Warlords Ascension

[nobleknight]

This is why I should never be bored...

4800: Losing The battle against the Fey, Dark Dwarves made clock work golems based on simple primates. Primates were chosen as they are highly adapted to forests and jungles, and had 2 sets of hands wich allowed for very dexterious weapon use. These new constructs were called Gibbons.

4850: Dwarves and High Elves refuges, thier races near extiction migrate into the lands of the Sirian Knights. This new conglomeration is called The Right.

4987: Goblin Tinkers Discover a way to fuse wind and lightning spells to ships in such a way as to create flight.

5200: Dark Elves and Lysean empire formally declare alliance, =calling themselves the Shadow Hand.

5375: Seletine empire Is destoyed by Ssrathi slave uprising.

5548: Gorgon Breaks free from his prison and tries to conquer Etheria.

5723: After nearly two centuries of fighting, most of the barbarian tribes and the minotaurs are exstinct. Bane is missing and presumed undead. The Right, The Dark Dwarves, and Melkor's Swarm are barely holding back Gorgons forces.

5837: In a move that is unrivaled in stupidity, rogue memebers of the Shadow Hand try to use the great summoning spell of Mordaine right at the capital city of Gorgon's Forces. The spell works, transporting a large portion of land (including the Gorgon lands) into Hell.

5840: After several years of massive earthquakes, the great sages tell of the end of Etheria, the last sundering being too much for the world to take.

5902: As the Great world of Etheria gives up it's last signs of life and explodes, five magically powered ships leave the serface of etheria. They fly off in five different directions.

The five race spread out conquering many worlds, and create five great empires. The five races:

The Right: A benvolant empire that is lead by one of the last surviving High Elves. Dwarves Quickly died out in space, cut off for long periods of time from thier life sustaing stone and runes. While the dwarves are dead, their legacy lives one, as it was dwarf technology that created the great mithril ships that The Right use to this day. Made up of Humans, Highe Elves, and Archons, The Right is a symbold of strength and fortitude.

The Forge: Dark Dwarves could fair no better than the thier cousins, but are not as constrained by honour. They discovered a way of capturing thier "spirits: in a form simular to a Shadow or Wraith. They continued creating constructs and using them to great effect, for they were well suited to the quiet void of space. The Forge is known for their slow but steady increase of thier borders.

The Forest Kinship: The Wood Elves and the Fey used thier great power of nature magic to grow great mystic trees that could be used to treverse the great void. The Forest Kinship is known for being passive unless provoked, and going to great lengths to preserve life on worlds where it exsists, and create it where it does not. One of the few races to still heavily use the ancient rights known as magic.

The Shadowmeld: From the survivers of the Shadow Hand. Unable to use thier dark magics and espionage to escape the great shattering of Etheria, they made an uneasy allaince with the Orcs, who's Goblins were more technically minded. The Shadow meld is a group of many cultures, the most varied empire in the galaxy. Made up of Orcs, Goblins, Arenians (Dark Elves fused with thier spider pets for greater duribility), and the Wrast (human twisted by evil and dark magics). The Shadowmel is far and away the most ruthless of the Galactic empires.

The Drak: Freed from their Seletine masters, the Ssrathi used thier keepers many contacts and thier sleeping dragon blood to escape the great cataclysm. Using anceint forgotten spells they were able to rebuild the Dragon Lords into a great spacefaring empire. Not much is known about the Drak.

The destruction of etheria wiped out not only the plane material, but the immaterial ones as well. Daemons, Archons, and elementals all were killed by the great catyclism.

The 5 horsemen were also no match for the great shattering. Melkor Anthrog and Sartek Were the first to go. Gorgon can not be destroyed, but without sustance, he eventually surcombed to the great void. And Bane... well, you can't kill death...

Banes Forces: Banes Body may have been destroyed, but Bane can not die. In a etherial form, he drifted through the remains of what was etheria slowly gathering energy. After several centuries of wandering, he finally gathered what he was searching for...the bodies of his brothers. Fusing them all together with what was left of demonic energy, he created a body of unimaginable power. He then went about stitching together a new armie... and he had much to work with, as all the lands and astral plains of etheria was his canvas.

Gameplay:

Maps will be fairly large, but barren, each being a star system. Each system will have planets and resource nodes.

There will be five resources including population limit.

Bio Matter - Gold

Metals - ore

Energy - Crystal

Components- Stone


Planets each have a bonus, depending on color and size.

Red: Fire planet - No Bonus
Orange: Gas Planet - Extra energy
Yellow: Desert Planet - Defense bonus
Green: Jungle Planet - Bio Matter bonus
Blue: Ocean Planet - Population Bonus
Purple: Ruined Planet - Components bonus

Reseach nodes

Asteroid belts: Metals

Anceint Battlefields: Components

Nebula and star: Energy

Each planet or resource station adds both bio matter and population limit.

