Those that have known me for a while may remember that I wrote about this game a loooong time ago (well a long time ago in computer/game terms at least) on a forum for another game entirely. A Tale in the Desert is a game my wife and I first encountered back in early 2003 when it launched. Since then it's a game that we've returned to several times over the years and as such I've decided that it deserves some attention again.
A Tale in the Desert is a persistent MMO with a focus on social interaction, building and puzzle solving. A Tale in the Desert (ATitD for short) differs from most MMOs in a couple or ways. First there is no combat in the game. There is no 'threat' that your character is trying to overcome (There's a challenge, but I'll get into that more later) and you are not a 'hero' that is some how better than everyone else. Secondly there are NO NPCs* to interact with, you don't go out and get your loot and sell it to the vender for in game coin ... in fact there IS no in game coin either. (* - Note - there can be 'NPCs' but only in that the developers may spawn characters for story reasons, but such characters are being controlled by a Dev or GM at a keyboard, not interacting on their own via AI.) Finally, and probably the biggest thing, is that it is designed to have an ending.
Just because I say that there's no combat in ATitD, don't make the mistake of thinking that there's no conflict. I've seen as much if not more conflict and drama in ATitD than I have in some purely PvP MMOs. ATitD has a lot of competitive tests, and a lot of other issues (Pollution, resource availability, etc.) that can create conflict and drama between people. Additionally, there are player elected positions (Demi-Pharaoh), player proposed and passed laws, and the general social nature of the game that creates plenty of opportunity for debate and ... we'll call them 'heated discussions'.
Of course that plays into and is enhanced by the lack of NPCs in the game. ALL of your interaction is with other players. Now there are certainly things that you can go off and do on your own, but generally speaking one player isn't going to be able to do everything themselves. At some point you're going to need to trade for items that you can't find or make yourself, or need the assistance of other players to get some of those items. In many cases for the various Tests you will need other players in different capacities (to judge your art work, or puzzles, to vote for you or your law, etc.) This isn't to say that dealing with players is always bad, it's not. I have many great memories of group events over the various times that I've played, and I certainly wouldn't have those without the other players.
The biggest difference from most MMOs, however, is really the fact that it is designed to end. There is a point in the game that is meant to trigger the 'end game'. The 'goal' is to promote an Oracle in each of the 7 Schools of Man (Harmony, Body, Worship, Architecture, Art & Music, Leadership, and Thought) and build a monument to each of the 7 Schools before the end date. As part of the monument a new test is designed and 'inscribed' into the monument for future generations. At the end the server is wiped, changes made to various game systems and mechanics, and a new Tale begins with a new generation of immigrants to the desert lands.
At the time of this writing Tale 6 is drawing to a close and Tale 7 is being discussed and planned as the players start the push to build the 7 monuments and I find myself once more drawn to this social/building sandbox. A little history here, I played at the beginning of Tale 1 in early 2003, came back for the beginning of Tale 3 in mid 2006 and the beginning of Tale 4 in late 2008. You may notice on those dates that they all say 'the beginning of tale x'. Something (in some cases just deciding that I have stuff that needs to get done in real life) has always interrupted my involvement in a telling.
But why do I keep coming back? There's a lot I like about the game. First off, it's a sandbox. While there is the over all goal of the telling (get 7 Oracles and build the 7 Monuments) those are (particularly at the beginning of a telling) insubstantial goals and I can pick and choose my own goals. There's also the social aspect, and tied to it, the political aspect. The introduction of Levels in Tale 3 did kind of bottleneck things early on, but then really became meaningless and did, really, encourage me to try out other things in the game more.
There are also a couple of down sides. First it's not a game that everyone will 'get'. Some people aren't looking for a social/building game as they tend toward a slower more thoughtful pace and some people really do want the faster pace / more immediate gratification of an action game or more traditional MMO. The real down side in ATitD, even for someone like me that loves so many aspects of the game is that it can be a horrendous time sink, particularly early in a telling before the various automated techs are researched. There is so much to do, and since other players are involved in so many ways in this game, your schedule isn't always their first concern.
Tale 6 has gone free to play for the remainder of the telling, so if a social/building MMO sounds interesting, by all means check it out (there's a download link on their website - www.atitd.com) it's kept me coming back for over 12 years. If you have any questions you can shoot me a chat in game (/chat Tahrqa) and I'll get back to you when I can ... one word of advice though ... get a Hand Loom asap ... the Student Loom is a horrible torture device.
