Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 08:54:48 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Star Wars: The Old Republic  |  Topic: SWTOR 0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 402 Go Down Print
Author Topic: SWTOR  (Read 2071676 times)
Triforcer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4663


Reply #315 on: January 27, 2009, 05:32:01 PM

Want me to pay a monthly fee for a single-player/co-op game?  Please to be fucking yourself and die.  I guess I go into full DCUO fanboy mode now, because this game (if this stuff is true, and my instinct is that it is, at least mostly) is dead to me. 

All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu.  This is the truth!  This is my belief! At least for now...
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #316 on: January 27, 2009, 05:44:00 PM

If it is RMT + pseudo massively multiplayer, I suspect it might be copying the GW model of purchase a box and then purchase extra content updates as they become available. No monthly fee makes sense in this case.

It makes sense that Bioware would develop it this way since this is what they are used to - storytelling in set amounts. They aren't used to fully open worlds where players can explore, or even hack-and-slash action gameplay.

But who knows? Wait for all the info to be released before judging.

Triforcer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4663


Reply #317 on: January 27, 2009, 05:46:11 PM


But who knows? Wait for all the info to be released before judging.

What reason would this site have to exist if we did that?   Ohhhhh, I see.

All life begins with Nu and ends with Nu.  This is the truth!  This is my belief! At least for now...
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #318 on: January 27, 2009, 06:14:19 PM


But who knows? Wait for all the info to be released before judging.

What reason would this site have to exist if we did that?   Ohhhhh, I see.

I'm here for cocktail hour, the armchair game design and to laugh at millions of dollars being mis-spent on entertainment products.  Oh ho ho ho. Reallllly?

I'm not going to call any title "dead to me" without a lot more information being released. Even Darkfall.

SnakeCharmer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3807


Reply #319 on: January 27, 2009, 06:23:51 PM

I guess my idea of a MASSIVELY multiplayer game implies some sort of massively multiplayer aspect.  I actually don't have a huge problem with the idea of paying a monthly fee and getting a co-op game with frequent content updates.  In fact it doesn't sound like a terrible idea.  What I have a problem is when they say "We are making a Star Wars MMO" and give me a star wars co-op game.'

Perhaps its merely marketing.  People are probably willing to pay monthly if you use the term "MMO" and might be resistant to the idea of that concept seeping into other genres. 

I look at it in that MMOs are going to evolve from what we know it now to a really glamorized version of Xbox Live.  Social areas are going to be designed in (capitol cities, auction houses, etc) to where players can congregate and, well, be social.  I suppose it would be Guild Wars-esque, but with better and bigger implementation.  It will be Massively Multiplayer in that respect, I suppose, and at that point you're just playing semantics with obsolete terms and wording.  I tend to think that most players play solo together with friends - whether existing or new friends they've made.  What I mean by play solo together is that they're off adventuring on their own, but chatting away in guild chat or vent/teamspeak with their friends.  Raids will become smaller, more manageable by 4-6 players.  Content gets pushed faster as I would imagine it's easier to balance and create for 1-6 rather than 25, 30, or 40 players.  Plus, I think it's more personal to the player than having 40 people play the game like a stopwatch and watching threat/hate/dps meters rather than enjoying the action.

But that's just my opinion, however wrong it is.  Feel free to blow holes all in it.
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848


Reply #320 on: January 27, 2009, 08:53:10 PM

I'm not going to call any title "dead to me" without a lot more information being released. Even Darkfall.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Let's not get crazy here. Grin

Hahahaha!  I'm really good at this!
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 32117

I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.


Reply #321 on: January 28, 2009, 07:44:18 AM

But I don't think mainly catering to solo players is a necessity in every MMORPG.  Personally, I actually find that this hurts retention for me.  I find these games last about 24 to 48 hours without any sort of social necessitation.  CoH, AoC, and LoTRO all certainly fit this bill for me.  They aren't terrible for the genre...I don't see why the fuck I'd play any of these games for longer than a month if I just played them as a singleplayer game.  And since 90% of the early content is solo, that's really the only option you have.  Then when they eventually thrust grouping on to you, it's unnatural and no one wants to do it.  Which to me is simply ludicrious and utter fail in a MMORPG.
This is what I don't understand, though. You won't play these games more than a day or two without being forced to group. Why play them at all? Why are they more fun when forced to dick around LFG and dealing with strangers, or the time issues and obligations of dealing with a guild?

