GameBanshee Forums

Yeah Warcraft is an RTS... however you get to do the exact same thing in Morrowind. Pick a race, raise attributes, skills, learn magics, only World of Warcraft will have 1000's of spells, but you don't play any one character and you can't really beat the game due to the brand new quests made daily. Yes you will get to interact with the world in a way you couldn't on Morrowind, but since it takes strategy to win fights, instead of just sitting there clicking, it's considered a RTS. It's still very simular to Morrowind.

Edit: I should've specified above I'm talking about World of Warcraft not the 4 previous games.

Originally posted by Bloodthroe
Well I think you misunderstand me. I never said Morrowind was a bad game. So feel free to calm down.

I just disagree with you. Anger never was a part of it.

Speaking of long RPG's pick and play a final fantasy game and get a 100 hours out of it, with a better storyline.

By contrast, Final Fantasy games lack the graphics, the extreme world-based interactivity, the non-linearity, the endless little incidents set in tiny corners, and the ability to create mods. Morrowind consumed more than 100 hours of my gameplay when it first came out, just because I enjoyed going everywhere, seeing everything, and getting walloped. With the two official expansions, I fully expect to get a lot more out of it, this time.

The only appeal of Morrowind is it's ability to let you customize your character. Which the Ultima games are also good at. Yes Morrowind has a huge world and lots of storys about people, but that's nothing new. Warcraft is even bigger.

Warcraft isn't an RPG, so it isn't comparable; and it isn't bigger. RTS games by their nature are small and self-contained, very linear, where players have preset goals and resources with which to achieve 'em. It's part of the genre. I'm not knocking Warcraft, per se.

The whole point of my speaking was to say that I agree that Morrowind has holes in Destruction and that I think they did a lot of that in the game.

Each to his own. But if you want to check out some really good old games, there are so many RPGs dating back very far that are really worth knowing.

Originally posted by Bloodthroe
Yeah Warcraft is an RTS... however you get to do the exact same thing in Morrowind. Pick a race, raise attributes, skills, learn magics

Having stats is part of RPGs, and it's a small piece of what an RPG is that Warcraft (and some other RTS games) have added up to maintain interest over the years. But it doesn't make the two games anything alike, or turn the later Warcraft games into RPGs. Again, very good RPGs are pretty non-linear, set in extremely interactive cultures with lots of NPCs, individuals going on quests, etc. The stat part was only the smallest part of an RPG. The same goes for learning magics. It's all about the individual in an RPG, and one who interacts with a new, very different world in great detail.

By contrast, Final Fantasy games lack the graphics, the extreme world-based interactivity, the non-linearity, the endless little incidents set in tiny corners, and the ability to create mods.

You can't be serious about the graphics, can you? Morrowind is limited BTW. You can however do the same quests with a different character. If you ever played Warcraft 3 you would know that people have made 'mod'ified games with it (new skins, spells, strategys, items and so on) and share and play them online with other people.

Now you say warcraft is RTS, however World of warcraft, which is what I've been talking about is an RPG, namely a MMORPG. It's way bigger then Morrowind, believe me. Graphics are better, no holes. AI is incredible! Items and spells are more numerous then you'll find in Morrowind. Quests are better and you can interact with both the people online and the game itself. It's released in a couple of months. I have plenty of old 8-bit games already on my comp and don't require your assistance in telling me they exist.

Originally posted by fable
Having stats is part of RPGs, and it's a small piece of what an RPG is that Warcraft (and some other RTS games) have added up to maintain interest over the years. But it doesn't make the two games anything alike, or turn the later Warcraft games into RPGs. Again, very good RPGs are pretty non-linear, set in extremely interactive cultures with lots of NPCs, individuals going on quests, etc. The stat part was only the smallest part of an RPG. The same goes for learning magics. It's all about the individual in an RPG, and one who interacts with a new, very different world in great detail.

Again, I was talking about World of Warcraft. Not the 4 previous games.

By contrast, Final Fantasy games lack the graphics, the extreme world-based interactivity, the non-linearity, the endless little incidents set in tiny corners, and the ability to create mods. Morrowind consumed more than 100 hours of my gameplay when it first came out, just because I enjoyed going everywhere, seeing everything, and getting walloped.

The only reason I brought up Final Fantasy is because you said RPG's are short. I didn't expect it to become an aspect of the conversation.

AI is incredible! Items and spells are more numerous then you'll find in Morrowind.

Now when I said this above... i mean there will be 1000's of spells apposed to the what... 100 spells Morrowind has? Items... you can create more kinds of items simply with your blacksmith ability then you will find in Morrowind. Morrowind is great and all, but it still lacks the variety, that all games as cheap as it is, does.

