Square Enix just released some more information about the Final Fantasy XIV game system. One of the interesting aspects of it is what they call the "Armoury System." The idea behind it is your skills are determined by what you wear. Arm a sword and you can be a warrior, pick up a staff, and you can be a mage. And you can change at almost any time!
And this is a good thing, in my opinion. I like job systems much better than the traditional static class system where to experience different jobs you have to grow a stable of alts. One of the main reasons for this is: I hate doing the same quests over and over again for each alt I raise. I hate having to grab the same flags (for fast travel or access quests) over and over and over again.
It's also easier to change what you are doing based on role - if I join a group and the roles we need change, and I can satisfy that, it's nice to know I can instantly swap out for the needed role instead of logging in an alt and dragging them halfway across the world, hoping they have all the right flags and access quests done.
It also helps with the community: in Final Fantasy XI, I might go out and see a Samurai is looking for group. However, I then realize this is the same guy, a good player, who was healing me the other day. So I know he'll probably be a good player in his new role. In EverQuest II, I almost never know who I'm getting involved with unless it's a guild group, since everyone in game has at least a half dozen different names and appearances.
It looks like the job system is become much more prevalent. Heroes of Telara mentions the ability to change subclasses at any time. Free Realms implements a job system as well, letting you swap jobs almost anywhere. The Agency likewise will allow you to swap between roles based on what you wear. This mechanic seems like it may be a defining trait for so-called "third-generation" MMORPGs.
Showing posts with label MMORPG. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MMORPG. Show all posts
Friday, August 7, 2009
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
What MMOs Should Learn From Single Player Games
Every now and then I cut down on my MMO gameplay to try out various single player games. Playing single player games reminds me how primitive MMO games still are. From a technical perspective, MMOs are also about as complicated as a game can get, and the fact that thousands of players can play concurrently vastly complicates game design in ways single player games don't need to be concerned with. But aside from graphics, MMOs really have not advanced all that much since the days of Meridian 59. Single player games still frequently have features that should be more prominent in MMO gameplay. Some of the most transformative features that I think MMORPG games could benefit from are replacing the character class concept, factions that matter, and player created content.
Alternatives to Character Classes
Pete recently discussed what he thought MMO devs could learn from Fable 2. One of his points was that Fable 2 doesn't use the a class based system of leveling; you earn XP and funnel it into various skill trees. Many RPGs feature alternatives to the traditional D&D style class and XP structure. The Final Fantasy series generally features some crazy new alternative in every iteration.
What could an MMO developer learn from this? Well, one of the principal drawbacks to the class system in MMOs is that you end up requiring certain classes (the Holy Trinity.) This inevitably leads to all sorts of class balance issues, and angry players/customers because they perceive (rightly or wrongly) certain classes are more desired than others. In addition, all characters of the same class end up being very much alike.
Imagine a system where you get a number of skill trees, like the Achievement trees in EverQuest II, and you build your character's abilities by earning points and spending them how you see fit. Every character could be different, and if a particular ability gets nerfed, well, you respec and rebuild differently. That's still inconvenient, but not as inconvenient as picking a class, taking several months to level it to the cap, and then having its core abilities changed to such a degree you find you don't want to play that character anymore.
Factions that Matter
Recently, I've been playing Fallout 3. Wow, what a great game. Bethesda did a great job living up to the original Fallout franchise (the first two games, as well as Wasteland, which the Fallout games were a spiritual sequel to, still rank as my favorite RPG games ever.)
One of the great things about this game franchise is that you get to make a lot of decisions that impact the world around you. The people in game will react to you based on the decisions you have made in the past.
It would be nice to see an MMO that also let you make choices over time that affected how NPCs reacted to you in the future. EverQuest II has a few diplomacy quests where you get an item and are asked to deliver it to one faction but can deliver it to their enemy instead; however, these quests are rare and typically the only impact on the game is the reward you get.
One reason we don't see this is people don't like changes that can't be undone. Its hard to stomach making a "wrong" decision if it took you a year or two to get your character to that point. But if a game is designed where leveling isn't as important, then maybe people won't mind as much - since it won't be that much trouble to build up an alt who can take the different path.
Right now, I think MMORPG developers are taking the easy way out. They like to advertise that they have over 10,000 quests in the game. It sounds great. But when half of those are "kill 10" in quest arcs that lead to other variants of the same thing with no further ramifications, well, what's the point? Its quantity over quality.
While quests might not be able to permanently change the world, they should be able to permanently alter how NPCs react to the players in that world. I hope that's what Bioware is going to try to create with their Star Wars MMORPG. It really is the next step forward for this genre.
Player Created Content
I've been playing LittleBigPlanet recently and that game is addictive. One of the great features is it allows players to create their own levels and share it with the world. Only one game so far, the Saga of Ryzom, allows player created levels. City of Heroes is introducing this feature soon as well.
I could imagine other games doing so. Of course, the fear is that players will abuse them to make games that provide easy leveling or easy loot. But there might be ways to avoid that:
Imagine if EverQuest II implemented a player created mission system. It might start out with players going to an inn in a city. There, a bard spins tall tales, repeating stories he has heard. The stories are missions created by other players. Since the stories are imaginary, we can easily dismiss them as non-canon, and therefore don't need to worry about conflicts with established lore. You can earn experience, as people can learn through listening and learning as well as doing, but you don't leave with any loot since you never really went anywhere.
Any drops in the zone would be NO ZONE (and used only for things that you need for the quests). However, monsters and player-created quests might occasionally reward players with the equivalent of D.I.R.T.Y. Money (tokens) which you can keep with you and trade in to the Bard's Guild for various, mostly cosmetic rewards, such as appearance armor, etc.
I can see something like this being very popular on roleplaying servers. I think it would also be popular with the general public as well. There could be titles for players who create the most popular zones. And it means that there would be a constant influx of new content.
When City of Heroes Issue 14 comes out, I'll definitely be resubscribing just for this feature alone; hopefully, more games will allow forms of player-created content in the future.
The Road Ahead
There is a lot of potential in this genre that is barely being tapped. Ever since World of Warcraft came out, everyone has been bending over backwards to clone their success. World of Warcraft did innovate somewhat - it made the quest arc the central mechanism for leveling. And, while that system is incredibly flawed, it was an improvement over the previous model (the EverQuest model) which was to sit in one spot (the camp) and pull the same mobs repeatedly.
But ever since WoW came out, the industry sort of got stuck in a rut where it was too busy trying to copy WoW's success. Hopefully, that's starting to change.
Coming soon, we have, the City of Heroes Architect feature, which makes it the second MMO to make player-driven content a huge part of the game. Chronicles of Spellborn promises some innovation with a card deck-based combat system. And Bioware promises a very strong story-driven MMO experience in the Stars Wars universe.
Have you seen any particularly innovative features in recent games that you would like to see become a more common feature of the MMO genre as a whole?
Alternatives to Character Classes
Pete recently discussed what he thought MMO devs could learn from Fable 2. One of his points was that Fable 2 doesn't use the a class based system of leveling; you earn XP and funnel it into various skill trees. Many RPGs feature alternatives to the traditional D&D style class and XP structure. The Final Fantasy series generally features some crazy new alternative in every iteration.
What could an MMO developer learn from this? Well, one of the principal drawbacks to the class system in MMOs is that you end up requiring certain classes (the Holy Trinity.) This inevitably leads to all sorts of class balance issues, and angry players/customers because they perceive (rightly or wrongly) certain classes are more desired than others. In addition, all characters of the same class end up being very much alike.
Imagine a system where you get a number of skill trees, like the Achievement trees in EverQuest II, and you build your character's abilities by earning points and spending them how you see fit. Every character could be different, and if a particular ability gets nerfed, well, you respec and rebuild differently. That's still inconvenient, but not as inconvenient as picking a class, taking several months to level it to the cap, and then having its core abilities changed to such a degree you find you don't want to play that character anymore.
Factions that Matter
Recently, I've been playing Fallout 3. Wow, what a great game. Bethesda did a great job living up to the original Fallout franchise (the first two games, as well as Wasteland, which the Fallout games were a spiritual sequel to, still rank as my favorite RPG games ever.)
One of the great things about this game franchise is that you get to make a lot of decisions that impact the world around you. The people in game will react to you based on the decisions you have made in the past.
