Torchlight (The mmo version)

[Count Nerfedalot]

Sheesh.  Who'ld've thunk asking a simple question on an internet message board would've stepped on so many dicks? 

To make isometric view work right requires a LOT of correct choices all over the design map on the part of the developers.  When done right, it works very well and feels "right".  But it is actually a risky/gutsy choice on the part of the developers because it is soooo easy to get just one choice wrong and end up frustrating the player.  Especially so when trying to do it in a fully 3D world as opposed to a tile-based world with sprites for characters.

Diablo 1 is a perfect example where isometric was done "right" in a non-turn-based game.  And it was tile/sprite based.  Most of the Diablo clones that forced isometric pov onto a 3D world screwed it up, one way or another.  Dungeon Siege being the best example.  That game was great but the limited PoV was a royal pain in the ass at times, probably aggravated by the exaggerated 3D terrain.  I found that hacking the game with the editor to allow a more over-the-shoulder PoV improved it dramatically.  I still spent most of my time in iso, but having the option to look a little farther ahead when desired made the whole experience a LOT less frustrating.

So the original question itself is a bit imprecise.  Isometric perspective styled games are certainly a valid choice and work quite well, done right.  A more precise question might be, why do developers keep trying to force isometric perspective on games with 3D worlds?  The answer to that, sadly, is money.  We demand lots of variety in how our characters look as well as the worlds they inhabit, and that is tons cheaper to do well in 3D than in sprites and tiles.

[Musashi]

 

No.  The answer is not money?  What?  Whether the game is rendered in 3D isn't even germane to the discussion.

Think of the isometric view as part of the rules of the game.  The developers are saying, "Here, you get to see this much of the screen.  You have to make your decisions based on what you can see, and what might potentially be lurking around the corner."  They're not forcing isometric into anything.  It's not even remotely a 'risky decision.'  It's an easy decision.  It's probably one of the first decisions that gets made precisely because it's so easy.  "We want a game like diablo?  Oh well then it will have to be isometric.  Why?  Because it's one of the most important parts of an action rpg."  Decision over. 

What you are saying, it makes no sense.  The reason you want to hack into stuff to be able to look and see what's coming...  That's, like, the reason you can't.  It's important.  Without it, you might as well be playing a turn based game.  There's nothing wrong with turned based games.  But you can't have a fluid situation when you're planning six moves ahead.  That's why they're called 'action' rpgs.  There are plenty of turn based games out there.  Please stop shitting up action rpg discussions with 'why isometric?' twaddle.

[Merusk]

So the original question itself is a bit imprecise. 

No it's not, he was pretty clear in his reasons for asking.  To paraphrase; "Iso is oldschool and sucks.  Like Pong and Asteroids it should be consigned to the depths of gaming, never to resurface.  1st person 3d is the only 'true' way of doing games, so only shitty developers would do iso."

You're just trying to wrap your head around such a trolly statement by rephrasing it for him. That's his job if that's what he meant to say, but since he spent several posts illustrating it and expanding on it, it's pretty clear that's what he was going for.   

[Typhon]

I agree with what Musashi said about iso and add this - it's a great viewpoint for action games.  The "action" part of the game makes it:

1) important that enemies come in very quickly and you have to react in a small amount of time
2) important that you see how much ass your character is kicking
3) have a "from all directions" sense of awareness that suggests, once again, that your character is just chock full of awesome

First person games are great, I like them.  That said, in tense situations they descend into you back pedaling furiously as shit closes in on you.  If you've every thought about how quickly this would get you killed in a real gun fight... well just don't', because it will make these games less enjoyable.  You also will never see how awesome your character is in a first person view.

You NEED a third person view if you are going to include your characters' body as part of the fight.  Iso and over-the-shoulder are pretty popular and effective and I don't see that ending prior to them being about to jack into your skull.

[Trippy]

Stop fucking talking about the overhead view -- it's not even fucking isometric. All you are doing is feeding the fucking troll.

[Sunbury]

To me my question/issue about Torchlight is, and the answer is, are they for purpose of style making an overhead perspective, and not allowing a 1st person, (or close over shoulder 1st person) as a specific game design / style choice, and NOT for technical reasons?

I remember in Asheron's Call 1, which you can fight many mobs at the same time, and is kind of 'actiony', that you could play pure 1st person, or just over the shoulder 3rd person, or if ourside, pull the camera WAY up and back for a high overhead view (but it was centered on the character, one could not shift the camera off that, but rotate it around it).

In AC1 you could walk into a large interior room, that had levels in it, with mobs all shooting arrows / spell casting at you, that I don't see how one could do in high-overhead view. 

Also I don't understand how its less exciting in 1st person (again in a RPG style game) to peek down a hall, or around a corner, rather than scroll around looking down on a map.  To me its like I'm in the character in 1st/close 3rd, but in high-overhead its like I'm driving a doll around a map.

