07-24-2006, 07:59 PM
Hammerskjold, you may well want to take a closer look at Guild Wars. I don't know if they're still running active demos, but you should be able to get a preview whenever they do a Beta event (just released an expansion, so it might be awhile) from pretty much anyone here who owns it. Weapons haven't really been designed in a good/better/best fashion, and they are fairly balanced in terms of swords vs. the rest, but I think that's because the game is based more on skill selection than equipment. You can start finding end-game equipment maybe halfway through the original campaign. Equipment is just not that relevant. In fact, the primary reason people upgrade at all is cosmetic. Yes, you can tack a +30 life mod onto your sword, but realistically, it might save you from death once a week (depending on how often you normally die, how good your Monks are, etc.). I don't know that they really answered the question of balance in weapons, or if they just powered them down so much that it doesn't matter, but there is some semblance of it. It's quite possible to see a good Warrior do better wielding an Ascalonian Piece of Crap⢠than a bad Warrior wielding his choice of end-game gear.
The Blunt/Slashing/Piercing aspect is not as prominent as some might have you believe. In PvE, you can't really tell what's weak to which type unless you have a print-out or something. There isn't any kind of scanning ability. The bonuses are fairly negligible as well, since most of your melee damage will come from either conditions or skill bonuses, which are armor-piercing.
Guild Wars has been touted as a game which emphasizes eliminating grind, but my personal exerience has been that people generally find that they miss it so they either leave the game and move on to something inferior, or create their own in one of several forms (winning PvP tournies, finding that perfect cosmetic gear, unlocking EVERY skill, not just the ones in the secondaries you will use, etc.). If one plays the game through with full parties and does a lot of quests, it is quite possible to reach the maximum level in a few days. If you take shortcuts, it's faster.
Upon further reflection, I may have stumbled upon something here. Most online games are now implementing fees to play, which means that grind (from a business perspective) is a GOOD thing. You want to keep players playing (but not necessarily happy) as long as possible. Guild Wars, on the other hand, is a one-time fee, followed by one-time-fee expansions (which are not necessary to continue playing competitively--I doubt Monk primaries will ever be supplanted. The result would throw balance out the window), which means that Arena.net (again, from a business perspective) wants to keep their customers loyal and happy rather than merely engaged.
Scorpions, not rats, but I'm sure they're equally annoying. Fortunately, the first time you (I) play(ed) the game, combat was incredibly engaging. This is probably because I was coming fresh off the Diablo II clickfest and mass murderings. Enemies are ENEMIES, not rocks that sit there while you rain fiery destruction down upon them (beyond the tutorial area).
Rather went off on a tangent there. Such is often likely when I'm talking about Guild Wars, for better or worse, as sometimes I look at it and feel like they designed it with me in mind. There is little I personally would have done differently, given the basic structure of the game.
Looking at Pete's post brings up some good stuff as well, namely that since sometime in the mid to late nineties, games have stopped the focus on being "fun" and started being "technological". I have a friend who only plays MUDs for (I assume) this reason. This is why pen and paper RPGs still flourish, why board games are still a common sight. Can you imagine what would happen to those industries if the electronic gaming companies got a handle on what makes a game tick for the players besides graphics? They would only be played for three reasons; hardware concerns, cost, and nostalgia/friendship.
For Pete's suspension of disbelief stuff there, I was always taught (by my parents--father is/was an English teacher, mother is communications major) that suspension of disbelief may happen as many times as necessary, as long as the largest premise is FIRST (or relatively early, I guess--in the exposition). If you take progressively larger leaps, you lose your audience. If you start off with something huge, you pull them into your world, and they remain there as long as you don't do anything to push them out again.
Be careful with this line of thought. I think it may be leading down the road we've traversed already, except in calculations instead of graphics. Not to mention if you introduce more realistic features, you have...problems. With the example given, what happens, say, in PvP with two Warriors who have minor healing abilities. They are backed by support characters who die for whatever reason, and are left alone, unable to kill each other in any reasonable amount of time because they are too tired. Do they go take a nap for fifteen minutes? Even against the environment, this is a potential issue, unless you impose this strictly as a limitation for players and not ALL entities, which I would be amenable to, but would be a large turn-off to a majority of players out there. At least they would tell you it was, and perhaps convince themselves as well. I likes me a challenge, but if people on the Innernet are to be believed (HAH!), then they want games as easy as possible, with everything handed to them on a silver platter. Diablo II and its bot infestation has actually shown that some of them are not just kidding themselves. They will literally leave the bots on for days to find gear, which they will equip onto their bots. It's disgusting. There is no game-play for these guys. I don't know why they still have their CDs.
--me, lord of parentheses
The Blunt/Slashing/Piercing aspect is not as prominent as some might have you believe. In PvE, you can't really tell what's weak to which type unless you have a print-out or something. There isn't any kind of scanning ability. The bonuses are fairly negligible as well, since most of your melee damage will come from either conditions or skill bonuses, which are armor-piercing.
Quote:Not needing to excessively 'grind' at all...
Guild Wars has been touted as a game which emphasizes eliminating grind, but my personal exerience has been that people generally find that they miss it so they either leave the game and move on to something inferior, or create their own in one of several forms (winning PvP tournies, finding that perfect cosmetic gear, unlocking EVERY skill, not just the ones in the secondaries you will use, etc.). If one plays the game through with full parties and does a lot of quests, it is quite possible to reach the maximum level in a few days. If you take shortcuts, it's faster.
Upon further reflection, I may have stumbled upon something here. Most online games are now implementing fees to play, which means that grind (from a business perspective) is a GOOD thing. You want to keep players playing (but not necessarily happy) as long as possible. Guild Wars, on the other hand, is a one-time fee, followed by one-time-fee expansions (which are not necessary to continue playing competitively--I doubt Monk primaries will ever be supplanted. The result would throw balance out the window), which means that Arena.net (again, from a business perspective) wants to keep their customers loyal and happy rather than merely engaged.
Quote:Not using a treasure system that can make a small rat produce a giant sword as it's item drop would be great.:) Not needing to fight rats at nooblar levels would be greater still.
Scorpions, not rats, but I'm sure they're equally annoying. Fortunately, the first time you (I) play(ed) the game, combat was incredibly engaging. This is probably because I was coming fresh off the Diablo II clickfest and mass murderings. Enemies are ENEMIES, not rocks that sit there while you rain fiery destruction down upon them (beyond the tutorial area).
Rather went off on a tangent there. Such is often likely when I'm talking about Guild Wars, for better or worse, as sometimes I look at it and feel like they designed it with me in mind. There is little I personally would have done differently, given the basic structure of the game.
Looking at Pete's post brings up some good stuff as well, namely that since sometime in the mid to late nineties, games have stopped the focus on being "fun" and started being "technological". I have a friend who only plays MUDs for (I assume) this reason. This is why pen and paper RPGs still flourish, why board games are still a common sight. Can you imagine what would happen to those industries if the electronic gaming companies got a handle on what makes a game tick for the players besides graphics? They would only be played for three reasons; hardware concerns, cost, and nostalgia/friendship.
For Pete's suspension of disbelief stuff there, I was always taught (by my parents--father is/was an English teacher, mother is communications major) that suspension of disbelief may happen as many times as necessary, as long as the largest premise is FIRST (or relatively early, I guess--in the exposition). If you take progressively larger leaps, you lose your audience. If you start off with something huge, you pull them into your world, and they remain there as long as you don't do anything to push them out again.
Quote:But with the computer doing the 'rolling' and keeping track of the factors, many possibilities are opened. Such as damage spread between the armor and the avatar. Such as attack/defense speed governed by the intensity and length of the fight.
Be careful with this line of thought. I think it may be leading down the road we've traversed already, except in calculations instead of graphics. Not to mention if you introduce more realistic features, you have...problems. With the example given, what happens, say, in PvP with two Warriors who have minor healing abilities. They are backed by support characters who die for whatever reason, and are left alone, unable to kill each other in any reasonable amount of time because they are too tired. Do they go take a nap for fifteen minutes? Even against the environment, this is a potential issue, unless you impose this strictly as a limitation for players and not ALL entities, which I would be amenable to, but would be a large turn-off to a majority of players out there. At least they would tell you it was, and perhaps convince themselves as well. I likes me a challenge, but if people on the Innernet are to be believed (HAH!), then they want games as easy as possible, with everything handed to them on a silver platter. Diablo II and its bot infestation has actually shown that some of them are not just kidding themselves. They will literally leave the bots on for days to find gear, which they will equip onto their bots. It's disgusting. There is no game-play for these guys. I don't know why they still have their CDs.
--me, lord of parentheses