f13.net

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/53406 (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/53406)

With the announcement of D3 I wonder what It'll be.

1.  Universe of Starcraft?  Most likely to me.
2.  New IP? 

3. Profit!

This one

From the GDC earlier this year(although not from the most trustworthy source (http://www.ogeworld.com/document_general_info.html?products_id=2173) ):

I find the idea of a StarCraft MMO sort of interesting, in a way that it'll be the first MMO I know of, that would let you play a non-humanoid race (ie. Zerg) as a character (yes yes, blatantly disregarding LOTRO's monster play and whatever abnormalities you can cook up in SL)

...unless Blizzard plans to reduce the factions to Terran vs Protoss and keep the Zerg as pve encounters?  :ye_gods:

Lore-wise it would be odd if you could play Zerg as they aren't individually sentient like Protoss or Terran are. But then again, when was the last time lore stopped Blizzard from...
...? :awesome_for_real:

If blizzard did it, then at least people working on future mmogs would accept that (at least) 3 is the correct number of realms.

Wouldn't it be six?

Two human factions.
Two Protoss factions.
Two Zerg factions.

Good point. Each faction would have an identical faction as pve enemies, which fits with the lore.

Shit. Kerrigan tinikering with the Zerg strains is all the lore you need to justify the Zerg as a playable race.

I don't think it is, but for Blizzard it is. :-)

Man, I had arguments when BC came out about lore and I'll have them now by gum.

When an author or creator changes what has already been written to contradict their previous statements, this IS messing with the lore.

When an author or creator wishes to add to the current story by enacting change  to the subject matter this is NOT messing with the lore.

I swear to god, some of you nerds out there would have it so stories never change and anything you liked would always remain. I get it, you missed richard dean anderson on stargate but it's life and things change.

Blizzard will wait until WAR is released before they say anything about their new MMO.

Probably announced at next years WWI (or the year after it)  :awesome_for_real:.

They could always make it another two faction setup, with the Zerg being the main NPC enemy for both - this seems the most likely course to me.

Protoss count as space elves right?

If it's Starcraft, I could see six races, each with their own objectives.

But that is IF it is Starcraft. Maybe Blizzard will announce a new Star Wars MMO title. That'd be ... something. :grin:

Blizzard will wait until next year's WWI or Blizzcon or whatever to do anything at all with a big announcement like this.  So yeah, after WAR, but not for a year at least.. possibly longer.

What kind of irrelevant assault is that? I don't think anyone said that they can't add at all to the lore. However, Blizzard aren't exactly known in recent years to be mindful of what has come before, to the point of complete negligence.

Sweet. WoW 2 is coming.

I for one welcome our new Blizzard overlords.

Didn't we all do that years back ?

I can not fathom them releasing WoW 2 until the subscriber base drops to like 3M or less.

Me neither, and see, thats why it makes perfect sense. Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, Warhammer and tons of MMO's, WoW will drop during these periods and then it is the perfect timing to release a new MMO.

Theoretically. But I don't see Diablo or SC2 making a sizable dent in WoW subs.

The reason Sci-Fi mmos fail is pretty simple. Sci-Fi mmos have guns... you can't have guns without having an FPS interface. FPS interfaces are notoriously easy to hack. Any MMO that has an exploitable targeting system is going to fail almost instantly. At least with a standard FPS game, if some dude shows up with his exploit, you can switch servers. Not so in an mmo.

SciFi MMO without FPS = FAIL (see Tabula Rasa, Anarchy Online, etc...)
SciFi MMO with Exploitable targeting system = Fail (see every FPS game on the market right now)

Until they resolve this very basic roadblock, no MMO set in a time period past the age of gunpowder will ever be successful.
If they ever do resolve this problem, a Battlefield 2142 type MMO would be wildly successful imo.

Hunters in WoW are the most played class, yes?

It wasn't my issue with the past crop of sci-fi MMORPGs.

Hunters in WoW don't have FPS targeting.

Protoss = Draenei, Zerg = Silithid, Xel'Naga = Titans.  :grin:

It's not going to be wow, they'll milk it for nother two expansions at LEAST. It won't be diablo Read: too close to wow in general fantasy theme. I'm calling it right now, lost vikings the mmo.