Also, I don't think mainly catering to solo players is a necessity in every mmo. You'd never hear me say that. No reason not to focus on everyone's style.
I guess my idea of a MASSIVELY multiplayer game implies some sort of massively multiplayer aspect. 
Like what? You want to open the semantics box? Ok. Here are the MMOs I know of: Eve, PS, Shadowbane. Where the massive numbers actually come into play and make a difference and improve the game. Isn't a game where you have six players in a dungeon group simply a co-op game with a matchmaking lobby in-game? Isn't a 48 person raid just a larger co-op, I mean we had 64 player servers in BF1942 years ago?

DOOMCASTED!


I do see the appeal of a good group working together, I've done it and I've enjoyed it. However, it's not really a realistic gaming style for a lot of adults, and it sucks that the coolest content in dungeons, mobs, loots, is all set behind a cockblock that means guys like me, who don't have the time nor structure to sit around wasting time on a video game (and face it, most raid time is wasted time, the fights are pretty fucking boring and the organizational skills of most guilds is pathetic or fascist), are second-class citizens in the game. S'why I'm mostly done with mmo entirely, and just hop into EQ2 for a few months a year (except this year, entirely mmo-free for a year).

The only reason I still gripe about this shit after all these years is that I enjoy the game worlds, the occasional interaction with others, the persistance. There have been some pretty cool online worlds, and most single-player games just can't build with the scope of an mmo. Strip out the heroic tags in EQ2 and I'd pay to play it single-player/co-op with people who aren't random intertards. And just to head off the comment, thinking that something like Oblivion is a solution could mean you have severe head trauma and need assistance.
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596


Reply #322 on: January 28, 2009, 08:10:51 AM


The only reason I still gripe about this shit after all these years is that I enjoy the game worlds, the occasional interaction with others, the persistance. There have been some pretty cool online worlds, and most single-player games just can't build with the scope of an mmo. Strip out the heroic tags in EQ2 and I'd pay to play it single-player/co-op with people who aren't random intertards. And just to head off the comment, thinking that something like Oblivion is a solution could mean you have severe head trauma and need assistance.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.  You can get things done solo in games and still have the ability to have large amounts of players interacting at once.  I doubt have a problem with people soloing or playing in small groups.  My problem with SWTOR is that it (seems to based on the information we have), lack at least 1 of those things you like, persistence.  It looks more like it is going to be heavily instanced, so that you aren't going out into  he game world where you can occasionally meet some people, but rather than you just decide beforehand if you are going to play with someone, then group up and go do your thing. 

It isn't purely about the number of players, i don't think its the semantic issue you are making it out to be.  It should POSSIBLE that while I'm out doing my thing I run into a large number of players, that we are all sharing a world together even if we aren't interacting at a given moment.   To me, the feeling of people in a large seamless world with lots of other people is probably as important as actually playing directly WITH those people.  I don't care about small group content v. raids, quite frankly that dichotomy doesn't interest me at all.   

I guess my problem then, is heavily instanced games.
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 32117

I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.


Reply #323 on: January 28, 2009, 09:16:09 AM

Oh, you misread what I meant by persistence. I LOVE instancing. Read back a couple posts where I said every non-hub zone should have at least three instances AT ALL TIMES. The problem with my system is that it allows everyone to play the way they enjoy and achieve the goals of the game. This isn't the problem so much as the current crop of mmo achievers see it as a threat to their way of "earning" their achievements.

And that, I think, is the core problem with mmo design. Any raid player can solo better than a soloer, and also can access far more content due to their "dedication" to a /game/. Thus, if you don't enjoy raiding, don't play mmo. Thus, mmo=raiding. And that's retarded, because most raiding gameplay is pretty stupid...but I won't digress into my dislike of console rpg boss battle style of design...
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848


Reply #324 on: January 28, 2009, 09:21:53 AM

It doesn't have to be one or the other.  You can get things done solo in games and still have the ability to have large amounts of players interacting at once.  I doubt have a problem with people soloing or playing in small groups.  My problem with SWTOR is that it (seems to based on the information we have), lack at least 1 of those things you like, persistence.  It looks more like it is going to be heavily instanced, so that you aren't going out into  he game world where you can occasionally meet some people, but rather than you just decide beforehand if you are going to play with someone, then group up and go do your thing. 

I guess my problem then, is heavily instanced games.
How does instancing affect persistance in a negative way?  Most games you can't affect the world at all.  Guild Wars is one of the most heavily instanced games I can think of, and things actually change because they do instance the world.

I actually like Sky's suggestion though.  Give players the instance options ranging from Open to Solo.  I would use both.

Hahahaha!  I'm really good at this!
Yegolev
Moderator
Posts: 24440

2/10 WOULD NOT INGEST


WWW
Reply #325 on: January 28, 2009, 09:32:15 AM

I submit that I would have paid a monthly fee for Diablo II if it meant Blizz would have put more effort into preventing battle.net from being as shitty as it was.

Like by ethnically cleansing half the population that played it?

I'd pay an extra dollar per month if they could be choked with SoJs, for the irony.

Why am I homeless?  Why do all you motherfuckers need homes is the real question.
They called it The Prayer, its answer was law
Mommy come back 'cause the water's all gone
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596


Reply #326 on: January 28, 2009, 09:34:04 AM


How does instancing affect persistance in a negative way?  Most games you can't affect the world at all.  Guild Wars is one of the most heavily instanced games I can think of, and things actually change because they do instance the world.

I actually like Sky's suggestion though.  Give players the instance options ranging from Open to Solo.  I would use both.

Its the ability to effect an huge world that compels me to play an MMO in the first place.  If I can build a castle in my own instance, but if another player goes to the same area of the game but in a different instance and my castle is obviously not there, then it feels cheap.    I guess it comes down to feeling like what I do matters.  In an instanced game, your actions only effect yourself (or those in the same instance), if an open game, everyone's actions effect everyone else.  That makes everything far more interesting as far as I am concerned.  

I'd rather get screwed over by a guy who makes better decisions than me than have no threat of anything negative happen at all.  In most MMOs these days you are only advancing, you can never take a step back if you make mistakes.   Its only a matter of how quickly you are advancing.  That just doesn't appeal to me all that much.
SnakeCharmer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3807


Reply #327 on: January 28, 2009, 10:07:24 AM

Its the ability to effect an huge world that compels me to play an MMO in the first place.  If I can build a castle in my own instance, but if another player goes to the same area of the game but in a different instance and my castle is obviously not there, then it feels cheap.    I guess it comes down to feeling like what I do matters.  In an instanced game, your actions only effect yourself (or those in the same instance), if an open game, everyone's actions effect everyone else.  That makes everything far more interesting as far as I am concerned.  

I'd rather get screwed over by a guy who makes better decisions than me than have no threat of anything negative happen at all.  In most MMOs these days you are only advancing, you can never take a step back if you make mistakes.   Its only a matter of how quickly you are advancing.  That just doesn't appeal to me all that much.

But you don't change the world in an MMOG.  It's why they're called persistent worlds.  It doesn't matter if it's the Ogre of Death that you just killed (and will kill 100 more times until he drops the shiny) or the group of guys that's about to kill the Ogre of Death after you just killed him.
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596


Reply #328 on: January 28, 2009, 10:19:25 AM

Its the ability to effect an huge world that compels me to play an MMO in the first place.  If I can build a castle in my own instance, but if another player goes to the same area of the game but in a different instance and my castle is obviously not there, then it feels cheap.    I guess it comes down to feeling like what I do matters.  In an instanced game, your actions only effect yourself (or those in the same instance), if an open game, everyone's actions effect everyone else.  That makes everything far more interesting as far as I am concerned.  

I'd rather get screwed over by a guy who makes better decisions than me than have no threat of anything negative happen at all.  In most MMOs these days you are only advancing, you can never take a step back if you make mistakes.   Its only a matter of how quickly you are advancing.  That just doesn't appeal to me all that much.

But you don't change the world in an MMOG.  It's why they're called persistent worlds.  It doesn't matter if it's the Ogre of Death that you just killed (and will kill 100 more times until he drops the shiny) or the group of guys that's about to kill the Ogre of Death after you just killed him.

Depends on the MMO.  There are differing degrees of it in different games. WoW has almost none (this silly "phased" stuff aside).  Some have more, some have less.  In UO or SWG you could setup houses, that has a pretty obvious effect on the world.

In EVE the 0.0 space has changing borders, people fight, take control of areas, setup player owned star bases, etc.  These things have a tangible effect on the world, it changes where it is safe to travel, it changes where you have a place to resupply, etc.  EVE also has static missions that don't really have much effect on the actual game world, its not totally player run by any stretch. 

Its the ability for what you do to affect other players, and the ability for other players' actions to effect what me that is compelling.  Heck, in EVE the market is so complex it is arguably a PvP environment in itself, even though there is no fighting (though sometimes economic disputes do lead to fighting).

A game that is highly dependent on PvE content does lack this a lot of times, simply because if you kill an orge, and he just is gone forever, you've got a problem on your hands, the game DOES need to become repopulated somehow.
SnakeCharmer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3807


Reply #329 on: January 28, 2009, 10:26:39 AM

All you're talking about is a shiny version of an auction house.  Nothing more, really.
amiable
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2126


Reply #330 on: January 28, 2009, 10:30:35 AM

All you're talking about is a shiny version of an auction house.  Nothing more, really.

The EvE market system really is a rather engrossing game in and of itself and shows that even a shiny version of an auction house can make a good game if you bother putting some love into it.
Yegolev
Moderator
Posts: 24440

2/10 WOULD NOT INGEST


WWW
Reply #331 on: January 28, 2009, 10:59:36 AM

Its the ability to effect an huge world that compels me to play an MMO in the first place.  If I can build a castle in my own instance, but if another player goes to the same area of the game but in a different instance and my castle is obviously not there, then it feels cheap.

I don't care for instanced housing either, but neither do I have a better solution.  OK, that's not true, but my solution to it is my solution to most everything wrong with MMOs: limit server/world population to 150 players.

The MMOs I play don't allow people to affect the world populace except via griefing and/or PVP.  I'd like a game I could play where I don't have to worry about being assploded... in fact I find myself far less interested in any sort of worry when playing a game than ever before.  I suppose I am saying that I would be all for affecting the game world as long as it wasn't simply causing other players to lose large sums of game-wealth.

In most MMOs these days you are only advancing, you can never take a step back if you make mistakes.   Its only a matter of how quickly you are advancing.  That just doesn't appeal to me all that much.

I'm curious, then, how you might feel about a game where there was a toggle in your options like: "Lose XP on death?"  Would you use it?  Would anyone set it to "Yes"?  Would it be cheap if you knew some other players chose to avoid that penalty?  Personally, I like the current trend toward noticeable penalties for screwing up that do not actually gimp you somehow and let you get back into action relatively quickly, while I'm still angry about the asspounding I just got.  That is, in a nutshell, why I quit EVE.  Of course, there's a lot of subjectiveness in there.  Also I forget where we are on the Death Penalty topic, but I thought we had put that one on "simmer" since WoW.

Why am I homeless?  Why do all you motherfuckers need homes is the real question.
They called it The Prayer, its answer was law
Mommy come back 'cause the water's all gone
trias_e
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1296


Reply #332 on: January 28, 2009, 11:27:20 AM

Quote
This is what I don't understand, though. You won't play these games more than a day or two without being forced to group. Why play them at all? Why are they more fun when forced to dick around LFG and dealing with strangers, or the time issues and obligations of dealing with a guild?

Also, I don't think mainly catering to solo players is a necessity in every mmo. You'd never hear me say that. No reason not to focus on everyone's style.

IMO, what makes these games interesting is either cooperation or competition with other players.  I find them mediocre at best as single-player games.  I've never played mainly co-op with another person, so that's a perspective I'm missing however.

It's said around these parts that these games are as fun as the people you play them with.  There's some truth to that and I'll agree to an extent.  But how about PvP?  That's fun because other playing against other people is more interesting than playing against the AI.  If it's sport PvP it doesn't matter if they are MMOGtards or not.  In world PvP...it matters in a good way, because slaughtering assholes is damn fun.  Auction House?  Similar thing.  The player element makes it fun.  So, as an example, what I liked about WoW was grouping, PvP and the auction house.  The solo questing was nice to pass the time if I had a hard time finding a group or couldn't commit whatever hours necessary, but it was generally mediocre filler to the good parts of the game.  I'd prefer it if the world PvP had more ramifications, but sport PvP is still better than killing bland retarded mobs by myself all day.

I do like to be able to do things by myself.  But if I'm going to be doing something by myself, I'd prefer it to be PvP-related in some form.  I mean, occasionally I don't mind doing some quest grinding, but that shit gets old quick as the main means of progression.  These days, I'd honestly rather camp a room in EQ for a few hours with a group than go from quest hub to quest hub and kill 10 boars over and over again.  At least there's some possibility for an interesting human element to arise there.  The basic WoW quest-grind skinner box has left me horribly bored, and it's the main reason why AoC sucked so bad, LoTRO gets boring fast despite it's excellent ambience and design, and WAR's PvE is incredibly bad.

Why all of this?  I'm more interested in the world than the game, and more interested in player interaction than progression.  Vanguard interested me.  I liked playing EQ despite never getting past level 30 simply due to the economy and the social element.  I hated the fact that no one ever took chances due to the brutal death penalty, however, but I didn't hate the brutal death penalty for it's own sake, because progress isn't necessarily that big of a deal.  Also, I'm fairly young with few obligations. Usually, if I feel like commiting some time to a game, there will be nothing that comes up to bother that arrangement.  And if I only have 30 minutes to play...I'll just play a single player game or browse the web.   Anyways, I'm clearly weird, but there might be a few of me out there, so can someone do Vanguard right please?  ; )

This is already too long, but this is only half of the equation...I also really like the nerdy stuff about these games as well:  Eve fittings, DPS calculations, and figuring out how various abilities or equipment interact with each other.  Talent calculators have destroyed way too much of my time.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 11:40:23 AM by trias_e »
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 32117

I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.


Reply #333 on: January 28, 2009, 11:49:34 AM

I actually like Sky's suggestion though.  Give players the instance options ranging from Open to Solo.  I would use both.
Why thanks! I would use all three options depending on the situation. I would use the Open dungeon because I do like interactions with strangers every now and again (shock!). But if a troop of buttholes rolls in to rape the place, I'd happily zone out and quietly play in the solo instance for a while until I see they've left (a /w showing a modified list based on which flavor of instance someone is in, I guess). Then if I happen to meet a few like-minded individuals, we could stay in the open dungeon or head to the group instance. I also forgot to mention the raid instance, which would probably add more linked heroics to encounters or something.

The biggest problem is as I mentioned, I expect that the solo boss mobs (hard but not wicked hard like a named heroic linked to other heroics!) would drop the same loot in all instances. Because I don't believe that good loot should equal putting up with strangers or having to be so anal about gaming that one has to have set times to meet up with others. The main reason I got into CRPGs was because it was so hard putting together a gaming group that could meet regularly!

The one thing I might alter is having items with base stats drop, but then have some extended stats or effects that are based on the instance. So if you're in the raid instance, you'd get the base piece with some extra goodies for raiding, whereas I would get something biased toward solo builds.

Malakili, two things. One: the word you are looking for is "affect". If you can effect changes in the world, you affect that world. Second, if you don't like what I'm proposing, that's cool. Play something else.
Quote
I'd rather get screwed over by a guy who makes better decisions than me than have no threat of anything negative happen at all.  In most MMOs these days you are only advancing, you can never take a step back if you make mistakes.   Its only a matter of how quickly you are advancing.  That just doesn't appeal to me all that much.
First off, there is always the threat of something negative happening. If you want to break down all the exploration and questing into how quickly you can advance, well...you're the guy I'm talking about who probably won't like the kind of game I would. In EQ2 there's an option to shut off combat experience. I have this enabled, because I find levelling way too fast, and when you get to the end, all there is to do is raiding, which I do not like.

Death penalty: I'm ok with EQ2's system of xp debt. Though CoH's similar system seemed more brutal. Srsly, fuck death penalty, though. Why stack something on top of "You got killed, now run back and start over"? This sits right alongside the dungeon issue, because it's usually the same folks who need masochistic gear-gaining that decry the lack of ball-crushing death penalties. Death doesn't "mean" anything without penalty. Loot doesn't "mean" anything unless it's a total pain in the ass to acquire. I cite grunk again, because it's an easy one.

Let me lay it out as best as I can figure: If you need "meaningful" achievement or consequence from a video game, you will never enjoy the kind of game I would. I'm ok with that; you be, too.
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596


Reply #334 on: January 28, 2009, 11:53:47 AM


I don't care for instanced housing either, but neither do I have a better solution.  OK, that's not true, but my solution to it is my solution to most everything wrong with MMOs: limit server/world population to 150 players.

...