Monday, July 6, 2015
Tuesday, January 13, 2015
Other Games
Well the point of this blog isn't just to talk about SOE, Landmark and EQ:Next, but games and game theory. So I'm going to step back and talk for a moment about a couple other games that I just picked up over the holidays and I've been playing a good bit of lately.
I'll start with One Finger Death Punch by Silver Dollar Games. Available on the XBox store and on Steam for the PC. The game is definitely 'easy to learn, hard to master' as game play is limited to 2 buttons (X and B on an XBox controller Right and Left mouse button if you're playing on PC without a controller. Personally I highly recommend a controller, however, as spamming left and right mouse buttons has never been comfortable to me).
The game adjusts to player skill to a degree. If you are doing well it will increase the speed of the opponents to give more challenge, if you're getting hit and/or failing it will drop the speed down until it reaches the base speed of the level (100%). There are also different types of opponents that require different combinations. The game does a very good job of increasing the base difficulty and teaching you what you need to know to play it effectively. Gameplay is addictive and fun.
Graphics are simple, but that actually helps the game. There's enough happening on screen to be distracting as it is. Sound effects are well done and 'sound' right for the game and the music track is solid. Controls are quick and responsive fitting the face paced gameplay. It's a fun game that you can load up and play a few levels quickly and satisfy the need for something 'action-y'. Be warned, however, the gameplay is addictive enough it can be easy to lose track of time too.
Definitely a game that I'd recommend to anyone that's looking for a fun, face-paced, action game.
Now lets slow down a little and talk about Endless Legend. A fantasy (kind of) 4-X strategy game by Amplitude Games. I am really enjoying this game - it's new, it's fun and it has what many 4x games have been lacking in recent years.
Having said that I'm going to start with a couple of things that I DON'T like. First, the graphics. Don't get me wrong they are beautiful, the game has a GREAT look to it. I love a lot of the unit designs and loading screens, it's a beautiful 3d world ... and there's the problem. WHY is it 3d? You can't rotate the map to look at things from different angles, and all of the 3d 'spiffy-ness' that they put into it clutters the map and more often I zoom out to get the simple stylized map, but that doesn't show all the info that I want.
While I'm talking about this in relation to this game specifically, I really feel that it's a problem in the strategy genre over-all. There's a place for graphics like this and, generally speaking, strategy games are NOT it. I need information, not 3d board pieces. It's a hex map and while 3d does play a combat roll, (bonus to troops on higher ground in combat) it's nothing that can't be supplied by a number in the hex or other cleaner indication. As it stands with the 3d map it can sometimes be HARDER to see the elevation change since we can't rotate the map.
It also serves to needlessly slow down the combat because those 3d models have to be animated, and since the developers have taken the time to animate the movement (and attacks and defenses of the units) then we have to see it in the battles and movements. When deploying troops at the start of a battle, for example, to move a unit I have to watch them move to the new starting place ... this is before combat even officially starts. Really I should just click the unit and click where I want it to be ... I understand once combat starts seeing the path that the unit takes, but during deployment it should really just teleport there.
My only other real complaint with it is that some of their descriptions aren't always clear in game. Though given that Amplitude Games is based in Paris some of that may be attributed to translation difference. Some of it, however, is in the way that the information is presented. For example city district improvement on one screen shows a -10 and a +15 city happiness modifier, but it isn't clear that only the level 2 version has the +15, the base level 1 modifier is -10 so at level 2 (max) the bonus is +5 to happiness.
Really, however, these are minor things in a game that shines. The factions feel and play different, though the AI can be a bit 'samey' and the AI responses while different for each faction, are the same response to any other faction that they meet when really there should be some variation depending on what faction you are when they encounter you. (For example, when you encounter AI of the Vaulter faction their statements are different then if you encounter the Cultists, but are the same no matter what faction you are playing.)
In my limited playing (I'm working on my 3rd game) I'm still learning, but I really get the feeling that each faction is going to require a different strategy and focus to play effectively, and you can't really ignore diplomacy. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the other factions is advised as well, and minor factions can serve an important role as well. The game balance has felt pretty good so far though and my games have been challenging learning experiences. The one match that I was just absolutely steamrolled was a combination of a poor starting location and me playing too conservatively. This game really focuses more on pushing toward your chosen victory right off the bat rather than maintaining a broad focus until the end.
Again this is a game that I recommend if you are a fan of the strategy game genre. It's well executed and balanced and a lot of fun to play. Keep in mind that it is its own game and while a lot of stuff will be familiar to players of the genre, you'll need to look at the strengths of your faction and develop your strategy to move forward as there's a good chance that your 'tried and true' may not be quite as effective.
