I went out and bought one of those nice new BFG 8800 GT OCs. It runs wonderfully and I can play in higher settings and get much improved frame rates in most every game I play. Except the game I really wanted it for: EverQuest II.
Eventually I want to get a more modern gaming rig, with SLI, and a quad core CPU. But EQ II doesn't support that either.
I guess that's the problem with designing your system "for the future." It never quite gets here.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
Myst Online RIP
Myst Online just bit the dust (again...) Its latest incarnation, on Gametap, apparently has two months to live. Myst Online was, like the single player games it was based on, an explorer-based game. The main point of the game was to explore and solve puzzles and progress through the storyline. Considering how many new MMOs seem to be steering towards PVP and fast-paced action, its kind of sad to see a different kind of game, one that was built more around socialization and exploring, go the way of the dodo.
All upcoming MMOs seem to be catering to the achiever and killer in the Bartle spectrum... Warhammer Online, Age of Conan, Aion, and pretty much every other major MMO thats coming out in the near future seems to take the traditional World of Warcraft / EverQuest style game play and add a PVP focus for the end game.
Perhaps MMOs simply don't work with anything other than achiever-oriented game play? Can a puzzle solving and story-focused progression work with an MMO style community involved? Or is is that no one has found the right formula for an MMO that caters to explorers and socializers?
All upcoming MMOs seem to be catering to the achiever and killer in the Bartle spectrum... Warhammer Online, Age of Conan, Aion, and pretty much every other major MMO thats coming out in the near future seems to take the traditional World of Warcraft / EverQuest style game play and add a PVP focus for the end game.
Perhaps MMOs simply don't work with anything other than achiever-oriented game play? Can a puzzle solving and story-focused progression work with an MMO style community involved? Or is is that no one has found the right formula for an MMO that caters to explorers and socializers?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Combat on the Open Sea
One of the main differences between combat in Pirates of the Burning Sea and combat in MMOs like EverQuest II or World of Warcraft is that combat is much slower and much more strategic. I think that's why I find it a lot more fun. Even though some of the combat instances are pretty much the same (hey, how many ways can you really instance a bunch of boats on water anyway?), each fight feels different. In EQ2 or WoW, aside from raid encounters, which do require some degree of strategy, most fights feel the same and involve spamming the same combat arts/skills over and over again. That is boring as hell.
Maybe calling combat in POTBS "slower" isn't quite right; combat does have "edge of your seat" moments, and quite frequently. But you aren't spending that time spamming buttons on six hotbars, like my monk in EQ2 does. I actually have relatively few skills in combat (especially as a freetrader!), which is every single one of them, and every decision I make matters, down to which way I turn relative to the wind, which enemy I go after first, and so on.
Another thing that I like about combat in Pirates of the Burning Sea is that level means very little in combat. It does mean you get a handful of skills, but you can't spam them all at once, and winning in battle is more about how you handle your ship, your consumables, who you target, and positioning. The battles have tradeoffs. Do you risk boarding an enemy, knowing that you will just be floating there defenseless (and can be defeated) while fighting the enemy captain? On the other hand, it might be a good move if you are surrounded, since boarding an enemy means you can't be hit on that side and if you win, you'll have one less opponent.
I'm only level 12 or so right now, so it remains to be seen whether I'll still have this glowing opinion by level 50. But right now its providing with an enjoyable respite from the interminable faction grind that is EverQuest II - Rise of Kunark.
Maybe calling combat in POTBS "slower" isn't quite right; combat does have "edge of your seat" moments, and quite frequently. But you aren't spending that time spamming buttons on six hotbars, like my monk in EQ2 does. I actually have relatively few skills in combat (especially as a freetrader!), which is every single one of them, and every decision I make matters, down to which way I turn relative to the wind, which enemy I go after first, and so on.
Another thing that I like about combat in Pirates of the Burning Sea is that level means very little in combat. It does mean you get a handful of skills, but you can't spam them all at once, and winning in battle is more about how you handle your ship, your consumables, who you target, and positioning. The battles have tradeoffs. Do you risk boarding an enemy, knowing that you will just be floating there defenseless (and can be defeated) while fighting the enemy captain? On the other hand, it might be a good move if you are surrounded, since boarding an enemy means you can't be hit on that side and if you win, you'll have one less opponent.
I'm only level 12 or so right now, so it remains to be seen whether I'll still have this glowing opinion by level 50. But right now its providing with an enjoyable respite from the interminable faction grind that is EverQuest II - Rise of Kunark.
Pirates of the Burning Sea Set Sail
... on Monday, for those who have preordered the game, so I'm a little late posting about it, but hey, I've been busy playing the game... So far, I'm enjoying the game a lot. I've gotten past the point where I was in beta, so I'm exploring new territory now.
There's a good variety of missions, and you are rewarded mostly for achieving the objective, so the game doesn't have as much of the grindy feel you get in other games. I don't have to run around sinking ship after ship. Some missions can't be solved by combat alone: for example, if you are tasked with racing a boat through a blockade, there is no way to win the mission by sinking every vessel in the instance. The missions aren't always out on the ocean either; there are a number of escort quests. There are even entirely story-driven quests where you talk to people to advance the mission; the writing is even pretty good!
As a casual player, this game is pretty ideal for me; many missions only take 10-20 minutes (if even that much). Since most missions start from the coxswain, I don't have to trek half a map to get to the mission; I simply start it, finish it, and move on to the next instantly. The only running around happens afterwards when I turn it all in.
I suppose that's one advantage of instancing, but there is one disadvantage: I see the loading screen a whole lot in this game. They may have overdone this. There doesn't appear to be a single door in the game that actually opens. I guess that gives them the flexibility of always changing what might be behind that door. I suppose that's a very minor nitpick for what is overall a great game.
There's a good variety of missions, and you are rewarded mostly for achieving the objective, so the game doesn't have as much of the grindy feel you get in other games. I don't have to run around sinking ship after ship. Some missions can't be solved by combat alone: for example, if you are tasked with racing a boat through a blockade, there is no way to win the mission by sinking every vessel in the instance. The missions aren't always out on the ocean either; there are a number of escort quests. There are even entirely story-driven quests where you talk to people to advance the mission; the writing is even pretty good!
As a casual player, this game is pretty ideal for me; many missions only take 10-20 minutes (if even that much). Since most missions start from the coxswain, I don't have to trek half a map to get to the mission; I simply start it, finish it, and move on to the next instantly. The only running around happens afterwards when I turn it all in.
I suppose that's one advantage of instancing, but there is one disadvantage: I see the loading screen a whole lot in this game. They may have overdone this. There doesn't appear to be a single door in the game that actually opens. I guess that gives them the flexibility of always changing what might be behind that door. I suppose that's a very minor nitpick for what is overall a great game.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