It would be nice to see an MMO that also let you make choices over time that affected how NPCs reacted to you in the future. EverQuest II has a few diplomacy quests where you get an item and are asked to deliver it to one faction but can deliver it to their enemy instead; however, these quests are rare and typically the only impact on the game is the reward you get.
One reason we don't see this is people don't like changes that can't be undone. Its hard to stomach making a "wrong" decision if it took you a year or two to get your character to that point. But if a game is designed where leveling isn't as important, then maybe people won't mind as much - since it won't be that much trouble to build up an alt who can take the different path.
Right now, I think MMORPG developers are taking the easy way out. They like to advertise that they have over 10,000 quests in the game. It sounds great. But when half of those are "kill 10
While quests might not be able to permanently change the world, they should be able to permanently alter how NPCs react to the players in that world. I hope that's what Bioware is going to try to create with their Star Wars MMORPG. It really is the next step forward for this genre.
Player Created Content
I've been playing LittleBigPlanet recently and that game is addictive. One of the great features is it allows players to create their own levels and share it with the world. Only one game so far, the Saga of Ryzom, allows player created levels. City of Heroes is introducing this feature soon as well.
I could imagine other games doing so. Of course, the fear is that players will abuse them to make games that provide easy leveling or easy loot. But there might be ways to avoid that:
Imagine if EverQuest II implemented a player created mission system. It might start out with players going to an inn in a city. There, a bard spins tall tales, repeating stories he has heard. The stories are missions created by other players. Since the stories are imaginary, we can easily dismiss them as non-canon, and therefore don't need to worry about conflicts with established lore. You can earn experience, as people can learn through listening and learning as well as doing, but you don't leave with any loot since you never really went anywhere.
Any drops in the zone would be NO ZONE (and used only for things that you need for the quests). However, monsters and player-created quests might occasionally reward players with the equivalent of D.I.R.T.Y. Money (tokens) which you can keep with you and trade in to the Bard's Guild for various, mostly cosmetic rewards, such as appearance armor, etc.
I can see something like this being very popular on roleplaying servers. I think it would also be popular with the general public as well. There could be titles for players who create the most popular zones. And it means that there would be a constant influx of new content.
When City of Heroes Issue 14 comes out, I'll definitely be resubscribing just for this feature alone; hopefully, more games will allow forms of player-created content in the future.
The Road Ahead
There is a lot of potential in this genre that is barely being tapped. Ever since World of Warcraft came out, everyone has been bending over backwards to clone their success. World of Warcraft did innovate somewhat - it made the quest arc the central mechanism for leveling. And, while that system is incredibly flawed, it was an improvement over the previous model (the EverQuest model) which was to sit in one spot (the camp) and pull the same mobs repeatedly.
But ever since WoW came out, the industry sort of got stuck in a rut where it was too busy trying to copy WoW's success. Hopefully, that's starting to change.
Coming soon, we have, the City of Heroes Architect feature, which makes it the second MMO to make player-driven content a huge part of the game. Chronicles of Spellborn promises some innovation with a card deck-based combat system. And Bioware promises a very strong story-driven MMO experience in the Stars Wars universe.
Have you seen any particularly innovative features in recent games that you would like to see become a more common feature of the MMO genre as a whole?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Irreversible Decisions
Apparently someone is making a new Star Wars game. Have you heard of it?
(Sarcasm.)
I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, so this normally wouldn't interest me. However, it is being made by Bioware, and they are known for having a strong focus on characterization and story. One of the things that is intriguing is that you have the possibility of picking up NPC companions who become a part of your story. Also, you have the ability to make irreversible decisions and even find a love interest.
Irreversible decisions are very rare in MMOs. After all, irreversible decisions tend to irritate people when they are playing a game that involves hundreds of hours of time invested. EverQuest II used to have an irreversible decision: if you killed centaurs in the Thundering Steppes, you were forever Kill on Sight to them. Well, that decision was changed not too soon after release, because of the uproar from the player base.
Providing irreversible changes to the game world isn't something fans would typically enjoy either. A PVP game where one side could literally win (permanently, as in, your Order-aligned Germanic-speaking Order character literally starts learning Norwegian [or whatever Destruction speaks]) would lose players fast. Ultimately, MMO conflicts become constant stalemates that never go anywhere. And if they do go somewhere, it just results in a big, giant reset so people can start again.
The only real way to provide irreversible decisions is to do it within a player character's personal storyline. We've seen this type of approach done before... Pirates of the Burning Sea let you meet NPCs, who would become a part of your story, and various decisions you make would affect future missions. NPCs you meet during your role-playing story arc missions could evolve into allies, enemies, rivals, or otherwise, depending on decisions you make.
It wasn't always done well... Sometimes you were forced down certain paths. And naturally you couldn't do anything that wasn't scripted into the missions.
Early on in my short Caribbean stint, the game announced that I had found my love interest. It actually came as a surprise since I wasn't particularly paying attention to that quest's writing. I never played the game long enough to see that quest arc to fruition. I saved some Sultan or somesuch who had a bunch of sons and daughters, and apparently whoever I clicked on became a love interest. Then they went and stood in some instance and ignored me. Maybe if I stuck around for about ten or more levels, I would have received the mission that would allow me to win their heart. But even if the implementation was a little flawed, the idea was great.
Some of the other quest arcs had more immediate feedback. I was given the choice to choose a side between two rival NPCs, and immediately gained an ally and a rival that impacted future missions. The role-playing story arc quickly became my favorite aspect of the game for me, despite its flaws. I was able to make decisions that determined just what kind of character I was playing: noble or villainous, impetuous or reflective. My character became much more than a bundle of levels and loot.
A story can only be meaningful if you can make decisions that are permanent that you can't reverse simply by grinding another 40,000 faction for the other side. Irreversible decisions are integral to story telling and playing a role. Most dialogue trees in EverQuest II or Age of Conan simply resulted in getting you closer to receiving a quest, or leaving the dialogue tree. You couldn't piss off a quest giver such that he would decide not to work with you. You could slaughter your way through centaurs and still find that some of them will gladly give you quests.
Some of us would like to see a game live up to the ROLE in "Massively Multiplayer ROLE Playing Games". You can see it all over the blogosphere; time and time again, people rail against the mindless grinds we suffer through. It's high time that developer started allowing us to make our characters more than a simple bundle of levels, loot, and unlocked flags. I can't wait to see what Bioware cooks up.
(Sarcasm.)
I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, so this normally wouldn't interest me. However, it is being made by Bioware, and they are known for having a strong focus on characterization and story. One of the things that is intriguing is that you have the possibility of picking up NPC companions who become a part of your story. Also, you have the ability to make irreversible decisions and even find a love interest.
Irreversible decisions are very rare in MMOs. After all, irreversible decisions tend to irritate people when they are playing a game that involves hundreds of hours of time invested. EverQuest II used to have an irreversible decision: if you killed centaurs in the Thundering Steppes, you were forever Kill on Sight to them. Well, that decision was changed not too soon after release, because of the uproar from the player base.
Providing irreversible changes to the game world isn't something fans would typically enjoy either. A PVP game where one side could literally win (permanently, as in, your Order-aligned Germanic-speaking Order character literally starts learning Norwegian [or whatever Destruction speaks]) would lose players fast. Ultimately, MMO conflicts become constant stalemates that never go anywhere. And if they do go somewhere, it just results in a big, giant reset so people can start again.
The only real way to provide irreversible decisions is to do it within a player character's personal storyline. We've seen this type of approach done before... Pirates of the Burning Sea let you meet NPCs, who would become a part of your story, and various decisions you make would affect future missions. NPCs you meet during your role-playing story arc missions could evolve into allies, enemies, rivals, or otherwise, depending on decisions you make.
It wasn't always done well... Sometimes you were forced down certain paths. And naturally you couldn't do anything that wasn't scripted into the missions.
Early on in my short Caribbean stint, the game announced that I had found my love interest. It actually came as a surprise since I wasn't particularly paying attention to that quest's writing. I never played the game long enough to see that quest arc to fruition. I saved some Sultan or somesuch who had a bunch of sons and daughters, and apparently whoever I clicked on became a love interest. Then they went and stood in some instance and ignored me. Maybe if I stuck around for about ten or more levels, I would have received the mission that would allow me to win their heart. But even if the implementation was a little flawed, the idea was great.
