I'll get back to crafting later this week. For now, I want to continue a discussion from Heather's site about how we can relax the necessity of power balancing and open the field to a wider variety of skills and characters.
SHEER POWER VS LUCK
In a typical MMORPG, skills are confined mostly to the realm of power (more specifically, to some sort of hit-point system, ala D&D) because of linear progression and a disqualification of luck or chance. Skills with less than optimum damage/healing/etc are discouraged because progression, in the form of new skills and opportunities, is possible only through brute-force combat. There's strong pressure to take on the toughest enemies, because that's what gets you the best loot and best xp.
In other types of games, luck and chance acceptably play a much greater role. Boardgames which use dice are great examples. In Monopoly, a hugely successful game, the player's progress relies more on uncontrollable factors (your dice rolls, others' dice rolls, order of rolls, and card draws) than on player decisions. Tetris is another example of a wildly popular game with tremendous emphasis on chance.
RPG EXPECTATIONS
So why is chance so often eschewed in RPGs?
I think it goes back to the genre's D&D roots. In the tabletop roleplaying game, the set system, the game's fixed mechanics, are mostly linear. Dice rolls decide your character's stats (a merciful DM may let you reroll one or two) and are continually used in "saving throws", but skill progression generally occurs according to xp gained from killing monsters. D&D includes a great deal more chance and lateral gameplay than that, but that element is introduced through the Dungeon Master... the human, creative storyteller. Human imagination rounds out what would otherwise be a more linear game.
If you never played D&D, I doubt I could adequately describe how vital the DM is to any D&D adventure. The game will succeed or fail depending on how good the DM is.
As RPGs evolved from the tabletop setting to text adventures to video games, the balance tables were increasingly emphasized as the DM's dynamic and rounding role was left behind. RPGs gradually became more about increasing power than about dynamic and unpredictable adventures. They became more about fulfilling a predetermined skillset and gearset than about shaping one's character into something unique and personal.
ANOTHER ROAD
It doesn't have to be this way. The limitless imagination of a human narrator and designer (the DM) can't be replaced, but we can adjust the fundamental elements of the game to counteract that loss to some degree.
One way is to award skills and other forms of progression by ways other than combat and combat-related quests, ways involving factors beyond the player's control (chance/luck). The player might attain a new skill by happening across a particular NPC ("happening across" anything is only possible when NPCs are more dynamic than stationary quest-dispensers), by looting a scroll, by equipping an item (which must be equipped for the skill to be maintained), by researching in a library and deciphering old texts, by quest, by alchemical accident, by perceiving an NPC perform the skill and learning, by being bitten or stung by a particular creature, by being near a magical source (skills limited to particular environments could really refresh adventures), by winning contests... and on and on.
The skill system might mimick D&D spellcasters in that you can only know so many, but the ones you know can be swapped out periodically for new ones. The player's number of skill slots might grow as the player progresses. Rather than strict grouping of skills, perhaps attunement to one skill makes another less effective while making others more effective. Perhaps one skill may even alter the type of effect of another.
An alternate reward system, as I've discussed before, is essential. Rather than award xp and loot for every encounter, reward some with loot, some with money, some with faction, some with reknown, some with access, some with skills, some with knowledge, some with titles, etc (or with combinations). Some upward growth in power is good, but that doesn't have to be the emphasis. In SWG, players didn't become exponentially more powerful as they progressed through the game, or even gain many more hit-points. It worked. Most of a player's growth was in faction and ownership.
Allow for different player roles to compliment one another without having to experience the same content. Even solo players can benefit player societies if you enable them (as I like to point out, what great epic tale doesn't include a compelling loner?). Players can work together on quests without even meeting each other, by completing different parts of communal projects. If players are allowed to have unique experiences, ones that other players can't track down on a fansite and repeat step-for-step, then players can excite each other with intriguing tales and enticing screenshots. If one player can possess an item, skill, or title that sheer work will not award to another, then there is a stronger sense of individuality and personal pride.
I can't help but feel that the RPG genre in general is stuck in a rut. It's not that there are not admirable systems already in place, but there is much more potential for diversity than most developers seem willing to believe. Yes, current games are designed the way they are for a reason, but that doesn't mean there aren't other viable ways.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Crafting reboot: Part 1
I've tried crafting in every MMO I've played, but I've never found one I really enjoyed. There have been elements in various games that seemed to be aimed in the right direction, like customization in SWG, but ultimately they all fell flat.
In trying to come up with a better system, it seems best to begin with goals, rather than mechanics. So here are my goals (which would change somewhat, depending on the particular game):
Now for specific mechanics to reach those goals.
COMPONENT VARIATION
Diablo 2 did something like this with its gems and sockets.
The player could choose whether to upgrade a weapon with fire, lightning, cold, or poison damage -- each balanced with weaknesses and strengths -- by adding a particular type of gemstone. Fire damage is capped low, but the minimum is high, (ex: 3-4 pts) for predictability. Shock damage is capped higher, but has less predictability (1-6 pts). Poison damage isn't instant, but can accrue to massive totals when combined.
Also, each gem would offer different benefits depending on how it was used. A ruby adds fire damage to weapons, but it aids accuracy when placed in a helm, and fire resistance when placed in a shield.
I would love to see an expansive system like this in an MMO. Each type of ore, mineral, plant, animal part, fluid, gas, magic scroll/item/spell, or other component offers a particular property when crafted into an item -- the property dependent on the class of item. Instead of "To craft [x], you'll need gold", you can choose whether gold or another metal better suits your goals for the particular item. If CustomerA wants to enchant his scimitar, silver might offer the highest likelihood of success or the strongest enchantment capacity. If CustomerB wants his scimitar to smash through anything, including locked chests (ala Neverwinter Nights) and golems, you might craft the blade from diamond (with difficulty, perhaps).
The more expansive and diverse the palette of potential components, the more creative, personal, and dynamic items and trade become.
Such a system also allows room for expansions in crafting gameplay. The developer might patch new components into the game from time to time.
Components can vary in basic effect, strength, availability, region, and in a number of other ways. An imp's tongue might offer stronger fire damage than phoenix feather, which in turn is stronger than a particular pepper. But the imp's tongue might be hard to acquire. Phoenixes might be common, but appear in unpredictable locations. If travel is not instaneous (but is also adventurous -- the key to slow but fun travel systems), then component availability and prices might be segmented largely by region.
Note that I listed some crafting components that aren't found in fantasy MMOs yet (to my knowledge), like gases and liquids. By expanding the set of component classes, balancing does become more complex, but the overall system can be made far more interesting and replayable.
Activity and utility are the harder goals to satisfy. For brevity's sake (and so I can think about it), I'll try to tackle those aspects in another blog.
In trying to come up with a better system, it seems best to begin with goals, rather than mechanics. So here are my goals (which would change somewhat, depending on the particular game):
- Creativity: Players aren't merely following set instructions. They are able to discover and combine elements in fresh ways; discoveries involve logic, rather than just trial-and-error.
- Customization: Crafts can be personal. They reflect personal ownership, influence, circumstances, and/or experiences.
- Activity: Crafting requires thoughtful action; not simply following instructions or reacting mindlessly in a sort of whack-a-mole mini-game.
- Utility: Ideally, crafted goods should offer something besides convenience. Control through customization is a good example (i.e., "I could fight through the dungeons to loot a better sword than what I have, but I'd rather commision a sword with that looks and plays exactly as I want").
- Dynamic Trade: Prices and resource availability will vary with changes in the marketplace and supply dynamics. Markets are regional, with some areas offering items that are cheaper and/or different than those elsewhere.
Now for specific mechanics to reach those goals.
COMPONENT VARIATION
Diablo 2 did something like this with its gems and sockets.
The player could choose whether to upgrade a weapon with fire, lightning, cold, or poison damage -- each balanced with weaknesses and strengths -- by adding a particular type of gemstone. Fire damage is capped low, but the minimum is high, (ex: 3-4 pts) for predictability. Shock damage is capped higher, but has less predictability (1-6 pts). Poison damage isn't instant, but can accrue to massive totals when combined.
Also, each gem would offer different benefits depending on how it was used. A ruby adds fire damage to weapons, but it aids accuracy when placed in a helm, and fire resistance when placed in a shield.
I would love to see an expansive system like this in an MMO. Each type of ore, mineral, plant, animal part, fluid, gas, magic scroll/item/spell, or other component offers a particular property when crafted into an item -- the property dependent on the class of item. Instead of "To craft [x], you'll need gold", you can choose whether gold or another metal better suits your goals for the particular item. If CustomerA wants to enchant his scimitar, silver might offer the highest likelihood of success or the strongest enchantment capacity. If CustomerB wants his scimitar to smash through anything, including locked chests (ala Neverwinter Nights) and golems, you might craft the blade from diamond (with difficulty, perhaps).
The more expansive and diverse the palette of potential components, the more creative, personal, and dynamic items and trade become.
Such a system also allows room for expansions in crafting gameplay. The developer might patch new components into the game from time to time.
Components can vary in basic effect, strength, availability, region, and in a number of other ways. An imp's tongue might offer stronger fire damage than phoenix feather, which in turn is stronger than a particular pepper. But the imp's tongue might be hard to acquire. Phoenixes might be common, but appear in unpredictable locations. If travel is not instaneous (but is also adventurous -- the key to slow but fun travel systems), then component availability and prices might be segmented largely by region.
Note that I listed some crafting components that aren't found in fantasy MMOs yet (to my knowledge), like gases and liquids. By expanding the set of component classes, balancing does become more complex, but the overall system can be made far more interesting and replayable.
Activity and utility are the harder goals to satisfy. For brevity's sake (and so I can think about it), I'll try to tackle those aspects in another blog.
Monday, July 09, 2007
5-minute previews
I was visiting with family over the weekend, celebrating an uncle's birthday and meeting with cousins I rarely get to see. Nobody in my extended family is much of a gamer anymore. And the ones who stopped gaming are outnumbered by those who never gamed. Of course, whenever I happen to have a game at hand that I think has even a small chance of attracting one of these luddites, I jump at the chance.
To sell people on a product when they're only looking at it to be polite, the presentation must be captivating in the first five minutes.
Unfortunately, that's rarely possible as games are today. Odds are, the place you left the game saved or the gameplay with which you must begin the presentation is not the most captivating scene. You need at least 10 minutes just to get to the scene that will make your friend or family drool.
So it's a small thing to keep in mind when designing a game. The easiest way is to include a trailer for the game with the game. So when you want to show the game off to someone -- so they'll play with you, go buy the game, or just understand how anyone could be interested in video games -- you can show the person quickly before that small window of opportunity closes.
To sell people on a product when they're only looking at it to be polite, the presentation must be captivating in the first five minutes.
Unfortunately, that's rarely possible as games are today. Odds are, the place you left the game saved or the gameplay with which you must begin the presentation is not the most captivating scene. You need at least 10 minutes just to get to the scene that will make your friend or family drool.
So it's a small thing to keep in mind when designing a game. The easiest way is to include a trailer for the game with the game. So when you want to show the game off to someone -- so they'll play with you, go buy the game, or just understand how anyone could be interested in video games -- you can show the person quickly before that small window of opportunity closes.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Cross-platform games; PC vs 360
A repost of my response to Ryan's blog:
PC vs 360
I own a decent PC and a 360. If a game comes out for both, I generally buy the 360 version (for $10 more) because (1) a console usually more reliable than a computer, with no software interruptions, viruses, etc., and (2) I don’t have to worry about upgrading my graphics hardware. I’ll buy the PC version if (1) the game is better suited to complex controls and/or mouse targeting, or (2) it’s a game I can play online with friends or family who only own a PC.
If Two Worlds has decent multiplayer, I’ll probably sacrifice better graphics for the chance to adventure with my brother online.
CROSS-PLATFORM GAMING
As for cross-platform gameplay, I think it makes sense mainly (perhaps only) for asynchronous multiplayer. Spore, for example, would be a good cross-platform game, because the players are only indirectly interacting.
But for most games, particularly action games, the problem seems to be less about fairness than about muddy gameplay. Each control scheme has powerful strengths. To make most games cross-platform, it seems necessary to settle on a middle ground than doesn’t take full advantage of either control-hardware's strengths. Such games aren't doomed by being cross-platform… they’re just made into a lesser experience.
That said, I think Microsoft is probably trying to use the idea of cross-platform gaming to convince PC players to buy controllers; and, to a lesser extent, convince 360 gamers to buy those keyboard attachments for instant messaging. The whole concept may be little more than marketing slight-of-hand.
PC vs 360
I own a decent PC and a 360. If a game comes out for both, I generally buy the 360 version (for $10 more) because (1) a console usually more reliable than a computer, with no software interruptions, viruses, etc., and (2) I don’t have to worry about upgrading my graphics hardware. I’ll buy the PC version if (1) the game is better suited to complex controls and/or mouse targeting, or (2) it’s a game I can play online with friends or family who only own a PC.
If Two Worlds has decent multiplayer, I’ll probably sacrifice better graphics for the chance to adventure with my brother online.
CROSS-PLATFORM GAMING
As for cross-platform gameplay, I think it makes sense mainly (perhaps only) for asynchronous multiplayer. Spore, for example, would be a good cross-platform game, because the players are only indirectly interacting.
But for most games, particularly action games, the problem seems to be less about fairness than about muddy gameplay. Each control scheme has powerful strengths. To make most games cross-platform, it seems necessary to settle on a middle ground than doesn’t take full advantage of either control-hardware's strengths. Such games aren't doomed by being cross-platform… they’re just made into a lesser experience.
That said, I think Microsoft is probably trying to use the idea of cross-platform gaming to convince PC players to buy controllers; and, to a lesser extent, convince 360 gamers to buy those keyboard attachments for instant messaging. The whole concept may be little more than marketing slight-of-hand.
Toolsets for players
Tobold brought up an interesting discussion about allowing players to craft small, instanced adventures. Then Cameron offered his own thoughts on the subject, referring to some Ryzom feature I'm not familiar with. Well, here's my take.
I would do it much the same as Bioware did it with Neverwinter Nights and their Aurora toolset.
Allow players to to create adventures with complete freedom, but make players host those mini-games on their own servers... capable of handling only a limited number of players, obviously. If the modules are mostly small pocket zones (I prefer that term to "instances"; do a search for my old blog on that subject), then players can host the games for free, like they do with many single-player games. Interested players would download the modules off of various fansites.
Naturally, players would voice their opinions about the modules. Player communities would gradually weed out the poor modules and praise the good ones. Like with Bioware and NWN modules, the MMO developer could simply wait for fansites to point out the real gems, and then incorporate those adventures onto the MMO server.
The developer could choose to charge for the incorporated content "expansions", but the developer's already being paid in a way. By expanding the game, as well as creating publicity about old content, free player-created expansions would both attract new subscribers and help retain old ones.
So now for the catch.
If the player-created content is originally oriented for play off the MMO's official servers, then players must have a program to create stand-in avatars. The player can't use his or her character from the official server, because that would allow exploiting (like levelling up a player and finding epic loot in the mini-games, then importing those advances into the real game). No exporting/importing could be allowed between the official servers and the player-created content.
But that's really not such a big deal, in the long run. A character editor program could be created fairly easily. And if Battle.net was able to prevent the use of edited characters on their servers for Diablo 2, then an MMO developer/publisher could, too (though perhaps Battle.net had less success than I think). Players wouldn't like not being able to use their official characters for the mini-games, but they would certainly accept it if it meant more and interesting gameplay out-of-game and in.
No doubt, some content creators would come up with some interesting peripheral uses through the toolset. Someone might create a WoW sports game, for example. If it proved popular, the developer could reward the creator and make into a new IP. I'm sure there are many inappropriate possibilities as well (like MMO porn). But if Bioware didn't have much trouble with inappropriate NWN modules, I doubt an MMO developer would have to worry about it much more (though that's not denying that there may be important differences).
In short, player-crafted adventures seem feasible and promising. Unless there's something I missed (not unlikely, I'm sure), I hope toolsets like this are in common practices five years from now.
I would do it much the same as Bioware did it with Neverwinter Nights and their Aurora toolset.
Allow players to to create adventures with complete freedom, but make players host those mini-games on their own servers... capable of handling only a limited number of players, obviously. If the modules are mostly small pocket zones (I prefer that term to "instances"; do a search for my old blog on that subject), then players can host the games for free, like they do with many single-player games. Interested players would download the modules off of various fansites.
Naturally, players would voice their opinions about the modules. Player communities would gradually weed out the poor modules and praise the good ones. Like with Bioware and NWN modules, the MMO developer could simply wait for fansites to point out the real gems, and then incorporate those adventures onto the MMO server.
The developer could choose to charge for the incorporated content "expansions", but the developer's already being paid in a way. By expanding the game, as well as creating publicity about old content, free player-created expansions would both attract new subscribers and help retain old ones.
So now for the catch.
If the player-created content is originally oriented for play off the MMO's official servers, then players must have a program to create stand-in avatars. The player can't use his or her character from the official server, because that would allow exploiting (like levelling up a player and finding epic loot in the mini-games, then importing those advances into the real game). No exporting/importing could be allowed between the official servers and the player-created content.
But that's really not such a big deal, in the long run. A character editor program could be created fairly easily. And if Battle.net was able to prevent the use of edited characters on their servers for Diablo 2, then an MMO developer/publisher could, too (though perhaps Battle.net had less success than I think). Players wouldn't like not being able to use their official characters for the mini-games, but they would certainly accept it if it meant more and interesting gameplay out-of-game and in.