I'll start with One Finger Death Punch by Silver Dollar Games. Available on the XBox store and on Steam for the PC. The game is definitely 'easy to learn, hard to master' as game play is limited to 2 buttons (X and B on an XBox controller Right and Left mouse button if you're playing on PC without a controller. Personally I highly recommend a controller, however, as spamming left and right mouse buttons has never been comfortable to me).
The game adjusts to player skill to a degree. If you are doing well it will increase the speed of the opponents to give more challenge, if you're getting hit and/or failing it will drop the speed down until it reaches the base speed of the level (100%). There are also different types of opponents that require different combinations. The game does a very good job of increasing the base difficulty and teaching you what you need to know to play it effectively. Gameplay is addictive and fun.
Graphics are simple, but that actually helps the game. There's enough happening on screen to be distracting as it is. Sound effects are well done and 'sound' right for the game and the music track is solid. Controls are quick and responsive fitting the face paced gameplay. It's a fun game that you can load up and play a few levels quickly and satisfy the need for something 'action-y'. Be warned, however, the gameplay is addictive enough it can be easy to lose track of time too.
Definitely a game that I'd recommend to anyone that's looking for a fun, face-paced, action game.
Now lets slow down a little and talk about Endless Legend. A fantasy (kind of) 4-X strategy game by Amplitude Games. I am really enjoying this game - it's new, it's fun and it has what many 4x games have been lacking in recent years.
Having said that I'm going to start with a couple of things that I DON'T like. First, the graphics. Don't get me wrong they are beautiful, the game has a GREAT look to it. I love a lot of the unit designs and loading screens, it's a beautiful 3d world ... and there's the problem. WHY is it 3d? You can't rotate the map to look at things from different angles, and all of the 3d 'spiffy-ness' that they put into it clutters the map and more often I zoom out to get the simple stylized map, but that doesn't show all the info that I want.
While I'm talking about this in relation to this game specifically, I really feel that it's a problem in the strategy genre over-all. There's a place for graphics like this and, generally speaking, strategy games are NOT it. I need information, not 3d board pieces. It's a hex map and while 3d does play a combat roll, (bonus to troops on higher ground in combat) it's nothing that can't be supplied by a number in the hex or other cleaner indication. As it stands with the 3d map it can sometimes be HARDER to see the elevation change since we can't rotate the map.
It also serves to needlessly slow down the combat because those 3d models have to be animated, and since the developers have taken the time to animate the movement (and attacks and defenses of the units) then we have to see it in the battles and movements. When deploying troops at the start of a battle, for example, to move a unit I have to watch them move to the new starting place ... this is before combat even officially starts. Really I should just click the unit and click where I want it to be ... I understand once combat starts seeing the path that the unit takes, but during deployment it should really just teleport there.
My only other real complaint with it is that some of their descriptions aren't always clear in game. Though given that Amplitude Games is based in Paris some of that may be attributed to translation difference. Some of it, however, is in the way that the information is presented. For example city district improvement on one screen shows a -10 and a +15 city happiness modifier, but it isn't clear that only the level 2 version has the +15, the base level 1 modifier is -10 so at level 2 (max) the bonus is +5 to happiness.
Really, however, these are minor things in a game that shines. The factions feel and play different, though the AI can be a bit 'samey' and the AI responses while different for each faction, are the same response to any other faction that they meet when really there should be some variation depending on what faction you are when they encounter you. (For example, when you encounter AI of the Vaulter faction their statements are different then if you encounter the Cultists, but are the same no matter what faction you are playing.)
In my limited playing (I'm working on my 3rd game) I'm still learning, but I really get the feeling that each faction is going to require a different strategy and focus to play effectively, and you can't really ignore diplomacy. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the other factions is advised as well, and minor factions can serve an important role as well. The game balance has felt pretty good so far though and my games have been challenging learning experiences. The one match that I was just absolutely steamrolled was a combination of a poor starting location and me playing too conservatively. This game really focuses more on pushing toward your chosen victory right off the bat rather than maintaining a broad focus until the end.
Again this is a game that I recommend if you are a fan of the strategy game genre. It's well executed and balanced and a lot of fun to play. Keep in mind that it is its own game and while a lot of stuff will be familiar to players of the genre, you'll need to look at the strengths of your faction and develop your strategy to move forward as there's a good chance that your 'tried and true' may not be quite as effective.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Open Development and Reality
I've mentioned before that for Landmark and EQ:Next (and H1Z1 which goes to early access next week) SOE is using an 'Open Development' style of development.
