Curmudgeon Gamer
21 April 2008
Gamasutra, don't BS me with RPGs, please
From Gamasutra:
I sure love when somebody looks at the state of things now, mentions a few precursors, and then writes some revisionist history, 1984 style. We have always been at war with Eurasia, as Matt likes to say.
What absolute bunk. What archetype is the ninja-jester-lumberjack from Ultima, again? And thieves in D&D and AD&D didn't exactly work like rogues and druid cat form in WoW today. There was no sustained "DPS". These alternative classes, even races, performed alternative tasks. Can we find a secret door? Call the elf. Lost underground? Hello, dwarf. Need to pick a lock? Call the thief. But when it was melee time, did the thief stick around? Heck no; s/he RAN. There were similar issues -- protect the magic-user squishie, bring in the cleric to heal the ranger, etc -- but these don't feel like they do in WoW. To heal in D&D, you had to back out of battle and head someplace safe. In WoW, in contrast, the healer is constantly dropping spells. And what's the difference between an elf and a Tauren druid? Hrm, one stomps and the other can make itself invisible when it's drinking to restore mana. Oh yea, and one's a cow. What completely different playstyles!!!
Let me put it more succinctly. There was no "threat" in D&D. Threat is, in a nutshell, the formula that makes monsters in WoW keep attacking whatever has caused them the most damage. If your tank keeps wailing, your warlock can keep railing. You have to be careful not to out-damage a monster if you're not a tank, else the monster makes a beeline for you. Keep your damage below the tanks' (again, oversimplification, but it's close), and it's as if you don't exist. Dungeon Masters tended to be a little less, well, formulaic.
Let me add to my succinctness... There were no quests in D&D. Oh sure, you had something random driving the plot, but tell me which one has a better, more memorable plot, Blackrock Depths or Ravenloft (and here I mean I6 in particular)? Why is that, exactly?
The difference between D&D and WoW is that the first is wide open. WoW doesn't copy archetypes; it's D&D on rails. WoW dumbs down role-playing to the point that it's more checkboxes than imagination (see my last post on plot again).
Ultima Online is much closer to D&D than WoW. There's no real class structure at all, which is what I was getting at by referencing the ever-popular "ninja-jester-lumberjack" crack from Worst Ninja's UO log. Obviously this gamasutra author, Mr. Hopson, is more interested in furthering WoW-specific commentary than treating each game on its on terms.
In any event, there was never any "difficult to design" hybrid issue for D&D. The players made hybrids out of every class to a degree. It's called role playing. That someone could now re-imagine D&D as such a close cousin of WoW should frighten those that like the "RP" in MMORPG. What a bunch of bunk.
(The "economic model" approach to party dynamics was about as impressive as the early statement I lambast, above. I'd be more interested in hearing how party dynamics and character creation follows the food pyramid. It'd be original, at least. OH, wow, everything works like money?!! Are you kidding me? This pseudo-academic tripe gives every ludologist a bad name.)
In classic role playing game (RPG) design, there are commonly three primary character archetypes: tank, DPS ("Damage Per Second"), and healer. These archetypes have their roots in old-school pen and paper RPGs like Dungeons & Dragons, and were carried forward into early single player RPGs like Ultima and then into MMOs.
I sure love when somebody looks at the state of things now, mentions a few precursors, and then writes some revisionist history, 1984 style. We have always been at war with Eurasia, as Matt likes to say.
What absolute bunk. What archetype is the ninja-jester-lumberjack from Ultima, again? And thieves in D&D and AD&D didn't exactly work like rogues and druid cat form in WoW today. There was no sustained "DPS". These alternative classes, even races, performed alternative tasks. Can we find a secret door? Call the elf. Lost underground? Hello, dwarf. Need to pick a lock? Call the thief. But when it was melee time, did the thief stick around? Heck no; s/he RAN. There were similar issues -- protect the magic-user squishie, bring in the cleric to heal the ranger, etc -- but these don't feel like they do in WoW. To heal in D&D, you had to back out of battle and head someplace safe. In WoW, in contrast, the healer is constantly dropping spells. And what's the difference between an elf and a Tauren druid? Hrm, one stomps and the other can make itself invisible when it's drinking to restore mana. Oh yea, and one's a cow. What completely different playstyles!!!