And yes you can't find as many holes in Blizzard games as you can in Morrowind.

Lastly you said Diablo isn't an old game. I consider any game almost a decade old... old.

Originally posted by Bloodthroe
You can't be serious about the graphics, can you?

I'm missing something. You mean Final Fantasy games? Morrowind has it all over those, IMO.

Morrowind is limited BTW. You can however do the same quests with a different character.

You can play it through three different times to take command of the three different Houses. you can also play different style characters that let you lead several of--how many is it, now? 8? 9?--different factions. Plus, the professionally accomplished mods that add 3 or 4 more factions, and at least one house. And you can create characters with entirely different styles of play, requiring completely different solutions to the same problems.

If you ever played Warcraft 3 you would know that people have made 'mod'ified games with it (new skins, spells, strategys, items and so on) and share and play them online with other people.

Played it, but it's been a while. Modded? No new NPCs, new quests, new human situations, etc. No mods that give your PC the ability to choose among 3 sides, for instance, in a tense, drawn out struggle which involves little combat and much finesse. RTS are all about physical combat; RPGs mirror more the world again works, and they're very socially intensive. That just isn't in an RTS, including the Warcraft series.

Now you say warcraft is RTS, however World of warcraft, which is what I've been talking about is an RPG, namely a MMORPG. It's way bigger then Morrowind, believe me.

That's an MMORPG, and no, the graphics are not better than Morrowind--I've seen 'em. If they were, you'd be grinding to a halt on the servers. Or have you played it? Is that what you're saying?

Set Morrowind up to 100% visuals, and take a look around, in there. Use some of the textured mod packs that are available. Add a sound package like Wilderness Sounds. Add Better Bodies and Better Heads. The look of the thing far surpasses what you can still do online. And as far as size, so what? We were discussing Warcraft in comparison with Morrowind, not World of Warcraft.

Graphics are better, no holes. AI is incredible! Items and spells are more numerous then you'll find in Morrowind. Quests are better and you can interact with both the people online and the game itself.

Text-based MMORPGs have been in existence since the 1980s, and some I know of are far larger, more detailed, and more interactive *again, as true, RPG environments* than World of Warcraft. They offer just as much combat, but hundreds of skills, and tens of thousands of common articles you can do dozens of actions with--furniture, clothing, houses (for rent), trading, stock market, etc.

I have plenty of old 8-bit games already on my comp and don't require your assistance in telling me they exist.

Probably just a slip, then, when you called 1996's Diablo "a very old game." It happens.

Originally posted by Bloodthroe
Again, I was talking about World of Warcraft. Not the 4 previous games.

I see. It's a beautiful game, at least from the screens, which we haven't seen as players, since it's under development. Or since you're holding it up to Morrowind for comparison, have you played WoW?

The only reason I brought up Final Fantasy is because you said RPG's are short.

Um, I never said anything like that.

Now when I said this above... i mean there will be 1000's of spells apposed to the what... 100 spells Morrowind has? Items... you can create more kinds of items simply with your blacksmith ability then you will find in Morrowind. Morrowind is great and all, but it still lacks the variety, that all games as cheap as it is, does.

It has enormous variety, which was one of the selling points that made it one of the biggest selling and highest rated RPGs of all time. As far as number of spells: thousands? You say, *will be.* You don't know this for a fact? Or you've seen the list? Do you know there are that number, or that they'll be balanced? I'll settle for a good hundred decent spells any day, myself, provided they're very effective. Talking about an unreleased game as being better than a released, best-selling hit seems a bit curious.

Lastly you said Diablo isn't an old game. I consider any game almost a decade old... old.

You didn't call it old, you called it "very old," and that seems to say more than 8 years. Regardless, since your point was to compare Diablo to Morrowind, the two genres really don't stack up against one another. Nor can Morrowind's complexity be compared to Diablo's stark simplicity. Each does some things very well.

You can play it through three different things to take command of the three different Houses. you can also play different style characters that let you lead several of--how many is it, now? 8? 9?--different factions. Plus, the professionally accomplished mods that add 3 or 4 more factions, and at least one house.

You don't need to sit there and explain Morrowind to me. The fact is, you can only play these situations once and it is limited.

Played it, but it's been a while. Modded? No new NPCs, new quests, new human situations, etc. No mods that give your PC the ability to choose among 3 sides, for instance, in a tense, drawn out struggle which involves little combat and much finesse. RTS are all about physical combat; RPGs mirror more the world again works, and they're very socially intensive. That just isn't in an RTS, including the Warcraft series.

You really should go online with Warcraft 3 sometime, they have made tag games for christ sakes and countles RPG's... based on some of the stupidest things in life(TV shows, people's own stories they make, and even other games). They have lots of games that include none fighting and many with fighting.

That's an MMORPG, and no, the graphics are not better than Morrowind

Really?]
http://blizzard.com/misc/e3/2004/wow/screenshots.shtml
http://morrowind.unforgottenrealms.net/screenshots.php
could've fooled me. Yes that is a nose ring in the first pic and yess that is a goblin in the huge machine pic. Also I believe I remember hearing about Blizzard not using cut and paste a lot in the dungeons like you will find in Morrowind. Wait at the end of that sentence I remembered where.
http://www.war3.com/journals/view.php?id=2
here is the rest of the journal.
http://www.war3.com/journals/view.php?id=3

They offer just as much combat, but hundreds of skills, and tens of thousands of common articles you can do dozens of actions with--furniture, clothing, houses

World of warcraft does have a lot of this, but not as mnay useless things as morrowind, morrowind you can't even do anything with it. Wow I can pick up a useless fork and pillow I can't use and hey I'm carrying extra weight with this basket in my inventory (Ultima Online atleast has a use for these things). World of warcraft does have lots more abilities then Morrowind that include blacksmith and you have to go out and mine your own ore for it. The game is huge and atleast has a use for the little things like spools of yarn in it.

Originally posted by fable
You didn't call it old, you called it "very old," and that seems to say more than 8 years. Regardless, since your point was to compare Diablo to Morrowind, the two genres really don't stack up against one another. Nor can Morrowind's complexity be compared to Diablo's stark simplicity. Each does some things very well.

HEY!
If you scroll back you will see that after my second post it was you who brought up Diablo, I would never compare Diablo to Morrowind, simply because they aren't both RPG's.

Sorry; thought you said Bioware, not Blizzard.

You honestly think Diablo is an RPG, who provides a more interactive universe (since that's what an RPG basically does)?

It has enormous variety, which was one of the selling points that made it one of the biggest selling and highest rated RPGs of all time.

Sorry I found more variety in playing Ultima Online, which when I did was about 4 years ago. If it had more variety I can safely say that Morrowind doesn't have that much in comparison to what it could have present day standards. I think it's, it's graphics and almost above standards variety that made it best selling.

Originally posted by Bloodthroe
You don't need to sit there and explain Morrowind to me. The fact is, you can only play these situations once and it is limited.

I'm not trying to condescend to you, @Bloodthroe. But you've made several factual errors--shouldn't I correct 'em, if they're the subject of discussion, as in the comparison between two RPGs (when one of 'em is really an RTS)? Similarly, you write that Morrowind is limited to doing the same quests with different characters--yet, to be factually accurate, you do *different* House quests with different characters, and probably some different faction quests, too.

You really should go online with Warcraft 3 sometime, they have made tag games for christ sakes and countles RPG's... based on some of the stupidest things in life(TV shows, people's own stories they make, and even other games). They have lots of games that include none fighting and many with fighting.

This doesn't make Warcraft 3 an RPG. It doesn't have a single, extremely deep, interactive environment. I worked for four years for one particular online text-based for-pay MMOPRG; and if I tell you the kind of detail that went into creating the environment--as I said, tens of thousands of different articles of furniture, clothing, etc, you would probably think I'm condescending, again. I don't wish to do so--only to point out that imitating an RPG or a TV show doesn't make an online game an RPG.

Really? could've fooled me. Yes that is a nose ring in the first pic and yess that is a goblin in the huge machine pic. Also I believe I remember hearing about Blizzard not using cut and paste a lot in the dungeons like you will find in Morrowind. Wait at the end of that sentence I remembered where.

Yes, in a game you've never played; and one of the most popular mods in Morrowind adds nose rings and tons of extra texturing, if that's what you're looking for in a game. Publicity pictures are always chosen to make a game look incredible. Especially for online games, the reality often tends to be a lot less. Let's stick with comparing RPGs that exist with Morrowind, which exists, instead of point to that pie in the sky which may turn out to be anything from a pie to a crumb of dry pound cake when it arrives. Let's wait and see what's actually delivered.

World of warcraft does have a lot of this, but not as mnay useless things as morrowind, morrowind you can't even do anything with it.

Um, you brought up an MMORPG, so of course, I responded by comparing it with several other MMORPGs, not Morrowind. And all those tens of thousands of things are interactive. You can use 'em. You can remake or combine many of 'em. And you can't speak about WoW's system knowingly, discussing "thousands of spells" as you have, not with any real knowledge--unless you have intimate insider understanding as one who knows the developers and has played the unreleased game. Otherwise, you're just repeating publicity blurbs, and we all know how much of that becomes reality in the long run: too little, where games arre concerned.

Originally posted by Bloodthroe
HEY!
If you scroll back you will see that after my second post it was you who brought up Diablo, I would never compare Diablo to Morrowind, simply because they aren't both RPG's.

But that doesn't change the fact that you did call Diablo "very old," which it isn't. That, with respect, was my point.

EDIT: And when did I say that RPGs were short, which you credit me with?

Decade old games are very old, not 20 year old kind of old like atari, but yes after 10 years a game does lack the many technological advances that have come along in gaming... look at graphics for example... and games, the world, have been getting bigger over the years and Diablo is not a big world nor are many games back then.

Originally posted by Bloodthroe
Decade old games are very old, not 20 year old kind of old like atari, but yes after 10 years a game does lack the many technological advances that have come along in gaming... look at graphics for example... and games, the world, have been getting bigger over the years and Diablo is not a big world nor are many games back then.

It's not 10 years old, but 8. Still, I'm not suggesting technological identity between games that are 10, 15, or 20 years with those of today. However, calling an 8-year-old game "very old" is not accurate, not when computer game history stretches back roughly 30 years. The problem is one of comparison: if computer games were only 8 years old, you would be absolutely correct. But an 8-year-old game, while hardly new, isn't very old. It gives the wrong impression, I mean, and cuts off so much of gaming history (and some wonderful games, every bit as good as today's!) as though they never existed.

Concerning "big worlds," though, several decade-old or more computer games are just as large as games now, if not larger: lack of graphical advancements didn't mean developers lacked imagination or the ability to use the tools they had to great effect. Ultima VII is arguably as large as Morrowind, in its way. The Magic Candle took me 120+ to play through. Those were *huge* games.

This doesn't make Warcraft 3 an RPG. It doesn't have a single, extremely deep, interactive environment. I worked for four years for one particular online text-based for-pay MMOPRG; and if I tell you the kind of detail that went into creating the environment--as I said, tens of thousands of different articles of furniture, clothing, etc, you would probably think I'm condescending, again. I don't wish to do so--only to point out that imitating an RPG or a TV show doesn't make an online game an RPG.

uhm RPG means role playing game... meaning if someone picks a character to play the role of and acts in the manner of it. Many RPGs I've played include just people in a chat room pretending to be kittens or whatever. They are playing a game and are playing roles of someone. Meaning it's a roleplaying game. Often on warcraft3 online the custom maps will consist of you taking one character that the creator gave you and you go around slicing dicing going back to town buying items and saving lives of people in the game that the creator made. Meaning you're role playing.

Yes, in a game you've never played; and one of the most popular mods in Morrowind adds nose rings and tons of extra texturing, if that's what you're looking for in a game. Publicity pictures are always chosen to make a game look incredible. Especially for online games, the reality often tends to be a lot less. Let's stick with comparing RPGs that exist with Morrowind, which exists, instead of point to that pie in the sky which may turn out to be anything from a pie to a crumb of dry pound cake when it arrives. Let's wait and see what's actually delivered.

there you go again trying to make it look like I brought something up... you brought up graphics I just pointed out that your graphics aren't all that.

Um, you brought up an MMORPG, so of course, I responded by comparing it with several other MMORPGs, not Morrowind. And all those tens of thousands of things are interactive. You can use 'em. You can remake or combine many of 'em. And you can't speak about WoW's system knowingly, discussing "thousands of spells" as you have, not with any real knowledge--unless you have intimate insider understanding as one who knows the developers and has played the unreleased game. Otherwise, you're just repeating publicity blurbs, and we all know how much of that becomes reality in the long run: too little, where games arre concerned.

You're right I do not have an insider Magazine... I just go straight to Blizzard.com for my info, so I think it's accurate to a point. I have also gone to many beta tester sights and they seem to all say the same thing. If it's not true then damn... it must all be a conspiracy.


Also I would consider games 30 years old ancient, not very old, where you would only consider them very old. But apparently we have different concepts and different limits on word usage. So I see no reason in you constantly bringing up yours.

Originally posted by fable
Concerning "big worlds," though, several decade-old or more computer games are just as large as games now, if not larger: lack of graphical advancements didn't mean developers lacked imagination or the ability to use the tools they had to great effect. Ultima VII is arguably as large as Morrowind, in its way. The Magic Candle took me 120+ to play through. Those were *huge* games.

I already said that right here...

and games, the world, have been getting bigger over the years and Diablo is not a big world nor are many games back then.

I thought I was being careful and implying that by saying many opposed to ALL.

Concerning "big worlds," though, several decade-old or more computer games are just as large as games now, if not larger: lack of graphical advancements didn't mean developers lacked imagination or the ability to use the tools they had to great effect. Ultima VII is arguably as large as Morrowind, in its way. The Magic Candle took me 120+ to play through. Those were *huge* games.

I never remember saying that people have been getting smarter over the decades, I did say that technology has been getting better, that's whats been making the games bigger. Ultima VII happens to be one of my most memorible games. It's the first Ultima I've played. Once again I did not say game's worlds were not large back then. I just said not as many as today.

Originally posted by Bloodthroe
uhm RPG means role playing game... meaning if someone picks a character to play the role of and acts in the manner of it. Many RPGs I've played include just people in a chat room pretending to be kittens or whatever. They are playing a game and are playing roles of someone. Meaning it's a roleplaying game.

What people call a thing and what it is aren't always the same, and doesn't make it so, I think you'll agree. Hell, 5 million people thought Elvis Presley was "the King," but so what? Did you think he was the King? I certainly didn't. An RPG isn't simply a matter of "assuming a role," or literally every game could be called an RPG: an arcade title like Prince of Persia, for example, where you "play" the Prince, or a turn-based strategy title like Civilization, where you "assume the part" of a leader. If a person says that they're playing RPGs because of this, they really don't know what RPGs are about, and that's not my definition, either.

RPGs are about dungeon masters (or their gaming equivalent, developers) creating and maintaining highly interactive environments. The focus in one the game: what makes an RPG is the *game environment,* not whether the person playing it decides to be a roleplayer or not. The game has to be very interactive to be a good RPG. That's always been the joy and the lure of RPGing: the immersiveness of the environment. The ability to drill down and find thousands of details that are oh-so-real, but oh-so-different from the world we live in. That's the magic of RPGs.

I never claimed that Morrowind let you do all the things in that world that you want; that's one problem of standalone games, vs. pen-and-paper ones. But there are Morrowind mods that let you cook, sew, create paper, chop wood, etc.

You're right I do not have an insider Magazine... I just go straight to Blizzard.com for my info, so I think it's accurate to a point. I have also gone to many beta tester sights and they seem to all say the same thing. If it's not true then damn... it must all be a conspiracy.

LOL! Don't get me started in sarcastic mode, as a response to yours. You won't like the result. You and I both know beta testers aren't going to say more than "wow," because any detail would be in violation of their NDAs, and they'd be fined, rather than simply kicked off the team. You're speaking secondhand about a product that 1) you've never seen, 2) never heard any actual details (vs. PR) about, and 3) never seen in operation with tens of thousands of people playing, to observe whether the graphics deteriorate under the server onslaught. Since you don't know the game, and I don't know the game, let's stick with comparing actual games rather than a real game to something which is (as yet) vaporware.

What people call a thing and what it is aren't always the same, and doesn't make it so, I think you'll agree. Hell, 5 million people thought Elvis Presley was "the King," but so what? Did you think he was the King? I certainly didn't. An RPG isn't simply a matter of "assuming a role," or literally every game could be called an RPG: an arcade title like Prince of Persia, for example, where you "play" the Prince, or a turn-based strategy title like Civilization, where you "assume the part" of a leader. If a person says that they're playing RPGs because of this, they really don't know what RPGs are about, and that's not my definition, either.

I'm going to leave that Elvis stuff alone...
Sorry Prince of Persha you didn't play his role, you played action in that game. You didn't make decisions based on what he would do. That's what role play is. Playing the role of something and game... well you know game doesn't mean just video game.

And I do happen to think that the info I get from Blizzard.com, the creators of World of Warcraft is accurate. Sorry if you seem to think that because I have not played it that I know nothing of it. I've read plenty about the game on Blizzard.com so you can sit there and say the game isn't real and everything I said can't be verified, but oh wait, it can. The 10,000 beta testers from all over the world have had to say the same thing about World of Warcraft as I am saying. Many even say that the beta version alone shows more polish then most games today and can't wait until the final release comes out in a couple of months... not my words, theirs.

Oh don't tell me not to be sarcastic, 'cause really do you think I'd fear your sarcastic mode or something?

Wait I can give you a preview of the game I've seen, it's just a clip. The graphics here suck, but it's from a tv show called XPlay. They give reviews on video games and if you wanted to see it in good graphics you should've caught it on TV.

http://www.techtv.com/xplay/previews/st ... 14,00.html
here there's the clip I was talking about. So see the game does exist. Anyways... you've never played warcraft3 online and yet you sat there and told me they had no RPG Mods. Atleast I have my info verified.