Lum is with the Koreans

Yeah, I think he is aiming right at Kim Jong II and then the conquest of the world. Or maybe the western port of Jogurting.

Why, oh why he had to refute my guess?

I was SO absolutely sure of it. I was all grinning and expecting loads of cookies moved in my direction. Instead no, I was wrong. Come on! My guess was so much more reasonable!

Bah. Now the curiosity goes up instead of down. NCSoft is like saying everything and nothing. There are different studios over there and projects with each completely different approaches.

I’m REALLY on a blank slate, I’m not on any currently announced or even rumored project.

I wonder if this means “I’m working on a brand new project starting right now from scratch” or “I’m currently unassigned and just keeping this chair warm while rubbing my hands in delight”.

EDIT: It’s the first:

Currently I’m at NCSoft, working on an unannounced project in the very early stages of development.

No more speculations. I suck at doing them.

And btw. I’m past purple of envy. I hate you, all of you.

“Lost”, a delusion

“Lost” that popular american TV series that should be at season 2 over there, arrived yesterday in Italy for the first time and I was anticipating it since I usually like the hyped series coming from the USA. They are usually damn fine products, like “Desperate Housewives” that arrived also early this year and that I loved.

Instead this one was a delusion (at least the “pilot” episode). There’s an excess of stereotypes and I was able to anticipate nearly all the scenes just before they were going to happen. So predictable. At every scene I reacted more with “eye-rolling” than the intended “ohh, surprise”.

It is a shameless rip off of the japanese “Battle Royale”. It has the exact same scheme and feel, the exact same use of narrative structure and expedients, like the mix of different characters that don’t know each other and then the use of nifty placed flashback to reveal part of their stories just before the character is involved into something in the main plot. Making the audience connect & sympathize a moment before something horrendous and life-threatening happens to them.

It’s still a big and bloated “survival game”, the parody of the modern “reality shows” used as experiments to study the human beings and use them directly, reveal them with the purpose of the show and entertainment. The “spectacularisation”. “American Gladiators” or “The Running Man”. It just replaces “Battle Royale” expedient of “have to kill each other to survive” with the stereotype of predestined people on a airplane. “Lord of the Flies”.

Basically there’s nothing original if not a nearly infinite list of stereotypes and references. Borrowing hands down from sci-fi and horror expedients to “conceal” and keep up the tension. Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” is another one, the expedient to never let you “see completely” to build up the tension (also “Alien”) and the shaky camera + “close up” of a terrified face taken right from “Blair Witch Project” (the trick of not-showing, or seeing an horrified face but not seeing the object of horror).

A big, huge, bloated stereotype. With the people on the airplane that have to go through a series of “tests” to demonstrate who they truly are. I believe you have a long series of bestsellers with a religious theme over there where the book begins exactly with some people disappearing on a airplane. Basically it’s just “Battle Royale” adapted to the style and the american public. Made more mainstream and accessible.

What does all this demonstrate? How predictable we are and what the public loves. The series seems to have a big production with a very, very good screenplay. Thick plot based on nothing but the impression there’s a lot going on (I wonder what happens when the mysteries start to get revealed and the public deluded). Money + good technique + stereotypized plot based on the characters and their different personalities.

It just works if you stay at the game and don’t really try to think at how predictable it is.

I believe that many if not the majority of the woes in this industry are imputable to people sitting on the wrong chairs

A stab at Raph, part 2 :)

This time less flaming but still strong and provoking (I hope). And again a direct reply.

By the way, I throw in another heresy: I believe that in a company everyone should be paid equally. From the president to the tools programmer there shouldn’t be distinctions of merit. “Game designer” shouldn’t be a promotion from another level, it’s just a different duty, equally important and fundamental. Hierarchies within a company are a big mistake from my point of view and the first reason that brings to my accusation in the title. People should strive to do in their life what they do better, not what is defined and then perceived as more qualifying of the personal value.

Problems start from there and bleed all over the place.

Actually go and reward more those duties that are always disqualified and noone wants to do.

Invert the ladder.


Hmm.. Hmm..

I’ll have to think more later about this. I read it as if those four steps work in a hierarchy, where you are free to choose one and put it at the top, dominating the others.

I’m not convinced by the last two because you bring the example of your “healing game” for the metaphoric level which instead I consider JUST mechanical. And I also think the narrative level blends with it. I find hard to separate the two.

