BioWare - Checking Out Skyrim for Dragon Age 3

[Thrasher]

To be honest thrasher I only deal with them when I want….you can basically go through most of the game without them if you want.

Well it appears you can't choose when you deal with them or not. Some missions REQUIRE more than one player. And for the others, brats can steal your kills, jump in front of you in a queue? Yuck. No thanks.

 

[Deleted User]

I got bored of DA:O about 50 hours in and never finished it. It was a pretty decent game though from what I remember, but ultimately forgettable.

That said, if they really are taking tips from Skyrim, that will be a good thing. I think it's also a move to latch on to Skyrim's hype though. Simply by saying they are going to take ideas from Skyrim publically, well, all the Skyrim players see that and say huh, maybe I'll check out the next Bioware game then, if they're getting their ideas from Skyrim! So it's probably part marketing manuever and part they really are going to take ideas from Skyrim. Hopefully they do, because any other companies taking ideas from Skyrim can be a good thing. There's a lot of love that went into Skyrim.

 

[Harlequin]

I wouldn't mind that it is an "MMO", except I prefer a single player experience, rather than dealing with the under-age online community.

My impression of the SW MMO, a SP game with MP shoehorned in. (Side note: I honestly do NOT see why SW is so popular, it is so generic and predicable. But that's just me and my higher then mediocre requirements to get into a setting I suppose)

All the SW fans are of course wetting their panties right now over this and that's cool, if that makes them happy. What I want to see is the retention rate in 6 to 12 months. THAT is the key to a successful MMO. Many MMO's had awesome sales on release but then after the reality settled in most fled as it offered little beyond the surface. If you doubt that ask Age of Conan or the DC MMO.

Right now they are just recouping their investment, not making any money, they need constant subs and new subs for that over the next 6-12 months. So I am interested in seeing where it stands in 12 months THEN they can claim it a success, or not.

 

[Couchpotato]

Absolutely no interest in MMOs, I'm sorry. It might as well be Call of Duty or a sports game for all I'm interested. That's not a criticism - they're entitled to make what they like - but it still leaves me with a bad taste from DA2 and waiting to see the direction for RPGs.

I'm with you also. I don't feel like I'm missing anything as I always never play certain games that some hail as the greatest thing ever.

My reasons are simple. I hate MMO's and nothing or nobody shall get me to play one of those abominations again. I hope Bioware doesn't turn into another Blizzard with there game philosophy.

 

[rune_74]

Ok I get it, you have played MMO's in the past and there is no way they change with new advances etc.


I just watched a VID today by the lead writer for the game and he asked a question that the team used for themselves...ask a player on any MMO what is the story at the moment in the game, majority of players couldn't tell you. I agree with this...i rarely know what is going on in a MMO...you know in SW though, you feel like you are the main character and it works suprisingly well.

 

[Dhruin]

Ok I get it, you have played MMO's in the past and there is no way they change with new advances etc.

No, that's not it.

Forget that even the most glowing reviews of TOR suggest this is WoW with a different theme - that's not the real issue (though it doesn't help).

Here's a comparison. I loved Diablo (1) - even though it was a hack'n'slasher, I loved the atmosphere. I eagerly bought D2, played it a bit, killed a mini-boss called Bloodraven. Shut down for dinner.

Came back the next day, fired up...and Bloodraven is there again! Everything "resets". This instantly and irrevocably killed the "immersion" for me. I hate that word but, for me, this rips down the curtain and reveals the game mechanics - it's no longer a "world", it's a click-to-farm excercise disguised as a game.

I'm not very bothered by most things but this one item kills a game for me - it destroys the idea that I am the hero and removes any idea of the world reacting to my actions. Even in the most unreactive game, a dead boss is usually a dead boss.

This is inherent in all MMOs. No matter how advanced, I can see the other players - it bothers me. They bother me. I know the bosses respawn. It bothers me. I know nothing can really change because all the other players need to access the content as well. It bothers me.

Is this just a neurosis of mine? Sure! I read comments from other people about how this or that breaks their immersion (no weather, bad animations, the lack of farms to feed the theoretical population, bugs that just don't bother me - a whole slew of things) - in general, these don't bother me. A lack of permanence and other players in my playground kills it for me. It just does.

 

[CountChocula]

Ok I get it, you have played MMO's in the past and there is no way they change with new advances etc.

The TOR beta test was the first MMO I ever played.

Perhaps I was doing it wrong, but it was entirely a single player experience for me. There was some kind of keybinding glitch with the chatbox, so I was not able to use the chat window at all, not that I particularly minded, as I didn't really have any interest in teaming up with random people.

Except for the absurdly excessive level of respawning enemies, low poly character models and low res textures, it was rather fun and I found the cut scenes relating to the story of the female Sith Inquisitor to be very well written and well-performed.

I have no interest in paying any sort of monthly fee for any game, however, so I have no plans to purchase it myself. Maybe there is some big multiplayer part of the experience that I missed out on, I suppose, but I felt that I got the gist of the game.

Came back the next day, fired up…and Bloodraven is there again! Everything "resets". This instantly and irrevocably killed the "immersion" for me. I hate that word but, for me, this rips down the curtain and reveals the game mechanics - it's no longer a "world", it's a click-to-farm excercise disguised as a game.

This was far more extreme in TOR. Instead of waiting one day, every single creature seemed to respawn after about 30 seconds. In fact, many of the creatures did not even disappear. As they are "killed" by players, they lie down and then get back up again in 30 seconds.

 

[Thrasher]

I have to agree with Dhruin, besides dealing with brats, infinite respawns and a world that does not evolve based on your character actions just bores me. Plus waiting in line to do quests and paying for the time? Ugh…

 

[rune_74]

The TOR beta test was the first MMO I ever played.

Perhaps I was doing it wrong, but it was entirely a single player experience for me. There was some kind of keybinding glitch with the chatbox, so I was not able to use the chat window at all, not that I particularly minded, as I didn't really have any interest in teaming up with random people.

Except for the absurdly excessive level of respawning enemies, low poly character models and low res textures, it was rather fun and I found the cut scenes relating to the story of the female Sith Inquisitor to be very well written and well-performed.

I have no interest in paying any sort of monthly fee for any game, however, so I have no plans to purchase it myself. Maybe there is some big multiplayer part of the experience that I missed out on, I suppose, but I felt that I got the gist of the game.



This was far more extreme in TOR. Instead of waiting one day, every single creature seemed to respawn after about 30 seconds. In fact, many of the creatures did not even disappear. As they are "killed" by players, they lie down and then get back up again in 30 seconds.

I'm not sure which beta you played in but they most certainly don't get back up again after dieing. And the creatures that do are minor ones, like filler creatures in dungeons. Some bigger bosses as well....but none of significance to the story. Any large characters meaning story characters are handled in instances for you characters and after dead....do not show up again for you at all. They are dead. You will never see them again, that area will be closed to you.

 

[kalniel]

This is inherent in all MMOs.

Well, actually it's not. You can design individual permanency into MMOs, you just have to be thoughtful with the mechanics and quest design. Instances are the most common way of doing it, but you can interleave instances as well, not to mention playing about with what you actually 'instance' to the point it doesn't feel like an instance. If I can figure it out for a NWN PW then someone like Bioware can certainly figure it out for a AAA game like SWTOR. Guild wars is another example of instances being used to solve the problem (although in a rather blunt and obvious instanced manner).

The trickiest part is where you want to allow players to mingle and be part of one continuous world - non-instanced hubs are the 'cheap' way of doing it (GW) but we got away without hubs for the PW, the consequence is it's hard to have visually world changing consequences, though on the level of 'red side are winning vs blue side' it's doable. For the rest you have to find other ways to expose the consequences. But then there's the risk of inconsistency if you allow personal stories with choice and different consequences.

Which is back to story/quest design.. you can't satisfactorily do single player type storylines, but there are plenty of other types to explore which are fun. One of the reasons I won't be playing SWTOR is that they have gone down the single player storyline route, therefore there will be inconsistencies. But it doesn't HAVE to be this way for an MMO.

 

[DArtagnan]

It may not have to be, but it has been the case in every single MMO out there so far.

It's true that they've made advances, and some of them offer "personalised" instances where mobs stay dead - but they still have an open word, and none of them have overcome this problem as of yet. Even for the personalised instances, you can normally repeat them - and you can see a hundred other people going to the same place and you know they're doing the same thing.

If you can't abide this respawning mechanic and the lack of permanency - then you should stay far away from MMOs for the time being.

 

[kalniel]

It may not have to be, but it has been the case in every single MMO out there so far.

It's true that they've made advances, and some of them offer "personalised" instances where mobs stay dead - but they still have an open word, and none of them have overcome this problem as of yet. Even for the personalised instances, you can normally repeat them - and you can see a hundred other people going to the same place and you know they're doing the same thing.

Did you play Guild Wars? It took instancing to the extreme - almost the entire world was instanced, with just a few dozen hub locations that you progressed between. As your personal view of the world story progresses the hub locations availability changes. So if you start out from a town, but it gets destroyed in a battle you can thereafter only visit the destroyed town hub, not the original - while players who have yet to play the battle can only visit the original non-destroyed hub. As a *game* mechanic, GW let you replay previous story missions (if you want to go through with a different group for example), but you don't have to, the choice is yours as to whether you play it as a coherent story or whether you want to go back and replay stuff - and when you do so it's obvious that you are doing so as a 'replay'.

 

[DArtagnan]

Did you play Guild Wars? It took instancing to the extreme - almost the entire world was instanced, with just a few dozen hub locations that you progressed between. As your personal view of the world story progresses the hub locations availability changes. So if you start out from a town, but it gets destroyed in a battle you can thereafter only visit the destroyed town hub, not the original - while players who have yet to play the battle can only visit the original non-destroyed hub. As a *game* mechanic, GW let you replay previous story missions (if you want to go through with a different group for example), but you don't have to, the choice is yours as to whether you play it as a coherent story or whether you want to go back and replay stuff - and when you do so it's obvious that you are doing so as a 'replay'.

Yes, I played Guild Wars - and people are still debating whether it's really an MMO. Precisely because of the excessive instancing. If Guild Wars is an MMO - then so is Diablo 2 - because in D2 thousands of players meet in a hub and parties go adventuring in their own instances.

Personally, I don't care about what label you place on games. I just know that if I wanted to play in a persistent world with hundreds or thousands of people, Guild Wars would be the last game I'd pick.

 

[kalniel]

Yes, I played Guild Wars - and people are still debating whether it's really an MMO. Precisely because of the excessive instancing. If Guild Wars is an MMO - then so is Diablo 2 - because in D2 thousands of players meet in a hub and parties go adventuring in their own instances.

Personally, I don't care about what label you place on games. I just know that if I wanted to play in a persistent world with hundreds or thousands of people, Guild Wars would be the last game I'd pick.

Then I guess we're getting dangerously close to a cyclic argument and defining an MMO as a game which does have repetitive elements and lack of permanency

 

[DArtagnan]

Then I guess we're getting dangerously close to a cyclic argument and defining an MMO as a game which does have repetitive elements and lack of permanency

I think if you're arguing to win, rather than to meet and understand - then it will definitely get cyclical very quickly.

Personally, I've yet to see a game with a meaningful massively multiplayer aspect - where there's a sufficient amount of permanency to match what Dhruin is very clearly after.

But you're right, Guild Wars is an MMO in a literal sense - and it does have some permanency that others don't have. I can't deny that might be enough for some people.

All I can say is that it most certainly didn't work for me. I found the whole thing incredibly dull and hollow. That said, I do think it was AMAZINGLY well done in a technical sense.

 

[kalniel]

All fair points. I did find it relatively enjoyable up to the point my account was hacked. But preferred the more involved stories/worlds of a good NWN PW. For all the '64' player limit day to day adventuring was just as if not more populous than games that restrict party size for instances.

 

[DArtagnan]

All fair points. I did find it relatively enjoyable up to the point my account was hacked.

That's bound to put a damper on things!

 

[kalniel]

That's bound to put a damper on things!

Yeah, was around the 4 year mark. Their support after the event has since persuaded me not to play their games in the future.

 

[DArtagnan]

Yeah, was around the 4 year mark. Their support after the event has since persuaded me not to play their games in the future.

Doesn't sound good....

Though, I'm definitely going to try GW2.

 

[Drithius]

Sounds like the doctors have little idea where they want to go with their business these days and are just following market trends. <insert puke here>