Heroes and units:

Heroes have a super tricked out ship simular to hans solo from starwars. They have 4 choices:

Race - effects look of ship and race relations. Note, this is race...NOT empire.
Class - Effects skills and abilities
History - A one time alteration of stats, simular to fallout backgrounds
Ship Class - Adds a second level of skills

The Class system is simular to Warlords 4, with a primary (class) and secondary (ship).

Class/Proffesions:

Mercenary (Warrior)
Pirate (Thief)
Explorer (Ranger)
Preist
Inventor (Mage)
Trader (Merchant)

Ships:

Hammer (Warrior)
Hunter (Ranger)
Dagger (Thief)
Maintence (Priest)
Freighter (Merchant)
Research (Mage)

Units would be ships, and would be built on stations. While you could build a station anywhere, a planetary station (one built on a planet) would build considerably faster.

[nobleknight]

Stats.

Combat: same as current
Crew: Crew is sort of like HP, crew can repair ship hull and shields.
Hull: Simular to armour, but the more damage absorbed, the lower it gets.
Sheilds: Same as hull, but like resistance.
Speed: How fast the ship can go
Sensors: How far the ship can see in fog of war
Power: power == mana
Range: Duh...

Ships are only destroyed after hull reaches 0, hull slowly regenerates over time if crew is present... more crew means faster regen. Crew does NOT regenerate normally, and can only be replinished at a station. Stations also have crew, but station crew regenerate. Crew need to bve transfered...so to add 20 crew to a ship, a station needs to GIVE 20 crew. A station needs atleast 1 crew in order to regenerate them. If a ship or station is without crew, then it becomes inactive and neutral. Any player may then transfer crew to it to claim it, or set the auto destruct (ctrl-d).

There is 6 types of damage, and 6 counters, 3 for hull, and 3 for shield.

Particle Beam (peirce)<-> Corbonite Plating
Flak Canon (blunt)<-> Fiber Plating
Missle (slash)<-> Adamite Plating

Laser (fire)<-> Photon Shield
EMP (Electric) <-> EM shield
Tacheyon(Ice) <-> Temperal Sheild

Also the magic equivilant called quantum cannon

Empires

The Right

(HU)Squire: Small scout ship with dismal stats except speed and view. Gains defensive bonuses when near Knight and Paladin class ships

(HE)Long Bow: light fighter with longer range.

(HE)Dragon Slayer: A mid range fighter

(HU)Eagle: Light fighter

(HU)Knight: Medium cruiser

(HU)Paladin: Heavy Cruiser

(AR)Sirian Envoy: Support ship

(AR)Archon: Heavy cruiser


The Forge

Mudds: Like fighter that can construct

Slates: Medium Fighter with goold hull, poor shields.

Iron Hides: Medium Fighters

Gibbon Raiders: Light fighters (robot monkey pirates :)

Ancester: Espiange ship

Smithy: Mobile repair station, generates crew.

Jewel: Economic ship

Juggernaut: Large Heavily armoured capital ship (acts like a station)


The Kinship (Made up of dryads, Fey, treants, Wood Elves, and Aricorns (evolved from unicorns)

(F) Sylph: Small scout ship

(WE) Warden: Small long range fighter

(Tr) Anceint: Large heavy cruisers

(Dr) Guardian: A slow but heavily armed cruiser.

(Al) Yggrasil: Large support ship


The Drak:

Serpant

Raptor

Tyrant

Terron

Time Dragon (evolved from ice dragon)

Photon Dragon (Evolved from fire dragon)

Quantum Dragon (Evolved from Golden Dragon)



The shadowmeld

Maurader (orc)

Sniper (Kobold)

Command Ship (Goblin)

Aracna (Drider)

Ogre (Orc, ogres were to big for the escape ships)

Giant (Orc, see above)

These are no means set in stone.

Crew race also comes into play.

In order to build a specified ship, you need a respective station (there are different station, basically they are like buildings now). When you first create a ship, you get full crew of what ever the default is. A Maurader is built at an orc station so it comes with orc crew. After a ship is damaged, you can get replacements at a station, but you can get replacements of a different race. So lets say a maurader hold 200 crew, and 100 is killed, you could get 100 drider or goblin crew to make up the difference.

Now each race gives a bonus to thier ship for X ammount of crew... so lets say, orcs give combat, driders increase damage done to crew, goblins increase hull regeneration etc. This also comes into play if you kill all the crew but capture a ship... you then could have say... a kinship warden staffed with orcs for greater accuracy.

The campaign would be a risk type map, but with a story. Each "land" would be a star system, and the story would be about the return of Bane and the undead/daemon/scorpion/eye race.

Let the flames begin.

[Sir Vic]

8)

[Jodwin]

eww...a scifi strategy... :x

(that's just my personal quarrel with scifi, nothing to do with butchering Etheria)

[thesheeep]

Sounds like a TC of WBC to me ;)

[nobleknight]

Just a secondary series, not a replacement.

