Topic: SWG - JTL
started by: Zetleft
Posted by Zetleft on May 21 2004,16:59
Since I've been seeing all the coverage on the someday to be released expansion I was wondering if anyone here was still playing that game. I could almost see buying it when the expansion is out, videos look interesting at least.
Posted by Guest on May 21 2004,17:29
I will only consider rejoining after they put in spaceflight, and even then they'd better impress the hell out of me with a risk-reward system.Risk, which there was absolutely none of when I last played.
Posted by Zetleft on May 21 2004,17:41
At least from what I heard you can't lose your ship when you blow up but it will require massive repairs at the station to fix.... don't know if player shipwrights or npc can do all the repairing. I think you get ship upgrades from blowing things up in space and getting the phat l00t drops so no grinding on land for your xwing, which would work for me. When this comes out I will try it and once I get a decent ship I doubt I'll ever spend time on solid ground again... of course who the hell knows how long it takes to grind out a decent ship.
Posted by Guest on May 21 2004,17:45
So, what's the point of space combat if there's nothing to win? Yeah, you don't lose anything, besides having to make repais to your ship... which is a problem in itself. When is the adrenaline going to kick in when you aren't risking anything, ever?
Posted by Zetleft on May 21 2004,17:52
It's hard to say what is a suitable risk since we don't know how hard it is to get a ship or how much the repairs cost to make... especially since the numbers will likely change quite a bit till release. Since I understand you get weapon upgrades from debris of destroyed ships maybe if your player craft blows up will lose those upgrades, don't know as no interview I saw touched on that it mearly said you won't lose the ship itself. Hell the joy of blowing up others in a twitchy refit of XvT is enough, hell I'm playing planetside and its got painless death 
Posted by Guest on May 21 2004,17:59
I think Raph is SWG's biggest handicap. He saw the pk's and looting in UO as a problem, and not the reason UO is still an exciting game.
Posted by Zetleft on May 21 2004,18:03
Agreed, plus I think the combat in swg needs a serious overhaul. Never really got into the 3 different damage pools thing.
Posted by Guest on May 21 2004,18:06
| Quote (Zetleft @ May 21 2004,18:03) |
| Agreed, plus I think the combat in swg needs a serious overhaul. Never really got into the 3 different damage pools thing. |
Heh, yeah, it always amused me to drop in the middle of a gunfight after 4 shots because of "mental fatigue."
Posted by Zetleft on May 21 2004,18:13
Oh my goodness that stormtroppers' given me tha vapors/southernbelle
Posted by Leisher on May 21 2004,20:12
I will never be back to SWG. The next MMO game I'm interested in is the one, whose name I'm forgetting at the moment because its weird, that my friend is part of the design team.
I guess it was shown at E3, not because the game is ready, but because the company that wrote their network code wanted to show it off. Picture this: ALL players will exist in the same world. No more shards.
I was promised some Beta slots, so when they are ready I'll let those of you know who are interested in trying something new out for free.
Posted by Zetleft on May 21 2004,22:58
It wasn't Wish was it?
Posted by Malcolm on May 22 2004,10:49
| Quote (GORDON @ May 21 2004,17:59) |
| I think Raph is SWG's biggest handicap. He saw the pk's and looting in UO as a problem, and not the reason UO is still an exciting game. |
There's LOADS of other things that have castrated UO.
Posted by Guest on May 22 2004,10:54
| Quote (Malcolm @ May 22 2004,10:49) | ||
There's LOADS of other things that have castrated UO. |
Such as?
Posted by Leisher on May 24 2004,11:15
| Quote |
| It wasn't Wish was it? |
No, its Glympse.
Posted by mbilderback on May 24 2004,12:08
| Quote (GORDON @ May 22 2004,12:54) | ||||
Such as? |
Piss poor camera angles. Outdated interface. And, the BIGGEST thing that kills MMORPGs is the one thing that makes them...other people.
Posted by Guest on May 24 2004,12:20
| Quote (mbilderback @ May 24 2004,12:08) | ||||||
Piss poor camera angles. Outdated interface. And, the BIGGEST thing that kills MMORPGs is the one thing that makes them...other people. |
Ok.
You don't get to talk about UO because just you watched me play for 5 minutes once.
Posted by mbilderback on May 24 2004,12:47
Actually, I saw UO played quite a bit. And everything I said was true. 3rd person POV is out with the 486. Now it's 1st person or bust. And UO shows us that people still say bust. Hell EQ is already bringing out EQ2 and UO is older than both...and in the PC world, old=outdated and bad.
Posted by Leisher on May 24 2004,12:58
| Quote |
| and in the PC world, old=outdated and bad. |
Whoooaaaaa, cowboy. That might be true for hardware, but not software.
Half-Life is the better part of a decade old and its still better than just about every FPS made since.
Ditto for TA, but applied to RTSs.
Sam & Max, Day of the Tentacle, Maniac Mansion, etc. are way funnier than games today with a few exceptions.
My point being that games may age in looks, but the gameplay and story is still there. Those factors don't age and that's why they can still be considered better than games made today.
Posted by mbilderback on May 24 2004,13:14
| Quote (Leisher @ May 24 2004,14:58) | ||
Whoooaaaaa, cowboy. That might be true for hardware, but not software. Half-Life is the better part of a decade old and its still better than just about every FPS made since. Ditto for TA, but applied to RTSs. Sam & Max, Day of the Tentacle, Maniac Mansion, etc. are way funnier than games today with a few exceptions. My point being that games may age in looks, but the gameplay and story is still there. Those factors don't age and that's why they can still be considered better than games made today. |
Well, yes and no. True that the last statement is incorrect, I still enjoy quite a few older games. My big issue is with UO's format. The gameplay style is outdated, that combined with its terrible graphics makes for a bad game that is in desperate need of being updated. True, UO still has a good following, and that can be used. I'm not saying ditch UO, I'm saying bring it in to the modern day.
Posted by Guest on May 24 2004,13:42
You make the same logical error that a lot of game designers do, so don't feel bad: Pretty graphics does not equate to a fun game.Not many folks out there still playing G-Police or Global Domination, even though they're gorgeous games.
One of the tenets of game theory is that you have to play the game within a set of parameters. Staw Wars Galaxies allows you to go anywhere in the landscape... but so what? I lost interest in that game when I realized I was wandering through the wilderness on autopilot, not paying attention to my surroundings, and using my crafting tool to turn lizard skin into tents. I realized I wasn't in any danger. Ever. And even on the off chance something (not someone) killed me, it just means my journey to the city I was heading to would be a lot faster, because I would "clone" there. With no loss of any items.
Zero risk.
Big, big yawn.
The graphics in the Monopoly board game haven't changed significantly in 50 years, yet people still play it a lot. But by your reasoning, it must be a crappy game because Scattegories was invented.
Posted by mbilderback on May 24 2004,13:51
| Quote (GORDON @ May 24 2004,15:42) |
| You make the same logical error that a lot of game designers do, so don't feel bad: Pretty graphics does not equate to a fun game. Not many folks out there still playing G-Police or Global Domination, even though they're gorgeous games. One of the tenets of game theory is that you have to play the game within a set of parameters. Staw Wars Galaxies allows you to go anywhere in the landscape... but so what? I lost interest in that game when I realized I was wandering through the wilderness on autopilot, not paying attention to my surroundings, and using my crafting tool to turn lizard skin into tents. I realized I wasn't in any danger. Ever. And even on the off chance something (not someone) killed me, it just means my journey to the city I was heading to would be a lot faster, because I would "clone" there. With no loss of any items. Zero risk. Big, big yawn. The graphics in the Monopoly board game haven't changed significantly in 50 years, yet people still play it a lot. But by your reasoning, it must be a crappy game because Scattegories was invented. |
It'd be nice if you actually read my ENTIRE post before replying. I said that the outdated graphics were only PART of the issue. Mostly it's their piss poor POV and lack of innovation when it comes to gameplay. The thing hasn't evolved in years! Like ANY game, there is room for improvement, and MMORPGs make improving easy with patch downloads, ask EQ, they'd patch every month or two. Why can't UO improve their gameplay?
And I'm just saying that they should update the game. It's time for UO2....deal you geezer.
Posted by Guest on May 24 2004,13:57
Ok, so tell me why the POV is bad, and 1st person is better.And oh yeah, UO gets patched every few days with tweaks, and every few months with major tweaks. There's a new expansion every 9 months or so. You UO expert, you.
Posted by Cakedaddy on May 24 2004,14:56
1st person in RPG suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks. 3rd or iso is the ONLY way to play those games. Until they come out with a VR helmet or something that gives you a true perspective of your surroundings. Spinning furiously in FP looking for the rat at your feet is just dumb. Graphics can improve, but the view must not change.
Posted by Guest on May 24 2004,14:58
My argument was going to be something like... Quake is played 1st person. Axis and Allies, Risk, Stratego, and chess are played 3rd person. If you want some braindead action, play Quake (or Everquest, AC, or SWG). If you want something deeper, play UO.
Posted by Leisher on May 24 2004,17:48
| Quote |
| 1st person in RPG suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks. |
True story.
I hate first person perspectives in RPGs. Not that good RPGs haven't been made with that POV (Bard's Tale, Wasteland, etc.), but I woud argue that they've actually gotten worse as the worlds have become more interative and the dangers more varied. I believe that of FP shooters too. That perspective is great for viewing beautiful 3D engines, but the problem is that its too limited in its functionality. Cake's right, a VR helmet is the next step to really take FP POV games to where their interactive level matches their graphics level.
3D engines have become a crutch for designers, particularly those working in the MMO genre.
I think the best argument is the fact that the best RPGs being made are still using perspectives other than FP:
Diablo 1 and 2
Dungeon Siege 1 and 2
Divine Divinity and its sequel
Anachronox
SW:KOTOR and its sequel
Fallout and its sequel
the Ultima Series (excect Underworld of course)
the entire Final Fantasy series
the Lunar Series
the Breath of Fire series
everything Zelda related
Skies of Arcadia
etc.
etc.
etc.
I have a whole other argument that I won't start here about why console RPGs are designed better than PC ones, but I will point out that if you read up on new games coming out, the PC previews are always about what new effects there are, while the console reviews talk mostly about gameplay.
Graphics do not make a game, they just make niffy tech demos.
Posted by Cakedaddy on May 25 2004,11:05
Wizardry 8 is in an FP perspective. But, the battles are turn based, so the lack of 'surroundings perspective' isn't an issue. You have time to turn around, find the rat, assign people to attack, etc. But real-time rpg requires a birds eye view of the situation.
Posted by TPRJones on May 25 2004,11:39
1st person has problems, but I have always hated most ISO games. For me ISO sucks because you can't see what your charater sees. There's things not but a few "yards" away off the edge of your screen that you should by all right be able to see clearly. Bah.Roleplaying is more fun when you can see what your character sees.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 02 2004,09:23
Halo
Posted by mbilderback on Jun. 02 2004,10:41
Well, not to go off on a tangent and whatnot, lets just say I disagree. Limiting perspective and field of vision is nice. And personally, I don't consider MMO games to be RPGs really. My favorite RPGs were MUSHes. Completely text based. I'm just saying that if you're going graphical, 1st person is the only way. And almost every decent 1st person based game has an optional 3rd or ISO view.
Posted by Guest on Jun. 05 2004,09:15
| Quote (mbilderback @ June 02 2004,10:41) |
| Well, not to go off on a tangent and whatnot, lets just say I disagree. Limiting perspective and field of vision is nice. And personally, I don't consider MMO games to be RPGs really. My favorite RPGs were MUSHes. Completely text based. I'm just saying that if you're going graphical, 1st person is the only way. And almost every decent 1st person based game has an optional 3rd or ISO view. |
As long as you understand that you are wrong, I am ok to "agree to disagree."
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 06 2004,15:26
| Quote |
| There's things not but a few "yards" away off the edge of your screen that you should by all right be able to see clearly. Bah. |
Developers use tricks like fog to keep you from seeing what you would in real life. Plus, its easier to make a world more "alive" in a perspective other than FP due to the strains the engine puts on the PC. Again, that goes back to my "current limitations" arguement.
| Quote |
| Roleplaying is more fun when you can see what your character sees. |
Personally, I enjoy different views depending on the circumstances. On the GBA, a top down view feels old school and its fun, plus that view is necessary for action RPGs like Diablo and Dungeon Siege. Considering most MMORPs are action games...
My favorite perspective though has to be the moving camera "over the shoulder" like in the FF series, Tales of Arcadia, the new Zelda games, etc. You get the "view" of what your character sees, but not in the limiting FP view. Its easy to swing the camera around to see whereever you need to see.
| Quote |
| As long as you understand that you are wrong, I am ok to "agree to disagree." |
I've got agree with Gordo here because...
| Quote |
| I'm just saying that if you're going graphical, 1st person is the only way. |
That's our point. FP is great for graphics, but not for gameplay.
Posted by mbilderback on Jun. 07 2004,08:42
| Quote |
| That's our point. FP is great for graphics, but not for gameplay. |
That's not what I meant. What I'm saying is that if you're using a graphical interface for a character, it should be first person, IMO. If you two disagree, that's fine, I still think you're wrong.
Also, I hate games like Diablo. The entire gameplay and interface make me ill.
Posted by Vince on Jun. 11 2004,19:20
To me it depends on the game. In Aliens vs Predator, for example, I can't imagine playing tha in anything other than FP. That's part of what makes the game so creepy to play. Max Payne, on the other hand, would have been a complete waste in FP. What's the point of having bullet time if you can't see how it affects your character in his world?
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 13 2004,10:25
| Quote |
| What I'm saying is that if you're using a graphical interface for a character, it should be first person, IMO. |
I have no idea what you're trying to say there. Are you saying ALL games should be in FP? All games have characters so...
Besides it being your opinion, which you think is correct despite the massive list of top selling games I've given you, you haven't given us any good reason why RPGs should be in FP. Meanwhile, we're simply saying that FP is great in certain genres, but not in others due to GAMEPLAY aspects.
You do realize gameplay is far more important than how the game looks right? Or are you in marketing?
Out of curiousity, how long have you been playing games? I don't mean board and shizzle, just how long have you been a hard core gamer? (This is just curiousity, not for the debate at hand. I'm curious to see if when you started had an effect on the perspective you prefer.)
| Quote |
| In Aliens vs Predator, for example, I can't imagine playing tha in anything other than FP. |
In fast paced shooters, there is no better view that FP.
| Quote |
| What's the point of having bullet time if you can't see how it affects your character in his world? |
Good point Vince. Again, gameplay being the key here.
Another good example was Trespasser. A beautiful game with a great engine and lots of potential. Unfortunately, it was a huge dud because the developers decided the FP view is the one they and gamers wanted. They were wrong. That view made the game and all of its jumping/stacking/etc. puzzles impossible. This isn't my opinion, it was the opinion of the gaming press. Are they all wrong too?
Gameplay means more than graphics.
Which do you want?:
1 - A famous supermodel that's egotistical, doesn't want a family, is spoiled, a bitch, and rarely fucks and when she does she's a selfish dead fish. (graphics)
2 - A girl next door type that loves her family, is warm, sharing, likes to get a little freaky, and accepts you for who you are no matter what. (gameplay)
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 13 2004,15:21
I much perfer my character-driven games (i.e. RPGs) in first person, or at least over-the-shoulder viewpoints.I feel no need to justify this preference.
Posted by mbilderback on Jun. 14 2004,09:40
| Quote (TPRJones @ June 13 2004,17:21) |
| I much perfer my character-driven games (i.e. RPGs) in first person, or at least over-the-shoulder viewpoints. I feel no need to justify this preference. |
I agree entirely with TPR.
And yes, over the shoulder views are important in some games also, Hell I play some games over the shoulder when given either view to choose from. But putting it in reference to character driven games, I think TPR hit the nail on the head. And personally, I feel that over the shoulder views are pretty much FP.
| Quote |
| I have no idea what you're trying to say there. Are you saying ALL games should be in FP? All games have characters so... |
A. You're wrong, ever played strategy games?
B. I believe that all games that are from a character's perspective should be FP.
| Quote |
You do realize gameplay is far more important than how the game looks right? Or are you in marketing? |
Gameplay IS the game. Looks are secondary. But with the power of machines today, you can and do have both. To have one and not the other is setting yourself up for failure.
| Quote |
Out of curiousity, how long have you been playing games? I don't mean board and shizzle, just how long have you been a hard core gamer? |
Early '80s. I remember programming games via BASIC into my IBM PC/jr.
| Quote |
Besides it being your opinion, which you think is correct despite the massive list of top selling games I've given you,... |
Being a top selling game does not make it good. Everything in my opinion is right for me, agree or disagree to your hearts content. I hate Diablo but many people would disagree with me. So?
Posted by Guest on Jun. 14 2004,10:12
Never finished Diablo. Or its sequel.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 14 2004,11:21
| Quote |
| I agree entirely with TPR. |
I'm very proud of you. Unfortunately, TPR has nothing to be right about.
I don't give a fuck if your preference is to play while naked, hanging upside down from a ceiling fan, wearing mirrored sunglasses with the mirrors on the inside, with your monitor/TV off, while the game is designed from a view that only lets you see your own character and nothing else...that doesn't mean shizzle to me.
None of that is in question. A player's own preferences are his own.
The debate here is that current technology doesn't allow for the true freedom and feel needed by the FP perspective. Life is in FP perspective. When you can move and act in a game like you can in real life, then they'll have gotten there.
| Quote |
| And yes, over the shoulder views are important in some games also, Hell I play some games over the shoulder when given either view to choose from. |
Here we have an example of someone changing their tune. You went from "FP Rules!" to "other views are good depending on the game". Every single other person, including TPR, except you has stated how gameplay is the critical factor in determining which view is best for a given game. Now all of a sudden you're switching your opinion? A simple, "Oh, I see what you guys are saying. Yeah, sometimes I like a viewpoint other than FP because it makes the game better/easier/more fun to play." would have been good.
[/QUOTE]And personally, I feel that over the shoulder views are pretty much FP
| Quote | ||
You'd be wrong. FP is First Person = through the eyes of the character. Over the shoulder = Third person. Two different views. You'd also be contradicting yourself as 3rdP was listed earlier by people debating you and you still stuck with your FP mantra.
Nit picking is quite desperate. You typically see this behavior from someone losing a debate...oh wait... But, I can throw it back at you: ALL things (people, animals, cars, robots, etc.) you control in games are characters. It/They is what represents you. That's a character. |
| Quote |
Agreed, but a long list of top selling games has to have one or two good gameplay ideas right? |
Again, that's not the debate.
FYI: I know you're new at these forums, and I didn't want you to think I'm slamming you in this post. Its a slow day at work, and I'm just bored.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 14 2004,11:48
| Quote (Leisher @ June 14 2004,11:21) |
| I don't give a fuck if your preference is to play while naked, hanging upside down from a ceiling fan, wearing mirrored sunglasses with the mirrors on the inside, with your monitor/TV off, while the game is designed from a view that only lets you see your own character and nothing else...that doesn't mean shizzle to me. |
Have you been stalking me again?
*looks around for hidden cameras*
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 14 2004,11:52
As to the FP versus over-shoulder views, while they are two different views, I also class them together. Both have the perspective of the character as their core, one just also includes blue-elf butt. In most situations, they are essentially the same from a gameplay standpoint.
Posted by mbilderback on Jun. 14 2004,13:59
Again Leisher, I may have first spoken in glittering generalities. But I pretty much lump over the shoulder views and first person views together, because they really are alike. Mostly I'm saying I can't stand UO's and Diablo's view of god looking down upon the subjects....it just busts up the realism for me.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 14 2004,14:20
| Quote |
| In most situations, they are essentially the same from a gameplay standpoint. |
See, I don't think that's true at all. I think from a view standpoint, you're on track, but not gameplay. FP games are completely different from 3rd person games.
I really enjoy the 3rd person view for my RPGs and that's, thankfully, the new trend for console RPGs. It usually has a flexible camera system that allows you to view in all directions, including down on your character. Its like the best of all worlds in one camera system. In fact, I'd say 3rd person is the ultimate compromise between FP and ISO.
The latest Zelda game has the best camera system I've seen in a game to date, not that it hadn't been done before.
| Quote |
| Mostly I'm saying I can't stand UO's and Diablo's view of god looking down upon the subjects....it just busts up the realism for me. |
Now that I understand and can agree with, however for games like Diablo and UO I find its so much more important for gameplay that you look down on the characters rather than through FP.
I guess my best example of why I don't like FP for RPGs is the Witchaven series. Melee combat using the FP view just plain sucks, and the public and press agreed. The game was a dud.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 14 2004,14:57
| Quote (Leisher @ June 14 2004,14:20) |
| It usually has a flexible camera system that allows you to view in all directions, including down on your character. Its like the best of all worlds in one camera system. In fact, I'd say 3rd person is the ultimate compromise between FP and ISO. |
Oh, I agree with that. There are things that a flexible camera system will do that locked-in FP won't. I'll take more choices over less any day.
I was thinking about strictly over-the-shoulder from what his post had said, though, instead of true 3rd person.
Anything but iso is good for me. Iso = icky, IMO.
| Quote |
| Melee combat using the FP view just plain sucks, and the public and press agreed. The game was a dud. |
I don't know about that game, but I'm enjoying playing CoH as a tanker in FP view. It makes it more interesting to be in the middle of a huge melee, and not be able to see behind you without turning around to look.
In the long run, when lighting physics in games get to the point where you can see the subtle shadows of the enemies behind you, and sound quality is good enough to hear where they are by their breathing and displays encompass enough of your field of view to take in peripheral vision, then FP will be an excellent choice for nearly every character-driven game. In the meantime, I much prefer the ability to choose 3rd person when it's needed.