Game News Night Watch Officially Official

[Sarvis]

EDIT: I could understand being tired with the <i>implementation</i> of races, which is almost always just a few point modifiers for stats...

I'd like to see racial differences be much more interesting, with each race having it's own classes and such that were unique and actually made use of racial differences.

However that proved a pretty unpopular idea on the Dragon Age forums...

There's a reason it's unpopular. It's a silly idea. If the character meets the requirements for the class, that should be all that matters.

First of all why should there ever be _requirements_ for classes? That alone is a retarded idea, because anyone can learn to do anything. The only limitations should be truly logical ones, like needing to be smart enough to read (AND learning how) in order to be a mage. Having a requirment of, for instance, Int 18 to be a mage would be ludicrous.

Second, why shouldn't each race have their own classes? Seriously think about that. Do you think a Cloud Giant would fight in the same way a human would? (If you say yes, go away.) No, he wouldn't. So WHY would he be the same CLASS as a human? In a simplified leveling system a human warrior class might get better at melee weapons and (cross)bows with levels while a giant might get better at crushing multiple opponents with one hit and throwing boulders. Why should the giant and the human both get better at using a longbow and a boulder?

Like I said, too, there is no reason to pigeonhole either. You simply give each race it's own varied selection of classes! For instance humans would have Fighter, mage, cleric, ranger, thief. Elves might have Bladesinger, Weaver, Cleric, Forestal and spy. Cloud Giants might have Cloud Knights, Storm Callers, Sky Shaman, and something else I'm too tired to think of.

Some classes would certainly be available to several races when appropriate too. Cleric is a pretty good example of that, since praying to a God would be fairly universal... though evil races might get a different class to represent the more evil nature of their gods. We are, of course, talking about more than just a different spell selection too.


There would be plenty of variety within each race, while allowing each race to be truly unique in combat and other situations. Unless you really, really think that for some reason a minotaur would never work natural advantages such as his horns into fighting routines and such.

 

[Sol Invictus]

There are no races.

An 'Other' basically sounds the same as race, or particular form of species, much like an Outsider in D&D does.

That's not what an 'Other' is.

If it's anything like what has been done up to this point in terms of CRPGs, I'm willing to bet it will amount to basically all classes having different skills when it comes to names, but that many of the skills themselves will have very similar, if not equal, functions.

Uh-huh.

Actually, they don't disprove it. If you're half as intelligent as you desperately try to sound, you should know that past games of a company do not necessarily indicate that future titles will have the exact same elements.

But they're definitely a good fucking indicator, don't you think? Oh, let's see - Valve delivers a superb FPS in the form of Half Life, oh my god, the next game Valve develops will completely suck because past games of a company do not necessarily indicate that future titles will be just as good!!! . But seriously, Nival's proven that they can deliver a good game, no reason to think that they'll fail us this time.

And in case you failed to notice, in most CRPGs, while all spells have their uses, it generally boils down to using a select few ones - the most powerful and/or useful - to get the job done.

And stop pimping Guild Wars.

Why should I stop pimping Guild Wars, when it's clearly a good indicator that spells and skills can be different in utility and not just in name? There's no reason why MTG/GW/Etherlords should be the only game where skills are actually different. Why can't the same principle hold true for Night Watch? It is being developed by Nival, after all, not somebody we don't know about.

Maybe. Whenever a game developer talks about NPCs having complex emotions or somesuch, I just stiffle laughter.

Well, it's a PR thing most of the time, so you could be right, but I hope for the everyone's sake that it's indeed complex and not just PR fluff.

Speaking of which, I started Neverwhere yesterday. Fun.

Glad you like it, it's pretty awesome.

Because I'm terribly cynic these past few days and get suspicious of everything everyone says. Including me.

You don't have to be one, you know.

I do remember Silent Storm, I played it (though I haven't finished it yet). And while I agree there's some tactics involved, I suspect that it can lead to some cheese in the form of blowing up a large part of a building to nearly effortlessly destroy several enemies in one fell swoop. It's like a Act of God cause by heavy artillery.

Well, Silent Storm definitely suffered from those stupid Panzerklein things at the end of the game, so I hope that they don't turn the end of Night Watch into something like that. I'd love to see "epic" battles waged with gigantic spells, though - as long as it's done right, against enemies possessing similar abilities, and not just a bunch of goons who have no chance against you.

No, just a condom against developer bullshit and hype. They may rape me, but they'll never contaminate me.

I'll have to remember that one.

 

[Sol Invictus]

EDIT: I could understand being tired with the <i>implementation</i> of races, which is almost always just a few point modifiers for stats...

I'd like to see racial differences be much more interesting, with each race having it's own classes and such that were unique and actually made use of racial differences.

However that proved a pretty unpopular idea on the Dragon Age forums...

There's a reason it's unpopular. It's a silly idea. If the character meets the requirements for the class, that should be all that matters.

First of all why should there ever be _requirements_ for classes? That alone is a retarded idea, because anyone can learn to do anything. The only limitations should be truly logical ones, like needing to be smart enough to read (AND learning how) in order to be a mage. Having a requirment of, for instance, Int 18 to be a mage would be ludicrous.

Second, why shouldn't each race have their own classes? Seriously think about that. Do you think a Cloud Giant would fight in the same way a human would? (If you say yes, go away.) No, he wouldn't. So WHY would he be the same CLASS as a human? In a simplified leveling system a human warrior class might get better at melee weapons and (cross)bows with levels while a giant might get better at crushing multiple opponents with one hit and throwing boulders. Why should the giant and the human both get better at using a longbow and a boulder?

You cant play a freaking cloud giant. That is a stupid analogy. I'll respond later. Food first.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

First of all why should there ever be _requirements_ for classes?

Second, why shouldn't each race have their own classes?

Wow, both of those rhetoical questions in the same reply and yet you don't see a consistancy issue.

The only limitations should be truly logical ones, like needing to be smart enough to read (AND learning how) in order to be a mage.

Yeah, that's what I was talking about, bright bulb.

 

[Shevek]

Race-unique classes doesn't solve the problem of races being just a bundle of stats--it just makes races a bigger bundle of stats. The problem with races in RPGs is that nobody ever seems to care what race I am. It's not so much the rule systems that need to be modified with regard to race, but rather the game design. IMO, one of the most important things an RPG should do is react to the player's choices, and race seems like a pretty huge choice. NPCs should note your race and have particular reactions. Different quests should open up for different races--after all, why would the dwarf burgher trust some elf to rescue the workers trapped in the mine shaft? Even some of the phat loot could be race specific. It shouldn't be limited to +2 strength -2 charisma and access to the unique Orc Facerapist class.

The problem with this lies in that few people in general understand how race actually affects others. I especially doubt anyone often reads Bell Hooks or seriously ponder on racial cues manifest themselves when thinking of races in these settings. Thats a real shame in my book since it would go a long way in making fantasy alot less crap.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

That's not what an 'Other' is.

Then do tell, what is an Other.

Uh-huh.

Righty-O.

But they're definitely a good fucking indicator, don't you think?

A good indicator, not a flawless, absolute one.

But seriously, Nival's proven that they can deliver a good game, no reason to think that they'll fail us this time.

No reason to blindly support them either. I tend to support my own side, the side of caution. I'm neither pro nor against them, nor against the game. I just don't care for the embelishment of features which I have no reason to believe are any different than what has been done before.

Why should I stop pimping Guild Wars, when it's clearly a good indicator that spells and skills can be different in utility and not just in name? There's no reason why MTG/GW/Etherlords should be the only game where skills are actually different. Why can't the same principle hold true for Night Watch? It is being developed by Nival, after all, not somebody we don't know about.

Guild Wars is a MMORPG. By default, its spells and skills are considerably more expansive and diverse than those of a singleplayer CRPG. It's not that a CRPG can't be different, it's just that generally it isn't. There can be 70 spells. There can be 250. But eventually, there will always be a given number of spells which reign above the others, and in turn, are the most widely used.

Well, it's a PR thing most of the time, so you could be right, but I hope for the everyone's sake that it's indeed complex and not just PR fluff.

True. I'd prefer if they just kept it simple and direct. They can hint at what they're doing without implying we're getting something like tear-jerking situations played between autonomous AI.

You don't have to be one, you know.

I know. I just like being one sometimes.

Well, Silent Storm definitely suffered from those stupid Panzerklein things at the end of the game, so I hope that they don't turn the end of Night Watch into something like that. I'd love to see "epic" battles waged with gigantic spells, though - as long as it's done right, against enemies possessing similar abilities, and not just a bunch of goons who have no chance against you.

Hopefully it'll be more focused in that.

 

[Sarvis]

I'm going to bed so this'll be quick:

<b>Exitium</b>

Why not? Why should the race you can play be limited by anything?

<b>Saint Proverbius</b>

Ummm... I never said there were any requirements. A human could learn to be a bladesinger, why not? The only thing is that without the elven innate magic he may find that many of the bladesinger abilities are unusable by him.

As for "requirements." Well, you used a term that has a fairly common meaning in RPGS, and used it in a slightly different way. For instance there is a fairly arbitrary requirement in 2E for being a Ranger or Paladin. I thought that's what you meant, not logical things like having to be literate to study spells. Even that's not a "requirement" per say... it's a necessary ability of the class. A subtle difference I guess... I mean, it's like saying a warrior needs to know how to wield a weapon. As opposed to saying you need to have at least 16 STR to be a Warrior.


Anyway, I'm out for the night... replies in the morning!

 

[Mefi]

Why not? Why should the race you can play be limited by anything?

Game balance.

I like the ideas and would love to see a game in which, using old MERP here, a Noldo elf would get huge benefits in Arnor but wouldn't make it five yards into Carn Dum, whereas your average human would be average everywhere. ie your race would determine, in part, the reaction of NPCs. So even the sweetest tongued orc ain't going to get jack when confronted with a Silvan elf with a cob on.

The issue of character restrictions seems to boil down to interpretation of game world as well as mechanics. I mean how is your magic user getting his magic powers? What's mystery ingrediant X which means he can toss a fireball when so many others cannot?

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

As for "requirements." Well, you used a term that has a fairly common meaning in RPGS, and used it in a slightly different way. For instance there is a fairly arbitrary requirement in 2E for being a Ranger or Paladin. I thought that's what you meant, not logical things like having to be literate to study spells. Even that's not a "requirement" per say... it's a necessary ability of the class. A subtle difference I guess... I mean, it's like saying a warrior needs to know how to wield a weapon. As opposed to saying you need to have at least 16 STR to be a Warrior.

I have no problem saying you need a 16STR to be a Warrior, if the warrior class is limited to heavy melee weapons as their specialty. In D&D terms, I have no problem with Paladins having the Lawful requirement because they have to adhere to a binding oath.

What I don't get is why race would matter for classes unless there's some sort of physical requirement that the other races don't have. Of course, we're talking about humanoids here, and I can't see a lizardman shaman being required to make gestures with his tail in order to cast something, though.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Then do tell, what is an Other.

For as long as the Universe existed, there was the Twilight, a magical realm that existed beneath the surface of all things. And for as long as humanity existed, there were the Others - human beings who tapped into the Twilight and gained incredible abilities. But the Twilight doesn't offer its gifts freely. Those who use the Twilight for too long cease to age, but with every year they gain, they lose more of their humanity. Also, the Twilight feeds off the strength of those Others who enter it, and if they are sufficiently weakened, they are consumed, never to return to the ordinary world.

Over the centuries, the Others formed two distinct groups. Those of the Light believed it was their duty to help the weak and the helpless. Those of the Dark shunned all obligations. They did what they wanted, regardless of morals, and consequences. For many millennia, the two sides fought a vicious battle. Both were willing to use any means that would lead them to victory. But eventually they realized that if they continued their battle, neither side would survive. So the leaders of both sides forged the Grand Treaty - a set of laws to govern the way the Others used their powers. The Light Others created the Night Watch, to ensure that the Dark Others would not violate the Treaty. The Dark Others created the Day Watch, to ensure that the Light Others would not violate the Treaty. And the Inquisition, a group composed of both Dark and Light Others, was created to ensure that neither side became too powerful.

Since then, the Night Watch and the Day Watch kept their eyes on each other, diligently policing every violation of the treaty. But just because the battle was over didn't mean the war ended. The old leaders continued to plot, using humanity and the Others as their pawns. Only time will tell which side would prevail.

They are the Others.

A good indicator, not a flawless, absolute one.

But a good indicator nonetheless. Why do you devalue a good indicator to a worthless one?

No reason to blindly support them either. I tend to support my own side, the side of caution. I'm neither pro nor against them, nor against the game. I just don't care for the embelishment of features which I have no reason to believe are any different than what has been done before.

Where's the reason to blindly insult them? It's one thing to be on the side of caution but jumping the gun on all of the game's supposed 'features' in your interpretation is hardly fair, now, is it?

Guild Wars is a MMORPG.

*sigh* It's not an MMORPG any more than Fallout is a real time game. I wish people would fucking play the game instead of shooting their mouth off about how they think it's an MMORPG just because it happens to be exclusive to online play. I guess playing Monopoly on Games.com qualifies as an MMORPG too because there's lots of players you can play with even if you can only play with 4 people at any given time.

Oh, and don't say "just because you dont want it to be an MMORPG doesn't mean it isn't an MMORPG", because it isn't an MMORPG by the very fact that it doesn't match the definition of what an MMORPG is supposed to be. Having giant lobbies with instanced gameplay (e.g. chat lobbies + a menu to buy equipment, and individual game rooms) isn't something MMORPGs are ever based on.

By default, its spells and skills are considerably more expansive and diverse than those of a singleplayer CRPG. It's not that a CRPG can't be different, it's just that generally it isn't.

Etherlords proves that you are wrong. It's hardly fair to compare Night Watch, which is under development of Nival, a studio of high caliber, with whatever games you might have played that had a lot of skills and spells with little to no use (e.g. Lionheart).

 

[operf1]

Well, Silent Storm definitely suffered from those stupid Panzerklein things at the end of the game, so I hope that they don't turn the end of Night Watch into something like that. I'd love to see "epic" battles waged with gigantic spells, though - as long as it's done right, against enemies possessing similar abilities, and not just a bunch of goons who .

Sickle&Hammer will be in stores tomorrow (in Russia). There are no PKs and other sci-fi bullshit. And if you start shooting, prepare for consequences. After all, you're sabouter in occupied zone. There are dialogues, nonlinear plot, Fallout-style global map and several possible endings. I'll try to write a user's review as fast as I get my copy of the game.

 

[Sarvis]

I have no problem saying you need a 16STR to be a Warrior, if the warrior class is limited to heavy melee weapons as their specialty. In D&D terms, I have no problem with Paladins having the Lawful requirement because they have to adhere to a binding oath.

See, you had to add a second limitation (existence of only heavy weaponry) to justify a str requirement on a fighter. If there are light weapons (ie. a STICK) or more passive fighting styles such as Aikido or Tai Chi strength ceases to become an issue at all.

Paladins had a Con requirement in 2E as well as alignment restrictions. Explain THAT!

Oh, and while Lawful alignment may make sense on the surface... why should a Chaotic Good god have Lawful Good Paladins? Essentally a Paladin is just a warrior-servant of a god, and in my opinion should take on the alignment of his god.

What I don't get is why race would matter for classes unless there's some sort of physical requirement that the other races don't have. Of course, we're talking about humanoids here, and I can't see a lizardman shaman being required to make gestures with his tail in order to cast something, though.

Such as elves having innate magic, or cloud giants actually being able to lift boulders, or minotaurs having hoofs and horns which would make great secondary weapons?

I chose my races carefully for exactly this reason you know!

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

They are the Others.

Strangely, it all sounds like they are a race on their own, even if they start as humans. They change into something else, eventually far removed from humankind. If that isn't a different race, I don't know what is.

But a good indicator nonetheless. Why do you devalue a good indicator to a worthless one?

I didn't removed all importance from it. I just chose not to take it as uncontestable, holy word.

Where's the reason to blindly insult them?

Quotes, please.

It's one thing to be on the side of caution but jumping the gun on all of the game's supposed 'features' in your interpretation is hardly fair, now, is it?

It's what we do around here, Rex. Where have you been all these years?

*sigh* It's not an MMORPG any more than Fallout is a real time game. I wish people would fucking play the game instead of shooting their mouth off about how they think it's an MMORPG just because it happens to be exclusive to online play. I guess playing Monopoly on Games.com qualifies as an MMORPG too because there's lots of players you can play with even if you can only play with 4 people at any given time.

Oh, and don't say "just because you dont want it to be an MMORPG doesn't mean it isn't an MMORPG", because it isn't an MMORPG by the very fact that it doesn't match the definition of what an MMORPG is supposed to be. Having giant lobbies with instanced gameplay (e.g. chat lobbies + a menu to buy equipment, and individual game rooms) isn't something MMORPGs are ever based on.

So why isn't the Codex covering it? I assume when Saint decided to not have any special sections of the site devoted to Guild Wars, the reasons had nothing to do with it being a MMORPG? So what, exactly, doesn't make the game a massive multiplayer online game? Sure, NCSoft decides to call it something like a CORPG (Competitive Online Role-Playing Game) rather than a MMORPG doesn't mean it still isn't a MMORPG. And apparently there are some differences which they explain in their FAQ. I still see no difference, however, that would clearly move the game away from such a category.

Etherlords proves that you are wrong. It's hardly fair to compare Night Watch, which is under development of Nival, a studio of high caliber, with whatever games you might have played that had a lot of skills and spells with little to no use (e.g. Lionheart).

But it's hardly fair to expect it will immediately not be comparable to said titles, and that it will rise above all, or nearly all. Also, I won't repeat all I've already written, so here's a keyword for you, Rexie: generally. And at this point, I see no indication that Night Watch will leave that field.

 

[Claw]

While I liked what Spazmo initially said, I also sorta agree with Sarvis. However, it depends on how you define class. In most CRPGs classes are just another "bundle of stats" as Spazmo put it so nicely.
I liked the guilds in Gothic. To me, Templar is a class, a sort of paladin. So are Shadows, Firemages etc.
Your class doesn't determine your abilities directly, by influencing your character sheet and giving you skills or not allowing you to learn others, but it gives you a status. Only as Templar can you buy their holy armor. The highest Firemage will only teach you magic if you are a member of their circle. It's more like a faction, but it makes sense that way and still allows for class differences, because you can have different trainers and equipment available. You can even implement class-specific items that way.

I am also in favour of racial traits, and this might naturally influnce classes. Elf warriors might possess innate magic, while human warriors probably won't.
I don't think much of the min/max argument because I don't think that should be an issue in an RPG. Moreover, there is a natural solution. The reason players are likely to regard races as nothing more than a way of min/maxing their stats is what Spazmo said, that races are just bundles of stats. A language barrier, cultural differences, racism and of course a completely different starting situation would make races more interesting.
Btw, the German RPG DSA solved this issue by making non-human races classes of sorts. Wood elves are mage-warriors, dwarves essentially warriors, different than human warriors, but not outright better.

I heard they arnt, so i'll have to see.

E3 will probably tell, wacky German magazines and their wrongitude.

It's already been clarified, there are different factions you can side with, such as slave hunters, rebels or even the orcs.

 

[Calis]

So why isn't the Codex covering it? I assume when Saint decided to not have any special sections of the site devoted to Guild Wars, the reasons had nothing to do with it being a MMORPG? So what, exactly, doesn't make the game a massive multiplayer online game? Sure, NCSoft decides to call it something like a CORPG (Competitive Online Role-Playing Game) rather than a MMORPG doesn't mean it still isn't a MMORPG. And apparently there are some differences which they explain in their FAQ. I still see no difference, however, that would clearly move the game away from such a category.

It's not massively multiplayer. You have lots of people in a lobby instead of lots of people on a game server. Sure, your character stats get saved and you get to buy stuff out of the "game" (as far as I understand - I never played Guild Wars, pretty much all I know about it is what Exit told me) but the fact that the gameplay component is played out with a small group of players per game, puts it firmly outside the MMORPG category.

As for the reasons we're not covering it: the games we cover need to have a single-player component. No single-player component = no Codex coverage.

 

[Kizmiaz]

Sickle&Hammer will be in stores tomorrow (in Russia).

Yeah, just rub it in will ya? :wink:
This is probably the first time that I think I'm living at the wrong side of Finland since there are slim chance of an English edition.

Edit: It's good to be wrong sometimes! :D

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

So why isn't the Codex covering it? I assume when Saint decided to not have any special sections of the site devoted to Guild Wars, the reasons had nothing to do with it being a MMORPG?

Has to have a single player campaign to be covered here. That's one of the three big rules for coverage.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

It's not massively multiplayer. You have lots of people in a lobby instead of lots of people on a game server. Sure, your character stats get saved and you get to buy stuff out of the "game" (as far as I understand - I never played Guild Wars, pretty much all I know about it is what Exit told me) but the fact that the gameplay component is played out with a small group of players per game, puts it firmly outside the MMORPG category.

The problem is that I don't find that enough to really move it away from the category. Aside the angle of it supposedly not being massive, probably.

As for the reasons we're not covering it: the games we cover need to have a single-player component. No single-player component = no Codex coverage.

Has to have a single player campaign to be covered here. That's one of the three big rules for coverage.

Oh, I know that. The question was more of a rethoric one. I brought this up because I clearly remember this thread where Exit was asking wheter the Codex should cover the game or not (the game being Guild Wars, which he clearly refered to as being a MMORPG), proceeded by Saint and other people pointing out that if they'd cover one, then they'd have to cover all, so they sounded off a "NO".

 

[Sarvis]

So we're not arguing about race specific classes anymore?

 

[Calis]

The problem is that I don't find that enough to really move it away from the category. Aside the angle of it supposedly not being massive, probably.

That's a pretty big angle right there. There's a reason why the term was invented with persistent online game servers with 1000+ players. Else the online component of Diablo 2, Warcraft 3, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament could all be classified as "MMO" games.
I mean, Baldur's Gate isn't a (half-breed) MMORPG just because you can find people to play it with using Gamespy, is it? The persistant-server-with-a-thousand-players thing is a *core* aspect of the MMORPG definition.

And yes, you're right. Some people in that thread did assume and/or claim it's a MMO game. They were wrong.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Fair enough, Cal.

 

[Volourn]

"Predetermined race and another level-based system."

OMG! Races and levels! The game has cuk! no game with races and levels has ever been good!


LOLOLOLOLOLLIPOP

 

[LlamaGod]

The design of Guild Wars isnt very MMORPG, it doesnt have any very long term spells or anything that adds to a 'legacy', such as a camp disappearing from a server for awhile.

All the skills and stuff are very action-y, it's mostly just a fantasy action game with stats, but you can only play it online.

 

[Shagnak]

Has to have a single player campaign to be covered here. That's one of the three big rules for coverage.

So far (at low levels) it kinda does in single-player only. There seems to be a basic background plot and quests related to it.
Im assuming that this is just "to get you into it" and will slowly dissappear as I level up and get more into the multi-player aspect of it. But who knows.

 

[Sol Invictus]

The "missions" themselves are very multiplayer oriented, but you definitely can solo them with a henchman party. However, unlike the preview betas which Saint and I played in, the wilderness areas have been very much expanded upon in the retail release and are meant for soloing.