Fight! Fight! Fight!

Just a short update today (Well, I hope...) on how Baldur's Gate 3 is going. It remains both the only thing I'm playing and the thing I'm playing more than anything I've played for a long time but that isn't necessarily a recommendation. Also, why did I keep using "thing" there instead of "game"? I mean, it's not like if I wasn't playing BG3 I'd be playing the zither...

Steam now has me at 121 hours played. I have become a little more lax about leaving the game running when I'm AFK but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't account for more than a couple of hours altogether, so around a hundred and twenty hours seems fair. 

How Long To Beat has just the main story at a weirdly specific seventy-two and a half hours and "Main + Extra" at a hundred and fifteen, so I'm already past that. They have "Completionist" at a hundred and seventy-eight hours, which is still a long way off but my run so far is very, very far from being complete. Every time I change Acts a whole slew of quests get marked as "Completed", by which I think the game means "Unfinishable" and I have by no means found all the possible quests or even all the explorable areas.

What this tells me is that I'm playing the game wrong. Well, I knew that!

It is, in fact, increasingly obvious to me that Act 3 is a totally different game from Acts 1 and 2, not because of anything the developers have done but because the sheer attrition of having already played the equivalent of two, full-length RPGs even by the time I got there means I am no longer treating the experience even as something from the same genre, let alone as a continuation of the same game.

In Act I, I was pretty much invested in the characters and the storyline. I tried to roleplay most choices and avoid fudging the results as much as possible without actually having to restart the entire game. In Act II, I began to feel a lot more like I was playing a video game, where getting the best result was more important than staying true to the character I was playing, but I was still quite strongly involved in the storyline and the plot and I still wanted to keep things moving in a direction that felt honorable or appropriate.

Act III not only doesn't feel like the same game any more, it often doesn't even feel like a game at all. It feels more like a toy. It's full of big, set-piece battles that I find myself doing over and over to see if I can get a better result. And then I don't always even use the save from the good one when I get it! It's more like Kerbal Space Program than an RPG now, where you just keep fiddling with the controls so you can watch stuff blow up. 

The plot is still there, of course, but it's been a while now since I really cared about it. For a start, it's insanely complicated and I can't remember who is supposed to be doing what to or for whom anymore. It's like one of those Batman stories where someone blows a hole in the wall of Arkham Asylum and the entire Rogues Gallery comes boiling out, every one of them with a plot and agenda of their own. 

As far as I can remember, there are three Champions of Bad Gods, one of whom I killed at the end of Act II, plus at least two Devils, a Mindflayer going by the name of The Emperor, a Vampire Lord and a Hag. Then there are at least two Cults with countless members doing murders, a Thieves Guild and a Necromancer cluttering up the storyline and all of the above interact with each other in various ways.

It's ridiculous overkill and it's had the very negative effect of making it almost impossible for me to take any of it remotely seriously. The whole thing has devolved into a series of largely meaningless fights. I wander around the city looking for them and when I find one, it usually takes me all day. 

For a while I was still attempting to play the game properly, by which I mean coherently and in the manner of a table-top campaign, but that all came to an end after I spent literally a whole day - at least eight hours of gameplay - fighting through the very challenging series of encounters in the sub-plot where the PC tries to break into an Archdevil's storage vault in Hell to steal back the contract they foolishly signed.

It was a good day's play. I enjoyed it a lot. My party won a whole series of fights they really should have lost. I came up with some clever tactics and we had some lucky rolls and it all felt pretty good. Only, after every titanic clash, there was always another and there was never any real opportunity to rest and recover. In the end it just got to be too much.

When the final conflict between my team and the Archdevil himself started I knew there was no chance whatsoever we would win, even after Floradelle, who has a frankly insane Persuasion bonus, convinced one of the Devil's lieutenants to switch sides. We did indeed duly lose and the Game Over card came up and at that point it was plain no amount of retries would make the slightest difference.

I thought about it afterwards. In a way you could say it was a whole day wasted because I did end up going back to a save from before we even went to the Hells in the first place. On the other hand, as I said, it was a thoroughly enjoyable, exciting experience as a sequence of tactical battles in its own right. 

I came to the conclusion that it had been worth the time but only once. No way was I going to try it again, so that timeline was effectively null. It also brought down the final curtain on any lingering ideas I might have had about this being a roleplaying game. From then on it's all been about whether the fights are fun and pretty much nothing else. 

If they are, I keep doing them until I either get the result I want or I've had enough. I did the Hag fight about a dozen times yesterday, saving at every decision point in combat and reloading if I didn't like the way it went. 

As well as all the false starts and aborted attempts, I completed the entire thing three times with different outcomes. I killed the Hag but Vanra, who I was trying to rescue, died. That's actually very easy to do. The Hag barely got a spell off. Then I knocked the Hag out and cut Vanra out of her belly, which was harder but still not too difficult. Vanra ran off to safety and I thought I was done but unfortunately the Hag came back to life because I hadn't destroyed all her mushrooms and kept doing it even after I killed her a second time. 

After a reload, I spent ages trying to destroy all the mushrooms first, so the Hag would stay down, then knock her out and cut Vanra loose, and finally kill her while she was unconscious. I spent about four or five hours trying to do it but I could either get all the mushrooms or the Hag down but never both in the same run.

So I gave up. I'd saved after I freed Vanra so I reloaded and just had all my characters run away as soon as the Hag stood up. I got them all out into the city so instant-travel worked again and took them straight to Camp. As far as I'm concerned that's the Hag finished with for good. I hope never to see her again. 

Whether that will be how things turn out, I can't predict, even though I'm now using walkthroughs and guides all the time. I read several versions of how the Vanra quest can turn out but none of them cover my specific way of dealing with the situation so I have no idea if the Hag will come after us or not. I suspect that hasn't been scripted and she'll just hang about in her cellar until the heat death of the universe but I could be wrong. 

The issue isn't whether Larien has foreseen that particular tactical trick and accounted for it. It's that I really don't care. Further back in the game, I would have been concerned about leaving a threat like Auntie Ethel out there to make someone else's life a misery. To roleplay the character I'd created, I'd have felt obligated to Do Something About It.

Now I don't. It's not a real story any more, just a bunch of fights strung together. The whole thing has effectively collapsed under its own weight. Gravity has done it for gravitas.