[Trippy]

Stop fucking talking about the overhead view -- it's not even fucking isometric. All you are doing is feeding the fucking troll.

To me my question/issue about Torchlight is, and the answer is, are they for purpose of style making an overhead perspective, and not allowing a 1st person, (or close over shoulder 1st person) as a specific game design / style choice, and NOT for technical reasons?

I remember in Asheron's Call 1, which you can fight many mobs at the same time, and is kind of 'actiony', that you could play pure 1st person, or just over the shoulder 3rd person, or if ourside, pull the camera WAY up and back for a high overhead view (but it was centered on the character, one could not shift the camera off that, but rotate it around it).

In AC1 you could walk into a large interior room, that had levels in it, with mobs all shooting arrows / spell casting at you, that I don't see how one could do in high-overhead view. 

Also I don't understand how its less exciting in 1st person (again in a RPG style game) to peek down a hall, or around a corner, rather than scroll around looking down on a map.  To me its like I'm in the character in 1st/close 3rd, but in high-overhead its like I'm driving a doll around a map.

Banned for a week for not shutting the fuck up.

[Typhon]

I re-read the article and I didn't get the feeling that advertisements would be a part of the game.

There doesn't seem to be enough character definition to support selling cosmetic equipment (characters seem too cartoony to me for this to be a big draw).

I think they could probably make a good chunk of change off of selling pets.

I think they could also make some money off of basing housing on having a paid subscription - they did mention "converting players into payers". You don't really need a house to play the game, but some folks just go mad for housing.

Paying for better luck?  My luck is typically mostly miss.  It would annoy me to no end to buy some luck, and get nothing but items that I couldn't use.  I'd probably buy luck that was more focused (i.e. more drops for my character class).

I guess I care because I like their games and would like to see them not go out of business again.

[Malakili]

I re-read the article and I didn't get the feeling that advertisements would be a part of the game.

There doesn't seem to be enough character definition to support selling cosmetic equipment (characters seem too cartoony to me for this to be a big draw).

I think they could probably make a good chunk of change off of selling pets.

I think they could also make some money off of basing housing on having a paid subscription - they did mention "converting players into payers". You don't really need a house to play the game, but some folks just go mad for housing.

Paying for better luck?  My luck is typically mostly miss.  It would annoy me to no end to buy some luck, and get nothing but items that I couldn't use.  I'd probably buy luck that was more focused (i.e. more drops for my character class).

I guess I care because I like their games and would like to see them not go out of business again.

Yeah, I don't like the idea of paying for a better drop chance either, with my luck nothing would drop.  This is why I don't play the lotto.  Hell, i really WOULD rather pay for straight up gear than do that, at least I know I'll get something for my money.   I wish they'd just charge monthly :-/

[Azazel]

Banned for a week for not shutting the fuck up.

At this point, it's just gotta be trolling, anyway. He's gone to a soccer game and asked "why aren't they playing basketball?" Over and Over.

[Azazel]

Yeah, I don't like the idea of paying for a better drop chance either, with my luck nothing would drop.  This is why I don't play the lotto.  Hell, i really WOULD rather pay for straight up gear than do that, at least I know I'll get something for my money.   I wish they'd just charge monthly :-/

Really though, assuming that this game is going to be Torchlight + Mythos, I can't think of any reason it actually needs to be a "MMOG" over server matchmaking/LAN or even something like Titan Quest where you could join games of people anywhere in the world. LAN/Networkable + Expansions/DLC packs would be just as good. Because in games like EQ you're more likely to talk to strangers and group with them. In WoW or LOTRO/etc, you might not talk to them but you'll often group with them for a short time. In Diablo-type games, you're really only likely to group with friends/etc than strangers, and most of the content is soloable (no raids where you have to find a group of 10/15/20/72 of your closest friends).

The desire for Money Hats, I guess. It'll be interesting to see what they copme up with.

[Typhon]

Given my experiences during the Borderlands and Demigod launch and the COD4, "which server are we playing on tonight... oh no, more asshats, ok, which server now", I'd have to say that I'm happier that this won't be what you described.

[Ratman_tf]

I guess I care because I like their games and would like to see them not go out of business again.

Me too. But the Guild Wars model was rather sucessful. AFAICT. Release an expansion every year or so. Dip into microtrans for silly cosmetic bullshit. Etc.

[Malakili]

Given my experiences during the Borderlands and Demigod launch and the COD4, "which server are we playing on tonight... oh no, more asshats, ok, which server now", I'd have to say that I'm happier that this won't be what you described.

