[rabb1t]

Official BioWare site

IGN - Star Wars: The Old Republic First Details
We head to Austin for an exclusive, in-depth look at BioWare's new MMO!

GameSpot - Star Wars: The Old Republic revealed

Now that it has a name and details, the former BioWare MMOG thread is closed.

[AsheMan]

WOOHOO! As soon as I get home I'm going to have to check out those links. Did Bioware launch a page on their website for The Old Republic?

[Seasiu Laitya]

Could be good, I guess. BG1&2 will always be classics.

I'm in the minority in that I didn't like KOTOR tho. The setting was fine, it's not that.

But they managed to totally waste the D20 system, my making possibly the most shallow combat I've ever seen in an RPG. I also made the mistake of giving my char a lot of INT, which is practically useless in KOTOR.

I also think there is a fundamental problem, which SWG failed to address. If there are thousands of Jedi running around, it's going to be super-lame.

[rhagz]

Gonna wait and see. So far some of the info is rather meh. Really depends on what their plans are and what business models they adopt.

[Boceefus]

Originally Posted by Seasiu Laitya

I also think there is a fundamental problem, which SWG failed to address. If there are thousands of Jedi running around, it's going to be super-lame.

But they really do not need to address this because this is not Darth V era SW. One of the draws of KOTOR is that Jedi and Sith were not so rare lore wise. There were a lot of Jedi and Sith running around and the force was stronger and it was a more dark and chaotic time. We are talking 1000 years or more BD(before Darth) When both sides had armies. Just because you will be a Jedi or Sith does not make you the end all be all. Just having a light saber in that time and a few Jedi powers did not make you the end all be all. I am not saying this will be good or bad but from a lore/storyline KOTOR is pretty rich and I could see them being able to really make it cool for all classes and not just Jedi/Sith because of the scale compared to the Lucas era SW universe.

[AsheMan]

I watched the Gamespot video. The main theme I got from it was story, story, story, story, and more story. Not really any details into anything.

[rabb1t]

Originally Posted by AsheMan

Did Bioware launch a page on their website for The Old Republic?

Yeah but I could never actually connect. I expect it will be super hammered for a while.

www.swtor.com

Originally Posted by Boceefus

We are talking 1000 years or more BD(before Darth)

The period it's set in is 3,500 years before the movies if I recall from the dev video.

Originally Posted by AsheMan

The main theme I got from it was story, story, story, story, and more story. Not really any details into anything.

It's pre-alpha. They likely just have the base engine and a few powers in place.

[AsheMan]

Any guesses on a release date? 2010? 2012?

[Aurorum]

Originally Posted by AsheMan

Any guesses on a release date? 2010? 2012?

Perhaps even in the third quarter of next year.

...





The primary dev's play WoW, and love WoW; they specifically stated that it will _NOT_ be a "simulator" [sandbox + everything good, exempli gratia, early SWG], but rather an "entertainment experience".

[Aurorum]

Hey, wait a minute. Sorry to derail the thread, but why on earth was that ol' veteran called Atoyota _banned_? He was a part of the original Vanguard forum group.

He must have been _really_ bad!

[rhagz]

From what I gather it's going to be more like Guild Wars than anything else. Nearly everything is soloable (with your NPC companion). It's going to be heavily instanced since that's the only way to reliable convey 'story' in an MMO. It will probably play a lot like WoW/CoH with fast action and responsive skills. Standard kill, loot, exp, level character building progression with talents and powers that you boost.

If it's really like KOTOR, except huge with a constantly updated and expanded story with a few coop missions then it could be a lot of fun. But it's not going to be SWG or pre-beta Vanguard as it appeared in the FAQ. It's going to be a game, a Bioware game.

[rhagz]

Originally Posted by Aurorum

Hey, wait a minute. Sorry to derail the thread, but why on earth was that ol' veteran Atoyota _banned_? He was a part of the original Vanguard forum group.

He must of been _really_ bad!

Because he kept insulting perfect, trying to push buttons to see how much he could get away with despite repeated warnings.

[rabb1t]

I'm personally guessing 2 years, so Holiday season 2010 would be my guess. (Competing for sales against Diablo 3 )

I've no clue why At got banned.

Came here to say a community site is up, but it's really too laggy to do anything. They didn't let me have my 1 Letters only in yer name.

[Seasiu Laitya]

Originally Posted by rhagz

From what I gather it's going to be more like Guild Wars than anything else. Nearly everything is soloable (with your NPC companion). It's going to be heavily instanced since that's the only way to reliable convey 'story' in an MMO. It will probably play a lot like WoW/CoH with fast action and responsive skills. Standard kill, loot, exp, level character building progression with talents and powers that you boost.

If it's really like KOTOR, except huge with a constantly updated and expanded story with a few coop missions then it could be a lot of fun. But it's not going to be SWG or pre-beta Vanguard as it appeared in the FAQ. It's going to be a game, a Bioware game.

Without getting into the "why do people solo in an MMO" discussion, if their intention is to have a single-player experience, why did they choose to make an MMO?

Simply to make more cash? Box sale + subscription > box sale alone, I guess

In the future, perhaps all games will call themselves "MMOs" so they can charge by the month/ hour ?

[rhagz]

Originally Posted by Seasiu Laitya

Without getting into the "why do people solo in an MMO" discussion, if their intention is to have a single-player experience, why did they choose to make an MMO?

Simply to make more cash? Box sale + subscription > box sale alone, I guess

In the future, perhaps all games will call themselves "MMOs" so they can charge by the month/ hour ?

I don't know. But if it's the Guild Wars model where you can group or solo all the PvE content.. and they do constant updates and develop an ongoing story.. it could work.

Something like Hellgate wanted to do, but actually do it mixed with a little Guild Wars structure with a Star Wars skin.

The only problem I can see is justifying the monthly fee. DDO didn't feel like an MMO and it charged like one. It failed. GW didn't feel like an MMO and didn't charge like it was one. It sold millions.

So either they won't charge (not bloody likely) or they will, and if they do they better give a good reason for it.

[rabb1t]

A lot of the reasons given by devs for going online these days is to reduce the mods/cheats. If something is online (and I don't know how it works) there is apparently a lot tighter security on what players have access to.

And, as rhagz mentioned, they can constantly update it. This is a huge benefit IMO to games having an online aspect. (Be they MMOGs or just check for updates every time you play.) Also, it would be a lot easier to have an overall changing story where zones change or are altered based on what players do. I don't know how happy people would be with a single player game that's offline that they have to go online to patch say once a month.

Plus, I think they are trying to go with an overall changing story arc. That's much more easily achieved with a MMOG, where a person has a sense of passing time if they play or don't play, vs. a single player game where time is only perceived as passing while the player is spending time playing the game.

Remember, just because it's a MMOG doesn't mean it's going to be $15-20 per month. They could easily choose a lower subscription or different payment model. (Like Guild Wars free to play but you have to buy expansions every once in a while. Or maybe a new one, like $50 for the box, $5 for extra access to special zones per zone, or maybe special classes to unlock for $5 each, etc.)

(I haven't followed it, but I'd attribute the lack of content as D&D O's greatest downfall. Back in the day in the last few months of late beta I had a thread that was something like '120 Quests...?' which got attention and replies from the devs. They stated it was their intention to have players repeat quests a minimum of 3 times to see all the content. (To which some replied they had to repeat quests upwards to 10 times each to actually get to the level cap.) That's just bad game design to have a small number of quests and force players to repeat static quests to have enough content to reach max level. They also mentioned there were only something like 80 unique zones, which were completely static mind you, and they simply re-used zones for different quests. Had D&D O been approached more like an FPS with tons and tons of map adds and changes, maybe have some modular areas like WoW's Lich King expansion, or even basic randomization in some areas like CoX, I think it would have been vastly more successful.)

[Loampounder]

Originally Posted by rabb1t

And, as rhagz mentioned, they can constantly update it. This is a huge benefit IMO to games having an online aspect. (Be they MMOGs or just check for updates every time you play.) Also, it would be a lot easier to have an overall changing story where zones change or are altered based on what players do. I don't know how happy people would be with a single player game that's offline that they have to go online to patch say once a month.

Plus, I think they are trying to go with an overall changing story arc. That's much more easily achieved with a MMOG, where a person has a sense of passing time if they play or don't play, vs. a single player game where time is only perceived as passing while the player is spending time playing the game.

