Did you guys get a look at Bethesda's Morrowind ? The graphics have been reported as being groundbreaking for a CRPG.

I looked at it. Groundbreaking? Only if you didn't see anything else coming out this winter. They would have been groundbreaking if you saw them last summer.

Graphics were top-notch, but no Star Wars: Galaxies. THAT was what I call groundbreaking graphics.

I thought Morrowind looked interesting. Like Daggerfall, it's pretty ambitious. Because of Daggerfall, I'll take a wait and see attitude with this one and not allow myself to get excited over it, like I am over Freedom Force.

I was talking to Desslock and he thought Morrowind was one of the better games of the show, for what it's worth.

Thanks,

I will also take a wait and see attitude. I lost count of the number of patches released for Daggerfall.

>I was talking to Desslock and he thought Morrowind was one of the better games of the show, for what it's worth.

Yeah, better RPGs, at least. I agree with what Jason said as well, however, Star Wars Galaxies was truly impressive graphically. Morrowind's graphics reminded me of those in Ultima 9 - definitely the best yet in a first-person perspective RPG - but also suffered a bit from 3D "sameness". Still, I thought the game looked fantastic.

"Morrowind's graphics reminded me of those in Ultima 9 - definitely the best yet in a first-person perspective RPG - but also suffered a bit from 3D 'sameness'."

It's that "sameness" that really bothers me. All these games look the same. An elf is an elf is an elf. Except when it's a dark elf, and then it's still sort of an elf. Seriously, I find that no matter how good the textures are, all these 3D fantasy games look very similar. One castle is just like another.

I liked it better when game designers/artists had limited resources to spend on graphics and thus each game had its own distinct look.

They should call game artists something else these days, because they're certainly not artists. As far as I'm concerned, trying to get something to look as close as possible to a photograph is the antithesis of being an artist.

"As far as I'm concerned, trying to get something to look as close as possible to a photograph is the antithesis of being an artist."

Call me when you have a good photo of a wood elf.

File this message under "not using your imagination."

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Bruce, I think your complaint is slightly missplaced. It's not that the graphics look the same because the engines are so powerful or because the artists aren't so good or whatever. It's because the game designs are unimaginative and call for beautiful and artist representations of the same crap we've seen 100 times. =)

I think game artists are often extremely talented and I think it takes a lot of effort and ability to make the engines and artwork that makes a really good looking elf.

Blame the publishers and developers (probably mostly the former) for the fact that they all look the same. And who can blame them, when Final Fantasy X and Metal Gear Solid 2 VIDEOS draw enormous crowds?

On that note, though, Sega's taking it another direction with Monkey Ball and Jet Grind Radio stuff, and that Cel Damage game was such a living cartoon that I was more impressed with it than with Halo. SOME people are letting a few different-looking games sneak through.

>As far as I'm concerned, trying to get something to look as close as possible to a photograph is the antithesis of being an artist.

If that were true, then my sorry self could easily whip out a drawing of someone that looked like a black&white photograph. =)

"Call me when you have a good photo of a wood elf."

I can certainly give you a good photo of a castle.

I don't know why all the elves look the same, but they do. When everyone uses the same figure models, the textures don't seem to matter. All these polygon figures in fantasy games look the same to me. And (especially) the terrain. If it looks great to you, then enjoy it.

I strongly disliked Nival Interactive's Evil Islands for a number of reasons, but one of its few charms was the fact that it was made in Russia by people who weren't quite so steeped in fantasy stereotypes.

At one point in the game, you find out you're going to have to go out and deal with 'woodfolk'.

"Lovely," I thought, after having faced the typcial orcs and goblins, "Now I get to meet elves."

I was pleased to find their 'woodfolk' were more like three-eyed sectoids than elves. God bless the Russians.

Later, there's a goofy Aztec priest standing in where the 'wizard' was supposed to be. No pointy-hatted graybeard here! At another point, I sallied out to fight a 'demon', only to find a guy in a turban and baggy pants. Those Russians are weird.

-Tom

That's why they lost the cold war Tom... corporate status quo will always triumph over the evil of weird.

Thats precisely why I liked Evil Islands (besides the gameplay)... it has a "grungy" feel to its fantasy without being too serious. Look at Serious Sam, some of those monsters are of the "nutty type". Those East Europeans, i tell ya, they are the future of PC gaming! don't forget Operation Flashpoint! (the best game i played this year is a DEMO!!!!)

Also, Im with Bruce with the graphics thing... too many games have character models that look the same... imo, console titles seem to have better looking models... games like Shenmue and Phantasy Star Online have character models that would blow ANY pc game away.. coupled with fighting games like DoA2 and Soul Calibur I would say PC games are WAY behind consoles in doing believable and good looking character models... the only pc game to do character models some justice is EQ (and thats with a LOW poly count)! Gnomes look like gnomes, elves look like elves, Barbarians like etc etc etc. Yes Im one of those dorks who likes the look of Wood Elf females in EQ. I want to marry one of those nubile elves.

etc

Morrowind sounds like the game Daggerfall was supposed to be--focused on a handful (what, 30 maybe?) of towns, each custom built and not a cookie-cutter randomized dungeon to be found. Some real depth perhaps, and still a sizeable game. Then again, given the fiasco that was Daggerfall before umpteen patches, I will wait and see how things pan out. I'm cautiously optimistic.

One thing the developer said in my meeting with him was:

"You can keep walking and never stop!"

See, now I consider that a bad thing in an RPG.

-Andrew

>I will wait and see how things pan out. I'm cautiously optimistic

I feel a little more positive, even though I was very disappointed with the state Daggerfall was released in (I wouldn't have given it the high scores it generally received at the time of release). There actually aren't that many people who worked on Daggerfall even at Bethesda any more - this game is really being made by the Redguard team, and that game was pretty solid. It's definitely the kind of game I wish more developers were working on, at least. Very promising.

>>"You can keep walking and never stop!"
>See, now I consider that a bad thing in an RPG

Why? Do you want arbitrary boundaries that block your character in, so the world resembles a perpetual canyon? He probably just meant you could walk anywhere freely.

Stefan

"Do you want arbitrary boundaries that block your character in, so the world resembles a perpetual canyon?"

Well, I don't want the canyon but yes, I do want the artificial boundaries. But that's a personal preference. I feel a self contained smaller world will have more detail and more attention to detail than a sprawling one.

I didn't like Daggerfall because what many saw as freedom, I saw as aimlessness and lack of focus. But then again, to each his own.

-Andrew

I agree. Just because I can walk anywhere doesn't mean I should have to. Essentially, I want the illusion of being able to walk anywhere. If I actually have to wander around looking for stuff, I'm going to run up against those artificial boundaries, and that's just crappy gameplay in the first place.

For example, I liked Fallout. Technically, you can wander around the desert or go to any city on the map. However, the game is designed to lead you to certain areas. Effectively, you feel like you can go anywhere, but really it's just that you never run up against the boundaries.

- Alan

"I agree. Just because I can walk anywhere doesn't mean I should have to. Essentially, I want the illusion of being able to walk anywhere. If I actually have to wander around looking for stuff, I'm going to run up against those artificial boundaries, and that's just crappy gameplay in the first place."

Precisely. Steve Bauman made this same point WRT difficulty. You want a game that gives the _illusion_ of difficulty, but in reality just makes things hard enough to keep you challenged, but doesn't cross that fine line into frustration.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, is worse than frustration in gaming. I think that may be the only reason my wife never plays computer games. The trick is to provide alternatives-- Mario 64 is an excellent example of this. You need 75 of 150 coins, which can be achieved any number of ways.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

So, in line with this conversation, how do you guys feel about Baldur's Gate? Just curious how it struck you in these regards?

Too confining? Not confining enough?

Baldur's Gate 2 struck an excellent balance. There was always something to do and only some of the time were you stuck in the middle of a quest. You could blow off some of the more frustrating or dull quests at will or just hang around for freaking months doing every single quest in Chapter 2.

My point is, (and less so in even BG1) in BG2 you always knew where you were going, why and what for, and best of all there was a huge variety of things to do which gave the illusion of freewill without also granting the frustration real freewill/freedom gives some of us.

I'm not saying Morrowind should be this way. There is something to be said for total freedom but I prefer more focus myself.

I'd argue Ultima was a good example of tremendous freedom with a strong sense of purpose/quest (IV-VII I mean)

-Andrew

I really liked what they did from BG to BG2. They ditched the big wilderness squares with little or no purpose. Sure there were a few quests in the middle of nowhere but I felt like I was mowning a lawn uncovering the outdoor maps in the original BG. In BG2 if you are in an outdoor area there is a good reason for being there.

Overall I really stuggled to like BG while BG2 seemed paced better with better design descisions.

-- Xaroc

Baldur's Gate 2 may be the single best example of a developer truly learning from it's mistakes and listening to critics/fans since, well, maybe since Civ2.

Incidentally, I have high hopes after seeing Aliens vs. Predator 2 for that very reason.

-Andrew
PS: As an unrelated aside Zoo Tycoon looked good but, come on, I think Chris Sawyer could successfully sue them. I mean "inspired by" is not the same as "the exact same terrain elevating tool".

I'm all for randomness and plain vanilla cities ala Daggerfall. Really its the "build your character anyway you like" aspect of Daggerfall i liked the most, with the 3d first person view being second. Morrowind, as much as i want it to succeed, looks more and more TOO limited compared to Daggerfall... the game world is not random in anyway, i may be in a minority, but the randomness in Dagerfall gave it a "personal" aspect to it. I mean there would be cities nobody ever saw in the game... at least in idea it lent to a greater replayability without seeing the same thing over and over again. anyway, the plug in part of Morrowind is the part i like the most...

If they had redone a carbon copy of DAggefall with a few specific settings, and made it graphically as good as anything with a Quake 2 engine Id be happy enough.

etc

"I don't know why all the elves look the same, but they do."

Tolkein.

Amanpour

"I agree. Just because I can walk anywhere doesn't mean I should have to. Essentially, I want the illusion of being able to walk anywhere."

I realize this has nothing to do with your little RPG conversation here, but this statement reminds me of playing SSX.

Now I do not own a PS2, so I've only played this game at Shoot Club, so my terminology will be restricted to words like "thingy" and the like. Deal with it.

This statement reminds me of SSX because there is a freestyle area you can unlock that is just incredible to play. It lends the impression that you can go anywhere on the entire mountain. I was just totally enthralled by this, both from a playing standpoint and from a designing standpoint. How does a designer do that, make that type of thing possible? Everytime I've played that "course" I've felt I could board anywhere I wanted to. Loved that.

Okay, random moment over. You may get back to your discussion and back to your use of initials for everything.

Amanpour

Actually, the SSX mountainside is a great example of guided freedom: no matter where you go, you're still going to end up at the bottom of the mountain. It's a classic illustration of many paths leading to the same goal. All RPG designers should play that level.

-Tom

Damnit, I can't unlock the Freeride track. You need a gold in tricks on Pipedream to do it, and we have golds in all the tracks with all the riders in race mode, and on all tracks except Pipedreams, with most riders, in show off mode. Grr.

As for Morrowind and the question of freedom, I'm on the side of those who want some limits with the illusion of freedom, more than unlimited horizons. I found Daggerfall to be, in the end, boring, because there was little point to anything--you could raise your skills in magic by casting fireballs in the inn, and you could hide in a shop over night and take anything you wanted with impunity, for example--and the dungeons were random to the point of being ludicrous, IMO. I did love the game for a few months, though, so I won't complain. I would prefer, though, to explore a set number of areas that are well crafted. If the game gives me the illusion of freedom, and lets me wander about in and between those areas at my discretion, I think I'll be happy.

---

Quote:

"I don't know why all the elves look the same, but they do."

Tolkein.

---

I might be one of the few that actually liked BG1 more than Bg2 for that fact. Except for Chapter 2, BG2 was pretty much an rpg on rails... yes it was a great rpg, but it all felt mashed together to me.

etc

>found Daggerfall to be, in the end, boring, because there was little point to anything--you could raise your skills in magic by casting fireballs in the inn, and you could hide in a shop over night and take anything you wanted with impunity, for example--and the dungeons were random to the point of being ludicrous.

I agree with all those points, other than I didn't care about the skill exploit (fireballs in the inn) -- that's pretty much the same in any skill-based system that rewards use of those skill, and I like those systems.

But Daggerfall's world was kind of pointless because of the randomness, not the non-linearity or freedom to explore. Morrowind should be both non-linear and give you that freedom, and yet since the entire world has been hand-designed, it'll always be interesting. Probably my favourite aspect of RPGs is have the ability to freely explore a cool world (which is why I loved the Ultimas), and Morrowind looks to deliver a much more enjoyable, and substantive, experience than Daggerfall in that regard.

I was pretty impressed with Morrowind's customizability. I'm not sure I understood it, but it looked like creating new dungeons and adventures and adding them to your own game was a snap.

-Andrew

"But Daggerfall's world was kind of pointless because of the randomness, not the non-linearity or freedom to explore. "

Ya know, Stefan, that's the best description of Daggerfall that I've seen. I'm always looking for an RPG that gives me the illusion that it is an open ended world, rather than a forced path. Daggerfall seemed to provide that, and thus I tried SO hard to like it, but it dissapointed me for reasons that I found hard to articlulate. The Ultimas were much more satisfying, and I didn't really realize why until I thought about what you just posted.

(BTW - Stefan - please email me at [email protected])

Jeff

I kind of find it hard to be really sympathetic with the point of view of someone who complains that a single player game is broken because they've found ways to metagame the system. My suggestion is, don't do it. You have the power.

Daggerfall is a bit frustrating, I suppose, in that certain things were broken, and remain broken, and the randomization of dungeons and quests could lead to repetative experiences.

On the other hand, great goddamn, it was a huge world! A world you could explore in first person. A world with competing factions you could associate with /as you chose/ and your actions would cause feedback through a faction-based reputation system that would not only affect what missions a player got but sometimes the internal scripting of those missions. This really would give a feel of cause and effect, personalization, to a character's past decisions and how they shaped that character's identity and future.

Okay, so alot of the reputation system was broken, but some worked. Enough worked.

I suppose my almost uniformly favorable opinion of Daggerfall is because it is the only CRPG that understood what a real roleplayer knows - a character is his biography not just a statsheet. A roleplaying game is only a roleplaying game if the player can have some control over who is character is in a narrative sense. Every other CRPG I've played feels much more like connecting predestined dots whilst scavenging loot and exp, rather than sinking behind the mask of a free-willed persona striding through a, relatively, responsive virtual world.

All criticisms are valid about the dungeons and shallow NPCs, this is true, but it least it dared go where it did. I'm not sure how Morrowind will be able to maintain that level of freedom and also flesh characters and settings out as much as they plan. Keeping my fingers crossed though.

I would argue that it comes down to an issue of development resources (time and money). I would rather have a small but highly detailed world instead of a huge but shallow world. Games are often only as good as their crappiest aspects. Therefore, I think compromising detail for scale hurts the overall quality of the product.

This doesn't mean the two are mutually exclusive. I'm still impressed by the Baldur's Gate games, which have huge amounts of content without sacrificing gameplay. Neither did I particularly think Daggerfall was bad because of the aimless wandering. I just think they wasted a brilliant opportunity to make the some of those outlying areas compelling from a gameplay standpoint. As mentioned above, the fact that those areas were random is probably the part that annoyed me.

- Alan

"a free-willed persona striding through a, relatively, responsive virtual world. "

thats exactly why i like daggerfall alot... its complete open endedness... plus the fact you can enchant items, make spells and own a horse and a house... although these aspects were rarely part of the essential gameplay they offer a feeling of accomplishment to playing your character. of course daggerfall had open and bland generic towns, but it still felt new to me, plus i like the random dungeons... it was sorta like a diablo in 3d with an extensive character creation kit.

anyway, morrowind does look promising though the "no random towns" aspect of it kind of takes away from what the elder scrolls games really are... i mean we already have tons of other rpgs with specific locations and towns... its good to have an open ended rpg to play with even if it can be bland sometimes.

Ill still buy morrowind anyway.

etc

Brian and I have this running argument about Daggerfall. I respect his opinions, but to me, exploring Daggerfall was as I said rather pointless--to me, not necessarily to someone else. I do like the ability to chart my own course, but it has to mean something to me. At the end of the day in Daggerfall, what did exploring do for me? Nada, IMO, because I didn't get much satisfaction from just wandering around. Just me.

As for skill based systems, Stefan, I agree--using skills to improve them is fine. I just think that "using" combat skills should, well, be in combat. In the case of offensive magic, to me it's not enough to be able to cast a fireball, as any apprentice wizard could do that in a laboratory (or inn room!) setting. Now, try that with a vampire bitch slapping you, and a demon on your tail--for that, you should get a skill increase :=).

Well, I do understand Bob's point of view and I respect it. However, since my point of view on the subject of roleplaying games is one I rarely see reinforced I sometimes overenthusiastically state my case. What a RL roleplayer looks for in a CRPG is bound to be different from that a computer gamer would look for.

Since I just had a fairly decent tear elsewhere on the subject of roleplaying recently I'll let my argument stand on its merits, or lack thereof.

Can we please have an RPG based on "The Morrow Project"? I've been reading the books, and in fact might be a freelancer on the upcoming 4th edition if things work out right. Neat storyline. In fact, it's amazing how much the story of "The Postman" ripped off Morrow Project almost to the letter. MP is from 1983 or so, thus having dibs on the credit. :-)

My favorite RPG world is Jorune. Too bad the only computer attempt at a Jorune game was that miserable "Alien Logic" thing. It really begs to be a MMORPG, it's so different and yet completely fleshed out, even down to the political climate of the different realms.

Bingo! The Morrow Project. I was trying to remember the name of that one the other day at cdmag.com. We were talking about lethality in combat and my point was how realism can help invoke and enforce an immersive environment. Morrow Project was brutal and intense compared to other RPGs of that period. So it was easier for us as roleplayers to respond realistically, that is with sweaty palms and a heady sense of dread, to the combat oriented scenarios. Man, it's been ages. I used to have the first edition of that one.

My favorite RPG setting, overall, is Barker's Tekumel (Empire of the Petal Throne). It's simply amazing in depth. The aliens/nonhuman races could use a modern makeover but the richness of the cultures there are just great. After that, for roleplaying more than setting, it's Wujik's Amber Diceless Roleplaying which probably wouldn't translate well on the PC (aside from text-based roleplaying settings). Harnmaster is my favorite classic fantasy RPG setting for the realism and believability of it all and combined with modified magical elements from Ars Magica it's near perfect. Last Unicorn's Aria is a brilliant read but impossible to play. My other favorites are the usuals which most RPGers already know.