Is it just me, or is announcing an expansion pack for a game that's still a good year away a little presumptuous? Why not implement it into the current game? Seems a bit like a money grab to me.

And that's why I'll stick with Asheron's Call and Asheron's Call 2 when it comes out... I don't have to pay for my expansion packs...

That's one thing I really love about AC. The staff on the game is extremely dedicated. I thought the fact that LucasArts announced the expansion was not only presumptuous, but stupid. They could generate a lot more press and hype for an expansion if it was announced after the game is released.

For some reason, I DONT want Star Wars Galaxies to succeed... it all smells too much of marketing to me, what with the expansion announcements and almost "impossible" features they intend to have included (space flight sim w/ EQ gameplay? huh?).

Actually... I'm kind of sick of Star Wars period. I'm a scrooge.

etc

I'm a lot more excited about Bioware's RPG than I am about Galaxies. I hope I can dig up some stuff from Bioware... I should stop by there one of these days.

games im more hyped for than Star Wars Galaxies

NWN
Morrowind
Arcanum
Dungeon Siege
Wizardry 8
basically any solo rpg.

theres something about the "verant" attitude of keeping customers... they really dont care imo as long as they can make loads of money for it. in various interviews they note that "player retention is a big concern of ours"... as if we were cattle who had to play there games AT LEAST for a year.

plus playing a Wookie doesnt excite me... actually all the races for Star Wars Galaxies look GAY "GAY meaning DUMB". oh well, it will have phat graphics n all and you can fly a spaceship with a fish guy and camp yoda and sell it all on ebay.... YAY im excited.

etc

"camp yoda"

That was pretty clever. I guess that's the problem I have with EQ in a Star Wars Universe. How many times can you kill the emperor/Vader/blah blah before it has become Elves in Space with some pretty graphics?

For some reason, I too would like to see Verant get a little pie in the face. It'd help bring 'em back down to earth.

From what I saw at the presentation at E3, Galaxies is going to be a lot different than EQ. I specifically asked them how the game mechanics and structure would differ from EQ. Some major differences are there will be random spawning, so no camping a spot; there will be no levels, and all character improvement will be through skill development; the non-combat skills will be much more important, with many things in game that only other players can provide, from character looks (hairdressing, believe it or not) to funky weapons or equipment; exploration is going to be a bigger part of the game, with progressively wilder and more unstettled areas radiating out from settlements; you'll be able to build not only houses, but whole towns, with functioning governments; there will be no corpse retrieval and other such pains in the ass.

As for the expansion, yeah, it's a tad odd they'd announce this before the game is out, but the "year away" ETA may be exaggerated; sources tell us it could be more like late winter/spring 2002, though don't quote me on that :-). The space combat stuff looked pretty silly, to me, but no more infeasible than, say, Freelancer or Earth and Beyond, both of which use a more strategic mouse-driven interface for space combat than any Wing Commaner-esque game. I suspect that's what you'd get in Galaxies--based on how the guy was playing the space battle we saw, it seemed pretty much like a FPS in space type of thing, more twitch than Earth and Beyond but well within the compass of most RPGers abilities.

Now, there's no guarantee this thing will work. The demo we saw had fabulouos graphics, but that's about all--virtually no gameplay. And the presence of famous movie/storyline NPCs in the game is fine, but they haven't told us how we'll interact with them, except to say we can't kill them--you won't be able to change the Star Wars history. The war between the Empire and the Rebellion, apparently, will go on and on and on--it's in their interest to keep it rolling, and they've said as much. So no, you won't be able to kill the Emperor or crucify Luke or anything like that.

I'm stoked, though--if they can pull it off, this should be a great MMORPG that you can play without committing your life to, and one that will offer a lot of options for characters of widely divergent interest. It's all theoretical right now, of course, but it is promising.

Erm, well, ok, it IS 2nd half of 2002. Ben, our "source," was smokin' crack again. The bastard.

Yeah, I really like the idea of not having to invest six million hours into your character to keep him/her competitive. And I really like it that it's going to be highly skill-based, with accent on non-combat skills.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to this one.