Gamers are fickle, and what developers wont vary from year to year... here lately they've been putting out futuristic RTS games (Supreme commander, death of a Solar Empire etc...).

Really, Etheria is a very dynamic world with a bizallion races and cultures. It very easily can be adapted to different genres. Unfortunately, fantasy tends to be the unloved cousin for the time being (well, maybe not... it's usually about 2 years off whats out in retail).

Basically, we don't want I2 to starve while waiting for a WBC or Warlords contract. Sure they have Puzzle Quest, and Coming out with several other portable games, would be nice to see some more robust games based in etheria (though puzzle quest IS very robust for a puzzle game).

Personally, on my wish list...

Warlords Ascension

Warlords Rise to Power (Hack 'n Slash, like Diablo but better story)

Warlords Arena (Fighting game, w/ RPG elements)

Warlords of Etheria...

O.k., that last one is complicated. I think I2 should try to get a license for the Adventure Quest flash engine, and redo the art. Sure flash is a pain in the bum, and it would take a lot of work... but if they use a similar game model, it would mean a continuous stream of income. AQ is a very popular game, and flash games in general are doing rather well.

So while I'd love to see a new WBC game... the truth is it depends on what the genre apparent is.

[Jodwin]

O.k., that last one is complicated. I think I2 should try to get a license for the Adventure Quest flash engine, and redo the art. Sure flash is a pain in the bum, and it would take a lot of work... but if they use a similar game model, it would mean a continuous stream of income. AQ is a very popular game, and flash games in general are doing rather well.

...you can't be serious. You CAN'T be serious! Adventure Quest is a horrible peace of steamy sh*t! It's by far the worst flash game of its caliber that I've ever seen. That thing doesn't even have anything to play!

Warlords Arena (Fighting game, w/ RPG elements)

Only if it would be 2D and inspired by Melty Blood (in terms of gameplay and character variety)... 8)

[Sir Vic]

mortal kombat 2...:twisted:

[Jodwin]

mortal kombat 2...:twisted:

Hell no. :P

[thesheeep]

...does anyone like to work with Mugen? ^^

[Jodwin]

...no ;) But I heard there's some Melty Blood characters created for Mugen...

[nobleknight]

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Adventure Quest is MASSIVE. Thousands of monsters, hundreds of quests...

What, did you play it years ago when it just started? Cause it's one of the best, highest rated flash games going now, second only by runescape.

It's doing so well, they already made a second game called dragon fable, and working on a third called Mech Quest. Not to mention several mini arcade style flash games.

They go regularly to game conventions (as developers) and are profitable enough to have publisher like sony approach them, and companies like Coke and pepsi wanting to buy ad space (currently running a coke premotion for mech quest)

I mean seriously... do you live under a rock?

[thesheeep]

Well it is nice for a browser game, yes...


How about a giant ogre that has a laser-cannon in his eye?
Would fit to the sci-fi theme :)

[Jodwin]

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Adventure Quest is MASSIVE. Thousands of monsters, hundreds of quests...

The word "MASSIVE", against common assumptions, does not equal quality. I don't care how much content Adventure Quest might have, I just know that the "gameplay" in it as repetitive, boring, zombifying as you can ever get. Even the MMORPG genre takes more effort to play (though only barely so).

And Runescape is crap too, I mean a game where most of the things to do consist of clicking on virtual trees, fishing ponds and lumps of rock to increase your virtual skills and make money? That sounds so exciting! I'm about to wet my pants!

I don't know about living under a rock, but if being conscious about the quality of my choice of games equals that in your head, then I guess that it's so.

[thesheeep]

Get used to it, Jod.

We live in times of games being constantly dumbed down and expactations of gamers considering depth and challenge being constantly lowered. ("Yeah I need to only press two buttons to get through this. What a great game!")

Some people even refer to games like Oblivion as true RPGs *shudder*...

I really believe him that he thinks it is a high quality game...

[nobleknight]

I never said that it was a high quality game... I've bitched to anyone who'll listen about it...

I said it was...

One of the best BROWSER FLASH games.. sure, that bar isn't set very high... but that doesn't matter.

One of the most popular... and it is...tens of thousands of active players

And I said it was massive... your right, that statement doesn't reflect quality... I never said that it did. You said "It's by far the worst flash game of its caliber that I've ever seen. That thing doesn't even have anything to play ! ". Both those are completely wrong, and I was just pointing it out. There is plenty of stuff (tedious as it might be) and is deffinately in the top 5. Last I checked it was number 2, but it's been awhile...

Wether any of us like it doesn't mean squat, it's what the average gamer likes, since thats where the money is. Sadly, flash games and MMO fluff is the lions share of the market now.

And so there is no confusion, I agree AQ and MMO's are tedious wastes of time, but agian, the hand full of die hard strategy fans does not a market share make...

[Jodwin]

You said "It's by far the worst flash game of its caliber that I've ever seen. That thing doesn't even have anything to play ! ". Both those are completely wrong, and I was just pointing it out. There is plenty of stuff (tedious as it might be) and is deffinately in the top 5. Last I checked it was number 2, but it's been awhile...

You are apparently ignoring my emphasis on the word "play." Certainly there is a lot of stuff to do in AQ, but is any of that stuff you do actually playing a game?

I don't really think so.

And there are a lot better browser based games out there. Newgrounds, for an example, has plenty of fun flash action games. Just that they aren't commercial games doesn't make them any less significant in the browser based game comparison.


@sheep: While, in most cases, I am against dumbing down games*, this is something different. The thing is that AQ and MMORPGs just really aren't games anymore. MMORPGs in particular are just (very) glorified chat rooms.

But I agree on your comment about Oblivion. Even though I never ended up playing too much of it since them dumbing down the skill selection and implementing the scaling difficulty just drove me away big time.



*But not always, for an example my favorite FPS game is classic Doom which is as basic a shooter as you can get. However the reason it scores so high for me is that at least it manages to keep the gameplay interesting and makes sure the game is about what it's supposed to be about: action (when speaking of the FPS genre).

[Zhinjo]

MMORPGs in particular are just (very) glorified chat rooms. "Glorified" takes on a whole new meaning if you're going to call MMO's glorified chat rooms.

There are lots of things you can do in an MMO that make it enjoyable to play other than chat. In fact, I often had the general chat turned off when I played, because the people in the game were annoying to listen to and were disrupting my enjoyment of the game world.

[nobleknight]

And there are a lot better browser based games out there. Newgrounds, for an example, has plenty of fun flash action games. Just that they aren't commercial games doesn't make them any less significant in the browser based game comparison.

Errr... you really need to play a game before you criticize it...

AQ and newgrounds are worlds apart. AQ is an entire world, with races, classes, events, etc...

Newgrounds is more of an arcade. One shot deals with a few progressing levels.

I DO like newgrounds btw.

And technically, yes it IS a game, just because you or I do not enjoy it, doesn't mean that others do not.

[Jodwin]

There are lots of things you can do in an MMO that make it enjoyable to play other than chat.

...like chop wood or keep repeating a few set dungeons until you score a level after which you can move over to an other dungeon. How is that playing, really?


@noble: Okay, just for you (awwww) I checked AQ again (it's been a while since I tried it, yes) and it was just as I remembered it. The actual playing of the game consists of nothing but clicking the "attack" button during battles. I really, Really, REALLY don't care how much stuff there is in it or how many races or classes or what there are in it if the "gameplay" is just that.

[Sir Vic]

I remember when I first played the original runescape on realarcade. WHere a image is used to show action.(like mining or fighting). But I found this game pretty fun...overall gameplay wise!!! Since it probably the first MMORPG I've played. These games are good for new players.

[nobleknight]

Runescape is passable, yes a good game for beginners.

@Jodwin... from level 1-10, yes, all you can do is attack. But you have multiple weapons, multiple spells, and class armours give around 6 forms of attack each, and your limited only by the class armour you carry (if you wear a mage robe, your a mage). Not to mention non-class armour that has selectable specials and such.

YES... AQ is boring and tedious, but you shouldn't judge it by a few rounds with a low level character... if you were going with a level 1-3 character in WBC3, you'd think they sucked too.

AQ is easily has similar depth to Diablo, and just as tedious.

In the end, you don't have to like it... it IS popular, and thats the point. A similar game from II, would culture more Warlords players, increase thier revenue, and make future Warlords games regardless of series more likely.

Warlords Crusade proves that a browser game doesn't need to be deep, complicated, or profound in order to be popular.

[Zhinjo]

There are lots of things you can do in an MMO that make it enjoyable to play other than chat.

...like chop wood or keep repeating a few set dungeons until you score a level after which you can move over to an other dungeon. How is that playing, really?Have you played RPGs on older systems like the SNES or even on a PS2? In terms of gameplay, they were less complex than almost any MMO currently on the market, yet they were still enjoyable. You get to experience the game's world and interact with it. Just because your means of interaction may be limited doesn't mean it's not a game to be played.

I mean, playing Solitaire is playing a game, FFS.


And just for the record, AQ bores me to tears. Different strokes for different folks...

[psycho]

You know zhinjo, you're proving the other side of the argument there. Fishing in ffxi is something to do, it is not fun. Working on your skills in everquest is something to do, it is not fun. Tedius things that are there just to make you spend time doing nothing are not fun.

The older rpg's were more fun exactly because they had less stupid shit to do in them.

An rpg is like an interactive book, the choose your own adventure books actually were interactive books. The quality of an interactive book obviously has two major points, the story and how it progresses. Between "War and Peace" and "mining for fish" I'll go for the third option of a frontal lobotomy. Choose your own adventures progressed by picking a page number to go with your decision. The ff series progressed by choosing from multiple attacks and abilities and killing badguys as you explored the world. MMO's don't even have a story to progress through, there are no titanic struggles against the ultimate badguy, because mmo's are balanced for level progression to keep you playing forever. Taking on a challenge gets your ass handed to you. The combat systems being as simplistic as even the simplest of rpg's just means that they have no strong point.

Of course, you can always mine for fish, which you'll have to do to afford equipment to keep fighting relatively challenging opponents.

[Zhinjo]

One Jod's arguments was that AQ was boring because it was just "attack-attack-attack," but that's basically all the fighting was in the older RPGs. Sure, the fire guys were weak to Ice spells, but that's about as complex as the combat got. And yet it was interesting. A game's merit doesn't rest entirely on its gameplay. Often it's the stuff behind the gameplay that makes us motivated to play it. I agree that the story was what drove the older RPGs, but that only goes to show that you can have a perfectly engaging game without complex gameplay. Who knows? Maybe AQ just needs a better writer? ...well, OK, no, it needs more help than that. But anyway...

To get to the point where I think Jodwin is being unfair to the MMO genre, modern MMORPGs usually have a number of complex roles any given player has to fulfill if they're going to take on and succeed at the challenges the game presents. Sure, some characters are more simple or more complex than others, but learning what works and what doesn't--and when it does--and how to effectively utilize the abilities of your character is far more complex than it ever has been in the RPG genre.

However, the enjoyment I get from playing an MMO is in personalizing a character and exploring the world. You have to give MMOs credit: they often have very fleshed-out worlds to explore, even if those worlds are fairly static. While it's obvious that current MMOs aren't even close to being perfect games, they do have a number of different entertaining qualities that each appeal to people in their own ways.

[thesheeep]

However, the enjoyment I get from playing an MMO is in personalizing a character and exploring the world. You have to give MMOs credit: they often have very fleshed-out worlds to explore, even if those worlds are fairly static. While it's obvious that current MMOs aren't even close to being perfect games, they do have a number of different entertaining qualities that each appeal to people in their own ways.

You know, it doesn't happen very often, but sometimes I could kiss you. If you were a girl. Or I was gay...

Anyway, this is a very true statement.


My problem with ALL Browsergames/MMOs is that the only motivation they give you, are to grow up your character/your nation or whatever you are controlling. This is the only force driving you.
In some of the better BG/MMOs there even is a huge world to explore, which gives a bonus. In the best BG/MMOs, this world isn't only huge, but also filled with things to see.
But what they all lack is a story that keeps you playing the game, that lets you want to know how things will go on.

In some of the best RPGs I have ever played, the Baldur's Gate series, there was such a story, and yet more. Even side-quests had their own appealing storyline, so that they were more than mere XP-givers.
Also, decisions of the player actually made an impact (not in baldur's Gate, but in Fallout for example).
Of course, this is something that MMOs have a hard time to offer: consequences/reactions to what players do. But IMHO developers are trying to change that.. and maybe.. in some years....


@Jodwin:

I am talking about genres that actually suffer from being dumbed down. FPS don't suffer from that. It fits them quite good and makes them fun. This is not the case with Adventures/RPGs/RTS/TBS....

[Jodwin]

Have you played RPGs on older systems like the SNES or even on a PS2? In terms of gameplay, they were less complex than almost any MMO currently on the market, yet they were still enjoyable. You get to experience the game's world and interact with it. Just because your means of interaction may be limited doesn't mean it's not a game to be played.

Calling those games "RPGs" makes the term as much justice as does calling Diablo a RPG. I prefer the term "console RPG", which while is still calling them role playing games, at least makes it clear that they aren't "normal" role playing games.

Yes, most of the Final Fantasy games suck when it comes to gameplay. The basic idea behind their gameplay system itself isn't flawed, but the implementation is. What they do have got is a story and a world to explore, but that's not gameplay per-se (for the record though, I personally enjoy exploring vast worlds in games). But interact with the world? Certainly that's something you may do in the more "advanced" computer RPGs like Fallouts and Baldur's Gates, but not in the console RPGs. The big difference in between the two is exactly in the lack of interaction with the game world.

Maybe some sort of term defining should be done to elaborate a bit the difference in between gameplay and free exploring (and interacting with the world)... "Playing" the world is something that may, or may not, be fun, but it's not exactly playing the game. A sandbox game such as those of the Elder Scrolls series that just throw you into an open ended world are mostly that, "playing" the world. You are free to explore and interact within the engine's limitations, but you aren't exactly playing the game.

Conceptually, there is nothing wrong with sandbox games. Morrowind is a sandbox game, and it's a pretty good one at that. All MMORPGs are really nothing but social sandbox games, and they are pretty damn bland at that; the game mechanics are very limited, the worlds are bland and simple so that they are easier to make work for bigger crowds at once. You could say it's an important part of the genre's definition (and a problem of it), the world can't be deep; extensive maybe, but not deep.

To get to the point where I think Jodwin is being unfair to the MMO genre, modern MMORPGs usually have a number of complex roles any given player has to fulfill if they're going to take on and succeed at the challenges the game presents.

One of my gripes with the MMO genre is that the designers don't really try to give motivation for the player, rather they bet the success of the game on people picking it up, starting to socialize in the game and making up the gameplay content themselves. You know, forming guilds, going on raids, trading, doing PVP... They are essentially "games" where people together make up the "game", thus me calling them "glorified chat rooms."

This really has bunch of issues: First of all, it means that you can't really play the game by yourself, because the game that you bought or downloaded or... is just a setting for a "game" that groups of players together make up for themselves. In most MMO games this has taken ridiculous forms, with players building up virtual economies, nations, hierarchies and more within which every player of the game has to play. Second, the "game" that the players create can only be within the limitations of the software. The "game" "get a lvl 60 character in WoW" is made up by the players, but it can only be played within the game's limitations, which means running a bunch of dungeons until you meet your goal. Because the designers haven't added anything more to the game. And they won't, because if the MMOs suddenly were about something else than just "playing" player made "games", it would be exactly the same as the single player games. And why would anyone want that..?

It is a glorified chat room, where the game designers only create the setting and do their best to keep things running.

@Jodwin... from level 1-10, yes, all you can do is attack. But you have multiple weapons, multiple spells, and class armours give around 6 forms of attack each, and your limited only by the class armour you carry (if you wear a mage robe, your a mage). Not to mention non-class armour that has selectable specials and such.

YES... AQ is boring and tedious, but you shouldn't judge it by a few rounds with a low level character... if you were going with a level 1-3 character in WBC3, you'd think they sucked too.

That there are multiple ways to slash-slash-slash doesn't really help if the battles are still all that happens in the game (provided that the engine itself stays as limited; you could say that fighting games are boring and tedious because they are nothing but fighting, but they are also much more dynamic). Comparing playing WBC with low level heroes to playing AQ at any level holds no ground, at all, because WBC isn't only about using your hero. In case you forgot, it's a RTS game and has more to it than repetitive CRPG-stylish battles. Similarly there are some mods for Diablo 2 that make the game much more interesting and better. They are more dynamic, while AQ is a pretty damn static game to play.

I agree that the story was what drove the older RPGs, but that only goes to show that you can have a perfectly engaging game without complex gameplay. Who knows? Maybe AQ just needs a better writer? ...well, OK, no, it needs more help than that. But anyway...

Yes, you don't need a complex gameplay to have an engaging game. I believe I mentioned liking the classic Doom a while back, which has one of the least complex gameplays of its genre. However what it, and almost all other good games have, is an engaging gameplay (or world, or...). AQ isn't bad because it's simple. It's bad because it isn't engaging. An example: Have you ever played Fable? Or Die by the Sword? In the end both of those (especially Fable) had pretty simple melee combat, it being just slash-slash-slash until either one falls down dead, just like AQ, but they were a lot more engaging. Compared to AQ all they did was give the player more control over their character than just clicking the "Attack"-button, and they ended up as a lot more better games to play.

And to close this post because I can't think of much else to say right now, I'll second both sheep's and psycho's latest posts. Particularly psycho's.

[nobleknight]

Err... I really need a class in English I guess... I never disagreed with anyone. I never said that I enjoyed AQ, or that it wasn't a simple tedious game.

All I said was that I2 should make a game with the AQ engine or one similar. Would it be the best warlords game ever? Hardly. But one of the best things about simple games, is they are incredibly easy to update. AQ updates roughly once a week with a war, new player houses, new class etc...

Having an easily updated game that has a low server load would help I2 financially, and help encourage more people to be interested in the Warlords franchise.

Thats all I was saying.

[psycho]

Yes, you do. :)

So jodwin, does this mean hell froze over? I've never had an entire post agreed with before.

[Jodwin]

So jodwin, does this mean hell froze over?

Apparently.

And noble, if that English class would mean that I could see you typing "similar" instead of "simular" for once, then please. :wink:

[nobleknight]

errr...It's spelled correctly.

And just so you know, I have a spell checker addon for my browser to spell check forum posts.

[thesheeep]

It doesn't work xD

Just kidding...

[Joahkun]

I'm siding with Jodwin on this one sorry.

AQ is utter trash. I had something like a lvl 28 character and just eventually got bored with the really dumbed down process of it all.
I regret wasting time on it.

[nobleknight]

28? I admit it's boring... but the game really doesn't go anywhere till level 30-50.

And who said it was the best thing since sliced bread, some of the most lame games in the past few years also happens to be the highest sellers.

[Jodwin]

but the game really doesn't go anywhere till level 30-50.
...which is crappy design. :P "Please play our game for 100 hours before it actually kicks in! We'll appreciate it! Kkthxbai!"

[thesheeep]

Isn't this what most Browser Games and MMOs are about?

Playing, till the real fun comes?... I never liked that.

[Joahkun]

Isn't this what most Browser Games and MMOs are about?

Playing, till the real fun comes?... I never liked that.


I guess thats why Oblivion is so fun to play. To bad it's absolutely shit.

[thesheeep]

It is fun to play? Who said that? ^^

I always try to enjoy it, but it becomes so unbelievable boring after some hours.
It is more fun, when modded out like hell, though..

And yes, it is absolutely shit.

[nobleknight]

yes, but how well did it sell?

The whole point of this thread is because I don't want to see Steve sell out battlecry, but they need more successful games in order to get better funding.

Unfortunately that usually means mind numbing dribble.

Puzzle Quest is a good game, but a couple portable games won't get you several million dollars for a large PC game project.

[Joahkun]

Sell out to Sega or Microsoft....

It will come out 20x better in the long run.

At sheep too, for some reason, when I start playing it, I get caught into for hours on end. Racked up 200 something hours.... lol

[thesheeep]

They would get funding this way, but also less influence...

Also, there is no guaranty that Microsoft would simply accept their generous offer!

200 hours? Well, you seem to be more the Diablo type of gamer.. I simply can't take a game where the only thing that drives you is your will to get your character better. It bores me ;)

[Jodwin]

yes, but how well did it sell?
Rather, why did it sell so well? Ten bucks says it's because of ridiculous hype and media exposure which have got nothing to do with any of the game's qualities (good or bad).

Compared to Morrowind Oblivion is pure crap. All it's got better is the AI and graphics (the productive quality, not the style. Morrowind has one of the best graphical styles in the whole history of computer RPGs), yet it sold so much better than Morrowind just because it was more widely known and the audience had grown larger.

I mean, it should be pretty obvious even to you (noble): The big sellers don't sell well because they are so dumped down and are such big crap. They sell well because they go through such ridiculous marketing. For some reason though it seems to be something the publishers can't grasp either: They could sell real, as in genuine, shit in a shiny box to most gamers out there if they just put the product through a large enough marketing campaign. It's got nothing to do with quality or already know, famous names (well, certainly they help, but they really aren't necessary).

[nobleknight]

I know you probably won't get this... not everybody in the world thinks the same way you do... and if they disagree with you, they are not automatically wrong.

Yes, some people LIKE Diablo and Oblivion, and not because they don't know any better. I know quite a few people that played more in depth games but still preferred Oblivion and WoW.

Sadly, these people make up the majority, we (the people that like new innovative features and long in depth game play) make up the minority.

[thesheeep]

Sad, but true.

But I wouldn't call it a minority. There are many people that like innovation and depth, it's just harder to reach them as they are not as susceptible to media hype, PR, etc.

[Jodwin]

Yes, some people LIKE Diablo and Oblivion, and not because they don't know any better. I know quite a few people that played more in depth games but still preferred Oblivion and WoW.

Sadly, these people make up the majority, we (the people that like new innovative features and long in depth game play) make up the minority.
I didn't know we were suddenly talking about liking games, I thought you were talking about selling games all this time, even while we were arguing how stupid AQ was.

And yes, that's two completely different things. Whether everyone who bought Oblivion likes it or not is completely irrelevant when we're talking about selling as many copies of it as possible - which btw was my point above: People might like the game that they buy, but with a good marketing campaign even utter crap can be sold to the masses. That's no breaking news. (and I'll repeat so that it'll get through to you: this is regardless of the product or any of its qualities, no matter how good or bad they may be. it's a broad generalization, and a true one at that)

Asking "Dude, look at Oblivion, think how many copies it sold?" is wrong. The correct thing to ask is "Dude, look at Oblivion, wonder why it sold so well?" And eventually you should come to the answer: Because of marketing. Everything else is secondary when selling things, you can have the best product since sliced bread but it won't sell a single piece if the customers won't know that it exists or how much better it is than the second best thing since sliced bread.

This is why Oblivion did so well. Being given multiple features in each magazine (I guess...) and gaming websites, advertisements and more, people will end up buying it and they won't think twice about it. In the end they might end up liking the game...or they might not end up liking the game. But by then that's already irrelevant since we're looking into this from the sales perspective: They gave us their money, we don't need to care about them anymore.

(well, this is to a part different with MMORPGs which make revenue by selling playing time, but they found their solutions which have already been discussed in length before, so I won't go there now)






Oh, and I like Diablo 2, too.


edit:
@sheep: Actually, it's not true that people who like more in-depth games are harder to reach with hype and media coverage. Rather, the problem is that only the less in-depth games are getting any media coverage to speak of.

