EverQuest(s)

Friday 12, December

Warhammer selling less than EQ2?

From PC World.

Top PC Game Sales for November 2008

1. World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King ($36)
2. World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King CE ($70)
3. Call of Duty: World at War ($50)
4. Spore ($48)
5. Fallout 3 ($49)
6. World of Warcraft: Battle Chest ($34)
7. The Sims 2: Double Deluxe ($19)
8. Left 4 Dead ($48)
9. The Sims 2: Apartment Life ($21)
10. Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 ($49)

WoW wasn't the only MMO to make November's top 20. Sneaking in at #14? Sony's Everquest II: The Shadow Odyssey expansion pack.

No Warhammer?

EDIT: Aye, confirmed.

11. World Of Warcraft - (Activision Blizzard) - $18
12. The Sims 2 Mansion & Garden Stuff Expansion Pack - Electronic Arts - $19
13. Nancy Drew: The Haunting of Castle Malloy - Her Interactive - $20
14. EverQuest II: The Shadow Odyssey Expansion Pack - Sony Online Ent. - $40
15. Far Cry 2 - Ubisoft - $50
16. World Of Warcraft: Burning Crusade Expansion Pack - (Activision Blizzard) - $29
17. Bioshock - 2K Games ( Take 2) - $14
18. Spore Creepy & Cute Parts Pack - Electronic Arts - $19
19. IGT Slots: Little Green Men - Masque - $20
20. Assassin's Creed: Director's Cut Edition - Ubisoft - $17

Wednesday 4, April

A quote

A quote from Scott Hartsman. One of the few devs I still respect and have esteem for.

In online games beyond the boutique scale, you are #1 or you are Everyone Else.

"#1" obeys certain rules that I won't get into, but stability-to-growth becomes easier and you're far more protected from loss, barring extreme triggers.

For "Everyone Else," the converse is true: You are generally in a net state of subtraction over time. It's just a matter of the rate. It takes extreme triggers to cause stability or gain.

For an MMO in the Everyone Else category, overall stability is actually a significant victory.

Therefore, saying that "EQ2's investment isn't paying off," is most definitely incorrect -- It's paying off in that "stability" means we have a large percentage more subscribers right now than we would have had otherwise.

Worth quoting and giving it some visibility as it's true in general and not just for EQ2.

Wednesday 15, November

Mushrooms!

I promised myself I won't comment, even if there would be still so much to say (ahh!).

But I had to post this:

I could ALMOST say that this expansion has some nice art and not so badly designed zones.

Client performance should be a bit better, but the presence of characters and the use of complex shaders is still a killer.

If you couldn't swallow EQ2 I doubt this expansion will change things. But it is improved.

Saturday 4, November

On fizzles

Archiving something I wrote about EQ2's fizzle mechanic that is going to be removed (while I controversially think it should have been changed and left in), mostly because one of the ideas I proposed was used for the interrupts:

This is the new behavior of interrupts, they now automatically restart the cast up to 3 times.

--
There was a long discussion a few months about WoW's release about the Warrior class which led to an in-game protest and a long post from the lead designer. Here's the interesting bit:

Now, regarding your opinions. Obviously it's perfectly valid to hold the opinion that we should have designed a lower failure rate in general (miss/dodge/parry/etc) and compensated for that in other areas. In fact, if we were to do it all over again, it's reasonable to say I might be in favor of doing something to that effect. That being said, it wouldn't be as easy as changing all mob HP's. Not only would it also require changing player HP's, but compensating through HP changes also has ripple effects on the effectiveness of spells, non-physical-damage procs, etc.

I see miss rates not differently from fizzles. They are negative odds. Never directly "fun".

As Kalgan says, the less you have of them, the less frustration. But they are also part of the *fabric* of the game.

Some games that didn't understand that concept failed horribly. Think to Morrowind combat. If you had a low attack skill you would hit ONCE every ten or more "swings". This is absurdly retarded.