This means that the developers are very accessible to the community and they are getting their ideas into the communities hands at a much earlier stage of development than has traditionally been the case. They aren't just talking about their ideas with us, they are letting us test the versions at a much earlier stage, listening to our feedback (as well as their own observations) and making adjustments to the game in a way that we can see the process.
I love the idea. I'm very much enjoying being involved in the process, giving feedback and reading their responses to the issues that the players are bringing up. I love the insight that it gives into the process. We get to see their idea, but we also get to see it change and evolve and in the end we have an understanding of WHY they made at least some of the choices that they did.
That said I think they've made a few mistakes with it as well. First is that they made it an every day alpha/beta, meaning that the servers have been up and accessible continually (except for patches) since Alpha started last February. Don't get me wrong, I've played a lot and had a ton of fun on my schedule because of that, but it also meant that there were long periods of time where there was nothing new to test, and with as early as they started there was really nothing to do in game either.
The result was that for long periods the servers were ghost towns as people stopped playing for very long periods of time. Keeping an eye on the forums and waiting for news of a feature that they were interested in seeing. I think part of this was the result of unforseen delays that meant that some of the systems that they had expected to have out in 2-3 months didn't get out until 8 months down the road.
In this case I think they would have been better off either shuttering the test servers for a couple weeks a month to get some material together, patch it in, and then bring the servers up for a week or so to let us kick it around. I think that it would have kept people more directly engaged in the process. Conversely they could have waited and built up a larger feature base before opening the doors in the first place, giving us more to play with up front and then pushing things out regularly and fixing issues that came up.
(Additionally I think that they should have had the Alpha phase run longer than it did (Alpha was Feb 1 - March 26 ... so a little under 2 months.) This would have possibly allowed them to bridge the two options that I outlined above by keeping the testing community a little smaller.)
Their other mistake, and in my opinion probably the biggest mistake of the two, is that they haven't wiped data. The result is that people have built up more and more, and become more and more adverse to having that accumulated gear/builds and just the 'stuff' of having played wiped and lost. But the flip side is that as a result, unless people have purposefully done something the 'starting' aspect of the game isn't being tested by most of the testers (yes several, including myself, occasionally go back to using the starter tools, but we still have the accumulated resources and other stuff that we've already gathered, so it's not the same as a NEW player.)
It also means that some of the fixes may or may not be complete. There are areas in the world that are flagged as claimed even though there is no longer a claim there. Trees that can't be harvested. The bugs that caused these things are supposedly fixed, but they still exist in the world so are things being wiped properly now? I can't really tell because I still encounter them occasionally but without keeping a database of where all the ones I find are I can't tell if I'm finding new ones or just ones that I hadn't seen before.
While I understand the desire to let people keep what they earned in game, we aren't here to 'play' we're here to test and make sure things work right. I think that they could have found a balance here with a few regular wipes. Say in the 11 months we've been testing wipe 5 or 6 times that gives us 6 week to 8 weeks of testing before resetting. Again I think it would have kept people a little more engaged and it would have allowed us to reset the worlds and make sure that things that were supposed to be fixed were definitely cleaned up. (Keep in mind that there was a wipe between Alpha and Beta, and a wipe early in Alpha because of a database issue, but there hasn't been any since Closed Beta kicked off in March 2014).
I think that SOE has learned a bit from their mistakes with the Landmark Beta. I suspect (I don't have any direct knowledge of this just hunch and theory) that this is why the H1Z1 early access went from being in 2-6 weeks, to starting about 7 months later as I think that they opted to wait and get more systems into the game and ready for testing before opening the flood gates.
Not everyone gets the system and you'll always end up with those 'testers' that are there to play the game and not there to test and give feedback. So there's still a good bit of 'noise' and people that complain about systems 'not making sense' because the system is only partially implemented, or is in the midst of a revamp. While I think that SOE may be seeing a little more of that than normal because they're getting stuff to the testers earlier, any development method is going to have those issues at some stage.
In the end I'm hoping that some players are paying attention and learning something about the development process involved in these types of games. I'm pretty sure that other developers are taking notice and will be looking to see how Landmark / Next do in the end. If those projects are successful because of player/community involvement in the process then I really think that we will likely see more of this type of development cycle.
This means that the developers are very accessible to the community and they are getting their ideas into the communities hands at a much earlier stage of development than has traditionally been the case. They aren't just talking about their ideas with us, they are letting us test the versions at a much earlier stage, listening to our feedback (as well as their own observations) and making adjustments to the game in a way that we can see the process.
I love the idea. I'm very much enjoying being involved in the process, giving feedback and reading their responses to the issues that the players are bringing up. I love the insight that it gives into the process. We get to see their idea, but we also get to see it change and evolve and in the end we have an understanding of WHY they made at least some of the choices that they did.
That said I think they've made a few mistakes with it as well. First is that they made it an every day alpha/beta, meaning that the servers have been up and accessible continually (except for patches) since Alpha started last February. Don't get me wrong, I've played a lot and had a ton of fun on my schedule because of that, but it also meant that there were long periods of time where there was nothing new to test, and with as early as they started there was really nothing to do in game either.
The result was that for long periods the servers were ghost towns as people stopped playing for very long periods of time. Keeping an eye on the forums and waiting for news of a feature that they were interested in seeing. I think part of this was the result of unforseen delays that meant that some of the systems that they had expected to have out in 2-3 months didn't get out until 8 months down the road.
In this case I think they would have been better off either shuttering the test servers for a couple weeks a month to get some material together, patch it in, and then bring the servers up for a week or so to let us kick it around. I think that it would have kept people more directly engaged in the process. Conversely they could have waited and built up a larger feature base before opening the doors in the first place, giving us more to play with up front and then pushing things out regularly and fixing issues that came up.
(Additionally I think that they should have had the Alpha phase run longer than it did (Alpha was Feb 1 - March 26 ... so a little under 2 months.) This would have possibly allowed them to bridge the two options that I outlined above by keeping the testing community a little smaller.)
Their other mistake, and in my opinion probably the biggest mistake of the two, is that they haven't wiped data. The result is that people have built up more and more, and become more and more adverse to having that accumulated gear/builds and just the 'stuff' of having played wiped and lost. But the flip side is that as a result, unless people have purposefully done something the 'starting' aspect of the game isn't being tested by most of the testers (yes several, including myself, occasionally go back to using the starter tools, but we still have the accumulated resources and other stuff that we've already gathered, so it's not the same as a NEW player.)
It also means that some of the fixes may or may not be complete. There are areas in the world that are flagged as claimed even though there is no longer a claim there. Trees that can't be harvested. The bugs that caused these things are supposedly fixed, but they still exist in the world so are things being wiped properly now? I can't really tell because I still encounter them occasionally but without keeping a database of where all the ones I find are I can't tell if I'm finding new ones or just ones that I hadn't seen before.
While I understand the desire to let people keep what they earned in game, we aren't here to 'play' we're here to test and make sure things work right. I think that they could have found a balance here with a few regular wipes. Say in the 11 months we've been testing wipe 5 or 6 times that gives us 6 week to 8 weeks of testing before resetting. Again I think it would have kept people a little more engaged and it would have allowed us to reset the worlds and make sure that things that were supposed to be fixed were definitely cleaned up. (Keep in mind that there was a wipe between Alpha and Beta, and a wipe early in Alpha because of a database issue, but there hasn't been any since Closed Beta kicked off in March 2014).
I think that SOE has learned a bit from their mistakes with the Landmark Beta. I suspect (I don't have any direct knowledge of this just hunch and theory) that this is why the H1Z1 early access went from being in 2-6 weeks, to starting about 7 months later as I think that they opted to wait and get more systems into the game and ready for testing before opening the flood gates.
Not everyone gets the system and you'll always end up with those 'testers' that are there to play the game and not there to test and give feedback. So there's still a good bit of 'noise' and people that complain about systems 'not making sense' because the system is only partially implemented, or is in the midst of a revamp. While I think that SOE may be seeing a little more of that than normal because they're getting stuff to the testers earlier, any development method is going to have those issues at some stage.
In the end I'm hoping that some players are paying attention and learning something about the development process involved in these types of games. I'm pretty sure that other developers are taking notice and will be looking to see how Landmark / Next do in the end. If those projects are successful because of player/community involvement in the process then I really think that we will likely see more of this type of development cycle.
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Landmark – Thoughts on Beta
Keep in mind that these are
still ramblings about a game that is in closed beta. It is not in its final
state and things are constantly changing. SOE is going through what they’re
calling an ‘open development’ process where they are giving players very early
access to things in order to get feedback and make adjustments. Two quick
things about this now, and I’ll probably do an article on this aspect of things
specifically later. First it’s great, the accessibility of the team and the
communication is tremendous. Also it gives a lot of insight into the
development process on a project like this. The downside, however, is that a
lot of the ‘testers’ involved don’t understand what they’re in the middle of.
