| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (24)

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 2:22PM danthe57 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Both settler and scientist sound very interesting... hmmm

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 2:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Wow this game came out of nowhere but is sounding more and more awesome. I still wish that the combat was more akin to Tera/Blade and Soul/Etc... instead of the traditional style, but everything else about it sounds great. Can't wait to see how the settler works out in a video. ..Plus Bunny girls are nice.

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 3:17PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Let's see... Non innovative gameplay, An art style that looks like a cross between Torchlight and TOR, and an abundance of other promising MMOs coming out soon. Yeah, I doubt they'll get me to play.

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 3:35PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
cant stand the art style. a step back from WoW actually.

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 3:42PM Acharenus said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Looks amazing, definitely impressed with the game so far.

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 3:53PM etomai said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Constraining which types of activities you can profit from is probably a good idea, although players might chafe at it. Mildly concerning that they would claim their distinctions as being consistent with Bartle's types, as they can't have actually read the paper and think that.

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 8:40PM JuliusSeizure said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@etomai

You can always make an alt if you want to experience another path. ;)

And yes, I've noticed they don't completely match up with Bartle's types (Explorer-path and Scientist are both mishmashes of Explorer-personality and Achiever, pulling different things out of each), but looking at them as a touchstone for inspiration rather than an absolute mandate causes it to all make sense.
Reply

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 4:01PM BigAndShiny said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Im impressed with the game, but I just don't get the graphics. The Witcher 2 cost 8 million to make and has amazing graphics that scale really well, as does age of conan with the new engine (so don't say it's so 'more people can run it') This probably cost in the region of $40m+ so I really think they could have done better than WoW. Look at that hill the guy is standing on in the picture- It's practically one texture.

SWTOR's been in development since 2005 so they might have an excuse but this hasn't been in progress for anywhere near as long.

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 5:10PM hereafter said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@BigAndShiny

This looks better than WoW to me. Maybe not in terms of texture fidelity, but the character models are more detailed and gear has a more layered look. It's important to remember that this has a very stylized aesthetic, whereas a game like the Witcher 2 is going for a lot more realism. Art direction is as important--if not moreso--than graphical horsepower.
Reply

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 5:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@BigAndShiny It always confuses me when people combine "photo realistic" = "good graphics". Does the Incredibles by Pixar have "bad graphics" because its not realistic looking?

Now, it may be that I'm a designer/animator -- and maybe the fact that people without a sharp visual attunement can't distinguish these things is in fact a problem with the graphics commercially -- but it looks light-years ahead of WoW.

The animations are fluid and disney-esque (versus the Hanna-Barbera primitive movement of WoW), the designs of the characters a fluid rather than segmented looking, the environments look painterly and almost cell shaded (although this is a trait WoW shares that I like about it). In addition, the faces are expressive and mobile and the FX are far superior.

This might be a case similar to growing up in the late 80's, when I would bang my head against the table when people couldn't tell the difference between the animation quality of say, Hannah-Barbera's Smurfs and Disney's Pinnochio.

Reply

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 5:40PM paterah said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@BigAndShiny As others have said it's the style of the game. I get what you are saying but in reality, if you add more fidelity to a stylised game it won't look as good as you think. What I see in the first picture is something pleasant to watch at and not tiring to the eyes. No I won't pull the Minecraft card here as most people would do ("look at Minecraft"), but there is the possibility that the game would look unappealing to me and probably others if they cranked up the graphics. I don't think it's that hard to grasp the concept of the style this game uses.
Reply

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 4:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They misinterpreted some Bartle Types badly.

1. Killer: I like killing people, not grinding mobs. Why do I care about PVE grind wave battles? Give me something useful for ganking, counter-ganking, or counter-counter-ganking. The wave battle beacon sounds like something a carebear would use. Like an Achiever, because they like to brag about this PvE fight or that PvE fight.

2. Explorer: the last game that did something nice for Explorers was Rift. They had a bunch of hidden treasures you could find by walking off the map. It's a good thing they realize that Explorers want to break out of the box and need the least hand-holding to do so. Let's hope that beacon doesn't provide too much spoiling. This is probably the best fit, depending on the implementation.

3. Socializer: oh yes, housing and construction. That would fit right in with the social types... except it sounds a bit like craftsmen and economists who dominate auction houses in other games. Nothing social about price gouging and undercutting minigame. If those guys have the only access to economic structures (banking, inns, mail, etc) then holy cow do they have an iron grip on the economy.