No doubt, some content creators would come up with some interesting peripheral uses through the toolset. Someone might create a WoW sports game, for example. If it proved popular, the developer could reward the creator and make into a new IP. I'm sure there are many inappropriate possibilities as well (like MMO porn). But if Bioware didn't have much trouble with inappropriate NWN modules, I doubt an MMO developer would have to worry about it much more (though that's not denying that there may be important differences).
In short, player-crafted adventures seem feasible and promising. Unless there's something I missed (not unlikely, I'm sure), I hope toolsets like this are in common practices five years from now.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Massively Catan -- RvR
I downloaded Catan onto my Xbox 360 a couple days ago, a virtual version of the board game.
I love it. In fact, I think I've become a little obsessed with it. I'm sure that's partly because the A.I. players have been wiping the floor with me. On Hard and Medium difficulty against 3 players, I think I've won maybe 3 or 4 games out of dozens. It's as much luck as skill, so I don't feel too bad about it... but I confess that sometimes I get that old feeling from my childhood that the A.I. is somehow "cheating" or conspiring against me. It's possible the game is designed to tip the "luck" portion into the A.I.'s favor when you get close to winning (I'm usually ahead before I lose), but for now I'm chalking that feeling up to paranoia.
Anyway. I've been wondering whether features of Catan could be adapted to MMORPGs, and I have a few ideas. Basically, this is how one might complicate Realm-vs-Realm gameplay through a combination of goals and boons.
RESOURCE COMPETITION
Players join NPCs factions (ala SWG) to compete over regional control of resources. For example, one mountainous area might be a source for ore. Your faction must gain control of that whole area before you can harvest ore from those mines (possibly just one mine).
Two ore regions might be next to each other, or they might be on opposite sides of the map. Some lands might have some resources but not others (like Freeport missing wool, while Qeynos misses ore), so invading enemy territory is sometimes necessary to supply yourself and sometimes mainly to cut off your enemy's supplies.
There are more than just 2 or 3 realms, and realms can form trade alliances. That, and a small NPC supply of every resource in each region (subject to inflation when not supplies are not matched by player harvests), ensure that no faction is every completely bereft of any resource.
The design would be complicated, but it it might be possible to tie alliances with momentary needs. Rather than faction A and faction B always being allied in trade of everything, each realm's needs will change month to month. One month, you need wool and lumber, so you trade with factions B and C. The next month, you have a surplus of wool and need ore, so you shift your trade alliances to those who have ore or need wool.
It would be best if these changes in need were not totally artificial, if they were tied somehow to viewable dynamics or changes in realm actions and strategies. In Catan, you need bricks and lumber to build a road, but you need grain and ore to build a city. You will need to build both roads and cities, but odds are you can only do one at a time. Your needs change as your focus changes; sometimes in progression of your overall strategy and sometimes in response to your opponent's actions. A similar system would be possible in an MMO.
TRICK CARDS
In Catan, you can spend resources to buy a card. The card will be chosen at random from five possibilities, some more common than others. The cards are Soldier, Bounty, Monopoly, Road Buider, and Victory Point. It's probably possible to work all of them into an MMO, but it probably makes more sense to mimick only a couple.
The Soldier card
This one's the most common in Catan, and it serves two functions: (1) it prevents surrounding villages or cities from producing resources; (2) it seizes one resource card from an opponent.
In an MMO, a realm could spend resources to hire NPC guards for a resource area, limited to some number.
Realms might also have opportunities to steal resources from other realms (as opposed to conquering and capturing an opponent's territory). Each player bears the mark of his or her realm, so everyone's aware of which faction you belong to. Every player may reference some part of his user interface to be reminded of where realm alliances currently stand. Afterall, your realm might shift trade alliances while you're offline. To guard a resource area though, you need only keep an eye out for anyone not of your realm, because even allied realms cannot generally be allowed to harvest from your area (you never know when your ally might get greedy and take more than its share).
Anyway, one realm might send a raiding party into another's resource area. In this case, the "raiding party" label genuinely applies. The party's goal is to take the realm's guards by surprise, defeat them, grab some resources and high-tail it out of there before the guards' alarm brings in more opponent players than you can handle.
Though there is adventuring far from resource areas, much of the game's PvE content is situated near resources to enable just this sort of harvest-guard-raid-conquer gameplay.
The Bounty card
In Catan, this one grants the player two free resources of his or her choice from the bank.
In an MMO, there might be resource drops from boss mobs or other PvE encounters. They don't supply enough of any resource to undercut the Realm-vs-Realm gameplay, but enough to act as a bonus. Such drops may be determined by semi-random loot tables, so a particular PvE encounter might offer ore one time and only weapons and armor the next.
There are probably a number of interesting ways to mimick the Bounty card.
DESTRUCTIBLE ROADS AND HOUSING
In Catan, each player spends resources to build roads, villages, and cities. A village gathers one resource card per roll (play the game and you'll understand) from the adjoining resource area. A city provides two resource cards per area (improved harvesting). Roads are built to lead between the villages and cities, with each road being exclusive to the player who owns it. You can't build along another player's road.
Buildings
In the MMO concept, a realm must build on a resource area to harvest from it (or harvest in good quantities, at least). To harvest wool, you'll need shearing houses. To harvest ore, you'll need mines. The realm spends resources to build/purchase these buildings. In addition, guardhouses and other buildings may be built in the harvest area. When a particular combination of buildings are placed in the resource area, it moves from being an Outpost to a Colony. A Colony produces resources at a better rate (perhaps even better quality).
The catch is that competing realms may attack your Outpost or Colony and destroy the buildings (this system would require a lot of balancing, obviously). This is what makes holding a resource area and getting the most out of it difficult.
Roads
The MMO might even incorporate Catan's roads feature (though I have doubts about this feature's feasibility).
One possibility is that every realm builds the same type of road, allowing every realm to use the same roads. This way, a realm might attack and attempt to destroy a particular stretch of road because that stretch helps only the opponents.
Another possibility (more similar to the boardgame) is that each realm would transport resources differently, resulting in different kinds of roads... one realm's not useable by another realm. One race might carve a series of streams, which then act as waterways for small boats. Another might use raised stone roads, ala the Roman Empire, for carts pulled by hooved animals. A third realm might use animals with soft feet (like lions) and consequently build softer paths. A fourth might employ a magical hover system (imagine mine carts gliding over rail-tracks like boats).
Careful though
In Catan, it's common for other players (realms) to refuse trade offers because you stole from them or your are too far ahead. In the MMO, too many raids on the same realm or controlling too many resource areas can result in lost opportunities or alliances against your realm.
Anyway, all of this is just off the top of my head, so I'm sure there are a number of problems in the design. But I can't help but think something roughly similar to this could be a ton of fun.
I love it. In fact, I think I've become a little obsessed with it. I'm sure that's partly because the A.I. players have been wiping the floor with me. On Hard and Medium difficulty against 3 players, I think I've won maybe 3 or 4 games out of dozens. It's as much luck as skill, so I don't feel too bad about it... but I confess that sometimes I get that old feeling from my childhood that the A.I. is somehow "cheating" or conspiring against me. It's possible the game is designed to tip the "luck" portion into the A.I.'s favor when you get close to winning (I'm usually ahead before I lose), but for now I'm chalking that feeling up to paranoia.
Anyway. I've been wondering whether features of Catan could be adapted to MMORPGs, and I have a few ideas. Basically, this is how one might complicate Realm-vs-Realm gameplay through a combination of goals and boons.
RESOURCE COMPETITION
Players join NPCs factions (ala SWG) to compete over regional control of resources. For example, one mountainous area might be a source for ore. Your faction must gain control of that whole area before you can harvest ore from those mines (possibly just one mine).
Two ore regions might be next to each other, or they might be on opposite sides of the map. Some lands might have some resources but not others (like Freeport missing wool, while Qeynos misses ore), so invading enemy territory is sometimes necessary to supply yourself and sometimes mainly to cut off your enemy's supplies.
There are more than just 2 or 3 realms, and realms can form trade alliances. That, and a small NPC supply of every resource in each region (subject to inflation when not supplies are not matched by player harvests), ensure that no faction is every completely bereft of any resource.
The design would be complicated, but it it might be possible to tie alliances with momentary needs. Rather than faction A and faction B always being allied in trade of everything, each realm's needs will change month to month. One month, you need wool and lumber, so you trade with factions B and C. The next month, you have a surplus of wool and need ore, so you shift your trade alliances to those who have ore or need wool.
It would be best if these changes in need were not totally artificial, if they were tied somehow to viewable dynamics or changes in realm actions and strategies. In Catan, you need bricks and lumber to build a road, but you need grain and ore to build a city. You will need to build both roads and cities, but odds are you can only do one at a time. Your needs change as your focus changes; sometimes in progression of your overall strategy and sometimes in response to your opponent's actions. A similar system would be possible in an MMO.
TRICK CARDS
In Catan, you can spend resources to buy a card. The card will be chosen at random from five possibilities, some more common than others. The cards are Soldier, Bounty, Monopoly, Road Buider, and Victory Point. It's probably possible to work all of them into an MMO, but it probably makes more sense to mimick only a couple.
The Soldier card
This one's the most common in Catan, and it serves two functions: (1) it prevents surrounding villages or cities from producing resources; (2) it seizes one resource card from an opponent.
In an MMO, a realm could spend resources to hire NPC guards for a resource area, limited to some number.
Realms might also have opportunities to steal resources from other realms (as opposed to conquering and capturing an opponent's territory). Each player bears the mark of his or her realm, so everyone's aware of which faction you belong to. Every player may reference some part of his user interface to be reminded of where realm alliances currently stand. Afterall, your realm might shift trade alliances while you're offline. To guard a resource area though, you need only keep an eye out for anyone not of your realm, because even allied realms cannot generally be allowed to harvest from your area (you never know when your ally might get greedy and take more than its share).
Anyway, one realm might send a raiding party into another's resource area. In this case, the "raiding party" label genuinely applies. The party's goal is to take the realm's guards by surprise, defeat them, grab some resources and high-tail it out of there before the guards' alarm brings in more opponent players than you can handle.
Though there is adventuring far from resource areas, much of the game's PvE content is situated near resources to enable just this sort of harvest-guard-raid-conquer gameplay.
The Bounty card
In Catan, this one grants the player two free resources of his or her choice from the bank.
In an MMO, there might be resource drops from boss mobs or other PvE encounters. They don't supply enough of any resource to undercut the Realm-vs-Realm gameplay, but enough to act as a bonus. Such drops may be determined by semi-random loot tables, so a particular PvE encounter might offer ore one time and only weapons and armor the next.
There are probably a number of interesting ways to mimick the Bounty card.
DESTRUCTIBLE ROADS AND HOUSING
In Catan, each player spends resources to build roads, villages, and cities. A village gathers one resource card per roll (play the game and you'll understand) from the adjoining resource area. A city provides two resource cards per area (improved harvesting). Roads are built to lead between the villages and cities, with each road being exclusive to the player who owns it. You can't build along another player's road.
Buildings
In the MMO concept, a realm must build on a resource area to harvest from it (or harvest in good quantities, at least). To harvest wool, you'll need shearing houses. To harvest ore, you'll need mines. The realm spends resources to build/purchase these buildings. In addition, guardhouses and other buildings may be built in the harvest area. When a particular combination of buildings are placed in the resource area, it moves from being an Outpost to a Colony. A Colony produces resources at a better rate (perhaps even better quality).
The catch is that competing realms may attack your Outpost or Colony and destroy the buildings (this system would require a lot of balancing, obviously). This is what makes holding a resource area and getting the most out of it difficult.
Roads
The MMO might even incorporate Catan's roads feature (though I have doubts about this feature's feasibility).
One possibility is that every realm builds the same type of road, allowing every realm to use the same roads. This way, a realm might attack and attempt to destroy a particular stretch of road because that stretch helps only the opponents.
Another possibility (more similar to the boardgame) is that each realm would transport resources differently, resulting in different kinds of roads... one realm's not useable by another realm. One race might carve a series of streams, which then act as waterways for small boats. Another might use raised stone roads, ala the Roman Empire, for carts pulled by hooved animals. A third realm might use animals with soft feet (like lions) and consequently build softer paths. A fourth might employ a magical hover system (imagine mine carts gliding over rail-tracks like boats).
Careful though
In Catan, it's common for other players (realms) to refuse trade offers because you stole from them or your are too far ahead. In the MMO, too many raids on the same realm or controlling too many resource areas can result in lost opportunities or alliances against your realm.
Anyway, all of this is just off the top of my head, so I'm sure there are a number of problems in the design. But I can't help but think something roughly similar to this could be a ton of fun.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Humiliation
Damianov raised an interesting idea in a comment to my last article:
"Taking advantage of vengeance: how about a death penalty which can be largely recaptured/recovered by achieving revenge?"
You fight an orc. The orc kills you. There's no corpse for you to leave behind (no corpse-runs), but the orc takes some symbol of you or your faction/guild and displays it proudly. Everybody knows... he beat you.
Public humiliation.
Perhaps the orc stole the faction badge that once decorated your shoulder or hung over your breastplate. Now it decorates his armor; a joke at your expense.
Or perhaps he hangs it on a spear, like a banner. You might be able to steal it while he's not looking, but the action takes time.
Perhaps his trophy is kept in a nearby bag or chest. Any other player who digs through that chest will see your emblem, along with every other victim's. The emblem will remain there, a sign of your defeat, until you recover it or weeks pass and the orc throws it away.
Take it back. End your public humiliation, and avenge your death! =)
"Taking advantage of vengeance: how about a death penalty which can be largely recaptured/recovered by achieving revenge?"
You fight an orc. The orc kills you. There's no corpse for you to leave behind (no corpse-runs), but the orc takes some symbol of you or your faction/guild and displays it proudly. Everybody knows... he beat you.
Public humiliation.
Perhaps the orc stole the faction badge that once decorated your shoulder or hung over your breastplate. Now it decorates his armor; a joke at your expense.
Or perhaps he hangs it on a spear, like a banner. You might be able to steal it while he's not looking, but the action takes time.
Perhaps his trophy is kept in a nearby bag or chest. Any other player who digs through that chest will see your emblem, along with every other victim's. The emblem will remain there, a sign of your defeat, until you recover it or weeks pass and the orc throws it away.
Take it back. End your public humiliation, and avenge your death! =)
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Defeat is penalty enough
Over at Eyes Like Ours, Ryan raises the old question of death penalties in MMOs. Here are my thoughts on that.
NATURAL PENALTIES
"I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed." --General George C. Patton
You gotta love ol' George. For most people, any defeat, any failure to accomplish a goal that is desired (and not merely required) is quickly followed by a natural sense of shame. The degree of shame varies considerably from person to person, but it's nearly universal where the goal is personally relevant (again, actually desired by the individual).
Not only has the player lost face (in his own eyes, if not in the eyes of others), but he's also lost time. He just wasted the time spent in combat, and probably some time getting back to where he was when he died (assuming he was sent back to some place of safety; I'm not talking about a corpse-run).
And then there's consumables. No, they're not present in every game, but they are common. If you spent a health potion in battle and died anyway, then that potion was wasted. The same goes for purchased buffs, as I recall were common in EQ1.
If the player is pursuing something they really want to do, there's already at least one penalty (shame), if not more. The player's desire is the key: he or she must want to win, not just feel compelled to win by some demand the player feels has been imposed upon him. Hence, developers should focus on ensuring that players are playing, as opposed to grinding. Further penalties are typically just a cop-out, strong-arming the player to care about a gameplay system that is not sufficiently engaging.
The players should care as much about individual battles as they care about becoming more powerful or any other long-term goal. When players perceive their momentary experiences as mere barriers to progression, that's when additional penalties become necessary to instill fear of defeat.
TRY AND TRY AGAIN
What's wrong with the possibility of a player who keeps throwing himself at the same powerful enemy, only to die and die again, possibly winning in the end just by luck? In single-player games, that's allowed regularly. What makes an MMO setting different? The player has surely not gained some advantage over other players by acting so.
In fact, lack of additional penalties... like temporary debuffs, corpse-runs, xp loss or debt... seems to encourage a number of beneficial gameplay behaviors.
Redemption: The shame of defeat is not a fun feeling. Many players are interested in a challenge, yes, but defeat only equals fun when that defeat can be redeemed through victory. There must be hope of regaining one's honor, in a sense. Lost battles can be swallowed only if they don't cost you the war. Harsh penalties can wear away at hope (particularly xp loss/debt), even if just by pushing the chance for redemption beyond the immediate future.
Revenge: Let's face it, it can be an extremely fun feeling in a game. Personal vendettas are discouraged by harsh penalties.
CHALLENGE
Personally, I hate systems that allow players to weigh challenges with a high degree of accuracy, but some awareness is good. When people raise the debate over difficulty in MMOs, I'm almost tempted to laugh, because most of these games are already so conducive to the player choosing his or her own preferred degree of challenge (though it requires breaking from the maximist culture that has overtaken MMO communities, and social pressures are not always easy to shrug). Using EQ as an example: If you want a tough fight, try a yellow-con. If a yellow-con's too easy, for whatever reason, just step up to the red-con. If you want an easy fight, try a blue-con. Degrees of challenge are painted for players with sickening precision in most MMOs.
Hence, some players have already been playing at a very different level of difficulty than others. I like to pick fights I can barely win, while I watch many others pick battles they're certain to win. Those different styles have coexisted in MMOs for a decade without any great problem. The players who choose a high difficulty level are often rewarded with higher-value items, because they took on NPCs of a higher stat level.