Some of the other quest arcs had more immediate feedback. I was given the choice to choose a side between two rival NPCs, and immediately gained an ally and a rival that impacted future missions. The role-playing story arc quickly became my favorite aspect of the game for me, despite its flaws. I was able to make decisions that determined just what kind of character I was playing: noble or villainous, impetuous or reflective. My character became much more than a bundle of levels and loot.
A story can only be meaningful if you can make decisions that are permanent that you can't reverse simply by grinding another 40,000 faction for the other side. Irreversible decisions are integral to story telling and playing a role. Most dialogue trees in EverQuest II or Age of Conan simply resulted in getting you closer to receiving a quest, or leaving the dialogue tree. You couldn't piss off a quest giver such that he would decide not to work with you. You could slaughter your way through centaurs and still find that some of them will gladly give you quests.
Some of us would like to see a game live up to the ROLE in "Massively Multiplayer ROLE Playing Games". You can see it all over the blogosphere; time and time again, people rail against the mindless grinds we suffer through. It's high time that developer started allowing us to make our characters more than a simple bundle of levels, loot, and unlocked flags. I can't wait to see what Bioware cooks up.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Replaying Past Story Arcs
On MmoreInsight, there was an interesting discussion (way back in May) about having worlds where, over time, the storyline would progress. I've expressed a desire for a more episodic design to the game worlds as well, even if that means the server might be up for a few months at a time and shut down while the game creators work on the next "episode's" content (perhaps players would even pay for episode by episode instead of subscription fees.)
Kanthalos commented:
And that's a valid concern. Many people, who are paying for the content, feel they shouldn't have to miss out on something cool, just because they happened to be on vacation at the time, or whatever. But its also clear that many of us want living, breathing worlds, and if that means quests get removed over time, and zones change, and we miss out on some of those, than so be it. And those two player demands (not wanting to miss out on content vs wanting a world that can change) are hard to reconcile.
City of Heroes has a time travel feature that lets you replay previous story arcs. I haven't seen the feature in person myself, but I wish that type of feature was more prevalent in the MMO industry. I think it would really help work around this type of issue.
One way you could implement this type of game mechanic, more appropriate for a fantasy game, might be by introducing NPC bards or historians that tell tales in taverns about heroic events from the past. The way the system might work is: the player approaches the bard and asks about an event that occurred in the past, like how a group of heroes (or villains) awakened the Sleeper. Instead of simply listening to the tale, however, the player (and friends) would get to play it out in an instanced replica of that zone the way it used to be (more or less). The zone might even scale to the size and level of your group (it, after all, is just a daydream), to keep it challenging.
Of course, loot complicates things. It wouldn't very immersive if people could bring back fabled drops from what is supposed to be a dream. But maybe another reward system could be created -- playing through instanced versions of previous realms gives you "inspirations" or "insights" or accumulate some kind of point total that can be traded in at some kind of item vendor - perhaps for consumables that give you bonuses in the "real life" zones, or even open up quests that take place in the "real world".
If the reward system was compelling enough (maybe I'm the only one who thinks farming old content for consumables that would allow me to better take on the current raid or instance du jour is a good idea), it could be a fun way to keep old content relevant as the story moves on, zones change, and the world evolves.
I think EQ2, WOW, and most other MMORPGs would be a lot better if they would just rip off City of Heroes more.
Kanthalos commented:
The problem with having the world change is that you are effectively cutting off a number of your customers from content that everyone else got to see and participate in.
And that's a valid concern. Many people, who are paying for the content, feel they shouldn't have to miss out on something cool, just because they happened to be on vacation at the time, or whatever. But its also clear that many of us want living, breathing worlds, and if that means quests get removed over time, and zones change, and we miss out on some of those, than so be it. And those two player demands (not wanting to miss out on content vs wanting a world that can change) are hard to reconcile.
City of Heroes has a time travel feature that lets you replay previous story arcs. I haven't seen the feature in person myself, but I wish that type of feature was more prevalent in the MMO industry. I think it would really help work around this type of issue.
One way you could implement this type of game mechanic, more appropriate for a fantasy game, might be by introducing NPC bards or historians that tell tales in taverns about heroic events from the past. The way the system might work is: the player approaches the bard and asks about an event that occurred in the past, like how a group of heroes (or villains) awakened the Sleeper. Instead of simply listening to the tale, however, the player (and friends) would get to play it out in an instanced replica of that zone the way it used to be (more or less). The zone might even scale to the size and level of your group (it, after all, is just a daydream), to keep it challenging.
Of course, loot complicates things. It wouldn't very immersive if people could bring back fabled drops from what is supposed to be a dream. But maybe another reward system could be created -- playing through instanced versions of previous realms gives you "inspirations" or "insights" or accumulate some kind of point total that can be traded in at some kind of item vendor - perhaps for consumables that give you bonuses in the "real life" zones, or even open up quests that take place in the "real world".
If the reward system was compelling enough (maybe I'm the only one who thinks farming old content for consumables that would allow me to better take on the current raid or instance du jour is a good idea), it could be a fun way to keep old content relevant as the story moves on, zones change, and the world evolves.
I think EQ2, WOW, and most other MMORPGs would be a lot better if they would just rip off City of Heroes more.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
The Mass Effect Effect
I got an Xbox 360 for Christmas along with Mass Effect, so I haven't played MMOs very much. I played EverQuest II a little, but gameplay there is going to be sporadic for a while.
Mass Effect is a truly incredible game. Its games like this that remind me what is most missing from MMORPGs: story, and the ability to interact with the world DIFFERENTLY from character to character.
As far as story is concerned, some MMOs dish out little tidbits here and there in the form of story arcs. Some games, such as Final Fantasy XI, have ongoing mission-based story arcs with cut scenes that I enjoyed. Unfortunately, in most MMORPGs, the story arcs tend to play second fiddle to levels and loot as the principle means of advancement. And the missions typically have only one way to complete them (in repetitive steps that only work in one proscribed order).
While the world can't truly change in an MMORPG, your character and the way the world reacts to you certainly can. Some of the really great aspects of Mass Effect include the ability to make decisions regarding your character's background. Ramifications of those decisions manifest themselves later. For example, my character was Earth-born and apparently ran with a gang before joining the military. Later, members of that gang decide to try to cajole him into doing them a favor. Decisions I make regarding my characters alignment (paragon vs. renegade) affect the ways in which I can complete a mission. Some fights can be even be bypassed entirely by charming or intimidating the adversary. This adds to replayability because, even though I already know the story, its still enjoyable playing through the game and seeing how things change when I do things differently.
Future MMORPGs need to incorporate more of that kind of evolution into their story arcs. We need missions that alter how subsequent missions will play depending on their outcome and the decisions you made. We need quests that have multiple solutions. Its not wasted content just because one character won't see everything: everyone is going to hit the level cap some day and roll an alt; there should be something other than a different set of skills and items to equip to differentiate our characters. We need something to give our characters more meaning and more uniqueness than an assortment of min-maxed statistics. Mass Effect (and a few other great RPGs in the past, such as Fallout) gives us that in spades.
The Mass Effect universe would make an excellent setting for a massively multiplayer RPG. With Bioware's story writing, the kind of evolving, personalized story arcs they are known for, and this rich backdrop for a setting, a Mass Effect MMO could only spell success. I sincerely hope they use this IP for their upcoming MMORPG instead of the Knights of the Old Republic IP everyone seems to be expecting. Star Wars is so last century. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this.
Still, whether its Star Wars (yawn) or Mass Effect, if Bioware can give us the rich story- and character-driven gameplay they are known for from the single player RPGs they've produced in an MMO (a genre that has been notably weak in those areas), that could be truly ground breaking. Anyway, the Normandy awaits...
Mass Effect is a truly incredible game. Its games like this that remind me what is most missing from MMORPGs: story, and the ability to interact with the world DIFFERENTLY from character to character.
As far as story is concerned, some MMOs dish out little tidbits here and there in the form of story arcs. Some games, such as Final Fantasy XI, have ongoing mission-based story arcs with cut scenes that I enjoyed. Unfortunately, in most MMORPGs, the story arcs tend to play second fiddle to levels and loot as the principle means of advancement. And the missions typically have only one way to complete them (in repetitive steps that only work in one proscribed order).
While the world can't truly change in an MMORPG, your character and the way the world reacts to you certainly can. Some of the really great aspects of Mass Effect include the ability to make decisions regarding your character's background. Ramifications of those decisions manifest themselves later. For example, my character was Earth-born and apparently ran with a gang before joining the military. Later, members of that gang decide to try to cajole him into doing them a favor. Decisions I make regarding my characters alignment (paragon vs. renegade) affect the ways in which I can complete a mission. Some fights can be even be bypassed entirely by charming or intimidating the adversary. This adds to replayability because, even though I already know the story, its still enjoyable playing through the game and seeing how things change when I do things differently.
Future MMORPGs need to incorporate more of that kind of evolution into their story arcs. We need missions that alter how subsequent missions will play depending on their outcome and the decisions you made. We need quests that have multiple solutions. Its not wasted content just because one character won't see everything: everyone is going to hit the level cap some day and roll an alt; there should be something other than a different set of skills and items to equip to differentiate our characters. We need something to give our characters more meaning and more uniqueness than an assortment of min-maxed statistics. Mass Effect (and a few other great RPGs in the past, such as Fallout) gives us that in spades.
The Mass Effect universe would make an excellent setting for a massively multiplayer RPG. With Bioware's story writing, the kind of evolving, personalized story arcs they are known for, and this rich backdrop for a setting, a Mass Effect MMO could only spell success. I sincerely hope they use this IP for their upcoming MMORPG instead of the Knights of the Old Republic IP everyone seems to be expecting. Star Wars is so last century. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this.
Still, whether its Star Wars (yawn) or Mass Effect, if Bioware can give us the rich story- and character-driven gameplay they are known for from the single player RPGs they've produced in an MMO (a genre that has been notably weak in those areas), that could be truly ground breaking. Anyway, the Normandy awaits...
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Fantasizing Non-Fantasic Virtual Worlds
I saw on Massively that the UK newspaper The Guardian is asking its readers to design a virtual world without fantasy or sci-fi. Partly the reason for this article stems from a post by Richard Bartle on Terra Nova asking why the predominant genre for game-like virtual worlds is fantasy.
There are a number of MMOs coming out soon that avoid the fantasy genre: the GTA-inspired All Points Bulletin, Sony's "The Agency," and Pirates of the Burning Sea.
If one considers fantasy to mean only Tolkienesque swords-and-sorcery, the fantastical elements of the horror genre, such as vampires and werewolves, would make a rich backdrop for a virtual world. A Torchwood or Doctor Who based game would make great settings as well; while they involve sci-fi, these shows aren't about spaceships and phaser pistols. But all of those settings could still be considered fantasy if you broaden the definition beyond Tolkien.
There are plenty of other possibilities for an MMORPG, even if you eschew anything supernatural, futuristic, or fantastical in any way. Early 20th century mobsters could make an exciting (though probably controversial) backdrop for a virtual world. The Wild West is another obvious choice for a setting.
One setting I'd like to see turned into a virtual world would be one based on the notion of running modern-day corporations. For an idea of how that would manifest itself in a game, you might start with a game like Stardock's The Corporate Machine, except, of course, make it massive and multiplayer. And with places you could run an avatar around.
Each "guild" would be a corporation and players would assume various roles in marketing, public relations, research and development, and so on. The gameplay itself would manifest itself mostly in the form of card games, like Legends of Norrath, or the diplomacy system in Vanguard. At some point, the game would end (that's not so far fetched, A Tale in the Desert is an MMORPG that ends!) and the server would restart. By allowing the server to restart, the game stays fresh and able to welcome new players (most current MMORPGs have a hard time attracting new players once they have aged, since all the existing players are high level and the new players have no one to play with.)
I suppose it wouldn't be a virtual world if you couldn't run around in it, so part of the game would take place in a surreal office. Instead of completing quests, you have to handle "situations". (I hate it when we have a "situation" at work.) An example situation would include discovering that the coffee machine broke down; this would cause NPC staff to fall asleep. If left unchecked, the corporation's productivity will decline. Another situation: the media shows up unexpectedly, and someone needs to hype the unfinished product to them. The corporation would be given a day or two to handle the situation (by delegating the task to one or more persons in guild) or else consequences occur. Situations would also allow multiple solutions with ethical dilemmas. PVP would occur in the form of corporate espionage.
Corporate progress would be measured in the usual ways: dollars and market share, both overall and within the corporation's chosen industry. Players would earn salaries based on how desired their skill sets are (based on how effectively they overcome the "situations" that the corporation faces), and they could defect to other corporations if they wanted.
What type of virtual world would YOU build, if you couldn't use fantastical elements at all?
There are a number of MMOs coming out soon that avoid the fantasy genre: the GTA-inspired All Points Bulletin, Sony's "The Agency," and Pirates of the Burning Sea.
If one considers fantasy to mean only Tolkienesque swords-and-sorcery, the fantastical elements of the horror genre, such as vampires and werewolves, would make a rich backdrop for a virtual world. A Torchwood or Doctor Who based game would make great settings as well; while they involve sci-fi, these shows aren't about spaceships and phaser pistols. But all of those settings could still be considered fantasy if you broaden the definition beyond Tolkien.
There are plenty of other possibilities for an MMORPG, even if you eschew anything supernatural, futuristic, or fantastical in any way. Early 20th century mobsters could make an exciting (though probably controversial) backdrop for a virtual world. The Wild West is another obvious choice for a setting.
One setting I'd like to see turned into a virtual world would be one based on the notion of running modern-day corporations. For an idea of how that would manifest itself in a game, you might start with a game like Stardock's The Corporate Machine, except, of course, make it massive and multiplayer. And with places you could run an avatar around.
Each "guild" would be a corporation and players would assume various roles in marketing, public relations, research and development, and so on. The gameplay itself would manifest itself mostly in the form of card games, like Legends of Norrath, or the diplomacy system in Vanguard. At some point, the game would end (that's not so far fetched, A Tale in the Desert is an MMORPG that ends!) and the server would restart. By allowing the server to restart, the game stays fresh and able to welcome new players (most current MMORPGs have a hard time attracting new players once they have aged, since all the existing players are high level and the new players have no one to play with.)
I suppose it wouldn't be a virtual world if you couldn't run around in it, so part of the game would take place in a surreal office. Instead of completing quests, you have to handle "situations". (I hate it when we have a "situation" at work.) An example situation would include discovering that the coffee machine broke down; this would cause NPC staff to fall asleep. If left unchecked, the corporation's productivity will decline. Another situation: the media shows up unexpectedly, and someone needs to hype the unfinished product to them. The corporation would be given a day or two to handle the situation (by delegating the task to one or more persons in guild) or else consequences occur. Situations would also allow multiple solutions with ethical dilemmas. PVP would occur in the form of corporate espionage.
Corporate progress would be measured in the usual ways: dollars and market share, both overall and within the corporation's chosen industry. Players would earn salaries based on how desired their skill sets are (based on how effectively they overcome the "situations" that the corporation faces), and they could defect to other corporations if they wanted.
What type of virtual world would YOU build, if you couldn't use fantastical elements at all?
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Live Gamer Will Destroy MMORPGs As We Know Them And Good Riddance
An up and coming company called Live Gamer seeks to provide a secure platform for legitimate real money transfers (RMT) in the MMO space. This would be very similar to Sony Online Entertainment's Station Exchange server platform, though Live Gamer will span multiple publishers and games.
I know its not a popular opinion to have, but I welcome the intrusion of RMT into the MMO space. And I don't even like RMT. I've never bought any in-game gold or items with real money. In fact, I think its rather stupid to pay someone else to play the game for you. But, like anything else that takes time to produce, there's value in these characters and in-game items for those who want them but don't have that time (or talent) to produce one themselves. And people are going to find a way to make a market out of that no matter how hard you try to stop them.
Not all forms of RMT are bad: selling fluff and non-essential items is a good way to monetize things that players frequently ask for that do little to make the game more marketable, such as roleplaying clothes and house items. These kinds of microtransactions aren't any worse than buying a collector's edition or a retail box that comes with exclusive in-game items, and gamers seem comfortable with that already.
As for characters, power leveling, and game-impacting items? RMT ruins the notion of achievement there. New games built around RMT will likely not be based around the traditional achiever-oriented MMO timesinks and treadmill grinds we're accustomed to. Some of them might be (there are, after all, Station Exchange-enabled EverQuest II servers), but I think that those games will be a niche market. There will always be a market for traditional achiever-oriented MMOs that continue to ban RMT, but the mix of the two doesn't work.
Most MMOs today reward players based on time and effort invested. That type of system simply doesn't have the same pull if you can bypass all of that with cash, just as the NFL wouldn't be as interesting if teams could pay extra to reduce the number of players the opposition is allowed to field, or to adjust the height and width of the goal posts. RMT for game-impacting items is fundamentally incompatible with achiever-oriented loot-and-level based EverQuest-type games. But the current subscription-based payment models aren't compatible with plenty of other forms of gameplay.
The intrusion of RMT into the MMO space provides an opportunity for the industry to grow past the rut its in and branch out to embrace additional forms of gameplay besides catering solely to the hardcore gamer with lots of time on his hands to accumulate virtual achievements.
Nobody complains about being able to pay an extra charge to download more levels for an FPS, or more tracks for a racing game. While there is a small market for cheats in those games, such as save games with hidden players or tracks unlocked, its not a huge market, since ultimately the experience is about playing the game itself. Similarly, I doubt anyone would care if people bought their MMO skills and loot if the gameplay was centered around what you did with them; its only an issue since current MMOs are entirely focussed on the acquisition of them.
As RMT becomes more ubiquitous, I am hoping we'll start to see a shift away from the timesinks and achiever-oriented levels and looting towards worlds that cater more to the socializers, the roleplayers, and the explorers. Maybe we'll even see a shift towards gameplay that is fun enough that its not worth it to skip.
I know its not a popular opinion to have, but I welcome the intrusion of RMT into the MMO space. And I don't even like RMT. I've never bought any in-game gold or items with real money. In fact, I think its rather stupid to pay someone else to play the game for you. But, like anything else that takes time to produce, there's value in these characters and in-game items for those who want them but don't have that time (or talent) to produce one themselves. And people are going to find a way to make a market out of that no matter how hard you try to stop them.
Not all forms of RMT are bad: selling fluff and non-essential items is a good way to monetize things that players frequently ask for that do little to make the game more marketable, such as roleplaying clothes and house items. These kinds of microtransactions aren't any worse than buying a collector's edition or a retail box that comes with exclusive in-game items, and gamers seem comfortable with that already.
As for characters, power leveling, and game-impacting items? RMT ruins the notion of achievement there. New games built around RMT will likely not be based around the traditional achiever-oriented MMO timesinks and treadmill grinds we're accustomed to. Some of them might be (there are, after all, Station Exchange-enabled EverQuest II servers), but I think that those games will be a niche market. There will always be a market for traditional achiever-oriented MMOs that continue to ban RMT, but the mix of the two doesn't work.
Most MMOs today reward players based on time and effort invested. That type of system simply doesn't have the same pull if you can bypass all of that with cash, just as the NFL wouldn't be as interesting if teams could pay extra to reduce the number of players the opposition is allowed to field, or to adjust the height and width of the goal posts. RMT for game-impacting items is fundamentally incompatible with achiever-oriented loot-and-level based EverQuest-type games. But the current subscription-based payment models aren't compatible with plenty of other forms of gameplay.
The intrusion of RMT into the MMO space provides an opportunity for the industry to grow past the rut its in and branch out to embrace additional forms of gameplay besides catering solely to the hardcore gamer with lots of time on his hands to accumulate virtual achievements.
Nobody complains about being able to pay an extra charge to download more levels for an FPS, or more tracks for a racing game. While there is a small market for cheats in those games, such as save games with hidden players or tracks unlocked, its not a huge market, since ultimately the experience is about playing the game itself. Similarly, I doubt anyone would care if people bought their MMO skills and loot if the gameplay was centered around what you did with them; its only an issue since current MMOs are entirely focussed on the acquisition of them.
As RMT becomes more ubiquitous, I am hoping we'll start to see a shift away from the timesinks and achiever-oriented levels and looting towards worlds that cater more to the socializers, the roleplayers, and the explorers. Maybe we'll even see a shift towards gameplay that is fun enough that its not worth it to skip.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
My MMOADD
Recently, I haven't been putting much time in any particular game world. I've been putting a lot of time in several. I think I love MMOs more for the idea than the implementation, since I'm always eager to try another, but I'm never fully satisfied. I think I've come down with MMOADD. Is it contagious? I have been reading Voyages in Eternity lately.
Luckily, I'm not as bad as damionov yet, but I'm getting there. I two-box in EverQuest II, so there are two subscriptions there. I have been toying around with City of Villains which NCSoft granted current and former City of Heroes subscribers for free. I even resubscribed to World of Warcraft for the first time since 2004. And I'm in the Pirates of the Burning Sea open beta, with my preorder placed, and my freetrader ready to set sail in January.
But I still find myself tempted to pick up other titles, such as Lord of the Rings Online. And maybe I should give Tabula Rasa another try. Luckily, I tend to think of my bank account like a video game score; I prefer it to go up, not down. So that mental fiction tends to help me keep my budget in order.
I think much of the reason I do this is that a lot of MMO design seems to be repeated over and over again. There is a lot of content I haven't seen. I went to Freethinkers Hideout for the first time yesterday, in EverQuest II, and that was fun. The scripts for raids these days are much improved over the early ones, and I hope to get to 80 to see the new raid zones in Kunark. But these pockets of newness are few and far between.
I like to explore these games, but exploration doesn't mean doing everything in the game. Once I start to see patterns, it grows tiresome. So even altitis doesn't help much, as my alts tend to get stuck at the lower levels, since once you get past the unique starting tutorial for their race or class or city, most games funnel you into the same areas all over again.
Once a game has been on the market for a while, the achievers start to ruin it for me. In Dungeons and Dragons Online, it only took a day or two before that happened. There is no sense of exploration when someone in the dungeon has already been in there a dozen times already and had a min-maxed route to take us through. And leveling and looting only goes so far for me.
Maybe my ideal game should be something like Uru Live. I did try it, and I enjoyed it. But its a very puzzle oriented world, and while I like the idea of puzzles in an MMO, I still enjoy the combat and economic aspects of your traditional MMOs as well. So that wasn't quite what I was looking for.
What is the point of all this rambling? I don't know. MMOADD? Maybe the MMO has nothing to do with it.
OH! I know what I want. What I really need is a cable channel like spectrum of MMO games for one monthly fee, offering products from multiple publishers (SOE, NCSoft, Turbine, and others combined.) Maybe one day when the market is so saturated with MMOs that you can't go to the grocery store without finding MMOs included in your Cracker Jacks and Captain Crunch cereal boxes, maybe that day -- that GLORIOUS day -- a hero will rise to unite the industry's disparate billing practices, liberating people like me so we can freely (or more cheaply) wander from world to world, until we find what we're looking for.
THAT's what I want. I think.
Luckily, I'm not as bad as damionov yet, but I'm getting there. I two-box in EverQuest II, so there are two subscriptions there. I have been toying around with City of Villains which NCSoft granted current and former City of Heroes subscribers for free. I even resubscribed to World of Warcraft for the first time since 2004. And I'm in the Pirates of the Burning Sea open beta, with my preorder placed, and my freetrader ready to set sail in January.
But I still find myself tempted to pick up other titles, such as Lord of the Rings Online. And maybe I should give Tabula Rasa another try. Luckily, I tend to think of my bank account like a video game score; I prefer it to go up, not down. So that mental fiction tends to help me keep my budget in order.
I think much of the reason I do this is that a lot of MMO design seems to be repeated over and over again. There is a lot of content I haven't seen. I went to Freethinkers Hideout for the first time yesterday, in EverQuest II, and that was fun. The scripts for raids these days are much improved over the early ones, and I hope to get to 80 to see the new raid zones in Kunark. But these pockets of newness are few and far between.
I like to explore these games, but exploration doesn't mean doing everything in the game. Once I start to see patterns, it grows tiresome. So even altitis doesn't help much, as my alts tend to get stuck at the lower levels, since once you get past the unique starting tutorial for their race or class or city, most games funnel you into the same areas all over again.
Once a game has been on the market for a while, the achievers start to ruin it for me. In Dungeons and Dragons Online, it only took a day or two before that happened. There is no sense of exploration when someone in the dungeon has already been in there a dozen times already and had a min-maxed route to take us through. And leveling and looting only goes so far for me.
Maybe my ideal game should be something like Uru Live. I did try it, and I enjoyed it. But its a very puzzle oriented world, and while I like the idea of puzzles in an MMO, I still enjoy the combat and economic aspects of your traditional MMOs as well. So that wasn't quite what I was looking for.
What is the point of all this rambling? I don't know. MMOADD? Maybe the MMO has nothing to do with it.
OH! I know what I want. What I really need is a cable channel like spectrum of MMO games for one monthly fee, offering products from multiple publishers (SOE, NCSoft, Turbine, and others combined.) Maybe one day when the market is so saturated with MMOs that you can't go to the grocery store without finding MMOs included in your Cracker Jacks and Captain Crunch cereal boxes, maybe that day -- that GLORIOUS day -- a hero will rise to unite the industry's disparate billing practices, liberating people like me so we can freely (or more cheaply) wander from world to world, until we find what we're looking for.
THAT's what I want. I think.
Monday, November 5, 2007
MMORPG Do Overs
Tipa, on West Karana, suggests that it would be a good idea to redo EverQuest as a single player game. I partly like the idea. I'm not sure how well EverQuest would hold up as a single player game, but I have often wished Final Fantasy XI could be redone as a single player game, using some form of the Final Fantasy XII gambit system. In fact, one of the reasons I loved Final Fantasy XII so much was that it basically played just like a single player MMORPG. But it had the added benefit of having a story that you progressed through, meaning your character progression wasn't simply limited to levels and loot. MMORPGs tend to lack that.
Redoing an MMORPG as a single player game might not be as feasible since without some form of story driven progression of missions, there is very little left to the game once you remove the other players.
But what about redoing an MMORPG as a more modern version of itself?
I would like to see a complete relaunch of Final Fantasy XI, or EverQuest, or Ultima Online, but with upgraded, modern UIs, modern high-res art assets, and tweaked game mechanics to be more amenable to "modern" (post-WoW) gamers (more BOA/BOE equipment to prevent twinking and reduce mudflation, less harsh death penalty, more soloability). Take that modernized engine and game mechanics but reuse the existing quests, mob placement, zones and factions and have a sort of "do over." (Of course, its not quite as easy as I make it out to be, since everything is interrelated, and changing one system, such as the combat system, to make the game more soloable, has profound effects on every other aspect of the game, such as appropriate mob placement.... but still, the point is, I'd love to see an updated release of what is mostly the same game, with most of the classic content, except better looking and more solo friendly, as any good modern MMORPG must be.)
Everyone would start over from level one on new servers. Maybe there would be a handful of new quests in the existing zones that imply the story has moved forward five or ten years. Maybe there would be a few changes to existing zones so veterans of the original game could discover something new. But, mostly, it would be the classic content, repackaged.
In some ways, I think that Ultima Online dropped the ball with their recent revamp because while they redid all the art assets in game, they kept the obsolete 3/4 perspective of old. Changing the perspective might alienate existing users, but having a relaunch of the game, reusing all the massive amounts of content it had, but from a full 3D perspective, might have been more successful at attracting new players, because it would have been like a brand new game. A brand new game with ten or more years worth of content from day one. But the same game on the same servers with the same players in the same perspective does not interest me.
Of course, all of this is a pipe dream. Certainly, game producers know better nowadays than to spring this type of change overnight like SOE did when they released the NGE (their Star Wars Galaxies do-over.) Existing players aren't likely to want to give up their existing characters, and they aren't likely to want to see the rules of their game server changed completely, even with advance warning. That leaves making new servers with the new engine/rules as the only option, and maintaining two versions of the same game is probably not feasible. Which is too bad.
A lot of people have never experienced these worlds, and are highly unlikely to, given all the newer games out there. There's a wealth of content in these older games, and I think its a shame to see so much of it go unused when it should be possible to dust them off and make them fresh again.
Redoing an MMORPG as a single player game might not be as feasible since without some form of story driven progression of missions, there is very little left to the game once you remove the other players.
But what about redoing an MMORPG as a more modern version of itself?
I would like to see a complete relaunch of Final Fantasy XI, or EverQuest, or Ultima Online, but with upgraded, modern UIs, modern high-res art assets, and tweaked game mechanics to be more amenable to "modern" (post-WoW) gamers (more BOA/BOE equipment to prevent twinking and reduce mudflation, less harsh death penalty, more soloability). Take that modernized engine and game mechanics but reuse the existing quests, mob placement, zones and factions and have a sort of "do over." (Of course, its not quite as easy as I make it out to be, since everything is interrelated, and changing one system, such as the combat system, to make the game more soloable, has profound effects on every other aspect of the game, such as appropriate mob placement.... but still, the point is, I'd love to see an updated release of what is mostly the same game, with most of the classic content, except better looking and more solo friendly, as any good modern MMORPG must be.)
Everyone would start over from level one on new servers. Maybe there would be a handful of new quests in the existing zones that imply the story has moved forward five or ten years. Maybe there would be a few changes to existing zones so veterans of the original game could discover something new. But, mostly, it would be the classic content, repackaged.
In some ways, I think that Ultima Online dropped the ball with their recent revamp because while they redid all the art assets in game, they kept the obsolete 3/4 perspective of old. Changing the perspective might alienate existing users, but having a relaunch of the game, reusing all the massive amounts of content it had, but from a full 3D perspective, might have been more successful at attracting new players, because it would have been like a brand new game. A brand new game with ten or more years worth of content from day one. But the same game on the same servers with the same players in the same perspective does not interest me.
Of course, all of this is a pipe dream. Certainly, game producers know better nowadays than to spring this type of change overnight like SOE did when they released the NGE (their Star Wars Galaxies do-over.) Existing players aren't likely to want to give up their existing characters, and they aren't likely to want to see the rules of their game server changed completely, even with advance warning. That leaves making new servers with the new engine/rules as the only option, and maintaining two versions of the same game is probably not feasible. Which is too bad.
A lot of people have never experienced these worlds, and are highly unlikely to, given all the newer games out there. There's a wealth of content in these older games, and I think its a shame to see so much of it go unused when it should be possible to dust them off and make them fresh again.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Stop Me If You've Heard This Before: EA Bioware Making a Star Wars MMO?
Industry analysts have been speculating for a while now that Bioware is making a Star Wars MMO, and now we have another. I'm personally hoping its not true. I'd love to sink my teeth into a Bioware-crafted MMORPG but couldn't care less about Star Wars.
Monday, October 15, 2007
MMO A La Carte
Aspendawn revealed that Turbine is now looking into monetizing some additional aspects of MMO gaming. Apparently, they have been sending out feelers to see how willing the community is to pay for various extras like more storage, or additional character slots.
This seems to be the future direction of the industry. Though, in a way, you can say we have always had this. Pre-order boxes often come with in-game items as a bonus. Expansion packs could be thought of as a set of extra features you get for an additional fee. Sony already gives extra character slots if you buy their Station Pass. And their future games are free to play with a velvet rope model where you pay for access to special features.
For some types of MMOs, I don't think this would bother me at all. But many MMOs have a model that rewards achievement, or at least the perception of achievement, and so there is somewhat of a competitive side to it. Guilds frequently rank themselves against another based on how far they've progressed in raiding.
So being able to pay for advantages is like, well, being able to pay extra to have your opposing team's soccer goal made larger so its easier for you to score... which just doesn't feel quite right.
I guess, especially being a casual player, it shouldn't bother me. Its not like I'm ever going to get to the level cap first, or be in a top-tier raiding guild. I don't have the time to dedicate to the game. So I suppose I shouldn't see the game as a competition. And I'm even willing to pay for some "extras", like the ability to play on an age-restricted server that doesn't have any kids on it (since I'm an old curmudgeon and I think of Norrath as my lawn.) So the a la carte model where you pay for features you want and don't pay for features you don't intend to use shouldn't bother me. Yet it does.
The main thing that bothers me is that a lot of developers are trying to toss the a la carte model on TOP of the subscription model they already have. And that, I simply don't like. Either make us pay a subscription, or by the hour, OR give us an a la carte velvet rope model; but don't mix and match them. If I'm paying a subscription, they should set it high enough to give everyone access to everything.
This seems to be the future direction of the industry. Though, in a way, you can say we have always had this. Pre-order boxes often come with in-game items as a bonus. Expansion packs could be thought of as a set of extra features you get for an additional fee. Sony already gives extra character slots if you buy their Station Pass. And their future games are free to play with a velvet rope model where you pay for access to special features.
For some types of MMOs, I don't think this would bother me at all. But many MMOs have a model that rewards achievement, or at least the perception of achievement, and so there is somewhat of a competitive side to it. Guilds frequently rank themselves against another based on how far they've progressed in raiding.
So being able to pay for advantages is like, well, being able to pay extra to have your opposing team's soccer goal made larger so its easier for you to score... which just doesn't feel quite right.
I guess, especially being a casual player, it shouldn't bother me. Its not like I'm ever going to get to the level cap first, or be in a top-tier raiding guild. I don't have the time to dedicate to the game. So I suppose I shouldn't see the game as a competition. And I'm even willing to pay for some "extras", like the ability to play on an age-restricted server that doesn't have any kids on it (since I'm an old curmudgeon and I think of Norrath as my lawn.) So the a la carte model where you pay for features you want and don't pay for features you don't intend to use shouldn't bother me. Yet it does.
The main thing that bothers me is that a lot of developers are trying to toss the a la carte model on TOP of the subscription model they already have. And that, I simply don't like. Either make us pay a subscription, or by the hour, OR give us an a la carte velvet rope model; but don't mix and match them. If I'm paying a subscription, they should set it high enough to give everyone access to everything.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Difficulty Levels
Oakstout recently excoriated players that consider "easy" to be a dirty word. Its quite common for people to deride World of Warcraft and its players because its too 'easy' as if thats somehow bad.
But, aside from the silliness in being elitist over how much time you waste playing a video game, what I wonder is: why don't we have more options in how to play these games. When I started playing Bioshock, I was presented with the option to play the game in easy, normal, or hard difficulty. Most games provide features like that. Some, like Wizardry 7, have hardcore "iron man" modes where the save game is deleted once you load it, so it can only be used to suspend play; you can't redo tasks, so once your party dies, the game is over. Hellgate will also have hardcore permadeath modes.
So why don't MMOs have multiple difficulty levels? The most trivial example would be a server with increased leveling rates to attract more casual users. Or, alternatively, for players who want more challenging play, there could be more hardcore servers that have corpse runs and increased XP debt. If the casual vs. hardcore debates are anything to go by, its clear that one size does not fit all. But there's no reason why we can't accomodate different playstyles within the same game. Single player games have been doing that for ages now.
But, aside from the silliness in being elitist over how much time you waste playing a video game, what I wonder is: why don't we have more options in how to play these games. When I started playing Bioshock, I was presented with the option to play the game in easy, normal, or hard difficulty. Most games provide features like that. Some, like Wizardry 7, have hardcore "iron man" modes where the save game is deleted once you load it, so it can only be used to suspend play; you can't redo tasks, so once your party dies, the game is over. Hellgate will also have hardcore permadeath modes.
So why don't MMOs have multiple difficulty levels? The most trivial example would be a server with increased leveling rates to attract more casual users. Or, alternatively, for players who want more challenging play, there could be more hardcore servers that have corpse runs and increased XP debt. If the casual vs. hardcore debates are anything to go by, its clear that one size does not fit all. But there's no reason why we can't accomodate different playstyles within the same game. Single player games have been doing that for ages now.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Escaping the Causal Loop
Sam and Max is about to start its second season. In case you haven't heard about it (what, have you been living under a rock?), its an adventure game series thats released in an episodic fashion, about a dog and a hyperkinetic hyperviolent rabbit crime fighting duo. Its funny.
It also got me wondering why MMOs don't utilize an episodic format. A Tale in the Desert kind of does, in the sense that its unique among MMOs because it actually ends. And then it reboots. But it would be nice to see a story-driven MMO that started up, had a static goal that you could fight for and achieve, and once that was accomplished, the server shut down until the next episode was ready. It would neatly solve the problem that MMOs have with their so-called end game content. Most MMOs have lousy end game content because the worlds don't change; the only thing that CAN change is the players, and when you run out of levels to advance, they have to give you something else to advance with, with better loot or castles to conquer or whatever. And then more (and possibly better) loot or land or whatever gets thrown in the ever-growing game and the treadmill continues forever.
With an episodic format, the MMO would have REAL end game content because it really WOULD end. (Temporarily, of course, and then start up again with a new story.)
Its like the difference between X-Files and Heroes. X-Files strung us along forever, for like what? eighty years?, adding new conspiracies on top of the old but never really resolving anything, until towards the end you didn't even have the main characters anymore, just a bunch of people looking for the people who were looking for the people who were looking for Mulder or Scully or who the hell cares anymore, I stopped watching. Heroes, on the other hand, well, they saved the cheerleader, and saved the world. The End. For a while. And now we're on to a new story, apparently about a boogie monster. That is much more interesting.
I know, I know, I'm repeating myself. I said this before, on my other blog. But it would seem to me to be a cost effective way to put the story back into our MMOs (... did I say "back?" Well, maybe not "back"... as it was never really there to begin with.) Each episode or story progression could reuse a lot of the same sets (maps, artwork, even some quests) and just rework the quests and mob placement to fit the new evolved lore as the story progresses.
I suppose many people, particularly Achiever type players (in the Bartle Four) wouldn't like this, as they tend to be attracted to MMOs because of the ability to advance their characters numbers endlessly (and meaninglessly) until the end of time or the servers shut down, whichever comes first. Though perhaps not? Perhaps the opportunity to take a leading role and actually make a real difference would attract them? Who knows.
Instead of watching TV, and enjoying our characters as they go from one story to the next, why can't we live them? MMOs would be the perfect medium to allow us to take the roles in an ongoing story. Right now, the only kind of story MMOs seem to capture is the kind of bad fiction that makes us rewatch the same events over and over again (albeit with slightly different window dressing at each "tier") until the hero finally figures out how to escape the causal loop (unsubscribing.)
It also got me wondering why MMOs don't utilize an episodic format. A Tale in the Desert kind of does, in the sense that its unique among MMOs because it actually ends. And then it reboots. But it would be nice to see a story-driven MMO that started up, had a static goal that you could fight for and achieve, and once that was accomplished, the server shut down until the next episode was ready. It would neatly solve the problem that MMOs have with their so-called end game content. Most MMOs have lousy end game content because the worlds don't change; the only thing that CAN change is the players, and when you run out of levels to advance, they have to give you something else to advance with, with better loot or castles to conquer or whatever. And then more (and possibly better) loot or land or whatever gets thrown in the ever-growing game and the treadmill continues forever.
With an episodic format, the MMO would have REAL end game content because it really WOULD end. (Temporarily, of course, and then start up again with a new story.)
Its like the difference between X-Files and Heroes. X-Files strung us along forever, for like what? eighty years?, adding new conspiracies on top of the old but never really resolving anything, until towards the end you didn't even have the main characters anymore, just a bunch of people looking for the people who were looking for the people who were looking for Mulder or Scully or who the hell cares anymore, I stopped watching. Heroes, on the other hand, well, they saved the cheerleader, and saved the world. The End. For a while. And now we're on to a new story, apparently about a boogie monster. That is much more interesting.
I know, I know, I'm repeating myself. I said this before, on my other blog. But it would seem to me to be a cost effective way to put the story back into our MMOs (... did I say "back?" Well, maybe not "back"... as it was never really there to begin with.) Each episode or story progression could reuse a lot of the same sets (maps, artwork, even some quests) and just rework the quests and mob placement to fit the new evolved lore as the story progresses.
I suppose many people, particularly Achiever type players (in the Bartle Four) wouldn't like this, as they tend to be attracted to MMOs because of the ability to advance their characters numbers endlessly (and meaninglessly) until the end of time or the servers shut down, whichever comes first. Though perhaps not? Perhaps the opportunity to take a leading role and actually make a real difference would attract them? Who knows.
Instead of watching TV, and enjoying our characters as they go from one story to the next, why can't we live them? MMOs would be the perfect medium to allow us to take the roles in an ongoing story. Right now, the only kind of story MMOs seem to capture is the kind of bad fiction that makes us rewatch the same events over and over again (albeit with slightly different window dressing at each "tier") until the hero finally figures out how to escape the causal loop (unsubscribing.)
The Turning Point In MMO Design?
Tobold and Plaguelands, among others, have posted doom and gloom articles about how this year has been bad for MMOs. It has been. Which may be good. It may be the impetus the industry needs to get off the tired EverQuest clone rut its been in.
Vanguard was just a return to the old EQ mechanics. Been there, done that. No thanks. Let's move on.
Auto Assault, which closed this year, was just EQ with cars. Literally. Some cars even healed each other.
Lord of the Rings Online? Again, though it has many improvements, it still has the same old EQ gameplay. I don't recall Legolas in the movies stopping to loot an epic bow off of the orcs he slayed. So why are we still doing that?
Its telling that the major complaint about Tabula Rasa is that its "nothing new." Its sci-fi. It has an FPS-style mouselook movement scheme. It allows the use of cover. It has a cloning feature so you don't need to redo large parts of the game meaning they can actually have quests with consequences. And many other changes, and people say its still not different enough. Some thought it still felt like shoot-and-loot variant, a WoW with guns.
Thats what people want. Something different. We'll know it when we see it. You're not going to beat WoW by making another Holy Trinity EQ-style game. The only Holy Trinity EQ-style game that will beat WoW will be WoW 2.
So the market has spoken. The worst thing that could have happened to MMO fans would have been for Vanguard or LotrO to have been a raging success, supplanting WoW in the hearts of millions. If that (shudder) had happened, we wouldn't see anything but the same old Holy Trinity, loot-and-level game play for the next ten years. And its about time we moved on.
So now maybe more developers will look for new directions to take the genre. Or new niches to fill. That's why I'm eagerly awaiting PotBS. It actually looks like a refreshing change of pace. Unless the ships end up healing each other. They don't, do they? Please tell me they don't.
And now, as Tobold points out, maybe now they'll raise the amount of money they need to properly develop and polish their games too.
Vanguard was just a return to the old EQ mechanics. Been there, done that. No thanks. Let's move on.
Auto Assault, which closed this year, was just EQ with cars. Literally. Some cars even healed each other.
Lord of the Rings Online? Again, though it has many improvements, it still has the same old EQ gameplay. I don't recall Legolas in the movies stopping to loot an epic bow off of the orcs he slayed. So why are we still doing that?
Its telling that the major complaint about Tabula Rasa is that its "nothing new." Its sci-fi. It has an FPS-style mouselook movement scheme. It allows the use of cover. It has a cloning feature so you don't need to redo large parts of the game meaning they can actually have quests with consequences. And many other changes, and people say its still not different enough. Some thought it still felt like shoot-and-loot variant, a WoW with guns.
Thats what people want. Something different. We'll know it when we see it. You're not going to beat WoW by making another Holy Trinity EQ-style game. The only Holy Trinity EQ-style game that will beat WoW will be WoW 2.
So the market has spoken. The worst thing that could have happened to MMO fans would have been for Vanguard or LotrO to have been a raging success, supplanting WoW in the hearts of millions. If that (shudder) had happened, we wouldn't see anything but the same old Holy Trinity, loot-and-level game play for the next ten years. And its about time we moved on.
So now maybe more developers will look for new directions to take the genre. Or new niches to fill. That's why I'm eagerly awaiting PotBS. It actually looks like a refreshing change of pace. Unless the ships end up healing each other. They don't, do they? Please tell me they don't.
And now, as Tobold points out, maybe now they'll raise the amount of money they need to properly develop and polish their games too.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Pirates of the Loading Screen
Pirates of the Burning Sea is now in beta and they are temporarily giving beta access to people who sign up for a stress test. Now, this is a STRESS test, which is when they put on more people than they can possibly handle in order to see when their servers topple over. That means you will most likely end up staring at loading screens, lag, and slideshow gameplay. But if you have been eagerly awaiting this game, this is YOUR chance to experience a very laggy facsimile of it.
The beta is available on Fileplanet, and its available to everyone, even non-subscribers. So save your $7 a month and download now.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Tabula Rasa Open Beta
The Tabula Rasa open beta is now available on FilePlanet for those who are interested. I had been in the beta prior to this so I will be skipping this beta (and release out).
My mini-review of Tabula Rasa: it is World of Warcraft with guns. Its got some interesting twists on game play; combat is more real-time instead of auto-attack, and incorporates some strategic elements such as taking cover and crouching into the dice rolls. Spawning is more interesting as the monsters come out of dropships instead of simply appearing out of thin air. But once you got past that, it isn't that much of a step forward at all.
The core part of the game play is the same old. Run here, fetch this, click on, shoot these things along the way. Having invested as much time as I have into one loot-centric grind-fest (EverQuest II), the innovations in Tabula Rasa are simply not compelling enough to make me switch.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Sword of the New World
I decided to try out Sword of the New World. The game recently became free to play, and its received some accolades in the press, mostly for its art work. And, its well deserved. The graphics in game are very well done, especially for a game with such low system requirements. SotNW is particularly interesting in that it eschews the standard medieval Tolkienesque setting that plagues the MMO genre. In this game, you play a settler in a Renaissance-era New World. Not our New World, mind you, its a New World with magic and monsters, but its still a refreshing change of pace.
The game play is also somewhat different from the usual mold. Instead of playing one character, you play three. That means you can play a warrior, ranger, and a healer all at one time. Its not too unlike having a party with Heroes in Guild Wars. Well, except for the fact that Guild Wars is a better game. One downside to this is that there's very little incentive to group up. Maybe later in the game, they might have raids or areas where you need to group to survive, but in the beginning areas I've seen so far, you basically solo your party of three as they traverse dungeons with extremely rapid spawn rates, running past a lot of really quiet parties of three with random names. The game is very fast paced; you'll down thousands of mobs in the course of a few hours.
The game in most areas almost plays itself. You hit Ctrl+Click on a location and your characters automatically walk through, fighting everything on the way. Hit Ctrl+Shift+Click on a location, and they walk there, picking up any treasure they see along the way. Fighting boss monsters does require some more strategy and the use of skills you level up along the way. You can also collect "UPCs" (Unique Player Characters), which are henchmen you can swap in as a member of your party, and "Stances" which give you different skills you can use.
There isn't much depth to the game. Its basically your standard level grind. The gameplay is designed more for Eastern audiences, so there are many nuisances such as the fact you have to click to move places. And the translation from its Far East origins apparently wasn't entirely smooth; many UI dialogs have buttons that are too small for the text within them. But it IS free to play. So, if you are stuck waiting for the EverQuest II servers to come up like I was earlier this morning, its not a bad way to wile away the time.
There are a lot of better games out there (even free ones), so I doubt I'll be coming back to it often, but it is nice to see more MMOs out there trying out new settings. Now, if only one of them could break free of the standard level, monster, item treadmill grind rut this industry seems to be stuck in...
The game play is also somewhat different from the usual mold. Instead of playing one character, you play three. That means you can play a warrior, ranger, and a healer all at one time. Its not too unlike having a party with Heroes in Guild Wars. Well, except for the fact that Guild Wars is a better game. One downside to this is that there's very little incentive to group up. Maybe later in the game, they might have raids or areas where you need to group to survive, but in the beginning areas I've seen so far, you basically solo your party of three as they traverse dungeons with extremely rapid spawn rates, running past a lot of really quiet parties of three with random names. The game is very fast paced; you'll down thousands of mobs in the course of a few hours.
The game in most areas almost plays itself. You hit Ctrl+Click on a location and your characters automatically walk through, fighting everything on the way. Hit Ctrl+Shift+Click on a location, and they walk there, picking up any treasure they see along the way. Fighting boss monsters does require some more strategy and the use of skills you level up along the way. You can also collect "UPCs" (Unique Player Characters), which are henchmen you can swap in as a member of your party, and "Stances" which give you different skills you can use.
There isn't much depth to the game. Its basically your standard level grind. The gameplay is designed more for Eastern audiences, so there are many nuisances such as the fact you have to click to move places. And the translation from its Far East origins apparently wasn't entirely smooth; many UI dialogs have buttons that are too small for the text within them. But it IS free to play. So, if you are stuck waiting for the EverQuest II servers to come up like I was earlier this morning, its not a bad way to wile away the time.
There are a lot of better games out there (even free ones), so I doubt I'll be coming back to it often, but it is nice to see more MMOs out there trying out new settings. Now, if only one of them could break free of the standard level, monster, item treadmill grind rut this industry seems to be stuck in...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
