MMORPGs

[Martin]

A quick summary of Lineage 2.

Make a character. Fairly standard. Get a quest. "Kill monster A and B". Walk for an hour to monster A and wait a few hours until whoever's camping it leaves. Kill it. Walk for another 30 minutes to monster B. Wait and then kill it. Walk back to the quest giver. Get 2000 gold, and put it in the bank to save up for that 20,000 gold shield you really want. Go outside, kill monsters for 4 hours, level up once, maybe twice.

[Mazer]

Martin wrote:

A quick summary of Lineage 2.

Make a character. Fairly standard. Get a quest. "Kill monster A and B". Walk for an hour to monster A and wait a few hours until whoever's camping it leaves. Kill it. Walk for another 30 minutes to monster B. Wait and then kill it. Walk back to the quest giver. Get 2000 gold, and put it in the bank to save up for that 20,000 gold shield you really want. Go outside, kill monsters for 4 hours, level up once, maybe twice.

That's a good summary for any MMORPG I've seen. One thing I did like about L2 was that it had some good music at times.

While I'm bitching, here is probably my biggest problem with anything containing "rpg" (while not referring to rocket propelled grenades, though they are somewhat similar...) Gamasutra article (And in case you don't have an account there).

By the way, if this discussion goes well, would you mind if I take it over for a game discussion thread? (I'd just be changing the original post's subject so I can find it later).

[[Gandalf]]

Quote:

It is year 3 of your reign. The population is 1937 citizens. In the past year, 24 citizens died and 92 citizens were born. You have 178 acres of land under cultivation and 241 bags of grain in storage.

How many bags do you want to use for seed this year?

I'm making this game .

Quote:

At the same time, however, there was also a "health" counter in Doom that told you in explicit numbers exactly how much health you had left. Since you already could see the head, the counter was redundant, and I think it was a mistake.

True, maybe, but its useful too. You have the head which you can quickly look at, and tell if you're gonna die next hit or not, and then the bar, to tell you more exactly how much health you have so you know when to get that 50% instead of that 25% (if you got the latter first, then you waste both, think about it...)

Quote:

Whenever we put a raw number on the screen, we're clinging to our printing-terminal heritage. If your fantasy world really involves numbers, as in a business game or a simulation of a modern military vehicle, well and good. But if you're a space marine or a knight-errant, you shouldn't be seeing numbers all over the place. No knight ever inspected his armor and said, "Yup, this can handle exactly 37 more whacks."

Yeah, and a knight could never fit 30+ items in his bag (inventory) either, games aren't totally about realism.

Similar comments on the rest of that article (which I haven't completely read). It mostly suggests on how to make games more realistic, which isn't really the point of most games. A lot of the ideas are fairly good, and should be used. On the other hand, at the end of that article there are some comments on the emotional responses of characters. What would you say if you found a, say, elemental fire staff +35 (a good/rare item, I might add), and your character says "No way! That thing is way, way too dangerous! I don't want to destroy this whole town!" but, IMO, yes you do.

Good article nonetheless, it gets you thinking on the way games are made. A game should be made like that, and then we'll see if people play it a lot (no sarcasm, arrogance, or anything at all intended).

[Bacchus]

Hmm... I would have to say that my favorite is Ultima Online (and I prefer Renaissance to the newer versions) soo I guess that would go under Other

[Mazer]

[Gandalf] wrote:

Similar comments on the rest of that article (which I haven't completely read). It mostly suggests on how to make games more realistic, which isn't really the point of most games.

Sort of, but not really. It wasn't about achieving realism in the sense of "OK, to make the player believe they're here, all scenes must be lit with raytracing and all the effects will be done by WETA. Also, if the player walks into a corner of a building, our physics engine has to make him bounce back with the right angle and spin so it will be just like it happened in real life."
The "realism" the article is talking about was immersion. True, a Knight couldn't shove 30+ items into his pack, but a Meganought Item Carrier Supreme (transforms into cart with horses) could. And which of them were you pretending to roleplay?
And magic. "I CAST FIREBALL ON YOU TO DEAL x DAMAGE! YOU WILL DIE!"
That doesn't really work. And I don't mean in real life. How could anybody believe that's magic? All I can imagine here is some warrior with a sword represented visually as a person of lesser physical strength wearing some robes, with no sword and a flame that travels from his hand to his target. Oh, and this "sword" deals "fire damage" whatever that means. I swear, if that's not fantasy, NOTHING IS!

Why are people trying to let us understand magic? Don't you think that we, by definition, should not be able to comprehend those arts? Or do you like the idea that there's nothing special about using magic now?

[[Gandalf]]

Coutsos wrote:

And magic. "I CAST FIREBALL ON YOU TO DEAL x DAMAGE! YOU WILL DIE!"
That doesn't really work. And I don't mean in real life. How could anybody believe that's magic? All I can imagine here is some warrior with a sword represented visually as a person of lesser physical strength wearing some robes, with no sword and a flame that travels from his hand to his target. Oh, and this "sword" deals "fire damage" whatever that means. I swear, if that's not fantasy, NOTHING IS!

Why are people trying to let us understand magic? Don't you think that we, by definition, should not be able to comprehend those arts? Or do you like the idea that there's nothing special about using magic now?

Realism, yes, not graphics/physics wise, just your abilities, and what you are allowed to do within the limits of the game.

A "fire sword", can't you imagine (fantasy-like) a sword constantly on fire? That could be one thing. Wizards, for balance purposes in most games, must sacrifice one thing for another. Gandalf knew how to use a sword, but his speciality was using magic. Sauron, remember that big mace he had? That thing flung back people from all around him, not just what it touched. That is a weapon with magical abilities. You don't know exactly how much damage it does, that is dependent on your skills and those magical numbers they keep talking about. A game can't just be completely random, you never know what you're magic will do since nobody would want to bother learning new things. It's just confusing hmm if you have any way to explain a solution to what you are talking about, I would really like to hear it! Till something solid is found to replace those numbers, we will still have to depend on leveling up, random numbers, probabilites, and the sort for out RPG gaming.

[Paul]

Anarchy Online is pretty good. And if you don't have the funds, I've been playing it free for the past 4 months or so, and its free until january or something.
And oh yea, City of Villains is coming out too.

[axej]

i want that game so bad. why do villains always look so much cooler than the heroes?

[Mazer]

[Gandalf] wrote:

Realism, yes, not graphics/physics wise, just your abilities, and what you are allowed to do within the limits of the game.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is that a bad thing? It isn't about characters being realistic to real life people with similar body structure, just that they're realistic to their own character and the world they live in.

[Gandalf] wrote:

A "fire sword", can't you imagine (fantasy-like) a sword constantly on fire? That could be one thing.

That's just about how you interpret it. Calling it a fire sword, I think, is wrong unless you (or designers) mean to say the sword is made of flame rather than steel engulfed by fire (or some nifty red/orange particle effects).

I see you're drawing quite a bit in the next bit from the Lord of the Rings, which is a good thing, although you seem to be referring more to the movie.
In the books fire is mentioned many times in describing swords.
Look at Narsil:
nar is come from the Greek wo-- I mean, is Elvish for fire. If wtd were here he could tell probably tell us which dialect the word is (I'm not as learned in the Elvish toungues), though I can tell you it is derived from the Quenya word for "sun" (anar).
sil is "shine (with white or silver light)"

Above lore taken from the appendix in the Silmarillion.

OK? So, it's described as a bright flame, but it's more like an artistic description. Sure it's likely that the blade gave off a bright light and would burn the flesh of the goblins, but it wasn't as though you could stick it in a pile of logs and set them aflame.

[Gandalf] wrote:

Wizards, for balance purposes in most games, must sacrifice one thing for another.

OK, if magic is an energy or power that is within you (like the Force perhaps) then it would make sense that you become exhausted when releasing great amounts of this energy.

[Gandalf] wrote:

Gandalf knew how to use a sword, but his speciality was using magic.

I don't know about saying that he knew how to use it. Anyone could pick up a sword and fling it around to kill, and Gandalf had greater strength than it would appear to a stranger, but I doubt he had much (if any) actual training with the sword. Luckily, he had a very good sword. Glamdring (Foe Hammer) known as "beater" to the orcs could scare them shitless just seeing it which is a pretty big disadvantage for them while fighting.

[Gandalf] wrote:

Sauron, remember that big mace he had? That thing flung back people from all around him, not just what it touched. That is a weapon with magical abilities.

Was it? T3h mace of uber pwnage +7, right? Sauron was one strong (not just physically) biatch. His master was among the beings that crafted the world (though he was more for destruction, really).

Let us not forget he also had the One Ring (and unlike everyone else, he was it's true master and knew how to wield it). Another thing to consider would be that there were loads of soldiers crowded around, so even the ones he didn't necessarily touch would be pushed by the ones he did in one hell of a fantastic domino effect.

[Gandalf] wrote:

You don't know exactly how much damage it does, that is dependent on your skills and those magical numbers they keep talking about.

Sure, but there has to be a line. The player shouldn't be dealing with these numbers. So why do they? It used to be necessary with real RPGs. The kind with nerds, a table, pen and paper, and 20 sided dice. Why does it continue with CRPGs? Is that where the company formely known as SquareSoft got it?
Numbers like that aren't gameplay, they're calculations. Good for simulation behind the scenes, but not like "are my stats high enough to be having fun yet?"

[Gandalf] wrote:

A game can't just be completely random, you never know what you're magic will do since nobody would want to bother learning new things.

WHO said it had to be random? Admittedly I've not read the article in several months, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't say it has to be random.

[Gandalf] wrote:

It's just confusing hmm if you have any way to explain a solution to what you are talking about, I would really like to hear it!

Don't you worry, I'm working on it!

[Gandalf] wrote:

Till something solid is found to replace those numbers, we will still have to depend on leveling up, random numbers, probabilites, and the sort for out RPG gaming.

NO! Who came up with "levelling up"? Why do you believe it to be necessary?

[Bacchus]

Yes, I find 'Levels' in games quite strange. Thats one thing I like about Ultima Online, you can gain an amount of skill while you play so you don't have to 'level' up just to get better at a skill.

As for that randomness with magic in a game, that would be quite interesting. Imagine whenever you cast a spell, it may do something else that you don't expect, but the better you get at it the more likely it will do what you want. But then again, magic should be commanded. It's asked for through Spirits and Nature (Here come the Druids ). With Druid though, they get their magical powers and stamina through nature. Not by commanding it, but by being in-tune with Nature and asking for its help. That way, the magical stamina of a Druid should be determined by nature, though some of the Druids spirit has to be used to call on Nature.

@Coutsos: Quite obvious that you read the Silmarillion. I tip my hat to you! And as for Sauron being quite powerful. Yes he was, because as Coutsos has said, his master is one of the Valar; one of the first beings that Iluvatar first created. His name is Melkor, and is kinda trapped outside of the world in Darkness... Sauron himself, you can tell is also quite strong (being one of the Maiar) and accually died (kinda) once when he destroyed the Numenor, though really he came back just without the ability to change shape.

As for Gandalf, I'm pretty sure he knew how to use that sword. Not just the way it described in the books, but also because he is quite old and could have picked it up along his life. *He is also very strong thats to a certain little ring on his finger.

[Mazer]

He could have, I mean, Gandalf did travel lots as opposed to studying magic day and night. And certainly, he did live very long, but would you consider his life "long"? Did not the Istari come into Middle Earth appearing as old tired men? Gandalf wasn't really born... he didn't "grow up" did he?

[[Gandalf]]

Coutsos wrote:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is that a bad thing? It isn't about characters being realistic to real life people with similar body structure, just that they're realistic to their own character and the world they live in.

Well, that's what's in question, now isn't it?

Coutsos wrote:

That's just about how you interpret it. Calling it a fire sword, I think, is wrong unless you (or designers) mean to say the sword is made of flame rather than steel engulfed by fire (or some nifty red/orange particle effects).

So you're saying that you can't have a sword with the ability to create fire? Much like a magical staff aiding in the creation of spells? Would it be an improvement to say that you can have this sword with the fire ability, but you also need some magic skill you be able to use that ability?

Coutsos wrote:

I see you're drawing quite a bit in the next bit from the Lord of the Rings, which is a good thing, although you seem to be referring more to the movie.
In the books fire is mentioned many times in describing swords.
Look at Narsil:
nar is come from the Greek wo-- I mean, is Elvish for fire. If wtd were here he could tell probably tell us which dialect the word is (I'm not as learned in the Elvish toungues), though I can tell you it is derived from the Quenya word for "sun" (anar).
sil is "shine (with white or silver light)"

Above lore taken from the appendix in the Silmarillion.

OK? So, it's described as a bright flame, but it's more like an artistic description. Sure it's likely that the blade gave off a bright light and would burn the flesh of the goblins, but it wasn't as though you could stick it in a pile of logs and set them aflame.

Wow, I had no idea people actually read those books, so I stuck to the movie. So many people I know just didn't bother to read the book since the movie came out. Alright, so is it so much different if the sword is magically very hot and bright as opposed to it actually being on fire? Sure, I would rather hold a non-on-fire sword, but that's what I tried to get across on the whole 'destroy this whole city' thing.

Coutsos wrote:

OK, if magic is an energy or power that is within you (like the Force perhaps) then it would make sense that you become exhausted when releasing great amounts of this energy.

That's why the number-people created mana (you know... the usually blue bar/potions you have...) You can only cast a certain amount of spells of varying strenghts before you need to 'rest'.

Coutsos wrote:

I don't know about saying that he knew how to use it. Anyone could pick up a sword and fling it around to kill, and Gandalf had greater strength than it would appear to a stranger, but I doubt he had much (if any) actual training with the sword. Luckily, he had a very good sword. Glamdring (Foe Hammer) known as "beater" to the orcs could scare them shitless just seeing it which is a pretty big disadvantage for them while fighting.

Training with the sword, well hmm, he did have quite a bit of battle experience with using the sword (swords). The thing is, Gandalf, or any other wizard is not completely limited to magic. Wouldn't you say that Gandalf is quite a bit stronger than some normal sword-carrying farmer? Also, do not think that Gandalf's sword-like abilities are limited to Glamdring, I am sure during his long life he picked up and used many other swords. Keep in mind that he only picked up Glamdring fairly late in his 'life'. So wizards are not all just weaker in strength, if magic got taken away, he would still be some guy to stand up against.

Coutsos wrote:

Was it? T3h mace of uber pwnage +7, right? Sauron was one strong (not just physically) biatch. His master was among the beings that crafted the world (though he was more for destruction, really).

Well, that's not really what I'm trying to describe, just something that has certain advantages because of magic. It's not like you know exactly "+7", but you do know it gives significant advantages.

Coutsos wrote:

Let us not forget he also had the One Ring (and unlike everyone else, he was it's true master and knew how to wield it). Another thing to consider would be that there were loads of soldiers crowded around, so even the ones he didn't necessarily touch would be pushed by the ones he did in one hell of a fantastic domino effect.

True enough.

Coutsos wrote:

Sure, but there has to be a line. The player shouldn't be dealing with these numbers. So why do they? It used to be necessary with real RPGs. The kind with nerds, a table, pen and paper, and 20 sided dice. Why does it continue with CRPGs? Is that where the company formely known as SquareSoft got it?
Numbers like that aren't gameplay, they're calculations. Good for simulation behind the scenes, but not like "are my stats high enough to be having fun yet?"

Interesting... There still has to be encouragement to keep playing the game though. If you can do enought to keep you happy at pardon me, "level 1", then why care how much monsters you kill? Or for that matter anything else? What you are probably trying to say might work for RPG's, but what about MMORPG's, where there are so many people, creating. creating the storyline, not playing one predetermined one. What? Will you have a whole game where people go around raiding with sticks, and the only thing you might be getting is some gold? Not sure how much sense that made to the reader, but...

Coutsos wrote:

WHO said it had to be random? Admittedly I've not read the article in several months, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't say it has to be random.

Well, no, but what I am looking for is a glimpse on how the number game could be solved. The reason is, I can only see randomness being the solution, at least in most cases.

Coutsos wrote:

[Gandalf] wrote:

It's just confusing hmm if you have any way to explain a solution to what you are talking about, I would really like to hear it!

Don't you worry, I'm working on it!

Good! can't wait

Coutsos wrote:

NO! Who came up with "levelling up"? Why do you believe it to be necessary?

Leveling up, I presume, came from the evolution from those command line text based statistical games to graphical games. It gives motivation for the player, and what many people consider fundamental, statistics/comparison, and some way of knowing, of seeing results for their 'work'.

[Bacchus]

Coutsos wrote:

He could have, I mean, Gandalf did travel lots as opposed to studying magic day and night. And certainly, he did live very long, but would you consider his life "long"? Did not the Istari come into Middle Earth appearing as old tired men? Gandalf wasn't really born... he didn't "grow up" did he?

True, but after they came to Middle-Earth they stayed for a long time... just not quite aging because they were already old. So he was there for a long time.

[axej]

why is this thread turning into a "all about gandalf" thread?

[Bacchus]

Because Gandalf is 'dah pwn!'