I wasn't looking forward to this one until they said they would do space combat. I suspect I am not the only one in this boat. I couldn't envision a fully realized Star Wars universe with no X-Wings or freighters like the Millenium Falcon. Now I will go ahead and try the base game and assuming I like it, I will be able to save up and buy a starship by the time the expansion hits.

-- Xaroc

Personally, I think the Galaxies expansion is just what an "expansion" to an MMORPG should be. It's not new areas and monsters, it's a complete gameplay adjunct. That's why I think it makes sense to announce already. It's like this entirely seperate gameplay experience that happens in the same universe which is entirely optional. They use your character data, but it's a more action and fighting-oriented space sim that takes place between the planets of the Galaxies game proper.

As Bob said, Galaxies is *SO* not EQ with a Star Wars wrapper.

They gave a couple good examples of how famous NPCs should work--if you join the rebellion and get too powerful, Vader might start hunting you down (eek!). If you find Jabba on Tatooine, you can join his crime syndicate or do a job for them. Like agree to smuggle some stuff. Then let's say the stuff gets stolen and you never deliver; Jabba will hire a bounty hunter like Greedo to track you down, like what happened to Han Solo ("Tell Jabba I have his money. I don't have it WITH ME.").

I think they announced the space expansion because people were crabbing about Galaxies being EQ with wookies. They knew people wanted the space stuff and were upset that the shipping game wouldn't have it, so they basically did a preemptive strike. It also takes a bit of the wind out of the sails of Westwood's Earth and Beyond.

This is my take on what most likely will happpen with the gane... It will resemble Asherons CAll and Ultima Online instead of EQ. The skill based development and the idea of a player who doesnt need to fight is good, but i think the game will still be based on hack n salsh. There is no other way to play these mmrpg's without having a strict hack n slash model, unless they have a superior economy model than UO, which i doubt

Of course, the graphics will be good, comparably as good as EQ's were when it came out is my guess. plus, if the graphics arent scaleable to early p3's later p2's it wont do so well imo.

The space aspect will either be ditched, or be used as a seperate online game that uses some of the character data from sw galaxies.

People will NOT become Jedi's easily, they will be "suprise" given that status to the same ppl who camp the planes in EQ day in day out.

PK aspect of it will be minimal, it didnt work well in EQ but EQ sold well, so why mess with it.

The game will still be item centric... though i think it will be less so than EQ. it will resemble ASherons Call and UO is my guess.

Basically the game has a lot of great ideas, but im sure half of them wont be in the relase and the expansion will just be like any other EQ expansion (Kunark, Velious).

True test of the game is, if it WASN'T Star Wars.. would it still sell well and/or still be good? I mean you could do the same for the Star Trek universe couldn't you?

etc

The thing is, it IS Star Wars--that alone will carry a lot of weight. In other words, people will pay $10/month to hang around in a graphical chat room in Star Wars regalia and with Star Wars surroundings--bet the farm on it. If there's actually a game there, that's gravy.

I wish they would just call them MMOGCRs (graphical chat rooms) instead of MMORPGs. While they're at it, they should change the name of EverQuest to EverCrack, or maybe "Corpse Retrieval Tycoon." ;)

- Alan

---

Quote:

I wish they would just call them MMOGCRs (graphical chat rooms) instead of MMORPGs.

---

Yeah, but you don't need graphics to role-play. UO is a laggy MUD with rampant PK'ing. Granted, UO has gotten better over the years, but it's the whole "once bitten, twice shy" thing. If I had more time for online games, I'd probably be playing Counterstrike or Tribes 2. Essentially, I prefer improvement due to player skill rather than improvement due to avatar statistics.

- Alan

Fair enough. Still, it does allow for some wonderful role-playing. Granted, there is precious little -- if anything at all -- that couldn't be done as a MUD, but a lot of people who play UO want the graphics.

Okay, is it just me, or does the following phrase (from the Star Wars Galaxies website flash movie) just sound silly in that drifting yellow SW text:

"merchants, farmers, and artists struggle to survive..."

