they see their friends succeeding.
If you forbid this process, you build up a tension that sooner or later will explode. A tension that didn't explode before only because mmorpgs have been considered "catass" by definition till today. From level 1 to whatever.
Submitted by Abalieno on January 31, 2006 - 01:25.
While I didn't find the time or occasion to comment the two upcoming expansions (for the two EverQuests) and despite I must still have some notes saved somewhere, I'll comment quickly the latest news about the servers consolidation.
It starts with a curious statement:
Thanks to all of you, EverQuest II is growing.
Hence they are going to close some servers. No, really.
As the title suggests, I'm going to believe what Scott Hartsman wrote. I like the guy and I actually believe he is doing a decent work on the game. At least for what is possible and probably because I'm observing from too far away to feel the "heat of bitching" (I'm sure I would find plenty to complain about if I was playing).
But I also believe that those arguments are solid and make sense. In fact they were already part of my worries from the beginning (curiously enough, in a discussion with Scott).
The biggest problem is that consolidating some servers to make the game world feel less barren is only a temporary, superficial band-aid and not really a direct answer (that would require deeper discussions about the use of instancing and content progression. So directly the foundations of the game). But then it would be asking too much. (read also this for context)
I don't think it is. Or it isn't to the point to feel more worried than usual. That EQ2 wasn't as successful as expected is not a news. It's here where SOE "lies" (they won't admit this). But we still have to see how this translates to "trouble" and I'm not convinced by this perspective. There are no concrete signs of this.
If the sky is going to fall, it is going to fall on the whole company (and this wouldn't surprise me, instead), not on EQ2. The game is actually doing much better than how I expected and exactly because the hard work they are putting on it after the release. So despite they had to build on top of a wrecked game.
SWG is in a much worst condition, EQ is being pillaged and PlanetSide is going "free" to try to survive. I don't think that Matrix Online is more than a mmo zombie.
EQ2 is probably the most solid game they have at the moment.
By the way, Scott clearly stated on FoH's boards what most of us are curious about:
Right. Taken as a net, EQ2 grows every week. The sum of +new subs in, -cancels nets out to a positive number.
Taken at the individual server level, underpopulated servers make up a disproportionately large number of the -cancels component in that equation, which correlates to "Server that is not populated enough just isn't fun."
So much so, that it's in EQ2's best interest to address the problem directly, instead of dancing around it, no matter what random non-subscribing doomsayers will end up saying.
Submitted by Abalieno on January 30, 2006 - 16:52.
Bla. And then bla. Still archiving the same shit. Also read this to put things into perspective. Before all my other comments, actually.
Again I "use" Blizzard because I need antagonism to mark my ideas. Not because I'm "angry" at them.
--
mouselock:
Bump PvP, equalize PvP inherently, or build PvP items which are simply more effective against real players than they are against monsters.
Yes, add even more cockblocking and selectivity. As if the game hasn't enough already.
The faction grinds aren't for the players who want all the fun of a raid zone but by themselves. I have absolutely no clue how you'd go about designing that.
So raiding is now the only fun that can be had in a game?
I guess not. So, if fun can be had in the game through other means, why these other means couldn't offer comparable rewards?
"The best route should also be the most fun route."
Practical example: In AQ not only you get the uber loot, but now you get even new "tiers" of your skills. So the power creep increases two folds.
It would have been hard to add also two "means" to achieve those skills, one within those raids and another more easily accessible?
Some of them suck, some of them don't. There's good gear out there for me at various places with revered to exalted faction. Needless to say, I'm not grinding faction despite this. There's also good gear out there in dungeons. I'd much rather do the dungeons. There's also good gear out there in raids. I'd also much rather do the raids.
If this was true noone would complain.
The wrong part is that there isn't "good" gear in the raid instances. There is *better* gear. A different concept. Raiding gear stacks up in tiers, it doesn't offer a flat power growth.
In fact the possibility to choose your own patterns would be a very good idea. But you cannot. In fact most of those activities are selective as the first example here above I commented about the PvP. The game promotes specialization and your character is developed through this specialization that doesn't open the possibilities of the game. It closes them if not what you specialize into.
--
What you're bitching about is that there's not good gear in an utterly fun quest chain that a solo player can get that rivals raid quality gear in some way. Guess what? That's an awfully specific condition. But supposedly Blizz. will still be trying to take care of you in an upcoming patch with the second dungeon set of armor. They're supposed to come from quest lines most (but not all) of which are accessible solo. If I may be so bold, I'm going to predict here (because I don't have a blog) that you will find fault with this solution when it's implemented and you know the details
Of course I'll bitch. Because I don't see how this is a concrete answer to the problem. It's just another "sop" to buy time. As the rise to the level cap.
These aren't answers. These are temporary workarounds. It's obvious that they don't "convince" me.
Of course I'll also check out this content. And hopefully will find it interesting. I'd do the same even if they added a level 30 instance. And I'm sure many other players would do the same.
I always enjoyed the content in WoW from 1 to 60. I never looked about the exp bar and I actually dinged 60 before finishing most of the stuff I began. I couldn't care less about the power creep.
After that things changed and I was forced to start to care about "what I was wearing" because from that point onward you can access content and join other players only if you are "this tall". And my way of play the game HAD to change. The alternative was cancelling (see Angie's post up here on this page).
But here we were talking about the increasing gap between the "have" and "not have". If with the new raid zone the skills and armors of the leet guys will skyrocket, I suspect that these upcoming Tier 0.5 will be laughable at best.
Or would involve another endless factional grind.
I'd be happy, instead, if they worked to level the power differential instead of increasing it exponentially. And if they worked to add some more satisfying progression that isn't exclusively centered on that power growth.
Which are the same points I've written about in the last months:
1- Try to bring the players together instead of apart
2- Explore other possibilities that these games have to offer beside the endless power growth
Which also doesn't mean that I would revolution WoW and make a completely different game. But only that I would try to improve on its qualities instead of making it progressively more alienating.
Again, I do not think the alienation and selection is what made this game successful. In fact I believe it's what granted Blizzard the possibility to wipe the floor with EQ.
Submitted by Abalieno on January 30, 2006 - 15:44.
No comment.
From Raph:
The paradigm in these so-called “sandbox games” is the same as it is for the MMORPG: a space in which there are multiple activities. Now, some of these activities may be games (levelling up, completing a time challenge); some may not be (chat systems); some may seem more important than others, or have more development time associated with them… In fact, we frequently see that they even have a “magic circle” insulating them from.
What we shouldn’t do is confuse the act of moving from one activity to another within the virtual space as being equivalent to playing a game. That’s why I try, when I have the luxury of being pedantic, to call most modern games “interactive entertainment experiences.”
It is reductionist for even game-centric MMORPGs to be considered to be merely games; even the most game-centric of them embeds some experiences that are not games, and of course, more can always be added. We tend to call a virtual world a game world when all the reward mechanisms are tied together into one game of advancement; that isn’t even the only way to make a game, much less the only way to make a virtual world.
Of course, the fact that MMORPGs aren’t intrinsically games doesn’t at all mean that if you choose to embed a game, you can pay it any less attention, or regard it as somehow less important. Arguably, we have regularly done games a disservice when putting them into MMORPGs, by failing to make the gameplay good enough and instead relying on the virtual world’s nature to prop up the gameplay. A good test for an embedded game in a virtual world would be to play it without the virtual world itself; if it’s fun enough that way, then we’re doing the game justice.
I believe that regarding virtual worlds this way opens up the door for a very different outlook on how to design them; the spread of possible worlds becomes much wider. If we let go of the notion that virtual worlds are games, not only will we get better virtual worlds: I believe we will get better game worlds too.
From Tess:
I have a rogue, on WoW, and she has been quite cheerfully running about, collecting Ancestral Coins for the Lunar Festival. Only, being me, and loving diving into dangerous places as much as I do, I’ve been sneaking around, trying to get some of the most difficult ones. (And being only level 42, many are excessively difficult.)
Little Railee has been shimmying along cliff faces, running through enemy cities with her hair on fire, chased by giants, knocked off of mountains by evil albino hippogryphs, and pinned against walls by packs of slavering hyenas. She showed a higher level druid how to best sneak past a group of monstrously higher level nagas, and then teamed up to fight the two that attacked, when they reached their goal. She rescued lowbies who were blithely charging into dire peril, and skated across a frozen lake full of murderous ghosts.
All-in-all, it’s some of the most fun I’ve ever had in one of these games. Yet, it’s not collecting coins that makes it fun. Honestly, I hate playing most collect-the-coin type platform games. They bore me to tears. In an MMO, however, this otherwise mundane coin collecting activity can become almost epic. You’re not just collecting coins. You’re journeying across perilous terrain into almost certain doom, with nothing to protect you but your flimsy armor, and the optimistic belief that you can find some clever trick to get you to your goal at the end of the road — assuming you make it to the end of the road. You may even make some friends and enemies along the way. The sheer openness, complexity, and richness of presentation provides a compelling array of possibilities that has more in common with reality than it has with most traditional games.
Submitted by Abalieno on January 30, 2006 - 12:43.
So I took Foton's bait and went coin collecting expecting all sort of fat loot. Instead I didn't find much when I finally ported to Moonglade with 20 coins (those soloable in the Eastern Kingdoms) and lots of hopes in my backpacks.
I was lured in this with the promise of "kinky quest rewards" and engineering recipes. Instead all I found was some dresses, food and fireworks. And an obscure raid quest that a few guys are organizing right now while I alt+tabbed to write this. Well, in the worst case I'll finally ding "Revered" with my faction (each of the 50 coins gives you 50 rep to all your starting factions, for a total of 2500 if you collect them all).
Anyway. There are rumors about four epic (I think the color is just bleached) trinkets. If you notice their names you can see how they are probably connected to these coins.
This is something more interesting than dresses and food :) Has someone more informations to share?
Yeah, we managed to kill it. The harderst part is that it casts a "Starfall" AOE doing 700+ arcane damage per tick. It wouldn't be too hard to dodge it if the graphic effect wasn't HALF the actual (huge) radius of the AOE. So pretty much always you finished to noticed it when your health is already going down, with no time to manage to get out of the radius before dying.
The raid would have ended in less than a minute if we didn't discover that this huge dog basically spawns on the graveyard. So you can fight as long as you want if you don't mind the repair bills. It was a long fight with the dog walking all over Moonglade but at the end we got it. The best strategy seemed to be about sending just one Main Tank while everyone else does range damage or keeps the MT alive, without bothering about moving out of the AOE (the MT, I mean). The big dog is also immune to taunts.
Now I'm pissed off because for some reason I didn't get credit while my equipment is all broken. The dog also dropped nothing at all beside a buff and I think people got a bunch of fireworks and nothing else (edit: the quest drops a lantern that just casts those lights that you see at each Lunar spot. So fireworks, the light thing and a 10% one hour buff to all stats).
EDIT: I read about it too late - Warning: In order to complete the quest after the kill, you must stand inside the corpse for 60 seconds. You DO NOT have to be the group tapping and killing Omen. Just be at the corpse while it's there and you WILL complete it.
Recent comments
1 week 1 day ago
Posted by: Stranger
1 week 1 day ago
Posted by: Stranger
2 weeks 2 days ago
Posted by: Jpoku (who has no idea what his password was)
2 weeks 3 days ago
Posted by: Stranger
2 weeks 3 days ago
Posted by: Stranger
2 weeks 4 days ago
Posted by: Stranger
6 weeks 1 day ago
Posted by: Herodtm
7 weeks 1 day ago
Posted by: Stranger
7 weeks 2 days ago
Posted by: Stranger
9 weeks 3 days ago
Posted by: Stranger