So, as Kalgan said, here the right recipe isn't about removing the odds, but finding the sweet spot where they add flavor without becoming frustrating.

Fizzles are essentially the same thing. They are negative odds, exactly like missing with a weapon (I don't know how misses are calculated in-game but I guess they are related to the skill level as well, dodges with skill level compared to defence of target and so on). They are *excused* within the game because they are consistent:

- You learn a new spell and need to practice so that you can improve using it.

That's a consistent, familiar mechanic that I wouldn't remove lightheartedly and that's why I commented it.

Now the problems of the fizzles:

Fizzles provide a need to hammer the same key while getting increasingly pissed off, and feelings of frustration/incompetence as their cost of failures.

- First problem. How frequently fizzles happen. This is obviously related to the skill level and should remain so, imho. To make the mechanic more satisfying you could link more directly the skill-up with a fizzle, so that if players fizzle often, they also skill-up faster. You fail (fizzle) but you are rewarded with a skill-up. Secondly, it's essential that they are odds in combat, but not the norm. I admit to only have experience of the very early game, but fizzles seemed rare enough. If they are still perceived as annoying their chance could be made more steep depending on the skill level (so that you reduce the chance of fizzle at an high skill level, and then readjust the progression).

- Consecutive fizzles. From your comment it looks like this is the most frustrating pattern. The solution is to make the system "aware" of fizzles and increase the chance to cast a spell after one or more fizzles happen. This could transform into a *positive* mechanic: for example by affecting more than just the next spell and even by rising the chance to crit (like an invisible buff). You fail the spell but when this happen you can count on a "compensation" on your next spells.

- Spamming keys. If the problem is about having to re-issue a command (this is even for me), you could automate this. On a fizzle the character would automatically recast the spell as soon as possible without requiring the player to press the hotkey again.

In short:

- Reduce the chance to get a fizzle at the proper skill level and rise the chance to skill up after a fizzle.

- Compensate a fizzle by improving the chance to crit and succesfully cast spells on the next few spells.

- Make recasting automatic if a spell fizzles.

The idea is to transform negative feedback into positive one. So that instead of triggering frustration, you trigger revenge: "Okay, this spell failed. But the next one will tear you apart" translated into higher chance to cast the spell successully and higher chance to obtain a critical hit.

Monday 30, October

Better than a thousand words

Taken from Gallenite's most recent post, about EQ2:

Were it all to be done over again, I suspect things would be a bit different.

Heh.

Monday 11, September

EQ2's "Echoes of Faydwer" not so bad bundle

I ranted a lot about the price and content of the upcoming EQ2's expansion, but at least I have also something positive to report:

The retail box for EoF will contain the base game as well as both DoF and KoS.

Well done.

This is the sort of thing I think is more reasonable and that I suggested for years. Put on the shelves a complete product so that new players won't be turned off by a bunch of purchases one stacked on top of the other to get the complete version of the game.

Seen from this perspective the $10 price raise for this expansion (for a total of $40) is more justified for the full game, even if I think the three "adventure packs" still need to be bought separately. I hope there's a complete and updated paper manual in the box, even if this time I'm going with a digital download, myself.

It would be nice if the veteran players who have already base game + DoF + AoS could get a $10 discount and get the new expansion at the price of the previous ones.

Friday 25, August

Pretty video for EQ2's exp pack

Since I've commented the other (leaked) one (it's there after the comments on Vanguard), I'll also spend a few words about the official one (if it's the official one).

At first glance the video is rather well done and looks very pretty, it even fools you believing that you can see all that in the real game. But then if you pay attention you can see smaller details that don't look as good.

The new zones still look a bit too bare and empty, the ground textures still too clean and replicating monotonous patterns and the grass blades still follow this awkward choice of being made as a flat block spread horizontally that makes them look more like quite awful placards instead of "decorations" (if you expand horizontally a flat surface you only obtain to make it look even more flat, if the grass was made more like a single vertical blade or flower, it would instead look much better).