4. Achiever: so I get buffs and pets. I get to collect things. Yeah, that's achiever material right there. Except maybe I'd want to have the soldier beacon so I could brag to my friends about the encounters I've unlocked with it... that the other achievers can't get unless they're with a soldier. That could work...

I'm a predominantly a 'killer' bartle type. And you know what? I would probably pick 'settler' if I were to play this game, so I could build a fortress somewhere unfriendly and use it as a base for ganking operations. And hope that I ruffle enough feathers that people rally up and try to take my precious fortress down, giving me something to defend. Not to mention hey economic structures, clearly OP.

So, premature knee jerk reaction and all, but it seems they really messed up on the killer path beacon.

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 5:14PM hereafter said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

It seems more like there's something for all player types in each path, but some would have a stronger appeal. I didn't think they were trying to mirror each motivation exactly.
Reply

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 7:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@hereafter

But that's the problem. You want to give something useful to each of the bartle types... yes?

Now imagine the frustrations this pigeonholing can cause.

I'm an achiever. Do I choose scientist so I can collect every pet in the game or soldier so I can get all the trophies from the wave battle generators?

I'm a killer. Do I go for explorer path so I can find and climb all those ledges to snipe people from or for settler so I can build my own ledges? Keep in mind that killers tend to exploit every nook and cranny of the rules of the game. Anything they can get away with to get a kill...

I'm a socializer... I could go for soldier because hey nothing brings people together like public quests... or settler so I can drop quest hubs and vendors wherever I go.

I'm an explorer? Well, that's a no-brainer... although I could still go for settler so I can build crazy structures in places devs didn't think of so I can climb things and get places that even they never intended. Fall through the world's geometry for giggles. Kite monsters and get them stuck between awkwardly placed buildings "just so".

Yeah, settlers seem OP upon what I've heard. Which is admittedly not much. Hence knee-jerk reaction.
Reply

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 8:50PM JuliusSeizure said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

The Bartle types are a touchstone, the paths seem to be dictated by the sorts of gameplay mechanics that they can actually implement, we don't know all the mechanics for each path only what they've revealed so far, you can pick the path that best matches your personal needs, not the one that has flavour text that vaguely sounds like a description of your type.

Exhale.
Reply

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 11:33PM hereafter said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

The key is this:

"It was also made clear, as with all the paths, that an Explorer can certainly bring allies along with him as he reaches obscure areas of the map. It may be his specific focus, but there's nothing preventing other players from following and getting some of the flavor of the path."

So you pick the focus that most appeals to you and you join your friends messing around on any of the paths. You'd miss out on the unique abilities of the other paths it sounds like, but you're not limited to one type of experience while playing. No matter which path you choose, you'll still have to kill, explore, achieve and socialize, as you would in many MMO activities. A Soldier still has to explore for new things to kill, socialize with other players and achieve within the game.
Reply

Posted: Aug 29th 2011 12:13PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

There is probably going to be a PvP element to the game, possibly arena (speculation on my part). So "Killers" should be okay with that (maybe not gankers, but we don't know if PvP is FFA....I doubt it is.)

Needless to say, I am very happy that they are attempting to go after the Bartle-types and at least trying to match things which each type, while trying to be flexible.
Reply

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 5:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The combat looks uninteresting, and I loved the look and generally more lighthearted attitude (I'm so tired of mega-self-serious MMOs. I would kill for a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy MMO, for example). I loved the art direction and exploring WoW's world, but eventually the hotkey mechanics became unbearable after I had experienced something different in MMOs; and WoW you are forced to basically grind your way through the world if you want to see it.

Although the combat looks meh, the saving grace might be it can be my MMO where I "do something else" (like be an explorer) and enjoy the world with occasional combat. Therefore, its non-innovation in that area wouldn't matter as much.

Plus, I like the premise they've set up. Its not an explored world with you a n00b, its everyone is coming to gold-rush a mysterious planet.

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 6:24PM Stall said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
There definitely seem to be some great ideas and real ambition behind Wildstar. It's definitely a game I'm going to be following.

Posted: Aug 27th 2011 8:05PM DotCom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Looks great and sounds great. Hopefully these paths prove to be what they want them to be. Don't rush this game guys!

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW