Bioware Austin.. damm more Dragons.. or Lightsabers?

[Venkman]

The whole legend thing was better supported in Excaliber to be sure. The idea of the Clive Owen one was that those legends were based on earlier (maybe) factual events. Neither lore-compliant or not, I enjoyed the movie. I'm no historian but am enough into it to discount anything shown on a movie screen as fact unto itself.

[Cadaverine]

So no one has seen Knightriders or what? You're missing out, I tell ya

If you're referring to the flick with the ren faire types jousting on motorcycles, then yes, I still vaguely remember it from back in the 80's sometime when I had the misfortune of seeing it on Showtime?  HBO?  Some movie channel. 


As for the unholy cracker spawn of LA and Bioware?  Can't wait.   

Though, I forsee the weeping and gnashing of teeth from KotOR fanbois will be 

[stray]

Heh, Motorcycle slash Ren Faire Gang to be exact. Directed by Romero at that. Instead of King Arthur, the leader is King Billy, played by a young Ed Harris. Tom Savini plays the villain.

[UnSub]

What I get from this thread is that f13 posters want a King Arthur MMO. With midgets. And voice acting by DiCaprio.

Maybe Bioware is going to dig down into old Lucasarts games and we can look forward to:

LOOM Online
Maniac Mansion Online (it'd be the MMO MMO!)
Day of the Tentacle Online

[Rasix]

Day of the Tentacle Online

Japan awaits with bated breath.   

[Surlyboi]

I see what you did there...

[SnakeCharmer]

I don't get it.

 

[Oban]

I don't get it.

 

With your name, I really hope you meant to have that text in green.

[tmp]

Seeing a thousand avatars looking like Laura Croft cybering with one another while waiting for the Holy Ark to respawn so they can click it and ding gratz! Man!

Moneyhats right there.

Fixed.

[Ratman_tf]

Seeing a thousand avatars looking like Laura Croft cybering with one another while waiting for the Holy Ark to respawn so they can click it and ding gratz! Man!

Moneyhats right there.

Fixed.

I thought that was Second Life?

[Megrim]

Willow is way better than Lord of the Rings. I even bought the sticker book for it. I think I was only eight years old though.

Eh, no.

Wow, epic fail. It so is.

Negative.

Wait, wait, wait, were you saying something? I can't hear it over the sound of how wrong you are.

[DraconianOne]

You sure you didn't see "Under the Rainbow?"  An amusing movie when I was 10ish and finally saw it on HBO.

To be honest, whatever the hell I was watching, my actual thought was "I'm fucking drunk, but not as drunk as that guy". All I remember is a drunk midget falling down the stairs, sitting up, saying something like "Hell, forgot my fucking beer" and then going back up the stairs for his beer.

Haven't seen Under the Rainbow.  Have seen "Even Dwarfs Started Small".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJuaZKBABO0

Knightriders was good, very good.  Excalibur rules.  My all time favourite Athurian scene ever, though, is from First Knight (or at least the trailer) when Sean Connery rides up towards a castle and proclaims solemnly "Camelot!".  I keep expecting Richard Gere to burst into song and start singing about spam.

This is all going to get denned - what do we have to do to get a dedicated Movies forum?

[Velorath]

This is all going to get denned - what do we have to do to get a dedicated Movies forum?

To start with, some of you would need to get a lot better taste.

[stu]

Then we can call it the Bad Movie Forum instead.

[tmp]

I thought that was Second Life?

No, no. SL is when it's Lara Crofts with cat ears and tails... and other unmentionables.

[eldaec]

Gordon Walton on MMOGs...

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=15386

...this could be read as him saying, MMOGs should be WoW, but more so. Hmmm.

[schild]

    Star Wars: Galaxies - The Total Experience (2005), LucasArts
    Star Wars: Galaxies - Jump to Light Speed (2004), LucasArts
    The Sims (2003), Electronic Arts, Inc.
    The Sims: Online (2002), Electronic Arts, Inc.
    Ultima Online: Third Dawn (2001), Electronic Arts, Inc.
    Ultima Online: Renaissance (2000), Electronic Arts, Inc.
    Ultima IX: Ascension (1999), Electronic Arts, Inc.
    Air Warrior II (1997), Interactive Magic
    Air Warrior III (1997), Interactive Magic
    Harpoon Classic '97 (1996), Alliance Interactive, Inc., Interactive Magic
    Harpoon Classic (1995), Renegade Software
    Empire Deluxe Scenarios (1993), New World Computing, Inc.
    PT-109 (1987), Spectrum Holobyte, Inc.
    Sub Battle Simulator (1987), Epyx, Inc.
    Orbiter (1986), Spectrum Holobyte, Inc.

