As I mentioned in my last ramble I've been playing Conan Exiles lately and over the weekend I was looking at it trying to find why I seemed to be more captured by Conan than I had been by ARK. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing ARK, but there is something in Conan that I didn't have with ARK.
To be fair I must say that ARK is still in early access as well, and that I haven't played the game in the last several months so it is possible that changes have been made that I'm unaware of.
Both games are sandbox survival games, which is to say most of what you get out of the game is dependent upon what you bring into it. So they don't have a story that you follow as you would with more traditional style games. ARK is rumored to be heading toward having an end goal that you are supposed to be working toward (building a ship and leaving the ARK in the case of ARK) while others of the genre are really about just living in the world. In either case, however, there is no definitive story.
Both games you create a character and are thrown into a hostile world naked and alone and you have to gather the resources that you need to survive. Both games use pretty similar mechanics for these systems (likely in part due to using the same engine and I'm sure that ARK influenced Conan's development significantly as well). Combat, building, and general survival concepts are all very similar between the two games. So why do I find Conan so much more interesting?
I suspect that there is several reasons behind it, but first and foremost it comes to engagement. I find myself more engaged with Conan than I really did with ARK. Why? Background. Conan has it, ARK doesn't. In both games you customize the appearance of your character in the game and name them. In Conan, however, you make a few additional choices - mainly Race and Religion. Race (or Culture really) is a purely superficial choice it has no bearing in the game beyond perhaps limiting certain cosmetic features during character creation. What it does add to the game, however, is background. It gives you a culture that your character came from. Religion, does have a little more impact in the game, namely how you interact with the religion system in game. Again, however, it allows you to get some background information as it would apply to the world and your character's place in it.
Finally, when you name your character in Conan you are also presented with a list of 'crimes' that you have been exiled for. There are other indications that point to the fact that these crimes may or may not have been real, but you have a reason for being in the wilderness where you start. ARK has nothing of this. You make and name your character and you appear in a world that you know nothing about, no idea how or why you're there .... just that you are.
Now in ARK you CAN create a full story around yourself and the reason for the situation that you are in, but generally when people are playing a game they are looking to relax, mentally creating something like that from scratch is not the type of thing that they are looking for. The world of ARK exists, but it is a completely blank slate there is no history, no character background, there really isn't anything to tell you that there could potentially be an end game.
I enjoy ARK, it does have an appeal to it. Taming Pseudo Dinos to help you work and protect you as you journey through the ARK looking for resources. Conan doesn't really have anything like that at the moment, but the world and lore that exists in the game provides a framework to help the player engage that ARK is lacking.
The Dinos of ARK, however, do present another issue. No it's not that I can't immerse myself because there's Dinos around ... I enjoy that aspect. However, once you reach the point that you have Dino mounts, and particularly flying mounts, the world shrinks significantly. I don't know how the map between Conan and ARK actually compares size wise, but Conan's world feels bigger, for the most part because you're traveling on foot. You can't fly up to the top of that cliff to see what's up there .... you have to explore and find the path up, and deal with any dangers on the way. Yes, in ARK you can forgo the Dino mounts and make yourself travel on foot, even not bring Dino escorts to help protect you and deal with issues, but that is basically forgoing a major feature of the game just to make the world feel bigger.
The world of Conan also feels a bit more alive and real with camps of tribes and other people around. In ARK only other players fill this role, if you're playing single player you are the lone human in the ARK (which really doesn't make a lot of sense even within what little framework they have for the game). Where as in Conan while you may be the only player, there actually are other people scattered around (though admittedly most will be trying to kill you if they see you, but there are some lore NPCs in the game).
You can say that the point of ARK is multi-player and I'll agree with that to a large degree, but the same IS true of Conan too. The truth is that either - you are playing on a PvP server (most of which are little more than deathmatch arenas with no hope of story or any real engagement) or you're on a PvE server that basically boils down to you and your friends are the only humans on the ARK (at least this is a little more believable). [Note - I'm not saying that everyone on a PvE server are your friends or are even in the same tribe as you, but since there are no humans on the ARK that are ever a threat to you, you may as well be.]
