Mortal Online = darkfall + mourning?

[Mrbloodworth]

You know what, this game looks promising.

If you paypal me 40$US I'll give you a alpha key to my new MMOG. 

 

[Mrbloodworth]

There's a countdown on the website now. Not sure what it's for though;

http://www.mortalonline.com/

The count down was for beta apps to be taken. Apparently.

[Mrbloodworth]

Q: What game engine does Mortal Online use?

A: Unreal Engine 3, together with other third-part technologies.

 
Q: We know from the Mortal Online website that it has an expansive and intriguing back story. How will the quest lines in the game follow it?

A: First of all, I want to make it clear that there are no regular "quests" in MO, just like there are no "levels" or generic "experience points". We have chosen to embed the majority of the lore in the world itself for you as a player to discover, if you are interested, instead of reading about it beforehand or getting it fed to you by NPC’s with flashing exclamation marks over their heads.

What we do have, are very big quests in the form of riddles and chains-of-events spread about in the world that will often involve several players or guilds, and from time to time affect the development of the world. These quests will start slowly even from day one, and we have some deep events planned for the players - where their actions will get reflected back upon the world and the rest of the future players. We’ve even presented clues for some of these events before the game starts, one is embedded in the countdown image on www.mortalonline.com


Q: How much of Mortal Online's game play will be focused on PvP?

A: The entire game is developed with PvP in focus. This doesn’t mean there is no PvE only that our game is built on PvP with added PvE - not the other way around which is very common in other MMO’s. In other words, we make sure every game feature works well with the open PvP.

Regarding PvE, we have not put that much effort into AI, and as I stated before there are no "pick a hundred apples"-quests to guide you through the world. However gathering, mining, exploring, hunting, crafting and the like are important to us and make for a lot of PvE content.


Q: How "hardcore" will the PvP be? Will players be able to "loot" the corpses of the players they defeated?

A: There will be full PvP and full loot for all players everywhere at anytime. This means there are no areas where you can or can’t fight other players, although attacking innocent players in towns that have guards will have consequences. Also, the flagging system means that you are free to kill anyone you like, but if you go about murdering innocent people you will be labeled as a murderer for anyone else to see.


Q: What kind of death penalty if any will there be in Mortal Online? Will a PvP death hurt more than a PvE death penalty wise?

A: No matter how you die (in PvE or PvP) the penalties are the same. You will drop all your items for anyone to loot (you may of course try to retrieve them yourself if there’s time). You are dead, meaning you will have to get back to the world of the living, and that’s not always easy. Moreover, if you are flagged as murderer you will have special penalties when you die, but we are currently experimenting with the specifics.


Q: Risk versus reward is always an issue in games that contain a PVP element. What kind incentives are there going to be to entice players into getting involved in PVP?

A: Full loot. Fighting over resources. Protecting or attacking trade-routes and caravans. Guild wars. Bounty-hunting. To name a few.


Q: About crafting, will most items used by players in the game be craftable? If so how will they compare with looted items and equipment?

A: Our goal is to have ALL usable items craftable by the players. Crafted items will be better than the vast majority of items dropped by mobs or found in the game - however you will have to learn how to craft certain items by studying items dropped by mobs to be able to copy the design and/or refine it. There will also be unique items in the world, sometimes very powerful, but it’s up to the players if it’s worth the risk to actually carry around and use those items.


Q: Again about crafting, what types of items will be able to be crafted?

A: Again, our goal is to have everything that can be used by the players craftabe. We have started with weapons and armor and will soon move on to the large number of tools (used for gathering, mining, refining crafting etc). Next up will be clothes, food and decorative items. Also, we are working on player housing.


Q: Can you elaborate more on "Deva Skills"?

A: We don’t want any single player to be able to have all skills at the same time. This would make the game more character-skill oriented and grind-based than player-skill oriented, and it would reduce the need for communication and cooperation among players. At the same time, we don’t want you to be stuck in just one piece of the game - we want you to be able to train different races and character builds on your account. This is where the Deva skills come into play:

The Deva is essentially your account and your characters "shared soul". Some of the skills in the game are Deva-skills, meaning they are shared between your different characters. This means that instead of having to grind through the same tasks you have already done with your other character over and over again, some skills (mostly those of learning-skill type) will be shared between your characters.


Q: How large is the game world going to be? Will it take a long time to go from one end to the other?

A: The first continent we are launching is about 64km2, not including undergrounds and dungeons. It’s pointless to compare "scale" to other games if you don’t know their speed and means of travel, but in MO, jogging from one end to the other (horizontally across) in a straight line, if that was possible, would take you approximately.. 40 minutes? And although it’s hard to say how large the world will feel until it’s filled with real players, right now it feels very big. The 64km2 is currently entirely seamless and has no instances, something we really hope we will be able to keep for release. The rest of the documented world consists of 5 more continents of similar size.


Q: You say that your flagging system is very "complex". Are you planning to simplify or refine it in Beta?

A: The game is built around the flagging system and it is very complex on the inside, as it has to cover all kinds of weird situations and exceptions. It is pretty basic and self-explanatory ingame though. The flagging system is there both to keep order and excitement in the game for the players, without it the game would end up playing more like an Unreal match. We want people to think one more time before killing someone else. Is it worth it? Can I do it or will I get hunted after this action? This is what the flagging system helps out with.


Q: "You decide the path and goals of your progress, and where your actions are reflected back upon the world." Is that not what every other MMO claims? How is Mortal Online different from the others?

A: I think every MMO says that your actions will be reflected back on your character, but I can’t recall many that claims you will affect the world? I guess there are a lot of ways to simulate that, like having the different NPC’s in the world say different things to you depending on your alignment for instance. Or by having quests were you are "the chosen one" supposed to "save the world", although all other players are also the chosen one and are doing the same thing. However, that kind of feedback is mainly client-sided, meaning it doesn’t really affect other players or the actual world.

In MO we have a "persistent" world, a world that globally remembers events and affect all players. If you kill the big monster it will be dead for all other players too, forever. If you build a house, every other player can see it and interact with it. And so on. That said, the main focus of MO is the gaming experience and excitement, and it cannot be compared to "simulator/virtual worlds"-MMO’s like for instance Wurm Online or Entropia Universe, although persistence-wise it’s definitely a big step in that direction.


Q: Is the game on schedule and could you tell us if you have a release date in mind yet?

A: The game is on schedule but we do not have a release date yet. As an independent company we have always planned on first releasing only the fundamental core of the game to make sure there’s an interest in it, thereafter immediately continue the development with the rest of the large number of planned features. As things look now, with the interest in the game and our rapid progress in development, we find ourselves wanting to add more and more of that planned stuff in before releasing the game. But we’ll see.



Q: Finally, is your company working on any other projects they could tell us about at this time?

A: At the moment, and hopefully for several years to come, we are only focusing on Mortal Online.

 
Once again, thank you Henrik. We look forward to a long relationship between GameSNAFU and your studio and wish you nothing but the best for Mortal Online.

This was kind of old...but i thought relevant.

[Venkman]

Really sounds closer to old UO. The Deva skills things is a nice idea. And yes, aside from this thread, I have not followed this title at all. And I won't really care until they have a playable Alpha/Beta of some form, so we can compare it to DF.

[Mrbloodworth]

Really low quality (as it was low to begin with, the HD version they have is about 200mb) you tube version of the beta footage they just released.

What looks like the use of true darkness is sweet, notice the off hand was used for the torch. Is the dungeon crawl back? That combat system looks bad ass and very brutal, if this is this smooth in beta (yes, i had seen the animation pops) i think we can look forward to something really nice for release.

[schild]

Is the dungeon crawl back?

Yea, and it's on the PS3.

Demon's Souls.

Edit: Looks like a shitty Oblivion.

[raydeen]

Is the dungeon crawl back?

Yea, and it's on the PS3.

Demon's Souls.

Edit: Looks like a shitty Oblivion.

Oh, put your pants back on already! 

Hell, I'll take a shitty Oblivion. I'd even take the shitty Morrowind that Darkfall looks like. If the gameplay is good, I don't care too much how bad it looks. That said, if I had the cash, I'd be hauling home a PS3 and Demon's Souls. That does look veddy nice on all fronts.

