To all those reviewers out there:

What's the secret to reviewing an RPG like, say, Baldur's Gate II? Personally, I don't think I could bring myself to do that, because I like to take a nice casual pace through RPGs. If I tried to hurry along to finish by a certain date, I'd feel like I was missing so much! You guys do it all the time. What's your take on this?

Well, unless you're superhuman (and we have a couple of reviewers who can do a game like BG2 in a week, twice through) you resign yourself to missing a lot. It's one reason why we often send out the big RPGs to freelancers. Most of us love RPGs, and we want to play slowly--I haven't finished BGII myself, yet.

When we review an RPG, unless we have a lot of lead time (like with Arcanum, which we've had complete for a while now and which won't be in stores until August), we tend to take a critical path through the game. When I did Fallout and Fallout 2, for instance, I finished pretty quickly--I've had to go back and play them again to really explore around. Now, Fallout wasn't too bad because it was fairly compact, but there was no way I could, say, trie both a talker and a fighter in that game and still get the review in on time.

Often we'll get walkthroughs, but we don't like to use them unless we have to. Cheat codes? Up to the reviewer, but usually only for getting from A to B when you know what happens in between isn't affecting much. What it boils down to is our experience. We want to see if the game is fun, if it holds together, if it works, if the ending is good, etc. We have to play through it to find these things out, but we don't have to play through it exactly like we would if we were doing it just for un--speed matters. Our experience in playing and reviewing a zillion of these games comes in handy--we can glean a lot from a rapid playing.

OTOH, I agree in an ideal world we'd have the game months in advance and be able to have a review based on leisurely play available when the game ships. But I seriously doubt our readers would have liked it if we had waited six months to review Baldur's Gate.

I'm off to lunch, but as the guy who reviewed BG2 for CGW, I can only say that my secret to reviewing behemoths such as BG2 is that I am the Undisputed GodEmperor Of RPGs Hither And Thither.

Actually, I'll elaborate on the real reason later, but a lot of it is like what Robert just said. It's a combination of experience, critical paths, occasional cheating, and what-have-you.

All the above is true. But reviewing BG2 isn't *only* about getting through the game beginning to end, judging the marvelous story, washing your hands, taking your dice and going home.

That's important, for this game in particular, but its equally important to test the kits and new classes. The spells. Combat tactics, subquests, etc., The game is remarkably well balanced in terms of character choices and classes.

No reviewer could test every variation and "complete" Baldur's Gate 2 in a "typical review deadline time frame."

Therefore, even those proud of burning through it twice in a week haven't really played the game completely, have they? Do they really understand the game better than someone leisurely but purposefully exploring the game?

I think the key is not to try to do anything Superhuman. Spend as much time as you can with it before deadline and test, explore and enjoy everything you can fit into that span of time.

If you can't do that, give it your best and get it done (not necessarily completed and finished) before the deadline, then you're best turning down the review.

-Andrew (I reviewed it for Gamecenter)

PS: "Undisputed GodEmperor Of RPGs Hither And Thither." Hither and yon, you mean. And what of the mighty and imperious Desslock, pray?

re: "Ready for your wallet..."

I'm posting this here because it deals with reviewers as well and I don't feel like starting a new thread.

I'm not a professional reviewer but this blurb on the news page about Funcom selling Anarchy Online while asking for it not to be reviewed infuriates me. What makes them think they have the right? Why would reviewers respect such a request?

Can you imagine a studio selling tickets to a film but asking the critics to steer clear until the director's cut comes out on DVD?

What do you pro's think about this?

Amanpour

Well, I think it's pretty silly of Funcom to ask reviewers not to review it. That's why I posted the item.

I just wonder how much these two disasterous releases (WWII Online and AO) will hurt future MMOGs. Why would anyone buy one of these things the initial month it's released at this point? MMOG developers are going to be lumped in with politicians, lawyers, and used car salesmen at the bottom of the respect scale.

>>PS: "Undisputed GodEmperor Of RPGs Hither And Thither." Hither and yon, you mean. And what of the mighty and imperious Desslock, pray?

Hmmm...Who is the master of RPGs, "Scooter" or "Desslock"? Who does CGW trust to write the regular RPG column between the two:?

-DavidCPA

From what I can tell there has only been one semi-smooth MMORPG launch and that was EQ. It still had issues but compared with WW2OL and AO it sounds like it was a cakewalk. I just think that unless you have to have the game it is probably best to wait out most MMORPGs for a month or two until they settle in.

Can you imagine how bad the SWG launch is going to be? My guess is there is not enough bandwidth and hardware on the planet to support that launch. ;)

the launch for Asheron's Call was probably the smoothest yet for MMORPG's. i'm sure there are people who can/will dispute that, but they also don't play AC..just as i don't play their favorite MMORPG-of-choice...

i'd be interested to know if there _was_ much publicity about any problems with the launch of AC (aside from no coverage at all :), or any of the other MMORPG's for that matter.. i know UO had problems, etc,etc.

clue me in!

