less skill = more need of xp and rewards

If I could change one thing in Black Ops, I would attempt to better separate casual and hardcore gamers from each other. One way would be to offer them different contracts.

The current system makes all contracts available to all players. Only the most skilled players even attempt the most difficult contracts which offer the best rewards. This is silly, because more skilled players have an easier time leveling up, anyway. They also tend to be achievement-oriented gamers (challenge junkies) who would be more tolerant of a slower pace of leveling. It's the less skilled players who most appreciate and need the bonus XP and CoD Points.

So separate them.

Black Ops already allows players to sacrifice all progression for Prestige. Offer players interested in Prestige more difficult contracts. Make it so that the hardcore's "easy" contracts are similar to the casuals' "difficult" contracts.

This would lessen the frustration of casual players by giving them contracts which are both within their ability and worth plenty of XP. More accessible contracts would provide more short-term enjoyment, and more XP would increase long-term enjoyment.

Currently, too many CoD players are frustrated because they are lobbed in with players of vastly different skill levels.

on the horizon 9-7-10

Here's a brief explanation of why I'm looking forward to particular games.


Halo: Reach

This video shows why. The most common failure of competitive multiplayer modes is a failure to separate people of different skill levels and, just as importantly, different goals. Some people play for the end results... stats, rankings, challenge completion, etc. Others, like me, play more for the experience itself... the grenade toss into a sniper perch, the point-blank shotgun blast that throws the enemy back, getting killed by your own sticky grenade as the enemy runs toward you. Players like me are less concerned with optimal loadouts and strategies because we prioritize fresh and compelling experiences over winning.

Halo: Reach seems to address this through a refined matchmaking system that goes beyond soft separation and actually divides people into tiers. The fanatics and achievement junkies can have their tier and the "casual" players can have theirs. And, again -- just as importantly, the matchmaking system also asks preferences on Chattiness, Motivation, Teamwork and Tone.

Customization is the other reason I'm interested.


Fable 3

I've recently been surprised at how replayable Fable 2 is. The humor, the joyful art style, the skill options and the moral options are all fun many months after my first (and second) playthrough.

Fable 3 seems to have made co-op actually enjoyable by enabling the use of player-developed characters and making the two players' cameras independent. But it's the single-player mode I'm mostly interested in. The weapons that morph depending on how you use them could be great. And I'm anxious to dive into the latter half of the game, which focuses on making decisions as ruler of Albion. Much will depend on whether the moral options are not so limited as to force us into decisions we don't agree with.


Call of Duty: Black Ops

Black Ops is offering more customization, which is good. For the most part, I'm interested in this Call of Duty for the same reasons I liked the last ones, despite the mediocre matchmaking and inexcusable frequency of connection troubles. I love earning new guns and upgrades, and doing so keeps gameplay fresh by encouraging me to change my loadout often.

I was surprised to learn there will be a bot mode. I haven't heard anything about being able to invite another player to join the fight against bots, but it's a start. I'm still dumbfounded by the industry's failure to repeat Perfect Dark 64's brilliant bot mode. In the interview I saw, Treyarch's spokeman explained it as practice for people before they fight other players (it has a separate ranking system). I wonder sometimes if shooter developers think all shooter fans are achievement junkies like themselves. A bot mode doesn't have to be practice. Sometimes, even the most skilled players want a more relaxing game. And some players prefer more casual play all the time.

Whatever the reasons, was Perfect Dark 64's bot mode not as popular as I think it was? Is popularity not why it was freshened up for re-release on Xbox Live? How many people downloaded Monday Night Combat recently? There are obviously a lot of gamers who like playing against bots, so why not meet the demand and make a profit?


On my sidebar, you'll see a list of other games I'm hopeful for. Most won't be out until next year. I recommend taking a close look at Brink.

choices

I've been playing Fallout 3 recently, and it strikes me how often missions and characters relate. A character from one city wants me to kill or capture a character in another city. I'm already on a mission from the second person, and I won't be able to finish it if I accept the new mission. I can only choose one mission or the other, one person or the other.

In that scenario, I can see the choice and at least vaguely know the possible consequences. That's different from choices in other games.

In this interview with Daniel Erickson and James Ohlen from Bioware's Star Wars: The Old Republic team, there's one point in which Erickson says this:

So you killed the captain. If you had spared the captain, you know the pods that come ripping through the walls? He knows about those. He’s not some junior officer. You don’t go down that path at all if you spare the captain.

As soon as those pods come, he’s like, “Oh those are terrible, get away from those, we’re going to do this…” the whole adventure goes on a different track.

But you can’t reload and find that out.

In that scenario, the player doesn't know the possible consequences of a choice. In fact, the player might not even realize a choice with significant consequences has been made. You might kill the captain, get hurt by the pods, and never consider that the captain could have been aware of the danger and warned you.

Is that a problem? If the player doesn't know a significant choice has been made, is there any thrill to be had from making that choice? Yes and no.

An invisible choice still acts as a dynamic... as a variable which improves replayability and offers the player a unique, personal adventure. And by not presenting possible consequences with a choice, that choice is more likely to be a natural act of personality (real or pretend) than a calculated attempt by the player to direct events. Think of it like acting versus directing in a film; you can either experience and respond to events or you can script them.

But there's certainly a thrill in knowing the choice you're about to make is important or realizing a past choice had a significant effect.

Of course, in online multiplayer games, a player might be made aware of any or all possible consequences by fellow players. It's important to recognize that such spoilers needn't be solicited to be received. MMO players are always dropping spoilers in public chat channels. Friends often drop spoilers in private conversations without realizing they've done so or realizing you didn't want them to. This, I believe, will be one of Bioware's major hurdles in their work on SW:TOR.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on choice in games? Do you prefer invisible choices, overt choices, or a mix? Is one type more appropriate in some games than others?

casual vs hardcore -- too simple

Tobold quotes an interesting observation about raiding which touches on the casual-vs-hardcore debate. I read yesterday that someone will be presenting at the IMGDC about that debate, seemingly to argue that "casual" MMOs are where the money's at.

I generally don't participate in the debate, because a worthwhile discussion is almost impossible when the participants can't agree at least on what they're talking about.

And the only times I find much agreement on the meanings of "casual" and "hardcore", the portrayals of gamers are clearly over-simplified... not quite to the point of being completely useless, but not far from it. The typical agreement among developers is to use available playtime as the measure, but there are often terrible assumptions about how that playtime is spent. Many people seem to think that those with a lot of playtime are all fanatical raiders while those with a little playtime solo and are equally obsessed with achievement.

Amount of playtime doesn't suggest play-style. If a raid takes over an hour to finish, then a person with less than an hour to play consecutively can obviously not participate fully; but that doesn't say anything about that player's desires and what sort of content (apart from time) attracts that player.

If you're going to emphasize time in the definition of "casual" and "hardcore", then don't always use games like Maplestory and Bejeweled to represent "casual" games, because games like Age of Conan and Halo 3 fit the bill just as well.