“Epic, heroic, pe-petuual struggle…”

Some leftover still from the E3. In this case an hilarious video interview with Paul Barnett (a “design manager”, something along the lines of a Mythic – Game Workshop coordinator) who explains what the Warhammer universe and Mythic’s game will be about.

Now I know who Paul Barnett really is.

Ramus from Lunar: Silver Star Story!

That small sound clip is an almost perfect parody of Mythic’s plan with the game. Sneaking in the cave where the WoW dragon is sleeping without waking it and get back what is legitimate of the Warhammer franchise.

“Now that the warm weather has melted the ice near the dragon’s cave, there isn’t any time to waste getting started on our big adventure! If we hurry, we may be able to sneak in without waking the dragon. Then we can get a fantasitically huge diamond from its lair worth thousands and thousands of silver, making us filthy stinking rich and very popular in the process!”

The first line is a reference to the time that has passed since WoW’s release, with Blizzard having secured their position and success with the game. Thinking they don’t need to do much else to continue to tap from that bottomless source of money, not fearing any competition. The dust settled, it’s all calm. “If we hurry” is about the correct timing of the launch for Warhammer. And the huge diamond is the symbol of hopes and dreams (popularity! money!), of something that is being stolen back and forth to the point that noone knows anymore to who it legitimately belongs. WoW stole from Warhammer setting and lore, and Warhammer is going to use WoW as a direct ispiration and open antagonist to lure back those players that WoW brought in the genre.

…Or, in other words:

—
Three reasons why Warhammer is a great licence for a MMO:

1- Iconic look
2- An excuse to smash the living crap out of each other
3- A-pe-pe-cciual work with no ending from where to draw from (lore, backstory etc..)

Three “devices”:

1- Zone story arcs – With the theme that defines a contested zone
2- Racial story arcs – Race vs Race
3- World story arcs – Between the races, plots, trickeries, “convoluted excuses” to fight etc..

“Everybody fights everybody, for-ever! That’s all we are interested in.”

Race cliches:

“The greenskin are soccer hooligans. All they do is wander around, pick up sticks and try to hit other people. There are no long term plans, no long term concepts. There’s a group of soccer thugs, on the march to glory.”

“The dwarfs are the northern(?) working class of England. They live down mines, all they want to do is get drunk. They just want to fight people who call them “short”. They have no money, they are very proud of their holes in the ground.”

“The high-elves are British posh people. Never done a day working in their lives. Don’t understand about “doing the washing”. Have had too much time, so they read the la-dee-dar-dee books, get really good with the swords and doing special magic.”

“The dark-elves are English posh people who have taken drugs. Basically Lord Byron. They’ve got money coming out their ears. They have taken a load of opium and have decided that they can run the goddamn world and can have it any way they want.”

“The humans. The empire is basically humans. You know, wonderful dreams, terrible nightmares. They don’t really pay attention, build huge amount of technology. They like to explode and destroy the world. Cut down all the forest, they don’t really understand it.”

“The Chaos is humans that have been totally corrupted, tentacles, crab claws, extra eyes, horns. Some people get confused and think Chaos is like the devil. No, no, no. It’s not fire and brimstone, it’s chaos. It’s custard falling from the sky. It’s an arm that turns into a sword. It’s the ability to cut open your arm and mice(?) pour out rather then blood. It’s chaos, it’s corruption.”

“It’s not a computer game. It’s a total hobby experience. We want you to buy this game, and never buy another one.”

“We want you to spend all your time playing it. We want it to involve: skill, commitment and imagination.

– The more skill you put in, the better the game is, the better you feel.
– More commitment you put in, you got piles of money, you got a great(?) of played, the more the game rewards you.
– Imagination. Over in America they call it “immersion”. It’s not immersion. Immersion is playing Half-Life and not realizng the house is burning down. And your wife’s left you. And you haven’t slept for weeks. Imagination is: I played the game and then I want to talk about it, go to the websites, draw pictures about it, have t-shirts, I wanna think about what I’m going to do when I play next week, I talk to all my friends about it.

If you get skill, commitment and imagination, you get a total hobby experience. And a hobby experience should grab you to the core of your being and be the only thing you want to do.

That’s the game we’re making.”

So, lets conclude.

It seems that my guess about the “packages” system wasn’t correct. This new interpretation says that every character will eventually unblock all the skills and packages the class has available. As the character reaches the last rank. So this means that the customization and use of templates are true only as you “rank up”, while the packages you have available will be all flattened at the endgame.

This IS GOOD. In fact I suggested it for DAoC. Even if in that case it was a step forward proposed for the support classes.

I support this choice if it reveals to be how the game actually works. It would solve the accessibility problems I underlined and would give a more unique role to the “tactics” system (the specialization of your character). So it’s a more solid design choice.

If the earlier reports are still correct, there’s also to consider the four tiers that should make you specialize your class (branching classes). Determining the preset packages you have available. In this case the number of classes will raise.

The other precisation is about the design of the package system that I discussed on F13 and that I report here.

—

Haemish:
But Hrose, you are ignoring the biggest thing about this. No levels means (or should mean) very little to no power differentials.

I’m not ignoring it just because you are convinced I am. On my site I wrote:

Considering everything together the “no level” claim is pretty weak. It’s possible that gaining ranks doesn’t scale up your stats, hitpoints and mana (at this point it would be the only real difference), but add a rank-based itemization and you basically have the exact same mechanic that drives DAoC or every other level-based game.

Explaning better, it sounds like you’ll gain a “rank” every “x” skills you unblock in a package. The stuff available in these packages seem to not be only in the form of skills you actively use, but even bonuses to stats and all the rest. Just more manipulable since the players have a more direct choice in what they pick.

But from every point of view you observe this, there’s still a “level up” mechanic that lets you pick +5 to Strength or more Constitution, or bonuses to damage and so on.

What’s this if not “power differential”?

The raw mechanic here doesn’t do anything to flatten it. Which is the process I described:

In DAoC: level up -> allocate
In Warhammer: allocate -> level up

Allocating not only the skills, like in DAoC, but even the bonuses to the stats. I just don’t see a concrete difference in the mechanic used at the base.

Haemish:
Segmenting zones by tiers should also help that a bit. In other words, it sounds good.

This is my guess (level capping the zones in four tiers), I still have to read Mythic confirming this. The doubt is whether the gap of 10 ranks hasn’t already a quite significant power differential or not.

Which is also what I wrote the past Sunday:

Here the game mechanics are extremely important because if they divide the zones accessibility in four (as the four tiers of ten ranks, for a total of forty levels) the PvP could become just a matter of who’s closer to the zone level cap. It’s important here that each new rank isn’t a huge leap over the other

Short version:

You say that Warhammer design is good because the power differential between the ranks is small.

I say that I agree that the power differential being small would make the design of the game “good”.

But at the same time there is no evidence, from the descriptions of the mechanics we have, that the power differential is, in fact, small.

That’s all.

I was going to write about other stuff but Arthur Parker linked an interesting 7-min video (you need to copy and paste in a new browser window to make it work) that reveals some of the aspects I was trying to examine:

This image should represent the zone distribution in the game for one of the three “war fronts”: Greenskin Vs Dwarf.

I wonder if the numbers represent the four “tiers” of the levelling system.

In this case there are two interesting observations. The first is that the zones are level capped as I guessed. The second is that the capital cities are EXCLUSIVELY PvP zones. Just like an end-game PvP raid zone (DAoC’s relic raids) that you can access only when the battle front moves there. So no social “hubs” like in WoW, they are just used for PvP.

If you count all the circles they are 11. So confirming the number of zones for each “war front” (33 zones in the full game). But at the same time we know that the starting zone for dwarves and greenskin is shared, with two opposite entry points and a seamless PvP zone in the middle.

Instead in that scheme the dwarves zone and greenskin zone look separated. So I wonder if they count it two times, like splitted in two in that graph, but seamlessly connected in the actual game.

In this case the unique, accessible zones by one character per warfront would be four (plus the two capitals). Which is GOOD, imho. Since it would help to make the PvP activity converge. Like a consolidated version of the DAoC’s frontiers (if they don’t overdo with the instances).

I wish we could have some confirmations.

Add warmachines and divided the assault to the capitals into five-six different “stages” with each its own objective (think to Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory) and it could be the coolest thing EVER.

—
And more, truly interesting (but unconfirmed) details:

No levels.

Four tiers, with ranks within each tier. You’ll have 4 XP bars that allow you to select “packages” of advancements – abilities, static buffs, skills, etc. that you want to work on. Three will be “standard” bars, one will be RvR-specific.

The packages allow you to select advancements that interest you without level-locking them. So, if you’re a big fan of exploring and you want to get a mount earlier than – say – an improved combat ability, you can choose a package that includes the ability to use a mount. Packages will have SOME restrictions – most likely tier-specific – but they offer players the ability to wind up with all of the stuff they want eventually, but also the ability to get it in the order of their choosing.

—
no pure “support” classes. In addition, no rogues or stealth classes. Not fond of hybrid classes either, though there will almost certainly be SOME degree of hyrbidization for some races.

—
EVERY CLASS – is a combat class, you won’t find yourself ineffective simply because your group lacks total diversity.

Regarding differentiation, there are a number of things to consider:

1) In terms of simple aesthetics, customization will play a large role. Armor dying and trophies, primarily, will allow players to be visually unique without breaking the aforementioned “iconic look, iconic role” rule. When I say trophies, I mean things like orcs wearing belts of dwarf beards and the skulls of fallen opponents impaled on the spikes of their armor.

2) In terms of personal advancement, you have the package system. I explained this earlier, but it basically lets you play the class you want to play and advance in exactly the way that appeals to you, in exactly the order you want to do it.

3) And in terms of combat, you have tactics. This system is a strategic layer of combat where players choose from a pool of available “tactics” before combat that they are then locked into for a set period of time (minutes or hours, not days). Tactics can be things like persistant buffs, race or mob-specific attack bonuses, etc. As players advance, additional slots open up allowing players to use more – or more powerful tactics. Weak tactics are worth one point, the most powerful tactics are worth – say – five. So if you have ten slots open, you might choose ten minor tactics or two extremely powerful tactics or a mix of five of the former, one of the latter. Or any other mix in between.

This is designed to help players avoid being locked into a specific character spec in any significant way without giving them the ability to respec on the fly without any advanced thought. And, of course, to avoid the typical “I hit these three buttons and – SOMETIMES – this button over here too” style of play.

Let’s examine this in order.

“No levels” IS GOOD. The four experience bars could mean that you select the skills you want to level up. Usually the skill systems are based on the use, the more you use one skill the more you improve in it. Here Mythic gives you “four slots”, where you can put the skills you want to improve and then the experience points you get will be automatically distributed to those skills. So no more use-driven, which adds freedom and could be a very good design choice to streamline the game.

Now, it’s not really a single pick for each skills, but a “package” that you can put on one of the four “experience slots”. Here it’s still hard to understand how the system works because there must be a link between the ranks and the “skill packages”.

From the sound of it I could guess that the system could become highly selective. You obviously need to select those packages you want to use and those you’ll leave behind. As a specialization system it looks close to how DAoC currently works. For every level in DAoC you gain “x” specialization points that you allocate to your spec-lines. Here the mechanic is basically the same, but reverted. DAoC’s spec lines = Warhammer’s packages. You choose the spec-lines / packages you want to develop and then go out to “level them”, which will also make you gain “ranks” (probably you gain one rank for every “x” skills you unlock in a package), with the direct consequence of not letting you develop all the packages, but forcing you to select only those that fit with your “build”.

In DAoC: level up -> allocate
In Warhammer: allocate -> level up

Not so incredibly innovative ;p

The only difference could be that every new skills in the same package always “costs” you the same amount. While allocating every new point in a spec-line in DAoC costs you progressively more points. It would be an improvement if so.

The negatives of this system are all already known in DAoC. It becomes extremely hard to make choices for your character without third-party character builders that let you plan your character from the first level to the last. And without a respec system you could easily gimp your character forever. So it’s a system that requires a very good knowledge of the game and that isn’t easy on the newbies (accessibility issue). You cannot start to play and slowly learn the game, instead you need to have already everything pre-planned from the first minute so that your character doesn’t finish to suck.

My suspect on the four “tiers” is that they will be used as a measure the overall power of the character, similar to how the levels are being used in Oblivion to then adapt the world around the player.

If this is true then all I said before about the level caps on the zones can still be valid. It would damage the PvP if Mythic allows a “tier four” character to go mess in a zone with characters at the first tier.

Considering everything together the “no level” claim is pretty weak. It’s possible that gaining ranks doesn’t scale up your stats, hitpoints and mana (at this point it would be the only real difference), but add a rank-based itemization and you basically have the exact same mechanic that drives DAoC or every other level-based game.

No support classes IS GOOD. Remove “healers” altogether, it can only be good.

No stealth classes IS GOOD. Removing annoying ambushes from campers is a good design choice for a game that focuses on a “war” where everyone is supposed to participate together.

About the “tactics” system, as I commented I fear it will lead to min-maxing and default builds. It sounds like WoW’s talent system, just more manipulable. I don’t see it having a particularly significant role in the design and the gameplay. In the sense that it doesn’t seem to add much and being indispensable or worthwhile idea.

I need to know more. Some things are interesting and convincing, some other less.

I have to admit that the goblins look great.

Great model and textures. I just hope that the animations are on par. And the ears! Please animate the EARS! (make them twitch at times during the idle animation, it would add a lot)

If anything I would make them just more curved and three-fingered instead of five (but then lore guys would complain, I guess?).

The art direction is MUCH improved from the screenshots released earlier. I love the color palette and I hope it’s not just a trick on some screenshots. The dwarf model still sucks, but the rest is starting to look much better than WoW and not as cartoonish (or at least less goofy).

In particular I like how the “green” used on the goblin is much more natural, detailed and opaque compared to the neon-green of the orcs in WoW, for example. This is why I hope it’s a definite choice in the art direction instead of a trick of this one screenshot. I think that fluorescent greens, yellows and purples are out of place for this kind of fantasy setting, but this is more like a personal point of view on the genre and a stylistic choice than a rule. Still, you can see how much better things can look when the art direction is solid.

Keep the colors more opaque, dimmer and natural and the game will look much better.

The look of armor and weapons is finally matching the setting instead of going in the Voltron direction. If they stick to that path the game overall look will finish to be more appealing than WoW. I want to see metal, bones, wood, leather. Stains, worn look, rust. NOT PLASTIC.

There are also a few screenshots of the interface. Very WoW-like. But at least it’s well organized and leaves behind the old-generation square blocks used in the old school mmorpgs (DAoC included). It’s nice the idea to add a full animated model in the middle on the bottom-bar. But I guess here the point it to see your party members fully animated, not just your own face. Without cluttering the screen.

So, if things continue to go in THAT precise direction, the game could really look amazing. If not, it will trip and fall behind WoW as a shabby imitation.

As for the rest, this game is at a crossroads.

Warhammer completely replaced DAoC at this E3. While an expansion for this other game is planned for the end of this year, Mythic decided to not present it and instead focus their efforts to hype Warhammer.

One of the comments to the preview of “The Escapist” tells a lot about Mythic’s general approach and stategy:

it’s surprising to me that you’d expect anything “revolutionary” or “innovative” from MJacobs and co. I believe Mythic to be the most professional and among the most talented outfits out there but if you now anything about Mark you understand that Mythic is a business first and foremost and the corporate mantra is “follow the leader”

you’re looking at the wrong company to take gambles or innovate. Mark’s proudly modelled his games after whichever game is leading the genre at the time. for DAOC he loudly “borrowed” from UO (then EQ). Imperator was a developed (then dropped) modelled on the SWG (which was SOE’s flagship until it sunk). With 6 million subscibers, obviously WAR follows WOW.

Mark’s clearly stated his preference over the years to follow “established leaders” and to only base games on widely recognized realms and franchises (such as Arthurian legend, Classical Rome and now Warhammer). Mark is a great businessman and his companies make fun, solid games but you ARE expecting too much if you expect them to take risks and break the mold. In fact you’re looking at the wrong bunch of folks entirely

I think this also helps to frame Warhammer and the realistic expectations about this game. Mythic has always tried to occupy a market space by reacting to other mainstream mmorpgs and then refining and specializing one one part that is usually neglected, like the PvP.

As a company they are non belligerent and aim more to preserve their space more than imposing themselves, but with a more competitive market their efforts weren’t anymore enough. While WoW doesn’t offer a good PvP system, the game still stepped on Mythic’s plate and this, as expected, caused a reaction.

