PDA

View Full Version : Dungeons and Dragons Online - NDA Lifted


Garthilk
01-10-2006, 07:54 PM
Remember, we don't allow any flaming or bashing of a developer or their product. However, if you have something to share, feel free to do so in a constructive manner.

Overall Impression

A good timefiller. The game to me is a decent timefiller. Without trying to analyze whether or not it sticks to the pen and paper version, I think the game will fill a decent amount of time for me. Abstractly the game plays a lot like Diablo 2 with D&D rules attached. Sure, you dodge the spell by moving your character, but you also end up trying to circle strafe your opponent. There are a lot of ups and plenty of downs to the game, but overall it's moderately fun and will likely be reciving my subscription dollars. If for any other reason, there's nothing better to play.

Wag of the finger - aka. Cons.

1) Instancing. Every mission, every quest, everything is instanced. Which means you never really get a sense of any community. Sure, there are certainly communities in D&DO, but those communities never reach the proportions or arguably quality of more persistant world MMO's. Too much of a good thing.

2) Repeat Quests. The designers of the game intentionally have designed the game so that you end up repeating the same quests multiple times. Every Quest has a difficulity modifier (normal, hard, elite) that you can adjust to yield more experiance. This is necessary because each time you repeat a quest, you recieve less experiance. The idea being, that players enjoy "mastering" the quest and thus enjoy doing them over and over again. Unfortunately sometimes this leads to players simply grinding the same quests (the ones that yeild the most experiance for the least work) over and over again.

3) Class Balance - Invariably converting a fully developed pen and paper RPG to an MMO has it's share of translation issues. Mechanics on the table top don't always translate to the desktop. This leaves some players favorite classes essentially either gimped, or overpowered. Rangers for example, don't track and don't have their animal companions. Overall they've done a fair job of implimenting the classes that they have. My only concern is when the invariable nerf's come. Since players have so many defineing choices through the games progression. A change to any of those skills or feats mechanics, drastically changes how a class is played. We'll see what happens down the road.

4) Retarded AI. You can essentially defeat almost any creature by moving out of it's attack range. If it's a melee creature, just stand on a box, thereby elevating your character above the creature, and use a ranged attack to defeat it. It just stands there and takes the beating.

5) Traps. If your going to have traps in a game. They need to be random in nature. Right now since your replaying quests multiple times, odds are someone in your group knows where all the traps are already. This allows you to master the level and A) avoid the traps with pre-existing knowledge of the quest, or B) walk through the traps because they are mostly harmless due to the pre-existing knowledge.

6) Utter lack of RPG. The lack of roleplaying really dissapointed me. The game boils down to rushing through the quest as fast as possible, breaking boxes, killing monsters. The rewards for going slower, exploring the quest, finding secret doors, disarming traps, is lack luster. More mini quests should be added, things like finding lost charms and returning them to their owners, locating the remains of a lost adventuerer, etc, etc. Unfortunately, everyone knows where the secret doors are, and everyone knows where the traps are, so really it's a mad rush to complete those obsticles.

Tip of the Hat - Pro's.

1) Graphics. Good. Graphics make a game. I hate to say it, but they do. The graphics are good and they run well. Since they don't have display a lot of people on the screen at once, they're allowed to bump up the quality and show off the pixels. Overall art direction is fitting, and I'm quite happy.

2) Traps. They have em! Finally an MMO impliments traps. They give a rogue a real purpose of unlocking doors, and disarming traps.

3) Lack of Solo play. Kudo's to turbine for not watering down D&D to solo stuff. There are missions that can be completed solo. However, by and large you need a group in 90% of all cases.

4) Overall conversion. When it comes to pen and paper to MMO conversions. This one ranks fairly good given the scope. A lot of things have to be changed, but still have to fit the vision. They did a fairly good job at it. Certainly there are arguing points on all sides. But overall, I think they did decent.

Closing

It's going to fill my time. What it comes down to, is that there isny't anything else to play. Lastly, excuse me as I do not wish to mislead you. This game is not an MMO. At least not like I've ever played before. This game is more like an online game akin to Diablo 2. So don't go in expecting an MMO. Again, these are just my opinions, and you are free to make your own as well.

Gamut
01-11-2006, 06:48 AM
I was disappointed somewhat. Admittedly I haven't played it in a month or so.

I'll stop before I start bashing the games company.

Kazek
01-11-2006, 06:59 AM
The game doesnt really sound all that great IMHO.. Having to repeat quests, dumb AI and lack of RPG killed just about all incentives for me to play the game..

I was excited when the game was announced, but if this is the end result, I'll find something else to do until I get in the WAR beta (which will eventually happen,.. I've seen it in the stars!)..

GuddZilla
01-11-2006, 07:19 AM
I completely agree with all Garthilk points, D&DO has its pro's and con's like all MMO's but sadley its con's exceed the pro's.

The title enters a MMO market with several superior games all ready out, a real shame as i was really looking forward to it.

Chances are i may have another go when it goes live, so i wont add it to my list of failures yet.

micah
01-11-2006, 07:54 AM
i was disappointed also,
i felt like i was playing a single player console game.
the combat was bland and boring, wich may change by release...
not worth a monthly fee imo

the kicker was no pvp though. even if they plan on adding it later, every game that has just added a pvp server later on has always sucked. if the game wasnt designed from the start with pvp in mind then the pvp is not going to be very good.

Gamut
01-11-2006, 04:39 PM
Amen micah.

Requiemourn
01-12-2006, 06:53 PM
Yup, the game has been summed up already pretty well.

What I'd like to add to the cons of D&DO are ugly avatars. And I don't mean ogre-arse-ugly, I mean - 10x uglier.

Plus, I haven't noticed that real diversity in faces - almost all races could pick eyes, noses (unintended pun!) and lips from the same pool. Yes, a dwarf could have the eyes of an elf, though distorted on a mesh (so looking 10x uglier than an ogre's arse - and not that they looked much better on an elf). In fact, most eyes were so distorted in some cases that they ended squinting. Additionally, the general shape of the face couldn't be changed. If I had to choose between much more customisation options that always end in an ugly combination (and which don't even include the most critical factor of them all - general face shape) and whole pre-made faces that look appealing or at least not retarded, I'd go with the latter.

But what pained me the most while I played was that every character lacked... character - class, definition (especially the warforged - who thought of a bland race like this as a playable choice anyway?) - whatever it is that makes Guild Wars' or WoW's characters so interesting (let's skip the looks of clothing/armor in WoW). Maybe because the avatars are supposed to be less cartoony and more realistic but I still do think that they could've made a much better job (IMO Climax was on a good way to make theirs both interesting and very realistic), especially on the animations.

The only thing that I generally don't agree with Garthilk is the graphics part. I haven't seen much but what I've seen wasn't impressive at all. It's not only about technology today - it's about style. WoW and GW both have it and they've been made much earlier than D&DO. The bottom line is, D&DO didn't presented anything that I haven't seen 5 years earlier, while the technology is here to do great things even in a MMO.

As for positives - what I did like were the skills. On the other hand, the problem I saw with so many of them was that you didn't really knew at the beginning which were completely useless and which weren't. So, pick wisely, kids, or you'll end up being dissapointed because that favorite end-game dungeon of yours isn't going to feature a lot of spotting! Hopefully (well, actually not really - as far as I'm concerned the game can go to hell :P), it ain't the case later on.
Heh, even this positive ended up as a negative. Am I biased?

Oh, and tumbling was horrible.

Anyways, for me D&DO is just another try at milking the fat money cow. It's lucky I even noticed it. Matrix Online didn't got even that.

Kilrogg-WHA
01-12-2006, 07:05 PM
Sounds like a PvE version of guild wars

micah
01-13-2006, 03:24 PM
i will say the character creation was cool, exactly like the pnp game in how you pick your skills and feats.

that was its one up side lol

Shawk
01-21-2006, 07:09 AM
I agree,

I played for about an hour.. instances/zoning... they just killed it for me, that isnt a MMO.

Add another one to the pile o crap.... What is going on..

spirit
01-21-2006, 11:31 AM
Sounds like a PvE version of guild wars

So you mean Guild Wars without the PvP, and made a lot worse.