However, I won't go so far as to say there's no logical grounds for this debate at all. Gamers quite often spoil their own fun, and one way they can do that is by failing to challenge themselves at all.
The catch is that the same gamer may be attracted to different degrees of difficulty from one play-session to the next. There are times when I want a tense encounter to drive adrenalin through my veins, and there are times when I want to calmly use my acquired skills and weapons to walk over my enemies like cockroaches.
MIX IT UP
Contrary to the article's title, I'm really not suggesting that those "natural" penalties are enough for every situation. However, I am saying that making additional penalties regular, applied to all or most encounters equally, is just not sensible. Additional penalties should be applied sometimes and sometimes not. The penalties might even be divided by category of encounter.
The most interesting additional penalties seem to be the ones most MMO designers have been loath to apply; but perhaps that's mainly because they've been thinking in terms of universal application, instead of one type of penalty here and another type there.
In a Battle for Middle Earth 2 war campaign (War of the Ring mode), losing just one battle can mean losing troops, losing critical Power Points (which the player uses to purchase useful, timer-based skills) or any one of a variety of other bonuses, allowing the opponent to upgrade units and/or heroes, and losing an easily defensible position (perhaps even allowing the enemy access to a completely defenseless territory)... all in addition to the shame of defeat. That's quite a smack in the ass! But a typical loss is more forgiving.
Likewise, it would be alright for an MMO player to be punished much more harshly in one battle than in another. A "boss" NPC might be capable of breaking a weapon, causing a temporary injury (a debuff that's lasts "x" amount of gametime after player resurrection), or even setting a bounty of revenge on players it defeats (some of its minions try to hunt you down). Losing to a particular enemy might cause the player to lose face with the faction that put him up to the fight (sometimes there's animosity for failed saviors).
RAIDS
One situation that might require a different take on death penalties is raiding. If a player or group can't get back to a fight before the opponent fully regenerates (which a game can make automatic at the moment of player/group defeat), then additional penalties aren't definitely necessary. But when the encounter involves an NPC fought by a large militia of players, and the first players to die can rejoin the fight before the last players are defeated, then that's a problem.
Of course, one obvious solution is level design: place the encounter far from resurrection sites, so it's impossible for players to rejoin the fight quickly enough. But the developer might desire to have an epic encounter like this close to civilization. Even then, something like the injury-debuff penalty I suggested earlier would suffice.
It's been a long time since I've engaged in a conversation on this topic. So if there's something obvious I'm missing, please point it out.
NATURAL PENALTIES
"I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed." --General George C. Patton
You gotta love ol' George. For most people, any defeat, any failure to accomplish a goal that is desired (and not merely required) is quickly followed by a natural sense of shame. The degree of shame varies considerably from person to person, but it's nearly universal where the goal is personally relevant (again, actually desired by the individual).
Not only has the player lost face (in his own eyes, if not in the eyes of others), but he's also lost time. He just wasted the time spent in combat, and probably some time getting back to where he was when he died (assuming he was sent back to some place of safety; I'm not talking about a corpse-run).
And then there's consumables. No, they're not present in every game, but they are common. If you spent a health potion in battle and died anyway, then that potion was wasted. The same goes for purchased buffs, as I recall were common in EQ1.
If the player is pursuing something they really want to do, there's already at least one penalty (shame), if not more. The player's desire is the key: he or she must want to win, not just feel compelled to win by some demand the player feels has been imposed upon him. Hence, developers should focus on ensuring that players are playing, as opposed to grinding. Further penalties are typically just a cop-out, strong-arming the player to care about a gameplay system that is not sufficiently engaging.
The players should care as much about individual battles as they care about becoming more powerful or any other long-term goal. When players perceive their momentary experiences as mere barriers to progression, that's when additional penalties become necessary to instill fear of defeat.
TRY AND TRY AGAIN
What's wrong with the possibility of a player who keeps throwing himself at the same powerful enemy, only to die and die again, possibly winning in the end just by luck? In single-player games, that's allowed regularly. What makes an MMO setting different? The player has surely not gained some advantage over other players by acting so.
In fact, lack of additional penalties... like temporary debuffs, corpse-runs, xp loss or debt... seems to encourage a number of beneficial gameplay behaviors.
Redemption: The shame of defeat is not a fun feeling. Many players are interested in a challenge, yes, but defeat only equals fun when that defeat can be redeemed through victory. There must be hope of regaining one's honor, in a sense. Lost battles can be swallowed only if they don't cost you the war. Harsh penalties can wear away at hope (particularly xp loss/debt), even if just by pushing the chance for redemption beyond the immediate future.
Revenge: Let's face it, it can be an extremely fun feeling in a game. Personal vendettas are discouraged by harsh penalties.
CHALLENGE
Personally, I hate systems that allow players to weigh challenges with a high degree of accuracy, but some awareness is good. When people raise the debate over difficulty in MMOs, I'm almost tempted to laugh, because most of these games are already so conducive to the player choosing his or her own preferred degree of challenge (though it requires breaking from the maximist culture that has overtaken MMO communities, and social pressures are not always easy to shrug). Using EQ as an example: If you want a tough fight, try a yellow-con. If a yellow-con's too easy, for whatever reason, just step up to the red-con. If you want an easy fight, try a blue-con. Degrees of challenge are painted for players with sickening precision in most MMOs.
Hence, some players have already been playing at a very different level of difficulty than others. I like to pick fights I can barely win, while I watch many others pick battles they're certain to win. Those different styles have coexisted in MMOs for a decade without any great problem. The players who choose a high difficulty level are often rewarded with higher-value items, because they took on NPCs of a higher stat level.
However, I won't go so far as to say there's no logical grounds for this debate at all. Gamers quite often spoil their own fun, and one way they can do that is by failing to challenge themselves at all.
The catch is that the same gamer may be attracted to different degrees of difficulty from one play-session to the next. There are times when I want a tense encounter to drive adrenalin through my veins, and there are times when I want to calmly use my acquired skills and weapons to walk over my enemies like cockroaches.
MIX IT UP
Contrary to the article's title, I'm really not suggesting that those "natural" penalties are enough for every situation. However, I am saying that making additional penalties regular, applied to all or most encounters equally, is just not sensible. Additional penalties should be applied sometimes and sometimes not. The penalties might even be divided by category of encounter.
The most interesting additional penalties seem to be the ones most MMO designers have been loath to apply; but perhaps that's mainly because they've been thinking in terms of universal application, instead of one type of penalty here and another type there.
In a Battle for Middle Earth 2 war campaign (War of the Ring mode), losing just one battle can mean losing troops, losing critical Power Points (which the player uses to purchase useful, timer-based skills) or any one of a variety of other bonuses, allowing the opponent to upgrade units and/or heroes, and losing an easily defensible position (perhaps even allowing the enemy access to a completely defenseless territory)... all in addition to the shame of defeat. That's quite a smack in the ass! But a typical loss is more forgiving.
Likewise, it would be alright for an MMO player to be punished much more harshly in one battle than in another. A "boss" NPC might be capable of breaking a weapon, causing a temporary injury (a debuff that's lasts "x" amount of gametime after player resurrection), or even setting a bounty of revenge on players it defeats (some of its minions try to hunt you down). Losing to a particular enemy might cause the player to lose face with the faction that put him up to the fight (sometimes there's animosity for failed saviors).
RAIDS
One situation that might require a different take on death penalties is raiding. If a player or group can't get back to a fight before the opponent fully regenerates (which a game can make automatic at the moment of player/group defeat), then additional penalties aren't definitely necessary. But when the encounter involves an NPC fought by a large militia of players, and the first players to die can rejoin the fight before the last players are defeated, then that's a problem.
Of course, one obvious solution is level design: place the encounter far from resurrection sites, so it's impossible for players to rejoin the fight quickly enough. But the developer might desire to have an epic encounter like this close to civilization. Even then, something like the injury-debuff penalty I suggested earlier would suffice.
It's been a long time since I've engaged in a conversation on this topic. So if there's something obvious I'm missing, please point it out.
Friday, June 29, 2007
The seventh day
or otherwise titled...
How the sabbath relates to MMO design.
REFLECTION
Human beings need a day of rest, and not just to recover our energy. Even if a person has wisely chosen a mode of labor that is fulfilling (and thereby refreshing), there's still something missing. When we have time and peace, then we are capable of a different kind of appreciation. The appreciation of the racecar driver speeding along at 100+mph is not the same as the spectator's experience, and that is not the same as either's appreciation when they go home and reflect on their experiences in moments of peaceful rest.
Peaceful reflection completes us in a way that is not matched by consideration on-the-go. It gives us a chance to see things only a relaxed mind unburdened by a lot of sensation can see, and a chance to tie together all of our experiences into a unified whole.
Every good game designer understands the importance of pacing. What pattern of pacing is encouraged or enforced should depend on the style and length of the game. If a particular FPS is almost exlusively about the action, then little downtime is best.
But subscription-based MMO, a game that's meant to last months for each player, seems more analogous to real life. Players should occasionally be encouraged to quietly reflect on past experiences and perceive it all as a unified journey.
IMAGES
One example, one which I've recommended a few times before, is to move screenshot perusal in-game.
Every MMO I play, I take a ton of screenshots. But I rarely think to look at the screenshots I've taken, because the games have forced me to view them from my desktop. If I'm not in the game and I happen to think of game memories, odds are that I'm going to just enter the game and hop back into the action. After a dozen MMOs, my experience has always been that my screenshots barely receive a glance until I've ended my subscription. Don't get me wrong, that's good too -- browsing memories months later has suckered me back into a game more than once. But retention is better than recovery.
In-game perusal can be tied into the particular game's genre, but it should take place in a quiet area, like player housing. If it's a fantasy game, you might allow the player to place one of many stones into a seeing pool, each stone corresponding to a screenshot; the camera swings behind the player and the screenshot is scaled to fit and revealed in the pool of water. If it's a sci-fi game, you might make it like a touchscreen menu on the character's wall by which he or she flips through thumbnails and chooses one to be maximized across the wall (or other large viewing space in-game).
I'm sure there are dozens of ways to remind players of game experiences, but the essential feature I'm trying to underscore here is a peaceful setting in which to reflect. Offer players the freedom to reflect when they feel like it, but encourage them to reflect... and not just in one brief moment before running off again to fight or trade.
P.S. A bit of trivia: The Christian sabbath, like the Jewish sabbath, actually begins on what we call Saturday, because the tradition asserts that one day ends and the next begins at sunset. That's why Catholics like myself sometimes go to Mass on Saturday evening, rather than Sunday morning (technically, it's already Sunday). Of course, most modern believers are less considerate of tradition in general, so it's not uncommon for the evening Mass to start before the sun goes down.
I don't know why I thought of this on a Friday, but I'm thinking 5 articles a week is probably enough anyway.
How the sabbath relates to MMO design.
REFLECTION
Human beings need a day of rest, and not just to recover our energy. Even if a person has wisely chosen a mode of labor that is fulfilling (and thereby refreshing), there's still something missing. When we have time and peace, then we are capable of a different kind of appreciation. The appreciation of the racecar driver speeding along at 100+mph is not the same as the spectator's experience, and that is not the same as either's appreciation when they go home and reflect on their experiences in moments of peaceful rest.
Peaceful reflection completes us in a way that is not matched by consideration on-the-go. It gives us a chance to see things only a relaxed mind unburdened by a lot of sensation can see, and a chance to tie together all of our experiences into a unified whole.
Every good game designer understands the importance of pacing. What pattern of pacing is encouraged or enforced should depend on the style and length of the game. If a particular FPS is almost exlusively about the action, then little downtime is best.
But subscription-based MMO, a game that's meant to last months for each player, seems more analogous to real life. Players should occasionally be encouraged to quietly reflect on past experiences and perceive it all as a unified journey.
IMAGES
One example, one which I've recommended a few times before, is to move screenshot perusal in-game.
Every MMO I play, I take a ton of screenshots. But I rarely think to look at the screenshots I've taken, because the games have forced me to view them from my desktop. If I'm not in the game and I happen to think of game memories, odds are that I'm going to just enter the game and hop back into the action. After a dozen MMOs, my experience has always been that my screenshots barely receive a glance until I've ended my subscription. Don't get me wrong, that's good too -- browsing memories months later has suckered me back into a game more than once. But retention is better than recovery.
In-game perusal can be tied into the particular game's genre, but it should take place in a quiet area, like player housing. If it's a fantasy game, you might allow the player to place one of many stones into a seeing pool, each stone corresponding to a screenshot; the camera swings behind the player and the screenshot is scaled to fit and revealed in the pool of water. If it's a sci-fi game, you might make it like a touchscreen menu on the character's wall by which he or she flips through thumbnails and chooses one to be maximized across the wall (or other large viewing space in-game).
I'm sure there are dozens of ways to remind players of game experiences, but the essential feature I'm trying to underscore here is a peaceful setting in which to reflect. Offer players the freedom to reflect when they feel like it, but encourage them to reflect... and not just in one brief moment before running off again to fight or trade.
P.S. A bit of trivia: The Christian sabbath, like the Jewish sabbath, actually begins on what we call Saturday, because the tradition asserts that one day ends and the next begins at sunset. That's why Catholics like myself sometimes go to Mass on Saturday evening, rather than Sunday morning (technically, it's already Sunday). Of course, most modern believers are less considerate of tradition in general, so it's not uncommon for the evening Mass to start before the sun goes down.
I don't know why I thought of this on a Friday, but I'm thinking 5 articles a week is probably enough anyway.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Gradual backstory
I've been toying with the idea of a system that would offer the player backstory options based on the player's previous actions. This way, the backstory would develop gradually over the course of weeks, or even months.
Honestly, I'm not sure yet if I like the idea myself, but it seems worth consideration. A good and individual backstory helps significantly to attach players to their characters. Blank slates, however, like the empty chat box in SWG, are just as likely to intimidate players as to help them. Even an experienced, professional writer will probably give you a questioning stare if you give him nothing more than a blank sheet of paper and say "write something." People generally need more guidance than that. So I've been thinking...
How can the developer guide players toward backstories that feel truly personal, but without expecting the players to write the stories themselves?
DEV-WRITTEN, PLAYER-CHOSEN
Backstory quests would be placed on the server, but not assigned to any particular NPC. The game would categorize player actions over time, and occcasionally offer the player a backstory quest (or other type of experience) related to those player actions.
For example, if the player demonstrates a fondness for bandits, an NPC might inquire if the player has any experience with police duty and (if the player confirms interest in the subject) offer that player a chance to retrace his law roots through some sort of quest.
Which NPCs can offer which backstory quests would be determined by relevance (a humble sailor's not likely to be familiar with your royal upbringing), but many NPCs would be capable of offering each such quest. That way, the player is likely to run into it, no matter which city or which part of town his adventure passes through.
The gist is: (1) the developer offers a quality backstory through NPC dialogue or similar content; (2) the player determines his or her own backstory options -- indirectly through natural gameplay choices, rather than being faced with a mess of stories at the character creation stage that the player may or may not be interested in at all; and (3) the player has the final say, accepting the screened and personalized story offered or holding out until the next story offering.
OR LET THE PLAYERS WRITE IT
All of this, of course, isn't meant to exclude the possibility of the developer guiding players to stories which they write themselves. Certainly, more could be done toward that end.
And I've learned to expect admirable creativity from just about any person, given the right guidance and a little luck; even if that person is certain he or she is completely incapable. Years ago, I read a very interesting and inspiring book in which an elementary school teacher had his students write their own poems after reading famous, complex works (including Shakespeare)... poetry everyone thought only adults could truly appreciate. The results are astounding. As I'm sure anyone with children knows, "out of the mouths of babes..." doesn't just refer to faux paus. Some of these child-written poems are profound.
Anyway, that book is one reason I'm confident that MMO players are capable of writing good stories for their characters, if developers could only figure out how best to inspire them.
Honestly, I'm not sure yet if I like the idea myself, but it seems worth consideration. A good and individual backstory helps significantly to attach players to their characters. Blank slates, however, like the empty chat box in SWG, are just as likely to intimidate players as to help them. Even an experienced, professional writer will probably give you a questioning stare if you give him nothing more than a blank sheet of paper and say "write something." People generally need more guidance than that. So I've been thinking...
How can the developer guide players toward backstories that feel truly personal, but without expecting the players to write the stories themselves?
DEV-WRITTEN, PLAYER-CHOSEN
Backstory quests would be placed on the server, but not assigned to any particular NPC. The game would categorize player actions over time, and occcasionally offer the player a backstory quest (or other type of experience) related to those player actions.
For example, if the player demonstrates a fondness for bandits, an NPC might inquire if the player has any experience with police duty and (if the player confirms interest in the subject) offer that player a chance to retrace his law roots through some sort of quest.
Which NPCs can offer which backstory quests would be determined by relevance (a humble sailor's not likely to be familiar with your royal upbringing), but many NPCs would be capable of offering each such quest. That way, the player is likely to run into it, no matter which city or which part of town his adventure passes through.
The gist is: (1) the developer offers a quality backstory through NPC dialogue or similar content; (2) the player determines his or her own backstory options -- indirectly through natural gameplay choices, rather than being faced with a mess of stories at the character creation stage that the player may or may not be interested in at all; and (3) the player has the final say, accepting the screened and personalized story offered or holding out until the next story offering.
OR LET THE PLAYERS WRITE IT
All of this, of course, isn't meant to exclude the possibility of the developer guiding players to stories which they write themselves. Certainly, more could be done toward that end.
And I've learned to expect admirable creativity from just about any person, given the right guidance and a little luck; even if that person is certain he or she is completely incapable. Years ago, I read a very interesting and inspiring book in which an elementary school teacher had his students write their own poems after reading famous, complex works (including Shakespeare)... poetry everyone thought only adults could truly appreciate. The results are astounding. As I'm sure anyone with children knows, "out of the mouths of babes..." doesn't just refer to faux paus. Some of these child-written poems are profound.
Anyway, that book is one reason I'm confident that MMO players are capable of writing good stories for their characters, if developers could only figure out how best to inspire them.
Group faction
Over in Cameron's blog on mindless killing, Potshot made an interesting comment:
I would love a bunch of NPCs to say, “well you three can pass, but not the Dwarf! He killed Arglebargle! Get ‘em boys!!”
Before reading that, I had never considered players with different faction standings being grouped and adventuring together. Of course, it seems so obvious now!
It's possible to introduce a new dynamic into gameplay: group influence on faction standing.
"No, it's alright. He's with me." That's basically the sort of feature I'm talking about. If your faction standing with the Freeport Guards sucks, they might still let you through the gate without any trouble if you're grouped with three or four players who have good standing with that faction. If your standing with them is really terrible or your groupmates have only neutral faction with the guards, then they'll still bar you from entering the city.
It could work both ways, of course. If your groupmates forgot to tell you that they killed a few of these guards last week, you might be in for a nasty surprise when the guards come after you as well.
There's a lot of gameplay that's made possible by this sort of system.
Perhaps you have very little chance of earning enough faction with the royal family to go where you want in the royal palace (possibly to reach a quest-related figure). If you can ingratiate yourself with the right NPC with some relationship to the royal family, you might be able to accomplish your goal indirectly. Perhaps you make a friend of a palace steward when you see him in the market square. Then you can walk with him back to the palace; the palace guards watch you suspiciously, but they don't say anything while you're with the steward.
That little adventure could be complicated in any number of ways. Perhaps the steward needs further convincing once you're inside the palace. Perhaps you need to leave the steward's company once inside to find what you need, then find the steward again or sneak past the guards (easier to do when they're focused on people entering). Maybe the steward changes his mind once he sees what you really came to the palace for, and he calls the guards.
Anyway, what else might be done with this system? How might you tweak it?
I would love a bunch of NPCs to say, “well you three can pass, but not the Dwarf! He killed Arglebargle! Get ‘em boys!!”
Before reading that, I had never considered players with different faction standings being grouped and adventuring together. Of course, it seems so obvious now!
It's possible to introduce a new dynamic into gameplay: group influence on faction standing.
"No, it's alright. He's with me." That's basically the sort of feature I'm talking about. If your faction standing with the Freeport Guards sucks, they might still let you through the gate without any trouble if you're grouped with three or four players who have good standing with that faction. If your standing with them is really terrible or your groupmates have only neutral faction with the guards, then they'll still bar you from entering the city.
It could work both ways, of course. If your groupmates forgot to tell you that they killed a few of these guards last week, you might be in for a nasty surprise when the guards come after you as well.
There's a lot of gameplay that's made possible by this sort of system.
Perhaps you have very little chance of earning enough faction with the royal family to go where you want in the royal palace (possibly to reach a quest-related figure). If you can ingratiate yourself with the right NPC with some relationship to the royal family, you might be able to accomplish your goal indirectly. Perhaps you make a friend of a palace steward when you see him in the market square. Then you can walk with him back to the palace; the palace guards watch you suspiciously, but they don't say anything while you're with the steward.
That little adventure could be complicated in any number of ways. Perhaps the steward needs further convincing once you're inside the palace. Perhaps you need to leave the steward's company once inside to find what you need, then find the steward again or sneak past the guards (easier to do when they're focused on people entering). Maybe the steward changes his mind once he sees what you really came to the palace for, and he calls the guards.
Anyway, what else might be done with this system? How might you tweak it?
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Revamp the reviews
I use game reviews frequently. First I check the general score, and then I read through to see why it was given that score. Odds are, by the time I read the review, I've already read or watched interviews, previews, and gameplay videos. I've already formed an impression of the game...I just want to see if there's anything I missed. Often enough, there's some insight that helps me make my buying decision.
THE NUMBERS
Though the words are often helpful, the rating systems **suck**.
It's really easy to understand why. Ask any person to rate something with a number, 1 through 10, and they're certain to think of 1 as awful, 5 as mediocre, and 10 as excellent; or possibly 10 as awful and 1 as excellent. If 7 is mediocre in your review system, your system is plainly counterintuitive and likely to mislead some people; particularly people who are new to your site.
Explain your system however plainly... it's still counterintuitive and potentially misleading. Hell, ever readers who are accustomed to your screwy system probably can't help but be influenced subconsciously by the more common tradition, the system that everyone but reviewers accepts as good.
Why have a 1-10 scale if you'll never score a game below 5? It's a simple thing, but something that bugs me to no end.
Anyway, sometimes it seems to me that all of the sites I look to for reviews have a habit of a scoring things higher than they deserve. Right now, I prefer GameTrailers' video reviews to anything else, partially because they seem more critical than other sites.
THE NUMBERS
Though the words are often helpful, the rating systems **suck**.
It's really easy to understand why. Ask any person to rate something with a number, 1 through 10, and they're certain to think of 1 as awful, 5 as mediocre, and 10 as excellent; or possibly 10 as awful and 1 as excellent. If 7 is mediocre in your review system, your system is plainly counterintuitive and likely to mislead some people; particularly people who are new to your site.
Explain your system however plainly... it's still counterintuitive and potentially misleading. Hell, ever readers who are accustomed to your screwy system probably can't help but be influenced subconsciously by the more common tradition, the system that everyone but reviewers accepts as good.
Why have a 1-10 scale if you'll never score a game below 5? It's a simple thing, but something that bugs me to no end.
Anyway, sometimes it seems to me that all of the sites I look to for reviews have a habit of a scoring things higher than they deserve. Right now, I prefer GameTrailers' video reviews to anything else, partially because they seem more critical than other sites.
Alts only
Some thoughts while considering "alt-itis". I'm glad that it happened to coincide with Damianov's "End Game" article, because I think the subjects are closely related.
WHY HAVE A MAIN?
Why is permadeath such a frightening prospect to most MMO gamers? Well, it's because permadeath is a real end to character progression, and character progression is first-and-foremost in your typical RPG; certainly in your typical MMORPG. Permadeath is a brick wall, whereas the sort of death usually found in MMOs is more of a speedbump.
It's a valid concern, but I wonder if character progression in MMOs could be reimagined so that it is both powerfully immersive (the player strongly associates with his or her character) and fleeting. Is it possible to design an MMO in which players expect to play one character for only twenty or thirty hours of gametime before starting the next character? Afterall, it seems most people have at least one alt, if not more.
Is it possible to create an MMO in which "alts" are king, and replay is essential?
CONTINUITY
In an arcade game like Pac-Man or Super Smash Bros., it's no big deal that one play-session is entirely unrelated to the last. But a sense of continuity seems to be an essential element of any RPG. So abandoning the traditional MMO model of prolonged character development would demand that continuity be provided in some other way.
There are two examples I can remember reading about.
In one MMO being developed about a year ago (I remember it changing its name at some point, but I can't remember either title), a generations system was proposed. The player's character had a limited lifespan, but each new character was a descendant of the last. Some skill affinities (representing childhood training) and objects (heirlooms) would pass on.
Trials of Ascension, on the other hand, advertised a system of delayed permadeath in which the player could die so many times (around 100) before being permanently buried. Rather than heirlooms, it allowed characters to sacrifice their last few lives to create an artifact (an item imbued with traits representing that character), which would be left to the world to be discovered but not passed on to any character. The mere mention of permadeath scared many potential players away. However, because the proposed world was dynamic and players could leave a meaningful impact on the world, there was a sense of continuity (theoretically, anyway; the game didn't make it to release).
Right now, I feel like Colonel Patterson in The Ghost and The Darkness...
Beaumont: "Did it work?"
Patterson: "Point of fact, it didn't. But I'm convinced the theory is sound."
I'm sure there are more ways to provide continuity than just these two, but player impact on the gameworld, in particular, seems to be a strong method.
SCOPE
If an MMO was designed for short character lifespans, would that mean the tradition of massive worlds must be abandoned? Afterall, any single character could not experience the same breadth of content. One can't walk the same length of road in a month as one could in three months. I don't think that necessarily means the world should be smaller, though.
In Deus Ex, a good example of a game designed for replayability, the player repeating the adventure could enjoy running through the same settings with different weapons, different skills, and making different dialogue/quest choices. That sort of system could work equally well in an MMO. In fact, EQ2 is a decent example, since I played many different race-class combinations in the city of Freeport and still had fun (though more of the quests could have been less linear).
The original EQ and WoW demonstrate the value of having a variety of starting locations. Even if a shorter-lived character can't trek as far, he or she can begin in a different place.
Also, shorter spans mean more teasers. The player might get a glimpse of unexplored area or quest shortly before the character's end, enticing him to work toward that content in the next life. Or the player might be thrilled by another player's skill or item. An alt-oriented game would not make the character feel like he is abandoning his investment when trying a new character.
DEPTH
What about depth of experience? A shorter lifespan could mean less room for character growth. But in real life, don't our limited lifespans add value to our achievements?
By combining a system of skill trees and skill drops/rewards, then placing some of those skills at the farthest edges of potential experience, the game could be a paradise for achievers and explorers alike. In a typical MMO, anyone can reach the highest skill levels with enough time and dedication. But place enough dynamics in a limited lifespan and it becomes truly a challenge to reach the highest goals. This can be done with items and other elements as well. A player might even prove that it was more skill than luck by repeating the feat.
The elite status of individual characters wouldn't last long (except in record, possibly in-game) as the players who find/achieve epic items, skills, or monsters would die, but player organizations could take on new meaning. A guild could adapt its goals to new discoveries as its member characters are constantly changing. Whole characters, and regiments of characters, could be designed specifically for epic goals. If an epic monster seems vulnerable to cold and shock, then the guild might solicit its members to develop characters with cold and shock prowess. In addition to traditional raiding, imagine guild endeavors that are weeks in the making and based on more elements. Perhaps the guild has gained knowledge of a particularly powerful cold spell scroll in some far off land. It might arrange to acquire it to aid in the monster assault... and the quest for the scroll, alone, might span more than one character life. Much could be done here to take raiding skill far beyond organization and execution.
Thirty hours (longer than most single-player games) should be enough time to satisfy player desires for individual character development. The main challenge here is probably just changing the expectations of veteran MMO gamers.
WE CAN HAVE IT BOTH WAYS
None of this is to suggest that the old system of one main, continuous character is a system that should be replaced. I just don't think it's the only viable way.
WHY HAVE A MAIN?
Why is permadeath such a frightening prospect to most MMO gamers? Well, it's because permadeath is a real end to character progression, and character progression is first-and-foremost in your typical RPG; certainly in your typical MMORPG. Permadeath is a brick wall, whereas the sort of death usually found in MMOs is more of a speedbump.
It's a valid concern, but I wonder if character progression in MMOs could be reimagined so that it is both powerfully immersive (the player strongly associates with his or her character) and fleeting. Is it possible to design an MMO in which players expect to play one character for only twenty or thirty hours of gametime before starting the next character? Afterall, it seems most people have at least one alt, if not more.
Is it possible to create an MMO in which "alts" are king, and replay is essential?
CONTINUITY
In an arcade game like Pac-Man or Super Smash Bros., it's no big deal that one play-session is entirely unrelated to the last. But a sense of continuity seems to be an essential element of any RPG. So abandoning the traditional MMO model of prolonged character development would demand that continuity be provided in some other way.
There are two examples I can remember reading about.
In one MMO being developed about a year ago (I remember it changing its name at some point, but I can't remember either title), a generations system was proposed. The player's character had a limited lifespan, but each new character was a descendant of the last. Some skill affinities (representing childhood training) and objects (heirlooms) would pass on.
Trials of Ascension, on the other hand, advertised a system of delayed permadeath in which the player could die so many times (around 100) before being permanently buried. Rather than heirlooms, it allowed characters to sacrifice their last few lives to create an artifact (an item imbued with traits representing that character), which would be left to the world to be discovered but not passed on to any character. The mere mention of permadeath scared many potential players away. However, because the proposed world was dynamic and players could leave a meaningful impact on the world, there was a sense of continuity (theoretically, anyway; the game didn't make it to release).
Right now, I feel like Colonel Patterson in The Ghost and The Darkness...
Beaumont: "Did it work?"
Patterson: "Point of fact, it didn't. But I'm convinced the theory is sound."
I'm sure there are more ways to provide continuity than just these two, but player impact on the gameworld, in particular, seems to be a strong method.
SCOPE
If an MMO was designed for short character lifespans, would that mean the tradition of massive worlds must be abandoned? Afterall, any single character could not experience the same breadth of content. One can't walk the same length of road in a month as one could in three months. I don't think that necessarily means the world should be smaller, though.
In Deus Ex, a good example of a game designed for replayability, the player repeating the adventure could enjoy running through the same settings with different weapons, different skills, and making different dialogue/quest choices. That sort of system could work equally well in an MMO. In fact, EQ2 is a decent example, since I played many different race-class combinations in the city of Freeport and still had fun (though more of the quests could have been less linear).
The original EQ and WoW demonstrate the value of having a variety of starting locations. Even if a shorter-lived character can't trek as far, he or she can begin in a different place.
Also, shorter spans mean more teasers. The player might get a glimpse of unexplored area or quest shortly before the character's end, enticing him to work toward that content in the next life. Or the player might be thrilled by another player's skill or item. An alt-oriented game would not make the character feel like he is abandoning his investment when trying a new character.
DEPTH
What about depth of experience? A shorter lifespan could mean less room for character growth. But in real life, don't our limited lifespans add value to our achievements?
By combining a system of skill trees and skill drops/rewards, then placing some of those skills at the farthest edges of potential experience, the game could be a paradise for achievers and explorers alike. In a typical MMO, anyone can reach the highest skill levels with enough time and dedication. But place enough dynamics in a limited lifespan and it becomes truly a challenge to reach the highest goals. This can be done with items and other elements as well. A player might even prove that it was more skill than luck by repeating the feat.
The elite status of individual characters wouldn't last long (except in record, possibly in-game) as the players who find/achieve epic items, skills, or monsters would die, but player organizations could take on new meaning. A guild could adapt its goals to new discoveries as its member characters are constantly changing. Whole characters, and regiments of characters, could be designed specifically for epic goals. If an epic monster seems vulnerable to cold and shock, then the guild might solicit its members to develop characters with cold and shock prowess. In addition to traditional raiding, imagine guild endeavors that are weeks in the making and based on more elements. Perhaps the guild has gained knowledge of a particularly powerful cold spell scroll in some far off land. It might arrange to acquire it to aid in the monster assault... and the quest for the scroll, alone, might span more than one character life. Much could be done here to take raiding skill far beyond organization and execution.
Thirty hours (longer than most single-player games) should be enough time to satisfy player desires for individual character development. The main challenge here is probably just changing the expectations of veteran MMO gamers.
WE CAN HAVE IT BOTH WAYS
None of this is to suggest that the old system of one main, continuous character is a system that should be replaced. I just don't think it's the only viable way.
Monday, June 25, 2007
MMOs in general
These are some old thoughts that I guess I never really finished. Unfortunately, I don't remember where the comments and articles that I referred to are, so I don't have the links. I think I wrote this in response to an article by Neil Sorens on Gamasutra a month or two ago. Anyway (can you see where the site name came from?), here's my trail of random thoughts from long ago.
If you take anything from this, I hope it's an understanding that community is often not the main feature that attracts gamers to MMOs, contrary to popular belief.
IS A REHAUL IN ORDER?
I'm not a professional developer, but I am a gamer who considered MMOs his bread and butter through over a dozen such games since Everquest...until finally saying "to hell with these games" this past year. From that perspective, though I disagree with some of Sorens' key points, I believe parts of his article should be taken to heart.
The industry's current plethora of subscribers is not evidence of fun gameplay, as some seem to suggest. Blockbuster Entertainment thrives largely on renting out mediocre movies simply because its customers enjoy them more than what's on TV, not because its customers perceive these movies as better than mediocre. In the early years of SUVs, automobile buyers jumped at the opportunity to purchase a lot of unstable, gas-guzzling SUVs simply because they couldn't experience the same features in vehicles with better handling and gas mileage. In both cases, there are consumers who are enthusiastic in their praise of the mediocre products, but that doesn't mean most consumers aren't pining for better.
I agree with Sorens that many current MMO enthusiasts will be spending their money elsewhere as features particular to the genre (massive scope, heavily customizable and personal avatars, etc.) become more commonly available in other genres. I am just one of many gamers I know who were once head-over-heels in love with MMOs and have since abandoned the genre entirely. We abandoned it when we decided that its unique strengths no longer outweigh its obvious weaknesses. The basic nature of MMO combat systems did not appeal to me even in my first MMO experience, but other features were compelling enough to hold me (no, community was not among them, though seeing characters with unscripted actions and appearances was).
Most gamers I've known who enjoyed MMOs (for a time, if not still today) are fans of more active and complex games, including FPS and RTS games. They don't play MMOs to relax and unwind. They approach MMOs as they approach single-player RPGs, searching for exhilirating moments, though tolerating larger spans in between them (note that "tolerance" implies disapproval). While I am sure there is a considerable portion of gamers who enjoy MMOs for the low level of engagement necessary, it's indisputable that another significant portion consists of gamers who yearn for more engagement. Huxley, Darkfall, and other products are designed with such gamers in mind.
Are those of us who leave the genre being replaced by new subscribers? Certainly. The current model of MMOs will continue to be successful. But is the potential audience we represent any less profitable? I doubt it.
DEFINING AN MMOG
It's a pivotal question in this debate, so here's a reprint of my comment from Green's blog:
Diablo 2 does not generally classify as an MMO because it wasn't designed to make the avatar much more than just an instrument of power. It has as much chatting and grouping as EQ, but players don't define their avatars in the same ways and don't connect on the same roleplay level with those avatars. Hence, the online gameworld feels less like a virtual society than an online society, more between players than characters.
I think people underestimate the importance of (1) scope and (2) sandbox gameplay in MMOs. What first attracted me to the genre was the idea of such a huge world to explore and so many different paths I might take. Still today, that sort of gameplay is rarely available in single-player RPGs. Single-player RPGs tend to be much more constricted and limited in replay value.
In Neverwinter Nights, playing as a sorcerer is very different than playing as a fighter, but both start in the same place and are funneled into the same adventure. In EQ or WoW, playing a different character means experiencing a different setting and course. That doesn't only affect players who are interested in beginning again. It also means that one's character is more personal; not necessarily symbolic of the player's own identity, but intimately connected with the player is some way.
As Rich pointed out, Warcraft and other MMOs are full of players who solo and who group only when/because it serves self-interests. While I agree that community is very important to MMOs, that importance seems greatly overrated. If single-player RPGs regularly offered worlds that take several months to explore and the ability to shape one's own story, many MMO gamers would be playing those instead.
But I don't claim to know the demography. Without those elements being more separate, it's difficult to estimate what rough percentage of MMO gamers consider community the deciding factor as little as I do.
Consider this though: In non-gaming life, few people regularly submit themselves to boring activities just to be around friends. Generally, friends meet up around activities that provide mutual enjoyment. Enjoyment of the social setting may not be a person's focus during interaction (that is, the person's focusing on society itself), but it is still a necessary condition that usually precludes social engagement.
The MMO genre certainly still interests me. I write about it all the time, afterall, even though I haven't played one in many months. And there are many features I respect in current games. But, ultimately, I'm waiting for a new generation, because this generation bores me.
If you take anything from this, I hope it's an understanding that community is often not the main feature that attracts gamers to MMOs, contrary to popular belief.
IS A REHAUL IN ORDER?
I'm not a professional developer, but I am a gamer who considered MMOs his bread and butter through over a dozen such games since Everquest...until finally saying "to hell with these games" this past year. From that perspective, though I disagree with some of Sorens' key points, I believe parts of his article should be taken to heart.
The industry's current plethora of subscribers is not evidence of fun gameplay, as some seem to suggest. Blockbuster Entertainment thrives largely on renting out mediocre movies simply because its customers enjoy them more than what's on TV, not because its customers perceive these movies as better than mediocre. In the early years of SUVs, automobile buyers jumped at the opportunity to purchase a lot of unstable, gas-guzzling SUVs simply because they couldn't experience the same features in vehicles with better handling and gas mileage. In both cases, there are consumers who are enthusiastic in their praise of the mediocre products, but that doesn't mean most consumers aren't pining for better.
I agree with Sorens that many current MMO enthusiasts will be spending their money elsewhere as features particular to the genre (massive scope, heavily customizable and personal avatars, etc.) become more commonly available in other genres. I am just one of many gamers I know who were once head-over-heels in love with MMOs and have since abandoned the genre entirely. We abandoned it when we decided that its unique strengths no longer outweigh its obvious weaknesses. The basic nature of MMO combat systems did not appeal to me even in my first MMO experience, but other features were compelling enough to hold me (no, community was not among them, though seeing characters with unscripted actions and appearances was).
Most gamers I've known who enjoyed MMOs (for a time, if not still today) are fans of more active and complex games, including FPS and RTS games. They don't play MMOs to relax and unwind. They approach MMOs as they approach single-player RPGs, searching for exhilirating moments, though tolerating larger spans in between them (note that "tolerance" implies disapproval). While I am sure there is a considerable portion of gamers who enjoy MMOs for the low level of engagement necessary, it's indisputable that another significant portion consists of gamers who yearn for more engagement. Huxley, Darkfall, and other products are designed with such gamers in mind.
Are those of us who leave the genre being replaced by new subscribers? Certainly. The current model of MMOs will continue to be successful. But is the potential audience we represent any less profitable? I doubt it.
DEFINING AN MMOG
It's a pivotal question in this debate, so here's a reprint of my comment from Green's blog:
Diablo 2 does not generally classify as an MMO because it wasn't designed to make the avatar much more than just an instrument of power. It has as much chatting and grouping as EQ, but players don't define their avatars in the same ways and don't connect on the same roleplay level with those avatars. Hence, the online gameworld feels less like a virtual society than an online society, more between players than characters.
I think people underestimate the importance of (1) scope and (2) sandbox gameplay in MMOs. What first attracted me to the genre was the idea of such a huge world to explore and so many different paths I might take. Still today, that sort of gameplay is rarely available in single-player RPGs. Single-player RPGs tend to be much more constricted and limited in replay value.
In Neverwinter Nights, playing as a sorcerer is very different than playing as a fighter, but both start in the same place and are funneled into the same adventure. In EQ or WoW, playing a different character means experiencing a different setting and course. That doesn't only affect players who are interested in beginning again. It also means that one's character is more personal; not necessarily symbolic of the player's own identity, but intimately connected with the player is some way.
As Rich pointed out, Warcraft and other MMOs are full of players who solo and who group only when/because it serves self-interests. While I agree that community is very important to MMOs, that importance seems greatly overrated. If single-player RPGs regularly offered worlds that take several months to explore and the ability to shape one's own story, many MMO gamers would be playing those instead.
But I don't claim to know the demography. Without those elements being more separate, it's difficult to estimate what rough percentage of MMO gamers consider community the deciding factor as little as I do.
Consider this though: In non-gaming life, few people regularly submit themselves to boring activities just to be around friends. Generally, friends meet up around activities that provide mutual enjoyment. Enjoyment of the social setting may not be a person's focus during interaction (that is, the person's focusing on society itself), but it is still a necessary condition that usually precludes social engagement.
The MMO genre certainly still interests me. I write about it all the time, afterall, even though I haven't played one in many months. And there are many features I respect in current games. But, ultimately, I'm waiting for a new generation, because this generation bores me.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Directing attention in stories
LIMITED ATTENTION
There's an important difference between (1) all of the information a storyteller lays on the table and (2) the small range of information that the audience is able to instantly internalize and respond to. Placement is pivotal. If the author places the most vital information in the wrong place (effectively, in the background), the audience receives future information with false assumptions; they may even construct a flawed avenue of interpretation which they will follow to end, then wondering why the story's conclusion feels so unsatisfying.
FOCUS IN WRITING
In literature, the word's placement in the sentence, the placement of the sentence in the paragraph (and so on) influences focus. For example: "The mother placed the blanket gently on her daughter" versus "Gently, the mother placed the blanket on her daughter." By changing the placement of the word "gently", more attention is called to the word. In a paragraph, opening and closing statements tend to be the most remembered. The first and last lines of a story are absolutetly vital. And quotation marks usually denote action, rather than description (only), so they tend to receive more rapt attention.
FOCUS IN FILM
In film, the camera usually decides the audience's focus. If Jack is talking while Bob is listening, Jack is the center of attention only as long as the camera stays on him. If the camera shifts to Bob during this scene, then the audience is encouraged to focus on Bob's reactions to what Jack is saying, rather than what specifically Jack is saying.
Body language, setting, background movement...these things can relay a lot of information; enough that their messages will sometime drown out dialogue. If the camera zooms in on a character's eyes as they stretch wide in terror or pain, any cooperative dialogue may be effectively silenced. If the character is off-center, any potentially relevant object in the center of the frame may distract from the character.
FOCUS IN GAMES
It is only in recent years that game stories have been written by professional writers, rather than programmers or artists (which isn't to suggest that a Renaissance man can't trump a specialist). So it's perhaps ironic that game writers have so commonly missed the narrative boundaries of their own medium. In a game story, the player's focus is typically on his or her own potential actions and involvement. The player is almost always the primary protagonist (intended or not).
As a player, if I'm watching a cinematic cutscene, I want to know how everything in that cutscene relates to my character and my choices. Most cinematics in games thus far have been largely unrelated to character choices. Developers have incorporated cinema as it was already known, rather than take limited elements of film to adapt its visual storytelling capacity to a new medium. If my choices have had no obvious effect on the events of a cutscene, then that cutscene is more a distraction from than a progression of my story-experience.
The player needn't be in absolute control of the story. In fact, the vast majority of popular stories (of any medium) involve the natural conflict between things in and things out of the protagonist's control. It is perhaps desireable that game audiences should experience this conflict more than they do currently. Gamers up until now have accepted a lack of story control as a perhaps-regretable but necessary trait of the story medium.
A better way
Anyway, it's something to consider. In my own experience, cinematics can be greatly appreciated even when they're not related to gameplay much at all. Diablo 2's sporadic movies and World of Warcraft's intro movie are good examples, but note the quality of those cinematics.
Generally speaking, I think cinematics are a poor method of storytelling in games, and zoom-in character conversations aren't much better. The medium is more rewarding of narratives that are less fixed and are experienced while the player still has full mobility (and capacity for actions in general, including combat skills). Not simple, I know, but such methods have a much greater affective impact on the player.
There's an important difference between (1) all of the information a storyteller lays on the table and (2) the small range of information that the audience is able to instantly internalize and respond to. Placement is pivotal. If the author places the most vital information in the wrong place (effectively, in the background), the audience receives future information with false assumptions; they may even construct a flawed avenue of interpretation which they will follow to end, then wondering why the story's conclusion feels so unsatisfying.
FOCUS IN WRITING
In literature, the word's placement in the sentence, the placement of the sentence in the paragraph (and so on) influences focus. For example: "The mother placed the blanket gently on her daughter" versus "Gently, the mother placed the blanket on her daughter." By changing the placement of the word "gently", more attention is called to the word. In a paragraph, opening and closing statements tend to be the most remembered. The first and last lines of a story are absolutetly vital. And quotation marks usually denote action, rather than description (only), so they tend to receive more rapt attention.
FOCUS IN FILM
In film, the camera usually decides the audience's focus. If Jack is talking while Bob is listening, Jack is the center of attention only as long as the camera stays on him. If the camera shifts to Bob during this scene, then the audience is encouraged to focus on Bob's reactions to what Jack is saying, rather than what specifically Jack is saying.
Body language, setting, background movement...these things can relay a lot of information; enough that their messages will sometime drown out dialogue. If the camera zooms in on a character's eyes as they stretch wide in terror or pain, any cooperative dialogue may be effectively silenced. If the character is off-center, any potentially relevant object in the center of the frame may distract from the character.
FOCUS IN GAMES
It is only in recent years that game stories have been written by professional writers, rather than programmers or artists (which isn't to suggest that a Renaissance man can't trump a specialist). So it's perhaps ironic that game writers have so commonly missed the narrative boundaries of their own medium. In a game story, the player's focus is typically on his or her own potential actions and involvement. The player is almost always the primary protagonist (intended or not).
As a player, if I'm watching a cinematic cutscene, I want to know how everything in that cutscene relates to my character and my choices. Most cinematics in games thus far have been largely unrelated to character choices. Developers have incorporated cinema as it was already known, rather than take limited elements of film to adapt its visual storytelling capacity to a new medium. If my choices have had no obvious effect on the events of a cutscene, then that cutscene is more a distraction from than a progression of my story-experience.
The player needn't be in absolute control of the story. In fact, the vast majority of popular stories (of any medium) involve the natural conflict between things in and things out of the protagonist's control. It is perhaps desireable that game audiences should experience this conflict more than they do currently. Gamers up until now have accepted a lack of story control as a perhaps-regretable but necessary trait of the story medium.
A better way
Anyway, it's something to consider. In my own experience, cinematics can be greatly appreciated even when they're not related to gameplay much at all. Diablo 2's sporadic movies and World of Warcraft's intro movie are good examples, but note the quality of those cinematics.
Generally speaking, I think cinematics are a poor method of storytelling in games, and zoom-in character conversations aren't much better. The medium is more rewarding of narratives that are less fixed and are experienced while the player still has full mobility (and capacity for actions in general, including combat skills). Not simple, I know, but such methods have a much greater affective impact on the player.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Escape without a mask
While I agree that escapism is a common appeal of RPGs, I don't think escape from reality happens to the extent that many seem to believe.
Knowledge and potential
Any role can be played only so well as it is understood. That's why actors do research. The actor tries to imagine what it would be like to be that other person, and then he acts the part as much as that character's personality happens to overlap with the actor's own personal capacity.
All personalities are far broader than can be witnessed in any single moment. Each personality includes the choices one makes and the choices one is capable of making. That's why good fiction writers know much more about their characters than the reader is shown. And that's why your college professor sees a different "you" than your mom, and her conception is different than your co-worker's, which is different than your boss's, and so on.
Different people and settings bring out different parts of your personality, and nobody will ever know you in entirety. That doesn't make you deceitful. Different individuals need and want different things from us. They have different senses of humor, so you tell different jokes. They have different problems, so you offer different kinds of advice and sympathy. One likes vulgarity; another likes pithy remarks. One person evokes your anger; another makes you laugh. No person will ever see every part of you because no person will ever witness you in every situation; and, on top of that, you're always changing and growing.
The choices involved in roleplay express real aspects of the player's personality. The actions my character performs are actions within the scope of my personality under the same set of conditions. And that last part's the kicker.
Conditions of personality
The only true escape comes when something about the setting creates parameters that are different from the real world.
In real life, many consider me a overly nice guy. I never lose my temper, never hurt someone's feelings intentionally (not even in retaliation), and I will go out of my way to help complete strangers -- all just because it's natural for me to care about every person I see face-to-face. But as a player in Neverwinter Nights, I didn't really care about any of the other characters. So I actually levelled up my character before even leaving town by brutally slaughtering every NPC who was of no use to me. Once, I even cheated an NPC out of his money, and then killed him. I was disappointed when the game wouldn't allow me to slaughter the child NPCs the same way.
The point is... Under this different set of parameters which the game presented (if not intentionally...Bioware probably wanted me to care about their NPCs), I was neutral evil. Under real parameters, I'm neutral good. Actual choices are far more important than potential in defining character. However, potentiality is a part of personality. The fact that I thought to slaughter all those NPCs while a friend who also had the game never killed an NPC needlessly demonstrates a difference between our personalities (perhaps only that it takes more for me to empathize with game characters than for my friend to). Even though those parameters are completely virtual, completely impossible in real life, they reveal a difference between what defines Aaron and what defines Jay.
Few player characters, if any, reflect nothing of the player's personality. And I'll go so far as to say that most player characters reveal quite a bit. What we're escaping from is pressures upon our personalities, not really from who we are.
Every artist is a psychologist in disguise. =)
Knowledge and potential
Any role can be played only so well as it is understood. That's why actors do research. The actor tries to imagine what it would be like to be that other person, and then he acts the part as much as that character's personality happens to overlap with the actor's own personal capacity.
All personalities are far broader than can be witnessed in any single moment. Each personality includes the choices one makes and the choices one is capable of making. That's why good fiction writers know much more about their characters than the reader is shown. And that's why your college professor sees a different "you" than your mom, and her conception is different than your co-worker's, which is different than your boss's, and so on.
Different people and settings bring out different parts of your personality, and nobody will ever know you in entirety. That doesn't make you deceitful. Different individuals need and want different things from us. They have different senses of humor, so you tell different jokes. They have different problems, so you offer different kinds of advice and sympathy. One likes vulgarity; another likes pithy remarks. One person evokes your anger; another makes you laugh. No person will ever see every part of you because no person will ever witness you in every situation; and, on top of that, you're always changing and growing.
The choices involved in roleplay express real aspects of the player's personality. The actions my character performs are actions within the scope of my personality under the same set of conditions. And that last part's the kicker.
Conditions of personality
The only true escape comes when something about the setting creates parameters that are different from the real world.
In real life, many consider me a overly nice guy. I never lose my temper, never hurt someone's feelings intentionally (not even in retaliation), and I will go out of my way to help complete strangers -- all just because it's natural for me to care about every person I see face-to-face. But as a player in Neverwinter Nights, I didn't really care about any of the other characters. So I actually levelled up my character before even leaving town by brutally slaughtering every NPC who was of no use to me. Once, I even cheated an NPC out of his money, and then killed him. I was disappointed when the game wouldn't allow me to slaughter the child NPCs the same way.
The point is... Under this different set of parameters which the game presented (if not intentionally...Bioware probably wanted me to care about their NPCs), I was neutral evil. Under real parameters, I'm neutral good. Actual choices are far more important than potential in defining character. However, potentiality is a part of personality. The fact that I thought to slaughter all those NPCs while a friend who also had the game never killed an NPC needlessly demonstrates a difference between our personalities (perhaps only that it takes more for me to empathize with game characters than for my friend to). Even though those parameters are completely virtual, completely impossible in real life, they reveal a difference between what defines Aaron and what defines Jay.
Few player characters, if any, reflect nothing of the player's personality. And I'll go so far as to say that most player characters reveal quite a bit. What we're escaping from is pressures upon our personalities, not really from who we are.
Every artist is a psychologist in disguise. =)
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
The group and the individual
Player groupings should be separated by more than just numbers and organization. They can be designed for different types of encounters, different rewards, and different limitations. And by "different types", I don't mean different in the nominal way EQ2 has "Solo" and "Group" encounters.
SOLDIERS AND TREASURE-HUNTERS AIN'T THE SAME
Raiding in MMOs never seemed all that wonderful to me. I tried it a couple times and felt most of the time like I was being prodded through a guided tour.
In fact, that analogy works pretty well, because a raiding party in current MMOs is a group much more in the sense of a tour-group than of a militia. Sure, the individual players enjoy each other's company (ideally, anyway), but they're mostly concerned with individual goals (loot and/or xp). Guilds sometimes boast about having defeated a particularly tough enemy, and this represents a truly community-oriented goal (national honor -- i.e., patriotism); but they typically face that same enemy over and over for the sake of individual player progressions.
Goals in MMOs rarely lean more toward community benefits than individual benefits. If you dig deeply enough, of course, the line between self-serving acts and selfless acts is often hypothetical; one act serves both ways. But what concerns us here is the player's focus and intent.
True militia
I'm not arguing that traditional raiding should be abandoned entirely, but I am suggesting that the traditional reward system of "loot and xp always" is bland and primitive.
For years now, a common goal among MMO developers has been to make players feel more important to the gameworld. True militia gameplay is one means of accomplishing that. Instead of painting every player into a mercenary role, players may be allowed to join NPC causes and serve NPC factions in ways that position lore progression (story engagement) before all other goals. Star Wars: Galaxies seemed to prove the viability of this. In my SWG experience, players did take faction quests for the purpose of self-advancement, but it also was not uncommon for faction-bound players to engage faction enemies in combat for the sake of a cause or role-fulfillment. The game was certainly much more enjoyable for me because of my faction affiliation (Empire) and the call to eliminate any "Rebel scum" I might happen across or hear about.
A piece of the action
Many successful FPS games have cast the player as a soldier who will assuredly receive no rewards of loot, money, faction, or progression points. But the player doesn't mind, because he's in it for the action... and possibly (though I doubt it) for the story progression. If MMOs can't sell players on the idea that some encounters are rewarding enough through the action alone, then it seems that would make liars out of those who claim MMO combat is truly exhilirating. MMO veterans would have expectations that must be managed, of course, but those expectations may be changed.
Fame and glory
Does anyone really doubt that guilds (or other large groups of players) would still tackle ferociously tough monsters even without any promise of loot, wealth, or experience points? Bragging rights are a big deal. I remember an incredibly difficult cheat to unlock in Goldeneye N64 that required beating a level in a ridiculously short time. After players beat it, they didn't talk about how cool the unlocked cheat was; they talked about how hard it was to get and how skilled (and lucky) that made them.
Tie such communal victories in with the game's lore and dynamic events. Then, offer the group a lasting legacy. Legacies can be accomplished through a Hall of Heroes, library records, minstrel songs, and any number of other possibilities. If a legendary one-spawn creature is taken down, the developers can ask the guild for some visual figure that is representative of the group, then place a statue of that figure in a nearby village for the duration of the gameworld. In some cases, it may make sense to recognize the individuals within the group directly (like a list of names in a library record), but it's alright to reward the group as a whole instead.
Noble deeds
See the previous blog.
SOLO GAMEPLAY = GROUP GAMEPLAY WATERED-DOWN?
There seems to be an implicit assumption in MMOs that the only significant differences between solo gaming and group gaming are complimentary skills and chatting. Not so.
Solo gaming involves a freedom from many social pressures which affect how the player engages the game.
Pacing
Players in a group generally try to stay together, watching the others and adjusting their pace to a comfortable compromise. A solo player can follow impulses to rush ahead or sneak as slowly as he wants to.
One of my favorite MMO experiences was ever-so-slowly sneaking up to and down through a cave full of narglatches (like nasty-tempered lions covered in red scales and spikes). My character must have spent at least 20-30 minutes crawling on his belly, stopping completely whenever a narglatch might notice me. I was down in the thick of their lair before I was finally discovered. That's an experience I couldn't have had with a group.
Soloing means much tighter control over one's gameplay experience. Everyone probably knows what it's like being talked into some dungeon crawl, quest, or loot run that you really were not all that interested in. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes, we need someone to push us into new, enjoyable experiences. But sometimes, perhaps just as often, we look back and think, "yep, I knew this would suck."
Tactics and strategy
Some expressions of this difference are obvious, but there's a lot to be explored here. For example, solo players must often be more attentive to their surroundings and careful with positioning (relative to the enemy) than groups. They're more vulnerable to surprise attacks. Positioning is something MMOs haven't adequately incorporated into gameplay (with notable exceptions). But if they did, it is certainly something that is realized very differently in solo gameplay ("I bet he can't see me on this cliff above him") than in group gameplay ("You three circle behind him, and I'll drive him to you").
In the interest of getting this posted today, I'll leave it at that. But I hope the general idea is clear. Developers may just continue debating which loot to give solo gamers, which loot to give small groups, and which loot to give raiding parties. But it makes more sense to me that large groups, small groups, and solo experiences generally represent different goals and settings...and should often involve reward systems that are fundamentally different (not just different in quantity or quality). Mercenary armies are feasible, but armies marching off to protect an allied people (for free) or hunting a dragon for eternal glory (and nothing else)...those sort of scenarios make more sense to me when considering large group gameplay.
SOLDIERS AND TREASURE-HUNTERS AIN'T THE SAME
Raiding in MMOs never seemed all that wonderful to me. I tried it a couple times and felt most of the time like I was being prodded through a guided tour.
In fact, that analogy works pretty well, because a raiding party in current MMOs is a group much more in the sense of a tour-group than of a militia. Sure, the individual players enjoy each other's company (ideally, anyway), but they're mostly concerned with individual goals (loot and/or xp). Guilds sometimes boast about having defeated a particularly tough enemy, and this represents a truly community-oriented goal (national honor -- i.e., patriotism); but they typically face that same enemy over and over for the sake of individual player progressions.
Goals in MMOs rarely lean more toward community benefits than individual benefits. If you dig deeply enough, of course, the line between self-serving acts and selfless acts is often hypothetical; one act serves both ways. But what concerns us here is the player's focus and intent.
True militia
I'm not arguing that traditional raiding should be abandoned entirely, but I am suggesting that the traditional reward system of "loot and xp always" is bland and primitive.
For years now, a common goal among MMO developers has been to make players feel more important to the gameworld. True militia gameplay is one means of accomplishing that. Instead of painting every player into a mercenary role, players may be allowed to join NPC causes and serve NPC factions in ways that position lore progression (story engagement) before all other goals. Star Wars: Galaxies seemed to prove the viability of this. In my SWG experience, players did take faction quests for the purpose of self-advancement, but it also was not uncommon for faction-bound players to engage faction enemies in combat for the sake of a cause or role-fulfillment. The game was certainly much more enjoyable for me because of my faction affiliation (Empire) and the call to eliminate any "Rebel scum" I might happen across or hear about.
A piece of the action
Many successful FPS games have cast the player as a soldier who will assuredly receive no rewards of loot, money, faction, or progression points. But the player doesn't mind, because he's in it for the action... and possibly (though I doubt it) for the story progression. If MMOs can't sell players on the idea that some encounters are rewarding enough through the action alone, then it seems that would make liars out of those who claim MMO combat is truly exhilirating. MMO veterans would have expectations that must be managed, of course, but those expectations may be changed.
Fame and glory
Does anyone really doubt that guilds (or other large groups of players) would still tackle ferociously tough monsters even without any promise of loot, wealth, or experience points? Bragging rights are a big deal. I remember an incredibly difficult cheat to unlock in Goldeneye N64 that required beating a level in a ridiculously short time. After players beat it, they didn't talk about how cool the unlocked cheat was; they talked about how hard it was to get and how skilled (and lucky) that made them.
Tie such communal victories in with the game's lore and dynamic events. Then, offer the group a lasting legacy. Legacies can be accomplished through a Hall of Heroes, library records, minstrel songs, and any number of other possibilities. If a legendary one-spawn creature is taken down, the developers can ask the guild for some visual figure that is representative of the group, then place a statue of that figure in a nearby village for the duration of the gameworld. In some cases, it may make sense to recognize the individuals within the group directly (like a list of names in a library record), but it's alright to reward the group as a whole instead.
Noble deeds
See the previous blog.
SOLO GAMEPLAY = GROUP GAMEPLAY WATERED-DOWN?
There seems to be an implicit assumption in MMOs that the only significant differences between solo gaming and group gaming are complimentary skills and chatting. Not so.
Solo gaming involves a freedom from many social pressures which affect how the player engages the game.
Pacing
Players in a group generally try to stay together, watching the others and adjusting their pace to a comfortable compromise. A solo player can follow impulses to rush ahead or sneak as slowly as he wants to.
One of my favorite MMO experiences was ever-so-slowly sneaking up to and down through a cave full of narglatches (like nasty-tempered lions covered in red scales and spikes). My character must have spent at least 20-30 minutes crawling on his belly, stopping completely whenever a narglatch might notice me. I was down in the thick of their lair before I was finally discovered. That's an experience I couldn't have had with a group.
Soloing means much tighter control over one's gameplay experience. Everyone probably knows what it's like being talked into some dungeon crawl, quest, or loot run that you really were not all that interested in. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes, we need someone to push us into new, enjoyable experiences. But sometimes, perhaps just as often, we look back and think, "yep, I knew this would suck."
Tactics and strategy
Some expressions of this difference are obvious, but there's a lot to be explored here. For example, solo players must often be more attentive to their surroundings and careful with positioning (relative to the enemy) than groups. They're more vulnerable to surprise attacks. Positioning is something MMOs haven't adequately incorporated into gameplay (with notable exceptions). But if they did, it is certainly something that is realized very differently in solo gameplay ("I bet he can't see me on this cliff above him") than in group gameplay ("You three circle behind him, and I'll drive him to you").
In the interest of getting this posted today, I'll leave it at that. But I hope the general idea is clear. Developers may just continue debating which loot to give solo gamers, which loot to give small groups, and which loot to give raiding parties. But it makes more sense to me that large groups, small groups, and solo experiences generally represent different goals and settings...and should often involve reward systems that are fundamentally different (not just different in quantity or quality). Mercenary armies are feasible, but armies marching off to protect an allied people (for free) or hunting a dragon for eternal glory (and nothing else)...those sort of scenarios make more sense to me when considering large group gameplay.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Nobility and reward
Originally, this was part of a blog I'm writing concerning group gameplay versus individual gameplay. But it's become so long, I'm going to make this its own article.
FOR LOOT OR NOBLE REWARD
The Three Amigos faced El Guapo to save the town, not to rob the thieves.
Current MMOs are more encouraging of mercenary alliances of convenience than of noble causes. In real life, individuals are often filled with a powerful sense of self-satisfaction when they recall memories of good deeds he or she has done, or when the deed's recipient smiles back appreciatively. If noble action can be so fulfilling in reality, then it could certainly be fulfilling in a game as well. There's a significant affectual difference between helping another person and helping an NPC, but each can be gratifying.
Sure, games regularly offer players opportunities for noble deeds, but there is always another form of reward (and usually not just one) that often seems to overshadow the player's good will. It might be only experience points, or loot, or faction that can be "cashed in" for something beside good favor. As I'm sure I've written somewhere before, I'd like to see rewards more separated: loot alone, xp alone, faction alone... and nobility alone.
ORGANIZED CHARITY
Players could join organizations for the expressed purpose of noble deeds, perhaps even of a particular scope. And the appeal isn't limited to roleplay (enter the "virtual world vs game" debate =P ). These can be fun.
Those paladin pansies...
For example, a paladin might occasionally group with fellows of his order to keep an enemy population in check. In the upcoming MMO Darkfall, a dynamic spawning system allows a creature population to "migrate" after being overhunted in one area. Such a setting would be ideal for this sort of organization.
The paladin order could not only maintain safety on one particular border, but they might also perform reconaissance and travel from one area to the next hunting zombies or demonspawn. If developers allowed these creature populations to grow to burdensome levels if left unchecked, then player paladins might even receive encouragement from non-paladins! In this case, though there may be many types of rewards involved in the struggle at any given time, it is clear how such a system may keep an impression of noble action front-and-center.
Herbs on demand
Another possibility is an alchemical organization driven by NPC groups with alchemical needs. In fact, this provides a way to show how one altruistic organization might be bound to another.
Suppose that the undead, which the paladins attempt to keep in check, can have some negative effect on NPC villages that they come into contact with. The effect might be perpetual fear, illness, or might even be a plethora of maladies. The alchemical organization would then enter the village to obtain, create, and apply remedies (with visually perceptible effects) to the NPC population.
The paladin order might often be the messenger of need, calling upon the alchemical society after raids; or vis versa. There might even be circumstances in which the two organizations must work cooperatively for success. For instance, a stricken village might be extremely hard to cure as long as undead just outside its borders exert a psychic hold over the villagers (i.e., undead leaders must be slain to release the town from corruption). Or (in the opposite direction) the paladins might call on the alchemists to purify a holy pool which is a boon to paladin powers in the area, thereby strengthening the paladins against nearby undead.
In short, it is feasible for altruism to be its own reward at times in games (within the context of enjoying the act itself...like combat). It isn't necessary for grouping with other players to always involve a possibility of personal gain. Sometimes enjoyment come from feeling helpful and identifying one's self with a larger and nobler cause.
FOR LOOT OR NOBLE REWARD
The Three Amigos faced El Guapo to save the town, not to rob the thieves.
Current MMOs are more encouraging of mercenary alliances of convenience than of noble causes. In real life, individuals are often filled with a powerful sense of self-satisfaction when they recall memories of good deeds he or she has done, or when the deed's recipient smiles back appreciatively. If noble action can be so fulfilling in reality, then it could certainly be fulfilling in a game as well. There's a significant affectual difference between helping another person and helping an NPC, but each can be gratifying.
Sure, games regularly offer players opportunities for noble deeds, but there is always another form of reward (and usually not just one) that often seems to overshadow the player's good will. It might be only experience points, or loot, or faction that can be "cashed in" for something beside good favor. As I'm sure I've written somewhere before, I'd like to see rewards more separated: loot alone, xp alone, faction alone... and nobility alone.
ORGANIZED CHARITY
Players could join organizations for the expressed purpose of noble deeds, perhaps even of a particular scope. And the appeal isn't limited to roleplay (enter the "virtual world vs game" debate =P ). These can be fun.
Those paladin pansies...
For example, a paladin might occasionally group with fellows of his order to keep an enemy population in check. In the upcoming MMO Darkfall, a dynamic spawning system allows a creature population to "migrate" after being overhunted in one area. Such a setting would be ideal for this sort of organization.
The paladin order could not only maintain safety on one particular border, but they might also perform reconaissance and travel from one area to the next hunting zombies or demonspawn. If developers allowed these creature populations to grow to burdensome levels if left unchecked, then player paladins might even receive encouragement from non-paladins! In this case, though there may be many types of rewards involved in the struggle at any given time, it is clear how such a system may keep an impression of noble action front-and-center.
Herbs on demand
Another possibility is an alchemical organization driven by NPC groups with alchemical needs. In fact, this provides a way to show how one altruistic organization might be bound to another.
Suppose that the undead, which the paladins attempt to keep in check, can have some negative effect on NPC villages that they come into contact with. The effect might be perpetual fear, illness, or might even be a plethora of maladies. The alchemical organization would then enter the village to obtain, create, and apply remedies (with visually perceptible effects) to the NPC population.
The paladin order might often be the messenger of need, calling upon the alchemical society after raids; or vis versa. There might even be circumstances in which the two organizations must work cooperatively for success. For instance, a stricken village might be extremely hard to cure as long as undead just outside its borders exert a psychic hold over the villagers (i.e., undead leaders must be slain to release the town from corruption). Or (in the opposite direction) the paladins might call on the alchemists to purify a holy pool which is a boon to paladin powers in the area, thereby strengthening the paladins against nearby undead.
In short, it is feasible for altruism to be its own reward at times in games (within the context of enjoying the act itself...like combat). It isn't necessary for grouping with other players to always involve a possibility of personal gain. Sometimes enjoyment come from feeling helpful and identifying one's self with a larger and nobler cause.
Friday, June 15, 2007
The WoW phenomenon
For well over a year now, everyone and their mother has been trying to figure out what made World of Warcraft take off like a rocket and dominate the market by such a ridiculous margin. The latest figures I've seen say they're at upwards of 800,000 subscribers now.
Well, against my better judgement, I'll throw in my own 2 cents.
THE BLIZZARD BRAND
WoW had a marketing advantage far beyond that of any other MMO game, with the possible exception being Middle Earth Online. Blizzard has the Midas touch.
They have not one, but three game franchises, spanning decades, with millions of faithful fans. Many of those fans would scoff at the mere idea of an MMO game, but others can't help but feel excited by anything Blizzard comes up with. Each of those fans has a word-of-mouth advertising effect (the strongest advertising that exists) on at least one or two other people (gamers and non-gamers), if not half-a-dozen or more.
Why can WoW bridge the gap between Western and Eastern gamers? One word: Starcraft. From what I understand, that game has its own TV channel(s) in South Korea. That's impressive by itself, but even moreso considering that it was a game designed in the West.
In some Asian countries, gaming is more mainstream than it is here. Game developers are actually recognized over there like celebrities. If I remember right, both Bill Roper and Raph Koster have said they've been stopped on the street in South Korea because gamers recognized their faces. That difference has important implications in MMOG marketing. If gaming is more mainstream, it's almost certainly more common for friends and family of the pre-gaming generations to be persuaded to try the game.
TIMING
No matter how good a game's marketing, no matter how good the game, there's always a little luck involved. There are a couple of ways in which I think WoW sneaked out the door at just the right time.
For one, it emerged at a time when first generation MMO gamers were floundering. It seems almost universal that a gamer's first MMO is the sweetest MMO experience. Myself, I began with Everquest. That lasted around 9 months, and it seems to have become increasingly difficult with each new MMO I try (I've played or tested almost a dozen) to become absorbed in the game. We are gradually disillusioned, increasingly aware of design issues and the staleness of this genre. WoW was released around the time that many gamers like this (those who began with Everquest, Ultima Online, or Star Wars: Galaxies) felt homeless and desperately desired an MMO that they could invest more than a mere month or two in. While WoW has kept with the same stale formula in many ways, it's refreshing in others.
Perhaps just as importantly, WoW emerged as video games were becoming more mainstream in the West and major media outlets were looking for gaming news to share with the non-gaming public. These days, many major news networks cover the game industry in their technology sections, or even give gaming its own section. That's an invaluable avenue of advertising that previous MMOs did not have nearly as much access to. It used to be that only major articles written about games like Everquest sharply criticized the absorbitant amount of hours kids "wasted" on their computer. Now, the more sales WoW gathers, the more major news networks report on it...which means more WoW sales. Even people of the pre-gaming generations are beginning to wonder, "Nearly a million subscribers?! Maybe there's something to this 'virtual world' nonsense."
A SOLID GAME
Of course, none of this is too suggest that the game's design doesn't deserve much, if not most, of the credit.
WoW may be the only MMO I've ever played that never made my computer's fans squeal, as if to scream "Please! It's too much!" The graphics are easy on computers, yet designed with a consistent and imaginative style. The art uses a broad palette of colors...meaning that it engages the eye more than traditional realism. The cartoonish style prevents gritty and frightening scenes from feeling too gritty or frightening for those who want a more relaxed, musing experience (i.e., a lot of people who rarely, if ever, play video games).
The pace of gameplay is quicker and less disjointed than in most MMOs. I remember thinking how ingenious it was that my orc warrior was encouraged to almost immediately move from one enemy to the next by the rage system. Players aren't nearly so bound to grouping as in most MMos. The feasibility of solo gameplay means the player is rarely stuck standing and waiting on groups to form and true gameplay to begin again. It's smart to offer the player downtime periodically. But if the player doesn't want downtime at the moment, then don't force it on him.
WoW had improved customization options in its skill system. In most MMOs, levelling up mean the player is given particular skills. WoW took the Diablo route of allowing players to improve old skills, rather than pick new skills, if they so choose. And one player of a class might use different skills than another, such as one warlock preferring a ranged minion while another warlock prefers a melee minion.
It's probably been a year since I played the game, but I'm sure there are plenty of other aspects of the game that are worthy of praise.
SO BASICALLY...
Yes, it's a good game. But no, it is not the epitome of all an MMO game should be. It annoys me to no end when I constantly see people pointing to WoW's phenomenal sales and concluding that any aspect of the game must be good. Circumstances surrounding WoW gave it a great running start, and further circumstances have facilitated its progress like with few other games of any genre.
But more importantly, the success of a whole product does not translate into success of any feature within that product. The game has sold well as a whole, not piece by piece. And some of its features might be perfect in combination with other WoW features, but terrible when placed in other combinations.
Financial investors understand this concept. At home, they have awesome HD-TVs with annoying control schemes, slick luxury cars with uncomfortable seats and holsters too small or large for their coffee mugs, and microwaves that can do anything but take a rocket-scientist to figure out. If you know how to explain it to them, you can get your investment money without having to clone WoW in every detail.
Well, against my better judgement, I'll throw in my own 2 cents.
THE BLIZZARD BRAND
WoW had a marketing advantage far beyond that of any other MMO game, with the possible exception being Middle Earth Online. Blizzard has the Midas touch.
They have not one, but three game franchises, spanning decades, with millions of faithful fans. Many of those fans would scoff at the mere idea of an MMO game, but others can't help but feel excited by anything Blizzard comes up with. Each of those fans has a word-of-mouth advertising effect (the strongest advertising that exists) on at least one or two other people (gamers and non-gamers), if not half-a-dozen or more.
Why can WoW bridge the gap between Western and Eastern gamers? One word: Starcraft. From what I understand, that game has its own TV channel(s) in South Korea. That's impressive by itself, but even moreso considering that it was a game designed in the West.
In some Asian countries, gaming is more mainstream than it is here. Game developers are actually recognized over there like celebrities. If I remember right, both Bill Roper and Raph Koster have said they've been stopped on the street in South Korea because gamers recognized their faces. That difference has important implications in MMOG marketing. If gaming is more mainstream, it's almost certainly more common for friends and family of the pre-gaming generations to be persuaded to try the game.
TIMING
No matter how good a game's marketing, no matter how good the game, there's always a little luck involved. There are a couple of ways in which I think WoW sneaked out the door at just the right time.
For one, it emerged at a time when first generation MMO gamers were floundering. It seems almost universal that a gamer's first MMO is the sweetest MMO experience. Myself, I began with Everquest. That lasted around 9 months, and it seems to have become increasingly difficult with each new MMO I try (I've played or tested almost a dozen) to become absorbed in the game. We are gradually disillusioned, increasingly aware of design issues and the staleness of this genre. WoW was released around the time that many gamers like this (those who began with Everquest, Ultima Online, or Star Wars: Galaxies) felt homeless and desperately desired an MMO that they could invest more than a mere month or two in. While WoW has kept with the same stale formula in many ways, it's refreshing in others.
Perhaps just as importantly, WoW emerged as video games were becoming more mainstream in the West and major media outlets were looking for gaming news to share with the non-gaming public. These days, many major news networks cover the game industry in their technology sections, or even give gaming its own section. That's an invaluable avenue of advertising that previous MMOs did not have nearly as much access to. It used to be that only major articles written about games like Everquest sharply criticized the absorbitant amount of hours kids "wasted" on their computer. Now, the more sales WoW gathers, the more major news networks report on it...which means more WoW sales. Even people of the pre-gaming generations are beginning to wonder, "Nearly a million subscribers?! Maybe there's something to this 'virtual world' nonsense."
A SOLID GAME
Of course, none of this is too suggest that the game's design doesn't deserve much, if not most, of the credit.
WoW may be the only MMO I've ever played that never made my computer's fans squeal, as if to scream "Please! It's too much!" The graphics are easy on computers, yet designed with a consistent and imaginative style. The art uses a broad palette of colors...meaning that it engages the eye more than traditional realism. The cartoonish style prevents gritty and frightening scenes from feeling too gritty or frightening for those who want a more relaxed, musing experience (i.e., a lot of people who rarely, if ever, play video games).
The pace of gameplay is quicker and less disjointed than in most MMOs. I remember thinking how ingenious it was that my orc warrior was encouraged to almost immediately move from one enemy to the next by the rage system. Players aren't nearly so bound to grouping as in most MMos. The feasibility of solo gameplay means the player is rarely stuck standing and waiting on groups to form and true gameplay to begin again. It's smart to offer the player downtime periodically. But if the player doesn't want downtime at the moment, then don't force it on him.
WoW had improved customization options in its skill system. In most MMOs, levelling up mean the player is given particular skills. WoW took the Diablo route of allowing players to improve old skills, rather than pick new skills, if they so choose. And one player of a class might use different skills than another, such as one warlock preferring a ranged minion while another warlock prefers a melee minion.
It's probably been a year since I played the game, but I'm sure there are plenty of other aspects of the game that are worthy of praise.
SO BASICALLY...
Yes, it's a good game. But no, it is not the epitome of all an MMO game should be. It annoys me to no end when I constantly see people pointing to WoW's phenomenal sales and concluding that any aspect of the game must be good. Circumstances surrounding WoW gave it a great running start, and further circumstances have facilitated its progress like with few other games of any genre.
But more importantly, the success of a whole product does not translate into success of any feature within that product. The game has sold well as a whole, not piece by piece. And some of its features might be perfect in combination with other WoW features, but terrible when placed in other combinations.
Financial investors understand this concept. At home, they have awesome HD-TVs with annoying control schemes, slick luxury cars with uncomfortable seats and holsters too small or large for their coffee mugs, and microwaves that can do anything but take a rocket-scientist to figure out. If you know how to explain it to them, you can get your investment money without having to clone WoW in every detail.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Routine and an illusion of fate
INTRO
If any two philosophers would have been excellent game designers, they would be Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.
Aristotle called something virtuous when it performed the purpose of its design well. A knife, for example, is virtuous if it cuts well. You could choose to use a knife as a hammer, but it probably wouldn't perform that function well. There are limitations inherent in the design, though few designs are absolutely limited. A knife may sometimes act as a pretty good flat-head screwdriver, for example.
St. Thomas Aquinas believed that there are three things any person must know in order to be happy and fulfilled: (1) he must know the world for what it is; (2) he must know his own place, his role, in the world's design; and (3) he must know how to fulfill that role through momentary actions. If a person does not know how to translate his knowledge of the role into definite actions, his ability to experience the joy of fulfillment is stunted.
On the other hand, nobody likes to feel like just a cog in the machine. In every MMO game I play (and I've played or tested almost a dozen now), I inevitably hear some players criticizing others for not knowing how to play a particular group role. If these criticisms were general, like asserting that a defender should be apt at protecting his allies, then I would agree. But they are more often suggestions that a very particular tactical blueprint should be followed without deviation; thereby ensuring, in combination with everyone else's particular blueprint, that the factory of combat produces the agreeable (if bland) result predicted.
THE GIST OF IT
For most gamers, fun is best achieved through a balance of predetermination and free will. What MMOs have shown me is that stale routines can lead to an illusion of predetermination and confinement.
Consider real warfare. A Roman swordsman knew what his initial actions must be in order to preserve the integrity of the group's strategy (a phalanx formation). In order for the formation to be effective, each soldier must move toward the enemy at an equal pace, maintaining a position in the battalion's order, until he the melee combat begins. But... once that combat begins, the soldier must respond to the spontaneous (though trained) actions of the enemy and to the progression of events surrounding his immediate opponent (like the allied soldier by his side falling to an enemy attack). Likewise, in modern warfare, the soldier has a general place in unit operations, but he must respond to spontaneous events in a fluid and often creative way (here, "creative" often means applying his training to an unfamiliar scenario).
If an encounter does not seem spontaneous in its unfolding, if the enemy does nothing that vaguely surprises the combatant, then the encounter leaves an impression of being fated, of unfolding as it was certain to unfold. Utter predictability acts as an adversary to a feeling of free will. If something always happens, then it must happen. This is a basic assumption of the empirical philosophy which popular culture has accepted from modern science.
The problem of the infamous "grind" isn't that the player must struggle through an endless series of encounters to grow and realize his or her goals. The problem is the predictability of these encounters, and the player's consequent impression that his actions were never truly his own, but rather just the fulfilling of an external plan.
If any two philosophers would have been excellent game designers, they would be Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.
Aristotle called something virtuous when it performed the purpose of its design well. A knife, for example, is virtuous if it cuts well. You could choose to use a knife as a hammer, but it probably wouldn't perform that function well. There are limitations inherent in the design, though few designs are absolutely limited. A knife may sometimes act as a pretty good flat-head screwdriver, for example.
St. Thomas Aquinas believed that there are three things any person must know in order to be happy and fulfilled: (1) he must know the world for what it is; (2) he must know his own place, his role, in the world's design; and (3) he must know how to fulfill that role through momentary actions. If a person does not know how to translate his knowledge of the role into definite actions, his ability to experience the joy of fulfillment is stunted.
On the other hand, nobody likes to feel like just a cog in the machine. In every MMO game I play (and I've played or tested almost a dozen now), I inevitably hear some players criticizing others for not knowing how to play a particular group role. If these criticisms were general, like asserting that a defender should be apt at protecting his allies, then I would agree. But they are more often suggestions that a very particular tactical blueprint should be followed without deviation; thereby ensuring, in combination with everyone else's particular blueprint, that the factory of combat produces the agreeable (if bland) result predicted.
THE GIST OF IT
For most gamers, fun is best achieved through a balance of predetermination and free will. What MMOs have shown me is that stale routines can lead to an illusion of predetermination and confinement.
Consider real warfare. A Roman swordsman knew what his initial actions must be in order to preserve the integrity of the group's strategy (a phalanx formation). In order for the formation to be effective, each soldier must move toward the enemy at an equal pace, maintaining a position in the battalion's order, until he the melee combat begins. But... once that combat begins, the soldier must respond to the spontaneous (though trained) actions of the enemy and to the progression of events surrounding his immediate opponent (like the allied soldier by his side falling to an enemy attack). Likewise, in modern warfare, the soldier has a general place in unit operations, but he must respond to spontaneous events in a fluid and often creative way (here, "creative" often means applying his training to an unfamiliar scenario).
If an encounter does not seem spontaneous in its unfolding, if the enemy does nothing that vaguely surprises the combatant, then the encounter leaves an impression of being fated, of unfolding as it was certain to unfold. Utter predictability acts as an adversary to a feeling of free will. If something always happens, then it must happen. This is a basic assumption of the empirical philosophy which popular culture has accepted from modern science.
The problem of the infamous "grind" isn't that the player must struggle through an endless series of encounters to grow and realize his or her goals. The problem is the predictability of these encounters, and the player's consequent impression that his actions were never truly his own, but rather just the fulfilling of an external plan.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Cinematic combat...Legend: Hand of God
If this game isn't one of the hottest topics in the industry a week from now, I'll be extremely disappointed: http://www.legend-game.com/index.php?sprache=2
Any developer interested in action-oriented games should be drooling over their Cinematic Combat System (CCS). Just watch the gameplay trailer: http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=3181
The first time I watched that, I started out thinking "hey, it looks like someone's finally made a Diablo-clone worthy of its heritage" (Titan Quest has its merits, but its lack of what this game has was precisely its downfall in my eyes). But when I saw the fight with the ogre (or whatever that big fella is), my jaw dropped. That single mechanic will add inestimable appeal to the gameplay. Please, God, let this feature be adopted by the entire industry in the next couple years!
One thing their CCS demonstrates well is the importance of perceived impact in combat systems. If the enemy falls back when my fist never actually made contact, the thrill of the punch is lessened. Likewise, if I punch him and there's no visual reaction whatsoever; or if every attack elicits the same reaction. I've critized Hellgate: London over this same issue. In that case, the perception of impact was missing somewhat due to lackluster sound effects (I noticed in the Flagship's most recent trailers that all of their weapon-related sound effects lean toward high frequencies, which seems odd...considering that low frequencies offer the most powerful impressions of impact).
It's a bit unfortunate that the trailer for Legend: Hand of God is being released during the thick of hype for so many other games (The Darkness, Bioshock, etc.) and the presentation of Carmack's new graphics engine (which also looks, at a glance, like it may affect the entire industry). I hope those don't swallow up all the attention this game deserves.
Any developer interested in action-oriented games should be drooling over their Cinematic Combat System (CCS). Just watch the gameplay trailer: http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=3181
The first time I watched that, I started out thinking "hey, it looks like someone's finally made a Diablo-clone worthy of its heritage" (Titan Quest has its merits, but its lack of what this game has was precisely its downfall in my eyes). But when I saw the fight with the ogre (or whatever that big fella is), my jaw dropped. That single mechanic will add inestimable appeal to the gameplay. Please, God, let this feature be adopted by the entire industry in the next couple years!
One thing their CCS demonstrates well is the importance of perceived impact in combat systems. If the enemy falls back when my fist never actually made contact, the thrill of the punch is lessened. Likewise, if I punch him and there's no visual reaction whatsoever; or if every attack elicits the same reaction. I've critized Hellgate: London over this same issue. In that case, the perception of impact was missing somewhat due to lackluster sound effects (I noticed in the Flagship's most recent trailers that all of their weapon-related sound effects lean toward high frequencies, which seems odd...considering that low frequencies offer the most powerful impressions of impact).
It's a bit unfortunate that the trailer for Legend: Hand of God is being released during the thick of hype for so many other games (The Darkness, Bioshock, etc.) and the presentation of Carmack's new graphics engine (which also looks, at a glance, like it may affect the entire industry). I hope those don't swallow up all the attention this game deserves.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
The future of modeling?
http://labs.live.com/photosynth/video.html
By itself, that technology's awesome. I expect I'll be able to take excellent 3-D tours of half the major tourist attractions in the world 15 years from now. In addition, this seems to be a major step toward easier modeling of real objects.
If the human eye can discern an understanding of depth in 2-D representations, like photographs and paintings, then someone should be able to create software that does the same. We already have a rough ability to do this (apply the "sharpen" filter to a photograph half a dozen times and notice how it takes on a 3-D effect), though I'm not suggesting the invention of such software should be easy. Two-dimensional representations could be made three-dimensional.
If that can be accomplished to an acceptable degree of accuracy, think of how these two technologies could be combined! If software could accurately detect depth and distance in 2-D representations, and if those representations (now 3-D) could be linked into a combined model (similar to the products of Photosynth), then an entire real-world environment could be represented in a 3-D computer model by little more than taking a lot of photographs and processing them through the software.
The model would be almost entirely realistic (i.e., past the Uncanny Valley). No more trying to simulate the endless and unpredictable variety of textures, all of the minor flaws and eccentricities that give real objects believable character. The model of a house would have chipped paint in all the right places, settled supports in all the right places, windows with smudges, bricks with holes, and so on.
Of course, I realize that this technology won't come without significant hurdles. Even after it's accomplished, game developers would then have to figure out how to assign physics to the art which they didn't build piece-by-piece. They would have to go in after-the-fact to divide the art into sections for gameplay purposes. And that's just one hurdle.
Still, Photosynth seems to be an exciting development for game developers in particular. =)
By itself, that technology's awesome. I expect I'll be able to take excellent 3-D tours of half the major tourist attractions in the world 15 years from now. In addition, this seems to be a major step toward easier modeling of real objects.
If the human eye can discern an understanding of depth in 2-D representations, like photographs and paintings, then someone should be able to create software that does the same. We already have a rough ability to do this (apply the "sharpen" filter to a photograph half a dozen times and notice how it takes on a 3-D effect), though I'm not suggesting the invention of such software should be easy. Two-dimensional representations could be made three-dimensional.
If that can be accomplished to an acceptable degree of accuracy, think of how these two technologies could be combined! If software could accurately detect depth and distance in 2-D representations, and if those representations (now 3-D) could be linked into a combined model (similar to the products of Photosynth), then an entire real-world environment could be represented in a 3-D computer model by little more than taking a lot of photographs and processing them through the software.
The model would be almost entirely realistic (i.e., past the Uncanny Valley). No more trying to simulate the endless and unpredictable variety of textures, all of the minor flaws and eccentricities that give real objects believable character. The model of a house would have chipped paint in all the right places, settled supports in all the right places, windows with smudges, bricks with holes, and so on.
Of course, I realize that this technology won't come without significant hurdles. Even after it's accomplished, game developers would then have to figure out how to assign physics to the art which they didn't build piece-by-piece. They would have to go in after-the-fact to divide the art into sections for gameplay purposes. And that's just one hurdle.
Still, Photosynth seems to be an exciting development for game developers in particular. =)
Friday, May 25, 2007
Gameplay, not narrative, defines the game
In a recent issue of Game Informer, Mathieu Ferland defends the idea that Splinter Cell: Conviction is not a break from the Splinter Cell franchise by saying "I think there was a natural progression with the narrative."
I'm a fiction writer and a lifelong RPG fan, but I just don't buy that narrative ever defines a game. If a game was designed so that the gameplay is, not just heavily dependent on the narrative, but at its very essence little more than the progression of a story, then I might agree that narrative can define a game. But I have yet to play a game in which my primary interest is the narrative.
Call of Duty: 3 might come closest, and I played it for only 15-20 minutes before giving up on it. The game (the beginning, at least) was so dependent on cinematics that it felt like I was just going through motions to reach the next cinematic...and my impression was that it was a terrible game. If I want to watch a movie or read a book, I'll go do that.
This medium is about interaction. The narrative might be extremely important, but interaction will always be the core of any game. The more one-sided the game's progression (the more pace, plot, setting, and so on are controlled by the developer and not the player), the less it is a game.
The goals that make the most sense to me as a writer for games are:
I certainly believe that there are many admirable ways in which game writers may create a variety of narrative-gameplay combinations. But, ever since I played my first MMORPG (Everquest), the avenue which most attracts me, and which seems glaringly absent from the modern game library, is a central narrative theme...only moderately predetermined...surrounded and fulfilled by the spontaneous and creative narratives of individual players.
Player input, not the narrative that input may reveal, is the game. Dev-written stories extracted by the player will always be somewhat peripheral to core gameplay.
I'm a fiction writer and a lifelong RPG fan, but I just don't buy that narrative ever defines a game. If a game was designed so that the gameplay is, not just heavily dependent on the narrative, but at its very essence little more than the progression of a story, then I might agree that narrative can define a game. But I have yet to play a game in which my primary interest is the narrative.
Call of Duty: 3 might come closest, and I played it for only 15-20 minutes before giving up on it. The game (the beginning, at least) was so dependent on cinematics that it felt like I was just going through motions to reach the next cinematic...and my impression was that it was a terrible game. If I want to watch a movie or read a book, I'll go do that.
This medium is about interaction. The narrative might be extremely important, but interaction will always be the core of any game. The more one-sided the game's progression (the more pace, plot, setting, and so on are controlled by the developer and not the player), the less it is a game.
The goals that make the most sense to me as a writer for games are:
- To design and anticipate possible player decisions, and accomodate that free will through gameplay trees, ala Deus Ex.
- To design a context for player actions: a world which demonstrates interest in player choices, rewarding/punishing those choices according to its own interests and concepts of right and wrong action.
- To provide elements with which the player may build (consciously or not) his or her own story; to build a world with room for creative, and not just explorative, gameplay.
I certainly believe that there are many admirable ways in which game writers may create a variety of narrative-gameplay combinations. But, ever since I played my first MMORPG (Everquest), the avenue which most attracts me, and which seems glaringly absent from the modern game library, is a central narrative theme...only moderately predetermined...surrounded and fulfilled by the spontaneous and creative narratives of individual players.
Player input, not the narrative that input may reveal, is the game. Dev-written stories extracted by the player will always be somewhat peripheral to core gameplay.
Partnership of medicine and games
I read an article earlier which referenced the many months of research into biomechanics necessary for the developers of the new Splinter Cell game to achieve semi-realistic, complex character motions. Knowledge of biomechanics is of increasing importance as the industry's bar for animation is raised.
In about a month, one of my little sisters begins an internship with the National Institute of Health as a bioengineering assistant. They'll be using a new MRI technology to study the deteriorating joints of persons with cerebral palsy.
Perhaps much could be gained by a partnership between the medical industry and the game industry in the study of biomechanics. By combining the physiological expertise of medical researchers with the programming expertise of game software developers, it seems both sides could benefit greatly. Game developers might provide medical researchers with improved software and interfaces, while physicians might provide game developers with insights into simulating true biomechanics.
In about a month, one of my little sisters begins an internship with the National Institute of Health as a bioengineering assistant. They'll be using a new MRI technology to study the deteriorating joints of persons with cerebral palsy.
Perhaps much could be gained by a partnership between the medical industry and the game industry in the study of biomechanics. By combining the physiological expertise of medical researchers with the programming expertise of game software developers, it seems both sides could benefit greatly. Game developers might provide medical researchers with improved software and interfaces, while physicians might provide game developers with insights into simulating true biomechanics.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Making progression actually matter
I've neglected this blogsite far too long, so I'm just going to go ahead and post one of the unpolished (and perhaps disunified) blogs I started in the past month. This is really a topic I'd like to put a lot more thought into in the future.
In his recent article on Gamesutra, Neil Sorens makes a number of good points. One of them is that the statistical progression many developers employ to portray character advancement does not translate into an affectual impression of advancement for the player. The player's character may get stronger, but so are his or her enemies. Abilities may become more powerful, but their relative effect remains constant, or even diminishes.
ESSENCE OF PROGRESSION
Game developers haven't been employing these methods blindly, of course. The same situations arise in many epic stories of adventure. Stronger protagonists face stronger enemies, the odds reverting to those faced during more amateur encounters. Yet there is a sense that the protagonists are growing. How? To answer that question, I'll use examples from the LOTR films.
Roles, not Power
Though growth in power does matter, the primary growth in literary and cinematic heroes occurs through the discovery or formation of identity through roles. Aragorn accepts a calling to lead those he feared to fail. Frodo, on the other hand, accepts a calling to leave the comforts of community in order to serve that community. Gandalf the Grey becomes Gandalf the White after demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice himself for others. Samwise defines himself through unwavering loyalty in the face of insurmountable odds.
Roles are necessarily relational. Other beings and the challenges one is faced with define one's placement within a context. So even in a single-player game, the player's capacity for growth must be viewed in the player's relation to other elements.So how has the concept of roles been translated into past games? Classes are the most obvious answer, but a class usually represents a combination of two factors.
The first is skills. In terms of gameplay, skills most represent one's inclination toward particular methods of engagement. A player may prefer sniping, firing a blaze of projectiles, or slow but powerful explosions. A player may prefer deception and luring, frontal assault, surprise attacks, ally direction, or environment manipulation.
The second factor is one's alignment within a group. This represents how one's skills and goals relate to those of others within a community and/or the community as a whole. A player may prefer scouting, leadership, advising, resource management, resource production, chronicling, or action assistance. This applies beyond the obvious example of online grouping. A character in a single-player game has specific relationships to the other beings of the gameworld.
NEGLECTED AVENUES OF ENGAGEMENT
These are relationships between the player-character and gameworld which are absent or rare in among the games I'm familiar with.
Shrinking the Skill Palette
In epic stories, heroes occasionally face opponents that can only be defeated by a reduced number of means. In The Fellowship of the Ring, the cave troll in the mines of Moria knocked the heroes about like vermin until Legolas finally brought it down with a single arrow expertly shot into the troll's brain. It's alright to present players with obstacles that negate player abilities, as long as (1) that obstacle may be circumvented (in the event of reasonable despair),(2) victory is accompanied by an impression of extraordinarily admirable accomplishment, and (3) it's not over-used.
Resurrection
Heroes occasionally face opponents that can only be defeated temporarily (incapacitated, banished, etc.). Sauron returned from a prior defeat, because total victory over him required multiple conflicts to be resolved. It's alright for enemies to recover from defeat, if (1) the reason behind that recovery is clearly evidenced and (2) the player has a means of conquering or circumventing that enemy within a reasonable timeframe.
The Insurmountable
Characters don't have to be omnipotent to be heroic. Gandalf cowered before the Witchking and refused the challenge of bearing the One Ring, both for knowledge of being outmatched. Frodo enabled the destruction of the ring, but not without becoming incurably scarred. Heroism does not imply a capacity to overcome absolutely anything. It implies extraordinary strength. Players should feel exhilirated by their own potential, but not as if all obstacles are insurmountable.
I've always thought RPGs should contain entities which will always inspire awe and/or fear, regardless of player growth. The mountain that can't be climbed, the beast that can't be conquered, the force that can't be contained...these are the most memorable and inspirational objects of any world. And how great the exhiliration of meeting them face-to-face. Some creatures should seem invincible, but ultimately be surmountable by the most creative and/or determined players. Others, however, should remain insurmountable. These are not wasted assets. They're at least as important as the common design practice of including buildings which cannot be entered but complete the setting...and I'd argue that they're infinitely more valuable.
Support Roles in Single-Player
It's interesting to note that single-player games have rarely, if ever, provided core gameplay opportunities for gamers who prefer to reinforce others, rather than lead. To provide such gameplay in a single-player environment is surely a challenge (perhaps one that only recent advancements in artificial intelligence can overcome), but it still surprises me. Many, if not most, human beings prefer following or accompanying to leading (albeit, often in contradiction to their spoken preference, since modern democratic ideals promote the idea that we should all be leaders and that following is a sign of weakness).
The main challenge I see here is giving supportive players control over the game's pace. This might be accomplished in the way the dog of Molyneux's recent Fable 2 demonstration presents. The dog runs ahead of its master, but in the direction the player chooses. Of course, in this case, the player is still playing the role of leader. But an NPC leader might similarly wait for the player to accompany him/her, and the player could toggle the A.I. from leader to follower or back by simply clicking a particular button.
It would likely require an extraordinary reworking of old mechanics. But, as I said, it seems an inescapable consideration when one considers that many people prefer not to lead. This is probably a major factor in the accessibility of interactive media to mainstream society.
Noticeable Differences in Skill Upgrades
Require the abilities and resources the player has acquired through growth to be used with progression. Make advanced abilities fundamentally different from amateur abilities. Increasing the strength of a fireball isn't enough (because strength is relative to the endurance of enemies). Increasing the area of effect, the possible uses (burns different elements, for example), duration of burn, casting animation, contact animation...these are significant. They cost more in design resources, yes, but the cost-benefit ratio is better.
In his recent article on Gamesutra, Neil Sorens makes a number of good points. One of them is that the statistical progression many developers employ to portray character advancement does not translate into an affectual impression of advancement for the player. The player's character may get stronger, but so are his or her enemies. Abilities may become more powerful, but their relative effect remains constant, or even diminishes.
ESSENCE OF PROGRESSION
Game developers haven't been employing these methods blindly, of course. The same situations arise in many epic stories of adventure. Stronger protagonists face stronger enemies, the odds reverting to those faced during more amateur encounters. Yet there is a sense that the protagonists are growing. How? To answer that question, I'll use examples from the LOTR films.
Roles, not Power
Though growth in power does matter, the primary growth in literary and cinematic heroes occurs through the discovery or formation of identity through roles. Aragorn accepts a calling to lead those he feared to fail. Frodo, on the other hand, accepts a calling to leave the comforts of community in order to serve that community. Gandalf the Grey becomes Gandalf the White after demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice himself for others. Samwise defines himself through unwavering loyalty in the face of insurmountable odds.
Roles are necessarily relational. Other beings and the challenges one is faced with define one's placement within a context. So even in a single-player game, the player's capacity for growth must be viewed in the player's relation to other elements.So how has the concept of roles been translated into past games? Classes are the most obvious answer, but a class usually represents a combination of two factors.
The first is skills. In terms of gameplay, skills most represent one's inclination toward particular methods of engagement. A player may prefer sniping, firing a blaze of projectiles, or slow but powerful explosions. A player may prefer deception and luring, frontal assault, surprise attacks, ally direction, or environment manipulation.
The second factor is one's alignment within a group. This represents how one's skills and goals relate to those of others within a community and/or the community as a whole. A player may prefer scouting, leadership, advising, resource management, resource production, chronicling, or action assistance. This applies beyond the obvious example of online grouping. A character in a single-player game has specific relationships to the other beings of the gameworld.
NEGLECTED AVENUES OF ENGAGEMENT
These are relationships between the player-character and gameworld which are absent or rare in among the games I'm familiar with.
Shrinking the Skill Palette
In epic stories, heroes occasionally face opponents that can only be defeated by a reduced number of means. In The Fellowship of the Ring, the cave troll in the mines of Moria knocked the heroes about like vermin until Legolas finally brought it down with a single arrow expertly shot into the troll's brain. It's alright to present players with obstacles that negate player abilities, as long as (1) that obstacle may be circumvented (in the event of reasonable despair),(2) victory is accompanied by an impression of extraordinarily admirable accomplishment, and (3) it's not over-used.
Resurrection
Heroes occasionally face opponents that can only be defeated temporarily (incapacitated, banished, etc.). Sauron returned from a prior defeat, because total victory over him required multiple conflicts to be resolved. It's alright for enemies to recover from defeat, if (1) the reason behind that recovery is clearly evidenced and (2) the player has a means of conquering or circumventing that enemy within a reasonable timeframe.
The Insurmountable
Characters don't have to be omnipotent to be heroic. Gandalf cowered before the Witchking and refused the challenge of bearing the One Ring, both for knowledge of being outmatched. Frodo enabled the destruction of the ring, but not without becoming incurably scarred. Heroism does not imply a capacity to overcome absolutely anything. It implies extraordinary strength. Players should feel exhilirated by their own potential, but not as if all obstacles are insurmountable.
I've always thought RPGs should contain entities which will always inspire awe and/or fear, regardless of player growth. The mountain that can't be climbed, the beast that can't be conquered, the force that can't be contained...these are the most memorable and inspirational objects of any world. And how great the exhiliration of meeting them face-to-face. Some creatures should seem invincible, but ultimately be surmountable by the most creative and/or determined players. Others, however, should remain insurmountable. These are not wasted assets. They're at least as important as the common design practice of including buildings which cannot be entered but complete the setting...and I'd argue that they're infinitely more valuable.
Support Roles in Single-Player
It's interesting to note that single-player games have rarely, if ever, provided core gameplay opportunities for gamers who prefer to reinforce others, rather than lead. To provide such gameplay in a single-player environment is surely a challenge (perhaps one that only recent advancements in artificial intelligence can overcome), but it still surprises me. Many, if not most, human beings prefer following or accompanying to leading (albeit, often in contradiction to their spoken preference, since modern democratic ideals promote the idea that we should all be leaders and that following is a sign of weakness).
The main challenge I see here is giving supportive players control over the game's pace. This might be accomplished in the way the dog of Molyneux's recent Fable 2 demonstration presents. The dog runs ahead of its master, but in the direction the player chooses. Of course, in this case, the player is still playing the role of leader. But an NPC leader might similarly wait for the player to accompany him/her, and the player could toggle the A.I. from leader to follower or back by simply clicking a particular button.
It would likely require an extraordinary reworking of old mechanics. But, as I said, it seems an inescapable consideration when one considers that many people prefer not to lead. This is probably a major factor in the accessibility of interactive media to mainstream society.
Noticeable Differences in Skill Upgrades
Require the abilities and resources the player has acquired through growth to be used with progression. Make advanced abilities fundamentally different from amateur abilities. Increasing the strength of a fireball isn't enough (because strength is relative to the endurance of enemies). Increasing the area of effect, the possible uses (burns different elements, for example), duration of burn, casting animation, contact animation...these are significant. They cost more in design resources, yes, but the cost-benefit ratio is better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