- mike - i've seen rick springfield posters in champaign, illinois -

With something so immense as BG2, a lot of stuff was behind the scenes for the review.

For one thing, I spent the first coupla days just tearing through the critical path, using cheats for fights that were way too much for me (like the first coupla times I had to fight vampires before I got the right skills and weapons), and just observing the overall structure of the game, and knowing what to expect plotwise.

Then I spent the remaining review time jumping around with several characters, and utilizing different NPC combinations.

One thing that helped a lot was that a few other editors were playing through BG2 at their leisure as well. I'd often ask Robert Coffey about random junk about his barbarian, Pocket Hercules, or I'd ask Jeff if his kensai got killed again. The most helpful was Chris Lombardi, who was an RPG nut and trying to experience everything he can for himself as well.

So, while by review time, my main character has realistically been in Chapter 3 by then, I did know how it all played out, and how to handle lategame stuff as well. Tinkering with the other classes, and talking to the others help flesh out the "infinite possibilities" aspect of the game.

I didn't do Icewind Dale, but Heart Of Winter, I tore through the game on super-fast mode in a coupla hours, and I did a more realistically paced game, and still finished it within two days.

I only managed to finish Planescape: Torment and saw basically everything (I even got Nordom), because I played the game obsessively during Winter Break (a month), and I basically slept for two hours a night.

Funny thing, I managed to do the BG2 review in the same week that I had to write a paper on Milton's Lycidas.

I'm curious as to how Scorpia approached games such as Daggerfall back in her day. She probably did finish it four times within a week.

Bub:
"'Undisputed GodEmperor Of RPGs Hither And Thither.' Hither and yon, you mean."

Actually, I was taught that "yon" and "thither" are interchangeable. I prefer "thither" because it rhymes with "hither."

DavidCPA:

"Hmmm...Who is the master of RPGs, "Scooter" or "Desslock"? Who does CGW trust to write the regular RPG column between the two:?"

Desslock has experience, insight, and profound CRPG wisdom. I just have the mutant ability to slice my way through an RPG the same way my +5 Vorpal Axe slices through some shrieking kobold's neck.

I'd make a pretty lame X-Man.

Anyhow, I guess I'll go back to playing that free IceWind Dale: HOW expansion. I'll take a break from BG2's demigodhood and just go around hitting things with my IWD party. Onward, Maximus Charming, Ninja Gaiden, Little Angry Buddha, Tree Hugger, Lurking Evil, and Lucy Phantasma!

-Thierry

Thierrey are you still in college studying English Lit? you mentioned Milton.

If so thats cool...

etc

"Thierrey are you still in college studying English Lit? you mentioned Milton."

I just graduated from UC Berkeley, with a degree in English. Just like Jeff Green. Though we're about twenty years apart. Heh.

I took said Milton class last Fall, for a Pre-1800 Requirement in the English program. Wheee. Re-affirmed my preference for modern lit.

I feel this thread might stray into the Books section, though.

-Thierry

"I'm curious as to how Scorpia approached games such as Daggerfall back in her day. She probably did finish it four times within a week."

That wouldn't surprise me at all. Scorpia really understood how RPGs and adventure games were put together. I remember reviewing Ultima IV for her old Games Forum on CompuServe. It just about killed me because every "side quest" in that game was actually part of the critical path. I was lucky I was on vacation from my job that week =)

"I just graduated from UC Berkeley, with a degree in English."

Then shouldn't you be waiting tables? =)

"What makes them think they have the right? Why would reviewers respect such a request?"

They don't, and we won't. If they are asking people to pay for the product, then it's fair game for review. Pretty much the bottom line.

Anyone think this statement is going to make reviewers go out of their way to hammer the game? Or to move it up in the review que to spite them?

Maybe. We've actually moved it as far back in the review queue as possible (without actually missing our issue), giving it far more time than we give most games (about a month, or more, in the case of both WWII Online and Anarchy Online). Is that fair to other games? I'm really not sure, but it's more than fair to the online games in question.

>What's the secret to reviewing an RPG like, say, Baldur's Gate II? Personally, I don't think I could bring myself to do that, because I like to take a nice casual pace through RPGs. If I tried to hurry along to finish by a certain date, I'd feel like I was missing so much! You guys do it all the time. What's your take on this?

I have a pretty straightforward approach when I review RPGs: I just systematically play through every nook and cranny like any obsessive RPG player. I always try to get 3 weeks to review an RPG, or at least 3 weekends. No matter how big the game, even part-timers like myself can get through a game in that time if they're dedicated to the task.

I don't agree with using cheats just to get through quickly, for the same reason that I don't just race through the critical path of an RPG and miss subplots -- because that's the same experience a typical player would have (although Thierry's reviews are great, so his approach of using cheats works well for him).

I do find it less enjoyable to play through RPGs that quickly -- I probably had more fun with Baldur's Gate II than any RPG in years because I didn't review it and played it through leisurely, with two separate ongoing campaigns (one multiplayer co-op and one single player), which took a couple of months to complete.

Stefan

Mike Latinovich:

---

Quote:

the launch for Asheron's Call was probably the smoothest yet for MMORPG's. i'm sure there are people who can/will dispute that, but they also don't play AC..just as i don't play their favorite MMORPG-of-choice...

---

"With AC, there was no initial crush, and, in fact, if you believe AO's numbers, AO--in its first week--is already over half as large as AC (subscriber-base-wise) in a year and a half."

That's an interesting observation. I think it drives home how the design choices in AC -- i.e., to go with original yet weird fantasy -- probably limited their market.

Mark, the original-yet-weird fantasy element may have limited their market, but what about their advertising? since I don't read *ANY* of the print game mags, i'm not sure what kind of advertising any of them do.. perhaps you and the others can provide a{/some} clue{s} on how the others have advertised?

being seen is a BIG thing, IMO. from the things i've read (being limited to following some of the AC related sites), MS hasn't really spent much at all to advertise/market the game whatsoever, which is another reason why it doesn't have the numbers in comparison to the others in the market.

obviously, a sci-fi MMORPG is 'different enough' that people are curious enough to try it out: they (the people trying it out) have been barraged with fantasy MMORPG's for the past 5 years- time to try something different.

for people just getting into the MMORPG scene- to go to a Best Buy or whatever, to browse their tiny area of MMORPG boxes... it's easy to see why some of the others sell well in comparison. the box artwork for AC is *HORRIBLE*.. if AC had half-naked hand-drawn elves on it's box, it'd probably sell just as well as EQ does. :)

i think i actually mentioned some of this before in another thread quite some time ago, too.

- mike - booyah, grandma.. booyah -

Bill McClendon said:
"With AC, there was no initial crush [...]"

one of the things overlooked is that MS actually limited shipments of the product the first couple months, just to make certain they wouldn't overburden their systems too much with an initial onslaught of n00bs.... of course, not marketing the product helped there, too. :)

- mike - possible rabid AC player, beware -

mike:

---

Quote:

one of the things overlooked is that MS actually limited shipments of the product the first couple months, just to make certain they wouldn't overburden their systems too much with an initial onslaught of n00bs.... of course, not marketing the product helped there, too. :)

---

---

Quote:

- mike - possible rabid AC player, beware -

---

Bill,

define 'packed and stacked', and how much did ya get for it on ebay, out of curiousity's sake. :)

with the patches to the game over the past 2 months, i've been very tempted to just let AC 'go away' for myself... it's very hard for me to do that- i've been playing since beta-0.

i really don't mind that microsoft hasn't pushed AC so much, so long as it doesn't go away and they keep doing *something* that adds to the game on a timely basis, ya know?

- mike - [ ... ] -

mike:

All your questions can be answered right here. (The stat images are broken since that free hosting site only keeps 'em for 11 days.)

Since macroing became prevalent, the bottom has dropped right out of the value of accounts, unfortunately. It's too easy to set up a combat macro in the Acid Vault and let it run till it hits 60, 75, even level 85 (seen some like that on Wintersebb).

I figure if I'd been patient and parted the account out, I might have brought in 750 or more from it on tradeables alone... but my subscription expired 2 July and time was of the essence. :)

---

Quote:

i really don't mind that microsoft hasn't pushed AC so much, so long as it doesn't go away and they keep doing *something* that adds to the game on a timely basis, ya know?

---

i hear ya, bill, for sure. the few friends i have that play other games (EQ, UO) say the same about their games. they have to exploit to keep up with the joneses. :(

really, it's a horrible state for gaming, but is it possible to test *every* given exploit/bug situation? known 'sploits can be tested for (ie, Gear), and shouldn't be a problem, but all games are not created equally, so there can be no generic, all-singing, all-dancing, all-fixing fixes for all exploits or bugs.

my only real hope is that the 1st gen MMORPG devs will work out a good deal of this stuff for their '3rd gen' games (ie, SW:G, AC2, etc). they _do_ have the experience of having dealt with it all before, and that's quite a head start they've got over these 'n00bs' to the scene.


i think it's easy to see that the AO & WW2OL guys all went into their projects thinking "oh, it can't be THAT hard.. we're 2nd gen.. knowing the problems they've had, we can easily avoid them.. we won't have _their_ problems".

now, ok, so i'm speculating there... but am i really all that far off? anyone?

- mike - not impressed with your 'BASE' -

Of course, the smartest way to create a real multiplayer roleplaying experience is to get rid of levelling, magic items, and power inflation all together. There will always be those who exploit loopholes if you create a system that rewards that kind of behavior and, indeed, exists solely to encourage it.

What will keep players around if it's not to get to 55th level or acquire the vaunted Bikini Wax Axe? Gee, roleplaying would be nice.

The way I see it if realistic systems could be put in place that encourage the formation of IC political, social and family groups and penalize murderous activity that's not socially sanctioned then you'd have players interested in developing political power rather than personal power. The very interaction between characters as the focus of the experience would naturally encourage roleplaying over camping or macroing or whathaveyou.