The overall layout of the zones seems to be of a good impact but then it's again the detail that misses and makes these zones feel like just big containers with not much to see from the player's perspective. Look at the 2:12 minute. There's some sort of flower-lamp at the border of the road. That's the kind of stuff that the game definitely misses, the detail at the player's point of view, more organic terrain, less pattern-like. But then there's also to consider that EQ2's engine already doesn't have a great performance, and the more detail you add, the more it is going to struggle.

The same for Kelethin, the tree city. The layout doesn't look too bad, but it seems to lack detail and I wonder if a place so big will also have content to fill that space with. "Huge" is good, "wasteful" not so much. I think the noob island in the game looked much better exactly because, being smaller, it was much more detailed and carefully built. More organic and alive. (and I would have loved to see the bridges connecting the platforms on the tree city animate and sway in the air)

The video also does a good work at hiding the glitches that you can see daily in EQ2. I'm not sure if the animations were tweaked specifically for the video or are going to be tweaked for the expansion, but the running animations definitely look much better than what I see in the game right now. The characters don't look as if they are moving jerkily at super-fast speed as they always do in the game. There are three chars in the video. The tall woman, the dwarf in the blue armor and the gnome in red. Of the three the woman is the one that moves more realistically, with the running animation paced rather well. While the other two have the animation even running too slowly to look as good. The little floating robot elicopters also seem to move rather smoothly, but I suspect it's again another feature of the video as EQ2 has the flaw of having quite jerky updates on the monster movements (it's the first thing I noticed coming from WoW).

Nitpicking you can see the woman shooting at the huge mechanical thing right through a tree, and it would be nice if the animation could match the angle at which the bow should be rised (the animations points the bow straight forward, while the arrow is fired upwards). Then that mechanical thing also shows some unrealistic gliding on the terrain as the animation isn't perfect. At a point a flooded area is shown with boiling water and geysers, all good but the way the smoke blows out is just looks too unrealstic, as large clouds of smoke just don't move that fast even with a strong wind (the smoke quickly loses pression as it gets more space to expand). And the "Faes" are supposed to float, even if their wings barely move...

Even after all these critics (the game still has many, many weaknesses, even if it largely improved) I still believe EQ2 is a better base to build upon than Vanguard. This despite some claims that I found lost in my notes file (so I don't have the original links):

Vanguard uses a lot of newer tech that the EQ 2 engine doesn't have because it's a newer engine. Ryan Elam and I have listed a lot of these differences in the past. Someone like Ryan would have to post to get into the details, but the big obvious differences are more advanced character customization, lighting, pixel shader 2.0 min spec (and therefore more advanced shaders), seamless world, advanced LOD and portal engine allowing for flying and such in any region, NPC wall, cieling, and sky pathing, world lighting, dynamic weather system, and much more.

None of this is to say anything negative about the EQ 2 engine -- the Vanguard engine is simply newer, faster, takes advantage of the latest tech, etc.

--
Mostly yes, but we are still adding some class specific anims and a few other special ones. Some of the races are still getting some tweaks (like the Raki), and there are a few more sets of hair and face options to add to character customization. And there will always be clothing, armor, weapons, etc. added to the game, pre and post launch.

There are also a few tech tweaks to the characters that will make the animations run more smoothly and interpolate better. We also have a lot of action/reaction animations (like the guy shoots an arrow at you from 100 feet and the guy he shot at blocks it, and he raises his shield to block the arrow at the right time -- synchronization) to place and tweak. Lastly, as machines grow faster and we optimize the game, animations will automatically look better because the faster the framerate, the more frames of the animations play (we sampled the animations at quite a few frames, so they're very smooth at high FPS).

Probably some things I've forgotten, but it's mostly there now and it's all about polish, variety, quality, quantity, and synchronization.

Why every time I talk about EQ2 I have to talk about Vangaurd and vice versa?