The point is that I see those levels much more dependent one from the other. Your “healing game” instead was a metaphor completely independent from the mechanical layer (spurious). So, that example started from the metaphor or from the mechanic?

I see the whole discussion like this: if it started as a pure mechanic it would hardly translate in that type of metaphor. I mean, If I have that mechanic I’m probably going to present it in a different flavor when I go to choose which metaphor is more appropriate. If instead it started from the metaphor, well, again I would design the mechanic to be MUCH different and more appropriate to the metaphor. To achieve better the communication of that metaphor.

Which also means: despite I recognize the hierarchy, sometimes the result is the same whether you start from the end or the beginning (as things are connected).

So, from my point of view, you can take it either way and that example is still something that doesn’t make sense.

– Were I to do a game “about healing” I would be starting with the metaphor.

If this is true, it means that the mechanical level would STRONGLY depend on the metaphor. Again following the model as a hierarchy where you decide to start from the metaphor and, from there, figure out the other parts. Tabula rasa. You start from a blank paper, set a point wherever you want, and then start to draw the first lines. The rest will be progressively derived accordingly to what is on top of the hierarchy. So everything is connected.

If you see them as hierarchies, I agree that those level exist and they are always ALL present in every game. I also agree that you can freely reorder the hierarchy as you want. We have concrete examples for every possibility.

That said, I believe there’s a “bias” and we are definitely, unavoidably going in a precise direction that is the one of the metaphor (the one I’d say should be higher on the hierarchy). Even the cinema started with the technical experiments to then move to bring up the emotions. I see a definite progression where the mechanical level will be progressively overshadowed and enslaved by the other levels. For example there are “narrative techniques” to obtain certain effects, but these techniques are bent to be functional to the narrative.

Games in general have always been more tightly connected to the mechanical level, also because they started from the *interaction*. But I think that, whether we like it or not, we are going toward the emotional, symbolic level where the mechanics will become progressively hidden. As with the use of computer graphic in a movie, the best case is the one where you don’t see it, where this technical level becomes completely functional to the narrative needs. As I wrote in the post you linked, we are made of symbols.

Let me rephrase: games in general has always been more tightly connected to the mechanical levels, because there’s a definite predominance of programmers and because “game design” has always been considered superfluous.

I believe that many if not the majority of the woes in this industry are imputable to people sitting on the wrong chairs.

The more we’ll see genuine game designers and not programmers-recycled-designers (through the social treadmill called “promotion”), the more the games will start to shapeshift into something else. And the technical constraints will loosen up.

When this will happen games will finally truly become a “medium”. Hopefully shying away from becoming completely autoreferential as 99% of the garbage that arrives on TV and instead telling us something valuable about ourselves and the world outside.

This breakdown is, perhaps, why game designers must be multidisciplinary.

I continue to disagree on this point. Game designers “may” be multidisciplinary. It’s surely useful and helpful. But not “obligatory”. That’s just blindness from my point of view.

Knowledge can help but it isn’t everything, nor what is truly important. As you don’t need to go to a writing school if you want to become a writer. I just refuse to codify this, there are many different approaches and the game designer with the most knowledge isn’t going to be the one univocally making the best games.

He’ll have an advantage, but I wouldn’t give that advantage a fundamental role.

Actually I’d say that designers should know the less possible about programming, if not the general ropes to be able to comminicate with the actual programmers and share the same language. But they should retain a very high-level approach to it. Another person should have the duty to connect the two and define the systems more suitable to reach the goals set.

Not because knowing the programming would be useless, of course, but because it becomes also a danger. It strictly codifies the way you approach a problem. It becomes a cage that isn’t always easy to escape. Having different points of view is important, but you risk to get trapped into one.

EvE – Good patch, bad patch

I don’t know how much time I spent playing with the char creation of the new races, but it was really hard to make a choice. There are so many awsome-looking combinations and so great characters.

I’m really pleased with the final result, though. I love her so much. These portraits make you really want to try to roleplay.

I think she is going to be nice with you ;)

That said, I also had to spend as much time with the char creation as to wrestle with the tutorial. The servers are currently in a BAD state and my new shiny character gets constantly stuck (right now the server went down again) and swamped in all sort of exception errors, crashes and disconnections. The tutorial goes crazy if you get desynched with it and it wasn’t simple to un-stuck myself in a number of situations.

The newbie system is insanely crowded but I guess things will get better as the shiny of the new races will wore off. It’s still fun to see noobs blowing up on a not so clear step of the tutorial where it asks you to “try” to shoot to the station but WITHOUT confirming the action. CONCORDOKEN!

Eve just hit 106k of subscribers (mostly thanks to the double accounts promotion, to be honest), but I hope the new players have the patience to wait for the situation to settle down. Right now it is not too pretty and the problems add to the already steep learning curve.

I don’t think the average player knows how to wrestle with the tutorial, read the symptoms of something going wrong and clear the client cache files to get unstuck (when getting unstuck is a possibility).

Catass for a day

Right now the WoW’s test server is up and you can “transfer” to it not your “main” but a set of premade characters for all classes. These are already fully levelled, skilled and equipped (with some epics). The dream of the insta-60. If you want a taste of a class you never played, now you can.

As you log into the starting dwarf/gnome zone you don’t see a bunch of level 1 chars, but a ZERG OF PRIESTS all looking the same (plus some warlocks).

I was in early today. I think seeing a bit of snow is asking too much, it was sunny as it has never been in Dun Morogh.

Catass for a day… If you manage to wade through the queue, heh:

I think soon we’ll need a queue to enter the queue.

EDIT: I assisted to the best duel I’ve ever seen (btw, Dun Morogh is sunnier than yesterday) between a druid and a paladin. It went on for more than five real minutes and it was one hell of a fight, with both trying all sort of different strategies to overpower the other. Long fights that don’t end in two hits are so much more fun, you finally have time to play the game instead of just fighting the lag nuances.

PvP in some games is like precocious ejaculation: as the fun starts you are already done.

Posted in: Uncategorized | Tagged:

Technical bits about the “automated NPCs”

This is a follow-up to my idea to use NPCs as a “work force” to do the boring chores for the players whenever they don’t want to bother. Again, please notice that there is a CHOICE. I *want* the sandbox. I want the focus on multiple activities beside combat. I want these to MATTER and be interesting and hopefully FUN. But I still want the players to have a choice and the possibility to unload what THEY consider a boring duty on a automated process.

I know that the idea is technically hard to implement, because I cannot just blink and have a complex system of AI and world pathing automatically implemented. So I know it wasn’t realistic. But to arrive to it I had built a project that worked on top of what I considered feasible, using the same functionalities that I can find in other games, just mingled together to obtain the result I desired.

I didn’t add these technical details because the post was already too long on its own. So here some details not about the design theory behind, but about the implementation itself.

The user-programming of the NPC schedules isn’t complex at all and works as a “connect-the-dots” game. You have a screen with the detailed map of a zone, you select one of the NPCs under your control and then start “plotting” the schedule on the map. The dots/waypoints aren’t put there by the players. All the waypoints and actions available for selection are HARDCODED. Each zone will have all the possible dots, junctions and actions “greyed-out” and available for selection. You can recombine these elements the way you like, connect the waypoints the way you like (if you see they can be possibly connected) and select the actions that are available in that point. But all these possible dots, junctions and actions are set by the developers as the map is created.

A basic, readable scripted language made of “chunks” that the players can recombine by interacting with it through a braindead interface.

Interface:
Left mouse button – Selects and “connects-the-dots”, adding waypoints and linking them together
Right mouse button – Opens a contextual menu for each waypoint, listing all the possible actions/logics for the NPC on that point

All the schedule-programming of the NPC is supposed to work through the mouse. As you connect these dots and select the actions, you’ll see the NPC schedule as a scripted language in a window below the map. You can use the mouse interface to plot everything on the map as you can just type the commands yourself if you so choose. With the possibility to save these “programs” and reuse them as “quick templates” for other NPCs.

The language could then include “advanced” functions like waiting times, time checks and other simple logic operators with basic “if..then” conditions and loops. If some players need them but still have difficulties using them, there are still the message boards where I’m sure you would find plenty of templates to reuse.

And please notice that this would form a strategic, embedded game that could be already terribly fun and addicting on its own.

If this idea is STILL too complex, well… Let’s just stop to complain about innovation and settle with what we have available right now.

WoW’s 1.10 patch doesn’t look too bad

The patch notes went up yesterday, while the test servers won’t go up till next Tuesday (EDIT: I’m wrong, they should be already up). I want to log in to see if these weather effects are acceptable or lame.