I think the zerg could be done extremely well if instead of playing a single sentient being, your avatar is a small horde.

It makes sense if they aren't singularly sentient that your avatar would be a group, maybe as you level your horde could get bigger and bigger, so a level 40 zerg player might control 5 or 6 zerglings, whereas a level 80 would control 10 or 12.

It'd be interesting, especiallly with collission detection.

The only problem I see is that your effectiveness would decrease with HP, so balance could be messy.

They had a similar problem with an undead race in Warcraft.  So in the 3.5th Warcraft RTS they introduced sentient undead, right before releasing the lore for their new MMOG, with playable undead.

Now, there's going to be a new Starcraft RTS with new lore right before they release the lore for their new MMOG, with playable Zerg.

Connect the dots?

So you're saying that WOW 2 will be an MMORTS?

Hunters in WoW are in WoW. Not in a time period set past the age of gunpowder. My last post was made with the underlying assumption that everyone knew that.

technologically speaking wow is beyond gunpowder. Sort of a steampunk/ non steamish era, yes?

My Paladin has a rocket launcher. If that helps you define it.

That is a fair point. Advanced Engineers can build flying machines, for example. (edit: and rocket launchers). Gnomes ride on mechanical birds.

If we refer back to the Original Text (i.e. Charlie Mopps post in this thread), the point is that Sci Fi MMOs aren't successful because everyone has guns, and you can't have guns without an FPS interface.

I think it's fair to say that WoW isn't Sci Fi. Or more precisely, that WoW is a swords and sorcery fantasy setting with some gnomish machinery, goblinish explosives, and dimension-hopping goat people mixed in.

So the success of WoW and the popularity of its gun-wielding hunters is not evidence for or against the point put forth by Charlie Mopps.

(http://www.clisham.com-a.googlepages.com/17582.jpg)
(http://www.clisham.com-a.googlepages.com/68803.jpg)
(http://www.clisham.com-a.googlepages.com/78864.jpg)
(http://www.clisham.com-a.googlepages.com/79507.jpg)
(http://www.clisham.com-a.googlepages.com/snakesonaplane-wow.jpg)

Guns have nothing to do with it.

The failure of Sci-Fi MMOs to date has been because they have all been shite.

Starcraft has protoss infantry, zerg melee, magic using archons, and so on and so forth... The lore supports an MMO naturally.

This, yes.

Not shite : Planetside, EVE, CoX
Debatable : Neocron, AO
Shite : Tabula Rasa, SWG, E&B, Hellgate

Sci-fi has a better run rate than fantasy.

I wouldn't count CoX as Sci-Fi without also calling it fantasy.  Superheros are of both genres and if you REALLY forced someone on it, they'd probably call it fantasy before it was ever speculative sci-fi in most cases.   I wouldn't even approach calling Hellgate sci-fi at all.

Planetside had the hax problems previously mentioned.  And still does to a very large degree.

EvE is debatable on the Shite part.  Yes, you love it but there's plenty who still see it as "spreadsheets in space" and therefore shite because it lacks action 99% of the time.  Yes, that 1% can be awesome - IF - you have the right connections.  Otherwise? Meh.  It's got its niche, but that's all it's got and isn't really a great template for a breakthrough Sci-Fi game.

There hasn't been a completely agreeable non-shite MMO with a sci-fi theme.  I also think that it's bull to say that one HAS to be an FPS to even approach the sci-fi genre. 

I expect we'll see Starcraft-as-diku out of this when it is announced.

But by the standards you describe, this is also true.

What standards would those be?  All I saw was Hax problems and spreadsheet problems.  Are you saying that every MMO suffers from one of those two?

To various degrees. Eve has it's following, even here at crusty ole F13.net. And I enjoyed SWG before they broke it. I even played a lot of Anarchy Online.

But yeah, their failures (real or percieved) have been in other areas not related to how you pop your pop-gun.

That was not a masturbation metaphor.

Honest.

Moneyhats Online..?

If Blizz makes Starcraft Universe (or whatever the fuck they call it) and makes it Just Like WoW, but starts out of the gate with the kind of gameplay that WoW has evolved into (battlefields, etc...) I bet it will be a smash success and thick headed developers out there will start crying about how Blizzard cheats at Real Life game development, because everyone knows that NO ONE can make a big hit sci-fi MMORPG...

And Blizz employees will Level Up from Moneyhats to Moneysuits.

I can honestly say I would be more excited about a Starcraft MMO than almost any other game (Except maybe a Warhammer 40k MMO done by Blizzard).

Going back to the Zerg question. I dont think a little herd would work well. One of the major things people like about MMOs is the progression of the characters and GEAR. I think it would be more likely that we would see players as Hydralisks, with one of their talent trees centering around summoning. Or players would start as a Zergling, and at specific levels 10, 20, 30, etc. or when placing specific talent points they would evolve in to a newer form of Zerg. I think that would be pretty cool. All Zerg starting as the same "Class" and having a HUGE selection of talents, and having to pick and choose and having those choices effect their look, and also being able to add gear, like armor or robes or some shit with the right mutations.

what would be awesome is that they could have race specific gear, in such that zerg would never get armor but they would get mutations, addons, extra eyes etc.

Didn't we do this thread before?

I remember saying at the time that it's going to be a SC MMO because it just makes sense to do it at the same time as SC2 for a whole bunch of reasons.

Only makes more sense now, seeing how D3 just got announced

Also:

Yeah no shit.

The failure of sci-fi MMOs, specifically space games, (Eve excluded - that's for excel professionals) is the Serek Dmart Syndrome.

You can quickly get carried away with space games to the point that you'd never, ever finish development. It's just the nature of space games.

Let's say you want to build on Allegiance. I know that's not mass multiplayer, but you've got a good game to build on.

So you've already got ships that can be huge, and you have turrets in these ships that can be manned by other players. This is pretty awesome. So you'd have a twitch-based game where you could have a "raid group" essentially be on one big ship. A couple guys on turrets, a couple guys in the bay getting ready to launch fighters, a guy doing logistics, and someone flying the damn thing itself. Do you see where I'm going with this?

You could have boarding parties. Disable the ship, dock, create an atmosphere, break out the plasma cutter and cut that bitch open. The FPS "boarding" type action begins now, and your crew starts to fight the other crew in a FPS game. Or it could be like X-COM if you wanted to present another gameplay style while still being in the same universe.

Or you could be landing on a planet to invade it. Or a space station. Or you're a trader and blah blah blah blah.

Space is really the final frontier. Everything will always be Serek Dmart'ed until Blizzard throws $2B at every programmer in Asia to work on a game in concentration camp(s) for a decade.

...and a final (3rd) Serek Dmart to summon the beast.

The gun debate hinges on something I don't think has been brought up.  The destructiveness of the weapon.  The more destructive the weapon (as in how much damage it will do to a player) the more a FPS system is needed.  In WoW, a gun is essentially nothing more than a bow with a different graphic and audio file.  FPS is not needed to meld guns into the Warcraft world.  Now, in a Sci-Fi world, you would expect getting your noggin impacted by an ultra-high-velocity projectile to be insta kill and FPS becomes more of a necessity.

No... in a Starcraft world I would expect my protoss shield to be depleted, my terran armour to take damage or my zerg shell to be slightly dented.

It would be interesting to see if there'd be any player controlled spaceships - StarCraft is ground-based as it is, but it might work allowing players  to fly about Elite-style between the planets and then upon arriving, having the option to switch to ground play, which essentially could make the planets the instanced battlegrounds. (whether instancing is good or not, should be left to another day)

I really don't see what the big deal is with regards to guns in space; select a target and your space marine will keep shooting his bolter at them until they die or you select a different target... Just like WoW's hunter's auto-fire.

And the class breakdown is also fairly simple, if you consider all three realms to have ranged- and melee classes:

*	Terran	Protoss	Zerg
Melee DPS	Firebat	Zealot	Zergling
Ranged DPS	Marine	Dragoon	Hydralisk
Heavy DPS	Siege Tank	Reaver	Ultralisk
Stealthy	Scout	Dark Templar	lurkers?

etc...

Also, i'd like to second the idea of having the zergling as a petclass, without an increasing amount of minions ... then the talent trees could branch into more minions, better damage/armor and buffs like movement speed, burrow, etc

oh... and dropships! gotta have those - could even be some sort of "community mounts", where your buddies could tag along for the ride (like the player controlled boats in DAOC's TOA, but flying!)

Anyway, it seems i'm going into Serek Dmart mode as well, so i'll leave it at this.

Good point.  A reworking of the hp dynamics would probably solve a lot of problems, even incorporating melee/ranged in a sci-fi world.  A Halo system might be interesting; an overall shield regeneration system overlaying a static health limit.

Duly noted.

Yup, and conversley, I wouldn't expect that a Gnome could survive having a 6 foot blade stabbed repeatatley into his forehead, instead of taking X hit points of damage and running off with my goddamn flag again...

But that's the nature of the typical RPG beast, guns or swords or whatever.

Clearly you have no idea what chemicals go in to pink hair dye.

I will posit that the new vehicle mechanics announced for the PvP zone in WotLK are a testbed for vehicle ideas in SC:O.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, check here (http://www.mmo-champion.com/index.php?topic=9499.0)

EVE Online.

Eve is a political game masquerading as sci-fi.

It might as well be Battlestar Galactica.

I guess I really do have to connect the dots.

Problem: unplayable race due to lore problems. 

Case in point: undead in Warcraft.  No free will.  Answer: release an expansion to the RTS with free-willed undead.  Release MMOG where player can be free-willed undead.

Speculation: Zerg in Starcraft Online.  Hive mind.  Answer: release Starcraft 2 with some story element introducing free-willed individual Zerg in or apart from the Swarm.  Release MMOG where players can play Zerg.


On the other topic, Sturgeon's law applies here.  99% of sci-fi MMOGs are crap.  99% of fantasy MMOGs are crap too, or maybe only 98% just because there have been so many that you can avoid some traps just by being smart enough to continue to draw breath.

This is Blizzard. If they wanted to say "All Zerg are now sentient and ride unicorns" all they'd need to do would be release a video or a few chapters of text saying so. No-one who counts really cares about the minutae of Starcraft lore.

Regarding the use of guns in a sci-fi MMO - has anyone hacked TR to pull off some of the things that occurred in early FPSs like Doom or Quake e.g. auto aiming, shooting through walls, etc? To my knowledge no-one has (or no-one has cared enough to). I suspect there are better protections for FPS-style games now that look to block such hacks.

Final point - the issue ISN'T sci-fi guns can't be done well in a MMO, it's that balancing sci-fi guns with melee combat always ends up with both things looking funny - either melee is completely useless or melee is overpowered compared to range. Fantasy is all about sword fights, so we better accept ranged weapons being less effective.

I think there's a number of problems with a sci-fi MMORPG and it will be fascinating to see how blizzard addresses them. I certainly have enough respect for Rob Pardo to believe he'll be able to come up with something that works. The main problem is that fantasy encourages action on a small scale (eg. a dungeon) with close locality and archetypes that inherently express synergistic co-operation. If someone says "priest" or "wizard" you know they are different from "plate armored warrior". In sci-fi it is expected that the scale is bigger (cities, planets, battlefields) and the tools (guns, comms, mobility) encourage people to work as largely independent units. Fantasy readily supports the idea of raid targets (that dragon is too mighty for one man!) whereas sci-fi allows one player to control the most powerful units that exist (tanks, battlecruisers, nukes... whatever). Also in a sci-fi environment gear is manufactured, there's less space for finding drastically superior items in moldy old chests. How do you come up with progressive challenges or tactics for such an environment? Tabula-Rasa didn't even come close to having an answer to that one, and it's much more "low-tech" than a starcraft world would be.

The other is that magic is just such a great tool for creative license. Wave your hands and heal a warriors wounds? No problem, a fantasy stable. You sling bacta grenades that instantly heal the soldier... a bit harder.

I fully expect blizzard to come out with two MMO's. One will be in the short term and in a different world for WoW, so most likely starcraft. The other will be a more long term project for a WoW replacement (circa 2-4 years from now) which will either be WoW2 (maybe with WC4 some time before?), Diablo or a new IP.

http://f13.net/index.php?itemid=167

Right after that they also denied that statement.


After this SC2 and D3 has been announced. Maybe after these they can actually make that statement, but I still think they will try to dominate each marked with their IPs, Warcraft for MMOs, Starcraft for RTS, Diablo3 for awesome.

Unless TR has drastically changed since I played it, you don't really aim in it, it's pretty much just a regular MMO, only you have to hover the mouse over an enemy to select them as a target.  I don't think it matters where you shoot at the enemy, or even if you shoot directly at him, you just have to hover close enough to have selected him as a target.

I'm looking into getting permission on some more information I withheld back then. Suffice it to say, the people present when said thing was... said... was not industry analysts. At all. Had nothing to do with them.

My point wasn't that it was exactly like an FPS, just kinda-sorta near enough for a sci-fi MMO.

I suppose something like Exteel could be another example (soft lock and server side hit calculations) even though that is just an online FPS with delusions of grandeur.

Have you ever played Starcraft? 

 

So, back when I wrote that article about Blizzard a year ago, I wasn't entirely forthcoming. And I quoteth gamespot.


That "Vivendi Rep" that said this, was - heh - the CEO of Vivendi Games - Bruce Hack.

And now we all know why I made fun of Gamespot for listening to moderators of Blizzard and said that the gaming press should really try 'investigating' more. Also, it was in a meeting with investors, not some giant slideshow extravaganza.

ah but does the online functionality of the new b.net for diablo three constitute mmog as far as the ceo is concerned? because diablo3 would definitely be a shorter online game play time wise than wow. If so, will b.net add a subscription fee?

Or did the '3 year' bit just turn out to be bullshit since Blizzard can't even wipe their own ass in 3 years. Because they ARE in fact making another mmog.

that's what im saying. Will wow and this unnamed mmog be the two "longer playtime" ones while D3 and SC2 via b.net be considered shorter play versions. I would assume this is the case which means this new mmo will be neither the sc or diablo franchise.

For the love of...

Nobody considered Diablo 2 a MMOG when it came out.  It was only when Guild Wars and Hellgate were in development that people were bandying the term "MMOG" with those Diablo-esque games.  The ONLY thing that differs was that the "chat lobby" was in-game.

Diablo 3 is not an MMOG.  It's an action RPG with an extremely popular multiplayer component.

I dont think D3 will be an mmog, you don't think that and I'm sure a lot of people won't but in the context of what the CEO told Schild I bet you HE considers diablo3 an mmog

But only for 3 reasons:

1) No subscription fee
2) No graphical lobby
3) The term wasn't widely used when Diablo 1 was published.

Even MMORPG wasn't that widely used until EQ became popular around the same time as II was released.

Seriously though, the gap between D2 game design and 'something-that-everyone-here-would-recognise-as-a-MMOG' is so tiny, I can't imagine why they wouldn't make D3 a mmog, if only for the subscription income.

I can't see how Battle.net is going to be a non-pay service with all the amorphous "advanced features and services" that they keep mentioning with any demos of SC 2 or D3.

That in and of itself could for an executive mean "mmog" as to the suits, "Mmmm $ub$cription income!" is synonymous with MMO.

Regardless what game purists may think, it will all boil down to a similar argument as the one people on electronic music boards have all the time with people who call anything with a synthesizer and a steady bassline "techno".

I'd drop $5 a month for D3 online services if they were nice enough.

I'd drop $5 a month just to play Diablo 3. >_> There's very little I wouldn't do for diablo 3.

But let's not try to guess where the line is drawn, thx.

Since when has it been necessary to be  pay subscription service to have the MMOG label applied?  Sure it's a standard in the West, but I'm pretty sure the acronymn stands for Massive Multiplayer Online Game and not Massive MOney Grubbing.

It isn't (or at least shouldn't be).

But the point is that by claiming to be a mmog, blizzard can apply the subscription label.

I am going to guess some where around running naked through east LA covered only in honey and wearing fuzzy bunny ears?

That is my god given right and commies like you are damned not going to take it from me.

Pics or it doesn't happen.

Beh. This is simply Blizzards plan to Acquire the GDP of South Korea directly.