I'm curious, then, how you might feel about a game where there was a toggle in your options like: "Lose XP on death?"  Would you use it?  Would anyone set it to "Yes"?  Would it be cheap if you knew some other players chose to avoid that penalty?  Personally, I like the current trend toward noticeable penalties for screwing up that do not actually gimp you somehow and let you get back into action relatively quickly, while I'm still angry about the asspounding I just got.  That is, in a nutshell, why I quit EVE.  Of course, there's a lot of subjectiveness in there.  Also I forget where we are on the Death Penalty topic, but I thought we had put that one on "simmer" since WoW.

First topic: I wouldn't have a big problem with small sever pops.  Some of my fondest gaming memories are from NWN persistant world servers with good admins.  They would add player housing (for large in game costs), by literally altering the game world and inserting the house.  Generally you could only have 50 or so people logged on at any given time to those, if I recall correctly.  

As for that option, i would probably be more inclined to use it in a single player game than a multiplayer one.  Part of MMOs are the competition, and if other players were just ignoring the death penalty while I thought it was interesting, I'd basically never be able to compete.  I don't think it would be "cheap" since it would be a game mechanic, but I wouldn't like it either.

As for death penalties, I think they make a game interesting or not.  If I can run in guns blazing or spells blazing or whateverweaponthegamehas blazing, with no regard for my life aside from the fact that I gain experience points a little slower for 10 minutes or have to run a little ways, it just doesn't seem like any of my decisions regarding combat are all that important.  if I want that style of game, I'll just play a first person shooter.

EDITED TO ADD: Re: Sky's post right above me.

Yeah, I think we like different kinds of experience in online games, at least in RPGs.  Like I just mentioned, i don't mind the kind of game you are supporting, I just tend to like them as single player games.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 11:56:16 AM by Malakili »
Mrbloodworth
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15148


Reply #335 on: January 28, 2009, 12:43:32 PM

Didn't AOC do the solo and group instances? I think they even did it for their over world zones.

Today's How-To: Scrambling a Thread to the Point of Incoherence in Only One Post with MrBloodworth . - schild
www.mrbloodworthproductions.com  www.amuletsbymerlin.com
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 32117

I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.


Reply #336 on: January 28, 2009, 01:25:15 PM

I don't mind the kind of game you are supporting, I just tend to like them as single player games.
That doesn't make any sense. Actually, you yourself just admitted the stuff you want would work better in a small-scale game, not mmo. Have you ever seen the housing blight in UO? Have you ever lost levels from stupid shit in EQ? Hell, even losing levels from trying new tactics or exploring new areas?

I'd much rather have it loose and friendly. Go in guns blazing, see if it works. If it doesn't try something else. If it does...hell, try something else for fun. Not only does a death penalty stifle the heroic nature of rpgs, but it also leads to the kind of conservative thinking that excludes classes from raids and groups.
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596


Reply #337 on: January 28, 2009, 01:42:40 PM



I'd much rather have it loose and friendly. Go in guns blazing, see if it works. If it doesn't try something else. If it does...hell, try something else for fun. Not only does a death penalty stifle the heroic nature of rpgs, but it also leads to the kind of conservative thinking that excludes classes from raids and groups.

I think this is the crux of it.  I don't like the idea of everyone being an hero in an RPG.  Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying I want to be the hero and noone else, I actually enjoying playing a much more mundane role, crafter, shop keeper, resource gatherer, etc more than I like being the one who slays the dragon most of the time.  If everyone is a hero, than it is no longer heroic, its just average.  I think there is a much more interesting dynamic when there are different kinds of players.

As for death penalty  leading to conservative thinking, I don't mind that too much.  For me, planning what I am going to do in a game is often at least as fun (and sometimes more fun!) than actually playing the game itself. 

I have lost stuff, yes.  I play eve, losing things is part of the game, and I like that.  You can prevent yourself from losing skill poiints with clones, and you can help to mitigate your loss with insurance (although its often a pittance compared to what the ship was worth with fittings, but in the end, you shouldn't fly something in that game that you can't afford to lose.

There are ways to control housing and other such things such that they don't get out of control (although obviously it has in some games).  Its about making it work in any given setting.