None of which makes it a bad game. I'm still playing it. I'm still having fun. It's just that now it's the kind of fun you have when you line up all your toy soldiers and make them fight, not fun like watching a movie or reading a book.

Going back to how long it's taking me, obviously re-doing a lot of the fights multiple times is adding to the count but even without that it does seem to me that I must be taking a lot longer than expected to get through this thing. I'm not aware of taking it slowly but I do open just about every crate and that takes a while. I also find it very hard to follow the maps so I am frequently lost. I wish you could click on the map and just go there, like you could in the first two Baldur's Gates. I bet there's a mod for that but it's a bit late to go looking for one now.

It's almost certain I won't finish BG3. The fights are starting to become too difficult for me; too much going on and too many extremely tough opponents in quick succession. I can only assume the game will build up to a climactic battle at the end and I cannot imagine that fight being one I could win. 

I vaguely remember the first two games having a similar difficulty arc. By the end of BG1, which I did finish, I had a tactic that consisted almost entirely of summoning huge numbers of Monsters using the Monster Summoning line of spells and just swarming the bosses. Those spells don't seem to exist in BG3 so that's no longer an option, sadly. I can't remember how, or even if, I finished BG2. 

I could turn the difficulty down, of course. I'm playing on whatever the Default is but there's a Story Mode below that. And again I imagine there are mods that would make things easier. 

But I don't care enough to do any of that. Mike of The Works of Egan has a long post up about not finishing games and I have to say I think it's a healthy way to look at it. If it stops being fun, stop doing it. I probably wouldn't be so blase about giving up on a movie or a novel but the time investment involved there is literally orders of magnitude less, or it is with this game. 

I am also quite looking forward to stopping just so I can play something else. There's an annoyingly addictive element to the tactical combat that losing interest in the reason the fights are happening doesn't seem to quell. I imagine I'll eventually hit the point where even the fights aren't fun any more but annoyingly I don't seem to be quite there yet. 

Whether this will be the last time I write about Baldur's Gate 3 is another question. I imagine I'll at least want to give some kind of summing-up when I finally log out for the last time. Or maybe this post will be my final word on the subject.

I guess we'll find out. 

Ashes To Ashes

A very unexpected development in the MMORPG sphere yesterday was the news that Steven Sharif, founder and CEO of Intrepid Games, developers of Ashes of Creation, had resigned from his own company. He issued a statement on Discord to say that "control of the company had shifted away" from him and "the Board began directing actions" he "could not ethically agree with or carry out", which seemed to mean making mass lay-offs to his team of two-hundred plus, with some reports suggesting every single employee had been let-go, meaning the company was done.

This generated a lengthy comment thread on MassivelyOP that made much of previous statements from Sharif in which he seemed to be saying he had no Board and answered to no-one but himself. A number of supposedly informed people attempted to clarify that with various legal and administrative interpretations but the general consensus seemed to be that whatever the official set-up, the people pulling the strings must be investors to whom substantial ownership of the company would have devolved in previous funding rounds.

I guess the exact definition doesn't make an awful lot of difference. The point is, Steven Sharif, who began the whole Ashes of Creation project and at least partially funded it out of his own pocket, has now had enough. His vision has not been realized and he no longer has the capacity to veto changes in direction he disapproves of, so he's walking away. 

He isn't taking his ball with him, though. Everyone seems to be treating this as the end for Ashes of Creation but there hasn't, as yet, been a closure announcement, let alone a sunset date. The game is up and running as I type this, with over three thousand people playing. I guess if they have really sacked the entire workforce, the servers won't be up for long...

Three thousand players is three times as many as there are playing Project: Gorgon, which we're all looking at as a success. The big difference, of course, is that Steven Sharif had a couple of hundred people on staff before the layoffs while P:G's Eric Heimburg had maybe a couple of people helping him, part-time. 

The two games, together with other recent, high-profile examples like New World and Ship of Heroes, suggest a few minimum requirements for a new MMORPG, such as don't spend more money than you have and make a game that works. New World spent a lot of Amazon's money and took a very long time to get it working, by when it was too deep in the red and far too late. Ship of Heroes seems to have at least tried to live within its means but at the all-important expense of making a game that worked, let alone one anyone wanted to play.

Ashes of Creation kind of worked although not at anything like the level it was always supposed to. At a nuts-and-bolts level it functioned well enough but many of the tent-pole systems on which the game was sold weren't even in the build that went into Early Access on Steam. Crucially, to get it even that far took a very large crew. The possibility of getting it the rest of way appears not to have been considered financially sustainable by the people who'd have been spending the money.

Project: Gorgon, on the other hand, began with a playable build and kept a very enjoyably-playable version of the game up and running for the entirety of the development process. Only the minimum number of people were ever employed to keep development going and only small amounts of money were ever raised and then only for specific, hypothecated purposes. 

As a result of the way development was handled, those thousand concurrent players may well represent a sufficient number to keep the game running and to allow development to continue, as it always must in a live MMORPG. Paying more than a couple of hundred people every month to do the same for Ashes of Creation never seemed like it was going to work.

What does all of this say about the MMORPG genre as a whole? 

Throw in a couple of other examples like Pantheon and Monsters and Memories, too, and what it looks like to me is that, as far as traditional, Western MMORPGs are concerned, the days of glory are long, long gone. Success now has to be judged by how well a  team can define a project and then pitch it to a very specific audience. The idea that you can build it and they will come, a philosophy that saw the creation of a whole slew of games in the post World of Warcraft era, has no tenancy any more, if indeed it ever did.

It's hard to claim interest in MMORPGs has dissipated entirely. Lots of very successful, mass-market games either claim to be - or do their best to pretend not to be - part of the genre. There's a huge difference, though, between what currently passes for an MMORPG and what any of the games I've named in this post so far are - or were - trying to do.

One of the biggest problems for all MMORPGs and especially for those whose funding is not as reliable as it could be is the extraordinary length of time it takes to get from the first excitable announcements to something that passes for a finished game. Development time is a problem throughout the Western gaming industry, not just for MMORPGs, with numerous single-player sequels occupying the time and resources of whole studios for five, six, seven or even more years but MMORPGs somehow manage to double even that. In either case, if the game that comes out flops, that's usually it for the studio. 

Ashes of Creation, often described as a Western version of Black Desert Online or ArcheAge, has been in development for a decade. Back in 2016, BDO was just a year old and AA only a couple of years older. A home-grown take on those then-popular games, made more culturally appealing to a Western audience, must have seemed like a decent bet. One that might have paid off had the game released in 2017 or 2018.

Unfortunately, AoC didn't even go into Early Access until a few weeks ago, by which time ArcheAge had completed its entire life-cycle and closed down. BDO is still up and running with over twenty thousand players logged in through Steam as I write but no-one is talking about it any more, let alone suggesting it should be the model for a new game. It's joined the great parade of legacy MMORPGs that trundle on, unnoticed, played by their hardcore fans and no-one else.

What happens to most would-be new MMORPGs is that they take so long to develop, by the time they're ready to play they already look long out of date. If you're making a retro game that's supposed to look old-fashioned, like Pantheon or M&M, that's fine, so long as you make a good job of it and market effectively to the right niche audience, but if you're trying to push your way to the top table and claim your hundreds of thousands, if not millions of players, you'd better have something that doesn't look (Or play.) like it should have come out ten or twenty years ago.

And even then it almost certainly won't work. New World looked fresh and had the buzz to pull in millions and it still failed. Partly that was because the team behind it kept making mistakes but in my opinion it was mostly because traditional MMORPGs have outlived their time. I suspect even a really good one would fail to hold the kind of audience the first two waves managed with ease. The gameplay just isn't fun any more for most players.

The genre was infamously built on the psychology of the Skinner Box and dopamine hits. One of EverQuest's nicknames was EverCrack. There were countless jokes and insults built around the addictiveness of the games and serious concern expressed by health-care professionals and even governments about the deleterious effect playing MMORPGs was having on the health of young people.

No-one talks about that any more. MMO addiction seems to be a thing of the past, at least as far as the media is concerned. And gamers have entirely different ways of getting their thrills in this era of action gaming and Souls-Likes. What gamers, these days, are devoting tens of thousands of hours to the same game just to get those increasingly infrequent dings and drops? 

Probably only a small subset of the same demographic that was obsessively doing it fifteen to twenty-five years ago, I'd guess. They and very few others. To be successful these days, MMORPGs have to cater for bite-size sessions and casual involvement. Players today think a hundred hours is a huge investment of time. In an MMORPG, a hundred hours is nothing!

If you can't get the players, you can't carry on with the game. With a staff of more than two hundred to support, how many players would Ashes of Creation have needed to continue? I have no idea but I'd bet it would be more than the tens of thousands they had. A lot more. Estimates for WoW's team generally run at around five hundred. WoW may not have as many players as it once had but it's safe to say it still has millions. It can afford that level of investment in people. AoC could not.

Steven Sharif may not like it but Intrepid was clearly living beyond its means. The chances of development continuing at the required level to make the game he imagined a decade ago a reality must have looked very slim indeed by the end. And even if it had been possible, would it ever have attracted enough people not just to try it out of curiosity but to stick with it for years?

It looks as if we'll never know for sure. All the news items I've seen assume the servers will now close although, as I said earlier, they're still up today. 

To take a more optimistic view, Ashes of Creation does at least exist in a playable form. It would certainly take a lot fewer developers to keep it running and gradually add to it over time. It won't be the game it was meant to be but it would be a game and it might even be a game some people would want to play. 

Maybe it does have some kind of future. Just not the one we were promised. 

Yesterday Project: Gorgon, Today Project Genie

 

The release of Google's Project Genie has generated a certain amount of attention, almost all of it revolving around the apparent lack of concern expressed by the tech giant for the basic concepts of intellectual property rights and copyright. The news items I've seen so far all focus on how famously defensive IP owners like Nintendo and Disney are likely to react to an app that supposedly lets anyone clone and iterate on their copyrighted properties for the low, low price of $124.99 a month.

According to IGN, some investors are already marking down stocks in other game-making platforms like Unity and Roblox, presumably on the basis that their day is done and in some bright future we'll all be our own game-makers. Or something.

All of which is twaddle, obviously. As all the reports make clear, Project Genie can't make games. It can't even make frameworks for games. Neither can it make virtual worlds. 

What it can do is generate a sixty-second interactable snippet, a fuzzy glimpse into a notional, imaginary, three-dimensional environment that has neither persistence nor purpose. It's a curiosity that would probably help a few idle hours pass happily enough, a bit like making paper planes and throwing them out the window or having a tea-party with your stuffed toys. 

Personally, I wouldn't pay $124.99 a month for the privilege but if it was on Steam for less than $10 I might give it a go. I imagine it'd be quite amusing to play, with for a while.

Of course, that's ignoring the legal issues. As I said, the first thing everyone seems to have tried to do is replicate their favorite video game, mostly with very limited success. 

Even if the results are useless in any practical sense, though, it's hard to imagine the companies currently milking those IPs for every last cent feeling particularly sanguine about letting unlimited, bad versions loose into the community. There's such a thing as tainting the brand, after all.

Let's imagine the famous characters aren't up for grabs. You can't make your version of Mario or Sonic. You have to stick to an original idea of your own. Is anyone but you going to be interested?

One day it may indeed be possible for you or I to type a couple of paragraphs in plain English into an AI app and get a finished game out the other end. I'm close to the end of a book called Supremacy by Parmy Olson on the development of AI and if there's one thing that comes through very clearly it's that the software consistently outruns the expectations of the people behind it. One day you're crowing about some really not very impressive development you've just made and the next thing you know is someone else has jumped ahead a couple of orders of magnitude, leaving your seven-day wonder looking like yesterday's news.

If that does happen with the game-making AI, though, it's unlikely Project Genie will be the name on the box. Everything in AI seems to move forward in a weird, leapfrogging dance. Whoever starts something rarely gets to finish it. 

Even if it does become possible to generate fully functional virtual worlds from plain English text prompts, the history of gaming doesn't entirely suggest that would wipe out everything else. Roblox is an outlier. A very, very big outlier, true, but an outlier all the same. There's clearly a sizeable market for making your own video games and selling them to other gamers and Roblox has mostly cornered it.