PQ is a very good example of a game that has been influenced at all (the distinction in between whether the influence has been positive or negative isn't relevant) by media: It's by design a bit of both, a casual game and an in-depth one, a bit more on the casual side though. However despite being a game that's just perfect for raking money it wouldn't have got to where it did get without having major features by a number of gaming sites and, perhaps most importantly, Penny Arcade. Well, in this case certainly PQ's qualities did buy it the media attention it received instead of using $$$ as the lubricant, but the fact that it's the media attention which got the sales doesn't change.

[thesheeep]

@sheep: Actually, it's not true that people who like more in-depth games are harder to reach with hype and media coverage. Rather, the problem is that only the less in-depth games are getting any media coverage to speak of.



And they get more media coverage because people that like em are easier to reach and be influenced. Anyway...

Media thinks that people don't want to be informed about the more in-depth games and instead want to know more about less in-depth games.
This is an assumption which is simply wrong. I don't know when or why it started, but if magazines would suddenly start covering more in-depth games, more indy games, etc. people would also be more interested in them.
It is the media that creates the attention to something, not the attention to something that "creates" the media.

Sometimes it can be different. PQ for example, it started with people talking about an awesome game, then magazines started reporting, etc. Part of this is nothing but luck. Sadly, a good game sometimes is not enough to get attention. But those really are exceptions...

[nobleknight]

Best marketing in the world is word of mouth, and thats a good deal more true now in the days of the interweb.

[Jodwin]

Media thinks that people don't want to be informed about the more in-depth games and instead want to know more about less in-depth games.
This is an assumption which is simply wrong. I don't know when or why it started, but if magazines would suddenly start covering more in-depth games, more indy games, etc. people would also be more interested in them.
It is the media that creates the attention to something, not the attention to something that "creates" the media.
Yes, that assumption is simply wrong, but... Media can only work with what is given to it, and most of the stuff that is given to it is this blockbusting dumped down scheisse, so to speak. Then why is media given only this, bad stuff to work with? Because publishers don't seem to want to fund anything else. And publishers don't want to fund anything else because...

And at that point it would become a circular definition. But the two key points are these:
-Media is the number one influence for what games are bought
-Mass media seems to be willing to ignore all indie and freeware games, giving the big publishers' titles even more relative coverage

Then the next question would be how could the situation be changed to be more favorable for more in-depth games? Well I won't say that I'd know the answer, since I don't, but I can bet my sorry buttocks that in the end, either media or publishers need to change their attention towards the "better" (mind the quotes!) games. Only those two are big enough "players" on the field to change things without a miracle.


edit:
@noble: Quality-wise, perhaps, but word of mouth can never get as wide spread as good media coverage. Never. Also on the internet or any other media where theoretically anyone can participate you need to consider the assumed trust worthyness of a single information source: For an example, if we assumed that in a word of mouth scenario person A whom just a few people actually know could reach 100 000 people through different forums by advertising product X. Then we could have person B, a well-known journalist for some random magazine whose review on the same product X is received by 100 000 different people. Which one of these two, A or B, will get the product X more consumers?

I'm not saying that word of mouth is bad per-se, it just isn't reliable enough. You'll either score a jackpot (PQ) or get nothing (WBC 3) (when speaking of media coverage, not sales, mind you). Personally I wouldn't like to base my business on something like that, but what do I know? :wink:

[thesheeep]

I think publishers would have to start funding those in-depth games. That is just a vision of mine,though... Perhaps things will change, perhaps not.

But I'm quite sure, if things go on like they do now, media and publishers will sooner or later be in a crisis, because there are no really good games any more. People will lose interest, etc.
It is the usual up and down that appears in economy, fashion, etc. as well.


Sadly, Jodwin is right about that word of mouth thing. It can help, it can help a lot, but in many cases, it is not enough.


PS: I fear that psycho is already writing a post to this topic since over two hours that will burst the limits of this board and the Internet. :shock:

[nobleknight]

In the age of the blog-o-sphere... word of mouth and media coverage are practically the same.

Word of mouth is based on the trust worthiness of the source, but that would be true with any media...

[psycho]

Nah, this is a pointless topic. First we kill all the lawyers, then we kill all the politicians, then we kill all the media moguls, and then we can kill all the publishers without wasting time on small fries when there are still real threats to our existence that need killed.

Short of killing all the publishers, convincing anyone that several million dollars over a few years to develop a new graphics engine doth make a game not, isn't going to happen. Money will always be a draw, the missing lynchpin in your argument. A game like wbc wouldn't get press unless it were truly outstanding and the right people played it, the right people would have been anticipating it a year in advance if it had taken several million to bankroll. That much money gets noticed.

[Jodwin]

Nah, this is a pointless topic.
True, considering that probably none of us will suddenly turn a computer game vigilant and go around doing random things while saving the world and kicking some major publisher ass.

I mean, it's not like we really could change the world just by talking about it on some obscure internet forums. It's all just for the sake of the argument.

[thesheeep]

Wait... we can't? ... :(

[nobleknight]

Oh, and there is no such thing as Santa Claus.

[thesheeep]

Noooooooooo!