Ophelea, "Out There"
« Scholarship Essay, Take 1"Editor's Thoughts" Do I or Don't I? »

Stargate Worlds: Looking into the Wormhole

2007-04-05

Permalink 20:55:03, by Ophelea
Categories: Musings, PC, MMO

Stargate Worlds: Looking into the Wormhole

Two, maybe three E3s ago I wrote an article on a then upcoming title called Stargate SG-1: The Alliance. The game was cancelled shortly thereafter yet even now, years later, it remains our third most popular article. I opened it with the following words:

Sometimes it seems as if it's the flip of a coin as to whether a title based upon a film/TV show will succeed (more often than not, it's actually quality of the game), but science fiction as a whole has generally survived the translation. Perhaps it's the fantastical storylines, the often beautiful backdrops or, it could be that only those that are truly successful get made into games.

For political/budgetary reasons what appeared to be a promising action title wasn’t made. Yet, the continued popularity of the article would seem to indicate that Stargate holds a certain fascination with gamers – or at least with the readers of this site.

Stargate Worlds (SGW) has been in pre-production for two years and recently entered the production phase. As I write this, the first “playables” should have been delivered. A few miles down the road from my apartment the developers at Cheyenne Mountain Entertainment (CME) are stepping through the Gate into what is to be the first translation of a television show into a massively multiplayer game.

Because I live so close to CME, I’ve been privy to the knowledge there was going to be a Stargate MMO long before it was announced to the public. I am, well…I revel in all things Stargate to the point of being a complete nerd. That being said, as much as I look forward to my favorite television universe entering the online realm, I’m wary. I know how difficult it is to translate a movie/book/TV to game and vice versa.

Originally, this article was to be a preview of Stargate Worlds after the Game Developer's Conference. I was holding off because I wanted to place it along with a review of Sony’s Stargate Online: The Trading Card Game and Skyzone Mobile’s title, Stargate SG-1: Entropy. I thought they’d make a nice trilogy for the day. After returning home, pouring over my notes, following up with Cheyenne, playing the other games I realized – I can’t actually preview something I haven’t seen! Ok, that’s a new rule here at GamersInfo.

But, there was also this niggling voice in the back of my head. You see, I’m not “there” yet on the design of the game. I want to be. This is Stargate! And as a gamer and a member of the industry the last thing I want is to see an MMO not meet expectations – every one that doesn’t quite make it hurts the industry as a whole. I grappled with this for a while. A long while.

First, I thought it might be the fanboi issue. But, I do more than write for this site and I’m pretty good about keeping those two parts of me separate. So, I chewed on it; I talked to people who know me and asked if they thought it could be me; I talked to people who know design and (without mentioning the title) asked about the elements that concerned me. Then I chewed some more. What to say?

Follow up:

Let me first acknowledge that my knowledge of the game design is limited to what I’ve been told and what I can read/fact check with other writers. I have asked for more information, but due to time constraints, PR control or something I’m unaware of, none has been forthcoming. I would also like to acknowledge that no one has attempted to create an MMO based upon a television show, much less one with a 13- year history (SG-1 and Atlantis) before. This is an awful lot of “canon” to work with and with 2-3 million viewers per episode (US viewers only!) it has more experts than even Turbine had to contend with when developing Dungeons & Dragons Online. [1] At least Turbine had a rule set!

For the sake of brevity, I’m not going to go into detail about the Stargate Universe in this article. Wikipedia has a fantastic summary of the universe, the characters, the shows, the fans, the movie, the culture and on and on. However, where appropriate, I’ll be sure to explain specific show/game dynamics and how they apply to what I’m prattling on about.

Part of what makes Stargate appealing to the masses is the idea of exploration. In many ways, it’s Star Trek: The Original Series wrapped in a modern skin. In Star Trek, you had futuristic explorers who the viewer could identify with meeting alien cultures on a weekly basis. With Stargate SG-1, we have us, today, walking out into the unknown as explorers meeting “alien” cultures on a weekly basis. The humanizing part of the show comes from the setting: today; the characters: true chemistry among friends; humor; and the alien races: most are transplanted humans.

Of the four elements above the first and last translate very well into a game. Any game set in modern times is easy to design; you simply look out your window. Also, being set today makes it possible to add humor. Humor is difficult in a game but humor in a fictitious time period or setting is doubly so.

Having primarily human races is great for initial design but can get boring after a while. It will be a saving grace in early production but where Cheyenne has a chance to truly expand the universe is with the development of non-human characters. There’s no better setting than a game to have cool or creepy aliens. When I spoke to Joe Ybarra at the Game Developer’s Conference, he assured me that along with those first playables was their first non-human race. Yes!

Stargate carries with it a quality found in most exceptional long-running media, be it books, TV or film – continuity. The shows are fantastic at revisiting storylines, characters and locations from previous episodes. But, let’s face it; you can only look back so many times before you lose the interest of your fans. And, well, a little unknown is part of life.

SGW has been given license to work with some of the unknown/unfinished storylines of the series. This may mean little to the non-fan but to the regular watcher, it’s gold. Sitting on the wall in the room where we spoke was a poster of a Tollan city under siege. Fans will remember a single broadcast from the Tollan as they were escaping a devastating attack from the Goa’uld and nothing more. Joe specifically stated they would revisit this storyline.

When I first wrote the above, I thought to myself “Hey, that sounds pretty good, why do I still hear this niggling voice?” Well, everything above is story. Story is fantastic when you’re making a television show. But, this is about a game. I’m giddy about the story elements, but every time I get down to the game play I hear that voice…

You don’t have to have played an MMO to understand avatar attachment, just a game with a character in third person perspective. Many people, women in particular, tend to identify with their avatar. People spend time collecting, building, developing, being that character and letting go can feel like a traumatic experience – particularly if it’s your first community.

A trend I’m not particularly fond of in MMOs is this idea of “end game” or maximum level. These are persistent worlds after all! The world should change so that the where the character is in its development isn’t critical; there’s always something more to do. But, we are human and humans by nature are competitive and therefore we race to this artificial measuring stick called “max level”. Because of this, sometimes, we miss part of the game. So be it; it’s the price we pay.

However, avatar attachment really is critical to reducing churn – the term used to describe the process of a player subscribing and then quickly cancelling. The more attached a player is to their avatar, the longer they’ll play – or at least pay. This is critical to the health of an MMO on a subscription system. The granddaddy of US MMOs, World of Warcraft, takes about 600 hours to meet that “level cap” for your character. This is enough time to become “attached”. And if you’re not, they’ve got other ways to keep you in game.

The X of Stargate Worlds

The current plans with Stargate Worlds are for players to reach level cap in 200 hours. For the hardcore player this will be two weeks; the casual player will reach it in 2-3 months. It’s hard to make a case for attachment in this period of time.

But, there’s another problem here – the system is designed using archetypes with alignment. So, to use an example, you have the Jaffa. You can be a good Jaffa fighting the Goa’uld or a bad Jaffa in service to the Goa’uld. Based upon which you choose, you’ll follow the class and skill structure accordingly. Ok, all is good there.

But you’ll also only see the content available for that archetype and alignment.

So, now you’ve spent 200 hours playing a character, reached max level and you’ve missed (there are 6 possible alignments) 5 story arcs. And we haven’t hit the classes within the archetypes.

You’ll also not see the story arcs within those classes.

How do you do this? You re-roll. And this is designed intentionally. I understand why this could be a good thing. There’s nothing more frustrating then re-rolling after many hundreds of hours only to experience the same content again.

But, if I don’t have any emotional investment in the characters I’m creating – and I’m going to have to create multiples in order to even experience the content – why is it I’m doing this? Why do I want to continually go through the same story arcs again and again even if they are from a different point of view? And if I’m not, if each and every alignment and class has completely separate story arcs, the resources that would need to be allocated to create this are unreasonable enough as to make this direction unlikely.

There’s also the converse. What if I’m a player who doesn’t rush to level cap, but I will reach the top. There are a lot of players like me – we become attached to our characters. It’s this situation that has forced games like World of Warcraft, Everquest, Asheron’s Call and others to cater to the high-level players (welcome to the reason for the 40-man raid!). Resources simply cannot be devoted to low and mid-level content. Those at the high end would leave the game and they’re what monetize the game. This negates the entire design of “re-roll to see other content”. A very common complaint of multiple MMOs is the lack of new mid-level content. When your design specifically intends for your players to rush to the top they’re going to want a lot to do. Expecting them to re-roll multiple times seems risky.

Key to the universe of Stargate is squad-based missions. Whether it be SG-1 or Atlantis, the most common group is no larger than 5 and often splits into smaller segments when completing various portions of the missions. To this, the design remains true – at least from the point of view of Stargate Command. I did not speak with Joe regarding what would be the “norm” of a player who is a Goa’uld or a Jaffa in service.

Entry through Stargates to new worlds, small squad-based missions – I’d think this would be ripe for really intelligent use of instanced areas. But I’m honestly perplexed and concerned that my notes say “few instances”. I thought I had them wrong. But, when fact checking I found both on RPGVault and in documents provided to the press when I was at GDC, the following, “Instancing will only be used when necessary for truly epic missions.” I fully accept they may have other dynamics in play, but this is where the franchise dictates design. There are very few epic missions in Stargate.

Without further explanation this statement concerns me. If I receive a mission for my squad and it’s not instanced because it’s simply a small mission, what is to keep another (or 3 or 4) squad from hitting the same mission? Will they building an infinite number of missions designed for an infinite variation of squads? (In this scenario, a squad can be a unit of one).

While I fully support and encourage new design, the MMO Anarchy Online did this right very long ago. You went up to a terminal (in this case General Hammond or Anubis or whoever), receive your mission, enter the Stargate and your instance - safe from grief - mission ready.

My final concerns have to do more with the tenor of the story design than game systems. Any title, MMO or otherwise, needs its fans to evangelize it to the masses. If you’ve never watched the series you won’t understand what I say when I mention that there will be no “Janet Frasier” class. (She’s the medical doctor). It’s OK, this isn’t key to the system design. But, Janet is integral to the universe and not having her mentioned throughout the game would be odd…fans would notice. The fans are necessary.

Part drama, neither Stargate SG-1 nor Atlantis deal in the world of black and white. Villains do good things; the heroes make bad decisions and sometimes, they do bad acts. This creates depth. By creating the dichotomous bad/good alignments for the archetypes they’ve left no room for middle ground. By forcing the story into these alignments there’s no room for the player to choose who the character is – unless the player chooses not to participate in the story. Sure, they can still complete the quests for the rewards (the next skill or weapon, for example) – but that’s a lot of empty game play.

The archetype system in and of itself seems strange to me. In the series, no single character is any “one” thing. And the archetype game design mixes races with classes. It leaves little room for choice. I questioned this. I was told they were going for the “typical” of each definition. I asked citing, for example, the four Goa’uld scientists that I can think of off the top of my head – Nirrti, Ba’al, Thoth, and Nerus. Yet Scientist and Goa’uld are archetypes unto themselves. Nonetheless, because this won’t fit in with an archetypal system it is to be set aside.

Part of me wonders if it’s the Stargate fan in me that sees this as a concern. Then there’s the part that says, “This doesn’t leave much room for choice in character development or design”. Then I look at both statements and think – if I don’t like this idea as a fan, it’s just as big an issue even if my gamer instincts are wrong.

And there’s an inordinate amount of focus on PvP. SG-1 always introduced themselves to new cultures as peaceful explorers hoping to create alliances with new races. O’Neill repeatedly attempted to wound or stun enemies, not kill them. This is the US Airforce; philosophically, going out and killing for the sake of killing just doesn’t “fit”. Although capable, and all too often they find themselves in need of deadly force, it isn’t what they stand for. I’m all for game concessions, I really am. But the idea of reaching level 20 quickly so you can spend time in PvP - that’s not Stargate. Consensual or not, it’s a huge departure from a core ideal.

I’m simply confused by these seemingly pendulous changes in the essence of the definition of Stargate. And I find no explanation, though I do hope to. I’ll continue to contact the developers; I’ll continue to read the boards and announcements and other sites. Hopefully, this editorial will be seen and someone down the road will want to go to lunch and explain to me – then I can explain to you!

As much as I want to see my favorite sci-fi universe made into a great game, I’d really like to see a great game made, period. The setting is irrelevant. I want to have fun. And if I get to step through the gate along the way…things would be golden. Indeed.

[1] 20 million player estimation

19 comments

Comment from: HunterZero [Visitor] Email · http://www.mydailyrant.com
If what you're saying is true and they stick with those ideas through gold release, the game will probably suck.

Pretty retarded way to keep people playing the game by forcing them to constantly make new characters to see everything.

2007-04-05 @ 21:55
Comment from: Noelle [Visitor] Email
When I used to play Horizons, I had 5 accounts because I loved my characters and loved owning property for them. I currently play WoW, Puzzle Pirates, and ToonTown.

I'm really concerned at the idea that it's planned for you to spend 200 hours on your character and then apparently throw them away and start over. When I invest time in a serious character (as I do in WoW), I expect to have them around for the long haul. If I knew up front that I would be expected to go through the content and then start over from scratch, I would be hard pressed to become at all invested in that character - and it wouldn't really inspire me to spend some of my precious free time logging in and playing that character.
2007-04-06 @ 00:37
Comment from: Northernshadows [Visitor] Email
Reading through this all, there's several points that concern me. Firstly is the mention of PvP. Perhaps it is just me but I simply cannot fathom Stargate as a PvP-fest. It seems to go against the very theme of the show. Players should be a united front against a common NPC foe.

The archetypes strike another odd chord. As the article already mentions they are treating both classes and races as archetypes which feels a very silly decision. And what else do I see there? Asgard and goa'uld? As playable races? That's wrong on so many levels! They are two of the super-civilizations of Stargate world with exceptionally advanced technologies. They should not be playable races!

Also, no instances for missions? My personal feeling is that missions should be instances, as long as they avoid the DDO way of making the entire world an instanced experience. LotRO (currently in beta) feels like striking a pretty good balance in open vs instanced. Maybe they feel that shunting players into a "safe" instance takes away from the PvP angle they've envisioned.

The whole "200 hours to cap" line feels, to me, like roundabout way of telling "we don't have much content please re-roll" and you can bet once I finally max out I'm going to expect endgame content of some type, not a request to start again from level one.

I must say I'm not big enough a Stargate fan to ever have considered playing a MMO based on it, and what I see here has nothing that would make me reconsider. The PvP factor (I'll assume it is humans vs goa'uld) decides it as I'm not a fan of PvP-centric activity.
2007-04-06 @ 05:10
Comment from: Ophelea [Visitor] Email · http://www.gamersinfo.net
The 200 hours isn't they're way of saying "no content" it's they're way of saying "see the content through new characters, but I don't believe the people will want to re-roll.

The PvP is factionalized: Goa'uld/Jaffa/Human vs. Asgard/Human/Jaffa.

Your other concerns I agree with. They're not game-breaking in a sense that they don't make good "game" sense in some other game, but they don't make good sense here.

Before I wrote this I asked a random IRC friend to look at the archetypes and give me his opinion - he doesn't watch Stargate. He said "That's interesting, they look like old D&D classifications, and I don't mean 3.0." They do.

And while that would be good for another game, it doesn't fit this universe.

I'm not writing this because it's Stargate, it could be American Idol and I'd be concerned. But I am following it because it's Stargate.
2007-04-06 @ 12:16
Comment from: Dutchie [Visitor] Email
I honestly don't understand the problem with the 200 hours played for hardcore gamers. Hardcore gamers can reach level 70 in WoW in about the same time. And just because you have done the content for your archetype, doesn't mean there is no more content after that. I see a whole lot of fuss about nothing.

I also think it is great it is factionalized. It allows you to see the Stargate world from a different perspective for one, instead of from the perspective of SG-1 only. I really don't think it takes away from it being true to Stargate IP. Sure, you can play the Asgard whom are very advanced, but who says you will get to see all of their tecnology? And the same goes for the Goa'uld. I believe that Stargate has way more potential when it is about PvP instead of fighting off NPCs. NPCs are way too predictable to make it worthwhile playing such a game for long, unless you want to WoW-route. But Stargate and WoW don't mix. They wouldn't be able to capture Stargate's atmosphere with silly raid dungeons.
2007-04-06 @ 15:42
Comment from: Not To Bright [Visitor] Email
I have not followed SGW except for hearing about it every so often and thinking what a great idea. My mind then wanders to worlds where I (O'Neil of course) combat foes - form relationships with the new aliens - and overcome wrongs. My thoughts weren't focused on gaining levels to be uber but more of experiencing new worlds, people, and learning to come together to defeat a common foe.

My hope is that as they develop this the pvp aspect will be along the lines of SG1 goes into a mission to accomplish "X" goal. Bad Jaffa go into the same mission to accomplish "Y" goal. So each side has what it wants to accomplish and one side wins - the other loses just like in the series (well except for SG1 winning all the time). I would love to go on each mission knowing all of my enemies were actual people. At the same time it is necessary to leave it open to those who want to switch sides and leave the solving of the puzzle open to many many differing ways (alliances, new technology, out right slaughtering). Anyway this is how I see it happening - or I mean HOPE to see it happen.