Does blizzard own a secret volcano fortress yet? that's the first stop and if they do go that route i really hope to get a job.



mmmm, flamethrower duty

Worked out well for Hellgate: London.  :awesome_for_real:

I'll speculate that Diablo 3 multiplayer will be nearly close to Guild Wars in that it will have in-game lobbies and have no subscription fee.

Did the first release info say how many players can join up together at the same time? We saw 4 at once. I think 8 players was the max in D2, right?

Perhaps D3 will allow for a large number of players on the same map at the same time - perhaps 16 or 32 players, or more. If HG:L is a MMO, then D3 almost certainly will be.

Hell, allow team PvP - in a game called Throne of Darkness, in multiplayer games you could have one player as the evil side, who wouldn't be attacked by monsters and could attack the other players. Never played the multiplayer myself, but it was a novel idea.

And I really expect that there will be some extra fees in place for players using an updated Battle.net - play the basic game for free, pay $5 a month to get access to extra services (Dungeon Runners) or perhaps change RL cash to some kind of in-game currency (Exteel). MMOs don't have to have a $15-a-month sub fee to be a MMO; it comes down to more "how many players can appear in the same place as my character?". You want to play for free, you can, but you want a secure account, playing on servers where cheating players get kicked or where ladder scores are recorded? That'll be a few extra bucks.

It was interesting to find out recently that WoW was originally planned as a free-to-play, but now that Blizzard is used to the sweet, sweet ongoing fees, I can't really see them giving it up.

Nija's point really hit it well. the universe of starcraft allows too many gameplay elements to be not incorporated into one package. It's like a buffet...you can't leave out certain things. And when I think of Space MMO that only had ground combat....something is missing. So they put in vehicles. But can I fly? Ok so they gave me aircraft. What about space? There's just too much to make it feel 'complete' and it'll be too overwhelming to package it right.

Let's look at what will happen to Star Trek Online first shall we?  :oh_i_see:

There won't be anything to look at. But it might end up being a worthwhile game that isn't Star Trek at all.

Hmmmm. I think you may be right. If they really stick to the TV Series style of convenient-tech (my friend's major pet peeve: beam me up FZZEWWWW. Phaser to stun, point, press, pew.) there wouldn't be much of a 'game' in there. But I look forward to being part of a capital ship. I don't care if I don't do anything important, I just want to be in a ship like Entreprise. Walking around in corridor, praying for the captain to fly the ship without getting us blown up in Klingon space, socializing in the entertainment lounge. And then running to the window to watch the battle when the ship gets into a fight.

I don't think there's anything inherently problematic about making a SF MMO. There are some problems with certain liscences, and some problems with a universe not being as obviously limited in scope as a single continent, but these are not really big issues.

As for what there is in the Starcraft universe that has to be included, well your core elements are basiclly the same as WoW.

Blizzard could make a SC a SF MMO just by reskinning WoW and having spaceship loading screens instead of portals/zeppelins/whatever. People would be disapointed that they don't get to fly about in their own ship and explore the universe, but that's just how it goes. If you make a ship based game then people would be dissapointed they didn't get to walk about on the planets themselves.

What you are really talking about are problems with players expectations, not problems with making a good game. If people are going to look at any MMO and think they'll get to do anythin they can possibly imagine, SF or otherwise, then they'll be disappointed, the fact that some companies have thought like this and screwed things up is indicative of poor game design however, not inherent problems.


What's so special in SC? It is a RTS game based on fighting on planets, not in space, with hero units, cities, and so forth very much like WoW. You have space ships and the like but they are used to go inbetween planets, they don't live out in space away from anything else. Population centres are ground based. While you have flying units and ships on the planets you have flying units and creatures in WoW now too. It would make no sense for SC to be made into a EVE like MMO as there are few EVE aspects in the universe compared to the WoW/LotR/whatever aspects.

You want to get a ship? So they give you one, 'here fly around this planet'. You want to fly in space? Bad luck, you can't!

Of course they may well make it so you can, and do it well, but it doesn't have to be possible.

Given Blizzard's history of game design I think it's pretty safe to say they'll begin with a WoW like planet based universe in their design, something they have a reasonably good handle on now with their expansions, build a few key planets or more and make them work for what they do. Once that is out of the way they will probably have a few ideas, some of the newish but mostly drawing from what other games have done, about how to handle space and player interation with it.

But they're not going to all go for some EVElike game with planets, ground combat, and more!, all included. They'll keep it pretty simple and controlled.

And as others have said earlier, you'll probalby get some indication of things they are going to work in there from what they include in WoW expansions. It's a great place for them to test out an idea or two and see how it plays out.

Should've stopped there. Because you're mostly wrong. There are things that people associate with MMOGs and the tech and infrastructure necessary to pull off those things in an MMOG setting are still shite. Eve only works because it's terribly slow and devoid of any real content. Without the players it has, it would've been forgotten. Aside from that, it's a political game, as I already said, not a sci-fi game.

I expect we'll see the first real sci-fi MMOGs (and not just fantasy reskinned as sci-fi) in a good 3-4 years.

Edit: Also, part of that tech and infrastructure requires MMOG developers to think outside the box. Short of Blizzard reskinning WoW and replacing bows with Guns - which is definitely not thinking outside the box - we're just not there yet.

Well that depends what SF means to people. As I said, there are certain licences that bring a lot of trouble with them, and certain nerds who bring a lot of expectations. But these things are not inherent to SF.

Look at something considered in another thread for instance, Dune. It's a SF novel. It's based in a universe where (originally) hardly anyone travels between planets due to a monoploy, where most guns don't work because people have body shields, and so on. In terms of mechanics it'd be very fantasy-like. But it is SF.

Now you bring in other stuff where there is meant to be a huge explorable universe, space travel, ships manned by 30 people fighting each other, etc then you have trouble. That kind of shit wont work in a DIKU I wager and we wont see it for a good while.

But none of that stuff is inherent. No game has to include all that shit.

Anyhow this is just a bit pedantic, I understand what you and rk mean, but you're talking about gameplay as much as genre as far as I see it.

As has been discovered as MMORPGs mature, Gameplay makes the genre. Not the other way around - and that's unfortunate. But the industry painted itself into a corner.

I bet what ever it is will be as generic and unfun as WoW.

whatever it is, I hope they don't have soulbounds. It's annoying enough to have BoE , they still have to slap me harder with BoP.

To most people it means something set in the future with spaceships or other futuristic weapons.

I know that isn't all hard-SF writers mean. But in the inevitable diku context hard-SF is mostly backstory. So if SF means anything to a mmog designer it means spaceships and/or futuristic shit.

Expect more of the same - polished to the point that all ambition got buffed out.

Only with rifle/pistol type weapons and anything that uses their targeting system.

The shotgun, for example, does not work that way - you fire, and targets in a cone area in front of you take damage.

Blast effects are like the shotgun but multidirectional.

Also, because terrain and cover matter in TR, targeting and damage ultimately work quite differently from a regular MMO.

Did we ever get any strong evidence that cover and terrain actually mattered in TR? I tried to pay attention, but in the heat of a big control point battle I invariably got distracted...

For the record, that was me not Sly. I forgot to log his account off.   :raspberry:

Huh? Yes it mattered. If something is behind cover, you can't hit it. If you are behind cover, they can't hit you. And terrain is cover.

TR is not as much of a typical MMORPG underneath as people claim.

This is both its blessing and its curse.

Yes terrain did matter (at least when I played) but there was no visual indication that you were "in cover" (i.e. taking less damage) or doing more damage (e.g. if you were crouching) other than watching the damage numbers and trying to remember if they were higher or lower than they should be. In other words it was too much of a pain to bother with especially since combat was pretty fast against your typical cannon fodder. The line of sight code was messed up as well so when you crouched much of the time that meant you could no longer "see" your target though of course they had no trouble hitting *you*.

That was my experience. That and the uberness of shotguns meant I was usually right up in their face and terrain was not an issue.

Haha! You posted as meeeeee!

I should have posted gay pron as you.  :drillf: But I'm so totally hetero that I wouldn't even know where to find gay pron.  :grin:

Ummm, pretty much any single word you type in to google with safe search off should do the trick.  :ye_gods:

Yeah, but all I can think of to type for pron is "lesbian cheerleader sleepover" you see my dilemma?

I see no dilemma...

Now I see why red panda is licking its lips :drillf: