BioWare Austin

[Mithrandir]

http://www.bioware.com/bioware_info/press_...6_03_15_Austin/

BioWare is perhaps the only company where I will buy their next game just because it has the BioWare name on it (simply because they have yet to let me down), so it makes me happy to see that business is good for them and that they're expanding.

I have kinda mixed feelings about them making a MMOG, however. The market is absolutely jam-packed with MMORPGs right now - plus there's the 800 pound bull called WoW that they would have to inevitably lock horns with. It just seems like a very risky move for a company that has hung its hat on single-player RPGs for so long. Or maybe there is just so much money out there that it's not risky at all? I don't know.

I hope the focus for the MMORPG BioWare Austin is developing will be PvP and not PvE since PvE MMORPGs have absolutely zero appeal to me. It also seems as though it would be easier to survive in a gluttonous MMOG market if you were PvP-centered since so many more of the games are PvE-centered... less competition and such. Signs seem to point away from that however since BioWare has never been much for officially supporting PvP in any major capacity.

Anyhoo, good luck BioWare and I hope Dragon Age and Mass Effect are awesome :)

[Occhidiangela]

I hope the focus for the MMORPG BioWare Austin is developing will be PvP and not PvE since PvE MMORPGs have absolutely zero appeal to me. It also seems as though it would be easier to survive in a gluttonous MMOG market if you were PvP-centered since so many more of the games are PvE-centered... less competition and such. Signs seem to point away from that however since BioWare has never been much for officially supporting PvP in any major capacity.

[right][snapback]104426[/snapback][/right]

Guild Wars was built on that premise. I guess it is a success. Oh, and no monthly fee. :whistling:

Occhi

[SwissMercenary]

Guild Wars was built on that premise.  I guess it is a success.  Oh, and no monthly fee.  :whistling:

Occhi
[right][snapback]104428[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, but its not exactly in 'competition' with typical MMORPGs for their market share, anymore then Diablo 2 was in 'competition' with Everquest.

The economic model for it is of the old one-time purchase (Unless you are a poor sap in Korea, or Taiwan, and get to pay per hour played). Which shows that the one-time purchase niche is still economically viable (But I can't delude myself in believing that pay-per-month are not more lucritive by far.)

I don't have much of an opinion on this new development from Bioware. *Shrug*.

[Jester]

I hope the focus for the MMORPG BioWare Austin is developing will be PvP and not PvE since PvE MMORPGs have absolutely zero appeal to me.
[right][snapback]104426[/snapback][/right]

Judging from their past games, it seems unlikely that BioWare will deviate from its incredibly successful story-oriented PvE gameplay, even in an MMORPG.

We shall see, however. I have the utmost confidence in them, and, as you say, they've never let me down yet either. I just hope their new games ramp the challenge up a little higher; Jade Empire and KotOR were a little on the easy side.

-Jester

[Bun-Bun]

http://www.bioware.com/bioware_info/press_...6_03_15_Austin/

BioWare is perhaps the only company where I will buy their next game just because it has the BioWare name on it (simply because they have yet to let me down), so it makes me happy to see that business is good for them and that they're expanding.
[right][snapback]104426[/snapback][/right]

Nice to see another studio cropping up around here. I've heard good things about Gordon Walton.

[Guest]

Hopefully it wont have leveling.


I really dont understand why devs are still putting leveling in MMOs. In an interactive world the concept of lvls just serves to artificially segregate players.

Its much better to have a system of skills or equipment that you can improve over time but where there is no level concept to limit who you should interect with.

[Jester]

Hopefully it wont have leveling.
I really dont understand why devs are still putting leveling in MMOs. In an interactive world the concept of lvls just serves to artificially segregate players.

Its much better to have a system of skills or equipment that you can improve over time but where there is no level concept to limit who you should interect with.
[right][snapback]104613[/snapback][/right]

Wouldn't that just be a levelling system in disguise?

-Jester

[Quark]

Wouldn't that just be a levelling system in disguise?

-Jester
[right][snapback]104630[/snapback][/right]

I'd call it a levelling system with more immediate returns.

[Walkiry]

I'd call it a levelling system with more immediate returns.
[right][snapback]104648[/snapback][/right]

So, basically a level system with more levels and smaller steps between them?

[Guest]

Wouldn't that just be a levelling system in disguise?

-Jester
[right][snapback]104630[/snapback][/right]

You didnt read.

I didnt say I had a problem with the idea of a character progressing and their being a differential between player characters in their abilities - thats fine.


I said "lvls just serves to artificially segregate players" and "level concept to limit who you should interect with".

The problem isnt the levels its that it seperates players from working together and milits who you can work with in a game - a concept at odds with the goals of an MMO.

EVE and PlanetSide are both games that avoid this problem for instancee. In both games a more experienced player will be much more competent than a noob, but they could work together on anything to good effect.



Its kind of like in a real life war. You really dont want 12 year olds on your side. Sure they can shoot a gun but they are inherently not capable like an adult.
But you will have less experienced people working with the more experienced, sure they arent as good as a veteren, but they can make big difference and help.

[Jester]

You didnt read.

I didnt say I had a problem with the idea of a character progressing and their being a differential between player characters in their abilities - thats fine.
I said "lvls just serves to artificially segregate players" and "level concept to limit who you should interect with".

The problem isnt the levels its that it seperates players from working together and milits who you can work with in a game - a concept at odds with the goals of an MMO.

EVE and PlanetSide are both games that avoid this problem for instancee. In both games a more experienced player will be much more competent than a noob, but they could work together on anything to good effect.
Its kind of like in a real life war. You really dont want 12 year olds on your side. Sure they can shoot a gun but they are inherently not capable like an adult.
But you will have less experienced people working with the more experienced, sure they arent as good as a veteren, but they can make big difference and help.
[right][snapback]104662[/snapback][/right]

Well, that was testy. Why is it that you always lead off with an accusation?

I think people like the stratification in MMORPGS. I know I do. It is the essential flavour of the genre. If I wanted to be able to productively play with even the lowest of the low, I'd play an FPS, or an RTS, where the field is equal.

An MMORPG is still an RPG. It is still a quest. You don't open up the end of the game to new players just to "not restrict who they can interact with". You save it for those who have played the game through, to preserve the sense of achievement. WoW is nice in that it encourages players to have alts, to play at a variety of levels. But eliminating those levels would take the flavour out of the game.

I'm not sure how EVE or PlanetSide deal with these issues. I would feel safe in assuming, however, that BioWare will stick to a story-driven model, and that means "artificial" restrictions on what you do, where you go, and who you do it with. It's the nature of the beast.

And "equipment" or "skill" systems are basically the same as levelling systems. They are as restrictive or permissive as the designers choose them to be.

-Jester

[Guest]

And "equipment" or "skill" systems are basically the same as levelling systems. They are as restrictive or permissive as the designers choose them to be.

-Jester
[right][snapback]104723[/snapback][/right]

You are correct in that respect. Technically PlanetSide has levels - but they are meaningless other than the number of horizontal skills they allow you.

But I was talking about about levels of the type you mentioned first - ones that statify.
You think MMORP players like them, Im sure some do.

But the long time MMORP players I know have mostly become weary with them. I suspect as the WoW player base(its the first MMORP for most players) matures they will feel the same in large part.

The notion of statifying levels is contridictory to the concept of an masively multiplayer interactive world.


This is especually true in games with a serious PvP element. In these games leveling is mostly viewsd as a chore to accomplish before the real game starts.


Im sure the will always be a niche for MMOs with lvls, but based on my experiences with MMO veterens I think it will be a minority in time.

[Guest]

So, basically a level system with more levels and smaller steps between them?
[right][snapback]104651[/snapback][/right]

That is contridictory to what I said.

If anything it would be a leveling system where the lvls just measure your degree of HORIZONTAL development. Not "steps" whichsteps which mean an elevation.

[Walkiry]

That is contridictory to what I said.
[right][snapback]104728[/snapback][/right]

Then it's a good thing I wasn't quoting you, isn't it?

[Guest]

Then it's a good thing I wasn't quoting you, isn't it?
[right][snapback]104739[/snapback][/right]

The quote is irrelevent. You were offering an alternative attempt at paraphrasing my commentary. So my correction is fair.

[Walkiry]

The quote is irrelevent. You were offering an alternative attempt at paraphrasing my commentary. So my correction is fair.
[right][snapback]104742[/snapback][/right]

There's nothing irreverent about my quote. Your correction is pointless because I was offering an alternative to Quark's; a leveling system with "more immediate returns" is still a leveling system, just with more divisions. Wherever that applies to your original post I care not, take it to whoever started the comment thread I replied to.

[Guest]

There's nothing irreverent about my quote. Your correction is pointless because I was offering an alternative to Quark's; a leveling system with "more immediate returns" is still a leveling system, just with more divisions. Wherever that applies to your original post I care not, take it to whoever started the comment thread I replied to.
[right][snapback]104747[/snapback][/right]

Perhaps I should rephrase. The substance of your quote wasnt was not irellevent. The fact that you think it was a quote is irrelevent.

Your initial direct reply to me was a non sequitur. It is such nonsense that you should be embarassed.
The structure of what you said was not that of a commentary, but of an attempt to paraphrease what I said.

[Walkiry]

Your initial direct reply to me was a non sequitur. It is such nonsense that you should be embarassed.

My reply was a non sequitur? And I should be embarassed about typing nonsense? That's hilarious.

The structure of what you said was not that of a commentary, but of an attempt to paraphrease what I said.
[right][snapback]104757[/snapback][/right]

Again, I was paraphrasing what Quark said. It's all very simple, really.

There's no worse deaf person than the one who's not willing to listen. Have a wonderful day, Ghost.

[Tal]

Perhaps I should rephrase. The substance of your quote wasnt was not irellevent. The fact that you think it was a quote is irrelevent.

Your initial direct reply to me was a non sequitur. It is such nonsense that you should be embarassed.
The structure of what you said was not that of a commentary, but of an attempt to paraphrease what I said.
[right][snapback]104757[/snapback][/right]

No where did Walkiry reply directly to you. He quoted and was replying to Quark who was replying to Jester.

[Occhidiangela]

No where did Walkiry reply directly to you. He quoted and was replying to Quark who was replying to Jester.
[right][snapback]104776[/snapback][/right]

Tal:

I wonder if using a threaded view prevents this sort of confusion, or if reading the name of who is being quoted for reply provides an audit trail of "who said what?" :rolleyes: I wonder if addressing the person to whom one is replying helps keep this sort of thing straight.

Hey, wait a minute, wasn't there a heated argument arising from this sort of confusion recently? :shuriken:

Santayana was right. :whistling:

Occhi