In short, what it really boils down to is ... Conan is more like a world while ARK is more like a game. ARK (again when last I played it) is entertaining and fun, it is challenging, and rewarding when you tame a new Dino or finish building a new base, but it isn't engaging, it never really feels like a world. Lore and backstory can be added, and I hope that the devs and mod community will create lore and backstory for the characters and worlds and make the game more engaging, but in my experience that aspect is what is currently pushing Conan Exiles ahead, at least for me.
Monday, February 13, 2017
Monday, February 6, 2017
Multi-Game Madness
Okay ... I've been bouncing around the Game-o-sphere again (still really ... lets face it, even when I'm playing primarily one game, I'm usually dabbling in 2 or 3 others). So I figured I'd drop some quick thoughts on what I've been playing lately.
Early Access game from FunCom (The makers of MMO games Age of Conan, Anarchy Online, and The Secret World) as well as some single player games, most notably The Longest Journey series and more recently The Park a single player adventure in The Secret World setting. Conan Exiles takes the Conan License into the Sandbox Survival genre allowing players to play Multi-player on Officially hosted persistent servers, Single player, or host their own persistent servers where they can set the rules. Originally I had very little interest in the game when I heard that they were working on the title as I was expecting a PvP gank-fest online game designed primarily around the idea of e-sports, and I was pleasantly surprised to see the single player and Co-Op options being presented with the title.
(Aside - For the record I have nothing against games being designed around e-sports or being PvP focused. I find, however, that while I may enjoy these games on occasion I rarely have the time/desire to sink the kind of time into them that it takes to be truly competitive so I don't tend to have much interest in them. Games like Mechwarrior Online that I can jump into and play a few matches occasionally in a setting / genre that I like can be fun, but aren't going to be a primary makeup of my gaming and as a result I'm not likely to pick them up unless I can get into them without spending cash.)
Conan Exiles has just launched into Early Access so I'm not going to be too critical here as a lot can change over the course of late development. I am also looking at this from the point of view of a PvE player.
Graphically the game is definitely beautiful:
And all things considered it's pretty solid. There are the usual balance issues (particularly between ranged and melee combat) but that's something that can easily be tweaked and adjusted through the early access part of development. Presently the skill progression is very inter-dependent and with the lack of skill points you aren't going to have a lot of 'wiggle room' in your chosen crafting skills. While this won't likely be as much of a problem on large high population servers where people can reasonably specialize and get what they can't make from other players, players like myself that prefer a smaller more intimate server may find themselves unable to do the higher end crafting because they've had to spread out their skill points too much,
There is a lot of potential in this game and there is the opportunity here to make a game that really takes the best of this genre and shines, but at the same time it is facing an uphill climb. This is a well established genre at this point. Games like Minecraft, Rust, Day-Z, and the like have all built this genre over the last several years and recent games like ARK: Survival Evolved have been expanding it into different settings so you have the dual edged sword of trying to make yourself stand out as a late comer to the genre, but at the same time constrained by the expectations of people that play the genre regularly ... you have to be different, but not TOO different.
In the end, it's a fun game and my friends and I are enjoying our private server Co-Op experience. I'll definitely get my $30 worth of entertainment out of the game. In it's current state the game is stable and fun, if difficult at times. It is, however, very much a game that needs multiplayer to really reach its full potential, or a much more robust NPC / RPG element for the single player experience. If you have several friends that like a Low-Fantasy setting I would say to keep an eye on this one for release. If you are willing to brave the issues of an incomplete game and the risk of burning out before the game even releases then the current Early Access game is solid.
Free to play 3rd person action Co-Op shooter. This game is primarily a PvE 3rd person shooter with some PvP arena match games available. Game has a solid F2P model that encourages but doesn't require the player to spend real money on the game. That is to say that almost anything in game can be earned in game if the player wants to put in the time to earn what they need in game. The game can certainly become a major grind if you want to focus on it in that way, but if played as a game to just jump in and have some fun (particularly with a group of friends) and realize that the other 'stuff' in the game will take time to get to, then you can play it and have a lot of fun completely for free.
All Guild (Clan) goals are also achievable to even a small Guild (Clan), and in fact larger Guilds actually have to gather more in terms of resources to complete the same goals. The game is solidly designed around co-op game play with teams of 1-4 players doing missions. The matchmaking system makes finding a random team fast, or players can invite friends or clan-mates to squad up before starting missions ... more people on the team means a slight increase in difficulty and an increased rate of drops as well as better chances at rarer drops.
The game is a ton of fun, the movement and fluidity of the controls is pretty well done (It has it's issues here and there, but that's any game ever made as far as I'm concerned), and the combat is face paced and down right exhilarating at times. For myself, I find it's a lot more fun in a regular group of friends that play together and work as a team. PUGs (Random pick up groups) tend to focus on speed runs and that is (imo) what turns the game into a grind for most people. Keep it casual, keep it fun, but keep in mind that things will take time to get done.
Okay, I'm a bit biased here as I love the Games Workshop Warhammer (and Warhammer 40k) universe and I love turn based games. The game, based on the table-top mini game of the same name, is a dark fantasy setting in which you take control of a warband scouring the ruined city of Mordheim for fame and fortune. The game has a significant learning curve and the tutorial is largely unhelpful (It is a great lesson, however, in how NOT to design a tutorial series.). A lot of people complain about the Random in the game, but to be honest (they show the rolls in the combat log) it really isn't stacked against the player specifically and I've seen the type of things that people complain about happen during a game rolling dice.
That said, the rules of Mordheim are harsh (also because the tutorial sucks, they are somewhat mysterious) and the game will punish a tactical mistake without pity. The biggest advantage I've seen the AI have in the game, however, is knowledge of the map. They know where they can pass through where a player may waste a turn going into a building that's a dead end only to have to go back out the way they went in and go around. The story line missions are particularly brutal, unforgiving, and totally unfair, so that I think is probably where a lot of the complaints about the game come from.
All in all it is a very solid turn based squad tactical game in a dark fantasy setting. The different warbands (Mercinary, Sisters of Sigmar, Skaven, and Chaos in the base game Witch Hunters and Undead via DLC) have their own feel, strengths and weaknesses, and flow (along with their own story line, but see the above comment about the story line missions). The game allows a good degree of customization (Items, Weapons, Armor and look, as well as names and the like for each member of the warband.) allowing you to make a warband that reflects you ... and then watch in horror as they slowly die. Seriously though, I very much have enjoyed this and I am really stoked that the developer and publisher recently announced that they are working on a Necromunda title (similar table-top game set in Games Workshop's 40k setting) for me to look forward to.
Conan Exiles (https://conanexiles.com/)
Early Access game from FunCom (The makers of MMO games Age of Conan, Anarchy Online, and The Secret World) as well as some single player games, most notably The Longest Journey series and more recently The Park a single player adventure in The Secret World setting. Conan Exiles takes the Conan License into the Sandbox Survival genre allowing players to play Multi-player on Officially hosted persistent servers, Single player, or host their own persistent servers where they can set the rules. Originally I had very little interest in the game when I heard that they were working on the title as I was expecting a PvP gank-fest online game designed primarily around the idea of e-sports, and I was pleasantly surprised to see the single player and Co-Op options being presented with the title.
(Aside - For the record I have nothing against games being designed around e-sports or being PvP focused. I find, however, that while I may enjoy these games on occasion I rarely have the time/desire to sink the kind of time into them that it takes to be truly competitive so I don't tend to have much interest in them. Games like Mechwarrior Online that I can jump into and play a few matches occasionally in a setting / genre that I like can be fun, but aren't going to be a primary makeup of my gaming and as a result I'm not likely to pick them up unless I can get into them without spending cash.)
Conan Exiles has just launched into Early Access so I'm not going to be too critical here as a lot can change over the course of late development. I am also looking at this from the point of view of a PvE player.
Graphically the game is definitely beautiful:
There is a lot of potential in this game and there is the opportunity here to make a game that really takes the best of this genre and shines, but at the same time it is facing an uphill climb. This is a well established genre at this point. Games like Minecraft, Rust, Day-Z, and the like have all built this genre over the last several years and recent games like ARK: Survival Evolved have been expanding it into different settings so you have the dual edged sword of trying to make yourself stand out as a late comer to the genre, but at the same time constrained by the expectations of people that play the genre regularly ... you have to be different, but not TOO different.
In the end, it's a fun game and my friends and I are enjoying our private server Co-Op experience. I'll definitely get my $30 worth of entertainment out of the game. In it's current state the game is stable and fun, if difficult at times. It is, however, very much a game that needs multiplayer to really reach its full potential, or a much more robust NPC / RPG element for the single player experience. If you have several friends that like a Low-Fantasy setting I would say to keep an eye on this one for release. If you are willing to brave the issues of an incomplete game and the risk of burning out before the game even releases then the current Early Access game is solid.
Warframe (https://warframe.com/)
Free to play 3rd person action Co-Op shooter. This game is primarily a PvE 3rd person shooter with some PvP arena match games available. Game has a solid F2P model that encourages but doesn't require the player to spend real money on the game. That is to say that almost anything in game can be earned in game if the player wants to put in the time to earn what they need in game. The game can certainly become a major grind if you want to focus on it in that way, but if played as a game to just jump in and have some fun (particularly with a group of friends) and realize that the other 'stuff' in the game will take time to get to, then you can play it and have a lot of fun completely for free.
All Guild (Clan) goals are also achievable to even a small Guild (Clan), and in fact larger Guilds actually have to gather more in terms of resources to complete the same goals. The game is solidly designed around co-op game play with teams of 1-4 players doing missions. The matchmaking system makes finding a random team fast, or players can invite friends or clan-mates to squad up before starting missions ... more people on the team means a slight increase in difficulty and an increased rate of drops as well as better chances at rarer drops.
The game is a ton of fun, the movement and fluidity of the controls is pretty well done (It has it's issues here and there, but that's any game ever made as far as I'm concerned), and the combat is face paced and down right exhilarating at times. For myself, I find it's a lot more fun in a regular group of friends that play together and work as a team. PUGs (Random pick up groups) tend to focus on speed runs and that is (imo) what turns the game into a grind for most people. Keep it casual, keep it fun, but keep in mind that things will take time to get done.
Mordheim: City of the Damned (http://www.mordheim-cityofthedamned.com/)
Okay, I'm a bit biased here as I love the Games Workshop Warhammer (and Warhammer 40k) universe and I love turn based games. The game, based on the table-top mini game of the same name, is a dark fantasy setting in which you take control of a warband scouring the ruined city of Mordheim for fame and fortune. The game has a significant learning curve and the tutorial is largely unhelpful (It is a great lesson, however, in how NOT to design a tutorial series.). A lot of people complain about the Random in the game, but to be honest (they show the rolls in the combat log) it really isn't stacked against the player specifically and I've seen the type of things that people complain about happen during a game rolling dice.
That said, the rules of Mordheim are harsh (also because the tutorial sucks, they are somewhat mysterious) and the game will punish a tactical mistake without pity. The biggest advantage I've seen the AI have in the game, however, is knowledge of the map. They know where they can pass through where a player may waste a turn going into a building that's a dead end only to have to go back out the way they went in and go around. The story line missions are particularly brutal, unforgiving, and totally unfair, so that I think is probably where a lot of the complaints about the game come from.
All in all it is a very solid turn based squad tactical game in a dark fantasy setting. The different warbands (Mercinary, Sisters of Sigmar, Skaven, and Chaos in the base game Witch Hunters and Undead via DLC) have their own feel, strengths and weaknesses, and flow (along with their own story line, but see the above comment about the story line missions). The game allows a good degree of customization (Items, Weapons, Armor and look, as well as names and the like for each member of the warband.) allowing you to make a warband that reflects you ... and then watch in horror as they slowly die. Seriously though, I very much have enjoyed this and I am really stoked that the developer and publisher recently announced that they are working on a Necromunda title (similar table-top game set in Games Workshop's 40k setting) for me to look forward to.
Friday, July 29, 2016
Total Warhammer
Okay, the game is actually Total War: Warhammer, but I'm just going to call it Total Warhammer because it's easier and I'm lazy. Now, to be clear I am a fan of both the Total War series, and Games Workshop's Warhammer (both their Fantasy and 40k lineups as well as several of their other games). So I am coming at this with reasonably high expectations.
For the TL;DR people here's the summery up front: It's a decent strategy game with some wonderful visuals and neat mechanics. If you're a pure Total War fan I'd potentially suggest giving it a pass, or waiting to get it on sale or bundled with some of the DLC. If you're a pure Games Workshop / Warhammer fan this is a must buy. Some of the mechanics may take a little getting used to, but by far this is the closest to the table top experience I've seen in a computer game. It is solid, stable, and performs well on my 3 year old gaming laptop.
Basic Gameplay
Now for the nuts and bolts. In the Total Warhammer campaign you take command of one of 4 starting factions (Dwarves, Orks, Empire, Vampire Counts) ... I'll get to DLC in a bit ... and go through a series of objectives to try and achieve victory (as described by your faction at least). The game takes place in 2 modes ... the campaign map, a turn based mode in which you manage your resources, raise armies, recruit units for your armies, position your heroes to aid your plans or hinder your opponents and maneuver your armies to get them where you need them.
Each army is led by a Lord, a powerful individual that gains levels and skill that will aid them, bolster the units under them, or help with the larger campaign. Heroes may also be embedded into an army to bring their substantial power to bear on a battle directly as well, or they can remain independent and operate on the campaign map avoiding direct battle but using their skills in other ways to aid their faction.
Unlike in many of the other Total War games, here the factions are very different with different mechanics that make them each feel unique. This is part of where the game is really well done. Orks feel very much like Orks. They have a Waaagh meter that if the commanding Lord of the army doesn't keep 'iz boyz in good fights (that is fights that they are winning) his units will start to suffer attrition because the orks get bored and start deserting, or fighting among themselves. Dwarves have their Book of Grudges where the longer a grudge stays on the books the more unrest it causes in your settlements.
Settlements, unrest, income, taxes, all of this needs to be managed and each of the factions goes about that in a slightly different way. Also certain factions can only settle in certain locations, Vampire counts, for example, can't take over a Dwarven keep, but the can take over an Imperial settlement. While that may seem to set the game up into a pair of rivalries (Vampire Counts v Empire, Orks v Dwarves) it's not quite that simple. Just because you can't settle it doesn't mean you can't raid it or raze it.
And that brings us to combat. Because invariably your armies are going to meet the armies of one of the other factions on the field of battle at some point. Combat takes place in a pause-able real time fight with both sides issuing orders to their units trying to maneuver to take advantage of the terrain or just flank their opponent.
Just as the campaign mechanics are different, the units are also different between the factions (not just in look, but in function) Dwarf Crossbow units (for example) have good accuracy and damage at range, but they are no slouch in a melee fight either (you have to toggle them to their melee weapons, but aren't push overs in any case). On the other hand Goblin Archers in addition to having shorter range, don't stand up in a melee fight well at all. Though with the sub factions within each faction, you'll be fighting some mirror images of your armies as well.
Cons
Okay a few things that I've come across in my playing of the game (I've played as every available faction for at least the early game). Compared to Total War: Shogun 2 (the one I've personally spent the most time in) settlement management is over simplified, I would like to have seen more depth here than there is. If nothing else an ability to adjust tax rates instead of just 'off or on' would have given some options.
I'm also not a fan of the region system (a region is 2 or 3 (usually) settlements and to get certain options you have to control all settlements in the region. I like the idea of this but I think they went the wrong way in its execution. That is to say I think that the regions are too big ... I would have liked it better if they had divided the settlements into smaller parts that had to be captured to control the settlement. I think that would have increased the conflict and offered more depth while grouping several settlements together into a region I think actually took depth and options away.
Part of the feeling of this is that each region has a capital settlement and all the others are 'minor' settlements. Combat at a 'minor' settlement takes place in the field just like it would if there was no settlement there. This is one of the places where I agree with some of the negative reviews, this takes a lot of strategy out of the game, in previous Total War games even a village without walls you could use buildings and such to set up choke points OR go meet them on the open field. Now you don't have that choice at all.
Likewise while you can BUILD 'walls' in the minor settlements you don't actually get walls, you get a few more garrisoned units to help you fight out in the field. This is much less of a help in an attack than actual WALLS would be. Only the capital cities have actual walls though.
Which brings us to Capitals these are where you have walls and actually fight in a city. But unlike previous Total War games (or at least Total War: Shogun 2) your city apparently only has 1 wall (at least during an attack) so your opponent can't attack from multiple sides of the city ... again, limiting the strategy of the fight. Not a good choice for a strategy game, in my opinion.
Other missing items from previous Total War games are unit formations. Skirmish formation when melee troops approached archers to spread them out and limit ranged casualties, spear units setting for a charge, shield units coming together for a shield wall ... these formations and using them properly gave depth to the game and strength and versatility to the units to minimize a weakness or maximize a strength in a key point in the battle. But they are gone in Total Warhammer.
Heroes in Total Warhammer are powerful tools that can really change things. Like Lords they level up and earn skills, but unlike Lords they can not lead an Army. They are a bit over powered in the campaign because if they aren't attached to an army, armies and lords can't attack them. Another Hero can attempt to assassinate them but that is the only way to attack a hero that is operating independently. As such they can wreck your town buildings or garrison and, unless you have a hero nearby, there's nothing you can do about it, even if you have a much more powerful Lord with a full army in the settlement. (I should note that if you have a lord and his army in the settlement, an enemy hero will have a more difficult chance to succeed in their sabotage, assassinate, or other 'mission's but they can stand there and try every turn until you get your own hero there to try and assassinate them.)
Combat feels 'off' a bit. Units break and run very fast (at least in the early game) which doesn't allow a lot of time for larger battle strategies. While the default 'max' time for a battle is listed as 60 minutes, I don't think I've had even a massive battle last more than 15 yet. maybe that will change in the late game, but currently it really does feel like some things have been 'sped up' in an attempt to make the game feel more fast paced.
That probably seems like a lot of Cons there, but really they're minor. Most of them will only apply if you have played and enjoyed earlier Total War titles (Shogun 2 and earlier as some of these changes were apparently in Rome 2 and Atilla as well). And some of these changes have as much to do also with one of the big PROs ... faction diversity. While in Shogun 2 you had a LOT of factions, you all used the same troop types, formations, mechanics, etc. Now Faction A may have a bonus to a couple of unit types while Faction B had bonuses to different units, and Faction C had bonuses to production, but ultimately they were the same.
Several other elements of the game are new such as is gear, magic, and of course the monstrous units. I suspect that last one is why they've done away with village fighting as large units in a village would have pathing and movement issues, or would be unable to get in at all unless you made buildings destructible and I suspect that would have been time and/or resource intensive and they decided that it was better left out for now.
DLC
Okay, currently there are 3 DLC available for the game. 2 Add new playable factions, Chaos Warriors, and Beastmen respectively, and the 3rd adds blood and gore to the battles. (See my Ramble about people complaining about DLC over on the Path of Bones) Each of these factions added new unique mechanics to the game and the Beastmen also added a smaller more focused story style campaign centered around their faction.
Some people will complain that there is going to be too much DLC for the game (and Creative Assembly does tend to create a lot of DLC for their Total War titles so that isn't surprising), that it costs too much, or that they held content out of the game just to release it later. I say people complain too much. I like the DLC system, if I'm not interested in a particular piece of DLC (the blood and gore pack for example) I just don't buy it. And I remember the days where you had to wait much longer for an 'expansion' to the game that was often another $50. Beastmen is a $19 add on ... if $19 seems too much wait a bit and catch it on sale.