The Warhammer licence was for them a perfect occasion to leave the weight of DAoC behind and reach out for WoW, another game that created demand and interest for PvP. It’s also probable that if the fantasy Warhammer will work then they’ll move to the 40k version as an ideal way to revive Imperator.

This is still a defensive move. With Warhammer they are trying to reach again the space that DAoC lost with the time and lack of initiative. It’s a nudge to WoW, with a so similar setting and a focus on the PvP. Even here Mythic expects to leech enough players to keep the game successful while not disturbing too much the daddy.

The first relevant news from the E3 is the possibility for the game to be released both on the PC and XBOX360. There haven’t been official announces but Gamespot wrote that Mythic managed to port it and demonstrate it. This is probably just an experiment. Launching the game for the console is an easy way to expand the user base significantly. Along with their plans to support voice chat this could be a big occasion for them.

As for DAoC, Warhammer’s client is built on non-proprietary middleware (Gamebryo, like Civ4 and Oblivion) and this middleware should be already portable. So I think they decided to make an experiment to see if it could have been a viable option and considering the results it seems that it was.

Through various previews is now easier to figure out the overall structure of the game even if some parts are still quite unclear. The game will have 40 levels and branching classes. Every 10 levels your character will be able to further specialize and there will be four different careers/classes for each race.

There will be six different races at release. Greenskin (orcs + goblins), Dark Elf, Chaos, Dwarf, High Elf and Empire.

So a total of 24 classes (with further specialization paths) probably reduced to 12 “unique” if you consider that they’ll need to mirror them between the two factions if they don’t want to have huge balance issues.

At the base of the PvP system there are two opposite factions. Order and Destruction, each clumping together its three races Vs the other three races. While the single zones should be broken up between three different “fronts”: (Greenskin Vs Dwarf) (Dark Elf Vs High Elf) and (Chaos Vs Empire). We’ll see if this will lead to population imbalance problems. For now Mythic hasn’t revealed any plan to address this problem, even if it’s a fundamental one for this kind of games.

The PvP model they are going to follow is much better then the one proposed in DAoC. This is probably the best choice they made with this title. Instead of separating PvE and PvP like two independent games crippling each other, this time they are trying for a more coesive approach where PvE flows into PvP naturally. Molding together.

The newbie starting zones (three in total, one for each “front”) have already PvP-enabled parts, as I already explained. While I hope the zone design is flexible, the zone general scheme has two opposite entry points, one for each faction. The player can then start questing and killing PvE creatures in this “safe zone” as in every other mmorpg but then the quests will also lead toward a central, contested zone where the PvP will be enabled. This transition should be smooth, so you won’t need to “zone in”. It should be more like walking through an invisible line with a voice announcing that you are entering a zone of conflict.

They are planning for 33 zones. So 11 for each “front”. The players can freely move to other fronts and help allies. For example a dwarf character could decide to play in its default zone and fight against goblins and orcs or move to the Empire zone and fight against Chaos. The biggest problem Mythic may encounter here is again about the population imbalance.

Since they decided to go with a system based on levels, they’ll need to lock players out of the zone when past the appropriate level range, or one high level character could go sit on a noob zone and disrupt the game for everyone else. This will effectively segment the game world since as your character grows you won’t be able to go back to the zones you have already visited (if they don’t add a “level downgrade” like EQ2’s mentoring system). Here the game mechanics are extremely important because if they divide the zones accessibility in four (as the four tiers of ten ranks, for a total of forty levels) the PvP could become just a matter of who’s closer to the zone level cap. It’s important here that each new rank isn’t a huge leap over the other, but at the same time this would make the character advancement rather bland, so they’ll have to reach a compromise. Which is also why I believe that it would have been much better to go with an open skill system with a flat power growth.

Instead if they use shorter level ranges (like setting the zone caps every five levels) then the world would really feel too linear and encapsuled.

Actually I wonder if they have even considered the problem of zone level caps or if they just overlooked it completely.

This still leaves the eleven zones to be used and distributed. My hope is that they keep the early and mid game as focused as possible so that there will be PvP activity even months after the game is released. There’s always the problem of the desertifications of the newbie zones and it’s crucial for a PvP mmorpg to keep the starting zones always active and well populated. I also hope they achieve a better balance between the experience gained through PvP and PvE, in particular when it comes to the shared objectives that in DAoC are ridiculous.

If they can screw up one element is by imitating DAoC and reward elitist gank groups that systematically avoid any shared goal. If the “open PvP” doesn’t pivot around precise objectives instead of just consecutive player kills, the whole model will crumble. Thinking about this, beside the level ranks they still haven’t revealed any detail about the PvP “carrot”. What will make you continue to fight beside the hopefully fun gameplay? How you’ll keep improving your character after you reached the last rank? This is another problematic core concept of PvP games, along with the population imbalances, that Mythic hasn’t answered yet.

The same for the character growth. In WoW you can reach level 10 rather quickly, we don’t know yet how the progression will be in Warhammer and whether they decided to speed it up to focus on the endgame. As we know from the standard population trends they are going to waste a lot of content if they reserve too many zones for the mid levels. I wonder if they could develop a dynamic system that reserves and flags the level range for the zone on the fly, based on population requirements. While doable for PvP, the PvE portion would be much harder to adapt and it would also become a design limit, so I’m not sure how good this idea could be. Still, they need an answer to that problem or the mid game risks to become frustratingly desolated. And it’s also why I want to know more about how they are going to distribute the zones before I can figure out if it could work or not.

From the various press releases and previews there are more precise informations about the PvP “models” supported, even if my early guesses were already quite precise.
Officially there are four different modes: Skirmishes – Battlefields – Scenarios – Campaigns.

We can forget the first since it’s just Mythic’s fancy definition for a random PvP encounter, while the other three should be more “structured”. The confusion here is more about the interaction between battlefields and Scenarios. The risk is that Mythic is trying to overdo and that they’ll finish to support too much “PvP space” that will be directly mudflated by the players as it happened with DAoC. As for the general population trends, in the PvP the players need to converge (and spontaneously do so). So a bunch of zones and PvP modes supported aren’t an advantage, but quite the opposite. They cripple down the PvP activity.

The Battlefields should be a concept similar to my hotspot idea. The players concentrate around a “shared objective”, like fighting for the control of a resource, or a tower or whatever. Again, I hope that, contrarily to DAoC, the PvP objectives are worthwhile instead of openly ignored by the players. This is another significant design issue since if you reward for a goal then the players could learn to avoid each other to reach for the carrot (WoW), or, even worst, ignore the objectives and just gank each other if that’s a more rewarding path (DAoC). It’s also possible that the best path will be grinding PvE quests and in this last case the PvP will get completely ignored till the endgame (where you hit the level cap and so don’t get anymore exp). As you can imagine this is another MAJOR point that needs an answer. My “hotspot” idea addressed this, we’ll see what will be Mythic’s answer even if in this case they have NOT learnt from past experiences. This is still one major, unaddressed problem in DAoC. Changing the name of the game won’t be an effective response on its own.

As I said the relationship between battlefields and scenarios is still confused. The raw difference is that the battlefields are static zones, while the scenarios are instanced and balanced as in WoW, with the addition of NPCs (dogs of war). This idea leaves me rather doubtful. It’s already extremely hard to balance the game between the characters, I think it would be nearly impossible if you have to factor even these NPCs. Also considering that Mythic’s AI for the mobs hasn’t shined in these years. WoW had similar plans when it was still in development and they also decided to scrap it. We’ll see if Mythic will go further than that or not. I don’t think it’s a really good idea and the whole concept of WoW-inspired battlefields isn’t convincing. I don’t think it is going to fit well with the rest of the game and it’s an added layer that I find superfluous and complicated.

I also need to know more. It looks like the scenarios are just instanced battlefields. I wonder if these are separated zones (I mean with unique level design) or just mirrors. It’s not clear when a scenario will trigger. Even if the choice is left to the players there’s still the need to define different *roles* in the game for these two modes. For now all I know is that the “campaign” layer spawns from here. Winning scenarios or accomplishing PvP objectives will probably flag the zone as “captured”. As the players gain control over more and more zones, they could finally unlock enemy lands and pillage the capital cities, similarly to what happens in DAoC with the relic raids. Just with a more dramatic approach since it’s an invasion of PvE-flagged areas.

By the way, the capital cities aren’t in the noob zones, so it’s probable you arrive there after the first 10 levels. Mid to high level zones, I guess. In this case I wonder how they are built. They cannot put a capital in a contested zone or the “conquest” system wouldn’t make sense. At the same time they need to put some content around the capital or noone will use it. Even here Mythic hasn’t explained much.

I stop here my considerations. I have more to say but it will fit better a stand-alone post (later).

I haven’t commented here the classes in detail nor the quest systems. Both of these seem to have been the major focus of the previews but from my point of view they can only be examined and evaluated when the whole structure of the game is complete. Sparse examples of quests could be good for some hype but they really don’t tell anything about how those ideas will work and fit in the game. That all depends on the game balance and it’s something that cannot be abstractly designed, but that instead needs to go through extensive, practical testing. So it’s not something that it’s worth discussing without having played the game in the first place, nor I believe it’s something to be excited about.

Instead it’s interesting the idea of the “tome of knowledge”:

(source)
First on the list is the game’s new journal. Warhammer Online players will benefit from the incredibly useful Tome of Knowledge. It stores information on all of your quests, letting you see at a glance the area it takes place in, how far you’ve progressed towards each goal, the rewards for completing it and, wonder of wonders, the actual dialogue from the person who gave you the mission. The quest journal also activates the appropriate quests as you move from area to area.

The Tome of Knowledge also contains a comprehensive bestiary. As you encounter and fight monsters, their entry will grow more and more detailed, even to the point of offering advice on how to defeat them. You’ll also get a look at the concept art and see a tally of how many of that beastie you’ve killed.

I always had the idea to bring to a mmorpg the RPG-style Pokedex (Pokemon) where you can “collect” monsters, quests and all sort of statistics. It should be easy to implement and it would be a simple way to appeal both achiever (completists) and explorer types. It would be also a possibility to bring in the game all that kind of interesting material that is usually reserved for the third-party guides or that is just left unused. Zone guides, monster strategies, concept art. It could become an ongoing project that continues to be supported and that gathers all the game sources available.

To conclude, the various previews I’ve read still leave many doubts and don’t provide answers to some basic and general problems that always come with PvP games. The design of Warhammer hasn’t revealed anything particularly significative beside the attempt to bring together PvP and PvE.

This is a quick list of things that are still unclear or problematic and to which Mythic will have to provide an answer, sooner or later:

– Population and class imbalances
– Power growth between ranks
– Level-based lock (caps) for the zones
– Zones distribution
– PvP rewards
– PvP activity convergence
– PvP persistence (results)
– Empowering players and guilds in the PvP persistence
– Balance between PvE, gank groups and shared PvP objectives
– Role of capital cities
– Itemization
– PvE endgame (if any)
– Crafting (if any)

The success and viability of this game depend on the answers to those points.

Watch it yourself:

– Mythic’s Warhammer Online cinematic video (made by Blur Studio)

– Namco’s Warhammer: Mark of Chaos

I suggest to get the best quality vid of the Mythic’s one and I wish I could find an high-quality vid for the Namco’s one (edit: found, “save as” should work).

Both of these are MASTERPIECES, best stuff at the E3 (the Halo 3 video pales in comparison). Despite they are just CG stuff irrelevant for the actual games, they really deserve to be seen.

Mythic’s one has a better quality, better detail and art and even screenplay. It mocks blatantly WoW’s intro video and really achieves its goal.

But it’s still nothing compared to the mighty potency of the Namco’s video. Here the raw quality is less impressive but the video is more realistic and much, much more powerful and intense. It is overwhelming.

It’s interesting to compare two completely different “views” on the Warhammer world. And I still think that Namco’s approach can offer a lot more as a “disruption” (as Iwata would say) of the current fantasy stereotypes.

I believe these “fantasy worlds” can still deliver a whole lot. I think it’s blatantly obvious that the current mmorpgs, for example, really took the worst out of what the “myth” could deliver (for example: immersion and empathy, which should be OBLIGATORY premises for a RPG).

Both those videos are masterpieces and evidence of the narrative and emotive impact that the fantasy genre has and that noone is even trying to use.

Anyway, what’s the purpose of a CG video for a videogame? To inspire.

And both of these do their work awesomely.