Mandalorian-themed gaming community for Star Wars: The Old Republic
April 16, 2011 by blur

Do TOR titles mean our characters will only have one name?

Trying to find out whether our characters can have one name or two names has been one of my ongoing missions since the TOR forum opened. Yet whether we can, or not, is a secret that’s still up there with UFOs, Bigfoot and Elvis being spotted at 7-11. It’s been asked a million times and, only recently, we got the, “it’s still under discussion” brush off.

(Really? Something so simple still under discussion after all these years…?!?)

So it was interesting to read Daniel Erickson’s comments (reproduced below), not in the sense that Darth will be off-limits when creating names… that was always a given. And not even in the sense that you can become a Lord or Darth or some other title through what you do in the game… I’ve pretty much always believed that would be the case.

No folks, what his comment suggests to me is that we’re now going down the path of single character names. And why? Simple. If you name your character, “John Smith”, becoming “Darth John Smith” looks terrible… not only because of the extra name in there (“Darth Smith” or “Darth John” would be much better in a pinch), but also because a Sith would typically change their name when becoming a Darth anyway… and I doubt the game will allow for people suddenly changing their name entirely, or dropping a first or last name to be replaced by their title later on.

(But hey, if the game DOES allow that… great… I just don’t think it will…)

So this, more than anything, suggests to me that we are heading for one-name characters and perhaps the reason Bioware is being so cagey with this information is because it knows there’s a ton of RP people out here who are going to freak out when they are told that their character can only be known by one name and, if that character doesn’t attain a title, will ALWAYS be only known by one name. Honestly, some people are going to absolutely hate that concept.

Your thoughts?

Hey Folks,

Darth and Lord are ranks in the Old Republic time period and while they represent an increasingly smaller percentage of overall Sith, they are clearly not at as rare as only having one or two running around in the galaxy. There are already numerous Darths (Baras, Malgus) we’ve seen who are not on the Dark Council.

It will likely not come as a surprise to most people that the titles of Darth and Lord are story-based rewards (one does not become a Darth by grinding frog-dogs) as are Master, etc. What may come as a surprise is that not everyone who completes a Sith or Jedi story will achieve them. There are always choices and those choices matter in many ways, including your notoriety and the rewards or reputation you earn. Darth will absolutely be off-limits when creating names.

Hope that helps!
Daniel Erickson

  •   •   •   •   •
December 10, 2010 by blur

The #1 issue remains story versus individuality

From day one, literally, Bioware has made no secret of the story component of TOR.

If you’re a Trooper, you start in Havoc squad… if you’re a Sith Inquisitor, you start as a slave… and so on. This has led to people pointing out, quite rightly, that the game seems to leave less roleplaying and imagination for people.

My trooper character, for example, MUST be from Havoc squad. And yours. And yours. And yours. And yours. And you over there? Yours, too. This generally isn’t how people who like to think about their characters would prefer to play an MMO. Period.

And sure, I take onboard that some people don’t care — they just want to play TOR “as a game”. And that’s fine. But in every MMO, and in BioWare games particularly, there are people who are quite creative and like to THINK about their character, too.

This has led to a TOR forum user telling me:

Its not Bioware’s job to do that. Bioware’s job is to give us a game with a storyline, quests, and gameplay that we can enjoy.

To which I say, actually, if you want to talk about what Bioware’s “job” is, it’s to provide a realistic multi-user environment. Why? Because it says this is an MMO. As such, it needs a different set-up to Bioware’s single player games. That is the bottom line, right there.

I’m getting a little sick, actually, of people defending a single player experience as valid in MMO terms — it’s not. It’s absolutely valid in a single player game — fantastic fun, actually, and I think Bioware makes great single player games — but this isn’t a single player game and should be treated differently. Thus far, I’m worried that it hasn’t been.

So the real question is, how will Bioware reconcile story and the desire for people to feel like their own character?

There’s been a lot of talk, but none of it’s actually answered this staggeringly simple question. I really wish we had one.

  •   •   •   •   •
August 15, 2010 by blur

The concept of “story” might keep some of us in the game, literally…

I like to think I’m a fair man when it comes to talking about computer games. When Bioware does something good, by my estimation, I’ll be on the front line telling everyone about it. When Bioware does something bad — again, by my estimation I need to stress — I’ll be as cutting and scathing as I can be. In other words, I’m not a Bioware fanboi, but nor am I a Bioware hater, either.

I also like to think that I can judge an MMO pretty well these days after playing a wide array of them for over a decade, often for long periods. “Been there, done that & got the t-shirt…” doesn’t even remotely begin to explain my background with these frustrating, addictive, OCD-friendly pieces of code that have worked their way into my very DNA over time.

And as it so happens, just lately I’ve been doodling with the trial version of an MMO that I’ve played in the past, but thought I’d revisit at the moment because, honestly, I’ve been bored. I wanted something to do particularly on these cold weekends (I’m in the southern hemisphere), when neither my wife or I particularly feel like venturing outdoors.

Now, I’m not going to name the game in question because the game itself is irrelevant. It could be just about any MMO ever made because it’s what the game was making me do that I found so offensive.

Yes folks, it seems that after all this time, I’m finally sick of the grind. Even with an open mind, and hour upon hour to kill, the thought of running back and forth across a map to kill critters which slowly increased in toughness — with slight changes to their name to show this — was enough to make me almost throw my PC out the window.

Why do we play these games? Where does it lead us? What does it achieve? Who cares in the end? Why aren’t they FUN?

There… I finally said it. MMOs just aren’t fun. Even when you get to the “cool stuff” at the end of an MMO, like raiding, or PvPing, more often than not it’s full of frustration and time wasting and unexpected moments of sheer misery compared to what they should be offering, given that we call these things “games”. And that thing, once again, is FUN.

So I was standing in the shower earlier tonight — a great place for thinking — and it occurred to me that for all the crap that people hang on the concept of “story” in TOR (and I confess, I’ve found plenty to criticise myself including the fact that if our race is dictated by the background we want… or our background is dictated by the race we want, then we aren’t playing a very fun or open RPG for starters), that this could actually be the thing that saves TOR, and ourselves, from mind-numbing boredom.

Honestly, at this point in time, I don’t think I could play another “traditional” MMO from start to finish (and by “finish” I mean the level cap), but if a game can tell me a story, and keep me interested in that while the character grows and levels without me noticing then, hell yeah, this could be a good thing.

Of course, it doesn’t get Bioware completely off the hook with other aspects of the story but, in terms of simply keeping my interest and keeping me in the game, story is where it’s at. It blows my mind to already read comments from people about wanting to skip the storyline elements…!

  •   •   •   •   •
April 3, 2010 by blur

Too much story can actually hurt your experience

I’ve written virtually since day one on the TOR forums about how an increased focus on storyline will bite into the immersion of TOR as an MMO, which is what it purports to be.

And I was reminded of that again today when my wife (who is a total gamer girl and a BioWare fan), walked into my study and said, “So there are romances in TOR, right? Like other BioWare games?”

I looked up, “Yep, that’s what they say.”

“OK,” she said, “So let’s say I have a party member my character falls in love with called ‘Eric’. Am I seriously going to go down to the cantina for downtime with our guildies in the future and half of the girls will also be there, hanging out with ‘their’ Eric, too?”

I rolled the idea around in my head, based on everything I have read, to date.

“Yep,” I finally concluded. “I guess so.”

She screwed up her nose at me.

“Yuck,” she said. “That works in single player games, but not MMOs.” And then she walked away.

In truth, I have to agree with my wife. If this is how the result of our storylines will pan out when we are hanging out with our guildmates (who might have done exactly the same storyline if playing the same class), I would find such a scenario pretty darn immersion-breaking myself — and yet another reason why I think focusing too heavily on a storyline for each class (no matter what options it holds), can actually hurt your experience overall.

