Tabula Rasa Beta Sign ups Begin

[The Continental]

Richard Garriot's latest venture into the MMO arena, Tabula Rasa (http://www.playtr.com/index.html), is now taking applications for its upcoming beta test (http://www.playtr.com/beta/index.html).Destination Games and NCsoft are looking for a few good testers – and now is the time to enlist for the early rounds of Tabula Rasa beta testing. We will be selecting testers based on system specifications, game experience, location, and date submitted. Please note that processing your beta application will take some time and we have a limited number of beta slots available. Closed beta slots are limited to players over the age of 18 and require acceptance of a Non-Disclosure legal agreement.Thanks Voodoo Extreme (http://ve3d.ign.com/).

I haven't really seen anything of this game that piques my interest, but some favorable beta impressions might turn a few heads.

[Hapless]

I heard from a friend that was following the game pretty hardcore that they are using an auto targeting system, can anyone confirm/deny that before i waste the time downloading?

[DangerousDaze]

There's already a thread (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23313) about this. Merge?

[MSUStud911]

Signed up.

[JazGalaxy]

I think it's intersting how a much publicised MMORPG seems to have the reverse affect as a well publicised single player game.

In cases like this, when we've heard of a game for years, when it comes out.. pretty much nobody cares. There is no rush to jump into Beta and then no rush of positive/negative buzz.

[Derella]

It sounds like it's going to bring some new elements to MMOs, which is a good thing. Plus, I've been waiting for a Richard Garriott game for too long. Hopefully he can deliver.

[Deadend]

Signed up, I am ready for a new combat system.

[bean19]

I think I screwed myself on this by being honest about my moderate processor speed (only 2.4 Ghz). They must be doing some crazy physics in this game or something. Oh well.

It's becoming obvious that I'm going to need a new computer soon. I just am so reluctant to get one with Vista and DX 10 on the horizon as I want to guarantee compliance. Also, I really can't afford one. *sigh*

[feeble]

I think I screwed myself on this by being honest about my moderate processor speed (only 2.4 Ghz). They must be doing some crazy physics in this game or something. Oh well.

It's becoming obvious that I'm going to need a new computer soon. I just am so reluctant to get one with Vista and DX 10 on the horizon as I want to guarantee compliance. Also, I really can't afford one. *sigh*

lol, i have a 2.4 as well. it was the better cpu for its time

i always knew this day would come, but couldnt prepare myself enough for the moment.

[abso]

Worth checking out, if nothing else. The only time I bother with MMOs anymore is when they are in beta. You get far less wankers that way.

[Deadend]

I think I screwed myself on this by being honest about my moderate processor speed (only 2.4 Ghz). They must be doing some crazy physics in this game or something. Oh well.

It's becoming obvious that I'm going to need a new computer soon. I just am so reluctant to get one with Vista and DX 10 on the horizon as I want to guarantee compliance. Also, I really can't afford one. *sigh*
I think it will probably run better than Vanguard, probably.

But I am in the exact same boat. I also think I should wait to finish college before upgrading, but that is still over a year away.

[KNOTE]

I loved the demo at E3 a couple of years ago. I cannot imagine what is taking them so long to build though. It's gotta be going on 5+ years now.

[AvA]

Since that E3 appereance Knote is talking about, the game has been rebuilt almost from the ground up, especially from the graphic point of view.

[Kefkataran]

I signed up for the beta, as I wouldn't mind seeing how this one turned out.

[RevGored]

Why, Richard Garriot?

[ldi222]

I wish Dick Garriot would go back to making single player Ultimas but good ones like the first 7. I guess that day will never come.

[J Arcane]

I wish Dick Garriot would go back to making single player Ultimas but good ones like the first 7. I guess that day will never come.
That's because Garriot was the one responsible for killing the series in the first place.

The series' increasingly action-y focus was his idea. He declared that RPGs were dead, and that action games were where it was at, and then attempted to fulfill said prophecy by killing one of the best RPG series of all time.

[bean19]

I think it will probably run better than Vanguard, probably.

But I am in the exact same boat. I also think I should wait to finish college before upgrading, but that is still over a year away.

Oh, it would have to play better than Vanguard. Hehe. That game is just insanely bad in performance.

[Zeal]

I like how the creator of this game lives in a castle.

[JazGalaxy]

That's because Garriot was the one responsible for killing the series in the first place.

The series' increasingly action-y focus was his idea. He declared that RPGs were dead, and that action games were where it was at, and then attempted to fulfill said prophecy by killing one of the best RPG series of all time.

I agree with his philosophy. I think Oblivion is a little bit of proof as to what he was on about as well. Older RPG games were subject to what I'll call RPG Redundancy. You had the RPG System (lets say D&D rules) redoing calculations that the PC already did. Gamers were so familiar with the concept but new RPG gamers played morrowind and were saying things like "Why is my sword obviously hitting this guy but the screen says "Miss"!?!"

Making games more action based (heads up... reality is action based) was the only way to move the RPG genre forward.

[OrangePulp]

Sweet. I love signing up for betas, because if they suck, well, no skin off your teeth, and if they're good, you get some free gaming. I haven't really looked into Tabula Rasa, but I remember reading a bit about it (a while ago), and it seemed interesting.

[BigJonno]

I agree with his philosophy. I think Oblivion is a little bit of proof as to what he was on about as well. Older RPG games were subject to what I'll call RPG Redundancy. You had the RPG System (lets say D&D rules) redoing calculations that the PC already did. Gamers were so familiar with the concept but new RPG gamers played morrowind and were saying things like "Why is my sword obviously hitting this guy but the screen says "Miss"!?!"

Making games more action based (heads up... reality is action based) was the only way to move the RPG genre forward.

