Originally posted by mmoski

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by whilan

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

It is an ideal scenario but of course it will also blow the size of quest chains out of control in general - because now for every quest there are 2 at least different paths.

Which  means for every additional quest in the chain you also have 2 different paths, that 2^2 = 4. Each additional quest in the chain is an additional power of possible combination.

The quest chain will become big in size thus in only 4 quests chain:

2^1 = 2

2^2 = 4

2^3 = 8

2^4 = 16

2 + 4 + 8+16 = 30

Which means if every quest has 2 different outcomes you have to design 30 quests for a simple for quest chain... and 4 quest chain is considered short already.

Imagine the astronomical numbers if it was the main story quest :O

It is all a question of economics of effort in mathematics.

Granted it would get insane if you did this at every possible step of the quest, so you just do it at major ones in said quest and not every quest has to have this mechanic.

You might be able to avoid some of that I think with loop back design (that is, if you fail at some of that stages it might bring to you the same quest path as other fail results).

This as I recall was done in some games back in the 1990s I think.

However one thing to note that they are single player RPGs though (single player RPG has the advantage of not having to worry about progress in quest chain in relation to other players).

Really MMO's can do this, it's not limited to single player, its just so much harder to do.

I'm actually doing something similar to this for my game, I want to get away from the typical static/chain questing systems, I also looked at the storybricks system that's going to be used for EQnext  but really that kind of a system will just produce static user made quests(I'm not saying that's not cool, it's cool when in a diverse sandbox environment).

But my approach is to integrate a AI NPC generation system combine with multi dimensional quest trees and chain diversification, available dependent on NPC context, environment, player to NPC communication and player to NPC attributes (yeah you need to talk to my NPC's by typing)(similar to talking to an "semi intelligent"  IRC Bot but with context keyword and sentence definition).

There's so much more to this, such as cross context NPC to NPC root quest to node conformation and extended Quest chain generation etc...  It's not  going to be easy but I think it's worth it.

Yeah I can imagine the logic/decision tree to this will be very complex. Just thinking of the overlapping lines of the quest trees makes my head spin :O

I'm not a game designer myself but I was a mathematican/analyst and I've done decision trees before and I can already imagine the many level of complexities that you've mentioned in that.

The problem with implementating that in MMO as well is that MMOs are complex closed systems - it is a closed system however it is also multi-layered and have many different intersecting aspects/spheres, so I can imagine the difficulties of implementing such type of quest chains.

Originally posted by Milander

Sorry not going to read 6 pages of repeated fanboy/girl/boi rants on how much Crypic rocks/sucks/can(t) do no wrong....

You didn't read the posts with the Simpsons pics, didn't you? lol :P

Originally posted by Mkilbride

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by Mkilbride

Not talking about the game. About the show.

I don't think there are any more unlikable character than King Joffery from Game of Thrones, bar none.

 

To be unlikeable you actually have to be universally despised, like King Joffery.

 

I think what you are trying say is the most "uninteresting" main character?

 

Joffery is not a main character.

Joffery is one of the main characters - just because he is NOT loved doesn't mean he is not significant. By your definition Baratheons are also sideshow too - which clearly is not the case.

Game of Thrones is NOT an "Illustrated Story of Starks"... it is about ALL the successor houses. You clearly have no understanding of the series or the book. Best to stick to commenting on what you know mate.

Unless you never wants to play games again I don't think you can avoid it.

Between EA, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Blizzard, Sony andf all the other big boys pretty much owns everything one way or another (whether they make the game or they just distributes it, or even if they just sell the game engine).

It is like saying would you boycott Shell petroleum... don't think you even have a choice lol you don't even know what other products indirectly uses their shit... that is unless you go treehugging

Originally posted by Mkilbride

Not talking about the game. About the show.

I don't think there are any more unlikable character than King Joffery from Game of Thrones, bar none.

To be unlikeable you actually have to be universally despised, like King Joffery.

I think what you are trying say is the most "uninteresting" main character?

Originally posted by TheHavok

tools are all proprietary.

For some reason it sounds kinda funny the way the phrased that, lol

Originally posted by akiira69

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by furbans

Do YOU know what beta means?

Oh no! Beta!

A software release life cycle is the sum of the phases of development and maturity for a piece of computer software: ranging from its initial development to its eventual release, and including updated versions of the released version to help improve software or fix bugs still present in the software.

and

The origin of the "alpha/beta" test terminology is IBM. As long ago as the 1950s (and probably earlier), IBM used similar terminology for their hardware development. "A" test was the verification of a new product before public announcement. "B" test was the verification before releasing the product to be manufactured. "C" test was the final test before general availability of the product. As software became a significant part of IBM's offerings, the alpha test terminology was used to denote the pre-announcement test and beta test was used to show product readiness for general availability. Martin Belsky, a manager on some of IBM's earlier software projects claimed to have invented the terminology. IBM dropped the alpha/beta terminology during the 1960s, but by then it had gotten fairly wide notice. The usage of "beta test" to refer to testing done by customers was not done in IBM. Rather, IBM used the term "field test.

Obviously you have wiki-ed software development lifecycle but somehow forgot to google the funniness of good ole' Simpsons quotes, lol

Originally posted by furbans

Do YOU know what beta means?

Oh no! Beta!

Originally posted by Aconsar

Honestly, Cryptic only did a half-assed job on City of Heroes.

Cryptic pretty much do half-ass jobs with every mmo thee made.

STO's concept was half-baked (they could've done so much more with it instead of just being a subpar ship sim), Champions was half-baked, City was half-baked.

Seems like Cryptic specialises in half-asses-ness like Homer Simpson.

Originally posted by Grailer

I watched some crafting videos and housing videos and I thought the graphics were from the 1990's .

 

Are they place holder graphics or is this game really going to release with sup par graphics ?

 

Apart from the graphics I like what they are doing ,  I just cant get past the bad graphics . My PC is high end .

I don't think you have ever seen what real 90s graphics looks like:

Yeah mate... REALLY similiar there... :/

The thing I don't get is why the devs at Greed Monger keeps on insisting on playing 1-upsmanship vs forum goers on this forum.

Just let it go, say "okay buddy" and stop arguing with people who are your potential customers. Arguments makes you looks bad to the bystanders (the "neutrals") who are looking at your threads because it gives people a negative vibe.

You don't see the devs on Repopulation waste time arguing with naysayers. All the ever posted was progress reports.

If Blizzard, EA or SOE keeps on wasting time on arguing with customers over every little details or bashing on the track records of their devs and CEOs they would've never made any money or gotten anything done.

Originally posted by whilan

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

It is an ideal scenario but of course it will also blow the size of quest chains out of control in general - because now for every quest there are 2 at least different paths.

 

Which  means for every additional quest in the chain you also have 2 different paths, that 2^2 = 4. Each additional quest in the chain is an additional power of possible combination.

 

The quest chain will become big in size thus in only 4 quests chain:

 

2^1 = 2

2^2 = 4

2^3 = 8

2^4 = 16

2 + 4 + 8+16 = 30

Which means if every quest has 2 different outcomes you have to design 30 quests for a simple for quest chain... and 4 quest chain is considered short already.

 

Imagine the astronomical numbers if it was the main story quest :O

 

It is all a question of economics of effort in mathematics.

 

Granted it would get insane if you did this at every possible step of the quest, so you just do it at major ones in said quest and not every quest has to have this mechanic.

You might be able to avoid some of that I think with loop back design (that is, if you fail at some of that stages it might bring to you the same quest path as other fail results).

This as I recall was done in some games back in the 1990s I think.

However one thing to note that they are single player RPGs though (single player RPG has the advantage of not having to worry about progress in quest chain in relation to other players).

It is an ideal scenario but of course it will also blow the size of quest chains out of control in general - because now for every quest there are 2 at least different paths.

Which  means for every additional quest in the chain you also have 2 different paths, that 2^2 = 4. Each additional quest in the chain is an additional power of possible combination.

The quest chain will become big in size thus in only 4 quests chain:

2^1 = 2

2^2 = 4

2^3 = 8

2^4 = 16

2 + 4 + 8+16 = 30

Which means if every quest has 2 different outcomes you have to design 30 quests for a simple 4 quest chain... and 4 quest chain is considered short already.

Imagine the astronomical numbers if it was the main story quest :O

It is all a question of economics of effort in mathematics.

Originally posted by Braindome

Also been really happy to be back on AoC. It still looks so good graphically and they seem to have finally gotten alot figured out and streamlined, it is still a very viable game, at this point considering the recent stae of MMO's AoC seems that it was quite ahead of its time. 

Too bad it suffered so many problems at launch and for the first couple of years, but it is nice to see they didn't drop support as it is quite a nice little game and very fun.

That seems to be the recurring trend for some reason with Funcom mmos - they messes up launches but a couple of years after that they fixed them into decent games.

Same thing happened with Anarchy Online.

Originally posted by Matryoshka

Originally posted by LordZeik
I'll never understand why most of you people get super defensive. He says scarlet blade is bad based on visuals. How many people out there judge games based on visuals? A ton!

Hopefully none of those are people who review video games for a living, though.

Visuals are NOT the same thing as graphics or resolution.

Not many  seems to ever said Minecraft or Portals are a bad games - yet both games has is wayyyy worse graphics than Scarlet Blade.

Scarlet Blade, crimson tide, PMS, etc...

'nuff said.

Originally posted by Murugan

Originally posted by Dhaenon

I haven't played a MMO in months, and I'm beginning to feel the itch. 

 

What are you playing? Why should I play it? 

 

GO!

Why should I necessarily want you to play my game.

 

What do you bring to the table?

^ This

Unless OP is going to pay for every player's monthly sub for that game, I don't see any advantages in trying to convince him to do shit.

Originally posted by 4Renziks
Defiance fail

I don't know what facts you have to justify this statement.
 

Defiance seems to be doing okay to me. Defiance must have been doing okay and taking it's share of the TPS market if APB is now feeling the pressure and release more new stuff last 2 months compare to what they've been doing the last 2 years.

The best judge of how good a game is doing is to look at the reaction of the competitors of the SAME genre, NOT against games of different genre.

Originally posted by hfztt

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by hfztt

Originally posted by nerovipus32
It makes absolutely no sense that this is a ps3 exclusive when CCP's loyal fanbase are PC gamers.

Why would you want to make a f2p game targeting your loyal p2p customers?

That would seem overly stupid to me.

"We would like you to keep playing in the same universe, just not having to pay us!"

Fail...

Not really.

Tie-ins might get more people interested in EVE itself, since if it was on PC, playing DUST only would be akin to only playing half the game as you will be the bitch of the EVE players (they are the one who can make the contracts to hire you and such).

It is a smart marketing move. Kinda like Defiance and the TV show tie-ins.

Would be true if they targeted teh same segments.

But DUST is for people with ADHD and EVE is for people with OCD...

(Ok, that was a bit mean, but they taget very different types of players.)

PC gamers in general are usually pretty open-minded and play a variety of genres (ie. people who might also like strategy games).

Console gamers on the other hand are just into quick fixes (ie. a bit of free time, lets just waste it on ps3 and watch movie).

So they are not really targeting a different market segment, had they released the game on PC. In fact they will be expanding their target audiences.

The problem is that they are releasing it on console and even then only ONE console platform only (ps3, where people buy to play driving games more than anything).

The article is right.

Games has always been overpriced - the prove is in the pudding.

If it wasn't overpriced people those Steam specials and sales would not have been doing so well every time they come up. Steam proves that if the prices was more reasonable (reasonable as in it cost about the price of no more than 2 or 3 eat out lunches) people would not hesitate to purchase a game at all.

People are generally not willing to pay a who half week's worth of food's cost for a game that is okay or don't know whether they are good or not.