  •   •   •   •   •
January 22, 2010 by blur

Bioware didn’t invent the concept of “story”

You’d think after working in PR and marketing for many years, that hyperbolic comments in press releases and interviews would be water off a duck’s back, right? Wrong. If anything, the more I’ve worked in PR and marketing, the more easily I’ve been able to sniff a BS comment from 20 paces.

And that’s what happened in the early days of TOR’s initial announcement with comments like this:

The Old Republic is a massively multiplayer game, but it’s one where we wanted to take story and bring it to the MMO space.

– Bioware’s director of design James Ohlen

Say what? So all these years I’ve been playing MMOs, stretching back into the late 1990s, NONE of them had story? Yep, apparantly so. Why? Because Bioware says so. Please, read on…

We feel that role-playing can be divided into four parts, and at BioWare that’s our philosophy: there’s the exploration filler, the combat filler, the progression filler and the story filler. But we’ve always thought that with MMOs the story filler hasn’t been there.

– Bioware’s director of design James Ohlen

And you know the scary part about all of this? As we sit here in 2010, Bioware fanboi’s and the like TOTALLY BELIEVE THESE COMMENTS. I challenge you to step onto the TOR forums and call these comments for that they are, and a veritible army of fanboi’s will stand up and tell you that YOU’RE wrong. Yep, Bioware has, apparantly, invented the concept of “story” in MMOs. Every MMO you’ve ever played didn’t have a storyline. All those boxes of text you read, didn’t exist. All the voiceovers you heard, never happened. The cutscenes that progressed the story? Yep, you imagined them.

I actually find this worrying in more ways than one. On the one level, I hate it when companies try and pretend they have invented something that already exists. That just sucks, period. Consumers should never be treated like idiots. But on a higher, much more important level, I am also utterly dismayed that there are now young people out there whom can be told something and, so long as they like the person or company telling them that information, they will apply absolutely no critical thought to it and then go blindly spouting the oft-quoted “company line” to anyone who will listen. Do they no longer teach critical thought or independent thinking or similar in schools these days?

Anyway, why am I talking about this now? Isn’t it old news? Yep, it is, but there’s been some talk about it again on the official TOR forums recently and it’s hammered home to me that the more time the kids out there have lived with this comment that Bioware is bringing “story” to MMOs, the more they have come to believe it. One of them even tried to tell me that by “story”, Bioware means an interactive story with multiple endings for characters. What he couldn’t seem to grasp, however, is that a story doesn’t need to be interactive in order to be a story. Thus, MMOs to date have actually been FULL of stories and Bioware is wrong about this. Otherwise, kids, put down that copy of Wuthering Heights, or whatever classic literature you’re reading. There’s no need to read it anymore — it’s non-interactive, you see, therefore can’t have a story. Huh? Yep, that’s what I thought, too…

Can these people not see how ludicrous their comments are?

  •   •   •   •   •
November 5, 2009 by blur

That Old Fourth Pillar

We all remember the comment,

Traditionally MMOs are built on three pillars; Exploration, Combat, and Progression. We at BioWare and LucasArts believe there is a fourth pillar: Story. Our mission is to create the best story-driven games in the world.

It’s as though MMOs to date haven’t had storylines, or something.

Now, patently, this is untrue. Most MMOs have at least a rudimentary overview of the game world, and an ongoing quest series that tells a story. Some MMOs go way deeper than that. LotRO, off the top of my head, has a very deep storyline for players to take part in (via Book Quests), that aren’t just ripped out of the Tolkien books, but are all-new.

So for BioWare to make this claim (which is rather massive when you really think about what it might mean), that it’s essentially inventing a whole new “pillar” for the temple of MMOs, do you think:

(i) It’s basically a marketing gimmick and, essentially, there will be no more story going on than in games like, for example, LotRO.

(ii) The devs feel that their storyline will be so far advanced from other MMOs that they feel justified in making the claim.

And if you believe it’s (ii), let me ask, in what way do you think the storyline, or the telling of the story, can be enhanced in an MMO to the extent we are talking about here?

Because if this is creating a whole new “pillar” for the genre, it had better be pretty damn special…

  •   •   •   •   •
October 6, 2009 by blur

Will the slots fit the storylines?

It’s common in MMOs to not be able to create a character of every class. There might be a dozen classes, for example, but you only have six character slots, or something. I’m sure everyone’s come across the concept before.

So, onto TOR… if the theory is that we’ll want to play each class, in order to enjoy each unique storyline, will there be enough character slots to fit every class?

I suppose if we are locked to one faction per server, and there are only four to six classes per faction, we’ll be OK. After all, four to six character slots is the norm in MMOs, anyway.

But if we can play both factions on the same server, or here’s a lower number of character slots, is it possible that we will have to spread our classes across multiple servers… if we want to play all the storylines, that is? (I know there are people who really don’t want to play multiple storylines). What do you guys think? Any thoughts?

  •   •   •   •   •
May 16, 2009 by blur

Why the fourth pillar fails

This is a topic that’s been thought about, sometimes half-heartedly suggested and, in a few cases, some people have elected to jump out of step with the majority and call it for what it is. Now it’s my turn. With the release of a new video, I have less enthusiasm for TOR than at any time in its development thus far.

Why? What got up my nose this time? Was it when the guy on the video said, “Everyone wants a lightsaber…”, a comment even more obnoxious than the classic, “Everyone wants to be a hero…” from the TOR launch? Nope. As eye-rolling as that moment was, that wasn’t it. Let me cut to the chase.

All this fourth pillar stuff… all this separate-storyline-for-each-class stuff… it’s all great. OK, let me get that on the table. It’s great. It’s content that will probably be really well-written and have some twists and turns and will tell us a great story, “just like it says on the box”, but with one (rather large) condition:

If you’re playing a single player game.

See, I don’t know about you guys, but I CANNOT get excited about being betrayed by my bounty hunting partner if, for example, it happens to EVERY SINGLE BOUNTY HUNTER ON THE SERVER. That’s why this kind of thing is freaking AWESOME in a single player game, but absolutely rubbish in an MMO.

To be honest, I think modern MMOs have it the wrong way around. The best MMOs have MINIMAL structured storyline. I’m not talking sandbox here — let’s get that clear — but a kind of vague storyline so that 100 people could play the game completely differently, and it still feels “right” and “believable”.

With TOR, meanwhile, the information presented thus far suggests that as a bounty hunter, for example, you will pretty much play the same storyline as every other bounty hunter, with the exception of hitting some “big moments” in the story, where you might go one way or the other. Big deal.

Thus far, with no explanation of how the fourth pillar actually works in an MMO, I’m getting more and more depressed about TOR by the day. Let me say it again: the TOR storyline and overall concept sounds like it will make a great single player game… but it’s not shaping up as an MMO.

I look forward to being proven wrong but, thus far, I think this fourth pillar concept is a mistake in MMO development. It’s just cheesy in the extreme for people to play through, essentially, the same class-based storyline. And sure, you might say that most MMOs have a quest line that “everyone” does, so isn’t that cheesy too? But BioWare is making such a big noise about how this “fourth pillar” is genuinely different, and something to really get excited about. Thus far, however, I just can’t see how I can get genuinely excited about doing exactly what all my friends do.

That’s not how a “personal” story works. Because, without wanting to state the obvious, it’s not “personal”.

  •   •   •   •   •
March 3, 2009 by blur

Beskar interview in The Guild Emblem

Beskar has been interviewed by The Guild Emblem.

You can see the original here, or just read it below.

JGard: In your guild profile you tell people to visit this thread on your forum.  It tells about your guild and how it is run. Right of the bat you say that this guild is not run like 99% of other guilds. Please explain.

Blur: Simply, there would be very few guilds out there which are run by one person. I don’t actually know of any, of the top of my head, but I wouldn’t be arrogant enough to say that we were unique in that way; I’m sure there are some out there. Most guilds are run by a “leadership team” of sorts; sharing out the chores, debating what needs to be done with the group, and so on. The problem I have with groups like that, however, is the red tape the average member has to cut through to get anything done. In a lot of guilds the average member has officers above them, and often a leadership team above the officers. So even if a member gets an idea through the officers and up into the real leadership, it’s probably going to get debated to death and changed, or there’ll be a stalemate because the leadership team can’t agree, or some other problem. It just gets very bureaucratic and, to be honest, silly. I’ve been in guilds long enough — since Ultima Online in 1997 — to say that I think the best way is to have a pool of members who are all equal, with one guy tasked with the admin chores. In summary, if someone wants something done in Beskar, they come to me and ask. I’ll decide whether we do it or not — usually on the spot because I don’t have to debate it with a leadership team. This makes decision making faster and a lot more personal, too. People can come to me and we can get things done without any waiting around. If someone sends me a Private Message asking for, say, a new forum for a certain topic, if I think that’s a good idea, I’ll just go and make it. Fast, simple. And way different to “the average” guild.

JGard: You do not have rankings except for leader because you propose that the entire guild has a say in every decision except you, the leader, has the final say.  How will you balance this system between seasoned guild members and new recruits?  Also, how will you prevent this from becoming a dictatorship with one person making the final decision?

Blur: Well, to answer the second question first, we openly operate under a model of “enlightened despotism”, which is all covered in our FAQ, so people could call it a dictatorship if they wanted to portray the concept in a negative light. But here’s the hidden ingredient: unlike a real life despot, or dictator, when it comes to a gaming guild, this kind of role is a little different. Let’s use our choice of server as an example. I could, for example, decide that we will be on ‘x’ server and if any members didn’t like that decision they would be free to leave. However, that would be a pretty dumb way to go about things. In reality, I’m going to canvas opinion from our members. So if 55% of members want ‘x’ server and 15% want ‘y’ server and 30% want ‘z’ server, clearly, I would have to have a pretty good reason not to take us to ‘x’ server. So I do have ultimate control, yes, but to not listen to the members in arriving at my decisions would just be dumb. Of course, there may be times where I will excercise that control to go against the grain on a certain topic because Beskar is, ultimately, my guild. As I remind the guys sometimes: I pay the bills! So if I thought, for example, that the guild would be better off on the server that 30% wanted, instead of the 55%, I could theoretically still take us to that server. But I would do so in the knowledge that I may lose members in doing that, so “going against the grain” isn’t something any despot should make a habit of, even if they do have the control. It’s a balancing act, basically, between what the members want and what my overall vision for the guild is.

Now going back to the first question, there is no difference — in theory at least — between a veteran and a new recruit. I dislike guilds where the veterans act like gods towards the recruits. I mean, at the end of the day, this is just a videogame. If someone is deemed “good enough” to be in Beskar, their opinion counts, whether they have been in the guild one week, one month or one year. Just because someone is a “recruit” in a guild, doesn’t mean they don’t have good ideas, or skills. They might have joined from another guild, for example. Or they might have bene playing the game for a year prior, and thus have a character, and skill in the game, that is just as “uber” (and maybe even moreso), than the guild’s existing “veterans”. So you can’t judge a book by it’s cover and I think keeping everyone on this even playing field goes a long way to building a fair and balanced community. No one is made to feel better than, or worse than, anyone else. Period. Of course, in practice, there may be times when a “veteran” can give a better perspective on a Beskar issue simply because they’ve lived with the issue for the past six months and the new recruit, walking through the door, has no idea about the issue. I understand, and acknowledge, that too. There may be times where, for some reason, a veteran might have a better perspective on something but, having said that, sometimes recruits can have better perspective on things too, as people who have been with the guild for a year or two might have become “too close” to the topic, and can’t see it with the same kind of fresh eyes that a recruit brings.

