What MMO/s are you looking forward to?

[Sol Invictus]

Show me how 8 players constitutes massively multiplayer gameplay and I'll concede.

If you call graphical chat lobbies 'massively multiplayer', that would be wrong as well. Diablo 2 had graphical chat lobbies and it wasn't a massively multiplayer game. Just because you can trade in the lobbies doesn't make it 'massively multiplayer' all of a sudden.

 

[Shagnak]

Well I guess this comes down to what "massively multiplayer" means. I guess you mean that it is defined as whether you can join masses of other players in one big combat/adventure at any one time, i.e. " 'hunting zones' where 500 players are attacking monsters. "

Fair enuff.

I was thinking more along the lines that you can have masses of people on the server at any one time, regardless of whether they are currently "adventuring" together, but you could still meet masses of people in some situations. I understand about the "instancing", I've read all about that, but you can interact with "masses" of people at town hubs and stuff, right?
You are saying they are essentially just "graphical chat lobbies". I was not aware of this, I thought maybe there was a bit more to town gameplay.

And I would like to know more about the gameplay - despite the "instancing" , is it still more of the boring old level-up grind with repetitive combat etc like MMOs typically are? Or is it more like a "proper" fully fledged rpg (i.e. with substantial quests, storyline, and dialog)? Is the instancing the only point of difference in the gameplay?

The video footage I've seen isn't very flattering, and makes the gameplay look like any MMO I've seen (only perhaps less crowded!), irrespective of stuff I've heard from you and read elsewhere, hence my concerns.

Play the game first before you open your mouth. Until then, shut the hell up and don't try to sound like you know what it's about when you don't.

I stated the facts as I understood them (and others, perhaps mistakenly, probably think as well), the idea being that this is a discussion forum and hopefully someone will put me right (as you have). This is good thing, right?
(I don't think I have ever claimed expertise on MMO classification - I don't generally play them - and wasn't meaning to give the impression)

Maybe should have started with "well, my current understanding is this, despite evidence to the contrary, because...blah blah blah" and then you wouldnt have been so reactionary.
No need to be so grumpy about it

To quote/paraphrase Fez: "pull the broomstick out of your arse and let our love in".

:wink:

 

[Sol Invictus]

Yes, they're basically small chat lobbies. Each town lobby is instanced with a limited number of inhabitants. New lobby instances are generated if more players visited the 'town'. You can basically trade, get 'wilderness' quests and visit the shops in the towns.

They might be doing away with the town trade by introducing global auction that allows you to trade items no matter where you are. I'm looking forward to that.

And I would like to know more about the gameplay - despite the "instancing" , is it still more of the boring old level-up grind with repetitive combat etc like MMOs typically are? Or is it more like a "proper" fully fledged rpg (i.e. with substantial quests, storyline, and dialog)? Is the instancing the only point of difference in the gameplay?

The level grind doesn't really exist, because your level is capped at 20. It's more like a "proper" fully fledged RPG with substantial optional quests in the wilderness area that affect your 'experience' of the world, and an 'epic' storyline that the player follows through the game. The storyline is presented through cutscenes and movies, just like Diablo 2.

One of the big features that seperates Guild Wars from other multiplayer games, besides the instancing, is the implementation of PVP Arena, Guild vs Guild (castle siege), Capture the Flag, King of the Hill and a variety of other competitive games.

I understand your concerns, and how misleading some of the previews can be (a lot of which are poorly written), especially because the game carries the mantle of 'MMORPG' according to stupid websites like IGN.

I'll stop being grumpy!

 

[Ortchel]

From MEO's FAQ:
"Orcs, Trolls and other pure-evil races are not playable in the initial release, however there is a chance that these become playable in future expansions. The reasons for not having pure evil races are:

* It would require a LOT of work to make the content: an epic storyline for evil character + quests + homelands etc.
* In addition they would need to crack tough questions such as how to deal with friends wanting to play together with one having an elven character and the other an orc, how to deal with consensual PvP and having orcs and such
* Also there is the fun factor: how much fun is it not being able to enter a lot of the lands since orcs did not enter Bree or other known cities and places every once in a while and how much fun is it to be mostly under strict orders and having little sway on your own (game) life…..

Not an easy thing to solve."

 

[Sol Invictus]

It sounds like the evil races in MEO won't become available until an expansion pack is released. One of the things that bothers me, a lot, about MEO is how it originally had an alignment system based on quests that allowed you to ally with the side of good, or evil, but they've since taken it out because it "would require a LOT of work to make the content".

Why is this game even in development anymore? World of Warcraft managed the opposing factions (alliance vs horde) just fine, but these guys are saying it's "too much work" and giving a bunch of lame excuses about consensual pvp, not being able to have an Elf party up with an Orc, or that crap about the fun factor. So what if a Paladin can't just walk into the Undead Citadel? He's got his own content to deal with.

 

[Ortchel]

They seem to use the 'it's too much work' excuse often, aren't they supposed to work?

 

[Sol Invictus]

You'd think a big name like Middle Earth and the competition with EQ2 and WOW would compel them to work harder.

 

[Elwro]

None whatsoever. The idea of a monthly fee appals me.

Ditto.

Although, as a Warhammer fan, I was interested in Warhammer Online. Wasn't that cancelled?

 

[DarkSign]

First of all, ok I suppose I will concede that GW isnt quite massive - but really only because Im to lazy to do more homework...but it could be said that since massive amounts of people will be playing it...and you have the opportunity to face off against massive amounts of people (even they all arent in one persistent space) that is an MMO. But Ill drop that for the moment.

The Warhammer Online project is supposedly still a go. It was started and stopped again only to be restarted with only part of the original dev team and different backing. From all reports they arent working at a breakneck speed and the project is on the backburner, while still moving forward if that makes any sense.

Ive never played anything Warhammer so Im not really all that interested in it. The graphical style just seems like another cheezy Blizzard style with darker motif.

 

[Sol Invictus]

but it could be said that since massive amounts of people will be playing it...and you have the opportunity to face off against massive amounts of people (even they all arent in one persistent space) that is an MMO.

So CounterStrike is an MMO because 50,000 gamers play it at any given time? I think this calls for a r00fles.

 

[Lady Armageddona]

1 - World of Warcraft expansion that adds Nagas and Blood Elves and/or High Elves as playable races, to whoever side (preferably a side of their own) - I'm hugely interested in playing WoW but I won't until I see what I want to see in the game. And that is just mentioned above
2 - Guild Wars - despite it not being a MMORPG I am still looking forward to that. Wishfully they'll add other playable races in the future.Until then I'll probably swallow the fact taht I'll be compelled to play human if the game itself is really good
3 - Hmmm, Imperator sounds fun. On the other hand, again being compelled to play a Roman sucks. I hope that Mythic get their head right and add other options to this.
4 - MEO will suck big, and will be a huge financial disaster. Just as DnD Online. And the Matrix Online. And I don't even care about it.
5 - I'm greatly looking forward to any FOOL produced by Interplay just for the principle of the thing. Sadly, this obviosly won't happen, but still

 

[obediah]

I wish I could have my MMORPG cherry back. I think I'm too jaded to ever play one again - much to my friends chagrin. It's so cute the way he expects each new game to be "the one" He buys they game and raves about how cool it is and begs me to buy it. I tell him to get back to me in 6 months. He bugs me every night for a month, then two months later I ask him how it's going and he gets this sad look on his face.

 

[DarkSign]

I think youve described a LOT of MMOers lately.

@Exit: I think you have to meet me half way....the game does have classes and skills and levels as well as different races.

That tired CounterStrike argument isnt a perfect fit, bro.

 

[Sol Invictus]

So? Icewind Dale and Baldur's Gate have classes, and skills, and levels, as well as different races. Are those MMORPGs, too?

 

[DarkSign]

do those have persistent lobbies? do those have the opportunity to face off guild vs guild from a pool of guilds around the world?

you arent seeing the forest for the trees.

picking and switching games doesnt help your argument. CounterStrike and GW arent a match.

At least Im willing to go halfway when you arent. GW isnt an MMO. Great. But its close and you wont even concede that. A debater who cant concede even small points isnt worth debating

 

[Sol Invictus]

Persistent lobby. That's a funny term. I don't suppose IRC is a persistent lobby too, is it?

do those have the opportunity to face off guild vs guild from a pool of guilds around the world?

Gamespy Arcade. omg lamespy am i rite? LOL!

you arent seeing the forest for the trees.

You're seeing a forest when there's only a couple of trees standing together in a plain.

picking and switching games doesnt help your argument. CounterStrike and GW arent a match.

They kind of are, considering that they're both competitive titles with matchmaking services (interactive lobby versus STEAM), global ranking (CPL). I suppose a better comparison would be Unreal Tournament 2004, or better yet: Unreal Championship 2, for the XBOX.

In any case I'm just having my fun.

 

[Shagnak]

Irrespective opf the MMO vs non-MMO thingy, do you think GW will have a demo on release? Or will that be too resource intensive? (i.e. cost of running servers etc vs income reaped from convinced punters)

Im finally getting braodband put on at home (rather than just work) and an online game is finally looking viable for me...
But I'm still a skeptic about exactly how great this game will be :wink:

 

[Sol Invictus]

It looks like there's even more stupid shit on the horizon: http://pc.ign.com/articles/594/594987p1.html

Gods & Heroes, a Roman-themed class-based (6 classes) MMORPG that essentially rips off World of Warcraft in every possible way.

Fuck this shit.

 

[Claw]

Persistent lobby. That's a funny term. I don't suppose IRC is a persistent lobby too, is it?

Heh. I actually thought of that concept myself once. But I was really thinking of an atmospheric lobby for multiplayer action games, like Unreal Tournament. It didn't occur to me anyone might want call that mmorpg.

You're seeing a forest when there's only a couple of trees standing together in a plain.

A grove, maybe? :wink:


The mmorpg I am looking forward to is the one that isn't being made yet. The game would have to allow players to create contracts that guarantee a reward for a certain task, be it fetching an item, or killing another player. Higher level players could get into special positions allowing them to even generate quests and give experience, although that might be difficult to handle.
This mmorpg would offer completely and partly randomized quests, competitive quests (which could be located in PvP zones or enable PvP among participants) and linked quests (the latter especially could also be competitive, i.e. one quest has the goal to stop players from completing the other) as well as unique meta-quests with tremendous rewards. These meta-quests would not be clearly outlined or assigned by an NPC, but instead the players would find clues such as legends, mysterious artifacts or scripts. These quests would consist of a number of individual challenges, and may actively attract other players to compete or oppose the player pursuing such a quest, by example through quests triggered by the player's actions relevant to the quest.
The world should be more dynamic, allowing for some amount of change, partly automatic and partly through player action. At least occasionally, major changes to the gameworld should occur and give players the options to induce, support or hinder these developments.
NPCs should be regarded largely as fillers, and players should be encouraged to take their place, further integrating players into the world.
One thing that annoys me tremendously about mmorpgs are the fields of "mobs" waiting to be harvested by players. I wish a more believable scenario that changes and responds to player interaction. Threats could grow slowly, become quests and significantly affect the game world (at least locally). If necessary, a scripted event could occur to deal with the threat.

Regarding monthy fees, I despise paying for imaginary playtime, but I could accept a low monthly fee with a minimum playtime plus a tariff for additinal playtime.

 

[Vykromond]

On the semantics of "MMORPG"

Here's the problem with determining whether Guild Wars is an MMORPG or not: Exitium and Shagnak et al. aren't really talking about the same thing.

Exitium says that Guild Wars isn't an MMORPG because it isn't "massive" and its groups of players who are doing the same thing are not of a "massive" scale, so it can't be a Massive, Multiplayer, Online Role-Playing Game.

But Shagnak et al. allege that because it's played in multiplayer, it's a MassiveLY Multiplayer Role-Playing Game: that is to say, its content is delivered massively in multiplayer mode and not singleplayer mode. The reason why this definition has been largely discarded over time (and why the acronym has come to mean "Massive Multiplayer Online" rather than "Massively Multiplayer Online") is because, as Exitium pointed out, under these premises Counter-Strike and Unreal Tournament are MMOG's (Diablo II isn't because its content is not delivered massively in multiplayer mode as compared to singleplayer mode).

 

[Sol Invictus]

Irrespective opf the MMO vs non-MMO thingy, do you think GW will have a demo on release? Or will that be too resource intensive? (i.e. cost of running servers etc vs income reaped from convinced punters)

Im finally getting braodband put on at home (rather than just work) and an online game is finally looking viable for me...
But I'm still a skeptic about exactly how great this game will be :wink:

It'll probably have a limited demo with the first few areas and perhaps some low level PVP. The game's weekend betas are essentially demos. If you can get a key from a friend (each preorder comes with an additional key to give to a friend. Some magazines still supply weekend passes that work for a single weekend) you can try it out this weekend.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Here's a surprising new one:

March 14, 2005 - Australian developer Imaginary Numbers today announced Tactica Online, a turn-based MMORPG set, interestingly enough, in the era of Leonardo da Vinci.

In Tactica, players will control a team of characters with customized skills and abilities. The developer describes building a combat-worthy team as similar to building a deck in a collectible card game. The game will offer action in the form of missions, Tournaments, and Campaigns, the last of which affect the game's primary story.

The game's world, drawn from da Vinci's time, is one of clashing beliefs -- science versus magic, faith versus reason -- secret societies, and dark intrigue.

"There has been a void in the turn-based strategy RPG category," said Luke Carruthers, CEO of Imaginary Numbers. "Thousands of dedicated players love these kinds of games and Tactica Online brings that immersive, engaging style of play to the online sphere."

Tactica is slated for release in Fall 2005, though Imaginary Numbers has yet to announce a publisher. We'll be back with more on the title as details emerge.



So who said they couldn't make a TB mmorpg?

 

[Reklar]

It sounds like the evil races in MEO won't become available until an expansion pack is released. One of the things that bothers me, a lot, about MEO is how it originally had an alignment system based on quests that allowed you to ally with the side of good, or evil, but they've since taken it out because it "would require a LOT of work to make the content".

Why is this game even in development anymore? World of Warcraft managed the opposing factions (alliance vs horde) just fine, but these guys are saying it's "too much work" and giving a bunch of lame excuses about consensual pvp, not being able to have an Elf party up with an Orc, or that crap about the fun factor. So what if a Paladin can't just walk into the Undead Citadel? He's got his own content to deal with.

I would imagine it has a lot more to do with the licensing agreement they have with the Tolkien Estate than being lazy. They might have the rights to include playable orcs and other evil creatures, but the means of implementing them are more than likely so severely restricted that they want to focus on enough to get the game out the door and making money before they tackle something that big. The quote concerning the restrictions that would be placed on orc players should have been a good hint.

-Reklar
(a Fallout/RPG fan)

 

[DarkSign]

These are the echoes of MMO development costs. I agree with Ex that that game shouldnt be done if it isnt done right. Of course this brings us back to cost. To do that of course sounds like it would double their production time and cost.

I seriously think that from now on, any MMO creator should farm out to Russia or India to get such things done the right way.

 

[Reklar]

These are the echoes of MMO development costs. I agree with Ex that that game shouldnt be done if it isnt done right. Of course this brings us back to cost. To do that of course sounds like it would double their production time and cost.

I seriously think that from now on, any MMO creator should farm out to Russia or India to get such things done the right way.

I agree that it sounds like they're cutting a lot, but you have to keep in mind that when you are dealing with an entity like the Tolkien Estate that completely controls the creative rights to the subject material you are working with you can't do everything the potential customer wants. Besides, out of curiosity, for example, why do you think it is right to have orcs as a playable race in the Middle Earth setting? Is it because all MMORPGs let you play an "evil" race or class and so all others should do the same? Considering the source material and the fact this game has been discussed in some form or another for a very long time (I recall hearing about it in the mid-90's), I'd say it's amazing that the licensing agreement was even made, let alone any development being done.

Personally, I'm not so sure a Middle Earth online game is a good idea at all considering the usual online audience, but I guess it could have potential. If nothing else, I'd be interested to see how accurately they portray the locations. My guess though, optimist that I may normally be, is that the game will be lacking any originality aside from the setting.

-Reklar
(a Fallout/RPG fan)

P.S. Oh, and call me old fashioned, but I think out-sourcing everything isn't a good idea, even if it costs less, because generally you get what you pay for and it's at the cost of local jobs. If people want the US gaming market to quit foundering in the surf of mediocre to absolute garbage titles then we need to keep those jobs here and not in a foreign country.