I never got the RPG obsession with stats. Sure, I like the strategy side of things and I'd hate to see those kind of systems die out completely, but the main reason that pen 'n' paper RPGs have stats and dice is that it's pretty much the only way to have a satisfying simulation when you're sat round the dinner table.

With computer RPGs, you've got something that can do all the calculations for you, so rip out all the crap and make the gameplay more action based. I think computer RPGs could do with taking a look at LARP systems. Generally speaking, character mechanics and stats are there to define what you can do (spend one of your character points to be able to use a weapon up to 42" long, for example) and it's up to the player how well they can do it (all the character points in the world can't make you a better swordsman.)

Actually, MMORPGs should be looking at LARP for inspiration for their entire construction as they're the closest thing to it. I think a lot of the problems with MMORPGs stem from them being patterned on single player RPGs and pen 'n' paper RPGs where a small group of characters are the focus. As a result you get the feeling of hundreds of individual groups running around completing a game, who just happen to be doing it in the same space. You also get the problem of what happens when they reach the end.

The LARP events that I attend have thousands of people playing the same game at once. While there is a master plan, much of the plot is player driven, or created at a faction/guild level. There is little in the way of uber loot or character levelling, but people still play the same character for years without getting bored.

I'd love to see these principles applied to a MMORPG. City of Heroes level character customisation, but with a greater ability to gain new items. Equipment that is designed around character customisation rather than a level progression. Give trusted and experienced players "NPC" characters that are used to drive the plot. Most importantly, make the gameplay inherently enjoyable enough that people want to go and adventure without the constant carrot of loot and levels.

[The Continental]

Actually, MMORPGs should be looking at LARP for inspiration for their entire construction as they're the closest thing to it. I think a lot of the problems with MMORPGs stem from them being patterned on single player RPGs and pen 'n' paper RPGs where a small group of characters are the focus. As a result you get the feeling of hundreds of individual groups running around completing a game, who just happen to be doing it in the same space. You also get the problem of what happens when they reach the end.Not to detract from your excellent post, in which I agree with you entirely, but keep in mind that the focus of MMOs is by and large keeping you playing as long as possible from a revenue standpoint. Providing oppurtunities to tweak a multitude of statistics by repeating existing content in the hope of upgrading equipment as a substitute for character progression is a hell of a lot easier than having to continually churn out new content.

Like I said, I agree with you entirely, but the current MMO model is as it is because of a real world need to turn a profit. I'd like to see a shift away from this approach of hooking players by always having items to strive for to a more dynamic world driven by player interaction that will entice players to stay because they want to see what happens next. Hopefully some of the upcoming, PvP-centric MMOs like Conan and Warhammer will continue the diversion from the EQ model of MMO.

[abso]

If development costs weren't so high in order to churn out AAA titles, that might be possible. But then you have to consider the cost to maintain and update these titles. It's just not feasible without consistent revenue. Considering the failure in game advertising has been thus far, I doubt we will see a move away from the subscription model.

What would be interesting though, at least from a consumer standpoint, is more of a pay-per-hour up to the $15/mo max. This way the casual gamer doesn't feel pressured to keep paying even if they aren't playing. I can just imagine how many more MMOs I would have tried if it weren't for the monthly fees.

[abso]

I'd love to see these principles applied to a MMORPG. City of Heroes level character customisation, but with a greater ability to gain new items. Equipment that is designed around character customisation rather than a level progression. Give trusted and experienced players "NPC" characters that are used to drive the plot. Most importantly, make the gameplay inherently enjoyable enough that people want to go and adventure without the constant carrot of loot and levels.

I'm honestly amazed that people keep playing these games given how little changes from one MMO to another. In the end, they all degenerate into a kill x monsters to get new item y. Even when attempts to include a story driven reason to kill x monsters are there, it is still the same. The biggest problem is the need for an endgame.

I'm hoping that someone will come up with a procedural method for growing new areas and creatures. With that, developers could introduce new content very quickly, and would allow for more interaction between the players and the world. Content that can be created quickly and dynamically is a must in order to keep the world fresh and interesting. Otherwise, how many times can you try to kill some dragon?

Then of course there is the flood of players to only specific areas, which imo, is due to poor world design. The only time there should be a flood of players to one area is if the story demands it. Graphics and interesting levels draw you in, but you need to do something more than make a glorified doll building game to really keep the people that don't get addicted.

[theguido]

I agree with his philosophy. I think Oblivion is a little bit of proof as to what he was on about as well. Older RPG games were subject to what I'll call RPG Redundancy. You had the RPG System (lets say D&D rules) redoing calculations that the PC already did. Gamers were so familiar with the concept but new RPG gamers played morrowind and were saying things like "Why is my sword obviously hitting this guy but the screen says "Miss"!?!"

Making games more action based (heads up... reality is action based) was the only way to move the RPG genre forward.

Ugh. Oblivion was a huge step backwards in terms of the Elder Scrolls series, IMO. The battle system was great but the game as a whole had a lot of problems.

[BigJonno]

I really do think that some form of player-driven gameplay is going to be the next big step in MMORPGs. I just don't think that there is any other way to keep people playing other than the current repeated raid model. The current direction that WoW is taking shows that people aren't happy with being forced into raiding to progress. If it's enough to make what is by far the biggest name in the MMORPG arena change direction then it's a huge deal.

A large percentage of WoW players have serious issues with the game and would be more than happy to move to greener pastures. The only reasons they still play are the lack of alternatives and the fact that the game is still pretty good fun. The interesting thing is that the issues are pretty varied and the next generation of successful MMORPGs are going to be the ones that specialise. WoW has shown that the MMORPG pie is bigger than anyone dreamed and it's time for the industry to realise that getting a slice of that pie is easier and more profitable than trying to grab the whole thing.