I love the series and this game could be the one I actually put money into - instead of piggybacking on a buddies account for WOW. Oh and while WOW was and still is very fun, it didn't have what I was looking for in terms of true repeat gameplay. Yes, gaining levels to be better than everyone else was fun, but in the end I would prefer the ability to explore an area to formulate a plan and then execute the plan - win or fail. Learn from the experience and then move on to the next - lvls are more of a dependency to me, make them more of opening new options to solve a problem vs I am a higher lvl so I can stomp you into submission.

Wow - that was a lot more than I expected to write. I look forward to the new season starting soon and hope to see many of you in game...
2007-04-09 @ 09:56
Comment from: Joe [Visitor] Email
I disagree with good chunks of this article.

- Even in WoW and other games you only have access to 50% of the content as their tend to be good/evil races.

- Alt-a-holics are also becoming more the norm. I actually think avatar identity is the minority case.

- Anarchy Online did not get it right. All those terminals did was cause people to go solo the best dungeon settings that made sense to their character. Those dungeons also sucked because they had to. With no human design, they were basically parameterized themes. So it was always the same ol same ol with doors in different places.

- While I do like instancing - I like it in the way eq2 does it. I don't think it can work too well for machine generation.

There's a good chance this game won't cut it... but the reasons you state don't seem convincing to me in the least.
2007-04-09 @ 16:51
Comment from: Psychochild [Visitor] Email · http://www.psychochild.org/
Joe wrote:
Even in WoW and other games you only have access to 50% of the content as their tend to be good/evil races.

Not quite. While people start off in separate areas, they eventually come together. Stranglethorn Vale was notorious for being a hotbed of PvP because that's where both sides would come together for the first time. So, while you might spend most of your time serving your home city for the first 30 levels, the last 30 levels were shared with other players. Both sides eventually went through instances like Scholomance, Molten Core, etc.

Alt-a-holics are also becoming more the norm. I actually think avatar identity is the minority case.

I agree with your first argument (and write about that a bit in the post that is tracked back above), but I think people still identify with one main character. I had a primary character in WoW, even though I had a number of other characters that were in different states of development. I focused most of my time and effort on my main, and played the others just to get a feel for the game from other points of view.

While I do like instancing - I like it in the way eq2 does it. I don't think it can work too well for machine generation.

It can work. Witness Diablo 2 and it's generated dungeons. Yeah, it's easy to do it poorly, though, and sometimes a randomly constructed dungeon begins to feel artificial. Still, the Stargate game could do instances like EQ2/WoW and have a number of settings that multiple people could visit at once. They're just two remarkably similar forest sets on two far-flung planets. ;)

My thoughts,
2007-04-09 @ 21:01
Comment from: Ophelea [Member]
Joe wrote:
While I do like instancing - I like it in the way eq2 does it. I don't think it can work too well for machine generation.

I think it would be in error to compare a game too much to another. My point in bringing up AO was that they DID make single instances exist. So, 4 people pull the same mission in SGW - just make 4 instances of the same world. As it is now (as explained to me) 4 squads could end up on the same mission. I'm not sure how this is good?

I mean...it's a freaking STARGATE - it's a PORTAL!!!! They've been used since the beginning of MMO-time! Can you think of ANY EASIER DESIGN mechanism? *grins*

Alt-a-holics are also becoming more the norm. I actually think avatar identity is the minority case.

Of course we all have alts...when we're READY and only as a way to play with other friends, check out other stuff. But there's always that main character that is us. Don't confuse the necessity that WoW has imposed upon the player for needing alts for raids as "the norm". This wasn't the norm and I'm not completely convinced that it is. It just may be for the high-level WoW player.

Again, try not to compare the two games. Look at the SGW design ON IT'S OWN.
2007-04-09 @ 23:20
Comment from: Joe Schmoooo [Visitor] Email
I like the 200 hours max level because Im not a hardcore gamer, which means I have a life and can only fit in maybe 10 hours a week, so 200 hours is plenty of time.

I think it also balances the game more. I get frustrated in PvP games where I get killed by someone whos 50 levels above me and i have no chance at killing them. If theres a smaller maxlvl, then those who are at the max wont be too overpowering, but will still be better because they have better weapons, items or other swag.

Id rather have the focus on the storyline than just leveling up. Most other MMO's are focused on just leveling up and completing quests. I would prefer SG Worlds to be more focused on the major storyline (Goa'uld vs Humans) and where your character fits in it, so that your job is to go out and find technology to help your faction while other people are out helping their faction. While your main focus is acquiring technology, you also explore the galaxy and encounter other players who may be enemies or friends. This would attract fans of the series (like myself) and those who want a change from the boring monotony of killing a boar, gaining 100 exp, killing another boar, gaiing 100 exp, and so on.