Yeah, thats a pretty fair point. The structure Mythos had going "felt" good anyway, even if strictly speaking you could have probably replaced the instanced towns with a text based lobby.  I expect a similar feel here.  That still doesn't say much about the cash shop though, and a Guild Wars model with frequent expansions might do very well as long as they could keep pumping out new zones, areas and items.  I'd pay 20 bucks a year for a new expansion almost certainly. 

I think just that we have to worry about the payment model at all is a bad sign though.  I mean, if they just came out and said 'this is going to cost 5 bucks a month" (or whatever they were going to charge), most of us would probably say "alright, i'll pay 5 bucks a month for a multiplayer modern Diablo with social features and general MMO features"  That being said, I'd be less likely to spend 5 bucks a month at a cash shop if I feel like the things for sale are a bit iffy, just on principle, because thats just how I roll.

[Azazel]

Given my experiences during the Borderlands and Demigod launch and the COD4, "which server are we playing on tonight... oh no, more asshats, ok, which server now", I'd have to say that I'm happier that this won't be what you described.

Why is that? The only issue with what I posted is if you want to play with random strangers in a Diablo-alike.

Having said that, a GW-like solution would work for me. I'd be up for an expack every year or so much more than a $15 sub fee. I just don't play enough these days to go back to the EQ/WoW pricing model. Ironically, that's why I went for the lifetime sub for LotRO - big upfront cost, but now I don't feel a need to log on to "get my money's worth" and just log on whenever I have time.

[Tebonas]

Thats the exact same reason I did it as well. I even briefly contemplated buying Star Trek Online because that model exists, but the actual game didn't interest me.

[Azazel]

Yeah. I would actually do the same for WoW if they offered it for the same reason, despite not having played in 2+ years. I guess ActiBlizz are taking the longer-term view with their cash cow, and so I doubt we'd ever see that there.

[Malakili]

Given my experiences during the Borderlands and Demigod launch and the COD4, "which server are we playing on tonight... oh no, more asshats, ok, which server now", I'd have to say that I'm happier that this won't be what you described.

Why is that? The only issue with what I posted is if you want to play with random strangers in a Diablo-alike.

Having said that, a GW-like solution would work for me. I'd be up for an expack every year or so much more than a $15 sub fee. I just don't play enough these days to go back to the EQ/WoW pricing model. Ironically, that's why I went for the lifetime sub for LotRO - big upfront cost, but now I don't feel a need to log on to "get my money's worth" and just log on whenever I have time.

I think thats the biggest draw for the lifetime sub for any MMO that offers it in my opinion, at least for the slightly older crowd who tends to have more disposable income but less time.  It sort of "frees" you from having to treat the game like an MMO.  Just play when you want, don't when you don't want. (What a crazy concept!).

[Typhon]

I guess I care because I like their games and would like to see them not go out of business again.

Me too. But the Guild Wars model was rather sucessful. AFAICT. Release an expansion every year or so. Dip into microtrans for silly cosmetic bullshit. Etc.

Yes, I really like this model myself.  So much so that I would actually buy silly cosmetic bullshit to support the game.

Azazel, my experience with Demigod and Borderlands was that it was a pain in the ass to actually get connected with all four of "the regulars".  "Holy crap this fucking sucks", level of pain in the ass.  Some of the regulars are very much less technical and having to walk them through configuring routers is patience-draining.

COD4 was an exercise in finding a server that we all had decent ping.  Frequently we'd finally find a server with good ping and shortly thereafter people would start to join.  50% of the folks we were happy to see, the other 50%... not so much.  So, time to find another server.  This continued until one of us (not me) got so fed up with the 5 minute delay every time we wanted to play that he went through the effort of installing a server (and then he had to maintain it with every patch). 

I don't think any of the regulars would mind paying to to not have to deal with having to dick around with getting everyone connected and not having to play with douchebags.  Having doucebags in the same hub is fine (/ignore), actually having to play with them, no thanks.

I definitely agree with the lifetime sub angle for exactly the same reasons.  As mentioned, I'll even support games I like via cosmetic microtrans.  I won't tolerate being held captive to advertisements - I can't watch tv, I won't wait for internet video for more then 15 seconds, it just pisses me off to no end.

[Hoax]

If this shit is powered by Gamespy (ala Borderlands) I wouldn't touch it either or any other game associated with that shit.

[Azazel]

I guess I care because I like their games and would like to see them not go out of business again.

Me too. But the Guild Wars model was rather sucessful. AFAICT. Release an expansion every year or so. Dip into microtrans for silly cosmetic bullshit. Etc.

Yes, I really like this model myself.  So much so that I would actually buy silly cosmetic bullshit to support the game.

Azazel, my experience with Demigod and Borderlands was that it was a pain in the ass to actually get connected with all four of "the regulars".  "Holy crap this fucking sucks", level of pain in the ass.  Some of the regulars are very much less technical and having to walk them through configuring routers is patience-draining.