Because they are going to overlap. They are going to collide and compete against each other more than EQ classic and EQ2 ever did. I just don't think there is going to be a place for both, in the longer term.

And that's what will matter above everything else.

Saturday 19, August

EQ2's exp changes

From the most recent Test patch notes:

- While we feel that solo quests can be quite rewarding, we were not satisfied with the experience from solo combat alone, especially for those characters who prefer to target slightly lower creatures. Therefore, we have increased the experience earned in the following situations:

* Non-Heroic creature experience has been increased slightly.
* Experience for blue con creatures has been increased slightly.
* Experience for green con creatures has been increased significantly.
- In addition, we also wanted to increase the reward for defeating the nastier foes you meet during raids. Therefore, epic creature experience has been increased significantly.

Hm, I don't know if I like these.

Solo *quests* aren't rewarding at all. The problem is that right now, even before those changes, killing random monsters gives already WAY TOO MUCH experience compared to the experience you gain from completing a quest.

I know because I use to play with combat exp disabled and only getting it directly from completed quests. I can complete ten or more of them and my exp bar only inches forward. But as I enable the combat exp and go kill a monster I see the exp bar moving much more consistently just after a few kills.

What I mean isn't that I want more grind, but that I would like the proportion between "killing creatures" and "completing a quest" better balanced. And better balanced toward the latter.

"Completing a quest" already implies that you have to go kill a number of monsters. What I don't like is that I get 90% of my exp or more for killing them and only 10% when I return to a NPC to complete my task. I don't care about the amount of total reward, but I would like it to be better distributed between those two moments. So that there's an actual incentive to go questing, discovering the world and lore and all the rest that makes the game slightly more complex than progressquest.

WoW for the first time made the quests the core of the game. But they didn't become the core of the game just because they were accessible and fun, but also because they were an efficient way to level and get good equipment instead of just killing the same mob on the same camp spot.

So, if the balance is already so disproportioned toward the direct kills instead of quest completition I guess that after these latest changes the situation will be even worse.

P.S.
Irony.

Monday 31, July

EQ Progression servers ruined by careless implementation

I've never been an EverQuest player even if I log in EQ2 from time to time, but even if I'm not so familiar with its content I still have followed its development as I do with every other mmorpg.

I'm three days late commenting this, but on FoH's forums those hardcore players that decided to undertake the challenge of the new "progression servers" started to heavily rant about a particular aspect. And I think they are complaining legitimately:

This kind of lack of foresight/complete disconnection with the game/basic imcompetance or WHATEVER it is, is what drove people away from EQ in the first place and aparently it's still going stong, except now the impact it has on the game is even more devastating. The hotzones need to be removed and the server needs to be rolled back, but somehow I don't see this happening.

What are they ranting about? They are ranting about a system already active on the classic EQ servers from quite some time that is, in their opinion, completely inappropriate for the progression servers, and, still, SOE didn't do anything to remove it or at least adapt it so that it wouldn't have damaged the game.

This system is about the addition of "hotspots", a selection of zones where the experience you get from killing mobs is permanently doubled compared to the other zones with a similar level range. It worked for the classic servers where the great majority of the content is mudflated anyway. But on the progression servers this idea goes directly against EVERYTHING that this server type should be.

Now one of the reasons why I have a website and write about mmorpgs is to build a "memory". Gather and develop ideas and discussions so that we (I) don't have to restart from zero when something comes up. To solidificate ideas around certain points. To give things some consistence so that everything doesn't feel volatile and vain as on a message board.

So let me refresh the memories. The "hotspots" where added a couple of years ago when Rod Humble was still the producer of the game. Here's the original design purpose behind them:

As for the hotspots, no, the original intent was not to change populations in underused zones. It was to assist a more casual playstyle (whatever "casual" means in this case it just meant how some folks including myself play.)

Many of us in at SoE are casual players, its been an ongoing joke that I play a character upto level 23 then restart, then I discovered another person who played that way, then another, then another. Obviously we were not doing something right for people like us. If there were 4 people in the studio who played that way there must surely be many others out there.

This combined with the refrain I kept hearing from experienced players that "anybody can get to level 50 in a week" started to grate on my neves after all I know I cant do that..... so we took a look around..

We did some data farming and sure enough there was a big dropoff around certain key levels in player activity as a percentage of their numbers which shot back up again at later levels (when for various reasons there is a ton of more stuff to do).

Well EQ is in a pretty rare position of having more content than most casual players can ever handle so why not hit the level ranges where casual players have the biggest barren patches and give them a boost?

This combined with Marks comments about "why are developers afraid of letting players get to the top?" struck a chord with me. After all "hardcore" players get to the "top" anyway and they can still enjoy playing so why not extend that to a wider audience?

After all we WANT people to succeed and experience all of the fun content, we have years of it just waiting for folks to experience we dont want to put roadblocks in their way we want to take barriers away and give them a boost.

A better summary about the concrete design purpose could be found in a quote I took recently from Dave Rickey and about the mudflation that is becoming again a very actual theme for discussions as the WoW's expansion draws near (everything is connected when you observe mmorpg game design):

Every new expansion effectively invalidates an equivalent amount of old content, every extension of the level range requires ways be found to reduce the time investment to reach the basline for the new cap.

That's it. I couldn't have explained it better. As more levels and tons of content were added to EverQuest, there was an increased need to actually keep the gap between the players manageable, or the new ones coming to the game could never hope to see the higher level content that made EQ successful or even reach their friends to play together.

That's the nature of these kinds of games, the *illusion* of progress. Because the truth is that there isn't any evolution. Nothing is really added because the model used forces a selection and replacement of the content. It's not an "expansion". It's not "growth". What happens is actually a collapse because the old content is made obsolete and loses its purpose and value, so the inner core of the game can just collapse on itself. Negating any real progression or evolution of the game world and slowly making the game progressively "hostile" to new players ("how mmorpgs die"). It's a suicidal kind of development.

You don’t move forward in your gameplay, you just replicate it with shinier technology and bigger numbers.

Let me connect the dots. Look at what I wrote about "this is how MMORPGs die", after reading that go see some emergent episodes that are coming up in WoW. See how all these discussion are: very actual, all tied together and all still lacking of a real answer?

If the bigger burden in creating these games is about producing good content fast enough, then why we are sticking to a model that actively invalidates and progressively erodes and even makes that content accessible only for a minority of the players? But this is a complex discussion that cannot be exhausted here (and that has also valid counter arguments, Scott Hartsman commented this on Raph's blog a while ago). So let's focus on this new problem of the progression servers and the hotzones.

The hotzones have concretely two basic purposes:

1- As the majority of the population in the game stagnates at the level cap and higher level zones, the rest of the players at the lower levels are too spread around between too many zones, now almost deserted. So there was the need to better direct and consolidate those players so that they could meet and play together more easily.

2- Provide "highways" from the lower levels to the current cap, so that the new players could complete their transition to the endgame in a reasonable time frame. With each expansion the gap was increased. Doubling the exp in some selected zones was a way to keep that gap more constant.

Both of these are directly connected with the mudflation and aimed at new players. Trying to keep the game accessible. Firstly by giving double exp to reduce the time needed to level and secondly by directing the players toward a manageable number of zones and content instead of letting them get lost in a deserted game world where the majority of the group-oriented content isn't anymore viable due to the lack of other players. So fighting the dispersiveness of zones that have lost their purpose and function.

Now the problem is that the "progression servers" are nothing but an answer to the mudflation. So changing completely the context and offering their own solution to that problem. Quoting from my comments:

The content isn't anymore mudflated as on a standard server, but is instead "aligned". The idea of "progression" comes from a series of objectives that must be completed before you can advance. It's all focused to be a solution to the mudflation. This new server type is just a way to remove the rust from content that has been ignored for a long time. Find a purpose, an use, a motivation. A way to refresh the memories and restores those qualities that the game has but that have been erased by the "progress" of the mudflation. A way to answer that existential question that plagues the whole game.