 For as long as I've been gaming, which is getting on for fifty years now, there have always been game-making programs that purported to allow gamers with imagination but little or no technical skill to create and sell their own games and those have always been niche.

In the 1980s I wrote text adventures with  a utility called The Quill. Lots of people did, then saved them on cassette and sold them through the back pages of gaming magazines. In the '90s I made a full-length RPG scenario with Neverwinter Nights and uploaded it to one of the dedicated, online repositories along with many thousands of others, where it probably remains to this day.

I've dabbled with many other game-making packages, none of which required anything less than a huge amount of time and effort to create anything recognizably game-like. There have even been programs to make your own MMORPG, none of which seems to have resulted in any MMORPG I ever heard of. And of course there are the semi-pro, cut-down versions of the real thing, like Unity or Unreal, that you can buy into for an almost not unreasonable investment.

If anyone with some minimal degree of skill and a very much larger amount of time and enthusiasm wanted to make a "playable world", they have and have had for a very long time, the means to do so. The appeal of AI is that soon no-one will need any appreciable skill or time to make a really impressive video game. It'd be nice to think you'd still need the enthusiasm but honestly that's probably optional too.

Except I'm not sure all that many people really want to. Imagine for a moment a scenario where Project Genie actually works. Imagine you could type in a brief description of the sort of virtual world you'd like to see, the kind of characters and plot you'd want to engage with and the general gameplay you'd enjoy there. How about...

Setting: A High Renaissance setting in which the industrial revolution happened a couple of hundred years early. Some Steampunk trappings but not too many. The game is set in a small city-state with a coastal border and some mountains, a lot of forest. Low magic, some werewolves and vampires, grudgingly integrated in the cities, not tolerated in country areas. 

Plot: The high king is ageing. He has no obvious successor. He wants to leave a legacy so he makes covert moves to back a potential candidate who wishes to improve the status of the non-humans in the state. This is potentially popular with the urban elite but could cause rebellion in the countryside. 

Gameplay: RPG mechanics with hierarchical magic and skill development. Dropped gear. Turn-based combat.

Sounds great, doesn't it? Took me less than ten minutes, straight off the top of my head. Imagine if I could drop that into an app, go make a coffee, then come back and download a complete game.

It'd be fun once. Just like writing a game with the Quill and NWN was fun, once. I even enjoyed playing through my own games. Again, just once. 

Did I send off for anyone else's self-written Quill games, though? No, I did not. I didn't even download any of the myriad, free NWN adventures. Maybe a couple, just to have a look. But even then I never played them for more than a few minutes.

What about Second Life? All the games people made there? Did those take over the market? Not hardly.

And even the supposedly ubiquitous Roblox hasn't exactly wiped every other game off the screens, has it? Sure, a lot of people, kids mostly, play it but is it all they play and do they mostly play it because it's what they have access to and what they can afford? Like Runequest, famously the first MMORPG of so many people when they didn't have the money or the technology for anything more impressive, are these games really successful because of how good they are or how accessible and available?

It's really hard to be sure. If AI output was demonstrably not slop but really top quality, indistinguishable from very good human-made work and you could generate whatever you wanted on the fly - books, movies, games - would most people move over to it? I'm not sure they would. 

I think they'd still need to be marketed to. I think there'd need to be a buzz. People like to watch, read, play things lots of other people are playing, so they can talk about them, argue about them, share the experience. At that point, it might not matter that the product was AI-generated but it would still very much matter that it was high-profile and being talked about, out there in the media.

If it was something no-one but the person watching or playing it would ever hear about, I suspect the potential audience would be somewhat limited. I think there's certainly a demographic that'd be happy to sit at home, alone, playing reading and watching the insides of their heads acted out by imaginary characters but, like VR, I just don't see it becoming normative, mainstream behavior.

In the end, I suspect that even were AI ever to reach the point where it can produce high-quality entertainment with almost no human input, it's still going to be only a certain, very small percentage of that work that gets the attention of a human audience. And it won't be for it's AI qualities but for the human-to-human interactions it facilitates.

In other words, we may all end up playing AI-generated games but we'll still be playing the same ones or else we won't be able to talk about them. And more importantly, no-one will be able to sell them to us.

Persistence Pays Off - Project:Gorgon Goes Live At Last!

Hey! I played another game! For nearly an hour! And really enjoyed it, too. It had that true, old school MMORPG dopamine-drip grip, the one where you want to keep moving from mob to mob just to see what they drop and to watch your skills tick up.

It was Project:Gorgon, of course. The long-running project of Eric Heimburg and the now sadly-deceased Sandra Powers finally went Live yesterday. It's a game that hoovers up all the bits that worked in all those Golden Age classics and throws them altogether in a kind of MMORPG gumbo that somehow tastes really good. That's not just my opinion, it's what everyone was saying, albeit without the culinary metaphors, in General Chat, which for a change was mostly polite and amicable.

Everyone was going on (And on...)  about the games they used to play, back in the day, and how much P:G felt like all of them. It reminded people of Vanilla WoW, Ultima Online, Asheron's Call (1 and 2), EverQuest (1 and 2), Anarchy Online... I imagine there were more but the chatter was so distracting I had to turn it off so I could concentrate on what I was doing.

What I was doing was mostly wandering around, opening the map, raising skills and killing mobs. I could have worked on some quests - I've played Project: Gorgon before (There are two dozen posts about it on the blog, the earliest dating back to 2013. ) and I had some pending - but I just wanted to relax. Questing involves too much thinking. 

Slaughtering mobs doesn't. Neither does raising skills. That's one of the joys of P:G, at least in the early stages. There are a whole lot of skills and doing almost anything is likely to raise at least one of them. What good that does is another matter but it's always fun just to see the numbers go up.

Happily for me, I was also playing a character for whom the mobs in the meadows around Serbule, the starting city, posed little threat but still gave good xp. Well, until I made the mistake of attacking two Mantises, that is. Not the first time I've made that mistake, either.

Before any of that, though, I had to remake my character for looks. There are new character models and character creation options and they're a huge improvement. Here's what my character looked like before and after:

Okay, not exactly a fair comparison but I promise Rarrfa didn't look any better in the original with her helmet off. She looks great in the new version, though, doesn't she? I was really happy with how she converted.

The whole game looks better although graphics have always been very weird in Project: Gorgon. As I believe you can still see from the 2013 post linked above, the game has never looked quite as visually impressive as it did in the pre-alpha demo, when the buildings, at least, were almost photo-realistic.

The current version is excellent all the same. Or at least it is once you get into the Settings and tweak the details. I thought the whole thing looked a bit ropy when I got in so I opened the controls to see what I was on and it turned out the game had defaulted to "Poor".

It says something about Eric's approach to marketing that there even is a setting called "Poor". Most designers would avoid using negative concepts like that, preferring to call the low graphics option something like "High Performance". 

I was pretty sure that if my PC could happily run Baldur's Gate 3 on decent settings it could do a lot better than "Poor" for P:G but I was curious to see what the game itself would choose. There's an option to auto-adjust the quality level so I checked the box and was instantly upgraded to... Fair.

Seriously? You think that's the best I can manage? I toyed with the idea of banging it all the way up to Ultra or whatever and then bringing it down when I ran into problems but in the end I just wanted to get on with the killing so I left it on auto, which uses frame-rate to decide on the graphical fidelity.

And it has to be said, the game looked pretty good, although that might have been because of the other visual setting I toggled - Brighter World. I thoroughly recommend switching that on. It makes a huge difference. In the day it can be a bit garish so maybe just put the lights on when the sun goes down although if you like a super-saturated, almost psychedelic filter, you might want to keep it on all the time.

Once I'd sorted that out and also set a key for hiding the UI (Why that's not a standard preset in all games beats me...) I was off on my killing spree.

I killed a lot of Brain Bugs and various spiders. I killed some pigs and a wolf. A tiger attacked me so I killed that, too. Most of them dropped something and sometimes it was actual gear. That's so old school, getting your armor and weapons off the local wildlife.

I butchered all of them for the skill-ups and botched most of the butchering. Then I buried the results which increased my Compassion. What good a high Compassion skill does you, I have no idea but I'm sure a high one is better, somehow.

As I wandered about from mob to mob I noticed I was also getting skill-ups in Cartography. The map was slowly filling itself in as I went but not in those big chunks you usually see with Fog-of-War systems, just a thin line where I'd been traveling. It looks like it would take an awfully long time to uncover an entire map that way but I still much prefer it to, for example the Stars Reach method of finding and activating specific points, which turns into a very frustrating scavenger hunt after a while.

After about half an hour, I ended up at the graveyard, where several players were fighting with the undead. I sent a few skeletons back to their unquiet rest before making my terminal error of pulling a couple of lurking Mantises.

When I revived back in Serbule I thought I'd take that as a good moment to stop, so I did. You need something like that as an exit line in Project:Gorgon because, like all the games it echoes, there's no end to anything. You log in and do stuff until you don't want to any more and then, if you have the will-power, you stop. And if you don't you carry on until you're entire life falls apart and you rage-quit and spend the next two years bad-mouthing the game on every forum you can find. Or at least that was the traditional response, back when there were forums....

If anyone's looking for a good, old-fashioned MMORPG that also recognizes times have changed since the Golden Age, there's no need to look any further. Project:Gorgon does everything everyone keeps saying MMOPRPGs don't do any more. Apparently that's still not enough to get a thousand people online playing it at the same time but what more people are waiting for, I can't imagine.

If it's the closest thing to EverQuest in 1999 you're looking for, I'd still recommend Monsters & Memories but if you want something less specific and with potentially broader appeal, you probably can't do much better than give Project: Gorgon a few hundred hours of your valuable time. 

Or a few thousand. It is an traditional MMORPG, after all. 

We're On A Roadmap To Nowhere

Since it seems to have been the roadmap thing that caught the most attention yesterday, I'll go with it. It's a nuanced story with potentially worrisome implications and it also has the merit of relating directly to the main MMORPG I play these days, if and when I'm playing any, so it makes sense to give it some air.

Here's the background. Angeliana, the Senior Community Manager for both EverQuest titles, took to the forums over a week ago to clear up some concerns that had been expressed in Discord over the non-appearance of a 2026 Roadmap for either game:

"We have seen some people asking across forums and Discord about the status of a Roadmap for 2026. This is to inform everyone that we have chosen to forgo a roadmap this year. Our reason for this is simple: we would like to knock out the redundancy in posting the same information repeatedly and would much prefer to post articles closer to when things will be occurring, such as events and important news."

She later followed that bald statement with a gloss:

"The sole reason for this decision was the consensus in our forum threads, Discord, and social media post with the roadmap of it being the same things (such as yearly events) every year, so the roadmap was redundant information. We've decided to not post the roadmap and just post the important events and information closer to when they are happening instead of a roadmap. This does not mean the game is going into maintenance mode, or that it is closing down. It simply means we are attempting to remove redundant posts which we were told were unnecessary in years past.

Seasonal events and such can still be found in the in-game event calendar as well."

EverQuest players, who are by far the more sanguine and reasonable of the two tribes, seem largely to have agreed with the decision:

"Honestly, putting a document that was 90% events that happen every year and then trying to convince people that they were "accomplishments" was a bit of a con on the players. It was a good decision to stop doing it."

"I actually think the lack of a public roadmap makes sense when you compare EverQuest to other long‑running franchise"

"Yeah, the roadmap was just an event calendar, which we have in game... we love the new direction!"

Others were more concerned with the presentation of the change than the change itself:

"Redundancy or not it’s not a good look"

Most of that was on the first page of the thread. The other four spin off into minutiae about specific changes people are hoping for or dreading and the whole roadmap issue seems to get forgotten.

Over on the EverQuest II forums,  the temperature, as always, was higher:

"So, the answer to the lack of clear communication is to have less communication. Got it."

"It sounds like they have no clue what they're going to do and couldn't deliver on any promise they may have made."

"Doesn't bode well for the future of EQ2."

The EQII thread grumbles on for ten pages. I stopped reading after three. You can always rely on EQII players to find a way to spin anything into a guarantee the game is either about to go into maintenance mode or close down altogether. EQ players tend to take a longer view.

The kerfuffle went on so long Jenn Chan, Producer of both titles, had to step in and calm everyone down:

"Hey all, we've been reading your concerns with the dropping of a formal public roadmap this year. Just wanted to drop a quick non-fancy non-formal note in here for you all that made it to this page in the threads.

We're planning on putting out two Game Updates this year has we have for many-many years and there is a new expansion slated for the end of the year as has been the tradition. For those of you on Origins servers, Anashti Sul and Dozekar will be getting Rise of Kunark. Additionally, there will be a new Time-Locked Expansion server coming this year as well. This on top of all the numerous things we're regularly updating, improving, and fixing throughout the year.

No one can predict the future, but I can tell you we're expecting to keep putting out new things for you through the year and hopefully for many-many more years in the future."

That's basically a Roadmap without the fancy graphics. Or a Producer's Letter without the endless recaps and back-slapping. She's basically admitting that very, very little changes, year-on-year, in either game. There's a long-established rhythm that rarely varies and everyone who plays knows perfectly well what it is.

So what does the Roadmap do? Well, I guess it's primarily a PR device. It's a nice graphic that gaming sites can use as filler, which at least gets the names of the games out there again. It's also, theoretically, an enticement for people who've never played or who haven't played for a while to see what's coming and maybe decide to join in.

On that basis, it seems like it would generally be worth a day of someone's time to put one together, even if it didn't say anything very new. On the other hand, after a few years, it's going to start looking a bit obvious to everyone that these games just do the same things, year after year, so maybe there are better ways to promote the titles.

The nominal reason for dropping Roadmaps is that players have been complaining Roadmaps don't tell them anything they didn't already know, which is almost certainly true. As a lot of commenters point out, though, what those complainants were hoping for were more relevant, useful Roadmaps that did tell them something, not the complete removal of Roadmaps altogether.

My feeling is that those sorts of Roadmaps aren't possible. The precise, technical gameplay detail people are asking for is not going to be amenable to being locked down months in advance. That's like asking for July's Patch Notes in February. 

As for macro changes and events, there pretty much are none that we don't already know about - two Game Updates and One Expansion per year has been the pattern for a decade now. Every so often there's a major technical development or a big UI switch but those often get delayed so it makes good sense to announce them separately, when they're imminent.

Even if it may be perfectly sensible to stop doing Roadmaps, you do have to wonder why a developer would take the risk once the tradition has been established. Yes, players are going to complain it's more of the same old, same old but it's a fair bet there's going to be a bigger hoohah if the Roadmaps just vanish. Surely the really safe, lazy option would be to keep banging out the old copperplate versions, taking the mild flack for not saying anything new and carrying on?

I have no idea why they didn't do that but I can speculate with the best of them:

• Literally no-one at Darkpaw was keen to do a Roadmap this year so rather than draft someone to do it they decided not to bother.
• They were all so deluded they really believed players would be happy to see the back of Roadmaps.
• Someone looked at how much it cost to produce the Roadmaps and decided axing them could pay for a new coffee-maker.
• Someone realized the games were already in a weird kind of de facto Maintenance Mode, albeit one that includes two big, free updates and a paid expansion a year, and it seemed like a good idea to acknowledge the situation, without actually admitting to it.
• Management knew EG7 was going to make some genuinely major change in 2026 (Could be good, could be bad...) and since there was no way that could be included in a Roadmap, it was either lie about it or don't do one.

Or, more realistically and more depressingly, the Darkpaw team genuinely doesn't know what this year holds and isn't willing to commit to any kind of timetable. We know the games are in more trouble than usual. The last EQ TLE server didn't do all that well and then there was the Heroes Journey, peeling loyal players off and turning them so now they'll most likely never come back. 

As for EQII, it's always a little surprising it keeps going. The players always seem to hate most of the changes that get made, most of which only happen because the devs are desperately trying to come up with ways to keep the game going. Unfortunately, every change seems to drive a few more players away and the population keeps getting smaller and smaller...

I don't read too much into just the abandonment of Roadmaps. The games do both have a really excellent in-game calendar that covers about 75% of what was in the Roadmaps, while the other 25% is mostly the two GUs and the XPack, all of which turn up as regularly as any Holiday Event. No-one who plays the games needs a Roadmap.

On the other hand, abandoning them is undeniably a Bad Look. I really don't see why they wouldn't just do the minimum, knock out the usual, boring, predictable graphic, send out the press release and let it go. I don't think it's a portent of doom per se but it's certainly an odd choice.

I guess now we'll have to wait and see if Jenn Chan carries on with her Producer's Letters. Those are even more redundant than the Roadmaps, much of the time, what with half of everything she says referring to things that have already happened. Logic says if Roadmaps go, Producer's Letters should, too. Common sense, self-preservation and, let's hope, any self-respecting Marketing Department, says the opposite.

Just one, final, unsettling observation. I'm always alert to qualifiers and I noticed immediately just how many Jenn dropped in her supposedly re-assuring statement: "planning", "expecting", "hopefully" and, most chilling of all, "No one can predict the future". 

Maybe not but I suspect she might have had a premonition...

 

 

Notes on AI used in this post.

That ugly second illustration. As opposed to the ugly first illustration. Honestly, they're both pretty horrible. It took me about the same amount of time to find, copy and deface the original 2025 EQII Roadmap as it did to draft a prompt and run four versions at NightCafe, of which the one I used was the first, so the other three don't really factor in, timewise. I just thought surely I could get something better but noooo....

The model I used was Z-Image Turbo and the prompt was "A Roadmap Graphic for the MMORPG EverQuest II for the year 2026, with "CANCELLED" stencilled across it in huge letters. Visual style to resemble an infographic to be used in a slide projection." It did the job - I asked for something dull and boring and that's exactly what I got.

It handled the title perfectly for a change so I guess if I'd specified some headings I could have gotten something that looked a lot more convincing instead of the nonsense it came up with on its own. Then again, maybe that's Koada`Dal or something. I mean, it could be...

 

When They Talk About The Meta, I Don't Think This Is What They Mean...

I'm finding it increasingly awkward to come up with ideas for game-related posts when I'm really playing just the one game. Yes, still that one, Played Time now just nudging into three figures according to Steam and still very obviously nowhere even close the end. 

One odd thing I notice as a blogger is that if this was a new MMORPG I was playing, it would feel completely legitimate, not to say expected, for me to post a dozen or more times in excruciating detail about the gameplay. I've done it countless times with any number of MMOs, the great majority of which I've ended up playing for considerably less than a hundred hours and I've rarely thought to ask myself if anyone really cares, let alone whether it's a reasonable use of my time.

With single-player games, though, it feels like the way to go is maybe one or two posts at the start, just to announce what game it is I'm playing and what sort of a first impression it's giving, then nothing more until I've finished and it's time for a full review. It's an approach that works well for most of the single-player games I actually finish, nearly all of which are likely to be point&click adventures or narrative-driven games of some kind and which, crucially, are unlikely to take more than ten or fifteen hours, tops.

Survival games and the currently vogueish action-rpgs like Wuthering Waves, even if they're not multiplayer or I'm not playing them as such, slew much more to the MMORPG end of the spectrum. They frequently feel like MMOs even when they aren't, which makes it very easy to write about them as though they were.

Really, ridiculously big single-player RPGs like Baldur's Gate 3, though, (And I'm not sure there are all that many others...) don't fit into any box. It would be very easy for me to do whole posts on what the characters look like, on the dress-up options (Not least that there are some.) on inventory management, on the combat, the stats, the skill trees... all the standard topics I'd fall into talking about out of habit if I was obsessed by a new MMORPG.

Only, doing the same for Baldur's Gate 3 feels at best self-indulgent but mostly just pointless. Who even cares? The game's two years old and developers, Larian, have made it extremely plain they're done with it, want no more to do with it, won't be making any more content for it and are more than happy to move on from it. Sometimes I get the impression they wish they'd never gotten involved with it in the first place. 

With an MMORPG or any live service game that's still getting updates, commenting on how the game looks and plays feels like a conversation. With an RPG that's final and complete, talking about it feels more like hearing an old recording playing in an empty room.

But what's the alternative?  Hah! I'm so glad you asked! I can tell you that!

 

Since BG3 is still literally the only game I'm playing, as far as gaming goes I could post about:

• Games I'm Not Playing But Might If/When I Ever Get To The End Of This Bloody Monster
• Games I Used To Play Long, Long Ago
• Games I'm Looking Forward To Playing If/When Someone Gets Off Their Backside And Finishes Them
• Things Going On In Gaming In General

Or I could post about non-gaming topics. I always do plenty of that. Except, just now, I'm really only playing this one game, reading the usual random selection of books and slowly working my forward through the Dr. Who Archive on the BBC iPlayer. I'm not listening to enough new music to put a solid playlist together or watching enough new TV shows for a full post about anything. (I did watch the second episode of Haunted Hotel last night. That was good...)

Does anyone really care what I think now about the Dr. Who seasons I last watched when I was in my teens, though? That's how far I've got so far. There's really a shit-ton of Dr. Who, isn't there? I never really appreciated the sheer voloume of the franchise before. 

I do have things to say about the show but again it seems like the world has probably had to put up with more than enough old men droning on about the things they thought were so great when they were young already, especially if the only conclusions they come to is that those things were pretty great after all.

Most of this is happening because I have so much annoying, difficult real-life stuff going on at the moment, not helped in the slightest by Mrs Bhagpuss and I both suffering form a nasty and persistent cold-like bug that makes getting any of it done a real challenge. It means all I really want to do with my free time is as little as possible. 

BG3 is a drug, basically, and so is old, familiar television and, for that matter, the kind of books I've been reading lately. (I might argue all reading is a drug-like experience but that would require me to put a coherent argument together which, as must be obvious from this post, is not something I'm up to doing just at the moment.)

It's not that there aren't things to talk about. Actual, gaming -related topics I may or may not find the will to discuss this week include:

• The Official Launch of Project:Gorgon
• Daybreak Games' decision to abandon Roadmaps
• The Return of Jack Emmert to Cryptic
• The Unexpected Signs of Life in Rift

I'm listing those out in the hopes it might induce me to write something about them later. I don't suppose it will but you have to try, don't you?

I could also just stop posting for a while but as you can see I'd rather bang out a few hundred words of waffle and blether rather than let the post count fall to danger levels. I can get one of these done in an hour, provided I don't attempt to say anything of import.

This is the exact time AI would come in very handy, isn't it? I could just feed those bullet points into Gemini or ChatGPT and have the glorified predictive text apps knock out the first draft. Then I could edit that to make it look less plasticky and who would be any the wiser? 

Did I do that already? Aha! Wouldn't you like to know?

Alright, I didn't. The AIs just aren't that good yet. It'd be even more work than writing one of the damn posts myself. 

I will throw in a couple of AI illustrations though because I have fecking hundreds of them stored up and I might as well use them for something. I have them because I do the daily challenge at NightCafe every day, so as not to break my streak, which is over a hundred days now, and I've gotten so blase about it I just click on whatever they suggest and let the AI play with itself.

Now, that is a post I do want to write: what the hell do the people behind NightCafe think they're playing at? How does it benefit them to give away orders of magnitude more credits for free than I find it possible to imagine anyone ever needing? Aren't they supposed to making money selling them? And why are all the prompts virtually identical? Robots, airships, decaying jungle ruins, explorers...

And now, since I seem to have wandered entirely off-topic, not that it was ever all that clear just what topic I was on, I think I'll call this post done.

Hope you enjoyed it. I enjoyed writing it but then I love free-styling. It's always fascinating, finding out what I'm going to say next.

Sure! I'll Just Add It To My List...

Since I have a ludicrous number of real-life issues going on that mitigate against me writing anything that requires effort or commitment right now, I'm going to grab onto a comment of Tipa's, spin five hundred words out of it and call it a post. I know. We all expected more but sometimes life disappoints

Here's what Tipa said, talking about my complaints about just how damn big Baldur's Gate 3 is:

"I really think this is not a game for completionists. You're not supposed to see everything and do every quest. It encourages quick but meandering playthroughs; two or three times and each time lots of new things."

I think that's good advice for a gamer but it doesn't really address the issues for anyone who's chosen to roleplay their character, even very lightly. And BG3 is, after all, a D&D game. Roleplaying is kind of the point, isn't it?

Like a lot of people, I generally try to avoid playing Evil characters. I also steer clear of playing jerks, blowhards, pompous asses and selfish gits. Mostly what I play are either trippy cartoonish characters for whom everything is one big gosh-wow life experience or pollyannish do-gooders who trek around the map like the Littlest Hobo on steroids.

Either approach means that if someone asks me to do something that doesn't sound positively sociopathic, the chances are that I'll do it. Or agree to, at least. It's a particular issue in BG3 because so many of the requests are so plausible.

Because I'm also anything but a completionist, not all the promises I blithely make get kept. I don't intentionally break them, I just get distracted and forget I made them. In every RPG I've ever played, on or offline, my quest journal is usually stuffed so full I have to delete unfinished quests just so I can keep adding new ones. Which I do.

That never bothers me as a player. I don't have any issues with not finishing quests or leaving them hanging. I don't often care how things turn out. Very few stories in RPGs are sufficiently interesting for not knowing the ending to feel like it's going to be a problem.

As a character, though, I do sometimes feel a degree of commitment. It's often when I come to make space in the Journal that I'm reminded of promises I made and that's when I feel like maybe I should go do something about them. 

The upshot is that in a game like BG3, where there are what seems like literally hundreds of NPCs asking me to do things for them, many of whom, for a change, could make a fairly convincing argument that they couldn't do those things for themselves, it's more than averagely likely that at some point I'm going to start feeling the pressure.

 

I mentioned in another post that almost all dialogs do have some kind of "Get lost, pal. I have better things to do than fix your dumb problems" option. I'm sure that works beautifully for people who love roleplaying bastards but it clearly isn't going to do much for me. Later in the game there may also be a few "I'd really love to help but I'm kind of busy saving the world right now" answers, which is obviously an improvement but, honestly, still feels much too rude (And self-aggrandizing.) for me to be comfortable saying it.

The inevitable result is that I agree to everything anyone asks me, then start trying to do it until I meet another NPC who asks me to do something else and I switch tracks to do that instead. This happens over and over again and pretty much describes my progress through all RPGs.

BG3 does have the advantage that many apparently unrelated questlines end up being connected after all, so dotting about between them doesn't always mean nothing's getting done. On the other hand, some of the interactions are so abstruse and unforeseeable that, when you run into one of those, it feels like a real bait&switch.

The prime example of that in my playthrough so far has been Korlach's clockwork heart. She's one of the numerous companions I have never invited to come adventuring with me but who hangs around in my camp anyway. All of them seem to think being a camp-follower means I have to fix their entire lives and of course I'm far too polite to tell them to sod off so I always promise to do my best. 

As an aside, all my three regular party-members love me. Well, two of them absolutely worship me and the third is only lukewarm because I refused to sleep with her, twice. Apparently the one thing every character I play has no issues saying a firm "No" to is any kind of sexual relationship.  

Other than that, though, she loves me too, and the reason they all think I'm so goddamn wonderful is because I agree with everything they say and promise to do everything they want. And since they're always with me, unlike the NPCs who watch me walk away, never to return, those are the promises I actually keep.

I fully intended to keep my promise to Korlach and find her a mechanic to fix her malfunctioning pump but before I even got going on that, there was a scripted incident that I'm fairly sure I couldn't do anything about and after the smoke cleared, the one person who could do the repairs was dead. I spent a while googling to see if there was any alternative but apparently this guy is literally the only smith in the whole of sodding Faerun capable of doing the job.

Which is obviously bollocks and bad writing. I imagine any competent Dwarven forge could have done the work for a very reasonable fee, not to mention about a gazillion other crafts-persons or magic-users, not to mention the infinity of clerics that could have brought the guy I needed back from the dead. But no. Get that sequence in the wrong order and you've had it.

Again, fine. Actions have consequences and all that. Win some, lose some. All the cliches. The thing is, if you have no real idea which quests are simple, which are complex and which have critical decision points, it's hard-to-impossible to triage them for efficiency or even sanity.

That's not a problem for me, either, generally. As I've said, what I mostly do is quite similar to what Tipa's suggesting. I meander through the plot, wandering back and forth across the landscape, picking up quests and dropping them again, only finishing any of them by chance. And for fifty or sixty hours, that's a lot fun.

Unfortunately, fifty or sixty hours barely scratches the surface. The one thing in Tipa's suggestion that really doesn't seem viable is the idea that anyone could have a "quick" playthrough. What would "quick" even mean in this context? Forty or fifty hours? 

I guess you could set some rules on what sort of quests you were willing to take. No helping refugees. No helping devils. No helping rude people. 

Or on how many - only speak to a couple of NPCs in each new area, for example, and completely snub the rest. Then, on your next playthrough, you could swap those rules around. You'd probably always have to hit certain nodal points in the main plot but I'm sure they can all be approached in various ways.

Even if that did indeed give you several playthroughs that felt quite different, though, it does nothing to address that awkward roleplaying problem. You'd either be roleplaying some kind of opinionated bigot, only willing to help those who "deserved" it or some spell-slinging time-and-motion inspector, willing to help but only according to a quota system.

If I'm finding this problematic, how must genuine completionists be feeling? Hard to imagine, since it's an alien mindset for me. It seems like they'd find it as abrasive as sand in a bathing costume but who knows? Maybe they love it. Maybe having a hundred and fifty hours of gameplay before they get every "i" dotted is the dream. Certainly, the game seems to be almost universally adored so I guess it must be.

BG3 is just an extreme example of the problem, anyway. I think AgingGamer is onto something when he comments that "80+ hours often seems too big". That's where I've felt the ennui set in before and it's happening again here, although I'd say things generally begin to feel stale after 60 hours.

There always comes a time when I just want to be done with the damn thing. That's when I realize I'm not even thinking about the quests any more, just slogging through them without taking in much of the detail. 

I hit that point in BG3 at start of the weekend. I haven't played for a couple of days, mostly for unrelated reasons. The longer I'm away, the less I feel like going back, although I'm not yet so fed up with it I'm going to quit altogether. I'll keep picking away at it but, as often happens with MMORPGs, it's starting to feel more like a habit than a pleasure. (It's worth pointing out that MMOs seem to manage to delay this sort of reaction for orders of magnitude longer than other genres, which presumably is why developers keep insisting on making more of them...)

As for playing Baldur's Gate 3 more than once. Well, maybe in a few years.