What I dont like are the architypes. I would rather choose a race (Human, Goa'uld, Jaffa, Asgard, etc.) then choose a class (Scientist, Archaeologist, Commando, etc.) like most other MMO's. Then your character can get alligned with a faction (Goa'uld, Tok'ra, Asgard, Human, etc.) While I agree with limiting some classes to certain races (like not having Asguard Commandos) the ones now are too limited.

I think a majority of the game should be open to all races and classes, while some aspects are limited. It needs to be enough where there is incentive to play through again with a different character, but one dosen't have to to expierence most of the game.
2007-08-31 @ 01:12
Comment from: Sundive [Visitor] Email
Yah.. because these ideas havn't been successful for nearly every other MMO on the market now right? Give your head a shake.

Oh.. and the Star Trek MMO is due to release before the Stargate MMO. Which would make Star Trek the first tv to MMO game.
2007-09-06 @ 04:45
i agree 150% with Not To Bright Stargate would definitely be an amazing game if it was a sort of mission pvp. That takes away predictability and grinding, but dont let high lvl characters help lowers through to always win. That would be cheap. I used to play wow, i quit before i was totally absorbed and lost all my friends. mission pvp would make it a great game. If anyone designing this or somehow influencing the gameplay and you dont do that then you are a sick and heartless person.
2008-01-26 @ 14:29
Comment from: fuji [Visitor] Email
All I know for sure is WoW is the most successful MMO and will probably always be. I currently play it and will continue to do so, unless SGW rocks. And I've got to say, I have my doubts.

Stargate is probably my favorite TV show of all time. And I have to play an MMO. So, I will give it a chance and probably a better chance than any other game. But if it doesn't meet my minimum expectations I will go straight back to WoW.

PvP has got to be the best aspect of MMORPG's and will have a heavy influence on my decision to stick with SGW.

End game content is also a must. I've only played 2 MMO's and pretty much stick with one character. EQ was awesome but way to ridiculous when it came to hitting max level. So, I just gave up as there was no way to lvl without a group which took an hour to find. Moved onto Wow and am still playing. You can solo all the way to 70 which is very nice for us casual gamers.

Hopefully SGW will follow WoW's example of a good MMO as far as leveling. I can't handle lfg for an hour just to get some weak xp.

SGW's concept is so different from what I'm used to in an MMO and under normal circumstances I wouldn't even consider buying it. But for Stargate, I will put my bias aside and give it a shot.

A plus side is the community will likely be awesome and not a bunch of kids that laugh when someone says "FART". =P
2008-05-19 @ 14:29
Comment from: Game Momma [Visitor] Email · http://www.thegamemomma.com
there will be new content every month per developer CME, this game is AMAZING!

They are going to take gaming to a whole other level on this game!

Check it out here!

http://www.thegamemomma.com
2009-01-15 @ 11:49
Comment from: Game Momma [Visitor] Email · http://www.thegamemomma.com
Developer CME is committing to new content every month!

This game is absolutely amazing and is poised to change the face of gaming FOREVER.

Read about it here:

http://www.thegamemomma.com
2009-01-15 @ 12:03
Good stuff =)
2009-09-07 @ 15:39
Comment from: laptop keyboards [Visitor] · http://www.hootoo.com
ah.. because these ideas havn't been successful for nearly every other MMO on the market now right? Give your head a shake.

Oh.. and the Star Trek MMO is due to release before the Stargate MMO. Which would make Star Trek the first tv to MMO game.
2009-12-07 @ 08:03
Comment from: Online Computer Science and IT Degrees [Visitor] · http://www.educationconnection.com/info/ITcomputers/default.aspx
This document explains exactly what the Online Education is. It is a good summarize and point to document.
2009-12-18 @ 06:33
Comment from: dark [Visitor] · http://hertelden.com
thanks.
2009-12-21 @ 22:42

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)
April 2014
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
 << <   > >>
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

  • Thinking is more interesting than knowing, but less interesting than looking. - Goethe
  • He who can take no great interest in what is small will take false interest in what is great. - Ruskin
  • We don't know who discovered water, but we know it wasn't the fish. - McLuhan

Search

XML Feeds

powered by b2evolution