[Venkman]

Gordon Walton on MMOGs...

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=15386

...this could be read as him saying, MMOGs should be WoW, but more so. Hmmm.

This is what they said during AGC 2006, and the main reason I stopped caring about what they were doing MMO-wise. Whenever companies focus on delivering more of the same but better, the metric of success shifts to being about anything but innovative experiences. Better graphics, better sound, streamlined processes, etc. For publishing-model genres, that makes sense because all your focus are on the one-time reveneu from the launch of the box. MMOs last forever though so WoW presents the same challenge today as it did two years ago.

I'll become interested again if they prove they can achieve Blizzard's level of immediate fun, polish, and completeness but different.

[Merusk]

Gordon Walton on MMOGs...

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=15386

...this could be read as him saying, MMOGs should be WoW, but more so. Hmmm.

Are yoiu saying they shouldn't?  Things can be more-wow but not be wow, or even DIKU. (Or even cater the 'end game' to the hardcore.)  He's talking about making a fun, entertaining game.  Hell, it even mentions he dismisses the virtual world aspect at one point.  I can understand how some of the crowd here dislikes that idea, but I'm all for it.

[eldaec]

The problem is that ever since WoW most MMOGs have decided they have to be exactly like that game, right down to circular mini-maps, avatar portraits next to the health bars, quickbar located bottom centre, and *yellow* exclamation marks to denote quest npcs.

Even MMOGs in development have upped and chaged direction to be like WoW.

This ignores two basic tenets that can be applied to pretty much all of life.

1) A business strategy that lacks differentiation will fail financially.
2) Art of any form that lacks differentiation will suck.

Fact of the matter is that most of these MMOGs haven't even copied anything important from WoW. WoW differentiates itself primarily on the enormous production values ploughed in. Nobody else short of maybe Valve is in a position to do the same, so trying to take the same ground will fail.

[Simond]

Gordon Walton on MMOGs...

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=15386

...this could be read as him saying, MMOGs should be WoW, but more so. Hmmm.

This is what they said during AGC 2006, and the main reason I stopped caring about what they were doing MMO-wise. Whenever companies focus on delivering more of the same but better, the metric of success shifts to being about anything but innovative experiences. Better graphics, better sound, streamlined processes, etc. For publishing-model genres, that makes sense because all your focus are on the one-time reveneu from the launch of the box. MMOs last forever though so WoW presents the same challenge today as it did two years ago.

I'll become interested again if they prove they can achieve Blizzard's level of immediate fun, polish, and completeness but different.

WoW was, essentially, EQ-Done-Right, and got over twenty times the subscriber base of its 'parent'. Who knows what WoW-done-right would do.

[Ratman_tf]

WoW was, essentially, EQ-Done-Right, and got over twenty times the subscriber base of its 'parent'. Who knows what WoW-done-right would do.

Wow Was a Blizzard title with that built-in Blizzard fan base. "Wow done right" will never have those kinds of subscribers unless it's World of Starcraft.

*He proclaimed on the internet, hoping to be proven wrong.*

[Venkman]

There's a lot more to WoW's success than just what it got right game-play was. For example, if it only launched in markets were more U.S.-brewed MMOs launch, we would be all heralding the greatness of the first Western MMO to break the two million subscriber mark, and would still be arguing the relevance of how the Lineages reported their numbers.

WoW was not able to beat EQ1 on gameplay alone, though of course that was a strong part. The other parts can't be ignored though, like the marketing muscle, the worldwide reach, the unlimited testing cycle afforded them by their unlimited development budget (figuratively of course), and the predicted success based on the size of the market then plus Battle.net.

My issue with the speech above (and from the year prior) is that they assume Blizzard raised the bar others need to hit without mention parts of that bar that don't really exist for other companies at all.

Make a good game. Scale it to your development resources. Learn from WoW and everyone else. Just don't tell everyone you need to hit WoW numbers to be successful. I know that's not what Gordon's saying, but there's a hidden implication among a lot of publishers that is just unrealistic and unneeded.

[UnSub]

WoW showed that established video game brand (based on PvE and PvP) + huge development budget + worldwide reach + low barriers to entry + quick player advancement + huge marketing budget + a focus on polish + increasing uptake in broadband + fun early gaming experience + snowballing player numbers so it was the game everyone was playing so picked it up because your friends were playing + luck = a massively successful product.

How many MMOs are going to be able to claim all of those advantages? Not every one of them is equally as important, but they all helped make WoW what it is today. Not even Blizzard thought they'd be this successful, so good luck to anyone planning to get 5 million + players.

Plus you release WoW Mark II and people are going to go, "It's nice, but I've already played WoW Mark I and am now looking for something different".

Which KOTORO is on the face of it, but as soon as they start announcing in-game features (you start with light saber, but you really have to wait until the Dark Maul drops the Dual Light Saber of Plo Kloon and then socket it with force gems for you to be really effective as a Jedi) things are going to start to look even more similar.

[Margalis]

So far "more of the same but better" has actually turned out to be "more of the same but worse."

That Gordon Walton link was pathetic. Does he have a single original idea or his whole schtick making a half-assed WOW clone?

You have to love how one of the lessons is to get people who can think and be critical of the genre rather than people with MMO experience - coming from Gordon Walton.

[Venkman]

Plus you release WoW Mark II and people are going to go, "It's nice, but I've already played WoW Mark I and am now looking for something different".

I agree with everything else in your post (since we're saying the same thing ;) ), except this part.

WoW being EQ done right only matter to the veteran set, and they successfully captured a most of us. But there's things about WoW that someone could do better. There's features in other games that already are better. They're just not tied to uber-successful titles, for reasons that have little to do with the games themself.

WoW drew in a lot of new people to DIKU, and we've all seen the regurgitation of ancient complaints as a result. That's where WoW is weakest on the game play side: the same place EQ1 was, just updated for a more modern crowd. The neophytes are not looking for "different" as much as they are looking for better, the same way we were (the general DIKU-enjoying part of the genre "we").

It's just where they've been strongest that few others can attack, and that holds back advancement here, and prompts things like that AGC speech.

[UnSub]

By different, I meant "different enough to make it feel like a new game", not necessarily radically different.

A new MMO that is different to WoW could still take on enough of the good features (such as rapid character advancement) but still have enough new features to offer so as not to just be WoW reskinned. To the best of my knowledge, WoW is not EQ reskinned.

But we are arguing a minor point since we agree on the larger issue.

[Margalis]

Here is a secret for the three people left on earth who don't know it: anyone can talk a good game and sound like they know exactly what is up.

90% of dev team managers are familiar with "The Mythical Man Month" and know that adding staff at the end of a project doesn't increase productivity - but they'll do it anyway. They know that QA time on a feature should be on the same order of magnitude as dev time, but they'll schedule 2 weeks of QA for something that took a year to build. They know that feature-creep is bad but they'll creep features left and right.

"Quality matters" is pretty fucking obvious and it didn't take WOW to teach people that. The people claiming to understand that now? They still don't get it. Most of them will ship a buggy piece of shit, then say they had production deadlines blah blah blah...

[Venkman]

WoW provided team leads with proof that certain things do matter to the success of a project. Sometimes when they talk about "quality", they're talking more about their arguments back to their management/publisher.

Otherwise, yea, the compromises of old are still the same. There's just a different measure of failure now.

[WindupAtheist]

Speaking of Willow, anyone else ever read this?

[Venkman]

That cover looks just like another book cover. Can't remember the name though. I think it was a Camelot/Avalon type book though, except the guy was facing the other way.

[Endie]

That cover looks just like another book cover. Can't remember the name though. I think it was a Camelot/Avalon type book though, except the guy was facing the other way.

Maybe this chappy?

[Abelian75]

Here is a secret for the three people left on earth who don't know it: anyone can talk a good game and sound like they know exactly what is up.

90% of dev team managers are familiar with "The Mythical Man Month" and know that adding staff at the end of a project doesn't increase productivity - but they'll do it anyway. They know that QA time on a feature should be on the same order of magnitude as dev time, but they'll schedule 2 weeks of QA for something that took a year to build. They know that feature-creep is bad but they'll creep features left and right.

"Quality matters" is pretty fucking obvious and it didn't take WOW to teach people that. The people claiming to understand that now? They still don't get it. Most of them will ship a buggy piece of shit, then say they had production deadlines blah blah blah...

Word.  There's a great deal of group masturbation going on with people throwing around the "quality" buzzword, talking about learning from past mistakes, etc etc.  The thing is, I highly doubt that any companies have ever released their half-assed games intentionally as some calculated decision.  They've just run out of money and had to do so, knowing full well that they have (at least partially) failed.  It's not like suddenly companies are going to NOT release their games when they run out of money because they've learned some deep lesson that people want games that don't look like shit.  Obviously they do, and obviously everyone has always known that, it's just that not many people are able to pull it off.  The tricky part is not getting together and saying, with a sense of great importance, "People want quality games," it's making them.

[WindupAtheist]

hitler

I LOL'd.

[HaemishM]

I was working in the bookstore when that Willow sequel came out. A few of the ladies working there said it was good.