Real economic systems with sites and trade routes that can be controlled from chokepoints or strongpoints by factions, some more valuable and some less, would encourage the formation of groups that are mutually dependant. Doing away with ressurection and mobs would make the life of a given character somewhat valuable. He or she would seek protection in a group and only seek combat when absolutely necessary or turn to characters specialized at it for assistance. This is the whole idea of a feudal society.

The focus of non-combat, non-political roleplay could turn on social factors. I'm curious to see how The Sims online actually works out. Some combination of rewards for those who are 'most interesting' (socialites, entertainers and well roleplayed, quirky, characters) along with those who have 'useful skills' (diplomats, leaders, craftsmen, merchants, and of course the warriors) is the best direction to go in.

There could even be further specializations as one investigates what motivates given types of players. Wilderness or underworlds for explorers? Barbarian tribes, with unique social reward systems, for those who thrive on blood-letting?

The key is a system that, at its core, is realistic and flexible enough to sustain a goodly amount of player imposed storyline without lots of administration handwringing and meddling. Leaders should arise, Camelots will be built, factions will clash, and eventually in most shards or worlds trade will rise as the lifeblood of dominant and somewhat stable factions. Human nature being what it is, the status quo will, without any nudging, stagnate and turn on itself in time creating new stories. But realism or at least realistic consistency is the key. Personal power is passe. Get the levers and gears in place for social and political power to be relevant and there will be more player instigated drama than anybody can handle.

I am completely on board with the whole thoughts about exploiting and I would even add power leveling. The thing I found about EQ was that it rewarded those who spent their time 24/7 in the game so that by the time I would even be in a position to get a great item Verant would have made it no drop, or removed it from the game, or made the quest so ridiculously impossible that I would never get it. I was hardly a casual player but I was nowhere near the way some of these people are and I was punished because I had a day job. :)

There are probably no easy answers but I know the next MMORPG I play will not inordinately reward players who spend their whole lives in the game. I had heard that in ShadowBane playing a few hours each night you could be at the soft maximum experience cap in two months and then be free to be part of battles between factions etc. It sounds enticing although I think I heard that they were having problems with funding. :/

Mike:

---

Quote:

really, it's a horrible state for gaming, but is it possible to test *every* given exploit/bug situation? known 'sploits can be tested for (ie, Gear), and shouldn't be a problem, but all games are not created equally, so there can be no generic, all-singing, all-dancing, all-fixing fixes for all exploits or bugs.

---

---

Quote:

my only real hope is that the 1st gen MMORPG devs will work out a good deal of this stuff for their '3rd gen' games (ie, SW:G, AC2, etc). they _do_ have the experience of having dealt with it all before, and that's quite a head start they've got over these 'n00bs' to the scene.

---

If you were to "hide the numbers" as you suggest I don't think it would fly with the current players. EVERYBODY loves to see numbers. Hell, you can't even review an RPG without assigning a number to it, ya know.

The advantage AC has over EQ is that you have a constant incremental development of the character. You don't have to wait for monolithic level increases to be able to assign XP to skills and attributes... therefore, the player receives a constant flow of reward for their efforts. In EQ you have to go through the utter tedium of bashing a zillion monsters at high levels to realize an increase in ability. This is why EQ becomes work and not fun at higher levels, and is the main encouragement for power leveling, twinking, or paying out $1000 of real money to skip it.

Now, if you take those numbers away, you effectively remove the basis of the reward system for this type of game. So, you have to replace it with another tangible reward system in order to keep your addicts hooked. In a stat based reward model, everyone has the potential to rise to the same ability... however, in a political or social structured system there can only be "one king" so to speak. Once the rank structure is defined (which will be again, by the most hardcore no-life players) but you now lack the potential for any newbie to rise to the highest level of achievement. In the current system, all it requires is dedication to playing - and maybe a divorce and quitting your job.

Now, with the issue of ShadowBane allowing you to "max out" within a couple of months of casual play... Well, it sounds good on paper, but not on my calculator. This means that your "hardcore" people will max out in about a week. Now, the reward system is broken and they have no further reason to play except as "power brokers" if that's what turns them on. Now you have a setup where the no-life hardcore crowd is going to directly dictate everyone else's gaming experience by being in control of guilds and whatnot. In such a heavy PK environment which seems styled to cultivate guild warfare, a neutral party is going to be TOAST. Thus ends your enjoyment. If I want to have a level playing field where one team kills another, I'll play CounterStrike or something. It's definitely not what drives the RPG scene for 99% of its members.

Not to say that SBane won't work... but it won't have an addictive appeal like the current crop until they bow down and start creating expanded potential for character development - because long-term development and not momentary achievement is what drives RPG addiction.

I can just hear the grief players now... lag killed me, guild X keeps stomping our asses so this is no fun, and oh the political BS of being ousted from your guild because you have a life and couldn't be online when the rest of your homies were slaughtered. Oh yes, mark my words. Maybe they won't trade equipment on ebay... maybe you'll have to lay out real cash to belong to guild X?