Since this is in the SWTOR thread, I'll actually try talking a bit about SWTOR now.   I guess the biggest problem I have, is that they are essentially (or seem to be), creating a playable Star Wars movie (or book), rather than creating a star wars universe where people can write the own book (or movie) that intertwines with the other players as they do the same.   Instancing is only one problem that is leading to this, along with the minimization of crafting and non-combat stuff.  It just seems like a very shallow game to me.  It might be fun to play, but I can't see it keeping me playing month after month.
CharlieMopps
Terracotta Army
Posts: 837


Reply #338 on: January 28, 2009, 01:51:12 PM

sounds like Tabula Rasa meets guildwars... FAIL
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848


Reply #339 on: January 28, 2009, 01:58:53 PM

Since this is in the SWTOR thread, I'll actually try talking a bit about SWTOR now.   I guess the biggest problem I have, is that they are essentially (or seem to be), creating a playable Star Wars movie (or book), rather than creating a star wars universe where people can write the own book (or movie) that intertwines with the other players as they do the same.   Instancing is only one problem that is leading to this, along with the minimization of crafting and non-combat stuff.  It just seems like a very shallow game to me.  It might be fun to play, but I can't see it keeping me playing month after month.
They tried this and most people hated it.  I still think the incredibly buggy code and complete loss of direction once live ensured this view, but we're not getting a Star Wars game with that kind of freedom again.

Hahahaha!  I'm really good at this!
Venkman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11536


Reply #340 on: January 28, 2009, 02:09:00 PM

I don't think we're getting a game with that kind of freedom again, at least not with "MMO" tagged on it. It's always great on paper, but the ideas never really seem to survive through development. Maybe it's a skill or talent thing. But the people thinking dynamic huge microeconomies are not making subs-based games. They're off developing casinos, where they get to work with real money awesome, for real

Forget that the only MMOs that would even have a shot at bringing in the right resources are either IP-based or for kids (and usually both).

The idea isn't wrong. But because it's never been done wholly right, it may actually be dead.
Merusk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 27449

Badge Whore


Reply #341 on: January 28, 2009, 02:29:01 PM

It's not a skill or a talent thing, it's a time managementthing.

Yeah, it sounds great to have a whole slew of systems in your game. Anyone can promise systems for:  Building your own furniture, harvesting crops, harvesting wood, dynamic spawn of resources, raising/ breeding animals with DNA/ bloodline systems, houses with build-your-own-floorplan systems like The Sims, metalworking, smelting, scribing and a billion other "crafty" bits.  They can also promise to include some deep, meaningful combat WITH dynamic mob behaviors and intelligent respawns and NPC towns with their own day/ night cycles.

It doesn't mean they'll be able to design, refine and build all those systems in 3, 5 or even 15 years.  Hell, The Sims has taken how long just to get to a system with more than one Architectural style and that's one of the main focuses of the game!

"Worlds" always try to bite off too much, promising the stars and disappointing everyone in the end because nothing has gotten the bulk of the development time.  Nothing will have gotten any real attention to detail because, hell, everyone's focus (or at the very least the lead designer's) will have been so split that you can only give things a once-over, before saying "shit, we've got to get to the other 20 features we promised."

It's the same reason I said Spore wasn't going to turn out to be what everyone was envisioning in the early days.  There was never enough time to deliver on all those huge promises.  If it takes 3 years to deliver ONE good, well-focused game, why do MMO devs (and fans) believe that you can do four of five games combined into a jumble in only two additional years?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 02:30:55 PM by Merusk »

The past cannot be changed. The future is yet within your power.
Ratman_tf
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3818


Reply #342 on: January 28, 2009, 02:48:35 PM

This is why I don't mind playing WoW despite being a world sim fan. Directed content means you actually get to play the game, instead of puttering around with a few unfinished simulation features.

Still, a few sandbox and sim aspects can go a long way towards making a MMOG seem more deep and interactive. Devs just need to stop falling into the kitchen sink trap and implement them realistically.



 "What I'm saying is you should make friends with a few catasses, they smell funny but they're very helpful."
-Calantus makes the best of a smelly situation.
Venkman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11536


Reply #343 on: January 28, 2009, 03:07:46 PM

It's not a skill or a talent thing, it's a time managementthing.

Project management is a skill and a talent. That was my point. I used this when we talked somewhere around here about what the Blizzard staff prioritized for launch-day WoW. The stuff you mentioned about furniture and crops and whatnot are the exact things I used as examples. You need to know who your game is for and be able to plan against delivering it. That's not intuitive game design theory. That's on the ground execution throughout the entire process from design turnover to late beta (because you'll be designing throughout but need to hatchet quickly feature creep).