As you've said, Warhammer and Conan have a strong PvP focus and hopefully they'll demonstrate that specialisation is the key. That said I hope they'll both capitalise on their strong backgrounds with good RP support, which is probably WoW's weakest area.

[BigJonno]

Ugh. Oblivion was a huge step backwards in terms of the Elder Scrolls series, IMO. The battle system was great but the game as a whole had a lot of problems.

But as you say, the battle system was great. Morrowind was pretty nonsensical in terms of combat. Watching swords and arrows go through targets with no apparent affect is ridiculous.

[bean19]

I'm honestly amazed that people keep playing these games given how little changes from one MMO to another. In the end, they all degenerate into a kill x monsters to get new item y. Even when attempts to include a story driven reason to kill x monsters are there, it is still the same. The biggest problem is the need for an endgame.

This really isn't the case.

MMOs are getting more diverse, but they have traditional have been as diverse as other genres. Look at FPS games, the basics of each are very similar. You shoot at stuff with different weapons and may have different movement abilities, but for the most part the game mechanics are the same.

MMOs like to change up how you progress in the game as this is one of the ways that RPGs are diverse from one another. The other thing that changes often is the setting. City of Heroes is a superhero game, Eve Online takes place in space, Anarchy Online is a sci-fi themed MMO. While the fantasy setting has been done again and again and again, many of these are also changing things up, or simply innovating by doing a much better job than other people have done in the past (World of Warcraft). Duke Nuke'em was really just a better version of Doom.

We are even seeing more and more diversity as the genre expands. DDO, while not a very good game IMO due to it's very small amount of content and because the D&D rules do not translate well into an MMO, still manages to change things up by focusing on delivering the D&D tabletop experience for small groups going on adventures. My brother, who is a huge fan of D&D is quite fond of DDO, though he admits that it is only fun while it lasts (he recently went back after a major update and had fun for two more months, meaning that he has had a total of 4 months of enjoyment out of the game). With time, they could service this group of D&D players for as much as a year.

Gods & Heroes is breaking the mold by having a new setting (Ancient mythological Rome), and by introducing visceral combat where your attacks actually hit and the mob gets hit, when you block an attack with a shield - you see that attack be blocked by the shield and when you parry an attack you deflect it with your sword. Plus, every character can get minions that are lesser heroes to your scion of the Gods main character but that follow you and assist you. These minions will all have different special attacks and different AI preferences, so maybe you'll get a healer who is awesome at group heals but very meh at single character heals, or a minion who deals powerful ranged damage, but is weak if you allow him to pull aggro. Thus collecting these minions and picking which ones to go with you on different missions becomes part of the strategy. Additionally, minions will work in groups so that even in your 5-man raids, the encounters will be epic. Instead of a team of supposedly awesome player-controlled warriors needing to gang up on every peon in a raid instance, your group will engage in huge battles with multiple opponents where minions must be managed. Oh, and did I mention that one of the ways that your character progresses is by gaining favor with your patron god and gaining access to god powers (you are a scion of the gods after all). That's a lot of innovation.

Then we have Age of Conan that will be an action role-playing game with a Mature rating that is set in the Hyperborian universe and Warhammer Online that is an RvR game that focuses on PvP with skirmishes (world PvP in PvP zones), battlegrounds (PvP objectives within the battlezones. Gaining control of these allows your side to gain bonuses in that zone), scenarios (very exciting instanced battles with objectives, an example in one of the movies was a scenario where several dwarven copters had crashed and you had to either rescue them or destroy them depending on the side you are on - what a great spoof of Black Hawk Down). All of these work together to earn points that work towards the ultimate goal that you have in the endgame - to gain control of the zones between yourself and the opposing side in order to take over the enemy city and burn it to the ground.

One of the reasons the MMO genre is so exciting to me is the huge amount of innovation in it. The first to hit of the big three innovators right now will be Gods & Heroes as it is expected to release some time this Summer. If you are interested in getting in the beta, all you have to do is sign up on their forums and contribute constructively. It's still a fairly manageable community because they have not really been promoting the game much yet too.

[cp#]

Any word on when they will confirm if we are in or not? The screen shots look bangin'

[bean19]

Any word on when they will confirm if we are in or not? The screen shots look bangin'

Site says that beta e-mails won't be sent for at least a month.

[EL CABONG]

I think I screwed myself on this by being honest about my moderate processor speed (only 2.4 Ghz). They must be doing some crazy physics in this game or something. Oh well.

It's becoming obvious that I'm going to need a new computer soon. I just am so reluctant to get one with Vista and DX 10 on the horizon as I want to guarantee compliance. Also, I really can't afford one. *sigh*
Yeah after trying to play Vanguard and seen the minumums on this game I am thinking sooner rather than later on upgradeing.

Isn't DDR3 ram suppose to be out fairly soon aswell? Like within the next year or so. I would like to wait till Vista,DX10 and DDR3 but that means I am got gonna do much gameing on my pc in the near future.

[J Arcane]

I agree with his philosophy. I think Oblivion is a little bit of proof as to what he was on about as well. Older RPG games were subject to what I'll call RPG Redundancy. You had the RPG System (lets say D&D rules) redoing calculations that the PC already did. Gamers were so familiar with the concept but new RPG gamers played morrowind and were saying things like "Why is my sword obviously hitting this guy but the screen says "Miss"!?!"

Making games more action based (heads up... reality is action based) was the only way to move the RPG genre forward.
So, basically, you don't like RPGs, and you want to turn them all into something they're not because one game was poorly designed.

Congratulations. That's the stupidest fucking thing I've heard all year.

How about this idea: If you don't like RPGs, play something that isn't an RPG. Don't go trying to deform a genre into something else.

I don't like RTS games much. But I don't go whining about how RTS games should be more like FPS games. I just don't play RTS games.

[BigJonno]

I think what he was trying to get at is that RPGs are still stuck on the conventions of pen 'n' paper RPGs, namely statistics and rolling dice. Look at jRPGs, which generally feature no character interaction, you're just guiding a group of pre-generated characters through a set story, combined with battle systems that are basically pen 'n' paper turn based systems in computerised form.

Role-playing game. To me, this suggests that you are playing a role. This ranges from something like Planescape: Torment or Deus Ex, where you have a specific character, but the choices that the character makes are entirely yours, to the Elder Scrolls series, where your character is entirely your own, barring the situation they're in. None of this has anything to do with levels or classes or rolling dice. Pen 'n' paper RPGs have tried to get a balance between a satisfying simulation that brings a controlled random element to dramatic situations and streamlined mechanics that don't get in the way of good storytelling and character interaction.

I'm not saying that there isn't any room for turn-based, stat-driven games, but these are basically dinosaurs. More accurately, they're crocodiles. They're the same now as they have been for ages and they're quite happy that way, thank you very much.

Once you disassociate RPGs from the mechanical elements of their pen 'n' paper ancestors, the genre can evolve and character interaction, development and storytelling can be seamlessly integrated with compelling gameplay. Can anyone argue that Morrowind's "click to attack, sword swings at target and computer calculates whether it hits or not" is better than Oblivion's "click to attack, the hit is determined by the player's skill and then the effect of that hit is then calculated by the computer?"

Interestingly enough, the GTA series seem to be action-adventures evolving into RPGs. Once you give the player freedom to act in different ways, they beginning making choices in how to act, expressing preferences for one sort of action over another. When I'm playing San Andreas, if I choose to wear casual shirts and complete missions as precisely as possible, minimising collatoral damage and using stealth, I'm establishing my CJ as a different character to someone who wears biker leathers and blows shit up. This is low-level roleplaying. I reckon that as soon as the GTA series allows you to make decisions that affect the storyline, they'll become full-fledged RPGs.

[bean19]

I'm hoping that someone will come up with a procedural method for growing new areas and creatures. With that, developers could introduce new content very quickly, and would allow for more interaction between the players and the world. Content that can be created quickly and dynamically is a must in order to keep the world fresh and interesting. Otherwise, how many times can you try to kill some dragon?

Can you imagine books or movies that are created dynamically? It's even more far-fetched to think that game content (that is any good) could be created dynamically as you have the added visual art and gameplay mechanics involved.

Dynamic content has always proven to be less fulfilling than small amounts of hand-crafted content. While I think that Diablo proved that some amount of dynamic content (dynamic maps, mob locations, and loot) can create a fun game experience, the fact is that Diablo also had a good measure of scripted content that drove the dynamic content forward. You were really working your way toward the Butcher in the first 5 levels of the dungeon and after that you were working towards the next scripted encounter.

What we are seeing with MMOs is that the content appetite of players is getting higher and higher because some developers are able to deliver the goods. WoW does a great job of this, and it looks like Gods & Heroes (Stieg Hedlund recently said that they have well over a 1000 quests - no longer keeping count) in the game and the number keeps rising. Likewise, other AAA MMOs are going to be similarly content-rich.

[bean19]

I think what he was trying to get at is that RPGs are still stuck on the conventions of pen 'n' paper RPGs, namely statistics and rolling dice. Look at jRPGs, which generally feature no character interaction, you're just guiding a group of pre-generated characters through a set story, combined with battle systems that are basically pen 'n' paper turn based systems in computerised form.
. . .

Once you disassociate RPGs from the mechanical elements of their pen 'n' paper ancestors, the genre can evolve and character interaction, development and storytelling can be seamlessly integrated with compelling gameplay. Can anyone argue that Morrowind's "click to attack, sword swings at target and computer calculates whether it hits or not" is better than Oblivion's "click to attack, the hit is determined by the player's skill and then the effect of that hit is then calculated by the computer?"

1. I don't think this is the point he was making. However, I think it is a really interesting point that you make well.

2. I think we are seeing this with Gods & Heroes to a limited degree as it is pretty standard to the MMO market, but the added minion features give it a much more tactical overlay. Likewise, Guild Wars brought us a new way to look at RPG-PvP. Age of Conan will be an Action-RPG, and Huxley is going to be an MMOFPS.

3. As far as expanding story-telling through player freedom the main point of your post, I think that Oblivion, Crackdown, Bully, GTA, and Bioshock are all games that are doing a good job of this to different degrees. However, I really think good stories can be scripted too, so while I like these free-form games, I am also very interested in scripted RPGs with new gameplay mechanics and/or simply well-told stories. I'm also, as shown above, really interested in MMOs that bring great innovations to gameplay.

[[Jez]]

Theres alot of good points in this thread except one: Oblivion isn't an rpg, I clocked up 25 hours in it before I got tired of being the whole worlds measuring stick. I found more rp in the thief series

[BigJonno]

Bean, what I'm referring to is more role-playing through gameplay choices than open-ended storylines. I still hold Baldur's Gate 2 as the greatest RPG of all time (it's actually my favourite game of all time) and it has a pretty structured storyline, but the ability to evolve and express your character within that storyline is unmatched.

That, to me, is the essence of a good RPG. I've never criticised a book or a movie for being linear and I never will. Even pen 'n' paper RPGs are usually well structured, with the GM creating a storyline for you to play through. The fun comes from with the interaction with that storyline and being able to develop a character within that setting. The major difference between cRPGs and p'n'p RPGs is that a human GM can compensate for unexpected behaviour and set you back on track, while a cRPG designer can only give you a certain number of options before the game simply has to say "no, you can't."

[J Arcane]

I think what he was trying to get at is that RPGs are still stuck on the conventions of pen 'n' paper RPGs, namely statistics and rolling dice. Look at jRPGs, which generally feature no character interaction, you're just guiding a group of pre-generated characters through a set story, combined with battle systems that are basically pen 'n' paper turn based systems in computerised form.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: JRPGs, are not RPGs. Most of them even skirt so close to non-interactivity as to make their status as a "game" questionable. They're virtual novels with bad battle systems tacked on. Frankly I'd like to see the entire genre disappear, and it's various producers/wannabe-novelists/filmmakers go on to other mediums.

but that will never happen because the whole reason these games exist is because their designers already know they lack the talent to cut it in any other field, while in video games, people eat this shit up.

Role-playing game. To me, this suggests that you are playing a role. This ranges from something like Planescape: Torment or Deus Ex, where you have a specific character, but the choices that the character makes are entirely yours, to the Elder Scrolls series, where your character is entirely your own, barring the situation they're in. None of this has anything to do with levels or classes or rolling dice. Pen 'n' paper RPGs have tried to get a balance between a satisfying simulation that brings a controlled random element to dramatic situations and streamlined mechanics that don't get in the way of good storytelling and character interaction.

I'm not saying that there isn't any room for turn-based, stat-driven games, but these are basically dinosaurs. More accurately, they're crocodiles. They're the same now as they have been for ages and they're quite happy that way, thank you very much.

Once you disassociate RPGs from the mechanical elements of their pen 'n' paper ancestors, the genre can evolve and character interaction, development and storytelling can be seamlessly integrated with compelling gameplay. Can anyone argue that Morrowind's "click to attack, sword swings at target and computer calculates whether it hits or not" is better than Oblivion's "click to attack, the hit is determined by the player's skill and then the effect of that hit is then calculated by the computer?"
This whole freaking section is filled with so much wankery and pretentsion it's ridiculous. I'd make some comparison to the "story games" crowd in the pen-and-paper world, but I suspect it'd go over your head.

Reminds me of some of the idiotic bashing of D&D I see from them for absolute certain.

EDIT: In fact, I'd like to recommend that you actually go out, find the books, find your local hobby store, and play some D&D, before you start babbling about "what an RPG is supposed to be".

You can't redefine a thing if you don't even understand what that thing is, or what it's roots are, or even why such redefinition should be necessary.

[abso]

Can you imagine books or movies that are created dynamically? It's even more far-fetched to think that game content (that is any good) could be created dynamically as you have the added visual art and gameplay mechanics involved.

Dynamic content has always proven to be less fulfilling than small amounts of hand-crafted content...

Creating new environments using existing models and art would work fine, as long as the content creation system is given a set of rules to build off of. For example, creatures in or around water should fit that environment. You then have a class of features that would apply to any models created for that area (fins, bigger eyes, etc.) Combining _dynamic content_ creation with a developer that can then fine tune placement of quests and the like, would greatly speed up development of new areas.

Delay occurs because of having to wait for the terrain and creatures to be modeled. Procedural generation coupled with appropriate automatic kinematic motions (which is doable) would greatly free developer resources and reduce time to get new content out. Look at Spore for an example of procedurally generated models and animations. It can be done, someone just has to spend the time to implement it for an mmo.

[bean19]

but that will never happen because the whole reason these games exist is because their designers already know they lack the talent to cut it in any other field, while in video games, people eat this shit up.

That's just not true. RPGs aren't less difficult to make than other genres and RPG designers are not talentless. Crafting an interactive story, even a linear one, and a battle system with character progression takes skill and talent. If you don't like the genre, that's cool, but considering RPG designers to only be making them because they are talentless is ridiculous.

This whole freaking section is filled with so much wankery and pretentsion it's ridiculous. I'd make some comparison to the "story games" crowd in the pen-and-paper world, but I suspect it'd go over your head.

Reminds me of some of the idiotic bashing of D&D I see from them for absolute certain.

I find this discussion to be really interesting and I don't think you know what pretension means based on your use of it here. Also, many references have been made to D&D and other pen and paper RPGs in this thread, why all the snobbery about what makes an RPG?

[J Arcane]

That's just not true. RPGs aren't less difficult to make than other genres and RPG designers are not talentless. Crafting an interactive story, even a linear one, and a battle system with character progression takes skill and talent. If you don't like the genre, that's cool, but considering RPG designers to only be making them because they are talentless is ridiculous.

That's not what I was getting at.

Vidgame stories tend to basically suck. Generally cliched and poorly written, with awful characterization to boot.

In the world of vidgames, pap like Final Fantasy comes off as fucking brilliant to most gamers, because they're used to crap.

Outside the world of vidgames, this crap wouldn't be able to land a movie deal to save its life. Spirits Within only got released because Square paid for the whole thing themselves, which basically backfired and lead to them nearly going backrupt and getting bought by Enix.

I find this discussion to be really interesting and I don't think you know what pretension means based on your use of it here. Also, many references have been made to D&D and other pen and paper RPGs in this thread, why all the snobbery about what makes an RPG?
My point is, CRPGs are what they are because of what they are trying to emulate. D&D is important, because it basically IS pen-and-paper roleplaying, and is very much the inspiration for it's computer facsimiles. D&D does not require twitch reflexes and real-time combat, and hasn't for over 30 years.

BJ seems intent on babbling about what defines an RPG while snobbishly dismissing the very thing that defines an RPG.

I find that silly, and worthy of mockery.

[bean19]

Creating new environments using existing models and art would work fine, as long as the content creation system is given a set of rules to build off of. For example, creatures in or around water should fit that environment. You then have a class of features that would apply to any models created for that area (fins, bigger eyes, etc.) Combining _dynamic content_ creation with a developer that can then fine tune placement of quests and the like, would greatly speed up development of new areas.

Delay occurs because of having to wait for the terrain and creatures to be modeled. Procedural generation coupled with appropriate automatic kinematic motions (which is doable) would greatly free developer resources and reduce time to get new content out. Look at Spore for an example of procedurally generated models and animations. It can be done, someone just has to spend the time to implement it for an mmo.

Except that you would end up with boring terrain like that present in SWG. Besides, creating a map level that is "random" doesn't take any work from a developer anyway. You can already do that with most SDK's.

Also this leads to less diversity in created content. While you can also set limits so that changes in terrain are steep or mild and the land is more or less hilly, you couldn't create great map designs that work to create intelligent places for mobs that work with the game lore. Instead you'd have the stories being driven by the random environments. . . the tail would wag the dog.

The only position you would elminate by this would be that of level designer anyway. The major bottlenecks in the production portion of development don't even come from content creation (level design is fairly easy (technically) and is usually a secondary skill of the game's quest designers/writers). The biggest bottlenecks are generally in getting the tools for content creators made, the art for additional content made, and the testing and modifications made to games to get them running well.

Don't get me wrong, content creation is time-consuming work, but much of it can be done concurrently with the other parts of game development. For instance, if you know what an area you are creating is going to look like because you created the map for it that you will make when the content creation tools are in then you can also design the quest flow in the area and even write the quests for it. Then it is just a matter of building the area and adding in all the widgets and quests once the content creation tools become available. This is time-consuming and wouldn't even be taken away by your suggested map and mob placemen shortcut as you still need to add in set pieces, quest NPCs, merchants, random NPCs, and a plethora of other things.

In any case, all of this work can be done in the same time-frame as the one where the rest of the team is creating new art, animations, and game features (as well as tuning them).

I wish there was a game project where the developers would allow me to show you their Gannt chart. I think seeing these are extremely informative about how video games are made.

[BlackPete]

That's just not true. RPGs aren't less difficult to make than other genres and RPG designers are not talentless. Crafting an interactive story, even a linear one, and a battle system with character progression takes skill and talent. If you don't like the genre, that's cool, but considering RPG designers to only be making them because they are talentless is ridiculous.

It's true that for the most part, game storylines tend to suck... but far too often developers are under a tight deadline where they have just enough time to work on the game mechanics and making sure it's "fun" to play -- usually they don't budget much time to flesh out a well detailed story.

Additionally, things get cut during development. In RPGs, entire dungeons, towns, and even continents would get cut. That means cutting a part of the story that runs through those areas. Unfortunately that also leaves you with lots of continuity errors, and it's usually faster to simply cut these side stories than trying to fix them (and possibly create more bugs).

[BigJonno]

Arcane, you've successfully managed to prove that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I've played plenty of D&D over the last 13 years and I'm currently playing in one campaign and running another, while also getting in the occasional game of WFRP. So please stop making assumptions about me just because you don't agree with what I'm saying.

Though I'm not entirely sure what you're disagreeing with. You quote my entire paragraph where I use jRPGs as an example of how RPGs have become disassociated from their pen 'n' paper roots and then go on to say that jRPGs aren't RPGs because of their lack of interaction, which is exactly what I said. Unless of course you thought that agreeing with me in an angry, disrespectful tone would reinforce the argument.

As for my "wankery" are you saying that role-playing IS entirely about stats and rolling dice? I'm not sure how you can take that standpoint while also saying that jRPGs aren't RPGs. Or were you just too blinded by rage when I called traditional RPG systems old-fashioned and felt the need to insult me without reading my post properly?

I was simply stating that RPGs don't need to to mimic pen 'n' paper mechanics to be RPGs. I used jRPGs as an example of what happens when you go in the other direction and you use the mechanics to define what an RPG is. Unlike you, I haven't felt the need to mock any style of RPG, despite my personal feelings on them.

Pretention. I don't think it means what you think it does.

[OrangePulp]

The problem with completely taking out "stats and dice", as you put it, is that you're taking some of the Role out of RPG. The idea behind an RPG is that you're playing as someone you're not. Once you start to incorporate more player skill into that equation, it becomes more and more about you as a player, and less about your character within the game world. If you're only looking at the game from a pure story/character interaction standpoint, then I suppose it doesn't matter to you how the game mechanics work. But personally, I like the idea of being able to play as a character who is such a crack shot that he can shoot someone in the eyeballs 30 yards away, without actually having to know anything about shooting.

[51|RandoM]

In cases like this, when we've heard of a game for years, when it comes out.. pretty much nobody cares. There is no rush to jump into Beta and then no rush of positive/negative buzz.

Because most of us have learned that MMORPGs tend to ship at the 50-75% completion stage. With a singleplayer game, you might get shafted at release---with a MMORPG there is no question, you WILL get shafted at release.

WoW was the first to buck that trend in terms of content, but they fumbled the ball when it came to infrastructure.

[BigJonno]

The problem with completely taking out "stats and dice", as you put it, is that you're taking some of the Role out of RPG. The idea behind an RPG is that you're playing as someone you're not. Once you start to incorporate more player skill into that equation, it becomes more and more about you as a player, and less about your character within the game world. If you're only looking at the game from a pure story/character interaction standpoint, then I suppose it doesn't matter to you how the game mechanics work. But personally, I like the idea of being able to play as a character who is such a crack shot that he can shoot someone in the eyeballs 30 yards away, without actually having to know anything about shooting.

I'm referring to visible stats and dice. It seems unnecessary for a computer to simulate dice rolls that simulate actions. Why on earth would you still need to have d20 rolls when you've got a computer? There's still room for games the emulate pen 'n' paper RPGs (I'm one of the few Neverwinter Nights 2 advocates around here) but RPGs shouldn't be defined by those elements.