Let me put it more succinctly. There was no "threat" in D&D. Threat is, in a nutshell, the formula that makes monsters in WoW keep attacking whatever has caused them the most damage. If your tank keeps wailing, your warlock can keep railing. You have to be careful not to out-damage a monster if you're not a tank, else the monster makes a beeline for you. Keep your damage below the tanks' (again, oversimplification, but it's close), and it's as if you don't exist. Dungeon Masters tended to be a little less, well, formulaic.
Let me add to my succinctness... There were no quests in D&D. Oh sure, you had something random driving the plot, but tell me which one has a better, more memorable plot, Blackrock Depths or Ravenloft (and here I mean I6 in particular)? Why is that, exactly?
The difference between D&D and WoW is that the first is wide open. WoW doesn't copy archetypes; it's D&D on rails. WoW dumbs down role-playing to the point that it's more checkboxes than imagination (see my last post on plot again).
Ultima Online is much closer to D&D than WoW. There's no real class structure at all, which is what I was getting at by referencing the ever-popular "ninja-jester-lumberjack" crack from Worst Ninja's UO log. Obviously this gamasutra author, Mr. Hopson, is more interested in furthering WoW-specific commentary than treating each game on its on terms.
In any event, there was never any "difficult to design" hybrid issue for D&D. The players made hybrids out of every class to a degree. It's called role playing. That someone could now re-imagine D&D as such a close cousin of WoW should frighten those that like the "RP" in MMORPG. What a bunch of bunk.
(The "economic model" approach to party dynamics was about as impressive as the early statement I lambast, above. I'd be more interested in hearing how party dynamics and character creation follows the food pyramid. It'd be original, at least. OH, wow, everything works like money?!! Are you kidding me? This pseudo-academic tripe gives every ludologist a bad name.)
--ruffin at 17:27
Comment
[ 9 ]
19 April 2008
EVE Online expansion based on a novel, an Elite idea.
This from an interview on the WarCry Network about EVE Online's expansion:
That sound familiar? How about The Dark Wheel, released with Braben & Bell's Elite years ago. I'm not sure if I've ever read all of mine (though you can read it all right here), but it was in there to try and create a little plot to go with the randomly created planet names.
I've always wondered about plot in MMORPGs. In WoW, there's really no requirement to understand the plot of your quests nor does Blizzard create the quests so that you have to learn it, which bugs me. "Why am I killing X of Y and giving you N Zs from their loot, again?" In UO, you were, for the most part, supposed to create your own. I hope EVE pulls it off, even if you don't bother to read the latest scifi space trading [almost] pack-in novel.
The title of the next expansion - revealed here for the first time - will be 'The Empyrean Age,' the same as the EVE novel by Tony Gonzalez also slated for the summer. The reason is simple, this is the first EVE Online expansion where the story of the game and its universe will play a key role, a lot of it based off the novel.
That sound familiar? How about The Dark Wheel, released with Braben & Bell's Elite years ago. I'm not sure if I've ever read all of mine (though you can read it all right here), but it was in there to try and create a little plot to go with the randomly created planet names.
I've always wondered about plot in MMORPGs. In WoW, there's really no requirement to understand the plot of your quests nor does Blizzard create the quests so that you have to learn it, which bugs me. "Why am I killing X of Y and giving you N Zs from their loot, again?" In UO, you were, for the most part, supposed to create your own. I hope EVE pulls it off, even if you don't bother to read the latest scifi space trading [almost] pack-in novel.
--ruffin at 20:43
Comment
[ 0 ]
21 August 2007
Modeling epidemics in WoW
Michael pointed me to a Slashdot post about a forthcoming paper which suggests that the epidemic in World of Warcraft might be used to model real world diseases. I had precisely this idea at the time and this was the response from Blizzard (through a third party), dated 6 October 2005:
That's my only contribution to WoW discussion on this blog.
From: <*@blizzard.com>
Subject: RE: randomness (fwd)
I researched the logs, and unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any
unique message corresponding to the Corrupted Blood spell infecting a
player. It would definitely be cool to chart this, but it looks like a
no-go...
That's my only contribution to WoW discussion on this blog.
Labels: WoW
--jvm at 12:55
Comment
[ 0 ]
29 July 2007
Video Gaming on TV: A Ways to Go (and Free Advice on Getting There)
I managed to catch the World of Warcraft and Guitar Hero portions of the World Series of Video Games on CBS today, and, at least for WoW, let's say that it's still got a ways to go before it's watchable. The best advice I've got is to learn from Madden. That takes a real game that's increasingly made for TV and translates it to the console in a way that makes an eminently watchable game playable. Now, at least with WoW, TV broadcasts need to make an eminently playable game watchable.
How can you do this? Step one that occurred to me in the commercials before the WoW event started, this broadcast got right. For games like WoW 3v3, you can't do this live. You have to recut it. There's no single ball, no obvious focal point to privilege. At any one time, one might want to see what all six folk in a 3 on 3 are doing with equal intensity, and that requires being able to show what happened from time A to time B as many as six times. The battles are so short and so full of action that it has to be all replay. Showing the whole field would be worthless, kind of like foo... ur, US soccer's ratings on TV suggest. I suppose you could, say, follow the tank, though not his [sic] point of view, throughout as a sort of baseline around which to sprinkle in replays, but I think you get my point.
Here's the important thing they didn't get right: Don't use the in-game point of view, showing the TV viewer what any player sees. It's one thing when you're the guy making your character swiftly change direction but quite another when it's a viewer who has no idea of the strategy behind, or at least no way to anticipate, the nauseating shifts in what's now their shared point of view. Keep the camera stably oriented, and watch as many of the six as is appropriate at a time, focusing that third-person view camera on whatever area has the most action. Swoop it around all you want, but keep the camera pointing, say, north. This is why Guitar Hero works a bit more easily, I think. You have two guys up there and two tracks of chords dancing down the screen. The camera stays with one orientation, and it's not by its nature distracting. You know what to watch. If the two guys were six, all of them had wireless guitars, free to run wherever they wanted, and the only cameras were ones strapped to their heads, well, it'd be a TV nightmare, wouldn't it?
So I'd tell the WSVG to recut WoW, showing us exactly what each player's doing during what, in retrospect, ends up being the most crucial moments of the match, and to use essentially a third-person view camera rather than trying to put us into the disorienting view of a single player. The HUD at the bottom of the screen needs to be more informative than simply showing health, and it might be good to have the players come back and narrate what they were trying to accomplish.
(posted from spellchecker-less Mozilla 1.0)
How can you do this? Step one that occurred to me in the commercials before the WoW event started, this broadcast got right. For games like WoW 3v3, you can't do this live. You have to recut it. There's no single ball, no obvious focal point to privilege. At any one time, one might want to see what all six folk in a 3 on 3 are doing with equal intensity, and that requires being able to show what happened from time A to time B as many as six times. The battles are so short and so full of action that it has to be all replay. Showing the whole field would be worthless, kind of like foo... ur, US soccer's ratings on TV suggest. I suppose you could, say, follow the tank, though not his [sic] point of view, throughout as a sort of baseline around which to sprinkle in replays, but I think you get my point.
Here's the important thing they didn't get right: Don't use the in-game point of view, showing the TV viewer what any player sees. It's one thing when you're the guy making your character swiftly change direction but quite another when it's a viewer who has no idea of the strategy behind, or at least no way to anticipate, the nauseating shifts in what's now their shared point of view. Keep the camera stably oriented, and watch as many of the six as is appropriate at a time, focusing that third-person view camera on whatever area has the most action. Swoop it around all you want, but keep the camera pointing, say, north. This is why Guitar Hero works a bit more easily, I think. You have two guys up there and two tracks of chords dancing down the screen. The camera stays with one orientation, and it's not by its nature distracting. You know what to watch. If the two guys were six, all of them had wireless guitars, free to run wherever they wanted, and the only cameras were ones strapped to their heads, well, it'd be a TV nightmare, wouldn't it?
So I'd tell the WSVG to recut WoW, showing us exactly what each player's doing during what, in retrospect, ends up being the most crucial moments of the match, and to use essentially a third-person view camera rather than trying to put us into the disorienting view of a single player. The HUD at the bottom of the screen needs to be more informative than simply showing health, and it might be good to have the players come back and narrate what they were trying to accomplish.
(posted from spellchecker-less Mozilla 1.0)
--ruffin at 12:41
Comment
[ 2 ]
16 July 2007
Why does Blizzard agree with me?
I've ranted a bit about the sys reqs for the latest Tomb Raider, particularly how poorly the thing ran on my ATi Xpress 200 integrated graphics system. To be a big hit on the PC would seem to me to require hitting as wide a set of hardware as possible, including, say, recent discrete card-less lap and desktops purchased for soon-to-be college freshmen. Having seen that the graphics on the PS2 aren't all that kick-arse added to my perception that it was some unnecessary, poorly-placed eye candy that was slowing Tomb Raider down on my IGP and the decision to cut off so much of the PC market seemed an avoidable move.
In any event, I was happily surprised to see that Blizzard has started writing code for WoW that takes better use of the main processor for Macs running WoW without a good, discrete video card solution. Most entry-level Macs have Intel's 950 integrated graphics, which suX0rz: the Mini, MacBook, and lowest-end iMac all sport the 950. Rather than (continue?) to cut out these folk, they've leaned harder on the main proc in the newest version.
From the WoW 2.2 PTR Patch Notes:
So not just the recent Macs get a boost, so does my long in the tooth iBook G4 with a 32 meg ATI Mobility Radeon 9200.
So buried way down here is my reason for writing: Why bother? Eidos didn't. I realize that WoW's about all that's going outside of The Sims and fps for Macs, but it's still arguably playable on my box as is. Why, in essence, agree with me? Why make your game more playable on woefully inadequate hardware? Why not start mothballing your Mac-specific code and start going to Cider like nearly everyone else? What's the point in wasting dough supporting hardware with one foot in the tar pits?
On an only tangentially related note, I finally made the plunge and upgraded to some DX10 video hardware with MSI's GeForce NX8500GT-TD256E OC (no, no Newegg kickbacks from that link). It's pricer than some other hardware that'll outperform it, like the Sapphire Radeon 1650XT, but does ostensibly do DX10 and sure is a heck of a step up from what I was running.
In any event, I was happily surprised to see that Blizzard has started writing code for WoW that takes better use of the main processor for Macs running WoW without a good, discrete video card solution. Most entry-level Macs have Intel's 950 integrated graphics, which suX0rz: the Mini, MacBook, and lowest-end iMac all sport the 950. Rather than (continue?) to cut out these folk, they've leaned harder on the main proc in the newest version.
From the WoW 2.2 PTR Patch Notes:
Additional graphic optimization utilizing AltiVec for PowerPC-Mac and SSE for Intel-Mac. This provides some performance benefit on systems where vertex animation shaders are either unavailable or disabled (recommended on systems with Intel integrated video).
So not just the recent Macs get a boost, so does my long in the tooth iBook G4 with a 32 meg ATI Mobility Radeon 9200.
So buried way down here is my reason for writing: Why bother? Eidos didn't. I realize that WoW's about all that's going outside of The Sims and fps for Macs, but it's still arguably playable on my box as is. Why, in essence, agree with me? Why make your game more playable on woefully inadequate hardware? Why not start mothballing your Mac-specific code and start going to Cider like nearly everyone else? What's the point in wasting dough supporting hardware with one foot in the tar pits?
On an only tangentially related note, I finally made the plunge and upgraded to some DX10 video hardware with MSI's GeForce NX8500GT-TD256E OC (no, no Newegg kickbacks from that link). It's pricer than some other hardware that'll outperform it, like the Sapphire Radeon 1650XT, but does ostensibly do DX10 and sure is a heck of a step up from what I was running.
Labels: mac, video cards, WoW
--ruffin at 17:32
Comment
[ 3 ]
28 May 2007
Well written, Blizzard
I've been trying to play World of Warcraft one month at a time with breaks of a couple of weeks between those months. Not only is it cheaper than any of the continuous plans, it usually forces me to catch up on some other facets of my life.Usually when the cancel interface asks why I've canceled, I say it's because the game is too expensive, which, after a manner of speaking, is why I'm doing it. If it were cheaper to pay a year at a time than this back and forth, I'd probably do it. Today, however, I picked the [newish?] option for needing more time for other things. I believe school, family, etc were options for the next drop down of why I needed more time, for example.
In a move reminiscent of Fight for Life, it appears WoW cancellation screens have different notes and perhaps pictures depending on your reason for quitting. The note with this one tells me Blizzard might want to give its employees more time off, too.
We are proud that we were able to make a sucessful [sic], enjoyable game. And as much as we'd like you to keep playing, we understand that there are certain cirumcstances [sic] which may prevent continuous game play. Currently, we have no plans to delete World of Warcraft accounts regardless of their activity history. Provided that the characters do not get deleted by the account holder, we will retain all character information on our servers indefinitely.
Well, at least it got the point across, and I'll be back for the run from 65-70 soon.
--ruffin at 08:11
Comment
[ 0 ]
06 March 2007
Submitting non-personal system information
After going through the latest World of Warcraft patch, a new screen with a cancel button on it popped up as part of the login process, reading, "Submitting non-personal system information." It was barely up long enough to read.
I imagine I've signed away much worse in the game's license, but why even bother letting me know? (Or have I simply missed this the first 2,138 times I've played?) What was that screen about? Gauging how much more eye candy could be in the next expansion?
Let me recommend this: If you up system requirements at all, up them everywhere, Blizzard. Force upgrades to play. Ultima Online's latest update -- and the non-trivial blowback from their saying that (in five years or so, mind you) they might eventually finally toss compatibility with the original client -- should be lesson enough. If Windows isn't going to update frequently enough to keep Intel in business, why not you?
I imagine I've signed away much worse in the game's license, but why even bother letting me know? (Or have I simply missed this the first 2,138 times I've played?) What was that screen about? Gauging how much more eye candy could be in the next expansion?
Let me recommend this: If you up system requirements at all, up them everywhere, Blizzard. Force upgrades to play. Ultima Online's latest update -- and the non-trivial blowback from their saying that (in five years or so, mind you) they might eventually finally toss compatibility with the original client -- should be lesson enough. If Windows isn't going to update frequently enough to keep Intel in business, why not you?
Labels: WoW
--ruffin at 19:07
Comment
[ 2 ]
18 January 2007
Burning Crusade and Ultima's Ghost Towns
Last night, I fell off the wagon and reactivated my WoW account. I don't have the Burning Crusade expansion, so I'm stuck in the Old World, so to speak. What I saw reminded me of my experience with expansions to Ultima Online.
When UO started throwing in expansions, the old worlds very quickly started clearing out. Ole Britannia (or whatever the capital is) went from a bustling urban center to an absolute ghost town, made all the more eerie as the wandering NPC robots grossly outnumbered humans for the first time in my experience.
That's happening now in WoW. Ironforge is nearly empty... auction houses, banks, city square, all nearly empty on my server, even if n=1 nights played for now. I couldn't tell if my "new video card" was providing much better performance or if there simply wasn't anything to render!
This should concern Blizzard. The creation of a virtual ghetto is a bad thing. Maybe Ironforge can add a bingo?
Blizzard needs to ensure that expansions are backwards compatible, not so much that expansionless folk like myself can go to the new lands, nor even that we should be provided access to the new trainers, etc, but players with expansions should continue to flow through old hotspots (possibly with new buildings in cities accessible only if you have the expansions, etc) so that the communities at least do not give the impression of being quite so perfectly cleaved.
Perhaps it will hit an equilibrium at some point, but without adding new zones in the old world, (even without knowing what's in the Outland) I somewhat doubt Ironforge will ever be the impressive hub it was before.
When UO started throwing in expansions, the old worlds very quickly started clearing out. Ole Britannia (or whatever the capital is) went from a bustling urban center to an absolute ghost town, made all the more eerie as the wandering NPC robots grossly outnumbered humans for the first time in my experience.
That's happening now in WoW. Ironforge is nearly empty... auction houses, banks, city square, all nearly empty on my server, even if n=1 nights played for now. I couldn't tell if my "new video card" was providing much better performance or if there simply wasn't anything to render!
This should concern Blizzard. The creation of a virtual ghetto is a bad thing. Maybe Ironforge can add a bingo?
Blizzard needs to ensure that expansions are backwards compatible, not so much that expansionless folk like myself can go to the new lands, nor even that we should be provided access to the new trainers, etc, but players with expansions should continue to flow through old hotspots (possibly with new buildings in cities accessible only if you have the expansions, etc) so that the communities at least do not give the impression of being quite so perfectly cleaved.
Perhaps it will hit an equilibrium at some point, but without adding new zones in the old world, (even without knowing what's in the Outland) I somewhat doubt Ironforge will ever be the impressive hub it was before.
--ruffin at 14:58
Comment
[ 4 ]
06 January 2007
Yeah, miss you too.
Some time ago, I gave EverQuest a shot. It gave me nausea, and that was that.
Almost. A while after I'd stopped playing, I got an email from the EverQuest folk saying they'd like me to come back. With it, if I remember correctly (and I'm pretty sure I told Matt, so perhaps he remembers), they offered to give me a free month's worth of playtime to boot.
That's pretty impressive. It's good customer service, and if I'd merely not enjoyed the game, I certainly would have come back for at least the month. What more can you ask for if you've got EQ stock? If it's good enough, I'm once again reduced to a revenue stream. Great promotion.
So I haven't played WoW in a while. Here's their "it's been a while; we sure miss you" pitch.
Blizzard Entertainment proudly invites you to return to the World of Warcraft on January 16th and journey beyond the Dark Portal, where an infinity of new experiences await you. Given the high volume of returning subscribers we expect when The Burning Crusade™ expansion goes live, if you are planning a return to Azeroth, we recommend reactivating your account as soon as possible in order to avoid the expected rush of launch-day activations.
That gives me another type of nausea. Their only argument is that they're admitting they won't be prepared enough to handle new players later this month? I'm supposed to come back so that I save time re-registering?! Just a guess, but I'm betting the servers will be nicely queued too, then.
Not only is there no discount, I've now learned my "launch-day" play experience will likely stink.
Thanks WoW. My Druid's probably sitting this one out.
Almost. A while after I'd stopped playing, I got an email from the EverQuest folk saying they'd like me to come back. With it, if I remember correctly (and I'm pretty sure I told Matt, so perhaps he remembers), they offered to give me a free month's worth of playtime to boot.
That's pretty impressive. It's good customer service, and if I'd merely not enjoyed the game, I certainly would have come back for at least the month. What more can you ask for if you've got EQ stock? If it's good enough, I'm once again reduced to a revenue stream. Great promotion.
So I haven't played WoW in a while. Here's their "it's been a while; we sure miss you" pitch.
Blizzard Entertainment proudly invites you to return to the World of Warcraft on January 16th and journey beyond the Dark Portal, where an infinity of new experiences await you. Given the high volume of returning subscribers we expect when The Burning Crusade™ expansion goes live, if you are planning a return to Azeroth, we recommend reactivating your account as soon as possible in order to avoid the expected rush of launch-day activations.
That gives me another type of nausea. Their only argument is that they're admitting they won't be prepared enough to handle new players later this month? I'm supposed to come back so that I save time re-registering?! Just a guess, but I'm betting the servers will be nicely queued too, then.
Not only is there no discount, I've now learned my "launch-day" play experience will likely stink.
Thanks WoW. My Druid's probably sitting this one out.
--ruffin at 19:05
Comment
[ 1 ]
Feedburner