[schild]

Hell, I'll take a shitty Oblivion. I'd even take the shitty Morrowind that Darkfall looks like.

I'm not capable of lowering my standards just because something has multiplayer anymore. If you're gonna attempt to do something, either do it or go home.

[Mrbloodworth]

Link to high rez version.

[Zzulo]

Hey, that looks pretty good.

[HaemishM]

Well, the animations are better than Darkfall. 

[Azuredream]

Q: Can you elaborate more on "Deva Skills"?

A: We don’t want any single player to be able to have all skills at the same time. This would make the game more character-skill oriented and grind-based than player-skill oriented, and it would reduce the need for communication and cooperation among players. At the same time, we don’t want you to be stuck in just one piece of the game - we want you to be able to train different races and character builds on your account. This is where the Deva skills come into play:

The Deva is essentially your account and your characters "shared soul". Some of the skills in the game are Deva-skills, meaning they are shared between your different characters. This means that instead of having to grind through the same tasks you have already done with your other character over and over again, some skills (mostly those of learning-skill type) will be shared between your characters.

I like the sound of this but the rest sounded pretty cut-and-dry stuff that is meaningless unless you know the details.

[Zzulo]

Landscapes looked fantastic but the animations were shoddy. Better than darkfall, but that does not say much.

[Mrbloodworth]

Landscapes looked fantastic but the animations were shoddy. Better than darkfall, but that does not say much.

Animations were rather good, the transitions of those animations, to others (like death), not so much. But its serviceable. Lookat the mounting animation, and look at the animation of the guy being knocked off his horse, and standing up.

[Zzulo]

I was more concerned with the combat animations and the wonky NPC walking around

[Venkman]

What the heck was special about that video? Looked like AoC if it launched a few years ago, without a UI and with all the telltale emptiness resulting from a misplaced priority on "seamless world", like it hasn't been seven years since that was even worth mentioning.

Draught indeed.

[Zzulo]

AoC in first person view in a seamless world without all the shit funcom brings with it would amount to a great game, in my opinion.

so I don't get your complaint, really.

My biggest issue with AoC was the completely unfinished state Funcom released it in, the fact that the world was chopped up into tons of instances and the myriad of gamebreaking bugs. Beneath the veil of all that shit, AoC was a decent game, let down by an incompetent management. If MO is AoC without all the stupid from Gaute Godager, I'd get real interested.

[Draegan]

My hotel connection sucks so I couldn't watch most of that youtube video.  But that PVP fight at the end looked fucking terrible.

[ashrik]

The fighting definitely looks more visceral and weighty than the equivalent from Darkfall.

I'm concerned about 2 things- the mandatory first person view, and the ability to handle large amounts of fighting characters on a decent rig.

I like third person view by default, as I think many people who like this type of game do. Obviously a lot of work has been put into it, as can be seen by such things as riding and getting knocked off a mount and the swordplay. Seems like they're sticking with it.

As for the amount of characters, that's always been a big and maybe unfounded fear I've had with the Unreal Engine. My alliance op in DF last night had over 200 people participating at once in the same area, and I maintained 60-80 fps throughout the duration of it. I don't want to take a step forward with my left foot, and one backwards with my right.

[Zzulo]

I've heard the unreal engine scales fairly well

[HaemishM]

As for the amount of characters, that's always been a big and maybe unfounded fear I've had with the Unreal Engine. My alliance op in DF last night had over 200 people participating at once in the same area, and I maintained 60-80 fps throughout the duration of it. I don't want to take a step forward with my left foot, and one backwards with my right.

When each of those 200 characters has only 5 frames of animation each, it's really easy to keep consistent FPS.

[ashrik]

 

[Redgiant]

God, is anyone ever going to make a better first-person camera metaphor? Is the answer going to HAVE to be friggin' VR?

The problem I have always had, and will continue to have with games that force you into first-person:

If you are going to make me have a first-person viewpoint, presumably to make it more "realistic" as well as increase the threat from behind and sides from stealth, etc, then I want a more realistic field-of-view and such that mimics what I actually see normally. The claustrophobic FPS viewpoint we have gotten used to as the status quo of games currently developed today just sucks to me, and the very reason many people want a 3rd or over-the-shoulder view is to mitigate this shitty look-through-a-keyhole thing called "first-person". Yes, the screen is flat and a foot in front of our eyes. Yes, that makes for a natural view-through-a-tube-bias.

