D&D Online First Look

[Morfiend]

Linkey

D&D Online is all about smaller communities, and this is what is most likely to grant it distinction over other MMORPGs. On a very basic level, it's a numbers game. Most MMORPG servers house somewhere in the neighborhood of 3000 players; D&D is shooting for a fraction of that -- no more than a few hundred. But won't that make for some sparse-assed worlds? Not if you consider how they're building the environments. Think of the multitude of zones that comprise these worlds as skyscrapers rather than strip malls, and you'll have an idea as to how they're approaching this.
Jeff Anderson, Turbine's CEO, puts it in no unclear terms: "We came to the conclusion that these games were being built incorrectly, in a fundamental, topographical way." Given the way player populations disperse throughout a sprawling game-world, he argues, it makes it quite hard to actually see anyone, let alone interact with them consistently. Therefore, D&D Online was built with a remedy for this from the get-go. Stormreach, the game's home city -- for every player -- will be the springboard for every adventure the players will embark on. The key to this are instanced dungeons. For the uninitiated, these are zones that are created and populated for a specific group of players. They can take various forms: actual dungeons to hack through and loot, secluded alleyways in the city itself, or stretches of wilderness through which players will arrive at new sites. While this means that groups of players will never encounter other parties while "on the field," it guarantees that every monster in a given area has been mindfully placed there, for an express purpose. In other words, you won't have to hunt (or compete) for random monster spawns; rather, you'll encounter them naturally, as you explore an area, with a specific goal in mind.

So, it sounds like D&D meets Guild Wars. They also went on to mention that combat is very simplistic. ummmm... AC2 anyone?

EDIT.

Read some more about it. D&D this is not. It is a very fast pased combat system, more like an adventure game. Also, it is set in the world of Ebberon, which doesnt even feel like old D&D to me. Also, one of the races is a Golum, but they didnt include Gnomes, Halflings, Half-Elves, and some others. Did we expect anything less? nope.

The more I read, the less I am happy or excited by this game.

[HRose]

Turbine doesn't deserve attention. Despite their licences.

[SirBruce]

Sounds like a TR-like design to me.  Central meeting hub; instanced adventures.  Not surprising.

Bruce

[Soukyan]

Combat may be more player skill based though. With main attack mapped to left mouse and guard mapped to right mouse with the possibility of tumbling, special moves, etc. when movement is combined with them, it may be interesting.

On a side note, AC2's combat is identical to WoW. That is all.

[SirBruce]

Combat may be more player skill based though. With main attack mapped to left mouse and guard mapped to right mouse with the possibility of tumbling, special moves, etc. when movement is combined with them, it may be interesting.

And that's exactly how UXO was doing combat, too.  Sigh.

Bruce

[Alluvian]

On a side note, AC2's combat is identical to WoW. That is all.

Really?  AC2 is the worst MMOG combat I have ever played.  How can anyone like WoW if that is the case?  No quests would ever save the stupidity of AC2 combat.  And ambiance sure as hell won't.

[blindy]

Also, it is set in the world of Ebberon, which doesnt even feel like old D&D to me.

For what it's worth, it's not really meant to.  Ebberon is a new campaign world Wizards has just come out with this year (it was the winning entry in a "design a d&d campaign world" contest).  I haven't looked at it all myself, but from what I've heard, it's meant to be different than the "classic" worlds of Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms.  I mean, it has fucking trains and shit.

[Sky]

I miss ol' Iuz.

[El Gallo]

I played AC2 a month (though that is mostly suppressed) and WoW a couple.  They are similar in some ways in solo combat, though much (to the billionth power) more balanced.  Group dynamics are totally different though.

If you are hot for "<-,A,X,->,->,<-, X combo for the secret mighty blow and teh win" gameplay like our hot French babe from the 'burgh here, you won't be thrilled with it, though.

[kaid]

I broke down and got the ebberon campaign book the other day. It is pretty a pretty interesting setting.  In many ways it makes more sense than alot of fantasy worlds. I mean if magic is so common why does it not show more in society.

In ebberon magic is very integrated into their world and economy. Using things like continual light spells for street lamps and harnassing elementals to power vehicals that work like trains and what not.  

It seems pretty well thought out and after reading the book it stays consistant with itself which some campaigns do not.

Kaid

[kaid]

Actually I think the combat in ac2 that alluvian is talking about was the early levels where you can just hit the attack button to charge the opponent and the next target button for the win.

AC2  at least early on is only matched in utter boredome with lineage 2. Nothing but auto attack goodness and maybe one special that dosnt seem special.

I hear ac2 gets more involved later but at the low levels I could make level 10 by watching tv while a pair of dipping birds pecked away at two keys.


kaid

[Sable Blaze]

Combat in AC2 didn't even work that well. Aside from the mindlessness of it, the special moves either didn't a) work as advertised, b) work at all, or c) were so subject to latency that you never knew if it'd go off or even hit.

Bad sysem and worse implementation. Looked pretty, but there was no point in fighting that I could see. Aside from the meaningless stats on armor and...gah...enough already. It's gone and good riddance.

[HaemishM]

I have been saying for years that I think MMOG's need to focus on putting fewer people on individual servers, to create more of a MUD feel. I'm glad to see them doing that.

The game sounds like City of Heroes, in a fantasy setting, with Descent to Undermountain or fighting-game type of controls. It COULD be fun.

But if AC2 is any indication, it'll suck. I like that they are taking away crafting in order to make the game ready for release; perhaps the focus they can put on combat will make it interesting.

This preview gave me a little (very little) hope for the game, which is moer than I had before. The Eberron world setting, however, reminds me entirely of Everquest's lore.

[Soukyan]

Do any of the detractors to AC2 combat currently play the game? I do and you are way off the mark now. But, everybody needs a scapegoat and god forbid a game actually get better and become rather engaging. Ah, well.

The first 10 levels still go by rather quickly as they serve as a continuation of the tutorial to familiarize new players with the game and get them started on some of the storyline and quest related to it. By level 10, you should have no less than 4 special attacks and they work the same way the special attacks in WoW do. As to group combat, it probably does vary with WoW a bit especially as the levels go up, but in AC2 there are still roles that need filled and a group dynamic, especially in the higher levels of the game and the Hero levels.

So yes, the first few levels maybe boring after having done them with a few characters already, but then again, the first 5 levels in DAoC, EQ, <insert any MMOG here>, were never exactly scintillating either.

Anyhow, I'm sure some smartass remarks will follow since "I must be stupid" for playing such an obviously flawed game. But then again, I'd wager most haven't tried it in over a year, so it'd be like me bitching about DAoC pre-ToA.

[Sable Blaze]

I haven't played it lately. It could very well be an entirely new game and (heh) maybe even worthwhile.

However, I'll never know. It left crippling emotional scars in its wake.

Seriously, the frustration factor from this game was so high, I just can't see resubscribing. Moreover, I usually come to these games with friends, and there is NO way any of them would touch this hound again, even if I were inclined to. There aren't sticks or carrots big enough to persuade them.

I did give AO another chance after the MA revamp (before they screwed it up again) and had quite a bit of fun. AC2 would have to be an almost entirely new game to fix what was wrong with its combat system. Lets just say that my initial experiences with the game were so bad I'm not willing to risk $14 to find out if they managed to fix it. Not with competitors like CoH around.

[kaid]

I am with sable on this one. I will never know if it got any better because it was so horrible and pointless that I would never try it again.

When I played it you had the "special" aka wack it when the mob glows for no reason special that was pretty pointless and the other powers I had simply did nothing noticable or were broken.

I was scared by AO and I still resubbed and had fun because I could see where things could be if the crashing and eating my hard drive problems wern't there. With AC2 it was just so unfun like L2 that I would never think of trying it again.

kaid

[Soukyan]

I haven't played it lately. It could very well be an entirely new game and (heh) maybe even worthwhile.

However, I'll never know. It left crippling emotional scars in its wake.

Seriously, the frustration factor from this game was so high, I just can't see resubscribing. Moreover, I usually come to these games with friends, and there is NO way any of them would touch this hound again, even if I were inclined to. There aren't sticks or carrots big enough to persuade them.

I did give AO another chance after the MA revamp (before they screwed it up again) and had quite a bit of fun. AC2 would have to be an almost entirely new game to fix what was wrong with its combat system. Lets just say that my initial experiences with the game were so bad I'm not willing to risk $14 to find out if they managed to fix it. Not with competitors like CoH around.

Very understandable. There are certain games that I wouldn't touch ever again no matter what, but those are from burnout. The funny thing is, I currently play AO and AC2, the two MMOGs with quite possibly the worst launches ever and I'm having a really fun time in both of them. The Shadowlands storyline and quests really help with the enjoyment of AO and the AC franchise (heh) has always been really good at integrating lore into the game so both are right up my alley and can be enjoyed in small time segments. Hopefully WoW will turn out that way as well.

Back on the topic of D&DO, a new original world is enticing. The worlds that have been done to death would be an easy way to provide lots of content quickly, at least in terms of lore. The only problem with the worlds that have been done over and over again is that players could tire of them quickly and notable characters have to be accounted for and, well, really any of the same problems that one would encounter when trying to hold true to an already fleshed out world (like Star Wars, Star Trek, LotR, Matrix, etc.).

[Arcadian Del Sol]

Ebberon is basically the same setting as Harry Potter, but with more swords and fewer automobiles.

And from the info in this thread, the online game sounds like ass. "Instanced dungeons" is already played out - its officially no longer a "new approach" now that 5 games are doing it, and 10 more say they're gonna.

Sounds to me like they're attaching the AD+D franchise onto a game they already were working on, using gigantic, unsightly barge rivots. Its the flashing, seven color neon sign that invites you to a flea infested, six suite motel.

It also sounds like I'm just going to (continue to) say no.

[HaemishM]

And from the info in this thread, the online game sounds like ass. "Instanced dungeons" is already played out - its officially no longer a "new approach" now that 5 games are doing it, and 10 more say they're gonna.

...

It's not played out; it's the right way to provide hand-crafted content to thousands without having to trip over 1700 other fuckheads who want to get to the same goddamn thing.

Instancing is a tool. If you use it to serve shitty content, that doesn't mean instancing is played out, it means your content is shitty.

[Stormwaltz]

It's not played out; it's the right way to provide hand-crafted content to thousands without having to trip over 1700 other fuckheads who want to get to the same goddamn thing.

Agreed. In the absence of a full-PvP world with an empowered and active "anti" playerbase, instancing is also the best way to reduce the occurance of grief in MMGs. Since full-PvP doesn't sell and players don't enjoy having to play cop, I expect instancing will remain the preferrred method of limiting it.

It's not played out; it's the new paradigm. The only risk I see at the moment is that it will become so dominant that designers will forget the first M in MMG, and produce games with only lip service public spaces.

[Sky]

Sometimes Hammy reminds me of the twin I ate in the womb.

Anyway, I've said this a few times (esp. over at grimmy's, hi geldon!): I think the best current compromise would be public zones as EQ has now, an option for a raid-instanced zone (for guild or multi-guild fun) and an option for group-only instance. It's all about the options, minimizing problem situations and maximizing fun for the most people possible.

[Morfiend]

Instancing is a tool. If you use it to serve shitty content, that doesn't mean instancing is played out, it means your content is shitty.

Not to bring this thread to WoW also, but they have done the best instancing so far to date IMO. You ahve large zones, with the major dungeons instanced, so this way the dungeons that follow a story line, keep the story line intact for each player.

I think instancing is a good tool, but overused can cripple a game (CoH anyone? again IMO).

We will have to see how Guild Wars plays out to see if my theory on over instancing is true. But GW is a different beast.

[schild]

Not to bring this thread to WoW also, but they have done the best instancing so far to date IMO. You ahve large zones, with the major dungeons instanced, so this way the dungeons that follow a story line, keep the story line intact for each player.

That's what EQ2 is doing - almost exactly. Raids, epics and large quests are instanced for groups. The rest of the world is not. At least this is what I get from reading the pre-release information. We'll find out when beta arrives. That said, has Blizzard done anything NEW yet?

[Trippy]

Not to bring this thread to WoW also, but they have done the best instancing so far to date IMO. You ahve large zones, with the major dungeons instanced, so this way the dungeons that follow a story line, keep the story line intact for each player.

That's what EQ2 is doing - almost exactly. Raids, epics and large quests are instanced for groups. The rest of the world is not. At least this is what I get from reading the pre-release information. We'll find out when beta arrives. That said, has Blizzard done anything NEW yet?

I'm not a WoW beta tester but I've been following the beta boards pretty closely and so far I haven't read about anything new from WoW except for maybe the rest system and the scriptable UI. Otherwise they are just borrowing ideas from other games, focusing on user friendly gameplay (e.g. the super lenient death "penalty" if you can call it even that), and putting it all together in the colorful cartoon world of Warcraft (pun not intended). I predict it'll be a huge hit with the unwashed masses. Hard to say if the hardcore players will stick around since none of the end game content has been released yet.

[HRose]

WoW is simply a well-designed game. It will be a masterpiece not on ots own merits, but simply because the mmorpg panorama is incredibly lame.

WoW has extremely strong points in those parts that are never considered from the players, like the accessibility. Not only WoW has a wonderful engine that moves on every kind of hardware, but it also provides the best newbie experience possible. The rule system isn't twisted and messed like DAoC, for example. From the ground up WoW is sleek and polished.

Yes, there's nothing new. But the game is damn solid and offering a quality that is science-fiction for what the market offers now.

[lariac]

Im just curious why there is an obsession with every game needing to have something new?  If I had a choice between something new that was poorly implemented and something old that was implemented well, I would go with something old/implemented well any day of the week.

All I see Blizzard doing is taking lemons (current MMO scene) and making lemonade.

[El Gallo]

Trying to be OMG RADICALLY INNOVATIVE is what turned this genre into shit.    

I am not much of an instancing fan.  Maybe for some high level content.  But I think that public dungeons (and enough of them) are key to developing community.  Almost all my long term friends from EQ I met in pickup groups in dungeons, back when people actually did that.

Also, when you instance even just high level content, you are really putting yourself behind the 8-ball, content-consumption wise.  Even EQ, which threw out unfinished expansions as fast as possible was unable to keep up with the players, even with long lines for its non-instanced content and lengthy timesinks to slow players down.  I don't think that you will see a game with good, instanced content and minimal timesinks last a long time until players are willing to pay $50/month and buy 4 $100 expansions a year.

I predict that WoW will be a much more insular and anti-social game than EQ ever was.  It will rock (until you blow through the content) if you come in with a group/guild, or if you are pretty much a dedicated soloer though.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

I broke down and got the ebberon campaign book the other day. It is pretty a pretty interesting setting.  In many ways it makes more sense than alot of fantasy worlds. I mean if magic is so common why does it not show more in society.

because its like playing for the Yankees - only the really talented apply, and only the best of those applicants actually achieve.

[Murgos]

I predict that WoW will be a much more insular and anti-social game than EQ ever was.  It will rock (until you blow through the content) if you come in with a group/guild, or if you are pretty much a dedicated soloer though.

If that is the same as two or three months of where I enjoy playing the game enough to log into it rather than play some other game, where is the problem?

Once the game is no longer fun I'll quit and play something else.  Then maybe in a year or two I'll comeback to it and play for another month to experience the 'new stuff' and then quit again.  I don't see where there is a problem with this, or where this is not an acceptible goal for an online game.

EQ manages to keep people playing for years but via the mechanism of horrible, viscious, head-pounding-on-the-wall gameplay where achievement is measured in increments that can only be determined with a micrometer.  Sure some people seem to enjoy that or at least don't mind it particularly much but I don't see where anyone wrote in stone that that was the way to play a MMOG and all other ways are lesser.

I find it quite the opposite myself.

[Sable Blaze]

Screw a bunch of community.

You can have a fully non-instanced game with NO intanced anything and have a real nightmare--it's called EQOA. Great game, but the dumbassery is of such a high and pervasive level it's almost unplayable. One look at any WoW board is enough to give me serious EQOA flashbacks.

Back in the Day(tm), there were games called EQ and AO. They had dungeons with very desirable loot (AO) and fundamentally necessary loot (EQ). They had overcrowding to such a degree that you literally couldn't find mobs up around primetime. Throw in waiting lists for named spawns and I'll take intancing any day. Avoiding the sheer unadulterated stupidity in the chat channel in these dungeons would simply be icing on the cake.

You pretty much have to come to these game with your own friends anymore. Sure, there are worthwhile people to meet, but there are far, FAR more idiots, griefers, and assorted misanthropes--so much so that it's less mental wear and tear to avoid pickup groups entirely.

Can you tell I'm a big CoH fan and play a scrapper?

[Soukyan]

I predict that WoW will be a much more insular and anti-social game than EQ ever was.  It will rock (until you blow through the content) if you come in with a group/guild, or if you are pretty much a dedicated soloer though.

If that is the same as two or three months of where I enjoy playing the game enough to log into it rather than play some other game, where is the problem?

Once the game is no longer fun I'll quit and play something else.  Then maybe in a year or two I'll comeback to it and play for another month to experience the 'new stuff' and then quit again.  I don't see where there is a problem with this, or where this is not an acceptible goal for an online game.

EQ manages to keep people playing for years but via the mechanism of horrible, viscious, head-pounding-on-the-wall gameplay where achievement is measured in increments that can only be determined with a micrometer.  Sure some people seem to enjoy that or at least don't mind it particularly much but I don't see where anyone wrote in stone that that was the way to play a MMOG and all other ways are lesser.

I find it quite the opposite myself.

I have to agree with you, but I'm one of those who detests enforced grouping. Some days I just want to log on and play by myself and have an enjoyable time of it. If WoW can provide that, then I'll be pleased.

[Rasix]

That said, has Blizzard done anything NEW yet?

Orcs doing the "Hammer" dance.

[Merusk]

Instancing is also NOT the death of community.  Stop believing McQuaid's hype to the contrary.

I can meet plenty of people if I so choose doing JUST EQ LDONs or CoH missions with pickup groups.  It's also easy to sort out the fuckheads from the competent people, drop the competent ones on my friends list and hook-up with them later.  Or, I can solo for a bit, a-la Sable's mindset (at least in CoH) and chat with those folks that don't make my brain bleed.

It's NO DIFFERENT socially than when I was fighting in Crusbone and met the folks who I joined my first guild with, or when I was getting into pickup groups on "the Orc Highway" in Oasis, or when I was in a rotating group that kept a list in SolB's "window room."  These are the places where I met the other bulk of my EQ-related friends.

   The ONLY difference in the experiences between those places and an LDON or COH mission, is that I find the latter two experiences far more enjoyable than the first group.  There's no BS downtime or forced limits to your gameplay enjoyment where you have to shoehorn in awkward social banalities just to pass the time.

I don't need the 'downtime' from waiting on mob respawns or for the puller to go get mobs to let me meet people.  If I choose to do it, it's easily done, I just have to put forth the effort to do so.  The same as I had to do in EQ, and MUDs before it.

[El Gallo]

If that is the same as two or three months of where I enjoy playing the game enough to log into it rather than play some other game, where is the problem?

Once the game is no longer fun I'll quit and play something else.  Then maybe in a year or two I'll comeback to it and play for another month to experience the 'new stuff' and then quit again.

I don't think that it is Blizzard's goal to get you to pay for 3 months and then pay for one month every two years.  It might be your goal,  but I don't think you will continue to see any big-budget MMOGS made ever again if that becomes the standard.

There are also folks who like to treat these games as long term worlds, and not another game to play in the 2 months between Madden2k4 and NHL2k4.  Not everyone agrees, obviously.

[Trippy]

Some more D&D Online info:

http://dnd.warcry.com/scripts/news/view_news.phtml?site=37&id=27647