Many of them seem to think that SOE can just wave a wand and make a change, or
have the new revision live.
That aside, there are still
some things to talk about re: Landmark The Game. The team pushed out a huge
update just before the holidays last month. Adding a lot of features that had
been in the works for the better part of the year … in particular underworld
layers and NPC monsters (combat had been in for a while, but was strictly PvP
on designated player claims.) They also put in the first phase of a crafting
overhaul, and re-worked resource gathering and equipment upgrading, fixed
several bugs (and added new ones).
The problem here is that most
of these changes are incomplete. I can’t tell how the new crafting and
upgrading changes are going to work because the systems for upgrading aren’t
in. In general I like where they’re going, but what options will I have for
upgrading the gear beyond that. Nothing I can make now is comparable to the
harvesting gear that I’ve already made; and I wasn’t even done upgrading that.
The PvE combat in it’s
current state is fun, but a bit tedious. Mobs are very strong so frequently you
can only take a few hits, and the fights (if you’re doing well) can take a good
bit because even with a pretty high damage rating these things can take a
beating. (Keeping in mind that this is mainly me Duo-ing with ‘The Wife’ so
there’s two of us hitting these things and the fights are still long.)
The exploration aspect is
great. The caverns and layers of caverns hold interesting ruins to find (that
were player created in game and selected by the devs through an event, some of
them are very interesting and stumbling onto one as you go through a cavern is
great. There’s also, of course, more mobs in the caverns than there are over
land too so keep your weapons handy. They’ve also moved the higher ‘tier’
resources down into the caverns rather than across different tier islands so
there are other reasons to go down into the dark depths.
Building is amazing and is
definitely still the strength of the game. Some of the player created areas are
absolutely incredible, and they just added linking and triggering to the game
so you can link different props so that, for example, a door will open if
someone enters the area in front of it. This is just the first layer of this
type of thing that they’ve put in, but people have already built crazy things
including a working digital clock with it. (Someone built a count down clock
for New Years and one of the Devs created a firework display using links and
triggers to light up the effects and explosions at the correct times).
Well, as I said, it’s being
billed as a social/building MMO, so lets look at the social aspect. I’ll start
with the basics – Chat. You have the standard text chat, I haven’t checked if
custom channels are working across servers yet, but other than that issue basic
chat, tells, group chat, guild chat, and officer chat, are there and seem
pretty stable. Local is range limited so that’s something to keep in mind if
you’re chatting with folks in local while running around. They’ve also put in
game voice support in, but I haven’t tried it out yet.
Next is grouping. It’s in,
and all things considered pretty well handled. Loot drops for everyone in the
party, and I get the same type of loot solo that I do grouped so there doesn’t
seem to be any realistic downside to being grouped. In fact since harvesting
items are shared there’s a lot of reason TO group, as you can essentially
multiply your gathering efforts if everyone is gathering. (For example, if I
harvest 100 copper while grouped with the wife, I get 100 copper and my wife
gets 100 copper as well.)
Guilds are in, and have their
own guild ranks and chat channels, but currently that’s about the extent of
guild functionality. They have plans for more (guild owned claims, guild banks
and other things), but at this point I think that the ‘guild’ aspect of the
game is a few notches down on the priority list, and that’s fine. A lot of the
functionality I’d want for guilds are modifications on existing systems so
shouldn’t be terribly complicated to add once they get the bigger systems where
they want them and polished.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
EQN: Landmark - Alpha
[NOTE - This was originally meant to be posted almost a year ago (Mid Feb 2014) but was never actually finished. I am publishing it now with a few minor edits to clarify some things and will elaborate on things in another post where I discuss the more current version of closed beta that we are in at the moment. Please keep in mind that this was written during an early version of the Alpha and almost a year of development has passed since I originally wrote this. I am publishing this, in part, so that I can discuss things that may have changed in the course of that development. I will add a few notes in italics for clarity on a few points]
Well it's been about 6 months since I posted about EQNext and my thoughts on their big reveal at SOE Live. And I've been in EQNext Landmark's Alpha for almost 2 weeks (man it doesn't seem like it's been that long but I started downloading the client just after Midnight Feb 1st (2014) ... time flies when you're busy at work and having fun.)
Well ... SOE decided on Alpha day 01 to drop the NDA as it didn't fit with their 'open' method of game design I've posted a couple of screen caps on the facebook site (Scale of Pain Facebook) as well as links to their alpha (link is to the beta forums now, thought the alpha forums are archived there as well) forums which are open to read by anyone. As a result I've been gathering stuff for a article here on my impressions of the new and emerging game called Landmark.