Remember, just because it's a MMOG doesn't mean it's going to be $15-20 per month. They could easily choose a lower subscription or different payment model. (Like Guild Wars free to play but you have to buy expansions every once in a while. Or maybe a new one, like $50 for the box, $5 for extra access to special zones per zone, or maybe special classes to unlock for $5 each, etc.)

Constantly updating, to my cynical side, is market lingo for ongoing QA on an unfinished/ unvalidated product. In a sense, it enables a company to use "good enough" instead of validating completion.

And, yes, new marketing approaches at a more constant revenue stream are all the rage. I don't think there is a real link, these days, between subscription and expected continuing product. Bad in the day, companies suggested ongoing GM-driven quests and evolving world were the reason for subscriptions. Now, companies expect us to be happy with a "game update" that fixes types ones every few months.

[xiudin]

Originally Posted by rabb1t

(I haven't followed it, but I'd attribute the lack of content as D&D O's greatest downfall. Back in the day in the last few months of late beta I had a thread that was something like '120 Quests...?' which got attention and replies from the devs. They stated it was their intention to have players repeat quests a minimum of 3 times to see all the content. (To which some replied they had to repeat quests upwards to 10 times each to actually get to the level cap.) That's just bad game design to have a small number of quests and force players to repeat static quests to have enough content to reach max level. They also mentioned there were only something like 80 unique zones, which were completely static mind you, and they simply re-used zones for different quests. Had D&D O been approached more like an FPS with tons and tons of map adds and changes, maybe have some modular areas like WoW's Lich King expansion, or even basic randomization in some areas like CoX, I think it would have been vastly more successful.)

I thought DDO had a great engine for some creative marketing. If they were to have created a toolset and come up with a method to allow user created dungeons, they could have plugged those dungeons into the highly instanced world. Something like a Neverwinter Nights MMO would have been unique in the MMO world, and I believe it would actually have been more true to its DnD PnP roots.

[rabb1t]

Originally Posted by xiudin

Something like a Neverwinter Nights MMO would have been unique in the MMO world, and I believe it would actually have been more true to its DnD PnP roots.

I see you may not know NWN's true origin. Though not to scale of what we call a MMO today, NWN started as a MMOG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwi...ghts_(AOL_game)

I actually proposed during the beta that D&D O be put on hold and be changed to reach a wider audience. I always warned them that the current design would be far too nich. I had two main suggestions to refocus the game (recommending that going with either direction would likely reach a broader audience)...

- Slow it down: make it more turn-based and true to the original, something closer to a Final Fantasy style game in terms of execution of moves. That would allow it to be truer to the PnP D&D rules, while also allowing them to hype up animations of special moves to look really cool and satisfy the action player.

- Speed it up: make it even more of an action game and move it further away from the core turn-based D&D rules, something closer to a 3d version of Gauntlet, or what Atari did with D&D Heroes.

I think what they wound up with is something between those two which really never set well with me. It seemed little more than 'spam attack for the win' while all skills really seemed like afterthoughts (I played a Rogue/Warrior mix.) I think a more action focused game would have at least focused on things other than simply charging in and spamming attack (you'd have the option to think more strategically about using or avoiding traps and choosing fight locations) or the slower version would pull in a more PnP based crowd, allowing for a higher emphasis to be placed on strategic choice for moves, character positioning, and timing of said moves (in terms of waiting for moves to recycle over x turns, or needing to wait for proper positions and such.)

Anyways... we're floating off topic.

[Seasiu Laitya]

Originally Posted by rabb1t

I actually proposed during the beta that D&D O be put on hold and be changed to reach a wider audience. I always warned them that the current design would be far too nich. I had two main suggestions to refocus the game (recommending that going with either direction would likely reach a broader audience)...

- Slow it down: make it more turn-based and true to the original, something closer to a Final Fantasy style game in terms of execution of moves. That would allow it to be truer to the PnP D&D rules, while also allowing them to hype up animations of special moves to look really cool and satisfy the action player.

D&D should be slow, and thoughtful Diablo is great too, but it's not how D&D should be played.

Turn-based would be funky to implement in an MMO; easier like you said if they did FF style quasi turn-based, with an ATB approach.

Hmm, can I find any more acronyms in this post? IDK...