COD4 was an exercise in finding a server that we all had decent ping.  Frequently we'd finally find a server with good ping and shortly thereafter people would start to join.  50% of the folks we were happy to see, the other 50%... not so much.  So, time to find another server.  This continued until one of us (not me) got so fed up with the 5 minute delay every time we wanted to play that he went through the effort of installing a server (and then he had to maintain it with every patch). 

I don't think any of the regulars would mind paying to to not have to deal with having to dick around with getting everyone connected and not having to play with douchebags.  Having doucebags in the same hub is fine (/ignore), actually having to play with them, no thanks.

I definitely agree with the lifetime sub angle for exactly the same reasons.  As mentioned, I'll even support games I like via cosmetic microtrans.  I won't tolerate being held captive to advertisements - I can't watch tv, I won't wait for internet video for more then 15 seconds, it just pisses me off to no end.

Borderlands on PC was a fucking joke, I'll agree. CoD4 - well, you're pretty much joining a PUG game in progress, with all of the things which go laong with that.

Titan Quest though was as simple as setting up a game, choosing Internet, then the other three would connect to me and off we'd go for some glorious co-op. We mostly played locally by LAN, but more than a few times our friends connected from their house to my PC which was hosting, and my wife sitting next to me also connected via the net (since we were in Internet Game mode) and no problems at all. No asshats, no gamespy, no Borderlands-style "the PC is our primary platform" bullshit.

It's a bit of a tangent, but I'm fine with ads when they fit the game. real-life billboards for shit when I'm driging around in GTA or Saints' row? Fine. On the edges of the field or racetrack in FIFA or a racing game? Fine again. Outside of those, nope.

[Typhon]

It's a bit of a tangent, but I'm fine with ads when they fit the game. real-life billboards for shit when I'm driging around in GTA or Saints' row? Fine. On the edges of the field or racetrack in FIFA or a racing game? Fine again. Outside of those, nope.

Agree, Hellgate billboard didn't bother me at all.  If the ad is amusing, it's even a plus... course, marketing firms usually can't be bothered to create something amusing for an in-game ad, too much work.

[Count Nerfedalot]

Titan Quest though was as simple as setting up a game, choosing Internet, then the other three would connect to me and off we'd go for some glorious co-op. We mostly played locally by LAN, but more than a few times our friends connected from their house to my PC which was hosting, and my wife sitting next to me also connected via the net (since we were in Internet Game mode) and no problems at all. No asshats, no gamespy, no Borderlands-style "the PC is our primary platform" bullshit.

This is exactly what I want to see again.  But there's no money after the initial sales in that model so we're not likely to see it because developers (and more to the point, financiers) seem focused on getting their money hats by repeatedly taking money from the same customers rather than making a game good enough to garner lots and lots of customers.

[Merusk]

Well its worked for MMOs for 10+ years, so why not?

[UnSub]

This is exactly what I want to see again.  But there's no money after the initial sales in that model so we're not likely to see it because developers (and more to the point, financiers) seem focused on getting their money hats by repeatedly taking money from the same customers rather than making a game good enough to garner lots and lots of customers.

It's cheaper and easier to get your existing customers to pay more (up to a point, depends on category, etc etc) than it is to constantly find new customers.

[Azazel]

Titan Quest connectivity + Guild Wars model of expansions every so often would work for me.

[Typhon]

I just find the Guild Wars model superior than the Titan Quest model (bolded the point that is the main draw for me). 

Payment model is the same. 
Persistence model is superior with Guild Wars (if my machine goes belly up, if I haven't backed up my Titan's Quest characters, I've lost them for good). 
Network configuration is simpler with Guild Wars.  (In the Titan Quest model, someone has to host.  That someone will have had to configure their router.)
Option to play with random people is arguably break-even, but you'd have to use a Game Spy type of service with Titan Quest, so I still give the advantage to Guild Wars.

[Azazel]

Sorry, yeah , GW model would work almost as well. I just like the LAN option as well.

[Typhon]

You don't have to listen to barrens chat.  That is an advantage for the TQ model, but not a big one because you can always just /leave barrenschat

[Azazel]

I guess I should explain. I like LAN as an option because it doesn't need to use the internet at all. No lag, no latency and so forth. Internet goes down and you can still play. On top of that there's no barrens chat. I guess being able to connect to their GW servers or LAN it would be ideal, but they'd never allow that, since people might "cheat" and hack their toons.

[Musashi]

Looks like a viral marketing thingey.

http://www.runicgames.com/08042010

[Malakili]

Best guess I've seen so far

A world map?

[Tarami]

I think it's the impression of the face of Christ.

[Musashi]

I think it's one of those things where you come back later and they reveal more of the image.

[Goreschach]

I see a skull.



But I always see that.