The only gripe I have is that the development is continuing to be very slow, and this patch has mostly tweaks and a remix of the same elements. I guess it won’t hit the live servers till around April which means three full months from the previous one which was also another three months from the previous.

We have three months patch cycles, here. They are slowing down, not picking up. A year ago we were all screaming at this pace, a year later and we became pretty used to this, to the point that we feel it just normal and acceptable. Even when the patch isn’t really all that significant.

I guess the slowdown is imputable to the expansion.

Anyway, even if the changes are on the “cheap” side, they are still very, very good. I like them, they look smart and well-thought.

– weather
– xp to gold
– improved flight paths
– 5-man enforced instances (people will remember how running them is harder than running 40-men)
– no loss of target when feared
– very good rep changes in PvP
– KORRAK GONE!

As always I won’t comment the class changes, but what we have here is really good. Back in beta I was one of those begging the instances to be capped properly and I was FLAMED by just everyone, like if I became the antichrist of the “fun”. Now I’m glad that the devs have found an excuse (the revision of the dungeons) to put the rules back in line with the original plan. I wish this would have happened sooner, like… before release.

I don’t believe anyone has underlined enough the faction changes in AV. They are THAT good.

Previously you had people sitting on their asses, doing nothing but getting rep for just being there. Now to get rep you need to KILL.

No more sitting on ass.

If you go give a second look at all these changes you would notice that they are good because they are finally concrete answers to problems that were pointed long ago, with the exception of the “xp to gold” idea and the weather system.

So what I say is that the patch is very, very good. And it is delivering more than what I expected. But I wouldn’t exaggerate praises too much, because:
– It is coming after another three months
– It contains fixes that were long due
– Its content is mostly a cheap remix with a new lipstick

And please notice that I didn’t comment on the new armor sets and dungeons tweaks, since I want to see how they are implemented before expressing my opinion.

Posted in: Uncategorized | Tagged:

Sandboxes and “moisture farmers” simulations are DAMN boring

Haemish:
Not to mention the fact that sandbox games often become very time-intensive games, by the very nature of being a world instead of easily digestible chunks of entertainment. Most people just don’t have the time to devote, or don’t want to spend the time to devote to a game like that. That’s why I claim sandbox and PVP-heavy world games will always be niche products.

As has been said a billion times over in a billion galaxies far far away, Star Wars fans didn’t want to a moisture farmer, they wanted to be a Stormtrooper going PEW PEW with blasters, or they wanted to a Jedi with a ZEOW ZEOW or a starpilot with a VOOM VOOM. All that other shit was fine (or would have been if not wrapped in a shitburger bun of bugginess), but it wasn’t mass market and never will be.

That quote summarizes effectively the common complains against “sandbox” games. This isn’t intended as another attack to Raph, but just a digression on some ideas I have about these sandboxes that seem to have the innate flaw of being filled with boring activities that no one wants to deal with or has time to.

All those complaints are true. We can take a semi-successful game like Eve-Online, the best sandbox and PvP game out there at the moment, and the very first complaint we’ll hear is that it is boring. In fact it HAS boring activities. Grinding missions is boring, travel is boring, hauling stuff and trade is boring, mining is boring. And so on. All these are boring activities that we suffer in this game because there’s something in the background that starts to “emerge”. The control of territories, the tensions between the alliances and all the other forms of emergent gameplay that make this game unique compared to more directed and caged games where the players have very little control over what they can do and the direction that the game can take. It’s like saying that the qualities of a sandbox come with a price.

It seems as if, to achieve the latter (the emergence), you are obliged to make the game boring and force the players to invest incredible amounts of time in their “simulated life”. So we get comments like, “I already have a job, I don’t need another”.

Okay. If you ask Raph about these problems he will say that the “embedded mini-games” that are part of a sandbox should be all equally fun. Crafting, harvesting resources, dancing… All these activities shouldn’t be sidelines, but fun games on their own. Equally significant possibilities that need to be reiterated and polished till they are all fun and entertaining.

My idea on these problems is instead rather simple and straightforward and something I already explained here and there writing about my “dream mmorpg”. If you go see the tripartite model on which this ideal game is based, you’d notice that the first level is dedicated to the sandbox, the PvP/conquest game where the players fight each other, conquer and manage territories. There isn’t just the combat, but the full simulation of a world, in as many “realistic” aspects as possible. The war is just the context that motivates the rest. Alike to Eve-Online there are also a bunch of boring activities included with the package. As an example there is no “mail” system. Objects (some of them) cannot be teleported around at will. The conquest game relies on a resources system that is used to pay the upkeep costs if you want to maintain the control over a zone and manage it, and they exist persistently in the game-world. To gather and use these resources you’d have to harvest and collect them and then haul them to different zones, opening up the level of the commerce since not all the resources should be uniformly available everywhere.

This description is similar to what happens in Eve-Online. To conquer territories and build player-controlled stations the players need to engage in a bunch of boring and semi-boring activities that can go from mining asteroids, haul the mineral and goods around the universe, patrol zones, escort important cargos and so on. Again, the whole game is in the hands of the players, so are the players to manage and use every element at their will. They could try to avoid what they don’t find entertaining, but it’s just not possible if you want to participate in the game since all those parts have a strong role to play in the greater context and cannot be easily dismissed and forgotten.

My idea revolves around the role of NPCs. These NPCs would serve two purpose in a player-driven world:
1- Provide a minimal level of defense to the territories when the players aren’t around
2- Automate the boring activities

If there’s something boring in the game but that still needs to be done to make the game “work”, why not pass the burden on the NPCs and automate the process while the players can engage in something more fun? Crafting, gathering resources, patrol zones, transport goods etc… All these activities could be easily “offloaded” on the NPCs. The players could still do everything by themselves. They could still organize a convoy to transport some resources to a different zone, go patrol a territory on their own. But only if they choose so. It’s not obligatory. You can either do it yourself, or offload tasks you deem boring to an NPC.

Conquering and “managing” a territory would mean being able to spawn NPCs. Like in a RTS where you create “peons” units and send them to mine gold or cut down trees for the wood.

The paradigm is capsized: not anymore the players are working for the NPCs, but are the NPCs to work for the player. The kings in this world won’t be static NPCs sitting in the throne room, but the players who lead the armies and control the territories. The players becoming the pivot of the game.

So you would have the possibility and the duty to spawn NPC units by using the resources available, equip them, keep them well fed (as long maintenance is required) and give them simple tasks they will perform. Same to what happens in a RTS.

Of course there’s always a risk. Let’s take an example scenario:
You need to transport a batch of important goods from a region to another. These goods are heavy and you calculate that you’ll need about three wagons to be able to transfer them all at once. The region where they need to be delivered is distant but the route to it looks relatively safe. Now you have a choice. The wagons are very slow and they only move on roads. You can decide to escort the caravan personally, maybe with the help of some of your friends to be able to fight back if the caravan is spotted by a group of enemy players that is camping a bridge or a crossroad. Or you could just assign a number of “NPC guards” to the caravan and hope that they will be sufficient to safely escort it to destination. During this travel three “odds” could happen, the first is that the caravan is attacked by a roaming group of creatures, the second is that it is attacked by enemy players and the third is that a cart breaks and needs to be repaired (so a time loss).

Studying the route you see that only the last possibility is actually risky so you decide to send the convoy on its own and then go meet it later to escort it only for the last part. While plotting the route you’ll get precise approximation about when the convoy will reach a specific point. Let’s say that you want to meet the convoy before it reaches the last bridge, that you believe may be camped by enemy players. The travel till that point is estimated to last three hours. Tomorrow you’ll be online at 10PM and you should be able to organize a group with your guild to escort personally the convoy, so you schedule the convoy to start at 8PM, thinking that you’ll be able to reach it at the meeting point with your group around 11PM or before.

There’s still the risk. The convoy could be assaulted by a group of enemy players infiltrated in your territory or get slowed down by problems (the carts breaking and requiring time to repair) or attacked by roaming creatures. This last possibility is the less worrying since you know the territory and know how many guards you need to assign to the caravan for it to be safe. But to reduce the risks you could always ask a friend to go meet the convoy at a point to check if everything is okay, if it is on time and if the guards are still all alive. If they aren’t your friend could spawn some more to reassign them. Or maybe stop the convoy at the nearby village or re-plot the route because a battle started not far away, on the road that the convoy is supposed to follow.

Once a convoy (or any other NPC under your direct control) is out of sight, you don’t receive anymore information from it, if not after a one-hour delay. If some of them die you’ll only know an hour later. Plus, you don’t have detailed information about their positions, to find them you would need to use another system that will be pricey, so not always convenient. This opens up to the possibilities of the enemy players.

Enemy players can attack convoys for many reasons, they can damage the carts and slow down the convoy, or even steal the goods and capture your NPCs (which will swap faction after a set amount of time after being captured). Plus they can behead the dead NPCs and impale their heads to leave “landmarks” in the location of the battle. As a sign and dare to the enemy realm, a sort of gruesome “we were here”. Why this? Because while you can know if an NPC dies through the UI, you still cannot know how it died or where. If the convoy is attacked by creatures it is possible that the cart is sitting there with most of the goods intact, so recoverable. It makes a sense for the players to try to find out what happened and for the enemy players the choice to “clean” the area to not leave any trace or decide leave a sign of their passage as a challenge.

This was just an example but it works to explain how different elements can add to the gameplay. The possibility to take the NPCs as prisoners instead of killing them, impale their heads, destroy the convoy completely or steal the goods (only in the case they also have something to transport them, of course, being slowed down themselves too). These aren’t just combat mechanics, but a richer context that creates a “world” under the full control of the players. With the possibility to automate (at a risk) all the tasks that are felt too boring or repetitive. The game doesn’t force anymore the players toward something they don’t like. We have the NPCs and it make sense to leave the boring work to them.

Then you can even continue to add depth, like adding an experience system even for the NPCs that survive their task, so that they “level up”, gain perks and so on… They would become like secondary characters, with their generated name (that the player could manually override, of course) and rank, maybe developing situational skills and competencies (think to the specialization system of the units used in Civ 4).

The real purpose of this idea is to kill the “grind”. You schedule the NPCs to do their work and continue to play what you consider fun while automating what you consider boring. Hey, there may be even players that like to harvest, craft, patrol and escort instead of going to fight the battles. And they would have the possibility to do so without using NPCs, and with the advantage of being able to perform those activities with an increased efficiency. The system gives you just a choice. The choice to choose that part of the gameplay you find interesting, focusing on it completely or do a bit of everything in the measure you choose. Without FORCING obligatory chores on you.

In Eve-Online all these ideas could easily fit. You could have the possibility to set up NPCs miners, equip them and give them simple schedules so that they could go mining for you while you are involved into something you consider more fun or even while offline. The same for transporting commodities to another part of the galaxy. Giving the side to the risk that the convoys could be attacked by enemy corporations.

Automating tasks doesn’t mean that these tasks happen out of the game, of course. This idea wouldn’t work on an instanced game space or one exclusively PvE where everything is protected and predictable. But it becomes valuable on a full, persistent world. Where the automated NPCs are “real” entities that perform the tasks in the same way a player would, while remaining vulnerable.

The perfect “sandbox”.

There isn’t anymore the need to struggle to make boring activities fun even when they obviously cannot become so, no matter how hard you try. A level of realism is needed so that the game has a decent scope, or we would have just a big, superficial arcade that isn’t going to make anything interesting (no dynamism, no emergent gameplay, no choices. Just the same treadmill and linear direction). So we are back at the original quote up there. These sandboxes aren’t doomed to have boring, unavoidable parts. We don’t even need to transform every little chore that is needed to support the emergent level into something fun. Because there’s always the possibility to automate those activities that the players don’t want to deal with.

Requiring two obligatory premises that already exist in EvE and in my original idea:
1) The world must be persistent
2) The world must support full PvP

This is the sandbox: the players as the center of the world, with the NPCs at their service.

(follow-up)

EvE “Blood” patch – The asian races

Big, huge grats to Eve-Online artists, they are among the best if not THE best. The new asian races are soooo shiny. I’m seriously impressed. They look realistic and then far from ugly photos slapped on a model. They do not even seem 3D models but paintings and the faces seem already to tell a story about the characters…

Now the biggest problem is that some of the old races cannot keep up with the same quality of the new ones (and some scream GAY too much).

I wonder why CCP doesn’t licence its character creation engine. It’s really great but then thanks to the inspired art permeating the game. I wish this artistic talent could be used better than just for an enhanced “poser”. It’s really a pity.

I believe the screenshots speak by themselves, even if you cannot see how absolutely great are the dynamic reflections and lights. If you don’t have an active account it would be worth get a trial just to toy with the character creation for a couple of hours.

PLAY THE DRESS-UP GAME!

(more example screenshots divided by race)