[bean19]

Because most of us have learned that MMORPGs tend to ship at the 50-75% completion stage. With a singleplayer game, you might get shafted at release---with a MMORPG there is no question, you WILL get shafted at release.

WoW was the first to buck that trend in terms of content, but they fumbled the ball when it came to infrastructure.

Good point, but I also think that every other MMO since WoW (not that there were many - DDO, Guild Wars, CoV) at least launch with solid performance and a game that would appeal to some players. The industry standard seems to have risen a lot for everyone but SOE.

[Steele Johnson]

I'm honestly amazed that people keep playing these games given how little changes from one MMO to another. In the end, they all degenerate into a kill x monsters to get new item y. Even when attempts to include a story driven reason to kill x monsters are there, it is still the same. The biggest problem is the need for an endgame.



So what games do you play in which it's not the same thing over and over?

[J Arcane]

The problem with completely taking out "stats and dice", as you put it, is that you're taking some of the Role out of RPG. The idea behind an RPG is that you're playing as someone you're not. Once you start to incorporate more player skill into that equation, it becomes more and more about you as a player, and less about your character within the game world. If you're only looking at the game from a pure story/character interaction standpoint, then I suppose it doesn't matter to you how the game mechanics work. But personally, I like the idea of being able to play as a character who is such a crack shot that he can shoot someone in the eyeballs 30 yards away, without actually having to know anything about shooting.
Exactly. BJ here seems to want to turn around and create something that isn't an RPG, while still call it an RPG.

That is, as I said post upon post ago, fucking retarded.

Dilutions like so-called "action RPGs" and "JRPGs" mean the genre needs to re-assert itself and its roots, not just lay over and die while it goes slowly watered down to something it was never intended to be.

Part of the whole point of RPGs is simulating the tabletop experience in an electronic fashion, and another aspect that I have seen in their popularity even among players unfamiliar with TRPGs. Once you rend those from the genre, you have something that is no longer recognizable from just another action game, and I fail to see what the hell the point of doing so would be.

[BigJonno]

The "fucking retard" had the decency to put together a reply to your insulting post. Please at least read it before insulting me further.

[J Arcane]

The "fucking retard" had the decency to put together a reply to your insulting post. Please at least read it before insulting me further.
I read your post. My response stands.

[OrangePulp]

I'm referring to visible stats and dice. It seems unnecessary for a computer to simulate dice rolls that simulate actions. Why on earth would you still need to have d20 rolls when you've got a computer? There's still room for games the emulate pen 'n' paper RPGs (I'm one of the few Neverwinter Nights 2 advocates around here) but RPGs shouldn't be defined by those elements.

So you accept that stats are part of an rpg, just that... you shouldn't see them? What does that accomplish? And as far as not simulating dice rolls, well... what? Should it use the equivalent of a 1d1000, as opposed to just 1d20, for more "accuracy" or something? Even if they stopped emulating PnP rpgs, as you put it, all you'd end up with is something that is (possibly) more complex, but otherwise exactly the same. In other words, it wouldn't change anything.

[reimomo]

big jonno... J Arcane is a douchebag. D&D is rotten to the core... at its inception it wasn't really a game, in its current form its pen and paper diablo. The internet is full of morons, let this one go :)

Because most of us have learned that MMORPGs tend to ship at the 50-75% completion stage. With a singleplayer game, you might get shafted at release---with a MMORPG there is no question, you WILL get shafted at release.

WoW was the first to buck that trend in terms of content, but they fumbled the ball when it came to infrastructure.

A friend of mine interviewed for and was offered a job working on databases for blizzard... he said their setup was laughable. On the other hand, its got to be hard to spend enough capital to prepare for your first 5 million customers when you currently have zero.

[J Arcane]

big jonno... J Arcane is a douchebag. D&D is rotten to the core... at its inception it wasn't really a game, in its current form its pen and paper diablo. The internet is full of morons, let this one go

Wow. Stunning rhetoric from the peanut gallery. I may not think much of BigJonno's argument, but at least he's literate.

As for my "wankery" are you saying that role-playing IS entirely about stats and rolling dice?

And yet you accuse me of not reading? Where have I said this? Stats and dice are no more "all of roleplaying" than stories and characters are.

Balance in all things is the key. Those "stats and dice rolls" you scoff at are a part of what makes an RPG, just as characters, story, and freedom of choice are.

All these things are part of a symbiotic whole that make up what an RPG is. When you remove one aspect or another, you cease to have something that is recognizable as an RPG.

It may still have elements common to RPGs, but that doesn't make it an RPG. Does the addition of character stats to Daikatana make that an RPG?

[JazGalaxy]

1. I don't think this is the point he was making. However, I think it is a really interesting point that you make well.
interested in MMOs that bring great innovations to gameplay.

Of course that's what I was saying, dingus. You're the only one who seems to have missed the point.

[JazGalaxy]

Exactly. BJ here seems to want to turn around and create something that isn't an RPG, while still call it an RPG.

That is, as I said post upon post ago, fucking retarded.

Dilutions like so-called "action RPGs" and "JRPGs" mean the genre needs to re-assert itself and its roots, not just lay over and die while it goes slowly watered down to something it was never intended to be.

Part of the whole point of RPGs is simulating the tabletop experience in an electronic fashion, and another aspect that I have seen in their popularity even among players unfamiliar with TRPGs. Once you rend those from the genre, you have something that is no longer recognizable from just another action game, and I fail to see what the hell the point of doing so would be.

You're relegating the whole concept of RPG to strictly "combat system" which is, in essense, missing the entirety of what RPGs are. It also sounds like you've never played a table top RPG before...

Ultima 7 has an action oriented combat system and yet is the most in depth RPG ever made. Why? Because instead of focusing on making little numbers pop out of peoples heads they focused on making everyhing in the game capable of being picked up and manipulated. THIS is what RPGs are supposed to be about.