A solution that now collides with the purpose of the hotzones. The progression servers are a fresh run through the content. All the players start at the same time, the community is young and the content all relevant, with a function, because the new zones will be progressively unlocked and the level cap raised.

The hotzones were a bandaid for a collapsing game. But the progression servers are instead an attempt to revitalize the content. So the hotzones are completely out of context on these servers. Look at those two basic points that were the objectives of the hotzones. They are both *invalidated* on the progression servers.

The hotzones are a selection of a few zones so that the players don't finish too dispersed on a game world that lost its purpose. But the point of the progression servers is instead about putting back the value in those zones that lost it. SOE made a HUGE mistake here because by not removing the hotzones they basically invalidated the whole idea of the progression servers: make the players enjoy content that was "lost".

But who wants now to go explore zones that only give half the experience? The hotzones were a bandaid to the mudflation, in this case they are applied to a context (the progrtession servers) where the mudflation *doesn't exist* (the whole purpose of these servers). And the result is that, instead of contrasting the negative effects of the mudflation, here they introduce them. So the solution (hotspots) to the problem (mudflation), applied on a context where that problem is not present (progression servers) have the paradoxical result of *introducing* the problem itself. Negating the value of the progression servers and basically fucking up the whole thing.

So yes, those players who rant have all the reasons to do so, because the whole idea of the progression servers just went straight to hell thanks to that oversight.

What should have been done? It's simple and it's again all within what I wrote about the progression servers (same link):

But there are also some basic weaknesses that undermine those ideas. The biggest problem is that the progression servers are only a temporary solution. They are transitory. The motivation is strong if you were there from the very beginning, but the majority of players won't be able to keep up with the pace and will have to deal with the reality quite soon, which is much different from their expectations. People will be excluded from that sense of progression and, with the time, the players will trickle off as they understand that their hopes aren't realistic and that it won't be easy at all for them to be part of that community.

So the progression servers have done the miracle of giving EQ back a soul, identity and meaning. But these answers are only a temporary and the motivation will only work for a minority of the players. And then less and less.

The point is that sooner or later the mudflation will have its effect even on the progression servers since they are only a "temporary solution". And it's then that the hotspots will have an actual purpose without fucking up the whole thing.

When more and more content is unlocked and the level cap raised, THEN it makes sense to help new players who are left behind to catch up instead of just giving up to play. This is why a good implementation of these hotzones was about slowly enabling them for the lower levels and content as the progression server "progressed". Parallel to that progression instead of ahead of it.

But that's not what happened. All the hotzones are already enabled right away. Content that was unlocked two minutes before and that obviously IS NOT mudflated yet, is instead mudflated out of the game because of the hotzones. And the whole idea of playing on the progression servers to enjoy that content completely fucked up by this huge overlook.

This time those "hardcore" players are absolutely right. They were offered an idea that was crushed by a very bad implementation. And a mistake that cannot even be made up without rolling back the whole server.

Hell, this is a rare case where reducing the exp by 25% or so could have been a good idea.

Tuesday 18, July

EverQuest Classic strives to find a reason to exist

So there is a new expansion planned for September that will even break the naming convention of "noun of noun". SHOCK!

As Ubiq wrote the interesting part is that it will provide content for all levels (also implicitly answering to Loral). A sub-world that is suppposed to be self-contained, with the possibility to level there from 1 to.. uhm.. 75? Must be a rather HUGE zone. Or maybe it's the new frontier of the Pure Grind, like DAoC did with those horrible Task Dungeons.

I don't know, but thinking about going back to EQ for this expansion looks like a very bad idea to me. If you want a brand new experience there are many other better games, EQ2 included.

Instead the only real interesting thing going on EQ Classic are the "progression servers". Not only because they are alive, packed with players, but because they provide an answer to EQ's greater problem: the mudflation.

And that's also the tie between the progression servers and the new expansion in development. The new expansion is no less than the triumph of the mudflation. 10 years of expansion pack content? The truth is that EQ has now LESS content than the average mmorpg. As we already examined, content is subjective. It doesn't exist if there isn't an active interest. It lacks consistence. It doesn't matter if the content is potentially there and maybe even in a playable state. What matters is that the content is for the large majority inaccessible because of the shifts of interest of the community. Content that exists, but that is now completely useless and that it would be just impossible to actually experience. Content without an use. Without an audience.

How much of that content is really accessible today? How much is desirable? How much is soloable so that you won't have to remain flagged LFG for a month to do a quest that noone cares about?

With that new expansion they are basically cutting out another 95% of the whole game. A loss of function and "use" that is now so widespread to become an existential problem for the whole game. Why EverQuest still exists? What is its place?

It's in sharp contraposition to those questions that it can be interesting to observe the dynamics of the progression servers. The progression servers are no less than obligatory paths, ways to find an use and purpose to content that lost them long ago. There are two basic points to consider.

- The first is that the content isn't anymore mudflated as on a standard server, but is instead "aligned". The idea of "progression" comes from a series of objectives that must be completed before you can advance. It's all focused to be a solution to the mudflation. This new server type is just a way to remove the rust from content that has been ignored for a long time. Find a purpose, an use, a motivation. A way to refresh the memories and restores those qualities that the game has but that have been erased by the "progress" of the mudflation. A way to answer that existential question that plagues the whole game.

- The second interesting point is the "community effort". The sense of participation. Not only in the fact that the zones are alive again, but that everyone is going to contribute and participate in a communal effort. While the great majority of the mmorpgs focus on a personal power growth, the idea of "progression" on the progression servers becomes a shared concept. The idea of progression is extended to the whole community.

And this is the strongest mechanic that a MMORPG can aspire to.

I have repeated and supported this for years. Doing something just for yourself, in a personal instance, can be fun for a while. But it's when you become truly involved in the community, when you feel a sense of real participation, that this leads to an escalation of fun. Being part of something becomes the strongest motivation you can have. You don't play anymore to kill some spare time, you play because you want to be there. You want to be part of something. You want to belong. You want a memory.

That's where the potential of a community really is: participation, motivation and memory. Being part of something bigger than you and that unites all players. Something to share and remember. Without this, games are meaningless.

This is why I consider the progression servers as the most interesting thing happening to the game. EQ is a game that is losing its identity and motivation. It is losing pieces because of a lack of "answers". The progression servers basically provide an use and meaning to the content in the game and, as a reflection, to the whole game. People come back because EQ regains its identity and purpose, the game "remembers" (and the progression servers also rely a lot on the nostalgia) who it is. The game regains a motivation and this motivation is understood and inherited by the players.

But there are also some basic weaknesses that undermine those ideas. The biggest problem is that the progression servers are only a temporary solution. They are transitory. The motivation is strong if you were there from the very beginning, but the majority of players won't be able to keep up with the pace and will have to deal with the reality quite soon, which is much different from their expectations. People will be excluded from that sense of progression and, with the time, the players will trickle off as they understand that their hopes aren't realistic and that it won't be easy at all for them to be part of that community.

So the progression servers have done the miracle of giving EQ back a soul, identity and meaning. But these answers are only a temporary and the motivation will only work for a minority of the players. And then less and less.

The conclusion is that these servers have revealed interesting dynamics but that are limited by their transient, ephemeral nature.

Why we cannot design games starting from those important goals, instead of having them just as afterthoughts? Why we cannot have a sense of participation and motivation that can really aspire to integrate the majority of the players and that can be persistent in the game instead of just temporary?

I have some ideas. The point is to start designing games as concrete answers to those needs. That's what I try to do, start from the need and then try to find an effective solution.

XML feed