I think they're making a serious error with their character development. From what I've heard, they're touting the fact that you can be a bartender or a farmer... which seems like a poor design decision to hold over from UO. It WORKS in UO because of their priority on making a simulated world, but a Star Wars RPG should be about being the HERO, not the guy who sells beers to the hero. This is going to prove to be a big mistake when your casual players come in looking to be Han Solo or Luke Skywalker, and end up tending moisture farms like Uncle Owen.

Actually, I think that's still the problem with MMOGCRs, er, MMORPGs. In a massively multiplayer environment, you can't support multiple protagonists. Mainly, it's extrememly difficult to let the player permanently alter the game environment. Asheron's Call is maybe the closest I've seen. The problem is that if you let players alter the world, the guys who goes on vacation for the weekend comes back and finds out he missed out on the whole thing. Thus, the game is great for the people who spend 50 hours a week online, but sucks for everyone else. I remember back in the UO days where that one guy managed to assasinate Lord British. That made the game fun, because it proved that maybe the players could make a difference through their actions. Of course, they banned the guy. So much for that pipe dream.

The other big problem is accountability. Granted, these are games, and you should be allowed to experiment or play an evil character. Even so, there needs to be a way to prevent that from interfering with the other players. It may be fun to PK, but it certainly isn't fun to get PK'ed. It's the "Diablo" problem all over again.

Finally, these games bill themselves as RPGs. While you can role-play through text, the characters still seem very two-dimensional for the most part. You're essentially stuck with cookie-cutter avatars with limited actions and some minor texture changes to represent "uniqueness." There will have ato a fundamental change in the way MMORPGs are designed before the genre will really come into its own.

- Alan

I don't think it's a problem that you can't be "the hero" in an MMORPG. That never deterred me. In fact, it was quite the opposite. I was fascinated by the level of skill development. It made being an "ordinary guy" pretty tolerable, even fun. I enjoyed being the guy that makes bows. I liked being the carpenter, or the blacksmith. Essential skills for any adventurer, too, I'd say.

Hmmm. Interesting. I was annoyed that my actions couldn't have any effect on the game world. Basically, I felt it robbed my character of any individuality, which sort of defeated the purpose of role-playing. Maybe I'm just bitter in my old age. ;)

- Alan

I think being a blacksmith and bartender is really neat in games like UO, but it's not particularly Star-Warsy is it? I've heard folks come back from E3 talking about the innovative game design of SWG, but if they really were innovating, I think they'd be coming up with some ways to make players feel like heroes. So far, I haven't heard of any. Just some indications that they're making -- not EQ in space -- but *UO* in space.

I must say, I don't think I'd have any problem with UO in space, but UO supporters are becoming fewer and farther between...Perhaps you all are right, though. It might not be as fun to be a farmer or blacksmith in a Star Wars universe -- do they even have blacksmiths? -- but I'm sure they'll come up with something good.

I've always wanted to be a nerf-herder...

"I think being a blacksmith and bartender is really neat in games like UO, but it's not particularly Star-Warsy is it?"

No, but those are just some of the professions. You can be a bounty hunter, a Hans Solo like trader, etc. They just want to provide a variety of possible experiences.

Don't get me started on one of my favorite hobby horses--the problem with "persistent world" games is, well, persistent. They're all like Groundhog Day. Every time you log on, it's the same freakin' world--no matter how many huge evil Foozles the players have killed, or how many monsters have been erradicated.

It's as is if these games are snapshots of a single point in time, and they never move forward.

I confess I don't have the magic plan, but I'd love to see MMORPGs with closed-end worlds--let's here it for teleological role-playing!

Well, Anarchy Online has a 4 year story arc, so the world will change according to some master plan that's in part influenced by the players.

But yeah, I know what you mean. Having the world never really change, having the named ogre you just killed respawn a few hours later, etc., is a bit disappointing after awhile. Maybe a game like NWN will strike a nice balance between a single-player and MMORPG experience.

Asheron's Call is a similar beast in that respect. I've watched the Shadow war lead into the freeing of a world destroying demon, and then... well, you get the idea. Every month it's something else. Now, for the lower level player there really isn't much story arc, but for the higher up's, they have direct involvement in what's going on. Somebody had to put that demon to rest - the same people who woke his ass up in the first place in fact.

My problem though is that you get a quest to kill Evil Bob and do... but he's still there. I wonder if there's a way to fix that? AO uses quests that are "keyed" so you can only get to them once, and that seems a somewhat viable solution, given that you can take friends with you by splitting your quest key for them.

I haven't seen anyone mention this one: every one of the online MMORPG economies have ridiculous inflationary problems. Compare the amount of "power" you get for 100 gold, or the equivalent amount in equipment, to what someone can get for the same price six months later.

This kind of explains the oddity that always crops up: the currency becomes so worthless that the really good equipment is only traded in-kind; few people will even entertain the thought of taking any amount level 40 equipment.

The reason, I think, can be summed up in "power inflation." Pretty much, with every passing day the same amount of "work" in killing monsters, collecting gold, what have you, becomes ever-more worthless in terms of what power it will get you relative to the other players. Additionally, since they tend to keep ramping up monster strength as the game goes on (at least, I think so), new players get seriously screwed.

Not that I have any idea how to implement a working online variant of a reasonable free-market economy, but hey, I'm not being paid to do it. ;0

Actually, now that you mention it... Asheron's Call this month reduced the weight of pyreal (money) to ZERO. It used to be that you had to cash in your money for trade notes so you could ditch the encumbrance of carrying all that cash. The problem was that the largest notes were all but uncashable by characters without ultra-high strength, since the gold alone would leave you immobile instantly.

Well, now it weighs nothing, so there seems little need for their trade-note economic system.

I will be, Yoha - Jedi deli person. "I sense you have ticket stub 26 and that you want 1/2 pound of peper jack." Out comes the light saber...

Samurai Deli!
(not to be confused with Salavador Dali)

"But yeah, I know what you mean. Having the world never really change, having the named ogre you just killed respawn a few hours later, etc., is a bit disappointing after awhile"

Didn't a designer team for the LOTR online game plan for permanent character death? Now that would have been interesting.

Will there be a "Kill the Fool with the Ysalamiri" league? That might be interesting, and let me pursue a career as a wookie bookie. Are Ysalamiri even included?

>the problem with "persistent world" games is, well, persistent. They're all like Groundhog Day. Every time you log on, it's the same freakin' world--no matter how many huge evil Foozles the players have killed, or how many monsters have been erradicated

That's exactly the same problem I have with MMORPGS. Well, that and the fact that it's annoying as a casual player to be playing in the same sandbox as folks who devote, on average, 5+ hours a day to the game.

>Didn't a designer team for the LOTR online game plan for permanent character death?

Yeah, that was the original team, which was subsequently laid off. There are other games that are planning "permanent death", although you won't necessarily be permanently dead every time your character is "killed".

I've also thought permanent character death was an interesting idea, at least as an option. I had a number of extensive debates with the UO guys (who are now doing Star Wars Galaxies) on this point. They're not in favour of it, obviously, because of the frustration factor.

Stefan

"Well, that and the fact that it's annoying as a casual player to be playing in the same sandbox as folks who devote, on average, 5+ hours a day to the game."

This is why I have never subscribed to a MMORPG. It is annoying enough to get schooled regularly in (insert FPS of choice here), I don't really want to pay for the privilege of being a wussy.

Anyone ever play D2 in Hardcore mode? Reading throught the Hardcore Graveyard is enough to convince me I don't have time for permanent character death, but some people do.

When I was playing EQ regularly, in the betas and the first few months of release, I put in three to four hours a workday, and sometimes several times that on weekends. I managed to work a character up to the lofty heights of level 13 I think.

EQ does well with its 300,000 (claimed) subscribers, I guess, but I can't help but think that there might be more players out there who would pay to be part of a fantasy world where they didn't have to devote their lives to the game to experience most of what it had to offer.