Hide the numbers yes. But just build a functioning setting that is contained and realistic and the players will come. It's that simple. Kings don't last forever. There are internal power struggles, petty barons constantly scheming, religious and economic factions at odds and, if the social angle is encouraged enough, interpersonal relationships that will tear up the most rational attempts at orderly dictatorships.

The nature of life online accellerates the natural processes of human interaction. Anonymity of players assures us that there will be folks who will be more inclined to act on what's interesting than what's always most tactically or socially beneficial. However, there will always be a preponderance of folks who don't think outside of the box and will, if the setting is realistic and crazy crap like ressurection and levelling are done away with, act to ensure their own power and security - even supremecy in whatever strata of society they inhabit.

Why do I think that anyone would be remotely interested in a setting like this? I'm a MUSHer. Sure they're free but they do demonstrate there are people, who even in text, want to roleplay a character even if that character isn't Conan or Caligula. My guess is that many people would gravitate to a serious setting if one was provided. Would they all be ace roleplayers? Not starting out. But in time whomever can claim economic power will need something to keep his productive subjects (those with useful skills) interested and subjects looking to rise in a leader's esteem will naturally adapt to his court's, kingdom's style. Exclusivity and belonging are a powerful social force in reality and in online communities. This is where roleplaying and drama comes in (those who can entertain or create strong personas).

I've seen this happen.

Where MUSHes crap out though is on the side of coding and consistency. They are heavily dependant on human administrators for the most part and often these administrators can become less than impartial. Realism and continuity (IC roleplaying within the setting) are solely functions of 'the honor system' and administrator enforcement.

However, some MUSHes have experimented successfully with alternate systems. Some wizards simply stay out of the IC world altogether and act only as refrees - allowing natural forces such as personality and IC alliegence to dictate plots that arise /from the players/ themselves. It works! Players are online to roleplay and they will make roleplay for themselves - especially if they are part of a faction. Another MUSH prides itself on harsh realism and a coded reality that reflects this. PKing is common but an interesting byproduct of this are IC societies that are very close knit and realistic - very good roleplayers, surprisingly, have gravitated to the game despite the risks of IC death and character loss because the tension makes the game much more intense. The world, in the main, runs itself because it is realistic. People's own ambitions and desires, projected through their characters and IC communities, make it exciting.

Human nature should be part of the design in roleplaying not an obstacle or a river to reroute in harmless ways. Sticking close to realistic economic structures and human abilities is the safest way to go about it. The players will make a wonderful and exciting mess of it themselves.

End of Spam. I have this kind of Tourette's Syndrome when the subject of roleplaying comes up. I'll look into medication, ASAP. ;)

"My guess is that many people would gravitate to a serious setting if one was provided."

I'm sure there's a market for this, but how big is the question? Simutronics has stayed in business with text-based MUDs where the roleplaying is pretty serious, from what I gather. Transplant that to a graphical setting and you'd find a bigger audience.

The question is will it attract enough people to justify the multi-million dollar development budget? A game designed for serious roleplayers might be even more expensive to develop and it might be more expensive to support as well. You might need a higher ratio of paid guides.

My silence indicates my uncertainty, Mark. There's no way of knowing. A massively multiplayer, graphical, deep roleplaying project would be something new. Call it a TROG (True roleplaying online game). The players would become mossbacked hermits living in unlit basements eventually so it rather fits. ;)

Seriously though I do suspect it might work. I've got a hunch that most people are roleplayers who just don't know it yet. As I've said elsewhere 'being someone else, somewhere else and doing something interesting' is the basis of both true roleplaying and human escapist tendancies. However, show someone what passes for a roleplaying game now with orcs and levels and magic items and they think it's freakish. Mainly, because it is.

Fantastical settings are fine for us but off putting to mainstream nongamers. The ancient conventions of the original roleplaying systems are entirely artificial. Instead of being recognised as vestigal mistakes they've come to actually define the hobby - at least in regards to computer gaming. Face-to-face roleplaying has continued to evolve even to the point of entirely diceless systems. The link that Bill McClendon (Crash) provides is really interesting and its author and I evidently share several conclusions if differing experiences.

However, roleplaying systems that are abstracted with the goal of providing a forum for virtual human interaction, society building and social competition rather than personal stat-building as the sole 'in game' goal could provide a context that more people could relate to. Using reality as a baseline and deliberately abstracting elements that are dull or too complicated to simulate simply hasn't been done. Reality has been entirely discarded as irrelevant to MMORPGs.

Build around this a setting that is evocative of themes but that doesn't dictate a particular mode of IC behavior - this will invite people in who aren't comfortable with 'make believe' but who are still curious about the experience. An afterlife world could be an example or perhaps a sub-setting for 'immigrants' within a larger Trog where newcomers could learn about the larger, more culturally specific, world before being thrust into it. Or perhaps an interdimensional city whose inhabitants could be...anyone. Roleplayers as well as mundanes or doodz could coexist here and the roleplayer could rationalize this ICly.

The physical, potential political and daily economic realities, though, should lend themselves to suspension of disbelief. A non-roleplayer's epiphany I've seen before when they understand that it's more fun to believe, for a while, in an imaginary world and its imaginary characters than not.

Well, so much for my end of spam.

"The ancient conventions of the original roleplaying systems are entirely artificial. Instead of being recognised as vestigal mistakes they've come to actually define the hobby - at least in regards to computer gaming."

I couldn't agree more. The interesting thing is that tabletop games have mostly gone away from those conventions. With the exception of some old standbys like D&D, many tabletop games have dumped most of the wargame-derived baggage that defined early role-playing and replaced it with, well, role-playing.

I can't say that I'm a big fan of diceless role-playing, however (although I did play in an Amber game for a while, and it was quite entertaining). Mostly it puts a huge onus on the GM to be "fair" with the players, and it makes every action in the game meaningful in ways that aren't necessarily beneficial. There is no randomness, nothing happens that is not anticipated by either the GM or the players. That gives most diceless games a kind of... artificial feel. IMHO.

"However, roleplaying systems that are abstracted with the goal of providing a forum for virtual human interaction, society building and social competition rather than personal stat-building as the sole 'in game' goal could provide a context that more people could relate to."

I agree, and I think this sort of game would appeal to FAR more people than do current online RPGs. Hell, look at the Sims.

Yeah,
Sims Online's success and failure will be an interesting indication on where MMORPGs can actually go.

Of course, dress 'em up "role-playing folk" kinda scare me. Consequently I prefer my RPGs to play like games. Keep that Dungeon Master's Screen betwixt me and your fantasies!

I actually dated a live-action Vampire Goth chick back in SF. Fun date, weird party, it didn't work out. I'm just too normal maybe. Plus, she was a biter. Anyway, that anecdote is the sole reason I liked Vampire the Masquerade: Redemption for the first two hours I think. Fond memories.

-Andrew

A gamer and a goth? Interesting...

Heh, that would be a cool title for...well just about anything, really. Movie, song, you name it...

Well, a game like Brian is advocating doesn't have to be instead of traditional CRPG fare, but could be in addition to, no? Let's try 'em all I say!

I mean, sometimes you want to kill orcs and take their +1 longswords. Sometimes you want to pretend to be a long-dead Greek philosopher and talk rings around your fellow gamers. Depends on the weather.

"I mean, sometimes you want to kill orcs and take their +1 longswords. Sometimes you want to pretend to be a long-dead Greek philosopher and talk rings around your fellow gamers."

And sometimes you want to take your +1 longsword and hush the philosophers.

It was either Eichmann or Goerring who said, "When I see an intellectual I want to grab my pistol."

My entirely premature take on The Sims Online is that it will be very useful in determining if a purely social roleplaying game with a 'popularity score' as the goal can work. One major issue I have with existing MMORPGs is the pointlessness of personality on them. To hear 'roleplayers' on MMORPGs complain about the lack of roleplaying is a bit like the Sam Kinnison skit about starving people in Somalia. "Go where the food is!" MMORPGs aren't about roleplaying IC personas - they're about levelling and power accumulation. Anything else is a desperate fig leaf and one that doesn't fit very well at that. The Sims Online will be all about personality but personality without consequence or much context.

But, hey, every little babystep and experiment is a good one. I wish 'em luck.

Exactly what I was thinking Brian, well put.
I have no interest in the game, but I'm with Geryk when it comes to dressing like an Elf. The last thing I want to do is hang out in Simland for $10 a month. But it could launch a whole new genre in online gaming. A much more "mainstream" one, potentially. That would be good for the biz right about now.

-Andrew

The Sims Online should be popular initially. I'm not sure it has long-term legs because it's really mostly a graphical chat world from what I can see. If there are enough built-in mini games (Hearts, Spades, poker, etc.) it may have enduring popularity.

I can't imagine it being a hardcore gamer's game, though.

"I can't imagine it being a hardcore gamer's game, though."

I agree. But if it can create a non-hardcore crowd as big and lucrative as UO or EQ... then I think it'd have a huge effect on the industry. Maybe not a good effect, from a hardcore gamer's point of view, but it'd open things up to some interesting ideas that seemed impossible before.

Wright's genius was seeing that potential for a single player game. Maybe he's right again. Kids, afterall, spend hours in chatrooms. Why not add graphics and cuteness and charge for it monthly?

Then again, maybe it'll be a gigantic failure...

-Andrew

I've got a hunch it'll do alright. It's much easier for the guy on the street, alright the girl on the street, to relate to socializing as the premise for a game to stat building. "So you kill stuff and get stronger." "Then what?" "You kill more stuff. Oh, bigger stuff with more valuable items." "Valuable? What do valuable items do?" "In general they help you kill things or keep from being killed." "And then what?" "You kill yet bigger things?"

Anyhow...I think they'll do alright. "So, you have parties and build a circle of friends. The most popular people get high scores." "Oh! That's just like life."

The difference is, if I understand it correctly, is that people can import objects and textures into The Sims Online. This is kinda important. Being able to customize one's character and space to this extent is new and worth inspection.

Hey, I never played the Sims. I don't like SimCity. But when I saw Will Wright demo Sims Online for us at E3, I was impressed. Real impressed. I found myself saying, "yeah, I wanna do that!" "That" being dress up in stupid outfits with a dog head and build a house with a cannon out front. And similar stuff.

Sure it's a huge graphical chat room. That's what EQ is for most of the people in it, albeit with a fairly boring game tacked on. I exaggerate, but only slightly. Sims Online has a lot of stats, tracking who is popular and who visits whom and the like. The ability to build stuff that becomes a part of the persistent world, and to affect other people by creating attractions that people rate and visit and talk about--this is heady stuff.

The absence of death (you can even kill people who come to your house and have a ghost party, because dying is completely "free"), the presence of yardsticks like money and fame, and the ability to customize ad infinitum--I think this game is going to be huge, and it won't need Hearts or Spades to do it.

My wife's comments were something along the lines of "How cool! That's gonna be so fun! I LOVE the Sims! I can't wait!! What? It's gonna cost a monthly fee? Ah, well. It's probably stupid anyway. I don't want it."

I just wonder how representative this is of most casual gamers. Will they pay $10 a month for a graphical chat room? I'm not so sure. I mean, heck, if my wife doesn't want to, I'm not sure anyone will...She really loves the Sims.

And, Robert, if you've never played the Sims, you should. (I'd loan you my CD if I knew where it was...I think it's on loan to someone else right now...) It's a game that everyone should play, though, just so they can say that they've played. It's pretty fun, too. Gameplay-wise, it's not bad. (Though my wife's favorite part is building the houses, then ignoring the people that live there to go build another one...)

What I can't wait to see is how EA handles the inevitable grief players. Because they will be there. And with the amount of stone newbies to online gaming trying to play and chat and socialize and do whatever it is you'd do in SO?

Wolves among sheep. Grief, irritation, and annoyance of truly Biblical proportions.

...not to mention how much of a mess it'll be if they have technical problems or lots of lag. What happens when one of these online "newbies" has their character or home wiped by a bug?

Hoo boy... this ought to be fun to watch. One thing World War II Online and Anarchy Online have in their favor is that most of the players are very aware of the problems with buying online games (they're never quite done, lag, nerfing, cheating, other players are assholes, etc.). Those things are often forgiven by a large quantity of players (why that is I have no clue).

Sims Online will have many players with no such preconceptions of online play. It better not be another Ultima Online or it could be lawsuit territory again for EA.

--Dave

I dunno...The Sims has been handled very well so far. The Maxis teams has done some great things. All their releases have been solid. I'd be surprised if this wasn't one of the smoothest MMOG launches to date.

But, then, that's blatant speculation on my part.

"Hey, I never played the Sims."

Robert, I think you'd be less bully about Sims Online if you had. Novelty can only take you so far before that cannon on the lawn is, well, as dull as a cannon on your lawn and a dead man's party is just another vapid party filled with people you wouldn't want to meet in real life.

Still,
I agree with your post. It will be huge for exactly the same reasons you mention, but it's still the Sims. A land where actual gameplay only exists in the smallest of ways and shallowness abounds. Ok, yeah, it's a lot like LA.

What I'm saying is you're letting the marvelous possibilities run away with your imagination. Try the single player game, just for a few hours, and you'll probably see what I mean.

-Andrew

You're pretty hard on it, Andrew...

I'm almost ashamed to say that I have spent several hours trying to get those promotions. I dunno...Maybe you have to be a pretty materialistic person to enjoy the gameplay for hours.

I don't know why, but I like that game. When I start playing, I just can't stop.

No, no Michael!
Don't be ashamed if you enjoyed several hours playing the Sims. It's a fascinating and extremely well crafted peice of software and I consider Wright to be a genius for believing in it, creating it and getting it out the door. I enjoyed it for a couple weeks of intense play, I reviewed it and scored it very high.

What I can't imagine is playing it month after month after month after month.... Or for those things that looked impressive in the E3 Demo EA gave staying interesting over the long haul. How much virtual partying can you do before you just get really freaking bored?

-Andrew

Yeah, I don't play it like I used to. Now, I used to spend weeks, if not months, playing little else. Now, it comes in spurts. But even now, once I start it up, I just can't shut it down.

Speaking of the Sims...I, for one, am a little disappointed in the last expansion pack. The next sounds interesting, though. (On principle, I hate to buy three expansion packs for one game, but...) I understand there's gonna be a "downtown" area, where you can meet for a date. That's something worthy of an expansion. And an expansion worthy of buying, I think.

Well, the most fascinating part of The Sims was trying to keep your Sims happy. They've removed that from The Sims Online.

I understand and appreciate all of the comments here about why Sims Online might have problems. I still think, though, that the online chat with a structure format they're going for is dead-on. We'll see if it works as a paying venture.

No telling until we see but the sort of people who would be interested in even trying it out will be wanting it to succeed and will be very suseptible to wanting to continue friendships and cliques formed there. Assuming no major technical glitches, I have to agree with Robert.

However I also think that this isn't the long term answer for online roleplaying and it isn't really even considering itself a roleplaying game for that matter. WW2 Online is as interesting an experiment to me as The Sims Online is. It focuses solely on combat but I have to wonder if unit structures and IC chains of command, and habits of communication, aren't forming. This is very much roleplaying too if without a deeper context for other aspects of persona or setting.

I've said elsewhere that the average flight sim Squadron member is a better roleplayer than the average UO player. They develop behaviors and personas, some even histories and diaries, that are very fitting for their setting and work with others in a manner that works both efficiently and to preserve suspension of disbelief. If this starts happening organically on WW2 Online it has interesting implications.

You've got to be insane if you dont think Sims Online wont do well. The games been in the top 5 for well over a year, almost two. What I think will make it succeed is basically what it says it is. An online chat area with things to play with in the vein of The Sims. Dont forget people WILL roleplay in this game, I could imagine people having imaginary holiday parties, bday parties, raves... all of that. Will Wright really wants it to be an outlet for socializing. He has no qualms for people being addicted to it and spending 24-7 on it... in fact he encourages it! (based on Happy Puppy interview i read).

Its not a massively multiplayer game like AC,EQ or UO. Essentially it will probably have areas or burbs, sorta like a mini server where people of similar interest will setup shop and "live". From there it looks like they will have areas for business and living and other such stuff. They could probably be able to travel to other areas or burbs...

Believe you me folks, this game is gonna be big. Hey, I may think its gonna blow chunks (no real gameplay in the "gaming" sense)... but that wont stop millions from wanting to speak simtalk online! This game could replace irc and aim and other such chat interfaces for people. And dont doubt they have planned expansions and other frills to add to it. Amusement parks, concerts... even celebrity drop-ins (drew carey's online house!) and stuff. maybe even being a portal to play other games. card games, gambling, bowling... a virtual world.

Theres a lot to be had in this game if done right as well... There could be a mini economic model in the game that beats out Ultima Online and other games since you will be dealing with "normal" people, instead of "gamers", with pretty much real life stuff.

anyway

etc

Also, this game will essentially be like an online soap opera... its gonna be huge. Did you see the video of it in the recent CGS+? Friggin hilarious. Makes ME want to play it.

etc

Certainly folks will roleplay in The Sims but there's little to encourage IC roleplaying or roleplaying with any depth. A well roleplayed character, like a well acted one, needs motivation and context. The play and its author, or the roleplaying environ, need to create reasons, motives, for behavior so the actor and the audience can make sense of the role.

In a setting without consequence, no death and no serious economic considerations, huge behavioral influences on people are removed. A setting that focuses on being a graphical chat room with stuff to do may encourage a sort of roleplaying and acting out but not one that serves to create a believable setting or cultural melieu.

Do most people care about this? I have to believe they would if they thought about it. I also have to conclude that most people have other things on their mind. I do agree that The Sims will be successful and elements from it could do to inform future MMORPG (or Trog) designers about how to engage players on levels other than simple levelling.

---

Quote:

Believe you me folks, this game is gonna be big. Hey, I may think its gonna blow chunks (no real gameplay in the "gaming" sense)... but that wont stop millions from wanting to speak simtalk online! This game could replace irc and aim and other such chat interfaces for people.

---

Good lord, I doubt any MMORPG could handle the numbers the Sims has sold. They'd really only have to beat EverQuests current numbers. 3-4k innit?

-Andrew

EQ's at about 400,000 subscribers. My guess is that it will peak at something over half a mil. The Sims Online may beat that, but when I described it to my wife and kids who enjoy The Sims, they weren't interested. They really like having the little family to deal with that they have to make happy. EA removed all that from the online version.

I'm hoping Wright is working on making the Sims a more complete game.

1. The meeting places in Hot Date are a good step.
2. Kids should grow up and Sims should grow old. It's just not interesting for long without that, IMO.

I'm interested in Simsville. But it's taking too long, the Sims iron... how long will it remain hot?

Also, on a side note because the RollerCoaster Tycoon PC commercial is now inescapable on cableTV, what is Chris Taylor up to?

-Andrew

---

Quote:

Also, on a side note because the RollerCoaster Tycoon PC commercial is now inescapable on cableTV, what is Chris Taylor up to?

---

Chris Taylor is making Dungeon Siege and had nothing to do with RollerCoaster Tycoon.

I presume Bub means Chris Sawyer. Just goes to show the perils of working without a research assistant...

-Tom

BURN!

Damn, more of Tom's vendetta against Bub.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning

heh heh... that was a good dig though. >=)

--Dave

... and not completely undeserved.

While I like Chris Taylor (of Dungeon Siege fame) the name was in my head because of Chris Taylor (of Starfleet Command 2) fame. I've been dealing with him for a magazine feature I'm doing on Trek stuff.

-Andrew
Note to self: Use fact-checker when posting near Jack Chick's house... er, Tom Chick.