| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Christos
Village Dweller
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 15
|
good way to put it corwin.
_________________
My usual battle cry is..."AWWW....how did that happen?" |
Tue Apr 13, 2004 4:43 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
If only one character is viable in one aspect of the game, that is unbalanced, but balanced. Fighters are good at mellee. Healers at healing. Archers at ranged attacks. Mages at AoD spells (or something like that). The mmorpgs I have played seem to want every class to be just as viable by different means at the same goal: to kill.
Of course if the sole objective of the game is combat everyone will whine and bitch until everyone is nerfed and just as effective at killing. Why have choices then? To satisfy the cosmetic needs of a player? All the choices are superficial. The numbers all equal out, just the means of acheiveing the numbers are different. Why spend time making unchoices.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:16 am |
|
|
Korplem
Swashbuckler
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 853
Location: Pearl Harbor, HI |
Roqua: 1
MMORPGs: 0
_________________
If soot stains your tunic, dye it black. This is vengeance.
-The Prince of Nothing |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:35 am |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
My opinion of MMORPGs is pretty much the same as Roqua's at the moment. I find the mechanics (which seem to be practically identical in all of them) take all interesting gameplay out of the players' hands and turn combat into a totally unsatisfying experience (target an enemy, hit the attack key, wait while the server tells you who's winning, throw in special attacks/spells at intervals, retreat if necessary... repeat ad infinitum). I like the community aspects, I like the prospect of player-made content (items, stories, whatever) making a difference to other players' games, but the only MMO game that seems to understand the current limitations of the form and provide good gameplay within those limitations is Planetside.
I've nothing against MMORPGs in principle though. In fact I think they should provide superb experiences for RPGers, but I think it will take a while until they become sophisticated enough to do so (and of cpurse the current state of the industry at large is not conducive to any kind of evolutionary leap in design). Presumably the sheer amount of data that constantly needs to be sent to/from servers & players means that combat systems (and any other kind of interaction, but so far combat seems the only significant example) must be kept simple, and all the MMORPGs I'm aware of seem to have opted for a total cop-out solution that IMO doesn't even qualify as a half-measure and leaves the players hardly anything with which to occupy their hands/brains.
It seems Christos' MMORPG has the potential to tackle this problem: the player has something interesting to do with each attack/spell, but the only information that needs to be sent to the server/other players is a simple success/fail state (plus maybe an extra detail or two, like the radius of a fireball spell - nice idea there, btw  ), so it would seem that, while actions are apparently complex, the actual data derived is economical enough to make MMO play viable.
Forgot to say, Christos, I also think the idea of switching offensive/defensive modes is great - obviously it all depends on the execution  but to me this suggests in-depth tactical play. Just out of curiosity, does the design already account for multiple-opponent combat? I'd be interested to know how you'll tackle this.
Regarding balance, I do think it is very important to get it right. I understand what Roqua is saying, but rather than genuine unbalance I think the ideal is simply an illusion of unbalance (in many aspects of games, I think illusion is often more desirable than the "real thing"). Arx Fatalis on its own is a good example of both cases: the different "types" of character (fighter, mage, thief) all played very differently, so a convincing feeling of diversity was created, and for the most part the game was very well-balanced so that (despite the significant differences in approach) every character had an equal chance of success in every situation. However, the same game had a couple of blips (a certain Demon encounter, and sometimes the Ylsides too) that illustrate how disastrous a genuine imbalance can be. Deliberately unbalancing a game in order to create different difficulty levels is an interesting idea, but obviously this should be something the player is aware of from the start; a bit of imbalance can lend a convincingly chaotic (and therefore realistic) feel to a gameworld, but if game mechanics are genuinely seriously unbalanced all you will acheive is irritation for some players (especially in a multiplayer environment). |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:39 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
I too have nothing to do with MMORPG's. I refuse to pay to play after buying the game. That's especially true when games here average $100 each and converting monthly fees would be at least $15 per month.
However, I do love online gaming with others which is why NWN for all its faults, is, IMO one of the greatest things to happen in gaming ever!!
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:49 am |
|
|
Hexy
High Emperor
Joined: 28 Jun 2002
Posts: 621
|
quote:
We are working on a quasi realtime-turnbased approach to the game. Every "class" has its own way to fight. we are against the "click-an-icon-till-it-dies" approach. For instance, if you play as a mage to cast a spell you will need spell components to mix during the casting and an after effect on your mouse. For instance, If i cast a levitating spell while my avatar is casting I have to add the correct spell components(this wont be a twich based thing). After I cast the spell correctly though my mouse will have to direct the object i am levitating. So if I circle clockwise it will rise.
Ok... so since you're against clicking on an icon 'till it dies, you'll just add the equivalent of MORE icons to click (I'm guessing your 'components' will appear as icons in your inventory, or something), making something that SHOULD go fast, like casting spells in adrenaline-pumping battle, tedious?
quote:
. A swordsman will have a turnbased/realtime approach. Its kind of hard to explain how its going to work but I will try my best. I will give you an example. When you enter combat with another person what happens is you each take turns doing moves on each other....but to do a move one needs to draw the "shape" of the swing on a flat plane. in front of the player. Both players can see the shape. There will be 2 stances though. Offensive and defensive. In offensive stance you will be trying to deal damage. In defensive mode you will be trying to draw counter attacks to get into offensive mode and avoid damage. the time limit to do a move though is not unlimited so you do have to think on your feet a little. There are more types of fighting but I will only talk about those two in this already long post.
Kind of like World of Warcraft? But with the tedious directing of how my sword-swinging warrior character (who knows better than me how to swing his own blade, but I controll this anyway)? This is just like Arx or Gothic, and in the end, just slows down battles.
quote:
we are taking a no level approach to this game. we want player skill to determine a battle. but there will be skills that can be gained by quests and so on. Also, you do not learn the battle swings on your own. Some one has to teach you them. By someone I do not mean your friend. More like a grand master at a certain area. He/she will be an npc that will see you Pseudo-stats and decided wether you can learn a skill or not.
So in the end, my character should be incapable of learning things on his own? After watching how trainers/teachers destroyed Morrowind, I'm reluctant to see this again. Furthermore, I believe classes are way better than skills.
It's good though, that you're going for a MMOG path. Single player games are far too isolationistical and only give you the boring monster whacking you can get from any MMOG, and without the ability to PvP or interact to a moderate degree.
And, I would like to know, how questing and PvP will be handled in your MMOG, and how much emphasis tradeskilling will get. Furthermore, have you thought about world size etc?
And I'd REALLY like to know why there won't be guns. Please. I do hope at least that there will be SOME projectile weapons.
In the end, it's pretty funny to see people simplifying MMOGs without thinking that the very same reasoning could be used against SP games, but with far more acccuracy.
MMOGs ARE far better than SP games in most aspects. They give you more freedom and a more living world than SP games can.
Furthermore, it seems people think it's better to be able to exploit weaknesses and strengths in SP games (which are rarely patched compared to MMOGs) than to actually try and create balance. And you get good feedback from several thousands of users, than just a few.
Getting balance right is a pretty nice dream. Unless all classes/skills are identical, there will most likely be something that's generally better than something else.
_________________
Like some bold seer in a trance;
Seeing all his own mischance |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:58 am |
|
|
Christos
Village Dweller
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 15
|
@roqua.
Just like you said, in other games everything revolves around killing (with the exception of horizons). In this game we really arent going for that. For me that is what kills mmos. I hate the fact that All i can do is kill. I mean yes it is fun but I also want to do other things. I would love to walk into a tavern with my friends and sit down and drink and just talk. Or go to my house and get going on my garden which I use for my spell components. That is the stuff we are trying to get. We want a world that is alive as the books we read. Where kids can be seen playing in the streets of cities and where nightime really isnt a safe place in some alleys not just some superficial lighting. Thats the world I am trying to capture. Thiefs will be just that and not some dumbed down fighter with backstab abilities. Thiefs should be hated by merchants and nobles. thats what I see.
@plin
It is pretty tactical in my opinion. What I like is that if a player get a really good move, he cant spam the battle with it because then it will be obvious as to what he is going to do and therefore easy to overcome. I like that. it brings the game down to more player skilled playing field. As for the mutlitple battles its going to happen from many sides. So if you have three people fighting one zombie one guy will be taking it on head to head and the other will be on the sides. Now if 2 people are fighting one other person, that person has a chance to block/counter both people if he is good enough. Now, in honesty its not an easy task to take on 2 other people alone (unless you are much more experienced than them) but honestly I feel like thats the way it should be. When ganged up on in real life I would not be able to take everyone down. The AI will be interesting in the battles because we are making them actually care about their life (well maybe not the zombie). But thief npcs will not confront you right away. They might wait till you back is turned and quickly jab and run.
@Hexy
I dont have time to respond to you post now because I really need to run. I will be back though and give you a response. Thanks for your input though.
_________________
My usual battle cry is..."AWWW....how did that happen?" |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:17 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by piln
I like the community aspects, I like the prospect of player-made content (items, stories, whatever) making a difference to other players' games, but the only MMO game that seems to understand the current limitations of the form and provide good gameplay within those limitations is Planetside.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
Regarding balance, I do think it is very important to get it right. I understand what Roqua is saying, but rather than genuine unbalance I think the ideal is simply an illusion of unbalance (in many aspects of games, I think illusion is often more desirable than the "real thing"). Arx Fatalis on its own is a good example of both cases: the different "types" of character (fighter, mage, thief) all played very differently, so a convincing feeling of diversity was created, and for the most part the game was very well-balanced so that (despite the significant differences in approach) every character had an equal chance of success in every situation. However, the same game had a couple of blips (a certain Demon encounter, and sometimes the Ylsides too) that illustrate how disastrous a genuine imbalance can be. Deliberately unbalancing a game in order to create different difficulty levels is an interesting idea, but obviously this should be something the player is aware of from the start; a bit of imbalance can lend a convincingly chaotic (and therefore realistic) feel to a gameworld, but if game mechanics are genuinely seriously unbalanced all you will acheive is irritation for some players (especially in a multiplayer environment).
I think it is funny you chose Planetside. I played the beta only but that game is the only game I've played that has strived for unblanace. Certain classes are good at only certain things and suck at other things. You have anti-armor, anti-infantry, medics, infantry, armor, etc.
No class is balanced, the numbers do not equal out in the end. Infantry suck against armor. Anti-infantry suck against armor. Anti-tank suck aginst infantry. Etc. But a well balanced team equals out to a well balanced team that can face any challenge presented to them, though individually they all excel or suck at certain aspects of the game. Of course player skill is far more important than charcter skill so it is not an rpg, but the model can be the same.
Get rid of individual balance, and go for team balance.
And the Arx Fatalis problem could be easily fixed. Put in areas that are super hard for fighters but easy for ranged, magic. Or only easy for magic-users. Other areas that are hard for magic, and mellee easy for ranged or stealth. etc. Balance from unbalance.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:45 pm |
|
|
Christos
Village Dweller
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 15
|
@roqua
You know even though the classes in general are unbalanced in Planetside the game itself is balanced. See if you look at one person, yes he cannot take every assortment of enemies on, but planetside balanced the game in a way that you need teamwork. So you need antiarmor for the heavy guys and light armor for the regular foot soldiers. Even though one player can be unbalanced to take on a tank it is balanced in that you have other characters who can take down that tank. Planetside is balanced like a strategy game. In a good strategy game one unit cannot finish the game for you. Instead you need multiple units to account for anything the enemy can throw at you.
@Hexy
quote:
Ok... so since you're against clicking on an icon 'till it dies, you'll just add the equivalent of MORE icons to click (I'm guessing your 'components' will appear as icons in your inventory, or something), making something that SHOULD go fast, like casting spells in adrenaline-pumping battle, tedious?
well you see we were thinking of using multiple runes (like arx) to cast a spell...but that would be even slower. Trust me the way we are tackling the magic is not slow at all. It does leave you open for attack though. But thats the way it should be. See magic is taken too lightly, I think, in games. In every book i have read regarding this magic is something that takes concentration. Yes, the spell will not be as fast as in baldurs gate or everquest but thats not what we are going for. Being a mage will be fun because of the tension involved in casting and the after effects. I don't know if Im being clear here. ask me if you have any other questions. Also the components that we are adding is a way for high powered spells to be rare and really powerful. See early spells have components that can be found anywhere. Real powerful spells though are rare and should be something to behold once cast. In todays mmos high level mages cast super high spells as if it were nothing to them. I dont envision spell casting like that.
quote:
Kind of like World of Warcraft? But with the tedious directing of how my sword-swinging warrior character (who knows better than me how to swing his own blade, but I controll this anyway)? This is just like Arx or Gothic, and in the end, just slows down battles.
I think that you are a little too focused on the speed of battles. I dont necessarily think that for a battle system to be good it has to be fast. In any case the system we are using is not turn based slow but not real time fast (not that todays mmos use real time combat anyway). Also the system we are using isnt tedious at all. It takes skill. At least thats what we think.
Also about the learning thing, I think morrowinds trainers badly affected gameplay because one just needed money to learn. For one to learn a move in our game you need to be of the right rank. Like I said the npc will look at some stats that you personally dont see (think skills you have, creatures taken down[really hard creatures look good on your record] and other things) and decide whether you can or cannot learn the move you are asking about. Think of it this way, if we have players the ability to learn every move on their own then people could become really powerful within days. I dont think thats fun because you have nothing to look forward to. Not to mention that it would be seriously unbalanced (here we go again Roqua  ).
AS for your other questions, questing will be a mix of npc created quests and player created quests. In player created quests, players assign tasks to other players. I know this may sound weird but lets take an example. If I am a mayor of a city, I have to watch out for that city. So lets say that I have a large thief problem. I can put out a bounty calling all fighters and so on to attack the thiefs (real people). now for every thief killed the players can get a certain amount of money or so on. As a mayor though I cant spend all my funds on this so it prevents people from doing "get rich quick" scemes. Also you might be thinking that since players respawn there is no point to this. But there is because the thiefs that respawn will not come back inside the city. Instead they will respawn outside the walls in which they cannot get back in because the guards know they are thiefs. but who knows, maybe the thiefs can find a secret way in?
PVP will be a very important part. we are planning huge wars that will mark "eras" in the game. players will either pick a side or be forced into one depending on their characters (for instance if your race gets into a skirmish with minotaurs you are automatically on a side[i need feedback on this thoug]). Also, thief vs merchant pvp will be a sight to behold.
That also brings me into the trade skills. Merchants will be an integral part of the game. We are planning vehicles that will act as pack mules so that they can bring their goods from town to town. but of course there will be highway men and so on so the mercahnts might have to hire some fighters. Crafting will play a big role but we still have not discussed this indepth. We want it to play a big role in that it seems worthy to go into that field.
As for projectile weapons...yes we will have futuristic bows and maybe a few others, but for the most part guns are banned throughout the universe.
World size will be very large. We are happy with the fact that we chose the torque engine because it can do some really vast environments. There will be different planets that you can travel to. But for now we are focusing on the first. Also we are taking a different approach to the graphics. Most textures will be painted in watercolor. This will give the game a real dreamy look when its nice and a real dark mood when its dark and dangerous.
_________________
My usual battle cry is..."AWWW....how did that happen?" |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:39 pm |
|
|
Graham 2
High Emperor
Joined: 29 Jan 2004
Posts: 795
Location: Preston/England |
How would bows work using your new fighting system? And if You got a head shot would it be an instant kill?
_________________
R.I.P "Dimebag" Darrell Lance Abbott
1966 - 2004 |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:17 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Christos
@roqua
You know even though the classes in general are unbalanced in Planetside the game itself is balanced. See if you look at one person, yes he cannot take every assortment of enemies on, but planetside balanced the game in a way that you need teamwork. So you need antiarmor for the heavy guys and light armor for the regular foot soldiers. Even though one player can be unbalanced to take on a tank it is balanced in that you have other characters who can take down that tank. Planetside is balanced like a strategy game. In a good strategy game one unit cannot finish the game for you. Instead you need multiple units to account for anything the enemy can throw at you.
Thats my point. Balance through unbalance. The numbers do not equal out individually. Classes are not balanced against each other. Damage output is vastly different and unbalanced at class level. An infantryman would never take out a tank, etc. No balance at the class level, and it works well.
The object of class balance in mmorpgs seems like a math equation on different speed computers. How to get to the number 100,000. The fighter can calculate to get to it by doing 10x10x10x10x10 at a steady average speed, a nuke mage goes 10 to the power of 5 really slow, a thief with a dagger goes 2.5x2.5, 12.67 times really super fast. But in the end they all individually reached 10,000 on their own.
Planetside does not do this on an individual basis. This would never fly in SB or AO or the other mmorpgs with PvP. Why? Why do all classses need to reach the same goal individually? That makes all classes the same, and all choices superficial. Why would I want to play a game like that? I like real choices.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:30 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
Well, I think we're all saying the same thing regarding balancing issues, we're just wording it differently. I totally agree with Roqua's comment about placing the emphasis on team balance, this gives rise to thoughtful party/team composition and cooperation during play. And this applies to single-player too, as long as there are NPCs/a playable party to support each other, and/or level design that allows multiple individual approaches.
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
And the Arx Fatalis problem could be easily fixed.
Absolutely, the same goes for the training exploit and other problems in Morrowind. You just need to identify aspects of the design that may give rise to problems and deal with them, which is something that wasn't done completely in either of those games (excusable for Arx, IMO, since it was the first game of a small, low-budget devco, less so for Morrowind given the time and resources they had). It's not often a game is flawed due to problems inherent in the design, it's almost always down to less-than thorough testing and/or poor execution.
@Christos, so far I've liked each new idea you've mentioned... the stuff regarding respawning, character balance, non-combat activity, watercolour textures ... all sounds good to me. I think the prospect of players being "forced" into a situation depending on time/place/culture/whatever is interesting, but I think you should always offer choice to the player (albeit with believable consequences). In your example, a player who is (for whatever reason) totally opposed to joining the fight could be given the option to dodge the draft, defect, or find some other way out of committing to the action (maybe resulting in a tarnished rep, criminal record, etc. from one side, but perhaps some benefit from elsewhere). This may help encourage players (especially those taking authoritative roles) to develop strong, distinct communities - if they want to rely on their inhabitants' loyalty, or attract/repel characters with specific motivations.
I'd avoid rushing into a justification for not wanting guns - if you put it down entirely to law, it may make the gameworld seem less consistent (since you will allow for some laws to be broken, it will be difficult to make one particular law unbreakable in a believable way). I'm not saying throw a load of guns in, I believe you are right to omit them if they don't fit the tone you're aiming for... but give it plenty of thought so that your justification does not jar.
As for bow & arrow... in keeping with the mouse-move style of combat, you could do something like click & drag towards your target ([edit]kinda like grenade-throwing in System Shock, I now realise  [/edit]), with strength/skill/equipment (and maybe speed/distance of mouse-movement)influencing how long it takes to acheive full tension, and how long it can be maintained (maybe accuracy could go up if you hold for a little while, but too long could lessen accuracy and/or eventually abort the attempt a la Thief), then release the button to loose the arrow.
Anyway, it's clear to me you and your team have put a lot of thought into this. Keep up the good work  . |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 9:28 pm |
|
|
Christos
Village Dweller
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 15
|
@plin...You know, i really like that idea about being able to avoid the war or battle. we were going to incorporate traitors who would go to the other side and stuff but what you are saying opens up many doors. For instance, a merchant might not want to fight because he is greedy and just wants money. Maybe he can bribe his way out. I dont know for sure but ill definetly look into that. thanks. What i dont want though is everyone to dodge the fight because well...then we wouldnt have one. we really want the players to care for their homeland and for their world. so not fighting for your people(or whatever) should have some kind of impact on reputation. One that would make someone think twice. But the option should be there. THanks again.
As for guns, the storyline will incorporate why they have been banned. But that doesn't mean the nobody will have them. Guns will be in the game but they will be very rare and bullets will be rare as well. We are making them as kind of old relics. we have plans for those but we dont want to spam the world with guns. We want the majority of the fighting to be like the traditional stuff we have come to know (ie swords, magic, bow, lance, axe, ect). You will see why when i post the backstory of the world here. Also there are a few twists with regard to the elves. A lot has happened over the years
As for the bow and arrow, we are still discussing ways to complete this. What I am thinking though is that since we have a FPS engine we can use that and do something from the first person view for the battles (or close up third person). how does that sound to you guys? I know is seems like it might be unfair for all the other people playing because they are completely real time, but it wont be that easy to shoot an arror as in fps. You will have to notch the arrow and aim steady and so on. WE were thinking that they could have skills where they would load 2 arrows for one shot. Then again at close range they would be useless. they would have to have some knowledge with the sword for close combat. I believe that that is viable because archers usually have to shoot from far away in hidden areas. kind of like a sniper. also since we were a bit in the future they would have special sights and what not. Tell me what you think!
_________________
My usual battle cry is..."AWWW....how did that happen?" |
|
Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:48 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
One question about finance. Is this game financed or a labor of love? If financed do you have enough debt to finish production? Are you self-producing and distributing? There is nothing worse in the game world than following a game for a time then see it evaporate: single player or mmorpg (or both in your case).
Also, how long of a sp game will come with it? Is it more of a tutorial or a full-blown game?
Why did you decide to go mmorpg instead of sp only? What mmorpgs have you played/liked? What rpgs?
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:58 am |
|
|
Christos
Village Dweller
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 15
|
@Roqua
This rpg is a labor of love. I got together with some really talented programmers, artists, musicians and architects you could find. They are all really passionate about this game. We aren't doing this for money. This game is totally funded by us. We kind of like it that way anyway. We are self producing and as for distribution we are thinking about giving the single player and the mmo away and just asking for a the cost to cover the server needs. During beta test though we will have a private server set up. every month (think 5-10 dollars).
The single player that we are planning is not as long as say baldurs gate but it does have some length to it. We figured this would be the best way to get people to live in the world later when they are online. If we immerse them in a single player game first then when they get to the mmo it would be like they know the place already and care about it more. So we are planning to have a good story for it. It wont be a "saving the world" story, but more of a try to live your life in the days coming. It will be during a war that has come to your city.
As for why did we go to MMO and SP, the answer is because we see a good amount of roleplaying in both. Single player really immerses you in the game world (when done right). MMOs have a chance though for you to live in that world. So we took the best of both worlds.
I have played a ton of mmos and sprpgs. I have played Everquest, anarchy online, asherons call (1 & 2), horizons, lineage (1 & 2), Mu online, priston tale, ragnarok online, planetside, DAOC and some other smaller ones. To tell you the truth I didnt like most of them. They all rely on combat. I think that combat is a good thing and I like to do it but it dies down after a while (5 months of play time). I know that there is a lot of content and some people are happy just fighting in different backrounds but I see it differently. I don't know, I guess I just like to roleplay a lot (no sex jokes).
For single player rpgs, I played a lot. Arx fatalis, baldurs gate (1, 2, exp), Icewind dale (1,2), diablo(1,2), Arcanum, fallout (1,2), Divine divinity, sacred, wizardy ( 8 ) might and magic (9,7,6,5) and many more. As for what I liked, I loved arcanum for its world. I was totally immersed even with the not so good graphics. I love the fallouts, never played the tactics one. Divine divinity was nice too. baldurs gate was an amazing experience too. i liked diablo 2 as well. I also played this sleeper called silver back in the day. They were trying to be revolutionary but the AI killed the game. I still thought it was fun though.
I love rpgs and when I play an MMogs i cry because of all the lost potential. Too many people are making the same game. Before we started making this game I always use to say I wish they made an mmo with this, and this and this. Well, one day I got fed up and just started my own development team. then we got cracking away at this game. I just hope that this game is everything we want it to be. Player input is a must for us. I really want to go on the servers one day and see people just sitting in a tavern and joking around, or drunk to death but not caring because they arent planning to go fight anytime soon. I want to see high level mages getting together and talking about events in the world and how they can help (hinder) them. hopefully we can do it. Also we are going to need your help. Thanks again for all the questions and input.
_________________
My usual battle cry is..."AWWW....how did that happen?" |
|
Wed Apr 14, 2004 3:13 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:18 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
