A lot of games have included randomly generated content. Action RPGs like Diablo and Torchlight have randomly generated levels. Strategy games like Civilization and Master of Orion have randomly generated worlds/galaxies. Yet we rarely see randomly generated content in MMORPGs. Anarchy Online had it, City of Heroes had it (sort of), and I think the occasional Asian import sports it as well. While I certainly wouldn't want it as the cornerstone of an MMORPG's content, it seems like having some randomly generated dungeons in a game might help spice things up a bit and provide some more variety, especially at the endgame. It would need to be done very carefully, and not be the only option for players at any point in the game. Random dungeons should sit alongside the carefully crafted scripted dungeons so that players always have a choice - scripted with story or random with surprises.
Imagine using a dungeon-finder like tool to find a group and then queue for a truly random dungeon. Rather than picking a specific dungeon you'd simply select a difficulty and let the game do the rest. The dungeon would be generated from a single themed group of art assets, populated with random groups of trash mobs, and sprinkled with random bosses. There's no reason why the bosses would need to be basic unscripted fights - as long as the scripting was independent of the environment it wouldn't really matter. You could have dozens or hundreds of bosses in a "pool" that could be drawn from. Undoubtedly every boss would eventually be documented on the internet, but at least you'd go into a dungeon with no idea what you were going to face until you came across it. The dungeons would require more thought and exploration, as you can't memorize the layout of an instance that didn't exist until you stepped into it. I think the hardest part would be making sure the randomly generated environment was contiguous and couldn't result in dungeons that can't be beaten (final boss is in a room that can't be reached, etc.). Surely by now the programming skill and processing power exist to do that though.
Certainly there are risks to randomly generated content. In my current game of Space Pirates and Zombies (SPAZ) every system I've come across has had items for sale ONLY from the faction that hates me, with no missions in the system to improve my reputation. There are ways around it, but they're painful and have turned the game into a bit of a slog. I can remember plenty of missions in Anarchy Online that couldn't be finished because the mob/item/whatever that I was after never spawned, and missions in City of Heroes that were almost impossible to beat solo due to the combination of mobs that were randomly generated being powerfully synergistic to the point of invulnerability.
Despite the risks, I think a well programmed random dungeon generator could be a boon to a certain portion of the playerbase in games like World of Warcraft and Rift where a lot of time is spent at the endgame running the same dungeons over and over and over. Granted, there is a distinct portion of the playerbase that only wants to race through a dungeon as quickly as possible to get the carrot at the end and for them this idea would be nothing short of repugnant. But for those players that want to actually play their game of choice and not have everything mapped out for them ahead of time, it seems like random dungeon generation could be an interesting addition.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Black Prophecy - Flash Impressions
Last night I finally managed to give the game a little time. Not enough to really call it a "first impressions", more like a brief flash of gameplay that left a few pertinent memories. Overall, I came out of my brief experience with relatively positive feelings.
First things first - I'd swear I read somewhere that this was a browser based game, and being a Gamigo published F2P that seemed reasonable (if unfortunate). I'm happy to report that's just misinformation (or bad memory) on my part, as the game runs full screen from an executable like any normal game. The graphics are pretty darn nice. Not jaw-droppingly cutting edge, but very solid and appealing. The characters you can create in avatar creation are reminiscent of what EVE recently added, though you have fewer options overall.
The gameplay is action-y space-sim fare, controlling acceleration with the WASD keys and direction with the mouse. Targets are selected with "T", there is a lead indicator showing you where to shoot, and gunfire tends to be fast and furious. The game has a nice feel to it -- if I had to pin it down I'd say there's a strong Freespace 2 influence. It's definitely far more visceral than EVE Online which is a plus. As much as I like EVE, the combat itself is terribly dull.
My character is now sitting in a space station waiting to get some missions and figure out how the game works. I still don't know much about the game, I don't know if you're always stuck in little fighters or if you can someday move up to something bigger (like EVE), but either way it seems like a fun diversion. As a F2P, there's really no risk in trying it out.
Space Pirates and Zombies (SPAZ)
This past weekend I was away from home and all my usual gaming accoutrements, and thus limited to my non-gaming laptop for any sort of electronic entertainment. I don't really keep many games on my laptop and nothing I had really appealed to me. I ended up browsing and came across a game with the unlikely title of Space Pirates and Zombies (SPAZ).
I was intrigued enough by the screenshots to give the game a try. It's not what I expected, I would have been better served by checking out this video first. However, what I found quickly ensnared me and I ended up playing it every free moment I got over the weekend. I think the fastest way to give an idea of what the game is like would be to call it a cross between Star Control II and Starscape, with the bonus of allied AI controlled ships allowing for fleet battles.
Each game consists of a randomly generated universe populated with a configurable number of star systems. If you choose a low number of star systems each one will have more resources, but the difficulty ramps up faster. If you choose a high number of star systems there are fewer resources per system, but difficulty ramps up more slowly. I've been playing in the middle, with a measly 250+ systems to explore. You start with a mothership (that you can't control) and a pathetic little ship with which to gather resources. Once you have enough resources you're able to build some slightly better ships, then start interacting with the neighbors, earn more resources, learn new technologies, and so forth. Over time you build up a bigger and bigger fleet, the mothership gets improved, and you research upgrades that make your ships faster, stronger, better. Each system contains two factions, Civilians and UTA. The UTA is a paramilitary faction, the splintered remains of a once pan-galactic police force. When you first enter a system you will have a certain reputation level with each faction, and by performing certain tasks you can increase reputation with one while decreasing it with the other. Having a positive reputation will allow you to buy blueprints from that faction's space station, so improving relations is an important part of increasing your power. Of course, one of the great things about the game is that you also have the option of simply blowing them up and taking what you want.
Combat is very action-oriented which came as a surprise when I started up the game (I was expecting something more strategy-like). You can control your thrust direction with the standard WASD keys, but the direction your ship is facing is controlled by the mouse. This makes piloting both more complex and more flexible than many games of this type have been in the past. Accelerating backwards while shooting at a target is easy, and strafing and similar maneuvers can play a big part in survival for the smaller, more agile ships. Even if an NPC is allied with you, friendly fire is a risk, and if you hit them enough times they'll eventually get tired of it and turn hostile. This is an important part of the game, because sometimes you WANT to attack a friend. They might be piloting a hot new ship you don't have access to, and destroying them will let you loot the blueprint for the ship.
Overall I found the combat satisfying (I especially love the beam weapons) with enough challenge to force smart play without being overwhelming. Of course, if I found the game too easy I could push faster into more dangerous star systems, so to a certain extend the level of difficulty is player controlled. I suspect it might all start to feel a bit tedious after 20 or 30 hours, but the game will have more than earned it's price by then.
There are a lot of things I'd like to see added to the game, such as more factions, more mission types, maybe a new campaign where you play as the UTA and try to rebuild civilization. How about some aliens? That's a tall order though, because the game is being developed by a company called Minmax Games, an independent developer almost as small as it can get - it's two people essentially working out of their garages.
Which is a big part of why I decided to make this post. I think the game is fun, and while it certainly won't be for all, if you were a fan of Star Control II or similar games you owe it to yourself to check this one out. If you can help out a small independent developer with a sale, then even better.
Each game consists of a randomly generated universe populated with a configurable number of star systems. If you choose a low number of star systems each one will have more resources, but the difficulty ramps up faster. If you choose a high number of star systems there are fewer resources per system, but difficulty ramps up more slowly. I've been playing in the middle, with a measly 250+ systems to explore. You start with a mothership (that you can't control) and a pathetic little ship with which to gather resources. Once you have enough resources you're able to build some slightly better ships, then start interacting with the neighbors, earn more resources, learn new technologies, and so forth. Over time you build up a bigger and bigger fleet, the mothership gets improved, and you research upgrades that make your ships faster, stronger, better. Each system contains two factions, Civilians and UTA. The UTA is a paramilitary faction, the splintered remains of a once pan-galactic police force. When you first enter a system you will have a certain reputation level with each faction, and by performing certain tasks you can increase reputation with one while decreasing it with the other. Having a positive reputation will allow you to buy blueprints from that faction's space station, so improving relations is an important part of increasing your power. Of course, one of the great things about the game is that you also have the option of simply blowing them up and taking what you want.
Overall I found the combat satisfying (I especially love the beam weapons) with enough challenge to force smart play without being overwhelming. Of course, if I found the game too easy I could push faster into more dangerous star systems, so to a certain extend the level of difficulty is player controlled. I suspect it might all start to feel a bit tedious after 20 or 30 hours, but the game will have more than earned it's price by then.
There are a lot of things I'd like to see added to the game, such as more factions, more mission types, maybe a new campaign where you play as the UTA and try to rebuild civilization. How about some aliens? That's a tall order though, because the game is being developed by a company called Minmax Games, an independent developer almost as small as it can get - it's two people essentially working out of their garages.
Which is a big part of why I decided to make this post. I think the game is fun, and while it certainly won't be for all, if you were a fan of Star Control II or similar games you owe it to yourself to check this one out. If you can help out a small independent developer with a sale, then even better.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Star Wars: The Old Repbulic - A Few Concerns
So Star Wars: The Old Republic (SWTOR) has been getting a lot of coverage at this year's E3. Despite some of the less than excited comments I've made on this blog about the game, it is a game I'm looking forward to. As the promised 2011 release looms, of necessity, ever nearer, my interest in the game and the amount of attention I'm paying to its hype machine is increasing. If it doesn't slip, I figure we'll see SWTOR in December of this year. That's a good thing, since it means they've got six months to continue improving their game, and from what I've seen in the videos there are some pretty basic things that need improving.
The first thing is pretty nitpicky, but it bugs me so I'm going to get it out of the way. I hate, hate, HATE, the way vehicles are "summoned" in the videos. The vehicles themselves seem cool enough, pretty much what a SWTOR "mount" should be. The swirling "magical" cloud that "poofs" into a vehicle makes me want to foam at the mouth, though. Could we maybe, I don't know, try something not entirely genre breaking? Don't bother with all this interactive dialogue crap if you're going to throw immersion right out the window. What's wrong with having the character whip out a datapad, punch in a code, and then have the vehicle swoop in from off-screen? See, nitpicky, I know, but it's stuff like that that drives me crazy.
My next concern is about combat. In most (all?) MMOs, enemies (mobs) are essentially bags of xp and loot waiting for you to beat the squishy goodness out of them. That's fine, that's a convention, we all understand that. Does Bioware really need to cram that fact down our throat by having mobs seem so stiff and lifeless though? I'm hardly going to claim I've seen ALL the SWTOR videos out there, but in the ones I have seen combat seem very stiff, with everyone standing around trading blows like good little piñatas. Maybe it's less noticeable if you're playing the game instead of watching it, but it seems very archaic. Star Wars Galaxies had the ability to kneel and go prone to at least make it LOOK like you were trying to avoid incoming fire. I never thought I'd be saying SWG did something better than SWTOR, but there you go. Even Knights of the Old Republic (which is how many years old now?) seemed like combat was more dynamic, though admittedly it suffered from "stand and trade blaster bolts" syndrome as well.
My final immediate visual concern is that the world seems very lifeless. Everything is very static. You don't see NPCs pathing around. You don't see things going on in the background. There seems to be very little animation going on in the game unless it's the player character. Maybe those are little touches that will be added over the coming months -- I certainly hope so.
I want to end on a more upbeat note though, by pointing out the things that I think look good. The adventuring areas seem pretty large, and that's definitely a plus. Nothing could ruin a game like this more than being cramped into tiny little tubes and boxes like Dragon Age 2 or Final Fantasy XIII. The voiceovers and conversation wheel look like they'll actually work. It seemed much like most Bioware single player RPGs, except your character gets right to the point instead of beating around the bush (simplified choices). I think people will be willing to listen and pay attention rather than skip through everything because it will be interactive instead of passive (like quest text) and it looks like players will generally only be following one main quest at a time. When you have 24 quests in your journal and go to add your 25th, who cares? They're all errands of run here, blah blah blah, ka-ching!
Despite my misgivings, I think the game still has a chance to be good. It may not be a great MMORPG, but I think it will be a fun RPG regardless. If Bioware can work over the coming months to bring their game world to life that should go a long way to making SWTOR a game environment people want to stay and play in.
The first thing is pretty nitpicky, but it bugs me so I'm going to get it out of the way. I hate, hate, HATE, the way vehicles are "summoned" in the videos. The vehicles themselves seem cool enough, pretty much what a SWTOR "mount" should be. The swirling "magical" cloud that "poofs" into a vehicle makes me want to foam at the mouth, though. Could we maybe, I don't know, try something not entirely genre breaking? Don't bother with all this interactive dialogue crap if you're going to throw immersion right out the window. What's wrong with having the character whip out a datapad, punch in a code, and then have the vehicle swoop in from off-screen? See, nitpicky, I know, but it's stuff like that that drives me crazy.
My next concern is about combat. In most (all?) MMOs, enemies (mobs) are essentially bags of xp and loot waiting for you to beat the squishy goodness out of them. That's fine, that's a convention, we all understand that. Does Bioware really need to cram that fact down our throat by having mobs seem so stiff and lifeless though? I'm hardly going to claim I've seen ALL the SWTOR videos out there, but in the ones I have seen combat seem very stiff, with everyone standing around trading blows like good little piñatas. Maybe it's less noticeable if you're playing the game instead of watching it, but it seems very archaic. Star Wars Galaxies had the ability to kneel and go prone to at least make it LOOK like you were trying to avoid incoming fire. I never thought I'd be saying SWG did something better than SWTOR, but there you go. Even Knights of the Old Republic (which is how many years old now?) seemed like combat was more dynamic, though admittedly it suffered from "stand and trade blaster bolts" syndrome as well.
My final immediate visual concern is that the world seems very lifeless. Everything is very static. You don't see NPCs pathing around. You don't see things going on in the background. There seems to be very little animation going on in the game unless it's the player character. Maybe those are little touches that will be added over the coming months -- I certainly hope so.
I want to end on a more upbeat note though, by pointing out the things that I think look good. The adventuring areas seem pretty large, and that's definitely a plus. Nothing could ruin a game like this more than being cramped into tiny little tubes and boxes like Dragon Age 2 or Final Fantasy XIII. The voiceovers and conversation wheel look like they'll actually work. It seemed much like most Bioware single player RPGs, except your character gets right to the point instead of beating around the bush (simplified choices). I think people will be willing to listen and pay attention rather than skip through everything because it will be interactive instead of passive (like quest text) and it looks like players will generally only be following one main quest at a time. When you have 24 quests in your journal and go to add your 25th, who cares? They're all errands of run here, blah blah blah, ka-ching!
Despite my misgivings, I think the game still has a chance to be good. It may not be a great MMORPG, but I think it will be a fun RPG regardless. If Bioware can work over the coming months to bring their game world to life that should go a long way to making SWTOR a game environment people want to stay and play in.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Open Request to MMO Developers
Hi, I'm a gamer. More specifically, I'm a pretty invested MMORPG gamer. I consider myself reasonably typical, or at least typical enough to be representative of a decent portion of the MMO gaming population. Undoubtedly NOT a majority, but probably enough to support an MMO at a decent level.
Please, please, PLEASE stop making so many fantasy MMORPGs. I think there are something like 376 either coming out this year or currently in beta. They're all essentially the same. The vast majority of them will never see a dime from me. I'm sick to death of them. If I want a fantasy MMO, guess what? I can already get my fantasy MMO fix in almost any flavor I can imagine, and quite frequently for free. All you developers announcing your hot new fantasy MMO are wasting your time.
Make something else. Anything else. Kudos to Funcom for the Secret World. The game may end up sucking, but at least it sounds interesting. At least it's different. I'll at least give Bioware a golf clap for Star Wars: The Old Republic. It may end up being a reskinned fantasy MMORPG, but at least it looks different and is trying a few new things.
I've already beaten the sci-fi thing to death, so I'll leave it be, but what about a modern warfare MMORPG? An economic based world-wide sea trading MMO? Steampunk? Gothic horror? Shadowrun? Robotech? A football MMO where you play an individual player? I mean, come on! I could probably think of 20 games given half an hour, and yet the industry continues to churn out fantasy game after fantasy game after fantasy game. The market is saturated. Let it go already. I understand all the most successful MMOs have been fantasy ones. You're not going to steal that market from WoW.
Seriously, if you HAVE to do yet another fantasy MMO, can you at least do something different with it? Make it a dragon wars setting where everyone rides around on dragons all the time. Set the game in the realm of the fae and have players take on the roles of light and dark sidhe battling it out for supremacy.
Just . . just do something new. Geez.
Please, please, PLEASE stop making so many fantasy MMORPGs. I think there are something like 376 either coming out this year or currently in beta. They're all essentially the same. The vast majority of them will never see a dime from me. I'm sick to death of them. If I want a fantasy MMO, guess what? I can already get my fantasy MMO fix in almost any flavor I can imagine, and quite frequently for free. All you developers announcing your hot new fantasy MMO are wasting your time.
Make something else. Anything else. Kudos to Funcom for the Secret World. The game may end up sucking, but at least it sounds interesting. At least it's different. I'll at least give Bioware a golf clap for Star Wars: The Old Republic. It may end up being a reskinned fantasy MMORPG, but at least it looks different and is trying a few new things.
I've already beaten the sci-fi thing to death, so I'll leave it be, but what about a modern warfare MMORPG? An economic based world-wide sea trading MMO? Steampunk? Gothic horror? Shadowrun? Robotech? A football MMO where you play an individual player? I mean, come on! I could probably think of 20 games given half an hour, and yet the industry continues to churn out fantasy game after fantasy game after fantasy game. The market is saturated. Let it go already. I understand all the most successful MMOs have been fantasy ones. You're not going to steal that market from WoW.
Seriously, if you HAVE to do yet another fantasy MMO, can you at least do something different with it? Make it a dragon wars setting where everyone rides around on dragons all the time. Set the game in the realm of the fae and have players take on the roles of light and dark sidhe battling it out for supremacy.
Just . . just do something new. Geez.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Stellar Dawn - Looking for Details
I've complained previously on this blog (and for years to my friends) that I really want a sci-fi MMORPG that's not based solely around ships (ala EVE Online) or a complete travesty (ala Star Wars Galaxies). Jagex, the creators of Runescape (a game I've never played) are currently developing a sci-fi MMORPG called Stellar Dawn. Other than being described as a combat focused sci-fi MMORPG with exploration and pvp aspects, there's almost no information available. It's not going to be a graphics powerhouse, and it's going to be browser based (sigh). Still, I could forgive those things if the game scratches the sci-fi itch that's been bugging me for years.
Yes, I know Star Wars: The Old Republic is going to be the biggest "sci-fi" MMO release ever, and I'm still hopeful that it will be a good game worth playing. However, Star Wars (especially The Old Republic) is more science fantasy than science fiction. I like it, but it doesn't scratch that sci-fi itch for me. I had really hoped Bioware was going to make a Mass Effect MMO, as that would have been much closer to what I want. Alas, it was not to be.
So, Stellar Dawn. Anyone know anything? Is this something I should be eagerly awaiting? Or is it just going to be too simplistic due to it's browser-based nature. Or will it end up being another "ship" game. As if we need more of those . . . (EVE Online, Battlestar Galactica Online, Black Prophecy, Jumpgate Evolution).
Yes, I know Star Wars: The Old Republic is going to be the biggest "sci-fi" MMO release ever, and I'm still hopeful that it will be a good game worth playing. However, Star Wars (especially The Old Republic) is more science fantasy than science fiction. I like it, but it doesn't scratch that sci-fi itch for me. I had really hoped Bioware was going to make a Mass Effect MMO, as that would have been much closer to what I want. Alas, it was not to be.
So, Stellar Dawn. Anyone know anything? Is this something I should be eagerly awaiting? Or is it just going to be too simplistic due to it's browser-based nature. Or will it end up being another "ship" game. As if we need more of those . . . (EVE Online, Battlestar Galactica Online, Black Prophecy, Jumpgate Evolution).
World of Tanks - This Tank Needs Lucky Fuzzy Dice
In a post today Tobold talks about having a 50/50 win/loss ratio. Looking at my stats that's roughly where I am as well . . . overall. If I look at the individual tanks in my "stable" though, the win/loss ratio is all over the place. It balances out over my account to a roughly 50/50 ratio (it's actually 51/49, woo!) but some tanks do well while others just seem to be cursed, and I really don't know why. Well, ok, I know why my Hetzer seems cursed - the damnable thing is a near useless abomination when you first get it, capable of pelting along at a mighty 12 kph with a gun capable of penetrating wet tissue paper. It becomes much more fearsome with some upgrades, but you really need to destroy something and win some matches to ever get them.
My worst tank, for no apparent reason, has got to be my Panzer III. It's really quite a lovely medium tank, fast, agile, decently armed and armored. Yet I have a 26% win ratio in the poor thing. I've had some pretty "heroic" moments in that tank, such as when I snuck behind enemy lines by myself, taking out a scout and both enemy artillery units, then started to cap the flag only to discover I was the only person left on my team against 4 enemies. I had the flag at 50%(ish) when the other four arrived at our base. With four their cap went faster than mine. We reached 94% at the same time, and then they passed me, hitting 100% as I hit 97% . . . I thought we'd lost (so close!) but the after-battle screen showed it was declared a draw. Woo! No heroic win for me, but at least they didn't win either.
Err, but I digress. The point is that I don't (totally) suck, the tank itself doesn't suck, yet somehow I always end up on teams where we either don't pull it together, or the other team is just better. I've fully upgraded the Panzer III (working on unlocking the Panzer IV now) mostly through losses -- so that's a lot of matches. Yet the win/loss ratio stays stubbornly around Bush-era approval ratings.
This is balanced out by tanks like my T1 Heavy, which for no good reason has over a 60% win ratio. I don't really like the tank -- it's slow, it's armor is not particularly good, and it's gun is amongst the weakest a heavy tank can get. It's not unusual for me to get 2-shotted by medium tanks with better guns, better armor, and more mobility. I often finish a match with 0 kills which is frankly embarrassing in a heavy. Yet the tank does like to win, and has certainly had it's moments as well.
I just find it very strange that my Panzer III has a high survival rate and a low victory rate, whereas my T1 Heavy hardly ever survives a match but wins more than it loses. Anyone have some lucky dice for my Panzer? It's getting ridiculous.
My worst tank, for no apparent reason, has got to be my Panzer III. It's really quite a lovely medium tank, fast, agile, decently armed and armored. Yet I have a 26% win ratio in the poor thing. I've had some pretty "heroic" moments in that tank, such as when I snuck behind enemy lines by myself, taking out a scout and both enemy artillery units, then started to cap the flag only to discover I was the only person left on my team against 4 enemies. I had the flag at 50%(ish) when the other four arrived at our base. With four their cap went faster than mine. We reached 94% at the same time, and then they passed me, hitting 100% as I hit 97% . . . I thought we'd lost (so close!) but the after-battle screen showed it was declared a draw. Woo! No heroic win for me, but at least they didn't win either.
Err, but I digress. The point is that I don't (totally) suck, the tank itself doesn't suck, yet somehow I always end up on teams where we either don't pull it together, or the other team is just better. I've fully upgraded the Panzer III (working on unlocking the Panzer IV now) mostly through losses -- so that's a lot of matches. Yet the win/loss ratio stays stubbornly around Bush-era approval ratings.
This is balanced out by tanks like my T1 Heavy, which for no good reason has over a 60% win ratio. I don't really like the tank -- it's slow, it's armor is not particularly good, and it's gun is amongst the weakest a heavy tank can get. It's not unusual for me to get 2-shotted by medium tanks with better guns, better armor, and more mobility. I often finish a match with 0 kills which is frankly embarrassing in a heavy. Yet the tank does like to win, and has certainly had it's moments as well.
I just find it very strange that my Panzer III has a high survival rate and a low victory rate, whereas my T1 Heavy hardly ever survives a match but wins more than it loses. Anyone have some lucky dice for my Panzer? It's getting ridiculous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)