First I want to start of with a bit of a 'What is Landmark' because that's a big question out there.
SOE says that Landmark is an "Online Social Building Game" ... but that's not completely accurate. Because it's not purely a building game. Building is certainly a focus as you can see by the shots of player built creations on the SOE landmark page but many people get the wrong idea when you simply say that it's a building game. It is NOT Minecraft creative mode where you have unlimited resources to build whatever you want.
It is a game that encourages exploration, resource gathering, and crafting and building ... including community building. While it's still in Alpha and many of the main systems are not yet in game I can say this, it's going to be a fun, and very very different idea of an MMO. The goal here is world that the players can make something, where a group, or guild, working together can focus their resources and talents to build something spectacular together. A game in which a dedicated community can come together and build a world around them in which they can tell their own story.
To a certain degree I disagree with this being called 'Everquest' because it isn't. Landmark does not take place on Norrath, nor does it take place at any specific time or even genre. It is being called Everquest Next: Landmark because it was developed as a result of the development of Everquest Next, that is to say it came about because when making EQN someone realized 'this is fun' and 'this could be a game itself.'
[NOTE - Apparently SOE agreed as the title of the game was officially changed to Landmark The Game shortly after I started writing this]
Next is the obvious - my impressions so far:
Simple - I am enjoying the game immensely. Even with only half or so of the content in, even in it's early stages I see promise. Servers are pretty stable, and aside from some database problems that the team sorted out in the first week things have been pretty smooth. There are bugs, and features that aren't in of course, but it's still early in the alpha stage so that's to be expected. They are applying several newer technologies to the game, and taking others that haven't really been used this way before. (One of the biggest problems of week one wasn't discovered until alpha started because they hadn't been using multiple servers until that point.)
Through all the trouble of the start of Alpha and the problems that have popped up here and there, the Dev team has done a great job communicating what they're working on and why things are happening. Posts on the forums are frequent, and the team is very active on Twitter. Tweeting members of the team often gets a response and by and large the testers have been a pretty good group looking for and reporting problems, giving feedback and suggestions, and pointing out potential flaws.
Now on to some of the complaints I've seen -
No other races - Yes, I would like to see them put in races other than Human, but at this stage, races don't matter, and in the end I don't think that should be a focus for Landmark. I would like to see them put in illusions or 'costumes' so that we as players could choose to look like different fantasy races or aliens, etc to help us build and populate that world or section of the world where we tell our story, but in terms of character creation I don't think different races should be a priority for the team.
Too much grind - way too early to judge something like that. Many systems aren't in and much of what IS in, is in a temporary state to jump start testing. Numbers and required resources are something that will likely be tuned through alpha and into late beta as new things are added and their effects on the system are evaluated. Having been through a few alphas and betas in the past this is normal.
(also a note on the 'grind' from my perspective at least - the 'grind' is a misplaced focus on the part of the player. That is to say that it means that the player has chosen to focus on 'getting X' instead of 'having fun' either due to the belief that 'X' is needed to have fun, or just because of the player's own personality. As a result any repetitive task that needs to be accomplished becomes a 'grind' that is keeping them from getting 'X' ... players that focus on things like 'having fun with some friends' or 'exploring to look for 'Y' often find themselves in possession of 'X' without having really thought about the 'grind' that it took to get it.)
Well it's been about 6 months since I posted about EQNext and my thoughts on their big reveal at SOE Live. And I've been in EQNext Landmark's Alpha for almost 2 weeks (man it doesn't seem like it's been that long but I started downloading the client just after Midnight Feb 1st (2014) ... time flies when you're busy at work and having fun.)
Well ... SOE decided on Alpha day 01 to drop the NDA as it didn't fit with their 'open' method of game design I've posted a couple of screen caps on the facebook site (Scale of Pain Facebook) as well as links to their alpha (link is to the beta forums now, thought the alpha forums are archived there as well) forums which are open to read by anyone. As a result I've been gathering stuff for a article here on my impressions of the new and emerging game called Landmark.
First I want to start of with a bit of a 'What is Landmark' because that's a big question out there.
SOE says that Landmark is an "Online Social Building Game" ... but that's not completely accurate. Because it's not purely a building game. Building is certainly a focus as you can see by the shots of player built creations on the SOE landmark page but many people get the wrong idea when you simply say that it's a building game. It is NOT Minecraft creative mode where you have unlimited resources to build whatever you want.