JGard: Many guilds use ranks as an incentive to be active and to recruit.  How do you plan on getting members to do this without this added incentive?

Blur: Many guilds do indeed use ranks as an incentive. I find, however, that the kind of person who only wants to be with a guild because they can be “Ubergruppenfuhrer” in a month’s time isn’t the kind of person that Beskar wants to attract. Hopefully, removing the incentive of ranks will also remove that kind of person. The rationale being that if a person cares more about an imaginary title than the overall guild… well, are they really a good member to have on the books in the first place? Is their heart and mind with the guild, or just on what they can call themselves?

JGard: You say that if the guild is not what recruits are looking for do not join. Some would say this makes your guild an exclusive club that makes it harder to recruit.  You have a wealth of players though.  How do you have success recruiting even though you are very specific in your expectations?

Blur: We are unashamedly harder to join than “the average” guild, yet we’re very well off in the member stakes, I agree. We probably make ourselves even more niche with the Mandalorian part of the equation, thus ruling out all the Sith players, all the Jedi, etc. So you’d think the opposite would happen and we’d be lucky to be made up of four guys, someone’s sister and a small beagle called Bernard or something, right? I think the simple answer is that Star Wars fandom is so big, and expectations for TOR are so huge, that we’re dealing with a large pool of potential applicants. Thus, you can still be quite selective within the TOR community and still have respectable recruiting figures simply because there’s so many people out there, looking for a guild.

JGard: With the release of SW:TOR seemingly so far away how do you expect to keep members with you until release?

Blur: By recruiting selectively and bringing together people with similar interests, such as Mandalorian culture, I find that Beskar is becoming its own family. When people feel part of a family, they keep coming back for more and finding their own little place in the group. Some of our members are into roleplay, so we created a roleplay forum which is actually one of our busiest forums, even though we aren’t a roleplaying guild by design. Elsewhere, we have forums for film, music, sport, and so on, and people are finding their own little piece of Beskar to call home. As time goes by, you start to see which of the guys mostly drop by to talk about film or anime or something, and which guys drop by to tell us the latest wacky YouTube offering. And, in this way, people feel that they have their own little bit of this group that they can define and make their own… and that keeps them coming back. Undoubtedly, as time goes by, some people might get bored if waiting for TOR, or TOR might end up going in a direction they don’t like, and they might drift away from the group. That’s natural when you’re running a guild so far out from launch. The solution, of course, is to keep recruiting and always have a pool of people who want to be there so that if we bleed, say, a dozen members over the next six months, it doesn’t matter because we’ve recruited three or four times that number in the same length of time.

  •   •   •   •   •
January 3, 2009 by blur

You want a story? You’d better like instances too…

Think of playing through a storyline in an RPG — it might be a BioWare title, or it might be something else. It really doesn’t matter for the purpose of this exercise.

Now think of how that game world is all about you. I mean, you are the star of the story, aren’t you? The game is crafted all around you.

BioWare claims it is bringing this kind of storytelling to MMOs. OK, and despite my natural inclination to doubt, let’s run with that idea for a moment.

Riddle me this… how on earth will people be able to have that single-player experience with 100s and 1000s of other players running around the same server, with at least some of them seeking to do exactly the same thing, because they are playing the same class storyline?

I think there’s only one way it’s possible: instances. I just can’t see how we won’t have to endure a fair amount of instancing, so that everyone can play through their requisite storyline without being disrupted or flat-out prevented by others to achieve their goal…

Quite seriously, I don’t think a lot of the people who approve of bringing storyline to MMOs have really twigged onto that, yet.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

  •   •   •   •   •