So... until Link can make a load of bread by picking wheat, beating it on a table, rolling it into dough, and then cooking it in a fireplace, (which you can do in Ultima) there is a HUGE difference between RPG and action game.

[J Arcane]

You're relegating the whole concept of RPG to strictly "combat system" which is, in essense, missing the entirety of what RPGs are. It also sounds like you've never played a table top RPG before...

I've been playing tabletop RPGs since I was 13, how about you?

Ultima 7 has an action oriented combat system and yet is the most in depth RPG ever made. Why? Because instead of focusing on making little numbers pop out of peoples heads they focused on making everyhing in the game capable of being picked up and manipulated. THIS is what RPGs are supposed to be about.

Ultima 7 is a decent game, no question of that, but I think the combat you're so happy to praise was the weakest aspect of the entire game, and it's biggest mistake.

And you clearly weren't paying attention if you think stats weren't a definite aspect involved in the game.

EDIT: It's also interesting that you accuse me of the same thing BJ did, right after I got done saying that he was reading something that wasn't there.

[JazGalaxy]

So you accept that stats are part of an rpg, just that... you shouldn't see them? What does that accomplish? And as far as not simulating dice rolls, well... what? Should it use the equivalent of a 1d1000, as opposed to just 1d20, for more "accuracy" or something? Even if they stopped emulating PnP rpgs, as you put it, all you'd end up with is something that is (possibly) more complex, but otherwise exactly the same. In other words, it wouldn't change anything.

No, I think you're missing the point.

What we're talking about is RPG Redundancy, when two systems are being used to simulate a virtual world.

One system is the computers system which renderes the graphics you are looking at. The other system is the "rule set" which uses die rolls to simulate the virtual world. Some players have become so used to the die rolls and stats that they've lost sight of what they were there to represent in the first place.

For example, Morrowind was notorious for having the two systems and not having them work together at all. As was mentioned previously, you could have an arrow make contact dead in the center of a man's chest and have the screen report to you "miss" because you failed the die roll. Therefore, things like positioning within the virtual world didn't matter. All that mattered was the die roll.

Another example is my friend's orc character. His charachter weighed, probably, 500 pounds, and was wearing the biggest suit of armor the game had to offer. He was wielding a giant warhammer as a weapon. Nevertheless, his sneak skill was SO HIGH that he could sneak up on someone in broad daylight right in front of their face. They would be looking at him and yet couldn't "see" him because of his die rolls. Some would argue that this is kind of silly.

What is being said, is that these factors should be adopted into the regular game rules as opposed to be accessory instances of die rolls. That is to say, if I'm in a dark room in a dark corner, I can't be seen regardless of how high my "sneak roll" is. On the contrary, I should be able to be seen in broad daylight no matter what, barring magical or technological assistance. This is what is meant by saying the die rolls should be somewhat done away with in order for RPGs to progress.

Some people have said that they like stats because it allows them to play a different character. I agree with this concept to some degree, but I feel like stats have severe limitations that make them an unequal trade off. For example, I have never used a sword in my life. I've seen some, and even held a few, but I have never stabbed anyone or anything. I think it's silly that, in most RPGs, I can't even pick a sword up and stab a cat if I don't have "Sword experiance". That's just ridiculous. I can't tell you how many times I've been playing an RPG and had a special circumstance arise for which I need a skill I do not have. There's no reason I shouldn'tbe able to complete the action anyways, save for the fact that the rule set won't let me.

Statistics based roll playing takes away almost all improvisation which is the core of adventuring, I believe.

The best modern RPGs, I think, create alternatives to die rolls like vision cones to spoof abillity. For instance, if you have no proficiency with a weapon, it might shake in your hands or something like that. This allows you to still DO the action, and posisbly succeed on your own account. It just makes it more difficult for you to show your lack of experience. I think this is the way RPGs need to go in the future.

[J Arcane]

For example, Morrowind was notorious for having the two systems and not having them work together at all. As was mentioned previously, you could have an arrow make contact dead in the center of a man's chest and have the screen report to you "miss" because you failed the die roll. Therefore, things like positioning within the virtual world didn't matter. All that mattered was the die roll.

Another example is my friend's orc character. His charachter weighed, probably, 500 pounds, and was wearing the biggest suit of armor the game had to offer. He was wielding a giant warhammer as a weapon. Nevertheless, his sneak skill was SO HIGH that he could sneak up on someone in broad daylight right in front of their face. They would be looking at him and yet couldn't "see" him because of his die rolls. Some would argue that this is kind of silly.

I fully agree that that some of those things are beyond silly, and into fucking ridiculous. However, I think that's an issue of poor game design, not a flaw of the genre itself, and I think you are generalizing upon an entire genre based on one poorly designed game.

I really didn't like Morrowind.

What is being said, is that these factors should be adopted into the regular game rules as opposed to be accessory instances of die rolls. That is to say, if I'm in a dark room in a dark corner, I can't be seen regardless of how high my "sneak roll" is. On the contrary, I should be able to be seen in broad daylight no matter what, barring magical or technological assistance. This is what is meant by saying the die rolls should be somewhat done away with in order for RPGs to progress.

NWN is just as crunchy when it comes to implementing the pen-and-paper stats, and it handles exactly the issues regarding stealth you're talking about. There are big penalties to stealth based on lighting, and even enemy facing, making it actually quite difficult to sneak up on things. There's also the fact that the mechanics impose massive penalties on you for wearing things like the heavy plate your Orc friend was wearing.

You are generalizing on the usefulness of a given approach to game design, based, it seems, on one shitty game, and suggesting we do away with a cornerstone of the genre because of that generalization. And I think that's ridiculous.