It is a game that encourages exploration, resource gathering, and crafting and building ... including community building. While it's still in Alpha and many of the main systems are not yet in game I can say this, it's going to be a fun, and very very different idea of an MMO. The goal here is world that the players can make something, where a group, or guild, working together can focus their resources and talents to build something spectacular together. A game in which a dedicated community can come together and build a world around them in which they can tell their own story.
To a certain degree I disagree with this being called 'Everquest' because it isn't. Landmark does not take place on Norrath, nor does it take place at any specific time or even genre. It is being called Everquest Next: Landmark because it was developed as a result of the development of Everquest Next, that is to say it came about because when making EQN someone realized 'this is fun' and 'this could be a game itself.'
[NOTE - Apparently SOE agreed as the title of the game was officially changed to Landmark The Game shortly after I started writing this]
Next is the obvious - my impressions so far:
Simple - I am enjoying the game immensely. Even with only half or so of the content in, even in it's early stages I see promise. Servers are pretty stable, and aside from some database problems that the team sorted out in the first week things have been pretty smooth. There are bugs, and features that aren't in of course, but it's still early in the alpha stage so that's to be expected. They are applying several newer technologies to the game, and taking others that haven't really been used this way before. (One of the biggest problems of week one wasn't discovered until alpha started because they hadn't been using multiple servers until that point.)
Through all the trouble of the start of Alpha and the problems that have popped up here and there, the Dev team has done a great job communicating what they're working on and why things are happening. Posts on the forums are frequent, and the team is very active on Twitter. Tweeting members of the team often gets a response and by and large the testers have been a pretty good group looking for and reporting problems, giving feedback and suggestions, and pointing out potential flaws.
Now on to some of the complaints I've seen -
No other races - Yes, I would like to see them put in races other than Human, but at this stage, races don't matter, and in the end I don't think that should be a focus for Landmark. I would like to see them put in illusions or 'costumes' so that we as players could choose to look like different fantasy races or aliens, etc to help us build and populate that world or section of the world where we tell our story, but in terms of character creation I don't think different races should be a priority for the team.
Too much grind - way too early to judge something like that. Many systems aren't in and much of what IS in, is in a temporary state to jump start testing. Numbers and required resources are something that will likely be tuned through alpha and into late beta as new things are added and their effects on the system are evaluated. Having been through a few alphas and betas in the past this is normal.
(also a note on the 'grind' from my perspective at least - the 'grind' is a misplaced focus on the part of the player. That is to say that it means that the player has chosen to focus on 'getting X' instead of 'having fun' either due to the belief that 'X' is needed to have fun, or just because of the player's own personality. As a result any repetitive task that needs to be accomplished becomes a 'grind' that is keeping them from getting 'X' ... players that focus on things like 'having fun with some friends' or 'exploring to look for 'Y' often find themselves in possession of 'X' without having really thought about the 'grind' that it took to get it.)
2015 the Year of the Grimscale
Okay ... posting a note here as well that my intention this year is to start posting on my blogs again. I'll be posting things about game design theory, games I'm playing, games I think look cool, and any other topic that relates to games ... computer, console, board, table top strategy, pen and paper RPGs, if it's a game it's fair ... well ... game.
Though to be perfectly honest I'll mostly be talking about computer games as that's most of what I play. I'm going to start by going over some information about Landmark the Game, and going back over my last post (was that really back in 2013 ... good god) about Everquest Next, going back over a few of my points and re-addressing some of those things.
I'm going to gun for at least one post a week on each of my two Blogs but I'm not going to swear by anything as work and working toward actually getting serious and doing some stuff is going to keep me busy (this is a good thing though) ... and I do still have to find time to PLAY games too (at least now I can consider at least SOME of my playing as 'market research' or some such.
Happy New Year, everyone, looking forward to a productive and, hopefully fun, 2015.
Though to be perfectly honest I'll mostly be talking about computer games as that's most of what I play. I'm going to start by going over some information about Landmark the Game, and going back over my last post (was that really back in 2013 ... good god) about Everquest Next, going back over a few of my points and re-addressing some of those things.
I'm going to gun for at least one post a week on each of my two Blogs but I'm not going to swear by anything as work and working toward actually getting serious and doing some stuff is going to keep me busy (this is a good thing though) ... and I do still have to find time to PLAY games too (at least now I can consider at least SOME of my playing as 'market research' or some such.
Happy New Year, everyone, looking forward to a productive and, hopefully fun, 2015.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
