 |
We discuss World of WarCraft. (A True Story.)
02.21.02 / 11:11PM / Joe
It begins as Matt Instant Messages me a link to a GameSpy preview of World of WarCraft...
Matt: http://www.gamespy.com/previews/february02/wow/
Joe: I should get into one of those games.
Joe: Although I'm generally not thrilled with having to interact with other people.
Matt: when this one comes out, maybe I will
Matt: there's a monthly fee
Matt: so it would really have to be worth it
Joe: Yeah, there's always a fee.
Matt: it be like MUDDING the way it was always supposed to be
Joe: You are aware this will be turn-based combat.
Matt: Aye.
Matt: mudding is turn based too
Matt: kinda
Joe: To date, these games have unilaterally devolved into a strongest-player-wins, most-players-cheat scenario.
Matt: I still want my ultimate dream of gaming
Matt: you are fighting some evil beastie
Matt: I come running around the corner
Matt: he knocks you down
Matt: i throw my hands out and fork a lightning bolt into him, blowing him across the room
Matt: Why can't I have that?
Joe: Doesn't that happen in every fps we've ever played?
Joe: Substituting for the lightning bolt, obviously.
Matt: Not to my standards.
Joe: Co-operative play needs to have voice communication too. Keyboard macros don't cut it.
Matt: WOW looks like that scenario would work
Matt: there aren't 40 monsters on screen ala Diablo
Joe: Yeah, but it won't be action-oriented. You'll be selecting your lightning bolt off a spell list and then waiting for your turn to come up.
Matt: that's ok, I could deal with that
Joe: Which is how every other MMORPG works.
Matt: right
Matt: but this is full 3d
Matt: so it'll look better
Joe: So is Everquest, Final Fantasy 11, and a million others.
Joe: Anarchy Online, WW2 Online.
Matt: Why must you beat me down?
Joe: Because you're painfully uninformed.
Matt: I HAVE A MAC
Matt: I AM LARGLY IGNORED BY THE GAMING WORLD
Joe: But you're a PC owner at heart. You're extemely confused.
Matt: Nope.
Joe: By the way, I wouldn't anticipate a Mac version of WoW, you know.
Matt: Blizzard always releases a Mac version.
Joe: Yeah, but getting Macs and PCs to play together in an MMORPG is not very common.
Joe: Which is partly why you've never heard of these games before.
Matt: You're just cynical.
Joe: I'm pretty sure there's a Mac version of Everquest... I never heard if the Macs have their own server or actually interface with the PC players.
Joe: I assume they mix.
Matt: http://www.xpd8.net/downloads/wow_gameplay/
Matt: that's the gamplay trailer
Matt: i'm getting it now
Joe: You are in right in that, as a bigger company, WoW has much better odds for going bi-platform.
Matt: Woo woo.
(we watch the movie)
Joe: It looks like a 3d, third-person version of Diablo... or else they're masking the turn based stuff very well.
Joe: If the combat is opt-in, they could be going either way with it... straight turn-based RPG style or click and kill keystroke Diablo style.
Joe: I don't know... part of what I dig about WarCraft is the whole SimCity resource management feature.
Joe: Just being one guy in a horde of nameless rabble isn't WarCraft to me.
Joe: I would enjoy being sort of a town king, building the town, managing the peons, bringing in the money... and you could lead the armies... and together we'd expand an empire.
Joe: That doesn't fit with an MMORPG though.
Matt: the combat faq said something about "click one to start combat, then during combat you can click specfic things to do combo moves"
Matt: something like that
Joe: Sounds turn-based, but looks more dressed up than that.
Joe: Judging from the movie, it manages to avoid the turn-based standard of having 4 heroes standing in a single row, facing 10 villains standing in another row.
Matt: that's nice
Matt: PKing might be fun in this game
Joe: PKing is never fun, you ass.
Matt: sure it is
Matt: if you're the tough guy
Matt: you wussy
Joe: That's why they all suck. Because some super haxor cheats his way to level 1000 and kills off anybody he sees.
Matt: well, cheating sucks
Joe: Plus, even without cheaters, it completely sucks to be walking around trying to find a quest or sell items, and then have some Johnny Axeman start raping you from behind.
Matt: that's why you travel in groups
Joe: You'be obviously never played these games.
Matt: no, but I spent years mudding
Joe: You'll excuse me if I don't count that as actual experience.
Matt: It's the same damn thing, just without graphics.
Joe: Not in the least!
Matt: How is it not?
Joe: Same concept, but totally different format.
Matt: Right. I said that.
Joe: Different gameplay too. It's not just graphics-oriented.
Joe: It's not wait-for-the-tick based.
Joe: It's quite a bit more complex.
Joe: Otherwise, people would still be playing MUDs.
Matt: I'm just simplifying it.
Joe: The key is how combat is handling... because you can't have an open door system where combat happens anytime, anywhere, in the same walkable world as regular gameplay.
Joe: Aside from the obvious tech problem of how a game could handle millions of people in one shard all doing a million things at once.
Matt: I'm sure all these piddly problems have been addressed.
Joe: Combat generally means that your characters/enemies sort of warp into a separate combat world.
Matt: Eeew. I hope not
Joe: That's how they work, goof.
Matt: I hope not this one.
Joe: You can't be having some huge 4 on 40 battle in one corner of the map, while an uninvolved played just saunters through, trying to chat! It's separated.
Matt: I hate that.
Matt: It wrecks my whole jump-in-the-middle-of-the-game-to-save-Joe idea.
Joe: Not if we're already both in the combat when it starts.
Matt: I guess.
Joe: Plus, you'd have sniper players who would just sit on outskirts of a battle and then jump in at the end to either A) gain
experience without doing much or B) loot the dead of either side without
actually fighting and earning it.
Joe: Or vendetta players who jump in solely to wreck your game.
Joe: This is why that Heroes game talked about those separate Quest type missions... once you and your band are in a combat/mission, it's yours and no one else can join.
Matt: I see the logic.
Joe: Because again, the entire world is filled with assholes. Particularly when the average age of the player is 12.
Matt: A simple phone call to the offender's parents should straighten them up.
Joe: What would be interesting would be a Not-So-Massive MOPRG. We'd get the entire world to roam, but limited to only 10 or so active players. Need a lot of NPCs to fill it out, but then you wouldn't have the tech problems, and you wouldn't have the Unknown Random Asshole problem.
Joe: Unless your friends are assholes.
Matt: Hrm. Yeah.
Joe: Then you could jump in at any time, because you're considered friendly.
Matt: AKA diablo II
Joe: Yeah, but without all the suck.
Matt: Right.
Joe: Taking the Not-So-Massive idea, I'd like to see a gameworld operated by the company... so they can enforce storyline events that would happen in everyone's little game world.
Joe: A persistant universe, open only to those you allow in.
Matt: I say let them all in. The strong will cull the weak.
Joe: The Massive Multiplayer paradigm causes too many problems to be worth the excitement of having a million real people walking around.
Joe: Because the million real people are always the problem.
Joe: I should post this discussion as a website update.
Matt: hehe
Joe: Quick, say something meaningful so you won't look like a dope.
Matt: Uhhhhh
Matt: Too late.
|