Absolute Launch Needs: You need good combat, some semblance of balance, enough content to prevent the absolute need for mob grinding, and a good workable and customizable UI (business stuff like a good CSR, trusting management, solid tech, and a working ecomm system are all givens). And you need to focus your race and class (or template) selection around what you know you can balance and deliver complete.

Nice-to-haves: (or, anything that should take a back seat to the Absolutes): Engaging crafting (the best system in the world is only going to matter to a small percentage of players), weather effects, cosmetic player outfits, housing, voiceovers. All of these are cool, but all of these have dragged resources away from other things. If your combat sucks, or half your races have no content, high resolution raindrops ain't going to save your game.
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596


Reply #344 on: January 28, 2009, 03:34:56 PM


Still, a few sandbox and sim aspects can go a long way towards making a MMOG seem more deep and interactive. Devs just need to stop falling into the kitchen sink trap and implement them realistically.

Yeah, while it is nice to have many systems, a few can really make a difference.  If you try to do everything, you simply won't before you run out of money, but it is realistic to implement enough deep/robust "sandbox" elements to make the world engaging. 

We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Just because it isn't realistic to make a 100% realistic recreation of any given world, doesn't mean that a number of really solid systems can't be put into place that will go a long way to giving the appear of a realistic recreation of a world.  Hell noone is asking for 100% recreation, I don't want my character to have to take a crap in the middle of doing something.
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #345 on: January 28, 2009, 04:50:50 PM

Hell noone is asking for 100% recreation, I don't want my character to have to take a crap in the middle of doing something.

There are players who do. I remember reading plenty of suggestions about making characters potentially starve to death if they can't find enough food, or locational damage that realistically impacts on character ability (but with a magic heal button somewhere so that a doctor can grow you a new leg and stick it on). Some of the discussions on the Exanimus forums - a zombie genre MMO - would have killed the game dead in their leaning towards the sandbox (although the title appears to have been killed dead in pre-production, so there we go).

Ultimately I steer away from sandbox because I want a game to play. I know I'll never have enough time to keep up in a sandbox - by the time I get there the Wild West will already be won - or have enough time to contribute in any PvP that sees permanent-through-force resource transfer (like happened in Shadowbane), so sandboxes are generally out for me. I want a co-op game experience from my MMO and some fun, which thus far CoH/V has been best at delivering to me. Wizard 101 comes in at #2.

SnakeCharmer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3807


Reply #346 on: January 30, 2009, 08:00:50 PM

Dev digest video thing was released today.  Absolutely gorgeous looking game...
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596


Reply #347 on: January 30, 2009, 10:19:35 PM

Dev digest video thing was released today.  Absolutely gorgeous looking game...

It does look pretty, I'll give them that.  I don't know how much I liked how the humans looked, kinda of a Team Fortress 2 look almost, which ALMOST fits in with the rest of the aesthetics but looks slightly out of place. 

The animations looked very nice as well.

Still don't intend to play this game, but i'll enjoy looking at the screenshots they release.
WindupAtheist
Army of One
Posts: 7028

Badicalthon


Reply #348 on: January 30, 2009, 11:27:19 PM

Is there really anyone here sufficiently lacking in cynicism that they can sit there and watch an MMO developer "Hello fans here is the magic behind how some fat software nerds render terrain that may or may not be in a game that might come out like four years from now and will likely total shit anyway!" diary video and not just yawn no matter WHAT they see?

Get back to me when the NDA on the beta drops, otherwise STFU, developers. I didn't get past the "Star Warsy music over pictures of generic office cubicles" intro before choking on my own vomit.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 11:30:59 PM by WindupAtheist »

"You're just a dick who quotes himself in his sig."  --  Schild
"Yeah, it's pretty awesome."  --  Me
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335


Reply #349 on: January 31, 2009, 12:10:23 AM

Yeah, I don't get it. "The making of Tython"? Why do I care? I don't even know what the hell Tython is or whether it's any good, why do I care how it was made?

I don't get the trend towards boring videos where devs talk about their games. It's one thing if they have some charisma and something really cool to show off but an everyday dude futzing around in a level editor?

vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 402 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Star Wars: The Old Republic  |  Topic: SWTOR  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC