Originally posted by Wharg0ul

 

hey, here's something for you to try:

Download the Age Of Conan trial.

Play through Tortage more than once. Go ahead.....try it. Tell me how 'innovative" that feels after the first run through, much less the third, fourth, fifth, etc.

In fact....try playing through the tutorial in LOTRO a few times....os pretty much any other game. There's  REASON that companies let you skip this shit. It's cool teh first time through, but after that.... /puke.

And we get to look foreward to a WHOLE GAME of this?? ummmm.....yay!!

 

edit: pardon my spelling....I'm drunk again....

Hmm, going by what the developers have said, it would be more like having *eight* Tortages - one for each class. So it'd be somewhat better than what AOC is providing. 

And of course, we still don't know if it's really going to feel exactly like Tortage. I myself hope it doesn't. Tortage was not a good story experience at all. The way the plot was laid out was tired and predictable, the scenes were unimaginative... It was a lot like watching a B-movie. I do hope Bioware does better.

Originally posted by Comnitus

What's the worst that could happen?

Sandbox fans don't shut up and go to MO or Earthrise and continue to criticize the entire game because of its heavy story-based element.

Well, that's the worst that could happen on the forums. The worst that could happen for the actual game would be limited features besides the story. Variety is the spice of life.

I think it's a sure bet that they will move on and litter other forums based on their track record. The worse that can happen is the mods continue to let them get away with it.I know the official TOR site is a hell of lot more informative now that the trolls have been removed .

---

Originally posted by solarine

---

Originally posted by Kylrathin

---

Originally posted by johnspartan

Going back to sandbox style open world no content player created everything is not innovation it's going backwards. And don't blame WoW, blame EQ for why MMOs didn't evolve from the UO model instead.

---

 
The fact that you consider moving from EQ's directed content style to UO's sandbox model to be going backwards in one sentence and evolution in the next notwithstanding, and assuming you meant the first rather than the second since your post history confirms it, I could not POSSIBLY disagree more.  This is like saying democracy is a regression from communism, or freedom is the devolution of tyranny.  Giving people options is a good thing.

---

Not quite.
Art is directed. Storytelling is directed. If you're going for a story-based experience, opting out of providing the content is a failing. This has got nothing to do with regime and people's right to decide how they're going to be governed. It's an irrelevant analogy.
And anyway, you think a tabula rasa beats a Dostoyevsky novel? Sure, the potential is there, but you're probably going to sit through millions of really badly written, amateurish stories before you get one that's half as decent as something the man could babble in delirium.

---

Ok, you compare a video game to the works of the arguable father of modern existentialism, and yet tell me my analogy is irrelevant? Telling people what to do vs. providing them the tools to do it themselves is not at all irrelevant - it's exactly the heart of the matter. I can't help that you completely missed the point.

Art is directed in every game; just providing something to look at sets the tone. Storytelling the way Bioware is doing it, however, is a brand new concept that nobody else has tried yet. I never said anything about Bioware failing anything. I think it'll be a fun game, and I'll certainly play it. But whereas the industry is primarily involved in giving as much directed content as possible, not requiring the player to think for themselves in most cases, then while the 4th pillar of Story, as Bioware describes it, is certainly an innovation, it is not evolution.

If you were to write out your character's story in a normal game like WoW or AoC, it would say something to the effect of "I was born outside Stormwind. I killed 10 murlocs. I found out about a conspiracy. I then killed 10 more murlocs. Finally, I slayed the dragon and brought peace to the land." Everyone who plays the game is going to have some similar variation of that story. No question that Bioware will massively enhance the user experience of that, but the fact is THEY are still writing your story. The story itself will in all probability be epic, but the beginning and the end are already written for you. Again, innovation, and likely a fun one, but not an evolution.

     FULLY VOICED storyline with no "esc" button option....  OMG.. This reminds me of calling voice automated numbers where you have to spend 10 minutes listening and making choices before finally getting to what or whom you actually want in the first place..   Will their storyline quest be just as stupid?

     PS.. What is wrong with kill X = experience.. Do you honestly think TOR will be any different?  Their game will still be a jump thru hoop to advance formula..  However, instead of killing 10 bears to get experience, they'll spice it up and have this nice story how you need to infiltrate the jedi camp and kill 10 padiwans...... COUGH..  you are still jumping thru THEIR hoops.. lol  I guess killing 10 padiwans would be more "iconic", therefore better then killing 10 bears.. lmaooooooo

Worst that could happen is it is never released.

One thing that worries me is that the game may be too solo-friendly. I'm not going to pay anything more than the box price if nobody ever wants to group.

Originally posted by Kylrathin

---

Originally posted by solarine

---

Originally posted by Kylrathin

---

Originally posted by johnspartan

Going back to sandbox style open world no content player created everything is not innovation it's going backwards. And don't blame WoW, blame EQ for why MMOs didn't evolve from the UO model instead.
 

---

 
The fact that you consider moving from EQ's directed content style to UO's sandbox model to be going backwards in one sentence and evolution in the next notwithstanding, and assuming you meant the first rather than the second since your post history confirms it, I could not POSSIBLY disagree more.  This is like saying democracy is a regression from communism, or freedom is the devolution of tyranny.  Giving people options is a good thing.

---

Not quite.
Art is directed. Storytelling is directed. If you're going for a story-based experience, opting out of providing the content is a failing. This has got nothing to do with regime and people's right to decide how they're going to be governed. It's an irrelevant analogy.
And anyway, you think a tabula rasa beats a Dostoyevsky novel? Sure, the potential is there, but you're probably going to sit through millions of really badly written, amateurish stories before you get one that's half as decent as something the man could babble in delirium.
 

---

...?

Ok, you compare a video game to the works of the arguable father of modern existentialism, and yet tell me my analogy is irrelevant? Telling people what to do vs. providing them the tools to do it themselves is not at all irrelevant - it's exactly the heart of the matter. I can't help that you completely missed the point.

Art is directed in every game; just providing something to look at sets the tone. Storytelling the way Bioware is doing it, however, is a brand new concept that nobody else has tried yet. I never said anything about Bioware failing anything. I think it'll be a fun game, and I'll certainly play it. But whereas the industry is primarily involved in giving as much directed content as possible, not requiring the player to think for themselves in most cases, then while the 4th pillar of Story, as Bioware describes it, is certainly an innovation, it is not evolution.

If you were to write out your character's story in a normal game like WoW or AoC, it would say something to the effect of "I was born outside Stormwind. I killed 10 murlocs. I found out about a conspiracy. I then killed 10 more murlocs. Finally, I slayed the dragon and brought peace to the land." Everyone who plays the game is going to have some similar variation of that story. No question that Bioware will massively enhance the user experience of that, but the fact is THEY are still writing your story. The story itself will in all probability be epic, but the beginning and the end are already written for you. Again, innovation, and likely a fun one, but not an evolution.

Missing both the point and the heart of the matter are entirely on your part. And yes, my analogy is relevant. Here's a play-by-play:

• With "Art is directed" I meant not the artwork in games but art in general (same for storytelling, I used it in the general sense, not in the context of games). So that's "Art", as in theater, paintings, cinema... They're directed experiences. The artist designs the whole experience, presents it to you, then sees how it's going to effect you. You *can* make games this way, and no, it's not an inherently inferior design. I'll come to that.
• Also, with "failing", I was not referring to anything you said, I was making my very own point. I was talking about how if you try to create a primarily story-based experience and then not provide enough directed content, it's a failure on your part. Let's go back and see what I said: "If you're going for a story-based experience, opting out of providing the content is a failing." Seems clear to me.
• *I* never said it was "evolution" in the first place. I just think it *can* work.
• You say directed content a la EQ is a step back from UO's game design. I disagree. I say that directed content is a step closer to a narrative form, and it opens a whole new vista where quality storytelling can take place.
• I say quality storytelling is not to be underrated, because it can have profound effects. A well-told professional story is a vastly different experience than a half-baked amateur attempt at it. 
• With the "tabula rasa vs Dostoyevsky" example, I was going on a purely literary hypothesis. It's not about where Dostoyevsky stands, it's about the quality of the craft. So it's relevant when taken in the context of storytelling. I'm saying: If you make me choose between a very well-written story and a clean sheet of paper with hundreds of amateurs waiting to scribble on it, I'll go straight for the very well-written story, thank you very much. If I'm looking for a story-based experience, I'm not going to take chances going through thousands of amateur stories (you know, the "stories players make for themselves in a vast open free world"). This, to me, is how Dostoyevsky beats a tabula rasa and how Bioware beats millions of gameplayers writing their own stories with the tools given to them: When taken in terms of the quality of the story experience itself.

It turns out to be like Guild Wars but becomes so popular all other mmorpgs in future copy it like they did WoW.

Originally posted by solarine

Originally posted by Kylrathin

---

Originally posted by solarine

---

Originally posted by Kylrathin

---

Originally posted by johnspartan

Going back to sandbox style open world no content player created everything is not innovation it's going backwards. And don't blame WoW, blame EQ for why MMOs didn't evolve from the UO model instead.
 

---

 
The fact that you consider moving from EQ's directed content style to UO's sandbox model to be going backwards in one sentence and evolution in the next notwithstanding, and assuming you meant the first rather than the second since your post history confirms it, I could not POSSIBLY disagree more.  This is like saying democracy is a regression from communism, or freedom is the devolution of tyranny.  Giving people options is a good thing.

---

Not quite.
Art is directed. Storytelling is directed. If you're going for a story-based experience, opting out of providing the content is a failing. This has got nothing to do with regime and people's right to decide how they're going to be governed. It's an irrelevant analogy.
And anyway, you think a tabula rasa beats a Dostoyevsky novel? Sure, the potential is there, but you're probably going to sit through millions of really badly written, amateurish stories before you get one that's half as decent as something the man could babble in delirium.
 

---

...?

Ok, you compare a video game to the works of the arguable father of modern existentialism, and yet tell me my analogy is irrelevant? Telling people what to do vs. providing them the tools to do it themselves is not at all irrelevant - it's exactly the heart of the matter. I can't help that you completely missed the point.

Art is directed in every game; just providing something to look at sets the tone. Storytelling the way Bioware is doing it, however, is a brand new concept that nobody else has tried yet. I never said anything about Bioware failing anything. I think it'll be a fun game, and I'll certainly play it. But whereas the industry is primarily involved in giving as much directed content as possible, not requiring the player to think for themselves in most cases, then while the 4th pillar of Story, as Bioware describes it, is certainly an innovation, it is not evolution.

If you were to write out your character's story in a normal game like WoW or AoC, it would say something to the effect of "I was born outside Stormwind. I killed 10 murlocs. I found out about a conspiracy. I then killed 10 more murlocs. Finally, I slayed the dragon and brought peace to the land." Everyone who plays the game is going to have some similar variation of that story. No question that Bioware will massively enhance the user experience of that, but the fact is THEY are still writing your story. The story itself will in all probability be epic, but the beginning and the end are already written for you. Again, innovation, and likely a fun one, but not an evolution.

 

Missing both the point and the heart of the matter are entirely on your part. And yes, my analogy is relevant. Here's a play-by-play:

• With "Art is directed" I meant not the artwork in games but art in general (same for storytelling, I used it in the general sense, not in the context of games). So that's "Art", as in theater, paintings, cinema... They're directed experiences. The artist designs the whole experience, presents it to you, then sees how it's going to effect you. You *can* make games this way, and no, it's not an inherently inferior design. I'll come to that. Art, especially, is subject to the interpretation of the one experiencing it.  If I paint a picture of a house, it is up to you to interpret it as a house.  You could also interpret it as symbolic of something else.  Theater and cinema both involve direct storytelling, though in most cases even certain aspects of those are left open to interpretation. 
• Also, with "failing", I was not referring to anything you said, I was making my very own point. I was talking about how if you try to create a primarily story-based experience and then not provide enough directed content, it's a failure on your part. Let's go back and see what I said: "If you're going for a story-based experience, opting out of providing the content is a failing." Seems clear to me. The sentence was clear, and made sense.  But to what were you responding?  I'm not seeing the context, as nothing above refers to it.  You may as well have written a sentence that cheese is good.  I would have agreed with that as well, and it would have been equally in context.
• *I* never said it was "evolution" in the first place. I just think it *can* work. Agreed.  But you were quoting my statements in your response, so hopefully you can understand my confusion here.
• You say directed content a la EQ is a step back from UO's game design. I disagree. We'll have to agree to disagree, then.  I say that directed content is a step closer to a narrative form, and it opens a whole new vista where quality storytelling can take place. Agreed here.
• I say quality storytelling is not to be underrated, because it can have profound effects. A well-told professional story is a vastly different experience than a half-baked amateur attempt at it. True in every case.  But that's not what a sandbox gaming environment provides.
• With the "tabula rasa vs Dostoyevsky" example, I was going on a purely literary hypothesis. It's not about where Dostoyevsky stands, it's about the quality of the craft. So it's relevant when taken in the context of storytelling. I'm saying: If you make me choose between a very well-written story and a clean sheet of paper with hundreds of amateurs waiting to scribble on it, I'll go straight for the very well-written story, thank you very much. A novel HAS to be directed content, because it is not an interactive medium (Choose Your Own Adventures notwithstanding, mostly). Does anything in a novel change because you read it? Does it change while you're in process of reading it? Of course not - the words are written on paper or typed digitally, and will be the same tomorrow as they were today. The analogy doesn't work.  See below. If I'm looking for a story-based experience, I'm not going to take chances going through thousands of amateur stories (you know, the "stories players make for themselves in a vast open free world"). This, to me, is how Dostoyevsky beats a tabula rasa and how Bioware beats millions of gameplayers writing their own stories with the tools given to them: When taken in terms of the quality of the story experience itself. That is your choice.  My own choice is in a single-player game, I want to experience the developer's story, and nobody does that better than Bioware.  In an MMO, however, the world is persistent.  It does not end.  There is no "kill Malak, destroy the station, save the galaxy, maybe start over and make different choices which will marginally effect the outcome".  Therefore, my personal preference is to create my own story, as I don't want someone dictating to me that my character should endure roughly the same things as the guy next to me.  And out of the millions of "amateurs" writing their own stories, you will inevitably come across a few that are well done and appreciable.  I have.  But we were not discussing personal preference, we were discussing which would be considered going backward vs. evolution of MMOs.  

 

the thing is this:

if Bioware can take all that we love about the traditional MMORPG and ADD a great element of story....we will be progressing.

If, however, traditional elements of MMORPGs are tossed out in favor of a restrictive story, we will be regressing.

From what we've read and seen in interviews, it SOUNDS like the latter...but if it turns out to be the former, it could change the industry forever.

Originally posted by Katilla

i think the worse that could happen in that the game turns out to be really good, and the haters constantly flame it, or it really sucks and the fanbois won't stop praising it.

You bastard! you've condemned us all! noooooooooooooooooooo.

As long as they don't make the end game all about raiding and give other viable options. Biggest fear is the wow raiding crowd destroying another game.

The worst thing that could happen 1) The game is great and my real life suffers from my addiction to play the game

2) The game sucks, and I'll keep dreaming of a game that will give me my mmo-sci-fi fix

3) The game is somewhere in betweeen, and I feel the need to warn everyone visiting mmorpg.com to even try the game for themselves. (actually this is the worst, cos that will mean I have nothing better to do/play)

Whats the worst that could happen ?

All of my kids want to play it too :/

The Worst..? LucasArts interfere and force a KotOR 2 again - a game that had everything to be the blockbuster sequel (you could even see it in the game) but fell awfully short of it, being almost the same thing, having broken dialogs, unfinished and with no end. Not that these things apply to an MMOG, but the unfinished part would be terrible - just look at AoC, that also had everything goin for it (great  experienced company, awesome IP, great engine) but until today fights against launch problems.

Originally posted by Kylrathin

 

 .... [some heavy-duty quoting back and forth] ....

OK, Kylrathin, I'll try to explain myself further one last time - without all the quoting which I suspect is wearing people's eyeballs out :) And instead of responding to everything point by point, I'll try to outline:

You imply that an MMO based mostly on directed content is inherently "backwards", and I think that is simplistic dismissive behaviour. I think you can take an MMO as a "story-centered" form of game foremost and build other aspects over and around the story, and that this type of game design *can* work - and, who knows, depending on how you do do it, it *may* feel fresh! (Let's not pursue the "implementation of art is open-ended" line of discussion, you know as well as I do it's not related to what I'm talking about, and has no bearing at all in the matter). I'm thinking we agree on some points here. 

I think this sort of MMO design has merit and comparing it to tyranny does not make much sense (actually, most of my post was a response to that analogy). In essense, I'm saying: "What, demanding a good storytelling experience from an MMO is like applying to live in a dictatorship now?" To me, that line of thinking is unfair to both the storytellers and the "story fan" players.

With the "failing" part,what I said was: If you set your mind on making a story-based MMO as Bioware is doing, you cannot go the classical sandbox route: You have to provide a lot of directed content or the model will not work. In your post that I quoted, you were arguing against directed content, so this bit was in response to it. So, yes, it did have context. I'm sorry it went the way of cheese for you.  :)

On a last note, I agree with you that a game cannot be "just a novel". It has to have an interactive aspect that makes sense and feels rewarding. I was just talking about the story aspect of the game - and I did underline this in the closing part of my post. I have a problem with how such a potentially profound aspect of games tends to get dismissed and I have no patience with poor storytelling. It's not about "personal preference" in sandboxes, I do play sandboxes like EVE, I just want other kinds of MMO experiences, too. Like story-based MMOs. And sandboxes just don't cut it for your story needs.

Of course I'm hoping Bioware's MMO will not just be "play and reroll", that it's solely story. I'm hoping, like Wharg0ul said, that Bioware can hit the note on both scales.

The worst thing for me would be the feeling that this is the same old game reskinned for Star Wars.

Theme park, obvious classes, obvious rat-run gameplay, no innovation - just grind.

KotOR 1 (and NWN 1) was one of, if not the, best RPG ever made IMO. I just hope the MMO gives the same feeling of being part of a movie as that did.

Originally posted by oTinyo

 

KotOR 1 (and NWN 1) was one of, if not the, best RPG ever made IMO. I just hope the MMO gives the same feeling of being part of a movie as that did.

I'm actually quite sure Bioware will do this part of the game well.   They rock at providing an amazing single-player experience.  The problem is that unlike a single-player game, in an MMO, it doesn't make sense that each of us "Saves/conqueres the galaxy",  the storyline has to be a lot less epic and without a definitive ending in order to leave us in a place where we can all interact with each other meaningfull. 

The other alternative is to go the way of basically creating two games at the same time - one a single player game, where everyone saves the galaxy and one a multi-player game where everyone is part of an on-going story and on the level with other people playing and basically pretending the single-player part never happened.  This is the major problem with trying to do a lot with story in a game with 10,000 protagonists (at least thus far, i do believe there are ways to extend story for everyone to share in).

I have no doubt that Bioware will absolutely rock the "single-player, save the galaxy" portion of TOR and I'll glady fork out my 50 bucks to simply go through that storyline.  But what I am more interested in is what they do with the part of the game where you meet and interact with the other 10000 people.

The worsed that can happen to an MMO is the Original Poster.

He is the nightmare of any MMO developer, the vile plague that scourge gamers everywhere?

Why? Because he doesn't play a game, isn''t involved in a virtual world and the challenges it presents. No story plot for him, all he sees is a spreadsheet and his stats.

He CARES about gimping his character by changing his path rather then the gameplay involved in that. OFF course a fallen jedi would suffer first, he has to relearn how to fight, force lightening doesn't instantly spring from your fingertips because you have a bad temper, it takes practice, just as the path to Jedi took practice.

I would WANT my character to loose some light-side skills without them instantly being replaced by dark-side skills. It would be part of my story of being a fallen jedi and re-rising as a full blow sith.

IF bioware does its thing right there will be betrayal story lines to follow similar to how EQ2 had them. They should be bloody hard as you will be untrusted by both sides and especially a fallen jedi will have a hard time remaining upright amoung the sith who are not above culling the competition.

A story, plot based MMO needsplayers that look at story rather then stats.

And if you want to walk the middle path, then you should want to play that path and take the lack of special skills as the natural and logical consequence. KOTOR and the likes have tried it, but the mix-maxing crowd as the OP is not suited for it.

At its best, lets hope that SWTOR will be like Planescape Torment, where you think about the right answer to a question when for the spreadsheet underneath, it doesn't make a blinding bit of difference.

"What changes the nature of a man". If you THOUGHT about that question, wanted to give the proper answer, then you are a RPG player. If you wanted the answer that gave the most XP, you should have played Diablo.

Since this is Bioware, lets hope that this game will be firmly on the side of the RPG'er.  

Originally posted by Ilvaldyr

Time to take a step on the dark side and tempt fate, ladies and gentlemen.

Many of us are anticipating TOR with baited breath; heralding it as the saviour of the genre and eagerly awaiting the long-overdue focus on storytelling and "traditional" RPG values.

But there's that tiny element of doubt, isn't there? It's there, wriggling around in the back of our minds, trying to make itself heard. We all have it; we're fans of a genre that feeds on hype and delights in sacrificing the hopes and expectations of its devotees upon the altar of business stratagem; here's my list:

Failure of the Core Concept

Like so many games, TOR has a unique selling point; Story. WAR also had a unique selling point: RvR. So did AoC: Combat + Citybuilding. They promised so much and disappointed us so utterly; what if TOR does the same thing? A fully voiced version of WoW questing where NPCs demand (in a strong "imperial" accent) that you go and kill 10 x gizka?

Sure it is possible. However, the demo mission that everyone was talking about seems to indicate that quests are more than just go kill 10 boars type.

The Bait & Switch Endgame

Much is being made of TOR's solo-friendliness, but then WoW is solo-friendly too, isn't it? Right up to max level where the mentality has always been "Raid or Reroll" .. ! .. What if TOR is the same? Your "hero" finally reaches level 80 having completed his epic storyline and finds himself on a strange planet infested with radio chatter such as "LFM: 52 needed for PUG Emperor raid lawl. Bring consumables, force-healing specced jedi ONLY. No sabernubs ffs, we got enuff DPS."

This is what I worry about too. I hope bioware is not falling into this trap.

Monochrome Morality

I'd hazard a guess that most of you have played KOTOR1+2 so will know that the actions of the character will almost certainly cause alignment shifts in TOR. I remember reading an article a little while ago that stated that strong dark/light side characters would gain special abilities which made me worry; is the much-vaulted "player choice" essentially limited to character creation?

If I start along the "light sided" path by saving a puppy rather than killing it, skinning it, baking the meat in a pie and force-feeding it to the crying child who owned it .. am I doomed to forever walk the path of the altruistic doormat for fear of gimping my character? If halfway through my development I have a moment of madness and slaughter a girl guide troupe (rather than pay 5 creds for some cookies - lightside style) will I be forced to reroll?

What about you? What's the worst that could happen?

This one i worry less about. I am sure all the mini-maxing website will figure out the optimal way to BUILD a char.

Worst would be cancelling the development. Not that I know if Im going to like the game, but it would be worse if I never got to see what the result is.