CA has also announced 10 free DLC (one of which is a new playable race) so they are definitely planning to support and expand the game even for those that don't get any of the paid DLC.
For the TL;DR people here's the summery up front: It's a decent strategy game with some wonderful visuals and neat mechanics. If you're a pure Total War fan I'd potentially suggest giving it a pass, or waiting to get it on sale or bundled with some of the DLC. If you're a pure Games Workshop / Warhammer fan this is a must buy. Some of the mechanics may take a little getting used to, but by far this is the closest to the table top experience I've seen in a computer game. It is solid, stable, and performs well on my 3 year old gaming laptop.
Basic Gameplay
Now for the nuts and bolts. In the Total Warhammer campaign you take command of one of 4 starting factions (Dwarves, Orks, Empire, Vampire Counts) ... I'll get to DLC in a bit ... and go through a series of objectives to try and achieve victory (as described by your faction at least). The game takes place in 2 modes ... the campaign map, a turn based mode in which you manage your resources, raise armies, recruit units for your armies, position your heroes to aid your plans or hinder your opponents and maneuver your armies to get them where you need them.
Each army is led by a Lord, a powerful individual that gains levels and skill that will aid them, bolster the units under them, or help with the larger campaign. Heroes may also be embedded into an army to bring their substantial power to bear on a battle directly as well, or they can remain independent and operate on the campaign map avoiding direct battle but using their skills in other ways to aid their faction.
Unlike in many of the other Total War games, here the factions are very different with different mechanics that make them each feel unique. This is part of where the game is really well done. Orks feel very much like Orks. They have a Waaagh meter that if the commanding Lord of the army doesn't keep 'iz boyz in good fights (that is fights that they are winning) his units will start to suffer attrition because the orks get bored and start deserting, or fighting among themselves. Dwarves have their Book of Grudges where the longer a grudge stays on the books the more unrest it causes in your settlements.
Settlements, unrest, income, taxes, all of this needs to be managed and each of the factions goes about that in a slightly different way. Also certain factions can only settle in certain locations, Vampire counts, for example, can't take over a Dwarven keep, but the can take over an Imperial settlement. While that may seem to set the game up into a pair of rivalries (Vampire Counts v Empire, Orks v Dwarves) it's not quite that simple. Just because you can't settle it doesn't mean you can't raid it or raze it.
And that brings us to combat. Because invariably your armies are going to meet the armies of one of the other factions on the field of battle at some point. Combat takes place in a pause-able real time fight with both sides issuing orders to their units trying to maneuver to take advantage of the terrain or just flank their opponent.
Just as the campaign mechanics are different, the units are also different between the factions (not just in look, but in function) Dwarf Crossbow units (for example) have good accuracy and damage at range, but they are no slouch in a melee fight either (you have to toggle them to their melee weapons, but aren't push overs in any case). On the other hand Goblin Archers in addition to having shorter range, don't stand up in a melee fight well at all. Though with the sub factions within each faction, you'll be fighting some mirror images of your armies as well.
Cons
Okay a few things that I've come across in my playing of the game (I've played as every available faction for at least the early game). Compared to Total War: Shogun 2 (the one I've personally spent the most time in) settlement management is over simplified, I would like to have seen more depth here than there is. If nothing else an ability to adjust tax rates instead of just 'off or on' would have given some options.
I'm also not a fan of the region system (a region is 2 or 3 (usually) settlements and to get certain options you have to control all settlements in the region. I like the idea of this but I think they went the wrong way in its execution. That is to say I think that the regions are too big ... I would have liked it better if they had divided the settlements into smaller parts that had to be captured to control the settlement. I think that would have increased the conflict and offered more depth while grouping several settlements together into a region I think actually took depth and options away.
Part of the feeling of this is that each region has a capital settlement and all the others are 'minor' settlements. Combat at a 'minor' settlement takes place in the field just like it would if there was no settlement there. This is one of the places where I agree with some of the negative reviews, this takes a lot of strategy out of the game, in previous Total War games even a village without walls you could use buildings and such to set up choke points OR go meet them on the open field. Now you don't have that choice at all.
Likewise while you can BUILD 'walls' in the minor settlements you don't actually get walls, you get a few more garrisoned units to help you fight out in the field. This is much less of a help in an attack than actual WALLS would be. Only the capital cities have actual walls though.
Which brings us to Capitals these are where you have walls and actually fight in a city. But unlike previous Total War games (or at least Total War: Shogun 2) your city apparently only has 1 wall (at least during an attack) so your opponent can't attack from multiple sides of the city ... again, limiting the strategy of the fight. Not a good choice for a strategy game, in my opinion.
Other missing items from previous Total War games are unit formations. Skirmish formation when melee troops approached archers to spread them out and limit ranged casualties, spear units setting for a charge, shield units coming together for a shield wall ... these formations and using them properly gave depth to the game and strength and versatility to the units to minimize a weakness or maximize a strength in a key point in the battle. But they are gone in Total Warhammer.
Heroes in Total Warhammer are powerful tools that can really change things. Like Lords they level up and earn skills, but unlike Lords they can not lead an Army. They are a bit over powered in the campaign because if they aren't attached to an army, armies and lords can't attack them. Another Hero can attempt to assassinate them but that is the only way to attack a hero that is operating independently. As such they can wreck your town buildings or garrison and, unless you have a hero nearby, there's nothing you can do about it, even if you have a much more powerful Lord with a full army in the settlement. (I should note that if you have a lord and his army in the settlement, an enemy hero will have a more difficult chance to succeed in their sabotage, assassinate, or other 'mission's but they can stand there and try every turn until you get your own hero there to try and assassinate them.)
Combat feels 'off' a bit. Units break and run very fast (at least in the early game) which doesn't allow a lot of time for larger battle strategies. While the default 'max' time for a battle is listed as 60 minutes, I don't think I've had even a massive battle last more than 15 yet. maybe that will change in the late game, but currently it really does feel like some things have been 'sped up' in an attempt to make the game feel more fast paced.
That probably seems like a lot of Cons there, but really they're minor. Most of them will only apply if you have played and enjoyed earlier Total War titles (Shogun 2 and earlier as some of these changes were apparently in Rome 2 and Atilla as well). And some of these changes have as much to do also with one of the big PROs ... faction diversity. While in Shogun 2 you had a LOT of factions, you all used the same troop types, formations, mechanics, etc. Now Faction A may have a bonus to a couple of unit types while Faction B had bonuses to different units, and Faction C had bonuses to production, but ultimately they were the same.
Several other elements of the game are new such as is gear, magic, and of course the monstrous units. I suspect that last one is why they've done away with village fighting as large units in a village would have pathing and movement issues, or would be unable to get in at all unless you made buildings destructible and I suspect that would have been time and/or resource intensive and they decided that it was better left out for now.
DLC
Okay, currently there are 3 DLC available for the game. 2 Add new playable factions, Chaos Warriors, and Beastmen respectively, and the 3rd adds blood and gore to the battles. (See my Ramble about people complaining about DLC over on the Path of Bones) Each of these factions added new unique mechanics to the game and the Beastmen also added a smaller more focused story style campaign centered around their faction.
Some people will complain that there is going to be too much DLC for the game (and Creative Assembly does tend to create a lot of DLC for their Total War titles so that isn't surprising), that it costs too much, or that they held content out of the game just to release it later. I say people complain too much. I like the DLC system, if I'm not interested in a particular piece of DLC (the blood and gore pack for example) I just don't buy it. And I remember the days where you had to wait much longer for an 'expansion' to the game that was often another $50. Beastmen is a $19 add on ... if $19 seems too much wait a bit and catch it on sale.
CA has also announced 10 free DLC (one of which is a new playable race) so they are definitely planning to support and expand the game even for those that don't get any of the paid DLC.
Monday, July 6, 2015
A Tale in the Desert
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