But people aren't stupid. They feel boxed in when their natural peripheral vision and secondary recognition systems normally used in Real Life aren't available at all in a game where their vision is supposed to be as realistically immersive as possible. They would rather see more than they normally would as opposed to a buttload less. Especially in an environment (PvP) where your survival often depends on the very portions of your normal viewpoint such as peripheral vision that are completely omitted or occluded.

Corvus' comments about immersion and cameras in games resonates with me since those are often the main reasons a game that purports to be about immersive PvP just doesn't impress me (sample section and relevant links below):


Floating Head Has Gun, Will Game
Schizophrenic Camera/Eye

[Sutro]

Color me interested in this one, or at least interested enough to put in a beta app, which hasn't happened in a long time.

The art style seems pretty good, the PvE bit looked really interesting. Yes, the animations were screwed, but that strikes me as something relatively fixable and not necessarily crucial at the stage of the game they say they're in. I think a summer release probably isn't in the cards, but a fall release looks to at least be in the deck.

Honestly, if they have the cash, the best plan might be to consider holding to a holiday release, which wouldn't be a bad call considering there's not a whole lot on the horizon MMO-wise for the remainder of the year. Give time for polish and come out guns blazing.

What the best part to me is? This isn't a game that's lingered on in development hell for forever and a day - the licensing agreement for the U3 engine was only (announced, at least) in July '07. It's not necessarily striking me as rushed, just more like they've made solid decisions on what to license and what to do themselves.

[Sutro]

LOL!!!

So I'm browsing the forums, just checking the place out, and I find this gem:

http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/6903-hope-hopeless-14.html#post147928

I think they need a "Marcom," stat. Especially when the animation, imagining it from the first person perspective, does look a little similar.

Reference 1:12 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3JZDrGgi6k

[schild]

http://www.mortalonline.com/forums/6903-hope-hopeless-14.html#post147928

You should give a direct link to the ridiculous post.

[Zzulo]

The developer was pretty stupid to post that.

...and the guy he quoted was pretty stupid too.

A lot of stupid there. 

[schild]

A lot of stupid there. 

As expected on 10 out of 10 MMOGs made by indie devs that make any attempt at anything above indie. Noble, but ultimately a big waste of money. Teppy and Daniel James got it right the first time. All these other people, dumb and stupid and bad with money.

For the record, if Fallen Earth isn't leeching money (I have no clue about them, but they've done more than most indie MMOGs I've dabbled with), they may be the one to prove my theory wrong. But let's be honest, they're just making UO meets SWG 2 anyway.

[Lantyssa]

God, is anyone ever going to make a better first-person camera metaphor? Is the answer going to HAVE to be friggin' VR?

Amen!  Hallelujah!  Pass the salt.

Third person is more immersive for me, because a first person perspective loses all my peripheral vision which I depend on a lot.

[ashrik]

Are we comparing a guy falling backwards off his horse, landing on his back, and getting up off his side to a guy falling face first off his board and putting two hands down to get up?

The similarity is that two hands are used to stand back up, as opposed to some kind of extraneous Jackie Li leg flip.

Edit: Just watched it again. I don't see any relation besides both trying to approximate a guy standing up.

[raydeen]

God, is anyone ever going to make a better first-person camera metaphor? Is the answer going to HAVE to be friggin' VR?

Amen!  Hallelujah!  Pass the salt.

Third person is more immersive for me, because a first person perspective loses all my peripheral vision which I depend on a lot.

I've always felt it depended on the rendering engine. I really can't give any precise reasoning here other than EQ was a bitch to play 3rd person and AC was a bitch to play 1st person. There was something about how each engine handled perspective that made either 1st or 3rd person good or bad. With that in mind, I think the only way 1st person is going to be 1st person done right is either VR or a concave screen that would simulate 3D space in front and to the sides of the player. I saw a demo of a system like this being developed by a fellow in one of the Scandinavian countries. It involved a collapsible screen and a rear mounted projector. The other alternative would be that reverse Wii tech where the player wears the sensor bar and the controller tracks the movement of the player's head simulating 3D in the game. I don't have time to post links right now but I'm sure some/most/all of you have seen what I'm talking about.

[Le0]

This one might be good who knows, at least it looks way better than Darkfall, which is not really hard but still !

[Zzulo]

I get that you would get frustrated over these posers on the internet, but as you are a developer of the game we're all interested in, I think this post of yours seems to be a bit immature, unprofessional and rash.

Yes it was rash, it was unprofessional, but I wouldn't say it was necessarily immature. I think everybody with a job they take pride in would take offense and that's not immature - the "immaturity" in this case lies in actually showing it in public.

But I gladly do, once in a while. Actually I think it's better to vent these feelings out in the open (unprofessional as it may be) than having a forum where I just pretended to care about "our beloved fans" while at the same time laugh at "those idiots on the forum" behind their back, like most companies I've worked for before do. And that is the standard.

I'm sorry if I come across as that (rash, unprofessional and immature). In another company, I would have thought the same but wouldn't have been allowed to post it. And keeping a nice surface is the key to success, yes?

There's a reason for my "rash" and "immature" posts: When reading certain threads (most threads really do have a very high standard) I find myself getting more and more frustrated about (a few) people posting bs about game development, about MO or about us as developers, and now and then I pick some unfortunate post that just happen to "sum it all up" (at least in my mind), and flame it. Most often my answer includes and is directed to a lot of other posters, not necessarily the poster him/herself. I agree, that's not very mature, but at least it hopefully gets some attention - meaning I hopefully show some people that I (we) are actually flesh and blood devs with a passion, and that we do take comments about for instance our would be "laziness" personally. They also, hopefully, show people we do care about what is posted in our forums and that we don't like bullshit. And they do contain some truth about actual game development, from time to time.

I work insanely hard for MO and I really personally care about our project. That doesn't mean you have to like the game, or me, and I most definitely don't expect you to suck up to me as a dev. I like criticism about the game and it's features, but when it comes to accusing me personally about my intentions and working habits, or make posts on how it's like to make our game when you obviously don't know anything about it, I feel I have an equal right as anybody else to bite back. Be it professional or not.

[Redgiant]

God, is anyone ever going to make a better first-person camera metaphor? Is the answer going to HAVE to be friggin' VR?

Amen!  Hallelujah!  Pass the salt.

Third person is more immersive for me, because a first person perspective loses all my peripheral vision which I depend on a lot.

I've always felt it depended on the rendering engine. I really can't give any precise reasoning here other than EQ was a bitch to play 3rd person and AC was a bitch to play 1st person. There was something about how each engine handled perspective that made either 1st or 3rd person good or bad. With that in mind, I think the only way 1st person is going to be 1st person done right is either VR or a concave screen that would simulate 3D space in front and to the sides of the player. I saw a demo of a system like this being developed by a fellow in one of the Scandinavian countries. It involved a collapsible screen and a rear mounted projector. The other alternative would be that reverse Wii tech where the player wears the sensor bar and the controller tracks the movement of the player's head simulating 3D in the game. I don't have time to post links right now but I'm sure some/most/all of you have seen what I'm talking about.

There is obviously a problem with a flat projection medium 12-24 inches in front of your actual eye lens trying to emulate something on *its* edges which approximates what your lens would see, since you are using the clear part of your eye view to stare at something 2 feet away that is pretending to be fuzzy. So yes, having VR or concavity to move the focus more where it ought to seem to be would be huge leap (but expensive).

Peripheral vision aside, there are many things a game can do to mitigate the feeling that their camera system is inadequate as a first-person viewpoint. One that comes to mind is camera flip. I can run forward in Real Life and glance right behind me, or at least 120 degrees behind me, while running just fine. When a game wants to lock me into first-person but purposely doesn't let me do a flip, I don't play it because I can sense they are just trying to artificially justify not having it and probably other features as well. I don't mind the "can't see my own body or toes" thing if I could at least have those bigger things like a flip. And while flipped, I probably shouldn't be able to attack normally either. Just like in Real Life.

[Mrbloodworth]

I found a rather interesting post by a developer. (About items)

And another about combat and horses.